Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20292 ORDINANCE NO. 20292 AN ORDINANCE A3,{ENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN TEXT, CHAPTER III, SECTION D, POLICY #13; ADOPTING AN EXCEPTION TO STATEWlDE PLANNING GOAL 15 WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan ("Metro Plan") sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan, which for Lane County are implemented by the provisions of Eugene Code (EC) 9.7700 through 9.7750. B. On May 5, 2003, the Springfield City Council initiated proceedings for a Metro Plan amendment and Exception to Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway, C. Following a June 3, 2003 joint public hearing with the Springfield and Lane County Plannir~g Commissions, the Eugene Planning Coramission, on June 3, 2003, recommended Metro Plan amendments taking an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway, to the Eugene City Council. D. The Eugene City Council conducted a joint public hearing on this anaendment on June 18, 2003, with the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners, and is now ready to take action based upon the above recommendations and evidence and tesfimor;y already in the record as well as the evidence and testimony presented at the joint elected officials public hearing. E. Substantial evidence exists within the record demonstrating that the proposal meets the requirements of the Metro Plan, of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and of applicable state and local law as described in Exhibit A, attached, and which are adopted in support of this Ordinance~ NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Metro Plan Policy # 13, Chapter III, Section D. is hereby amended by addition of the following paragraph: "An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was approved for Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) I-5 right of way crossing the Willamette River and within the Willamette River Greenway Setback Line, for purpose of constructing a temporary detour bridge, ~mplementing the conditions imposed on the Discretionary Use Ordinance- 1 Approval (Springfield Journal SHR 2OO3-OO115) and removing the temporary detour bridge after completion of the permanent replacement bridge. This exception satisfies the criteria of Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(5) Willamette Greenway; the exception requirements of OAR 660-OO4-OO20 Goal 2, Part II(c) for a "reasons" exception; and pursuant to OAR 66t)-004-0015, is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan text, Policy #13, Chapter III, Section Section 2~ The Metro Plan is hereby amended to include the findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting a "reasons" exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 and demonstrating compliance with OAR 660-004-0015,660-004-0020 and 660-004-0022(5) attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 3~ If any' section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of the Ordinance is -~¥r any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent, jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4. Nothwkhstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date of its acknowledgment as provided by ORS 197.625, whichever date is later, provided that by that date the Springfield City Council and Lmae County Board of Commissioners have adopted ordinances containing identical provisions to those described in Sections 1 and 2 of this Ordinance. Passed by the City Council this 14th day of July, 2003 Approved by the Mayor this 14th day of July, 2003 Mayor Ordinance - 2 Exhibit A Staff Report and Findings of Compliance with the Metro Ptan and Statewide Goals and Administrative Rules File LRP 2003-0012 Metro Plan Amendment and Reasons Exception to Statewide Goal 15- Willamette River Green-way Applicant: Oregon Department of Transportation Nature of the Application: The applicant proposes to construct a temporary detour bridge to provide an alternative route for I-5 traffic while the existing I-5 Willamette River Bridge is replaced. The bridge will transition from the I-5 roadway approximately 1,800 feet south of Centennial Boulevard, parallel the existing bridge over the Willamette and Franklin Boulevard, and re-merge with the I-5 roadway just south of the northbound Franklin Boulevard off-ramp. About 1,600 feet of this bridge will be within the Willamette River Greenway. The detour bridge will be supported by poured-in-place concrete columns and compacted fill that will be located within the Willamette River Greenway Setback Area. Metro Plan pohcy and Oregon Administrative Rules requires a goal exception for such a proposal to proceed. By Rute~ a goal exception must be included within the comprehensive plan; hence a Metro Plan amendment is also required. The staff recommends an amendment to the Metro Plan Text by adding the following paragraph to Policy #13, Chapter III, Section D. 'An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was approved fbr Oregon Department qf Transportation (ODOT) [-5 right of way crossing the ~llamette River and within the Willamette River Greenway Setback Line, for purpose of constructing a temporary detour bridge, implementing the conditions imposed on the Discretiona? Use A~proval (Springfield Journal SHR 2003-001 J 5) and removing the temporary detour bridge after completion of the permanent replacement bridge. This exception satisfies the criteria of Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(5) I;?illamette Greenway; the exception requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part II(c) for a "reasons" exception; and pursuant to O.4R 660-004-0015, is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan text, Policy #13, Chapter III, Section D.' The applicant also seeks an exception to Statewide Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway, to allow the construction of a temporary detour bridge within the Willamette River Greenway Setback Area. By Oregon Administrative Rule, only water-dependent and water-related uses are permitted within the Setback At'ea. This bridge does not meet the definition of water-dependent or water-related uses found in the Statewide Goals therefore an exception is required before this bridge may be authorized. Also by Rule, the approval of an exception requires the local government to adopt as part of its Exhibit A comprehensive plan findings of fkct and a statement of reasons which demonstrate that the standards for an exception have been met. Metropolitan Area General Plan Amendment Criteria Springfield, Eugene and Lane County each adopted identical Metro Plan amendment criteria into their respective implementing ordinances and codes. Springfield Code Section 7.070(3) (a & b), Eugene Code 9.7730(3) (a & b), and Lane Code 12.225(2) (a & b) require application of the following criteria: (a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and (b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan interna#y inconsistent. The Applicant has responded to these criteria in the application, which is Attachment 2 incorporated here by this reference. The staff concurs with the statements of the Applicant regarding the need for an exception to Goat 15. We also agree with the Applicant's conclusions in response to the criteria of OAR 660, Division 004, Section 0022, Subsection (5). Our job would be much easier if the directions of Goal 2, Part II(c) of Section 0020 were preempted by the requirements for planning and zoning ~%r exception areas in Section 0018, or by the reasons necessary to justify an exception in 0022. For either of these latter standards, the Applicant's response is sufficient. To the Applicant's comments we would add the following related to 0018: "a tReasons' Exception must limit the uses, density, public facilities and services, and activities to only those that are justified in the exception" (660-004-0018(4) (a). The application does not seek to expand the use beyond that which is already occurring, i.e., a bridge in the ODOT I-5 right-o~'way. This standard is satisfied by design, but can become categorical by adopting a finding that specifies exactly what the exception will allow. The larger effort is responding to the standards of 0020 Subsection (1)-(4). This is the part of the Rule that requires the reasons to be examined against the four factors of Goal 2. We shall address those factors after our response to the first criteria. The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity fbr citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The City has an acknowledged Development Code which is intended to serve as the principal implementing ordinance for the Metro Plan. Citizen involvement for a Type I Metro Plan amendment for a Goal Exception not related to an urban growth boundary amendment requires: 1) mailed notice at least 10 days before the initial evidentiary 2 Exhibit A hearing to ail property owners and residents within 100 feet of the subject property, and the appropriate neighborhood association; 2) Notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation; 3) Notice shall be provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at least 45 days before the initial evidentiary hearing (planning commission). SDC Article 7 METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS, SDC Article 14 PL~LIC HEgnRINGS. Notice of the joint planning commission hearing was mailed to 413 separate property addresses on May 1, 2003. Notice of the joint planning commission hearing was pubhshed in the Springfield NEWS on May 7, 2003 and again on May 29, 2003 in the Register-Guard. Notice of the joint elected officials hearing was published in the Register-Guard on May 29, 2003 and ~n the Springfield NEWS on May 28, 2003. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was provided to DLCD on May 1, 2003. Notice of the finai hearing was provided to DLCD on May 19, 2003. The notice to DLCD identified ODOT, ©DF&W~ State Parks, DSL, NOAA, ACE, the City of Eugene and Lane Cotmty as affected agencies. Notice was provided to the Citizens Planning Committee for East Alton Baker Park, Whilamut natural area, on May 1, 2003. Requirements under Goal 1 are met by adherence to the citizen involvement processes required by the Metro plan and implemented by the Springfield Development Code, Articles 7 and 14. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning To establish a land use planningprocess and policy fi~amework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate f~ctuat base for such decisions and actions. All land-use plans and implementation ordinances shall be adopted by the governing body afier public hearing and shah be reviewed and, as needed, revised on a periodic cycle to take into account changing public policies and circumstances, in accord with a schedule set forth in the plan. Opportunities shah be provided for review and comment by citizens and affected governmental units during preparation, review and revision of plans and implementation ordinances. Implementation Measures - are &e means used to cart>, out the plan. These are of Cwo general types: (1) management implementation measures such as ordinances, regulations or project plans, and (2) site or area spec~c implementation measures such as permits' and grants for construction, construction of public facilities or provision of services. In addition to the foregoing, Goal 2, Part II(c) provides for an exception to an applicable statewide goal if reasons justify taking such an action. This application applies the reasons criteria-under the section "Compliance with Oregon Administrative Rules" below~ 3 Exhibit A The most recent version of the Metro Plan was adopted by Springfield on May 1 t, 1986 (Ordinance No, 5329), by Eugene on April 23, '1986 (Ordinance No. 19382) and by Lane County on J:~e 11, 1986 (Ordinance No. 709) after numerous public meetings, public wor~kshops and joint hearings of the Springfield, Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions and Elected Officials. This version of the Metro Plan contained Policy #13, Chapter III, Section D, which states: "The taking of an exception shall be required ~f a non-water-dependent transportation facility requires placing of fill within the Willamette River Greenway Setback." On September 4, 1984, the Springfield City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5261, enacting the requirements of SDC 25.060 Greenway Setback in compliance with the stand,ds of Section C3 of Goal 15. The Springfield Planning Co~ission and Springfield City Council conducted public hearings on these standards. All legislative pubhc hearings are pubhshed in the Springfield NEWS at least 20 days prior to the hearing date. The Metro Plan is the "land use plan" required by this goal; the Springfield Development Code is the "implementation measure" required by this goal. The Plan, at Chapter Section D, Policy #13, and the SDC at Article 25 require this goal exception, consistent with OAR_ 660-004-0022(5). Requirements under Goal 2 are met by the consistency of Plan policy with SDC standards, and the exception process of Part II(c). Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands TNs goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries, The City of Springfield does not have any agricultural zoning districts. The proposed exception and plan text amendment are not related to agricultural lands; the land area subject to the proposed exception is zoned Park and Open Space and/or is un-zoned state highway right of way. Goal 4 - Forest Lands This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. The City of Springfield does not have any forest zoning districts. The proposed exception and plan text mendment are not related to agricultural lands; the land area subject to the proposed exception is zoned Park and Open Space and/or is un-zoned state highway right of way. Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. The proposed exception would allow ODOT to place a temporary- bridge within the Greenway Setback Line, including fill, which also includes a small portion of the Whilamut natural area and remove the detour bridge after completion of the permanent replacernent bridge. The right of way has some well established trees and understory 4 Exhibit A similar to and a part of the adjoining Whilamut natural area. This right-of-way was not intended to promote Willamette Greenway objectives in as much as it preceded the Willamette Greenway Goal by 20 or more years. The Whilamut natural area is point on consistent with the Greenway values intended to be protected by the Greenway Goal. The relationship of the right-of-way, the proposed bridge, the Whilamut natural area and the Greenway values is now, and will remain, a matter of constantly balancing two exclusive purpose uses of significant contrast. It is no wonder an exception is necessary. What will make these circumstances tolerable is the successful effort made by ODO% Willamalane and the City of Springfield to execute conditions of approval imposed by the Springfield Pl~ng Commission in its decision to approve a Discretionary Use to allow an intensification of use within the Willamette River Greenway (detour bridge)~ Those conditions include the following: 1) The staffs of ODOT, City of Springfield and Willamalane will jointly prepare a construction management plan that will address, at a minimum, ingress and egress to the site; hours of operation; noise, dust vibration and lighting; run-off and hydrology; and bicycle and pedestrian safety in the construction area. 2) ODOT, City of Springfield, Willamalane and other appropriate state and ~kderal agencies will jointly prepare a habitat protection plan that will mitigate any identified adverse impacts to the Whilamut natural area caused during and after bridge construction. 3) ODOT, City of Springfield and Willamalane staff will jointly prepare a restoration plan for the area knpacted by the temporary bridge, including a "return to equal or better than" cmn:ent condition as a baseline; elimination of invasives; plant salvage; and a monitoring schedule to assess on-going success. A member of the Citizens Planning Committee wilt be asked to participate in these efforts in an advisory capacity. These conditions are intended to mitigate adverse effects; protect as much of this resource as possible during construction; and restore as much of this resource as possible after construction and deconstruction of the detour bridge. The Whilamut natural area has been included in park plans since the adoption of the 1973 Alton Baker Park Land Use Plan~ ~ts successor, the 1986 Alton Baker Park Master Plan, and the current operational plan, the 1995 East Alton Baker Park Plan. Each iteration of these planning efforts designated Whilamut as a natural habitat site of combined riparian and upland wildhfe values. During the preparation of the Natural Resources Special Study in the late 1980's~ a draft inventory was prepared of metropolitan area resource sites based on wildlife habkat values. The Whilamut, then known as the East Gate Woodlands, received the highest score in the metro area. The City's current Goal 5 preliminary inventory categorizes the WTrfilamut with the same high value as preceding studies and evaluations. While the City's inventory has not yet been officially adopted as required by Goal 5, there is littte doubt that the Whitamut will be considered anything less than the highly valuable resource ~t embodies. Ctearly, the co~mection between the purpose of Goal 5 and the purpose of the Greenway values are mutually supportive and in many instances overlap. This commonality is Exhibit A expressed further in OAR 660-023-0240(2): "The requirements of Goals 15, ]6, ] 7 and ]9 shall supersede requirements of this division for natural resources that are also subject to and regulated under one or more of those goals. ' This relationship is not optional as the imperative verb makes perfectly clear. The exception process required for the proposed use in the Greenway is similar to the process used for evaluating Goal 5 resources: both require an economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences evaluation to determine if the competing value, in this case highway use, should be allowed. That evaluation is examined later in these findings under OAR 660-004-0020 Exception Requirements. The requirements of Goal 5 are met by the standards of the Willame~te ~ver Greenway; by the four factors of Goal 2, Part H(c) Exception Requirements; by the conclusions evaluating "significant adverse effect on the ~een-way values of the sim" under OAR 660-004-0022(5); and by the conditions of approval imposed by the Springfield Planning Commission in approving a Discretionary Use request ~br the detour bridge. Goal 6 - Air~ Water and Land Resources Quality To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. This goal is primarily concerned with compliance with federal and state enviromental quality statutes, and how this compliance is achieved as development proceeds in relationship m air sheds, river basins and land resources. This proposed exception will allow an existing, necessary transportation facility to be replaced without disruption to I- 5 travel As the evaluation under OAR 660-004-0020 demonstrates, the alternative to the detour bridge is routing a volume and type of traffic onto county roads and cky streets not designed for such trips. The ensuing de~adation to the air quality along these alternate routes caused by unmanageable congestion would be a direct contradiction of the purpose of~his goal. This goal is met by the proposed exception. Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. All sites within Springfield subject to these hazards (floodplain, erosion, landslides, earthquakes, weak foundation soils) are inventoried through a variety of sources and regulated by the Springfield Development Code, Article 26 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT; Article 27 FLOODPLA~ OVERLAY DISTRICT; A~icle 31 SITE PLAN REVIEW; and Article 32 PU~BL~C AN3D PRIVATE /MPROVEMENTS. Bridge support structures and fill within the floodplain of the Willamette will require a Floodplain fill permit consistent with FEMA regulations. No other hazards are present. This goal is met by the application of Art/cie 27. 6 Exhibit A Goal 8 - Recreational Needs To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. The proposed detour bridge is located in ODOT right of way which crosses through East Alton Baker Park, separating the Eugene and Springfield portions of the park. This right of way, and I~5, preceded the des/gnat/on of this site as a park. The proposed demur bridge will not add to recreational opportunities; it is for through movement of t-5 traffic and not for access to the park. This right of way was never used as access to the park mad is not necessary now for park access. There is a good deal of park access east to west that must cross this right of way under the roadway and bridge, and does along the old Wahrat Street right of way and the riverside bike/pedestrian path. The Springfield Planning Commission imposed a condition on ODOT to prepare a construction management plan that preserves and protects bicycle and pedestrian safety during construction of the detour bridge. The East Alton Baker Park Plan, although not adopted as a refinement plan to the Metro Plan, is an operational plan for the park and contains the following Specific Goals: Natural Resources East Alton Baker Park witl provide valuable habitats in which a diversity of native plant and wildlife species can prosper. Recreation, Cultural and Environmental Education East Alton Baker Park will be a place for passive recreation and nature study and a place within the urban area where people can find quiet and solitude in nature. Access and Circulation East Alton Baker Park will link the Eugene and Springfield communities and the areas north and south of the Willamette River by providing safe, efficient and accessible corridors for non-motorized transportation. Park Stewardship and Public Safety The management of East Alton Baker Park will engage interested citizens and groups in successfid park stewardship including planning, restoration and maintenance. The Springfield Pt~ing Commission, in its decision on the ODOT application for Discretionmy Approval in the Greenway, required conditions of approval designed to address and mitigate adverse effects caused by the bridge construction; protect bicyclists and pedestrians using the existing paths; protect wildlife habitat adjoining the bridge and 7 Exhibit A right of way; and restore the area occupied by the detour bridge and its construction once the demur bridge is removed. The consistency of these conditions with the Specific Goals of the East Alton Baker park Plan, and that plan's consistency with Goal 8 and Goal 15, meets the requirements of this Goal. Goal 9 - Economic Development To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. This goal is intended to address the land use needs (inventoo9 for employment opportunities in commercial and industrial sites: "?rovide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, Opes, locations, and se~wice levets jfbr a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies." "Limit uses on or near sites zoned for spec~c industrial and commercial uses to those which are compatible with proposed uses." This exception does not affect commercial or industrial lands inventories, nor does it limit access or other services to such sites. The efficient movement of vehicles and goods through and throughout the metropolitan area is a key component to a sound economy: "In conjunction with the overall transportation system, recogntzing the needs of other transportation modes, promote or develop a regional roadway system that meets combined needs for travel through, within, and outside the region." (TSI Roadway Policy #3: Coordinated Roadway Network, December, 2001 TransPlan) "?reserve corridors, such as rail rightsof-way, private roads, and easements of regional s~gnificance that are identified for future transportation-related uses." (TSI System- Wide Policy #3: Corridor Preservation, December, 2001 TransPlan) One propose this goal exception will serve is to enable continued use of this corridor for the efficient movement of goods and people through and within the region. This proposed goal exception is consistent with Goal 9. Goal 10 - Housing To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Similar to Goal 9, this goal is intended to protect residemial lands inventories and require implementation measures that promote housing opportunities in a variety of economic ranges and densities. The ODOT right of way is not zoned for residential use, nor is any of the la~d within East Alton Baker Park. This proposed exception does not affect residential land inventories or housing policies therefore Goat 10 does not apply to this proposal. Exhibit A Goal i I - Public Facilities and Services To ptan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities' and services to serve as a framework for urban and ~mral development. The emphasis of this goal is on key urban services other than transportation, and the focus is on the need fbr a 20 year public facilities and services plan (PFSP). Transpo~ation is emphasized in Goal 12 and in the metro areas' Transportation System Plan: TransPlan. There are no urban serv'ices needs created by this proposed exception. The construction o£the detour bridge and the bridge's duration do not require any level of urban infrastructure not included in the PFSP. Mitigation measures will include on-site storm water pre-treatment (on-ske being within the right of way, not in Whilamut). However, it could be argued that the alternative of routing I-5 traffic to county and city streets would se'verely compromise a set of infrastructure not designed to accommodate this increased demand. The exception sought is not inconsistent with the purpose of this Goat. Goal 12 - Transportation To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The proposed exception will allow a detour bridge to be constructed within the Greenway Setback ~ea. A detour bridge located within either side of the ODOT right of way (EUgene or Springfield) Mil be in the Greenway Setback Area. A detour bridge over the Willmette River anywhere inside the metro area urban growth boundary will be located inthe Greenway Setback Area; therefore the need ~br an exception exists no matter where the bridge goes. The I-5 bridge over the Willamette is critical to a large number of local trips in this area and for rhrou~ travelers on I-5. This bridge must be replaced due to a state of deterioration and design that will not allow repair. Replacement means closure, not reduced capacity while replacement occurs. The detour bridge will provide the same ~T capacity as the current bridge and will not appreciable impede traffic because of its close proximity to the existing bridge. The alternative to a bridge is re-routing I~5 trips onto to a number of state highways, county roads and city streets. Heavier vehicles would be detoured over much longer routes because of the inabihty of these lesser streets to accommodate gvw's in excess of 80,000 lbs. in some instances, this could mean trucks detouring off of I-5 north bound before they' enter the state and traveling on Highway 97 east of the Cascades before returning to I-5 north of Eugene-Springfield, or continuing on 97 all the -way to 1-84 on the Columbia. Smaller delivery trucks and passenger vehicles would be detoured onto other state highway's, where possible, but inevitably, many of these trips would end up on metro area collectors and arterials that were not planned Por this type of use. Exhibit A Policies contained in TransPlan have been cited under the response to Goal 9 and are applicable to Goal 12 as well. In addition to these previously mentioned policies, the Transportation Plating Rule (TPR) comains objectives requiring a reduction in vehicle miles traveled and transportation systems designs that reduce out of direction travel. The detour bridge is consistent with these objectives; the alternative of re-routing onto ofher roadways is not. The proposed exception is to the Greenway Goal to allow a non-water-dependent, non- water-related use within the Greemvay Setback Line. This exception will not change development patterns, or make existing inventories more dependent on automobiles, or undermine the objective of an inte~ated land use and transportation plan. This exception will not increase trips or trip lengths. The I-5 corridor is part o£the regional road system, though only Beltline ~d I-5 are programmed for capacity or modernization in the TransPlan. The proposed detour bridge is not specifically modernization or capacity: it is necessary for replacement of the existing bridge. The proposed exception is consistent with TranxPlan and with this goal. Goal 13 -Energy Conservation To conxerve energy. TNs goal, though terse, is intended to require local jurisdictions to include energy consequences during decision making. Previous responses to a number of goals in this report identified the negative consequences that would result from alternatives to the detour bridge. Congestion, out of direction travel, and increased vehicle miles traveled are all wastefi~l of energy. Although there may be some minor concessions to energy eXPended omsite to mitigate adverse impacts to the Greenway values, these are insignificant in comparison to the alternative. The proposed exception is consistent with this goal Goal 14 - Urban~ation To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. The proposed detour bridge, and the ultimate replacement of the existing bridge, is located in the central area of urban Eugene-Springfield. This proposal will not hasten, slow down or otherwise influence the transition of rural land to urban land use. This proposed exception does not apply to this goal. Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway To ~rotect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, hixtorical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the ~Villamette River as' the Ix?illamette River Greenway. 10 Exhibit A The proposed detour bridge is located within the Willamette River Greenway Set'back, andis neither water-dependent nor water-related. Pursuant to OAR_ 660-004-0022(5): "14qthin an urban area designated on the approved ~illamette Greenway Boundao: maps, the siting of uses which are neither water-dependent nor water-related within the setback line required by Section C. 3. k of the Goal may be approved where reasons demonstrate the following: (a) The use will not have a significant adverse effect on the greenway values of' the site under consideration or to adjacent land or water areas; (b) The use will not significantly reduce the sites available for water-dependent or water-related uses within the jurisdiction; (c) The use wilI provide a sign~cant public benefit; and (d) The use is consistent with the Legislative findings and policy in ORS 390.314 and the Willamette Greenway Plan approved by LCDC under ORS 390.322" The Applicant has responded to these factors in pages 2-9 of Exhibit A-1. Staff' supports these findings. Additional response to the consistency of this proposal with the Greenway is ~bund under the discussion of Goal 5 and Goal 8 as well as discussions that fbllo-w 'under response to OAR 660-004-0020. The proposed exception complies with the Provisions, standards and requirements of this goal regarding an exception. Goal 16 Estuarine R esourees~ Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands, Goal 18 Beaches and Dunes, and Goal 19 Ocean Resources These goals do not apply to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area. Compliance with Applicable Administrative Rules of Chapter 660, DiVision 004 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Par II(c), Exception Requirements (1) If a jurisdiction determines that there are reasons consistent with OAR 660- 0©4~0022 to use reso~ce lands for uses not allowed by the applicable Goal, the justification shall be set forth in the comprehensive plan as an exception. (2) The four factors I Goal 2 Par II(c) required to be addressed when taking an exception to a Goal are: (a) "Reasons justify w&v the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not a 'I ' '.p,p y: The exception* shall set forth the facts and assumptions used as the basis for determining that a statepolicy embodied in a goal should not app¢ to specific' properties or situations including the amount of land for the use being planned and wi,), the use requires a location on resource lan& 1. The Goal limits uses in the Setback Area to water-dependent or water-related and excludes roads and highways from this category. There are two roadway bridges 11 Exhibit A crossing the Will~ette in Springfield; there are three roadway bridges crossing the Willamette in Eugene; and there are many other roadway bridges crossing the Willamette throughout the Willamette Valley and Portland. It is illogical to thir~k that the state's policy regarding the Greenway was intended to allow the deterioration and ultimate closure o£the state's bridges. There certainly is reason to draw a distinction regarding ~ew bridges over the Willamette, but existing bridges, including necessary maintenance and repair solutions, should be considered in light of the consequence that would occur if they were required to be abandoned. We agree with the Applicant's proposition that repMr and maimenance is not an intensification of use; however the exception standard applies to non-water-dependent, non-water-related use occurring in the Setback, not what is or is not intensification. 2. The amount of land proposed for this use is largely within existing ODOT fight-of- way. Where that is not the case, an easement approximately 100 feet wide for a distance of approximately 800 feet is needed for a sloped fill of support structures. The site of this easement is based solely on the need to place these support structures in a manner that provides necess~y ~ade for the bridge. The easement property is owned by Witlamalane Park and Recreation District and is part of the East Gate Woodlands of East Alton Baker Park. This park land is considered to have the highest rated wildlife habitat in the metropolitan area. There is no doubt that this proposal will intrude on this habitat and will require the removal of several acres of woodlands in and adjacent to the right-of- way. The Springfield Planning Commission considered these impacts during its Discretionary Use hearing and Greenway Setback Line hearing prior to action on the proposed "reasons" exception. Conditions of approval were applied by the Planning Commission regarding minimizing construction impacts on habitat and restoration of this site to a condition equal to or better than the current condition when the detour bridge is removed. 3. The Willamette Greenway is not considered by OAR's to be" resource land," (nor are Goal 5 skes), but it is subject to a reasons exception justif~Sng why the state policy embodied in the applicable goal should not apply. There are no other sites in either city that could accommodate a detour bridge over the Willamette that would cause less impact than the proposed location. The geometry of I-5, the spacing between existing interchanges, posted speed limit and the t~e of traffic make it impossible to place this bridge anywhere else in the Metro area. Additionally, wider departure from the existing tight,of-way would go through a variety of different existing development, including homes, businesses and other park lands. This factor is met by this proposal (b) "Areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonab(v accommodate the use~· (A) The exception shall indicate on a map or otherwise describe the location of possibIe alternati~,e areas considered for the use, which do not require a new exception. The area for which the exception is taken shall be identified; 12 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 Exhibit A being located in other areas requiring a goal exception. The exception shall describe the characteristics of'each alternative area considered by the jurisdiction for which an exception ,tight be taken, the typical advantages and disadvantages of using the area for a use not allowed by the Goal, and the typical positive and negative consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse im£acts. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites ~ not required unless such sites are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites have significantly fewer adverse impacts during the local exceptions proceeding. The exception shall include the reasons why the consequences of the use at the chosen site are not significant(v more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site. Such reasons shall include but are not limited to, the facts used to determine which resource land is least productive; the ability to sustain resource uses near the propose use; and the long-term economic impact on the general area caused by irreversible removal of the land from the resource base. Other possible impacts i, clude the eJfects of the proposed use on the water table, on the costs of improving roads and on the costs to special service districts. 1. The site is unique because it links all four travel lanes of I-5 over the Willamette River between the Cities of Springfield and Eugene. Relocating the bridge more than a few h~&ed feet east or west would requke the closure of one or more existing interchanges or ramps~ would require the demolition of numerous residences, would require the demolition of numerous businesses, and would result in a hazardous geometry due to the presence of immovable geologic features. Relocation beyond this narrow parameter would result in the closure of I-5 and the re-routing of all trips onto lesser state highways, county roads and city streets. There are no social, economic~ energy or environmental advantages to this alternative scenario. Re-routing 55,000 daily highway ~ps t?rrough the cities of Eugene and Springfield Mii create severe congestion which in turn degrades air quality. Local residents would invariably use local streets as alternative routes thereby imposing a hi~er level of through trips in residential neighborhoods ill-equipped to accommodate more traffic. Re,routing would also increase out of direction distance for those traveling I-5 and ~%r lOCal residents avoiding the congestion of detour routes. This increase in vehicle miles traveled wastes resources and contributes to poorer air quality. Detouring 1-5 trips to alternate routes will also increase travel time for both through and local trips because of reduced roadway speeds and increased congestion. This will cause detays in ~eight delivery as well as individual trip time thereby causing a negative ef~bct on the economic sectors that prioritize timeliness. 2. The Greenway land is not "resource" land therefore this factor does not apply, 14 Exhibit A 3. The Goal 5 resource present in the East Gate Woodlands is a highly valuable natural ~gesource' for the entire metropolitan area. There will be some adverse impacts to that resource from the construction Md presence of this bridge. The elected officials chose to mitigate these effects through conditions designed to minimize intrusion into the habitat during construction, and to restore the site to its current condition, or better, when the temporary bridge is removed. This factor is met by this proposal. (~) "The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts"~ The exception shall describe hoW the proposed use will be rendered compatible with adjacent land uses. The exception shall demonstrate that theproposed use is situated in such a manner as to be compatible with surrounding natural resources and resource management or prOduction practices. "Compatible" is not intended as an absolute term meaning no #~terference or adverse impacts of any Ope with adjacent uses. 1. Resource lands are included or embodied within Goal 3 Agricultural Lands; Goal 4 Forest Lands; Goal 16 Estuarine Resources; Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands; and Goal 18 Beaches and Dune. Goal 15 - The Willamette Greenway and Goal 5 Natural Resources are not included in th~s ~ouping (O~ 66-004-0010 (1)(a) through (f)). In addition, ©~ 660.023,0240 ~elationsh¢ of Goal 5 to Other Goals sta~es the following: "(2) The requirements c?f GOals ]5, 16, ] 7 and 19 shall supercede requirements of this diviSion for natural resources that are also subject to and regulated under o~e or more of these goals." We have stated elsewhere in this repo~ the importance and value of the East Gate Woodlands to the metropolitan area. Notwithstanding any argnments that may be made regarding the legitimacy of applying Goal 5 to the "reasons" exception, the planning commissions and elected officials considered the impacts of bridge construction on this habkat and required mitigation measures during construction and restoration once the bridge is remove& This factor is met by this proposal (3) ~f the exception involves more than one area for which the reasons and Circumstances are the same, the areas may be considered as a group. Each of the areas sha[l be identified on a map, or their location described, and keyed to the apprOpriate findings. 1. The exception includes both banks of the Willamette River. The Setback on the south bank is 5 feet south of the top ofb~ of the river; the north bank Setback includes the riparian vegetation along the north side of the canoe canal, but in no case less than 50 feet from the top of the north bank of the canoe canal. (4) For the expansion of an unincorporated communiO, defined under OAR 660-022- OOjO~ The exCeption requirements of subsectiOns (2) (b), (c) and (d) of this rule are modified to also include the following: 15 Exhibit A This proposal does not include expansion of an unincorporated community. This st~dard does not apply. Adoption of this exception is consistent with Policy #13, Chapter HI, Section D. of the Melro Plan. Including the proposed text addition to this policy maintains internal consistency. Conclusion A goal exception is an understandably rigorous test. The implementation of an applicable statewide goal through an acknowledged comprehensive plan and regulatory document is a quintessential element of land use planning in Oregon. However true that is, it is also quintessentially human to overlook something in the pursuit of our ideals, hence the exception process. The Willamette Greenway, and what its original purpose represents, is a source of pride for residents of this state and a model of excellence for other states to emulate~ The fact that the provisions of this Goal supercede Goal 5 makes the Greenway a very powerful element of our comprehensive plan. This proposal does not diminish the purpose of the Greenway or the results sought in the Metro Plan. The Applicant's submittals, along with the conclusions in this report, comply with the law regarding Metro Plan amendments and Oregon Administrative Rules. Staff recommends approval of the Metro Plan Text addition to Policy #13, Chapter III, Section D. as it appears on page 1 of this report. Staff also recommends approval of the exception to Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway based upon the reasons justifying such an exception contained in this report and the submittal of the Applicant. Staff' recommends that mitigation and restoration conditions of the Springfield Planning Commission decision on the Discretionary Use application be applied to further satisfy the exception standards of 660-004-0022 (5)(a). 16 Exhibit A 17 EXhibit A-1 METRO p~N AMENDMENT APPLicATioN ~TATE 5 TEMPORAR~Y DETOU~ R BRIDGE OVER T ._L :AME Findings of Fact Dem0nstrat~g Conformance ~thApproval criteria m Spr~dd Development Code Z070(3) Fne Oregon Department of Transportation is pUrSuing an aggressive bridge ma~tenanc¢ and repair effort onthe I-5 Willamette River Bridge ir/Eugene Springfiel& The Departmen~has determined that-~ order.to maintain Interstate 5 and keep traffic flows operational thro~ the Metro area, this bridge (along Mth the I-5 McKenzie River Bridges) must be replkced~ ~ load [knit for hearty haul veh/cles (105,500 lbs) has been placed on tiffs structure, and'she'ar er_acks are being monitored to track structural integ~ty.7 This bridge carries upwards of 63,000 vYh~cte crossings dally, S~xteen to eighteen percent, or approximately 10,000 of these dally tMps are made by tractor trailer figs hauling freight. Given the condition of the exist~g stracmre~?standard en ng and construction practice for abridge maintenance and repak effort of ti-As ' ~' magnitude is to construct a temporary bridge to serve traffic and freight volumes dm4ng~.~e period that the'replacement structure is designed and constructed. In order to proceed wbj~' permitting for construction of the tempora~D~ detour bridge, the Cky'of SprLngfield has determined that MetroPlan Willamette River. Greenway Policy 13 must&st be satisfied. The nature of kSs application is to provide the factual basis for satiskAng the requirement ~Policy ~3 for an exception to S~a'tewide Piing Goal 15, Willamette R~ver Greenway (OAR 660-015z0005.). MetroPlan Chapter HI (D), Policy 13 states:. "The taking of an exception shall be requ/red if a non-water-dependent kansp0rtation facility requires placing of fill within the Willamette River Greenway setback.' For the record, ODOT maJntahis thata goal exception is not req~red'under Statewide Plann~g Goal. 15~ Goal 15 states that cities shall not authorize or allow, mtens~catmn, change or nsc or development on lands w4tb2n the boundaries of the Willamette .River Greenway. The "[mlaintena2ce and repair usual andnecessary for the continuance of an existing use is ~°t an afion of use' and thus not subject to the provisions of the goal. The construction ora temporary bridge is needed to repair the existing bridge structure and is part of bridge mamtenance~ The detour bridge is simply a necessary part ofmaintakfing the continUed::use of the Interstate fiver crossing Ln this location during a maintenance and repair effbrt. Acc~rdingly, th~s type of actk¢2y should not be subject to a Goal 15 exception. However, Metro Plan Policy III (D) (13) states that an exception is requ/xed for anyfill ~/4thin the Greenway setback ~fplaced for non-water dependent transportation fatal/ties. The Greenway Setback line will be determined by the Springfield Plarming Commission at a .public hearing on May 20m, 2003. Based on discussion with City staff, and the fact the Interstate 5 righbof~way bisects riverfront parkland at the location of the Willamette River crossing, it is I/kely that W[tlamette River Greenway Goal Exceptbn Findings Oregon Depam~aent of Tranportat~on May 15, 2003 Page 1 6f9 SeVeral of the detou~ bridge cotumns~ and perhaps some of the bridge approach fill~ on the north side °fthe River, will fall within the identified C~eenway Setback. Because ©D©T proposes to plaCe fil!, primely in the nature of concrete Columns, in the Greenwdy setback j(or the: PnrpOSes of supposing a temporary detour bfidg~ that w~ll be used w~ile the t;5 Bridge's ~ the Dep~ent respectfalty submits the following request for a g0aleXcepti°n in order to address'the ~an~que local requirement found in Metro Plan Willamette River Oreenway ?oticy 13. icable CriteCa Springfield Development Code, Article 7, Section 070 O), Criteria for~Approval of a Plan Amendment. The foLlowing criteria shall be applied by the Cite~ Coun~l ha approving or denying a Metro Plan amendment application: (a) The amendment mn'st be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and CrO Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan interna~y inconsistent. The first SDC criterion is that the proposed amendment be consistent with-the rele3ant adop£ed Statewide Goals. Goal 15 ~s implemented by Oregon AdmLaistrative Rule 660~015- 0005. Exceptions m Goal 15 axe covered by OAR 660-004-002Z The applicable OAR criteria are provided below in italics, followed by findings of fact which show hoW. the application is consistent ~with the criteria. As noted earlier, the amendment is, on its ~hce, consistent with Goal 15 because the interstate bridg~ crossing the Willamette P, Jve is permitted as a use by Goal 15, is by its nature river dependent, and is now undergoing necessary maintenmn~e and repair of which the temporary bridge smactnre is one component. 660~004~0022 Reasons Necessary to ~[usti~' an Exception Under Goal 2, Part)fi(c) An exception Under Goal 2~ Part ~Y(c) can be taken for any' use not allo~4,ed by the applicable goal(s). The tzpes of reasons that may or may not be used to justify certain ~vpes of USes not allowed on resource lands are set forth in the following sections of this rule: OA~ 660~004~0022(5) ~Villamette Greemvay: Within an urban area desig/~ated on the approved F~qlIamette GreenWay £oundary maps, the siting Of uses which are neither water-dependent nor water-related within the setback line required by Section C. 3.k of the Goal may be approved where reasons demonstrate the following: (a) The use will not have a significant adve?~e effect on the greenway values of the site under consideration or on ~adjacent land or Water areas; ODOT is proposing a temporary bridge structure immediately east of the existing I-5 bridge~ The structure itself will be constructed entirely within the ODOT right-$f-way which bisects the riverfront park system in the metro area. The ODOT right-of-way.is not zoned by the City of W~ltm'ne~e ~er Greenway Goal Exception F~ndings Oregon DePartment 0fTranPortafion May 15; 2003 Page 2 of 9 Springfield; however, the right-of-way does He.within the Metro Plan diagram designation of Parks and Open Space~ ODOT has.an easement from the Willamalane ParLs and Recreation Dis~ct to place temporary fill onless than one acre ofpark land as part of the northern bridge approach. Alton Baker park l~es on both sides of the I-5 right-of-way. Access connecting both sides of the park is p~:ov{ded under the existing I-5 Willamette River bridge through ODOT right- of 4vay. This park is part ofalarger regional river front parks and open space system ser'vSng muIfiple recreationalneeds of the Eugene-Springfield community. A bicycle-pedestrian path traverses the length of this riverfront park system, !h~tdng Eugene to Spfingfield. Tb2s path traverses the ODOT right-of-way and runs underneath the existing bridge. The majority of the tempor~ bridge Mll be located [n current ODOT r/ght-oLway. Some of this fight of way is currently used as open space by the park users. The area 'adjacent to the ODOT fight-of-way is also used as open space. The placement of the temporary bridge will reduce the amount of open space available in East Alton Baker Park by appmxknately one acre, and v~411not si~f~cantly affect the overall recreational uses ofthe park. The pedestrian/bicycle path Mil be protected from construction activities and ,adll'remain available for use. Because the temporary bridge w411 span over the park' and over the river, public access to the Willamette River will not be affected. The temporary bridge structure will be located just east of and adjacent to the current bridge ;structure. While the temporary structure will create another'bridge span over the Willamette .River, that span Mil be consistent with-the current bridge and wilt not significantly/nterfere with ,dews of the Willamette Greenway. The temporary bridge structure Mll involve elhnination of a rrdnimal amount of vegetation on approximately one acre °fland outside of the ODOT rightmf-way, fbr the placement of fill to support the northern bridge approach. At the conclusion of the bridge repaLr project, and upon the removal of the temporary detour bridge, the fill Will be removed and the area restored. The temporary bridge w~ span the Willamette Pdver and will not ~nterfere w~th cmn:mt boat use on the Willamette River. Access to the fiver bank will remain unchanged. Pilings Mil be placed ~n the fiver to support the bridge structure in the water. These pilings are temporary structures and will'be removed after the I-5 Bridge ~s repaired and temporary bridge removed. All J2-river work and pil/mgs will cc>mply with all state~ federal and local regulations, (b) The use will not significantly reduce the sites availabld for Water-dependent or water-related uses within the jurisdiction; The placement of a temporary bridge structure will not significantly reduce the sites available for water dependent or water related uses Mtl'dn the Metro area. W~ie the temporary bridge structure ]s in place, the effect upon on water dependent and water related uses will be mimmal as the bridge structure.will span the area a',~ailable for these types of uses, .Trfis is a temporary structure and will be removed upon completion of the permanent I-5 Bridge projecr, and thus will not permanently reduce sites available ~br water related uses. Willamette River Greenway Goal Exception Findings Oregon Department of TranPortafion May 15, 2003 Page 3 of 9 (c) The use wilt pr°vide a significant public benefit;' and interstate 5 is the primary north-south highway corridor on the west,co,st. The facility provides for the significant movement of people, freight and other services, and serves as the backbone for int~afional, interstate and intra-state commerce. Approximately 63,000vehicles Cr°ss the Willamette River daily on I-5. Upwards of 10,000 of those vehicles are heavy freight haulers. The purpose 6f the temporary detour bridge is tO provide for~ the continued significant national, regional and metropolitan public benefit of a continuous I-5 faciliiY in Oregon. The temporary bridgestructure will'allow the repair of the permanent bridge ~stmcmre. The alternative to the detour bridge is an elaborate and extremely time consuming system of surface detours for freight haulers that would have a Significant !o. Cal, regional and statewide economic impact. Further,~ the rerouting trips will create high levels of congestion and wear and tear on the local road systems in the metro area. (d) The use is consistent with the Legi~lative findings and joolicy in ORS 390.314 and'the Willamette Greem4,ay. Plan ajoproved by LCDC under ORS 390.322. The applicable legislative findings and inORS 390.314 are: ORS 390.3J4 Legislag~ve find~ngs and loo[icy (J) The Legislative Assemble finds that, to ~rotect and yreserve the natUraL scenic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River, to ~reserve and restore historical sites; structures, facilities and objects on lands along the' Willamette Ri-ver for public education and enjOYment and to fi~rther the state ~olicy estab[£shed under ORS 390.0J0, it is in the yublic interest to develo~ and maintain a natural, scenic, historical and recreational greenway upon lands along the Willamette River to be ~wwn as the Willamette River Greenway. The i-5 Willamette River Bridge pre-dates the adoption of Goal 15. The place~ment of a temPorary, bridge is consistent with this legislative intent as the temporary bridge structure is necessary in order to preserv'e and repair the permanent bridge structure on lands along the 'Willamette River. As noted in above secfions~ the temporary bridge structure will not interfere with the natural, scenic, histOriC or recreational features of the Greenway or on lands adjacent to t~he Willamette River. (2) Jn ~rovidingfor the development and ma~'ntenance of the Willamette River Greenway, t,he Legislative Assembly: (a) Recognizing the need for coordinated jolanning for such greenway, finds it necessary to £rovide for development and implementation, of a jolan for such greenway through the coo£erative efforts of the s~ate and units of loca! government. The state and units oftocal gocernment have cooperated in the implementation of Greenway planning as required by legislative intent. The temporary detour bridge proposal subject to this application is being permitted tl~-ough this established local and statewide Greenway plarming process. Willamette River Greenway Goal Exception Findings Oregon Department of Tranportation May 15, 2003' .Page4 of 9 (b) Recognizing the need of thee people 'qf this state for existing residential commercial and. agricult~iral use of lands along the Willamette River, finds it necessat3, to permit the continuation of existing uses of lands that are included within such greenway; but, for the benefit of the people qf thix state, also to limit the intens~cation and change in the u~ of su& lands so that such uses shall remain, to the greatest~ossible de~ee, compatible with the presem~ation of the natural scenic, hiswrica[ and recreational qualities of such lands. .The cu=ent I-5 Bridge ~s an existing use ~d is allowed under the C~eenway policies ~d legislative ~tent. ~e plac~ent of the t~pora~, bridge s~cmre is required to allow ~e repair for khe exgst~g I-5 bridge st~cmre. Repair of the e~sfing"bfidge s~acmre i~ necessa~ to allow ~r ~e continuation of ~ ex~sfing ~se. Fu~, ~e r~r of~e bfidge.s~cV~e ~s not considered "~ntens~ficatiof' of a use. OA~ 660-015-0005(K)(3) pro,des that "[m]a~ten~ce m~d repair usual mqd necessary for the confinumqce of an eXisting use is not ~tens~fication.' ~us the placement of a t~pora~ bridge stm~xe w~t~n the ~eenway setback to 'allow for the rep~ of the ex~sting bridge is ~nsistent with ~s policy. ~e placement of ~&e temp°r~d b~dge struc~e is not a pe~n~ent c~ge on ~eenway l~ds. Even so, the placement of ~e tempor~y bridge will, to the ~eatest extent possible, prese~e ~e natural ~d recreational q~aalifies ofhhe l~d. (c) Recognizing that the Use' of lands for farm use is compatible with the purposes of the Willamette River Greenway finds that the use of lands for farm use should be continued within the greenway withou~ restriction. ~e placement of ~e t~_por~y bridge s~cmre ~s'wholly w~n the ~rb~ed ~ea of Springfield ~d Eug~e~ and not upon nor nero f~ land w~n ~e Greenway provision ~s not <¢pl]cable. (~) Recognizing the needf°r cen~al coordination of such greenway for the best interests of ail t~he pe%v[e of this smte, finds it necessa~ tO place the responxibili~ for the coordination of the d~,elopment and maintenance of such ~eenway in the State Par~ and.Recreation Department. ~s t~por~y bridge propos~.~n no way l~its or ch~ges ~egon State Pinks resPomib]l~D coord~ate development ~d ma~ten~ce of~e Greenway. (e) Reco~izing the lack of need for (he acquisition Of fee title to all lan~ along the Willamette R~veb for ~clusive ~ublic use for recreational pU~oses in such ~eenway, fin~ it necessary to [imit the area within such ~eenwWJ that may be acquired for state par~ and recreation areas and~r ~ublic recreational Use within the boun&ries of units of local government along the Willamette River. []973 c. 558 ~e.temporavd bridge s~cmre will be locmed on ODOT fi~t of way. T~s l~d ~s in ~e public doma~ ~d w~ll rerna]n ~ ~e public domain ager the completion of ff~e repairs ~d the remov~ of the tempor~ bridge s~cmre. These findings clearly demonstrate that th/s application clearly meets the requirement that it is in compliance with the relevant Statewide Pla~xfing Goal 15. W~llamette River Greenway G0al Exception Findings Oregon Department of Trhnpor~afion May 15~ 2003 Page 5 of 9 The second consideration concerns consistency with the Willamette River Greenway Plan, as aClmowtedged by the Land Conservation and Deyelopment Commission. This plan is implemented and embodied in each relevant jurisdiction's plan policies and codes. The following is intended to address this criteria andto address the second criterion of SDC 7,.070 (3) that t~e adoption 'of the amendment muSt not make the Metro Plan internally consistent. 'The 'Willamette River GreenwaY Plan as articulated in the Metro Plan Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterway Element, acknoMedged by LCDC contains the following policies: Periodically, local governments shall review Greenway boundaries, uses, and potentia[ acquisition areas to ensure continued compliance with state and local Greenway goalsl The placement of a temporaX¢~ bridge structure does not affect the ability ibr local g0vermments to re~vSew the Greenway boundary, uses and potential acquisition areas. Land use reg~alations and acquisition programs along river corridors and waterways shall take into account all the concerns and needs of the community, including recreation, resource and witdtife protection; enhancemen~ of river corridor and waterway environments; £otential for suPt~orting nonautomobile transportation; ot~portunities for resz~dential de~,elopment; adjoining uses; and other compatible uses. Land use regulations and acquisition programs are in place at the location of the I-5 Willamette River crossing. It is assumed that the existing adopted land use regulations~ and property : acquisition programs address commUnity concerns and needs. The temporary detour bridge does not ~mpact land use regulations or acquisition programs, other than to demonstrate compliance with both~ 3. Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County shall continue to cooperate in ext~anding water- ' related parks and other facilities, where appropriate, that allow access to and enjoyment of river and waterway corridors. The placement of a temporary bridge structure to allow for therepa& of the existing structure will not affect the ability of the three jurisdictions to cooperate to expand water-related parks dr facilities nor will it impinge up°n the ava/lability of access to the river and other waterways. The temporary bridge will not reduce or diminish access to the river. Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene shall continue to participate in efforts to determin, the.feasibility oran urban canal that would connect Eugene's historic Millrace to Amazon Creek. Likewise, SpringtTeld's efforts to improve the scenic quality, of its Millrace should be encouraged. The temporary b~dge structure is not in the area contemplated for the urban canal in Eugene or the Spr/n~eld Millrace, and therefore this policy is not applicable. Willamette Rfver Greenway Goal Exception F[nd[ngs Oregon Department of Tranportafion May t5, 2003 Page 6 of 9 NeW development that locates along river corridors and watern4,ays shall be limited to uses that are compatible with the natural, scenic, and environmental qualities of those fea(ures, ~The temporary bridge structure is not new development that will permanently locate along the river. As noted earlier, the tempor~ bridge is necessary to perform needed maintenance and re_pair on the exist~g structure and as such, is not considered an Lntensification of use under-the ' V~llamette Greenway Goat. 15. The temporary bridge will remain in place for approxSmately 5 years ~ order to repair the I-5 bridge. After the bridge is rCPaired, the temporary bridge structure w~I1 be remo;~ed and the site fully restored. New industrial development that locates along the 'Willamette and 3~cKenzie Rivers shall enhance natural~ scenic~ and envi?onmentai qualities. ~e Proposed temporary bridge is not/ndustrial deVelopment. This policy .does not. apply. o Potential pz~blic access points in rural agricultural areas shall be carefully reviewed to ensure jjreservation of the Willamette River Greenway environment, with special emphasis on problems of vandalism and trespass. .~e proposed temporary bridge replacement is located in an urban area. Th~s Potidy does not apply. & Within thej~amework of mandatory statewide planning goals, local FP~'llamette Rib;er Green:wa? p[.ans shall allow a variety of means for pUb~ic enjoyment of the river~ including public acquisition areas, residential areas, and commercial areas. The construction of a temporary bridge does not impact the ways in which local plans contemplate the prtbl[c will enjoy the river. The temporary bridge Will be removed and the site fully restored. T~rds policy does not apply. ~' 'The specific use mdnagement considerations and requirements of Goal J 5, "Willamette River Green,;ay' shall be applied where they are not specifically addressed in policy or land use designations elsewhere in the Plan, in local refinement plans and local implementing ordinances. Statewfde Plann~g Goal 15 re~,mlates the intensification, change of use or development of land wffbSn the Greenway boundar/es: OAR 660-015-0005(G). The current I-5 bridge is ~n need of repair: A temporary bridge structure is needed to accommodate traffic wl~le the bridge ~s undergoing repair. OAR 660-015-0005(K)(3) provides that "[m]aintenance and repair usual and necessapd for the continuance of an exis~fing use is not intensificafion.' ' This t~?e of activity - the repair of the'I-5 Bridge -is allowed under the Goal. However the local Metro plan has further specified that th/s bridge repair and Construction of a temporary bridge structure would require a goal exception. Th/s application addresses those issues. Willamette River Greenway Goa! Exception Findings Oregon Depa~wment of Tranportafion May 15, 2003 Page 7 of 9 Local and state governments shall continue to provide adequate public access to the V~'illamette River Greenway. The temporary bridge stmct~e will not affect public access to the Greenway. Access will remain through the existing park, including ma/ntaining the existing bicycle/pedestrian pathway ~rough ODOT rig_ht-of~Way during construction and operation of the temporary detour bridge. ]]. Eugene and Springfield shall continue to use the conditional use permit system to address the setback and vegetative fringe requirements of statewide Planning Goal ]5. Lane 'County shall address the setback and vegetative fringe requirements of.G°al 15 in its Greenway implementing ordinance. Nothing in thSs application affects the ability of Springfield and Eugene to address *_he setback and vegetative fringe requkements of Goal 15. As a normal part o£ the City of Springfield's perrrfitting process-for USes within the'Crreenway, ODOT has requested and the City of Springfield will determine, the eXact location oft he Greenway Setback line. Goal 15 provides that "the natural vegetative fringe along the river shall be e~anced and protected to the maximum extent possible." The temporary bridge structure Mil not affect the vegetation a~acent to the RSver. A small portion of yegetation Mthin the setback area will ' likely be remo:wed to place two sets of support columns for the temporary sm2ctur¢ w/tl~n the ODOT right-of~way, Less than one acre of land w/thin East Alton Baker Park~some 300 feet north of the River's edge~ is contemplated for temporary'fill placement as part of the support for the no.em approach for the temporary bridge. One set of columns is anticipated in the southern setback~area. Upon completion of the ~bridge restoration, the temporary bridge will be removed, including all columr~s and fill that supported that bridge, and vegetation restored. Efforts w]i1 be made to eliminate the exotic and noxious species currently growing in the impacted area, and r~lace those species w/th appropriate native plants as a part,of the restoration process. Finally, a survey for threatened and endangered plants conducted by Parametrix~ Inc in late April 2003 fo~d that no threatened and endangered plants were inhabit the project area. 12. Aggregate extraction may be permitted when compatible with p~Jr~oses of statewide Planning Goal 15. Local governments shall continue, through Ian'd use planning and special regulations, to control aggregate extraction to minimize adverse effects o_f extraction on water quality, fish and wildlife, vegetation, bank stabilization~ stream flow; scenic quality, noise, and safkty. ODOT is plarming 'to place a temporary bridge in the Greenway. This policy is not applicable. 23, The taking of an exception shall be required ifa non-water-dependent transportation facility requires placing offilt within the ~'illamette River Greenw~y setback. The purpose of th/s application is to address this policy. ODOT is takSng a-goal exception for the small area within the designated setback area that will include fill for the ternpora~w bfid~e structure: WilImnette River Greenway Goal Exception Findings Oregon Depam:nent of Tranportation May 15, 2003 Based on the above findings of fact, this application clearlydemonstrates that the Metro Plan, as it relates'to the Willamette River Greenway, Will not be made internally consistent bY the proposed plan amendment. Willamette River Greenway Goal Exception Findings Oregon Department of Traaportafion May 15, 2003 Page 9 of 9 Exhibit A-1 Exhibit A~I '~ A. LOOKING NORTH FROM FRA15t~' BOULEVARD B. LOOKING NOP~TH AT DETOUR B~GE ALIGNMENT FROM FRANKLIN B@ULEVARD Exhibit A-1 A. LOOKING NORTH, mOM ~~IN' BOULEVAI~/D B. LOO~NG NORTH AT DETOUR BM)GE ALIGNMENT FROM FRANK-LIN BOULEVARD Exhibit A=i C~ LO©K~NG NORTH FROM UNDER EXISTING BRIDGE--BETO!JR ALIGNMENT TO RIGHT