HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 4/20/2004
'.
MINUTES
Minutes approved by the Springfield
Planning Commission:
PRESENT:
Joint Planning Commissions
Springfield, Eugene and Lane County
Work Session
Springfield Library Meeting Room, /,)
,225 5th Street, Springfield, OR 97477/,;//
/ . . <.
<,/~~,~
Steve Moe, ~hair; William Carpenter, Vice Chair;)!e~~er, Gayle Deck~;~~id Cole, Greg Shaver,
Springfield Planning Commission members; ChaTles)~:6sch, President, John La\vte~,Yice President,
Adell McMillan, Rick Duncan, Jon Belcher"Ahne,Marie Levis, Mitzi Colbath, Eugene'Planning
Commission members; Juanita Kirkham, Chair; Steve Dignam"Vice Chair; Edwin B'ecker"James
Carmichael, Chris Clemow, Mark Herbert, ViricenfMartorell6, Marion Esty, Lane Courlty'Planning
Commission members; Kent Howe, Lane CountYPla;;ning;Manager; Stephanie Schulz, Lane County
"- .,.... ~., .... /
staff; Gary Darnelle, Lane Council,of Governments Planning.staff; Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Eugene
J ~ , ,
Planning staff; Greg Mott, Len Goodwin, Susie Smith, Springfield Planning staff; Meg Kiernan, City of
Springfield Attorney, \ \'-;'~''-'' ~"~
J B L C PI' \C _\ ':''-.,~, b -; "
acque etz, ane ounty annmg \om\mlsslOn Jem e~~ """"'"'>
~ 7''''~'''' V
Open Joint Meeting and'lntroductions \ / ,,,-)
'/ ~ ~ ,v '-
7' \, \
Mr, Moe convened,theJoint PlanningCommissiohmeeting, '
/,/ )) \\
Those present intrz~uc~~hemSe!t~~' L _ _, \\ .
",-c'" ,/ r-_ '~>___:;
..----,.~ "'-, v,r' "-"'_? .
Joint'Work Session --'Amendme'nts to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Chapter ill,
Section.G;'Public Faciliti~'and'Services Element, and Chapter V Glossary ,
/ . / '- . ' ~. .'"
/ Gr,e~, Mo~. City o;Sj:ir~fi,eld ~1~nihgManager, provided an overview of the proposed text, table and map
""!\mendments to the Eug~ne-Springfield M~tropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and Public Facilities and
Servi';e~ Plan initiated by'the'Springfield' City Council. He said the proposed amendments were intended to:
~,:"'"'. , \ \
. 'CJ~ifYthe relati~n,~hip)between the typesoffacilities projecls included in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan (PESP) and the projects that appeared in local capital improvement plans,
'\.', / ' j .
. To upd~te'~<;.PFSJ,m~~s based on new statu,tory provisions , , , . . ,
. To reflect current'conditIons and planned regIOnal wastewater facilitIes consistent With the MWMC
Facilities Pla~!
. Resolve inconsistencies among metro-wide planning documents,
. To adopt a separate amendment process for the PSFP.
April 20, 2004
6p,m.
ABSENT:
1.
2,
In response to a question from Ms, Colbath, Mr. Mott explained the process for making changes to modifY the
Metro Plan,
MINUTES-Joint Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County
Planning Commissions - Work Session
April 20, 2004
, Page ] ~,t
<>0 ~'Pr
Date Received' Lf . " .
Planner: GM ..~
'\".
".
Mr, Mott'said Type I 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 amendment would be referred to the
Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for resolution, noting that subsequen}failllie by agencies to adopt an MPC
negotiated proposal would defeat the proposed amendment He said if the amendfuent was adopted, all agencies
would adopt identical ordinances,' ./ \/
/ /z".
Me Mott said Type IT Amendments'included amendments to a list;:locatibn or'provider of public facility projects
that significantly impacted an identified public facility project\hat,ser<"es only tilejufisdiction proposing the
. amendment He said Type II amendments would be forwarded t~the Planning Commi~ion of the initiating
agency and, following their recommendation, would be c.orisid~red by the government'b,?afd of the initiating
/" '~
agency, /"'7 ....,':,
/ .'~ . ~ '
., "(" /"'" ,,'V "
Mr, Mott said not all projects on a member agency's Capital Improvement p,roJect (CIP) list needed'to be meluded
on the PFSP, only those that had regional or significant imp~t He,added,that the Metro Plan and'the PFSP could
not be applied retroactively to an existing ~IP,.' "" "<. ./. '
Ms. Smith offered clarification ~f appli~i:~~fthe Metro Pla~oJ~1 CIPs, She said that wastewater facilities
incorporated into the current and prior PFSP's)er'e limited to pipes '24 iriches and larger in diameter and pump
stations, She added that the proposed ame~drrient;-brol!gKtthe-J'lan into.c6mpliance with Oregon Administrative
Rules (OAR), , \ \ ). "'--'-""- ~>
M H b k d h /~C-""IP?"'H b \d\h /th /~"" 'I 'd"d' h I I' f
r, er ert as e w.~t-~~a, ,-' ,~~ serve ,t at" e projects mc u~e m t e p an were a 1st 0 vague,
broadly defined proJects)nthe $15Q ml\lion range,to b,e{ompleted over a 12-15 year penod, He expressed
concern that the nOted.reference to federal laws lacked:specificity, ,
Ms, Kiernan eX~in~.that specifi/;ed~ratD!cleS an;ieg~latiol}s were not included because the plan would Ihen
need to be amended'everttim~'Congress_amelliled the Cod~ of Federal Regulations (CFR), the Federal Register
or the)ennsoftQe Act:'F,urtllennore, she said,the br.;;wn~ss of the list was tied to the definition in the OAR on
public fa,cility,projects, as the c6nstruction or reco'iismJ'ction of a water, sewer or transportation facility within a
pii'blic,facility system'that w;;S.fu~ded or utilized by members of the general public,
(/. "". ~ "<"" .
" Ms,. Smith stated that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) had both one and five
'year'CIPs that were adopted ~nnually'foIl6'wing public hearings, review by the MWMC and adoption by the
dties~fEugene and Sprin~fi~ld, and by Lane County. She. said the definitions for the purpose of the
amen'a~ents"under consideN.tti~n were what were 'land use issues and what were provision of key urban service
issues, " "." ~.).' : '. .
\." /( . .
Mr, Mott said thatalLthree,local governing bodies adopted and codified identical plan review processes in the
1990's. He said the sodes'required that the planning commissions would develop the record and the elected
'.":/ .
officials would conduct public hearings based upon that record, He added that Ihecodes stated that timeline,
procedure, or any other aspects of the 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 MWMC adopted an updated financial plan in
2003 that included a number of policies for managing assets, developing budgets and financial forecasting, to
provide for prudent management of MWMC assets, She added that the group of proposed MWMC projects was
MINUTES-Joint Springfield, Eugene, and Lane Counly
Planning Commissions - Work Session
April 20, 2004
Date Received: Page 2 tf.(:JiJ/ Ol/
Planner: GM ,_
,
.
developed following a year long evaluation of potential projects that would achieve 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, Smith said the set of alternatives needed to be approved by the State
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) prior to implementation,
Ms, Decker asked why schools were included while parks were not included, Mr"Mott replied that planning for
schools was included in Goalll,while parks were part of Goal 8, / /
ML Dignam observed that there had' been little interest from the public,on the 'proposed amendments, ML Mott
explained the public notification process and said he had received twO' e-mails, ohe letter, and no telephone calls,
. < / '
Mr, Rusch said he disagreed with the underlying assumption in/th'e,~~endmen~c~;,that being the system of
collecting and treating wastewater was efficient He said during hi~ three year tenur'C'as i'Planning
Commissioner, nothing had come to the Planning Commi~sionihat requested a review 6fth'e'wastewater system,
// ""-
Ms, Smith responded that the MWMC had the resplnsibil~ of overseeing the administratio'}ofthe wastewater
facility, She added that the year long planning procesS'yielaed infoI}lliltio!"that supported upgr~dirig and
improved efficiency of the water treatment plant, that restiited'in cost savings"
/, "- ~ /
Mr. Herbert noted that the charter of the' Joint' Planning Commission's,directed that the Joint Planning
Commission's role was to deal with the ~mendm;;nt'process and n'at with the technical requirements of projects,
M M d' d h W kS' \ \ ~65"5>"'" ~ "'"
L oe a ~oume t e or eSSlon meettn~ a~: p, '-......... '0
~--'...... \ V / .....")
(Recorded by Linda Henry)~/-'<\ \ ''''-../
M\2004Uoin/IPlanning c~~s:::n\j/PC04042~doj . '\ \ \
'<""'//--:-::~'))
~~~.~ ---
"- \ ~'>
~ ,})
"'''-' ,)
"", / /
,/ '
MINUTES-Joint Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County
Planning Commissions - Work Session
April 20, 2004
Date Received: ~ ''do /Oq
Planner: GM
Page 3
"
.'
f\
,.
.
AGENDA
THE JOINT PLANNING COMMISSIONS OF SPRINGFIELD,
EUGENE AND LANE COUNTY
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
6:00 p,m, Work Session (Dinner at 5:30 p.m,)
7:00 p,m, Public Hearing
Springfield City Hall Library Meeting Room
225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477
Subject of the Work Session and Public Hearing:
,\ i~- J
\~ ,p ~vr\
Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Arca General Plan, Chapter
III, Section G. Public, Facilities and Services Element, and Chapter V Glossary
Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP)
Conduct of the Work Session:
Staff overview of these proposed amendments; Planning Commission Q&A
Conduct of the Public Hearing:
'" Opening of the public hearing by Springfield, Eugene and Lane County Planning
Commission Chairs; declaration of conflicts, ex parte contact
'" Staff presentation ,
"'Public testimony ..
. '" Planning Commission questions to staff '
'" Close of the public hearing by respective chairs, possible extension of public
record to date certain
'" Adjourn the hearing
Lane County
Juanita Kirkham, S;hair
Steve Dignam, Vice Chair
James Cam1ichael
Marion Esty
Chris Clemow
Jacque Marie Betz
Vincent Martorello
Edwin Becker
Mark F. Herbert
Springfield
Steve Moe, Chair
Bill Carpenter, Vice Chair
Lee Beyer
Greg Shaver
Gayle Decker
David Cole
Eugene
Chuck Rusch, President
John Lawless, Vice President
Mitzi Colbath
Rick Duncan
Anne Marie Levis
John Belcher
Date Received: Lf/~ /~t(
Planner: GM
,,~
~
.
The Planning Commissions welcome your interest in these agenda items, FeeIfi'ee to
come and go during these meetings, This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible, For
the hearing"ilnpaired, listening devices can be provided with 48 hours notice, To arrange
for these services, please call Greg Moll at 726-3759,
Date Receiver!'
Planner: GM
L1/')O /()tf
~
,~ .
/,
AGENDA
THE JOINT PLANNING COMMISSIONS OF SPRINGFIELD, EUGENE AND
LANE COUNTY
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
6:00 p,m, Work Session (Dinner a15:30 p,m.)
7:00 p,m, Public Hearing
Springfield Cily Hall Library Meeting Room
225 Fifth Streel, Springfield, OR 97477
Subjecl oflhe Work Session and Public Hearing:
Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Chapter Ill,
Section G. Public Facilities and Services Element, and Chapter V Glossary
Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP)
Conduct of the Work Session:
Staff overview of these proposed amendments; Planning Commission Q&A
Conducl of the Public Hearing:
./ Opening oflhe public hearing by Springfield, Eugene and Lane Counly Planning
Commission Chairs; declaralion of confliCts, ex parte contact
./ Staff presenlalion
./ Public lestimony
./ Planning Commission questions to staff
./ Close of the public hearing by respective chairs, possible extension of public record to date
certain
./ Adjourn Ihe hearing
Springfield
Steve Moe, Chair
Bill Carpenter, Vice Chair
Lee Beyer
Greg Shaver
Gayle Decker
David Cole
Eugene
Chuck Rusch, Presidenl
John Lawless, Vice President
Mitzi Colbath
Rick Duncan
Anne Marie Levis
John Belcher
Adell McMillan
Lane County
Juanila Kirkham, Chair
Steve Dignam, Vice Chair
James Carmichael
Marion Esty
Chris Clemow
Jacque Marie Belz
Vincenl Martorello
Edwin Becker
Mark F, Herbert
The Planning Conunissions welcome your interesl inlhese agenda ilems, Feel free to corne and go
during these meelings, This meeling localion is wheelchair-accessible, For the hearing-impaired,
listening devices can be provided with 48 hours notice, To arrange for Ihese services, please call Greg
Molt al726-3759,
Date Received: U, ~ /ol{
Planner: GM
. "
.'
To: The Planning Commissions of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County
From: Gregory Molt, Planning Manger ~.
Date: April 20, 2004
Subject: Metro Plan Text Amendments, Public Facilities and Services. Plan Amendments
Issue
The Metro Plan and the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) are proposed to be amended to: I.
clarify the relationship between the types offacilities projects included in the PFSP and projects that
appear in local capital improvement plans; 2. update the PFSP maps based on new statutory provisions;
3, reflect current conditions and planned regional wastewater facilities consistent with the MWMC
Facilities Plan; 4. resolve inconsistencies among metro-wide pianning documents; and, 5, adopt a
separate amendment process for the Public Facilities and Services Plan. . '
Discussion
"
, ,
, ,
The proposed amendments are considered Type I Metro Plan amendments because for the most part ihey
are non-sile specific amendments of the Plan text. Amendments to the Plan text, which text includes
functional plans' such as TransPIan and the PFSP, that are non site-specific require approval by all three '
governing bodies to become effective (See SDC 7.070(1)(a), Eugene Code 9.7730(1)(a), and Lane Code
12.225(lXa)(i)). The planning commissions will conduct the initial evidentiary hearing and then forward
the record of this hearing and a recommendation to their respective elected officials. The planning
commissions may take this action collectively or independently as thecir<<umstances warrant. The
elected officials shall conduct a joint public hearing on the amendments and shall make a deCision based
solely on the record of evidence created before the planning commissions. Each goveriling body may .
approve, modify and approve, or deny the proposed amendment. However, all three governing bodies
must adopt identical ordinances to complete the amendment process.. '
The MWMC Proposal
MWMC is proposing several changes to the Metro Plan text in Chapter lII, Section G Public Facilities
and Services Element and Chapter V Glossary. The changes in Section lII-G include modification of
introductory text (pages lII-G-1 and lII-G-2) by adding the term Wastewater to the list of services to
development within the urban growth boundary; modification of Policy G.2 (page lII-G-4) by adding the
term capital improvement plans to the list of activities intended to implement projects in the PFSP;
modify Finding (; (page lII-G-4) to include a referencc to Map 2a; modification to Policy G3 (page1TI-G-
4) to include a reference to Map 2a; addition of text following P9licy G.8 (page lII-G-5) by inserting ihe
heading "Services to Development within the Urban Growth Boundary: Wastewater;" adding new
fmdings II and 12 after Policy G-8 (page lII-G-5) idel)tifying sanitary sewer collection facilities in each
city; adding new policy G.9 (page lII-G-6) that requWs wastewater conveyance and tre~1ment inside the
ugb that is capable of complying with state and/or federal regulations for reuse, discharge or disposal;'
subsequent renumbering of aU fmdings and policies in lII-G as a result of these 'amendments; and,
modification of Chapter V Glossary by amending the defrnition of Wastewater under "Public Facilities'
Projects" (page V -4) by adding a defrnition of Treatment Facilities System to the existing defrnition of
Primary Collection System under the heading Wastewater.
In addition to the foregoing changes to the Metro Plan, MWMC'is proposing changes to the PFSP to
make this functional plan internally consistent with the Metro Plan, This consistency will be achieved by
modifying text preceding existing Table 3 (page 28) by adding references to Tables 4a and 4b and Map
2a; inserting new Tables 4a and 4b (page 28); inserting new Map 2a (page 35); modifying Chapter IV,
Wastewater System Condition Assessment (page 82) with a new paragraph titled "MWMC Wastewater
.~
.;.
Date Received'
Planner: GM
'" / 'J{J 1) Y
,~
r
,.
.. "
Treatment System" and another new paragraph titled "Conveyance;", mQdifying text "Long-term' Sefvice
Availability within Urbanizable Areas" (page 97)by including the need'toapply al'l',vl';;ate engineering .
design practices for development in sensitive areas, and the need for facilities,improvements to:address
dry and wet weather regulatory'requireinents related to pollutant loads and flows; adding Table 16a (page
10 I); and adding a new Chapter VI. Amendments to the Plan includirig descriptions of inodifications to
existing id~ntifiedprojects which require aniendment to the PublIC Facilities and Services Plan." ,
. The preceding ilii1endments are necessary both as information that should have been included when the
PFSP was adopted and as a more accurate description of wastewater services that will be available after
certain capital improvements are made, These amendments also clarify the administrative process
involved in the adoption of annual capital improvements plans intended to implement the generally
described projects in the PFSP without amending the J:>FSP to demonstrate this consistency of action,
This process arready exists between the metro-wide projects in the PFSP and the locally adopted CIP's of
the two cities, the county and the special service providers, but without the "codification" provided by
these proposed amendments. I .
The proposed PFSP amendm~nt process borrows liberally from the existing Metro l'lan amendment ,
.process for reasons both, obvious and practicRI. However, unlike the Metro Plan, the PFSP is a specialty, '
documeJ;lt that does not always have applicability to other land use iSsues addressed in. the Metro Plan.
For this reason a separate amendment process, designed to account for the unique perspective and
requirements of the PFSP, is proposed. Major adjustments to the I'FSP project list, either through ,
addition of wholly new projects or significant modification'of existing projects, requires an amendment to
the PFSP and is subject to the same criteria and agency participation as amendments to the Metro Plan:,
This includes the distinction of "home city" if the proposed amendment is entirely within the city limits of ,
one of the two cities, Adoption ofCIP's by any of the identified service providers does not require
... amendment to the PFSP unless those CIP.'s contain one of the two triggers identified above. In those
instances,thePFSP would need to be amende~beforethatparticularCIP could be 'adopted. ,
The proposed amendment process also includes,a descriptiOliof"modifications" thatfall outside the
requirement to amend the PFSP, These modifications include administrative changes to a project that'
does not change the location, sizing, capacity or other general characteristics of the project, or technical
and environmental changes made to'a project because of"fmal engineering,"
Conclusion
All of the proposed amendments fall into one of three categories: information that should have been
included with the December 2001 Public Facilities and. Services Plan regarding wastewater facilities;
cIarification of the relationship between the PFSP project list and locally adopted capital improvement
plans; and, administrative and legislative processes governing implementation lind ameridment of the
PFSP projects list, Whether it is Chapter ill-G of the Metro Plan or the various sections:ofPFSP text that.
"are amended, each of the MWMC proposals is Ii necesSary al1d felicitous addition to thcse documents.,
Attachment I demonstrates this further by identifying how these proposals satisfy the criteria for Plan
amendment in Section 7.030(3Xa&b), Section 9.128(3)(a&b), and Section 12.225(2)(a&b)ofSpringfield,
Eugene an.d Lane C.odes, respectively.
Attachments
Attachment I Analysis and Findings of compliance with the Metro Plan and Statewide pianning Goals
a1id findings demonstrating internal consistency with the Metro Plan '
Attachment 2 Springfield Council Agenda Item Summary Initiating this Amendment
Attachment 3 Notice of proposed amendment provided to Department of Land Conservation and ,
Development
I As with all locally adopted CIP's, the MWMC CIP may contain expenditures not related to, or required for,
projects in the PFSP projects list. ,
\.., .....
Date Received:
Planner: GtJl
LA;;)1J IOl/ p
'.";
,'t, .
" AGENDA
THEJOINT PLANNING COMMISSIONS OF SPRINGFIELD,
EUGENE AND LANE COUNTY
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
6:00 p,m, Work Session (Dinner at 5:30 p,m,)
, '
7:00 p,m, Public Hearing
Springfield City Hall Library Meeting Room
225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477
Subject of the Work Session and Public Hearing:
Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Chapter
III, Section G. Public Facilities and Services Element, and Chapter V Glossary
Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP)
Conduct of the Work Session:
Staff overview of these proposed amendments; Planning Commission Q&A
Conduct of the Public Hearing:
~ Opening of the public hearing by Springfield, Eugene and Lane County Planning
Commission Chairs; declaration of conflicts, ex parte contact
~ Staff presentation
~ Public testimony
~ Planning Commission questions to staff
~ Close of the public hearing by respective chairs, possible extension of public
record to date certain
~ Adjourn the hearing
Springfield
Steve Moe, Chair
Bill Carpenter, Vice Chair
Lee Beyer
_Greg Shaver
Gayle Decker
David Cole
Lane County'
Juanita Kirkham, Chair
Steve Dignam, Vice Chair,
James Cannichael '
Marion Esty
Chris Clemow
Jacque Marie Betz
Vincent Martorello
Edwin Becker
Mark F, Herbert
Eugene
Chuck Rusch, President
John Lawless, Vice President
Mitzi Colbath
Rick Duncan
Anne Marie Levis
John Belcher
/
Date Received: . '-I' JtJ,-(j4'_
Planner: GM
(
,
Greg Mott
I 'Planning Manager
St-iRU'~
~'T(qtil!f21itJtJ1J111lltIil=t~Jfr~~_~':.JJ {Full Packet}
. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1?EPARTMENT . " ~ ..~
AGENDA
THE JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION_S OF SPRINGFIELD, EUGENE AND
LANE COUNTY .
)
225FIFTHBTREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
(541) 726-3753
, FAX (541) 726-3689
www:ci,springfield,or,us,
Tuesday, April 20', 2004
6:00 p,m, Work Session (Dinner at 5:30 p,m.)
7:00 p,m, Public Her;ring
Springfield City Hall Library Meeting ~oom
225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477
;.-
Subject of the Work Session and Public Hearing: '" --_:
Amendments to the Eugene"Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Chapter III, ,
Section G. Public Facilities and Services Element, and Chapter V Glossary ,
Amendme,nts to the Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP)
Conduct of the Work Session:
, Staff overview of these proposed amendments; Planning Commission Q&A
Conduct of the Public Hearing:
" Opening of the public hearing by Springfield, Eugene and Lane County Planning
Commission Chairs; declaration of conflicts, ex parte contact '
" Staff presentation
" Public testimony
" Planning Commission questions to staff
" Close ofthe public hearing by respective chairs, possible extension of public record to
date certain
" ' Adjourn the hearing
Springfield
Sieve Moe, Cruiir
Bill Carpenter, Vice Chair
Lee Beycr
Greg Shaver
Gayle Decker
David Cole
, , Eugene
, Chuck Rusch, President
John Lawless, Vice President
Mitzi Colbath
Rick Duncan
Anne Marie Levis
John Belcher .
Lane County
Juanita Kirkham, Chair
Steve Dignam, Vice Chair ,
Jamcs Carmichael
Marion Esty
Chris Clemow
Jacque Marie Belz
Vincent Martorello
Edwin Becker
Mark F, Herbert
The Planning Commissions welcome your interest in these agenda items, Feel free to come and
go during Ihese meetings, This mecting location is wheelchair-accessible, For the hearing-
impaired, listening devices can be provided with 48 ,hours 'notice, To arrange for, these services,
please call Greg Molt at 726-3759, Oate Recelved:3<M-1Jt/
Planner: GM
,1.1 ~ ..._~",".
I' "
MINUTES
Minutes approved by the Springfield
Planning 'Commission:
Joinl Planning Commissions
Springfield, Eugene and Lane County
Regular Session
Springfield Library Meeling Room .
225 5th Slreel, Springfield, OR 97477
, PRESENT:
April 20, 2004
'~ 6p,m,
Sieve Moe, Chair; William Carpenler, 'Vice Chai~bJ.jj~~~~er, James Burford, Gayle Decker, David Cole,
Greg Shaver, Springfield Planning Commissi09'11)_~inlYers; Charles Rusch, President, John Lawless, Vice
President, Adell McMillan; Rick Duncan, Jon~B~Clrer, Anne Marie Levis, Milzi Colbalh, Eugene
Planning Commission members; Juanila Kirl..iilj]L Chair; Sleve:Dignam, Vic~ Chair; Edwin Becker,
~l+ /:::ii&i'--
James Canllichad,Chris Clemow, Mark Herbert;~\0,~.;;enl ~ii,~&:,mo, Marion ESly, Lane County
Plann1l1g ComnnsslOn lllembers; Kenl Howe, Lane'~~!fl~nmng Manager; Slephame Schulz, Lane
Counly staff; Gary Darnelle, Lane Council of Governm!illt~lanlllng slaff; Susan MUIr, Kurt Yeller,
Eugene Planning slaff; Greg MOll, Len Goodwin, Susie'Shiilh, Springfield Planning staff; Meg Kieman,
Cily of Springfield Allomey,'
ABSENT:
Jacque Betz, Lane County Planning Commission membeL
1.
Open Joint Meeting, De~of Conflicts of Interest and Ex Parte Contacts '
"'.:A ~*llY"~"'''1\\'~ . . .
A~. ~;+'\ .
ML Moe asked Ihe'Gommissioners IQ;declare and conf1icls of inleresl or ex parle contacls, 11 was deemed there
. - ,
none,
2.
ML Moe called the Sp.r),l1~~el~}~~]l)ngG~'lI~~IO ordeL .
. "'i'~r~~",~
Ms, Kirkhaln called Ihe Lal1lNi6unly Planning COInh1i~sion to ordeL
'~-'!'\,..
'~2~
ML Rusch called the Eugene Pl'!ffi'nihg Commission to ordeL
Staff Presentation' '" '
Greg, Mott Cily of Springfield Planning Manager, provided an overview oflhe proposed amendments 10 Ihe
Eugene-Springfield Melropolilan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) iniliated by the Springfield Cily Council. He
said the proposed amendmenls included in Chapler III, Seclion G Public Facilities and 'SerVices and Elemenl and
Chapler V Glossary, He added Ihallhe specifics oflhe amendmenls were included in the slaffreport which he
entered inlo Ihe record,
;1 ~
,
ML Motl eXplained the public hearing process He said each oflhe jurisdiclions would establish Ihe public record
through Ihe conducl oflhe public hearing, He said there had been a request 10 keep the public record open for an
unspecified time, He added each oflhe Planning Commissions would reconvene in Iheir respective jurisdictions
to deliberale and develop a recolllmendalion to their respective decled officials, He said no decision would be
made at this meeting, He said a public hearing oflhe joinl elected officials was tentalively scheduled for June 22,
200410 consider the alllendments.
Mr, Moll said that the proposed changes in the Metro Plan had been reviewed by the Jo;nl Planning C0l11111issions
during Ihe 6:00 p.m, work session He idenlified Ihe errors inlhe Metro Plan for the idenlified: .
Date Received: ~,,;It), OIf
Planner: GM'p 1
age
MINUTES-Joint Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County
Planning Comlllissions - Public Hearing
April 20, 2004
. Slaffreport Page 1-5, Ihe populalion should be 297,585,
. . Staff report Page 1-13, change Ihe last sentence 10 read Services to Development within the Urban '
Growth Boundary: Wastewater Findings'
. No errors in Appendix A.
. Appendix B, page 1-17, Table 4a, add projecl nUlllber 302, Beneficial Reuse Project
. Appendix B, Page 1-17, Table 4b, change projecl numbers from 302, 303, 30410 303, 304, 305,
. Appendix B, page 1-19, paragraph Ihree, change Oclober 7,200310 April 12, 2004,
. Appendix B, page 1-19, 5, change Lon-Ternl Service 10 Long-Tenn Service,
. Appendix B, page 1-20, change Table 16a 10 read
r
'I Project ' Project Name/Description Cost *($) Estimated 'I
Number Completion Year
I 300 WPCF Trealment Project $1~200,500 2025 I
i 30 I Residuals Trealmenl Proiect ,~$6;000,000 2018 I
I 302 Beneficial Reuse Projecl L< ~$25:000,000 2018 I
303 Willakenzie Pump Sial ion k.", 17$6,000,000 2010 I
I 304 Screw Pump Slalion '\l[i)1jl~ $2,000,0004 20 I 0 I
I 305 Glenwood Pump Slalion, "1'!r;~$500,000~ 2012 I
",,,,",'" L~W .
. "":t~;;"v. '
. Appendix B, page 1-21, B2, National Environmenlal P6lit~ Acl of 1996 should be Policy Acl of 1969
, ,"d:,,~
~~
Mr. MoU entered Ihe following pieces of correspondence into Ihe rci:3'f'd:
. An e-mail frOlll Terry Connolly
. An e-mail frolll Roxie Cuellar.
. A leuer from Jim Welsh,
Mr. Moe opened Ihe public hearing, He said speakers would be limited to five minules for Iheir testimony,
Roxie Cuellar,2053 Laura Slreet, Springfield, Oregon, Ms, Cuellar stated she represenled the Home Builders
Associalion (HBA), She said she was concerned wilh Ihe amendment process as a rate payer. She expressed
concem'about,a,$160 million project list thai no one knew any1hing about She expressed an inlerest in
geneRitiilg:ATgr~"pu.Qlic interest by keepi~g Ihe record open, She said Ihe OARs required Ihal facilily plan '
~Jjl~a;';;enls coriiiii~~)p.rojecllitles, Rcferring to a handout she had distributed earlier enlitled MWMC
<iTf~.stewater ProPOSeli;?!1~.",..e.ar Project List (DnL(i), she SaId the proJecllItles IdentIfied on the documenl should
~ve been included in tne.amendmenl process, She said the MWMC was scheduled 10 meel on April 22, 200410
rqi,'t'Y,Jhe list and forwa;ai~fr,~ccinllnendation to Ihe elected officials, She said the correcl procedure was for the
MWMC:lo make a recomniendalion 10 the Joint Planning COllllhission for review and recommendation to Ihe
elecled~;ffficials, She askedFtiift Ihe public record be kepi open until May 7, 2004,
~'.-'=.. )j....'...'.,..'"
.d~ '~,_
. '':f-: c~ _;;,,0j.. . .
Bill Kloos, 5'7~0Iive SI~~t~Eugene, Oregon, Mr. Kloos dislribuled a leuer dated April 20, 2004 regarding
Metro Plan Teiflf1ine';d/iients; Public Facilities and Services Plan Amendments April 20, 2004 Joint Public
Hearing to Metr~ti?Pranning Commissions, Mr. Kloos addressed Ihe issues idenlified in his leUer related 10
Goal 11 oflhe Metr~Plan, Mr. Kloos said Ihat Ihe Joint Planning Comlllissions were both crealing process for
handling future major and minor changes 10 Ihe PFSP, and amending subslantive provisions of the Melro Plan and
the PFSP, Mr. Kloos questioned the validily oflhe plan for wastewater Ireatlllent extending io Ihe year 2025
while Ihe Melro Plan extends 10 the year 2015, Citing various elemenls of OAR 660-011-00 I 0 through 660-011-
045, Mr. Kloos said the amendmenl process required an inventory of and general assessmenl oflhe condilion of
significant aspecls of exisling wastewaler Irealmenl system, as well as a lisl of specific projecls, relaled cosls, and
idenlified funding mechanisms, '
Mr. Beyer asked how long the record should relllain open, what pressures existed on the adoption of the proposed
alllendlllenls, and iflhere was a need for a more definitive project list "
MINUTES-Joint Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County April 20, 2004, Date Receivecfage 2 Lf,dt:J / ~tf
Planning Commissions - Regular Session Planner: GM
" '
Mr, MOll replied Ihal the record could remain open for as long as Ihe Planning Commissioners felt was necessary,
for a minimum of seven days, depending on Ihe nature of the requesls, ML MOll keeping Ihe record open
impacted, the cnlire timeline for response and deliberation oflhe Planning Commissions,
Ms, Smilh said slaff was under tremendons pressure through Ihe facililies planning process thai occurred over the
lasl year, conslruclion on facililies 10 upgrade peak flow capacily needcd 10 commence by July I, 2005 10 meet
the discharge penn it requirements, She added thai failure to complele construcli(;!hCOuld resul1 in Ihe system
'- ./" ''''~''' .
overflow of raw sewage into the basemenls of homes, inlo the slreels, and in!C\Jlte'McKenzie RiveL
Ms, Smith said issuance of a new discharge pemIit in 200 I contained si~t changes and limilalions for peak
wel wealher managemenl facililies Ihat resul1ed in slepping up Ihe ~Pg,tJOf~i~)p),em"enlalionlimeline,
xci -...;;~~~,
" ~
Ms, Kieran slaled that Melro Plan was a broad, comprehensive plan that was inteniI';fu\I~~e in place for a long
period oftime, She added Ihat the definitions and Iislwere intentionally broad, She!;aicNhat nOlhing could be
financed Ihal did not fit under the umbrella projecls,
ML Goodwin said Ihal TransPlan had one projecl, litled 1-5, He noted Ihat the process subsumei:a.nulllber of
projecls, He said if the level of detail in the Metro Plan were 100 high, it would not longer be a ~ll1ing
documenl bul a projecI document 11 added Ihallhe Melro Plan was a documenl irilended to provide broad
planning for urban services" " ..\~ ' " "
Ms, Smtih saId thai the hsl dlstnbuted by'Ii:i~Guel1i1r~,;~:as Ihe baSIS oflhe syslem developmenl charges (SDC)
calculations, She said Ihe MWMC had re~emly ;;ft'iltiTi'sneda new SDC melhodology and adopled Ihe charge
'iJ' ~~"" "~:y,~t~~
schedule for next year to comply with the slatut'ory changes~t]jahwould be effective July I, 2004, She added Ihat
under a settlemenl wilh Ihe HBA, Ihe cities arld,i~e MWt11S{\~~f~1t<?r.~ing to put a new charge in place by July I,
2004" She said Ihe 20 year projecllist was prep~.~~i~.fpurp~e1Q~~mpIYing wilh Ihe SDC statule 10 ,
eSlabhsh Ihe charge, She added a complex breakoO\vn,needed to occur to comply wllh Ihe statute, '
In response '10 a question fro:n Ms, Levis, ML Moj;~~d clarification on eXlending Ihe limeline for public
leslimony, saying May 10 was the last day for public t?stilllony to meet a June 22 public hearing date,
Ms, Levi~~aidshe underslood Ihere had been a Signifi~mount of planning and'lhe new permil was driving
Ihe timftin~each compliance,
~"" ="",~,,,,'r ''''''''';~
. "~';.r:" --"'J i'- -
'j!;' ""''' , '
.!?l:s',:Smith added tila(\it,:She purpose was 10 be in compliaiIce with the requirements of Ihe new pennit as well as
completion oflhep're'Viously scheduled projecls in Ihe MWMC plan to meellhe condilions of the old pennit
, ""'",''''"
. '!;:Y?,'?"q
In resp,g}~se to a question 'ff&~!Ms, Colbath regardingplant capacily, Ms, Smith said Ihere were four areas of
cap~i(~th,allhe plan1's pro"es'1es served, She added Ihallhe projecl components were aimed 10 meel all aspecls
of capa~iry:~ ' ' , ' , ,
Respondi~~Col~at'I;;MS' Kieran said Ihe inlent of rough cost estimates under OAR 660-011-0300 was 10
provide an eSli~ie2f.ln1rtiscal requiremenls 10 support the land use designations in Ihe acknowledged
comprehensive pla~~rid for use by the facilily provider in reviewing Ihe provider's exisling funding mechanisms
for possible allemalive funding mechanisms,
ML Dignam said he underslood ML Kloos 10 say thai the PFSP was not perfect ML Dignam asked if the
respeclive Planning Commissions could adopt the proposed amendments while recognizing Ihat Ihe entire
document was nol perfect '
ML MOll affinned Mr, Dignam's query, Ihallhe PFSP was part of the periodic review, He said Ihe alllendmenl,
proposal included comp'onents oflhe PFSP, specifically 10 include tables, maps ana text changes thai had
originally been omitted or needed 10 be updated, He added Ihal the proposed amendmenls were inlended to make
Date Received: tf/~ /Or.(
Planner: GMge 3
April 20, 2004
MINUTES-Joinl Springfield, Eugene, and Lane Counly
Planning Commissions - Public Hearing
,,'
.'
/
~'
no other changes, He sa. "le changes needed to comply with the la" 3ed upon the findings, He observed Ihat
Me Kloos did not feellhe findings were adequate,
Me. Goodwin said that there was no specific discussion in the proposed amendmenls because Chapler 5 of Ihe
PFSP included a discussion on bolh Ihe existing and allemative financing stralegies.
NOling Ihe previously idenlified level of urgency to commence construction by July I, 2005, Me Duncan asked
whallhe ramifications of being in violalion oflhe pemIil would be, ~
Ms, Smith responded there was the possibility of untreated, raw sewage briJ:giS!umped in the streets, basements
and river crealing a public heallh issue, She said the plan approved by M,W1V1C and Ihe cilies would be violaled,
thus raising Ihe possibility of dissalisfaction and pOlential claims by si~~~Yf~lq~i}o.polenlial water quality
violalions based upon the existing water qua lily standards, <,,~"" ,
Ms, Smilh slated thai there would be a violation of Ihe National Pollulanl DischargeEliminalion System NPDES
discharge penllillhal could result in one of several outcomes, including:
. Issuance of a nolice of non-compliance or a notice of violation that could result in thelag~ncy being
placed on a compliance schedule 10 correcllhe problem approved by Ihe DEQ, 'V
. 'Direcl enforcement aclion by Ihe EP A, which had recently occurred in Portland, resulting in significant
fines:
. Significant fines equal 10 Ihe co,~$:tbuilding Ihe facilily could be levied iflhe agency knowingly failed to
comply wilh the penllil require;;"ri~~ '
. Third party law suits related 10 sld"rip\vati!r'Tdi%91)arges and combined sewer overflows could result in both
lllonelary and civilpenalties, \~ ,-
. \~
Ms, Smith concluded Ihallhe result would be a' !ssalisf'j9.';ipubliq. eg\l)!defense costs incurred, and regulalory
review cosls in addilion to costs to build Ihe req' ~ifei1(racililY, ~ " , '
, "~l" ,
Me Herbert asked how much oflhe $15710 $160 mVlipn addressed Ihe compliance issue, He queslioned what
appeared 10 be an inconsislency belween the Melro Plari'extending 10 Ihe year 2015 and the FSFP exlending 10 Ihe
year 2025, He suggested undertaking a greater level o'fi['~tiew by the Joinl Planning Comlllission before
forwarding onlothe respective Plalming Commissions, H'fasked if specific projecl elelllents could be isolated to
m~ellhe'-'eni1ihrequirements,
\f~"";",,,smilh said Ihal'f<mk,th,e w,astewater ulility's perspective, facililies plans by definition were 20year plans 10
'~~l1eel approval cntena'oyt!'jEQ, 111 order 10 do cost effecl1ve long-range plan11lng, She added that slgnlficanl
'plfinning was done to pf;;p~re a schedule thai would resull in a cosl effeclive conslruction schedule thai would be
a's~~s possible for ral~!!t)',ers to fund, Ms, Smilh said specific items including changes 10 Ihe disinfeclant
syslemm:llde 111 response lo\pollcy deCISIons 10 meel homeland secunly and employee safely reqmremenls
becau;;'ti!~.rslem was agi€il!1g11ificantly, She said there had been leaks requiring responses by the Hazardous
Malenals Tean}, She adde 'thai there were no proJecls 111 the firsllen years except the dlsmfeclant system,
Ms, Le~is s~\)}~,';;~ ood that Ihe charge of the Joinl Planning Commission was to make updates to Ihe plan
ralher Ihan rehashing;lhe plan,
, '"
Ms, Kieran said IheMWMC had conducted an extensive review process that included public inpullhal resulted in
proposed changes, She added thallhe wastewaler project list should have been included in the original plan, and
the action before the Joinl Planning Commission was a housekeeping lask 10 correct Ihe oversight
MINUTES-Joint Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County
Planning Commissions - Regular Session
In response to a queslion from Me Martcirello, Ms, Smith replied that Ihe MWMC would be in compliance upon
complelion of the projects to enable the operations of the plant to meellhe discharge permit requirements, rather
thim when the changes were approved, ,She added that construction of projects scheduled 10 be on line in 2005
and 2006 needed 10 commence by July I, 2004, .
,Date Received: L-{,:M ,of
April 20, 2004.1~lanner: GM - ;'"b-''''
~.
.'
Ms, McMillan said'she u. crslood thai there would be further OppOrtL j for public inpul regarding cosl issues
before Ihe MWMC for inclusion in Ihe MWMC CIP,
ML Belcher asked when any argumenls made by the HBA, the realtors in Ihe plan would be addressed, He asked
if there were other componenls of the Metro Plan Ihal were nol tied 10 2015, He requested Ihal each of the
conlmissioners be provided wilh copies of the PSFP, He asked iflhe projecls could be placed in the CIP for Ihe'
coming year.
Ms, Kieran replied Ihat this would be Ihe appropriate time 10 make any chan ~haPter 3 oflhe ~elro Plan if
Ihe JPC was so inclined, She said Ihe process was driven by specific OAR
;,'-'.
ML Molt noted Ihat invenlories were based on populalion and emploXJilenl projeclions on 2015 oulcomes, He
added Ihat review of the dala was ongoing, ' W
Ms, Smilh said staff preferred 10 move ahead knowing they were in compliance with the'lelter and the spiril of'
local ordinances and adopted comprehensive plans, and Ihe SDC methodology,
ML Carpenler asked ifIhere had been a legal opinion or a change in Slate law Ihal required incomoralion inlo the
PSFP, He said he knew Ihere were conll11unilies oul of compliance with pollution discharge peritlits that had been
given years 10 achieve compliance, He asked iflhe permit required a conslruction slart dale of July 1,200510
remain in compliance with the exisling 2002 penlliL
Ms, Smilh said Ihe exisling permil had incorporated Ihe adopled wet wealher flow lllanagemenl plan Ihat laid oul
the CIP to meet peak flow requirements, . She added thai there was nol a specific condilion written into Ihe penllit
requiring identified conslruclion by a specific dale, She opined Ihal DEQ would do nOlhing 10 the agency if
construclion did nol COnll11e[lCe~y July 1,2005, '
. d'",,~~
. 4g,,~~~~ . .
In response to ML C~rp"fiite~'s quesygn about the ramifications of a two week delay in construction slart up, Ms,
Smith replied Ihal fr&:ijl;a"'conslrucl~p;~landpoinl, the time could be made up, However, she said frolll a funding
standpoinl, impl&~iIfution oflhe SDGf~harges on July I was necessary 10 provide for colleclion of sufficient
'X'':''1;'~ -:T': '
revenues 10 fund lIie;,~r..9jects,
~~- .
Respo~ding to ML Bec~r's\q ;.ion 11at'1\ici:'e;~0)lJG'!>e subsequent NEP A style environmental analysis lIIat
would involve public invi5l~l)ll'!fu at later date,Ms"-Sii?ith replied thallhe plan undertaken by the commission
was consistent with Ihe DEQ(~uired guidelines Ihal were published for community wastewaler facililies plans,
She added Ihat the commissiOl~~;eW process had'laken place over a year, with the public review process
including advertised evening ope;';l'fr6ii'ses and work sessions wilh inleraclive input wilh Ihe commission Ihal
.....-,.."-.~
began in November 2003. She added'thiillmost oflhe analysis had been compleled by Oclober 2003,
'IV .
Mr, Goodwin said a public hearing before Ihe MWMC was scheduled for April 22,2004, followe,d by public
hearings at bolh city councils, He added Ihere would be additional public hearings when capilal budgets
incorporated Ihe projecls, .
Ms, Decker said Ihe lisl in some way confused Ihe discussion, since Ihe overall scope being considered was not
intended to be project specific. She added Ihat she did nol have a problem with the very general table for the
various sites.
ML Beyer said he understood the illlportance of reaching a decision soon was not to approve specific projects,
which may change and would receive exlensive review by the MWMC, but to gellhe general projects on the list
so Ihat imposing methodology for the SDCs could proceed, He summarized his understanding Ihat the request
was 10 approve Ihe concepllhat some lime in Ihe next 20 years, the capacily of the Melro Plan needed to be
expanded al a cosl of $1 00 million in a manner 10 be delenllined. r .
Ms, Kieran confmlled ML Beyer's understanding,
. . 4"~ '6<f -
oate Race\Ved,~
Planner: GtJI
April 20, 2004 Page 5
. MlNUTES-Joiiit Springfield, Eugene; and Lane County
Planning Commissions -'Public Hearing
ML Belcher said he underslood Ihal if individual projects were included in Ihe Melro Plan, would it be necessary
to revise the Metro Plan each time a individual projecl was added or deleted,
ML Moe closed Ihe public he?ring for the Springfield Planning Commission,
Ms, Kirkham closed Ihe public hearing for the Lane County Planning Commission,
- ,
ML Rusch closed the public hearing for the Eugene Planning Commission
Following a brief discussion regarding a date to hold Ihe public record open,
Afr. Herbert, secollded by Mr. Digllam, moved to keep the Lalle COUIlt)' Plallliillg Commissioll public
record opell ullfil May 7, 2004 to allow for appropriat!!7time for staff to respolld to the issues raised at
the April 20 public heal-illg. The motioll passed ull{,;ii;f;':uslj" 8:0. '
A7 .
Ms. McMillall, secollded by Ms. Colbath, moveit,"/!t~ep the Eugelle Plall;,i1;g Commissioll public
record opell ulltil May 7,2004 to allow fortpp"'filpriate timefor,staffto respolld to the issues raised at
the April 20 public hearillg. The motioll passiffil"..1..,..a.. IIjIllO.U..,'IJ;i.(~.~.r:'i7lf?it . .
~~ L;;' _
Mr. Beyer, secollded by Mr. Shaver, moved to ke::ru"'!~p"fjj;teld Plallllillg Commissioll public record
opell ulltil May 7, 2004 to allowfor appropriate timef()rls!affto respolld,to the issues raised at the
April 20 public hearillg. The motioll passed ullallilllou'iiJif6:0.
~~~
Mr. Moe adjourned the meeling for the Springfield Planning commissi~~fae.?. :40 p,m, .
.,,,,~
''':17
Ms, Kirkham adjOUrne~. '..tt..~~tW...~.". ~.or Ihe Lane County Planning Commission at 8:40 p,m,
A~'f~
ML Rusch adjoumed,tTi~';~:eting~:tlie Eugene Planning Commission al 8:40 p,m,
, .
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)
R: \20031J0intlPlanning Commission \jtpcO 3 0923, doc'
Date Received'
Planner: GM
~,~ ,(;~
MINUTES-Joint Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County
Planning Commissions - Regular Session
April 20, 2004
Page 6
\
NOTlCE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, April 20, 2004, at 7:00 p.m, in the Library Meeting Room of Springfield
City Hall, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR, the Planniflg Commissions of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County will
conduct a joint public hearing on the following proposals:
Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Chapter III, Section G. Public Facilities
and Services Element and Chapter V Glossary: Modifying the introductory text, pages III-G- I and 1I1-G-2; modifying
Policy G2 at page lI1-G-4; modifying Finding 6, page III-G-4; modifying Policy G3 at page III-G-4; inserting new
heading "Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary" following Policy G.8 at page III-G-5; adding
new Findings II and 12 after Policy G,8 at page III-G-5; adding new Policy G,9 at page III-G-6; subsequent renumbering
of remaining policies and findings in Chapter III-G; Modify Chapter V Glossary, by modifying the definition of Public
Facilities Projects at page V-4: "Wastewater" Chapter V Glossary,
Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP): Modify text preceding existing
Table 3 at page 28; insert new Tables 4a and 4b at page 28; modify Map 2 at page 35; insert new Map 2a after page 35;
modify Chapter IV, Wastewater System Condition Assessment at page 82; modify text "Long-term S,ervice Availability
Within Urbanizable Areas at page 97; add Table 16a following existing Table 16 at page 101; add new Chapter IV.
Amendment~ to the Plan. This new chapter includes descriptions of modifications to existing, identified projects which
require, or do not require, amendment to the Public Facilities and Services Plan,
Annlicant
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC), under the auspices of the City of Springfield (initiator
of the amendment). '
Descrirition of the Reouest
The applicant is proposing to modify text in the Metro Plan to more accurately describe the role of the MWMC; to include
local capital improvement plans as a means to implement policy in the PFSP; add information to Tables and Maps
identifying MWMC projects and facilities; expand the definition of Wastewater; revise description of Wastewater System
Condition Assessment; and adding a new chapter that governs amendments to the PFSP, (See additional descriptions
above for page, table and map numbers,)
Criteria of Annroval
Criteria to be used to evaluate a Metro Plan Text Amendment is found in Springfield Development Code, Section
7.030(3)(a&b), Eugene Code Section 9. I 28(3)(a&b), and Lane Code Section 12.225(2)(a&b) and reads as follows:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning'goals adopted by the Land Conservation and
Development Commission; and '
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent,
Additional Information - StafTRenort. Providing' Testimonv
I
.
, -
Anyone wishing to testify on this matter may do so in person, in writing, or both by appearing at the hearing or sending
written correspondence, including e-mail, to the Development Services Department, c/o Greg Mott, Planning Manager,
225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477, or gmott@cLspringfield.or,us
The application, supporting documents submitted by the applicant and the staff notes will be available for viewing or
purchase by 3:00 p,m., on Friday, April 2, 2004 in the Springfield Development Services Department
"
The joint planning commissions will conduct a work session discussion of these proposed amendments at 5:30 p.m. in the
Library Meeting Room the same evening as the public hearing. The work session meeting is open to the public, but no ,/
opportunity for public testimony will be provided. Date Received' I},.:y? -tJ.,.
Planner:' GM
Sent by: Konica Fax
5417460633;
03/24/2004 0:27,; #462; Page 1/1
... -;,;.
Kathryn
Forstmann
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
JONES Brenda
Tuesday, March 23. 2004 1 :39 PM
Kathryn Forstmann
MOTI Gregory
Legal Notice
........ ," .
-e
April 20 2004 JointPCNotice,doc
Attention Belinda. Please, publish March 31, 2004. and send confirmation.
Thanks Brenda
Brenda Jones
Plonning Secretary
Development Services Deportment
22S Fifth Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
541-726-3610 'FAX 541-726-3689
bjones@ci.springfield.or.us
If you would like to see what's new at the City of Springfield;
click here: www.ci.springfield.or.us
~~c.-fL 3 -23-D-/
q.~~.
~~
Page 1
Date Received: ?, ')q , ~ t/
Planner: GM
GUARD PUBLISHiNG COMPANY
Ji' ~'kt
lR?;7J~ I ~ I (JO ),,3 ')'rJ CJ
P,O, BOX 10188 PHONE (541) 48:;'1234
, EUGENE, OREGON 97440 '
Le9.al 2714156
Notice "
Legal Notice Advertising
#
I'
NOTICE OF JOINT P'UBlIC I Description of the Request .
HEARING _ SPRINGFIELD, i T,he appli.canfis proposing to
EUGENE AND LANE COUNTY : modify text In the Me.tro Plan to
PLANNING COMMISSIONS I more accurately des~nbe the role
NOTICE IS HEREBY.GlVEN that'of ~he ~WMC; to Include local
d 'I' 4 capital Improvement plans as a_
o~ lues ,!y, Apr!, 20, 200 _.at means to implement policy in the
7.00 p.m. ln, the Ub"!ry Meeting PFSP' add information to Tables
RoomofSpnngfi~ldCltyHall.22S and 'Maps identifying MWMC
Fifth ~treet. SP!ln~field. OR, ,the projects and facilities; expand the
Planning Commissions of Sprmg- definition of Wastewater; revise
field, Eugene and lane County d . f . f W tewater S -
will conduct a ,'oint public hearing escnp IO~S. 0 as. ys
" "II . I' ,tem Condition Assessment; and
:. -. oWlngproposas. adding a new chapter that gov-
A!'1endments to th~ Eugene- erns amendments to the PFSP,
SPringfield Metropohtan A~ea (See additional descriptions
General Plan, Chapter Ill, Section b f . table and map
'G. Public Facilities and Services a ave or p ge,
Element and Chapter Y Glossary' num~er~,)' ,"
-"'fy' th' d t t 'I cntenaofApproval
Muul Ing e Intro uc ~ry ~xt', Criteria,to be used to evaluate
pages 1I.1-G-1 and III.G.2, modIfy: i a Metro Plan Text Amendment is
109 ,Po,hcy G.~ at page III-G-4,; found in Springfield Development
moo!fy!ng Fin~lng 6, page III-G-4; i Code, Section 7.0JO(3)(a&b),
mO~I!ylng~0IlcYG.3atpag: m-IEugene Code Section
G:4, inserting new,headl~g. Ser-I g 128(3)(a&b) and lane" Code
vices to Development WIthin the I s' fan 12 225(2)(a&b) and read3
~rban ~rowth Boundary" follow-: a:fdllows:' -,..:
lng, Policy G_8 ~t page III-G-5; (a) The amendment must, be
adding n~w Findmgs 11 and 12 consistent with the relevant
afte! Pohcy G~ at page III.G-5; statewide planning goals adopted
add!ng new PollcyG.9 at pa,ge III. by the Land Conservation and
G-6, ~~bsequ~n,t renumbe~mg ~f Development Commission; and
remarnlng poliCies ~nd findrngs rn (b) Adoption of the amendment
Chapter III-G; M~d!fy Chapter,! must. not make the Metro Plan
~Iossary, by !"odl~l!l~ the d~fim- internally inconsistent. -
tlon of Pubhc FacIlities Projects AdditionaFlnformation - Staff
at page Y.4: "Wastewater" Chap- Report, Providing Testimony
,terYGlossary. Anyone wishing to testify on
~mendments .to th~, ~ugene-, this matter may do so in person,
Sprl~gfieldPubhc Facllltl~ andl in writing, or both by appearing
Servlce.s Plan~P~SP):Modlfytext at the hearing or sending written
precedln~ . eXisting Table 3 atl correspondence,inc1udinge-mail,
page28;lnsertnew1ables4aand to the Development Services
4b at palJe 28; modify Map 2 at Department, c I 0 Greg Mott,
page 35; Insert ~ew Map 2a after I Planning Manager, 225 Fifth
page 35; modify Chapter, ,IY, I Street, Springfield, OR 974n, or
Wastewater System C.ondltl?n i gmott@cI.sp:ingfield.or.us .
Asse:sment at page. 82, "'!odl!y i The apphcation, supportmg
~ext ~ol'!g-term S~rvlce Avallabll- i documents., submitted. by. the
Ity Wlthm Urbamzable Areas, at' ,applicant and the staff notes will
pa.ge.97; add Table 16afollowmg be available for viewing or pur-
eXlstmgTable16atpagel01;add chaSe by. 3:00 p.m., on Friday,
new Chapter I~_ Amendments to April 2, 2004 in the Springfield
~he Plan. T~IS, new ch~pter Development .Services
l~cludesdescr.lpt!Onsofmod!fi,ca- Department.
tlo~S to ~XlStIn9.' Identified The joint planning commissions
proJ~cts which reqUIre, or do n~t will conduct a work session dis-
, req~!r~, amendme!lt to the Pubhc cussion of these proposed
Faclhtl~sandServlcesPlan. amendments at 5:30 p.m. in the
Applicant . library Meeting Room the same
The MeVopohtan, W~stewater evening as the public hearing.
~anagement Commls.slon (MW- The work session meeting is open
~:EkJ~,n2~i.A,h~tJlIW~!f,~.:>.~~f< !h: to the pu~lic/bu~ no oppor:tunity
Cit\' oi Spri!~gfield hm~alof.\,h,!: for 'public testimony Will be
:tm"f'ndment). provided.
No. 2714156-March il,20G4
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
ATTN: BRENDA
225 5TH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477'
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, }
COUNTY OF LANE, ~ ,t _ .ss,
I, Kelly Gant , being first duly affirmed, depose
and say that I am the Advertising Manager, 'or his principal clerk, of
The Register~Guard, a newspaper of general circulation as defined
in ORS 193,010 and 193,020; published at Eugene in the aforesaid
county and state; that the Notice of Public Meeting/Hearing,
printed copy,of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire
issue of said newspaper for one, successive and consecutive
. day(s) in the following issues:
,.'
March 31,2004':'
','
~'!' ~
" \ /
I' , \
. ( ,
/!/ ~,V
, .: ~1i ,.",\ /'J
SubSCribed and af med before ~e is!. ~~~004
(I /ffi-. ~ y 'v---' /~ ,~/ ,
JpZ// /~ ~17/'~
/- ,
~e~;Y/PUbliC of Oregon
July 24, 2006
I
I
My commission expires:
~'Z'J-
~~\ALSEAL
;, .1'$_. CAROL L JOHNSON
'J;:(~~";~ TARY PUBUC.OREGON , .
,,r, ,NO - " '
.~(\'1/~ CO". f~\.cJON NO, 309.",9 . 6~
,~_., 1....\ '-', _ JULY 24, zoo'
, MY C~~~M~S~~O~~~::::,"-~~
110787 _-.=---- ' ~ v
2714156 " Date Received. '1.7JHtf
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan an!~r: GM
$260.69
Account #:
INVOICE
Case:.
Amt Due:
"
City of Springfield
Greg Matt
225 5th Street
Springfield, OR 97477
"
&}'3
- ~ 0?J)
~ '<Ii
~~~/
In account with
Sprillgfield News
1887 Laura Street
p, O. Box 139
Springfield, OR 97477 (541) 746-1671
Published legal advertising
legal ad number 968 Issue Dates 103/31/04 I
Customer number 60002157
Number of runs 1
Column inches 18
Last Pub. Date
03/31/04
rate $5.30
Total Charges $95.40
Description
LEGAL PUBLICATION RE: Pubic Hearing Notice April 20, 2004; 7:00pm
Applicant: The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
Payment date
Payment amount
Amount Due
$95.40
,. :"' "
. - .....-
'" r,"
C';"", I'
"
....
Remittance Stub:
Amount Due
$95.40
968
City of Springfield
Greg Matt
legal ad number
Customer number
60002157
~, fJ(-lJC(
Date Received"
Planner: GM
NOTICE OF )OINT
punuc HEARING &
SPRINGFIELD, EUGENE
AND LANE COUNTY
PLANNING
COMMISSIONS
NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that on Tuesday,
April 20, 2004, at 7:00
I p.m. in, the Library
I Meeling Room of
I Springfield City Hall, 225
Fifth Street, Springfield,
OR, the Planning
Commissions of
\ Springfield, Eugene and
, Lane County will conduct
a joint public hearing on
, the following proposals:
Amendments to the
E u gene- Spri ngfield
Metropolitan Area General
Plan, Chapter Ill, Section
G. Public Facilities and
Services Element and
Chapler V Glossary:
I' Modifying the introductory
lext, pages 111-8-1 and 111-
, G-2; modifying Policy G.2
I' at page III-G-4; modifying
Finding 6, page 1Il-G-4;
modifying Policy G.3 al
I page III-G-4: inserting
I new heading "Services to
; Development Within the
: Urban Growth Boundary"
fOllowing Policy G.8 at
page III-G-5; adding new
Findings 11 and 12 after
Policy G.8 at page IIl~G-5;
adding new Policy. G.9 at
page II1-G-6; subsequent
renumbering 01 remaining
policies and findings in
Chapter II1-G; MOdify
Chapter V Glossary, by
modifying the definition of
Public Facilities Projects
at page V-4:
"Wastewater" Chapter V
Glossary.
Amendmenls to lhe
Eugene.Springfield Public
Facilities 'and Services j
Plan (PFSP): Modify text
preceding existing Table 3
at page 28; insert new
Tables 4a and 4b at page
28; modify Map 2 at page
35; insert new Map 2a
after page 35; mOdify
Chap_te!_ !V, 'v:Vast~wat~r
System Condition
Assessmeflt at. page 82;
modify text Long-term
Service Availability Within
Urbanizable Areas at
page 97; add Table 16a
following existing Table 16
at page 101; add new
'Chapter IV,. Amendments
to the Plan. This new
chapter includes descrip-
tions of modifications to
existing, identified pro-
jects which require; or do
not require, amendment to
the Public Facllities and
Services Plan.
_ Applicant
The Metropolitan
Wastewater Management
Commission (MWMC),
under the auspices of the
City of Springfield (initiator
,_~!...the,a.~:~l):-_
4f 4Qt{'
J) -:-UescnptiOn ( he'""
, Request
( The applicant is propos-
I ing to modify text in the
Metro Plan 10 more accu-
rately describe the, role of
the MWMC; to include
local capital improvement
, plans as a means to
I implement policy in the
PFSP; add ,information 10
Tables and Maps identify-
1 ing MWMC projects and
facilities: expand the defi'
nition of Wastewater;
revise 'description of:
Wastewater System
Condition Assessment;
, and adding a new chapter
that governs amendments
to the PFSP. (See addi-
tional descriptions above
for page, table and map
numbers.)
Criteria of Approval
Criteria to be used to
evaluate a Metro Plan
Text Amendment is found
in Springfield
Development Code,
Section 7.030(3)(a&b).
Eugene Code. Section
9.128(3)(a&b),. and Lane
Code Section
12.225(2)(a&b) and rea'ds
as follows:
(a) The amendment
must be consistent with
the relevant statewide
planning goals adopted by
the Land Conservation
and Development
Commission; and
(b) Adoption of the
amendment must not
make the Metro Plan inter-
nally inconsistent.
Additional Information i'i
Staff Report, Providing
Testimony
Anyone wishing to testify
on this matter may do so
in person, in writing, or
both by appearing at the
hearing or sending written
correspondence, including
e-mail, to the
Development Services
Department, c/o Greg
Matt, Planning Manager,
225. Filth Street,.
Springfield, OR 97477, or .
gmott@ci.springfield.or.us
.The application, support-
ing documenfs submitted~
by the applicant. and the
staff notes will be avail-
able for viewing ,or pur-
chase by 3:00 p.m:, on
Friday, April 2, 2004 in the
Springfield Development
Services Department~ '....
The join! planning com-
missions' will"conduct:'8
work session discussion
ofihesepropose'cf amehdi
ments at 5:30 p.m. in the'
Library Meeting _ Room the
same evening as the pub-
I lie hearing, The work ses-
.' sionrneeting is open .to
r tni'n5ublic, but no 'opportu'
I nity for pUblic testimony
I will be provided. .
l m.31
! ' (968)
Duplicate
Affidavit of Publication
State of Oregon, County of Lane-ss
I, Belinda DuBeU being duly sworn, depose
And say that I am the legal clerk of the
Springfield News a newspaper of general
circulation, as defined by ORS 193,010 and
193,020; printed and published at
Springfield in the aforesaid county and state,
that the legal publication re:
Public Hearing Notice April 20, 2004;
7:00pm, Notice of Joint Public Hearing,
Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County
Planning Commissions,
A printed copy of which is hereto annexed,
was Published in the entire issue of said
newspaper one successive and consecutive
weeks in the foUowing issues:,
March 31, 2004,
THE SPRINGFIELD NEWS
by: ~AJ7lv& -' I
Subscribed and sworn to me this 2nd day
of July, 2004 by: Belinda DuBell
C?t:4V?7~l4/ A Yf.;~
. ?Notary Public for' Qflg~~
~- -.. --- --==---------
,clc>' OFFICIAL SEAl
r.rt:sI:.'ft ROSEMARY E LILJA
" ii.':\,,,,,," NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON
,~ COMMISSION NO 370Bll
~~~C<:'M~~:N.:,XPI SAUGUST10
Planner: GM
~ -/) ,;6<{
~
.f::"'.
" . ~,
.........'.. ,..'
.".--.....
City of Sprinr -ield
Voucher
Report ID : SPRA103
Springfield News
P.O. Box 139
Springfield, OR 97477
Ot".;..",,~...r :
May 3, 2004
0000000934
March 31, 2004
968
Smith,Susie
KELL4801
Voucher 10 : 00075593
Handling Code: RE
Accounting Date :
Vendor Number:
Invoice Date :
Invoice # :
Approver :
Gross Amount:
95.40
pescriDtion
Account Fund Q!ll
SubClass
BY ProilGrant
Amount
Joint Plan Comm Mtg,
633001
612'
62256
2004
95.40
Comm!!nts:
Public hearing advertisement for Springfield, Eugene, Lane County Joint Planning Commission meeting for Metro Area
General Plan/PFSP Amendments, .
. 8t
Date Received' 1/:!Jf -.()I/
Planner: GM