Ordinance No. 20258 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~EST EU~NE PARKWAY ~tOO{F~ED PROJECT--CONSISTENCY W{~ THE STATEW1D~ ~NNING ~ AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE amendment to modify the facility's location, given that this amendment does not change those provisions~ While the answer may well be "no?0 these provisions of the rule nevertheless are addressed herein in an exercise of caution. However, to the extent this analysis is unnecessary and thus would constitute %urplussage,' it should be considered as such. Clearly, the TPR exceptions provisions applicable to the location of the facility apply because the Modified Project ~nvolves a location outside of the corridor approved in the 1986 exception. Pursuant to those requirements, exceptions are addressed herein for Goals 3 (Agricultural Lands)~ 4 (Forest Lands) 11 (Public Facilities and Services) and 14 (Urbanization} for that portion of the Modified Project to be located outside the UGB. While most of the affected rural land is agricultural, a very small portion ekher directly or indirectly affected is designated by Lane County as Forest Land. See Land Use Technica; Re~ort, Figure 7; ~gDE[& Figure 3-4~ Accordingly~ Goal 4 must be addressed. Scope of Analysis and Applicable Statewide Planning Goal Standards As stated above, the WEP ha~s been included in the acknowledged Lane County Rura; Comj)rehensive ?;an and the ~T(etro ?;an for many years. It is authorized in the Tram~?;an. Because the WEP is acknowledged~ it should not be necessary for the City or County to readdress goal compliance ~br the project in its entirety. However, goal compliance must be demonstrated for those changes requirk~g amendments to the acknowledged plans. This analysis addresses goal compliance issues arising from the shif~ in the alignment from the Approved Design to the Modified Project in "Unit 2" of the project~ Lc. that portion of the WEP located between Beltl~ne Highway and the western terminus of the projec[ See SDE/r$, Figure 2~2. This is the portion of the project ~at requires goal exceptions and analysis of alternatives under the TPR. Alignment modifications occurring in Unit I of the project generally are beyond the scope of th~s analysis~ The land use standards applicable to the Modified Project include the statewide planning goals and OAR 660~012-0060~ 6~0-012-0065~ and 6~0-012-0070. Because goal exceptions take the form of plan amendments~ the Modified Project also must be shown to comply with relevant unamended provisions of the acknowledged Lane County and City of Eugene comprehensive plans. Further~ the project must comply with the ODOT's Oregon H~ghway Plan. This technical memorandum addresses only the Modified Project's compliance wkh the identified TPR requirements and statewide planning goals. Compliance wkh the Oregon Highway Plan and applicable comprehensive plans policies is discussed at pages 58-105 of the Land Use Technical Report. 1 ~ C m omphance with the Statewide Planning Goals This section addresses compliance with Statewide Planning Goals I-14. Because the Modified Project does not affect the Willamette RNer Greenway or coastal resources, Goals 15 through 19 do not apply. 10 This ~ a ~ga~ question to be addressed by the Department of Justice. 11 The La~e CouRcJI of Governments (LCOG), La~e County and the c~ies of Eugene and Springfield are in the process of preparing regional and ~°c~ ~ra~sportation system P~ans ~SPs) as required by the Transportation P~anning Rule. The p{an amendments addressed ~n this document w{ll be adopted separately from the TSP adoption process. EXHIBIT C-I - FINDINGS