Ordinance No. 20258 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WEST EUGENE PARKWAY MODIFIED PROJECT~NS~STENCY WITH THE STATEW;DE PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE implement the plan. With the discovery of vast wetland resources in the late 1980s, action began to develop a wetlands conservation plan, the WE~4zP, that would balance protection and development interests by identifying where industry could or could not go. A principal goal of that plan was to provide a substantial element of certainty about where industrial development could and could not go to guide future public and private investment. la terms of this threshold, an alternative that would have relatively minor impacts on maintaining the balance and compromises achieved in the FKEWP would be considered reasonable to accommodate the need in this context. However, an alternative that has major impacts on maintaining that balance, such as through removing significant acreage from the industrial base, cutting off access, or compromising previously made investments, such that the integrity of the WEWP is reasonably called into question, would not be considered reasonable to accommodate the identified transportation need. Compliance with OAR 660-0i2.0070(7), ORS i97.732(1 )(c)(C), Goa 2 Part and OAR OAR 660-012-0070(7) provides that to comply with Goal 2 Part II(c)(3), the exception must compare the economic, social~ environmental and energy consequences of the proposed location with other locations requ~r{ng exceptions. The exception must discuss "whether the net adverse impacts associated with the proposed exception site are significantly more adverse than the net impacts from other locations which would also require an exception." The proposed exception would fail only if the ~mpacls associated with it are "significantly more adverse" than the other identified exception sites. Under OAR 660-012~0070(c), the evaluation of consequences may be generalized. OAR 660-004-0020(2)(c) is very similar to OAR 660~012~0070(7). It requires a general description of the character of each alternative area and discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternatives, including positive and negative consequences. Like OAR 660-012~0070(7), the exception must explain why the use at the chosen site is not "significantly more adverse" than would typically result from the same proposal being located at one of the other exception sites. Considerations include which resource lands are most productive; the abilffy to sustain resource uses near the proposed use; and long-term economic impact on the general area resulting from removal of land from the resource base. For purposes of this analysis~ the "proposed location" and the "proposed exception s~te' is the Modified Project. The other alternatives for which goal exceptions are required are: Roosevelt Extension Alternative Approved Design (for which an exception has already been taken) Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative Each of these alternatives would be designed as a four-lane, limited access facility. The alternatives are illustrated at Figure 1. Description of A~ternatives Requiring Exceptions The Rooseve~ Extension A~ternat~e would ~nvolve the extension of Roosevelt Boulevard from H~ghw'ay 99W to the Oak Hills area west of the UGB. At all times, the alignment remains north of the Union Pacific and Central Oregon and Pacific railroad tracks. The Roosevelt Extension Akernafive would require interchanges at the intersections of Roosevelt Boulevard with H~ghway 99W and Beltline Highway, extensive modification of the Terry Street intersection, and a new intersection at Green Hill Road. The Green 1~71[ Road Flyover Alternative would follow the Modified Project aUgnment (described below) between Highway 99W and Green Hill Road. At Green Hill Road, th~s alternative would EXHIBIT C-1 - FINDINGS 43