HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments Miscellaneous 5/24/2004
I
.
OJ
j
...~,' ~r...~,y-',
-r'
Phone: (541) 682-5481
"'-;f
c
AGENDA
EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION
Atrium Building, Sloat Room, 99 West 10th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401
Web site: www.ci.eugene.or.us
The Eugene Planning Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go
as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing
impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours notice
prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours notice. To
arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 682-5481. Telecommunications devices for deaf
assistance are available at 682-5119. .
MONDAY. MAY 24. i004 - REGULAR MEETING
(11:30 a.m.)
11:30 a.m.
11:40 a.m.
II :50 a.m.
1:15 p.m.
Commissioners:
Ex officio;';lember:
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
The Planning Commission reserves 10 minutes at the beginning of this meeting for
public comment. The public may comment on any matter exceot for public
hearing items for which the record has already closed. Generally, the time limit
for public comment is three minutes; however, the Planning Commission reserves
the option to reduce the time allowed each speaker based on the number of people
requesting to speak.
APPROV AL OF MINUTES
Minutes of March 8, April 12, 20, 2004.
WORK SESSION/ACTION: METROPOLITAN W ASTEW A TER
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION METRO PLAN/PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN
AMENDMENTS
Staff: Kurt Yeiter, 682-8379 '
ITEMS FROM COMMISSION ANO STAFF
A. Subcommittee Reports
B. Other Items from Commission and Staff
Jon Belcher Anne Marie Levis
Mitzi Colbath Adell McMillan
Rick Ouncan Charles Rusch, President
J~hn Lawless, Vice President 0 . Date ReCeiVjd
. Tom Coyle, Executive Director, Planning and Oevelopment. .
. MAY U"'O~
Planner: BJ
";'"
----
(~ ,
,y+l,..
""..
.5,.
, I~l ,'"'fi".r1
~')I"'.\ tlC:''''''(::l''~' "',lb\.'
~ "0 ti B"f,.)~' ljlf, 11 ~.';.', ....
Date Received
VA' ,
~,~ i:I^l--'
. '.f.a c. .:i
MAY 24) {lL(
. Planner~ BJ
... e~'i'
t"b1 ;l~~rU~!SR~'1J
....i, J~: \~ 1
SUMMARY MINUTES
Regular Public Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room-The Atrium Buildirig-99 West 10th Avenue.
March 8, 2004
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT:
Charles Rusch, President, John Lawless, Vice Presiderit, Mitzi Colbath, Rick Ouncan,
Adell McMillan, members; Susan Muir, Beth Bridges, Kurt Yeiter, Allen Lowe, Plan-
ning and Development Department.
ABSENT:
Anne Marie Levis, Jon Belcher, members.
PtmLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Lawless, seconded by Ms. McMillan, moved to approve the minutes of No-
vember 3, 2003, and January 26, 2004, as submitted and February 9, 2004, as cor-
. ,
rected. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
WORKSEssioN: CITIZEN INVOLVE)\fENT ROLE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
:' .' :',' . ,.''t.,.. {,
SUMMARY MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission
.Date Received
. '. MAY 2 4~1
. Planner: BJ
March 8, 2004 '-. Page I
. ~: '7',,' ':/"/l' ""r'-\( ~.c.:~ .t-....~e,~(~
- 'L'I~! l>.,_ ""-'/'" .,'II!"'\
!' _ .. '. ,~JI. , ;' 7 I '!
.:.\
'.. ~.
. P". '{)_'
. ',. ': 1:~\V~"'_;I'
'1 :,:4;i II ' !l~, '7' t.
. "'fl. U (,"t..A!
.' ',"'Fln"l,.....,.i;:'YilQ,'. f
, .';7 , ~....i~ ol..7t ~ ;::}iM'.9"'-.:J:
" ,n.;" t';' Yjj !,~
. '" ..1,
'.
. ~ ,,:~. "'l~)n\f.i!\':':~Q1
"\".D~,,, I '1 ~~J!l !1.~ n~;_~I\' tJ
)
'.
, ,
, .
'-
Date Received
MAY 24 1 deb{
Planner: BJ
r. I . "'.~ J"
I
I
i
,-
.., I,J
MINUTES
Regular Public Meeting
.. Eugene Planning Comrussion
Sloat Room-The Atrium Buildirig-99 West 1 0'" Avenue
.' .'
.
March 8, 2004
ll:30a.m.
(:harles Rusch, President, John Lawless, Vice President, Mitzi Colbath,'RickDuncan,
Adell McMillan, members; Susan Muir, Beth Bridges, Kurt Yeiter; Allen Lowe, Plan-
ning and Development Department.
PRESENT:
. ABSENT:
Anne Marie Levis, Jon Belcher, members..
..l
Mr. Rusch calle"d the meeting to order.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There was no public comment.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.OF NOVEMBER 3, 2003, AND JANUARY 26 AND FEBRUARY 9,
2004 .
,.'...'
Mr. Rusch noted tru:ee minor graminatical corrections to the February 9,2004 minutes.. No other
corrections were made.
Mr. Lawless, seconded by Ms. McMillan, moved to approve the.minutes of No-
. vember 3,.2003, and January 26, 2004; as submitted and February 9; 2004, as cor- .
rected. The motion passed unanimously, 5 :0.
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED SALMON PRO'f.ECTION
REGULATION STMTEGYc '
,
Planning Manager Susan Muir and Neighborhood Services Manager Beth Bridges discussed the citizen
involvement role. for the Planning Commission. .
. .
. Ms. Muir announced that Ms.' Levis was unable to attend the meeting and had asked that the 'commission
be provided a report done five years on how to"developpublic involvement.plans.
Ms. Muir said that the work session discussion was framed around four issues:
. Defining major land use'projects
. Defining the, Planning Commission role
.,
;' .&....tk;r~:~, .j':"..! ) ~\1' :~{',;
'\ , ., ".'~/''''l''"" ,I.-I'; t
, .' , ~ ." \'\ ,
,
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission
',.\.' I.l}.f\1
March 8, 2004
1 ',. ; ....'t. ',It!~ ;1
.' ~ fl' I, '}'ij :!
Date Received
MAY 24 'ot.{
Planner: BJ
Page I
ri" ,. ...
. Developing gliide"Iines/questio.ns in development.citizen involvement plans.
.. Reviewing an ex~mple project.' '"
Ms. Muir said the City had defined major land use projects in corresponderice with the State as needing
,to meet three criteria:
. I. ' Initiated by the City Council; ..
2. Adopted by the City Council by ordinance; and. ,.'
3. The' adopting oidinance.includes findings of consistency with Statewide Planning Goals.
.-' . ,
.. , ,
. Ms. Muir reviewed the exceptions set for the in the staff memorandum dated March 8,2004, which
" .
included minor Land Use Code updates, a project that staff was commencing. She said the amendments,
would not come before the commission because the public process was established under the code and
would riot require a separat~ citizen involvement plan. She commented that there were questions'about
how Public Woi-ksprojects would fit into the definition of major land use projects. She asked Ms.
Bridges to di~cuss'the other options for a public process in lieu of the Planning Commission's citizen
involvement role.
Ms. Bridges explained that the Citizen Involvetfient Committee (Cre) function for projects that did not
"
meet the criteria for a major land use project, but did meet,the guidelines for being high imp~ct or high
controversy, wouldbe'fulfilled thj:ough the submission of citizen involvement plans to a peer review.
group for feedback prior to;implementation.' .
. -
Ms. Colbath asked if sraffhad researched how other cities without a CIC handled the public involvement ..
process for non-larid.use projects. Ms. Bridges said that a ievjew of other cities had not been done and "
she felt that!, peer revi~w from staff not involved in the design of the citizen involvement plan was
sufficient; her experiencewasthat feedback from the crc and peer reviews was substantially the same.
Ms. 1'y1uir added that the ]Jeer review process was P!:lt in place when the council disbanded th" cre.
"
Mr. Lawless asked for an example of a major land use project that would fall under the three. criteria that
. would not come under the typical land I)se review and management process. Ms. Muir listed the salmon
strategy,.nodal development as a'whole, the Downtown Plan, and possibly housing standards as
examples.
Ms.1'1cMiIlan commented that for some projects, the end result could be a Land Use Code amendment,
but the commission'in its crc role was more concerned about public involvement.at'the front end of the.
process. Ms. Muir added that the c~ll tower issue 'was an example of a project that'would not come to the
commission because it wquld only involve minor code amendments and not include the,type of p'ublic
outreach associated with a larger proj ect. .. ,
Ms. Colb~th asked if the commission could address' whether a citizen involvement process was required ..
for a project component that was. not specifically delineated .as land use. Ms. lVIuir said that tYPically any
. land use process would be before:the cojrnnission three to five times at a minimum and she was reluctant.
to add another meeting'to the front end 'of the .process; it was preferable to have clarity about the
threshold for projects'Up front.
, ... 1III'''}, t"'';?[{i' ::':;I)1l':fA...~ .
Mr. L~wless comrilented that there should,beno gap in terms of citizen involvement for anything .
associat~'ii ~i{ri'mnd use, He said he was ambiguous about the commission's crc role because he was
~.' ',' : ",',., :";r,'-Joo", f: () . O' ate Bece'lv.ed
'. "';.[1.' ..,'{, -~ :It;J;'\i. ,J l,r 'HJ~';l}{l 11 '
MiNuTES - E~gene Planning Commission March 8, 2004 MAY 2P4'r3q'
.,'
,
Planner: BJ
,'."
....'1.,-""
"
.'"
.. P I,~
not certain about the implications, but was comfortable with the broad nature of the definitions which
allowed flexibility in determining which projects,the commission would address.
Mr. Duncan asked ifstaffwould seek the commission's opinion if there were projects that did not fit
precisely within the definitions. Ms. Muir said that staff would seek feedback from the commission in
those cases.
Mr. Duncan asked 'if staff could use email to consult with the commission on whether a project should
corne before it in its crc role. Ms. Muir said she would check on the legality of email consultation.
Ms. Bridges explained that before the crc was disbanded, she would consult with the 'Planning Manager
and identify those projects that were land use projects; sort out those that were regional or intergovern-
mental or had a citizen involvement.process prescribed in the code, and refer the rest to the cre. She.
said that resulted in referral of three to five projects a year to the crc. Ms. Muir said the commission's
role for those projects would be similar to the cre's and consist of a three part process: staff would
. proposes a public involvement process, the commission would meet to discuss it, and then provide
feedback and approve, deny, or~ change the proposed process.
,Ms. Muir referred to a list of questions in the staff memo.that the,coinmission could use as guidelines
. during the review of plans and asked for feedback on whether there weJ;e any areas that were not covered.
Mr. Rusch suggested that the list of questions accompany each plan to aid the commission in its
deliberations. Ms, Muir said that the questions could be used as the framework for the staff reports.
Referring to the issue of collaborative problem-solving on the list of questions, Ms. McMillan said it
would be helpful to the commission to be very clear about the purpose of citizen involvement was in
order to avoid raising unrealistic expectations about the public'srole.
Ms. 'Colbath noted that there were guidelines developed.by the crc to assist staff in preparing citizen
involvement plans. She asked if staff felt that there was an issue in the list of questions' in the staff memo
that was particularly. important. Ms. Bridges said she felt the most important question related to the
purpose oqhe citizen involvell)ent plan as it determined the types of tools and techniques that were used
in the plan. She said there was recognition that techniques should be tailored to the project. She also
indicated that it was important to provide feedback to people who participated in the public process-about
how their input was used and that issue merited more attention.
Ms. Colbath said she had conversations with people who had recently been invcilved in land. use matters
and they were almost unanimous in stating that the earlier people were involved in the process they more
satisfied they were. Ms. Muir said a question could be added to the guidelines related. to a plan's .
timeline.
Mr. Duncan said he had received comments from people who wanted feedback on the results of their
participation in the process and he encouraged development of ~ethods. to provide that feedback as a part
of each plan.. """
.,
Mr. Rusch agreed it was important to aclmowledge the contribution of citizens. .
"
Mr. Lawless stated that in order 'for the commission to answer the question of whether a pian met the
. ,.i . .
.-.....',.:.,:"'\1 t'f_' ;"\.i ~\.: ' , ~.... ,(' .
.' I,: '", '.")-. "~:I,j: ,....J.(i}. ;:
'. , _ . r, _' . I, t,,~.- I
MINUJTESTJ~:~gene Plannillg Commission
March 8, 2004
Date Received
Page 3
MAY 't 41 oq
J-",
,:-.:;.;.
ili',~((:
..' 'fl I
Pia [F'J
-.II''' "."
. .,nneL. 0
". d"
purpose intended,for citizen involvement on a'project'-it was necessary for staff to clearly define that
. .
purpose in specific terms and identifY target outcomes in the plan it submitted to the commission. Ms.
Muir agreed that future plans would iriclude that type of information.
Mr. Duncan asked if plans would include the step's that were mandated by law, such as notification; Ms':
Muir said that plans would identifY the mandated steps and timelines and where applicable the content of
notifications. She said there was little variation between projects.
"
Ms. Muir said that it would be beneficial to staff to have ,the commission's advice'on how to get people
involved at earlier stages in the process when there were legal requirements for notification that had
typically driven the'process, keeping inmind.the costs involved,
",'
Ms. McMillan asked if the CIC had discussed the costs associated' with citizen involvement plans. Ms.
Bridges replied that often a budget figure was provided for the entire plan, although that was' not
required. She said cost discussions occurred when the Cl(J wanted to add components to the plan and it
was necessary for staff to negotiate the cost of additions and what would.have to be eliminated in order
to pay for them. .
Ms. McMillan said it was important for staff to be clear with the commission aboutthe budget for a plan
.' so it would not recommend changes that were imaffordable.
Ms. Muir directed the commission's attention to a draft project proposal for the Chambers no'de
commercial and residentiahnfill imd redevelopment standards and said it could be the subject of an
exercise in designing a citizen involvement plan.
Mr. Yeiter said the purpose of the projectwas to continue discussion of the Chambers node and explore
ways to promote infill in a way that preserved neighborhoqd,character. He said the anticipated results
were sets of design standards for residential andcommerpial that would allow infill development in a.
manner that was nodal and preserved the neighborhood character. He' indicated staff wanted to work
with the neighborhood to develop the standards. ,.
I:
Ms. Muir summarized thelcey words in Mr. Yeiter's discussion as agreemerit;promo!ing neighborhood
character, and education and asked what the purposeo'f a citizen involvement plan would be from the'
comniission's perspective: .
Mr. D,!ncan said a missing element from many discussions on nodes was the lack of education in' the
populace about the nature of redevelopment and infill and it was necessary to educate people before
, ."
askjng .for their input. . '
Ms. McMillan suggested thatanygro,!ps that had been previously involved in the issue should be'
identified, educated about the issues, and used to expand efforts into the neighborhood.
Mr. Ouncan and,Mr. Lawless'agreed that the initial group could be an effective' tool in neighborhood
outreach and assuring that all.householdsreceived notification.' Mr. Duncan said that other strategies
would be necessary to assure that property owners, particularly absentee owners, werep~operly notified.
Mr. Lowe obseiyed that there were some budget constraints on the type and extent of notification and the
effectiveness of using neighbors depended on the s,trengt,h of the neighborhood organization' s leadershi~, d
';:i~,\tf~';'>i\"r. ~=]Ijtf~G . .' Date Receive
MINUTES~ Eugene Planning Corrunission March 8, 2004 . MAY 'li4gef4~
,'." (
",' flli'l '
."- ~'_,~(r'j Planner: BJ
'~;,"~j .. r~~l:)ftf~il't'.'il
.., '1
Ms. Colbath commented that it was impotianl'to also engage commercial and business interests and that
the effectiveness of neighborhood organizations was also dependent on time and opportunity.
Ms. Bridges discussed methods to achieve the public education goal of-citizen involvement. She said
that strategies would involve collaboration and consensus building and address'issues such as identifica-
tion of stakeholders, particularly those previously involved, and build on that base. She said the plan
should include appr9priate and compelling techniques for outreach and recruitment that engage many
community elements. Using design standards as an example, sre said it was important to"define.the role
of the. stakeholders group either as developing standards or responding to City-developed standards.
Mr. Rusch emphasized that successful public education efforts should include good and bad examples of
tre particular issues, such as infill, in order to give people a better understanding of why citizen
involvement was important.
Based on the commission's comments, Ms. Muir summarized the purpose of the Chambers Node citizen
involvement plan as education, building consensus, and engaging citizens. She said that the question of
. who should be involved could be addressed initially by contacting stakeholders previously engaged with
the Chambers Node and listing the legal notices required by law ,md the notification dates. She asked the
commission what other outreach should be conducted.
Mr. Lawless suggested there could be another step between education and building consensus. He said
that step should clearly identify the primary issues or goals associated with the process to help' the
stakeholder group focus on the purpose of the citizen involvement plan.
. Ms. Muir restated the plan's purpose as education, identification of goals and issues with the community,
building consensus, and engaging.
Ms. Colbath asked if issues could evolve during the stakeholder group process, as happened with' the East
Campus pian. Mr. Lawless responded that he saw the issues and goals being refined through the
education and discussion processes.
Ms. Muir posed the question of what would happen if there was no agreement on the issues as a result of'
the citizen involvement plan.
Mr. Lawless responded that there was a difference between agreement and consensus and the plan should
determine which was the desired result.
Mr. Lowe said he could foresee situations in which neither conse,nsus or agreement was reached, such as
the majority of the earlier stakeholder group wanting to de-densify the Chambers Node area. He said the
question was then how far was the City willing to go as a policy issue.
Mr. Ouncan said the City could then indicate that the consequence of lower density was expansion of the
urban growth boundary (UGB) and it was the City's responsibility to sell the concept of densification to
the public. .
Ms. Colbath said that instead of agreement or consensus there could be resolution and that resolution
could define how the process would move forward, possibly through negotiation and mitigation. She
. r
",~,",,~'fi.;~>>~\(;!{;::rn,t. Date Received
MINU,TJ?Si-i' Eugene Planning Commission March 8, 2004 MAY ;al~ ~'1
.'\);:, ;'t!i ;'\.1" 'f';'~ PI""1l"'ll ..... /"\
- :'. '., . ~I iner: \:~:J/ .......
f" ,...
referred to the East Campus Plan process in which there were two distinctly'different points of view
among stakeholders and negotiations resulted in a ~esolution that was acceptable. '
, "
Mr. Ouncan observed that it did not appear the City had a good definition of infill or. redevelopment or a
framework for developing a definition, He asked if the Chambers Node process was intended to have . .
stakeholders tell.the City what infill should be. Ms. Muir responded that the intent was to have the
. Chambers Node stakeholders define irifill and redevelopment for their neighborhood. Mr. Lowe added
that there was considerable work done during the development of TransPlan on infill and redevelopment
and that material could be used to frame a}iiscussion.'
, ,
Ms. Bridges suggested that' a question regarding the explicit parameters within which decisions by the
stakeholder group could be made should be added to the guidelines and questions for reviewing citizen' .
involvement plans. Ms. Muir agreed withtbe suggestion and'the need to clearly communicate 'the role of
citizens and its relationship to the decision-making process.
Ms. McMillan stated her preference'for identifYing clearly up front any policy issues so the citizen
involvement group was aware of them and understood their ability to influence those policies.
. '.
Ms. Muir summarized that each citizen involvement plan should clearly articulate the role of-the public
and the influence the public could expect to have on the project's outcome.
Mr. Y eiter" commented thai'the idea of design standards was a.result of an earlier proceSs that discussed
infill and what protections were in place.
Ms, Muir asked the commission wh'at approaches it would recommend for citizen involvement activities
related to development of design standards.
Ms. McMillan said. that visual representations that allowed people to see options, such, as the visual .
preference survey tool used during the development of TransPlan; were very useful'in obtaining
feedback,as well as education.
Mr. Lawless suggested a walking tour with stakeholder group members, particularly those who were
opposed to the concept of design standards.
Mr. Duncan commented that it was important for people to understand the costs associated with design
standards.
Ms. Colbath agreed that a tour of the neighborhood was essential to f~ame the group's discussion.
Ms. McMillan said that the design review team for the downtown bus station, of which she as ainember,
conducted a walking tour with the consultant and it was extremely helpful to the group's deliberaiions.
Mr. Lawless suggested that the stakeholder group could be broken into subgroups based on specific
interests or issues. lMs. Muir agreed that approach could be useful.' Mr. Yeiter said the East Campus
Plan and Chambers Node groups'had both used that approach, but it needed to be balanced with available'
staff resources, which 'were now reduced.
"
. Ms: Muir as~ed W~lCh parties in the communIty might be unrepresented in the Chamb[j' Node ~ce~s. ,
, .,:.".,\ J''''9''~r, ,1 . ate Hecelved
1)\.j\fn~;;.,JGllli\ blJ't..,!\,- , .
NfINUr~S'<.t..D~gene Planning Commission March 8, 2004 MAY S~7 fjr(
r- ..~'~,' "'("" .Planner: BJ
., .iI....\. / .:~; (r':.;! j"::~~f! ~~.i! .
)~il.,\:I; ."
..--
1l. I ...
Ms. McMillan said that staff should make every effort to include parties who were leasing or renting
commercial property.. The commission and staff discussed various contact methods, including using
mailing lists from business or professional groups or the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of .
Commerce monthly newsletter, neighborhood associations, personal outreach by staff, distribution of
flyers, or banners announcing events.
Mr. Rusch stated it was important to give people the' sense that their involvement would make a
difference, perhaps even providing examples of previous processes such as the East Campus Plan.
Ms. McMillan asked if staff would have preferred that the East Campus Plan mediation process occurred
before the public hearing. Mr. Lowe replied that the process had worked and the public hearing provided
an opportunity for everyone's position to be clearly stated. Ms. Muir said that a debriefing on the
process would be scheduled with the commission after City. Council action and all parties would
participate. She stated that staff would develop a citizen involvement plan for the Chambers Node
consistent with the commission's direction and submit it to the commission for consideration.
Ms. McMillan asked if the intent was to prescnt the public with proposed design stand~rds or asked the
public to develop standards. Mr. Yeiter said the intent was to obtain feedback from the stakeholders
about preferences, feasibility, and appropriateness and then develop draft standards for them to react to.
He said that stakeholders should also include local architects and builders.
Mr. Rusch asked if future citizen involvement plans would also include a discussion with the commission
before the plan was submitted. Ms. Muir replied that the discussion of the Chambers Node plan was
intended to help the commission understand its new role with respect to citizen involvement plans, as
well as obtain feedback from the commission on the design of plans. She said the future plans would be
submitted without a preliminary discussion, based on the direction provided by the commission.
OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
Ms. McMillan commented that the Historic Review Board had met the previous week, although she was
unable to attend. Ms. Muir noted that Richard Dannemiller was appointed to the board as recommended
by the commission. Mr. Yeiter said the board was pursuing a grant to conduct survey work in the River
Road area.
Ms. Colbath reported that she had attended a meeting of the University Campus Liaison Committee and
she would provide the commission with a list of projects. She said the committee discussed the need to
meet more frequently.
In response to a question from Mr. Rusch, Ms. Muir said the Infill Committee would have a report
available in 30 days.
Ms. Muir said the City was appearing before the Land Conservation and Development Commission
(LCDC) on March 12,2004, regarding the appeal of Sub task 7 of Goal 5 related to periodic review. She
noted a number of recent emails regarding development near the river and recommended that commis-
. sioners not to state.]Jositions on the issues as they would serve as the appeal body on those issues!
';~k~l"..,';, "\:L..~r." I . -~"I'iJ<'\ '
, ., . ,. .' " ' ~ '-", ' I
'elf,;' . Date Received
MAY 2 4 ,O~age 7
'\ ;,'
. MINlJTf:S:- Ii,uge!le'flanning Conimission
. " I ,;.......: -i'
March 8, 2004
.~
Planner: BJ
.",.
,.. I.
Mr. Lawless said his intent was not to target a particular project, but rather to determine the commis-
sion's interest in having general discussions about larger project development possibilities and impacts as
related to the Oowntown Plan, infill, emphasis 'on the river, and other concepts. Ms. Muir replied that it
was possible to hold discussions about the commission's broader role and how it could support those
policies it had helped to create. She suggested that others from the community with planning commis-
sion experience could be invited to share their perspectives. Commissioners expressed their interest in
having such discussions, including updates on the current activities of development staff within the
Planning Department.
Ms. Colbath noted a recent Planning Magazine article relating to Illinois development incentives and
standards imposed under the lllinois Accountability Act.
Mr. Rusch adjourned the meeting at 1 :30 p.m.
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)
m:\2004lplanning aild development departmentlplanning divisionlplanning commissionlpc040308.doc
"; (; ~)- -VAt; ".
MINUTES "':-Eugene'Planning Commission
I: ri-t "~I'"~ . 'Ni '-'/Cio If. ;
"~I.J" J " I~"'jr 'f;tn!J~I' --1;
March 8, 2004
Date Received
MAY? 4 (utf
Plann~~g= 198J
!~if1V\~1):181,:i 8mC
.. I . ~
SUMMARY MINUTES
i
Regular Public Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room-The Atrium Building~99 West 1 Oth Avenue
April 12, 2004
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT:
Charles Rusch, President; John Lawless, Vice President; Mitzi Colbath, Rick Dimcan,
Adell McMillan, Jon Belcher, Anne Marie Levis, members; Susan Muir, Allen Lowe,
Neil Bjorklund, Beth'Bridges, Stdve Nystrom, Planning and Oevelopment Department;
.Christine Thompson, Jan Oliver, Chris Ramey; University of Oregon; Jeff Nelson, Kris-
tin Taylor, Fairmount Neighborhood Association.
, ..PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
DISCUSSIONIDEBRIEF: EAST CAMPUS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS
STATUS REPORT: GOAL 5
OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF.
A, Subcommittee Reports
B. Other Items from Commission and Staff
!
:.,~t.:j':j~";l;1'i{' 1\~j r'*I'~r-,i
" I. h '., ~.,,'Y;! ' ~iJJ ~\'..'
SID1l\.1{\R Y MINUTES,.. Eugene Planning Commission
April 12, 2004
Date Received
MAY 2 4 Ov-
P&ge 1
.Planner: BJ
I.
. J./
~I . ~. I ~. i I: ,t
. .;;.. ~ ~ ,:
'.
)''':'J''''.:jl~~.;,..", ',,,.'. -~i.,. '::J:''C ',""';~
, S~""""t......"":'(;..."rc"'- ...' <_It,,,,,,;r:'', ,! ':
.;~. "". ,,;.; n"~~'r-?t;,r W ~jJ,',l,4\. ~I
.-,..,"1:___.
i' ,,', \('"
f".~ . I.HI,,~
. ~ ",V~ "<>'jl,c:II'"fi'li"q f5'I~(jI
. ' . .' ,~'f:,!l;>~'~t "-17
"
,.
"
tiO I,ll(
"
"
Date Received
MAY.? 4 ID~
P'I nn8'" Fir !
a. ",,;~;, t'""J
-", ...
M I N UT E S
Regular Public Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room~The Atrium Building-99 West 10th Avenue
'April 12, 2004
11:30 a.m.
>
PRESENT: ,Charles Rusch, President; John Lawless, Vice President; Mitzi Colbath, Rick Ouncan,
Adell McMillan, Jon Belcher, Anne Marie Levis, members; Susan Muir, Allen Lowe,
Neil Bjorklund, Beth Bridges, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Oepartment;
. ,Christine Thompson, Jan Oliver, Chris Ramey, University of Oregon; Jeff Nelson, Kris-
tin Taylor, Fairmount Neighborhood Association.
d.
Mr. Rusch called the meeting to order;
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Debbie Jeffries, 3800 N. Delta Highway, Eugene, spok~ to the Natural' R~source Study. She said that
her property was within the urban growth boundary (UGB) but not within the City. She illustrated the
location of a pond on the map and noted that ,while the 'pond'was not'within the City's jurisdiction, a
section that appeared to feed the pond was. She said that thdlrea in question was a ditch without a
constant water flow year round and the pond had qeen previously documented as afarm pond, which
should not be'included in the inventory. She said that the.Safe Harbor approach was being promoted for
the urban transition area still-under the County jurisdiction. She had been unable to obtain a list of sites
that would be included in the transition area. She expressed cqncem that stormwater ditches wouid be
included as riparia(l corridors. '
Lauri Segel, 120 W. Broadway, Eugene; spoke on behalf of 1000 Friends' of Oregon.. She said that in a
review of the record, she noted a difference between the significance criteria approved by the City' .
Council and the criteria recommended by the Planning Commission. She said the difference was that
instead of riparian corridors and upland wildlife habita! sites beirig protected under a standardmethodoI_
ogy, the riparian corridor sites and upland wildlife stream corridors would be protected under a standard
methodology. She stated that an' agenda item summary for the July 21,2003 council meeting mischarac-
terized the Planning Commission's recommendation and hoped that a corre.ction would be made if
warranted. '
In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Muir said that th~ i~sue raised by Ms. Segel would be
addressed during the status report on.Goa,i 5 later in the meeting.
DISCUSSION/DEBRIEF: . EAST CAMPUS PU'BLIC INVO~VEMENT PROCESS
"
Ms. MUir.. in.. trOdU. c..ed Beth Bridges, Neighborhood services. inan~ger'-'who facilitated~e_dls~ussion. Ms.
. ~_\Wi~g!'~f~ke.~~lr~!~preseritatives frotp the group that participated in the process to i~t~ved
. '''I'i,'
MINUTES --: Eugene Planning Coriunission
.' ..rr-...l~~j
,~,' :. \. ,,-,,1, '. "I'
I ..~. i
April 12, 2004
MAY 2 4, 1:4
Page I
Planner: BJ
--. -"
~,.,
(;' ,..
'/
("
Mr. Lowe reported that the City Council had adopted the package of refinement plan amendments and
code amendments and allocated $35',000 for the traffic studies requested through the public involvef1lent
process. He said that the most difficult issue to resolve was limitations'on conditional use permits (CUP)
. such as how they would be processed, where they ~ould be allowed, and.how much area would be
involved in a conditional use. He said that a last minute resolution was reach with an agreement to limit
conditional uses to 35,000 square feet in a specific area.
" , .
Ms. Bridges asked participants to rate the process, using a scale of zero to ten, for effectiveness of the
process. as determined by the actual outcom", the process itself, and nature of relationships among the'
group, and would the participants go through the process again. The consensus was that the process was
effective and participants would consider using it ~gain..
.
Ms. Bridges listed survey responses from those involved in the process and asked the group to provide
any additional fe~dback they had" " .
What Work Well survevresnon~es
. All parties were willing to use'a different process; it was'easier to resolve issues outside of the formal
process
. Participants were responsive to the process proposed.
., The pro~ess gave people sufficient time ,to explain their positions.
. All perspectives were represented; parties 'were knoWledgeable.and able to speak for their constitu-
ents. I " "I" ("
.,
. There was a clear schedule with deadlines to encourage progress and focus.
. Areas of agreement were acknowledged aHhe beginning of the process.
. City staff devoted considerable time and worked creatively within the process.
, , ,-
. The CitY clearly described its planning process,and how planning documents worked as necessary to
clarify options and resolve issues. '.
.' The final decision was thoughtful and not subjecHo .last minute or politicized deals.:
'.. Testimony at public hearings was coordinated and notrepetitious.
. The I)1ethod staff used to present information to the.Planning Commission ':Vas excellent.
. Follow-up among st\lkeholders between fDeetings ajded commtmication,and"problem-solving.
Ms. Bridges said her sense from the co.mments was'that :vhile theprocesswas time-consuming,i~
ultim;heJy iiwolved less effort,than would have been sp,,'nt in atypical land use application Process. She
asked participants ifthat was an accun,te"perception. .
- ,-' , I
. , ,
Mr. Lowe and Mr. Nystrom said that the proc'ess was very labor-intensive, particularly" behind the scenes
for staff, and it consumed significantly more time than th~ standard application process:.
Ms. Thompson said that she felt the process focused the discussions and coordinated the give-and-take of
information between the City and the neighborhood: . Sne felt the resolution, process was efficjentand
substantially reduced the likelihood of an appeal.
, , 1 ' .,
Ms. Oliver observed that the City was U1iable to participate in tne process at the beginning and some of
the initi~l chaos could have been averted if the City was ,engaged sooner. '
.
'~ . _ _tV.' _ h' ';-1
.''! '" '''.f ~:'" {~i\-'~ . ,,''?fF>. ,I
~.!~:;'~I: ~:r).",~~1rl ,~:.J.~~\. I}
. ".t '" .'fAr,;
""_. ' 11
MINUTES .~ Eugene Planning Commission
11 '''''',r'',',4"'{iI",,f,; I'
h.....-iJrr f1 ~ t r,-"~J, "l>
.~ ,to;-. ~, .'!. - ,:-:<" .
ApriL12,2004
Date' Received
MAY ') 4 tO~
Page 2
~Ianne" rt.ro f
r ',_."(1.10,,-,
I:;(
I I ~ l
~'
Ms. Taylor said that the University and the neighborhood had worked together for some time before
submittal'of the application and narrowea the issues to a few: She said the City was also a stakeholder
and an earlier involvement would have benefited the process; . ,
Mr. Nelson said there were several issues the neighborhood dropped in the inter~sts of focusing on the
overall goal.
Ms. Bridges asked for responses to a quote from one of the surveys: "The~conditions that made
mediation right for the East Campus process are rarely svident in other land use applications."
. Ms. Taylor ~aidthat from the neighb~rhood's perspective it.was critical that at least a couple of people
had to be willing to dedicate themselves to the process and earn the support of the neighborhood
. association; She said that the association had del~gated authority to her and Mr. Nelson as its representa-
tives and theirdecisions during the process would then be confirmed by. the association or association
board.
, ,+ .
,Ms. Oliver agreed that the neighborhood association's willingness to delegate decision-making authority
. 1'- ,
to its representati;:es on the negotiation committee. was key to a successful process.
Mr.,Ramey commented that the University had ,ti-eate~ its neighb~ts as neighbors and invited their input
rather than simply moving fonyard with'an application.-. . .
All participants agreed that the process was very intense and .involved an extraordinary amountoftime.
Ms. Bridges sUmn1arized that some:of the features r~rely evident in other application processes were the
people involved. and the willingness of the University t~ engage in an alternative process and the
willingness of ,the neighborhood association 'to participate.
. . .
, .
Ms. Thompson added that all those involved were much better educated on the issues as a. result of the
process:
, ,
What Needs Imorovement survev reSDonses
. Clarify that the City was not a neutral third party and had its own interests; the City was an interesied '
party and not a m~diator: . __ '"
· Consistent City staff representation earlier in the process as a stakeholder would.ha~e been helpful
. Clarify the'significant conftision about the University's and the City's policies and processes.
. ,
· The City should clarifY when it was appropriate to communicate with the Planning COl11lt1ission and
City Council, such as at a work session. Stakeholders should be permitted to correct misinformation.
. Suggest to stakeholders that they continuously monitor the process' and have a way to acknowledge
mistakes and misunderstandings.
. Identification of issues and workirig through language revisions during group meetings was very time
intensive; perhaps work outside of the meeting would have been helpful.
. It should not be the planner's role to assist the neighborhood organizations to get organized; the City
should be more proactive through Neighborhood Services in encouraging and facilitating communi-
cation for associations that have expressed concern about-an application process.
· Inadequate time for the City to coordinate internally.
"
. . .
I~ . -
r i~1~n(_,:~rVtS\10li,yi{~;s~[liheCity's presenc~ to ~ddi-ess what was permitted or possible was missed at the early
(,~;' .' Date Received
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2004 MAY cll~e (N ,
,.",,'.nl';{;'"j'
'. :.'-+1'
Planner: BJ
f' ~ 1 ,
~tages of the process.
Mr. Nystrom said that it was difficult for City staffto lie negative about a concept that the other
. stakeholders supported and the'role of staff was sometimes confusing to others at the table. He said that
the process allowed little time for staff to coordinate with other staff internally and consult on what 'the
City's position sho"uld be, particularly when decisions were made at the table. He said that would require'
more resources than the City had. . .
, .
,
./
Ms. Taylorsuggest~d that a hybridized process co~ld be used ,in a limited consultation with developers.
prior to submission of a complicated application in order to involve and inform aU stakeholders.
!
Mr. Nelson'said thafCity staff did a good job with the tasks they were presented, but itniight complicate.
the process to.1.mve other City staff involved.in thecomrnunication process~ '.
. .
, .
,"
, Mr. Lowe:agreed that his role could have been complicat~d by having another staff member involved. i~
'. ,the communi.cation. ije said that the process worked in part because it was,driven by a constrained
tim. ~line that required' the participants to make "decisions and choices without "nitpicking" issues.
.. '.
~;j
Ms. Taylorsaid.that at.times Mr. Lowe did function as fl ~ediator and it was a big expectation to also ask
staff to functiorias a stakeholder,arid represent iritentiOlis of various bodies.during work sessions with the
commission or council. She said that a work session that allowed stakeholders in the audience to
participate would relieve staff of the re'sponsibility of trying to represent all o{the various stakeholder
perspectives.
. ,
Ms. Bridges summarized that the tWo items most frequently mentioned items that would improve the
process were clarification of the City's role as a stakeholder.with its own interests and clarification of
when stakeholders were permitted to communicate with thePlaiming Commission and the City Council,
such as in a work session, in order to correct misinformation. '
,
Ms. McMillan remarked that when the Whiteaker neighborhood plan was developed several years ago
the chair of the neighborhood association sat at the table with the .Planning Commission f()r alinost a year
. in order to respond on behalf of the stakeholders. She said a similar arrangement was used with the chair
. ' ,. ,-
of the citizen advisory committee during the Code update. Mr. Rainey added that the University had sat .
at the table with the. commission during the Autzen Stadium project.
. . '. , .. 1
. Mr. Rusch thanked the participants and said. it was important to find procedures 'for settlin'g issues that
was less legalistic than public hearings. He expressed the hope that there was a way to,take what was
learned and develop a more appealing process,
Commission members thanked the participants for their efforts ~d willingness'to share their experi',
ences.,.,' . l'
, ~.
STATpSREPORT: GqAL5
Mr. Bjorklund responded to concerns raised at the,st!1rt;,of.the meeting by Lauri Segel thatthere was a
discrepancy.in th,erecord'regarding the commission's recommendations on significance criteria for, 'd
. riparian and.upland wildlife habitat sites. He said the July 21, 2003, memorandum clarifieate~9CeIVe
i-\f~\'i+\,:,{'\.i '-:*~;!;;I' f)'/
, ,.",;, 'I":~~':-'Iru ";;J,~ I':;!~"' M.AY '). 4 { '1'
MlNUtE{y,~JgenePlanningCommission April 12,2004 P\lge4 '. oR ~
.. " . \Planner ., '-.
l : 't,
,"
.'<It ' ,;;..': .'" . _.:'of !-';'.--
'I'~""io;\f' -t " '-.:.:. ' ,> ~
. "~.;"" ... >, .",
, ," ~
"
I
to staff from the council to bring back two ordinances and apply the,Safe,Harbor process to the upland
wildlife habitat sites that were not streamc{)riidors. He said there could be room for misinterpretation if
the July 21, 2003, memorandum was the first communication to the council related to the Planning
Commission's recommendation; how~ver, the council was given the commission's recommendation
verbatim in the form of an ordinance in May 2003 and had numerous discussions about that recommen-
dation prior to the July 2 I ,memorandum. He said the council was clear aboutlthe commission's
recommendation and the July l1)emorandum was to clarify what the council h~d indicated it wanted in
terms.of significance criteria applied to certain sites and the Safe Harbor criteria applied to other sites.
, ,
In response to a question from'Ms. Colbath, Mr. Bjorklund said he would notj,reword the memorandum
because the ,criteria carried forward from the commission were .unchanged;'what they applied to changed.
J
Mr. Belcher said that Ms.' Segel's concern appeared to relate not to the council's understanding, but to'
, ,
future interpretations of the record. Mr. Bjorklund said the ordinance had been passed by the council and
was final, it had been reviewed and acknowledged by the Oepartment of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) and the Land Conservation and Development Commis~ion (LCDC) through legal
challenges to the ordinance.and appeals had been"exhausted., He said the inventory within the City limits
was final. Ms. Muir adde~ that the wording in a staff memorandum did not create legislative history for
implementing an ordinance.
1\1r. Belcher asked that the minutes reflect that there was some co~cem about'how the recommendation
went forward.
, , ,
Ms. Colbath asked for clarification on whether the commission's,recommendation was on the criteria
only or also the application of the criteria. Mr. Bjorklund said the commissioh's recommendation was on
both aspects and it was,given to the council verbatim several months before the July 21, 2003 memoran-
dum and.was reflected in the record. He pointed out that the concern was about one sentence in a body
of information that contained thousands of pages and many months of memOl'.~nda, references, and
minutes and this larger record would provide the context and clarify the intent.
Mr. Bjorklund provided an update on five areas of the Goal 5 process. I-Jeosaiq the process by which the
City's adopted inventory of riparian and upland habitat sites had been challenged, was reviewed and
acknowledged by OLCO and LCDC and was now concluded. He said no appeal had been filed at the
Court of Appeals level following LCDC's action and the decision was therefore final.
Mr. Bjorklund said the City was continuing to move through the adoption process for the urbanizable
area between the City'limits and the UGB, and illustrated those areas on a map. He said thanhe City had
planning jurisdiction .in 'thoseareas through an agreement with Lane'County. me used a map to
demonstrate the adopted inventory of riparian sites and the upland wildlife habitat sites with the stream
corridors and the draft local wetland inventory sites. He indicated that waterways passed in and out of
the City limits and there was potential that the County might not approve the inventory that the council
had approved, resulting in discontiguous pieces of waterways in that area. HI; said the County Board of
Commissioners had discussed the issue and would be considering it on April ,14, 2004. He said that
process was affecting'the City's ability to move.forwardwith En\,ironment, Social, Economic and Energy .
(ESEE) analyses of sites outside the City limits until the matter of the inventory was resolved. He said if
the outcome was ultimately that Safe Harbor criteria ,were applied to the wat~IWays, most of them would
drop off the inventory and a few would be added because the Safe Harbor criteria stated that if it was a
',' ~~1,!c,b~_gn~~\~~d fish in it,' it went on the inventory. . H~ said those waterways th~ad not ken, d
. ,~",,;~!, ,: ',,-il,,1 ::,1ft\\. . " uate tteCelve
jMINUTES,~ Eugene Planning Commission
April 12, 200,4
MAY 2A/;:i
Planner: BJ
. ((I:' '\
' .' , >.... .':'~.
, . '~':I', ' "." \ I
. '~I .. .
,''''
, .
, .
documented as fish-bearing waterways would be removed.
Mr. Bjorklund reported that public notices were, sent to all affected property owners outside the City
limits and inside the UGB and outof approximately 800 affected properties, testimony was received from
five. He pointed out the location of local wetlands on the draft local wetland inventory. He said some of
the wetlands were mapped offsite because owners did not give-permission to go on their properties, . He
indicated that the local wetland inventory process'is specified in greater detail-in the rules than for
riparian and upland inventories. He said the criteria defining a significant wetland was clearly stated in
State law and allowed no latitude at the localleveJ..to develop significance criteria. He said in the draft
report approximately. 80 perce~t, of the wetlands were significant, but could change during revie,w of the
report. He said the Oregon Oivision of State Lands (DSL) would approve.the inventory as a local.
wetland inventory consistent with the rules, and then the inventory would 'be returned to the local
jurisdiction to be reviewed and adopted. as part ofthe Goal 5 inventory: He said he'hoped the DSL
approval would be completed inMay 2004.
Ms. Colbath asked if the City. required' approval from the County on the inventory, even though the City
had planning.jurisdiction in the urbanizable area. Mr. Bjorklund said that County approval was required
because the County retained policy authority which was shared with the City and both jurisdictions had
to adopt what applied in the urbanizable area.
Mr. Ouncan asked if a'property owner where noonsite survey was done could contest. a wetlands
designation. . Mr. Bjorklund said the OSL would notifY property owners when it approved the inventory
and additionally the City had provided notice to ownerS and an opportunity to review maps last fall. He
: said that once DSL approved the inventory, a private pt?perty owner was'.allowed to hire a consultant and
submit a detailed site report-, which would take precedence over the inventory;'howe'Cer, ifthe'site was on
the Goal 5 inventory it would also need to,go.before the council in order to be removed. He said the
inventory was rot planning purposes and did not contain the detailed information requited for wetland
permitting. . "
Ms. McMillan asked if the outcome of the process would be a plan similar to that developed during the
West Eugenewetlands process' Mr. Bjorklund said theJocal wetland inventory would be included in a
"mega-package" that would come before the commission and contain an ESEE analysis for riparian,
upland, and wetland sites; recommendations fot all those sites; and ordinances for new protection
measures, if applicable. He said that June 2005 was the target date for completing work on- the package:
"' ,.
Mr. Bjorklund said the City was working to ensure that the background data used in the ESEE process
was as accurate as possible. He said new aerial photos'hac! ~~cently been acquired'thatw~re extremely
. accurate digital, photos that were rectified to the GIS system ~nd would provide major assisihrice in the
inventory work. He, stated that Public Works was engaged in a border-to-border review of stream
alignments. and making corrections.
. ,
Ms. Colbath' asked if the ,West Eugene wetlands would be incorporated in the process or remain a
separate plan. Mr. Bjorklund resjJonded that the West Eugene process resulted in awetlands'conserva-
tion plan that under the State rules and statutes was considered to have completed Goal 5 requirements.
.'
Mr. Bjorklund stated that the ESEE process would look at the economic; social, environmental, and
energy consequences of protecting, partially protecting, or not protecting 'each of the resource sites and
i. would loOk. at an impact area surrounding a site. He said the analysis would be focuse4.!l.n the. Goal 5
'f:-A1i~:.i:~ ,1u'iJ :J)~~-;(' 'I . . " uate Received
~ ..
-, ". ~:'..o; 'Ji\~:'. . ..
MINtfrES -'- Eugene Planning Conupission
I ._,. .,(1'-
t,,'~. ,,: U r!: f1lk'j,ll ,:"1
April 12, 2004
. MAYpll~ 6 i 01
Planner: BJ
.,
site level, not at the property owner site level, but would be balanced with a c,ompilation of information
. I ~, .'
for each affected tax lot. .
Mr. Bjorklund explained that staff had spent two years -looking at listing of Upper WillalJ1etteSpring
Chinook in the Willamette River system under the Endangered Species Act. He said the fish was listed
as a threatened species effective in 2001. He said that local jurisdiction could be held liable for failing to
regulate an activity that could cause harm to salmon. He 'said that staff devel9ped a set often strategies;
nine were internal strategies affecting the City's actions with respect to its oWn land and facilities and the
tenth was a regulatory strategy. He said the regulatory strategy wasreviewed:and recommended by the
Environmental Policy Team and the strategy was to establish some type of setback regulations affecting a
l20-foot area on each side of the Willamette River that would be regulated to' minimize impacts on
habitat features important to salmon, He said if the City proceeded with regulations, they would have to
go through the Goal 5 process and be,rolled into the overall Goal 5 process already in progress. He said
that a series of informational workshops beginning on April 27, 2004, would be held in neighborhoods
close to the affected areas and feedback would be provided to the commissio!) and the council.
, .
..- '. ,
Mr. Oun~an a~ked if the strategies would affect th~planned Oelta Ponds impfovements. Mr. Bjorklund
'said that regulations would not limit ecological re~toration projects. .;
\
. . I . u'
Mr. Bjorklund pointed out the property and waterway that Ms. Jefferies spok~ to at the beginning to the
meeting. He said' the waterway at its southern end was ditch-like but as it mored north there was a
healthy riparian corridor. He said .the City was looking at site E76 as a possible starting point for the
ESEE analysis and most of the pond and riparian corridor as a site and would' analyze ESEE-conse-
quences for the site as a whole in addition to looking at each of the affected tax lots. He said part of the
site was inside the City limits and part was outside, therefore most of the site could be decided by the
City Council and the remaining portions would need to be co-adopted by the County Board of Commis-
sioners and the council. He indicated that a property owner could submit information at public hearings
, "
at the Planning Commission and City Council'levels. He stated that once adopted by the council, an
owner could file an objection with OLCO and once OLCO had issued an o'rder, the order could be
appealed to LCOC and the Court of Appeals.
Mr. Bjorklund reviewed the notification process, which consisted of direct mail notice to all affected
prgperty owners and the interested parties list.before all hearings. Ms. Muir c'ommented that although
the target date for completion of the Goal 5 process was June 2005, the City was actually far behind the
.. ~
schedule established for periodic review work tasks.
. .
Ms. Colbath asked if there was a map that showed the impact areas for ESEE ,~nalysis and whether
zoning of a resource site could change if the ESEE analysis identified a conflicting use. Mr. Bjorklund
responded that the map would reflect impact areas that were different from resource areas. He said that
if a site was designated for protection and there was a conflicting use under th'e current zoning, it would
have to be rezoned. ' .
Ms. Colbath asked how issues of conflicting criteria for corridors that were both inside and outside the
UGB would be addressed. Mr. Bjorklund replied that ifthere was a difference between criteria adopted
by the County and the City the issue might need to be presented to the Metropolitan Planning Commis-
sion for resolution. . "
",1
: )(,,_I~'k)!'J#~~O~~!t~?question from Mr. Ouncan, Mr. Bjorklund stated that the pro~ection measures would be
, .
I... " ,,:'lI!.:'
MINlJTES -'Eugene Planning Commission
April 12, 2004
Date, Rpare~~V9d
, '! Ii by
"I
" .
, .., "_': ';l.t....
I ... "'~ ,
.' .1. .
IF': 1 ^
.H~ 1'.-= C'. rr.:-'"
". 1'0
included in the package presented to the commission.
OTHER ITEMS.FROMCOMMISSlON AND STAFF
A. Other Items frinn the Commission and Staff
Ms. Colbathmentione'd that Eugene was again featured. in Planning Magazine.
. .
. .
Ms. Muir noted the new process for distributing meeting packets.
Mr. Belcher distributed a copy of a public meeting rioticefrom the County as a good 'example of public
outreach:materials.
Ms. McMillan announced that a meeting to discuss affordable housing and historic preservation was
being hoste'd by the Historic Review Board at noon on April 22, 2004. She invited members to attend.
,
Mr. Rusch adjourned the meeting at 1 :30 p.m.
,
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)
m: \2004lplanningand deveiopment departmentlplanning division Iplanning commission Ipc040412:doc
'I ,01_. -, .,;-.!,' ,,< ..,....'1
"'l* _ \" rr" ~t' 'j' \. \". f : '~~.s.q:i;ll' i .
. , MINUTES "- Eugene Planning Commission
,'. .
April 12, 2004
. Date Received
MAY 2 4 vei-
1
Page 8
Planner: B"J
:'"
......,
". '."
.e
"
, MINUTES
:!Minutes approved by the Springfield
Planning Commission:
Joint Planning Commissions
Springfield, Eugene and Lane.County
Work Session
. Springfield Library Meeting Room
.225 5th Street, Springfield, OR,97477
",--
-'
April 20, 2004
6p.m.
. ""''''''''''''''''''''''''--
- -
-=- ,'-=-,
. - -
. ',~ -=- . ';' -~
Steve Moe,Chair; William Carpenter, Vi~e Chair; ~ee!tfeyer, Gayle Decker;"Ql!$d Cole, Greg Shaver,
Springfield Planning Commission members; Ch~!~.~usch, President, John Law.IeSs;"Vice President,
Adell McMillan, Rick Duncan, Jon Belcher, A'line::NIarie Levis, Mitzi'Colbath, Eu~:Planning
Commission members; Juanita Kirkham, Chafff'Steve Oignam,)t.rce Chair;'Edwin Be_James
~ -.,1
Carmichael, Chris Clemow, Mark Herbert, Vin1renr..Martorell,,~anon Esty, Lane CounlfPlanning
Commission members; Kent Howe, LaneCounty'P..!iii'ihin~ger; Stephanie Schulz, Lane County
staff; Gary Darnelle, Lane Council of Governments _~taff; SJsan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Eugene
Planning staff; Greg Mott, Len (\if'li1'i'il\>J:\I1, SusieSmith,'SpJ:!!lgfield Planning staff; Meg Kiernan, City of
Springfield Attorney. -:----
ABSENT: Jacque Betz, Lane County Planning"":@.Q~~~SSldn':q;t"mb.eJ'
1. Open JoiJ.1tMeeting and~il.c.tions
PRESENT:
2.
~ -- "
Mr. Moe convened"tb:eaoint Plannirrg;..~omrriissiommeeting.
. ..="" '- --,
-=" =
Those present intrdTInced thems:lve~;;;;;; _____ _
.~~ ......~'::r
-,' .
, .Joint:.W.~ession ~Aiirelll:ljj)ents to the Eugell'e:::Sjfringfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Chapter III,
S.l\ctiQU'G. J'iloll~t<Ja!:iJities'and:Services Element, and Chapter V Glossary , . .
-:=::::- -==- -==- . (,
lffi'eg. Mott. City of Sj)'i'ingfjeld PlannIng Manager, provided an overview of the proposed text, table and map
~If'mendments to the Eug~l?ringfieJ~1V!.etropolitan Area GeneralPlan (Metr~ Plan) and Public Facilities and
Sef..\:'ices Plan initiated by~~pringfiera City Council. He said,the proposed:amendments were intended to:
- -- If
. -elm:ifY the relation~mbeiween the types of facilities projects include.d in the Public Facilities and
SeF\5.Pes,Plan (PES:~nd the projects that appeared in local capital il1}provement plans.
. To upd!JE!!i~ BESP..'inaps based on new statutory provisions
. To reflectSlUttenf'conditions and planned regional wastewater facilities consistent with the MWMC
Facilities PlaJlr ~ '
'. Resolve inconsistencies among metro:wide planning documents:
.. To adopt a separate amendment process for the PSFP.
!.
~I
'..
I~ response to a question from Ms,'Colbath, Mr. Mott explained the process f6r making changes to m~ditY the
Metro Plan. ' "
l~ '
':. "".'l.'\,(5f.\C,," ~~'''II.:''~i~r''
'. ' ' "" ~.'" ,':;1~ 'I~~IJ" ,,1;11":'..
, . .
, MllruTES'-'J6iIii Spiingfibl'd, Eugene, and Lane COU11ty
PlanningCommissiolls - Work Session
. " c, j'rj t"'.ll~" .
',,/J. " ':"..' _, \ ' " . '" I '.
April 20, 2004
Datere~eived
MAY 24 ( ~' .
Planner: BJ
, .
Mr. Mottsaid Type) Amendments included amendments, to the text of the Metro Plan, or to a list, location or
provider of public facility projects which significantly impacted a public, facility project that served more than
one jurisdiction. He said that Type I Amendments were forwarded to the planning commissions of the respective
agencies and, following their recommendations, would be considered by the governing boards of all agencies. He
added that if a Type I Amendment was not adopted by all agencies, the amendml1!lt would be referred to the
Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for resolution, noting that subsequentlanute by agencies to adopt an MPC
negotiated proposal would defeat the proposed amendment. He said 'if the amenofuent was adopted, all ~gencies
would adopt identical ordinances. ...=:-
-
--
Mr. Mott said Type II Amendments included amendments to a list;it0'<ffitfon u, 'iJw':~der of public facility projects
that significantly impacted an identified public facility project that serves only the:Jlii!isdiction proposing the
amendment. He said Type II amendments would be forwarde'diITEthe Planning Commtssion of the initiating
agency and, following their recommendation, would be constoered by the governmimf15m.t!:d. of the initiating
agency. -..
. -
. "..;;,. . -
Mr. Mott said not all projects on a member agenqy's .IL- hnprovemellf'l4-oject (CIP) list nee(iEl'to be included
.on the PFSP, only those that had regional or significant ii'i'ii.ilmL He .al:ltl'e."!t:that the Metro Plan and' the PFSP could
not be applied retroactively to ari'existing CIP. - --;;;:- ,
-
. Ms. Smith offered clarification of applicatl;"u~~;-;i1e MetroPlan to;:]oOOl CIPs. She said that wastewater facilities
incorporated into the current and prior PF~~liinited to pipes 2~hes and larger in diameter and pump
stations. She added that the proposed ameii"dmentsDroql!nt,the plan i?t1"l!l!"!'ll!Jpliance with Oregon Administrative
Rules (OAR).. -=- - . . -. .
"..-......- '~-, -- ~ '
Mr. Herbert asked what~s:a:::I;:n<:i=He observ_at~the-'Projects inclweo inthe plan were a.list of vague,
broadly defined projJ;llltSlithe $150iliiiJlion rang@l'completed over~ a 12-15 year period. He expressed
concern that the norea,i'Her~nce to faJerallaws lacKe"ilispecificity.
Ms. Kiernan explamecl:that specifi~erall1!.les and reg!J:!ations were,not included because theplan would then
need to be amended e~me.,"'omrres~:amended.the'L'We of Federal Regulations (CFR), the Federal Register
or the terms.of.the Act.""&Illif:m6re, she saiit'lhli::lIi'"lili'llness of the list was tied to the definition in the OAR on
pUQlSJl!'i1~.~jeJ;.ts, as llie:construction or recomffiiction of a water, seweror transportation facility within a
p.unlie-facility sysl'em:that was: d or utilized by members of the general public.
_Ms. Smith stated that t~etropoh stewater Management Commission (MWMC) had both one and five
year~<:::IPs that were adopleaEannually '.' liwing public hearings, review by the MWMCand adoption by the
Citre~,~ugene and Sprinr~Jd, and b{ Lane County. She said the definitions for the purpose oftbe ..
. amendn:ents underconsider'iffffin were what were land use issues and what were provision of key urban service
Issues. .
Mr. Mort said II. ocal governing bodies adopted and codified identical plan review processes in the
1990' s. He said. ih:e~e'S required that the planning commissions would develop the record and the elected
officials would condUct public hearingsba~ed upon that record. He added that the codes stated that timeline,
procedure, or any other aspects ofthe planning process for government initiated amendments could be changed by
the elected officials. '
In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Ms. Smith said the MWMCadopted an updated financial plan in
2003 tbat.included a number of policies for managing assets, developing budgets imd,financial forecasting, to
provide for prudent management ofMWMC assets: She"added that the group of proposed MWMC projects was
MINU1~.Sc:JR.!J'~~Ni,iiM\e~1:,d?u#ne, and Lane County
. '"' PlanninglConlmissions - Work Session
:', ,1 VAH~
, ,~. ~, (l'J
April 20, 2004
Date Received
MAY 2PI~Dfp
Planner: BJ
I (".
~..Jl:' ..'
"';10 "'1'1"'1 !C. fl(~::
:, .<)1>1 I I 'I "'lj~ ;j
. .
developed foll()wing a year long evaluation of potential projects that would ac)tieve the desired results. She said
the range of costs in 2004 dollars was,between $144 million and $160 million:, She added the 20-year escalated
figure was approximately $173 million. Ms. Smit~ said the set of alternatives needed to be approved by the State
Oepartment of Environmental Qu~lity (DEQ) prior to implementation. '
.~ 1I
.' Ms. Oecker asked why schools were included while parks were not included.~ott replied that planning for
schools was included in Goalll,while'parks were part of Goal 8.
Mr. Dignam observed that there had Been little interest from the public.:~1ilroposed amendments. Mr. Mott
explained the public notification process and said he had received two:=ail~~';ne letter, an"d no telephone calls.
o _ ..... _ _
Mf: Rusch said he disagreed with the underlying assumptioniriffile.amendment proc.ess;..that being the system of
collecting and treating wastewater was efficient. He said d.uj;jjj:~ms three year tenure~Planning .
Commissioner, nothing had come to the Planning Comini~rr that requested a review ~W~astewater system.
- -
. ..' .. ,:I.-==-
Ms. Smith responded that the,MWMC had the responslli:ifi!y of oversee~e administration"'O];lfie wastewater
facility. She added that the year long plaiming process yieloed inforrnation.th~t supported upgratlihg and
improved efficiency of the water treatment plant, that reswtll.lf!iu cJ.l1i&~:vings,;.
~ - -",-" .. .
Mr. Herbert noted that the charter ofthe:.imfiERlanning Commisswn-s.directed'that the Joint Planning
Commission's role was to deal with the amena~RIocess and nots:wil:h the teclmical requirements of projects.
. . -=- ',." - I,'
Mr. Moe adjourned the Work Session meetin,g:at 6:55'"..'
'-'-- "='
: ..-'" -
--_.._.~
- -
- -
- -
. (Recorded by Linda Henry) ---:- .-
M: 12004VointlPlanning Commission \jtpc04 04 20'ilm>
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
-
-
-
-
-
-
."",
JI
I'
-
-
J" lh.tdf'_'V")J'C'I,.;1 :~\i>r."C :;
... . ,.' _Ie'. <.~:!j I, ~~ "~.~,!l: .)\._,,-'
Date Received
. MAY 24 -ei
Planner: BJ
, .
" 1,/ V l\i;1
MINUTES~Joint Springfield: Eugene, and Lane County
PlanningCommissions'''-...Work SessiOll
~.'~ ",- ,("..". I ~,,<j~/::~ I
"j. J
April 20, 2004,
-,
"
'l
,
Page 3
"IJ_
;,
"0
,~,.~h.~ \ '-j'.,
,'./ l}"L,,,!-\,~,,.,,~,, ....t --,....
''''-, .v . .', 1,,;;~-'i1 ~ "',,1 ' J' il~" .
"'-!, .'J,,,,,
. I!))~ .."". '
J:.,' YAM
J. ~ :, "r. _ .-'
"~.),: I ,",V-'iJnIFIlf,.,""."U0!
.. . ' 't -#" .;'ct t
. -,' ,
,
, '
," T'
1'"
,",
., .
, .
,J
Date Received
" M~Y 2 ,vf-" "
Planner: BJ
"
'J,'
...
:",
MINUTES"
Minutes approved by the Springfield
Planning Commission:
i,
" Joint Planning Commissions
Springfield, Eugene and Lane County
Regular Session
Springfield Library Mee\ing Room
'225 5th Street, Springfield, OR 97477
. "
-
, "
--
~~
-~ ~
-' -
-~~ -
-=- -f
Steve Mae, Chair; William Carpenter, Vice Chair;m@!leyer, James Burford;tGayle Decker, David Cole,
Greg Shaver, Springfield Plaiming Commissio9-memaers; Charles Rusch, PresiClent?John Lawless, Vice
President, Adell McMillan, Rick Duncan, Jon:Beicli'er, Anne Marje Levis~ Mitzi COl~ Eugene "
Planning Commission members; Juanita Kirkl[i{'Jj);, Chair; Steve:mi&nam, Vice Chair; .lta~n Becker,
James Carmichael,' Chris Clemow, Mark Herbe~cent MaXlorel1o; Marion Esty, Lanecounty
Planning Comniission"memhers; Kent Ho;-.ve, Laner~un!)4lID:<I.nnihg Manager; Stephanie Schulz, Lane
County staff; Gary Darnel1e;Lan~ouncil ofGoverluneu!S;Fratining ~taff; Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter,
Eugene Planning staff; Greg Mdl1='1l1l:.Goodwin, Susie 'Smith, Springfield Planning siaff; Meg Kiernan,
City of Springfield Attorney" . . =, .
ABSENT: Jacque Betz, Lane countY:Planning'(;Ommissio:::.mber"" " "
1. Open Joint Meeting, Declavatiiiii'of ConflictS!OfE!l!,ter:esj7alidEF:Hlli?ii!:Contacts
......:=... '-:... -;-- "-::'"o.
ML Moe asked the,;Eommissioners To:il'eclare any"cj)Jl;k!ict~ of interest or ex parte contacts" It was deemed there"
were none. := ~
- -
- -
- -
- -
ML Moe called the "SQringfield J?'lanmng'l:;ommission to!QtdeL
-==-~ -- -- ..~
Ms"~~t.k:m:G~.Q the Lane'Gounty Planni~g Commis;ion to ordeL
~ ..,- .--. "'""'-... .
..elvIl'::R:usch called tl:i'e:Eiig~ne Plat'ffElhg Commission to ordeL
. j . - "'=.0..
- ~ "=--
~IPresentation .--:;:-
April 20, 2004
7p,m,
PRESENT:
2.
J
-
_. . 1 ~
Greg ....If,,,, City ofSpringfi~ltE'Planning Manager, provided an overview of the proposed amendments to the
Eugene:"Sjf' fieldMetrogolimn Area General Plan (Metro'Plan)and Public Eacilities and 'Services Plan (PESP)
initiated bringfielllil1liJY Council. He said the proposed amendments included Chapter ill, Section G
Public EacilitJ d Ser.IDces Element and Chapter V Glossary, ofthe Metro Plan; several t~bles and maps in the
PESP and a new'ij).lJ;mter,,::vI "Amendments to the Plan""" "He "added that the' sp',ecificsofthe amendments wer~
included in the 'staff"i'eport which he entered into the record" ".', .
- . . . ,
, .. .,,'. '"::, '.r ~i :~ "~A~>AC"H~ ..
MINUTES-'Jdint'Sprin'gfield, Eugene, and Lane County
Planning Commissions - Public Hearing
ML Mott explained the public"hearing process, He said each of the jurisdictions "would establish the public record
through the conduct of the public hearing with the planning COmmissions" He"said there had been a request to
keep the public record open for an unspecified time, He added each of the Planning'Commissions would
reconvene in their respective jurjsdictions to deliberate and develop a recommendation to their respective elected
officials:" He said rio"d~cision'would be made at this meeting" He"said a public hearing of the joint elected
Offici~lswa,s,te~tativelY ~c~~,d~ledfO~ June 22, 2004 to consider the amendmentsDate Received
.. MAY Hthf
Planeer: BJ
April 20, 20.04
j.-'-!
"Mr, Mott said that the proposed cL .;es in the Metro Plan had been reviewed L. ,Ie Joint Planning Commissions
: during the 6:0.0. p"m. work ~ession, He identified the following errors in the'Metro PlaIt amendment proposal that
was incluped in the staff report as Findings, Appendix A and Appendix B: " . '" "
"0
o
Staff report Page 1-5, the population should be 297,585,
Staff report Page \'-13, change the last sentence to read Services to Development within the Urban
Growth Bonndary: Wastewater "" "
No errors in Appendix k, ' .Q..
Appendix B, page 1- i 7,Table 4a, add project number 30.2, BeneficiaJ:R'lroB-e Project. .
Appendix B, Page 1-17, Table 4b, change p~oject numbers from 30~~, 3Q4:to 30.3, 304, 30.5.
Appendix B, page H9,paragr~ph three; change October 7, 2Qfl3~to:r.!CpriI12, 20.0.4" '
Appendix B, page 1-19, 5. change Lon-Term Service to Lo 'S,llB'ice" ,
" -
Appendix B, page 1-20., change Table l6a to read -=- _
. --=-
~-
1 Project I." Project NaD;1elDescription ~ ...'l'iost"*($)
Nnmber ." -"
I . :.30.0.. 1 WPCF Treatment Project . _ :$120.;50.0.,0.0.0.
I 30.1 1 Residuals Treatment Proiect -- b. $6,QQQ,QQQE::'
I 30.2 Beneficial Reuse Project ~5,QQQ}II:l~ ~
I"' 30.3 Willakenzie Pump'Station ~~lf .
I' 30.4, Screw Pump Station.::>.. $2;IllI~QQ
I 30.5 Glenwood Pump s~iiil.-.. $5Q.Q!O.fJ.Q
o
o
o
o
o
o
Estimlitl1iJ:. _I
Completion-~i
20.25 -=:::.
20.18
20.18 ' -
20.10. 1
20.10. 1
20.12'1
_.~-
- ---
Appendix B, page 1.21,13.2, NationaJ;FnvironmentalPolicy ~1996 should be Policy Act of 1969
- ..' "
Mr. Mott entered the f~llo~g!1ili:1ces of corre~qenc,e::ilJ'm"thtl[teimtd: .".
. -- -:-..
An e-mail from:H.ierry Coiiil.9lJ&
An e-mail:ffom Roxie CueUL
A letter1tl:!tl)"Jirn Welsh" _
. ~ ""..... - . '.~
Mr. Moe opened the puOlic heaiing""He:.,4,;:::::;:;Zukers woiild be limited t~ ,five minutes for their testimony,
__ _... 1
. _. .~ I'
o
'"
o
,
o
o
- "
Ro~m.@;Ii'llnlii$.~Q~.a.Laura:sfi:eet, Springfield, Oregon, Ms, CueUar stated she repres~nted the.. Home Builders
.A:ssociation (HB'i\-)._She said~.;yilS concerned with the amendment process as a ratd pay"r- She expressed
COI1"cern about a $166<gll'flion prd'j~t that no orie knew anything about. She expressed"an interest in
""generating more publid"nte:test by KCQplng the record open, She said the OARuequired that facility plan
'amendments contained proiecttitles an1Efeferred the members to the Metropolitan Areh Transport\f!ion Plan
(Tr~fJ.1;:E-lan) for examples oEfIi~ a"",vp,;ate If;vel of project detaiL" Referririg to a handout she had distributed
earlier en1:tlied MWMC Wastewater Proposed 20- Year Projec/Lisi (Draft), she said th~ project titles identified onl
the docu",,,,.,t,,,,hould have included in the amendment process, She said the MWMCwas scheduled to meet
on April 22,~QJl.21.to re~ e list and forWard a recomm"ndationto the elected officials. She said the correct
procedure was fO"'the:~Cto make a'recommendation to the Joint Planning Commission for review and
.', 1
recommendation to~e[ected officials" She asked that the public record"be kept open, until May 7, 20.0.4,
. . . .
Bill Kloos, 576 Olive Street, Eugene, Oregon", ML Kloos distributed a'letter dated {\ptil 20, 20.0.4 regarding
Metro Plan Text Amendments," Public Facilities and Services 'Plan Ainendments April 20, '2004 Joint Public
Hearing to Metro Area Plannin"g Commissions" Mr. Kloos addressed the issues identified in his letter related to
Goaf 11 of the Metro Plan, Mr. Kloos said that the Joint Planning Corru'nissions were 90th creating process for
handling ,future major and minor changes to the PFSP, and amending substantiv" provisions of the Metro Plan and
I. ;th.e,~f.~lil-Mrt I5;1~R.s ,9u,estioned the validity of the plan for wastewater treatment extending to'the year 20.25
'-while the'Merro'PI'im1'extends to the year 20.15, Citing various elements of OAR 660.-0.11-0.0.10. through 660.-0.11-
" "" '",Q45,Jvir)9?o~.~~jd.tP~ amendment process required an i!,ventory of and general assessment of the condition of"
significant aspect~ of existing wastewater treatment system, as well as a list of specific"projects, related costs, and
MINU~~,S:~~~~fX~ia~~~~~~r'\:~~~~n;e;s~~~ty April 20, 2004 DateaRB('~hn~
- ;: . . -- . ..~. ---__- .'J .
:~~.o~ AS
",'~. '
~"..; """ ''''''~ ,~>:".r." ,." .'......,.
. ,
identified funding mech, ,ms, Mr. Kloos likewise suggested that th
qn the appropriate level of detail. ,
.oject list in TransPlan provided guidance
, '"
ML Beyer asked how long the record should remain open, what pressures existed on the adoption,ofthe proposed
amendments, andjf there was a I!eed for a inore definitive project list. ',' '
,
Mr. Mottreplied that the record could remain open for as long as the Planning Commissioners felt was necessary,
for a minimum of seven days, depending on the nature of the requests, Mr. Mol1~aid keeping the record open
, impacted the entire timeline for response and deliberation of thePJanning Commissions.
Ms" Smith said staff was under tremendous pressure through the facilities;planning process that occurred over the
last year, construction on fa~ilities to upgrade peak flow capacity neeaeo;ro comm~nce by July I, 2005 to meet
, the discharge permit requirements", She added that failure toco'!!P11l~onstrucirQnr9Quld result in the system
overflow of raw sewage into the basements of homes, into the;~n\lts, and into therie. '
.' ", -=:;;, , -=-, .
Ms, Smith said issuance of a new discharge permit in 2Q~~~\lntained significant chang_chlimitations for peak
wet weather management facilities that resulted in s~E]ii'l:g'Up the pace of the implementanomfuneline.
, . -- -,.' -=-.
Ms, Kieran stated that Metro Plan was a broad, compre"lillll~e plan lima-as intended to be in piaCe for a long
period of time, She added that the definitions and list we;;;mentioll1iiWbroad, -She said that nothing could be
financed that did not fit under theumbrell<LlZrojects", ' _ - " "
.............
Mr" Goodwin said that TransPlan had am<ltll(trf(ln~"PlOjects, one proJ~t-,:Jitled 1-5" He noted that, the project
subsumes a number of identifiable capital construTt1omp'roj~ts" He sa'liib'1J':,t)Je" level of detail in the'Metro Plan
were too high, it would no longer be a plami'i!l!r.9ocumel)t,,\I!!EfullIogramm~document He added that the Metro
Plan was a, document intendEL!2 provide bro;riJ$pl.~nning&ori::\)tballiser.vi:es, _, '
- . -==.....:=-- . ..... ~;'..' ..'
Ms" Smith said: "TherelS:ii:lot or'overlap in theplOeeSStlS that are going-on right.now for us" One'is establishing a
new SDC methodol\!gw;(llld adopting:echarge for'tliemext year and the COITl1l1ission has just undertaken quite a
process to tipdate,!iiill'fuethodology tQ:comply with iilll:hf the new statutory changes that will go into effect July 1,
and are aiming, ut!!;te",~ settlement llgwment with thel'.!:Iome Builders, to put a new charge in place for July 1, ,
because the cities anl:l,tlie.Commi~and\the.Home SliiJQers agreed to work diligentlY,io get that to happenuu"
.. - ~, -, ~ "': -;-' -' .. '~
In resnonse:io:il:q~estion"'ri,~~{ Levis, Mr.Mtltt:'<1:ffged clarification on e~tendi;'g th~ timeii~eJor public
te1>J1im!JlY~fig~l!Y 10 w"'iiS:llie last day for public testimony to meet~ June 22 publi~ hearing date, '
.:::.=- . -- ,-=- - "'. .
~s. Levis said she unClemo~d ther&Ji'!\d been a signific~nt amount of planning and the new p~rmit was driving
""th'etimeline to reach coil1fllillnce"" _' , " '
-- . ~ - "'~~'. .
Ms"-SiID~lladded that it the Jl\lwose was to be in compliance with the requirements of the new permit as ;ell as
thecoinp.tetion of the previQ.usl~ scheduled projects in the MWMC plan to meet the conditions ofthe old permit.
-==- -', .. '. ., .
In response t"b~g:uestioli~ffomMs, C?lbath regardii1gpl~nt capacity, Ms" Sihith said there were four measures of
capacity that the:gIa:nt:s:grocesses served. She added thatthe project components were aimed to meet all aspects
of capacity""" -"'" , ;
Responding to Ms, Colbath, Ms" Kieran said the intent of rough cost e,stimatd unddOAR 660-011-0300 was to
provide an estimate of the fiscal requirements to support the land use designations"in the acknowledged "
, -' , .. . ..
comprehensive plan, and for use by the facility provider in reviewing the provider's existing funding mechanisms
for possible alternative funding mechanisms" '
Me Dignam said he understood Mr. Kloos to say that the PFSP was not perfect. Mr. Dignam asked ifthe
respective Planning Commissions could adopt the proposed amendments while recognizing that the entire "
document was not perfect , " 'Date Received
"'
, ," {i n ,.-" "
:\'. l..iI!""~'l.""\i~.~.~.' '05)'('.,~1; II '
. ~ .. ~!.'J. ,~..';:t"'r"il '~il I\- ' .
MINUTES-:-Jdint'Spri"n'gfiell:r,; Eugene, and Lane County
Planning Commissions ~ Public Hearing
r . " .' ,;,f',
April 20, 2004
MAY 24 t o~ .
, Page,J
\Planner: BJ
"
!I
. II . .
Mr. Mott affirmed Mr. Dignam's query, that the PFSP was part of the periodic review, Ii He said the amendment
proposal included components of the PFSP, specifically to include tables, maps and text changes'that had
, oiigimilly been ()tpitted or needed to be updated. He added that the proposed amendm~nts were intended to make '
no other changes, He said the changes needed to comply,with the law based upon,the findings, He observed that
"Mr, Kloos did nqt feel ihe findings were adequate" .,
.,
,"'
Mr" GoodWinisaid that there was no specific discussion in the proposed amendments of financing alternatives
because' Chapter 5 ~f the PFSP, as currently in effect, "included a discussion'o. - --'.th~ existing and alternative
financi~Kstrategies, ' " ,
. , "
'. '..,
Noting the' previously identified"level of urgency to comnience const:r.u'ittUll"qy-.dYly 1,2005, Mr, Duncan asked
what the ramifications'ofbeing in violation of the permit would be" "-=- Ii "
, ,'" ~.,-.
Ms" Smith responded there was .the possibility of untreated, r wage being dum " he streets, basements
and river c~~ating a public health issue: She said the wet ~ flow inanagement plan:aBJ:lfoved by'MWMC '
and the cities would be violated, thus'raising the possibiftp dissatisfaction and potentialEClaims by citizens, and
potential water quality violations based upon" the existiiiili:Water quality s!!mdards, '
., -=.... .. -=... .J!' -=-'
- -. -
Ms,Smith: stated ihat there would be a violation of the Nm'iftna 1 Pollilliiill"Discharge Elimination Systeni
("NPDES") discharge permit that could result in one of severaj:gutcomes, including:. "~
- ..~.-
e" Issuance of a notlce of non-comjihanee;ot;a notlce of violatIorr.that could result In the, agency being
placed on a comphance schedule ro;Gorrecf:1Jie.;uroblem appro.v:etbby the DEQ.:i
"e . Direct enfor~ement action'by the EI!tl';:.whicIT'h1i'1l!'fecentlYoccUFred;in Portland, resulting in significant'
fines, ' ". -="."' -.: ,-=-'"" ".
e Signific~nt finesll.Qtra'1,tlli!!le cost ofbii~g ~1ity'eoliw:be:le~ed if the agency knmyingly failed to
, comply 'Yitli tru:;p.emllt-regUil:ements, ~ --:- "--:- "" " '""~
e Third party..JJm$1lits relate"1lIlmstormwateEuischargeS and combined sewer overflows could result in both
" mon~taIJl'llnd:civil penalties." " ' , "' " ' " " ,
.:- -" ~.' -~ '
Ms" Sinith concludee:tlJ:at the resu\[."w.o.uld,be.a dissatisfioo,public, legal defense costs incurred, and regulatory
review,::ostsin a"dditi~co~oUTl(].ths=..aU1red.fac'iiJity. i:'
-,
,. '.,' _. ,,~_... , f'
Mr:'.l'1eilberl"asH:edmow tnuclEo~the $157 to $160 million addressed the compliance issue, He questioned what
.am~~ared to be an"mconsistency;oetween the Metro'plan yxtending to the"year 2015 and ,the FSFP'extending to the
""':;lSlllfr 2025, He suggestl!l1itInderta1i'lU1t;agreater level of review by the Joint Planning Cpmmission before '
~arding onto the respectLve Planmug:..ommissions" tIe'asked if specific project el~,ments could be isolated to
,"m:ellE!he permit requiremei5kl:." -::-" ,..:" ,," '
"" __ ". 'i'. - ."-=, ,. ~, "
~. ." '-- . .' 11 "
Ms" SliTIth:said that from the:.wastewater utility's perspective, facilities plans by definition were 20 year plans to
meet apprm!ll.1kcriteria by I:).E~; in order, to do cost effective long-range planning, She added that significant '
planningwas,(jone to Jirepate"a schedu\ethat would reSult in a cost effective constructipn. schedule that would be
as easy as possib~~ayers to fund" Ms, Smith said only a few specific items w~re not compliance related,
including ch:i"nges"ti):Ettie disinfection system made in response to policy decisions to.meet homeland security and
employee safety requIrements because the system was aging significantly, She s,aid there had been leaks
requiring responses by the Hazardous Materials Team" She added that there were no' pfojects she could think of
witho'ut "reviewing the list in the first ten years except the di~infeciion system, which were'not related to p~rmit
compliance, .' ;.
Ms,Levis said she understood that the charge of the Joint Plimning Commission wa~"to make updates to the pl~n
rath!,r than ,re.h~shing the plan, ," ,
- '~:;. ,~<'J ,." ,:.' , !~:'~'f' :', , . ,- , .
~)LMijKXef~Us~icftff~~c had conducted an extensive review process that included public input"that resulted'in
proposed, chanli?;s, She added that the wastewater projects hst should have been inl.!l.lded In ~ ~ngIn'lrpUblf
MINUTES-Joll!t Sprmgfield, Eugene, and Lane County Apnl 20, 2004 lUatePMeCelVeU
. PlannIng COmnuSSIOI)S - Regular SessIOn . "
, . - " 'II' 0"
" " Q , ~.", ,'! '" , MAY n 4 If
~'I,r'l . I;!":, " \." 'u:''"I)n~,~ ' ", r, I (65
-r- "
Facilities and Services ~ "' and the action before the Joint Planning .nmission was a housekeeping task to
correct the oversight. , .,
In response to a "question from Mr. Martorello, Ms, Smith replied that the MWMC would be in compliance upon
completion of the projects to enable the operations of the plant to meet the discharge permit requirements, rather
than when the changes were approved, She added that construction of projects scheduled to be on line in 2005
and 2006 needed to commence by July 1, 2005"
: .....
Ms, McMillan said she understood that there would be further opportunity f2!::~l51ic input regarding cost issues
before the MWMC for inclusion in the MWMC CIP, 1 -
-
ML Belcher asked when any arguments made by the HBA, the realtwo.;:;'The'Wan.would be addressed. He asked
if there were other components of the Metro Plan that were not ~':hgr20 15, He"'@l1!l:.sted that each of the
commissioners be provided with copies of the PSFP, ,He asked:it?:the projects couJame::pjaced in the CIP for the
comIng year. . .
Ms, Kieran replied that this would ,be the appropriate.time..1:o make any ch;:mges to Chapter'S";ofuhe Metro Plan if
the JPC was so inclined" She said the "process was dfi'\!:eU<by specific O~. -
-- ~ -
_..=w "';"
'- -
Mr" Matt noted that inventories were based on populatioJ;! allgp.!!ilment projections on 2015 outcomes, He
added that review of the data was ongoing., .
, . "'==..' .
- '",,-'
Ms, Smith said staff preferred to move aHead knQ\\an!!Jhey were ii\'!i@hplian~e with the letter. and the spirit of
local ordinances and adopted comprehensiv.<l="PJans';'!l1'J,~hJ!_SpC met'imiiiilogy,
ML' Carpenter asked irthere..bad been a legal QRmion or a;cnange:inlState 1 that required incorporation into the
PSFP" He said he knew.th';;:;;;;;re,communitielir<1i.!! O~QU'fpliant"'e:Witll!pollution discharge permits that had been
given years to achieVJ.1.i;<ll:l}l)phantt>,S'liIll, asked if fu.5P~it required a construCtion start date of July 1, 2005 to
remain in complianee:.w;ith the existiUg!g002 perrrtit=. ," "."". ."'
-=:=" -- -=.. .,~
Ms. Smith said the:!l5l1iisting permit.had;ihcorporated tfie:adopted wet weather f1o;w' management ~]an that laid out
the CIP to meet peaEflO'w requtre~=Sfiii,added thiit[iffllre was not a specific condition written into the permit
requiring identified COllstlilliltl\lNgY'a specittc~ii!!lt!!i::S.h~_opined that DEQ would do nothing to the agency if
constru~l\m;ib!J&t comm~nc"",15y July 1,2005" ~ ,
-~ - ",
~. - ~. '. .
..::Imresponse to Mr.'el!,tJilenter's que'sJion about the ramifications of a two week'"delay i~ construction start up, Ms,
smith replied that fro~pnstructiomstandpoint, the time could be made up: .However, she said from a funding
~ndpoint, implementatiomof the SD@[~I!arges on July 1 was necessary to provide for collection of sufficient
reve . to fund the projec~= ":" .
Respon lUg,to Mr. Becker's'~l!!estion that there would be subsequent NEPA style environmental analysis that
would invOi~.ublic invQl&~fIlent at later date, Ms, Smith replied that the plan undertaken by the commission
was consisteri:t~w,ith the.;EE~'required guidelines that were published for community wastewater facilities plans,
She added that the:commlssion review process had taken place over a year, with the public"review process
including advertisel:ltl,Wening open houses and work sessions with interactive input with the commission that
began in November 2003, She added that most of the analysis had been completed by October 2003,
,-rV':_~
Mr. Goodwin said a public hearing before the MWMC"was scheduled for April 22, 2004, followed by public
hearings at both city councils"' He added there would be additional public hearings when capital budgets
. '1<-I~Hir.ingQrporat~d.th~projects" "
If'. , r ,si'J'I'J~"{,._'J 1...,1'1"-,'\'
'r....'~
.,ly-!s."])e,ckf.f. s.aid the list in some way confused the discussion, since the overall scope .bei~conSidend was mt'ed
mtended to be project speCific" . She added that she dld not have a problem Wlt~ the very 'tIm&tlAeoGlv
varIOUS SItes.
" MAY 24 IO~
ptanner: BJ
April 20, 2004
, .,.--
'I~c...',,-i j'y"~rft ,.1
.~l_, '. ,I , .;1 l
". '. ' '. ;,2;:~i;-"~; . '. :". \" r ".
MINUTES-Joint Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County
, Plall11ing Commissions - Public Hearing
, '
ML Beyer said he understood the importance of reaching a decision soon was not to approve specific projects,
, which may change and would receive extensive review by the MWMC, buUo get the general projects on the list
so that imposing methodology for the SDCs could proceed. He summarized his understanding that the request
was ,to approve the concept that some time in tne next 20 years, the capacity of the Metro l'lan needed to be
expanded at a cost of $100 million in a manner to be determined"'
Ms. Kieran confirmed Mr, Beyer understood"
A
. Mr, Belcher said he understood that if individual projects were included in.t!iaid'ftro Plan, would it be necessary
to revise the Metro Plan each time an individual project was added or deleteffif .
" --
Mr. Moe closed the public'hearing for ,the Springfield Planning CommlsslOn, ,
, . " '. :..:.. ~, . -==""'1
Ms,Xirkham cIos~d the public hearing for the Lane County .Bhll'!l11hg Commission,
..='" -.
- -
- 1/ "'=--
Mr. Rusch closed the public hearing for the Eugene Planmn!!" Commission - ,
. -====- -==.....
_ 4 _
Following a brief discussion reg~ding a date to hold lli . blic record'!mE!!. - -:;-
Mr. Herbert, seconded by Mr. Dignam, moved to ~ County Plant,{ngCommission public
record open until May 7, 2004 uEiillow for appropr.iate..'tIm'e for staff to respond to the issues raised at
theApril20public hearing. "ln~~sed unanimopWJ., 8:0. . "
< -=::..;, '. ,-==..... "
Ms. McMillan; seconded by Ms; 'Colbath, move'ir.-io:keep ihe Eiig!lJ.!.e Planning Commission public "
record open until May 7,2004 to allo,]j1jior apprqp....."".:me for St1iJJJto respond to the issues raised at
th,e April 20 public:hearJnf? The motlo1f:l!ass.!:!/:;J!!}anllifJlll9l~7:0.- j;
,'" -,!. '=....="'. "",=",' .
Mr, Beyer, seconded by MF!fSh~ver, mo~twk~ep the Sprinifleld Planning,Commission public record
open unt' . '" y 7, 2004 to illliiWIor approp;:ifJte time for sUIffto respond to the issues raised at the
April.2 , hearing. The:motion passel1:unanimously, 6:0.
. '." ~~. "
Mr. Moe adjourned th~ti~thll'SWriih~ld.:f!aniil"gCommission at 8:40 p,m,;, "
... , ~ ' . I
Ms~am:aajourned themeeting for the Lane cOUnty Planning Comihlssionat 8:40 p,m,
- "'- -:-- .. . " ,';
usch adjournea;a:i'e,meeting"J'OI::the Eugene Planning Coinmission at 8:40 p"m,
- -
-' ,-
-- -
-- -
-==. -=--
- ....
-
" ,,'
l, . ___ '
i "VA"
:' '\ .i~fvi"
; MINUTES-Joint Springfield, Eugene; and Lane County
",,;~ "'1 .... \1' ;'- ,Plann~ngJ~oiiimi.ssions - Regular Session;
'.. . r"';I.' UJ! r.,!;-'~r'7, . .J .
April 20, 2004
''bate Received
MAY 2 4 J I1f
"Planner: BJ
Page 6
. (Recorded by Linda Henry)
:. RJ2004 VointlPlanning Commission \jtpc0404 20" doc
., "," "''''';'h ~" ,-,
)-::-, ';11' Ij'I-:,. IIl;.J i~4 '/l;'lf~tt 0 H . +
'''-.- ".... .~1'_.';" oJ t TO,""!. ,I'r~,t' ,
o ,. "?CFl,..~,. .........1 '.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
May 24, 2004
To:
Eugene Planning Commission
From:
"
Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner
Subject:
II ,
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commissionc(file MA 04-01).
Amendments to Chapter ill, Section G Public Utilities and Services Element and Chapter N Glossary
of the Metro Plan, and amendments to the Public Facilities and, Services Plan
, I
ACTION REQUESTED: Recommendation to the City Council.
,
BRIEFING STATEMENT: The Planning Commission must make a recommendation to the City Council
regarding proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and Public FacilitieS Services Plan (PFSP) to incorporate
and update references to the regional wastewater treatment plant. This packet includes a memorandlim from
,Springfield City Attorney Meg Kieran responding to theinformationsubtpitted into the record during the joint public
hearing,on Apri] 20'\ "corrected" versions of the staff report, appendices, and a copy of the draft minutes of the joint
hearing,
BACKGROUND: A joint Planning Commission hearing was held on.April 20, 2004, The written
record of this hearing was held open until 5:00 p.m" May 7th, During that period theLane County
Homebuilders and city staff entered a number of documents into the record, A'table of contents of these
documents accompanies this memorandum,
The information provided by the Homebuilders was submitted at 4:30 p,m, on May 7, 2004; therefore, staff
was unable to provide a response prior to closure of the record, There is no requirement under these
proceedings that a staff response must be prepared before the'record closes, Springfield and MWMC staff are
prepared to proVide both a verbal and wril1en response to the Springfield and Lane County Conurrissions on
the evening of the May 18, 2004, when they meet to deliberate, and to the Eugene Conurrission on May 24th,
As you will see from the table of contents 'of testimony, many of the documents are well known to the
COnurrission (TransP]an, The Metro Plan) and are quite bulky and expensive to reproduce, We will bring this
record to the meeting, and it can be made available to any member of the Comp1ission or public who is
interested in reviewing this material. To ensure this opportunity in Eugene, please contact Kurt Yeiter at 682-
8379, In Springfield, please contact Brenda Jones at 726-36]0 to confirm availability,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommen~ to the City CoUncil approval ofthe proposed amendments
based on the findings contained in the attached staff report,'
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact: Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department, 99 West
lOth Avenue, Eugene 97401; telephone 54]/682-8379, Email: kurt,m,yeiter@ci,eugene,or,us
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Table of Contents' oft he Record,
, to the Commission:
"" ,,:' "'"""1 'll1'<("
"~'yVIJ-,;1f.~Ir\: ml'i',
. d", "t.
c.".-+.".' ,,~:.~, ''I ~\IV~'
The following items from the record are distributed directly
I
Date Received
MAY 2 4,0~
Planner: BJ
1 .
"~
- .., . .rx:'I;";~.?:'.,~I~_
""...~tl~~li .Il~. ~ll . !
1, Memo from,Meg Kieran, Springfield,City Attorney, responding to evidence
entered into the record during the April 20, 2004 joint planning commission
public hearing .
2, Staffreport and appendices (Aa: Ab, B) as corrected during the April 20, 2004
joint planning commission public hearing . ,
3." Letter from Lane CounWHome Builders, date May,6, 2004, including several
attachments
4, Public'Facilities and Services Plan - 2001 (previously distributed to Eugene
Planning Commission) , '
B. Letter from Bill Kloos, dated April 20, 2004, submitted at thejoint public hearing,
';'Ii '(M~j)
2
Date Received
MAV2 4o,c)(f-
Planner:, BJ
2
I . -1. / 1 ." _\ {--:"1.,.
"'j', .,....",A: ','. ,j .....,~.
, 1:0...;1 ,OJ, ",w 111. 'r: -I ' ' "
,)"b~f!~;y",!,;jl fb),&"J
I,; ~:'1 r;~f1'''''t..2;'(f;1f0iR(~'
....l''..~ . 4 I:\);;!f~'.tilt:, ~l)~:',; "Ii' .
Table of Contents
Testimony Submitted into the Record of Hearing LRP 2004-00001:Amendments to the.
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Chapter III, flection G. Public
Facilities and Services, and Chapter IV Glossary; and Amendments to the Eugene-
Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP/ This testi~ony was received
between April 20th and May 7'\ 2004, Submittal deadline ~as 5:0Q p,m" May 7, 2004,
[Items listed in bold font below are attached to the Eugene Planning Commission's
Agenda Item Summary, Other items area available at the Planningioffices"and will be
"available at the Planning Commission meeting,] , .
1. Memo from Meg Kieran, Springfield City Attorney, responding to evidence
entered into the record during the April 20, 2004 joint planning commission public
hearing 'I'
2. Staff report and appendices (Aa, Ab, B) as corrected during'the April 20, 2004
joint planning commissioll public hearing .
3. Letter from Lane County Home Builders, date May"6, 2004, ,including several
attachments
4, Conditional Use. Permit - 1982 for construction of the Regional Treatment Plant
. 5, Draft MWMC Facilities Plan - April 2004
6, Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan:-- 1987 Update
7, Public Facilities Plan - 1999
,i
8. Pnblic Facilities and Services Plan - 2001 (previously distributed to Eugene
Planning Commission)
9, TransPlan - 2001
10, Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) for Beneficial Reuse Project (poplar
Farm)
11, Guideline for the preparation of Facilities Plans and Environmental Reports for
Community Wastewater Project - November, 1999
12. SUB 8 year Capital Improvement Plan implementing projects on Tables 2 and 14 of
the PFSP 2001
., .,
, .
-%n;(I:EWe{BbfoJ~tt.rdevelopment list implementing project 110 of Ta,ble 13, P~P 2001. d..
.~'-~-;:,'!\ ,!:YAi~, ... ,I Date Hecelve
. >,~' ",,:;.:;c ' MAY 2 4 tO~
. ;. ~ ......'.: 11, ,"'(~:.' 'j I, ,
"Planner: BJ
.I
.^"
,1;",
3
14, Eugene Public Works CIP (02) implementing stormwater projects in Table 17, PFSP
2001 .'
15: Biosolids Management Plan ~ June 199.7 ,
16, Wet Weather Flow Management Plan -February 2001
17, MwMC Agenda Packets - Jan 03 - May 04
.
18, MWMC'Resolution 02-05 - Awarding contract to CH2MHill to update MWMC
Facilities Plan and develop predesign work '
19, )08 Plan - April 1977 (Facilities Plan)
20, June, 1982 confilmation from Lane County demonstrating compliance with the
comprehensive plan, statewide goals and Lane Code for the Seasonal Industrial"Waste
. Facility (precursor to modern-day LUCS) " . . -
21. February, 1986 confirmation from Lane County demonstrating compliance with the
comprehensive plan for a sludge facility as a permitted use on exclusive farm land
","
22, Public Notice ads for MWMC Facilities,Plan and 20-year project list, Systems
Development Charges, MetroPlim and PFSP amendments; MWMCplanning workshop;
MWMC Facilities Planning Open House; MWMC SDC Eugene City Council Public
Hearing
23, Intergovernmental Agreemimt 1998 Service Agreem7nts By-Laws 1995.
, ;
. '''" "I: t. VI,n,'
.' f ~,_ 1 f.\l..
. Date Received
MAY 24m{.,
I "
Planner: BJ
4
, 'r "I ..J." ,." ,; T~ .'.. . .j ~'~ . ~. ,
,"!,/,,;,\L;it:..'';'f,~L' C,'~r~.t:
. ;'')..'.:i:' ,it -,....;-2;l;'"lll',C ...'.~~ ;:~\;. ,
,~'.'." ......;<.. C'~ <; " "''1< ,... ........
.-,' ...
'I"~ ,:." "'vi;' ";'''(''f6~'-'
id},;r..,/L.... ~~,ll~I;)'-IT:.~.."l)'~ T
<
MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CITY. ATTORNEY.
I
DATE: May 6, 2004
TO: Springfield Planning Commission
Eugene Planning" Commission"
Lane County Planning Commission
FROM :," Meg Kieran ,
Springfield City Attorney
".
SUBJECT:
Metro Plan amendments; Public'Pacilities and
Services Plan amendments; response to material
submitted by Home Builders Association at April
20} 2004 public hearing I"
, ,I
Home Builders Association submitted written materials into the
record of the above proceeding, MWMCs~bmits thls response.
1. Applicable standards;
Mr~ Kloos states; without specif~city, that "[s]tate statutes
apply." Certainly, this proceeding is governed" in part, by
state statutes, particularly, those provisions of, -ORS Chapter 197
that govern post-acknowledgment plan amendments" ," in addition,
the. amendments must be consisteht with applicabl~ statewide
planning goals. The LCDC administrative rulesi~plement the
"statewide planning goals. In addition, the proposed plan"
amendments must be consistent with existing, 'acknowledged plan
provision~
"2. Planning Horizon."
Home Builders" ~tates that the use of the 2025 planning hor~zon
for the PPSP list of wastewater treatment and 'collection
facilities is inconsistent "with the existi,ng Metro Plan
provisions, Home Builders is incorrect.
First, the existing' PSFP, dated December" 2001, includes, "projects
that extend "c,ut 20 years from that time, For example, -the
I
introductory text to the project lists contained. in the existing
Plan states: "Long~term projects are, anticipated ,to be built in
six to 20 years..,.." (PFS~, P,28)" That" horizon would extend to'
2021, EWEB! s list includes, as long-term projects, Rt~~ n"'~'IVe:' d
~tq~J~~J(f~1,~rler%~.(2?8 through 237, none of 'which has a dUalAibR~u~ .
~/<"SP:c:Lf-:rc ,t!harL the" six to 20 year reference quoted above~AY 24/04
.--.. \ ," Vii'. , '
;' ~ ,,<. 'S' .-<<....;J~t '. e.l.
,
'\_'
"l( I: 4i{;".- :;:<r[~
"'J ,II,,"" '
Planner: BJ
5
q,
. ,
, , '
Second," the Department of Environmental Quality guidelines
recommend that sewer treatment" facilities should be planned and
'constructed for a 20'-year population projection period.
The pl~nning horizon in the am~ndments is appropriate for the
nature of the planned facilities." ':Sewer" treatment facilities
should be constructed with' long range planning goals. '
3. The proposed PFSP amendments are a project list as required by
state' 'statutes and'implementing :regulations~
'. Home Builders insists that the proposed PFSP ~mendmerits,
". particularly the proposed new tables, are" not a "project list"
within the " meaning of state statutes and regulations, ' Home"
Builders ,argument is with,?ut mer"it, ,The proposed sanitary sewer
project list is comparable to the existing'project 'lists in the
PFSP by Springfield Utility Board, EWEB and the other
partlcipating jurisidictions' lists, The proposed list also
complies with the LCDC's Goal Il'implementing admi}:i"i"strative
rules,
OAR'660-001-0005(6) defines "public facility project"as follows,
"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 utilize'd by member"s of the public," ,
Public facility system, as it relates to sanitary sewers, are
limited" to the following: a) treatment facility system; and/or',b)
primarY,"collection system, (OAR 660-011-0005 (7)) ,,,' , ..
Prbposect Table 16a lists six treatrri~nt facility system proj'ects:
WPCW Treatment Project; Residual Treatment Project; and
"Beneficial Reuse Project, It, also includes three pump stations
(i. e.", collection syst'em proj ects):' Willakenzie Pump Station","
Screw Pump Station and Glenwood'Pump Station. This list complies
with both the statute and the admiriist~ative rule d~finition "of
"project list.'"
In their oral testimony Home Builders stated chat a more
appropriate' list of proj ects for PFSP' purposes would beMWMC'"s
,20-year projec,t list that is included in MWMC's 2004 Facilities
Plan. MWMC adopted the" 2004 Facili.ties Plan and 20-year pro"ject
list to satisfy 'DEQ ,requirements for" facilities 'planning and to
. . - ~
I comply with the, reql,lirements. ofORS223 ,309 (1) that a fac:i.,lities
, ::~j51'~n:;'~i1~f':ib.i:.~~t<?t propos:dcapi tal improvements be ad'e~"eeeived
" ,"to,""th"','e,st'~bl'ishment ,of a 'system development charge. ..f
;" Y (<MMAY 2 4 (a.l!
. 6
,.Planner: BJ
~;tf.:r~) '~qr[1jr(~ ~il ('[I'
~'r . ?,l.t~~'\.;l ..,r...tJ,~.
, ,i.
, "
ORS 223.314 provides:
"The establishment, modification or implementation of a *** a
plan or list adopted pursuant" to ORS '223,309, or any modification
of a plan or list, is not a land use decision pursuant to ORS
Chapter 195 and 197."" ~
Therefore, requiring the inclusion of MWMC's 20-year project list
in the PFSP would be inappropriate,
4 . The proposed amendments comply with applicable
administrative rules; both the Metro Plan, and PFSP,
with the proposed changes, satisfy all pl~nning
requirements.
A. Public Facility Plan.
Home Builders' recitation of various Oregon Administrative Rules
that gov"ern public facilities plans assumes' that the proposed
amendments are the complete plan, They are not.i The' complete
plan is,"the entire !'1etro Plan,Chapter III," Section G and the
complete PFSP, Read in context, the Metro Plan and the PFSP
include all the requirements recited by Home Builders from OAR
660-011-001'0, The existing PFSP was el1acted and' acknowledged' as
in compliance with the statewide planning-goals in 2002 as part
of the region's comprehensive plan periodic review process. Even
" "'
without the proposed amendments, the PFSP has ,be'en found, "by
virtue of being acknowledged, in compliance with' Goal,ll. The
proposed amenpments only bolster aIld augment the' existing plan,
they do not remo~e any critical elements of the plan.
The complete inventory required by s,-!bsection' ,( 1) (a) is
the existing PFSP.
found in
I
" J
The plan includes a project list, The proposed amendments,'read'
in the "context of the existing plan, include.a "list 'of ,
significant public facility projects," 'Any contention that it" :
does not is merely a restatement of Home Builders' earlier
argument that the proposed project list is not a: "project list,"}
as they would define it.' :
~~
" 1
.i;,...
~The plan includes cost estimates, The, required )'rough cost
\; .t. " . ~
"_;e'stimates" are defined as "approximate costs expressed in :
1:" T.6Urrent -year, (year closest to the period of ,public facility plan,
rdevelopment) doilars. It is not intended that project cost
~~stimates be as ex;ct as is required for budgetitig purposes."
'OAR 660cOII-0005(2). The cost estimates'provided are sufficient
....r... -'" _,
~to satisf:y; the:, rule,
,"Jll . ~"t;R/ '/' "0 ,
~, "'1:.'I:.j~:?::,,_,>..;,~ J:.
Again;";'by'"lo"okingat the entire PFSP as
thEl requi,rements cited by Home Builders are
"
~-.; ",
, "
p."")
'.
, .,
-".'
~~
. .; l ~ ;;. -
~; _~.J
amended, ':,the OataBeceived
also, pre~entf.AAI{'CWll{
Planner: BJ
7
, ,
"
the prajects; an estimate .of when each praject will be neE!d~d;
and a discussian .of the passible funding'mechanisms for each
praject,
,i.
B. Inventory.
The PFSP as amended by' the prapased amendments' includes a
camplet'e inventary .of the regian's.sanitary sewer system. Again,
Harne Builders attempts ta restate its "praject list~ is nat" a
"praject list" argument, Clearly,' the existing list', ,wh'ich
passed mus.ter priar ta the prapased amendments withaut "'):he
additian .of the'""new prajects" satisfied LCDC's definiti6n' .of
"praject list," It is hard ta imagine haw the additian .of
prajects samehaw makes an already sufficiently descriptive list
na,langer sufficient within the meaning .of the rule,
C.Timing.
"' ,
Hame.Builderi argument"here is nat really abaut timing, but flbaut
the" definitian"af "praject list:" "Where, as here" the prapasal
is.ta apprave categaries .of prajects, rather than a list .of ,
prajects, it is nat passible ,ta camply with the rule,"." (Harne
Builders letter, p.5f MWMChas respani::led ta that argument
abave,
D. Rough Cost Estimates.
As explained abave, the cost estimates" pravided in praposed Table
16a satis~y the rule's definitian a~ rough cast estimates.
E. Elements of the comprehensive plan.
Harne Builders again re-state their unsupported "praject
argument: "Again, a praject" listing is required, nat"a
descriptian .of categaries of prajects." The Metra Plan
as amended, satisfy OAR, 660-011"0045.
list"
" "
and PFSP,
,
Conclusion.
The prapased amendments'camply with state statutes, ~tatewide "C
planning,gaals., and the administrative rules that implement Gaal Q) "
11: The prapased amendments ta Chapter III, .Sectian G, ""and .=::
Cha'pter ',IV .of the Metra". ,Plan are necessary addi tians canc:,rning ~
prapased impravement and capacity to,the conveyance and treatmentQ)
facilities, This infarmatian shauld have been included with thee:
rec"ently adapted,amendments ta Chapter III that accurr,ed as a"" Q)
requirement .of Periadic Review. The amendments tathe PlflUlsf-li:'fi:(<<s
,/ al?,o a.\camgUatian .of in~ormatian that shauld have been MB~ect 0
:J8~/iii:J;:}lt.jl~,Paai5pdianaf the PFSP in 2001, Such additianal " MAl' 'i,',
inf,ormat,i<;m has na effect .on palicies .of the Plan either specific
}., :..~ 1;:\1~
......
..
al
~
'"
..,j<'
"'"
~
"::!;
. ,
I..
a:
c
c
tt
~
Q.
r (, _.;._.; r' ~-i:,''''~ ~ ~ ~\'..J
I " .', '. ':: ~ :~ ~,'f . \ ., ~ I,
',-,' ..",
PlaJ1,n
8
. ,
to public facilities or other chapters other than ~o demonstrate:
that these 'urban facilities will be constructed to accommodate
planned build-out within Eugene's and Springfiel'd's urban growth
boundary, These amendments therefore satisfy the Metro Plan
amendment criteria of approval that requires int:ernal
consistency,
N:\CITY\MWMC\Response to Home Builders. .wpd
"
.
',I
, "
"f""
"
.,' 'f"' . . i . '
:1' H;lL~: j~,}'rj '!'~'~i I"
. .-.. .-,;. ,~"" f :~:>:: . ":.;l-("""'~2.\'\.' '.
. . ,.
. ". -,,,.
"""",,..,':t"t
~ ~\' fAi\;
. Date Received
,MAY 2 41 D~
Planner: BJ
9
'1 '.-
~ ;' "1'( ~-,,,;''1~-'I,''~'\';<<~!
,,' , ~:': :_ 'i! ,,):;-,:, --4'1
f
,.
..
'."
,
Date Received
MAY 24/J'{-,
Planner: BJ
,
!-.' '., . ", .
J~Wiik1j~~I;! {jtf.:CI' '
'\ J'~' It (
. ~~' li\flfi
. . .~.
I, ';..'1"
. (I
.....". ;+
.'. I., ,",~ " '~4'1
.'~~{l "~-""".,,,,'l',\il'
, "~ ; , l(;~' ' '~j
,
.
Staff Report arid Findings of Compliance with the Metro Plan and Statewide
Goals and Administrative Rules ' ;I ,
";
File LRP 2004-0001 Ainendments to the Metro Plan and Public Facilities and "ServiCes'
; . . ...
Plan
Applicant:
City Of Springfield on behalf of the Metropolit,!n Wastewater ManagemeritCommission
(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 thePFSP"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 ~ 20-year life expectancy,Slowerthat expected population growth in the
. 1980's extended this life expectancy, In 199&-:97 MWMC developed a Master Plan to
evaluate the performance of its facilities, to asS('lrtain areas of constraints wiihin 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 tie studied further.
In May of 2002 the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (bEQ) imposed new'
and more stringent discharge permit standards on the regional wastewater treatment
facilities, particularly in regard to the treatment of ammonia and thermal loading" As
MWMC staff began to ev,!luate design needs for its \Vastewater faci.li\ies, it became
apparent to them that the existing facilities could not meet the demandsjmposed by the
new discharge pernlit 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 comprehensiv~ facilities plan up'date, The objectives
of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan are twofold. First, it is intenileq to provide for
adequate conimunity groWth capacity through 2025, considering policies in tne Metro
Plan and current planning assessments forpopulation and development. Second, the 2004
Wastewater Facjlities Plan is intended to protect COnllnunity health 'and safety by
addressing sanitary sewer overflows, river safety, permit complianc'('land the cost-
effecti\;e use of existing facilities and the efficient design of new fasilities,
'J' '"I '~' " ,.;,,-- ( I" ")'jr'" ",,('",1
':...,J \ 1, ~"-1\ !1.400J""I .;,:.~ ,t"'lI\':
.1' r.,.,J..! .___'J "'.'.
. "f"' ,':'; ,"/,..,.....,il' i
, ~.l!l. ~ It ;1'. "\!! '-It
Staff Report and Findings Page 1
Date Received
MAY 24 I DY .
Planner: BJ 10
I See appeiidices A & B, respectfu1\y" "
0.__- I,;. ,.\ '''/\ii' .
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 th~ 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 prqposed 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 inforrllation 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 imp~overnent projects are
completed, '
~. ,
Phasingoofectives of the 2004, Wastewater Facilities Plan necessitate that construction of
. several keyTacility"compol)ents begin by June of 2005 in order to meet federal standards
. thatrequiretI1atpeak wet weather events ~e managed by 2010, In"order to meet this
rigorous construch~n schedule, MWMC .rnust, have released Requests for Proposals
(RFPs) for engineering designfof by October of 2004, 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 surninary, the appli~ation proposes'.the following changes:
.' '. ..
Metro Plan
".'
I, Specifically recognizes "wastewater" as a subcategory of service witj1in the Urban
Growili Boundary,' [Chapter ill-G] . .
. . :."
(
2,
, ,
Amends Finding #~ and PolicY,#3 to recognize the addition of Map 2a. "Existing
Wastewate~ Collection al}d Treatm~nt Systems".to the PFSP, [Chapter ill-G] ,
3" Amends Policy #2 to include local capital improvement plans as ~ mean'~ t~ .
implement pqlic)\ in the PFSP, [ChapterJII-G]
4, mserts two findings regarding local and regional wastewater serVi~es to
dev~lopment wit~inthe urban growth boundary, [Chapter ill-G]
5, 'Adds a new policy 9,9 that makes a cOrruUitment'tiJ"providing the conveyance
and treatment of wastewater to meet the.needs of projected growth within the
,prban growth'bqundary and that,meets regulatory requirements, [Chapter ill-G]
6, Modifies'definition 37" Wastewater: Public Facilities Projects, [Chapter V
, '
Glossary] ',,' .
'"
PFSP
J:',.~; YAM
. \-\ ~
~\~\~:<<\:'i'.
\\\ \\\~ I '.
'j ).'
Staff Report and,Fihdlngs Page 2
Date Received
MAY 24,0+'
Planner: BJ 11
- -~
'- '~li:~\l f'L./)t3.~~j' Cdl{~~{ ~
".., t,~" .,-.I.J.;Qt, "l!';:f. .\~_
;, i' .,' ",."" "<",";,i~(";'~'C'i:
J, ,~.l ._ 11t: "!#,('I:~ r.J.":-+'. "~.l" .
- ..? .. .~:" '::'-';' ,
, "
" "
L
Modifies the text on page 28, preceding Table ~, and adds 1;ables 4a and 4b that
identify MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Primary ColIection System
improvements, respectively
2,
Modifies Map 2, which shows Planned Wastewater Facilities, .andadds Map 2a
that concerns Existing Wastewater FacilIties,
'< ;
3,
" ,
Modifies the existing narrative on "Wastewater System Condition Assessment" in
Chapter N, (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 N. (page 97). 5.,.
,-,'.
,1'.-..l9" -..
. ,
Adds new Table 16a (following Table 16) entitled "MWMC Wast~water \"
Treatment and ColIection System Improvements, Rough Cost Estimate, and ".'"
Timing Estimate," (page 101) ,: . ,",,' """
J #
5,
6"
Adds new Chapter VI regarding amendments to the PFSP,
Metropolitan Ar~a General Plan Amendment Criteria
. - I[
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 th~ PFSP, and that are
non-site specific require approval by all three governing bodies to become effective,2 .
.. . - l'
,
Springfield, Eugene and Lane County each adopted identical Metro'Plan amendment
criteria into their respective implementing ordinances and codes, Springfield Code
Section 7,07q(3) (a & b), Eugene Code 9,128(3) (a & b), and Lane Code 12,225(2) (a &
b) require that the amendment be consjstent with relevant statewide, planning goals and
that the amendment will not make the Metro Plan internalIy inconsistent. These criteria
are addressed as folIows: . '"
c,
(a) The amend'!,ent must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and Developmelit Com~,ission; .
1.'
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, 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,
Citizen involvement. for a Type I Metro Plan amendment not related to an urban
, "" growth boundary amendment requires: I) Notice to interest~d parties; 2)Notice '
":1'"';;~'~~:~~i;1,J70d;~~~ EC9.mO(l)(a), and LC 12.225(1)(a)(i),. . . .'Date 'Received
"'-'.'; ,"" " VI,',' MAY n 4 10.1
'~'" !. .1.1 I> \.f
"
., I~-"
~r..;'
"'
. '. '" "',' ,. "~-"1
"'~I"~'~!;"rtY~t~~ ~i
. , -,,' I" "'-';, '/
Staff Report and Findings Page 3
,
Planner: BJ
12
, ,
"shall be published in a ne;.vspaper of general circulation; 3) Notic,e 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 iri the Springfield
News and in the Register-Guard on March 31, 2004, Notice to interested parties
was mailed on April I, 2004, Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was provided
to DLGD on March 4, 2004, The notice to DLCDidentifie~.the City of Eugene,
Lane County, DEQ and EP A'as affected agencies,
Requirements under Goal I 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
9,75-20; Lane Code Sections 12,025 and 12.240,
Goal 2 ~ Land Use Planning - To establish a land use planning process and
policy /mmework as a basis for all decisions and actions related'to Use of land
and to as~ure an adequatefactual base for such decisions and actions. "
. [ . '
All land-use plans and implementation ordinances shall be adopted by the
" governing bodyafter public hearing and "shall bere~iewed and, as needed;
revised on,a perioaic 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 preparatidn, 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 projectplans, 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 ofthe Metro Plail 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
LarieCounty PlaIining Commissions and Elected Officials"
T,he Metro Plan is the "Iarid use" or comprehensive pl~ 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
" . units,4 Coordination means that comments from affected governmental units" are
r
J', ," I" ,'."" , ' ""1
'd,r.": " ". "#'""1,:~:,..,\j*j>j:"'"1
. \ ~~. . ~'.'-',~ :J
Staff Report and Findings Page 4
Date Received
MAY 24/04.
Planner: BJ
13
. ~"" ,. '"
"~IF\~,ql'Inconio;d;~d~t~~fe~ence into Goal 2.
, " 4'S~~/bi'c'b \tb'o'Jgl~s County, 33 Or LUBA216, 221 (1997),
. " .
'!;' VII"
T, '. ,~. \Vl
. ,
solicited and considered, In this regard, DLCD's Notice of Proposed Amendment
, , .
form was sent to the Gity of Eugene, Lane County, DEQ and.EPA.
One aspect ofthe Goal 2 coordination requirement concerns population
proj ections, In this respect, the proposed amendment to the PFSP Glossary
concerning Wastewater incorporates a projected year 2025 population for the
Eugene-Springfield Urban Growlh Boundary of297,585,5 This projection is
consistent with the most recent (1997) final forecasts provid'ed to Lane County by
the Oregon Office Of Economic Analysis and the Year 200q Census, The adoption
of this modification to the PFSP will effectively "coordinate" this population
assumption,
Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands
. This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urbiill growlh boundaries,
.
Goal 4 - Forest Lands
,This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries,
,;' .' .
"
GoalS - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
, ."
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments,
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality - To maintain and improve
the quality of th,e air, water and land resources of the state,"!
This goal 'is primarily concerned \Yith compliance with" federal and state 1
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 arllended in 1977,
became known as the Clean Water Act (33 U,S,C. 1251 et seq.), The,go.al 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 Natignal Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit prior to the~c1ischarge 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),
" One.purpose ofthe proposed amendments is to ensure that tlie 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 accommopilte population
( I .
, l ,T,!~l". 3 of,technic.al me~orandum entitled "Metropolitan Wastewater Management' cJJa~ Received
"pdpulatibh'riojectio~1',for Wastewater Facilities Plan," prepared by Matt Noesen, CH2M Hill, et at (April
9,2004), "'i\W" . MAY 2 4 I 01 "
Planner: BJ 14
.i ~~:j ~i.(~'.(':~.;,~-~
- ~ < .".' ~. -; ~ !
Staff Report and Findings Page 5
"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
WithinUrbanizable Areas" is proposed to be modified to reflect the need for
facility improvements ~ecessarY'to address dry and wet weather regul~tory
requirements, ' .,
Goal 7- Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
" "
" "
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments,
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs
:This goal 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, (ind service levels for a variety of ihdustrial 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, .
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 pubic facilities and services sufficient to "
support housing development in areas presently developed or undergoing
development or redevelopment. " "
, '.
O~ 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 andurbanizable areas that are suitable, available and
necessary'for residential use," 66Qc-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 oftiiis goal and applicable administrative rules (OAR Chapter 660,
. Division 008), The purpose of the proposed amendments is to provide the
"'l~,i'i.q~..i ~tJ;,l~,~c9rIipt~~i:msive planning framework to allow for the imProve5en~ to ~e r~' l\fud""
, .". 'h~'".h'" , . .~'"'~~ , a e e
T'," ,'. .'. . . _ .
" . ,.' , ..'",
\ '(AM ,[
.', . ,,' MAY 24 JO-r
" "':"B'f' .
" " ,,:, '"~i:'l\iJl'~"~ '~'I
...fi'." ,,_ll;'j'~'tte v,"l)~ '.
,
Staff Report and Findings Page 6
Planner: f3J
15
,
wastewater system that support tge housing needs of the Eugene~~pringfield
metroJlolitan area, .. .
Goal 11 - Public Facilities aJ,ld Services - To plan and develop a timely, orderly
and efficient'arrangernent of public facilities and services t6 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 geneiallocation 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
"am~ndments addresses this requirement. In regard to the PFSP, the modification
ofthe introductory narrative under ,"Planried Wastewater System Improvements
(page 28),"" the insertion of new Tables 4a and 4b (Page 28), and the modification
of Map 2 and t):le insertion of new Map 2a, also address tl1js:requirement.
OAR 660-011-0035(1) requires that the public fa~ility pl~ inslude ~ 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), whicli addresses rough cost
estimates and a tiining estimatefgr M\yMc Wastewate~ Tr6atmentand
. Collection System Improvements, ' .
. Yo, '1,
. OAR 660-01 i~0045(3) provides 'that m6difications'to projects li"sted within a
public facility plan may be made without ,amendment to the,:public facility plan,
This application proposes to add a new chapter t<;> ,the PFS~'regarding
amendments to that plan, Proposed Chapter VI incorporates, the standards for
amenaing a public facility plan allowed by OAR 660-011-0045(3) and adopts an
'" amendment process" , "
Goal 12 - Transportation
" . This goat' is not appUcabl~ to the proposed amendments"
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation
,
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Goal 14- Urbanization - To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from
rural to urban kind use"
This goal is not applicable to the propos()d amendments, as they do not affect the
. existing urban growth bpundary,
" 'V^L.:;
I' f;' 1\,'" . "
Date Received
, MAY '},4 I oJ
"" '. Goal 15 :.. Willamette River Greenway
-, ,,".:>...,... , ..J ~.. ,.,.~
\ ""hC::' j,';'k'}I"jf,;,;..,~(:::!""i:' ; "
::~i'~' n. "-~'JlI."~:!,Ii' 11. ,,~> ;' ';-.:,,"~ :;..~: '. '. . ; .
" "
~. '. . .;,. ...;~.-~,. ".:, :
. '.':ii-;''''-'l'''.~J.tQ1}~;'i'' "',
";,(' :'~":.1',;lt\ ',.~~-"l . I'
Staff Report and Findings Page~7 .
PI f["1.~i :1,
,'''::. '" 16
anner:
. ~I
l
, .
",
This goal is notapplicable to the proposed amendments,
"
" Goal 16 Estuarine Resources, Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands, Goal is Beaches
and Dunes, and Grial19 Ocean Resources, . " ,
These goals do not apply to the Eugene~Springfield Metropolitan Area,
,",
(b)' . Adoption of the am~ndment must not make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent. ' , '"". . ,"
The'proposed changes to the Metro Plail are essentially of a "housekeeping"
'. . ". 1 .
nahIre; They essentially recognize the role of wastewater service provision within
the urban growth bouridary by the addition or modification ofapplica1Jle findings
anqadd or modify policy language to clarify the relationship between the Metro
Phinand .the PFSP in regard to capital improvement plans and the commitm,erit to
comply with regulatory requirements;, The proposed changes, as presented, will '
not c~eate internal.incimsistencies within' the Metro Plan, '
'"
"'
The proposed changes also amerid the PFSPto more accurately refleCt MWMC's
planned improvement projects for itswaste~ater'treatment system and primary
collection system, to provide rough costand timing es"timiltes for those
. . . . .
improvements, ,update narrative information regarding necessary improvements to
the wastewat"er treatment system and primary collection system, and more clearly
" implement the plmi modification standards contained'in OAR 660-0 II ~0045(3),
The propo"sed changes to the PFSP do not create any inconsistencies wit):1in the
PFSP nor do they create any inconsistencies betWeen thePFSP and the Metro
'Plan, " " .
,
,
'''Ow
"/
"
"'
" ' . "I " r"'J
. ", '''',U'''''''I'',I>, "'~Yi.""" .
"" ,I', '," ; "'1111 h 1''''\
,.f .....J ~. ,ij "~'
" . ,
. "'-'7'r~.,;r!{-:1,'
. . .,". ~" tV It'-,~.il '. it.
-, .,....,'.,. ,
Staff Report and:Findings Page 8
Date Received
MAY 24rOi{-
. ' 17
Planner: BJ
. .' h,"
\~. ;~' ViI ~I! .
. "'
'.,
\
APPENDIX Aa
.PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE METRO PLAN
(Current version of the Metro Plan)
G.
Public Facilities aud Services Element
\
This Public Facilities and Services Element provides direction for the future provision of
titban facilities and services to planned land uses within the Metro Plan Plan Boundary
(Plan Boundary).
The availability of public facilities and services is a key factor influencing the location
and density of future devel9pment The public's investment in, and scheduling of, public
facilities and services are a major means of implementing the Metro Plan, As the
populatio~ of the Eugene-Springfield area increases and land development patterns
change over time, the demand for urban services also increases and:changes, These
. . changes require that service providers, both public and private, plan for the provision of
services in,a coordinated manner, using consistent" assumptions and;projections for
population and land use, "
,1 ,)
The policies in this element complement Metro" Plan Chapter II-A, Fundamental
Principles, and Chapter II-C, Growth Management Consistent.with the principle of
compact Urban growlh prescribed in Chapter II, the policies in this element call for future
urban water and wastewater services to be provided exclusively witpin the urban growth
boundary" This policy direction is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11 : Public
Facilities and Services, "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and 'efficient arrangement
- . ,f '
of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development" On ~rban lands, new develOPiY!el1t must be se("Ved by at least the
minimum level of key urban services and facilities at the time development is completed
and, ultimately, by a full range ofh:y urban services and facilities" On rural lands within
the Plan Boundary, d~velopment must be served 9Y rural levels of s,prvice, Users" of
facilities and services in rural areas are spread out geographically, rysulting in a higher
per-user cost for some services and, often, in an inadequate revenue base to SllPPOrt a
higher level of serVice in the future, Some urban facilities may be locatedor managed
outside the:urban growth boundary, as allowed by state law, but only to serve
, development within the urban growth boundary, .
~". '
':- """', ",""0...,
,','."" ,\ ' ""',~,' J
. ',- J":,jf-I,i. b/t-"';,~ Ij
" ~ ' ,
" ,
Urban facilities and services within the urban growlh boundary are provided by the City .
of Eugene; the City of Springfield, Lane County, Eugene Water &,Eleciric Board
(EWEB), the Springfield Utility Board (SUB), the Metropolitan Wastewater "
Management Coinmission (MWMC), electric cooperatives, and special service disiricts. "
Special service districts provide schools and bus service, and, in some areas outside the
cities, they provide water, eleciric, fire se~ice or parks and recreati9n service, This
element provides guidelines for special service districts in line with the compact urban
development fundamental principle of the Metrp Plan." "
Date Received
MAY 24 Izjt(
Planner: BJ
"
Appendix Aa Page I
18 '
" .
, .
This element' incorporates the ' findings and policies in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Public Faciliti~s and.'Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services
Plan), adopted as a refiIlement to the Metro,Plan, The Public Facilities imd Services
Plan provides guidance for public facilities and services, including planned water,
waste,water, stormwater, and electrical facilities, As required by Goal II , thePublic
Facilities and Services Plan identifies and shows the general location' of the water,
wastewater, and stormwater projects needed to serve land within the urban growth
boundary,' The Public Facilities and Services Plan also contains:this informatioIl"for
electri~al facilities, although not required to by law,
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 ;md 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.
This elernent of the Metro Plan is organized by the following topics related. to 'the'
provision of urban facilities' and services" Policy direction for the full range of services,
iIlGhuiiRg wastewater serviee, may be found under any of these topics, although the first
topic, Services to Development Within the Urban, Growth Boundary, is further broken
down into ,sub-categories, '
'Services to Development Within the Urban Growlh Boundary
o Planning and Coordination
" .\
o Water
o "Wastewater
o "Stomiwater""
. Ele~tricity'
. Schools
o Solid Waste
o Services to Areas'Outsideth,e Urban Growth Boundary' ' "
.,' "Locating and'Man'agi~g Public Faciiiiies Outside the Urb~n Growth Bo~dary
o Finartcing , ,
/'
, .
, ,
The appl~cable flndingsand policies are contained under each of these topic headings,
below,
The policies listed provide direction for public" and private developrlIental and program
decision-making regarding urban facilities and services, Development sho,uld be
coordinated with'the planning, financing, and construction of key urban facilities and
services to ensure the efficient use and expansion of these facilities.
" .
, The exact location' o'f the projects shown on the fubliJ:I[acijities,and Services Plan planned facilities
, maps is determined,through local processes, "', 1
I ' Goal'! I', also requires transportation facilities to he included in public facilities plaos, In this metropolitan
~:lGl:u'~~;;traf,sp6ita'tii;'ll~i'lciiities are addressed in Metro Plan Chapter III-F and in the Eugene-Springfield
Transportatidn Sy;;~';' Plan (Trans Planf -, Date Recelv~'"
"-"\'!f,~ YAM ' " ,:, ,<<,
AppendixAa Page2 MAY 9, 4/0~ 19
,
"~ >",J"":(!!2!\,9rri"f;<jlt~:1'
....;1,".' ...ll~.f.." it.. U.ff >
",":,:!_"", '''''''"I"''
Po'-,.' :.'~"; ::'1 '~\~.J;'r_
RJ
" -
. '
.,' .
Goals
.,1'
I, Provide and maintain public ,facilities and services in ari efficient and
environmentally responsible manner,
. 2, Provide public facilities and services ina mariner that encourages orderly and
sequential growth," " ." '
Findinl!s and Policies
Services to DevelopmenfWithin the Urban Growth Boundary:, Planning and"
Coordination" ,
Findinl!s
"
L ' Urban expansion wiiliin the urban growth boundary is accomplished through in-
fil1~ redevelopment;'and annexation of territory which can lie served with a
minimum level of key urban services and facilities, This permits new
development to use existing facilities and services, or those'which can be easily
extended, minimizing the public cost of extending urban facilities al).d services,
2,' In' accordance witn Statewide Planning Goal II and OAR 660, the P~blic
Facilities and Services Plan identifies jui-isdictional responsibility forthe,
provision of water, wastewater and stormwater, describes respective service areas
and existing and planned water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities, and
cOhtains planned facilities maps for these setvices: Electric system information
and improvements are included in the Public Facilities aniServices ?lan, , '
although not required by state law, Local facility master plans "and refinement
plans provide more specific project information.'
"
3. Urban services within the metropolitan urban growthboundary are provided" by ,
,the City of Eugene , the City of Springfield, Lane County, EWEB, SUB, the" ,
, MWMC,electric cooperatives, and special service districts"':
, , "
4" The Public Facilities and Services, Plan fin4s that almost all areas wIthin'the city
limits of Eugene and Springfield are served or can be served in the shOlHerm (0-5
, years) with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service, Exceptions to
. this are stormwater service to portions of the Willow Creek~i-ea and southeast
Springfield and full water service at some higher elevations in Eugene's South
Hii!s" Service to these areas,will be available in the long-terrri, Service to all
areas within city limits are either in a capital improvement pian orcari be "
extended with development .
l.
,Appendix Aa Page 3
"
,-, '"
, ,
,'"
"'
I"
i
; ,
,
, ,
, boundary can be served with water, wastewater; stormwater, and electric service
at the time those areaS aiedeveloped, In general, areas outside city limits
'serviceable in the long-term are located near the urban growth b9undary and in '
. urban reserves, primarily in River Road, Santa Clara; west Eugene's Willow"
" ,',
Creek area, south Springfield, and the Thurston and J asper-Natron areas in east
Springfield, "
" ,
. .1, . I,
6,OAR 660-0U -0005 defines projects that must be included in public facility plan
project lists for water, wastewater, and stormwater, Thes"e definitions are shown
in the keys of planned facilities Maps 1, 2, 2a, and 3 in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan,
. .
7., In accordance withORS 195,020 to 080, Eugene,.Springfield, Lane County and
special service districts are required to enter into coordination agreements that
defme how planning coordination and urban services (water, wastewater, fire,
parks, OP(:ll sp'ace and recreation, and streets, r03;ds and mass transit) will be
provided within the urban growth boundary,
'. . ,j' . . .
8, . Large institutional uses, such as universities and hospitals, present complex
planning problems for the metropolitan area due to their location,facility
"expansion plans, and continuing housing and parking needs,
9, . Dtiplicationofservices prevents.the most economical distribution.ofpublic
facilities and services;
. '.r,'. .
10, As discussed inthe Public Facilities and Services,Plan; a majority of nodal
developmel}tareas" proposed in !ransPlan :l!'~ serviceable now or in the" short-
term, ' The City of Eugene's adopted Growth Management Policy # 15 states,
" "Target publicly:fmanced infrastructure extensions to support development for
"higher deiIsities, in~ fill, mixed uses, and nodal development." "
"
Policies
"'..- '" , .
GJ Extend the rn~mum level and full range of key urban facilities and services in an
orderly an~ efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in
Chapter II-C, relevantpoljcies in this ,chapter, and other Metro Planpolicies, " '
G,2 Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide
the geherallocation of water, wastewater, stOl:mwater, and electrical projects in "
". the metropolitan area, Use local facility master plans, refinement plans, caDital
imDrovement Dlans. and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning apd project
implementation,
0.3 Modifications and additions to or deletions from the project lists in the Public
. '. "fa.r!/ities;and Services Pldn, for water, wastewater, and storrilwater public. facility
:~:~V~G~~~Jl:pi9j~ft~. ~r sjgnificantchange,s to project location, from that desctJ~~~eceived
"" :, Y"" """ , "
~~ !\IV!.
"..J"
" "'"1;'1'
'""":""1d'{;J~I."'"I',
I.~."i!;, u~. -:], I,
,~ '''~Jf,. .
Appendix Ail Page 4 .
MAY'!. 4roL{
21
Planner: 8\,1. :"
rl -
.."
. ".
Public Facilities, and Services Plan planned facilities Maps!,!, 2, ~ and 3,
requires amending the Pubic Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan,
except for the f~llow1ng: , "
a, 'Modifi~ations 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 ofthe proj eC,t; or
b, Technical and environmentaJ modifications to a public facility which are
made pursuant to final engineering on a project; or
c, Modifications to a public facility project which are made pursuant to
findings of an Environmental Assessment or Envirorimental Impact
Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural
provisions ofllie national Environmental Policy Actof 1969 or any
federal or State of Oregon agency project developm~nt regulations
consistent with that act and its regulations
GA The cities and Lane County shall coordinate with EWEB, SUB, and special
service districts operating in the metropolitan area, to provide the opportunity to
review and comment on proposed public facilities,'plans, programs, and public
improvement proj ects or changes thereto that may affect one another's area of
responsibility,
G5 The cities ,shall continue joint planning coordination with major institutions, such
as universities and hospitals, due to their relatively large impact on local facilities
and services,
G6 Efforts shall be made to reduce the number, of unnecessary special service districts
and to revise confusing or illogical service boundaries, including those that result
in a duplication of effort or overlap of service, When possible, these efforts shall
be pursued in cooperation with the affectedjvrisdictions, '"
G,7 Service,providers shall coordinat~ the provision offacilitiesl~mdservicesto areas
targeted by the cities for higher densities, infill, mixed uses,'aud nodal
development.
,
G,S The cities and county shall coordinate with cities sUrrounding llie metropolitan
area to develpp a growth management strategy, This strategy will address
regional public facility needs, I, ' ,
Services to DevelonmentWithin the Urban Growth Boundarv: ,Wastewate~
Findin2:s
^' "
! ", ':~~~l~ ,:
. r,'1
'-',I,("~''",A>,~~ :;. .'
,""--:'1-'1 \1,' l""..(r_.,
, . \'"'., .;' , '.' I
Appendix Aa Page 5
Date Received
MAY 241D~
Planner: BJ
22
1 "" ~ J " . .'"" ,-",
-\ ",,-,' ,"Il!' '-1;' "J-., .""'''k:,,..t "".' ,
, 'l~"~'iI~-....I., ~~"~:".,"~ ."':' (.
, ,~..' 3" ~., ,,_1t).3.'! -,.' ~.::-:'1.~,,~,n' ""; ;,
, ~ Y:\"" .--
. ....~,. !' I: ,. 1.1" ',.
"t'/ ". .r-"J.,:-
, .
, "
11, , " Snrimmeld"and Eu?ene rely ona combination of remonal and local services
for the nrovision of wastewater services,' Within' each City:" the local.
iurisdictionnrovides collection of wastewater throue:h a system of sanitary
sewers and munnllH! systems, These collection facilities connect to a njmonal
system of similar sewer collection,facilities owned and ooerated bv the
Metrooolitan Wastewater Manal!ement Commission ("MWMC"), an entity
foimed under an intergovernmental al!reement created oursuant to ORS 190,
TOl!ether. these collection facilities (which exclude nrivate laterals w!ii6h ,
convey wastewater from individual residential or commercial/industrial
connectionsYconstitute the nrimarv collection svstem,
12. ',Ii!e !l,;,marv collection system convevs,wastewater to atreatment facilitie~svstem
owned"and onerated bv MWMC, This system consists of an interconnected W Me~
Pollution Control Facilitv ("WPCF"), a biosolids facilitv"and a beneficial reuse
facility,
Policies
. .
G.9 Wa~tewater con~evance and treatment snall benrovided to meet the needs of
proiected growth inside the urban growth boundarY that arecaoable of comolvinl!
with rel!Ulatorv reauirements governinl! beneficial reuse of effluent and beneficial
reuse or disoosal ofresiduals,
Services to. Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Water
"'
,."
Findinl!s """ ,
1+3" Springfield relies on groundwater for its sole source of water. EWEB water
source.is the McKenzie River and EWEB is developing groundwater soUrces,
The identification of projects on the Public Facilities and Services Plan planned
facilities map does notconfer rights to a groundwater source, '
Policies
, ' ~
G,910 Eugene and Springfield and their respectiye utility branches, EWEB and
Springfield Utility Board (SUB), shall ultimately be the water service providers
within the urban growth boundary, '
G, Hll Contiriue,to take ,positive steps to protect groundwater supplies, The cities,
county, and other service providers shall manage land'useand public facilities for
groundwater-related benefits through the implementation of the Springfield
Drinking ff:ater Protectio,n Plan and other wellhead protection plans,
Management practices instituted to prote<,:t groundwater shall be coordinated
'_ , among the City of Springfield, City of Eugene, and Lane County,
lYW!~,~}e(1PJsG ' . '
. . . .
tlJ ::'U!:~tFnH~CJ
. Appendix' Aa Page 6
Date Received
, MAY 2 4 ;e4-
23
Planner: BJ
""'
t, ~ YM,;
. '
G, 1+2 Ensure that water main extensions within the urban growth'boundary include
adequate consideration of fire flows, '
G,I;13 SUB, EWEB, and Rainbow Water District, the water providers that currently
control a water source, shall examine the need for a metropolitan-wide water
master program, recognizing that a metropolitan-wide system will require
establishing standards, a~ well as coordinated source and delivery systems,
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Bonndary:, Stormwater
Findings
1~, Historically, stormwater systems in Eugene and Springfield were designed
primarily to control floods, The 1987 re-authorization of the federal Clean Water
" Act required, .for the first time, local communities to reduce stormwater pollution
within their municipal storm drainage systems, These requirements applied
initifllly to .the City of Eugene and subsequent amendments to the Act extended
these requirements to Springfield and Lane County,
I J5, . Administration and enforcement of the Clean Water Act stormwater provisions
occur at the state level, through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitting requirements, Applicable jurisdictions are required to obtain
an NPDES stormwater permit from the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), and prepare a water quality plan outlining the Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to be taken over a five-year permit period forreducing
stormwater pollutants to "the Il1aximum extent practicable,"
146. Stormwater quality improvement facilities are most efficient and effective at
intercepting and removing pollutants when they are close to the source"ofthe
pollutants and treat relatively small volumes of runoff; '.
1~7, The Clean Water Act requires states to assess the quality of their surface waters
every three years,"and to list those waters which do not meet adopted water
quality standards, The Willamette River and other water bodies have been listed
as not meeting the standards for temperature and, bacteria, This will require the
development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) forthe~e pollutants, and
an allocation to point and non-point sources,
168, The listing of Spring Chinook Salmon as a threatened species in the Upper
Willamette River requires the application of Endangered Species Act (ESA)
provisions to the salmon's habitat in the.McKenzie and Willamette Rivers, The
decline in the Chinook Salmon has been attributed to such factors as destruction
of habitat through channelization and revetrnent of river banks, non-point source
,
pollution, alterations of natural hydro graph by il}creased impervious surfaces in
. " the basin, and degradation ofnamral functions of riparian lands duHo rimoRI or . d
<~I')'!ii;.,;"~r~f~l\e~a}i~n"ofindigenousvegetation, . ." Uale ecelve
MAY 24 tot
.."'. ,'" '"/.",
. :~ y 'l!~,
.... "I
1;1", "f','. il:~I,liC_
, .'. '. :
Appendix Aa Page 7
Planner: BJ4
, .
" . ,
P9, .There"are many advantage~ to keeping channel~ open, including, at a minimum; .
natural biofiltration of stormwater pollutants; greater ability to. attenuate effects of
peakstormwater flows;,reterition of wetland, habitat, and optm space functions;
. and reduced capital costs for stormwater facilities,
M20, An increase in impervious surfaces, without mitigation, results in higher flows'
during peak storm events, less opportunity for recharging of the aquifer, and a
decrease in water quality: '
+,921. Stormwater systems tend to be gravity-based systems that follow the slope of the
land rather than political boundaries, In many cases, the natural dminageways
such as streams serve as an integral part of the stormwaterconveyance system,
. i. .
2G2,"". In general; there are no programs for stormwater maintenance outside the Eugene
andBpringfield city limits, except for the Lane'County roads prograrri. state law
limits county road funds for stormwater projects to those located within the public
right-of-way, " . . , '
2+3. "Filling in designated floodplain areas" can increase flood elevations above'the
'elevations predicted by Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA)
models, because the FEMA models are typically based only on the extent of
development at the time the modeling was conducted and do not take into account
the ultimate buildout ofthe drainage area, This poses risks to' other properties in
or adjacent to floodplains and" can change the hydro graph of the river.-
,Policies
G, 1;l4 Improve surface and ground water quality and quantity in the metropolitan area
by developingreguiations or instituting programs for stormwater to: "
a, Increase public awareness oftecimiques ~d practices private individuals
cari,employ to help correct water quality and quantity problems; ,
b: Improve management of industrial and commercial operations to reduce
negative water quality and quantity impacts; "
c, Regulate site planning for new development and construction to better
manage pre- and post-construction storm runoff, including erosion,
velocity, pollutant loading, and drajnage; ,
d, Increase storage and retention and natural filtration of storm ru~offto
lower and delay peak storm flows and to settle out pollutants prior to
discharge into regulated waterways;
. ._-
~j .,,'~
1,1;tl
"." "
(;)'/6.-, "')" (l'1 Pi4:fi}j \1.~".
r, .:11- ~d: l:~ ~;:::I~. I
Appendix Aa Page 8
, Date'Rece\ved
MAY 2 4, Ot.\-
Planner: BJ "25
"lklllc;: ,c,\j,~ (-:'jtt'.{ ,II"
.. '. ~...J J 1\~.,.1 .t...J'i- ,1;._, ';' ,~"_, ...
:, c,; Yi'>',' .
. .\ .,1"1
. .
e, Require on-site controls and development standards;, as practical, to reduce
off-site impacts from stormwater ~noff;
f, Use natural and simple mechanical treatment systems to provide treatment
for potentially contaminated runoff waters;
g, Reduce street-related water quality and quantity problems;
h, Regulate use and require containment and/or pretreatment of toxic
substances;
1. Include containment measures in" site review standards to minimize the
effects of chemical and petroleum spills; and
J, Consider impacJs to ground water quality in the design and location of dry
wells.
G,145 Implement changes to stormwater facilities and management practices to reduce
the presence of pOllutimts regulated under the Clean Water Act and to address the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act. I
G: 1,S6 Consider wellhead protection areas and surface wateLsupplies when planning
stormwater facilities, "
, ,
, . ,
G, 167 Manage or enhance waterways and open stormwater systems to reduce water
quality impacts from runoff and to improve'stormwater conveyance,
0.1 n Include measures in local land development regulations that minimize the amount
of impervious surface in new development in it manner that reduces stormwater "
pollution, reduces the negative affects from increases in runoff, and is compatible
with Metro Plan policies. ",'
G,I &9 The cities and Lane County shall adopt a strategy for the unincorporated area' of
tlie urban growth boundary to: reduce the negative effects of filling in floodplains
and prevent the filling of natural drainage channels except a~ necessary to dhsure
public operations and maintenance of these channels in a manner that preserves
and/or enhances floodwater conveyance capacity and biological function,
,i] .
G.+920Maintain flood stotagecapacity within the floodplain, to theJmaximum extent
. practical, through measures that may include reducing impervious surface in the
floodplain and adjacent areas,
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: 'Electricity
,
Findinl!s
.'"
Appendix Aa Page 9 ..
, "
Date Received
MAY 24 lotf'
Planner: BJ
26
\'/rl" 'I. l ..~J r"~Q;'?i . _
(c 'V~~h~~~7'11':','jI.l.l
~~;' "{HM
l . 'I,: ',"
"
,-,'
I, ~ . ~
'-
, .
'2~," Accotding to local municipal utilities, efficient electrical service is often
accomplished through mumal,back-up agreements and inter-connected systems
are more efficient than isolated systems, '
Policies
G.2Ql The electric service providers will agree which provider will serve areas about to
be annexed and inform the cities who the service provider will be and how the
transition of services, ifany, will occur:
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Schools
Findinl!s
'2;;5, ORS 195,110 requires cities and counties to inClude, as an element of their
comprehensive pl"an, a schooL facility plan for high growth disJricts prepared by
the district in cooperation with the city or county; and for, the city or county to"
'. initiate,the planning activity, The law defines high growth districts as those that
have an enrollment of over 5,000 students and an increase in enrollment"of six"
percent or more during the three most recent school years, At present, there are no
high growth school districts in the urban growth boundary,
246" ORS 197,296(4)(a) states that when the urban growth boundary is amended to
provide needed housing, "As part of this process, the amendment shall include
sufficient land reasonably necessary to accommodate the siting of new public
sch90l facilities, The need and inclusion oflands for new public school facilities
shall be a coordinated process between the affected public school districts and the
local government that has the authority to approve the urban growth boundary,"
, .:
J' , '
2$7. Enrollment projections for the five publiC school districts in the metropolitan area
, and the UniversityofOregon:and Lane Community College (LCe) are not
consistent Bethel School District and the University of Oregon expectincreases
"while Springfield and Eugene School Districts and LCC are experiencing nearly
flat or declining enrollments, Enrollmentis increasing fastest in the elementary
, and high school attendance "areas near new development ' ,
;!68. Short-term.flucmations in school attendance are addressed through the use of
adjusted, attendance area boundaries, double shifting, use of portable classrooms,
and busing, School funding from the state is based on student enrollment for
,,' ,,' school districts in the State of Oregon, This funding pal1ern affects the
willingness of distriCts to allow out-of-district transfers and to adjust district
boundaries, Adjustments in' district boundaries may be feasible where there is no
net loss or gainin student~nrcillments between districts, "
; ~9.:, Cre~tiilg or ret~ining small, neighborhood schools reduces the need for busing and
>~$VI~j~r8-\i.i4es:J:1;i.Q:r~9Pportunity for smdents to walk or bike to schooL aat~ fl~eived
,,_. ;"n YII'.l
. }- ,\ " I"
.;" ,',""' " " Ie<
I' H ""C'J'''''..Jf-''J[,' C1
. '",: ,~",,,~"" Yfe,~ ),
;, Appendix Aa Page 10
MAY 24 DJ!
('\ 27
Planner:" BJ
. .
,~" .
schools may,allow more parents to stay in established'neighborhoods" and to avoid
moving out to new subdivisions on the urban fringe or to be'droom communities,
However, growlh patterns do not always respect school district boundaries, For
example, natural cycles of growlh and neighborhood maturation result in uneven
geographic growth patterns in the metropolitan area, causing a disparity between
the location o'f some schools and school children, 1;his results.in s01l!e fringe area
schools exceeding capacity, while some central city sch(}ols~are under capacity,
" .'
~30, Long,range enrOllment,forecasts determine the need to either build new schools,
expand existing facilities, or close existing schook Funding restrictions imposed
by state law and some provisions in local codes may discourage the retention and
redevelopment of neighborhood schools, Limits imposed by state law on the use
of bond funds for operations and maintenance make the construction of new,
lower maintenance buildings preferable to remodeling existing school buildings,
In addition,.if existing schools were expanded, some schooLsites may not meet
current local parking and other code requirements,
".
2931, Combining ~ducati~mi1 facilities with local park and recreation facilities provides
financial benefits to,the schools while enhancing benefits to ,the community, The
Meadow View School and adjacent City of Eugene community park is an
example of shared facilities,'
Policies .
"
." ,
0,2+2 The cities shall initiate a process with school districts within: the"1rban growth
boundary for coordinating land use and school planning acti;vities, The cities and
. school districts shall examine the following)n their coordin~tion efforts:
a, The need for new public school facilities and sufficient land to site them;
b. How open enrollment' policies affect school location;
-' . t
" t
C, . The impact.of school building height and site "size on the buildable land
supply;. . ,ii
. . '. .'
d, The use of school facilitiedor n6n-schooLactivities Olnd appropriate
reimbursement for this use;
,f
e,' The impac,tofbuilding and land use, codes on the de1elopment and "
redevelopment of school faciljties;" "
f. Systems development charge adjustments related to ~eighborhood
,schools; and,
.
, \.....,' '.,'..
" ,,-"";"
Appendix Aa Page 11
o I
Date Recelveo
MAY 2416tf
, "S i
Planner" v28
~" "\' ,<\;: , ,. i I """""~(I'
. '" . IJ'1 .;1" )l~...l''':l', !"..,.r J'.J.-~ Ii
; """ '-:.-'.;",1 !,~fJl; f, .f.''-;-_~, ':.. . '
1\: . :~ ~':;
J
"
g, '" The possibility of adjusting boUndaries, when practical an,d "whiiii total
"' " enrollment will not be 'affected, where a single; otherwise internally
" '"', ' cohesive area is uivided into more than one school district, :
- 0.223' Support financial and other efforts to keep neighborhood schools open and to
. retail1 schools sites ih public ownership following school closUre,
G,234 , Support the retention 6fUniversity of Oregon and LCC facilities'in central city
areas to increase opportunities forpublic transit and h<;lUsing arid to retain these
" schools' ati!activeness to students and faculty, "' ,', "
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Solid Waste
. Findinl!s
" '
1; j
,
302, Statewide Planning Goal 11 requires that, "To meet'cirrrent and limg-range needs,
a provision for solid waste disposal sites,)nc1uding ~ites for inert waste, shall be,
"in9luded iil,e.ach plan,'" ' ,
! ,r
PoliCies d
,
G,245 The Lane County Solid Waste Management Plan, as updated, shall serve as the
, guide for" the location of solid waste sites, including sites for inert waSte, to :serv~
the metropolitan area', Industries that inakesignificant use "of the resources
recovered from the Glenwood solid waste transfer facility should be encouraged
to locate in that,vicinity, "
Services to Areas Outside the Urban, Growth Boundary
" , '
Findings
3+3, Providing key urban services, such as water, to ~eas outside the urban growth
boundary increases pressure for urban'developrnent in rural areas,' This can,
encourage premature development outside the urban growth boundary at rur~l
densities, increasing the cost of public.facilities,and serv!ces to allusers ofthe
systems, ,"'" ", "'. ",', .
324, Land application ofbiosolids, treated wastewater, or cannery waste' on
agricultural sites outside the urban growth boundary for beneficial reuse of treated
", wastewater byproducts generated, within the Urban growth boundary is more"
efficient and environmentally beneficial than land filling or other means of
disposal. ,
, "'" '.: 3;5,'"('l;ime <Tounty land use data show that, outside the urban growth boundary, land
:~'-~\W':}:'_1t~ttu~el.~t:~~ist of:, " "" . Date Received
"T \;. T\M '
,\ MAY24 JC>{'
'! . ~~.~~
--",
...., ,
~' L:;l i"lf'J ,e. Q~;J"
.y)! nJJ ~1~~la :J
, ,
Appendix Aa Page 12
, ' . t~J 29
Planner.. lI::"h,-
t.
. '
1) . Those which are primarily intended for resource management; and
2) :r40sewhere development has occurred and are committed to rural
development as established through the exceptions process specified in
,Statewide Planning Goal 2, "
PoliCies
G,2~6
~I
Wastewater and water service shall not be"provided outside;,the urban growth
boundary except to the following areas, and.the cities may ~~quire"consent to
annex agreements as a prerequisite to providing these servi~es in ~y instance:
. -, :~t:.
a,""
The area of the Eugene Airport designated Governrrient and Education on
the Metro Plan Diagram, the Seasonal Industrial Wa.;ste Facility, the
. Regional Wastewater Biosolids Manag~ment Facility, and agricultural
. sites u~ed for land application ofbiosolids and cannery byproducts, These
sites serve the entire metropolitan area, '
.,"
b,
An existing development outside the;urban growth boundary when it has
been d.e~ermined that it poses an immediate threat of public health or
safety to the citizens within the Eugene-Springfield urban growth
boundary that can only be remedied-by extension o(the service,
'"
In addition, upder prior obligations, water service shall be provided to land within
" the dissolved water districts of Hillcrest, College Crest, Bethel, and Oakway,
G.267 The Eugene Airport shall be served with the necessary urban services required to,
operate the airport as an urban facility. Development outside the urban growth
boundary in the vicinity ofthe airport, outside the portion ofthe airport boundary
designated Government and Education in the Metro Plan diagram, shall not be
provided with urban services, .
G"2+8 Plan for the following levels of service for rural designation~ <:mtside the urban
growth boundary ~ithin the Plan Bounclary:
.'
a, " ArncuHure, Forest Land, Sand and Gravel. and Parks and Ooen STJace,
No minimum level of service is established"
b. Rural Residential. Rural Commercial. Rural Industrial. and Government
,and Education, On-site sewage disposal, individual"water systems, rural
level of fire and police protection, elec~ric and communication service,
schools, andreas~mable access to solid waste disposal facility,
"
.\.., . r-'y'o,catj~g ~~l! Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth B.mud'MwRece,'ved
1,1.,,1'f1L. .'Ii...-J.1-, ".,11',,,,-1, '\ I..Rrn:r
' 1-.' t' p~ ;" ',,\" . ,_.J- -, . '.
Findin~ . "
'-:'~. .,.).\ - ~ i III .
,':"
,,'...: " .,:, \: ""\;"_ t .
~ ,1:' I "), ,I I.
Appendix Aa Page 13
MA~~4 (vi
Planner: B~o
;, -
. '.'
346, In accordance with statewide planning goals arid administr~tiv~ rules, urban
water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities may be located on agnculturai land
and urban water and wastewater facilities may be located on for~st land outside
the urban growth boundary when the facilities exclusively.serve land within the
urbaxr growth boundary, pursuant to OAR 660-006 and 660-033,
3~7, In accordance with, statewide plarming goals and adITIinistrative rules, water, and
wastewater facilities 'are allowed in the public right-of-way of pub Ii NO ads and
highways. '
"
%8, 'the Public Facilities qnd Services Plan plarmed facilities maps ,show the location
of some plarmed public facilities outside'the urban growth boundary and Plan
, Boundary, exclusively to serve land within the urban growth boundary, The
'. ultimate construction of these facilities'will require Close coordinat~on with and
, permitting by Lane County and possible Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan
amendments" .
3+9, Statewide Planning GoalS and OAR 660~023-0090 require state and loclil
jurisdictions to identify and'protect riparian corridors, "
~O, Inilccordance with OAR 660~033-0090, 660-033~0130(2), and 660-033-0120,
building schools on high value farm land outside the urban growth boundary is
prohibited, Statewide plarming goals proliibit ldcating school buildirigs on fann
or forest land within three miles outside the urban growth boundary"
Poiicies "
""
G,2&9 Consisterit with local regulations, locate'new'urban water, w~stewater; and
st~rmwater facilities on fann"land and urban water and wastewater facilities on
forest "land Outside the urban growth boundary only when the facilities exclusively
serve land inside the urban growth boundary and there is no reasonable
alternative,
G,;!930Locate urban water and wastewater facilities ih the public right-of-way ofpujJlic
roads and highways outside the urban growth poundary,"'as needed to serve land
within the urban growth boundary, '
",..
,
.' .;.",;
ij -to':
;It ,~vj~j
, '.-Il}~l:--'::;
nr"'rp
" ":I&"I'lflli-"d'"j'
:1 ..1 "7# A;:." !!.r4'".lR (,
Appendix Aa' Page 14
Planner: B~l
'.
- -', - '.
. '
(
....,.
,
",
G.3l2 The cities shall coor,?inate with Lane COUflty on responsibility and "authority to
address stormwater-related issues outside the Plan Boundary, including outfalls
outside the Springfield, portion, of the urban growth boundary.
G.3~3 Measures to protect, enhance, or alter, Class F Streams outside the urban growth
boundary, within the Plan Boundary shall,. at a minimum, be consistent with Lane
.. County's riparilJD standards,
.
Q,3M New schools within the Plan Boundary shall be built inside:the urban growth
i"
boundary, , ,"
',.:",
,
Financing
i.~ \ _
Findinl!s
;
:w4L QRS 197,712(2)(e) states that the proJect timing and,finandng provi~ions of
public.'facility plans shall not be considered land use decisions,
- -' <, , , ,~
;h I.,
4g2. ORS 223.297 and ORS 223:229(1) do not p~~it the collectio"n oflocal systems
development charges (SDCs) for fire and emergency medical service,facilities and
schools, limiting revenue options for these services, Past attempts to change this
law have been unsuccessfuL
4l3, Service providers in.the metrop~litan ~rea use SDCs to helB fund thefollo~ing
facilities: ~ "
, "
· Springfield: stormwater, wastewater; and transportation;
· Willamalane Park and Recreation District: ' parks;
. SUB, Rainbow Water District: water; ::"
· Eugene: stormwater, wastewater, parks, and transportation; and,
"
. 'EWEB: water.
424,
Oreg~rt a~d California ti;"ber receipt revenues, a federally~iunded sou;c~ of "
county road, funds, have declined over'the years and their c~ntinued decline is
expecte~, . ~
~ <, .
. 'I." ,
Regular maintenance reduces lorig terin,infrastructure costs by preventing the
need for frequentreplacement and rehabilitation: ORS'223:297to 223.314 do not
allow use of Sl{Cs to fund operations and maintenance" '
The assessment rates of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County are each different,
creating inequitable financing of some infrastruct~re improvements in the
. metropolitan area, ' , "
4;;5, "
446,
):,>.t " _ '/11
Policies ""
.
. Date Received'
MAY 2.4 o~
.'. I
;,' '.'. .,,:. . .M~' "f' r "'I't'I~-"r-.
...-' .' I:.' .1--+-J"1: -1"- \
. ., 'f . .....I~ !
"
"'.
"""1" ""
<,l_.
. Appendix Aa Page 15
Planner: BeL
-~.
, ;. "
.". ,..~ r..-~ h,tf1i
.. " I' ,,)\1 ."
.
G,345 Changes t6 Public Facilities ~nd Servi~es Elan projecfphasing schedul~s or
, 'imticipated costs and-financing shall be made in accqrdance with budgeting and
capital improvement prograin procedures of the affectedjurisdiction(s),'
'> .' , "
G,3~6' ServiCe providers will update capital improvement prograinming (plaiming,
programming, and,budgetmg for service extension) regularly fofthose portions of
the urban growth boundary where the full range of key urban services and
facilities is not available,
"
G.3e7 Require development to pay the cost, as determined by the local jurisdiction, of
extending urban services ahd facilities, This does not preclude subsidy, where a "
development will fulfill goal~ and reconimendations of the Metro Plan 'and other,
applicable plans determined by the local jurisdiction to be of particular
importance or concerri,
',," ..' "', '. j
G.3:;Z8 Continue to implerrient a'system of user charges, stiCs, and other public
financing tools, where appropriate, to fund operations, maintenance, and .
improvemellt or replac'ement'ofobsolete facilities or system expansion,. .
G,3&9 Explore other funding i:I1echanisms at the local level to firiilllCe operations and
'maintenance of public facilities, .- ,., , 0 "
G,;;940Set wastewater and stormwater fees at'a level commensurate with the level of
impact,on, or use of; the wastewater or storrnwater service. "
"'
"
G,;;940The cities and Lane County will continue to cooperate in developing assessment
. practices for inter-jurisdictional projects that provide for equitable treatment of .
. properties, regardless of jurisdiction"
,
. Chapter V Glossary
~6,
Public facilitv oroiects: Public facility project lists and maps adopted as part of
the Metro Plan are defined as follows: ,. "
'j'"
i.~
,
a, Water: Source, reservoirs, punip stations, and prim.u:y distribution' .
'"'.. systerris, Primary distribution systems are trans,mission lines 12 inches or
: larger for SUB and 24 inches or larger for EWEB,
I~'~
'.
.,
b: Wastewater: Pri~arv Collection Svstem: Purnpstations and'wastewater
Jines24 inches or larger.
Treatment Facilities Svstem: Water Pollution Control ,
Facilitv (WPCF) oroiect. beneficial reuse oroiect and
residuals oroiect necessarv to meet wastewater treatInent
facilities svstem desi~ caoacities for averal!e flow:"'oeak
flow, biochemic~1 oxvl!en demand and total ~eceived
/ . ". ,
\,..~,."t,d~n ''t J " 'r'1
,: Jti)I'D~~.II~'If" :)'If/l"(' 'J
- .:. -;j- ,\. t~J' '.!l. ",:~,'J>:).'i,;;..;
\..., y,'r."l.
.. ,j; ,Al~,
:-1
, ""
~ r...~4~" , t/'..., ." . ft ~~~
b:;J, '!icH1fl' Co;; lh~~i
+.. . .n . '/' 1I:,,,,:.)j . I:
. Appendix Aa Page 16
MAY 2"4IDl/
33
PI' . A"
. . . anner~ ,'.< ,>>
40'-.
solids so as to Dfovide service within.the urhan growth
boundary (uGB\ for a Dfoiected oODulation in 2025
.consistent with the pooulation assumed in this Plan, in"
comnliance with MWMC's discharge nermit. MWMC's
Canital Imnrovements Plan, as amended from time to time.
shall be used as the wide for detailed olanning and
imnlementation ofthe WPCF nroiect. the heneficial reuse
oroiect and the residuals nroiect.
c, Stormwater: Drainage/channel improvements and/or piping systems 36
inches or larger; proposed detention ponds; outfalls; "water quality
projects; and waterways and op~n systems,
d, Specific projects adopted as part of the Metro Plan <ire described in the
project lists and their general location is identified in the planned facilities
maps in Chapter II of the Eugene-Sprinifield Metropoliian Public
Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan),
,'r
" \
" , ".1";--
'jL - , I I ",: 1 1.'-':"1'
'"' I '"'""
Appendix Aa Page 17
Date Received
MAY 24,01
Planner: BJ4
, .
~ l~..~ :'!/~' i.','! )\ .,1 , "1'~J'~t "
. . -'I' ".. v_""lJ,1f:j tt:lJ,,' ~.\
.: '.' .~{,~l ~/~.:~'5 ~~.z"}
,}' :;~ '(",l,Y.'
. ~ , 1
. .
, "
,f'"
~
, ~'~"\
"';
~.\i'~j,"glt~~;'(':;;l:i q'irR1 ::
[ ^It..; \f"'\f'Il:',+I1B ~ 'f-'.;"iA~,-.,\r.;}
'.", .
!, ..:; ~t ~.~:
~~. t'\ ,t..tYl
.
. Date Received
MAY 24J)~
Planner: BJ
p .r:t tl.:.,t'(<!I~'i"\1~'t{:"l\
lJ?';"'1 ~ ~~jr1 i!~ '.~'7~'~' t.
.'
APPENDIX Ab
. PROPOSED CHANGES TO TH~ METRO PLAN
. (Version currently before th,e elected officials as a part of Periodic Review)
J~
G. Public Facilities and Services Element
This Public Facilities and Services Element provides'direction for the future provision of
urban facilities and services to planned land uses within the Metro Pian Plan Boundary
. (plan Boundary),
-""
The availability of public facilities and services is a key factor influencing the location
and density of future development. The public's investment in, and scheduling of, public
facilities and "services are a major means of implementing the Metro Plan, As the
population of the Eugene-Springfield area increases and 'land development patterns
change over time, the demand for urban services also increases and changes, These
changes require that service providers, both public and private, plan for the provision of
services in a coordinated manner, using consistent assumptions and projections for
population and land use,
The policies in this element complement Metro Plan 'Chapter II-A, Fundamental
Principles, and Chapter II-C, Growth Management. Consistent with the principle of
compact urban growth prescribed in Chapter II, the policies in this element call for future
urban water and wastewater services to be provided exclusively within the urban growth
boundary (UGB), This policy direction is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal II :
Public Facilities and Services, "To pl~m and develop a timely, ordefly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development." On urban lands, new development must be served by at least the
minimum level of key urban services and facilities at the time development is completed
and, ultimately, by a full range of key urban services and facilities,' On rural'lands within
the Plan Boundary, development must be served by rural levels of service, Users of
facilities and services in rural areas are spread out geographically, resulting in a higher
. per-user cost for some services and, often, in an inadequate revenue' base to support a
higher level of service in the future, Some urban facilities may be located or managed.
outside the urban growth boundary, as allowed by state,law, but only to serve
development within the UGB, '
Urban facilities and services within the UGB are provided by the City of Eugene, the City
of Springfield, Lane County, Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), the Springfield
"Utility Board (SUB), the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC),
electric cooperatives, and special service districts, Special service districts provide
. schools and bus service, and, in some areas outside the cities, they provide water, electric,
fire service or parks and recreation service, This element provides guidelines for special
service districts in line with the compact urban deveiopment fundam,ental fjat~ep.f€fce;ved
"Metro Plan" .' . " , ,
MAY 24/ at{
'k....'" ;~, '<-i): '\ Chi' nl~",(
,... -.P.. A,,-~I. !\ .1.lr-.
".
Appendix Ab Pagel. "
Planner: BJ35
. .
This element incorporateHhe findings and policies in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and, Services"
Plan), adopted liS a re,fin~ment to the Metro Plan, The Public Facilities and Services
Plan provides guidance for public facilities and services, Including planned water,
wastewater;'stormwater, and electrical facilities, As required by Goal 11, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies and shows the general location' of the water,
wastewater, and stormwaterprojects needed to serve land within the UGB,2 The Public
Facilities,pnd Services Plan also contains this information fo~ electrical facilities,
althpugh not required to by law,
The project lists and mapsin the Public Facilities and Services Plan are adopted as pim
of the Metro Plan, Information in the Public Facilities and Services Plan on project
phasing and costs,,~d decisions 0,11 timing and financingofprojects are not part of the
Metro Plan, and are controlled solely by the capital improvement programming and
budget ,processes of individual, service providers,
The policies listed provide dire~tion for public and priv~te developmental and prograin
decision-making regarding urban facilities and services, Development should be
coordinated with the planning, financing, and construction of key urban facilities 'and
services to ensure the efficient use and expansion of these facilities.
Goals
~.
L Provide and maintain public facilities and services in an efficient and
environmentally responsible manner. "'
2, Provide puplic" facilities and services in a manner that encourages orderly and
sequential growth,
Findings and P~licies
The findings and policies in this element are organized by the following four topics
related to the provision of urban facilities and services, Policy direction for the full range
of urban facilities and "services, ineffiL:-.; ',;;:ttt.<lWllt:I ,:f.~ maybefoui1d underany of
these topics, although the first topic, Services to Development Within the'Urban Growth
Boundary, is further broken down into sub-categories,
.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary
.' Planning and Coordination
". Water
, ,
'The exact locati~n of the projects shown on the Public Facilities and Services Plan plalll1ed facilities
:h&:M~f\mep~"i~ ~Wrmjhedthrough local processes, ." ,.
': I,y \) 'I;::U2 'GS~n l':als;'/h'quires transportation facilities to be included in public facilities plans" In this metropolitan
"" area, transportation facilities are addressed in Metro Plan Chapter III-F and in the Eugene-Springfield
Tr'im~pJ;t,i!ion System Plan (Trans Plan), Date Received
'\ (,,' ,~ ( , 'r'~ If'" J' " ~ (\:;1
~~,:f:' /l"7,1v "II,:'~ , 1, Appendix Ab Page2 MAY 'l, 41 o~
36
cc'" - ~'" or .= ",,, .", fB.,J
, ",
o
o Wastewater Treatment
. StoTInwater
. Electricity
. Schools
. . Solid Waste Treatment
Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary II
Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary ,
Financing
.'
.
.
Services to Develonment Within the Urban Growth Boundarv:,"Planninl! and
Coordination
1,'
,
,
<
Findings
L Urban expansion within.the UGB is accomplished through in-fill, redevelopment,
and annexation of territory which can be served with a minimum level of key
urban services arid'facilities, This permits new developmentto use existing
facilities and services, or those which call be easily extended; ininirlliiing the
public cost of extending urban facilities arid services"
2, In accordance with Statewide Planning Goal II and OAR 660, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies j!lrisdictional responsibility for the
provision of water, wastewater and stormwater, describes respective service areas
and existing and planned water, wastewater, and stormwater: facilities, and
contains planned facilities maps for these services, Electric system information
and)mprovements are included in the Public Facilities and Services Plan,
although not required by state law, Local facility master plans and ~efinement
plans provide more "specific project information, '
:!'
3, Urban services within the metropolitan UGB are provided by the City of Eugene,
the City of Springfield, Lane County, EWEB, SUB, the MWMC, electric
cooperatives, and special service districts, .' .
4, The Public Facilities and Services Plan finds that alrnostaWareas within the city
limits of Eugene and Springfield are served or can be served'in die short-term (Oe5
years) with water, wastewater, stormwater, ana electric service, Exceptions to
this are stormwaterserVice to portions of the Willow Creek area and southeast
Springfield and full water service at some higher elevations in Eugene's South
Hills, Service to these areas will be available in the long-term, Service to all
areas within city limits are either in a capital improvement plan or can be
extended with development. " .. .,
"';
5, .
With the improvements specified in the Public Facilities arid Services Plan
project lists, all urbaniz.able areas within the Eugerie-~pring~eld UGB can be . d"
se~e.~ With water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrIc service at ~ tRecelve .
'areas',are developed, In general, areas outside city limits serviceable':-t~ long- _, (
. , ". MAY 24, v-r
'-_-,1) ,; ~.. ~;~'''i\:, ~'r.'
j' .' ..~
'i ~'l~:" ." /
, r "_.
"', : -,1;1:,"""
, _ I. I li i !n~.l~ 1
Appendix A~ Page}
Planner: BJ7
, .
term are located near theUGB and in urbairreserves, primarily in River Road,
Santa Clara, west Eugene's Willow Creek area, south Springfield, and the
Thurston and Jasper-Natron areas in east Springfield, .
6, . OAR 660-011-0005 defines projects that must beinchided in public facility plan
" project lists for water" wasteWater, and stormwater, These definitions are shown
in the keys "of planned facilities Maps 1,2, 2a, and 3 in/the Public Facilities and
" Services Plan,'
7, . In accordance with ORS 195,020 to 080, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and
'special s~rvice districts are required to enter into coordination agreements "that
. define how planning coordmation and urban services (water, wastewater, fire,
parks, open space and recreation, and streets, roads and mass transit) will be
," provided within the U~H, . , "
,
" "
Large institutional uses, such as universities and hospitals, present complex
"planning problems for the rnetI:opolitan area due to their location, facility
"expansion plans, and continuing housing and parking needs, '
9, Duplication of services prevents the most economical.distrib~tion of public
facilities and services,
,"
8,
Policies
0,1
0,2
,
Extend the minimum level and ,full range of key urb~ facilities and services in an
orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in
Chapter II-G, relevant policies in ihis chapter, and other Metro Plan pol(cies,
Use the planned f~cilities maps "of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide
the g~neni1location of water, wastewater, stormwater"and electrical projects in
the metropolitan area: Usdocal facility master plans, refmement plans,canital
imorovement olans, and ordinances as the guide for detaiied planning and project
implementation, " "
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 I, 2, 1ili and 3, .
! j~l!fi;);::l~',lf::',1 r[eH~~rt~~'amthen~inllg th~ Pubic Facilities and Services Plan and the ~raOtPela""'e' Fte'lved
' , .,"" excep lor e 10 owmg: . U 11 W I
".," .'i~'" ":Af": "
'''"'~\\11 MAY 24/btf
PI S" 38
anner:,..!d
0,3
" ,
r' ~.",: "'I,,, "" ""'I'JF .11<<'.,
,1....J\C "{ r~"-J/!.,"" r't::'
" ,,~,I, ',l: :, ~~H 'Ii
Appendix Ab Page4
, ,
,
a, Modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do
. 'nof significantly "impact th~ project's general description, location; sizing,
capadty, or other general characteristic of the, project; or
" ,
b, " Technical arid,.environmental modifications to a pui:llic facility which are
made pursmmt to final engineering on a project; or
c,
" ,
Modifications to a public facility project which are ,made pursuant to
tindings of an Environmental Assessment 'or Enviroiunen(al Impact
Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural
provisions of the national Environmental Policy Act'of 1969 or any
federal or State of Oregon agencyproject development regulations
"consistent with that act and its regulations; or', ,
. .
d. Public facility projects included in the PFSP to ~erve land designated
Urban Reserve prior to the removal of the Urban Re~erve designation,
which projects shall be removed from the PFSP at the time of the next
Perioqic Review of the Metro Plan, .
" "
G,4 The cities and Lane County'shall coordinate ,~ith E\VEB', SUB, and special
service districtsoperatirig in the metropolitan area, to provid", the opportunity to
review and comment on proposed public facilities, plans, prbgrams, and public
improvement proj ects or changes thereto that may affect one another's area of
responsibility,
G,S The cities shall continue joint plmming coordination with major institutions, such
as universities and hospitals, due to their ~elatively large impact on local facilities
and services, " i "" .
n6 Efforts' shall be made to redU:ce the number of unnecessary special service districts
and to revise confusing or illogical service boundaries, including those that result
in a duplication of effort or overlap of service, When possible, these efforts shall
. be pursued, in cooperation with the affected jurisdictions: . .
G,7. . Se~ic~ providers shall coordinate the provision of facilities:and services to areas
targeted by the cities for higher densities, infill, mixed uses, 'and nodal
development. '
G,8 The cities and county shall coordinate with cities surrounding the metropolitan
. area to develop a growth management strategy, This strategy will address"
r~gional public facility needs,
Serticesto DeveloDment Within the Urhan Growth Boundarv: Wastewate~
. . "Fin dines :
:~ ~rt 1\~:9'~~"'~)l"\. ' ("'/~Ir:~(~<<;
. .\";")j~"fil:>~rl\.);\t:7.lfl1~ "-:1+....-,\:
.,:.,
'"
Date Received
MAY 24,01
39
Planner: BS
---.-' J~\ ~ Yilli:i
",
"
Appendix Ab PageS
:1 1'-';' . ,. " ~:;:. .
I '.)' Ll-'.I ., '.:.., -:--" '. l' fJ I '
".1:-:: .', '. ~ i. ..:,.; Ii jl! '11- -I~, -'I
1 i, ". Snrine:field and'Eugerie relv on a combination of relrional and local services for
thenroyision of wastewater services, Within each City. the local iurisdiction
oroyidescollection of wastewater throu!!h a system of sanitiliv sewers and,
numnine: systems, These collection facilities connect to a recional system of
,simi!"J,~"we:r ':'2!!,"'Ction facilit;'"~ Qwri.edand operatecl6v tl1e M~t:r0\l0Iitan
Wastewater Management Commission {"MWMC"t an" entity formed under an
jntemoyemmental agreement created nursuant to ORS 190,Toe:ether. these
collection facilities (which exclude briyatelaterals which 'convey wastewater trom
individual residential or'commerciaVindustrial connections) constitute the nrlmarv
collection system, " ,
, ,
12, The nrimarv collection svstem'conveys,wastewater to a treatment facilities System
owned and oneratedbv MWMC, This system co"nsists of an intercol1nected Water'
Pollution Control Facilitv J"WPCF"t a biosolids facility. and a beneficial reuse
facility! "". ",'
Policies
",
.; f
G,9 Wastewater convevance and treatment shall be orovidedto meet the needs of
nroiected growth inside the UGB that are,canable of comnlvinl! with rerulatorv
reauirements" e:oyerning bemificial reuse of effluent and beneficial reuse or
disnosal of residuals,
.,'
SUBSEQUENT FINDINGS ANDPOLlCIES SHALL BE RENUMBERED
ACCORDINGL y WITHl~ THIS CHAPTER .,
<:;hapter V Glossary
"37, ',Public facilitv proiects: Public facility project lists and maps adopted as part of
,the Metro Plan are defined as follow's:
.'
a, Water:' Source, reserVoirs, pump. stations," and primary distribution
systems, Primary distribution systems are transmission line,S 12 incpes or
, larger for Springfield Utility Boara (SUB) and 24 inches or largedor .
Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB),
"
b,' Wastewater:
Primary Collection System: Pump stations and wastewater
lines 24 inches odarger. ,
-, . ':
. Treatment Facilities S~stem: 'Water Pollution " Control
Facility (WPCF) nroiect. beneficial reuse oroiect and
residuals moiect necessary to meet wastewater treatment
facilities system desil!ll canacities for ayenil!e flow. neak
flow. biochemical oxye:en demand and total stg;pended ,,' '. d
solids so as to nroyide service within the urb~eCelVe
MAY 2 4, iJ+-"
"
.j il J --..,:,'" .r;t1]"
."~ _" I' . ,,',., ... + . fl'
I' ,1~,M;!.-\"'l61:rl h'J<'~( ,I
!o,1 ,~ ., "'~1.I,~-.41t -~ ~:J~J<;'''.."I
",1' VII"
.~ i<: 1;:\1\'"
,
" . "
" i "";, ''^' I "
,( ;:~ r.,';'-'d. '1'~I'I,'."l""I'~~("~'
'.1'"' . '"..;~"' .~'i1,'"'" 1:
Appendix Ab Page6
40
Planner: BJ
. "-"'I>' ';, '>' '. '..-~ t ", ..
boundary (UGH) for it oroiected oooulation in 2025
consistent with the oooulation assumed in this Plan. in
comoliance with MWMC's discharQ:~nerrnit. MWMC's
, Canital Imorovements Plan. as amended from time to time. "
shall be used as the guide for detailed:olannin2" and
imolernentation of the WPCF oroiect, the"beneficiairell.e
oroiect and the residuals oroiect.
"
c, Storrnwater: Drainage/channel improvements andlor piping systems 36
inches or larger; proposed detention ponds; outfalls; water quality
. . I
projects; and waterways and open systems, '
d, Specific projeCts adopted as part of the Metro Plan ate described in the
project lists and their general location is identified ill the planned facilities
maps in Chapter II ofthe Eugene-Spririgfield Metropolitan Public
Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities,and Services Plan).
't
""
.,'~ .,,("
: I",..
\ .\'.~ '.
Appendix Ab Page?
Date Received
MAY 24 lOt!
Planner: BJ
I.. \ t ...:c_; I," r;._,(~
j ~l-;:" ;')11:.....\" 'lil.....'\..~l r:-\'"1~~: '
. - ,..- I:",' '~:_~}~iTf,71t".';-1
. .... : " 't r~'l
i~
,,"
. ~.~ .
j ';.. .'''1 .'\"6-;
""'\L.J~H>{;;,?J~-~&"i~~\ h1,'~, "
. f)~\."v ~., 'P'-~.' -r.':'i1rj I...,#/":l\....
'f?'~ yrtM
i~~'(.
. t'. 'l,~':ll
. }''''l'e '"1..~1,.l! ~)1 {f~ l'i ~{U
. I: -'..)}:, II ~~ 7". '.~n
< ~ '
I"
I"
"
-.,. .
.',.
"
-,
-1'-
"I
Date Received
MAY? 4/ oy-
r-:'!~nn(.:'\rt"" BJ
: W'f1~ ,~~ r,~,.Rn ..
APPENDIX B
PROP9SEDCHANGES TO THE PUBLIC .FACILITIES
. AND SERVICES PL~ (PFSP)"
"
. .
,
, .
., .~.
;
"
1. Modify the text preceding existing,Table 3 to read as follows:
Planned Wastewater System 1mprovements
.\
"
"
<,
Plaqned sfleF.: en~ bHg term wastewater system improvement p~oj:ects are listed in
tables3,-aHd 4, 4a .and4b. The generallocati<)I1ofthese facilities is shown in Map 2:
Planned Wastewater Facilities, and. Map 2a: Existiilg Wastewater: Collection and
Treatment Systems. [NOTE: This map presently exists as Map 6in the "Technical ".
Backgronnd Report: Existing Conditions a.lId Alternatives and;should b'e
incorporated ~ithout change.]
Table 4a .
'MWMC 'w~stewater Treatment Sy~tern Improvemen! Projects "
Project
Number
3.00 "
301
302
Proj ect
Number" .
303
304
305. .
Pioj,ect NamelDes~riptibn
I"
."
. .~
I ~PCF Treatment Project. "
. .1 ResidnalsTr!latm'Emt Project
,I' Beneficial Reuse Project:'
" ',"
l"
. . Table' 4b " _ ' .'
MWMC PrimaryCollection System Iinprovement I,'tojects
. ., -." . .
"I Project NamelDescription
. I Willakenzie.Pump Station:'
I Screw Pump Station
I Glenwood Pump Station
. 3. ". MOdifY.~~~.~ to show Projects 300 th~ough 305, and in~e,rt MaPf1'ate Rae Iv d
.'"" 1'<'<"1'\ " """j!t'\ . .' e a
'. ,:'\~.~~~' n::-i~.)j..71,r\ ,t~,.'l~tj '" \1 .' '.
.. ..~~), :;'yl\fv' ." MAY 2 4pt-
Planner: ad
,- _. (':0
, "'''I.,:'q<..:c,''".,
'--~,"?:.,. .':..:'~,:~/l:.ti' },f.:~t'!
r;'.l
Appendix B Page. I
,~-'
j,i,;;ft;'~';
4. Modify Chapter nr. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying
-- the "subdivision entitled "Wastewater System condition Assessment" '
: 1t"Nit:i~Wl:j:.'1 (~:<We~ently on page 82) to read as follows: Date Received"
, ..... ,;~:.: YAM .. "." MAY' 24,of '
;i '~.
.1 Jr.,]
'.-!,~ .;.
'iR":3' I <~i~ r~;'ti (;:."J .
~., I l!ll ..): tl.u )';
." . "i_ .' Ii . .." ,(J . ~. .
-1':1
AppendixB Page 2,
. Planner: BJ
43
"".V~"'\,'O"'f"'''''j'\'i 'i.:' "I"""
o
Wastewater System Conditioq.,1~ssessmept
COBvcyaBee elip'aeity aBd iBfh-~' rBlI iBfiltratioB (I.'I)raties areimportaBt eriteria
by whieh to assess. the per'o.,,,..,".,,ce of a wastewater eollectioB s)'Gtem. COBveyaBee
eapacity is a fUBctioB of allelJ:uat.; p;p.o .;.,;..., anll 'measure3 ~ '3~'31em's ability to
mO'le efilueBtcffieientJy. IBilow anll infiltratioB ratios express the 'amouBt of
stormwater eBteriBg a SCWEr Sj'3':Bm through lIefeeth, pip2s and pipe jeiBts, or
t.JJrollgh theci"OSS cOBBectioB of st"""" " ater JiBes, eombiBell'sevl'ers; catch basills, or
maBhole covers. Such extraneous stormwater entering t.JJe was'tim'ater system
uBBecessarily burllens both conV'rtm~.e aBlI treatmeBt facilitics. "
" ,
Treatment: MWMC Wastewater Treatment Syst~m .
. . . ,
. .1 .
MWMC existin!! inrrastructure is monitored for orohlernsthat need, to be addressecl
:,' durin!! ooeration:al and maintenance activities: MWMC has on,\!Oing orograms to helo
",> . .' . " --
": olan for and"imolement eauioment reolacement and maior rehabilitation of existin!!
.\ - - ., . '. . ... -
: systems" With these on !!oin!! nrograms used to detect existiri~ orohlerns, "the. .
'" infrastmcture can be maintained and oreserved tohelo extend its useful life for future
vears,
. . . ~
In March of 2003:" MWMC'hired CH2M HILL to evaluate and nlan' for reliional
wastewater canital imorovernents that will serve the Eugene/Snrimdield urban growth
boundarv'into vear 202Y MWMC will need to imrilement the recommended
irnnrovements to mete! rermlatOJ;V reouirements based on oroiected oollution loads and
flows, CH2M HJLI, as !Jar! of Its work to evaluate and olan for recional wastewater,
imnrovements has nrenared a technical memo related to "Flow and Load Proiections".
dated Aoril12, 2004, This liistorical and oroiected information is bemg used to nlan for.
needed MWMC canital imnrovements based on em!ineerin!! evaluation methods and by_
~ornoaring technology ootions, It is estimated that aonroximatelv $160 million dollars
(in 2004 dollars) areneeded for MWMC nroiectsto.address relllil<itorv reouirements and"
growth through vear 2025, . .
Convevance: ',. "
Convevance canacity and inflow and infiltration (Ill) ratios are imoortant criteria by
which to" assess the performance of a wastewater collection SysterrL Conveyance caoacitv
is a function of adeouate oioe sizing and rneasures a svstem' s abilitv to move effluent .
efficient! v, Inflow and infiltration ratios exoress the amolint Of stonllwater entering a
sewer svstem through defective oines and oioe ioints, or through the cross connection of
stormwater lines. combined sewers" catch basins. or ~anhole covers, Such extraneous "
stormwater entering the wastewater svstem unnecessarily burdens both conveyance and"
treatment facilities, "" ,
5. Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying
! ~',,\~i!;:i''''''r~'~~ <!!~E~~s!on ?fl~astewat~r, in the snbdivision entitled "Long-Term Service
I." 'I :,,:1'1'>>"'AvaIiabIilo/Wlthm UrbaDlzable Areas" (presently on page 9wofeal\rl\s . d
. 'follows:.' Ua e l1eCelVe
""-;I'i"-W,t' ' "
, ..:. H-'fiJ '. ,
. MAY '), 4 ,Ot{
.1 ~{.-'\):~_',:.-.)~~!- :.'
-..,:, t',Ji.' '11. I'
;"'1' -.
Appendix B Page 3"
44
Planner: BJ
.1.:.,.....
,>
I, There are no areas within the metropolitan UGB that will be difficult to sFrve with
. ,wastewater facilities over the long-teqn (six to 20 years) asswning that oublic ..,.
infrastructure soecifications and reouirements of the developing area can b.e
addressed. Aoorooriate eneineering desim oractices must he used durinQc the ,""
develoome'ut and exoansion into sensitive aieas that are aODfoved for
deve100ment (ex, - hillside construction. etc,t ; ho',voyer, expansion Expansion,of
"the existIng collection "system will be necessary to meet demands of growth over
t~is time period, '
" "
.2, Based on 2003 analysis, the Eu!!ene-Sorin!!field metrooolitan area'treatment
facilities will reouire facility unorovements to address both drv'and wet weather
rel!Ulatorv reauirements relatin~ to oollutant loads and \vastewaterflows,
Reeional and local wastewaterimorovements to the collection and treatment ".
Systems, are being olanned for and will beimolemented to allow for growth within
theUGB and Jar rel!Ulatorv comoliance, The EugClHe 8]lriRgfi:1.i iE,.::troflolitan
i;:a r;:,,:on"alW i1S,tLWnt"'. Treilmioot Plait h2.3 3::~lieient se8ign cafladt:i to
accommotlate'floflalation iRZ~:::::J and serv: r.~1 r::';: dovoloflment at Li~j::l::7'
, ". However; r. ~~, ,:".et 'Noather condition: lirr.it :he treatment fllant from achieving its
designed ellflacity, Wet, :'ontA~r relatcc aut'__ ,._ts en fi::Jcdes" at the rlllt'/.
::J:,3 '"':~t-.:r: the regional collection s)'Gtemto extend the rlllt'/.'s '/let '/leather
capacity eeyoiul the year 2007, ," . .
6, . Add Table 16a following Table 16, as follows:
Table 16a , . .
MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Collection Syste~ Improvements, Rongh Cpst
EstiInate, and Timing Estimate '
I
I
I
I
I
I 305 Glenwood Pump Station
. *COS( estimated in 2004 dollars
300.
301
302.
303
. 304
WPCF TreatIDent Project
Residuals Treatment Project
Beneficial ReuseProiect
Willakenzie Pwnp Station
" Screw Pwnp Station
$120,500,000
$6,000,000
$25,000,000
. $6,000,000
$2,000,000
$500,000
2025
2018
2018.
2010
2010'
,2012
"
-',-.
"
"
7, Add anewchapter to. the Public Facilities and Services Plan, tobe'Chapter
VI., reading as follows":
,
I"
. .!c,..' : 1~'y:]\An"en.dmen:ts to the Plan
, ~,")HJ""':' 'l;';:'.~~1 w\11-~. K "', .
.J'/....~ W,l~-,rM',...-yH f ~,J"'.t.~\_ ' ,
Date Received'
MAY 24 0+
, I
~l!~ Y,:~M.
t:'
. .',
dAppendix B Page 4
Planner: BJ
45
.' ~
.f ~",ll--<
-"..
.' ."
'::c';" ~~_"~.: ":')~{"
,"l( "i! ",,,,, '-.
'_y" .r ,fl.!,,, '- .
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 ofthePlan
Certai~ public facility project descriptions, location or service area ~esignations 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 EnvirOlimental 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 a~endmentofthe Plan:
I, Amendments, which include those modifications or changes (as
represented by Table 16a) to the location or proyider of public f!lcility
projects which significantly impact a publiC facility project identified in
the comprehensive plan, and which do not qualify as administrative or
, technical and enviroJ?lllental changes, as defined below" Amendments are
, subj ect to the administrative procedures and review and appeal procedures
applicable to land use decisions,
2" Adoption of capital improvement progra1ll project lists by any service
provider do not require modification of this Plan unless the requirements
o[subparagraph I above are met. ""
B,. Modifications permitted without amendment of the Plan, ;,
The following modifications do not. require amendment ofthis Plan:
,.. . ,.. 'f
1, Administrative changes are those moc\ifications 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.
2, 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 ofan Environmental Assessment
or Environmental Impact Statement conducted under regulations
implementing the procedural provisions of the Natiol,lal Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 or any federal or state agency project develoRmept. . d
regulations consistent with that Act and its regulatiolJs, Dale Hecelve
:-.\. .~ ~. ".' ...::""
~'1~~I':-j'~ .~L~)r"';j !:J\'f-;;"
, ". '. -{).ij ,; \~.y,1",~ i\ .
.;~.. .';l~.,'ilJ'" J
. ';" ..' '. 1" " !~.
.Appendix B Page 5
MAY 'l 4 .1-
(~'1
Planner: BJ6"
l"
i~~, "
:' i
. ,.vll,r;
.. /'."
,
Process for making Changes
A. Administrative and Technical or Enviromnental Changes, Any jurisdiction may
make an administrative or technical and enviromnental change, as defined herein,
by forwarding to eachjunsdiction covered by this Plan, and to tli6Lane Council
of Govemments 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 lierein, which project serves orily the jurisdiction proposing the
amendment ,"
c.. Processing Amendments
Any ot'the 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 govemingboards 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:identical ordinances
b, Type II amendments shall be forwarded to the Plannirig Commission of .
the initiating agency and, f(mowing theirrecommendaiion, shall be
" consider~d by the governing board ofthe initiating agency, .
;"
" '
Jl.'\..... .:..~ ,;, ,: " ,
" "r",'~,l" "' J'>~i:, ".I~"N'
~;-"'>4 r l'::}",. L'~' I .. tJ ~/. ' .~
."
"'I . 1l""''-<'';:'-rTi'' ~".' '. /(r' ,;.
":"';".::',1' " , "'I""" "111'" "';;;'" '."
. ., :. 0 >"1:/.i;. ~.~ !I)rl~) t.j iL
Appendix B Page 6
Date Received
MAY 24/of
Planner: BJ
47
J 'i~.;~ .t:~'r.
...~
Home Builders
AS S 0 C I AT' ON
"" , of Lan< County
" R"' F"-'H"'J'TIk'D '
'Jl..,,~.~~ -'. .K~:..r .
,MAY 0.7 2004
BY;~,,"~.
". \,) .~=
"
,
",
May 6, 2004
"
Sprin~eldPlanning Conuriission
225 5 Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Eugene Planning Commission
99 West 10th Street . .'
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Lane County Planning C6mmission
Public Service Building,
125 East 8th Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401 .
'"
,"
"
Re: Amendments to the Comprehensive Plari and the Public Facilities Plan "
Dear Commissioners:
The Home Builders submit the following comments on the proposed Metro
Comprehensive PI{U1 Arrlendments and amendments to the Eugene-~pringfield Public
Facilities and Services Plail. . ~.
,
"'
. Before addressiligthe specific proposed amendments, we would like to explore the level
of discussion that is appropriate for the commissioners'to hold:" As you are aware, the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public Facility and Services Plan, A Refinement Plan
of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Plan (Public FacilityPlan), was adopted
by the ,three jurisdictions in December, 200 I ,as part of periodiC revi.ew, The second
objective of the public facilities plan is: .)1 f'
. ',.','"
~ . J ,'. r:)-""' .
". 'f ,I!,: ~(n~"1.lr.... I _'l!\'~~ "
~ ';;:-.:".:').jl~:'I..'J'f?':! t. i ,7. I l\~.
Comply with the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 1 ! arid Goal 11
administrative rules to adopt a public facilities plan for water; wastewater,
. stormwater, and transportation facilities, This plan also includes information
about and maps for electrical facilities although not required by law.
Transportation "system requirements are met through Transplan, incorporated into
this refillement'plliri by reference (page 2), 'D'
ate Received
.', ',I'\f,'
. ....
MAY 24,0<(
Plan net: fa !
,l/_~~:
" . ., , -':':"205~Laura Street Springfield, OR 974n (541) 484-5352, FAX: (541) 484-5386
.,' ,,<I. I
At the public hearing on April 20, I compared the.ievel. of detail that the planning. .
. cOmmissioners should require for the wastewater facility to that ofTransplan, That is
because 'I'ransplan was in fact.doneas a periodic review work taskas part of the Public
"Facility Plan as wel1 as under Goal ,12, It serves as an "1'1'~vl',;ate guide to the,le"el of
public and planning commission. scrutiny that is justified when considering the proposed
amendments b"efore you.
" .
. 'The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission did participate in the 2001
Public Facility and Service Plan update. Susan Smith, General Manager ofMWMC, and
Troy McAllister, Senior Civil Engineer for the City of Springfield, both served on the '
, Technical Advisory Committee, New text on the assessment of the MWMC facilities,
ulcluding the ,treatment facility; was included in the document. ,What waS not included in
the document was description of projects that would be required byMWMC so shortly
after the document was adopted, The requirement to include wastewater treapnent '.
facilities in the Public Facility Plan.is specifically identified on page 3 of the document,
. under the title Statewide Planning'Public Facilities Plan Requirements, It is difficult to
conceive why it was assumed that the'treatmentfacility would be required to be included
for some parts of the public facility plan and not oth~. But, in any case, the
" . reassessment of the facility and the exaInination of the projeCts proposed for the
wastewater treatment facility must go through the same level of exarllination now as they
would:have been subject to during the original public review process,
. "With regard to the Metro Plan amendments, the Home Builders have not objections to 1, .
2, and 4. We have comments on the others.' .
3. Amends Policv#2 to include local caDital imnrovement Dlans as a'Iileansto "
imnlement Dolicv,
It is the position ()filie Home.Builders that this amendment violates state law. ill essence; ,
this would allow public facility projects to be adopted through the budget process rather
than the land use process, which clearly violates the state planning goals. Using the CIP "
to implement wastewater policy is the process that MWMC has used improperly Until
, now, with some reallaIi4 use consequences. An 'example is the poplar plantation.
Aboutthree years ago, MWMC spent several million"dol1ars to purchase approximately
600 acres to plantapo'plarplantation for distribution of.wastey.'ater eftluentsand dry tons
ofbiosolids. The project never came before the planning commi~sions as an amendment
to the Public Facility Plan as Goal 11 requires, but was simply adopted as policy through
" the MWMC budget .process. Some of the acreage was outside the UGB aIid some was
inside the UGB. None of the poplar trees have yet been' planted because the project has
run afoul ofland use issues, The"Fanil Bureau is opposed to the planting of the poplar
, trees on agricultural" land outside the UGB because the trees are being planted to serve an
urban purpos,e (disposal of urban biosolids and eftluents) and th~ trees havevirtual1y no
. 'agricultural value, ergo a possible Goal 14 problem. There is also opposition to the trees
...'\ '" "~ ~,I-')lt~ei~g;pianted oIl the acreage inside the UGB, That land is zone industrial and people are
" . " questioningifapoplar plantation is, the best use-of scarce industrial land. ill ~ate Re ' d
' , ~i~'i Ui celve
'"
MAY 'Hro~
. 2' 49
,Planner: BJ
.. . ",'\' Ie ~\
" . ): .~' ~1 ~P.....-,:;) 1" I"
.'...' .' '.'.:.".,.;:! ~.
., . .1, "
" meantime, the ratepayers have a cOIl(lid~able amount of their money tied up in
unproductive larid.at a time when their rates are going to increase substantially over the.
. next few"years to pay for additional projects, '
The majority of the MWMC commissionerS are volunteers who work on wastewater
issues. They are dedicated; hard-working people, but they do not deal with land use.
issues. The state has assigned the review oflanduseissues to the planning commissions.
If the poplar plantation (biofann) project title had been before the planning commission
as an amendment to the Public Facility Plan, members of the .public on the planning
commissions'interestedparlylist, who are typically interested in land use issues, may
have raised the relevant land use problems, If not, the planning cOmInissioneis
-themselves and the local planning staffs, given their hind use, expertise and the necessity
to review state goal implications, would probably have identified the possible land use .
problems. -Those kind ofland use issues simply can't be dealt with through the budget
process and it is extremely unlikely that they would even be raised.
Any single project that any of the public facilities plans has land uSe:impIications. For
example, many ifnot most of the MWMC projects have to do with odor control, thermal
regulations, or product outfall to the WilIamette River. Those obviously have Goal 6
implications, because Goal 6 involves compliance with federal and. state air and water"
'. environmental quality statutes, One ofthe proposed MWMC projects in their facility.
plan, for example, is'an additional bankside outfall to the river. Springfield planning
commissioner William Carpenter raised the question of the mixing zbne in the
WilIamette River during the joint planning commission meeting on April 20 and also at
the MWMC hearing on the facilities plan the next morning, That is clearly Goal 6 land
" use issue, as is just about anything relating to waste water treatrnentplants and sludge "
. disposal sites,
"\
MWMC wants you to adopt an amendment that would authorize them to bypass you and
any land use revi,ew on all of these issues, arid instead allow $144 milliondollars of
wastewater projects to be handled exclusively by "the MWMC commissioners, who would
seek approval" from the elected officials through the budget process, .
"
."
It also means.that EWEBand SUB could bypass the Goal II administrative rules for
water projects by running them through their own ,budget process, Eugene and
Springfield staff could avoid land use review. of stormwater projects. by rurining them
through the cities' budget process, In short, this amendment means that all of the public
facilities could do an end rull around'you and the Goal II process, Would they all do'
that? Maybe not. "However, we know that MWMC would, because ihey have used that
process exclusively in the past and are asking for an amendment to the Public Facility "
Plan that would allow them to continue to .do so in. the future. State law does not permit
you to delegate the responsibility toperfonn land use review of public facilities projects
to MWMC,..other utlitities, or the budget processes, . ,
5, Prooosed Policv G,g reads:
~' ~~~_:ftfk;~~M.;1;t~1 t.0~~J~r.
"'f> .
Date Received
MAY 2 4 101
Plannen BJ 50
-,.... f:- if. Yf.\IJ .
, '"'\:''':''j~3r:'''I;el''"
't~~~{L~:~ " 3:~'ut:, .1) 1.!1)..~\ i
"
. Wastewater conveyance and,treatment shall be provideil to meet the needs of
'. proj~ted growth inside the DOB that are capable of complying ,with r~guJatory
requirements governing beneficial reuse of effluent .and beneficial reuse or
,disposal ofresiduals,
I'm not sure exactly how to interpret that policy, Obviously, its applicability is limited to
just wastewater treatment. It:sounds asifMWMC does'not have to provide sewage
conveyance and treatment for projected growth if, for some reason, MWMC ~s not
capable ofcomplYing\;Vith regulatory requirements governing.beneficial reuse'of effluent
and beneficial reuse or disposal of residuals. It sounds as if, under tho'se conditions,
MWMC may impose a moratorium on new development.. Conditions under which
moratoriU1l}s may impose on develop!l1ent for lackof public facilities,are specifically
identified under state law, There doesn't appear to be a good reason for the Metro Plan to
specifically speak to moratoriums solely for the benefit ofMWMC"especially" because.
the language IT\ay Conflict with the state provisions on morat~riums,
6.
Modifies definition 37, Wastewater: Public Facilities Proiects. fChanter V
.Glossarvl . " ' ,
! ' ,~
. The proposed definition reads as follows: .
, ,
; .
b. Wastewater: Primary Coliection Svstem: ' Pump stations and wastewater lines
. .: 24 inchesorlarger. . 0' . .
, '
Treatment Facilities S~stem: Water Pollution Control Facility
(WPCF) project, beneficial reuse project and residual project
necessary to meet wastewater treatment facilities system design
. capacities for average flow, peak flow, biochemical oxygen
demlllJd and total suspended solids so as to provide service. '
within the urban growth boundary (DGB) for a projected
population,in 2025consistent'with the population assumed in
this.plan, in <:omplilince with'MWMC's discharge permit. .
MWMC's Capital hnprovementPlan, as amended from time to
. "time; shall be used as the guide for detailed planning and '
implementation of the WPCP.project; the beneficial reuse
project and the residuals project. .
,,~ ;'
""
. ..... .
That is not a definition of wastewater. IfMWMC were to simply limit the definition of
wastewater to the facility components, as is done witliwater and stormwater, we would
. not have an issuewith this, What MWMC is attempting to do is incorporate its proposed
. . proj ect titJes, itS proposed planning period, and its proposal to use the budget process, to .
adopt projectS and implement policy within the definition of wastewater. Including the
proposed amendments to the Metro Plan into the glossary is not appropriate and is not .
consistent with type of definitions provided for the other two types of public facilities - .
!hr.~lVn1Yljt~,anp,;~t~13P~ater - in the glossary. OAR 660-0 11-0060 con~ a definition of ". . . .
,,!Jq "";.)::r,t1trJ-,,}!,~,,,\.J . . Date ReceIved,
"-',I.H: -Yr,M MAY 241+
"Plannert BJ 51
V ~.h"<j\a;lf"f, ,i"111i.1:.F;'jl
_JJ.~ I ,~, nb 'fT..) rr'
.. "- .. .~. .
"
''\-'"
. "
" .
Sewer System, Using relevant parts of that defimtion may be appropriate for glossary
purposes. ' ' ; ,,' '
",:
, The Home Builders have no objections to Amendment 2 of the Public Facility Plan, We
have comments on the other proposed amendments. ", ".
, ,
1.
,
Modifies the text on nal!e 28, nrecedin!!Table 3: and adds Tables 4a and 4b that
identify MWMC Wastewater Treatmertt andPrimarv Collection Svstem '
imnroveinents." resnectivelv, '
The first part ofthis amendl!lent is to strike the words "shorf and long-term" from the
text. r .' J '. .' .
.
The contents orand amendments to the Public Facility Plan are governed by OAR 660-" "
o 11 ~OOO.through 660-0 i 1-0065,
, q
" ."
, OAR 660-011-0025 Timing of Requked Public Facilities (1) says:. The public facilities
shall include a general estimate of the timing for the planned public facilities projects.
There IS no specific requirement that the timing be specified in terms of short or lQng
term, Nevertheless, the administrative rule does require that the planned projects have a '
general est~mate of the timing qf the projects, The only timing provided for the MWMC
projects is in proposed Table 16a and that seems inadequate. The largest identified '
groups of projects, for example, WPCF Treatment Project, with an estimated cost of$126
million, is estimated to be Completed by 2025. All that says is "thatth" project will be
finished before the end of the twenty-year planning period, It doesn't provide any,
information on the projected start dates or the estimated lepgth of construction time,In
, short, it really provides "no information at all with respect to estimated timing of the
projects,
,
The second part of this amendment is th'e tables intended to identify thepr6posed
MWMC projects, As4 discussed during my oral testimony, ilie proposed projects 300,
and 301, and 302 are not projects at all within the definitions of the administrative rules,
Instead they are baskets containing a number of different types of projects with different, '
timings and, and in the case of the MPCF Treabnent Project, with different functions.
Most of the individual unnamed projects within the'baskets could be and many will be ,
constructed completely independently of each other. It is these projects "that are the,
projects titles required,under the administrative rules.,
This really goes back to the issue of allowing the crp arid budget process to be used for
the adoption of actual projects and the implementation of policy,. which removes any land
use review forthe projects: '
On April 13, 2004, r received a response from Dave Jewett, MWMC's attorney to it
question I had,posed to him about the relationship of the MWMC,Facility Plan (the $160
: ~L.f:';i,)l\~!~il?~ iIWl?je~ts which MWMC i?tends to ~ak;e direCtly. to the public ofitV~i}l'itMl\t . d'
, if' J' <', :.ha'1ng themteVlewed by the planmng commiSSIOns) and the comp plan ~rntlCelVe
'1:_, VL}ti; MAY HI &If:
.\ .
,<
-<
, --.'
}'l:J' '~;;.:;'~',:r\;:~; Jj.,.
'Planner: BJ52
Specifically, my question was: ~'What is the relationship, if any; between the facilities .
plan that MWMCwill consider on April 22nd and the amendment to the Comp.Plan that
is also being proposed?" .
"')
Mr, Jewett's response was: "MWMC:s Facilities Plan update analyz~s the status of/he
regional wastewatdsystem and identifies capital improvements needed to meet. .
operational standards necessary to cqmply)Vith the Commission 's policies (emphasis
added) and tt1e requirem,ents ofMWMC'.s NPDE,S permit through the year 2025. The
Eugene / Springfield Public Facilities Plan (PFSP).is an adopted functional plan of the
Eugene / Sprin~eld Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan),"
" ,.
That is exactly oUr concern, FiI:st, MWMC commissioners Canriot make policy, Onli
elected officials can do that and the majority ofthe.MWMC commissioners are.
volunteers. Most importantly, assessing the status of the public facilities andrnaking
recommendations to the elected officials about future public facilityprojectssothev can'
. make policy is precisely the rol6 given to the planningcommissions by"the state under'
Goal 11.,MWMGcaIl notusurp.that role ~d theplanning:commissions may not. abdicate"
it.' ". . ", ' ,
"1 .
. " .
OAR 660~0l1-0010The Public Facility Plan requires that the public facility plan
contain the following items: . . .'
. ,'- ,"
(1) A list.of the significant public facility projects which are to support the land uses
. designated mth~ acknowledged comprehensive plan. Public facility project
descriptions or specifications of these projects as lJecessary (emphasis added)i The
key here is the requirement that the list of projects contain descriptions or "
specifications as necessary - for what? Presumably to allow the public to identify the . .
'type of project that is planried, . .'
..That supposition is supported by OAR 660-011-0020 Public Facility Inventory and
Determination of Futnre Facility Projects. The first thing to note is that this section
pertains to future projectS as well as those within the currentinventory. Subsection (2)
requires: .' . '" ., .
, .
. The public facility planshall 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,
,
" ,
It is clear that the intent of the administrative rule is to provide a sufficient Identification .,.
of the project, through title and description as well as capacity, to give the reviewing
public and elected officials knowledge of what kirid ofproject is actually going to be
constructed, Three mere words. ~ WPCF Treatm:ent Project, Residuals Treatment Project,
or Beneficial Reuse Project - do not provide enough information to the public-or the .
. ' "'1 j'" ,~~c~~ ?ffi,cials; as ,to the nature of the actu'al projects, ,The titles' of the actti\l.osiliemAlAe'lVed
',h~~?!~}.:1{;1 ,~"J0t,'!' " ' , ". '" . .Ui:1lo np'" .
_'U ,i. '1 Yl:JI. .' MAY 2416'1
.
" T-; '17.~1
;1 ~,,", "'<V~'f'lltr'l'f .p., 'I
i .....,; I': ....~jl;')'y~..~~ "'l.
Planner: BJS3
,
. ',"
."
"",
. requiredtopeqilit a discussion about,the necessity or desirability of the projects, No
capacity descriptions are provided at all, though the a,dministrative'rules require them.
'..' . .
, .
One of the arguments that MWMC has made against using the actual projects is that they
do not want to have to amend the Metro Plan and the Public Facility Plan iffuey decide
to change the projects, However, that is what is required and for a reason:, This morning, .
for example, MWMC voted to recommend the $160 million (actually, it is now $144"
million) twenty-year project list to'the City counciL One of the questions I had asked was .
why we were not having the discussion that Eugene PlaimingCommissioner Rusch had
raised about the new innovative types of wastewater. systems, The commissioners and
CH2MHill all agre,ed that if they wanted to completely change the type of system they
- , were building down the road that they were free to do so, so therefore there was not really
a reason whywe had to have that discussion now.' And that is exactly the point. With
both the Public Facility,Plan and the MWMC Facility Plan, the type of wastewater ,
system"the capacity of the system, and the sophistication of the system, alon!! with the
. accomnanvin!!"landuse imnlications. are supposed to be subject to public review and
. discussion, After all, these are public facilities.
The process envisioned by MWMC is one where the public and the public officials, by
way of the planning commissions, approve $140 million dollars of generic project names
(i.e, MRCF Treatment Project for $126 million), MWMC would then have the actual
projects approved through the budget process. That inherently eliminates the land use
discussion, That is simply not the way the state Goalll,process is supposed to woik ,
, ""
3, Modifies the existio!! narrative on "WastewaterSvstem Condition Assessment" in
Chanter IV (Pa!!e 82)
The issue we have with this amendment is the second paragraph. The assessment is
supposed, to be an assessment of the existing system. We do not have a 'problem with
identifyit}g the deficiencies in the currel1t facility. That is, after all, integral to the
. assessment. The proposed paragraph says that CH2MHill has evaluated the system and
that $160 inillionworth ofunprovements (projects) need to be completed through'the
year 2025 to accOmmodate growth and meet new regulatory requirements.' It is those
projects and the way in which we define the need to accommodate. future growth and
regulatory requireinents that are really the subject of this public review and the
recommendation by theplanning commissions to the. elected officials, We believe that a
proposed $160 million of projects requires a,bit more detail in the. assessment. What
specific deficiencies do we need to correct? What regulatory requirements are driving
these projects? How much capacity will we need to add to the existing system to
accommodate growth or new regulations over the next twenty years?
"
.
A. Modifiesexistin!! naral!l'anhs #1 and'#2 under the discussion of "Wastewater" in
the subdivision entitled "Lon!!- Term Service A vailabilitv Within Urbanizable
Areas" in Chanter IV: (Pa!!e 97), .
. ." ;':<~". .:1",;. ~'.' k:i' .J:;'";
"
Date Received
MAY 24 ,e<{
, 54
Planner:7 BJ
., ".,;
'"~I,,";,>.,-t" I ""'- '-I
14 ;~~.tr.~.r\lii..'. I '. .'lVr.....{
"-,1. . h . U.p~ jFr'} ~~j I1jo.~ '
~~.. Ii , .~ ,'l('~' ,
"." ~:.( '\;l'ii
: '. : .' '~"~'l ..i<,;'~ ~
"... "" ," f ' . \.. :.4" oj
'""." ". i"'>,' .
",
~
."-..1:
, W ehaveverysignificant issues with the changes in the last of the two paragraphs. ,The
first thing to note is fuat the existingJanguage that MWMCwishes to change was new' ,
language in the current Public Facility Plan,'This is not a part of the Public Facility Plan
that;-Nas overiooked two ,or three years ago; ',' ,
" .
,""
The firSt,propo~edparagraph reads: '
t . . .
,There are no areas of the metropolitan UGBthat will be difficult to serve with '.
wastewater facilities over the long-term (six to 20 years) assuminli that oublic
~nfrastructtire soecificationsand reauirements of the develooin!! area can'be :'
"addressed: Aoorooriate erigjneerin!! desilmoractices must "be used durin!! the
develooment and exoansion into sensitive areas that are aooroved' for. . " "
develooment (ex, - hillside,construction. etc,);Expansion~ofth~ existing
"' 'collection system will be necessary to meet demands of growth over this time
, j. ..pet:to.d~ ";' ... ", "
:., .
I am,~ot sure what pUrpose the additional language serves, Ali irifrastructure installation
has to meet sp~ific engineering ~d design requirements of the local public works' '
departments,as ~ condition of approval, or, in the case ofMWMC projects,MWMC's ,"
requir,ements, On the other hand, I ,can't really ide~tify any hann in it.', !tjust seems '
redundant. '
- "
"
. The second paragraph"is really at;thecrux of our issue with the facility plan that was'"
beforeMWMC and the $140 miUiongeneric project lllirnes proposed in the Public
FacilitY Plan,',' , ",.
, }'he proposed language of the second paragraph read~ as follows:
:', ~ased on 2003 analvsis. theEu~ene-Soringfield'metr6oolitanarea treatInerit
"facilities system will require facilitvimorovernents to 'address both drv and wet
weather rel!Ulatorv reauirements relatin!!to oollutant loads and wastewater flows,
Regj(mal.and localimorovements to the Collection and treatment sYStems are.
"" 'olanned for and will be imolemented to allow for I!rowth within the UGB and for,
remilatorV comoliance."
The omitted language reads as follows:
~, '
; :
" "The Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant'
has sufficient design capacity to accommodate population increases and serve all
, ' " new development at ~uildout. However, peak wet weather conditions limit the
treatment of the plant from achieving its design 'capacity. Wet, weather-related
improvements are needed at theplant'll1}9 within the regional collection system to
, exteIJ.d the plant's wet weather capacity,beyond"the year 2007. '
" .
.'
" ,
Allow nietorepeat myself. 'The ~anguage that MWMCproposes to strike from the Public
:\'~h\l'/'Eiu;i1ity:p. ilih\'is.:{;~t that they either proposed or approved just a short time ago when the
, ."'\;~_..,~" ""j,l,,," , . Date Received,
" i,,; '(M,; "
. MAY 24 ; D~
Planne!I''', BJ
'it ,;,~.~ ~. .,,- - ~.. ~"r
, .r,'-?, . ll,z :}r:. lltl): ~-...; .,,,.,'
- . ~.~.,....;.; ~i" 'J..-' 'u
},
8
55
current Public Facility Plan waS written, That abundance'of capacity, excepting wet
, weather peak flow because ofmfiltratlon and inflow (I/I), has been relied upon in other;
, planning documents, For example, the 2050 Plan onwhich.LCOG'and the local '
jurisdictions are currently working has this to say about the MWMC capacity:
"
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Corinnission is responsible for,
'providing wastewater treatment to expanded areas of the urban growth boundary
for Eugene and" Springfield, The dry-weather design capacity of the existing
regional wastewater treatment facility is 49 million gallons per day, which is
expected to" serve" a population of about 290,000, .. (Yesterday, Today, and
Tomorrow Scenario~,j\priI3, 2002, page 12).
Now suddellly, however, according to,CH2MHill, MWMC's engineering consultant,
and MWMC staff, virtually all the capacity in every part of the facility is gone, The,
question, of course, is why? "
i"
Some general background information, The MWMCtreatment facility was designed in
1977 and became operational twenty years'ago in 1984. It waS designed to serve it
populationof277,100 persons and it was estimated in 1977 that number of persons ,
served by the facility would be reached in 2005. The current number of persons served
by MWMC.iri 2004 is 217,690 persons, so the initial 1977 population projection that the
,facility would reacli its servic:ecapacity next year was substantially in err, ,Based solely
on population to be served, the facility would currently be using 72.5% .of its capacity.
Design of the original WPCF (Water Pollution Control Facility) was based on
demographic and population data established in the mid-I 970',s. The facility was '
designed to provide adequate sewerage capacity through the year 2005 for a
projected population of277,100. This"projection was made for the sewer service
area that existed in the 1970s. However, the growth rate during the 1980s was
significantly less than projected. This trend in the growth rate was common
throughout much of Oregon becaiIse of depressed economic co~ditions during the
mid,-1980s (April, 2004 Draft MWMC Facilities Plan, page 1-6),
In addition, LCOG population projections for the 1990s 1,Vere higherthan the actual
numbers provided by the 2000 US Census, .
Another factor significantly aff~cted the projected use of the facility's capacity - water '
, conservation efforts, "A substantial part of our wastewater, both dry weather flows and
"wet weather flows, is just what the name suggests - water, I am not referring now to
inflow and infiltration (VI), but rather the composition of the wastewater that is released
from homes, businesses, and industrial plants, Whether the wastewater originates from
'the shower.we take in"the morning, the dishwashers at a"restaurant, or a car wash, the
greatest percentage of our wastewater is simply water: The amount of wastewater sent
from homes and businesses,tothe sanitary,sewer pipes correlates so closely to our actual
water usage that our,winter water consumption is the basis upon which our MWMC " " . d
~:~~-,~"s.:~};';e~:..WV~.7&,\:pl~ted, Every year since the mid or late 80s, because ofwaterOate Rece\Ve
.. ;~,:,,:;;.,~.'\ .;", ", " ,,' 'MAY 24: *" "
,'.\ 1...d~, I
Planner: 5J
'I. ''(';',
'- '
" ,.
~ 1 il '. .
'I.. ...1,!~ ."9~
: ~ >1 I
, "'
~
."
conservation efforts, our per capita. consumption of water has declined. We 'flush our "',
toilets with less ,wate,r and use more etpcient shower heads, Because of past drought
,years, we tunioffthe'Water while brushing our teeth rather than leaving the tap runni\lg .,
"as was customary in,the.JOs, ' ' , , :, " ,. ' '" '
'1
('
The Register Guard recently ran an article reporting that while the state population had
, grown by 17% (I believe s!nce ,1990), water consumption had incrClllSed byoilly 2% in '
the same,period. Soine of the water conserVation results in water savings that do not
impact our wastewater flows - moieefficient ways to water our lawris, for example, '
However, much,ofthe conservation has occurred inside homes and businesses, The
result is that the MWMC facility canactually'serve a largerpopulationtliim the 277,100
personsorigillallyprojected in the mid-70s: As previously noted, LCOG has estimated in
the 2050 Plan that the facility can now serve a population of 290,000, persons, which is
almost exactly to the end ofMWMC's 2025 planning period. "
There are four sources that we can use to determine how'much facility capacity still
exists:, (1) The 1997MWMC Master Plan preparedbyCH2MHm; (2),the 2004Draft
MWMC facilities Plan prepared by CH2MHill;(3) the 2002 Fact Sheet and NPDES
Wastewat'lir Discharge Permit Evaluation prepared by the Department of Environmental "
. Quality (DEQ), (4) and the Technical Background Report: Existing Conditions and,
Alternatives, EugenecSpringfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan
, (1999): The latter is the separate technical document that supports the' Public Facility Plan
, , that tV1WMC proposes to amend. The wastewater facility has many components but , ,
reference is frequently made to four more general categories of capacity:, (1) Liquid
effluent dry weather, flow, (2) liquid effluent wet weather flow, (3) BOD and TSS dry
, weather capacity, and (4) biol1olids processing, It is important to look at each of the
largeicategory's capacitY individually:
. 6 '
Liauid EffluentDrv Weather Caoacitv: '
. '
DEQ defines the dry season'as May 1 tlrrough October 31, iilthoughthe 2002 permit
appears to extend the emergency over:flo;-N criteria for a storm event greater th~ the" one-
in"five-year, 24-hourduration storm tlrrough May 21 rather than May 1, and allows that
samecriterla to extend to June 1 if there is'.lo increase in 'risk to beneficial uSes, The.,
facility has two important' effluent dry weather design capacities. The average monthly
, dry weather flow capacity is 49 million gallons per (lay (mgds). The average monthly
capacity most closely reflects the base flow from resi<iences,businesses, and industrial"
plants, It contains some III, but the amount is minimal, The other important design , "
capacity is that of dry weather maximum month, which, according to the 1977 Master
Plan, is 66 mgds. ,Some of the months classi"fied as "dry" by DEQ, "especially May, can
in fact be very wetapd contain substantial amounts of IlL Therefore, the design " capacity
for the dry season maximum month flow is higher than that of average monthly flows to""
refleCt the presence of the IlL The difference between "the specific design capacity and
, the actual corresponding flows repr<esentS the capacity available to meet future needs.
" " ." "-
'(1 ,', oJ "..n..":,~'i r :0,<,.tI
,BV!f};'jqH '~I/",,~,)". ' "'.
. '. ...' b'.'," ~;:lAi:~~:q.'
---,," k. '
I I":? I':W
Date Received
I, "
- ~ ,'i-l
'-P.,..4
- !'-
'., "'. ',,'-'>-
8~,~n;r"l'''~I'Uii', "
..;7'I.~ . ' 'tt,~n' l' .
. '.
MAY 2 4 I of
, "10" 57
Planner: BJ
""'
The 1997 MWMC MasterPlan examined the amount of dry season average monthly
flows as well as the dry season maximUm monthly flows to detennine the amount of
capacity that was being used by current users,. It also projected the available years of
capacity remaining in that part of thefacility, . .
"
"'"
It identified the dry weather average month capacity as 49 mgdsandthe actual average
monthly flow as 26 mgds(Table 3-3, page 455), It also identified the dry weather
maximum month design capacity as 66 mgds (page 456),
. "
It reported that "average dry" weather .flows were 53 percent of plant design capacity
(page 440), It estimatedthlit there were 30 years remaining' dry weather monthly average
. capacity and 27 remaining years of dry weather maximum month capacity - taking us to
the years 2027 and 2024 respectively (Table 3-5 Remaining Life of E1SWPCF, page'
457), It concluded the dry ,weather capacity analysis as follows: "Ample dry weather
capacity remains well beyond the current LCOGplanning horizon (page 456)"
.'
The Technical Backgrou"ndRepoit'to the Public FacilitiesPlail has a more detailed
. assessment ofthe.MWMC facilities than the Public Facility Plan itself. It provides the. .
following:evaluation of the treatment facility: "
. The treatment plant has a dry weather design capacity of 49 mgd," Current actual
dry weather flows range from 45 percent to 57 percent of the design capacity. '.
Sufficient treatment capacity exists to meet projected growth'throughout the PFSP .
planning horizon, However, peak wet weather flow; not influent waStewater
characterIstics, currently constrains the life span of the plant's design ,
capacity. ,,(page 19).
The 2004 Draft.MWMC Facilities Plan, prepared by CH2MHill, also identifies the dry
weather average month design capacity as 49 mgds, However, the amount of monthly ,
flow, either average month or maximum month is dependent upon population estimates. .
There is a discrepancy in the population esmnates that CH2Mllill provided on March 26;
2004, for the. Draft System Development Charge Methodology, in which CH2MHill
estimated the"current population served in 2002 as 217,690", arid the estimated 2005
population estimateof229,145 found in the draft facilities plan.. BaSed.on the latter 2005
population, CH2MHiIl estimates actual dry season average flows of29,6 mgds and.dry
" season maximum monthly flows of 46 mgds (page 4-13). That means we would be using .
60.4% of our dry season average monthly capacity and 69.7% of our dry season .
maximum monthly capacity; using the design capacities'of 49 mgdsand 66 rngds
. respectively, .
I.. \,.
CH2MHm identifies the projected 2025 dry season average. flow at 38.4 mgds, still
substantially below the 49 mgd average flow design capacitY, and the 2025 dry weather
maximum month flow at 59.3, also below the design capacity of 66 mgds,
DEQ aisoprovided anevalu~tion of the MwMC treatment facility hi 20Bata.2aCeived
:'F\l!;\~~;ml~t)ff~Galof our NPDES wastewater discharge permit. . It not~: MAY 2 4/ Df' .
~:..,~, y,;M . , . Plann~~: BJ 58
, '
'_ r,i':~'lf .
,",' ". "..: "~- ,r.-c;
"k....;,f. 1'1' \. '-;::11 ...~...
\' . I ' ,., ~ 1 >
, "
;The design Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) for the facility is 49 million
. gallons per day (MOD), The ADWF is the estimated maximum flow during May
. . 1 to October 31 (expressed as average daily flow), at which the design engineer.
expects the treatment facility can still meet all effluent limits. The dry weather
'flows do not contahl the high levels of infiltration and inflow that are associated
With thewinter in Oregon, Therefore, the design dry weather flows are used
mostly to estimate how much ,treatment capacity there is for organic loads, The
current actual dry weather flow for May 1 to October 31, for the past two years, is
28.6 MOD,. On the basisofth.e current flows, this facility is at approximately "
60% of organic treatment capacity, Based on the current low flows compared to
. ,.the design flows, and the lack of effluent vio~ations, no expansion of the facility is
needed at this.time (page 2)'.
. To summarize'the. availability of dry weather effluent capacity, seven years ago the '
MWMC MaSterPlan estimated that we were using 53% of our dry weather capacity. '
Five yearsJater, in2002, DEQ dismissed the importanCe of discussing the liquid effluent
dry weather capacity,and noted that the real issue was the amount of capacity for
, . '~ . . .
treatment of organic loads (such as BOD and TSS) and estimated the used capacity at
app.u.Jmately 60%. Two years later, using the numbers provided by CH2MHill in the
draft facilities plan, the estimated the dry weather average month capacity would be just.
over 60% and the dry season maximum month at just under 70%, However, CH2MHill
is also estimating that If I will be reduced by approximate!:y J 7% during'the planning
period, which would make more dry season maximum: capacity available (Draft System
Development Charge Methodology (page C-2). .
. .
All three of the sources indicate that we have.substantial dry weather capacity reml!inirig
ill the facility, which is what we would expect"given the reduced population projections
an<i the" effect of water, conservation efforts on plant flows, . ' . .
" ,
"" "
However, CH2MHill does contend in the prop~sed System Development Charge
Methodology that the available dry weather capacity is substantially less than that
provided by the other sources, In that document, CH2MHill claims that we ,are cuiTently
using 89% of our liquid effluent dry weather'capacity, CH2MHill arrives'at that." "
. conclusion by calculating the available capacity differently than they did' in.the Master" '."
Plan or than DEQ does inits evaluation of the plant ,capacity, In the Master Plan. '.
CH2MHill.arrivedat the dry weather capacity by.comparing.the dry,season m,aximum .
month design capacity of 66 mgds with the dry seasonmaximum month flow's (applesto
apples).DEQ compared the dry season average month design capacity of 49 mgds with
the dry season average flows (again, apples to apples, albeit different apples), In the
system development charge methodology, CH2MHill cOmpares the dry season average
'. flowdesign (49 mgds) With the dry season maximum monthly flow (applesto'oranges).
The design capacity used does not include any significanWI, but the maximum monthly
. rl,. .'" "flow .does., Ne~less to say, the available capacity evaporates immediately, and we go
.lbIVllfr(;lrilia~g'Jb% pfthe dry season capacity available to meet future needs to having oiUy
".J 1."1 qf!}1e dry season capacity available. That is an incredible difference, ~J..e.I Rece',ved
'. 'l~}' .t~r!,. . . uate,
" . .... ~' I -~ MAY" 2 4' . 'l4-
I ;; ~ :11." .,V"f' It'; w;:; if" _ I
'Jk-,'! ,jP':.,1~ ":)1" .", "I! lj 12 59
Planner: BJ
"'..
"haven't seen any place iri the 'facilitY plan where current dry season 7apacity is identified, .
CH2MHill suggests that the same comparison would be uSed" . " . . . . .
The existing average dry weather design flow for the WPCF, as stated iri the
current NPDES .permit is 49 mgd, This is defined as the average day flow.
calculated from May 1 through October 31, Although stated as an average dry
weather capacity, the facility must meet the effiuent requirements on a 30-day
average flow (monthly basis), Because any 30-day period, including the
maximum 30-dayflow period (or maximum month flow) during the dry season,
must meet the NPDESeffiuent flow and load requirements stipulated for the..
average dry season flow, it is prudent to compare the actual dry seas.on maximum .
month flow (DSMM) to the average dry weather design flow in order to assess
treatment capacity. This method was reviewed by DEQ staff and verified as the
appropriate method.
(
""
. . .
WheIi I had talked with Mark H8mIin at DEQ on previous occasiOns, I was assured that
DEQ only looks at output and results and that DEQ does'not telljurlsdictions how to
. calculate capacity, I called Mark Hamlin last Thursday after reading iri the draft facilities
plan that DEQ staff had said the apples to oranges'comparison was the appropriate"
method to calculate the dry weather capacity. Mark then told me that he had evaluated
. theMWMC dry weather capacity at 60% in the Fact Sheet and NPDES Wastewater
Discharge Permit Evaluation, Furthennore, it is clear in that evaluation thatDEQ did not
use the method beirig proposed by CH2MHill. Instead, DEQ compared the average flow
capacity of 49 mgds with the average flows of28,6 mgds, IfDEQ preferred the method
beirig proposed by CH2MHill,why wouldn't they use it themselves? And why would we
voluntarily dismiss 29% of our current capacity as unavailable for future needs when
. DEQ estimates our remaining dry weather capacity at 40%, and says that "Based on the
current low flows compared to the design flows, and the lack of effiuent violations, no
expansion"ofthe facility is needed at this time?"
Liouid Effillent Wet Weather Caoacitv:
Wet weather capacity applies to the facility's capacity from November 1 to April 30, Just
as dry weather capacity comes in two design capacities, so does wet weather"capacity,
One is the average monthly wet weather capacity and the second, imd probably the more
important one, "is peak flow capacity,
The wet weather average montWy flow is similar to dry season average monthly" flow. It
contairis a significant amount of VI just because it is measured in the wet months, but the
. . plant has sufficient capacity to handle the flow, The Master Plan identifies tlie average
wet weather design capacity at 70 mgds and the average wet weather flow at 41.8 mgds
(Table 3-3, page 455), DEQ, in its evaluation iri 2002, said the average wet weather flow
design is 75 mgds and the current average wet weather flows were 56.4 mgds. The draft
facilities plan notes the average wet weather flow to be 52.5mgds(page 4-13) and the
design capacity to be 75 mgds (footnote to Table 5,1.1-1, page 5-3). 'The draft facilities
plan projects that the average wet weather. flows in 2025 will be 68,2 mgds - below the
, :~'\8j~~~*I": ~,:S!~( . Date Received
MAYi~ 4JO{- 60
lPl:::lnnA'r" Ft ~
..
I". l.,
'-'I.
"
."
75 mgd design capacity, The.Master plan projected that we had '18 years of remaining .
average wet weather flow capacity, or capacity, until the year 2015, If the design capacity
. of75 mgds had been used rather than the 70 mgds, the remaining years of capacitywoul,d
be further extended,.
The critical. capacity issue involves peak wet weather flows.' Like many municipal
. waste?,ater systems, we have Ii serious III problem. In January, 2001, CH2MHill and .
MWMC smffreleas,ed the Wet Weather Flow Management Plan; which described the '
problem: ' <;
TI,1,e treatment plant was designed in the 1970sto provide adequate capacity
thrC\ugh 2005. From abase flow and loading standpoint, the.treatment plant
performs well within itS capacity (49 million gallons per day[mgd]) in dry-. .
weather months. However, winter rainfall creates flows to the treatment plant that.
exceed the plant's peak capacity(175 mgd) on average several times per year and
exceed full (secondaIy) treatment capacity (104 mgd) more frequently".
Peak flo; estimates for conditions asso.ciated with the 5-year stOrrrl event are used
to size andplanfuture system improvements at the treatment plant and in the .
collection system, "Through system modeling, the 5-year peak was estimated at
264 mgd, Pel!kflowsar~ attributed to high infiltration and inflow (VI) rates in
many'areaS"Of the collection system, VI occurs from extraneouS water getting into
the system from illegal roofdrain conriections, sewer pipe cracks, and other
sources~ III is often associated with older pipes in the system which have
'deteriorated. Sairitary pipes in older areas are also more likely to be subject to
imprOPer storm drainage (iriflow) connections ~henconstruction inspection
practices were more lenient' and / or such connecti9ns were allowed, creating" a .
cOmbined flow system, Newer pipe systems reflect improvements in construction
teChniques"materials, and inspection and typically exhibit'far less III, In Eugene,
II percent of the pip~ are at least 50 years old. In Springfield, the percentage of
p}pes at least 50 years old is 15 percent... Because the primary sources. of III are '
in the existing system and limited VI is anticipated from system expansion,
growth in the system does not contribute significantly to projected system. ,
deficiencies. The 5-year peak is " estimated at 298infd, Of this peak, only 4
percent or 12 mgd, is estimated to be the result of vi frondutUre pipes. .
, .- ". .' I " ~ .....
"' '.)'!1fU. "~L \~:"I. 'iJ'tIr.;(; 'I'
,.\'~ '. " .~...J;':']j"I: k..,;qJi"'~~..-'
Estimates made at the time of design of the treatment plant, relative to the amount
of rainfall-derived infiltration and inflow (RDII) that could be cost-effectively
removed, were overly optimistic. This has resulted in insufficient capacity to
manage peak flows at the treatment plant and has increased the risk of sanitary
. sewer overflows (S~OS) at a number oflocations in the collection system~ .
Example problems include basement and street flooding and discharges to
stonnwater facilities and receiving waters, ,Although the magnitUde of wet,
, weather flows differs greatly, they are significantly diluted because the source of
, themajority of the flow is rainwater, not sanitary sewage, Treatment plant flow'"
" . dam indicates that wet weather flow is diluted such that the concentration of
. Date Received
: ,~ .,.
-k\ ;( _~Yt1i:;l
MAY ,Il 4/ of 14
'r:' ">.""t':""~Crr"" B a.
. t,., " "..f... r. ,<-- .~J1
61
,"
"/'""/".lil(.l:
,f.....'.', ", ~~.v~
..typical pollutants inwetweather flow is 50 percent to 60 percent of that in dry
weather flow (Executive Simllnary, page 1465).
'Fhe MasterPlan also talks of the lack of peak flow capacity,
Peak flows have approached or exceeded the hydraulic design capacitY of the plan .
in seven instances, but no NPDES pe~it,violations have occurred - mass limits
. have been suspended in those instances. "Flows greater than the peak design
capacity have been pumped by relying on redundant, spare pumps, The frequency
of peak flow exceedances will increase as the base, average wastewater flow
. increases., This could potentially lead to NPDES permit violations caused by "
. . ,sanitary sewer overflows or exceedance. of effluent quality penrut limits, ' .
All of the documents agree that the peak flow design capacity is 1'75 mgd; Everyonealso
agrees that under our permit we Srerequired to have enough capacity during the wet
weather months to treat the wastewater flow that woUld occur during a storm event" "
. described as "the one-in-five-year, 24-hour duration storm" and that,we do not have'
sUfficient capacity to do so, :" "
. The 2001 Wet Weather Study prepared by CH2MHillproposed three alternatives ,to deal
with the lack of peak weath~r flow. The MWMC commissioners voted to approve,the
. second option, It had a costof$33.1 million. The draft facilities plan proposes a parallel
system to deal with peak flow excesses which would about $11 million.
Effluent Biosolid Loads:
, ,
BOD (now often seen as CBOD) and TSS can bemeasuied in eitherlbs/day or dry tons",
In the reports, yoil would see both used.. Sometimes you may wish to compare data from
different reports that are' expressed in different measurements (lbs/day or tons/year), To
convert,lbsIday to dry tons / year, multiply the lbs Iday by 0.1825. To Convert dry tons
per year to lbs Iday, multiply by 5.4795~ "
!. : - ,
"-;
Under our permit, we are required to remove at least 85% of the monthly average for
BOD and TSS~ The existing capacity for BOD is 66;000 lbs per day and for TSS is
71,600 lbs per day (Master Plan, page 455 and System Development Charge
Methodology, page C".I), The Master Plan"identifies the average dry weather BOD load
as 28,682Ibs/day and that ofTSS as 31,056Ibs/day (Table 3-3, page 455),' It estimates
" "
that there is a remaining life BOD average,month capacity in the facility 'of 40 years and
mhimum month remaining capacity of 33 yeats. TSS has a"remaining average month'.
capacity of35years and a maximum month capacity of29 years (Table 3-5, page 457);
The Master Plan concludes:, "For BOD, the E/SWPCF has substantial remaining capacity"
to about 2030 as a result of lower than design per capita loadings and historical growth,
rates (page 462), ItalsQ,~eaks to TSS. "The results of remaining capacity, as measured d
bii~:rSS;,areaiso suostantial, to about 2026 (page 462). .: 40. neCe'\"e '
J< , , , '''" "'~"".' . . Oaten ,"
/";', '~f,(~i", MP-'< 24d-
p\anner: B~
v.,
. i:'.:.~ "r<-f;..;l2j~~~/~~~ ?;.[
. ~.
.'.<.
. DEQ, in its 2002 Fact Sheet and evaluation discusses the different summer (dry season)
and winter (wet season) BOD and TSS p~it requirements, It concludes:
.
"A review of recent momtoring data indicates the permittees should generally be, .
able to' comply with the permit limits, No 'changes from the previous permit are
proposed. " An 85 percent removal efficiency limit is included in the proposed'
permit to Comply with federal requirements,' An examination oftheDMRdata
indicates the permittee will be able to meet the limit with the current facilities
(page 10),
"
The Draft Facilities Plan indicates that our permit has a Maximum Week TSS permit
limit /removal requirements of 28,000 Ibs I day and .that CBOD has a Maximum Week
requireinent of 24,000 Ibs/day. Actually, the permit does not refer to Maximum Week
requirements: The permit chart refers to Monthly Average IbsJday, Weekly Average
lbs/day, and Daily Maximum pounds. CH2MHill chose to convert the requirement into "
MaximUm week temlsrather than uSe the meaSurements provided by DEQin the permit.-
The answer would appear to be the same as why we lost all of our dry weather capacity,".
under the System Development Charge Methodology. Rather than using the Monthly
Average meaSurement provided in the pennitto compare to the Monthly Average"
capacity of 49 mgds (apples to apples), the decision was made to convert the data to
Maximum Week Ib/day and compare.that number to the average flow design capacity of
49 mgd (apples to oranges)" ., .
.. .'
"
Dry season mass limitations for both CBOD. and TSS outlined in the NPDES
permit are based on the current dry season flow of 49 mgd, . The mass limit
reqUirements must be met for the highest 30-day flow period in the dry season
.' (maximum month basis). Even if the conStant concentration limits for C~OD and'
. TSS are met, the,inass limits imply a lower concentration requirement if the .
wastewater flows exceellthe current dry weather design capacity'or if the future.
dry weather design capacity of the facility is increased. Concentration limits" was
well as percent removal requirements are also specified in the NPDES permit: ',:
Permit removal limits apply; however, they are not a factor during the dry season' .
b"ecause thll mass and concentration limits are significantly more stringent <page
5-4)., . ,
The question arises again. Why measure things differently than DEQ does? DEQ, in,the
. permit, provides thi'ee different means to measure theCBOD and TSS in both.the dry :
season and the wet weather seasons. Why COllvert to a fourth measuremeI)t that is not',
provided by DEQ? Since DEQ refers to the'average monthly dry weather design capacity
of the facility of49 mgds and provides a limit formonthly average'flow, why not use
monthly'average flow to arrive at your'capacity(apples to apples)? By converting to
Maximum Week; III is again included in the flow but not in the design capacity, which is
automatically going to skewerthemeasurementand result in a significant,lossoffacili~y .
t. capacity." . . I
. ' i;,'j~ffi.)"'"Uj" I ,
-.' .:,j "'. ,i .Jl> /f;.~ hi /~""Y ~("~';;
'., :' -.: ~-. .f ldlll)'.I!
-" 'J;,;\" 1/,,;,
... ". (dlYl
Date Received
MAY 24,bt
"J" ':i.,; . <. .
',""0 I I' ;,"" -, r."'1
' '. oi,:Y.~f I L,.iil~"'I" .
, '. ~ II ,. J. .1{: "": "
"
Planner: 8J
.'.,
63
.,'I,j, I,', .,~\~,~. ~J; ^ -;' ':1'(,.
'j~f.. .
'~1,~;
. . "-.
A~ a nis~lt, CH2MHiil detenninedin the System Development Charge Methodology that
, the facility is now operat!ng at 83% of our BOD capacity and at 90.4% of our TSS ,,"
capacity, 'Seven years ago, when CH2MHill prepared the Master Plan, they concluded
, that we had a great deal of effluent BOD and TSS capacity, "The,remaining treatment,
capacity of the E/SWPCF is substantial for average dry and wet wel!ther flow conditions
and conventional pollutants (BOD and TSS) (page 450), "' ,
, DEQ, as you will recall, placed the capacityused for effluent organic loads at 60%," It
also said: "The current permit contains,CBOD and TSS removal efficiency iimits "of 85
" percent. The facility has been able to cqmply with the pennit limits and haS nothad any ,
violations,even during the;extreIi1ely ~etmonths,(page 4 oftl}e Fact Sheet and
,evaluation)," As you recall, DEQ also concluded that our currenHacilitieswould allow '
us to continue to remain in compliance with our pennit. ,
, "
. .. ,
A seeonddeCision made by CH2MHilI" and MWMC staff also affected the amount of
. -~- - -
BOD and,TSScapacity reportedly available, WJlencalculating BOD capacity, for,
example,CH2MHill used the following fonnula for the System Development Charge
Methodology: '"" .
.l
Current BOD '=,(0.19 x 217,690 x 1.3) + 2,402 =,54,8001bs/da~ where
0,19 is 'the selected pounds per "capita per day based on dry season values from
. 1990to,2002. '
."
, 217,690 is the population served in 2002 ' " '
1.3 is the selected peaking to convert average dry season load to DSMM (dry'
season maximum month) load (based on 1990 to 2002 data)", ,
The key piece is the selected pounds per caPita per, day: ,Per capita loads, according to '
, the Master Plan, have been lower than the design capacity and the Master Plan identified
the per capita load for BODiIs 0,17. on two different occasions (the last time at the
second public forum), Matt Noeson from CH2MHill assured me that the change in the ,
per capita pounds per day from the 0.17 they had .used in the Master Plari to the 0.19,' '
being used now was not based upon any new data or any change in how the capacity "
should be calculated, The change in per capita load was done solely for the pUlpose of
further reducing our chances of having, a pennit violation during a wet May. However,
the effect on the amoUnt of BOD capacity is significant. The used capacity drops to
50,500 Ibs per day, Changing the per capita load results,inan additionaJ.8,5% loss of
BOD capacity, "
"
, ,
If we substitute the population fi~es that are,usedin,the DraftJacility plan for those
used'above, we have the following.fonnula:
, . ~ .'. r" " . ""
(0.,t9;;~g7.~~M5Jx,,!;!.~)\t2,40. 2 = 59,000 lbs per day that we ar. e using of our 66,000 'd
lbs/da'y cap~city: we are now using 89.5% of our BOD capacity", Date Receive
;~: i:\t'['MAY 24 &1"
. ' . ' .' ' -I~IT\' . I
,\,' "'~":{1If~P,\i'-:i Plal1ner:6aJ
,(" ,
." "
This'is the dilemma that we face; According the Master Plan prep,ared by CH2MHill
seven years ago, we were using about 46% of our BOD capacity, According to DEQ,"
five years later, we are "using approximately 60% of our capacity and"our current facility ,
would allow Us to comply with our new permit requirements. However, according to
CH2MHill and MWM~ staff in ,the Draft Facility Plan, the,sky is falling. . '
\ " " ,
,The same argument applies to TSS capacity, According the Master Plan, we were usmg
46% of our TSS capacity severi years ago, According to PEQ in2002, we were using
approximately 60% of our capacity. ' Using the P9pulation numbers 'in the facilitY plan,
,and the fomula provided by ,CH2MHill in the SYstem Devel<,>pmentCharge '
Methodology, we, are generating the following amountofTSS: .' - - '
" "
,(0.21 x 229,145 x).4) +2,224 = 69;593Ibs/dayofTSS. Our capacity is 71,600, so'
according CH2MHill andMwMC staff, we are currently using 97% of our TSS capa.City.
, As in the BOD calculation, we are now using a different per capita load of .2f railler than
. .... .
the .19 used in the Master Plan,: " , , ,0
" ,
"', Why such a large'difference? I believe ids the, Combination in the draft facility plan of '
comparing dry weather average flow design capaCity with maximum rather than average
flows and the change ill the peaking factor (for calculation of dry weather flow, which I
did not discuss) ' and per capita loads for calcula.ti4g the capacity ofBQDarid TSS: I '
don't know what peaking factors and pounds pe~ Capita that DEQ used: I do know that
they did not compare maximum flows with average flow design capacity to calculate
capacity, DEQ.seems to have taken the most moderate approach cOmpared to either the
Master Plan or the DraffFacilities Plan and for that reason would appear to be more
reliable in their capacity evaluations,
" ,
(As an interesting.side note. In February of this year, CH2MHill and MWMCstliff.were
actually using larger per capita loads for BOD and"TSS ~. .20 and .22 respectively" 'If we
, were to use, the February 0,22 pounds per capita and plug it into the TSS formula USing
the population estimates in the draft facility plan, we would be generating 72,800 Ibs per
day of TSS, which would actually exceoo the design capacity of 71 ,600, The following'
month, the pl?unds per capita for both BOD and TSS were roouced by .01.) ,
Another indication of the difference in how CH2MHill and MWMC staff are'calculilting .,
current biosolid loadings is in the tons currentlybeing generated by the facility, In Table
C-3 of the Dra.ft System Development Charge Methodology (pageC-6), MWMC staff
and CH2MHill indicate that we have a current loading of 5,927 tons per year, DEQ, ii1
its 2002 evaluation of the facility, indicated that "The MwMC wastewater treatment
facility-generated'4,240 dry metric tons during the reporting period January I, 2000 to
December 31, 2000 (page 3)." The 5,927 tons ofbiosolids reported by CH2MHill is not
, in metric tons, but if you convert the DEQ number "from metric tons to tons, the numbers
, """ ".,," ,stiUarenotc1ose, Themerepassage.ofthreeyearscannot~~PI~a21%differe:n~. '
i,';. "between J?EQ's and MWMC'snumbers. 'uate Received
~JHVJI(:"J""!I.~,ll;""'''~~(;' ii " . ,,'"','
;l., .!..,jI....;oP-tl 'J'h\'l...l'.~l\: n . '. . . . .
. "<, , , 'MAY 2 4 ,of
,.-. '!;; YMv.
Planner: B~
I ;;:'
~,l" ,~
"~ ...', "
'Jt~,I'"JI'1i ,..:;!i';:~r
(,:;;1:1 'l~ L'","JI, I.
"
,"
65
, i' lf~l ",;V
,",1'
:'/T
.,1),'\.
.,' '.'J
(......,
\ ~~, 'ffi"
."
Biosolid Processini1::
" , .
, . In 1997, the MWMC MasterPlan spoke to the deficiency of the biosolid capacity, "The
biosolids management facility has insufficient capacity to process solids currently' ,
produced ,by the E/SWPCF, The facultative sludge lagoons will be full in 3to 5, years
(page 450)," , ,
-, '00\;
The Te~hnical Report to the public Facility Pllin identified the remedy,: "MWMC is
currently completing designs/engineering,and ,will ,construct a mechanical dewatering
facility in 1999/2000 ):hat will eliminate the biosolids processing capacity constraint' '
" (page 20)." Thatfacility was finished about three years ago." How much capacity do we
have remaining according to the SDC methodology, prepared by CH2MHill? Zero. Zip,
Zilch. Nada., None, '!.realize that elimmatIDg the capacity constraints won't last forever,
but somehow I would expect it to last more than two or three years, "
. . " .
So where."did all of the capacity go? The same plllce that allthe rest'of it went.: It
'disappeared because we. changed the way we calculated the capacity -in this case by
changing the pounds per (:lapita in the formula,.'
. ..,
I rmsed these issues before MWMC in the hearing on the" facility plan, The consultant
from CH2MHill Claims that DEQ changed the way that effluent capacity must b~
calculated in'1991 and it went into ~ffect in 1996. He then smd that the way CH2MHill'"
, Calculattidcapacityin the 1997 Master Plan was in error. He said.that the way that Mark'
Hamlin from DEQ calculated MWMC's capacity in 2002 was in error. He didn't '
mention the W~t Weather Study that CH2MHill did in 20CH, but since it also identifies.an
abundance or dry weather influent and solids capacity, presumably,:it was also in error,
, ,'They are now saying the Puhlic FaCility and Service Plan, whi(:lh MWMCapprovedthree'
years ago,is in error and, although they have not spoken to the Technical Report, that
must also be.in error, The presumptions in the 2050 Plan woul~ be in error.' ",
, That is a lot of planning history to throw out the window because of an 'assertion now by
CH2MHill that DEQ required a change in how capacity should be "calculated 13 years
ago; a change thathas enormous implications for future projects ne~s, and a change that
no one," including CH2MHiIl and DEQ, have recognized to have existed over the last '13
years.
Iii short, 'the prop~sed text amendments need additional justification' before they should'
be made,
,
5. Adds new Table 16a(followin\! Table 16) entitled "MwMC'Wastewater
Treatment and Collection Svstem Imnrovements, Roul!h Cost Estimate, and
Timin\! Estimate." Paee lon,
, ~.; "; , , . .
!~(,:;,\S~e;dis&h~ki<in'~::Midet Public Facility and Service Plan Amendments 1 ,3, ~d 4. ' . 'e' d
'","d, '..'. .',~, ,_'., .'", teRecelV
6;"~\: "' 10A:dds:riew Chanter VI re\!ardin\! amendments to the PFSP. " Da ',/ "
MAY '2 4 />"\'"
PlanrJer: , eJ
I .~:'..'
'f',_
. "'-;',
"~', . '''''I r..- ' "-"",.j 'j ~
i"l' -j;:, ~!l ' !.o!';!: ...../<. ,'.
~'..
"
,I',
, )
''t-
, "
This first partofthe:proposed amendment, the testunder Flexibility of the Plan, isa poor
idea. The process for amending ,the Public Facility and Service Plan is prescribed by
OAR 660-011-0045. This is not subject to local control and, in fact, the text in this'
, section istak~n almost verbatim from the admir1istrative rules,There are tw~ problems '
. with this approach. First, they are not word-foreword thesame;which always has
potential difficulties, Second, ifDLCD changes tlieamendment process in the
administrative rules,.we have to "amend the, Facilities Plan to reflect those changes,
because our amendment process can not be at variance with the state requirements:
'Copying the administrative fl!Iesinto our Public ,Facility Plan does not add anything of
, value and it always has the potential of forcing uS to.go through'tlieamendment process
: in the future because ,of state changes, If may also.misleadpe6ple, It,may.acnially 1:>e "
inaccurate if the state has made changes that are not reflected in our locat version' oithe
amendment process. ' '. . , ,
v
" We don',t have an issue with the inteni of the text und6r Process for M~g Changes, '
The o~y concem,we have.is what happens if there is a disagreement on whether a project
serves only one jurisdiction, or whether it serves!two, or even all three oIthe ' ,
jurisdictions, Determining in whichjurisdiction,a project is located is e8;SY, . Determining
which jurisdiction or jurisdictions are serveq by a project may, in'some caSes;" be cause'
for serious debate (transportation projects would be ari example). Because this is by ,
definition a land use processithe'only place to reach final resolution on those ' "'
disagr,eements may be LUBA" ~ut,perhaps;that is ~eriectly all right: ' ,
, " .
There are other i~sues- inconsistencies With the Metro Plan ill populaiion'projections'and
the planning period, for example, However theprincip,al issue is one of process.
MWMC, ,through the City()f Springfield is proposing key amendments in order to avoid
'the state land use process: The Home Builders Association urges "you to reject-the
"amendments in whole and require that MWMC submit Metro Plan arid Public Facility
l!'ld Service Plan ll!llendinents that respect an~ comply with the land use process, '.
Thank you for your attention to our comments,
Sincerely, :
l&xv-'t::~~,
Roxie ,Cuellar "
Director of Government Affairs
"'
~~ "
",-',"
Accompanying Documents: '
" ,
I, "1997 Master Plan prepared by CH2MHill (Cover page and p~s~.Q,~~1?l>. d
k., :, . 2, ". .2001 Wet Weather Flow ManagementPlan (Cover pageand'phgalifi6ttfj~lve ,
! I%,NI{gj.311r',lP;ll\v&age Monthly Residential Sewer Usage (2 pages) " M"Y if-
, u '",,",'" """"' . A 24 t
. ' . "."~ '" . , ':' ,.' ,'. '. , ., v,. - ,
-.
,
b!~ \(itM
, Planner: BJ
.: ,:.
II ,p",
JI'
1,.' ~"i(~ ') 'i{"'4t ".f' . ,~'"t'i~~ fi~J.~~~'
r' ':\'<-..f!I',:,' ) l..t.,'
, 'f:l:.", ,...' :..
20
67
,.'
"'
"_~;.~,, "~.fl .:.... _'..
" .
;,;: ,h
~, '~~:'i';
" 4. 1999 Technical Background Report: Existing Conditions and Alternatives,
Eugene,Springfieid Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (Cover
Page and pages 1186-1187)
5, " Fact Sheet and NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit Evaluation prepared in
2002 by Department of Environmental Quality (pages 1-16)
6. Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines. Goal 6: Air, Water and Land
Resources Quality from DLCD's web site (pages 1-2)
,
-,..-. .
.,.,\" .
Date Received
MAY 24,of
Planner: BJ
21. 68
.' ,',
.":.
""
-. ,..
f'..J';, ....~
.
,"
MAY 24 r;f'
MWMC - OOOO~6"
.
r
"....
'.'
","
, "
.;.
, ,
SummarY of"Major Findings Importantto'Phas~,2 .
~,
. - ~. .. '. .
Th.e following are the rrtajor findihgS of PhaSe 1 that were defemid to Phase 2, Long-Term
Improvements,Jor further evaluation and,planning: ' "
...-: ':' '. '. . . '.' .' .'.." .':. .<t. .
'. The remaining treatment capacity of theE/SvVPCF is,substantial for average dry and
wet'v,<eather flow conditions and com;entio~al,pollutants(BOD, and TSS). " .
. 'Peak flows have approached or exceeded the hyd~aulic design capacity of the plant in
seven instances, 'but no,NPDES permit violations haveoccurred~mass 'limits have been
suspended in these inst~nces, Flows greater than the peak design capacity ha'le been .
pumped by relYing on redundant, spare pumps. The freq~ency of peak .flow' . .
exceedjlnces will increase'as the base, average wastewater flow increases..This "could
. poientially'l~f\d to NPDES permi t violations caused by sanitary sewer 'overflows or ..,
. exceedance of effluent' quality permit limits., . .
. ., ~ ", >
. The'bio$olids ~~f!agerrtent fa~ilityha5 insu~ficient capacity to process solids currently, '
produced by the E/S~PCF. The facultative sludge lagoons will be:fu1\!n 3 to 5 years.
-." , '. :," . . . .
Each of these findings are add:essed in Ph~se 2 of the rrtaster plan:'"
" ,
.~
. "
.,"
.".
. ..
,,'"
,",.
, "
'. ",
,~ "
";,"
,I'
'""
>
, ,.' .;~ ....col' It.'J''~'~';~~('~'':'
'If:,'.IWH;'!l~,)h \':J,K!:,~!
'" '
~. ~-'
."
". -',
DateHeceiveri!
, MWMC .000"057,.
MAY" 24 .~-tJ. 2.12
. (7
. , . .
Plariner:8J'
,
.'-' h.' V!,id
pox177MllOC
450.'
:1 ~:~,...;
'.',J: _I
VI-~~ ,
',... ",;1.,t, . 1
( (," ~ ~ ''It'"~ I' '-,' 'J
\.l { '1! ~ '. .1~ j '1'
, ,
, ,',
,
.
. ~
l
'.'
70
. "
'II "
Table 3-3
DesignCriteria and Historical Averages -
..j,,'
. cmginalDesign Criteria
'"
. Parameter
Average Dry
Weather
Maximumpay
Average Wet
Weather
Average
Annual
! Flow (mgd) 49 70 59.5
i BOD, (Ib/day) NA NA 66,000 -,.
" I "
- . TSS (lb/day) NA NA 71,600
Historical Average Influei,tFlow and Loads 1990 through 1995
- "
79;000
92,000
.~...
i , PerCent of
'Parameter Average Dry - Average Wet Average 1\:faJ\iffium : Design
! - Weather Weather' Annual' "Month (Ave. Annual)
, Flow (mgd) I 26.0 41.8 ' 34.0 .73.5 57%
! BOD,'(lb/day) I 28,682 I 30,644 ./ 30,105 59;593 46%
-. _ -~ TSS (lb/day) I 31,056 - I 36,684 I . 34,063' 65,822 48% I"
Note: In October 1992, the E/SWPCF laboratory staff converted from BOD, to CBOD, for plant influent
. analysis, - . " .' , "I
~NA = Not applicable _ --,-----,'
, -.
'"
. ~ "
.
, -" I ~.
-'I 'Vn"',hiCj'. "'\~\R(
. . ,;:; Ja~JtJJt...~nl U;<jY-~\ :
Date Received
. MAY 2 4 I er+
" ' Planner: BJ
,
,I f,f
;~. !~ y;,~!;
'POX177MDOC
l)...'j{ r'~.1 '--: p-, Ilff' I";'
... 1~ ,::- J;} I.~' "I.:"',. 1:"1, ,'- , .
I
f
I
J
I
r
;,;:-
~
~
H
~
'"
.,}.
j
'"" "
?J.
;\!
I
I
I
't!
't
i.l
!l
it
71
j
~....;c-'3,
'Gi~
"
I
" '"
",
.-.--
c==-
Table 3-4
Aver~Re Per Ca~~a Loadings __ _
Desil(n Criteria
177
'j.
,
i
"
ActUa:I Loadinll ~- i .
143,.
pryweather flow (gallons per capita
'per day) .
Wet weather flow (gal!,!ns per capita
per day) ,.
BOD (pounds per capita per day)
'D'S (pounds per capita per day)
253
243
.!',
0,24
I
1- .'
0"17
0.19
0.26
The fact that the plant is receiving average flows and loads at about half of its design
capacity can be attributed to the slow population growth, during the 1980s and lower than
anticipated per capita pollutant loadings, .
. .
Based on LCOG's data for projected population growth through 20is and existing influent
: per cap'ita loadings, the facility's remaiIung useful lifein years, as measured by the facility's
design capacity being reached, is presented in Table'3-S and is sho~n graphically it}: . .
'FigureS 3-2 through 3-6. Flow projections shown in,dude 2,6mgd to account for two major
" high-volume wastewater dischargers currently under construction, The projections are also
based on the assumption that the Santa Clara/River Road area will be fully sewered by year.
2000, A,brief ~ssion of each.figure follows: "
. Figure 3-2, Wet Weather Flow: Beyond 1996, the projection is based on the average per
capita wet weather flow for the past 6 years and LCOG'"s population projection, The
maximum month fl6w"(MMWWF) is based on the historical peaking factor of 1.34. The
generally accepted maxim~ month design criterion for secondary clarifier overflow
. rates is 600 to 800 gallons'per day per square focit (gpd/ft'j, which for the eight 13D-foot-
diameter secondary clarifiers equates toa MMWWFrange of 64 to 85 mgd. The .:. .
projected MMWWF intersects 85 mgd, the flow rate corresponding to an overflow rate
of 800 gpdl ft" in about year 2007. If not for the ability to provide split stream tJ:eatment.
(the diversion offlows in excess of 103mgd around the secondary process), an overflow
rate of 800 gpd/ ft' might well be considered too high. The MMWWF is the controlling .
parameter that will limit the liquid process capacity and drive the need for secondary
. treatment improyements. The MMWWF is highly influenced by collection system
infiltration and inflow and is' closely interrelated with the E/SWPCF peak hydraulic
Bows discussed la~er. .,
~" Figure 3-3, DryWeather Flow: Again, dry weather flow projections are extrapolated
'" " ,.,frprrLhi,stopca.!per capita dry weather flows and LCOG population projections. The dry
, ~f1\Jr!'~w~~th'er av~a~elto maximum month flow peaking factot is 1.34, Ample' dry weather
,~Eapacity,r.e~ains.well beyond the current LCOG planning horizon. The dry weather .
, 7 maXimufu~lnonth flow projection intersects the maximum month design criteria of 66
mgd at about ,year 2024, The eight 130-foot secondary clarifiers would result in an
/ r; -: ~oy~ffi~,*r#,te\6f:921 gpd/ft2, within the ~cceptable range. Date Received
,
,
,
i
". .
. '
MW~'t @cij6i:lr
Planner: Bll
Pox1nM.OOC
, 456,
./
.;
., ,-,
I
. ..' .~,
- ~
Table 3-5
. Remaining Life of ElSWPCF
Based on 6 Years of Data, 1990 throuRh 1995
-~=---~- ---- Remairiing:We in Years
. . Flow' BOD.
. -Wet Weather 18 NA
Monthly Average
. \.
. Wet Weather 10 NA
. Maximum Month
Dry Weather 30 NA
. Monthly Average
Dry Weather 27 NA
. Maximum Month
. Monthly Average NA. I 40.
Maximum Month NA. I " 33
,'--Years of life remaining includes allowance for two major industrial deve!opme;:'ts
underway. "
. NA = riot applicable,
".
--~
, ,
.-.
"
'"
. >
- ~
.i
WI
II
is
ff
i
'"
; !'~"" ~:." :(\"fyj
Date Received
MAY 24(0+
Planner: BJ.
I
I
\
.' . j - .~,
,~" -'~f'r~'(-:-l ....tj ,,-...'(~r1=\.r'
'f."'/."'':J.,JI.-:jifl, ",:,:,1,1".",. "'
"-" ,_"I'" \
, UFE.DOC
:: ',-""~ ,". f" '~f' 'I :' ,- (~'lli;~~;
",f'" ",. '~~_.11-'l ~),-;, '-"':'
457,
MWMC. 000064. "73.,. '.
.
, , "ff"' .' ,,' Ti"'J
h,e :'<', 7k'~1"'L;J r'1l ~.::: I, f:.,~ I,
. .'t;.,~,..~f;-~\.-?\,-,~~", <.0"
-'jp itY{\iv:
. . "'"I':' t", If", ","':'~I'1 C)
~'-1'1,:~~: ~ .:;,.,JJl 1;11 II,~.. h I
i:',:\...,.~,:.
" ,
;i ~
-."'.."
"
t.,.
.'
....
"-
"'/'
>",
"
'.
j
1'"
"1.
v
Date Rec'eived
MAY 24 ;o{ ,
Planner: BJ
I , .. ~
". "
:/ .
.1
\.
,\
"
'\
,
"" .
.
Wet;Weather .'
Flow. .
Management
Plan
.
.
".
.
.
".
.
.
.
.
.
."
.
.
.
.
, "
.
.
0"
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
.G ,~~ _~
parlnets in wastewater management "
" ,
1453.
,;
,"
'"
,
"I
':!
....
"
~
he._'\v'G'''lc;J\;ti'l D,J~f~
Jg ,.!l~~","~ ...,-.. :,,;.'1
I ( 1
~rr.
'",
,-",,, . !" I: Yi~M
~'~
1'1);10:' (ifJ (':'i;{~~:" il.i
, ~":::lll,,r '/;),:;1 .!
'.
"'''.,.,/"
.. ~....'
,
'''i:..
:.~"I
-':t,
"
'-
"
,
~,l:
0,;;'
.I"''''
;
1, ~"
4"
. ~,
J..
,
Date Re,ceived
~MAY 2"4(iH-
elanner: BJ,
".
j
:
" "
I~
Executive Summary. f
" "
',"
'," ,I
Introduction
1;~
.' In late 1997, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission'(MWMq initiated a
project to develop a comprehensive Wet Weather Flow Management Plan' (WWFMP or "the
plan") for the wastewater collection and treatment facilities in the Eugene/Springfield,
Oregon, metropolitan area, The need and scope of the project arose from recommendations
in the Eugene/Springfield Water Pollution Control Facility Facilities Master Plan and results
. of preliminary analysis usirti a hydraulic model developed for the regioriaI wastewater .
collection system. .
The treatment plant was designed in the 1970s to proVide adequate eap!lcity through 2005.
From a base flow aiid1oading.standpoint, the treatment plant performs, well within its
capacity (49 Jnillion gallons per day [mgdJ) in"dty-weathermonths..However, winter
rainfall creates flows to the treatment plan! that eXceed the plailt's peak capacity (175 mgd)
on average several times per year and exceed full (secondary) treatment capacity (104 mgd)
more frequently~ Figure FS-l shows seasonal average wastewater flows into the treatment
plant and compares them to peak wet weather flows from a typical storm event A portiOn
. Of the flows that exceeds.the full (secondary) 'treatment capacity (1Q4 mgd) receive primary
treatment oniy and are mixed with fully treated water before being released to the
WillametteRiver, . ' . . . . ;
Peak flow estimates for conditions associated With the5-year storm event are used to size
and plan for future systemiLuY.V.'ementli at theJreatment plant and in the rollection .
system. Through system modeling, the 5-year peak was estimated at 264 rilgd. Peak flows
are attributed to high infiltration and inflow(I/I) rates in many areas of the collection
system. I/loccurs from extraneous water getting into the system from illegiLI roof drain
connections, Sewer pipe cracks, and other sourCes, 1/1 is often associated with 9lder pip!!S. in.
. the system.that have deteriorated. Sanitary pipes in oidet areas "are also more IikeIy'to be. .;
. subject to improper storm drainage (inflow) cOnilero.OitS when constru<;tion inSp~on
practices were more lenient and/or such connections were allowed, creating a combined "
flow system. Newer pipe systems reflect improvements in cons,truction techniques,
materials, and inspection and typically exlubit far leSs I/L In Eugene; 1lpercent of the pipes.
are at least 50 years old, In Springfield, the percentage of pipes at least 50 years old is'
.15 percent ,Because the priinary sources of III are in the existing system and llinited III is , '
anticipated from system expansion, growth in'!:he system does not cont:.ibute significantly"C
,to projected syst~ d<<$ciencies,The 5-year peakiseSfuDated at 298 mgd, Of this peak, Onl~ "
. 4 percent, or 12mgd; is estimated to be the result oH/I from future pipes. ,.. "", 005 '&-
" '""" " ,". """ ,"", " " (.) c.;;::,
Estimates made at the time of design of the treahnentplant, rerative to the amount of Q)~'
rainfall-der;ived it:1filtraiion and inflow (RDD) that could be cost-clfectively removed, were a:: ..:
\. k\1R,Y~1r...?p,~~~. This ~ resulted in ~cien.t capacity to manage peak flows at the Q) ~
" .., treatment pJaiit and has mcreased the nsk of sarutary sewer overflows (SSOs) at a number o~
loca~?r,tS" W-.rJ;1e collection system. Example problems include basem~t and street flooding, 0
""')
CD
-"-,-
. .
.-
Q)
C
C"
as
n::'
....:' '.,...'~ <,(:'-;,
",~' ,o( --, -'~~!",_ r~i\"'-''''i
l.J,'_'" USMI0367233O.DOC t-.;' I,
MWMC.0000148,
1465.. 75
.t
'c='
a,-~
<.I- ..
l,".'~
{lJ
,,':1
'7j.
J'J
, "~-:to
<C""
'r. :
WET WEAlllEIl flOW _GEI.EIlr RAN .
"'
"'.
and discharges to stormwater facilities and recciving waters. Althou~ the magnitude of
. wet weather flows differs greatly, they are sigru&:aritly diluted because the source of a '."
majoritY of the flow is rainWater, not sanitary Sewage. Treaime,nt plant flow data indicates
.' that wet weather flow is diluted such that the concentration of typical pollutants in wet
weather flow is 50 y,,",~,,",.t to 60 percent of that in dry weather flow. ",
FlGUREES:1'
Seasonal Measured RCM'Sat the Wastewater T realment Plant
.'"f
. ,
.SeasonaJ........redFlows at the WaslevilalerTreabnent Plant"
... - ','
200 .
" 180
i _,'
160
. '-'I' . ,
~ 140 -.'
r '. ____.:_.._____~~'!!".!'!!~_~'!!'2!'1!':.e~l;'!>~t-L~-e~----
g 120 "
. !. .______,.____.:~~'1.n!l~~~~~~~~~~':"!_____~_
~. 100"
J!'
..
"
li 80
c
.~
i 60
.
:1"
'"".
"
""
"20
'.
:0 ;]0-
1999-2000 P<okwOter FlOws,
....=0 Storm _'
......
l~ Average Sum~ Fbws
^_W_Flaos
" 'f;
.f,
-_.:;!;, 130
,,-' ,
105
J':'
. .
" I -.. ' , .' . . .
The overall'ol>jective of the plan is. to determine the most cost-effective and politically
feasi11le method, to manage peak 'Y'et weather waStewater flo~s that is acceptable to the
Eugene and SJ?ringfieldcommunities, "' " ',.'"
. Summary ofWW~MP'
."
Developing the plan'essentially ~onSisred of evaluating four technologieS for managing
ex~wet.weatherflow relative'to performance (frequency of SSOs), ws!, and'politicalarid .
coIh)rtunity acceptance. Therour technologies included: (1) system rehabilitation to control
I. ~ .. .' '. . . .', _
: RDn; -(2) in-lirie and off-line storage of peak flows; (3) additioniII conveyance (including "
,,-, ~ferpipe,conveyance and pump station capacity); ~d(4) additional capacity to treat
;~l '~flo'!5,at the treatment plant
.,,<" ~.1,,: ..~ .,'......," '.', . .
"",. ,-" ,,".
;!.......: ,:.......1
';.
I t/j~
G~'''-..''''' . ,.. ~,
I 466i.'"j
.,~ .
,;",'.;"
ES-2
Date Received
M~y'2 4{bf
P MWMC - 0000149. .
. ~:BJ
I',.:
"
,
n
..~
"
i
,.
'!I
c
~
-.
,
.
-
....
n
;;;;
I
"
,<
f,
I
7cn
"" <
;.i
r;"-"
""
...;...j;
.,.....
"'..L.7
.~
~'"
~E:
~'"":"
.~).:_~
(fl>
~~,*- .
~.7JJ
r-"
--"':':7.0
'_t.
";:'.
. j
Pr.:
'v
-"",
.J
'~
::-:::;~
~<Q
"'
.",
,,;
"::;:<::-,
,.,J,,',~
?]:.: : S?;
<:"~ ".',-.
~~C--,
.:;-!,~ '...
""
1.;
''i:'.
. '"i-'
rJ) 6,0"
c:
o
Cll
l')
-c
c:
ro
II)
:l
o
..c::
I- 5,0
o
-r'I t'\'\ 4"0
;)J ~
m;(D
:5 ~ ::c
i .... (1)
,po. (")
- (t)
'-\ ~-"
II .-1 4::::.
OJ (1)
c.- 0-
:32186: "
Average Monthly Re$identialSewer Usage
;'.
:i
':;
...
;;
~
:ii
~"
FY89/90 FY90/91 FY9,1/92 FY92/93 FY93/94 FY94195 FY95/96 FY96/97 FY97/98 FY98/99 FY99/00
Fiscal Year
r.;;;_U"",_"_",m____H_"_"-'"-"'--""'""'""'""" '"" "'"
I~ ~~,~~_o.~",~~p'ri.r:!Q!i~~d."" ~,F3~,Qi,~l1al"l
'-...,
(,,:}
. "', ,-:,
. . A"/erage MonthryResidentii:l' Usage 1.000 gal
. "
,
Fiscal Year Eugene Springfield'Regional,
FY89/90 5.B. ., 6:2 '. 6,0
FY90/91 5,5.6"3 5,9
FY91 192 5;5" ' . 6,l'J 5,8'
FY92193 5"5, 6.0 5.7:".
FY93/94 5.6 5,4 5;5
FY94/95 "'5,4, . 5,4 , 5,4
FY95/96 5.2:' .' 5,3 " ""5.3
~.
FY96/97 5,1 5,2" .,' 5.2
FY97/98 5.2," 5.2 5,2
FY98/99 " 5.0: .' . ,,5,'2 5.1 .
FY99/00 5,0 5.0,.'.,~" 5,0
FYOO/01 ." 4:9....1.. ""'--, .4:9 "-.{g-".:
FY01/02' . 4,6 4,8 4,7
,
.'. ',,1.
',"
~.'
'1':~
"'
'"
.'" .
h.'i)"V" i~".""il" ,
!.l. 1~. ~i'".,-"'.1\'... I"~
',",' l.;;1vtif~ C"'f'if"I
" " ", .,," 'f'J,~)~} " "
..~ ;'. ", ' , "
'--:"',' '., .
'" ,",,,,,,,. v,~,;.."
_.. ',.l, '~iW
j r---.:"',
l~~'1 "'f{';,\p'" ~" fl9"
N .: 1"~.v\1 ~q ~,i,~i"''''
. "" Ii '"'0'1) "
',,'
,
:','
" ,
" '"
'1 ..
, I
"' .
,
"
. Date Rece",ed
'.' . MA'< 24 I e4- .
Planner: BJ
. MWMC. 000025" . 78
. ~'"
. Technical Background . Report:
'. Existing Conditions'
. and Alternatives
Eugene~Springfi"eld' Metropolitan Area
Public. Facilitie~ and .Services Plan
, 'j' (
\' ~ l "t" """\'1?5-
,i":;'lf~l-1^],':liin .JI;lk,'
-", l'"l" YI':',:
, '.' 1\ ,'"\hl .
j ~:,"" I C":'fll':""""I('
J'" . '! i,i.:.,! 1,1 l,)'""'rtl I;
. April 1999,
Date Received.
MAY 2'4,of
Planner: BJ.
1167. 79
, "
Region~) Wastewater Treatment System Condition Assess~ent, .
Regional Wastewater Treatment System Capacity
The MWMC Master Plan for the" Eugene-Springfield Water Pollution Control Facility, (Master
Plail), completed in 1997, provides a comprehensive evaluation of the facilitY, The Master Plan
. estimates a fully sewered population within the metropolitan UGB to .reach 402,567 by 2040,
with a regional population of 443,033 receiVing wastewater service at full b'uild-out in 2050,
The Master Plan estimates that eXisting design capacity of the treatment plant can serve all new
development in the metropolitan area through at least the year 2020, However, peak wei weather
conditions that cause large volumes of stonnwater to enter the wastewater collection system .
'constrain the plant from achieving its designed capacity, Wet weaiher related improveme!1ts are
needed at the plant arid within the collection system to extend the plant's wet weather capacity
beyond the year 2007,
. '
The treatrnel)t plant, which offi~ially began operation in APril 1984, replaced the separate plants
. previously oWJ;led and operated by Eugene and Springfield, At the time of cori~truction, the
capacity of the plant was projected to serVe"the growing metropolitan area for a period of20
years, However. slower tljan anticipated growth in the 1980s has extended the design life of the
plant by at least I5 years, . ' . , " " . ".
The regional Biosolids Management Facility was designed to match biosolids drying and land
application to the volume produced by the wastewater treatment plant However, lower than
anticipated solids processing efficiency (primarily due to variable sUmmer,weather conditions) is
requiring additional improvements at the facility in order to match the design capacity of the
treatment plant. , ,
The treatment plant has a dry weather design capacity of 49 mgd, Current actual dry weather..
flows range from 45 percent to 57 percent of the design capacity. 'Sufficient treatment capacity
exists to meet projected growtp throughout the PFSP planning horizon.. However, peak wet
weather volume of flow, not influent wastewater characteristics, currently constrains the life span
of the plant's design capacity, The plant has a wet weather design capacitY of 175 mgd. current
maximum monthly wet weather flows reach 85 percent of ihe design capacity for flow. High
levels of wet weather flows are generated by infiltration and inflow (IIl):9f:stcinnwater into the
sanitary sewer system, Inf1ltration isa process by which groundwater enters the system through
cracks and joints "in sewer pipes, . Inflow is the process by which stonnwater enters the system
through improper coimections of roof drains and othe"r stonndrainage facilities to the sanitary. .
sewers, and by surface runoff entering through manholes, " "
. Regional Wastewater Treatment FJlcilitie~ Condition 'Assessment
~ , : ~<\l~"'-(I-
" ", '1'1:\--" {'''' """;1""- .
I '~\.,j ',\. ,If ~ "" f L __ ~- _., .
I;^J ,Y",'J!..:,tA,t'1l '" "f."1,
(
I ~- :'., '
',1;' V!.,l,;
19
" 'I
. . rr...., .....ff,"}'il\
. . : I ~'" . .,' I I, I
"
rehabilitation projects wIll maintain all regional wastewater facilities in good working'ord~r for.
. the dur"ation of the PFSP planning period. .
Compliance with regulatory parameters is a good indica,tor of facility Conditions, The treatment
. pilini has always operated in compliance with its Nationall1ollutant Discharge Elimination,
System (NPDES) permit during wet weather conditions, The mismatch of wet and dry weather
. treatment plant dysjgn is due to the fact that the amount of III targeteiHor removal through
collection sy.stem rehl!bilitation to match the wet weather hydraulic capaCity 'has not been ,
achieved, To address this issue, MWMC, Eugene and Sp[ingfieldare developing a Wet Weather
Flow Mapagement Plan (WWFMP) to determine",the optiinal.mix of treatment plant and
collection.system rehabilitation improyements. ,RecommeIlded)mpro'Vements will be
incorporated.into MWMC, Eugene and Springfield, Capital Improvement Programs to extend the""
wet wea~er capability of the system. .
Since 1990, tjleamount of siudge prOduced by the BiosolJds Management Facility has exceeded
the process c,apacity of the facility's drying beds, This has occurred because two drying cycles
per year ar:nec~,ss.iryt<ikeep pace with proquction. Frequentiy, SUIIl!ner rains prevent two .
cycles from being achieved, Expansion of the facility,'s.dewatering capacity is needed to extend. .
the capa9ity oftl).elagoons beyond the year 2000. MWMC is currently completing
designsiengineering, andwill construct a mechaniCal dewatering facility in 1999/2000 that will
eliminate the.biosolids processing capacity c~nstrain( . " "
The condition ofbiosolids quality is exc;llent; and consistentiyineets or exceeds all federal
standardS. No degradation of biosolids quality is anticipated over the PFSP plannlllg period.
Eugene Waste'Yater System Inventory and Assessment
,
'. "
Eugene Wastewater System Inventory
Map 7 shows "the existing wastewater system basins" in Eugene, the Regiona.!Wastewater
Treatment Plant (treatroimt plant), existing pipes 24 inches or greater in diameter, and the eight'
inch line to ihe Eugene Airport . " ,.,
Asof1998, tliewastewater'c~llection"systeni totaled 607 miles in length, with over 20 miles of
pressure lines. The collection system consistS of 433 miles of eight-inch pipe, and 46miles of
pipe 24 ,inches or greater in diameter. There are five main collection system areas '(system areas)
within Eugene's setvice area, eachcifwhich is divided into basins, as follows,' . . "
"
L Central Eugene:
Downtown Westslde, Downtown Central, Downtown Amazon, and
D9wntown Franklin basins.' ,
" WillakenzieNorth and South and Willamel1e River basins
Bethel-Danebo North and South basins "
Glenwooi:l and Lane Community'College basins
River Road, Santa Clara and Highway 99 basins
" .
2. Willakenzie:
'. 3, Bethel-J)an~bo:
4, Southeast Eugene:
5, River Road:
l . '''" , _' ,- 'r;; ,",. \. ....,i;~:,.
""jl.>I,\P~':">"""1 \\~l ",;~. "R",g;.,"" .
'I,' I ~~ .t~ .lIbl,lf Ii. .~- it: ~,l, .
. . ~ . . ........ '
H>.\")'i,/":
,....,_ hlVf
20
Date Received.
MAY 24/ Dlf-
. 1187,
Planner:BJ 8,1
'"'-
. ..,.;" ,;" '~p(,<,":"
lIS 'If, Ir,t{{." L;"". .
. '\,.,1.1 .. 'II! Il.....~~~ ~ 11"
~...' ,
\.!'" I
. 1,1
Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals ~ Guidelines
..
GOAL 6: AIR,WATERANDLAND
RESOURCES QUA~ITY.
OAR660-015-0000(6)
-
To maintaIn and improve the quality
of the air, water and land resources
of the state.
All waste and process discharges
from future development, when.
combined with such discharges from
existing developments shall. not threaten
to violate,~ or violate applicable state or
federal environmental quality statutes,
rules and:standards, With respect to the
" air, water and land resources of the
applicable air sheds and river basins
described or included. in state
environmental quality statutes, rules,
standards and implementation plans,
such discharges shall riot (1) exceed the
carrying capacity of such resources,
considering long range needs; (2)
degrade such resources;' or (3) threaten
. the availability of such resources.
Waste and Process Discharges -
refers to solid waste, thermal, noise,
atmospheric or water pollutants: .
contaminants, or products therefrom,
Included here also are'indirect sources
of air pollution which result in emissions,
of air contaminants for which the state
has established standards,
GUIDELINES
A. PLANNING
1. Plans should designate
alternative areas suitable for use in
controlling pollution including but not
f' {",II r,~L\"Ii~ited,t9,\"Y.asJe water treatment plants,
~} '~:,,~'itt,,;!:)..'?Hfll"Q.7.'(IJ !\.' .
"N'"\"
~.;.. '" _ . I::,
, . '.,
\ '
"
. ,";"1. '; 1""-;:.: ~; I, '~'
"'"'fo\;.. l <
solid waste disposal"sites and sludge
disposal sites, .
2. Plans should designate areas"
for urban and rural residential use only
where approvablesewage disposal .
alternatives ~aveQeen clearly identified
in such plans. ..
. 3, Plans should buffer and
separate ttiose landuses which create
or lead to conflicting requirements and.
"'impacts upon the air, water and land
resources.
4. Plans which provide for the
maintenance and improvement of air,
land and water resources ofthe
planning area should consider as a.
major determinant the carrying capacity
of ttie air, land andw8terresoiJrces of
the planning area. The'land
" , conservation and development actions "
provided for by such 'plans should not'
exceed the carrying capacity of such
resources,'" 0,
5, All plans and programs
,'" affecting waste and progess discharge,S
should be coordinated within the
applicable air sheasand river basins'
described or included in state
enVironmental "qua!ity statutes, rules, '
. standards and implenientation plan.
6. Plans of state agencies before
they are adopted should be coordinated
with and reviewed by focal agencies
with respect to the impact of these plans
. 9n the air: water and land r"~~ceived
. the pla~n1ng area, UQLti nti.tL
MAY 24 q-.
- I
1
Planner: BJ
82
j. . . :
7,ln all air, quality maintenance
areas, plans should be based on
applicable state ru"les for reducing
indirect pollution and be sufficiently i'
comprehensive to include major
transportation,. industrial; institutional,
commercial recreational and
governmental developments and
facilities. .
, ",
B.IMPLEMENTATION
1. Plans should take into account
methods and devices for ill1plementing
this gol'il;including but not limited to the
following:' . " .
; (1) tax incentives and
. disincentives,
,(2) 1.~n(:1 use 'controls and
. ordinances,
(3) multiple-use ,and joint
development practices, ,
(4) capital facility programming,
(5) fee and less-than-fee
acquisition techniques, and
(6) enforcement of 'local health
and safety ordinances.
.. ."2, A m~nagement program that
details the'respective impl~mentation
,roles and responsibiiities for carrying 'out
this goaUn the planning area should lie
establish'e~ in the cO!1)prehensive plan:
3. Programs should manage land
conservation and development activities
in a manner that acc~rately reflects the
cominunity's oesires.for a quality
environment.and a healthy economy
and is consistent with state
environmental 'quality statutes, rules,
standEirdsand implementation plans.
.) , ,",
-If "',fk.'.C){,'lqi.,:,,; 'F'1~''';'.'(': .
,t9:.. ;r..,l:,,:q;IT 8. ~.;y)jt.)lt'
~ P: YAM
,I H :
.. ";::;.,
\...~J 'f
:"!t~ia'1Ifl1!f,:t',.. U~
... ',' l,j lr,t... ft. j
"
'.. . ~. r.
2
,
"
.. ;'
"
';'"
"'
,. ~
.iI,
-j"
. '.11
o
'"
" ,
",
," .
Date Received
MAY 2 4, (J rf-
Planner: BJ3
. .
,., r
.
tAW OFFICE OF BIW;1.~OOS, PC
'.' ,
OREGON LAND USELAW
-'
,576 OLIVE STREET, SUITE 300
EUGENE, OR 97401
PO BOX 11906
",EUGENE, OR 97440"
TEL (541) 343-8596
'. FAX (541) 343-8702 "
E.MAIL SILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON,COM
April 20, 2004
Metro Area Planning Conunissions "
c/o LaneCounciI of Govenunents
99 East Broadway, Suit~ 400
Eugene, OR 97401 "'\
Re: Metro Plan Text Amendments; Public Facilities and Services Plan,Amendments
April 20, 2004 Joint Public Hearing ,.
. .'
Dear Com'mission Members: .
""
, "
Please accept this letter on behalf ofthe HomeBuilders Association of Lane County and its"'"
subsidiary, the Home Builders Construction Company, I '.
",
1. What standards apply.
.~. .
The standards that apply to these proposed plan amendments are found in several locations:
. . , . .
o . State statutes apply, Statutes always apply to local gove~ents' land use decisions.
McKav Creek Valley Assoc, v, Washin<TtOlI Co/intv, 18 Or LUBA '71,75 (1989)
(acknowledgment of plan and code leaves statutes directly applicable), '"
o Slatewide Planning Goals, ORS 197:1 75(2)(a),
0' LCDC Rules implementing the statutes and 'the go~s apply, f<?rihe~iune reasons'that the
statutes and goals apply,. ' , ',. . "
"
. ~~ - -
o Acknowledged; unamended plan provisions apply to plan amendments, because plans" '.
. have to be internally consistent. South of Sunnys'ide Neighborhood LeagUe v. Bd, of
Comr's of Clackamas County, 280 Or 3, 13(1977); ORSJ97.015(5), . ,.
2. Planning Period: The 2025 pI (Inning horizon for the Wastewater Primary Collection
System is inconsistent with"andnot coordinated witlrthe planning period for, the balance of
the Metro Plan. ' '
Both the Metro Plan and the Public Facilities and St:jrvi~es Plan (PFSP) amendments prop-ose a
.- ....
1 ih~~;.6pl:sMd;IJmkndliiei1is"irad~Pted, ~il be post-acknowledgment plan ~endments(PAPAs), My clients request no~ce
of the final decisioJ:joie~cl{iOiial government on this"matter,astequired by ORS 197,615, "
""7'" Ji! I,: YI,~,i Date Received
" u. 84
MAY 2 4( ()\
, ,
:/.:~ , '"". ,-l. , __ rr.-
,," '. ,< '"11 . '" ,
-<'H~." t ~~':!i "0 .f,J'-....II~ " .
.JJ - , ...... , \;:. ,~: )1.; l",
, "
~i_____. FIl I
1> ,..
"
Metro Area Planning Coriunissions.
April 20, 2004' ,
Page 2 of 8,
. 2025 'p,lan:horizon for the planning 'for treatment facilities. With these amendments the'
comprehesive plan will not bejntegrated and, in fact, will have inconsistencies. That's because
the exiting plans have a.20 15 planning horizon, A comprehensive plan, by definition, must be '
coordinated, integrated, and internally consistent. The definition of "comprehensive plan" in
ORS 197,015(5) is: ' . , ,.
"Comprehensive plan" means a generalized, coordinated land use map and policy.
statement ,of the governing bodyof a local goyemment that interrel~tes all functional
and natural systems and activities relating to the use oflands, including but riot limited
' to sewer and water systems, transportation systems, educational facilities,reereational
facilities; and natural res~urces and air and water quality management progranis,
"Comprehensive"means all-inclusive, both in terms of the geographic area covered and
functional and natural activities and systems occUrring in the area covered by the.plan,
"General nature;' means a swnmary of policies and proposals in broad categories and'
d!Jes not necessarilyindicate specific locations of any area, activity or use. A plan is
"coordinated" when the needs of all levels of goyemments, serrupublic, and private
agencies and the citizens of Oregon have been considered and accommodated as" much
as possible, "Land" includes water, both surface and subsurface, and the air."
A comprehensive plan really can't be "coordinated",in the meaning of the definition if
"different functional parts of the plan have conflicting planning time frames, '
3. State statutes regarding public facilitiesplanning,,ORS 197.712(2)(e), requires it
project list, which is not in the propos,ed amendments. ' ,
The statute that sets the stage for public facility plans is ORS 197.712(2)( e). It provides: . '
. . '",
"A citY or cortnty shall develop and adopt a public" facility plan for areas within
an urban growth boundary containing a population greater thari 2,500 persons:
The public facility,phinshal1,iriclude rough cost estimates for public projects"
" needed to provide sewer, water and transportation for the land uses
contemplated in the comprehensive plan and land use r.egulations.Pioject timing ':
and financing proVisions of public facilityplan~ sh~llnot be considered land uSe
decisions," ' , " "
It is worth noting that the statute anticipates a list of projects. The propos,ed amendments do
not include alist of project. Instead, the ame~dmentswo!lldinc1ude categories'ofbaskets of
projects,. Presuinably, the individual projects would be worked Out administratiyely,
4. LCDt Rules'relating to public facility planning.
Thei:lUblic faci1,itie~)stah!~e and Statewide Planning Goal 11 'are implemented t!rr~ Rece\\fed
LCD~:sDivi~i6iil! Rule - OAR 660-011-0000, , ',' '\..',C:1\.ti ,.,1, '
".' ," " " .' . MA'<2, 4, 0\
~.' . i
\IHl~fili;~)(Jhr ~t~f:; Planner: BJs
I' ".'..'~{"\',L"I"::'
. , .....- ~ ~.\ {{ . ;-.lJV;" . ,
" i'/!'::J'"
), .'-'...'.,.....~!r,..~t'~"j; 1
. ,t .
.
Metro AreaPlanning Cor.
April 20, 2004 .
Page 3 of8
.ssions
. ,
(a)
Contents of "public facility plan;'; ,
I~ r ,
"
OAR 660-011-0010 defines the contents of a public facility plan, The definition is;
" .
'. "(1) The public facilityphlll 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 ill the' "
" acknowledged comprehensive plan; .
(b) A list of the significant public facility projects which are to support the land
uses designated in, the acknowledged comprehensive plan:PubJic facliityproject
descriptions or specifications of these projects as necessary;'
(c) Rough cost estimat~s of eachjJublic facility project;
(4) A map or written description of each public facility p~oj ect's general location
or service area; . "". " , .
'(e) Policy stateni~nt(s) or,urban gro~h manag~ment agreement identifYing the
provider of each public facility system. If there is more than one provider with
the authority to 'provide the~ystemwithin the area "covered by the public facility ,
plan, then the provider of each project shall be designated; , ,
(f) 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 prechanisms to fund the development of each public
facility project orsystem,"
The proposal is to bolster the existing PFSP, toincIude the required components for the area's .
wastewater treatment system, Th~ ~endm,entsmade.should be double checked against the .
required list of contents above. At first glance, it would appear that the proposed amendments'
fall short of meeting the minimum required contents In the following respects: '," '.' ','"
I, The amendments rieed to include an inventory and general assessment of the condition
of all the sigqificant aSpects of the wastewater treatrnentsystern. The required
evaluative infonnation is missing, OAR 660~01l-qOI0(l)(a).' " .
.
, . , J., ,
2, A "list of significan.t p1\blic facility projects" needed to support the land uses
designated in the Metro Plan is needed, OAR 660-011-0010(1)(b). No projectJist is. .
proposed for the plan. Instead, categories of projects are proposed; This obfuscates' ,
the ultimate policy choices 'that Goal 2 and Goal 11 require to be reflected in the plan,
Furthennore,iheprojects are to support thle landuse.designationsiri the plan, Those
designations have a2015 planning horizon, The proposal is to designate projects for a'
longer timeframe, which ~ould violate this rule, , . .
. '. .~' . Cost estirn~t,e_~ need to be by project~ not by categories of projects, 'OAR 60~te Received
I 1'" "\."",,OOIO(I)(c)'~1f '" ,
,.:" ~ ''':.dt',h: ~i'J:'i\: ' , MAY 2 4 0 If
'. " , I
"", l~ ~t(f.\M
"
"~_t~ ~: :. .... :. --. _' " ~-;:.,'
'~Iv t 1""~:~.I"'1ih1i(i~_d
,~. ,-". ' -.J . ,.../!i illllJ;.'l J '.'1.1,
Planner: Bj6
. .
.
Metro AreaPlanning Commissions
Apri120,2Q04
Page 40f8
" '
. ~.
. 4. . EachprojectneeMtobe mapped, OAR 660-011-0010(1)(d), 'Without a project
lisiin'g,the mapping requirement can't be met. . .
5 ,An estimate i~ needed of when each project will be needed. OAR 660-0 11 ~001()(1 )(f),
Absent a project list, this requirement can~t be complied 'with, "
",
6. Adiscussi~nof.thefunding mechanisms and prospects for funding for eachproject. .
OAR 66q-0 1)-00 1 0(1 )(g) , Again, a project list is thil starting 'point for this discll,ssion,
' ,
""
(b) Ne~d for inventory of existing facilities and need for future projects. "
. OAR 660~OI t'-OQJQrequiies,e~t~blishes in"entory requirements ~d the:need f9r,aljst of
future projects, The Rule provides:
:..,.
""(1) The public facility plan shall ihclude an inventory of signifi9ant public
facility systems" Where the "acknowledged comprehensive plan, background
" docum~t<\r one or more of the plans or programs listed in OAR .660~0 11 ~
0010(3) contains such an inventory, that inventory may be incorporated by
refetence, Thejnventory shall include:" ' .. '.
. (a) Mappedl~catiori of the facility orservice area; .) ".'
(b) Facility capacity or size; and . .' '. "
( c) General assessment of condition of the facility (e,g" very good, good,' fair,
poor, very poor), .." "
(2)Tht: public facility plan shall identify significant public facility proj~cts .
which are ,t(j support the land uses designated in the acknowledged ",
, compiehensiveplan, 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, . ,
,
..f. .'
. .
~
(3) Projec!descriptions within the facility planmayrequire mbdific~tioris ba"sei:!
on subsequent envjroiunental impaci studies, design studies, fl\cility master. ,
' plans,'capital improvement programs, or site availability. The public facility
" > ,.,~ , < , , '.
'plan should,anti~,ipate these changes as specified inOAR 660-011-0045."
" " ,
. ..:..~~;'..'.:_~ ..< .::;" :?(~.~~ -<J.t~(k11
'.ij',; ~,=,.,~ . )hb..' ('1i'[ tr..>:-'j!l
'.11 ,..[',~.:;:. '.......... j~ 'j .J'...' I
An inventory of existing facilities is needed, in terms of mapped location, capacity,' and
'. ~. .
condition, OAR 660-011-0020(1), This inventpry would provide the baseline for planning, It
does not apP~ar to be within the scope of the proposedamendments",
The pl~ mu~t include a list of specific proposed projects. OAR 660-011-0020(2).' There is no
. list of proje~ts proposed. Approval of categories of proj ects would mean that the g()veming
bo?ie~ areJto~,,~~ng ultimate policy choices, Rather, they would be writing qUOasi-bJanlnece',ved
';~'!~checkS;I.~}n'"b<Yil''''l'. " ate ti ,
,1, "" ,,""" '"' .. 'at
-"1:-~!YI"W. ' MAY 24 "
Planner: BJ17
~ ...
. f' \.. P
.
Metro Area Planning COl. .1SS10nS
April 20, 2004
Page 5 of 8
(c)
Timing of required proJects.
,
"
OAR 660-011-0025 requires th,atthe plan include a,generaLestimate'oftiming of projects, The
Rule states: '
"(1) The public facilities plan shall include a generid estimate of the timing for
. the planned public facility projects, This timing,component of the public
facilities plan can be met In several ways depending. on whether the project is
. anticipated in.the short term or long term. The timing of projects may be related
directly to population gfoWth, e.g" the expansion or new construction of water
treatment facilities. Other facility projects can be related to a measure of the
facility's service level being met or exceeded, e,g:,amajor arterial or' "
intersection reaching a maximum vehicle-per-day standard. Development of
other projects may be ~ore long term and tied neither to specific population
. levels nor 'measures of service levels, e.g., sewer projects to correct infiltration
and inflow problems. These projects can 'take place over a long periodoftime
and may be tied to.the availability oflong-term funding. The timing of projects
may also be tied to specific years. ' , .'
" .
"(2) Given the different methods used to estimate the timing of public facilities,
the public facility plan ,shall identifY projects as occurring in either ihe short
telm or long term, based on those factor~ which arerelatedto project
development. For those projects designated for development in the short term,
the public facility plan shall identifY an.approx~ate year for development. For
those projects designated for development' over.the long term, the public
facility plan shall provide a general estimate as to. when the need for project
development would exist, e.g., population level, servicelevelstandlirds, etc.
Timing provisions for public facility projects shall be consistent with the
acknowledged comprehensive plan's projected growth estimates. The 'public
facility plan shall consid..er the relationships belween facilitiesin providing for,
.. - . .- . .
development.,
. ,
"(3) Anticipated timing provisions for public facilities are not cOl1siden!d Ian'q
use decisions as specified inORS.712(2)(e), and, therefore, cannot:be,the baSis
ofappealimderORS i97.61O(I)and(2)0r197;835(4).~"" '.
"'
Although the timing analysis does not have to be precise under t1J.e Rule; it does have to be
specific to projects. Where, as here~ the proposal is to approve categoriesofprojec,ts, rather
than a list of projects, iris not possible to comply with the rule. . .
. ,
(d) Need for rough, cos~ ~stimate~ of specific projects.. '
.,
Date Received
MAY 24, at(
,Planner: BJ.
:--' . I I
.
~.
Metro Area PlaJJcing Commissions
April 20, 2004 .
Page6 of 8
OAR 660-0ll-0030'requiresthe'plan to include rough cost estil!lat~s for projects listed in the
plan. TIieRule provides: ,,' , '"
, "(1) The public facility plan shall include rough cost estiinates for those sewer, ,
water, andtransportiltion public facility 'projects identified,in the facility plan. "
The intent of these rough cost estimates is to:,
(a) Provide an estimate of the fiscal requirements to support the land use,
'designations in theacknowlerlged comprehensive plan; and
(b) For I.\seby the, facility provider in reviewing the provider's existing funding
mechanisms (e.g., generatfunds, general obligation and revenue:bonds; local
improvement district, system development charges; etc.) and possible, '
alternative funding.mechanisms. hi addition to including rough cost estimates
for each project, the facility plan shaJl.includea discussion of thejJrovider's
existing funding Jl).echanismsand the ability offuese and possible new '
m,echanismsto fund the deveiopment of each public facility project or system. .
,These funding mechanisms may also be described in terms of genyral
guidelines oriocal policies. ' .,
I. ,~
"(2) Anticipated fin~cing provisions are not considered land use decisions as
speCified in ORS 197.7l2(2)(e) and, therefore, cannot be the ,basis of appeaL
',. .. "
under ORS, 197.610(1) and (2) or 197.835(4)." , ' , '"
Again, the failure of the proposed plan ,amendments to list individual projects in the, plan
precludes compliance with this rule~ The rule only requires "rough" cost estimates" but'the
' estimates,have to be by project, notlarge groups of projects. '
. . I.
(e)' Requited' elements <lethe compfehen'sive plan. '
, OAR 660-011-0045 requires th~tcertain elements of the public faciliti~splan be made a part.
'of the plan itself. The Rule requires: ' ,
~.'
"
"(i) 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 jimsdiction's comprehensive plan and shall also adopt as part of the
comprehensive plan:' , , ,', '
' (a) The list of pl.!blic: facility project titles, excluding (if the juri~diction so
chooses) the descriptions or specifications of those projects;
(b) A map or written description of the public facility projects' locations or
setyice areas as, specifledin sections (2) and (3) of this rule;, and , '
(c) The policy(ies} or urban growth management agreement designating the
. ' provider of e;1ch public facility system. If there is more 'than one provider '
, ,<, ,,',wit4~~,~uthority to provide thesysteffiwithinthe areacovered by the ,
'~b'if'\(;~~~~ftp',u)jJt~f~cillty plan, ,then the provider. of each project shall bedesignated."
. ...' .
. ~,
f . '(,"~l flU!).. ,
_ 'j';' ;'1
. ,
"
,
'.', ';'I"':'""r'':'
. ._.,'..:.',IIl..
.... '~, .r'A fl' iJ'''i, '-,'H
~', 'I 11 0.-, .
, 89
.,. ~ "'I' . 'j. .
Metro Area Planning Con
, April 20, 2004 '
Page 7of8
3slOns
.
The minimum requiremerit for inclusion'in the comprehensive plan is the list of project titles
and a map of the projects' location or service areas. Again, a projectlistirig is required, not a
description of categories of nrojects.
:
IIi surmnary, it appears that ~e proposed amendments coIi.flict with the Structure of the Metro
Plan because they are for a different, longer time fraine, As such, they can't be demonstrated,
to consist of the projects needed to implement the land use designations,in the plan.' They
implement something more than what the plan provides for. '
More significantly, it appears that the amendments are too skinny, The target for the
, amendments should lie to provide, as a part of the PFSP and the Metro Plan the information
' that the LCDC Rules require be a part of any element of a public facilities plan: The essential
information that is missing is baseline information on the existing infrastructure, its location, ,
and its condition, and a listing of specific projects proposed, their location, their rough cost,
and their approximate timing. '
As a starting point, the PlarmingCommissions might ask staffto analyze their proposed
amendments in light of the requirements of the LCDC Rule,
Thank you for your consideration.
~
.~'
<
cc: Roxie Cuellar
<
Date Received
MAY 24 /()t.f
Planner: BJ
90
~
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
May 24, 2004
To:
Eugene Planning Commission
From:
Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner
Subject:
,Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (file MA 04-01).
Amendments to Chapter ill, Section G Public Utilities and Services Element and Chapter IV Glossary
of the Metro Plan, and amendments to the Public Facilities and Services Plan
ACTION REQUESTED: Recommendation to the City Council.
BRIEFING STATEMENT: The Planning Commission must make a recommendation to the City Council
regarding proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and Public Facilities Services Plan (PFSP) to incorporate
and update references to the regional wastewater uo;,oouent plant. This packet includes a memorandum from
Springfield City Attorney Meg Kieran responding to the infonnation submitted into the record during the joint public
hearing on April 20th, "corrected" versions of the staff report, appendices, and a copy ofthe draft minutes of the joint
hearing.
BACKGROUND: A joint Planning Commission hearing was held on April 20; 2004. The written
record of this hearing was held open until 5:00 p.m., May 7th. During that period the Lane County
Homebuilders and city staff entered a number of documents into the record. A table of contents of these
documents accompanies this memorandum.
The infonnation provided by the Homebuilders was submitted at 4:30 p.m. on May 7, 2004; therefore, staff
was unable to provide a response prior to closure of the record. There is no requirement under these
proceedings that a staff response must be prepared before the record closes. Springfield and MWMC staff are'
prepared to provide both a verbal and written response to the Springfield and Lane County Commissions on
the evening of the May 18,2004, when they meet 10 deliberate, and to the Eugene Commission on May 24th.
As yo~ will see from the table of contents of testimony, many of the documents are well known to the
Commission (TransPlan, The Metro Plan) and are quite bulky and expensive to reproduce. We will bring this
record to the meeting, 'and it can be made available to any member of the Commission or public who'is
interested in reviewing this material. To ensure this opportunity in Eugene, please contact KurtYeiter at 682-
8379: In Springfield, please contact Brenda Jones at 726-3610 to confinn availability.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed amendments
based on the fmdings contained in the attached staff report.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact: Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department, 99 West
10th Avenue, Eugene 97401; telephone 541/682-8379. Email: kurt.m.yeiter@ci.eugene.or.us
" .
ATTACHMENTS: \',
A. Table of Contents of the Record. The following items from the record are ~tribut(td dire.Jtly
to the Commission; Date HecelveU
MAY 24,&+
1
Planner: BJ
. "
1. Memo from Meg Kieran, Springfield City Attorney, responding to evidence
entered into the record during the April 20, 2004 joint planning commission
public hearing
2. Staff report and appendices (Aa, Ab, B) as corrected during the April 20, 2004
joint planning commission public hearing
3. Letter from Lane County Home Builders, date May 6, 2004, including several
attachments
4. Public Facilities and Services Plan - 2001 (previously distributed to Eugene
Planning Commission)
B. Letter from Bill Kloos, dated April 20, 2004, submitted at the joint public hearing.
2
Date Received
MAY 24,01
Planner: BJ
,
;
~C,
.,",."
. '.
Planning & Development
Planning
MEMORANDUM
City of Eugene
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5377 ,
(541) 682-5572 FAX
WVI/VII.ci,eugene.or.us
Date: May 19,2004
To: Eugene Planning Commission
From: Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner
Subject: Supplemental Materials: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission proposed amendments
tothe Metro Plan and Public Facilities Services Plan (file MA 04-1)
Attached is the staff response to materials submitted while the public record was'open, ,As mentioned in
the Agenda Item Summary, there was not time to respond to the public comments before initial staff
reports were prepared, The attached materials were provided to the Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commissions at their separate meetings on May 18, 2004,
"
In complementary actions, on May 17''' the Springfield City Council voted to approve the MWMC
recommended local and regional sewer ,user fees (4:1 ,vote) and approved the MWMC 2004 Facilities
Plan and adopted the MWMC 20-year project list (5:0 vote), The Eugene City Council will consider the
same actions later today, after this writing, '
At the Springfield City Council meeting, the Homebuilgers Association'suggested that the MWMC
facilities plan and feeS'Should be routed though the Planning Commission as a.land use decision, The
Springfield Council rejected that recommendation based on their attorney's opinion, The following
Oregon Revised Statutes sections are provided in support of that decision:
}
223.309. (1) Prior to the establishment ofa system development charge by ordinance or
resolution; a local government shall prepare a capital improvement plan. public facilities plan,
master plan or comparable plan that includes a list of the capital improvements that,may befunded
with improvement fee revenues a'nd the estimqted cost and timingfor eachJmpr.ovement.
(2) A local government that has prepared a plan and the list described in subsection (1) of this
section may modifY such plan and list at any time,
223.314 Establishment or modification of system development charge not a land use decision,
The establishment, modification or implementation of a system development charge, or a plan or list
adopted pursuant to ORS 223,309, or any modification of a plan,or list, is not a land use decision
pursuant to ORS chapters 195 and] 97,
Metro Plan Policy G,2 states: "Use the Planned Facilities Maps of (he Public Facilities and Services Plan
to guide/he general location of water , wastewater, siormwater, 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, " This negates the heed for detailed project lists in the
Metro Plan,
Date Received
MAY 1 9/:')001
Planner: BJ
A