HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 12 Initiate Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP)AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 9/19/2016
Meeting Type: Work Session/Reg. Mtg
Staff Contact/Dept.: Greg Mott, Phil
Farrington/DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-3774
Estimated Time: 20 Minutes/10 Minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D CITY COUNCIL Council Goals: Provide Financially
Responsible and Innovative Government Services ITEM TITLE: INITIATE AMENDMENTS TO THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP), CONCURRENT AMENDMENT OF THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN),
AND AMENDMENTS TO THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN AND SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE (SDC), FOR AN EWEB WATER INTAKE, A WATER
TREATMENT FACILITY AND RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE IN GLENWOOD.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Work session: Receive a presentation from staff on the proposed project.
Regular session: Adopt/not adopt the following resolution: A RESOLUTION INITIATING AMENDMENTS TO THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN, CONCURRENT AMENDMENT OF THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN, AND AMENDMENTS TO
THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN AND SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR AN EWEB WATER INTAKE, A WATER TREATMENT FACILITY AND RELATED
INFRASTRUCTURE IN GLENWOOD.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) proposes to construct a water intake, water treatment facility and associated infrastructure, which requires amendments to the PFSP Project lists and
Map, as adopted into the Metro Plan, and changes to the Glenwood Refinement Plan and Springfield Development Code to allow the proposed public utility facilities in the locations
identified by EWEB.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment #1: Council Briefing Memorandum
Attachment #2: Resolution Attachment #3: Eugene, Lane County support of Plan Amendment Initiation
Attachment #4: Illustrative Map Attachment #5: EWEB Memorandum following up on 6/6/16 City Council work session Attachment #6: Staff Memorandum responding to questions posed at 6/6/16 work session
DISCUSSION:
EWEB’s proposed water intake and treatment facility requires several land use applications including annexation, Site Plan Review, and zoning overlay development approvals, in
addition to the amendments described above under Item Title and Issue Statement. The PFSP amendments will add the new facilities to the project lists and map as required by state law.
Statewide Planning Goal 11 requires that local governments have a “public facilities plan” for areas within the UGB describing the water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities necessary to
support the land uses designated in their comprehensive plan. PFSP amendments must meet participation provisions of PFSP Chapter VI, as well as the approval criteria for Metro Plan
and refinement plan amendments in SDC 5.14-100 and 5.6-100, respectively.
Initiation of a PFSP and Metro Plan amendment is solely by formal action of one of the three governing bodies subject to the Metro Plan. Because the property identified for water
improvements is located within Springfield’s urban growth boundary, and associated land use applications, including annexation, will be processed by the City of Springfield, it is
appropriate for the Springfield City Council to initiate these amendments.
Initiation is undertaken by the City Council without bias or commitment to a specific outcome, including any subsequent appeals. EWEB will produce the required land use applications and
supporting materials and has conferred with the City of Eugene and Lane County about the proposed water intake and treatment facility. After initiating, and once the applications for
Plan and Code amendments are submitted, review packages will be forwarded to the planning commissions of the respective agencies for recommendations to Springfield, Eugene and Lane
County elected officials for a final decision on the PFSP and Metro Plan amendments. Springfield and Lane County elected officials are responsible for final decision on proposed
Glenwood Refinement Plan and SDC amendments.
Eugene Water & Electric Board Water Intake/Treatment Facilities Project Page 1 of 2
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: September 2, 2016
To: Gino Grimaldi, City Manager COUNCIL
From: Anette Spickard, Development & Public Works Director
Greg Mott, Current Development Division Manager
Philip Farrington, AICP, Senior Planner
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Proposed Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP), Glenwood
Refinement Plan (GRP), and Springfield Development Code amendments for a Eugene Water & Electric Board
water intake and treatment facilities project
ISSUE:
Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) proposes to construct a water intake, water treatment facility and associated improvements in Glenwood that requires amendments to the PFSP Project lists and
Map, as adopted into the Metro Plan, and changes to the Glenwood Refinement Plan and Springfield
Development Code to allow the proposed water facilities at the locations EWEB identified.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) proposes developing a new water source below the confluence of the Middle and Coast Forks of the Willamette River with an intake facility, water
treatment and filtration facility, and associated infrastructure to be located in Glenwood, within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary.
Currently, EWEB’s only source of drinking water is the McKenzie River, with an intake and treatment
facility near Hayden Bridge in Springfield. Having a single potable water source presents significant risks to EWEB residential, business, and institutional water consumers from potential service
disruptions due to equipment failure, hazardous spills within the river, or natural disasters. To improve resiliency, EWEB acquired a water right to surface water on the Willamette River below the
confluence of the Middle and Coast Forks in an effort to diversify its water supply. EWEB also acquired property for a river intake, and is proceeding to acquire additional property needed for the
water treatment and filtration plant, and associated facilities (e.g., pumps, lab, transmission lines, etc.).
EWEB hopes to complete preliminary design and secure approval of the required Plan and Code
amendments in 2016-2017; with site-specific permit approvals and completion of final design between 2017-2019, construction in 2019-2021, and having the plant operational by 2021-2022.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS: The proposal necessitates amendments the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) and Metro
Plan. Policy 6.b.iii of the Metro Plan (p.IV-3) establishes that an amendment to a “regional public facilities plan” is a Type III amendment to the Metro Plan. The Metro Plan’s Public Facilities and Services Element states: “The project lists and maps in the Public Facilities and Services Plan are
adopted as part of the Metro Plan.” (p. III-G-2). Consistent with requirements in Oregon Administrative Rules, PFSP water project lists and maps include source, reservoirs, pump stations,
and primary distribution systems. Primary distribution systems are water transmission lines 12 inches or larger for Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and 24 inches or larger for EWEB.
Though these lists and maps of qualified public facilities projects are included in the PFSP, they are
by reference included in the Metro Plan, and adopted by all three local jurisdictions. Therefore, because the EWEB proposal is not included among the projects listed and mapped in the PFSP, the proposed amendments to the PFSP and Metro Plan are warranted and necessary, and require approval by all three local governing bodies. Any one of the three governing bodies may initiate these
amendments at any time.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 2
Eugene Water & Electric Board Water Intake/Treatment Facilities Project Page 2 of 2
The proposed location of the water intake and treatment facilities is within Subarea D of the
Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP), adopted by the City and Lane County as a neighborhood refinement to the Metro Plan in 2012. Subsequently, the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District
was incorporated into the Springfield Development Code as SDC 3.4-200. While the GRP and Code allow certain “low impact public utility facilities,” there is no provision for “high impact public utility
facilities” within the subject site’s Employment Mixed Use zoning district. SDC 6.1-110 defines “high impact public utility facilities” as including the size and type of water facilities proposed by EWEB.
Therefore, amendments to certain GRP text and to the table for allowed uses in the SDC for the Glenwood Plan District are warranted and necessary.
The GRP and SDC amendments require approval by only the Springfield and Lane County elected
officials. These amendments may be initiated by the Development and Public Works Director, the Planning Commission, the City Council or a citizen. Since Springfield has land use planning
jurisdiction over the Glenwood area, the Springfield City Council is the appropriate governing body to initiate the PFSP and Metro Plan amendments, and since amendments to the GRP and SDC are
correspondent, it is logical to include initiation of those amendments as well in a single Resolution, which is enclosed in this packet (Attachment 2) and will be presented for Council review and action at
the September 19, 2016 regular session.
The Resolution initiates the Plan and Code amendment process, enabling EWEB to file the required applications and begin the review process. As noted in the Agenda Item Summary, the Resolution is
initiated without bias or predisposition to a decision on the merits of the subsequently submitted Plan and Code amendments.
If the proposed Plan and Code amendments are approved by the applicable jurisdictions, the City
would then process applications by EWEB for Annexation, Site Plan Review, and associated site-specific land use applications (i.e., Willamette Greenway Overlay District, Floodplain Development
Overlay, Hillside Development Overlay District, and Tree Felling Permit). These applications would evaluate a detailed development proposal’s conformance to local development standards and review
criteria, and include appropriate review by state and federal agencies.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
At the June 6, 2016 work session concerning the EWEB project, the City Council had several
questions and requested additional information on the project and its context. In an effort to address these questions, a memorandum prepared EWEB staff is included in this packet (Attachment 5), as
well as a Q&A response prepared by City staff (Attachment 6). City staff will present these responses to the City Council at the September 19, 2016 work session, and present the Resolution initiating the
Plan/Code amendment process for Council consideration during the September 19 regular session.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adoption of the attached Resolution at the Springfield City Council’s September 19, 2016 regular
session is recommended based on the explanations provided under the Issue and Discussion sections of this memorandum. However, in the event the Council chooses not to initiate the Metro
Plan and PFSP amendments, the City of Eugene or Lane County may proceed with this action as specified in the Metro Plan.
Initiation of the amendments to the Glenwood Refinement Plan and Springfield Development Code is
included in the Resolution and recommended based on the explanations provided under the Issue and Discussion sections of this memorandum.
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-__
Page 1
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-__
A RESOLUTION INITIATING AMENDMENTS TO THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN, CONCURRENT AMENDMENT OF THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN, AND AMENDMENTS TO THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN
AND SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR AN EWEB WATER INTAKE, TREATMENT FACILITY AND
RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE IN GLENWOOD
WHEREAS: the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) intends to develop a water intake, pump
station, storage facility, treatment facility with a source of supply from the Willamette River,
transmission lines, and associated infrastructure facilities, in order to build redundancy into its water
system; and
WHEREAS: EWEB plans to locate these facilities in Glenwood, within the Springfield Urban Growth
Boundary, and with the intake downstream of the confluence of the Middle and Coast Forks of the
Willamette River; and
WHEREAS: EWEB has met with planning staff of the City to understand: what development standards
will apply; what land uses regulations will apply; what changes may be needed to land use plans and
regulations; the relevant procedures and standards for annexation; and other matters; and
WHEREAS: a facility of this magnitude should be shown in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan) tables and maps as required by
applicable Oregon Administrative Rules; and
WHEREAS: an amendment to the Public Facilities and Services Plan is a “Type III” amendment to the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), as described in Chapter IV of the
Metro Plan, requiring approval by all three governing bodies; and
WHEREAS: Chapter IV of the Metro Plan also provides a Type III amendment to the Public Facilities and
Services Plan may be amended by any one of the governing bodies subject to the Metro Plan; and
WHEREAS: Aspects of the project also require amendments to the Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP) and
Springfield Development Code (SDC) to accommodate high impact public utility facilities; and
WHEREAS: SDC 5.6-105.B allows amendments to the GRP and the SDC text to also be initiated by the
City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council consents to EWEB filing with the City a Type III post-acknowledgment plan
amendment application to amend the Metro Plan and the Public Facilities and Services Plan
to include its proposed intake and treatment facilities; and
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-__
Page 2
2. The City Council consents to EWEB filing with the City applications to amend the Glenwood
Refinement Plan and Springfield Development Code to accommodate high impact public
utility facilities; and
3. The City Council understands that EWEB will be responsible, as the applicant, for preparing
application materials supporting these amendments; any associated land use applications
as may be required; all accompanying fees; and
4. The City Council hereby initiates processes allowing amendments to the Metro Plan and the
Public Facilities and Services Plan, and to the Glenwood Refinement Plan and Springfield
Development Code; however, by authorizing the initiation of these amendments, the City is
not hereby making a decision with respect to the merits of the applications.
Adopted by the Council of the City Springfield, Oregon, by a vote of ___ for and ___ against, this __ day
of ________, 2016.
ATTEST:
_____________________________ _______________________________
Amy Sowa Mayor
City Recorder
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 2
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 2
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 2
I-5FRANKLIN BLVDProposed EWEBTreatment Plant Site
Proposed EWEB PipelineIntake to Treatment Plant
¯
Proposed EWEB Transmission Main toKnickerbocker Bridge
EWEB Intake Site
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 7
M E M O R A N D U M
EUGENE WATER & ELECTRIC BOARD
WATER ENGINEERING
DATE: August 23, 2016
TO: Phil Farrington, City of Springfield
FROM: Wally McCullough P.E., Chris Irvin P.E.
SUBJECT: EWEB PFSP Initiation Follow Up
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this memorandum (memo) is to provide background and follow up information
as requested by the City of Springfield City Council to aid in the decision to pass a resolution to
initiate Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP)/Metro Plan, Glenwood Refinement Plan and
Springfield Development Code amendments. These amendments are required for the Eugene
Water & Electric Board (EWEB) to construct a river intake, potable water treatment plant, and
transmission facilities in Glenwood.
BACKGROUND
EWEB is one of the largest utilities in the Pacific Northwest without an alternative water source
for drinking water supply. Currently, EWEB relies solely on the McKenzie River and currently
has ample water rights to serve our customers. However, having a single source of supply is a
vulnerability. A natural disaster (earthquake, forest fire, floods, etc.), mechanical failure, or
chemical spill into the McKenzie River could mean that nearly 200,000 residents would be
without water for days, weeks or even longer. Interties with neighboring water utilities do not
have enough capacity to back-up EWEB’s system. The single source of supply also limits
EWEB’s ability to repair and upgrade critical water facilities including reservoirs, pump stations,
and transmission lines. To address these vulnerabilities, EWEB’s Board of Commissioners
directed EWEB staff to begin an Alternative Water Supply Program.
The Alternative Water Supply Program includes developing an alternate source of water,
maintaining the five intertie connections with Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and Rainbow
Water District (RWD), working with neighboring utilities to develop a regional emergency
preparedness plan, and developing an emergency water delivery system. This memo focuses on
the construction of an alternate water source.
EWEB has been working towards a diversified water supply since the 1970’s. Because options
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 11
Page 2 of 7
for alternate water sources are limited, particularly to serve a community our size, this has been a
complicated and lengthy process. EWEB evaluated alternatives for a redundant source of supply
including groundwater and surface water. Investigation into the use of groundwater supplies
discovered that developing these sources to their full capacity would negatively interfere with
SUB and RWD’s existing groundwater sources. Therefore, surface water is the only viable
option.
Construction of a modern and seismically resistant water filtration plant not only diversifies
EWEB’s supply, but it also promotes regional resiliency through the multiple interties with SUB
and RWD as well as the connections to EWEB’s wholesale customers.
In 2013, EWEB was granted a permit by the Oregon Water Resources Department for a point of
diversion just downstream of the confluence of the Middle and Coast Forks of the Willamette
River. This permit allows withdrawal of 20 million gallons of water per day (MGD), a fraction
of what EWEB is allowed on the McKenzie River. Shortly thereafter, EWEB was able to
procure property along the Willamette River at this point of diversion for use as a new water
intake, and is in the process of potentially procuring property in Glenwood for a water treatment
plant site, see Exhibit 1 for property locations and project overview.
The treatment plant property is located within the Glenwood Mixed-Use Riverfront Plan District
and is in the Employment Mixed Use (EMU) Zoning District. The proposed water intake/pump
facility, transmission lines and water filtration plant are not currently an allowed use in the EMU
Zone as they are deemed a High Impact Public Facility. To allow for a High Impact Public
Utility facility in the plan district, EWEB will need to gain approval for amendments to the
PFSP/Metro Plan, the Glenwood Refinement Plan, and the Springfield Development Code.
The Metro Plan requires that a PFSP amendment be initiated by a governing body, which then
allows EWEB to submit an application to the City of Springfield (City), City of Eugene, and
Lane County planning commissions for review prior to approval by all three governing bodies.
City Staff presented a resolution to initiate the required amendments to the City Council at the
June 6, 2016 Work Session. The City Council at this meeting requested additional information
from EWEB and City staff prior to considering the resolution to initiate plan amendments. The
intent of this memo is to provide the requested additional information.
WATER RIGHTS AND WATER QUANTITY/QUALITY
The following section discusses EWEB’s water rights and impacts to the river and wastewater
treatment plan.
Water Rights Permit Conditions
The permit EWEB has to withdraw water from the Willamette River was issued by the State of
Oregon Water Resources Department. This permit addresses many of Springfield’s concerns
including the following:
Attachment 5, Page 2 of 11
Page 3 of 7
Permit Condition Discussion
The maximum withdrawal rate on the
Willamette River is 30.9 cubic feet per
second (cfs).
The average flow in the Willamette at this
location over the last 20 years has been
approximately 5700 cfs. On average the plant
would divert 0.6% of the river flow.
Water can only be diverted when there is
sufficient water available to maintain an
instream flow above 2,000 cfs between
June 1 – October 31, and 2,500 cfs between
October 31 and May 31.
Under current permit, EWEB does not have
the right to withdraw water during very low
water levels.
EWEB can divert no more than a total of
300.08 cfs concurrently from both the
McKenzie River and Willamette River.
EWEB is not allowed to divert any additional
water from the combination of the Willamette
and McKenzie Rivers; essentially a portion of
the existing water right on the McKenzie is
being reallocated to the Willamette.
Fish screening needs to be installed,
maintained, and operated in compliance
with the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife standards.
Any new intake structure will be designed and
permitted to minimize any fish impacts.
Any disturbance to the riparian area
during development of the source needs to
be restored or enhanced per Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife criteria.
Similarly, the construction of the intake will
be designed and permitted to minimize
impacts and improve the overall riparian
condition.
Effects of Drawdown on River Levels and FEMA Maps
The diversion of the full 30.9 cfs water right will have negligible effects on the river and the
surrounding area. At the lowest flow EWEB is allowed to divert water (above 2,000 cfs) the river
level will change by less than 1 inch. Furthermore, the City of Springfield permitting process
requires that EWEB demonstrate that any construction in the floodplain will not affect river
levels, flood elevations, or FEMA maps.
Attachment 5, Page 3 of 11
Page 4 of 7
Effects of Drawdown on MWMC Discharge Permits
The new plant is expected to have no detrimental impacts on Metropolitan Waste Management
Commission (MWMC) compliance with federal discharge permitting requirements. The most
restrictive requirement for temperature is based on when streamflow is below 2,000 cfs. Since
EWEB is not allowed to divert water from the river when instream flows are below 2,000 cfs,
there would be no impact on MWMC’s temperature limitations. Additionally, EWEB’s treatment
facility will not contribute nutrients or other pollutants that would affect MWMC’s permit.
Effects of the Project on Authorized Septic System Discharges
EWEB understands that there are septic systems along the Willamette River and its tributaries
including a neighborhood located on Harbor Drive. Given the negligible effect the proposed
project will have on river flows, there are no anticipated impacts to the existing septic systems.
LOCATION ISSUES
Property for the new plant was chosen based on the following criteria:
Close proximity to the raw water intake location.
Located above the flood plain
A minimum of 5 usable acres.
Close proximity to EWEB’s existing 24” water transmission main easement/corridor
which runs through Glenwood towards the Knickerbocker Bike Bridge.
Sufficient access for deliveries and daily operations
EWEB researched properties immediately west of Interstate 5, however, topography, potential
geotechnical issues, cost, multiple freeway crossings, and distance from the intake and
transmission main easement precluded these properties.
Given the location of the permitted intake location, EWEB also evaluated vacant properties east
of Interstate 5 from the proposed property northwest to Henderson Ave. In this location, three
potential properties were identified. One of these properties EWEB was seriously considering
but was recently purchased by the Springfield Utility Board for a new substation and the other
property does not have adequate access. This left the subject property as the only viable site in
the vicinity.
VISUAL AND NOISE ISSUES
EWEB understands the significant effort Springfield has put into redevelopment of the
Glenwood area and EWEB intends to work with Springfield to ensure the proposed facilities are
compatible. The intake is not planned to have any above ground facilities located near the river
east of the railroad tracks. All pumping facilities and treatment facility buildings are currently
anticipated to be located west of the railroad tracks. As such, there should be minimal visual or
noise impact at the intake location and the improvements will be compatible with plans to extend
a bike path through the area. At the filtration plant, EWEB will be sensitive in the siting and
design of buildings and mindful of the visual impacts the facilities will have on the entrance to
Attachment 5, Page 4 of 11
Page 5 of 7
the City of Springfield. There will be earthwork and clearing required during construction of the
treatment plant but a significant portion of the site will remain forested, trash removed, and
improved. The new plant will have less than one-quarter of the capacity of the existing facilities
at the Hayden Bridge Treatment Plant and will have an even smaller footprint due to advances in
treatment technology. The Hayden Bridge Filtration Plant was constructed in the 1940s and are
not representative of how the new intake and treatment plant will look or operate.
EWEB plans to comply with the design requirements of the Glenwood Refinement plan, and
meet the landscaping, screening and fencing standards in the code. Furthermore, the facilities
will require a Site Plan review, which will give staff an opportunity to review and approve on the
buildings and facilities to ensure they are in compliance with the code and fit the intent for the
development of the area.
PLANNING IMPLICATIONS
As defined in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, the new filtration plant is considered a high
impact public utility facility:
Electric power transmission lines (greater than 69 KV), poles and substations; gas pipe
line valve stations; sanitary sewer treatment plants or effluent ponds; water reservoirs
and water storage tanks greater than 300,000 gallons or 30 feet in height; water
treatment facilities, including filtration plants greater than 2.5 million gallon capacity
per day; fire/ambulance stations.
This type of facility is not currently allowed in the Employment Mixed Use Plan District. To
accommodate this facility EWEB will be required to complete applications to amend the
PFSP/Metro Plan, Glenwood Refinement Plan, and Springfield Development Code. Each
amendment process is discussed below in detail.
Amendment Initiation
Before a PFSP/Metro Plan amendment application can be submitted for review and approval, the
process needs to be initiated by one of the three local governing bodies. This resolution allows
EWEB to begin the multi-stage, multi-party review process by providing an application, findings
and other support documents for review and approval. Because the property is within the City of
Springfield’s jurisdiction, EWEB and Springfield’s legal counsels determined it is most
appropriate for Springfield to take action on initiation.
PFSP/Metro Plan Amendments
The Metro Plan requires that certain High Impact Public Facilities be included in the PFSP. This
requires an amendment to the project table and project map in the plan, which are included as
Exhibit 2. PFSP/Metro Plan Amendments require review by the City of Springfield, City of
Eugene, and Lane County planning commissions and approval by elected officials of all three
governing bodies.
Attachment 5, Page 5 of 11
Page 6 of 7
Glenwood Refinement Plan Amendments
The Glenwood Refinement Plan will need to be amended to allow the treatment plant to be
constructed in the Employment Mixed Use zone. City staff are providing the sections that need
to be amended for EWEB to include in the application process. Glenwood Refinement Plan
amendments need to be reviewed by the City of Springfield and Lane County Planning
Commissions and approved by the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of
Commissioners.
Springfield Development Code Amendments
EWEB will need the Springfield Development Code to be amended to include a High Impact
Public Utility Facility as an allowable use in the Employment Mixed Use Plan District. There
may be other minor modifications required and EWEB and City Staff will determine appropriate
Code amendments.
OTHER ISSUES
There were additional questions that City staff has asked EWEB to address, these are
summarized below.
Security of the Sites
The treatment plant site will be fenced in accordance with the City of Springfield Development
Code. The intake site will only require fencing around any above grade structures. EWEB
security personnel actively patrol all EWEB facilities and these new facilities would also be
subject regular security patrols. Both facilities will be under 24 hour surveillance.
Transmission Line Requirements
EWEB has an existing 24-inch transmission main that runs from the Knickerbocker Bridge,
down Judkins Rd, continuing along East 22nd and terminating on Newman Street at an intertie
with SUB’s distribution system. SUB currently leases a portion of this transmission main. A
larger transmission main (36-inch anticipated) will eventually need to be constructed for the
plant to reach full capacity. It is likely to be installed along this same corridor but alternative
routes may be considered. The conceptual alignment of this transmission main is shown on
Exhibit 1.
Interties
Currently EWEB has five interties with SUB and RWD. These interties allow water to be shared
between all three utilities in the event of an emergency or an outage. The effectiveness of the
interties is tested on a regular basis. Currently, the interties can only supply about 3- 4 mgd of
water, which could potentially support basic health and safety needs of Springfield residents, but
is not enough to meet EWEB’s or regional needs. The proposed filtration plant is close to an
existing intertie with SUB and discussions with SUB have been underway about possible
upgrades to the Glenwood intertie and partnerships in Glenwood to improve fire flows. The new
robust and seismically resilient source of water created with this project would better position
Attachment 5, Page 6 of 11
Page 7 of 7
EWEB to assist the other two utilities during an emergency. The proposed treatment plant is one
major step towards improving the regions ability to provide basic services in the aftermath of a
major disaster.
Attachment 5, Page 7 of 11
Wil
l
ame
t
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
I - 5I - 5
H
W
Y
1
2
6
H
W
Y
1
2
6G L E N W O O D B LV DG L E N W O O D B LV DH E N D E R S O N AV EH E N D E R S O N AV EF R A N K L I N B LV DF R A N K L I N B LV DA U G U S TA S TA U G U S TA S TI - 5I - 5
Treatment Plant Properties
Intake Properties
Exhibit 1: Project Overview
Upsized Transmission Main To System
Attachment 5, Page 8 of 11
Map 1 Enlargement (400%)
E
Attachment 5, Page 9 of 11
Table 1
Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) Water System Improvement Projects
Project
Number Project Name/Description
Short-Term
107 Green Hill/Airport mainline
108 EWEB/Seneca 42-inch transmission line
109 City View reservoir (800)
110 Hayden Bridge Expansion and 10mg Reservoir and pump gallery
Long-Term
218 Back-up well field development area
219 Hayden Bridge-former fish hatchery intake modifications
220 Laurel Hill reservoir (850)
221 Laurel Hill reservoir and pump station (975)
222 Laurel Hill pump station (1150)
223 Shasta reservoir (1150)]
224 Dillard reservoir (975) and pump station (1150)
225 Dillard reservoir (1150)
226 Elliot reservoir (607)]
227 Willamette reservoir (1325)]
228 Willamette pump station (1500)
229 Timberline reservoir (1100)]
230 Timberline pump station (1325)]
231 Gimple Hill reservoir (975) and pump station
232 Green Hill reservoir (800)
233 Green Hill reservoir (975)
234 Green Hill pump station (975)
235 Westside/Cantrell Hill reservoir (607)
236 Westside Transmission Main
237 Glenwood/LCC Basin intertie
238 New Water Filtration Plant, Intake, and Transmission Main
Attachment 5, Page 10 of 11
Table 13
EWEB Water System Improvements, Estimated Costs, and Timing
Project
Number Project Name/Description Cost
($000)
Estimated
Completion Year
Short-Term
107 Green Hill/Airport mainline 400 1999
108 EWEB/Seneca 42-inch transmission line 6,600 2001
109 City View reservoir (800) 800 2001
110 Hayden Bridge Expansion and 10mg Reservoir and
pump gallery
21,100 2003
Long-Term
218 Back-up well field development area 10,100 2007
219 Hayden Bridge-former fish hatchery intake
modifications
1,000 2010+
220 Laurel Hill reservoir (850) (completed) 830 2005]
221 Laurel Hill reservoir and pump station (975) 1,000 2007
222 Laurel Hill pump station (1150) 150 2007
223 Shasta reservoir (1150) ] 500 2006]
224 Dillard reservoir (975) and pump station (1150) 750 [2010+]
225 Dillard reservoir (1150) 500 [2010+]*
226 Elliot reservoir (607)] 5,000 2010+
227 Willamette reservoir (1325)] 500 2010+
228 Willamette pump station (1500) 150 2005-08
229 Timberline reservoir (1100) 500 2008]
230 Timberline pump station (1325) 150 2008]
231 Gimple Hill reservoir (975) and pump station 750 [2010+]
232 Green Hill reservoir (800) 500 [2010+]
233 Green Hill reservoir (975) 500 [2010+] *
234 Green Hill pump station (975) 250 [2010+]
235 Westside/Cantrell Hill reservoir (607) 10,000 2010+
236 Westside Transmission Main 1,000 2010+
237 Glenwood/LCC Basin intertie 500 2010
238 New Water Filtration Plant, intake, and Transmission
main
66,000 2021
*Timing is dependent upon development pressure
Attachment 5, Page 11 of 11
1
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
PHONE: 541.726.3753 FAX: 541.726.2309 www.springfield-or.gov
September 2, 2016
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Lundberg and City Council
From: Philip Farrington, AICP, Senior Planner
Re: Proposed EWEB Water Intake and Treatment Facilities
The following are staff responses to questions posed by Springfield City Council at the June 6, 2016 work
session concerning Eugene Water and Electric Board’s request for a Council resolution authorizing
initiation of amendments EWEB will propose to the Public Facilities Services Plan/Metro Plan, Glenwood
Refinement Plan and Springfield Development Code. An EWEB memorandum addressing these
questions is also provided for your review at Attachment 5 in the packet for your September 19, 2016
work session.
Water Quality
1. Does drawdown of 20 MGD impact Springfield’s ongoing federal permitting
responsibilities for water quality (i.e., temperature, BODs, etc.)?
A: No, for the following reasons:
EWEB’s water right limits Willamette River withdrawals to a maximum of 30.9 cfs. This represents
0.6% (six-tenths of one percent) of the river’s 20-year average flow of 5700 cfs at this location.
EWEB cannot divert water when instream flows are below 2000 cfs.
Regulatory thermal loading restrictions that could affect MWMC (through TMDL standards) are
gauged when river flows are at 1340 cfs.
Since the effect of EWEB’s diversion at absolute minimum required flows would never create a
circumstance below 2000 cfs, their new intake withdrawal would not trigger a temperature
compliance requirement on MWMC, and any day-to-day flow-based temperature exceedance risk
would be negligible.
2. What effect will drawdown have on the impact of septic system(s) discharge from
existing homes along Harbor Drive (i.e., will less water to dilute existing authorized
septic discharge(s) result in OHA, DEQ or other regulatory authority to undertake
enforcement action against the City or mobile home owners in the subdivision east of
the proposed river intake)?
A: To our knowledge, there is no issue with septic systems in the Harbor Drive area that triggers
corrective action. If corrective action required connection to the City’s sanitary sewer system, there is a
5-inch force main terminating near Dorris Street and Harbor Drive. The City’s adopted sanitary sewer
master plan recommends pumping wastewater north along South 2nd Street to serve the Harbor Drive
area with sanitary sewer services as needed in the future.
Attachment 6, Page 1 of 10
2
As noted above, EWEB’s proposed withdrawal should minimally affect river flows at normal levels, and
withdrawals are prohibited under low flow conditions. Therefore it is unlikely that the proposal would
have any effect on properly functioning septic systems in the Harbor Drive neighborhood.
Water Quantity/Water Rights
3. Will drawdown from the project impact FEMA maps, floodplain elevations or other
metrics under the authority of FEMA and the floodplain insurance program?
A: Beyond the proposed plan and code amendments, the EWEB project would go through the City’s
site development review process – including securing approvals for a Willamette Greenway permit, the
City’s Floodplain Overlay district development standards and any additional state and federal permits
pertinent to work within the river or its flood plain. As noted above, the proposed EWEB diversion from
the river (less than six-tenths of one percent of average flows) would result in minimal changes to flow
rates and to river levels, thus the project should not require changes to existing FEMA maps, flood
elevations, or affect the City’s compliance with FEMA floodplain insurance standards.
4. What would the relationship be with the existing treatment plant and McKenzie River
water rights (i.e., is this just a backup or would it also increase capacity)?
A: As noted in EWEB’s memo, conditions on their water rights permit by the Oregon Water Resources
Department limit concurrent diversion from the McKenzie and Willamette rivers to no more than 300.08
cfs. The proposal therefore effectively reallocates the 30.9 cfs maximum withdrawal rate allowed on the
Willamette River from EWEB’s existing water right on the McKenzie River.
EWEB intends to provide a redundant source of water supply and treated water, so the proposed
facilities would not serve exclusively as a backup but operate in combination with the existing intake and
treatment facility on the McKenzie River. As noted in EWEB’s memo, having an alternate water source
and treatment facility would increase resilience of their public water system and reduce vulnerability
from natural disaster, mechanical failure, etc.
5. Can you provide details on what permissions and obligations EWEB has with its water
right in Glenwood and under what authority?
A: EWEB’s memo references in some detail the withdrawal permit allowances and limitations from the
Oregon Water Resources Department (i.e., maximum withdrawal rate from the Willamette River of 30.9
cfs; allowance for diversions from the Willamette only when instream flow is above 2000 cfs between
6/1-10/31, and above 2500 cfs between 11/1-5/31; requirements for fish screening for intake;
restoration of any riparian area disturbance to ODFW standards; etc.).
Locational Issues
6. What other specific alternative locations were examined, and if so, why were they
rejected? Why couldn’t this project be located elsewhere (e.g., west of I-5, particularly
in/around Alton Baker Park)?
A: EWEB’s memo references its locational criteria, including the ability to site facilities proximate to the
authorized water source diversion location and to existing EWEB transmission facilities. The memo
references other locations identified and considered within Glenwood, but those are either unavailable
or have access limitations. Sites west of I-5 were rejected due to limitations on site availability, cost and
other factors relating to distance and technical feasibility (e.g., a large parcel acquired by the City of
Eugene for parkland has mapped landslides and has been determined to be very high risk by the Oregon
DOGAMI). Developed park facilities in the west portion of Alton Baker Park and development limitations
Attachment 6, Page 2 of 10
3
in the adopted East Alton Baker Park Plan preclude siting a new high impact public utility facility west of
I-5 in Alton Baker Park. It is unlikely there are any undeveloped sites around Alton Baker Park on either
side of I-5 that meet EWEB’s locational and site size criteria.
7. Did EWEB base its decision to locate in Glenwood on the potential consequence to the
floodplain in any other locations, particularly with potential sites in Eugene?
A: At least in part. Floodplains were among the siting criteria identified in EWEB’s memo, because the
water treatment facility needs to be located outside floodplains (i.e., above 100-year flood elevations).
However, the amount of water withdrawn from the river by this facility will not alter the elevation of the
100-year floodplain.
Visual and Noise Impacts
8. The proposed site is along a roadway considered to be a significant entry into the City;
what would be the visual effects of having water treatment facilities at such a major
entrance?
A: EWEB has not begun site or facility design work, since they have not yet received authorization
allowing them to apply for the plan/code amendments needed to permit the proposed use. Existing
Springfield Development Code standards for development in the Glenwood plan district - including
requirements screening, fencing, landscaping, and building design – will guide EWEB’s facility and site
design, and be reviewed by the City through the site plan review process.
9. Would the location atop and/or on the hillside expose the facility to even higher
visibility than if built lower on the hillside – both as viewed from the river, from
Springfield and from I-5 looking at the facility?
A: As noted above and in EWEB’s memo, their siting criteria require the treatment facilities to be
developed above floodplain elevations, and to take advantage of the proposed site’s topographic
elevation to minimize the pumping treated water through the transmission system. Other locations
elsewhere in Glenwood may not have greater visibility from I-5, but could be more visible from other
areas within Glenwood. The proposed water intake will be submerged and not visible from the river. A
small (approx. 20’x20’) pump house is proposed to be located on property west of the railroad tracks, so
will be outside the Greenway setback (75’ from the top of bank) and should not be visible from the river.
The pump house will also be subject to the City’s development standards for screening, landscaping, etc.
10. What impact(s) would the project (buildings and other components of the facilities
proposed) have on the landscape (e.g., grading, tree removal, etc.)?
A: Since the facility has not yet been designed, we cannot accurately estimate potential landscape
impact(s). Whether the identified site is occupied by the proposed water treatment facilities or some
other use allowed in the Employment Mixed Use zoning district, future development proposals would
have to demonstrate compliance with City standards for site and facility development. Site context (i.e.,
existing tree stands, slopes and visibility) will be considered during design and review.
11. Existing intake structures at the McKenzie River intake are unattractive and noisy;
what assurances can be made that the proposed facilities will not have similar impacts
on views and/or neighboring properties?
A: EWEB’s existing McKenzie River intake and pumping facility was constructed more than 50 years ago
using technology and standards in place at the time. The proposed intake itself will be entirely below
Attachment 6, Page 3 of 10
4
grade, and pumping facilities will be located west of the river outside of established Greenway setbacks.
The proposed pump house will be a structure only approximately 20’x20’, and will be screened
according to City standards.
Planning Implications
12. What needs to be changed in the Glenwood Refinement Plan as a result of this
project?
A: City staff prepared discrete draft language changes to the Glenwood Refinement Plan and shared
them with EWEB staff for inclusion in the proposed plan amendments. The changes allow as permitted
uses those public facilities included in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and
Services Plan (PFSP). Moreover, such facilities are allowed only within certain portions of the Phase 1
Glenwood Refinement Plan area – namely, Subarea D, which includes the area proposed for EWEB’s
water intake and treatment facilities.
Some language was also added to the Glenwood Refinement Plan’s Public Facilities and Services chapter
to provide information on the project, its purpose, and proposed location. Also, language was added
regarding siting and development of EWEB’s facilities to minimize visual impact and consider views in
facility siting and landscaping/screening, and to allow for extension of the future riverfront pathway
system. Draft text changes to the Glenwood Refinement Plan follow this Q&A.
13. What needs to be changed in the Springfield Development Code as a result of this
project?
A: City staff also prepared discrete changes to the Springfield Development Code for inclusion in the
proposed code amendments. The primary change allows high impact public utilities facilities identified
in the PFSP, but only within the Employment Mixed Use zoning district in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan
District.
Other changes proposed include an addition to the Plan District’s vehicle parking standards to require
that the maximum number of parking spaces allowed be determined by a study considering employee,
visitor and operational needs. Also proposed is language requiring that surface parking be located
behind buildings or otherwise screened consistent with established landscape screening standards
contained in the Code for the Glenwood Plan District. The current code has no provision for determining
parking standards for public facilities. Draft text changes to the Springfield Development Code are
included in Exhibit 3.
14. What are the implications of developing this tax-exempt non-manufacturing use on
the City’s industrial lands inventory, and what is the opportunity cost (e.g., foregone
existing and/or projected future tax revenue) of the project site area being acquired
and developed for a non-taxable use?
A: EWEB acquired the property for the proposed water intake from Wildish Land Co., and has an
option to purchase a parcel immediately to the west, across the railroad tracks. Both parcels have
encumbrances (small size, irregular shapes, limited access, floodplains, etc.) that limit their development
potential.
The property identified for water treatment facilities west of McVay Highway is marked by steep slopes
(more than ¾ is encumbered with slopes ranging from 12-45%) and limited access that makes them
unlikely to have great potential for significant employment generating uses. Current taxes generated
Attachment 6, Page 4 of 10
5
from this property were less than $2,000 in 2015, so there isn’t an extraordinary opportunity cost
through development of the site for a beneficial public, albeit nontaxable, use.
Other Issues
15. Would the project affect, prohibit and/or inhibit community access to the river or
along the riverfront (e.g., affect a planned future riverfront pathway extension)?
A: No. The intake structure and pipeline to the pump station will all be located underground within an
easement or on property owned by EWEB; the pump station is proposed to be located west of the
railroad tracks, and therefore no structures are proposed between it and the river that would impede
potential riverfront path development and/or extension. As noted above, the draft Glenwood
Refinement Plan amendments make specific reference to the proposed project’s design and siting to
allow for future extension of the planned riverfront pathway.
16. What provisions will be put in place to protect the security of this infrastructure and all
its components, particularly in the vicinity of the intake structure? Will fencing limit
access and/or create visual impacts?
A: Fencing and screening requirements are included in existing Code standards and, as noted above,
proposed refinement plan amendments obligate EWEB to consider visual impacts in their siting and
facility design, as well as in demonstrating compliance with landscaping and other development
standards required by Code.
17. Where would water transmission lines go and how and where would they extend to
connect to the rest of the EWEB system?
A: As noted in Exhibit 1 to EWEB’s memo, the proposed transmission lines would follow the route of
existing 24” EWEB water transmission lines through Glenwood to connect to the rest of the EWEB
system at a 45” trunk line at the Knickerbocker Bridge west of I-5 in Eugene.
18. Could you provide more information on interties and the project’s potential benefits to
Springfield and SUB water users, and how these interties work in the event of an
emergency?
A: EWEB’s memo references existing interties between EWEB and the SUB/Rainbow Water District,
allowing water to be shared between utilities in case of emergency. EWEB staff can provide further
information if necessary about the technical aspects of how interties work.
Attachment 6, Page 5 of 10
6
DRAFT – Glenwood Refinement Plan and Springfield Development Code Changes
Re: EWEB Project
9/02/16
The following shows existing text with changes proposed in legislative format:
Glenwood Refinement Plan
Glenwood Refinement Plan (pg. 33 – Land Use and Built Form chapter; referring to Plan/land
use designations)
“Employment Mixed-Use is established where office employment, educational uses and light
manufacturing employment uses are intended as the primary uses with external impacts less than or
equal to office uses. Limited small scale retail and service uses are also permitted if developed as an
integral part of the primary employment development to provide commercial services needed by
employees in close proximity to their workplace (employment-generating educational uses may be
considered primary uses). Public facilities included in the adopted Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Public Facilities and Services Plan are permitted as primary uses. Warehousing is permitted as a
secondary use.”
Glenwood Refinement Plan (pg. 36 – Land Use and Built Form chapter; referring to Zoning
classifications)
“Employment
*Office Employment: Office Employment uses are businesses that are typically housed in office buildings
where there is limited interaction between the public and the proprietor. The principal activity of these
uses is associated with the performance of a range of administrative, medical, high tech,
nanotechnology, green technology, pharmaceutical and biotechnology, information technology,
information management, and research and development functions. Examples include, but are not
limited to: call centers; corporate or regional headquarters; physicians’ clinics; software development;
media production; data processing services; and technical support centers.
*Light Manufacturing: Light manufacturing employment uses are businesses engaged in small scale
manufacturing (predominantly from previously prepared materials) of finished products or parts,
including processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment, testing, or packaging of these products.
Emphasis is placed on uses that are not potentially dangerous or environmentally incompatible with
office employment uses, i.e., not generating air pollution, hazardous waste, or excessive noise. These
uses typically generate limited/light freight traffic, and all manufacturing and storage of materials and
company vehicles are obscured from public view. Examples include, but are not limited to: manufacture
of electronic instruments; specialty food processing; pharmaceutical manufacturing; research and
scientific laboratories; and businesses that recycle manufactured materials for sale to the public.
* Public Facilities: Also permitted are public facilities included in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area Public Facilities and Services Plan.”
Glenwood Refinement Plan (pg. 43 – Land Use and Built Form chapter; referring to Sub-areas)
“Subarea D thus allows, as primary uses: office employment uses; professional, technical, and scientific
commercial service uses; and employment-generating education facilities. However, what
predominantly distinguishes Subarea D from Subarea C (the Office Mixed-Use designated subarea
described above) is the additional allowance, as a primary use, of the production, assembly, testing, and
Attachment 6, Page 6 of 10
7
packaging functions associated with light manufacturing or technology uses that typically generate
limited/light freight traffic. Another distinction from Subarea C is that Subarea D is considered
appropriate for a hospital as a primary employment use (supporting medical office buildings area
already considered a primary office employment use.
Notwithstanding more specific discussion of public facilities in this Plan, Subarea D is the appropriate
subarea to permit certain high impact public utility facilities as primary uses in the Phase 1 Glenwood
Refinement Plan area. Subarea D is the most suitable area to locate such facilities due to the existence
of pre-existing high impact public utility facilities within portions of Subarea D and proximity to other
industrial uses. High impact public utility facilities located in Subarea D must be included in the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan.”
Glenwood Refinement Plan (pg. 140 – Public Facilities and Services chapter; Electric Facilities
and Services section, near the end of the policy and implementation strategies subsection)
*Consider views and visual pollution in locating the any future electric substation.
* Given the unique attributes of electric substation, Locate the locate any future electric
substations in an industrial or employment-designated parcel outside the boundary of the Phase
1 Glenwood Riverfront.
Glenwood Refinement Plan (pg. 141 – Public Facilities and Services chapter; Water Facilities and
Services section, before System Capacity subsection)
“In 2014 EWEB transferred location of a water right on the Willamette River from its headquarters area
to an area below the confluence of the Middle and Coast Forks of the Willamette River, abutting
Subarea D within the Phase 1 refinement plan. To provide redundancy, safety and resiliency for its water
customers, EWEB seeks to develop in Subarea D a second water source from the Willamette River, with
an intake, water treatment facilities and associated improvements. Existing and/or newly developed
water transmission mains would extend from the treatment facilities to EWEB’s existing 45”
transmission line west of Interstate 5.”
Glenwood Refinement Plan (pg. 143 – Public Facilities and Services chapter; after Utility
Placement & Adverse Visual and Walkability Impacts”
“Similar to electric services, water services infrastructure is an essential part of development, but it can
be a source of adverse visual impact and its placement can affect the walkability of the neighborhood in
which it is located. Water mains and water service laterals are placed underground. However, SUB
requires the placement of water apparatus, such as water meters and backflow prevention devices,
above-ground due to Oregon Health Division rules regarding flooding and draining. Thus, the placement
of water utilities in the Glenwood Riverfront, both in the public right-of-way and on private property,
should be coordinated with SUB to ensure that the character of the neighborhoods and streetscape
envisioned for the Glenwood Riverfront are achieved as development or redevelopment occur. EWEB’s
planned water intake and treatment facilities should also be sited and developed to minimize visual
impact and allow for extension of the planned riverfront pathway system.
Objective:
Minimize the impact of water facilities on the visual environment and pedestrian paths of travel as new
development or redevelopment occur in the Glenwood Riverfront.
Attachment 6, Page 7 of 10
8
Policies & Implementation Strategies:
*Coordinate with SUB and EWEB to develop criteria for locating and obscuring water facilities that
consider visual, auditory, health and environmental impacts; pedestrian mobility; operational ease; and
initial costs and maintenance costs in association with proposed development in the Glenwood
Riverfront.
*Consider views, visual pollution, and pedestrian mobility in locating and obscuring water meters,
backflow prevention devices, and other above-grade water apparatus.
* Locate or relocate water lines in coordination with proposed streets, driveways, accessways,
and paths.
* Coordinate the routing or re-routing of service lines and above-grade water apparatus with
private developers to minimize potential detrimental effects on the layout of new
development/redevelopment.
* Locate above-grade water apparatus including, but not limited to water meters and backflow
prevention devices, outside of pedestrian routes, such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and building
entrances; and utilize landscaping and public art to make these facilities as unobtrusive as
possible on the public realm/streetscape.
* Consider views, design features, landscaping, screening, and routing/access for a future multi-use
riverfront path in locating, designing and developing EWEB water intake and transmission facilities
below grade, and associated above-grade water pump and treatment facilities identified in the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan in Subarea D.”
Attachment 6, Page 8 of 10
9
Springfield Development Code
Springfield Development Code (SDC 3.4-245.B. Establishment of Base Zoning Districts; pg. 211)
”4. Employment Mixed-Use. Subarea D provides for office employment and light manufacturing
employment uses with limited external impacts; that have riverfront views and points of access to the
Willamette River; and that helps meet an identified need for employment land in Springfield. In Subarea
D:
a. Primary uses are permitted either as stand-alone uses or within a mixed-use building: office
employment uses; professional, technical and scientific commercial service uses; educational
facilities; production, assembly, testing, and packaging functions associated with light
manufacturing or technology uses; high impact public utility facilities identified in the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan; and a hospital.”
Springfield Development Code (SDC 3.4-250 Schedule of Use Categories; pg. 215)
“3.4-250 Schedule of Use Categories
Categories/Uses RMU CMU OMU EMU
Public Utilities and Other Public Uses
Low impact facilities that are any public or semi-public facility that is
permitted subject to the design standards of this Code, including, but
not limited to, wastewater; stormwater management; electricity and
water to serve individual homes and businesses; other utilities that
have minimal olfactory, visual or auditory impacts; street lights; and
fire hydrants.
P P P P
High impact public utility facilities identified in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (1)
N N N P
Public uses, including, but not limited to, fire and police stations. N N P N
Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities. … P P P P
Note: (1) Water source intake, pumping, treatment and transmission facilities are permitted in
Subarea D as high impact public utility facilities. Electric transmission facilities are permitted, but
electric substations are prohibited in Subarea D as high impact public utility facilities.
Attachment 6, Page 9 of 10
10
Springfield Development Code (SDC 3.4-270 Public and Private Development Standards,
subsection G. Vehicle/Bicycle Parking and Loading Standards; pg. 222-17)
Vehicle Parking Standards Table 3.4-1
Use Category Use Sub-Category Maximum Number of Required
Spaces
Employment
Hospital 1 per each 200 sf gfa or 1.5/bed
Light Manufacturing (2) 1 per 550 sf gfa plus 1/company
owned vehicle
Light Manufacturing Storage (2) 1 per 1650 sf gfa plus 1/company
owned vehicle
Office Employment 1 per 350 sf gfa
Educational Facilities To be determined by a parking study
that considers number of employees,
students, and hours of operation
Warehousing (2) 1 per FTE on largest shift plus
1/company owned vehicle
Public Facilities (3) To be determined by a parking study
that considers the number of
employees, visitors, and operational
needs
Notes:
….
(3) Public Facilities identified in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services
Plan. Surface parking for must be located behind buildings or otherwise screened
Attachment 6, Page 10 of 10