Ordinance No. 20415 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

including bridges, are considered public facilities, the use cannot be reasonably accommodated without the provision of the proposed public facility. Analysis regarding possible alternative sites is discussed further under subsection (c) direct! y below, which is incorporated herein by reference. (c) The long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in other areas requiring a Goal exception. The exception shall describe the characteristics of each alternative areas considered by the jurisdiction for which an exception might be taken, the typical advantages and disadvantages of using the area for a use not allowed by the Goal, and the typical positive and negative consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is not required unless such sites are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites have significantly fewer adverse impacts during the local exceptions proceeding. The exception shall include the reasons why the consequences of the use at the chosen site are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site. Such reasons shall include but are not limited to, the facts used to determine which resource land is least productive; the ability to sustain resource uses near the proposed use; and the long-term economic impact on the general area caused by irreversible removal of the land from the resource base. Other possible impacts include the effects of the proposed use on the water table, on the costs of improving roads and on the costs to special service districts; No other sites requiring exceptions are being considered for this use. This is because the use is not a new use, but rather the replacement of an existing, structurally deficient bridge within an existing right-of-way. Locating the replacement bridges within the existing right-of-way is both necessary and practicable because that right-of-way lines up with the existing 1-5 approaches to the north and south. Relocating the bridge replacement project outside the existing 1-5 right-of-way would require ODOT to relocate the approaches at considerable additional cost and impact to not only the greenway, but also to protected park and recreational resources, including the Whilamut Natural Area and Eastgate Woodlands. Further, relocating the bridge could require the closure of one or more existing interchanges or ramps, result in demolition of residences and businesses, and result in a hazardous geometry due to the presence of immovable geologic features. Alternative bridge alignment locations to the north or south of the existing footprint and right-of-way were dismissed from further analysis due to the following impacts: . Right-of-way would need to be acquired from Alton Baker Park, which is prohibited under Section 4(f) of the federal Department of Transportation Act of 1966 unless there are no other prudent and feasible alternatives. . Right-of-way would need to be acquired from homes and/or businesses on the south side of the river that would not be required if the highway remains on its current alignment. . A shifted highway would be closer to existing homes, resulting in higher noise and visual impacts. . Major high-tension power transmission lines are located on both sides of the bridge and one Exhibit A - Findings Page 12