Ordinance No. 20292 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Exhibit A (B) To show why the particular site is justified, it is necessary to discuss why other areas Which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Economic factors can be considered along with other relevantJkctors in determining that the use cannot reasonably by accommodated in other areas. Under the alternative factor the following questions shall be addressed: (i) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on non-resource land that would not require an exception, including increasing the density of uses on non- resource land? If not, why not? (ii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on resource land this is already irrevocably committed to non-resource uses, not allowed by the applicable Goal, including resource land in existing rural center, or by increasing the density of uses on committed lands? If not, why not? (iii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated inside an urban growth boundary? If not, why not? 1. The Rule applies to every city and county along the length of the Willamette River; lkerally any ske the human mind can imagine for a bridge over the Willamette requires an exception. This truism renders the need to respond to (A), (B) and (i-iii) moot. (C) This alternative areas standard can be met by a broad review of similar tj~es o~f areas rather than a review of specific alternative sites. Initial135 a local government adopting an exception need assess only whether those similar t3~es of areas in the vicinity c°uld not reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Site specific comparisons are not required of a local government taking an exception, unless another party to the local proceeding can describe why there are specific sites that can more reasonably accommodate theproposed use. A detailed emIuation of specific alternative sites is thus not required unless such sites are specifiCally described with facts to suPPort the assertion that the sites are more reasonable by another party during the loCal exceptions proceedtng. 1. There ~e no alternative sites across the Willamette River that doesn't also require an exception to Goal 15. 2. There are no other crossing points over the Willamette in the Metro area that would cause less disturbance; a detour of traffic offofI-5 onto lesser state highways, county roads ~d city streets can not be accommodated by the existing infrasm~cture, would cause substantial delay in the shipping of freight, and would compromise the integrity of coatless residential and commercial neighborhoods through increased congestion and deterioration of air quality. This factor is met by this proposal. (c) The long--term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting ~?om the use at the proposed site with measures designed to red~tce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typicalIy result form the same proposaI 13