Laserfiche WebLink
WEST E~ENE PARKWAY MODifiED PROJECT--CONStSI'ENCY WITH THE STATEWIDE PLANN!NGGOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE <br /> <br />region. By the year 20t5, ail major intersections along West l l th Avenue in West Eugene will <br />operate at unacceptable levels~ The WEP is needed to facilitate through traffic and allow West l <br />Avenue again to fimction as a local read. Regarding Goal 5, the Modified Project reflects a shared <br />interest by federal, state and local officials to minimize adverse impacts to high value wetlands and to <br />endangered and threatened plant and animal species in the area. Indeed, this interest provided the <br />impetus for shining from the Approved Design to the Modified Project that necessitates these <br />exceptions. These reasons are consistent with the more specific reasons required under OAR 660- <br />012-0070(4). <br /> <br />As described in greater detail below, the differences in impacts to agricultural and forest lands <br />between locating the WEP on the Approved Design or the Modified Project alignment are not <br />substantial. Overall, the Modified Project has slightly less adverse impacts because it does not <br />direCdy~ affect any commercial farming operations. The absence of direct impacts on commercial <br />faming is a reason to justify a Goal 3 exception. As explained in the Compatibili~, Memora~dum, <br />incorporated herein by reference, the Modified Project will use approximately 13.9 acres of ODOT <br />property and require acquisition of approximately 9.9 acres of other public lands and 3~ 1 acres of <br />private lands outside the UGB. The affected public lands serve Goal 5 rather than Goal 3 objectives <br />and do not contribute to the commercial agricultural enterprise of the county or state, which is the <br />focus of Goal 3's attemion. While the 3.1 acres of private lands include some properties used for <br />hobby farming, promcting hobby farms is not the primary objective of Goal 3. In contrast, the <br />acknowledged Approved Design would displace nearly two acres of the Allendar commemial hay and <br />cattle operation. Hence, the policies which Goal 3 seeks to achieve are not advemely impacted by this <br />exception, Likewise, Goal 4's policy objectives are not adversely impacted because only a very small <br />amount of designated fi)rested land is impacted by the Modified Project. Compare SDEIS, Figure 3-4 <br />with Compatibility Memorandum, Figure I. <br /> <br />The approximately 27 acres of resource lands taken to accommodate the Modified Project reflect the <br />amount of land needed to meet right-of-way standards for a four-lane limited access facility with t 2- <br />fbot-wide travel lanes, 8-foot-wide shoulders and a 12~ to 14-foot-wide center median. Consequently, <br />the amount of land included in the exception reasonably relates to the amount needed for <br />transportation purposes and is justified. <br /> <br />As described in the alternative modes analysis above and in the akemative locations analysis below, <br />the WEP requires a rural location because alternative modes or alignments not requiring goal <br />exceptions cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need consistent with <br />acceptable design or performance standards. Moreover, even if alternatives were available to connect <br />this project to West 1 lth Avenue at or east of Green Hill Road, thereby avoiding the need for goal <br />exceptions~ resource lands still would be needed to accommodate improvements extending from the <br />UGB at Green Hill Road to Highway 126 west of Goble Lane, although the acreage amounts would <br />be reduced. <br /> <br />For all of these reasons, the WEP with its Modified Project alignment complies with ORS <br />197.732(t)(c)(A), Goal 2 Part It(c)(1) and OAR 660-004-0020(2)(a) and 660-004-0022. <br /> <br />Compliance with OAR 660-012-0070(5), ORS '!97.732('1)(c)(B), Goal 2 Part Ii(c)(2) <br />and OAR <br />OAR 660-012-0070(5) provides that to address Goal 2 Part Il(c)(2), the exception must demonstrate <br />that non-exception locations cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed transportation <br />improvement or facility. Similarly, OAR 660-004~0020(2)(b) requires justification why "areas which <br />do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use." <br /> <br />EXHIBIT C-1 - FiNDiNGS 35 <br /> <br /> <br />