HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 06 30 Public Facilities and Services Plan Amendments LRP2008-00016M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
To: Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissioners
From: Andy Limbird, Urban Planner, City of Springfield
Date: June 19, 2009
Subject: Amendments to the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Metro Plan and to the Public Facilities and Services Plan
Issue
The Public Facilities Element of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP), a functional plan of the Metro Plan, are proposed for
amendment as follows:
1. Identify new projects for inclusion or modification, and completed projects for exclusion, in Table 6
City of Springfield Stormwater System Improvement Projects of the PFSP; 2. Add cost and construction horizon for all new stormwater projects, and delete completed stormwater
projects, in Table 18 City of Springfield Stormwater System Improvements, Estimated Costs, and Timing of the PFSP;
3. Modify financing source information for new or modified stormwater projects, in Table 19 Existing Financing Sources of the PFSP;
4. Identify the location of all new projects from Table 6 onto Map 3 Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan Planned Stormwater Facilities of the PFSP;
5. Identify the location of all new projects from Table 6 onto Map 8 Public Service Availability in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area of the PFSP:
6. Amend the Metro Plan pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rule 660-011-0045(1): “The governing body of the city or county responsible for development of the public facility plan shall adopt the plan
as a supporting document to the jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan and shall also adopt as part of the comprehensive plan: (a) The list of public facility project titles, excluding (if the jurisdiction so chooses) the descriptions or specification of those projects; (b) A map or written description of the
public facility projects’ locations or service areas as specified in sections (2) and (3) of this rule.” Background
In 2003, the City of Springfield initiated a project to research and prepare a comprehensive, city-wide stormwater facility master plan. The plan was initiated by City Council to update and replace various
stormwater master plans prepared nearly 30 years ago, and to assist in the implementation of
recommendations for updating and improving the City’s stormwater management system. Previously, the City had been relying primarily on design and construction plans for stormwater facilities to treat and
convey stormwater runoff on a site-by-site basis. Also, most of the stormwater projects had traditionally been designed to manage and mitigate flooding issues. URS Corp was engaged to prepare a stormwater facility master plan to provide recommendations for planning a more comprehensive, efficient and multi-
objective stormwater system in the city. The objectives of the stormwater master plan are to, among other things, evaluate existing and future demand on the stormwater management system within the current urban growth boundary (UGB) including some contiguous drainage areas outside the UGB, and make
recommendations for system improvements (capacity, water quality protection, and efficiency). The City of Springfield Stormwater Facility Master Plan was adopted by City Council in October 2008.
Upon adoption of the master plan, Springfield City Council initiated amendments to the Metro Plan and Public Facilities and Services Plan to implement the recommendations of the Stormwater Facility Master
Plan. Because some of the projects are located outside the City limits and UGB and/or manage
stormwater that is conveyed outside the City limits and UGB, Lane County must participate as a decision-maker. Amendments to the Metro Plan and PFSP are subject to the post-acknowledgment plan
amendment (PAPA) requirements of ORS 197; the Metro Plan amendment procedures in Chapter IV of
the Metro Plan; the PFSP amendment procedures in Chapter VI of the PFSP; additional procedure and the criteria of approval for Metro Plan amendments is found in Springfield Development Code Chapter 5,
Section 5.14-100 through 5.14-155; and Lane Code 12.200 through 12.245.
The Stormwater Facility Master Plan includes a number of recommended actions including new
stormwater lines of various sizes and lengths, detention basins, new outfalls, and watercourse improvements at specific locations within the City’s urban service area. The Metro Plan requires all stormwater lines over 36-inches in diameter and all detention basins, new outfalls, and water quality
facilities to be included in the project lists and maps of the PFSP and Metro Plan.1 The projects proposed
for inclusion are: Project #112 – Glenwood Channel and Pipe Improvements; Project #113 – Gray Creek Channel and Pipe Improvements; Project #114 – Jasper Natron Channel and Pipe Improvements; Project
#115 – Channel 6 Detention Pond, Channel and Pipe Improvements; Project #116 – 59th and Aster and
Daisy Street Parallel Pipe; Project #117 – Irving Slough Channel Improvements; Project #118 – North Gateway – Sports Way Flood Control Water Quality Facility; Project #119 – McKenzie Forest Products
Mill Pond Water Quality Facility; Project #120 – Central Over-Under Channel and Pipe Improvements; Project #121 – Island Park Water Quality Facility; Project #122 – 69th Street Open Channel; Project #123 – Lower Mill Race Water Quality and Riparian Enhancements; Project #212 – 42nd and McKenzie
Highway Pipe Improvements; Project #213 – I-105 Channel Improvements; Project #214 – Jasper Slough Culvert Crossing Improvements; Project #215 – Q Street Channel Riparian Enhancements; Project #216 – I-5 Open Channel Riparian Enhancements; Project #217 – Q Street Floodway East of 28th Water Quality;
Project #218 – 28th Street Main to North Water Quality Temperature TMDL; Project #219 – Open Channel Improvements North of Riverglen Subdivision; Project #220 – Chateau Street Outfall; Project #221 – Clearwater Lane and Jasper Water Quality; Project #222 – 42nd Channel Improvements; and
Project #223 – Maple Island Slough Channel Enhancement and Water Quality Improvements.
The projects proposed for exclusion or modification are: Project #100 – Sports Way Detention Pond;
Project #101 – Maple Island Slough Outfall; Project #102 – Deadmond Ferry Outfall; Project #103 – Aster Street System; Project #106 – T Street Detention Pond; Project #107 – Pierce Industrial Park
Drainage; Project #109 – Jasper/Natron Outfall and Associated Pipe Systems; Project #111A – Cedar
Creek: 69th Street Channel Improvements; Project #111B – Cedar Creek: 72nd Street Channel Improvements; Project #200A – Cedar Creek: Outfall/Detention at Lively Park/McKenzie River; Project
#200B – Cedar Creek: Thurston Middle School Channel Improvements; Project #200C – Cedar Creek:
66th Street Outfall; Project #200D – Cedar Creek: 75th Street Outfall; Project #200E – Cedar Creek: Gossler Bank Control Project; Project #205 – Rosboro Detention Pond; Project #207 – Ash Street Outfall;
Project #208 – Manor Drive Outfall; Project #209 – 16th Street Outfall. The new and modified projects are listed on Tables 6 & 18 and depicted on Maps 3 & 8 attached to this briefing memo.
Amendments to the Metro Plan and PFSP are subject to the post-acknowledgment plan amendment (PAPA) requirements of ORS 197; the Metro Plan amendment procedures in Chapter IV of the Metro Plan; the PFSP amendment procedures in Chapter VI of the PFSP; additional procedure and the criteria
of approval for Metro Plan amendments is found in Springfield Development Code Chapter 5, Section 5.14-100 through 5.14-155; and Lane Code 12.200 through 12.245.
1 Metro Plan, Chapter V, Glossary: Public Facility Projects, page V-5
Discussion The proposed amendments are part of a group of recommendations contained in the recently completed
City of Springfield Stormwater Facility Master Plan – October, 2008. This Master Plan evaluated the
existing city stormwater management system for capacity, efficiency and water quality control measures for the existing UGB (and contiguous drainage areas outside the UGB that are hydraulically connected to
the City’s current and planned stormwater system), population and employment projections paired to the
City’s comprehensive land use plan (Metro Plan). The evaluation concluded that Springfield’s planned stormwater system could not accommodate planned growth at planned densities (both within the city
limits and within Springfield’s urbanizable area) without modifications that include new or twinned
stormwater lines, some larger stormwater lines, new or modified detention basins, and new water quality facilities and outfalls. These recommendations do not invalidate the existing PFSP; however, it does
point out that the City is not likely to fulfill its Goal 11 obligation to plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development2 without some amendments to the project list.
The recommendations of URS Corp for stormwater system upgrades that also must be processed as amendments to the PFSP and Metro Plan are presented to the joint Planning Commissions of Lane
County and the City of Springfield, and to the joint elected officials of Lane County (Board of
Commissioners) and the City of Springfield (City Council) as additions to the project list in Table 6 of the PFSP; the cost and construction timing for projects in Table 18 of the PFSP; the projected sources of
financing in Table 19 of the PFSP; and the general location of projects found on Maps 3 and 8 of the PFSP (see Attachments 3-7 of this briefing memo). Corresponding amendment of the Metro Plan is required by OAR 660 Division 11 Public Facilities Planning, specifically 660-011-0045(1). The
specificity of this information is described in the OAR as follows: “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” (OAR 660-011-0020). It should be noted that the Metro Plan text, at page III-G-2, is very clear regarding the reach of the PFSP: “The project lists and maps in the Public Facilities and Services Plan are adopted as part of the Metro Plan. Information in the Public Facilities and Services Plan on project phasing and costs, and decisions on timing and financing of projects are not part of the Metro Plan and are controlled solely by the capital
improvement programming and budget processes of individual service providers.”
No specific additions or deletions to Chapter III, Section G of the Metro Plan are included in this
proposal. Although the OAR requires project lists and maps to be “adopted as part of the comprehensive
plan”, the 2001 adoption of the Public Facilities and Services Plan and concurrent amendments to Chapter III, Section G of the Metro Plan established a unique relationship between these two documents
with respect to compliance with the OAR. Prior to the 2001 version of the PFSP, the Metro Plan contained all public facilities projects and maps as appendices; the appendix could not be changed without amending the Metro Plan, because the appendix was within the Metro Plan and the OAR
required both to be amended. Upon adoption of the new PFSP in 2001, a new plan-refinement plan relationship was detailed in Chapter
I of the PFSP: “The project lists and maps in Chapter II [of the PFSP] are also adopted as part of the Metro Plan but are physically located in this refinement plan.” In accordance with Chapter II of the PFSP: “The Metro Plan text amendments, the project lists, and the maps in this chapter [of the PFSP] are
adopted as part of the Metro Plan. The Metro Plan text is physically located in the Metro Plan. The project lists and maps in this chapter [of the PFSP] are located in this refinement plan. Amendments to
the Metro Plan text, the project lists, or the maps in this refinement plan require a Metro Plan amendment
as well as an amendment to this refinement plan.” Chapter II, Project Lists and Planned Facilities Maps of
2 Statewide Planning Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
the PFSP states: “This section presents the project lists and maps for planned water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical facilities. These lists and maps are adopted as part of the Metro Plan, but will
be physically located in this refinement plan.”
The Metro Plan also acknowledges this relationship in at least two different chapters: Chapter I
Introduction, Appendices: “Appendix A – Public Facility Plan Project Lists and Maps for Water,
Stormwater, Wastewater, Electricity, and Transportation [These lists and maps are located in Chapter II of the 2001 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan and 2001 Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan)]”. Chapter III-G of the Metro Plan
states: “The project lists and maps in the Public Facilities and Services Plan are adopted as part of the Metro Plan.” Chapter III-G of the Metro Plan, Findings states: “OAR 660-011-0005 defines projects
that must be included in public facility plan project lists for water, wastewater, and stormwater. These definitions are shown in the keys of planned facilities Maps 1, 2, and 3 in the Public Facilities and Services Plan.” Chapter III-G of the Metro Plan, Policies, G.3 states: “Modifications and additions to or
deletions from the project lists in the Public Facilities and Services Plan for water, wastewater, and stormwater public facility projects or significant changes to project location, from that described in the
Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities Maps 1, 2 and 3, requires amendment the Public
Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan.”
The Metro Plan also addresses refinement plan-Metro Plan relationships in a broader context, but still
relevant to this action before the joint Planning Commissions and joint elected officials: Chapter IV, Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and Refinements, Policy 12 states: “All refinement and functional
plans must be consistent with the Metro Plan and should inconsistencies occur, the Metro Plan is the
prevailing policy document.” Based on the preceding text and policy citations, the changes to the project lists and maps in the PFSP must also be adopted into the Metro Plan, while acknowledging that changes
have been made to the project lists and maps in the PFSP rather than physically reintroducing these tables
and maps into the Metro Plan document. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commissions of Springfield and Lane County are requested to conduct a joint public hearing and accept testimony on these proposed amendments on June 30, 2009. At the conclusion of the
joint public hearing, the Planning Commissions of Springfield and Lane County are requested to forward a recommendation in support of, or in opposition to, the proposed amendments. The recommendation of
the joint Planning Commissions will be forwarded to the Lane County Board of Commissioners and
Springfield City Council for their consideration at a joint public hearing meeting scheduled for July 22, 2009.
Attachments 1. Staff report and findings
2. Map of Proposed Projects
3. Table 6 of PFSP with proposed amendments 4. Table 18 of PFSP with proposed amendments
5. Table 19 of PFSP with proposed amendments 6. Map 3 of PFSP showing proposed projects 7. Map 8 of PFSP showing proposed projects
8. Map of Proposed Projects relative to natural resource areas 9. Joint Planning Commission Recommendation
Staff Report and Findings Page 1
Staff Report and Findings of Compliance with the Metro Plan and Statewide Goals and
Administrative Rules
File LRP 2008-00016 Amendments to the Metro Plan and Public Facilities and Services Plan
Applicant
City of Springfield, Public Works Department
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) to: (1) add 24 significant projects to Table 6 of the Public Facilities and Services Plan including those with stormwater lines 36-inches in diameter or larger, detention basins, water
quality facilities, or new outfalls; (2) delete three projects from Table 6 that have been completed; (3) modify 15
projects on Table 6 that have been re-configured or eliminated; (4) modify 18 projects on Table 18 that have
been re-configured or eliminated; (5) modify Table 19 to reflect the current available funding sources for the stormwater projects; and, (6) update Map 3 and Map 8 in the Public Facilities and Services Plan to indicate the general location of the projects added to or removed from Table 6. The proposed amendments are consistent
with the City of Springfield’s recently-adopted Stormwater Facility Master Plan, which updates and improves
upon previous master plans for the city’s stormwater management system.
Background
Metro Plan-PFSP-Local Facilities Plan Context
Oregon state land use law (Goal 11, OAR 660-011) requires all cities with a population over 2,500 to develop and adopt a public facilities plan for the area within the city’s urban growth boundary. The public facilities plan is a support document or documents to a comprehensive plan. Certain elements of the public facility plan also
shall be adopted as part of the comprehensive plan; these elements include a list of public facility project titles
(excluding the descriptions or specifications of those projects if so desired by the jurisdiction); a map or written
description of the public facility projects’ locations or service areas; and the policies or urban growth management agreement designating the provider of each public facility system (OAR 660-011-0045).
In 2001, the governing bodies of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County repealed the 1987 Public Facilities and
Services Plan and replaced it with the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan, December 2001 (subtitled: A Refinement Plan of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan). One of the results of this action is described in the PFSP as follows: “Chapter II of this plan recommends text amendments to the Metro Plan which are adopted as part of, and are incorporated into, the
Metro Plan. The project lists and maps in Chapter II are also adopted as part of the Metro Plan but are
physically located in this refinement plan. If there are any inconsistencies between this plan and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan prevails” (Page 1, Introduction, PFSP). This text confirms that the Public Facilities and Services Plan is a refinement plan of the Metro Plan; that both
the PFSP and the Metro Plan “co-adopted” the project lists, maps and policies as required by OAR 660-011-
0045; that the project lists and maps do not physically appear in the published Metro Plan but, instead, are to be
found in the PFSP; and that amendment of the project list, maps or policies, require identical amendment to both documents if changes are made because they are co-adopted into both the Metro Plan and PFSP.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 13
Staff Report and Findings Page 2
The City of Springfield adopted a new Stormwater Facility Master Plan in 2008. The Stormwater Facility
Master Plan is intended to supplement - but not replace - the policies and provisions of the adopted Public Facilities and Services Plan. Therefore, all recommendations of the adopted Stormwater Facility Master Plan do not have to be incorporated into the PFSP. However, certain recommendations and 24 proposed and
completed Capital Improvement Projects are considered significant by Oregon Administrative Rule 660-011-
0045; these projects require amendments to the adopted PFSP.
On October 20, 2008, Springfield City Council initiated site-specific amendments to the adopted Metro Plan and PFSP to add, modify or remove various stormwater management system projects within Springfield’s urban
growth boundary (UGB), consistent with the recommendations contained in the recently completed Stormwater
Facility Master Plan. The adopted Stormwater Facility Master Plan improves upon the existing master plans
and supplements the PFSP by implementing Policy G.3 of the Metro Plan: “Use local facility master plans,
refinement plans, and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning and project implementation”.
The adopted Stormwater Facility Master Plan recommends the addition of 24 significant projects to the PFSP
project list. These significant projects include those with pipes greater than 36-inches in diameter, detention
basins, water quality facilities, or new outfalls. Three projects on the PFSP list have been completed, and 15
projects have been reconfigured or eliminated. The completed and eliminated projects should be removed from the PFSP tables and maps. All of these projects are part of the City’s stormwater management system, but may
drain areas extending outside the UGB or discharge to waterways that pass outside the UGB. Notwithstanding
the single jurisdiction service purpose of these new projects, the Metro Plan (Page V-4, Public facility projects:
(c) Stormwater) requires all drainage/channel improvements and/or piping systems 36-inches or larger,
proposed detention ponds, outfalls, water quality projects, and waterways and open systems to be identified in the project lists and maps. Because the Metro Plan “prevails” if there are any inconsistencies between the
Metro Plan and the PFSP, the PFSP project lists and maps must show the significant projects.
Stormwater Facility Master Plan – 2008
The City’s Stormwater Facility Master Plan is a citywide public infrastructure plan that evaluates existing and
future demand on the stormwater management system within the current urban growth boundary (UGB)
including some contiguous drainage areas outside the UGB, and makes recommendations for system
improvements (capacity, water quality protection, and efficiency). The Stormwater Facility Master Plan was
initiated by City Council to update and replace various stormwater master plans prepared nearly 30 years ago, and to assist in the implementation of recommendations prepared by URS Corp for updating and improving the
City’s stormwater management system.
The City’s Stormwater Facility Master Plan is not a substitute for the stormwater systems planning that appears
in Chapter III of the Metro Plan or throughout the PFSP; Oregon Administrative Rule 660-011-0010 identifies the constituent components of public facility plans including how these state requirements relate to other public
facilities planning that may be prepared by cities and authorized service providers:
“(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 divisions and ORS Chapter 197.”
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 13
Staff Report and Findings Page 3
This rule provision is intended to allow cities to adopt existing public facilities documents, rather than prepare
new ones, where those documents satisfy the standards of OAR 660-011. This rule provision does not
invalidate other elements of these local planning efforts that do not address provisions of the rule; it simply qualifies those elements of local planning documents that can be used to meet this rule and, in so doing,
obligates such elements to the requirements of ORS 197 (goals compliance; post-acknowledgment plan
amendment procedures). The City is not proposing to reference any elements of the Stormwater Facility
Master Plan as provided in OAR 660-011-0010, but does contend that the development and application of the Stormwater Facility Master Plan is consistent with the following Metro Plan policy:
“G.2 Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan for water, wastewater,
stormwater, and electrical projects in the metropolitan area. Use local facility master plans, refinement plans,
and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning and project implementation.” [Emphasis added]
The Stormwater Facility Master Plan recommends a variety of projects and programs to achieve the primary objective of the plan, which is “to provide a guiding document in order to plan for more comprehensive,
efficient, and multi-objective management of the city’s stormwater resources”. The adopted Stormwater
Facility Master Plan also describes proposed capital improvement projects (CIPs) for flood control and water
quality, and recommends changes to existing stormwater standards and codes that will support the implementation of Springfield’s goals and policies related to stormwater management.
The following project recommendations need to be included in the lists and maps in the Metro Plan and PFSP:
For inclusion in Table 6:
Project #112 – Glenwood Channel and Pipe Improvements
1,600 feet of pipe and 3,000 feet of open channel improvements for flood control in the Glenwood development
and redevelopment areas. Water quality elements will be included with the new construction. Project #113 – Gray Creek Channel and Pipe Improvements
New construction to serve the development area in east Springfield. Approximately 2,000 feet of pipe and
6,500 feet of open drainage ways.
Project #114 – Jasper Natron Channel and Pipe Improvements 3,800 feet of conceptually located open channels to serve the Jasper Natron area.
Project #115 – Channel 6 Detention Pond, Channel and Pipe Improvements
A combination of detention pond, channel improvements and piping to serve the area north of the Eugene-Springfield Highway from 18th Street westerly to I-5.
Project #116 – 59th and Aster and Daisy Street Parallel Pipe
Pipe improvements along Daisy Street from 48th Street to 59th and Aster Streets for flood control.
Project #117 – Irving Slough Channel Improvements
Open channel improvements along the Irving Slough from 42nd Street northwesterly to a
discharge point along the McKenzie River.
Project #118 – North Gateway – Sports Way Flood Control Water Quality Facility Construct a combination flood control/water quality facility at the north end of Sports Way in and adjacent to the City owned Gateway Natural Resource Area.
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 13
Staff Report and Findings Page 4
Project #119 – McKenzie Forest Products Mill Pond Water Quality Facility
Develop a water quality facility on a City owned parcel north of the Booth-Kelly mill pond to serve the south Springfield industrial area along the Northern Pacific Railroad corridor.
Project #120 – Central Over-Under Channel and Pipe Improvements
Various pipe and channel improvements from Willamalane Park at 14th and G Streets to the
confluence with the Q Street channel near Moffitt elementary school. Project #121 – Island Park Water Quality Facility
Green pipe improvements and an offline water quality facility at Island Park to
serve the existing discharge from the downtown commercial area.
Project #122 – 69th Street Open Channel
Construct an over-under pipe system or green pipe open channel and an offline water quality
treatment facility along 69th Street from D Street to Cedar Creek north of Thurston Road.
Project #123 – Lower Mill Race Water Quality and Riparian Enhancements Construct a daylight or diversion pretreatment structure, an offline water quality treatment
facility (pond or wetland), and green pipe open channel improvements from the Booth Kelly site
to the Willamette River.
Project #212 – 42nd and McKenzie Highway Pipe Improvements Pipe improvements near 42nd and McKenzie Highway to control observed localized flooding
problems.
Project #213 – I-105 Channel Improvements
Channel improvements north of I-l05 near of 52nd Street for flood control. Project #214 – Jasper Slough Culvert Crossing Improvements
Road crossing improvements along Jasper Slough from 32nd Street to east of Clearwater Lane for
flood control.
Project #215 – Q Street Channel Riparian Enhancements
Channel enhancements along the channel from 28th Street to I-5 for water quality and shading to
address temperature issues identified in the Willamette River TMDL.
Project #216 – I-5 Open Channel Riparian Enhancements Channel enhancements along the channel from Gateway Mall to the Eugene Springfield
Highway for water quality, bank stability and shading.
Project #217 – Q Street Floodway East of 28th Water Quality
Channel improvements for flood control and water quality along 30th and 28th Streets from north of Main Street to near Olympic Street.
Project #218 – 28th Street Main to North Water Quality Temperature TMDL
Pipe and outfall improvements along 28th Street for flood control and temperature reduction prior
to discharge into the Q Street Floodway.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 13
Staff Report and Findings Page 5
Project #219 – Open Channel Improvements North of River Glen Subdivision
Channel improvements for large flood events and water quality improvements from 7th Street to
Harvest Lane and vicinity. Project #220 – Chateau Street Outfall
System improvements from Hayden Bridge Road to the existing Lane County outfall to the
McKenzie River for flood control and water quality.
Project #221 – Clearwater Lane and Jasper Water Quality Pipe improvements for flood control north of Jasper Road and construction of a water quality
facility prior to discharge into the Middle Fork of the Willamette River.
Project #222 – 42nd Channel Improvements Water quality improvements at the northerly end of the 42nd Street pipe system prior to discharge
into the Kaiser Slough.
Project #223 – Maple Island Slough Channel Enhancement and Water Quality Improvements
Channel and riparian improvements for water quality along the Maple Island Slough from Corporate Way to the outfall near the McKenzie River.
For deletion from Table 6:
Project #100 – Sports Way Detention Pond Project completed
Project #101 – Maple Island Slough Outfall
Reconfigured within Project #223
Project #102 – Deadmond Ferry Outfall
Reconfigured within Project #223
Project #103 – Aster Street System
Included in Project # 116
Project #106 – T Street Detention Pond
Included in Project #115
Project #107 – Pierce Industrial Park Drainage To be constructed with the Marcola Meadows site development
Project #109 – Jasper/Natron Outfall and Associated Pipe Systems
Reconfigured within Project #114
Project #111A – Cedar Creek: 69th Street Channel Improvements
Reconfigured within Project #122
Project #111B – Cedar Creek: 72nd Street Channel Improvements
Reconfigured within Project #113 Project #200A – Cedar Creek: Outfall/Detention at Lively Park/McKenzie River
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 13
Staff Report and Findings Page 6
Lively Park project completed
Project #200B – Cedar Creek: Thurston Middle School Channel Improvements
Not identified as necessary in the Stormwater Facility Master Plan
Project #200C – Cedar Creek: 66th Street Outfall
Not identified as necessary in the Stormwater Facility Master Plan Project #200D – Cedar Creek: 75th Street Outfall
Reconfigured within Project 113
Project #200E – Cedar Creek: Gossler Bank Control Project Project completed
Project #205 – Rosboro Detention Pond
Project pipe reduced to 24” diameter which is below PFSP criteria.
Project #207 – Ash Street Outfall
The engineering study project does not meet PFSP criteria
Project #208 – Manor Drive Outfall
Reconfigured within Project #220
Project #209 – 16th Street Outfall
Project completed
NOTE: Table 18 contains the same projects found in Table 6 proposed for inclusion or deletion; in addition, Table 18 provides cost estimates and completion year estimates for each project. Please refer to Attachments
#4, #5, and #6.
Metropolitan Area General Plan Amendment Criteria
The proposed amendments are considered to be Type II Metro Plan amendments because they are site specific amendments to Plan project lists and maps. Type II Metro Plan amendments inside the city limits shall be
approved by the Home City; Type II Metro Plan amendments between the city limits and the Plan Boundary
shall be approved by the Home City and Lane County. Some of the projects are located partially or entirely
outside the city limits (or manage stormwater originating from outside the city limits), and all discharge stormwater to watercourses that eventually flow outside of the city limits. Therefore, Lane County must co-adopt these amendments.
Springfield and Lane County adopted identical Metro Plan amendment criteria into their respective
implementing ordinances and codes. Springfield Development Code (SDC) Chapter 5, Section 5.14-135.C.1&2 and Lane Code 12.225(2) (a & b) require that the amendment be consistent with relevant statewide planning
goals and that the amendment not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. These criteria are addressed as
follows:
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 13
Staff Report and Findings Page 7
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land
Conservation and Development Commission;
Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity 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. Chapter 5 of the SDC, Metro Plan Amendments - Public
Hearings, prescribes the manner in which a Type II Metro Plan amendment must be noticed. Citizen
involvement for a Type II Metro Plan amendment not related to an urban growth boundary amendment
requires: Notice to interested parties; notice to properties and property owners within 300 feet of the proposal;
published notice in a newspaper of general circulation; and notice 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 mailed on June 19, 2009; notice was published in the
Register-Guard on June 13, 2009. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was provided to DLCD on December
2, 2008. Lane County is participating in this matter; Eugene was sent a referral on April 20, 2009.
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, Chapter 5 and 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 current version of the Metro Plan was last adopted in 2004 (Springfield Ordinance No. 6087; Eugene
Ordinance No. 20319; and 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.
Subsequent to these Metro Plan adoption proceedings, Eugene, Springfield and Lane County considered
amendments to Chapter III-G Public Facilities and Services Element and Chapter V Glossary of the Metro Plan.
These amendments were reviewed at public meetings, public workshops and joint hearings of the Springfield,
Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions and Elected Officials, and adopted by all three jurisdictions in
2004.
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 13
Staff Report and Findings Page 8
The currently proposed amendments to the PFSP arise from recommendations of the city’s Stormwater Facility
Master Plan, which was adopted by the Springfield Common Council on October 20, 2008 after opportunity for
public review and comment, and a public hearing process.
The Metro Plan is the “land use” or comprehensive plan required by this goal; the Springfield Development
Code and the Lane Code are the “implementation measures” required by this goal. Comprehensive plans, as
defined by ORS 197.015(5), must be coordinated with affected governmental units. Coordination means that
comments from affected governmental units are solicited and considered.
Goal 3 – Agricultural Lands To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
The changes do not affect Metro Plan or PFSP consistency with this goal and this goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. None of the proposed projects are intended to provide urban
stormwater management service to properties outside the UGB (although management of drainage originating
from and discharging to watercourses outside the UGB is considered). Instead, the projects were recommended
in the Stormwater Facility Master Plan to meet the City of Springfield’s projected population and employment
growth through the (2025) planning year.
Goal 4 – Forest Lands To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state’s forest economy by
making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.
The changes do not affect Metro Plan or PFSP consistency with this goal and this goal does not apply within
adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. None of the proposed projects are intended to extend urban
stormwater management service to properties outside the UGB (although management of drainage originating from and discharging to watercourses outside the UGB is considered); the projects were recommended in the
Stormwater Facility Master Plan to meet the city of Springfield’s projected population and employment growth
within the existing UGB.
Goal 5 – Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
The City has finished all work required under Goal 5 during the most recent Periodic Review (completed in
2007). Sixteen of the proposed project additions and modifications are located within the City’s protected Goal
5 resource sites: eight within or adjacent to riparian resource areas, and eight within or adjacent to delineated
wetland resource areas. One proposed project overlaps both types of natural resource areas (Irving Slough Channel Improvements). The proposed projects affecting or within riparian resource areas include: #112 –
Glenwood Channel and Pipe Improvements; #117 – Irving Slough Channel Improvements; #121 – Island Park
Water Quality Facility; #123 – Lower Mill Race Water Quality and Riparian Enhancements; #213 – I-105 Open
Channel Riparian Enhancements; #214 Jasper Slough Improvements; #219 – Open Channel Improvements
North of River Glen Subdivision; #220 – Chateau Street Outfall; and #223 – Maple Island Slough Channel Enhancement and Water Quality Improvements. The proposed projects affecting or within wetland natural
resource areas include: #113 – Gray Creek Channel and Pipe Improvements; #114 – Jasper Natron Channel and
Pipe Improvements; #115 – Channel 6 Detention Pond, Channel and Pipe Improvements; #116 – 59th and Aster
and Daisy Parallel Pipe; #117 – Irving Slough Channel Improvements; #119 – McKenzie Forest Products Mill
Pond Water Quality Facility; #122 – 69th Street Open Channel; and #222 – 42nd Channel Improvements. The proposed project areas are depicted on a Capital Improvement Plan map, which is attached to this staff report.
The map depicts the City’s mapped natural resource areas and shows where significant stormwater projects are
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 13
Staff Report and Findings Page 9
located with respect to these resources. These proposed projects include improvements to existing outfalls and
riparian enhancements to meet state and federal regulatory requirements. The City will obtain any necessary
permits for each project from appropriate jurisdictions as required. The proposed projects were not designed nor intended to allow urban development to occur within a protected resource site; the presence of urban
services does not invalidate Goal 5 inventories or protection measures even if the new urban service becomes
available to any of these sites; and, these Goal 5 sites were identified and protected because they qualified under
city or state laws, not because of a lack of available services. The changes do not adversely affect the City’s
acknowledged Goal 5 inventories, so this proposal does not create an inconsistency with the goal.
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 (ORS 468B.050). Among the “pollutants” regulated by the
EQC are temperature (OAR 340-041-0028) and toxic substances (OAR 340-041-0033).
Previously, the Plan was amended to ensure that the Metro Plan and the PFSP accurately reflect stormwater
management system needs as imposed by Federal and State regulation. Additionally, the PFSP notes that:
“Existing policies and plans in the Eugene-Springfield area support water quality and quantity improvements through site planning for new construction, public education, use of natural systems, preservation of natural
drainageways, and reduction of street-related runoff problems. To summarize, stormwater management policies
developed through local plans:
● Establish and support stormwater administration and management programs that include natural resource
protection;
● Protect significant natural resources to serve multiple objectives, including stormwater storage and
conveyance;
● Use constructed wetlands, wetland enhancement, and waterways for stormwater treatment, storage and
conveyance;
● Create and protect a connected natural stormwater system;
● Use a comprehensive wetlands mitigation program to guide planning future stormwater systems;
● Create a comprehensive stormwater monitoring and maintenance program to serve multiple stormwater management objectives; and,
● Develop a plan for financing the stormwater management program.”
This amendment takes the next step in bringing the plan current by incorporating those significant facilities in Springfield which are required to adequately and efficiently convey stormwater to the receiving water bodies,
while adhering to federal and state mandates for pre-treatment (wherever possible), temperature abatement,
removal of sediment and suspended solids, and protection of water quality. The proposed amendment is
intended to update the list of significant stormwater projects (Table 6 of the PFSP) to account for projects that
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 13
Staff Report and Findings Page 10
have already been completed, and the recommendations for new or modified projects described in the City’s
Stormwater Facility Master Plan adopted in October, 2008.
Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards To protect people and property from natural hazards.
The Metro Plan and the City’s Development Code are acknowledged to be in compliance with all applicable
statewide land use goals, including Goal 7. Some of the proposed projects are located within mapped floodplain areas, but their presence does not have any adverse effect on existing policies or procedures adopted
by the City of Springfield for application in floodplain areas. In accordance with Section 4.3-117 of the City’s
Development Code, the maintenance, expansion, restoration or rehabilitation of natural and constructed
waterways is contemplated (if not encouraged), provided there is mitigation of upstream flooding and original
or improved design flow capacity is maintained. Furthermore, the proposed projects that are located in floodplain areas are intended to provide mitigation of flood events and, correspondingly, to protect life and
property from damage due to flood impacts.
Goal 8 – Recreational Needs To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts.
All of the proposed projects are intended to improve or expand current facilities, or to accommodate future
growth in population and employment. What is meant, but not stated in this general concept of “future growth
in population and employment” is that it includes ancillary activities as well. The Metro Plan anticipates up to 32% of residential designation will be occupied by these ancillary activities: “In the aggregate, non-residential
land uses consume approximately 32 percent of buildable residential land. These non-residential uses include
churches, day care centers, parks, streets, schools, and neighborhood commercial” (Page III-A-4, Metro Plan).
Determination of pipe sizes and capacity, and implementation of water quality protection “best management
practices”, contemplates the presence of these land uses. Additionally, the Willamalane Park and Recreation Master Plan includes future park sites needed to keep pace with residential growth.
Goal 9 – Economic Development
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens.
The Metro Plan cites the provision of adequate public facilities and services as necessary for economic
development. Objective 10, at page III-B-4 states: “Provide the necessary public facilities and services to
allow economic development”. Policy B25, at Page III-B-6, states: “Pursue an aggressive annexation program
and servicing of designated industrial lands in order to have a sufficient supply of ‘development ready’ land”. Policy B26, at page III-B-6, states: “In order to provide locational choice and to attract new campus industrial
firms to the metropolitan area, Eugene and Springfield shall place as a high priority service extension,
annexation, and proper zoning of all designated special light industrial sites”.
All of these policies are served by the proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and PFSP as these projects are intended to meet future demand generated by population and employment growth. Additionally, it is the
provision of key urban services that typically determines suitability of land to be converted from rural to urban
and to be annexed into the city limits: “Land within the UGB may be converted from urbanizable to urban only
through annexation to a city when it is found that: a. A minimum level of key urban facilities and services can
be provided to the area in an orderly and efficient manner; b. There will be a logical area and time within which to deliver urban services and facilities. Conversion of urbanizable land to urban shall also be consistent with
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 13
Staff Report and Findings Page 11
the Metro Plan” (Page II-C-4, Metro Plan). The proposed amendment will update the list of projects that, in
part, facilitate urban stormwater system extension to these areas so that planned development may occur.
Goal 10 – 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 type, location and phasing of public 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 “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 capacity for future development of residential (population) and commercial and industrial
(employment) use consistent with the comprehensive plan. Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities 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 list the proposed projects and identify the general location of the project on a map. The proposal will add
24 projects to Tables 6 and 18; delete 15 projects that have been reconfigured or eliminated from these same
tables; delete three projects that have been completed from these same tables; modify Table 19 to identify
existing funding sources for the proposed projects; and show the location of all proposed projects on Maps 3 and 8. These tables and maps are adopted as part of the Metro Plan, but are located in, and are a part of the
PFSP.
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, Table 18 includes rough cost estimates for all 38 proposed stormwater projects. These costs are derived from the work performed during the
preparation of previous stormwater master plans, and further refined by the recently adopted Stormwater
Facility Master Plan.
OAR 660–011–0045 requires certain elements of the public facility plan to be adopted as part of the comprehensive plan. These elements include the list of public facility project titles (Table 6); the map or
written description of the public facility projects locations or service areas (Maps 3 and 8); and policies or urban
growth management agreements designating the provider of each public facility system. No policy
amendments are proposed in this action. The notice of proposed amendment sent to DLCD, the notice of the
hearing on these amendments, and the applicable criteria are consistent with the provisions for a land use decision and the post-acknowledgment procedures of ORS 197.610.
Goal 12 - Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
Attachment 1, Page 11 of 13
Staff Report and Findings Page 12
The transportation system plan is not dependent upon, or influenced by the stormwater management system
plan. Land development cannot occur in the absence of infrastructure and that includes stormwater
management and transportation; but neither the goals nor the OARs require a corollary analysis of each of these services when the city is proposing one or both of these plans for post-acknowledgement amendment. All of
the proposed amendments are needed to upgrade (expand the capacity or water quality enhancement provisions
of) existing facilities. In each case, the planned transportation facilities are: 1) already in place; 2) under
construction; 3) in design; or, 4) planned. The changes do not affect Metro Plan or PFSP consistency with this
goal.
Goal 13 – Energy Conservation To conserve energy.
3. Land use planning should, to the maximum extent possible, seek to recycle and re-use vacant land and those uses which are not energy efficient.
All of the projects are upgrades, enhancements, or expand the capacity of existing systems. Such a strategy
maximizes the efficiency of the existing system (sunk cost) and provides for infill and redevelopment
opportunities that couldn’t go forward without these improvements. The changes do not affect Metro Plan or
PFSP consistency with this goal.
Goal 14 – Urbanization To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban
population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.
The amendments do not affect the existing UGB; they will allow capacity expansion of existing facilities to
enable projected planned population and employment growth within the existing UGB. If these stormwater
projects do not occur, projected population and employment growth will need to be accommodated beyond the
existing UGB. The proposed amendments will potentially delay when UGB adjustments must be taken and may reduce the acreage necessary to accommodate projected growth. The changes do not affect Metro Plan or
PFSP consistency with this goal.
Goal 15 – Willamette River Greenway
To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.
There are four projects located in close proximity to the Willamette River: Glenwood Channel and Pipe
Improvements, Borden Outfall Upgrade, Island Park Water Quality Facility, and Lower Mill Race Water
Quality and Riparian Enhancements. The presence of these facilities, and the necessary upgrades, will allow
planned development of these areas to occur, but not at the exclusion of any other rules or standards that may be applicable to even permitted development. For example, development within the Greenway Boundary is
permitted, but is subject to SDC 3.3-300 regardless of the presence or absence of infrastructure. The changes
do not affect Metro Plan or PFSP consistency with this goal.
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.
Attachment 1, Page 12 of 13
Staff Report and Findings Page 13
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
The project lists and maps contained in the PFSP were adopted as part of the Metro Plan in 2004, 2006 and 2008. The project lists in the PFSP, in the form of tables, include significant stormwater projects with pipes 36-
inches or larger, detention basins, water quality facilities, or new outfalls; the maps show the general location or
service area of the projects. The proposed amendments include detention basins, water quality facilities, new
outfalls, project descriptions, and changes to the maps to show the general location of each project. These same
amendments are applied to the same project lists (Tables 6 and 18) and maps (Maps 3 and 8) in the PFSP that are specifically adopted as part of the Metro Plan. This action constitutes the ideal test of consistency.
Therefore, the proposed changes, as presented, will not create internal inconsistencies within the Metro Plan.
In addition to the foregoing, the proposed amendments are consistent with the following Metro Plan policies:
“Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and services in an orderly and efficient manner
consistent with the growth management policies in Chapter II – C, relevant policies in this chapter, and other
Metro Plan policies” (Page III-G-4, Policy G.1).
“Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide the general location of water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical projects in the metropolitan area. Use local facility master plans,
refinement plans, and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning and project implementation” (Page III-G-4,
Policy G.2). [Emphasis added]
“Modifications and additions to or deletions from the project lists in the Public Facilities and Services Plan for
water, wastewater, and stormwater public facility projects or significant changes to project location, from that described in the Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities Maps 1, 2 and 3, requires amending the
Public Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan…” (Page III-G-4, Policy G.3). [Emphasis added]
“Use annexation, provision of adequate public facilities and services, rezoning, redevelopment and infill to meet
the 20-year projected housing demand.” (Page III-A-5, Policy A.4) “Endeavor to provide key urban services and facilities required to maintain a five-year supply of serviced,
buildable residential land.” (Page III-A-6, Policy A.7)
“Coordinate higher density residential development with the provision of adequate infrastructure and services, open space, and other urban amenities” (Page III-A-7, Policy A.12).
“Coordinate local residential land use and housing planning with other elements of this plan, including public
facilities and services, and other local plans, to ensure consistency among policies” (Page III-A-13, Policy
A.35).
Attachment 1, Page 13 of 13
43
26
27
33
423231
24
28
29 34
37
1
4 6
2
3
15
5
10
1821
12
16
L e g e n dLegend
300 ft Drainage Link BufferHigh Priority CIP Area
300 ft Drainage Link BufferLow Priority CIP Area
L o w P r i o r i t y C I PLow P r i o r i t y C I P
H i g h P r i o r i t y C I PHigh P r i o r i t y C I P
Interstate 5
CIP Project Areas 1 0 10.5
Miles
Springfield UGB
Springfield City LimitsDrainage Links
K
Page 1 of 2
Table 6 City of Springfield Stormwater System Improvement Projects
Project Number Project Name/Description Stormwater Facility Master Plan Project Number
Short-Term
100 Sports Way detention pond
101 Maple Island Slough Outfall
102 Deadmond Ferry Outfall
103 Aster Street system
104 Jasper Slough Outfall n/a
105 20th Street Outfall n/a
106 T Street detention pond
107 Pierce Industrial Park drainage
108 Mill Race Enhancements, including new intake n/a
109 Jasper/Natron outfalls and associated pipe systems
110 Highway 126/I-105 drainage improvements n/a
111-A Cedar Creek: 69th Street Channel improvements
111-B Cedar Creek: 72nd Street Channel Improvements
112 Glenwood Channel & Pipe Improvements 1
113 Gray Creek Channel & Pipe Improvements 2
114 Jasper Natron Channel & Pipe Improvements 3
115 Channel 6 Detention Pond, Channel & Pipe
Improvements 4
116 59th & Aster and Daisy Street Parallel Pipe 5
117 Irving Slough Channel Improvements 6
118 North Gateway – Sports Way Flood Control Water
Quality Facility 10
119 McKenzie Forest Products Mill Pond Water Quality
Facility 12
120 Central Over-Under Channel & Pipe Improvements 15
121 Island Park Water Quality Facility 16
122 69th Street Open Channel 18
123 Lower Mill Race Water Quality & Riparian
Enhancements 21
Long-Term
200-A Cedar Creek: Outfall/Detention at Lively Park/McKenzie River
200-B Cedar Creek: Thurston Middle School Channel Improvements
200-C Cedar Creek: 66th Street Outfall
200-D Cedar Creek: 75th Street Outfall
200-E Cedar Creek: Gossler Bank control project
200-F Cedar Creek: Diversion System
200-G Cedar Creek: East Thurston Road/Hwy 126 Outfall
and Associated Piping
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
Table 6 Continued City of Springfield Stormwater System Improvement Projects
Project Number Project Name/Description
Stormwater Facility
Master Plan Project Number
201 Thurston Road Interceptor n/a
202 Highway 126 and 87th Interceptor and Outfall n/a
203 South 79th Street System n/a
204 Rocky Point Drive System and Outfall n/a
205 Rosboro Detention Pond
206 Borden Outfall Upgrade n/a
207 Ash Street Outfall
208 Manor Drive Outfall
209 16th Street Outfall
210 Jasper Slough Improvements n/a
211 Hayden Bridge Road Interceptor n/a
212 42nd & McKenzie Hwy Pipe Improvements 24
213 I-105 Channel Improvements 26
214 Jasper Slough Culvert Crossing Improvements 27
215 Q Street Channel Riparian Enhancements 28
216 I-5 Open Channel Riparian Enhancements 29
217 Q Street Floodway East of 28th Water Quality 31
218 28th Street Main to North Water Quality Temperature TMDL 32
219 Open Channel Improvements North of Riverglen Subdivision 33
220 Chateau St Outfall 34
221 Clearwater Lane & Jasper Water Quality 37
222 42nd Channel Improvements 42
223 Maple Island Slough Channel Enhancement &
Water Quality Improvements 43
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2
Table 18
City of Springfield
Stormwater System Improvements, Estimated Costs, and Timing
Project Number Project Name/Description
Stormwater
Facility Master Plan Project Number
Cost ($000) Estimated Completion Year
Short-Term
100 Sports Way Detention Pond 400 2008-2013
101 Maple Island Slough Outfall 1,500 2008-2013
102 Deadman Ferry Outfall 150 2008-2013
103 Aster Street System 500 2008-2013
104 Jasper Slough Outfall 210 2008-2013
105 20th Street Outfall 350 2008-2013
106 T Street Detention Pond 150 2008-2013
107 Pierce Industrial Park Drainage 300 2008-2013
108 Mill Race Enhancements, including new
intake
n/a 7,800 2008-2013
109 Jasper/Natron Outfalls and associated pipe
systems
1,500 2008-2013
110 Hwy 126/I-105 Drainage Improvements n/a 640 2008-2013
111-A Cedar Creek: 69th Street Channel improvements 500 2008-2013
111-B Cedar Creek: 72nd Street Channel Improvements 250 2008-2013
112 Glenwood Channel & Pipe Improvements 1 4,670 2008-2013
113 Gray Creek Channel & Pipe Improvements 2 4,650 2008-2013
114 Jasper Natron Channel & Pipe Improvements 3 2,800 2008-2013
115 Channel 6 Detention Pond, Channel & Pipe Improvements 4 1,250 2008-2013
116 59th & Aster and Daisy St Parallel Pipe 5 2,100 2008-2013
117 Irving Slough Channel Improvements 6 2,150 2008-2013
118 North Gateway – Sportsway Flood Control Water Quality Facility 10 520 2008-2013
119 McKenzie Forest Products Mill Pond Water Quality Facility 12 60 2008-2013
120 Central Over-Under Channel & Pipe Improvements 15 2,500 2008-2013
121 Island Park Water Quality Facility 16 60 2008-2013
122 69th St Open Channel 18 2,500 2008-2013
123 Lower Mill Race Water Quality & Riparian Enhancements 21 60 2008-2013
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
Table 18
City of Springfield
Stormwater System Improvements, Estimated Costs, and Timing (continued)
Project Number Project Name/Description
Stormwater
Facility Master Plan Project Number
Cost ($000) Estimated Completion Year
Long-Term
200-A Cedar Creek: Outfall/Detention at Lively Park/McKenzie River 250 2005-2010
200-B Cedar Creek: Thurston Middle School Channel Improvements 100 2005-2010
200-C Cedar Creek: 66th Street Outfall 450 2005-2010
200-D Cedar Creek: 75th Street Outfall 250 2005-2010
200-E Cedar Creek: Gossler Bank control project 1,500 2005-2010
200-F Cedar Creek: Diversion System n/a 2,100 2010+
200-G Cedar Creek: East Thurston Road/Hwy 126
Outfall and Associated Piping
n/a 350 2010+
201 Thurston Road Interceptor n/a 570 2013-2018
202 Hwy 126 and 87th Interceptor and Outfall n/a 570 2010+
203 South 79th Street System n/a 1,425 2013-2018
204 Rocky Point Drive System and Outfall n/a 420 2013-2018
205 Rosboro Detention Pond 300 2013-2018
206 Borden Outfall Upgrade n/a 140 2013-2018
207 Ash Street Outfall 150 2013-2018
208 Manor Drive Outfall 250 2013-2018
209 16th Street Outfall 250 2013-2018
210 Jasper Slough Improvements n/a 500 2013-2018
211 Hayden Bridge Road Interceptor n/a 500 2013-2018
212 42nd & McKenzie Hwy Pipe Improvements 24 300 2013-2018
213 I-105 Channel Improvements 26 1,610 2013-2018
214 Jasper Slough Culvert Crossing Improvements 27 200 2013-2018
215 Q St Channel Riparian Enhancements 28 500 2013-2018
216 I-5 Open Channel Riparian Enhancements 29 500 2013-2018
217 Q St Floodway East of 28th Water Quality 31 200 2013-2018
218 28th St Main to North Water Quality
Temperature TMDL
32 60 2013-2018
219 Open Channel Improvements North of
Riverglen Subdivision
33 30 2013-2018
220 Chateau St Outfall 34 240 2013-2018
221 Clearwater Lane & Jasper Water Quality 37 350 2013-2018
222 42nd Channel Improvements 42 200 2013-2018
223 Maple Island Slough Channel Enhancement &
Water Quality Improvements
43 250 2013-2018
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 2
Table 19 Existing Financing Sources
User fees Assess- ments Develop-ment fees
Property tax Grants/ loans Bonds Short-term debt
Private finance
Water
EWEB
O&M X
Rehabilitation X X X X
Expansion X X X X X
SUB
O&M X
Rehabilitation X X
Expansion X X X
Rainbow
O&M X
Rehabilitation X
Expansion X X
Wastewater
City of Eugene
O&M X
Rehabilitation X X X X
Expansion X X X X X X X X
City of Springfield
O&M X
Rehabilitation X X X
Expansion X X X X X X X X
MWMC
O&M X
Rehabilitation X X
Expansion X X X
Stormwater
City of Eugene
O&M X
Rehabilitation X X X
Expansion X X X
City of Springfield
O&M X
Rehabilitation X X X X X
Expansion X X X X X X X X
Lane County
O&M
Rehabilitation X
Expansion X
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 1
43
26
27
33
423231
24
28
29 34
37
1
4 6
2
3
15
5
10
1821
12
16
L e g e n dLegend
N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e A r e a sNatural R e s o u r c e A r e a s
C I P A r e a sCIP A r e a s
Interstate 5
CIP Project Areas 1 0 10.5
Miles
Springfield UGB
Springfield City LimitsDrainage Links
K
112. Glenwood Channel & Pipe Improvement (1)113. Gray Creek Channel & Pipe Improvements (2)114. Jasper Natron Channel & Pipe Improvements (3)115. Channel 6 Detention Pond, Channel & Pipe Improvements (4)116. 59th & Aster & Daisy Parallel Pipe (5)117. Irving Slough Channel Improvements (6)118. North Gateway – Sports Way Flood Control Water Quality Facility (10)119. McKenzie Forest Products Mill Pond Water Quality Facility (12)120. Central Over Under Channel & Pipe Improvements (15)121. Island Park Water Quality Facility (16)122. 69th Street Open Channel (18)123. Lower Mill Race Water Quality & Riparian Enhancements (21)
212. 42nd & McKenzie Hwy Pipe Improvements (24)213. I-105 Open Channel Riparian Enhancements (26)214. Jasper Slough Improvements (27)215. Q Street Channel Riparian Enhancements (28)216. I-5 Open Channel Riparian Enhancements (29)217. Q St. Floodway East of 28th Water Quality (31)218. 28th St Main to North Water Quality Temperature TMDL (32)219. Open Channel Improvements North of Riverglen Subdivision (33)220. Chateau St Outfall (34)221. Clearwater Lane & Jasper Water Quality (37)222.42nd Channel Improvements (42)223. Maple Island Slough Channel Enhancement & Water Quality Improvements (43)
Low Priority CIP AreaHigh Priority CIP Area
Riparian Resource AreasWetlands
Planning Commission Order
LRP2008-00016
June 30, 2009
Page 1 of 1
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
METRO PLAN AMENDMENT ( RECOMMENDATION TO
AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ( THE CITY COUNCIL
SERVICES PLAN ( Case Number: LRP2008-00016 (
( NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
The proposed Metro Plan amendment will revise Tables 6, 18 and 19, and Maps 3 and 8 of the Public Facilities
and Services Plan (a refinement plan of the Metro Plan) to add, modify or delete stormwater projects in the City of Springfield that have been completed, modified or eliminated upon adoption of the City’s Stormwater Facility
Master Plan.
1. The above referenced plan amendment action was initiated by the Springfield City Council upon adoption
of the Stormwater Facility Master Plan in October, 2008. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing,
pursuant to Springfield Development Code Section 5.2-115, has been provided.
2. The plan amendment action is consistent with provisions of the adopted Metro Plan and Public Facilities
and Services Plan as described in the attached staff report.
3. On June 30, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed plan amendment. The staff notes, findings and recommendation together with the oral testimony and written
submittals of the persons testifying at that hearing have been considered and are part of the record of this
proceeding.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of this record, the proposed amendment is consistent with the criteria of SDC Section 5.14-
135.C.1&2. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusion in the Staff Report
and Findings.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council to approve the plan amendment as
recommended herein, Case Number LRP2008-00016, at their July 22, 2009 meeting with the added condition
that the City Council consider options provided by the staff for treating downstream stormwater flow onto downstream properties.
__________________________________ Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
AYES: _____
NOES: _____ ABSENT: _____
ABSTAIN: _____
Attachment 9, Page 1 of 1