Current through Register Vol. 63, No. 9, September 1, 2024
(1) Transportation facilities and
improvements which do not meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0065 require an
exception to be sited on rural lands.
(a) A
local government approving a proposed exception shall adopt as part of its
comprehensive plan findings of fact and a statement of reasons that demonstrate
that the standards in this rule have been met. A local government denying a
proposed exception shall adopt findings of fact and a statement of reasons
explaining why the standards in this rule have not been met. However, findings
and reasons denying a proposed exception need not be incorporated into the
local comprehensive plan.
(b) The
facts and reasons relied upon to approve or deny a proposed exception shall be
supported by substantial evidence in the record of the local exceptions
proceeding.
(2) When an
exception to Goals 3, 4, 11, or 14 is required to locate a transportation
improvement on rural lands, the exception shall be taken pursuant to ORS
197.732(1)(c),
Goal 2, and this division. The exceptions standards in OAR chapter 660,
division 4 and OAR chapter 660, division 14 shall not apply. Exceptions adopted
pursuant to this division shall be deemed to fulfill the requirements for goal
exceptions required under ORS
197.732(1)(c)
and Goal 2.
(3) An exception shall,
at a minimum, decide need, mode, function and general location for the proposed
facility or improvement:
(a) The general
location shall be specified as a corridor within which the proposed facility or
improvement is to be located, including the outer limits of the proposed
location. Specific sites or areas within the corridor may be excluded from the
exception to avoid or lessen likely adverse impacts. Where detailed design
level information is available, the exception may be specified as a specific
alignment;
(b) The size, design and
capacity of the proposed facility or improvement shall be described generally,
but in sufficient detail to allow a general understanding of the likely impacts
of the proposed facility or improvement and to justify the amount of land for
the proposed transportation facility. Measures limiting the size, design or
capacity may be specified in the description of the proposed use in order to
simplify the analysis of the effects of the proposed use;
(c) The adopted exception shall include a
process and standards to guide selection of the precise design and location
within the corridor and consistent with the general description of the proposed
facility or improvement. For example, where a general location or corridor
crosses a river, the exception would specify that a bridge crossing would be
built but would defer to project development decisions about precise location
and design of the bridge within the selected corridor subject to requirements
to minimize impacts on riparian vegetation, habitat values, etc.;
(d) Land use regulations implementing the
exception may include standards for specific mitigation measures to offset
unavoidable environmental, economic, social or energy impacts of the proposed
facility or improvement or to assure compatibility with adjacent
uses.
(4) To address
Goal 2, Part II(c)(1) the exception shall provide reasons justifying why the
state policy in the applicable goals should not apply. Further, the exception
shall demonstrate that there is a transportation need identified consistent
with the requirements of OAR 660-012-0030 which cannot reasonably be
accommodated through one or a combination of the following measures not
requiring an exception:
(a) Alternative modes
of transportation;
(b) Traffic
management measures; and
(c)
Improvements to existing transportation facilities.
(5) To address Goal 2, Part II(c)(2) the
exception shall demonstrate that non-exception locations cannot reasonably
accommodate the proposed transportation improvement or facility. The exception
shall set forth the facts and assumptions used as the basis for determining why
the use requires a location on resource land subject to Goals 3 or 4.
(6) To determine the reasonableness of
alternatives to an exception under sections (4) and (5) of this rule, cost,
operational feasibility, economic dislocation and other relevant factors shall
be addressed. The thresholds chosen to judge whether an alternative method or
location cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed transportation need or
facility must be justified in the exception.
(a) In addressing sections (4) and (5) of
this rule, the exception shall identify and address alternative methods and
locations that are potentially reasonable to accommodate the identified
transportation need.
(b) Detailed
evaluation of such alternatives is not required when an alternative does not
meet an identified threshold.
(c)
Detailed evaluation of specific alternative methods or locations identified by
parties during the local exceptions proceedings is not required unless the
parties can specifically describe with supporting facts why such methods or
locations can more reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need,
taking into consideration the identified thresholds.
(7) To address Goal 2, Part II(c)(3), the
exception shall:
(a) Compare the long-term
economic, social, environmental and energy consequences of the proposed
location and other alternative locations requiring exceptions. The exception
shall describe the characteristics of each alternative location considered by
the jurisdiction for which an exception might be taken, the typical advantages
and disadvantages of using the location for the proposed transportation
facility or improvement, and the typical positive and negative consequences
resulting from the transportation facility or improvement at the proposed
location with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts;
(b) Determine whether the net adverse impacts
associated with the proposed exception site, with mitigation measures designed
to reduce adverse impacts, are significantly more adverse than the net impacts
from other locations which would also require an exception. A proposed
exception location would fail to meet this requirement only if the affected
local government concludes that the impacts associated with it are
significantly more adverse than the other identified exception sites. The
exception shall include the reasons why the consequences of the needed
transportation facility or improvement at the proposed exception location are
not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same
proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the
proposed location. Where the proposed goal exception location is on resource
lands subject to Goals 3 or 4, the exception shall include the facts used to
determine which resource land is least productive; the ability to sustain
resource uses near the proposed use; and the long-term economic impact on the
general area caused by irreversible removal of the land from the resource base;
and
(c) The evaluation of the
consequences of general locations or corridors need not be site-specific, but
may be generalized consistent with the requirements of section (3) of this
rule. Detailed evaluation of specific alternative locations identified by
parties during the local exceptions proceeding is not required unless such
locations are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that
the locations have significantly fewer net adverse economic, social,
environmental and energy impacts than the proposed exception
location.
(8) To address
Goal 2, Part II(c)(4), the exception shall:
(a) Describe the adverse effects that the
proposed transportation improvement is likely to have on the surrounding rural
lands and land uses, including increased traffic and pressure for nonfarm or
highway oriented development on areas made more accessible by the
transportation improvement;
(b)
Demonstrate how the proposed transportation improvement is compatible with
other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce
adverse impacts. Compatible is not intended as an absolute term meaning no
interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses; and
(c) Adopt as part of the exception, facility
design and land use measures which minimize accessibility of rural lands from
the proposed transportation facility or improvement and support continued rural
use of surrounding lands.
(9)
(a)
Exceptions taken pursuant to this rule shall indicate on a map or otherwise the
locations of the proposed transportation facility or improvement and of
alternatives identified under subsection (4)(c), sections (5) and (7) of this
rule.
(b) Each notice of a public
hearing on a proposed exception shall specifically note that a goal exception
is proposed and shall summarize the issues in an understandable
manner.
(10) An
exception taken pursuant to this rule does not authorize uses other than the
transportation facilities or improvements justified in the exception.
(a) Modifications to unconstructed
transportation facilities or improvements authorized in an exception shall not
require a new exception if the modification is located entirely within the
corridor approved in the exception.
(b) Modifications to constructed
transportation facilities authorized in an exception shall require a new
exception, unless the modification is permitted without an exception under OAR
660-012-0065(3)(b)-(f). For purposes of this rule, minor transportation
improvements made to a transportation facility or improvement authorized in an
exception shall not be considered a modification to a transportation facility
or improvement and shall not require a new exception.
(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b)
of this section, the following modifications to transportation facilities or
improvements authorized in an exception shall require new goal exceptions:
(A) New intersections or new interchanges on
limited access highways or expressways, excluding replacement of an existing
intersection with an interchange.
(B) New approach roads located within the
influence area of an interchange.
(C) Modifications that change the functional
classification of the transportation facility.
(D) Modifications that materially reduce the
effectiveness of facility design measures or land use measures adopted pursuant
to subsection (8)(c) of this rule to minimize accessibility to rural lands or
support continued rural use of surrounding rural lands, unless the area subject
to the modification has subsequently been relocated inside an urban growth
boundary.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 &
197.040
Stats. Implemented: ORS
195.025,
197.040,
197.230,
197.245,
197.712,
197.717,
197.732
