My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Ordinance No. 20414
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Ordinances
>
2008 No. 20401-20425
>
Ordinance No. 20414
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 3:50:37 PM
Creation date
8/11/2008 3:39:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Ordinances
CMO_Document_Number
20414
Document_Title
Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan Text, Chapter III, Section D, Policy D.11; Adopting an Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway; Adopting Severability and Savings Clauses; and Providing an Effective Date
Adopted_Date
7/28/2008
Approved Date
7/31/2008
CMO_Effective_Date
8/31/2008
Signer
Kitty Piercy
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />including bridges, are considered public facilities, the use cannot be reasonably accolnmodated <br />without the provision of the proposed public facility. Analysis regarding possible alternative sites is <br />discussed further under subsection (c) directly below, which is incorporated herein by reference. <br /> <br />(c) The long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences <br />resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse <br />impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same <br />proposal being located in other areas requiring a Goal exception. The exception <br />shall describe the characteristics of each alternative areas considered by the <br />jurisdiction for which an exception might be taken, the typical advantages and <br />disadvantages of using the area for a use not allowed by the Goal, and the typical <br />positive and negative consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with <br />measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. A detailed evaluation ~f specific <br />alternative sites is not required unless such sites are specifically described with facts <br />to support the assertion that the sites have significantly fewer adverse impacts <br />during the local exceptions proceeding. The exception shall include the reasons why <br />the consequences of the use at the chosen site are not significantly more adverse <br />than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring <br />a goal exception other than the proposed site. Such reasons shall include but are not <br />limited to, the facts used to determine which resource land is least productive,' the <br />ability to sustain resource uses near the proposed use; and the long-term economic <br />impact on the general area caused by irreversible removal of the land from the <br />resource base. Other possible impacts include the effects of-the proposed use on the <br />water table, on the costs of improving roads and on the costs to special service <br />districts; <br /> <br />No other sites requiring exceptions are being considered for this use. This is because the use is not a <br />new use, but rather the replacement of an existing, structurally deficient bridge within an existing <br />right-of-way. Locating the replacement bridges within the existing right-of-way is both necessary <br />and practicable because that right-of-way lines up with the existing 1-5 approaches to the north and <br />south. Relocating the bridge replacement project outside the existing 1-5 right-of-way would require <br />ODOT to relocate the approaches at considerable additional cost and impact to not only the <br />greenway, but also to protected park and recreational resources, including the Whilamut Natural <br />Area and Eastgate Woodlands. Further, relocating the bridge could require the closure of one or <br />more existing interchanges or ramps, result in demolition of residences and businesses, and result in <br />a hazardous geometry due to the presence of immovable geologic features. Alternative bridge <br />alignment locations to the north or south of the existing footprint and right-of-way w"ere dismissed <br />from further analysis due to the following impacts: <br />. Right-of-way would need to be acquired from Alton Baker Park, which is prohibited under <br />Section 4(f) of the federal Department of Transportation Act of 1966 unless there are no <br />other prudent and feasible alternatives. <br />. Right-of-way would need to be acquired from homes and/or businesses on the south side of <br />the river that would not be required if the highway remains on its current alignment. <br />. A shifted highway would be closer to existing homes, resulting in higher noise and visual <br />impacts. <br />. Major high-tension power transmission lines are located on both sides of the bridge and one <br /> <br />Exhibit A - Findings <br />Page 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.