HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6152 01/17/2006
.
.
.
;;
('
.'
, ':,
ORDINANCE NO. .fH:53 6152
AN ORDINANCE RESPONDING TO THE LUBA REMAND OF PROVISIONS IN
ORDINANCE NOS. 6093 AND 6094 AND AMENDING THOSE ORDINANCES BY
ADOPTION OF A NEW APPENDIX "Boo SHOWING MODIFICATIONS TO THE
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA PUBLIC FACILITIES AND
SERVICES PLAN; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan) identifies the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services
Plan (PFSP) as a refinement plan which forms the basis for the Pubic Facilities and
Services Element of the Metro Plan and guides the provision of public facilities and
services in the metropolitan area; and
WHEREAS, the PFSP serves the goals, objectives and policies ofthe Metro Plan
by addressing the provision of public facilities and services within the urban growth
boundary (UGB), services to areas outside the UGB, locating and managing public
facilities outside the UGB, and financing public facilities; and
WHEREAS, in July of2004, amendments to the Metro Plan and the PFSP were
adopted at the request of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(MWMC) to reflect updated information on facilities and improvement projects needed
to meet state and federal discharge requirements, specifically on July 19, 2004, the City
Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 6093 and 6094 amending the Metro Plan and PFSP,
respectively, as set forth in Appendix' "B" to those Ordinances. The Council's action was
identical to enactments of the Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of
Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, those actions were appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of
Appeals (LUBA) and on September 2,2005, LUBA issued its decision upholding the
local government actions on most of the issues raised by the petitioners, but remanding
the actions based on one issue as described in the Council Briefing Memorandum
attached as Exhibit land as set forth in the LUBA decision attached as Exhibit 2
incorporated herein; and directing solely that the three jurisdictions should describe
Project 300 with greater specificity and consider describing Projects 301 and 302 with
greater specificity in the PFSP to comply with Statewide Planning Goal 11 and the Goal
11 Administrative Rules; and
WHEREAS, in response to the LUBA remand, a new Appendix "Boo, which is
attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and incorporated herein, has been prepared containing the
additional detail and specificity for Project 300,301 and 302 to comply with the Goal 11
Rule as directed or suggested by LUBA and as described more fully in the Council
.
Briefing Memorandum (Exhibit 1) and Staff Report and Findings (Exhibit 4)
accompanying this ordinance; and Ordinance Nos. 6093 and 6094 should be amended by
replacing the Appendix "B" attached to those ordinances with the Appendix "BOO attached
hereto, which is based on the same evidence and record that was before the City Council
when it acted on Ordinance Nos. 6093 and 6094; and
WHEREAS, the MWMC will be unable to proceed with timely construction
necessary to meet the new and more stringent discharge permit requirements imposed by
the State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) if the revisions to the PFSP as
effected by Ordinance Nos. 6093 and 6094 as amended herein do not become
immediately effective, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing and is now ready to
take action based upon the evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the
evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing held in the matter amending
Ordinance Nos. 6093 and 6094 and the Public Facilities and Services Plan to address the
LUBA remand; and
WHEREAS, the consolidated record of these proceedings, including the evidence
and testimony on this Ordinance amending Ordinance Nos. 6093 and 6094, meets the
requirements of the Metro Plan, Springfield Development Code and applicable state and
local law as described in the findings attached as Exhibit 4, and which are adopted in
support of this Ordinance.
.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Common Council of the City of Springfield does
ordain as follows:
Section 1: Based on the above recitals, Ordinance Nos. 6093 and 6094 are hereby
amended by replacing Appendix "B" attached to those ordinances with Appendix "B"
attached hereto as Exhibit 3, which is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan and to the Metro Plan
as described in those ordinances.
Section 2: Except as amended herein, all other provisions of Ordinance Nos.
6093 and 6094 and the attachments thereto, remain in full force and effect.
Section 3: Although not part of this Ordinance, the City Council adopts the
findings set forth in Exhibits 1 and 2 in support of the matter remanded by the Land Use
Board of Appeals.
.
Section 4: The City Council specifically finds that in order for MWMC to
proceed with timely construction necessary to comply with state and federal discharge
permit requirements and to achieve mandatory compliance with certain regulatory
requirements by the year 2010, an emergency exists affecting the public health, safety
and welfare requiring an effective date upon passage by the City Council and approval by
the Mayor of the City of Springfield.
ORDINANCE NO. '61:5'3 6152
.
Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
Ordinance is for 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 6: It is hereby found and determined that the matters related to this
Ordinance affect the public health, safety and welfare and that an emergency therefore
exists, and this Ordinance shall therefore take effect immediately upon its passage by the
Council and approval by the Mayor.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this 1 ih day of January,
2006, with a vote of ~for and ~against.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of S . gfield this 17~h da f January, 2006.
ATTEST:
=~
City Recorde . -
.
N:\CITY\MWMC\Metro Plan and PFSP - Remand\RemandOrd,OI0506,doc
REVIEWED & APPROVED
F
.
ORDINANCE NO. 6t5j 6152
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
City of Springfield
Springfield Mayor and City Council
Meg Kieran, Office of the City Attorney
Greg Mott, Planning Manager
Susie Smith, Environmental Services Manager
Date: January 6, 2006
To:
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
:MEMORANDUM
From:
Subject: Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) Limited Remand of Amendments to the
Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) Incorporating Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Conuilission (MWMC) Regional Wastewater Facilities Projects
ISSUE AND PURPOSE:
In 2004, the City Councils of Springfield and Eugene and the Lane County Board of
Commissioners adopted the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan (MWMC Facilities Plan) and
associated amendments to the Metro Plan text and the text, tables and maps of the PFSP. The
Home Builders Association of Lane County (HBA) appealed all of these actions to LUBA.
LUBA upheld all of the CouncillBoard's actions except for a portion of the project descriptions
included in the PFSP, which LUBA remanded for reconsideration.
The purpose of this memo and the proposed ordinance (see Attachment B) is to fulfill the
requirements of the limited LUBA remand by incorporating expanded project descriptions in the
appropriate PFSP tables and maps, consistent with information that is already in the record of the
public hearing. The proposed ordinance also eliminates the clause making the ordinance
effective only after acknowledgement (by the Department of Land Conservation and
Development) due to the urgent need to begin construction. For the same reason, it is requested
that the Council consider approving the proposed ordinance, following the required public
hearing, with an emergency clause. The amendments proposed to remedy the limited remand
would then become effective immediately upon adoption of identical ordinances by Lane County
and the City of Eugene.
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION:
In May of 2002, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) imposed new and more
stringent discharge permit requirements on the regional wastewater treatment facilities.
MWMC, which had begun the predesign process for new wet weather flow management
facilities, recognized that a comprehensive evaluation of the existing system was needed to
determine how to meet the new discharge permit requirements. The result of this evaluation is
the MWMC Facilities Plan. The MWMC Facilities Plan determined that the existing regional
wastewater system does not have sufficient capacity to meet state and federal discharge
requirements and recommended $144--$160 million (in 2004 dollars) in capital improvement
projects to provide adequate capacity for growth through 2025.
The acknowledged Metro Plan and 2001 PFSP (the Land Use Plans) did not include the capital
improvement projects that would be needed to meet state and federal discharge requirements
through the year 2025. The Land Use Plans needed to be updated to include all existing regional
.
.
.
wastewater facilities and planned regional wastewater projects. so that the MWMC Facilities
Plan would be consistent with them. Therefore. in 2004. MWMC proposed several changes to
the Metro Plan and PFSP. The proposed changes to the PFSP included adding three tables (4a,
4b and 16a) to describe the projects recommended by the MWMC Facilities Plan and their
projected cost and timing. and modifying Map 2 to show the location of the planned projectsl.
Table 4a listed three anticipated wastewater treatment system projects: Project 300, WPCF
Treatment Project; Project 301. Residuals Treatment Project; and Project 302. Beneficial Reuse
Project. Table 4b listed three anticipated collection system projects: Project 303. Willakenzie
Pump Station; Project 304, Screw Pump Station; and Project 305, Glenwood Pump Station. Map
2 depicted the general physical locations ofthese projects and Table 16a provided an estimate of
the cost of each project and its estimated completion date.2
The Springfield City Council adopted the proposed amendments (Adopted Amendments) to the
Metro Plan and PFSP on July 19. 2004 by Ordinance Nos. 6093 and 6094 respectively. Eugene
and Lane County adopted similar ordinances adopting identical amendments. HBA disagreed
with the Adopted Amendments and filed appeals with LUBA against all ordinances in late July.
2004.
HBA APPEAL TO LUBA:
HBA appealed the Adopted Amendments to the Land Use Plans on numerous grounds (i.e.
assignments of error). HBA's first assignment of error argued that the Ordinances violated Goal
11 land use requirements because: 1) the list ofprojects in Tables 4a and 4b were "categories" of
projects; not projects; 2) the project descriptions were not sufficiently detailed; and 3) the cost
estimates in Table 16a were deficient because they were based on "categories" of projects and
not individual projects. Essentially. HBA wanted the Cities and Lane County to take the exact
list of projects recommended in the MWMC Facilities Plan and incorporate it verbatim into the
PFSP. HBA's other assignments of error were rejected by LUBA and will not be discussed.
LUBA'S DECISION:
LUBA's remand is limited to an instruction to the Cities and County that Project 300 (WPCF
Treatment Project) should be described with greater specificity. LUBA suggested that the Cities
and County also take a second look at the descriptions for Projects 301 (Residuals Treatment
Project) and Project 302 (Beneficial Reuse Project) to see if greater specificity was warranted,
but did not require that these project descriptions be revised. (See Attachment B (proposed
Ordinance). Exhibit 2).
REMAND RESPONSE:
In response to LUBA's remand. legal counsel and staffrecommend four modifications to the
PFSP. A complete copy of the Adopted Amendments is attached, with the recommended
remand revisions shown in redline format (Attachment C).
1) Table 4a. First, staff recommends the addition of Projects 300A to 300I to
provide the greater specificity expressly required by LUBA as to Project 300. Although not
expressly required, staff also recommends the addition of Projects 301A. 301B. 302A and 302B.
1 A new Map 2a was inserted to show the location of the existing regional wastewater system.
2 Other changes were recommended., but they were not part of the appeal to LUBA.
.
.
.
Staff believes these additions are advisable in light ofLUBA's directive to re.evaluate Projects
301 and 302.
2) Maps 2 and 2a. Staff recommends that Map 2 be corrected to depict not only all
of the wastewater projects and sub-projects, but also the projects shown on Map 2 of the 2001
PFSP. Map 2a, contained in the Adopted Amendments, was misprinted. Staff also recommends
that Map 2a be replaced with the correct map from the Technical Background Report.
3) Table l6a. Because additional sub-projects were added to Table 4a, staff
recommends that corresponding additions be made to Table l6a. The appropriate cost and
timing estimates are set forth for each sub-project. The cost estimates for projects 300,301 and
302 are lower than they were in the Adopted Amendments because several of the capital
improvement projects recommended by the MWMC Facilities Plan are not "projects," as that
tenn is defined in the Oregon Administrative Rules governing public facilities planning.
Therefore, it is not appropriate for the cost ofthose capital improvement projects to be included
in the PFSP.
4) Changes to the Text. Staff recommends the addition oftex~ to the end of the
"Treatment" discussion on page 4 of the remand revisions to summarize tlle three treatment
projects. Staff also recommends adding a discussion of the regional wastewater system's
capacity, following the "Conveyance"dicussion on page 4 of the remand revisions. OAR 660-
011-0020(2) requires that a public facility plan describe the capacity of each public facility.
Although the data regarding capacity was contained in the record before the Council, the
. Adopted Amendments were not as clear as they could have been regarding this requirement.
Therefore, an explicit description regarding capacity is recommended.
All of the evidence required to make the remand revisions is contained in the record that was
before the Cities and County when they adopted the Adopted Amendments. Therefore, no
additional analysis, documentation, or Planning Commission review is required.
CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCES:
Ordinances 6093 and 6094 each contained a clause stating that the Adopted Amendments to the
Land Use Plans do not become effective until all three of the following have occurred: 1) the
ordinance has been acknowledged; 2) at least 30 days have passed since the ordinance was
approved; and 3) both Eugene and Lane County had adopted similar ordinances. Because the
HBA appealed the Adopted Amendments, the first condition has not been met. Therefore, the
Adopted Amendments to the Land Use Plans are not in effect.
Legal Counsel and staff recommend adopting a new ordinance that modifies the previous
ordinances and makes the remand revisions immediately effective so that MWMC has the ability
to obtain the needed approvals from DEQ and permits from the City of Eugene to commence
needed construction proj ects over the next several months. Construction must begin promptly in
order to achieve mandatory regulatory compliance by the year 2010. Any delay now would
affect all future stages of construction, including funding, designing the projects, bidding the
projects and, finally, constructing them. Unless the projects are completed on schedule, MWMC
could violate its NPDES pennit.
.
.
.
RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Legal Counsel and staff recommend that the Council adopt an ordinance, amending Ordinance
Nos. 6093 and 6094 by incorporating expanded MWMC facility projects descriptions in
response to the limited LUBA remand, and by making the remand revisions effective upon
adoption. Therefore, Council is requested to consider adoption of the Ordinance provided in
Attachment B as proposed, following the public hearing on January 17,2006.
!
.
.
.
, .
1
BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS
2 OF TIlE STATE OF OREGON
3
4 HOME BUlLDERS ASSOCIATION OF
5 LANE COUNTY and HOME BUlLDERS
6 CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
7 Petitioners,
8
9 ~
10
11 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD,
12 CITY OF EUGENE and LANE COUNTY,
13 Re~omkn~
14
15 and
16
17 METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER
18 MANAGEMENT COMMISSION,
19 Intervenor-Re~ondent.
20
21 LUBA Nos. 2004-118, 2004-122,
22 2004-126,2004-127 and 2004-142
23
24 FINAL OPINION
25 AND ORDER
26
27 Appeal from City of Springfield, City of Eugene and Lane County.
28
29 Bill Kloos, Eugene, filed the petition for review and argued on behalf of petitioner.
30 With him on the brief was the Law Office of Bill Kloos, PC.
31
32 Meg E. Kieran, Springfield, filed a joint response brief and argued on behalf of
33 respondent City of Springfield. With her on the briefwas Harold, Leahy and Kieran.
34
35 Emily N. Jerome, Eugene, filed a joint response brief and argued on behalf of
36 respondent City of Eugene. With her on the brief were Jerome Lidz and Harrang Long Gary
37 Rudnick, PC.
38
39 Stephen L. V orhes, Assistant County Counsel, Eugene, filed a joint response brief and
40 argued on behalf of respondent Lane County.
41
42 G. David Jewett, Springfield, filed a joint response brief and argued on behalf of
43 intervenor-respondent. With him on the brief was Thorp Purdy Jewett Urness WIlkerson, PC.
44
45 HOLSTUN, Board Member, DAVIES, Board Chair, BASSHAM, Board Member,
Page 1
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
participated in the decision.
REMANDED
09/02/2005
You are entitled to judicial review of this Order. Iudicial review is governed by the
provisions ofORS 197.850.
Page 2
.
.
.
1 . Opinion by Holstun.
2 NATURE OF THE DECISION
3 Petitioners appeal city and county decisions that adopt amendments to the Eugene-
4 Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and the Eugene-Springfield Public
5 Facilities and Services Plan (pFSP).l In this appeal we refer to these amendments as the PFSP
6 amendments.
7 INTRODUCTION
8 The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC), which was
9 created by an intergovernmental agreement between the cities and county, adopted a MWMC
10 Facilities Plan for the Eugene-Springfield Wastewater Treatment Facilities (MWMC Facilities
1 A list and explanation of the more important acronyms and abbreviated document titles that we use in
this opinion is set out below in alphabetical order to provide a single point of reference to assist in keeping up
with them.
Metro Plan. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), along
with numerous refinement plans, is the comprehensive plan for the cities of Eugene and
Springfield and the urban area of Lane County. Citations in this opinion to the Metro Plan
are to the Metro Plan as amended through 2002. The Metro Plan defines refinement plan, as
follows:
"Refinement plan: A detailed examination of the service needs and land use issues
of a specific area, topic, or public facility. Refinement plans of the Metro Plan can
include specific neighborhood plans, special area plans, or functional plans (such as
TransPlan) that address a specific metro Plan element or sub-element on a city-wide
or regional basis." Metro Plan V-5.
MWMC. The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. An entity that was
created by an intergovernmental agreement between the cities of Eugene and Springfield and
Lane County, to manage and operate a regional wastewater collection and treatment system.
MWMC Facilities Plan. The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Facilities
Plan for the Eugene-Springfield Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities, which was
adopted in 2004. The city and county decisions adopting the MWMC Facilities Plan are the
subject of this appeal.
PFSP. The Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) is a Metro Plan
refinement plan that was adopted to comply with the requirements of Statewide Planning
Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services). City and county decisions adopting amendments to
the PFSP and Metro Plan, which are related to the MWMC Facilities Plan, are the subject of
a different LUBA appeal, LUBA Nos. 2004-090,2004-105, and 2004-114.
Page 3
.
.
.,
1 Plan) on May 6, 2005. Thereafter, the cities and county adopted that MWMC Facilities Plan.
2 Those decisions were appealed to LUBA In a separate decision issued this date, we dismiss
3 that appeal and explain the relationship between that consolidated appeal and this consolidated
4 appeal. HBA of Lane County v. City of Springfield, City of Eugene and Lane Co., _ Or
5 LUBA _ (LUBA Nos. 2004-090, 2004-105 and 2004-114). For the reasons explained in
6 that opinion, we conclude that the MWMC Facilities Plan was not adopted by the cities and
7 county to comply with Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) or the Goal 11 administrative
8 rule at OAR chapter 660, division 11. We agreed with the cities and county that the MWMC
9 Facilities Plan was adopted for other purposes and, therefore, the decisions adopting that
10 MWMC Facilities Plan are not land use decisions.
11 In reaching our conclusion that the decisions adopting the MWMC Facilities Plan are
12 not land use decisions, we explained that the related decisions that are before us in this appeal
13 are land use decisions. The land use decisions that are before us in this consolidated appeal
14 are the cities' and county's attempt to amend the Metro Plan and PFSP so that the public
15 facilities that are called for in the MWMC Facilities Plan can be constructed. The PFSP is the
16 . cities' and county's Goal 11 public facility plan. The regional sewerage collection and
17 treatment facilities that are recommended in the MWMC Facilities Plan were not identified in
18 the PFSP when the MWMC Facilities Plan was adopted. In adopting the disputed PFSP and
19 Metro Plan amendments, we understand the cities and county to have been attempting to
20 amend their Goal 11 public facilities plan so that it will be consistent with the MWMC
21 Facilities Plan and the projects that are recommended in the MWMC Facilities Plan can be
22 constructed consistently with the amended PFSP and Metro Plan.
23' FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
24 The question presented in the first assignment of error is whether the Metro Plan and
25 PFSP amendments that have been adopted by respondents are sufficient to comply with the
26 public facility planning requirements imposed by Goal 11 and the Land Conservation and
Page 4
.,
.
.
.
1 Development Commission's (LCDC's) Goal 11 administrative rule, OAR chapter 660,
2 division 11. The dispute under the first assignment of error concerns a number of new
3 regional wastewater collection and treatment system improvement projects that are included
4 for the first time in the Metro Plan and the PFSP by the challenged amendments.2 Petitioners
5 contend that the identification and description of those improvement projects in the PFSP and
6 Metro Plan amendments is too general, and that far more specificity is required under the Goal
7 11 rule. All parties agree that the six improvement projects listed in the PFSP and Metro Plan
8 amendments were derived from a larger more detailed list of improvement projects in the
9 MWMC Facilities Plan. We illustrate below the manner in which those improvement projects
10 are listed and described in the MWMC Facilities Plan and PFSP and Metro Plan amendments,
11 before turning to the relevant provisions of the Goal 11 administrative rule and the parties'
12 arguments.
13
A.
MWMC Facilities Plan Improvement Projects
14 Forty-six regional wastewater facility improvement projects, in 13 separate phases, are
15 listed in Table 7.7-2 of the MWMC Facilities Plan, along with the estimated cost of each
16 project. Table 7.7-2 is almost six pages long. We set out one of the six pages (Record 2073)
17 on the following page to illustrate the level of detail in the listing of facility improvement
18 projects, and their costs, in the MWMC Facilities Plan. The MWMC Facilities Plan actually
19 goes further and includes 24 "Project Fact Sheets" that provide more detailed descriptions of
20 each project. Record 2113-36. To illustrate, we have also included the project fact sheet
21 page that describes the "South Aeration Basin Improvements" and "Outfall Mixing Zone
22 Study" projects. Record 2114.
23
2 The PFSP that respondents adopted in 2001, along with related provisions in the Metro Plan itself,
proposed improvements to the local portions of the wastewater collection system, but proposed no regional
wastewater system improvement projects.
Page 5
7, REIXllAJIIEtIIl8l PlAN
.
TABLE 7.7-'l
Recommended Project Phasmg Plan with Capital Cost Estimates
MWMC Facilities Plan, EugBfle-Springlield
Cost Estimates
Phase Description ($)
Soulh aeration basin Add step leed, anoxic seleclors, and fine bubble diffusers. Remove $6.900,000
hydraurlC restrictions in bolh south and north basins (effluent
gales). Includes future primary effluent now control gates for bolh
north and south basins.
OutIaR mixing zone Update 1994 Mixing Zone Study to account for additional 1 00 mgd $150,000
study (approximate) bankside outfall capacity and lor changes to \he
Wnlamette River morphology thai may have occurred sinGe the last
study was conducted
Temporary Modular space aI W PCF for s1aff to manage conslrucllon of capital $100,000
conslruc\ion projects
management
lacIDUes
Fiber Oplic Wiring InstaR wiring between BMF and WPCF $10,000
Digester Digester mixing improvements lor existing three digeslers ,$2,000,000
Improvements
Phase 1 Subtotal $15,660,000
Phase 2
(2005/2005)
Secondary Clarlfier Baffle, add Inlet energy dissipation, change out flocculation well, Funded in
Enhancements. Part construct outboard launder. and retrofit suclion header for existing FY2004/2005
2 eight clariliers; enhancement conducted in two parts, each part
consisting of four clariliers
River Avenue From existing MWMC FY 03104 Budget - Regional Wastewater $330.000
. Improvements Program; BSSessment to MWMC trom Eugene revised from $228K
to $330K in February 2004
Biocycle Farm., Part 130 acres - site preperatiorrbegins in BI05; planting in 3/06 $300.000
2
GBT BuDding Add a third gravity belt thickener (GB1) with associated at grade $2,500,000
Expansion (Waste building. Assumes additional basement noor space is not required.
Activated Sludge
Thickening)
Odorous Air Two 14-foot diameter, 30 foottalf bioscrubbertowerfor air $2,300,000 .
Treatmen1 collected from two primary clarifier cenlerwells and launders and
Expansion - Part 1 new sludge building adDition
Biocycle Fann Four hose reels for Biocycle Farm $260,000
Dislnbution
Equipment
WWFMP Update Evaluate recently coDecled collection system now monitoring data, $250,000
update and run collection system model. and confirm (or revise)
convey and treat approach
MWMC_7.D.,REV4.DOC
1
2
.
Page 6
7.15
2073
.
.
.
Ii
Project Name:
Description:
Justification:
Project Driver:
Project Trigger:
'Type'of Project
Estimated Project Cost
(2004 Dollars):
Phasing:
Project Name:
Description:
South Aeration Basin Improvements '
Add step feed, anoxic selectors, and fine bubble diffusers to south
aeration basin. Remove hydraulic restrictions in bc>th south and north
aeration basins (effluent gates). Includes Mure primary effluent flow
control gates for both north and south aeration basins.
Increase the dry weather aeration basin treatment capacity to 65 mgd with
respect to ammonia (i.e.. with nitrification) and increase the sustained (i.e.,
on a weekly basis) wet weather treatment capacity to 130'mgd .
NPDES pennlt includes ammonia limit requiring nitrification in drY weather
and expansion of wel weather capacity 10 treat wet weather flows to meet
NPDES monthly and week.lysuspended solids limits.
, Maximum month dry weather flow of 25 mgd requiring nitriflt:ation. May
flows and temperatures could require the use of the south aeration basins
In conjunction with the north aeration basins. Peak wet weather flows
above 103 mgd require hydraulic modifications.
50"10 Capacity; 50% Performance
$6,900,000
Budgeted for FY2oo4/05
Outfall Mixing Zone Study
Update 1994 Mixing Zone Study to account for adcfrtional1 ()O mgd
(approximate) bankside outfall capacity and for changes to the Wnlametle
River morphology that may have occurred since the last study was
conducted
Justification:
, Project Driver:
Project Trigger:
Type of Project 100% Performance
Estimated Project Cost $150.000
(2004 Dollars):
Phasing: Budgeted for FY2004/05
2114
1
2
Page 7
.
.
.
1 Read together, Table 7.7.2 and the individual "Project Fact Sheets" present a detailed
2 description of the recommended public facility projects in the MWMC Facilities Plan.
3
B.
The PFSP and Metro Plan Amendments
4 The PFSP and Metro Plan Amendments list only six regional wastewater system
5 improvement projects. Those projects and their estimated costs and completion dates are set
6 out in Tables 4a, 4b and 16a which appear at Record 643 and 646 and are set out below.
7
8 Table 4a
9 MWMC Wastewater Treatment System Improvement Projects
10
Project
roject Name/Description
Number
300
CF Treatment Pro'ect
301
302
esiduals Treatment Pro' ect
eneficial Reuse Pro' ect
11
12 Table 4b
13 MWMC Primary Collection System hnprovement Projects
14
Project
Number
roject Name/Description
304
303
illakenzie Pum Station
305
15
16
Page 8
.
1
2
3
4
Table 16a
MWMC 'Wastewater Treatment and, Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost
Estimate, and Timing Estimate
Project Project Name/Description Cost* . Estimated
Number ($000) Completion Year
300 WPCF Treatment Project $120,500 2025
301 Residuals Treatment $6,'000 2018
Project
302 Beneficial Reuse Project $25,000 2018
303 Willakenzie Pump Station $6,000 2010
304 Screw PumP Station $2,000 2010
305 Glenwood Pump Station $500 2012
5
6
c.
The Goal 11 Rule
7 It is a tedious exercise, but we begin by reviewing the key sections ofLCDC's Goal 11
8 rule. That exercise is necessary, because there is nothing in Goal 11 or the Goal 11 rule that
9 clearly and expressly supports either respondents' or petitioners' position concerning the
. 10 requisite level of specificity that must be included in a public facility plan project list.
11 However, there are provisions in the Goal 11 rule that suggest significantly more specificity is
12 required than the cities and county included in the Metro Plan and PFSP amendments that are
13 before us in this appeal.
14 We begin with the definitions of "public facility," "public facility project," and "public
15 facility systems.,,3 These definitions are not particularly helpful in answering the question that
.
3 OAR 660-011-0005 is the Goal 11 rule definition section, and it provides the following relevant
definitions:
'''Public Facility': A public facility includes water, sewer, and transportation facilities, but
does not include buildings, structures or equipment incidental to the direct operation of those
facilities." OAR 660-011-0005(5).
'''Public Facility Project': A public facility project is the construction or reconstruction of a
water, sewer, or transportation facility within a public facility system that is funded or
utilized by members of the general public." OAR 660-011-0005(6).
Page 9
.
.
.
1 must be answered under this assignment of error. The OAR 660-011-0005(6) definition of
2 public facility project gives no hint regarding the required level of specificity when local
3 governments "list" and "describe" public facility projects, as required by OAR 660-011-
4 0020(2). Similarly, the OAR 660-011-0005(5) definition of public facility provides no real
5 guidance regarding how to go about listing individual public facility projects, although it does
6 specify that incidental "buildings, structures, or equipment," are not included.4 Finally, the
7 definition of public facility systems is not particularly helpful either, but it does explain that a
8 sanitary sewer system is a collection of facilities and is made up of a treatment system and a
9 collection system.
10 We turn next to OAR 660-011-0010(1)(b) which requires that a Goal 11 public
11 facilities plan must include:
12
13
14
15
16
"A list of the significant public facility projects which are to support the land
uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan [and p ]ublic facility
project descriptions or specifications of these projects as necessary[.]"
(Emphasis added.)
OAR 660-011-0020(2) and (3) elaborate on the "list of * * * significant public facility
17 projects" that is required by OAR 660-011-010(1)(b) and 660-011-0045. Petitioners and
18 respondents draw opposite conclusions from these sections of the rule. OAR 660-011-0020
"'Public Facility Systems': Public facility systems are those facilities of a particular type that
combine to provide water, sewer or transportation services.
"For purposes of this division, public facility systems are limited to the following:
"* * * * *
"(b) Sanitary sewer:
"(A) Treatment facilities system;
"(B) Primary collection system." OAR 660-011-0005(7).
4 While a parking garage, a security guard structure, and lawn mowing equipment would seem to fit easily
within the meaning of "incidental buildings, structures or equipment," the ultimate scope of this qualification
on the definition of public facility is unclear.
Page 1 0
.
.
.
1 specifically addresses the inventory and the list of public facility projects that must be included
2 in a Goal 11 public facility plan.s OAR 660-011-0020(2) calls for identification of "significant
3 public facility projects" and requires that respondents "list the title of the project and describe
4 each project facility project in terms of the type offacility, service area, and facility capacity."
5 OAR 660-011-0020(3) expressly recognizes that "project descriptions" may need to be
6 changed later during more detailed planning and construction phases. OAR 660-011-020(3)
7 goes on to require that Goal 11 public facility plans "anticipate * * * changes as specified in
8 OAR 660-011-0045." As relevant here, OAR 660-011-0045 does two things.6 First, OAR
5 OAR 660-011-0020 provides, in part:
"(2) The public facility plan shall identify significant public facility projects which are to
support the land uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan. The
public facility plan shall list the title of the project and describe each public facility
project in terms of the type of facility, service area, and facility capacity.
Project descriptions within the facility plan may require modifications based on
subsequent environmental impact studies, design studies, facility master. plans,
capital improvement programs, or site availability. The public facility plan should
anticipate these changes as specifi<::<i in OAR 660-011-0045." (Emphasis added.)
6 OAR 660-011-0045(2), (3) and (4) provide:
"(3)
"(2) Certain public facility project descriptions, location or service area designations will
necessarily change as a result of subsequent design studies, capital improvement
programs, environmental impact studies, and changes in potential sources of
funding. It is not the intent of this division to:
"(a) Either prolubit projects not included in the public facility plans for which
unanticipated funding has been obtained;
"(b) Preclude project specification and location decisions made according to the
National Environmental Policy Act; or
"(c) Subject administrative and technical changes to the facility plan to ORS
197.610(1) and (2) or 197.835(4).
"(3) The public facility plan may allow for the following modifications to projects
without amendment to the public facility plan:
"(a)
Administrative changes are those modifications to a public facility project
which are minor in nature and do not significantly impact the project's
Page 11
.
.
.
1 660-011-0045(2) expressly recognizes that the OAR 660-011-0020(2) Goal 11 public facility
2 plan project list and description will likely have to be changed to accommodate (1) projects
3 that receive unanticipated funding in the future, (2) changes required by the National
4 Environmental Policy Act, and (3) administrative and technical changes. Second, OAR 660-
5 011-0045(3) explains when those future changes can occur without amending the Goal 11
6 public facilities plan, and OAR 660-011-0045(4) identifies when those future changes will
7 require a Goal 11 public facilities plan amendment.
8 The elements that must be included in a public facility plan are set out in OAR 660-
9 011-0010.7 There are a number of required elements. For purposes of petitioners' first
general description, location, sizing. capacity, or other general
characteristic of the project;
"(b)
Technical and environmental changes are those modifications to a public
facility project which are made pursuant to 'final engineering' on a project
or those that result from the findings of an Environmental Assessment or
Environmental Impact Statement conducted under regulations
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) or any federal or State of
Oregon agency project development regulations consistent with that Act
and its regulations.
"(c) Public facility project changes made pursuant to subsection (3)(b) of this
rule are subject to the administrative procedures and review and appeal
provisions of the regulations controlling the study (40 CFR Parts 1500-
1508 or similar regulations) and are not subject to the administrative
procedures or review or appeal provisions of ORS Chapter 197, or OAR
Chapter 660 Division 18.
"(4) Land use amendments are those modifications or amendments to the list, location or
provider of: public facility projects, which significantly impact a public facility
project identified in the comprehensive plan and which do not qualify under
subsection (3)(a) or (b) of this rule. Amendments made pursuant to this subsection
are subject to the administrative procedures and review and appeal provisions
accorded 'land use decisions' in ORS Chapter 197 and those set forth in OAR
Chapter 660 Division 18."
7 As relevant, OAR 660-011-010 provides:
"(1) The public facility plan shall contain the following items:
"(a)
An inventory and general assessment of the condition of all the significant
public facility systems which support the land uses designated in the
acknowledged comprehensive plan;
Page 12
.
.
.
1 assignment of error, the key elements are the list of significant public facilities projects, and
2 rough cost estimates for those projects. OAR 660-011-0010(1)(b) and (c). OAR 660-011-
3 0010(3) is also potentially significant. That rule makes it clear that if there are existing
4 planning documents that meet "all or some of the requirements" of OAR chapter 660, division
5 11, those other existing planning documents may be "incorporated by reference into the public
6 facility plan" that is required by the rule. In that event, only the referenced and incorporated
7 parts of such existing plans become part of the Goal 11 public facility plan.
"(b) A list of the significant public facility projects which are to support the
land uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan. Public
facility project descriptions or specifications of these projects as necessary,
"(c) Rough cost estimates of each public facility project;
"(d)
A map or written description of each public facility project's general
location or service area;
"(e) Policy statement(s) or urban growth management agreement identifying
the provider of each public facility system. If there is more than one
provider with the authority to provide the system within the area covered
by the public facility plan, then the provider of each project shall be
designated; .
"(t) An estimate of when each facility project will be needed; and
"(g) A discussion of the provider's existing funding mechanisms and the ability
of these and possible new mechanisms to fund the development of each
public facility project or system.
"* * * * *
"(3)
It is not the purpose of this division to cause duplication of or to supplant existing
applicable facility plans and programs. Where all or part of an acknowledged
comprehensive plan, facility master plan either of the local jurisdiction or
appropriate special district, capital improvement program, regional functional plan,
similar plan or any combination of such plans meets all or some of the requirements
of this division, those plans, or programs may be incorporated by.reference into the
public facility plan required by this division. Only those referenced portions of such
documents shall be considered to be a part of the public facility plan and shall be
subject to the administrative procedures of this division and ORS Chapter 197."
Page 13
~,-'
.
.
.
1 Petitioners and respondents read the Goal 11 rule to permit very different levels of
2 specificity in the facility project list that is required under OAR 660-011-0020(2). Petitioners
3 argue:
4 "The six 'projects' added to the PFSP in Tables 4a and 4b are really categories
5 of multiple discrete construction projects. One can't tell from the list of six,
6 because the PFSP amendments are so cryptic. The six 'projects," with their
" 7 total of only 18 words of project titles and descriptions are opaque, or nearly
8 so, in the PFSP. What is really going to happen over the 20-year period is
9 unclear from the PFSP. Instead, it is spelled out in Chapter 7 of the MWMC
10 2004 Facilities Plan, which is disclaimed as a land use plan.
11 "The list of six categories of projects in Tables 4a and 4b needs to be broken
12 down into the approximately four dozen construction projects that are
13 contained in the six categories. These are the 'projects' anticipated by the
14 Rule. The Rule requires an identification of 'projects' in the plan, not
15 categories of projects. The projects have been identified in the MWMC 2004
16 Facilities Plan, but that is not the land use plan, according to the Respondents.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"If LUBA would entertain finding that the six categories of projects are
'projects' in the meaning of the [Goal 11] Rule, then LUBA should be just as
willing to find that a single project listing would be ok, too. It would be a very
small step to go from the list of 6 to a list of 1 project, described as 'upgrades
to MWMC wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities.' Neither the
current approach nor a single mega project description is what the rule
anticipates." Petition for Review 17.
Respondents counter:
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
"Petitioners' interpretation of the Goal 11 rules inserts words into the rules
that are not there. Petitioners construe the term 'list of significant public
facility 'projects' in OAR 660-011-0010(1)(b) to mean 'detailed list' of 'each
and every' public facility project. In addition, Petitioners insert the word
'discrete' into the definition of public facility project, which is 'the construction
and reconstruction of a water, sewer or transportation facility within a public
facility system.' The rule does not include the word 'discrete.'
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
"Looking at the plain meaning of the words, Websters II New College
Dictionary (Hough Miftllin Co; 2001) defines 'significant' in relevant part as:
'having or expressing a meaning: meaningful; momentous; important.' The
term 'facility' is defined as something created to serve a particular function.
Thus, the requirement that the land use plan include a 'list of significant public
facility projects,' (where 'projects' is defined in the rule as the construction of
or reconstruction of a facility) requires local governments to identify important
Page 14
.
1
2
or meaningful construction or reconstruction improvements to particular
facility systems in terms of their function.
3 "The six project titles named in the 2004 PFSP tables satisfy this requirement.
4 They are representative of particular meaningful functions and geographic
5 areas in the regional wastewater treatment and collection systems. Nothing
6 more is required by OAR 660-011-0010(1)(b)." Respondents' Brief24.
7 We are unable to agree completely with either petitioners or respondents. Petitioners'
8 argument that the Goal 11 public facility plan project list and description that is required by
9 OAR 660-011-0010(1)(b) and 660-011-0020(2) must be exactly the same as the project list
10 that is included in the MWMC Facilities Plan finds no support in the text of the Goal 11 rule.
11 As respondents correctly note, both of those. sections of the rule include the adjective
12 "significant," and petitioners make no attempt to argue that all of the public facility projects in
13 the MWMC Facilities plan are significant. 8 Petitioners also make no attempt to differentiate
14 among the six projects that are listed in Tables 4a and 4b. With regard to Projects 303, 304
15 and 305, we note there are three projects listed in Table 7.7-2 that seem to correspond exactly
. 16 or very closely with both the description and costs listed in Tables 4a and 4b for those three
17 projects.9 Absent a more developed and focused argument from petitioners concerning
18 Projects 303, 304 and 305, we reject petitioners' challenge to the adequacy of the listing and
19 description of those projects.
.
8 That would probably be difficult to do. One of the public facility projects listed on the page from Table
7.7-2 included earlier in this opinion lists a $10,000 "Fiber Optic Wiring" project. Without deciding the
question here, that hardly seems like a "significant public facility project" that must be separately listed and
described in a Goal 11 public facility plan. Other listings of public facility projects in Table 7.7-2 include
listings for MWMC Facility Plan updates. Record 2073-77. It seems somewhat questionable that those are
accurately classified as "significant public facility projects."
9 Phase 2 projects include a project entitled "Screw Pump Station Expansion," which is descnbed as
"Install 5th pump to increase capacity from 84 to 99 mgd," with an estimated cost of "$1,700,000." Record
2074. Phase 2 also includes another project entitled "Willakenzie Pump Station Expansion," which is
described as "install four additional 14-mgd pumps to increase capacity from 80 to 135 mgd," with an
estimated cost of "$6,000,000." ld. Finally, Phase 7 includes a project entitled "Glenwood Pump Station
Upgrade," which is descnbed as .'from existing MWMC FY 03/04 Budget - Regional Wastewater Program,"
with an estimated cost 0[<'$500,000." Record 2075.
Page 15
.
.
.
1 On the other hand, respondents make no attempt to explain why the concept of "public
2 facility projects" should be dramatically different in the MWMC Facilities Plan and the Goal
3 11 public facilities plan. Even if the Goal 11 public facilities plan operates at a more general
4 regional level, the cryptic reference to "WPCF Treatment Project" in Project 300 does not
5 suffice as an adequate description for a significant public facility project that in fact is made up
6 of a large number of individual projects in the MWMC Facilities Plan. Those individual
7 projects will be constructed in a number of different phases over a 15 year period at a total
8 cost of $120 million. We agree with petitioners that, at a minimum, Project 300 must be
9 broken down into its significant public facility project components. While that breakdown
L
10 does not necessarily need to match the project detail and specificity that is provided in the
11 MWMC FacilitIes Plan, we agree with petitioners that the current Project 300 description is
12 either meaningless or describes a number of significant public facilities projects that are set out
13 in the MWMC Facilities Plan. We particularly agree with petitioners that the OAR 660-011-
14 0045(3) and (4) provisions that describe when and how future public facility project changes
15 must be reflected in Goal 11 public facility plan amendments are meaningless if such a broad
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and general listing and description is permissible under OAR 660-011-0010(1)(b) and 660-
011-0020(2).
Because we must remand the challenged decisions so that respondents may more
specifically list and describe the significant public facility projects that are now grouped as
Project 300 in any event, we do not consider whether additional specificity is required for
Projects 301 and 302. The parties have not directed their arguments specifically at those
projects and we have some question about the particular projects in the MWMC Facilities
Plan that make up Projects 301 and 302. However, it appears as though further breakdowns
are possible and may be required under the Goal 11 rule for Projects 301 and 302 as well. On
remand respondents must consider that question.
Page 16
.
.
.
1 The further detail that will be required on remand to separately list the significant
2 public facility projects in Project 300 and the further detail that may be required to separately
3 list any separate significant public facility projects in Project 301 and 301 will resolve one of
4 petitioners' objections concerning the cost estimates. Petitioners also object that the
5 estimated total cost of facilities in the MWMC Facilities Plan is $144 million, whereas the
6 estimated total in PFSP Table 16a is approximately $160 million. Respondents explain that
7 the $160 million figure includes the cost of a possible DEQ required improvement that is not
8 included in the MWMC Facilities Plan total. We do not understand petitioners to dispute that
9 explanation. We do not consider petitioners' arguments concerning cost estimates further.
10 The first assignment of error is sustained with regard to Projects 300,301 and 302 and
11 denied with regard to Project 303, 304 and 305.
12 SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
13 In their second assignment of error, petitioners contend the challenged decisions
14 violate Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) because the 2025 planning period identified in the Metro
15 Plan and PFSP amendments for the recommended wastewater treatment facility improvements
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
is different from the planning period specified elsewhere in the Metro Plan for other planning
purposes. Petitioners cite nothing in the statewide planning goals that mandates that planning
periods for different planning considerations must in all cases be identical. Without further
argument from petitioners regarding why these different planning periods constitute a conflict
that amounts to a violation of Goal 2, we deny the second assignment of error.
THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Petitioners' argument under the third assignment of error relies in part on new Metro
Plan policy G.9, which provides:
24
25
26
27
"Wastewater conveyance and treatment shall be provided to meet the needs of
projected growth inside the urban growth boundary that are capable of
complying with regulatory requirements governing beneficial reuse or
discharge of effluent and beneficial reuse or disposal of residuals." Record 18.
Page 17
.
.
.
1 Petitioners contend that while the disputedPFSP and Metro Plan amendments propose facility
2 improvements that will dramatically increase the MWMC regional wastewater treatment and
3 disposal capacity, respondents "have ignored * * * the need for collection capacity that will
4 allow development of undeveloped or underdeveloped areas in the [urban growth boundary]."
5 Petition for Review 25. According to petitioners, this failure me~s the challenged PFSP and
6 Metro Plan amendments lack the "adequate basis in fact" that is required by Goal 2 and are
7 inadequate to comply with Goal 11.
8 Respondents explain that the larger wastewater collection, treatment and reuse system
9 is made up of a primary collection system which begins with private laterals that convey
10 wastewater from private properties to the cities' collection systems which in turn convey that
11 wastewater to the MWMC system of collection pipes and pumping stations. The MWMC
12 collection pipes convey that wastewater to the regional water pollution control facility, a
13 biosolids facility and a beneficial reuse facility. Respondents go on to respond to petitioners'
14 argument as follows:
15 "Collection system improvement projects are included in Table 4b and 16a and
16 are pump station improvements. Tables 3 and 4 of the 2001 PFSP also
17 describe planned collection system projects. The Executive Summary of the
18 MWMC Facilities Plan describes the conveyance system; Chapter 3 also
19 describes the condition of the existing wastewater conveyance system; Section
20 5.41 describes the design capacity of the conveyance system; and Section 7.1.2
21 recommends conveyance system improvements. The recommended
22 conveyance system improvements are the Willakenzie Pump Station, the
23 Glenwood Pump Station and the Screw Pump Station, which are included in
24 the PFSP Tables 4b and 16a. There are no recommended projects related to
25 sewer pipes. Hence, no such projects are contained in Tables 4b and 16a. In
26 fact, Section 7.1.1 of the MWMC Facilities Plan expressly states that
27 additional conveyance system improvements are not necessary.
28
29
30
31
32
"Petitioners do not, and cannot explain how the above descriptions, findings
and explanations in the record and the list of pump station improvement
projects are not adequate to serve the existing and future collection needs of
the service area. As such, the Board should deny Petitioners' third assignment
of error." Respondents' Brief37-38 (citations and footnote omitted).
Page 18
.
.
.
1 We are not sure we understand petitioners' argument. They seem to be arguing that
2 more collection pipes or improved collection pipes will be needed to utilize the extra
3 treatment capacity that the disputed PFSP and Metro Plan amendments recommend. We
4 understand respondents to . contend that with the wastewater treatment system improvements
5 that are recommended in the PFSP and Metro Plan amendments and the MWMC Facilities
6 Plan, no further improvements in the collection system are needed. Other than possibly
7 disagreeing with respondents' contention, petitioners offer no reason to question it. Without
8 a more developed argument from petitioners under their third assignment of error, we agree
9 with respondents that it does not present an additional basis for remand.
10 The third assignment of error is denied.
11 Respondents' decisions are remanded.
Page 19
.
APPENDIX B
CHANGES TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
PLAN (PFSP)
1. Modify the text preceding existing Table 3 to read as follows:
Planned Wastewater System Improvements
Planned wastewater system improvement projects are listed in tables 3, 4, 4a and 4b. The
general location of these facilities is shown in Map 2: Planned Wastewater Facilities,
and Map 2a: Existing Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems. [NOTE: This
map presently exists as Map 6 in the Technical Background Report: Existing
Conditions and Alternatives and should be incorporated without change.]
2. Insert, following Table 4, Tables 4a and 4b, as follows:
Table 4a
MWMC W t t T tm t S t Im
t P . t
.
as ewa er rea en ys em lprovemen roJec s
PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT #
300 WPCF Treatment Includes several construction packages
Project designed to manage and treat
wastewater at the WPCF to the year
2025.
300A Preliminary Treatment Increase preliminary treatment capacity of
headworks to meet anticipated 2025 peak
wet weather flows
300B Primary Treatment Enhance existing primary clarifiers and add
primary sludge thickening facilities to
increase primary treatment capacity to meet
anticipated peak wet weather flows
300C Secondary Treatment Convert aeration basins, enhance existing
secondary clarifiers, and add secondary
clarifiers to increase secondary treatment
capacity to meet anticipated peak wet
weather flows
300D Disinfection/Outfall Convert disinfection system, and increase
bankside outfall capacity
300E Biosolids Treatment Increase digestion capacity by enhancing
existing digesters and sludge thickening
capacity and/or adding a digester
300F Filtration Add filtration and build related
infrastructure and support facilities
300G Reuse Facilities Expand effluent reuse capacity
300H Odor Control Expand and/or add odor control facilities
.
.
3001 Flow Management Piping, pumping and related infrastructure
Facilities improvements to allow parallel operation
of primary and secondary treatment
facilities
301 Residuals Treatment Includes several construction packages
Pro.i ect desi2ned to mana2e and treat residuals.
30lA Lagoon Rehabilitation Rehabilitate lagoons at Biosolids
Management Facility
301B Compo sting Facility Expand compo sting facility at Biosolids
Management Facility
302 Beneficial Reuse Project Includes several construction packages
desi2ned to expand reuse of effluent.
302A Biocyc1e Farm Expand biosolids land application area
302B Effluent Reuse Expand effluent reuse at Biocycle Farm
(including former Seasonal Industrial
Waste site)
Table 4b
MWMC Primary Collection System Improvement Projects
.
Proj ect Project Name/Description
Number
303 Willakenzie Pump Station
304 Screw Pump Station
305 Glenwood Pump Station
3. Modify Map 2 to show Projects 300 through 305, and insert Map 2a.
.
Eugen....Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan
Planned MWMC Wastewater Project Sites
~~ar"-:""""lIlnctl~lhB~
...... ~ In..... a.~."''''' 4b
P--'___
. ......."'-_ c----..
.. --.- ---~
. ......- --.......
. ....----"--- - "--'--.-.......
- -----.-
:=."~-::=-~.< .
/
J
.,(
-
r.___...".._....-._
........-...a-aoooe._____
... ..___.a._____...
-.....-----.....,.--
MAP 2
--
.
. EJdIaIo......~FodIa
_ EJddIIg w-.,.. ar IolMglr
_ ....... ....a..
.-- ..,..........,.
---
EEiI .....u.w.~.....,
,
'<
!
Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan
Existing MWMC Wastewater Treatment Systems
D , %WiII
~
;
,
.'
-' /
/r---(
,/ I
t /
/-,--~
~
_...... ...........lDDIflDnrt1l....,
,...".........___ >>*..A1.......
.........--..........
-"'"
4. Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying
the subdivision entitled "Wastewater System condition Assessment"
(presently on page 82) to read as follows:
.
Wastewater System Condition Assessment
Treatment: MWMC Wastewater Treatment System
MWMC existing infrastructure is monitored for problems that need to be addressed
during operational and maintenance activities. MWMC has ongoing programs to help
plan for and implement equipment replacement and major rehabilitation of existing
systems. With these on going programs used to detect existing problems, the
infrastructure can be maintained and preserved to help extend its useful life for future
years.
.
In March of 2003, MWMC hired CH2M HILL to evaluate and plan for regional
wastewater capital improvements that will serve the Eugene/Springfield urban growth
boundary into year 2025. MWMC will need to implement the recommended
improvements to meet regulatory requirements based on projected pollution loads and
flows. CH2M HILL as part of its work to evaluate and plan for regional wastewater
improvements has prepared a technical memo related to "Flow and Load Projections"
dated April 12, 2004. This historical and projected information is being used to plan for
needed MWMC capital improvements based,on engineering evaluation methods and by
comparing technology options. It is estimated that approximately $160 million dollars
(in 2004 dollars) are needed for MWMC projects to address regulatory requirements and
growth through year 2025.
1
.
The Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), located on River Avenue in Eugene,
replaced the separate plants previously owned and operated by Eugene and Springfield.
Its function is to meet the region's needs for increased sewerage service and ensure
compliance with the facility's NPDES discharge permit.
The Residuals Treatment Project is located at the Biosolids Management Facility (BMF)
on Awbrey Lane in Lane County. The BMF's function is to store, further stabilize, and
dry digested biosolids received from the WPCF.
The Beneficial Reuse Project is located at the Biocyc1e Farm along Highway 99 in Lane
County. The Biocyc1e Farm's function is to apply biosolids from the adjacent BMF to
poplar trees, which absorb the water and nutrients contained in the biosolids.
Convevance:
Conveyance capacity and inflow and infiltration (III) ratios are important criteria by
which to assess the performance of a wastewater collection system. Conveyance capacity
is a function of adequate pipe sizing and measures a system's ability to move effluent
efficiently. Inflow and infiltration ratios express the amount of stormwater entering a
sewer system through defective pipes and pipe joints, or through the cross connection of
stormwater lines, combined sewers, catch basins, or manhole covers. Such extraneous
stormwater entering the wastewater system unnecessarily burdens both conveyance and
treatment facilities.
.
Capacity:
The capacity of the wastewater system is expressed in four measures: average flow, peak
flow, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS). The
system's current capacities and projected 2025 needed capacities are:
Capacity Measure Current 2025
Average flow 49 mgd 59.3 mgd
Peak flow 175 mgd 277 mgd
BOD 66,000 Ibs/day 74,000lbs/day
TSS 71,6001bs/day 87,6001bs/day
Projects 300 through 305, described in Tables 4a and 4b, are designed to work together to
increase the overall system capacities to meet the projected 2025 need.
5. Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying
the discussion of wastewater, in the subdivision entitled "Long-Term Service
Availability Within Urbanizable Areas" (presently on page 97) to read as
follows:
1.
There are no areas within the metropolitan UGB that will be difficult to serve with
wastewater facilities over the long-term (six to 20 years) assuming that public
infrastructure specifications and requirements of the developing area can be
addressed. Appropriate engineering design practices must be used during the
development and expansion into sensitive areas that are approved for
development (ex. - hillside construction, etc.). Expansion of the existing
.
.
collection system will be necessary to meet demands of growth over this time
period.
2.
Based on 2003 analysis, the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area treatment
facilities will require facility improvements to address both dry and wet weather
regulatory requirements relating to pollutant loads and wastewater flows.
Regional and local wastewater improvements to the collection and treatment
systems are being planned for and will be implemented to allow for growth within
the UGB and for regulatory compliance.
6.
Add Table 16a following Table 16, as follows:
Table 16a
MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost
Estimate, and Timing Estimate
300 WPCF Treatment Pro' ect
300A Preliminary Treatment ($12.8) 2010
300B Primary Treatment ($4.8) 2012
300C Secondary Treatment ($24.7) 2017
300D Disinfection/Outfall ($5.6) 2010
. 300E Biosolids Treatment ($18.3) 2013
300F Filtration ($20.2) 2020
300G Reuse Facilities ($16.) 2018
300H Odor Control ($6.9) 2012
3001 Flow Management Facilities ($11.) 2010
301 Residuals Treatment Pro' ect $5.2
30lA Lagoon Rehabilitation ($4.5) 2012
30lB Com ostin Facility ($.7) 2017
302 Beneficial Reuse Pro' ect $4.6
302A Biocyc1e Farm ($0.6) 2008
302B Effluent Reuse ($4.) 2017
303 Willakenzie Pum Station $6. 2010
304 Screw Pum Station $2. 2010
305 Glenwood Pum Station $0.5 2012
TOTAL: $138.6
*Cost estimated in 2004 dollars
7. Add a new chapter to the Public Facilities and Services Plan, to be Chapter
VI., reading as follows:
.
.
VI. Amendments to the Plan
This chapter describes the method to be used in the event it becomes necessary or
appropriate to modify the text, tables or the maps contained in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan ("the Plan").
Flexibility of the Plan
Certain public facility project descriptions, location or service area designations will
necessarily change as a result of subsequent design studies, capital improvement
programs, environmental impact studies and changes in potential sources of funding. The
Plan is not designed to either prohibit projects not included in the plan for which
unanticipated funding has been obtained, preclude project specification and location
decisions made according to the National Environmental Policy Act, or subject
administrative and technical changes to the plan to post-acknowledgement review or
review by the Land Use Board of Appeals.
For the purposes of this Plan, two types of modifications are identified.
A. Modifications requiring amendment of the Plan.
The following modifications require amendment of the Plan:
.
1.
Amendments, which include those modifications or changes (as
represented by Table 16a) to the location or provider of public facility
projects which significantly impact a public facility project identified in
the comprehensive plan, and which do not qualify as administrative or
technical and environmental changes, as defined below. Amendments are
subject to the administrative procedures and review and appeal procedures
applicable to land use decisions.
Adoption of capital improvement program project lists by any service
provider does not require modification of this Plan unless the requirements
of subparagraph I above are met.
2.
B. Modifications permitted without amendment of the Plan.
The following modifications do not require amendment of this Plan:
.
1.
Administrative changes are those modifications to a public facility project
which are minor in nature and do not significantly impact the project's
general description, location, sizing, capacity or other general
characteristic of the project.
Technical and environmental changes are those modifications to a public
facility project which are made pursuant to "final engineering" on a project
or those which result from the findings of an Environmental Assessment
or Environmental Impact Statement conducted under regulations
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 or any federal or state agency project development
regulations consistent with that Act and its regulations.
2.
Process for making Changes
.
A.
Administrative and Technical or Environmental Changes. Any jurisdiction may
make an administrative or technical and environmental change, as defined herein,
by forwarding to each jurisdiction covered by this Plan, and to the Lane Council
of Governments a copy of the resolution or other final action of the governing
board of the jurisdiction authorizing the change.
B. Amendments
For purposes of processing amendments"as defined herein, such amendments are
divided into two classes.
a. Type I Amendments include amendments to the text of the Plan, or to a
list, location or provider of public facility projects which significantly
impact a public facility project identified herein, which project serves
more than one jurisdiction. .
b. Type II amendments include amendments to a list, location or provider of
public facility projects which significantly impact a public facility project
identified herein, which project serves only the jurisdiction proposing the
amendment.
c.
Processing Amendments
.
Any ofthe adopting agencies (Lane County, Eugene, or Springfield) may initiate
an amendment to this plan at any time on their own motion or on behalf of a
citizen.
a. Type I amendments shall be forwarded to the planning commissions of the
respective agencies and, following their recommendation, shall be
considered by the governing boards of all agencies. If a Type I
amendment is not adopted by all agencies, the amendment shall be
referred to MPC for conflict resolution. Subsequent failure by agencies to
adopt an MPC-negotiated proposal shall defeat the proposed amendment.
If an amendment is adopted, all agencies shall adopt substantively
identical ordinances
b. Type II amendments shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission of
the initiating agency and, following their recommendation, shall be
considered by the governing board of the initiating agency.
.
J
- 1 -
.
Staff Report and Findings of Compliance with the Metro Plan and Statewide
Goals and Administrative Rules
File lRP 2004-0001 Amendments to the Metro Plan and Public Facilities and Services
Plan
Applicant:
City of Springfield on behalf of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(MWMC)
Nature of the Application:
The applicant proposes to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Plan) and the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP)I to (1) more
adequately reflect the impact that new discharge permit restrictions will have had on the
capacity of the regional wastewater treatment system, (2) to clarify the relationship
between the PFSP project list and locally adopted capital improvement plans, and (3) to
modify (streamline) the administrative and legislative processes that govern the
implementation and amendment of the PFSP projects list.
.
Background:
MWMC's regional wastewater treatment facilities were designed and constructed in the
late 1970's with a 20-year life expectancy. Slower than expected population growth in the
1980's extended this life expectancy. In 1996-97 MWMC developed a Master Plan to
evaluate the performance of its facilities, to ascertain areas of constraints within the
existing permit conditions, to identify short-term improvements (e.g. how to address
seismic hazards), and to address other major issues that needed to be studied further.
In May of 2002 the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) imposed new
and more stringent discharge permit standards on the regional wastewater treatment
facilities, particularly in regard to the treatment of ammonia and thennalloading. As
MWMC staff began to evaluate design needs for its wastewater facilities, it became
apparent to them that the existing facilities could not meet the demands imposed by the
new discharge permit restrictions.
Recognizing that a thorough assessment of wastewater collection, treatment and
disposal/reuse needs for the next 20 years was essential, the MWMC began work on the
2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan, a comprehensive facilities plan update. The objectives
of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan are twofold. First, it is intended to provide for
adequate community growth capacity through 2025, considering policies in the Metro
Plan and current planning assessments for population and development. Second, the 2004
Wastewater Facilities Plan is intended to protect community health and safety by .
addressing sanitary sewer overflows, river safety, permit compliance and the cost-
effective use of existing facilities and the efficient design of new facilities.
. I See appendices Aa, Ab, & B respectively.
Staff Report and Findings)
- 2 -
.
The 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan recognizes and addresses the fact that the regional
wastewater system for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area does not have the
capacity to meet all of the discharge standards imposed by state and federal law. Neither
the Metro Plan nor the PFSP currently reflect this situation. Statewide Planning Goal 2
requires that the city, county and special district plans be consistent. In large part, the
amendments proposed by this application address the issue of consistency between the
Metro Plan and the PFSP and consistency of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan with the
former documents. The proposed amendments provide information that should have been
included in the PFSP when it was adopted and present a more accurate description of
wastewater services that will be available after certain capital improvement projects are
completed.
Phasing objectives of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan necessitate that construction of
several key facility components begin by June of2005 in order to meet federal standards
that require that peak wet weather events be managed by 20 I O. In order to meet this
rigorous construction schedule, MWMC must have released Requests for Proposals
(RFPs) for engineering design for by October of2004. Prior to this date, the 2004
Wastewater Facilities Plan must be adopted by the three metropolitan jurisdictions and
the Metro Plan and the PFSP should be updated to reflect current information.
In summary, the application proposes the following changes:
Metro Plan
.
1.
Specifically recognizes "wastewater" as a subcategory of service within the Urban
Growth Boundary. [Chapter III-G]
2. Amends Finding #6 and Policy #3 to recognize the addition of Map 2a "Existing
Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems" to the PFSP. [Chapter III-G]
3. Amends Policy #2 to include local capital improvement plans as a means to
implement policy in the PFSP. [Chapter In-G]
4. Inserts two findings regarding local and regional wastewater services to
development within the urban growth boundary. [Chapter III-G]
5. Adds a new policy G.9 that makes a commitment to providing the conveyance
and treatment of wastewater to meet the needs ofprojected growth within the
urban growth boundary and that meets regulatory requirements. [Chapter III-G]
6. Modifies definition 37. Wastewater: Public Facilities Projects. [Chapter V
Glossary]
7. Adds new wastewater proj ect lists and a new map and revises an existing map as
described in the changes to the PFSP.
.
Staff Report and Findings 1
PFSP
.
1.
Modifies the text on page 28, preceding Table 3, and adds Tables 4a and 4b that
identify MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Primary Collection System
improvements, respectively.
2. Modifies Map 2, which shows Planned Wastewater Facilities, and adds Map 2a
that concerns Existing Wastewater Facilities.
3. Modifies the existing narrative on "Wastewater System Condition Assessment" in
Chapter IV. (Page 82)
4. Modifies existing paragraphs #1 and #2 under the discussion of "Wastewater" in
the subdivision entitled "Long-Term Service Availability Within Urbanizable
Areas" in Chapter IV. (page 97).
5. Adds new Table 16a (following Table 16) entitled "MWMC Wastewater
Treatment and Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost Estimate, and
Timing Estimate." (Page 101)
6. Adds new Chapter VI regarding amendments to the PFSP.
.
Metropolitan Area General Plan Amendment Criteria
The proposed amendments are considered to be Type I Metro Plan amendments because
they are non-site specific amendments to the Plan text. Amendments to the Plan text,
which include changes to functional plans such as TransPlan and the PFSP, and that are
non-site specific require approval by all three governing bodies to become effective.2
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 9.128(3) (a & b), and Lane Code 12.225(2) (a &
b) require that the amendment be consistent with relevant statewide planning goals and
that the amendment will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. These criteria
are addressed as follows:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission;
Goal! - Citizen Involvement
To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens
to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
The two cities and the county have acknowledged land use codes that are intended
to serve as the principal implementing ordinances for the Metro Plan. SDC Article
7 METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS and SDC Article 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS
prescribe the manner in which a Type I Metro Plan amendment must be noticed.
.
2 See SDC 7.070(l)(a), EC 9.7730(1)(a), and LC 12.225(1 )(a)(i).
Staff Report and Findings
.
Citizen involvement for a Type I Metro Plan amendment not related to an urban
growth boundary amendment requires: I) Notice to interested parties; 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).
Notice of the joint planning commission hearing was published in the Springfield
News and in the Register-Guard on March 31, 2004. Notice to interested parties
was mailed on April 1, 2004. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was provided
to DLCD on March 4, 2004. The notice to DLCD identified the City of Eugene,
Lane County, DEQ and EPA as affected agencies.
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; the Eugene Code, Sections 9.7735 and
9.7520; Lane Code Sections 12.025 and 12.240.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning - To establish a land use planning process and
policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land
and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.
.
All land-use plans and implementation ordinances shall be adopted by the
governing body after public hearing and shall 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
shall 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 the means used to carry out the plan. These are
of two general types: (1) management implementation measures such as
ordinances, regulations or project plans. and (2) site or area specific
implementation measures such as permits and grants for construction,
construction of public facilities or provision of services.
The most recent version of the Metro Plan is being considered on May 17, 2004
for final adoption by Springfield (Ordinance No. ~, by Eugene (Council Bill
No. 4860) and by Lane County (Ordinance No. 1197) after numerous public
meetings, public workshops and joint hearings of the Springfield, Eugene and
Lane County Planning Commissions and Elected Officials.
The Metro Plan is the Uland use" or comprehensive plan required by this goal; the
Springfield Development Code, the Eugene Code and the Lane Code are the
"implementation measures" required by this goal. Comprehensive plans, as
defined by ORS 197.015(5)3, must be coordinated with affected governmental
. 3 Incorporated by reference into Goal 2.
Staff Report and Findings ~
.
.
units.4 Coordination means that comments from affected governmental units are
solicited and considered. In this regard, DLCD's Notice of Proposed Amendment
form was sent to the City of Eugene, Lane County, DEQ and EPA.
One aspect of the Goal 2 coordination requirement concerns population
projections. In this respect, the proposed amendment to the PFSP Glossary
concerning Wastewater incorporates a projected year 2025 population for the
Eugen~Springfield Urban Growth Boundary of297,585.5 This projection is
consistent with the most recent (1997) final forecasts provided to Lane County by
the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis and the Year 2000 Census. The adoption
of this modification to the PFSP will effectively "coordinate" this population
assumption.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands
The changes do not affect Metro Plan or PFSP consistency with this goal and it
does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries.
Goal 4 - Forest Lands
The changes do not affect Metro Plan or PFSP consistency with this goal and it
does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries.
Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
The changes do not affect acknowledged goal 5 inventories so this goal is not
applicable to the proposed amendments.
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
environmental quality statutes, and how this compliance is achieved as
development proceeds in relationship to air sheds, river basins and land resources.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, P.L. 92-500, as amended in 1977,
became known as the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). The goal of this
Act was to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters. ORS
468B.035 requires the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) to
implement the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The primary method of
implementation of this Act is through the issuance of a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit prior to the discharge of any
wastes into the waters of the state. CORS 468B.050) Among the "pollutants"
regulated by the EQC are temperature (OAR 340-041-0028) and toxic substances
(OAR 340-041-0033).
4 See DLCD v. Douglas County, 33 Or LUBA 216, 221 (1997).
5 Table 3 ofteclmical memorandum entitled "Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission-
Population Projections for Wastewater Facilities Plan," prepared by Matt Noesen, CH2M Hill, et al (Aptil
9,2004)
.
. Staff Report and Findings
.
One purpose of the proposed amendments is to ensure that the Metro Plan and the
PFSP accurately reflect regional wastewater system needs as imposed by Federal
and State regulation. Currently, the PFSP states that". .. the Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant has sufficient design capacity to accommodate population
increases and serve all new development at buildout." Recent analyses have
determined that facility improvements are now required to address both dry and
wet weather requirements relating to pollutant loads and wastewater flows. The
section in Chapter IV of the PFSP entitled "Long-Term Service Availability
Within Urbanizable Areas" is proposed to be modified to reflect the need for
facility improvements necessary to address dry and wet weather regulatory
requirements.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
The changes do not affect Metro Plan or PFSP consistency with this goal and it is
not applicable to the proposed amendments.
GoalS - Recreational Needs
The changes do not affect Metro Plan or PFSP consistency with this goal and it is
not applicable to the proposed amendments.
.
Goal 9 - Economic Development - Goal 9 provides, in part, that it is intended
to: "Provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types,
locations, and service levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses
consistent with plan policies." The proposed amendments are consistent with
this objective in that the Metro Plan, the PFSP and the 2004 Wastewater Facilities
Plan must be consistent in order to comply with State discharge permit conditions
that will determine the improvements to the Regional Wastewater System that are
necessary to address new regulatory standards. The improvements are necessary
to allow adequate service and conveyance, treatment, reuse and disposal capacity
to serve new and existing industrial and commercial uses.
GoallO - Housing - To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Goal 10 Planning Guideline 3 states that "(P]lans should provide for the
appropriate ~ype, location and phasing of pubic facilities and services sufficient to
support housing development in areas presently developed or undergoing
development or redevelopment. "
OAR 660-008-0010 requires that "[S]ufficient buildable land shall be designated
on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density
range as determined in the housing needs projection." Goal 10 defines buildable
lands as ".. .lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available and
necessary for residential use." 660-008-0005(13), in part, defines land that is
.
Staff Report and Findings,.
.
"suitable and available" as land "for which public facilities are planned or to
which public facilities can be made available."
Similar to Goal 9, adequate public facilities are necessary to accomplish the
objectives of this goal and applicable administrative rules (OAR Chapter 660,
Division 008). The purpose of the proposed amendments is to provide the
comprehensive planning framework to allow for the improvements to the regional
wastewater system that support the housing needs of the Eugene-Springfield
"metropolitan area.
Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services - To plan and develop a timely, orderly
and efficient arrangement of public fadlities and services to serve as a framework
for urban and rural development.
OAR Chapter 660, Division 011, implements goal 11. OAR 660-011-0030(1)
requires that the public facility plan identify the general location of public
facilities projects. In regard to the Metro Plan, the reference to Public Facilities
and Services Plan Map 2a in Finding 6 and Policy G.3 in the proposed
amendments addresses this requirement. In regard to the PFSP, the modification
of the introductory narrative under "Planned Wastewater System Improvements
(Page 28)," the insertion of new Tables 4a and 4b (Page 28), and the modification
of Map 2 and the insertion of new Map 2a, also address this requirement.
.
OAR 660-011-0035(1) requires that the public facility plan include a rough cost
estimate for sewer public facility projects identified in the facility plan. In
conformity with this requirement, it is proposed that the PFSP be amended by the
insertion of Table 16a (Inserted following Page 101), which addresses rough cost
estimates and a timing estimate for MWMC Wastewater Treatment and
Collection System Improvements. The rough cost estimates in Table l6a are
based on costs set forth in the MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan and Project list. This
2004 Plan was the result of an exhaustive study that examined alternatives
ranging from $144M to $233M (See Attachment 3). The preferred alternative,
found in Table 16a, was selected because, among other reasons, it provides the
least expensive means to comply with federal requirements and maximizes
MWMC's existing investments.
OAR 660-011-0045(3) provides that modifications to projects listed within a
public facility plan may be made without amendment to the public facility plan.
This application proposes to add a new chapter to the PFSP regarding
amendments to that plan. Proposed Chapter VI incorporates the standards for
amending a public facility plan allowed by OAR 660-011-0045(3) and adopts an
amendment process.
Goal 12 - Transportation
.
Staff Report and Findings'
.
.
.
The changes do not affect Metro Plan or PFSP consistency with this goal and it is
not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation
The changes doe not affect Metro Plan or PFSP consistency with this goal and it
is not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Goal 14 - Urbanization - To provide/or an orderly and efficient transition from
rural to urban land use.
Tbe changes do not affect Metro Plan or PFSP consistency with this goal and it is
not applicable to the proposed amendments, as they do not affect the existing
urban growth boundary.
Goal 15 - WiIIamette River Greenway
The changes do not affect Metro Plan or PFSP consistency with this goal and it is
not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Goal 16 Estuarine Resources, 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.
(b)
Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent
The proposed changes to the Metro Plan are essentially of a "housekeeping"
nature. They essentially recognize the role of wastewater service provision within
the urban growth boundary by the addition or modification of applicable findings
and add or modify policy language to clarify the relationship between the Metro
Plan and the PFSP in regard to capital improvement plans and the commitment to
comply with regulatory requirements. The proposed changes, as presented, will
not create internal inconsistencies within the Metro Plan.
The proposed changes also amend the PFSP to more accurately reflect MWMC's
planned improvement projects for its wastewater treatment system and primary
collection system, to provide rough cost and timing estimates for those
improvements, update narrative infonnation regarding necessary improvements to
the wastewater treatment system and primary collection system, and more clearly
implement the plan modification standards containep in OAR 660-011-0045(3).
The proposed changes to the PFSP do not create any inconsistencies within the
PFSP nor do they create any inconsistencies between the PFSP and the Metro
Plan.
Staff Report and Findings