HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 5/11/2004
;' .:4"_.
.
-.4'
\
,
To: Springfield Planning Commission
From: Gregory Mott, Community Planning and Revitalization ~~
Date: May 11,2004
Testimony entered into the record ofLRP 2004-00001, Amendments to Chapter III, Section
Subject: G Public Utilities and Services Element and Chapter IV Glossary of the MetroPlan, and
amendments to the Public Facilities and Services Plan
The written record of this hearing was held open until 5:00 p.m., May 7"'. 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 information provided by the Homebuilders was submitted at 4:30 p.m. on the 7"', 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, however, given the extremely
brief interval between the close of the record and preparation of the Commission packet in time for
deliberation on the] 8", staff could not include a response to the Homehuilders submittal in this packet.
Weare prepared to provide both a verbal and written response, as the Commission directs, on the' evening
of the ] 8". Your packet does include a memorandum from the City Attorney responding to the
information submitted into the record during the joint public hearing on April 20"', "corrected" versions of
the staff report and appendices and a copy of the draft minutes. .
As you will see from the table of contents of testimony, many ofthe documents are well known to the
Commission (Trans Plan, The Metro Plan) and are quite bulky and expensive to reproduce. We will bring
this record to the meeting on the ]8"', and it can be made available to any member of the Commission or
public who is interested in reviewing this material personally. To ensure this opportunity, please contact
Brenda,-!9..nes at. 726-361 0 to confirm availability.
Date Received
MAY 1 I, o<f
I~'- ~
; '~"r:v,)r' r I
" \.",,",:, SF\it:".".:. r. fi""'.-'i,,i
-... .... !
.
'lL-
I
, .
,
..
. 1 "'~.....,.
~,:~':'~{:l~,<:~~J"~,; ;",<;,"
Date Received
MAY 1116~
Planner: BJ
I
'I
. ,
~
. i
,
.
Table of Contents
Testimony Submitted into the Record of Hearing LRP 2004-00001 Amendments to the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area GeneralPlan, Chapter IIL Section G. Public
Facilities and Services, and Chapter IV Glossary; and Amendments to the Eugene-
Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP). This testimony was received
between April20'h aiId May 7th, 2004. Submittal deadline was 5:00 p.rn., May 7,2004.
I. 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 <'t'Y~~dices (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
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
8. Public Facilities and Services Plan - 2001
9. TransPlan - 2001
10. Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) for Beneficial Reuse Project (Poplar
Farm) .
II. 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
13. EWEB project development list implementing project 110 of Table 13, PFSP 2001
14. Eugene Public Works CIP (02) implementing stormwater projects in Table 17, PFSP
2001
15. Biosolids Management Plan- June 1997
y,.....
,'II,
Date Received
MAY 11 (r)~
Planner: BJ
. .' 16. Wet Weather Flow Management Plan - February 2001
. I', . . \\ i'l'!)""" '1'';1: d'i'.[~f .
.I~'~':jl: tit>.llb'l ' 1".'J1;1))\ '
I -.~' '/ .';l~_'."/"II,~\~'{-~:'\JI'~'
'._~'>:! l'!+ , ."1 1
::1:'
...
, '
,'.
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. 208 Plan - April 1977 (Facilities Plan)
. 20, June, 1982 confinnation 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 Countydemonstratmg.compliance with the
comprehensive plan for a sludge facility as a permitted use on exclusive fiirm land
22. Public Notice ads for MWMC Facilities P~ and 20-year project list, Systems
Development Charges, Metro Plan and PFSP aInendments; MWMC; planning workshop;
MWMCFacilities Planning Open HoUse; MWMC SDC Eugene City Council Public
Hearing . .
23. Intergovernmental Agreement 1998 Service Agreements By-Laws 1995
h9Vitij9~ G1f;(J
;r " \~A~A
;~ I lH\~\
Date Received
MAY Il / o~
Planner: BJ
. ~;;:1! . W;.'I <7.11 i'\J if. R ';..11
:~\.c~~l 'l ~glr H 11)..')!\ .{
(" ,
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 'Facilities and
Services Plan amendments; response to material
submitted by Home Builders Association at April
20, 2004 public hearing
Home Builders Association submitted written materials into the
record of the above proceeding. MWMC submits this response.,
1. Applicable standards.
Mr. Kloos states, without specificity, that "[s]tate statutes
apply." Certainly, this proceeding is governed, in part, by
state statutes, partitularly, those provisions of ORS Chapter 197
that govern post-acknowledgment plan amendments. In addition,
the amendments must be consistent with applicable statewide
planning goals. The LCDC administrative rules implement the
statewide planning goals. In addition, the proposed plan
amendments must be consistent with existing, acknowledged plan
provision.
2. Planning, Hori.zon.
Home Builders states that the use of the 2025 planning horizon
for the PFSP list of wastewater treatment and collection,'
facilities is inconsistent with the existing Metro Plan
provisions. Home Builders is incorrect.
First, the existing PSFP, dated December 2001,includes projects
that extend out 20 years from that time. For example, the
introductory text' to the project lists contained in the existing
Plan states: "Long-term projects are' anticipated to be built in
si~ to 20 years_." (PFSP, P.28). That horizon would extend'to
2021. EWEB's list includes, as long-term projects, water system
'improvements 218 through 237, none of which has a date more
;: 1!;:')lI1:~l?t$n\c;t!t,€~n the six to 20 year reference quoted above -Date Received,
MAY 11yt!~-
Planner: BJ
. y'"
., ~ ~ .. Hi
'l' '1
.' ,
,. .
.. .. 1-:-'
") .."'~...~' .1 -, ~ ...,~.
.i...A~ 'l';I!~~i.1
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 planning horizon in the amendments is appropriate for the
nature of the planned facilities. Sewer treatment facilities
should be constructed with long range pl.anning 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 amendments,
particularly the proposed new tables, are not a ftproject list~
within.the m~aning. of state statutes .and regulations. Home
Builders argument is without merit. The proposed sanitary sewer
project list is comparable to the existing project lists in the
PFSP by Springfield Utility Board, EWEB and the other .
participating jurisidictions' lists. The proposed list also
complies with the. LCDC's Goal 11 impiementing administrative
rules.
. OAR 660-001-0005(6) defines ftpublic facility project" as follows:
ftA public. facility project is the construction or
.reconstruction of a water, sewer, or transportation
facility within a public facility system that is funded
or utilized by members of the public."
Public facility system, as it relate~ to sanitary sewers, are
limited to the following: a) treatment facility system; and/or b)
primary collection system. (OAR 660-011-0005(7)).
Proposed Table 16a lists six treatment facility system projects:
WPCF Treatment Project; Residual Treatment Project; and .
Beneficial Reuse Project. It also includes three pump stations
(i.e., collection. system projects): Willakenzie Pump Station,
Screw Pump Station and Glenwood Pump Station. This list complies
with both the statute and the administrative rule definition of
ftproject list."
In their oral testimony Horne Builders stated that a more
appropriate list of projects for PFSP purposes would be MWMC's
20-year project list that is included in MWMC's 2004 Facilities
Plan. MWMC adopted the 2004 Facilities Plan and 20-year project
list to satisfy DEQ requirements for facilities planning and ~o
comply with the requirements of ORS 223.309(1) that.a facilities
plan and l~st of proposed capital imp~ovements be adopted prior
.h. 0.:)\\1."". 'A;Pll:thE7,~~~tablishrrient of a. system deve1,opmeni: charge. . Date Rece,'ved
;J", !f'\~ ll~~~r'l,?,j\ .1 ~_!i.,~t-.'
MAY lll()~
Planner: BJ
.Jl, YAM
- . ~'-J
:1 ':t.'1 l'"".(....f~-I-ll.f"'.:if-~\i'tu;l
..1\- .~~ .. V~"'iJl ~! : :~)h. 11
f ;
ORS 223.314 provides:
~The establishment, .modification or implementa~ion 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 ~nd 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 planning
requirements.
A. Public Facility 'Plan.
Home Builders' recitation of various Oregon Administrative Rules
that govern public facilities plans assumes that: the proposed
amendments are the complete plan. They are not.' The complete
plan is the entire Metro 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
660-0ll~0010. The existing PFSP was enacted 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 been found, by
virtue of being acknowledged, in compliance with Goal 11. The
proposed amendments only bolster and augment the existing plan,
they ,do not remove any critical elements of the plan. .
The complete inventory required by subsection (1) (a) is found in
the existing PFSP.
The plan inc'ludes a project list. The proposed amendments, read
in the pontext 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 t'hey would define it..
,',
The plan includes cost estimates. The required ~rough cost
ro-;-... -. '
\~estimates"\are defined as ~approximate costs expressed in
~~current-year (year closest to the period of public facility plan 1:)
,.::?evelopmentl. dollars. It is not intended that proj ect cost Q)
:,.'estimates be as' exact as is required for budgeting purposes." :>
.tI\~ . --
~pAR 660-:011~0005(2). The cost estimates provided are sufficient'Q)
'.~o satisfy the rule. &
'~~ain, by' looking at the entire PFSP as amended, the remainder o~
'the requirements cited by Home Builders are also present: maps ~
Q
J
~ OJ
. .
, ~
-. <D
- c::
>-
<:( c::
~ ctS
-
Q.,
-"
'v--
f':
,
,
~.
])
-')
~.
:.:."';~
a.'
...(
~
,J'
l-F~;
--- .
"
,
the projects; an estimate of when each project will be needed;
and a discussion of the possible funding mechanisms for each
proj ect. '
B,. Inventory.
The PFSP as amenged by the proposed amendments includes a
complete inventory of the region's sanitary sewer system. Again,
Home Builders attempts to restate its ~pr~ject list" is not a
~project list" argument. Clearly, the 'existing list, which
passed muster prior to the proposed amendments without the
addition of the new projects, satisfied LCDC:s definition of
~project list." It is hard to imagil)e how- the addition of
projects somehow makes an already sufficiently descriptive list
no longer sufficient within the meaning of the rule.
C. Timing..
Home Builders argument here is not really about timing, but about
the def~nition of ~project list:" ~Where, as here, the p~oposal
is to approve categories of projects, rather than a list of
projects, it is not possible to comply with the rule." (Home
Builders,letter, p.5). MWMC has responded to that argument
above.
D. Rough Cost Estimates.
As explained above; the cost estimates provided in proposed Table
16a satisfy the rule's definition of rough cost estimates.
E. Elements of the comprehensive plan.
Home Builders again re-state their unsupported ~project list"
'argument: ~Again, a project listing'is required, not a
description of categories of projects.''- The Metro Pliw and PFSP,
as amended, satisfy OAR 660-011-0045.
Conclusion.
~ ~
"'-7''':-
f.i.1
'4
.......:."
::.1
W
.-..'
)r'\
The proposed amendments comply with state statutes, statewide
planning goals, and the administrative rules that.implementGoal
11.' The proposed amendments to Chapter III, ,Section G', and '"C
~~hapter IV of the Metro plan are necessary additions concerning ,0)
~proposed improvement and capacity to the conveyance and treatment~
~f?cilities. .This information should have been included with the ~
~recently adopted amendments to Chapter III that occurred as a 0)
.~, ~~equirement_of Periodic Review. The amendments to the PFSP are ex:
,-. ,EJa:lso.a compilation of information that should have been included, 0)
>-< "~J.th 'the 'adoption of the PFSP in 2001. .Such additional 15
;;~ ~~nformation has no effect on policies of the Plan either spe~if~
~ ~. .
;"'"
I",.,..:l,
-
-s... a
.
C> s..
,
- a:
- c:
>-
<:( c
:;; ca
-
Q"
t"""
a:~
f ,-
to public facilities or other chapters other than to demonstrate
that these urban facilities will be constructed to accommodate
planned build-out within Eugene's and Springfield's urban growth
boundary. These amendments therefore satisfy the Metro Plan
amendment criteria of approval that requires internal
consistency.
N:\CITY\MWMC\Response to Home Builders..wpd
. .. , I' ~.,
f!U.,,'n"l. :'i'"~,,, . ~Vf0! U
. ;'" I', . ~l:-:"~ 10 .,~~'ll ,~.~.:. "l ~r
.' '.
'(:\~;
Date Received
MAY 11 I 64
Planner: BJ
. .,... '-1'/"'" ,it!.)I'
';~)!r I' l; 'd, -1
;, \u\./lf.:lfV:&J, [:r~Dq
__.~,) ,"l\'f:l..,\:l1t ~ t;jJ~p~:";
:r" ltA'"
.i4, .t .~.'_ ,IVi,._ "
;i.Rt:; + _~{.~~r.lf~~1l'~t.
..'f" " \. \'-0 U g,,, 1..",. U !.
"
o
Date Received
MAY 11/61
Planner: BJ'
Staff Report and Findings of Compliance with the Metro Plan and Statewide
Goals and Administrative Rules . .
File LRP 2004-0001 Amendments to the Metro Plan and Public Facilities and Services
Plan
Applicant:
City of Springfield on behalf of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(MWMC)
Nature oftbe Application:
The applicant proposes to aInend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Plan) and the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP)I to (1) more
adequately reflect the impact that new discharge permit restrictions will have had on the
capacity of the regional wastewater treatment system, (2) to clarify the relationship
between the PFSP project list and locally adopted capital improvement plans, .and (3) to .
modifY ( streamline) the administrative and legislative processesJhat govern the
implelIlentation and aInendment of the PFSP projects list.
Background: .
MWMC's regional wastewater treatment facilities were designed and constructed in the
late 1970's with a 20-year life expectancy. Slower that expected population growth in the
1980's extended this life expectancy. In 1996--97 MWMC developed a Master Plan to
evaluate the performance of its facilities, to ascertain areas of constraints within the
existing permit conditions, to identify short-term improvements (e.g. how to address
seismic hazards), and to address other .major issues that needed to be studied further.
In May of 2002 the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) imposed new
and more stringent discharge permit standards on the regional wastewater treatinent
facilities, particularly in regard to the treatment of anITllonia and thermal loading. As
MWMC staff began to evaluate design needs for its wastewater facilities, it became
apparent to them that the existing facilities could not meet the. demands imposed by the.
new discharge permit restrictions. .
. Recognizing that a thorough assessment of wastewater collection, treatment and
disposal/reuse needs for the next 20 years was essential, the MWMC began work on the
2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan, a ~mprehensive facilities plan update. The objectives
of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan are twofold. First, it is interided to provide for
adequate community growth capacity through 2025, considering policies in the Metro
Plan and current planning assessments for population and development. Second, the 2004
Wastewater Facilities Plan is intended to protect community health and safety by
addressing sanitary sewer overflows, river safety, permit compliance and the .cost-
,. effective. use of existing facilities and the efficient design of new facilities.
"-:'~L\~,}1Jt':~'""I'\~'''t -,'~-,f'"
"1'L.'l t",l,';:--l"J"-1n"i(7:., -';'..lUf:~r :1
.' . -..,' )1...,'
; nr~.~~;f : :..~t.~:\'t..>:-~t(;"f'~ .\. j!.'(~1
- " ''-';',1 ,q' '\l~ .'}-
Staff Report and Findings Page 1
Date Received
MAY 11,04
Planner: BJ
. I See a:pp~~~ices A & B, respectfully.
, ,
The 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan recognizes and addresses the fact that the regional
wastewat,?r system for the Eugene-SpriIigfield metropolitan area does not have the
capacity to meet all of the discharge standards imposed by state and federal law. Neither
the Metro Plan nor the PFSP currently reflect this situation. Statewide Planning Goal 2
requires that the city, county and special district plans be consistent. In large part, the .
aInendments proposed by this application address the issue of consistency between the
Metro Plan and the PFSP and consistency of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan with the
former documents. The proposed aInendments provide information that should have been
included in the PFSP when it was adopted and present a more accurate description of
wastewater services that will be available after certain capital improvement projects are
completed. '
Phasing objectives of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan necessitate that construction of
several key facility components begin by June of2005 in order to meet federal standards
that require that peak wet weather events be managed by 2010. In order to meetthis
rigorous construction schedule, MWMC must have released Requests for Proposals
(RFPs) for engmeering design for by October of2004. Prior to this date, the 2Cl04
, Wastewater Facilities Plan must be adopted by tjIe three metropolitan jurisdictions and
the Metro Plan and the PFSP should be updated to reflect current information. '
In SUmmary, the application proposes the following changes:
Metro Plan
I. Specifically recognizes "wastewater" as a subcategory of service within the Urban
Growth Boundary. [Chapter II1-G]
2. Amends Finding #6 and Policy #3 to recognize the addition of Map 2a "Existing
Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems" to the PFSP. [Chapter II1-G]
3. Amends Policy #2 to include 10ca1.capital improvement plans as a means to
implement policy in the PFSP. (Chapter 1II-G]
4. Inserts.two findings regarding local and regional wastewater services to
development within the urban growth boundary. [Chapter 1II-G]
. 5. Adds a new pOlicy G.9 that makes a commitment to providing the conveyance
and treatment of wastewater to meet the needs of projected growth within the
urban growth bouridary and .that meets regulatory requirements. [Chapter II1-G]
6. Modifies definition 37. Wastewater: Puolic Facilities Projects. [Chapter V
Glossary] , .
PFSP
~,'~...! :. ~ ... .~ ~ ;;:"~r...l !'~\.U {~ :
t }",l ',}~k~~B ~1~1 ~-! '!'ti ,\
Staff Report and Findings Page 2
Date Received
MA'f q 6~
Planner: BJ
. ',i'
, " '1 t .,
r--:,!;;\~.i1t,(, . '.\}.....d C .',~
" J~~lj,ll~~~/j ii, ~,~ j~~\._,~1
II! YAM
. 1. Modifies the text on page 28, preceding Table 3, and adds Tables 4a and 4b that
identify MW1\;'1C WastewaterTreatInent and Primary Collection System
'improvements, respectively. . .
.. 2. MOQifies Map 2, which shows Planned Wastewater Facilities, and adds Map 2a
that concerns ExiSting Wastewater Facilities.
3. Modifies the existing narrative on "Wastewater System Condition Assessment" in
Chapter IV. (Page 82)
4. Modifies existing paragraphs #1 and #2 under the discussion of "WaStewater" in
the subdivision entitled "Long-Term Service. Availability Within Urbanizable
Areas" in Chapter IV. (Page 97).
5. Adds new Table 16a (following Table 16) entitled "MWMCWastewater
Treatment and Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost Estimate, and
rimin.g Estimate:" (Page 101) ". .
6. Adds new Chapter VI regarding amendments to the PFSP.
Metropolitan Area General Plan Amendment Criteria
The proposed aInendments are considered to be Type I Metro Plan amendments because.
they are nqn--site specific aInendments to the Plan text. Amendments to the Plan text,
which include changes to functional plans such as TraI1SPlan and the PFSP, and that are
non-site specific require approval by all three governiiIg bodies to become effective.2
Springfield, Eugene and Lane County each adopted identical Metro Plan aInendment
criteria into their respective implementing ordinances and codes. Springfield Code
Section 7.070(3) (a & b), Eugene Code 9.128(3) (a & b), and Lane Code 12.225(2) (a &
b) require that the aInendment be consistent with relevant statewide planning goals and
that the amendment will not make the Metro Plan intenmlly inconsistent. These criteria
are addressed as follows:
(a) . The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals
adopted by, the Land Conservation and Development Commission;
. ~f..,V~L ~'j[.:'
':.... ~- ~-!
Goall - 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 Atticle
7 METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS and SDC Atticle 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS
. prescribe the manner in which a Type I Metro Plan amendmerit must be noticed.
Citizen mvolvement for a Type I Metro Plan amendment not related to an urban
. growth boundary aInendment requires: 1) Notice to interested parties; 2) Notice
.,' l.'l't-R.t'i
J.e
',.' ;.. L ,. .J "If'}:
, ..:'~-: I~ fir. ';il, -"1,:
Staff Report and Findings Page 3
. Date Received
MAYIIJO~
Planner: BJ
. J
" "''''J J '~-
See SDC 7.070(l)(a), EC 9.7730(l)(a), and LCI2.225(1)(a)(i).
\/..,
t....iIV.
shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation; 3) Notice shall be
provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at
least 45 days before the initial evidentiary hearing (pIaniling commission).
Notice of the joint planning commission hearing was published in the Springfield '
News and in the Register-Guard on March 31,2004. Noticeto interested parties
was mailed on April!, 2004. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was provided
, to DLCD on March 4, 2004. The notice to DLCD identified the City of Eugene,
Lane County, DEQ and EP A as affected agencies.
Requirements under Goal 1 are met by adherence to'the citizen involvement
processes required by the Metro Plan and implemented by the Springfield
Development Code, Articles 7 and 14; the Eugene Code, SectiOlis 9.7735 and
9.7520; Lane Code Sections 12.025 and 12.240: '
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning..,. To establish a land use planning process and
policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land
and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.
All land-use plans and implementation ordinances shall be adopted by the
governing body after public hearing and shall be reviewed and, as needed,
revised on a periodic cycle to take into account changing public policies and
circumstances, in accord with a schedule set forth in the plan. Opportunities
shall be provided for review and comment by citizens and affected governmental
units during preparation, review and revision of plans and implementation
ordinances.
Implementation Measures - are the means used to carry out the plan. These are
of two general types:' (1) management.implementation measures such as
ordinances, regulations or project plans, and (2) site or area specific
implementation measures such as permits andgr,ants for construction,
construction of public facilities or provision of serVices.
The most recent version of the Metro Plan is being considered on May 17; 2004
for final adoption by Springfield (Ordinance No. ~, by Eugene (Council Bill
No. 4860) and by Lane County (Ordinance No. 1197) after numerous public
meetings" public workshops and joint hearings of the Springfield, Eugene and
Lane County Planning Commissions ,and Elected Officials.
The Metro Plan is the "land use" or comprehensive plan required by this goal; the
Springfield Development Code, the Eugene Code and the Lane Code arethe
"implementation measures" required by this goal. Comprehensive plans, as
defined by ORS 197.015(5i, must be coordinated with affected govemmental
units.4 Coordination means that comme~ts from affected govenimental units are
, ,',lncorpprated.by,.reference into Goal 2.
'~J~V~S'.:~~e'pt@;y.ftiouglas County, 33 Or LUBA 216, 221 (1997). ,
l' . ,;^'.
,\!..! it-\w~
Staff Report and Findings Page 4,
Date Received
MAY 11 ) Dc{
Planner: BJ'
, C'" ',',
II l3l 'tio\.. (' '~ '" .. ::-K if
',"," j' .;....111'", ~I ,\, [<;:;"l-{l'
'-'.' , ';"j' U, 11 " (I.r~--:;Il ',I
solicited and considered. In this regard, DLCD's Notice of Proposed Amendment
form was sent to the City of Eugene, Lane County, DEQ and EPA.
One aspect of the Goal'2 coordination requirement concerns population
projections. In this respect, the proposed aInendment to the PFSP Glossary
,
concerning Wastewater incorporates a projected year 2025 population for the
Eugene-Springfield Urban Growth Boundary of297,585.5 This projection is
consistent with the most recent (1997) final forecasts provided to Lane County by
the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis and the Year 2000 Census. The adoption
of this modification to the PFSP will effectively "coordinate" this population
assU1llption.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands
This goal does not apply within adopted, ackD.owledged urban growth 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 aInendments.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality - To maintain and improve
the quality of the air, water and land 'resources of the state.
This goal is primarilyconcemed with compliance with federal and state
environmental quality statutes, and how this compliance is achieved as
~evelopment proceeds in relationship to air sheds, river basins and land resources.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, P.L 92-500, as aInended in 1977,
becaIne known as the Clean Water Act (33 U.s.C. 1251 et seq.). The goal of this
Act was to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters. ORS
4688.035 requires the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) to
inIplement the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The primary method of
implementation of this Act is through the issuance ofa National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit prior to the discharge of any
wastes into the waters of the state. (ORS 468B.050) Among the "pollutants"
regulated by the EQC are temperature (OAR 340-041-0028) and toxic substances
(OAR 340-041-0Q33).
One purpose of the proposed aInendments is to ensure that the Metro Plan and the
PFSP accurately reflect regional wastewater system needs as inIposed by Federal
and State regulation. Currently, the PFSP states that "... the Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant has sufficient design capacity to accommodate population
'. jh;j/"s,\~:.;:)i._," T~bI,~), 9f.tec.hni~aJ memorandum entitle? ."!'1etropolitan W astewaier Management Com~ission - .
., ' "', ,; ; :~~6~~rn ProjectIons for Wastewater FaclhtIes Plan," prepared by Matt Noesen, CH2ml3a~eived
" '>,~.h.;;'.- ":
. ,-,'
. ':'''')1;. I:;,; ~.t.''';~_~-'l
Staff Report and Findings Page 5
MAY 11 J b~
Planner: BJ
.. increases and serve all new development at buildout." Recent analyses have
determined that facility improvements are now required to address both'dry and .
wet weather requirements relating to pollutant loads and wastewater flows. The .
section in Chapter IV of the PFSP entitled "Long-Term Service Availability
Within Urbanizable Areas" is proposed to be modified to reflect the need for
facility improvements necessary to address dry and wet weather regulatory
requirements.
Goal 7 ..., Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
This goal is not applicable to t):le proposed aInendments.
GoalS - Recreational Needs
This goal is not applicable to the proposed aniendments.
Goal 9 - Economic Development - Goal 9 provides, in part, that it is intended
to: "Provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types,
locations, and service levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses
consistent with plan policies." The proposed aInendments 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 1 0 PIimning Guideline 3 states that " [P Jlars 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. " .
OAR 660-008-0010 requires that "[S]ufficient buildable land shall be designated
on the cvml',,,hensive plan map to satisfY ):lousing needs by type and density
range as determined in the housing needs projection." Goal 10 defines buildable
lands as ". . .lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available and
necessary for residential use." 660-008-0005(13), in part, defines land t~t 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 publicfucilities are necessary to accomplish the
objectives of this goal and applicable administrative rules (OAR Chapter 660,
Division 008). The purpose of the p,vl'vsed aInendments is to provide the
t. '. . . .. co~rehensive planning fraInework to allow for the improvements to the regional 'ed
'1(..J'~1k'~'!L"~i\,',~"':'nl-, ..' o"te Rece'"
-,'.J,.,jtJ.,:.9"f-'1ffll:-t#.tf-:1~ . CA
.~ r '(j\~1 Mf;,'I 11) 0<-(
Planner: BJ.
Staff Report and Findings Page 6
1
'.'i
j,,:,.,-::=:-. t" ..... ~ ~h,~
'!!;,,-:):: i;'f1;'>":':I;"'/,
" .
, .
wastewater system that support the housing needs of the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area.
Goalll - Public Facilities and Services - To plan and develop a timely, orderly
and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework
for urban and rural development. " .
OAR Chapter 660, Division 011, implements goal 11. OAR 660--{)1I-0030(1)
requires that t~e public facility plan identify the general location of public .
. facilities projects. In regard to the Metro Plan, the reference.to Public Facilities
and Services Plan Map 2a in Finding 6 and Policy 0.3 in the proposed .
aInendments addresses this requirement IIi regard to the PFSP, the modification
of the introductory narrative under "Planned Wastewater System Improvements
(Page 28)," the insertion of new Tables 4a and 4b (page 28), and the modification'
of Map 2 and the insertion of new Map 2a, also address this requirement
,. '
OAR 660--{)1I-0035(1) requires that the public facility plan'inc1ude a rough cost
estimate for sewer public facility projects identified in the facility plan. In
conformity with this requirement, it is propoSed that the PFSP be aInended by the
insertion of Table 16a (Inserted following Page 101), which addresses rough cost
estimates and a timing estimate for MWMC Wastewater Treatment and
Collection System Improvements.
OAR 660--{) 1 1-0045(3) provides that modifications to projects listed within a
public facility plan may be made without aInendment to the public facility plan.
This application proposes to add a new chapter to the PFSP regarding
amendments to that plan. Proposed Chapter VI incorporates the standards for
aInending a public facility plan allowed by OAR 660--{)1 i -0045(3) and adopts an
aInendment process.
Goal 12 - Transportation
This goal is not applicable to the proposed aInendments.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation
This goal is not applicable to the proposed aInendments.
Goal 14 - Urbanization - To provide for an orderly and efficient transitionfrom
rural to urban land use.
This goal is not applicable to the proposed aInendments, as they do not affect the
existing urban growth boundary.
. ,Goa115 - WilIamette River Greenway
)~,~; &~t.:;Y>'t'Ht-' (-;'i.".~I~~
"n .JI" Jo'" .N ;. r.~J/AJ"1 ~l, .
.: '" .'." ~i;t.l;
( Jl}.' f-~j! "7.:\,
Staff Report and Findings Page 7
Date. Received
MAY 111D~
Planner: BJ
,\' ,
r,.,~:
Date Received
MAY 11\ 66:
Planner: BJ
t;..',.'Y!'
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Goal 16 Eswarine Resources, Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands, Goal 18 Beaches
and Dunes, and Goal 19 Ocean Resources
These goals do not apply to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area.
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent.
The proposed changes to the Metro Plan are essentially of a "housekeeping"
nature. Theyessentially recognize the role of wastewater service provision within
the urban growth boundary by the addition or modification of applicable findings ';
and add or,modify policy language to clarifY the relationship between the Metro
Plan and the PFSP in regard to capital iritprovement plans and the commitment to
comply with regulatory requirements. The proposed chlinges, as presented, will
not create internal inconsistencies within the Metro PJaD.
The proposed changes also aInend the PFSP tomore accurately reflect MWMC's
planned improvement projects for its wastewater treatment system and primary
collection system, to provide rough cost and timing estinIates for those
improvements, update narrative infonnation regarding necessary improvements to
the wastewater treatment system and primary collection system, and more clearly
implemenfthe plan modification standards contained in OAR 660-011-0045(3).
The proposed changes to the PFSP do not create any inconsistencies within the
PFSP nor do they create any inconsistencies between the PFSP and the. Metro
Plan.
t l' "~.. ~.. ,.':'1 '-.4~.r;::-.(~~
. PL..'t::r:i ",1""~lI.i.l'~1 ~. .,..~,-
h'.I'J 'l"lt.t,II;l?IJ II' ~4.'1, ....
:( T Y:\M
~; t- I O::,ii. ~j.:'r ;1i:':I'IJJ.:;~~~~;:
L": I ,.t~. ~" It. . ."" I,
. StafIReport and Findings Page 8
APPENDIX Aa
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE METRO PLAN
(Current version of the Metro Plan)
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 Plan Plan Boundary
(Plan Boundary). .
The availability of public facilities and services is a key factor influencing the location
. and density offutiIre 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 assU1llptions 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. This policy direction is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11 : Public
Facilities and Services, "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement
of public facilities and serv\ces to serve as afraInework 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 nITaI 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 urban growth boundary.
Urban facilities and services within the urban growth boundary 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
development fundaInental principle of the. MefT:O Plan.
Date Receivedo
')., .'
'-~iL~~i~0-;~'r>l"~\['~:i>:r c.~~f./i;;i'~'
. F,n}.."f....'J}l" n'11., 1\
',,'1'1'"'
~ ,....
Appendix Aa Page I
MAY III o<f
Planner: BJ
,
, ','
".! ..
," 'J"'" .,'" '~!{' .. .
'l..-~" 'j',;' "~fl~.".
.i.I." . '!'l 11 '\.
This element incorporates the findings and policies in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (Puhlic Facilities and Services
Plan), adopted as a refinement 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' ofthe water, .
wastewater, and stormwater projects needed to serve land within the urban growth' ..
boundary.' The Public Facilities and Services Plan also contains this informatiol). for
electrical facilities, although not required to by law.
The project lists arid maps in the Public Facilities and Services Plan are adopted as part
of the Metro Plan. Infonnation in the Public Facilities and Services Plan on project
phasing and costs, and decisions on timing and fmancing of projects are. not part (jf the
Metro Plan. and are controlled solely by the capital improvement programming' and .
budget processes of individual service providers.
"
This element.ofthe Metro Plan is organized by the following topics relat~ to the
provision of urban facilities and services. Policy direction for the full range of services,
. mekuliBg 'll8Ste':later 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 Growth Boundary
. Planning and Coordination
. Water
. Wastewater
. Stormwater
. . Electricity
. Schools
. . Solid Waste
o Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
. Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
o Financing
The applicable findings and policies are contained under each ofthese topic headings,
below.
The policies listed provide direction for public' and private 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.
, The exact location of the projects shown on the Public Facilities and Servic~s Plan plamied facilities'
maps is detennined through local processes. . '
. .. ..' Goal.l Lalso requires transportation facilities to be included in public facilities plans. In thismetropolitin
:'l~N!l:i;:~~~s~:;!~~:\~~I::i~~~~ ~:a~~d;~~~j~ in Metro Plan Chapter ,lIl-F and in the EUgene-SP~te Received
r '(,{MiI . .' .
1 _ . "a I Appendix Aa .Page 2 MAY II, D~
..i _.',L;1 "'l \,-H'l',,";:H.l'
.......\ .,~,:~i:\.l!l\'>dl . PI C,fi
ariner: ~.~.
Goals
. .
1. Provide and maintain public facilities and services in an efficient and .
enviromnentally responsible maimer.
2. Provide public fucilities.and services in a manner that encourages orderly and
sequential growth.
Findines and Policies
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Planning and
Coordination
Findin1!!
I., . Urban expansion within the urban growth boundary is accomplished through in-
fill, redevelopment, and annexation ofterritory which can be. served with a
miniffimnlevelofkey urban services and'fucilities. This perrriits new
development to use existing facilities and services, or those which can be easily .
extended, minimizing the public cost of extending urban fucilities and services.
2. . In accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 11 and OAR 660, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies jurisdictional 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 improvements are included in the Public Facilities and Services Plan,
although not required by state law. Local facility master plans and refiriement
plans provide more specific project information.
3. Urban services within the metropolitan urban growth boundary are provided by
the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, Lane County, EWEB, SUB, the
MWMC, electric coop~ratives, and special service districts.
4. The Public Facilities and Services Plan finds that almost all areas within the city
limits of Eugene and Springfield are served or can be served in the short-term (0-5
years) with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service. Exceptions to
this are stormwater service to portions of the Willow Creek area and southeast
Springfield and fuIl water service at soine 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 ?ublic"Facilities and Servi~ fTi:.n . .
. :W;)\i'~;:~:);~h! ,':~J}R~~~ct lists, all urbanizable areas within the Eugene-Springfield ur1WaI&aecelved
MAYll,D~
iN,;
Appendix Aa Page 3
Planner: BJ
L~~(.;:.i
l&:....
- "\ t,,})ti1~'-~f-':)I'IIf,:!\\
. ';.',':!, l:t} I
boundary can be served with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service
at the time those areas are developed. In generaL areas outside city limits
serviceable in the long-term are located near the urban growth boundary and in .
urban reserves, 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 be included in public facility plan
project lists for water, wastewater, and stormwater. These definitions are shown
in the keys of planned facilities Maps 1, 2, ~ and 3in the Public Facilities and
'Services PllJn. .
7. In accordance with ORS 195.020 to 080, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and
special service districts are required to enter into coordination agreem<:nts that
define how planning coordination and urban services (water, wastewater, fIre,
parks, open space and recreation, and streets, roads and mass transit) will be
provided within the urban growth boundary,
, '
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. Duplication of services prevents the most economical distribution of public
facilities and services.
10. As discussed. in the Public Facilities and SerVices Plan, a majority of nodal
development areas proposed in TransPlan are serviceable now or in the short-
term. TJl.e City of Eugene's adopted Growth Management Policy #15' states,
"Target publicly-fmanced infrastructure extensions to support development for
higher densities, in-fill, mixed uses, and nodal development."
'policies
G.l Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and serVices ill an
orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in
Chapter II-C, relevant 'policies in this chapter, and other Metro Plan policies.
G.2 Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide
'the general location of water , wastewater, stormwater, an<;l electrical projects in
the m"';"Vl'vlitan area. Use local facility master plans, refinement plans, caoital
im"rovement olans. and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning and project
, implementation.' .
G3 Modifications and additions to or deletions from the project lists in the Public
'. ' Facilities and Services Plan for water"wastewater, and stormwater public facility ,
'l;;'~'I,'ii.';-,.'IC,jr": 'pfoje~ts or significant changesto project location, from that describe4-iP. t~e R . d
" /.,., ,., , ',."',' ' , "Uale ecelve
'. . v,,'
,., . li"\!vi-
;1 "-.'JI
'l.f4'. '1
,r _ I ;w.._~;, !~<~ !t;t~:l
. ',.:,"'1 ~ L~; t, )t; I,
Appendix Aa Page 4
MAY 11 rDt.(
Planner: BJ
"
,
,
Puhlic Facilities ana Services Plan planned facilities Maps 1, 2, ~ and 3,
requires aInending the Pubic Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan,
except for the following:
a. Modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do
not significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing,
capacity, or other general characteristic of the project; or
b. Technical'and enviromnental 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
[mdings of an Enviromnental Assessment or Enviromnental Impact
Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural
provisions of the national Envrromnental Policy Act of 1969 or any
federal or State of Oregon agency project development 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 projects or changes thereto that may affect o,ne another's area of
responsibility. '
G.5 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. '
G.6 Efforts shall be made to reduce the number ofU11llecessary 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 Service providers shall coordinate the provision offacilitiesand 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
regional public facility needs.
Services to Develooment Within the Ui-ban Growth Boundarv: Wastewater
Findinl!s
Date .Received
MAY 11, 04
~ 1~.;;""..i,1~..\:~ #~j~;! c;~~~('
.' ..._ r,l!, ~ ~\' ",
,
".
"
Appendix Aa Page 5
Planner: BJ
II. Snringfield and EUl!ene relv on a combination of regional and local services.
for the nrovision of wastewater services. Within each Citv. the local
iurisdiction nrovides collection of wastewater thromm a svstem ofsanitarv.
sewers and numninll svstems. These collection facilities connect to a rellional
svstem of similar sewer collection facilities owned and o'?Crated bv the
Metrooolitan Wastewater Manallement Commission ("MWMC"). an entity
formed under an interllovernmental allTeement created nursuant to ORS 190.
Jogether. these collection facilities (which exclude nrivate laterals which.
convev wastewater from individual residential or commercial/industrial.
~onnections) constitute the 1Jrimarv collection svstem. ".
.12. The nrimarv collection'svstem convevs wastewater to a treatment facilities svstem
owned and onerated bv MWMC. This svstem.consists of an interconnected Water
Pollution Control Facilitv ("WPCF"'I. a biosolids facilitY. and a beneficial reuse
facilitv.
Policies
G.9 Wastewater convevance and treatment shall be nrovided to meet the needs of
nroiected llTowth inside the urban lITowth boundarv that arecanable of comnlving
- . -
with reuulatorv reouirements l>oveminp beneficial reuse' of effluent and beneficial
- - - -
reuse or disnosal of residuals.
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 not confer rights to a,groundwater source.
Polici~
G.910 Eugene and Springfield and their respective utility branches, EWEB and
Springfield Utility Board (SUB), shall ultimately be the water service providers
within the urban growth boundary.
G.Hll Continue to take positive steps to protect groundwater supplies. The cities,
county, and other service providers shall manage land use and public facilities for.
groundwater-related benefits through the implementation of the Springfield
Drinking Water Protection Plan and other wellhead protection plans.
Management practices instituted to protect groundwater shall be coordinated
\;:~Vjt;;Ji~rr: ;:.~{ng the City of Springfield. CityofEugene, and Lane County.
)'1,' YAM
Date Received
MAY 1 11 0 Y
.~ ....;.;1.' -""I~I~-; ~j,:,c,!f,.-f:'
'...>',:- a... J _.111,;.';
Appendix Aa Page 6
. Planner: OJ'
G.l +2 Ensure that water main extensions within the urban growth boundary include
adequate :consideration of fire flows.
G.l;;3 SUB,EWEB; and Rainbow Water District, the water providers that currently
con~ol a water source, shalleXaInine the'need for a metropolitan-wide water
master program, recognizing that a metropolitan-wide system will require
establishing standards, as well as coordinated source and delivery systems.
Services to .I;>evelopment Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Stormwater
Findings
1;!4. Historically, stormwater systems in Eugene and Springfield were designed
primarily to control floods. The 1987 re-authorization ofthe federal Clean Water
Act required, forthe first time, local communities to reduce stormwater pollution
within their municipal storm drainage systems. These requirements applied
initially to the City of Eugene and subsequent aInendments to the Act extended
these requirements to Springfield and Lane County.
r;5. Administration and enforcement of the Clean Water Act stormwater provisions
. occur at the state level, through Natioual 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 for reducing
stormwater pollutants to "the maximum extent practicable."
146. Stormwater quality improvement mcilities are most efficient and effective at
intercepting and removing pollutants when they are close to ,the .source of the
pollutants and treat relatively small volumes of runoff.
g7. The Clean Water Act requires states to assess the quality oftheir 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 MaximU1ll Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these pollutants, and
an aiIocation to point and non-point sources.
168. The listing of Spring Chinook Salmon as a threatened species in the Upper
WillaInette 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 mctors as destruction
of habitat through channelization and revetment of river banks, non-point source
pollution, alterations of natural hydrograph by increased impervious surfaces in
., , .'. .'" tilt; basin, and degradation of natural functions of riparian lands due to removal or
, }8\)fi~,j~ i~)n" IA:i!;"Wte~ation of indigenous vegetation. Date Received
.~ . 'I.J'" "
.'; f~.
'- ~ 1, ; ,
. .. ~1" '.. ;(.,;.11(. ,0",
" ..'I..11:i'.""'1:;'
Appendix Aa Page 7
MAY ll)li~
Planner: BJ
119.
There are many advantages to' keeping channels open, including, at a minimum, .
natural biofiltTlltion of stormwater pollutants; greater ability to attenuate effects of
peak stormwater flows; retention of wetland, habitat, and open space functions;
and reduced capital costs for storn:i.water facilities.
+820.
An increase in impervious surfaces,- without mitigation, results ill 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 drainageways
such as streams serve as an integral part of the stormwater conveyance system
2(}2.' In general, there are no programs for stormwater Jll!lintenance outside the Eugene
and Springfield city limits, except for the Lane County roads program. State law
limits county road funds for stormwater projects to those located within the public
right-of-way.
2B.' Filling in designated floodplain areas can increase flood elevations above the
elevations predicted by Federal Emergency Management Agency (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 hydrpgraphofthe river.:
policies
0.1;;4 Improve surface and ground water quality and quantity in the. metroPolitan area
. by developing regulations or instituting prograInSfor stonTIwater to: ...
. a.. Increase public awareness of techniques and practices private. individuals
can 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 nmoff, including erosion,
velocity, pollutant loading,. and drainage; .
d. Increase storage and retention and natural filtration of storm nmoff to
lower and delay peak storm flows and to settle out pollutants. prior to
discharge into regulated waterways;
~ 1 Yf\IV'{
Date Received
MAY 11 ,Oil.
, . ". .. r.r~ 1-1' ._., . co.
.< '1..-1>1'1,""'"(.,''''' ')1'}"'"
Ir~l'l 'I ~-:Lh}rl! ~ ~"'1,' :'""'1\
Appendix Aa' Page 8
Planner:.;BJ
,I i'i
..'1, .
"'. .-::~. ~'A-'-:.llll .
""~)"i fl;," . p:,il '1-
. . ~ 111 ., I,
e.Require on-site controls and development standards, as practical, to reduce
off-site impacts from stormwater nmoff;
f. . Use natural and simple inechanical treatment systems to provide treatment
for potentially contaminated nmoffwaters; .
g. . Reduce street-related water quality and quantity problems;
h. Regulate use and require containment andJor pretreatment of toxic
substances;
L Include containment measures in site review standards to minimize the
effects of chemical and petroleum spills; and
J. Consider impacts to ground water quality in the design and location of dry
wells.
G.145 Implement changes to stormwater fucilitiesand management practices to reduce
the presence of pollutants regulated under the Clean Water Act and to address the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act;
, '
G.l ~ Consider wellhead protection areas and surface water supplies when planning
storm water facilities.
G.167 Manage or enhance waterways aIld open stormwatersystems to reduce water
quality impacts from nmoff and to improve stormwater conveYaIlce.
G.1+8 Include measures in local land development regulations thatmininnze the amount
of impervious surface in new development in a manner that reduces stormwater
pollution, reduces the negative affects from increases in nmoff, and is compatible
with Metro Plan policies.
G.l&9 The cities and Lane County shall adopt a strategy for the unincorporated area of
the urban growth boundary to: reduce the negative effects of filling in floodplains
and prevent the filling of natural dramage channels except as necessary to ensure
public operations and maintenance ofthese channels in a manner that preserves
andJor enhances floodwater conveyance capacity and biological function.
G.l920Maintain flood storage capacity within the floodplain, to the maximum 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
. Findines
: 'it;:' ~.i'fr-:i'1;;3; ,: '0'1'" ~
,I../,; .,,~-1/"r :';'1/1'" '"'{'
Appendix Aa Page 9
Date Received
MAY 11 {o~
Planner: BJ
"
'{/'!~:'
, ~ 'r~' '; '. \ ~ \.:
2;M" Accordingto local municipalntilities, efficient electrical service is often
accomplished through mutual back-up agreements and inter-connected systems
are more efficient than isolated systems.
Policies
G.2Gl The electric service providers will agree w):rich provider will serve areas about to
be annexed and inform the cities who the service provider will be and how the
transition of services, if any, 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 plan, a school facility plan forhigh growth districts prepared by
the district in cooperation with the city or county; and for the city or county to
initiate the planning activity. The law defmes 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 aInended to
provide needed housing, "As part of this process, the aInendment shall include.
sufficient land reasonably necessary to accommodate the siting of new public
school 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."
2!j7. Enrollment projections for the five public school districts in the ...,,'ovpolitari area
and the University of Oregon and Lane Community College (LCt) are not
. consistent Bethel School District and the University of Oregon expect increases,
while Springfield and Eugene School Districts and LCCare experiencing nearly
flat or declining enrollments. Enrollment is increasing fastest in the elementary
and high school attendance areas near new development '
U8. Short-term fluCtuations 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 smdent enrollment for
school districts in the State of Oregon. This funding pattern 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 gain in smdent enrollments between districts.
!"j. . .' ,?;f:9, ! <;;~e!1.ting orretaining small, neighborhood schoolsreduces the need for busing and
. .~. ~!~( ~~It,.j~'i: 'provides more opportunity for students to walk or bike to school. QU4:)m.~~eceived'
, -'. YI\P,i MAY ll/D~ "
'1 -,-'
I ~,.'~
~"' -' . .
.;1. .). "!:/~.
,I. ,
t'I'
Appendix Aa Page 10
Planner: ,~~
. .
schools may allow'more parents to stay in established neighborhoods and to avoid
moving out to new subdivisions on the urban fringe or to bedroom communities.
However, growth patterns do not always respect school district boundaries. For'
eXaIllple, natural cycles of growth and neighborhood maturation result in uneven
geographic groWth patterns in the metropolitan area, causing a disparity between
the location of some schools and school children. This results in some fringe area
schools exceeding capacity, while some central city schools are under capacity.
~30. Long-range enrollment forecasts determine the.need to either. build new schools,
expand existing facilities, or close existing schools. 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 school sites may not meet
current local parking and other code requirements.
;!931. Combining educational facilities with local park and recreation facilities .provides
[mancial benefits to the schools while enhancing benefits to the community. The
Meadow View School and adjacent City of Eugene community park is an
eXaIllple of shared facilities.
Policies
G.2-l-2 The cities shall initiate a process with school districts within the urban growth
boundary for coordinating land use and school planning activities. The cities and
school districts shall examine the following in their coordination efforts:
a.
The need for new public school facilities and sufficient land to site them;
b.
How open enrollment policies affect school location;
c.
The impact of school building height and site size on the buildable land
supply; .
d.
The use of school facilities for non-school activities and appropriate
reimbursement for this use;
e.
The impact of building and land use codes on the development and
redevelopment" of school facilities;
f.
. ,
Systems development charge adjustments related to neighborhood
schools; and,
1 L'1
\.,1" .
':, "-,, '- ;/.
"', -).j ~I: ~ . I ," .:', I
. .~. ' . -/ . "
Appendix Aa Page 11
Date Received
MAY 11 i6lf
.~ .,.
Planner: :l9J;;\
~
!'~i:'\j~lri: j"-~T~: .-1 . ~.!;;,,'='tl
.. 1t'\ r I:;~-;'~.Jr. iLl';" ,,"~:~~1\\
'. J~ \Ii' ;, ,j
>.
., '~I~
g. The possibility of adjusting boundaries, wht;n practical and when total
enrollment will not be 'affected, where a single, otherwise internally
cohesive area is divided into more than one school district.
G.2g,3 Support financial and other efforts to keep neighborhood schools open and to
retain schools sites in public ownership following school closure.
G.2M Support the retention of University of Oregon and LCC facilities in central city
areas to increase opportunities for public transit and housing and to retain these
schools' attractiveness to students and faculty. '
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Solid Waste
Findinl!s
3G2. Statewide Planning Goal 11 requires that,:'Tomeet current and long-range needs,
a provision for solid waste disposal sites, mcluding sites for inert waste, shall be
included, in each plan." ,
Policies
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 serve
the metropolitan area. Industries that make significant 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 areas outside the urban growth
boUndarY increases pressure for urban development in rural areas. This can
encourage premature development outside the urban growth boundary at rural
densities, increasing the cost of public facilities and services to all users of the
systems.
3;!4. Land application ofbiosolids, treated wastewater, or cannery ~aste on
, agricultural sites outside the urban growth boundary for beneficial reuse of treated
wastewater byproducts generated within the urban growth boundary is more
efficient aIid environmentally beneficial than land filling or other means of
disposal.
3~5. Lane County land use data show that, outside the urban growth boundary, land
uses consist of: ' '
~-"'I~:"'''D; I-":'f,:-f ' .
, l~J~"i~".;t...~t-:;ljtll ~')}: ("':',
1 .~ V
I J'f ~
, . rl' ..~~! _.~ .-t.:i(f:-
"I',t'-" _'f1 I .,~f.. ~ ,. :j.
. '~J: '.1 ,r.'. I!, .
Appendix Aa Page 12
Date Received
MAY 11) 6{
Planner: BJ
'.',., YAM
1) Those \\,hich are primarily intended for resource management; and
2) Those where development has occurred and are committed to nITaI
development as established through the exceptions process specified in
Statewide PlaIn1ingGoaI2.
Policies
G.2% Wastewater and water service shall not be provided outside the urban growth
boundary except to the following areas, and the cities may require consent to
annex agreements as a prerequisite to providing these services in any instance:
a. The area of the Eugene Airport designated Government and Education on
the Metro' PlimDiligram, the Seasonal Industrial Waste Facility, the
Regional Wastewater Biosolids Management Facility, and agricultural
sites used 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 determined that it poses an inITnediate threat of public health or
. safety to the citizens within the Eugene-Springfield urban growth
boundary that can olliy be remedied by extension of the service.
In addition, under 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. Developmerit oUtside the urban growth
boundary in the vicinity of the airport, outside the,portion of the airport boundary
designated Govemment and Education ,in the Metro Plan diagram, shall not be
provided with urban services.
G.218 Plan for the followiIiglevels of service for nITal designations outside the urban
growth boimdary within the Plan Boundary:
a. Al!riculture: Forest Land. Sand and GraveL and Parks and ODen SDact:.
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, nITal
level of fire and police protection, electric and communication service,
schools, and reasonable access to solid waste disposal facility.
Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
" '
,-'-><'!!
:. . I~ "t"- ll;' ~,
1,",;-1'-\' i'l
Appendix Aa Page 13
Date Received
MAY 1l10~
Planner:' BJ
.:ll~" jr.C'I"'iFiilliiIiii~!'.,r .
!. :1"... ..~ _ "
\;j\\::
346. ' In a~cordance with statewide planning goals and admiTIistrative rules, urban
water, wastewater, and stoi:mwater facilities may be located onagriculturalland
and urban water and wastewater facilities may be.located on forest land outside
the urban growth boundary when the facilities exclusively serve land within the
urban growth boundary, pursuant to OAR 660-006 and 660-033.
3~7. In accordance with statewide plannmg goals and acimini-ttrative rules, water, and '
wastewater facilities are allowed in the public right-of-way of public roads and
highways.
368. The Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities maps show the location
of some planned 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 coordination with and
permitting by Lane County and possible Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
J79. Statewide Planning Goal 5 and OAR 660-023-0090 require state and local
jurisdictions to identify and protect riparian corridors.
3&40. In accordance with OAR 660-033-0090,660-033-0130(2), and 660-033cOI20,
building schools on high value farm land outside the urban growth boundary is
prohibited. Statewide planning goals prohibit locating school buildings on farm
or forest land within three miles outside the urban growth boundary.
Policies
G.2&9' Consistent with local regulations, locate new urban water, wastewater, and
stormwater facilities on farm 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.2930Locate urban water and wastewater facilities in the public right-of~way of public
roads and highways outside the urban growth boundary, as needed to serve land
within the urban growth boundary.
G.3Gl Facility providers shall coordinate with Lane County and. other localjurisdictions
and obtain the necessary county land use approvals to aInend the Lane, County
, Rural Comprehensive Plan, or the Metro Plan, as needed and consistent with state
, law, to appropriately designate land for urban facilities located outside the urban
growth boundary or the Plan Boundary.
:J.,,~.~~. rll;t--:.p;"! ....;11. '{,-;1
, ,R,VliL", 'L;, ""I "',,'iC',. "
:'~;' ~'~'~.".>;" ., _t.:.'.,J:""":.\ ..1
. . . .
;1 '.:_,1 .."'" ' . - ue'
i J,ll(....! <<"IIf!;,..,~lf~';"'"1~"':'I;~ _}
. "<;". "I.~,,' Ii b -u.,: t. 1,
, Appendix Aa, Page 14
Date Received
MAY ll, tL{
Planner: BJ
J! ' Y(\u
,/ d;
0.3+2 The cities shall coordinate with Lane County on responsibility and,authority to
, address stormwater-related issues outside the Plan Boundary, including outfalls
, outside the Springfield portion of the urban growth boundary,
0.3;1,3 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 riparian standards.
0.3~ New,schools within the Plan Boundary shall be built inside the urban growth
boundary. "
Financing
Findinu
~L ORS 197.712(2)(e) states that the projecttiming and financing provisions of
public facility plans shall not be considered land use decisions.
., - -,
4G2. ORS 223.297 and ORS 223.229(1) do not permit the collection 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
4+3. 'Service providers in the metropolitan area use SDCs to help fund the following
facilities:
o Spnngfield: 'stormwater, wastewater, and transportation;
o Willamalane Park and Recreation District: parks;
. SUB, Rainbow Water District: water;
o Eugene: stormwater, wastewater, parks, and transportation; and,
o EWEB: water.
4U. Oregon and California timber receipt revenues, a federally-funded source of
county road funds, have declined over the years and their continued decline is
expected. '
4;5. Regular maintenance reduces long term infrastructure costs by preventing the
need for frequent replacement and rehabilitation. ORS 223.297 to 223.3'14 do not
allow use ofSDCsto fund operations and maintenance.
446. The assessment rates of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County are each different,
creating inequitable financing of some infrastructure improvements in the
metropolitan area.
Policies' .
Viii,',
Appendix Aa Page 15
Date Received
MAY'1110~
Planner: BJ.
I ".". ;" "','
.' ~!-""if;U';)I(' ';-.:,' "'l'Y" I
...;. .,.-':'If ~,.?1,' :''']I,~.,~,' ~
I ,
n(
,
., . I ,i-~'. ;,~ I,
. "...iI!'l,'".-' .... ..
ii.d .
0.345' Changes to Public Facilities and Services Plan project phasing schedules or
anticipated costs and financing shall be made in accordance with budgeting and
capital improvement prograIn.procedures of the affectedjurisdiction(s).
0:3~ Service providers will update capital improvement programming (planning,
programming, and budgeting for service extension) regularly for'th()se pOrtions of
the urban growth boundary where the full range of key l\l"ban services and
facilities is not'available. '
0.367 Require development to pay the cost, as determined by the local jurisdiction, of
extending urban services and fucilities. This does not preclude subsidy, where a
development will fulfill goals and recommendations of the Metro Plan and other
applicable plans determined by the local jurisdiction to be of particular
importance or concern.
0.3-78 Continue to implement a'system of.user charges, SDCs, and other public
fmancing tools, where appropriate, to fimdoperations, maintenance, and
improvement or replacement of obsolete facilities or system expansion.'
0.389 ExPlore other funding mechanisms at the local level to finance operations and
maintenance of public facilities. "
O.~OSet wastewater aild stormwater fees at a level commensurate with the level of
impact on, or use of, the wastewater or stormwater service.
O.~OThe cities and Lane County will continue to cooperate in developing assessment
practices for inter-jurisdictional projects that provide for equitable treatment of
properties, regardless ofjurisdiction.
Chapter-V Glossary ,
36. . Public facilitv Droiects: Public facility project lists and maps adopted as part of
the Metro Plan are defined as follows: ,
a. Water: Source, reservoirs, pump stations, and primary distribution
systems. Primary distribution systems are transmission lines 12 inches or
larger for SUB and 24 inches or larger for EWEB.'
b. Wastewater:
Primarv Collection System: Pump stations and wastewater
lines 24 inches or larger.
..: r ':(Ai'ri
"
. Treat':':',t:T1,t Facilities System: Water Pollution Control
Facilitv (WPCF) tlroiect. beneficial reuse Droiect and
residuals Droiect necessarY to meet wastewater treatment
facilities svstem desil!n cauacities for averal!e flow. Deak.
flow. hiochemical OXVl!en demand and total SUate'Received
Appendix Aa 1:'age 16 MAY 1,1, O~
hK.,,\u.fq'~lt~f":, ~",~('
~~;t...\!h' X'!\-'jj.-1."-'~'~' ',"
,""k"
, Il.1\'.:
. _ " _ ~ ' .itf, "
"':I,df"'!!'-\" J
. l!~""P,; II" "i" :,_"),' k"jt1
"'\ ,_.' .~1.' ,;.' .....' ~ ,
Planner: BJ
"
, .."' 'I 'i, I
'. ,; ~'i .,.,..;, f '. To,. '
('--./ t,> '1I":~ 'I.~r~;- ',;.., '., ;S;"
'( "
J,tV;
j't,"
. ~ ." ~ I
. <!ljf "
l: 1
solids so as to nrovide service within the urban lITowth
bounruirv (uGB) for a nroiected nonulation in 2025
.consistent with the nonulation assumed iti this Plan, in
comnliance with MWMC's discharQ:e oermit MWMC's
Caoitallmorovements Plan. as amended froIll time to time,
shall be used as the lruide for detailed olanninQ: and
imnlementation of the WPCF oroiect the beneficial reuse
proiect and the residuals oroiect
c, Stormwater: Drainage/channel improvements and/or piping systems 36
inches or larger; proposed detention ponds; outfalls; water quality
projects; and waterways and open systems,
d, Specific projects adopted as part of the Metro Plan are described in the
project lists and their general location is identified in the planned facilities
maps in Chapter II of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public
Facilities and Services Plan (Puhlic Facilities and Services Plan).
Date Received
MAY 11,()~
Planner: BJ
Appendix Aa Page 17
" ''I'"
~ . ;..11\1.
Date Received
MAYll,oL(
Planner: BJ
. -',k,I~}~~,.~li~ ~,~,(~i -=?l':f~i~ f
I~ ~ t,r ;-, J.'.....oJ,. ,f~ I - '~J ,\..(
, .
, ,
~ ," "
..,-;: I
'.c~ '. -"'f. {I- I (":.:::{ 1
:.; "',i ( 11~ .~:) ~ ....
"
APPENDIX Ab ' '
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE METRO PLAN
(Version currently before the elected officials as a part of Periodic Review)
iI'
G. Public Facilities and Services Element
This Public Facilities and Seivices Element provides direction for the future provision of
urban facilities and services to planned land uses within the Metro Plan Plan Boundary
(Plan ~oundary).
The availability of public iiIcilities 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, FimdaInental
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 11 :
Public Facilities and Services, "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a fraInework for urban and nITal
development." On urban hinds, 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 nITallands within
the Plan Boundary, development mUst be served by nITallevels of service. Users of
facilities and services in nITal areas l.lfe 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 UGH.
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,
fITe service or parks. and recreation service. 'This element provides guidelines for special
service districts in line with the compact urban development fundaInental principle of the
Metro Plan. . Date .Received
;~)~ I;\i~,"-.:/ ~~~) t...i ry,'; !q.f
,." . .....n~" 71' .r ' ft' ;' MAy' III oy
~ r" ' .
, fll~,
Appendix Ab Pagel
Planner: BJ
1 '-;1,' q' : ,;1" .~~.: }:' '1.\
l4"( . '..;, .[.. I. ';' I
This element incorporates the findings and policies in the Eugene-Springfield ,
MetropolitanArea Public Facilities find Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services
Plan), adopted as a refinement to the MetroPlan. 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 Storinwater projects needed to serve land within the UGB.' The Public
Facilities and Services Plan also contains this information for electrical 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. Infonnation ,in the Public Facilities and Services Plan on project
phasing and costs, and decisions ~n 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. '
The policies listed provide direction for public and private developmental and program
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 nse and expansion ofthese facilities. '
Goals
1. , Provide and maintain public facilities and services in an efficient and
enviromnentally responsible manner.
2. Provide public facilities and services in a manner that encourages orderly" and
sequential growth.
Findings and Policies
The .fmdingsand 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, including wa.,.;<...."'~<lr service, may be found under any of
these topics, although the fITst topic, Services to Development Within the Urban Growth
Boundary, is further broken down into sub-categories.
,. Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary
. Pl~nn;ng and Coordination
. Water'
1 The'exact location of the projectssbown on the Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities
, ' m~ps i~ ,det!'..rnlined through local processes. -
"'3HVf.~:!;)8rP~alWWso r~quires ,~sportation facilities to be included in public facil~ties plans. In this ,metropolitan
, , " are..~,,\J:aII~portal1on faclhtles are addressed m Metro Plan Cbapter Ill-F and In the Eugene-Sprmgfield .
. (. TrfFfRortation System Plan (I'rans Plan). Date Received
.; /'"
"
.~
. r. ')" ~. '.r.1-
"r I" ,,>o~' '
. r.~' _', : 4, I. ! J~~:!'ti .-)
Appendix Ab Page2
MAY 111 O~
Planner:' BJ
. Wastewater Treatment
. 'Stormwater
. Electricity
. Schools
. Solid Waste Treatment
. Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
. Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
. Financing
Sen>ices to Develonment Within the Urban Growth Boundan>:Plannin'! and ..
Coordination
Findings
1. Urban expansion wtthin the UOB is accomplished through in-fill, redevelopment,
and annexation of territory which can be served with a minimum level of key
urban services and facilities. TIlls permits new development to use existing
facilities and services, or those which can be easily extended, minimizing the
public cost of extending urban facilities and services.
2. In accordance with Statewide Planning Ooal!! and OAR 660, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies jurisdictional responsibility for the
provision of water; wastewater ~d 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 improvements are included in the Public Facilities and Services Plan,
although not required by state law. Local facility master plans and refinement
plans provide more specific project information.
3. Urban services within the metropolitan UOB are provided by the City of Eugene,
the City ofSpr,ingfield, Lane County, EWEB, SUB, the MWMI:;, electric
cooperatives, and special service districts. ' '
4. The Puhlic Facilities and Services Plan finds that almost all areas within the city
. limits of Eugene and Springfield are served or can be served in the short-term (0-5
years) with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service. Exceptions to
this are stormwater service 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 mid Services Plan
project lists, all urbanizable areas within the Eugene-Springfield UOB can be
!.' ,\,'." served with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service at the t~llJp~e R . , d
"':b::'!!~'1~ l!h:ir-,i ,iJ~lii are developed. In general, areas outside,city limits serviceable in ~- ecelve
.,.
~ .; '1/,
MAY 111 Olf
:'.
I . r ,:1
," I'J'
Appendix Ab Page3 .
Planner: BJ
term are located near the UOB and inurblin reserves, 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 JJeincluded in public facility plan
project lists for water, wastewater, and stormwater. These defmitions are shown
in the keys of planned facilities Maps 1,2, 2.!h.and 3 in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan. ' . .
7. In accordance with ORS 195.020 to 080, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and.
special service districts are required to enter into coordination agreements that
define how planning coordination and urban services (water, wastewater, fire,
parks, open space and recreation, and streets, roads and mass transit)'will be
provided within the UOB.
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. Duplication of services preyents the most econoinical distribution of public
facilities and services. '
10. As discussed in the Public Facilities and Services Plan, a majority of nodal
development areas proposed in TransPlan at~ serviceable now or in the short-
term. The City of Eugene's adopted Growth Management Policy #15 states,
"Target publicly-financed infrastructure extensions to support development for
higher densities, in-fill, mixed uses, and nodal develv ~.....~..t"
Policies
0.1 Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and services in an
orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in
Chapter I1-C, relevant policies in this chapter, and other Metro Plan policies.
0.2 Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide
. the general location of water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical projects in
. . the metropolitan area Use local facility master plans, refinement plans, caDital
imorovement Dlans. and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning and project
implementation.
.0.3. 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, 2!h lind 3,
. requires amending the Pubic Facilities and Services Pli:m' and the Metro Plan,
i"llr.:.>""'.'''K.i),'',..,,: .'f:.~'except for the following: ' D. te Rece'lved
. ",.J<~-.1..1j' . --",- .. . a
. .' -. ~ ","" '. '
MAY III DC{
. Planner: BJ
,
,
\J\t\i~ .
I l,
. ,
.J;,
'. ~~: -,' j;;!i'. .:~,: >~~ir:;;,;'
Appendix Ab Page4
a. Modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do
not significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing,
. . capacity, or other general characteristic of the project; or
b. Technical and envrronmental modifications to a public facility which are
made pursiiant to final engineering ona project;.or
c. Modifications to a public fucility project which are made pursuant to
[mdings of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact
Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural
provisions ofthe national Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any
federal or State of Oregon agency project development regulations
consistent with that act and its regulations; or
d. Public facility projects included in the PFSP to serve land designated
Urban Reserve prior to the removal ofthe Urban Reserve designation,
which projects shall be removed from the PFSP at the time ofthe next
Penodic Review of the Metro Plan.
. 0.4 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 COllITllent on proposed public facilities, plans, programs, and public
improvement projects or changes thereto that may affect one another's area of
responsibility.
.,
0.5 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.
0.6 Efforts shali"be made to reduce the numb~r 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.
0.7 Service providers shall coordinate the provision offacilities and services to areas
targeted by the cities for higher densities, infill, mixed uses,. and nodal
develop~ent.
0.8 The cities and county shall coordinate with citiessUITounding the metropolitan
area to develop a growth management strategy. This strategy will address
'regional public facility needs.
Services to Develonment Within the Urban Growth Boundar": Wastewater
, r ,I ,
~ \l;....;~k;;,:..?".i~l,Firidiriosl"
"'., ",,\,., ",' ~",'
'i;"I,',
Date Received
MAY 11/ ot{
. :j :,;I~\;"
, 'f;
.: J"
AppendiX Ab Page5
Planner: BJ
11. Snrinllfield and EUllene relv on a combination,ofrellional and local services for
the nrovision of wastewater services. Within each Citv. the local iurisdiction
,Dro~ides collection of wastewater throUQh a svstein of sanitarY sewers and
,DU1llninll svstems. These collection facilities connect to a rellional svstem of
similar sewer collectionfucilitiesowned and onerated by the Metrooolitan
Wastewater Manallenient Commission ("MWMC".t an entitv formed under an
inteTllovernmental allreement created nursuant to ORS 190. TOQether. these
collection facilities (which exclude nrivate laterals which convey wastewater from
. individual residential or commercial/industrial connections) constitute the nrimarv
collection svstem. .
12. The nrirnani collection svste~ convevs wastewater to ~ treatment facilities svstem
owned and onerated bv MWMC. This svstem consists of an interconnected Water
Pollution Control Facilitv ("WPCF"t a bioscilids facility. and a beneficial reuse
facilitv.
Policies
.
G.9 Wastewater conveyance and treatment shall be nrovided to meet the needs of
nroiected lITowth inside the UGB that are canable of comnlving with regulatorv
requirements QOVerninll beneficial reuse of eflluent and beneficial reuse or
disnosal of residuals. .
. .
SUBSEQUENT FINDINGS AND POLICIES SHALL BE RENUMBERED
ACCORDINGLY WITHIN TIDS CHAPTER
Chapter V Glossary .
37. Public fuciiitv nroiects: Public facility project lists and maps adopted as part of
the Metro Plan are defmed as follows:
a Water: Source,reservoir~; pump stations, and primary distribution
systems. Primary distribution systems are transmission lines 12 inches or
larger for Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and 24 inches or larger for
. Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB).
. b. Wastewater: Primirrv Collection SvstelI\: Pump stations'and wastewater
lines 24 inches or ~ge~.
~ . Viot.'
01. ~ HIV,
Treatment Facilities Svstem: Water Pollution Control
Facilitv (WPCF) nroiect. beneficial reuse nroiect and
residuals nroiect necessarY to meet waStewater treatment
facilities svstem desilln canacities for averaQe flow. neak
flow. blocbemical OXVllen demand and total :na~ '
, solids so as to provide ~ervic,e within the urb Received
MAY II, ot{
Planner: BJ
Appendix Ab Page6
T')I.'~\fjL'C10L'I! e..~t"'(
, ,":. 'f .. t' ~ t' ~', ,"';'Ijj' ~ ;.; --,-i .
1.C',
t:.'~ :
. 4_:~i.. ,('i:: ,r~h~'~
. . _'~ ,III '1.~. Ii I; 1
boundary (UGH) for a oroiected nODulation in 2025
consistent with the DOnulation assumed in this Plan. in
comnliance with MWMC's dischar!:!e nennit. MWMC's .
Canital Imnrovements Plan. as aInended from time to time.
shall be used as the lmide for detailed nlanninl! and
imnlementation of the WPCF nroiect. the beneficial reuse
proiect and the residuals nroiect.
. c. Stormwater: Drainage/channel hul"v lements and/or piping systems 36
inches or larger; proposed detention ponds; outfalls; water quality
projects; and waterways and open systemS.
d. Specific projects adopted as part of the Metro Plan are described in the
project lists and their general location is identified in the planned facilities
maps in Chapter II of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public
Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan).
J
, . ,
"~"'/.'a~: v.. ],1',.1 -~'(.""v
I~ \ ,11\'" ~)j~l{' ~ ';:,j; ",,!\,~
.' .' t\/;:j':~.1
,
i.t',;
. , .." ,-'" ' I~
4f,<,r, j. 1('),"
,.'ofl .,
Appendix Ab Page7
Date Received
MAY 1l/0l{ -
Pianner::JaJ-
, )1. "','lfth
r ' v.,-~. '
:~ ' 11 ',. t
Date Received
MAY 11 It!-{
Planner: BJ
\'\ :\ '11:,."~:,,_.;t I r'"'~J:"'''''
, lhi~ri',:-.: 'itJ{, {:il,>"
t~~., ~l; ", '\:!~:;~:'"J';~:l~'~"";
APPENDIX B
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP)
1. Modify the text preceding existing Table 3 to read as follows:
Planned Wastewater System Improvements
Planned siJeFt c:n~ bng term wastewater system improvement projects are listed in
tables3,-llf14 4, 4a and 4b. The general location of these facilities is shown in Map. 2:
Planned Wastewater Facilities, and Map 2a: Existing WasteJjJater Collection and
Treatment Systems. [NOTE: This map presently exists as Map 6 in the Technical
Background Report: Existing Conditions and Alternatives and should be
incorporated without change.J .
2. Insert, following Tabie 4, Tables 4a and '4b, as follows:
Table 4a
MWMC Wastewater Treatment System Improvement Projects,
Proj ect Project Name/Description
Number.
300 WPCF Treatment Project I
301 Residuals Treatment Project I
302 ' Beneficial Reuse Project I
Table 4b
MWMC PriIruiry Collection' System Improvement' Projects
Project
Nuinber
303
304
305
Project Name/Description
Willakenzie Pump Station
Screw Pump Station
Glenwood PU1llP Station
Modify Map 2 to show Projects 300.through 305, and insert Map 2a. 'd
" ,..:' .,'.., ,', ."""')'..'1,"",1,,.,: . , '. Date Receive
Ir-:' \f~:>'~ J~-:JfI' ': ,
'1'~i., MAY III ot.{
Planner: BJ
3.
.
l -..'~
c
.. I v
. ': 'I' ~_: "I ..., , --
, ','. .
Appendix B Page 1
. . -;;1..
>/,~-(. ;:
,\,~,;,
_.'~t.t; .!;";1~'.;f .
. _ .'. ~,,' :t.;:. ',i,:~~:' ;<'
~,.._,-_......-
"---'-~
I
"h<l'
'1- f
)'.,
,.. .'"
~.' F
'~'.
. Eugecn'e.Springfiead Public F' aoilities ilInd"Servioes, pl.1!n ..-'
" Planned MWMC W astewater,p~j~ct S-ite~-,'
"', ~_.:...:..-':_..._~~~M:J!I
.......M._wi~..6~..'..
I! "'.Il,!,"'u,,;:
...-"..,,.,.,...,,
. _..1.._.";"__'11..
. ........ 1M
c................... '
Cl____....
r::a .....Ro.o- .. .. . .'
- -'--...~~-
._.,_..._-~-
--~-;. ".
.....
.....
.J;;:;."
i,I
"
--
'., .
.....
.. " -'<i':" h" ; . '.. .'. '.. -':. ~_ r.' ".,:", t.\1.:<~, ~,.:-" _ ."~. ;.:;. ~
. 'Eug ~ne- I:;prin g'l1a (d Pub l{c'F acilitia's"an.~ SafvicB_S Pl_afi'i~~?'..
", '; .",~: \~' .. ExiSting MWMC,Waslewaler~tre:atnien-i'S).'stB-msJijc
. ~:::::t'.{iri~';~~' ~~~~f~
"'~~ ~i; '. . :', .'q.:.~~:,",/~:
]'T"-'>>,,, .,,:i;l':;;..',
',''.''
.",
.. i'~~ :;';'.' .
'.
,_.~
,., ~1' :.-/^'
~ ;- ". .
~.~~'
~f. ", .
:'~~
...-.........--.-..-
10&1___.... ",.._..__
--..-....---- .
--.
4.
Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying
the subdivision entitled "Wastewater System condition Assessment"
/ ,,(presently on page 82) to read as follows:
'I'll,. "I
':'~7)j -'''''t ,j
Date Received
MAY 11) oc.{
, . '" . - . ]
JL"~ ..II -(f~";"',l
~.. .:' ,,"- 'f~-J1.'f~;!
: "i
{AM
~.I' !7;';;
.. '." - '. f-...'
";, JI" II: ~,"If'\pl,Clj
. ", '," l.r ~ J;:L '- ~J
App.endix B Page 2
Planner: BJ
!-"-)-
,
",
Wastew.ater System Condition Assessment
COR"eyIlRee capacity and inDow and infiltFlltion (III) Fllti05 lire imp. ,.~~,,,: .....:~,,:a-
bJ,.,,,:C:..h to assess the performance of a wlIGtewatcr eoUee::".. ",/stem. C, 10,'1" .,"".".re-
ellpae'ity is a function of adequate pipe siZing 8Bd .~..J."'...,..es a system's ability to
. moyc efAuentemciently. iRDe,," and iRtiltFlltion Flitios' ..or.. ....,HI.... .....ount of
stormwatcr entertRg a sewer system thFllugh defeetive pipes and pipe jOiRts, or
threugh the erOS5 e",. ..tioR ofstormwater lines, e ,0/,'",. I sewers, ellteh basins, OF
00,;"', ~Ie eovers. Sueh eItFllneou5 storBlWater eRtering the waGtewater system
tHtD"~~,,,,",rily bumens both conveyance and treatment faeilitics:
Treatment: MWMC Wastewater Treatment Srstem
MWMC existinl! infrastructure is monitored for nroblems that need to be addressed.
durinl! onerational and maintenance activities. MWMC has Oll\!oinl! nrolITaIllS to heln
nlan for and imnlement eauinment reulacement and maior rehabilitation of existinl!
svstems. With these on I!oinl! nrolITaIllS used to detect existinl! nroblems. the
infrastmcture can be maintained and nreserved to heln extend its useful life for future
vears.
,
In March of2003. MWMC hired CH2M HILL to evaluate and nlan for rel!ional
wastewater caiJital imnrovements that will serve the Em!ene/Snrinl!field urban 1IT0wth
boundary into vear 2025. MWMC will need to imnlement the recommended
imnrovements to meet rel!ulatorv reauirements based onnroiected nollution loads and'
flows. ,CH2M HILL as Dart of its work to evaluate and ulan for rel!ional wastewater'
imurovements has nrenared a technical memo related to "Flow and Load Projections"
dated Amil'12. 2004. Thishistorical and'nroiected information is beinq used to nlan for
needen MWMC canital imnrovements based on enl!ineerinl! evaluation methods and bv
,comnarinl! technolol!v ontions. It is estimated that anuroximatelv $160 million dollars
(in 2004 dollars) are needed for MWMC uroiects to address relllilatorv reauirements and
1IT0wth throul!h year 2025.
Convevance:
Conv~vance canacitvand inflow and infiltration (If}) ratios are imnortant criteria bv
which to assess the nerformance of a wastewater collection'svstem. Convevance canacitv .
is a fimction of adeauate nine sizinl! and measures a svstem's ability to move effluent
efficientlv. Inflow and infiltration ratios exoress the aInoUnt of stormwater enterinl! a
sewer system thromm defective nines and nine ioints. or throullh the cross connection of
stormwater lines. combined sewers. catch basins. or manhole covers. Such extraneous.
stormwater enterinl! the wastewater system unnecessarilv burdens both convevance and
treatment facilities.
5. Modify Chapter IV. Ofthe Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying
'. :,'''oJ ,,:\'. the ~i~~ussion of wastewater, in the subdivision entitled "Long-Term Service
. .'1.. j'J' Availability Within Urbanizable Areas" (presently on page 97) to read as
~~IIv?ws: ' Date Received
,MAY 11 /ocf
1_. . 'fr-
./ ',', ,.. .. .~ J, .
, '" 'j".!!j
Appendix B Page 3
Planner: BJ
1. There are no areas within the metropolitan UGB that will be difficult to serve with
wastewater facilities over the long-term (six to 20 years) assuming that nublic
infrastructure snecifications and reQuirements ofthe develonim! area can be ,
addressed. AQorooriate en!!ineeriJ1lI (I"sign practices ml1,,~ be used durin!! the
develonment and exnarision into sensitive areas that are annroved for
develonment (ex. - hillside construction. etc.). ; !ie'Never, "'P",,3ieR Expansion of
,the existing collection system will be necessary to meet demands of, growth over
this time period.
2. Based on 2003 analysis,. the Eu!!ene-Sorin!!field metronolitan area treatInent
facilities will reQuire facilitv imnrovements to address both drv and wet weather
T~qulatOrv re~uirements relatinl! to pollutant loads and wastewater flows.
Re!!ional and local wastewater imnrovements to the collection and treatment
svstems are bein!! nlanned for and will be imnlemented to allow for !!Towth within
the UGB and for rel!lliatorv comnliance. 'The EHgeBe Springfield metrBflelitllfi
- area RegieaalW-astewater Treatmell1 pliB: has Jaffieient Eiesi;;n z:lpaeity to
aee"mmoJate p0flclation iBereases aed serve aU n~... i~ ieJeplHent at lmilEiOllt.
Hewever, peak wet 'Neatlier eoooitizoc ":Hi: the treat..u"'n~ p:ant ffem aehieying its
designed eaflaeity. Wet, weather relateEi imIlrsvemeBts are needed at th: J:1:m-
and within the regional eolleetion system to ellteOO the plant's wet '.'leather
eapaeity 1ie~oo the year 2007.
6. Add Table 16a following Table 16, as foll,ows:
, Table 16a
MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Improvements,. Rough Cost
Estimate, and Timing Estimate
I., 'Projectl'j ~~,l'(iject1NameJDescnption;ii
" ,~titi~~i,f~ ~lTh:l~-II~; - '" - '"
I 300 WPCF Treatment Project
I 301 ResidUals Treatment Project
I 302 Beneficial Reuse Project
I 303 Willakenzie Pump Station
I 304 Screw Pump Station
I 305 Glenwood PU1llpStation '
*Cost estimated in 2004 dollars
~~li~ESi:imafell' ' 'I
$) " ~rfi~i1i'6r:ti,(;ri!';Y~a '0
$120,500,000 2025 I
$6,000,000 2018 I
$25,000,000 2018 I
$6,000,000 2010 I
. $2,000,000 ,2010 I
$500,000 2012 .1
,7, Add a new chapter to the Public Facilities and Services Plan, to be Chapter
VI., reading as follows:
Y:\M
Appendix B Page 4
Date. Received
MAY 11., ot./
. Planner: BJ
VI. Amendments to the Plan '
",.-- 7'- ....-.!: .-
: .::....~\\~lll:_."'-;/I,,_ \:,.....,[ '~""r.l\ '
II.!~. _'":oJ.-r__ "-'-,r _'. ~~:,. ~.
, .
1'_) " .. >: >(:,'. -~i s:~~ j, ~ _ ~-
This chapter describes the method to be used in the event it becomes necessary or
appropriate to modify the text, tables or the maps cOQtained in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan ("the Plan").
Flexibility of the Plan
Certain public facility project descriptions, location or service area designations will
necessarily change as a result of subsequent design studies, capital improvement
programs, enviromnental 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 Enviromnental PoJ.!cy 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 mo<\ifications require aInendment of the Plan:
L Amendments, which include those modifications or changes (as
represented by Table 16a) to the location or provider of public facility
projects which significantly impact a public facility project identified in '
the comprehensive plan, and which do not qualifY as administrative or
technical and enviromnental changes, as defmed below. Amendments are
subject to the administrative procedures and review and appeal procedures
applicable to land use decisions.
2.', Adoption of capital improvement prograIn project lists by any service
provider do not require 'modification of this Plan unless the requirements
of subparagraph 1 above are met.
B., Modifications permitted without aInendment ofthe Plan.
The following modifications do not require aInendment of this Plan:
1. .Administrative changes are those modifications to a public facility project
which are minor in nature and do not significantly impact the project's
general description, location, sizing, capacity or other general
characteristic of the project. , .
2. Technical and enviromnental changes are those modifications to a public
facility project which are made pursuant to "final engineering" on a project
or those which result from the findings of an Enviromnental Assessment
or Enviromnental Impact Statement conducted under regulations
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Enviromnental
Policy Act of 1969 or any federal or state agency project development
. regulations consistent with that Act and its regulations.
"" ,.; .' ('I' "J' r
('IL,J:;I(':"-'lt-:]I'-" of ",' !,;'I
. "_j '. ;\r ....~J.~ ',/ :l <;;-If. h
Appendix B Page 5
Date Received
MAY ll,vtf
Planner: BJ
". l~ " Y:\lvi
'.J~' '?';. ''''I~Hlf~;~: ~J~J
Process for making Changes
A. Administrative and Technical or Environmental Changes. Any jurisdiction may
make an administrative or technical and environmental change; as defined herein,
by forwarding to each jurisdiction covered by this Plan, and to the Lane Council
of 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 aIllendmentsare
divided into two classes.
a. Type I Amendments include aInendments to the text of the PJan, 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 aInendments include aInendments to a list, location or provider of
public facility projects which significantly impact a public facility project
identified herein, which.project serves only the jurisdiction proposing the
aInendment
C. Processing Amendments
Any of the adopting agencies (Lane County, Eugene, or SpringfIeld) may initiate
an aInendment to this plan at any time on their own motion or on behalf of a
citizen. '
a. Type I aInendments shall be forn:arded to thep1anning commissions of the
respective agencies and, following their recommendation, shall be
considered by the governing boards of all agencies. If a Type I .
amendment is not adopted by all agencies; the aInendment shall be
referred to MPC for conflict resolution. Subsequent failure by agencies to
adopt an MPC-negotiated p.-':pvsal shall defeat the proposed aInendment.
If an aInendment is adopted, all agencies shall adopt identical ordinances
b. Type II amendments shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission of
the initiating agency and, following their recommendation, shall be
considered by the governing' board of the initiating agency.
'l'!\ji:1
Date Received
MAY 11/ tY
,
.' -,,.' ,( t1.t 1 r:-.':~If"';-,
'. \&~l"'a El_ I,J{:'~1l1~;. ;rJ~. ~\:.
" " i"( fl' ~ ...., -'.' '.'
Appendix B Page 6
Planner: BJ
. "f..
L l! l ,\{.,." ;.. ,,'}1~-
,1,'''''1 . I, ,_ III ~:... -,'
.1(<'
.lIlome Bum~def$
ASSOCIATION
of Lane County
rI-?:}~~l>~':' y~~c r"\/-r3::I), I
M.4Y 0 7 2004 I
A~ ...... 1.f:;J5(x14
BY: rqf1M1b . !
,J==-'==c=J
May 6, 2004
Springfield Planning Commission
225 5th Street .
Springfield, Oregon 97477"
Eugene. Planning Commission
99 West 10th Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Lane County Planning Commission
Public Service Building
125 East 8 th Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Re:. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the Public Facilities Plan
Dear Commissioners:
The Home Builders submit the following comments on the proposed Metro
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and aInendments to the Eugene-Springfield Public
Facilities and Services Plan.
Before addressing the 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 Facility Plan), was adopted
by the three jurisdictions in December, 2001, as part of periodic review. The second
objective of the public facilities plan is:
Comply with the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal n and Goal 11
administrative rules to adopt a public facilities plan for water, wastewater,
stormwater, and transportation facilities. This plan also includes information
about arid maps for electrical facilities although not required by law. .
; Transportation system requirements are met through Transplan, incorporated into
this refinement plan by reference (page 2).
,
.:"11;
,- .' . 1
..~c'/:. ., ":2'05? Laura Street
Springfield, OR 97477
(541) 484-5352
Date Received
MAY II} OL(
Planner: BJ
FAX: (541) 484-5386
~'\.l ' ..4 ',- . ,_ .' . '-.,..
~$.. ;\\1/ l'~t~-?i'.J ~I,_...:r v/.'4( ..
"' ,. ~ . ~!iJj , ~;-'1.-;~ ....,'
,.
.~ . Yi\~:;
At the public.hearing on April 20, I compared the level of detail that the planning'
cOll1lnissioners should require for the' wastewater facility to that of Trans plan. That is
because Transplan was in fact done as a periodic review work task as part of the Public .
Facility Plan as well as under Goal 12. It serves as an appropriate guide to the level of
public and planning commission scrutiny that is justified when considering the proposed
amendments before you.
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission did participate in the 2001
Public Facility and Service Plan update. Susan Smith, General Manager of MWMC, 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,
including the treatInent facility, was included in the document What was not.included in
. the document was description of projects that would be required by MWMC so shortly
after the document was adopted. The requirement to include wastewater treatment
facilities in the Public Facility Plan is specifically identified on page 3 of the document,
under the titleStatewide Planning Public Facilities Plan Requirements. It is difficult to
conceive why it was assumed that the treatment facility would be required to be included
for some parts of the public facility plan and not others. But, in any case, the '
reassessment of the facility and the eXaIninationof the projects proposed for the
wastewater treatment facility must go through the same level of examination 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 canital imDrovement nlans as a means to
imnlement nolicv.
It is the position of the Home Builders th~t this amendment violates state law.. In essen~e,
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 real land use consequences. An eXaInpl" is the poplar plantation.
About three years ago, MWMC.spent several million dollars to purchase approximately
600 acres to plant a poplar plantation for distribution of wastewater effluents and dry tons
ofbiosolids: The project.never came before the planning commissions as an aInendment
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 and some was
inside the UGH. None of the poplar trees have yet been planted because the project has
run afoul ofland use issues. The Farm 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 purpose (disposal of urban biosolids and effluents) and the' trees have virtually no
agricultural value, ergo a possible Goal 14 problem. There is also opposition to the trees
. !w ,,', ,.",t,\ being pJ.anted on the acreage inside the UGB. That land is zone industrial and people are
. ".'.' :":"'. 1,,-. . quesfiBiling if a poplar plantation is the.best use of scarce industrial land. Innate Received
'rI,l"
MAY lliuL(
2
Planner: BJ
"
j ~'
- . I;: ,>},:~
.:' ~ " I 'j ,!' ""I!'
meantime, the ratepayers have a considerable aInount of their money tied up in
unproductive land at a time when their rates are going to increase substantially over the
next few years to pay for additional projects.
The majority ofthe 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 ofland use issues to the planning commissions.
If the poplar plantation (biofarm) project title had been before the planning commission
as an aInendment to the Public Facility Plan, members of the public on the planning
cOll1lnissions' interested party list, who are typically interested in land use issues, may
have raised the relevant land use problems. If not, the planning commissioners
themselves and the local planning staffs, given their land 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 implications. For
eXaInple, many if not most of the MWMC projects have to db with odor control, thermal
regulations, or product outfall to the Willamette River. Those obviously have Goal 6
implications, because Goal 6 involves compliance with federal and state air and water
,environmental quality statutes. One of the 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 zone in the
WillaInette 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 treatment plants and sludge
disposal sites. ' .
....
MWMC wants you to adopt an amendment that would'authorize them to bypass you and
any land use review on all of these issues, and instead allow $144 million dollars 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 EWEB and SUB could bypass the Goal 11 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 running them
through the cities'.budget process. In short, this amendment means that all of the public
facilities could do ail end run around you and the Goal 11 process. Would they all do .
that? Maybe not. However, we know that MWMC would, because they 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 todo'so in the future. State law does not permit
you to delegate the responsibility to perform land use review of public facilities projects
to MWMC, other utlitities, or the budget processes.
Y/., fit;
Date Received
MAY 1l,o{
Plapner: BJ
.. 5. . pronosed Policv G.9 reads:
. ~lit':.~Q.i;''''''i;G\'; ('.::.'
" ';"'ff"...,,,", >1),-" " /.\.1'.)\
',.t"
. L ~ Ji
.. I! )'j, <Ii I(
Wastewater conveyance and treatment shall be provided to meet the needs of
projected growth inside the UGB that are capable of complying with regulatory
requirements governing beneficial reuse of effluent and beneficial reuse or
disposal of residuals.
I'm not sure exactly how to illterpret that policy. . Obviously, its applicability is limited to
just wastewater treatment. It sounds as ifMWMC does not have to provide sewage
conveyance and treatment for projected growth if, for some reason, MWMC is not
capable of complying with regulatory requirements governing beneficial reuse of effluent
and beneficial reuse or disposal of residuals. ltsounds as if, under those conditions,
MWMC may impose a moratorium, on new development. Conditions under which
moratoriums may impose on development for lack of public facilities are specifically
identified under state law. Ther~ doesn't appear to be a good reason for the Metro Plan to
specifically speak to moratoriums solely for the benefit of MWMC, especially because
the language may conflict with the state provisions on moratoriums.
6. Modifies definition 37. Wastewater: Public Facilities Proiects. rChapter V
Glossarvl
The proposed definition reads as follows:
b. Wastewater: Primarv Collection Svstem: Pump stations and wastewater lines
24 inches or larger.
:Treatment Facilities Svstem: 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
demand and total suspended. solids so as to pro\:,ide service
within the urban growth boundary (UGB) for a projected
population in 2025. consistent with the population assumed in
this plan, in compliance with MWMC's discharge permit.
MWMC's Capitallmprovement Plan, as aInended 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. If MWMC were to simply limit the definition of
wastewater to the facility components, as is done with water and storrp.water, we would
not have an issue with this. What MWMC is attempting to do is incorporate its proposed
project titles, its proposed plaIilling period, and its proposal to use the budget process to
adopt projects and implement policy within the definition ofwastew~ter. Including the
p~oposedainendments to the Metro Plan into th~ glossary is not appropriate and is not
hli',d~-';~\q 1...Nl!)~I~~lent with type of definitions provided for the other two typ'es of public facilities -
., ./ 1,"I._~..Jl '\vate?and stormwater - in the glossary. OAR 660-011-0060 contains a definition of
.) ,:~:' 'YilM' f . Date Received
, .
1 V-'.
.f H.~' .. '"'/ {,' ~f:~"-~ ll(e~
'..",' . ... H'-.J:ij 11; l';'.'-;:U-.;
.... flil I
MAY llr 6q
l"~ .
~"~ . 4
. Planner: BJ
Sewer System. Using relevant parts ofthat definition 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 aInendments.
1. Modifies the text on nae:e 28. nrecedine: Table 3. and adds Tables 4a and 4b that
identify MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Primarv Collection Svstem
imnrovements. resnectivelv.
The first part of this amendment is to strike the words "short and long-term" from the.
text
The contents of and aInendments to the Public Facility Plan are governed by OAR 660-
. .
011-000 through 660-011-0065.
OAR 660-011-0025 Timing of Required 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 tenns of short or long .
term~ Ne~ertheless, the administrative rule does require that the planned projects have a
general estimate of the timing of 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 eXaInple, WPCF Treatment Project, with an estimated cost of$126
million, is estimated to be completed by 2025. All that says is that the project will be
finished before the end of the twenty-year planning pe.riod. It doesn't provide any
information on the proj ected start dates or the estimated length of construction time. In
short, it really provides no inf6nnation at all with respect to estimated timing of the
projects.
The second part of this amendment is the tables intended to identify the proposed
MWMC projects. As I discussed during my oral testimony, the proposed projects 300,
and 301, and 302 are not projects at all within the definitions ofthe administrative ruies.
Instead they are baskets containing a number of different types of projects with different
timings and, and in the case of the MPCF Treatment 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 CIP and budget process to be used for
the adoption of actual projects and the implementation of policy, 'which removes any land
use reviewJor the projects. .
On April 13, 2004, 1 received a response from Dave Jewett, MWMC's attorney to a
question I had posed to him about the relationship' of the MWMCFacility Plan (the $160
. million in projects which MWMC intends to take directly to the public officials without .
j ;"~;-'\CI;}haYingthem.ire:viewed by the planning commissions) and the comp plan aInendmen"'te Recel'ved
1(,.., "i :'"'i!t"J:;;:".'i}lj ',- >"IJ;f......~\ ,-' c.:fC1.
F " \rf~:'i~[
MAY ll,()lf
. 5
Planner:' BJ
J, _~ ~.<"~>f.:~d,...\~il.t
,,, ~ ;~ ..:.~ r. 1: ~ J.'''''\l' l~
Specifically, my question was: "Whatis the relationship, if any; between the facilities
plan that MWMC will 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 analyzes the status of the
regional wastewater system and identifies capital improvements needed to meet
operational standards necessary to comply with the Commission's policies (emphasis
added) and the requirements ofMWMC's NPDES permit through the year 2025. The
Eugene / Springfield Public Facilities Plan (PFSP) is an adopted functional plan of the
Eugene / Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan' (Metro Plan),"
That is exactly our concern. First, MWMC commissioners cannot make policy. Only
elected officials can do that and the majority of the MWMC coinmissioners are
volunteers. Most importantly, assessing the status of the public facilities and making
recommendations to the elected officials about future public facility projects so they ~an
make policy is precisely the role given to the planning commissions by the state under
Goal 11. MWMC can not usurp that role and the planning commissions may not abdicate
it
OAR 660-011-0010 The Public Facility pian 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 in the acknowledged comprehensive plan, Public facility project
. descriptions or specifications of these projects as necessary (emphasis added). 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 planned. '
That supposition is supported by OAR 660-011-0020 Public FacilitY Inventory and
D,etermination of Future Facility Projects. The first thing to note is that this section
pertains to future projects as well as those within the current inventory. Subsection (2)
reqUIres:
The public facility plan shall identifY significant public facility projects which are
to support the land uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan.
The public facility plan shall list the title oJ the project and descriQe each public
facility project in terms of the type of facility, service area, and facility capacity.
It is.dear 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 kind of project is actually going to be
constructed. Three mere words - WPCF Treatment Project, Residuals Treatment Project,
or Beneficial Reuse Project - do not provide enough information to the public or the
elected officials as to the nature of the actual projects. The titles of the actual projects are
I '. .: . l.' ,,! .- "'~':/"~!- .
\L' "~ ',' !!-il'<' I <'Jich\
I _ \ _) .._ ~',,-.J ~. ,-"' ~ , . 0:0....1. . .
Date Received
.; f', ~I;f .
MAY 11,OLf
, 6
Planner: BJ
I I: " 'i"';~i_:,.",/~:,~,;;~~,~,~.
......:f
required to permit a discussion about the necessity or desirability of the projects. No
capacity descriptions are provided at all; though the administrative 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 aInend the Metro Plan and the Public Facility Plan if they 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 ofthe questions 1 had asked was
, why we were not having the discussion that Eugene Planning Commissioner Rusch had
raised about the new innovative types of wastewater systems. The commissioners and
CH2MHill all agreed that if they wahted 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 re~lIy
. a reason why we 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, along. with the
accomnanving land use imnlicaiions. are supposed tobe 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 officiaJs, by
way of the planning commissions, approve $140 milliort dollars of generic project naInes
(i.e. MPCF 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 Goal 11 process is supposed to work.
3. Modifies the existing narrative on "Wastewater Svstem Condition Assessment" in
Chanter IV (Page 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 probleni. with
identifYing the deficiencies in the current facility. That is, after all, integral to tIie
. assessment. The proposed paragraph says that CH2MHiIl has evaluated the system and
that $160 million worth of improvements (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 requirements that are really the subject of this public review and the
recommendation by the planning 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?
1
4. . Modifies existing narallranhs #1 and #2 under the discussion of "Wastewater" in
the subdivision entitled "Long-Term Service Availabilitv Within Urbanizable
Areas" in Chanter IV. (Page 97),
" ,. ..; "~"!. I . .~r- -1(-
, ',i.,I'. ifl..~' ,.-\,.,<" ;"J.".
.' . ~'.. .Y-. ,'~ ',;/"" (
" 'I' 1.:
. :. 1-:\]'11
Date Received
MAY 1lloJ
7
Planner: BJ
,J' ,
. ~J. c\,... .
.,. ".\\({,J
...'. 'It. , 1 ,~,... ' ~ ~
We have very significant issues with the changes in the last,ofthe two paragraphs. The
first thing to note is that the existing language that MWMC wishes to change was new
language in the current Public Facility Plan. This is not a part of the Public Facility Plari
that was overlooked two or three years ago.
The first proposed paragraph reads:
, There are no areas, of the metropolitan UGB that will be difficult to serve with
wastewater facilities over the long-term (six to 20 years) assuminl! that nublic
infrastructure soecifications and reauirements of the develooinl! area can be
addressed. Aoorooriate enl!ineerinl! desil!11 oractices must be used durinl! the
develooment and exoansion into sensitive areas that are aonroved for
develooment (ex. - hillside construction. etc.), Expansion of the existing
collection system will be necessary to meet demands of growth over this time
period.
1 aIn not sure what purpose the additional language serves. All infrastructure installation
has to meet specific engineering and design requirements of the local public works
departments as a condition of approval, or, in the case ofMWMC projects, MWMC's
,requirements. On the other hand, I can't really identify any hann in it It just seems
redundant '
The second paragraph is really at the crux of our issue with the facility plan that was
before MWMC and the $140 million generic projectnaInes proposed in the PublIC
Facility Plan,
, The proposed language of the second paragraph reads as follows:
Based on 2003 analysis. the EUl!ene-Sorinl!field metrooolitan area treatment
facilities svstem will reauire facilitv imnrovements to address both drv and wet
weather rel!Ulatorv reauirements relatinl! to nollutant loads and wastewater flows.'
Rel!ional and local imorovements to the'collection and treatment systems are
. nlanned for and will be imolemented to allow for l!Towth within the UGB and for
rel!Ulatorv comoliance.
The omitted language reads as follows:
The Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
hasrsufficient design capacity to accommodate population increases and serve all
new development at buildout However, peak wet weather conditions limit the
treatment of the plant from achieving its design capacity. Wet, weather-related
improvements. are needed at the plant and within the regional collection system to
, ,
extend the plant's wet weather capacity beyond the year 2007.
Allow me to repeat myself. The language that MWMC proposes to strike from the Public
. . ,;~,",I';:, ,Facil,it,Y,'P, Ian is.text that they either proposed or approved just a short tim~ll!iIhI;i1A>1lael'Ved
. "~;I.~~"!;"-VI--" dJ.""( J;~t:Jalv ntN
,,~,:J.'r '''''=' .rt...'. '. .
MAYll/Ot/
, 8
Planner: BJ
," .~
.:. r'
'''1
1!1lr-
,~
"/4, :r","t(,h ',;f'
. .' .-' ,I 0" -.
current Public Facility Plan was written. That abundance of capacity, excepting wet
weather peak flow because of infiltration and inflow (1/1), has been relied upon in other
planning documents. For eXaInple, the 2050 Plan on which LCOG and the local
jurisdictions are curr~ntly working has this to say about the MWMCcapacity:
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission 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 Scenarios, April 3, 2002, page 12).
Now suddenly, 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?
Some general background information. The MWMCtreatrnent facility was designed in
1977 and becaIne operational twenty years ago in 1984. It was designed to serve a
population of277,100 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 in 2004 is 217,690 persons, so the initial 1977 population projection that the
facility would reach its service capacity 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-1970's. The facility was
designed to provide adequate sewerage capacity through the year 2005 for a
projected population of277,100. This proje'ction 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 because of depressed economic conditions during the
mid-1980s (April, 2004 Draft MWMC Facilities Plan, page 1-6).
In addition, LCOG population projections for the 1990s were higher than the actual
numbers provided by the 2000 US Census.
Another factor significantly affected 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 naIne suggests - water. I am not referring now to
inflow and infiltration (1/1), 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 ouT wastewater is simply water. Tlie amount'of wastewater sent
from homes and businesses to the sanitary sewer pipes .correlates so closely to our actual
water usage that our winter water consumption is the basis upon which our MWMC
\;',. ,:: ,~~~~'r;~\lHtca1culated. Every year since the mid or late 80s, because ofwateOate Received
. '.~ ,...
. :~
-".;
MAY L1,o~
Planner: BJ
Yilr,'
conservation efforts, our per capita consumptiOJi of water has declined. We flush our
toilets with less water and use more efficient shower heads. Because of past drought
years, we turn off the water$hile brushing our teeth rather than leaving the tap running'
as was customary in the 70s.
The Register Guard recently ran an article reporting that while the state population had
grown by 17% (1 believe since 1990), water consU1llption had increased by only 2% in
the SaIne period. ,Some of the water conservation results in w~ter savings that do not
impact our wastewater flows - more efficient ways'.to water our lawns, for example.
However, much of the conservation has occurred inside homes and businesses. The
result' is that the MWMC facility can actually serve a larger population than the 277,100
persons originally projected in the mid-70s.. As previously noted, LCOG has estimated in
the 2050 Plan that the facility call now serve a populationof290,000 persons, which is
almost exactly to. the end of MWMG's 2025 planning peri~d.
There are four sources that we can use to determine how much facility capacity still
exists: (1) The 1997 MWMC Master Plan prepared by CH2MHill; (2) the 2004 Draft
MWMC Facilities Plan prepared by CH2MHill; (3) the 2002 Fact Sheet and NPDES
Wastewater Discharge Permit Evaluation prepared by the Department of Enviromnental
Quality (DEQ), (4) and the TechnicalB<).ckground Report:.Existing Conditions and
Alternatives, Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan
(1999). The latter is the separate technical document that supports the Public Facility Plan
that MWMC 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 w~ather flow, (3) BOD and TSS dry .
weather capacity, and (4) biosolids processing. It is important to look at each of the
larger category's capacity individually. .
Liquid Effluent Drv Weather CaDacitv:
DEQ defines the dry season as May 1 through October 31, although the 2002 permit
appears to extend the emergency overflow criteria for a storm event greater than the one-
in-five-year, 24-hour duration storm through May 21 rather than May 1, and allows that
SaIne criteria to extend to June 1 if there is no increase in risk to beneficial uses. The
facility has two important effluent dry weather design capacitie~, The average monthly
dry weather flow capacity is 49 million gallons per day (mgds). The average monthly
capacity most closely reflects the base flow from residences, businesses, and industrial
plants. It contains some 1/1, but the aInount 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 classified as "dry" by DEQ, especially May, can
.in fact be very wet and contain substantial amounts of 1/1. Therefore, the design capacity
for the dry season maximum month flow is higher than that of average monthly flows to
reflectthe presence of the VI. The difference between the specific design capacity and
the actual corresponding flows represents the capacity available to meet future needs.
. i~uh'~ihlr",i q*i~r:,
. f";". -..',,,..:1 . , .. - -J\."'
,
'.I.U'
T__IO.1
Date Received
MAY 11 /0 cf
10
Planner: BJ
. ..
"
1<
. ,,,,,... ..f-,-pi,'
", i I ~!i f 'i', ,.
,. .
The 1997 MWMC Master Plan examined the amount of dry season average monthly
flows as'Well as the dry season maxirrlUm monthly flows to determine the aInoimt of
capacity that was being used by current users. It also projected the available years of
capacity remaining in that part of the facility.
It identified the dry weather average month capacity as 49 rrtgds and the 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 estimated that 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 ofE/SWPCF, page
457). It concluded the dry weather capacity analysis as follows: "Ample dry weather
capacity remams well beyoiId.the current LCOG planning horizon (page 456)"
The Technical Background Report to the Public Facilities Plan has a more detailed
assessment of the 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 ofthe 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 estimates that CH2MHill provided on March 26,
2004, for the I)raft System Development Charge Methodology, in which CH2MHill
estimated the current population served in 2002 as 217,690, and the estimated 2005
population estimate of229,145 found in the draft facilities plan. Based on the'latter 2005
population, .CH2MHill 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 mgds and 66 mgds
respectively.
CH2MHill 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 593, also below the design capacity of 66 mgds.
DEQ also provided an evaluation of the MWMC treatment facility in 2002 in conjunction
"{,,\{,1~ ::,)()'ii~~}rr:re.newal of our NPDES wastewater discharge penuit. It noted:
. .'
Date Received
',I't.",
,.,..'."
MAYd 1 f1JL.( .
Planner: BJ
"\r ,,t",:(f
. The design Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) for the facility is 49 million
gallons per.day (MGD). The ADWF is the estimated maximuniflow during May
I 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 contain the high levels of infiltration and inflow that are associated
with the winte~ in Oregon. Therefore, the design dry weather flows are used
mostly to estimate how much treatment capa~ity there is for organic loads. The
. current actual dry weather flow for May I to October 31, for the past two years, is
28.6 MGD, On the basis of the current flows,thisfacility is at approximately
60% of organic treatment capacity. . Based on the currenUow flows compared to
the. design flows, and the lack of effluent violations, 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 Master Plan estimated that we were using 53% of our dry weather capacity.
Five years later, in 2002, DEQ dismissed the importance of discussing the liquid effluent
dry weather capacity and noted that the real issue was the aInount of capacity for
treatment of organic loads (such as BOD and TSS) and estimated the used capacity at
approxilllately 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, CH2MHiIl .
is also estimating that VI will be reduced by approximately 17% 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 remaining
in the facility, which is what we would expect, given the reduced population projections
and the effect" of water conservation efforts on plant flows. .
However, CH2MHill does contend in the proposed 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 currently
. 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 in its evaluation of the plant capacity. In the Master Plan .
CH2MHill arrived at the dry weather capacity by comparing the 4ry season maximum
month design capacity of 66 mgds with the dry season riIaximU1ll month flows (apples to
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.
flow design (49 mgds) with the dry season max.imurp monthly flow (apples to oranges).
. The design capacity used does not include any significant VI, but the maximum monthly
flow does. Needless to say, the available capacity evaporates immediately, and we go
from having 40% of the dry season capacity available to meet future needs to having only
.' . '.' . }I %.orthe dry season capacity available. That is an incredible difference. WIfl' ate Rece'lved
, . h . .-\. I'''''l~r .'
-', .. "j .. .... '" ,-, I .~. - .
-1 --:,~_\}'l.:: J'.. ';:)11(11. L1r-\ \\. ~
Yill"
. 'j...~"
MAYllf04
12
Planner: BJ
., .
'.J"
. ,.."
. .." _ ..'lk....l;:'~d.~ .
~ f ='J' i!:' '1.'.:"- qj ~l:
.
.
haveiI'tseen any place in the facility plan where current dry season capacity is identified,
CH2MHill suggests that the same comparison would be u~ed. . .
The existing average dry weather design flow for the WPCF, as stated in the
current NPDES permit is 49 mgd. This is defined as the average day flow
calculated from May I through October 31. Although stated.as an average dry
weather capacity, the facility must meet the effluent requirements on a 30-day
average flow (monthly basis). Because any 30-day period, including the
maximum 30-day flow period (or maximum month flow) during the. dry season,
must meet the NPDES effluent flow and load requirements stipulated for the
average dry season flow, it is prudent to compare the actual dry season 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. .
When I had talked with Mark Hamlin at DEQ on previous occasions, 1 was assured that
DEQ only looks at output and results and that DEQ does not tell jurisdictions how to
calculate capacity. I called Mark HaInlin last Thursday after reading in 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
the MWMC dry weather capacity at 60% in the Fact Sheet and NPDES Wastewater
Discharge Permit Evaluation. Furthermore, it is clear in that evaluation that DEQ did not
use the method being proposed by CH2MHill. Instead, DEQ compared the average flow
capacity of 49 mgds with the average flows of28.6 mgds. IfDEQ preferred the method
being 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 effluent violations, no
expansion of the facility is D:eeded at this time? '
Liauid Effluent 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 we'ather capacity and the second, and probably the more
important one, is peak flow capacity.
The wet weather average monthly flow is similar to dry season average monthly flow. It
contains a significant aInount 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 the 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 in 2002, said the average wet weather flow
design is 75 mgds and'the current average w'et weather flows were 56.4 mgds. The draft
facilities plan notes the average wet weather flow to be 52.5 mgds (page 4-13) and the
design capacity to be 75 mgds (footnote to Table 5.1.1-1, page 5-3). The draft facilj.4~ 'd
.' .,' :'plan proje-cts that the average wet weather flows in 2025 will be 68.2 mgds - belowWAate Receive
1. ." -' . '._... . ..~.
\ "V-~Vd". ~.1!./.-...'.t~J r jh~,,!r.,
,;t7, :'I-?:' :'1:";''('. 'Ii 1, . MAY '11/~~
Yfj;'I";.
PI~nner: BJ
'f':',l,'
.
.' 'l:'~
'~. ~,l\ '"':'1
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. Ifthe design capacity
of 75 mgds had been used rather than the 70 mgds, the remaining' years of capacity would
be further extended.
The critical capacity issue involves peak wet weather flows. Like many municipal
wastewater systems, we have a serious 1/1 problem. In January, 2001, CH2MHill and
MWMC staff released the Wet Weather Flow Management Plan, which described the
problem:
The treatment plant was designed in the i970s to provide adequate capacity
through 2005. From a base flow and loading standpoint, the treatment plant
performs well within its capacity (49 miIlion 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 (secondary) treatment capacity (104 mgd) more frequently...
Peak flow estimates for conditions associated with the 5-.year storm event are used
to size and plan future system improvements at the treatment plant and in the .
collection system. Through system modeling, tlie 5-year peak was estimated at
264 mgd. Peak flows are attributed to high infiltration and inflow (I/I) rates in
many areas of the collection system. ..VI occurs from extraneous water getting into
the system from iIlegal roof drain connections, sewer pipe cracks, and other
sources. 1/1 is often associated with older pipes in the system which have
deteriorated. Sanitary pipes in older areas are also more likely to be subject to
improper storm drainage (inflow) connections when construction inspection
practices were more lenient and / or such connections were allowed, creating a
combined flow system. Newer pipe systems reflect improvements in construction
techniques, materials, and inspection and typically e~hibit far I.ess VI. hi Eugene,
11 percent 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 primary sources of 1/1 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 298 mfd. Of this peak, oniy 4
percent or 12 mgd, is estimated to be. the result of1/1 from future pipes..
,,,,-,,, "1"'" , .". '..... '.
, 1,.1,1)1'" 'L" - ' "",~
r J " ;'~ "'l'.. '~I! .' I.j .~,
Estimates made at the time of design of the treatInent plant, relative to the aInount
of rainfall-derived infiltration and inflow (RDIl) 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.(SSOs) at a number oflocations inthe collection system.
EXaInple problems include basement and'street flooding and discharges to .
stormwater facilities and receiving waters. Although the magnitude of wet
weather flows differs greatly, they are significantly diluted because the sourc~ of
, the majority of the flow is rainwater, not sanitary sewage. Treatment plant flow
. '.
. data indicates that wet weather flow is diluted such that the concentration of
.'1 ".,',.
Date Received
, MAY 111 jWtf
PI~nnAr: BJ
J .,
. }\:.,:; "'-~"!L..<,~~~':> I ,,';'
typical pollutants in wet weather flow is 50 percent to 60 percent of that in dry
weather flow (Executive Summary, page 1465)..
The Master Plan 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 permit 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 permit limits.
All of the documents agree that the peak flow design capacity is 175 mgd. Everyone also
agrees that under our permit we are required 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 CH2MHill proposed three alternatives to deal
. with the lack of peak weather flow. The MWMC cominissioners voted to approve the
second option. It had a cost of$33.l 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 be measured in either lbs/day or dry tons.
In the reports, you 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 Ibs / day to dry tons /,year, multiply the lbs / day by 0.1825. To convert dry tons
per year to lbs / day, 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-l). The Master Plan identifies the average dry weather BOD load
as 28,682 lbs/day and that ofTSS as 31,056 Ibs/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
maximum month remaining capacity of 33 years. TSS has a remaining average. month
capacity of35 years 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). It also speaks to TSS. "The results of remaining capacity, as measured
by TSS, are also substantial, to about 2026 (page 462). Date Received
: ,- (" Cl("" t I r..':'~f~~'
. )iL~~~~ l~r.JJ~':);i! ~;;) ll/?\
I" "'-l~''''-'' r~~',
. ','- I I ;" "j\ -1..
':',1, ,I ", "\ .
.,
MAY] It6f
Plarmer: BJ
. .
, I , VA"
. ,J. ,f.~"'l
,
DEQ, in its 2002 Fact Sheet and' evaluation discusses the different sununer (dry season)
and winter (wet season) BOD and TSS permit requirements. ,It. concludes:
"A review of recent monitoring data indicates the permittees should generally be
able to comply with the pennit limits. No changes from the previolis permit are
proposed... An 85 percent removal efficiency limit is included in the proposed
permit'to comply with federal requirements. An examination of the DMR data
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 of28,000 lbs / day and that CBOD has a Maximum Week
. requirement of 24,000 lbs/day, Actually, the permit does not refer to Maximum Week
requirements. The permit chart refers to Monthly Average lbs/day, Weekly Average
lbs/day, and Daily Maximum pounds. CH2MHill chose to convert the requirement into
Maximum week terms r.ather than use the measurements provided by DEQ in the permit.
The answer would appear to be the same as why. we lost all of our dry weather capacity
underthe System Development Charge Methodology. Rather than using the Monthly
Average measurement provided in the permit to compare to the Monthly Average
capacity of 49 mgds (apples to apples), the decision was made to convert the data to
Maximum Week lb/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 CBOD and
TSS are met, the mass limits imply a lower concentration requirement if the
. wastewater flows exceed the 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
because the 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
pennit,provides three different means to measure theCBOD and TSS in both the dry
season and the wet weather seasons. Why convert to a fourth measurement that is not
provided by DEQ? Since DEQ refers to the average monthly dry weather design capacity
of the facility of 49 mgds and provides a limit for monthly'average flow, why not use
monthly average flow to arrive at your capacity (apples to'apples)? By converting to
Maximum Week, !II is again included in the flow but not in the design capacity, which is
automatically going to skewer the measurement and result in a significant loss of facility
capacity. '
',. . t. ... \ ~, -)',,~. ,J~
)' :?r.':IHi....ir.rl " ,;ft~,;,\. ~
. ! r ~ .
',\1",<,
Date Received
...
,.
~', .~",:c~\,l,iy; _:,\llf"l"
MAYII/O~
16
Planner~ r~,~
.
As a result, CH2MHill determined in the System Development Charge Methodology that
the facility is now operating at 83% of our BOD capacity and at 90A% 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 remainiI)g treatInent
capacity of the E/SWPCF is substantial for average dry and wet weather flow conditions
and conventional pollutants (BOD and TSS) (page 450).
DEQ, as you will recall, placed the capacity used for effluent organic loads at 60%. It
also said: "The current permit contains CBOD and TSS removal efficiency limits of 85
percent. The facility has been able to comply with the permit limits and has not had any
violations even during the extremely wet months (page 4 of the Fact Sheet and
evaluation)." As you recall, DEQ also concluded that our current facilities would allow
us to continue to remain in compliance with our permit.
. .
A second decision made by CH2MHill and MWMC staff also affected the amount of
BOD andTSS capacity reportedly available. When calculating BOD capacity,for
example, CH2MHill used the following formula for the System Development Charge
Methodology: '
Current BOD = (0.19 x 217;690 x 1.3) + 2,402 = 54,800 lbs/day where
,
0.19 is the'selected pourtds per capita per day based on dry season values from
1990 to 2002
217,690 is the population served in 2002
I J is the selected peaking to convert average dry season load to DSMM (dry
season maximum month) load (based on 199q 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 BOD as 0.17. On two different.occasions (the last time at the
second public fonnn), 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 Plan to the O. 1 9
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 purpose of
further reducing our chances of having a permit violation during a wet May. However,
the effect on the aInount of BOD capacity is significant. The used capacity drops to
50,500 lbs per day. Changing the per capita load results in an additional 8.5% loss of
BOD capacity. .
l{we substitute the population figures that are used in the Draft facility plan for those
used above, we have the following formula:
:, . l (Q},9 ~ 229?!.~~lJ .3) + 2,402 "" 59,000 lbs per day that we are using of our 66~te Received
"."'~,,.t. i,lbs/day,.cap.ase.lty, we arenow usmg 89.5% of our BOD capacIty.
;. ''(1',i.\ MAY 11' /O~
I'~ }
.,<,,' \;!tJ!
. ~,' t'.;~p';"/.~-:..W,-.~I'
PI~nner: BJ
.
This is the dilemma that we face. According the Master Plan prepared by CH2MHill
seven years ago, we were using about 46% of our BOD capacity. According to DEQ,
five years later, we are using approximately60% of our capacity and our current facility
, would allow us to comply with our new permit requirements. However, according to
CH2MHill and MWMC staff in the Draft Facility Plan, the sky is falling.
,The same, argument applies to TSS capacity. According the Master Plan, we' were using
46% of our TSS capacity seven years ago. 'According to DEQ in 2002, we were using
approximately 60% of our capacity. Using the population numbers in the facility plan
and the fonnula provided by CH2MHill in the System Development Charge
Methodology, we are generating the following amount ofTSS:
(0.21 x 229,145 x 1.4) + 2,224 = 69,593Ibs/day ofTSS. Our capacity is 71,600, so
according CH2MHill and MWMC staff, we are currently using 97% of our TSS capacity.
As in the BOD calculation, we ll;re now using a different per capita load of .21 rather than
the .19 used in the Master Plan.
Why such a large difference? 1 believe it is the combination in the draft facility plan of
comparing dry weather average flow design capacity with maximum rather than average
flows and the change in the p~aking factor (for calCulation of dry weather flow, which 1
did not discuss) and per capita loads for calculating the capacity of BOD and TSS. 1
don't know what peaking factors and pounds per 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
Maste~ Plan or the Draft Facilities 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 MWMC staff were
actually using larger per capita loads for BOD and TSS ,- .20 and .22 respectively. Ifwe
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 Ibsper
day ofTSS, which would actually exceed the design capacity of71,600: The following
month, the pounds per capita for both BOD and TSS were reduced by .OJ.)
Another indication of the difference in how CH2MHill and MWMC staff are calculating
current biosolid loadings is in the tons currently being generated by the facility. In Table
C-3 of the Draft System Development Charge Methodology (page C-6), MWMC staff
and CH2MHill indicate that we have a current loading of 5,927 tons per year. DEQ, in
its 2002 evaluation of the facility, indicated that "The MWMC wastewater treatment
facility generated 4,240 dry metric tons during the reporting period January 1,2000 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
still are not close. The mere passage of three years can not explain a 21 % difference
: \~ \".f~,~. \"11";' ~~twe,~n PEQ's and MWMC's numbers.
}.. ~ '~. ...:. ". ~,f J ~ 1;:t~" '~
""
,
"'\1,\ '
/.,\"
Date Received
MAY 11) N
Pianner~ BJ
.,
~J' ~,-...' i
:~ ~ -"'-'1
~~, -~".~,~;~ f,.,.q~\\'. "
; '\~; ~.lj li. ")1':lJ
.
Biosolid Processing: .
In 1997, the MWMC Master Plan 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 3 to 5 years
(page 450)." .
The Technical Report to the Public Facility Plan identified the remedy: "MWMC is
currently completing designs/engineering, and will construct a mechanical dewatering
facility in 1999/2000 that will eliminate the biosolids processing capacity constraint
(page 20)." That" facility 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. 1 realize that eliminating the capacity constraints won't last forever,
but somehow 1 would expect it to last more than two or three years.
So where did all of the capacity go? The same place that all the rest of it went It
disappeared because we changed the way we calculated the capacity - in this case by
changing the pounds per capita in the formula. .
1 raised 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 be
calculated in 1991 and it went into effect ill 1996. He th~n said thatthe way CH2MHill
calculated capacity in the 1997 Master Plan was in error. He said that the way that Mark
Hamlin fromDEQ calculated MWMC's capacity in 2002 was in error. He didn't
mention the Wet Weather Study that CH'2MHill did in 2001, but since it also identifies an
abundance of dry weather influent and solids capacity, presumably, it was also in error.
They are now saying the Public Facility and Service Plan, which MWMC approved three
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 would 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 that has enormous implications for future projects needs, and a change that
no one, including CH2MHill and DEQ, have recognized to have existed over the last 13
years.
In short, the proposed text aInendments need additional justification before they should
be made.
5. Adds new Table 16a (following Table 16) entitled "MWMC Wastewater
Treatment and Collection Svstem Imorovements. Roue:h Cost Estimate. and
Timing Estimate." Page IOn.
See discussions under' Public Facility and Service Plan Amendments 1,3, and 4.
- '., \ c,,,,,f'.
'. ~ .'''\' rl\\''''':~ ,I
; \....\\j'tH:)0,;6. '.~4. Adds new ChaDter VI regarding amendments to the PFSP.
. 'I,"~'; .
\ I .-+~~'
, '. "ill\-.,',
" \.1 ,_;\ _:'"\ .
..'
Date Received
MAYlllD1
19
Planner:'::\IB~
~...it-:
This first part of the proposed amendinent, the test under Flexibility of the Plan, is a poor
idea. The process for aInending 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 is taken almost verbatim from the administrative rules. There are two problems
with this approach. First, they are not word-for-word the SaIne, which always has
potential difficulties. Second, ifDLCD changes the amendment process in the
administrative rules, we have ,to amend the Faciljties Plan to reflect those changes,
because our aInendment process can not be at variance with the state requirements.
Copying the administrative rules into our Public Facility Plan does not add anything.of
value and it always has the potential offorcing us to go through the amendment process
in the future because of state changes. It may also mislead people. It may actually be
inaccurate if the state has made changes that are not reflected in our local version of the
aInendment process. .
We don't have an issue with the intent of the texi under Process ' for Making Changes.
The only concemwe 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 of the
jurisdictions. D<;ltermining in which jurisdiction a project is located is easy. Determining
which jurisdiction or jurisdictions are served by a project may, in some cases, be cause
for serious debate (transportation projects would be an eXaInple). Because this is by
,definition a land use process, the only place to reach final resolution 'on those '
disagreements maybe LUBA. But, perhaps that is perfectly all right.
There are other issues - inconsistencies with the Metro Plan in population projections and
the planning period, for eXaInple. However the principal issue is one of process.
MWMC, through the City of Springfield is proposing key aInendments in order to ~void
the state land use process. The Home Builders Association urges you to reject the
amendments in whole and require that MWMGsubrriit Metro Plan and Public Facility
and Service Plan amendments that respect and comply with the land use process.
Thank. you for your.attention'to our comments.
Sincerely,
/) '/ '
1'\0><,(..0. C"'~(~
Roxie Cuellar
Director of Govemment Affairs
Accompanying Documents:
L
2.
3.
1997 Master Plan prepared by CH2MHilI ( Cover page and pages450, 455-457)
2001 Wet Weather Flow Management Plan (Cover page and pages 1465-1466)
Average Monthly Residential Sewer Usage (2 pages)
Date Received
MAY II} Of
Planner:8J
, ,
.' '. I , l i'...,....,
'I .. J II' I" ~ -~.4- /-"i'~ I
\-,,':-,' ~,,~)~"'j}' \1 \,<-)}.,.~';,.."
. l
YL\h~
" '
. ;:(~
,,'t
." . _ fl., Ii' ,., l.~' 1
, "
,-
4.
5.
6.
, . .. ~ I "
-: Ie 11",;lr-:'::1j--l' ,,/. ,"'.-
. ~-" ., .{._.1\' .~)_I,( ,I ::-_7,i)~.v:,\, .
,.I,.,....
,'"" .
", , ' " '{(II.t
~ "
1999 Technical Background Report: Existing Conditions and Alternatives,
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (Cover
Page and pages 1186-1187)
Fact Sheet and NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit Evaluation prepared in
2002 by Department of Enviromnental Quality (pages 1-16)
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 11 fOr
Planl2JIer: BJ
.I'...
. r - !~--: ' -;" ,:-j ~ Ii' I '"
J'I I' ..,:; '\;'. ": .
t~t.~\~,.;;):~,~~':'1t :;'~ ';~:, ~.'.3~J.~: <~'~'~
'" t ',:" It ""r r"r::'1
t tt \f~' '.i~:".~t . '.' '...
"101il
Date Received
MAY 'A 01
Planoer.:~:aJ
.:f";J#f- :,.,."..
t.. . '.,.-.' --
*" ,::rh.:
('j".
'~l'
,~, Cl"'. '
"~ ,~
. "l;
"'/''', ~~.
, ,
" ,
.1' -
;;;\-"t ,{,t .... ':) '."r,.:, ~_
" - :ir''--'''rc,
.' , ". H__ __.
M: ~41 Iii H:-' l~
. ;,'1- ~ ' _J! .
4]9
"_~11iO~
M..pJamer:
~
Date Received
MW"MAyO~Of5724
20.21'. .
Planner::;~'Bi1
Summary of Major Findings Important to Phase 2
The following are the major findings of Phase, 1 that were deferred to Phase 2, Long-T~n:i1
15npr9vements, for further evalu,\tion and planning;
. ."
, '
The remaining treatment capacity of the E/5WPCF is substantial for average dry and
werweather flow conditions and conventional pollutants (BOD, and T55).
Peak flows have'approached or exceeded the hydraulic design capacity of the'plant in
seven instances, but no NPDE5 permit violations have occurred-mass limits have been
suspended in these instances: Flows great~r than the peak design capacity have been
pumped by relying on redundant, spate pumps. The frequency of peak flow
exceedances will increase as the base, average wastewater flow increases. This could
potentially lead to NPDE5 permit violations"caused by saniti'\ry sewer overflows or
exceedance of effluent quality permit liinits.,. .
The biosolids management facility h~s;nsufficient capacity to process solids currently
'produced by the E/5WPCF. The facultative sludge lagoons will be full in 3 t'o 5 years.:
.
.
,
Each of these findings are addressed in Phase 2 of the master plan.
~
.'
) ;}, 1 ::'1f""~""":"l'l. "'"
"k.,'q':L;;",~2\'f"~ ,..~. ,.~
. ',~. "In ~, h,...J, '1 \ .,-~
, f '!t\M
;.4:
;1";; .1, '. 'If:..,. ;-'PDX1T7.iAo.x~-i'
. ,,'. \, .' II ",' "" l~
.J' '" ..~....y. '.' ~.. .
450.
I Parameter.
II
I Flow (mgd) 26.0 41.8 34.0 73.5 57%
! BOD, (lb/day) 28,682 30,644 30,105, 59,593 46%
I TSS (Ib/day) 31,056 . I 36,684 34,063 65,822 48%
I Note: In October 19~2, the E/SWPCF laboratory staff converted' from BOD, to CBOO, for plant influent
I analysis. ',."
iN!,_= Not applicable m_ ___ __ ___ _ _
Table 3-3
Design Criteria and Historical Averages
f O,.iginalDesign Criteria
: Parameter
A verage Dry
Weather
Average
, Annual
Average Wet
Weather
. Flow (mgd) 49 70 59.5
: BOD, (lb/day) NA, NA 66,000
I '
! TSS (lb/day) _ -- NA 'NA 71,600
HistoricalAverage Influeat Flow and Loads 1990 through 1995
Average Dry.
Weather
Average Wet
Weather'
Average
. Annual'
~."
<
., .." ..':' -I. (..,
"I I', P~j ',-,; .,\ r ;rj~'
,i" -, [".',."..,;)I'l ,,4~ J'.1\ ~
.. \:-, ;". "" ~- ~ ~
11 . l-,ttl~'
poxln,.\A1XX:
455.
..:,-.]
- . ""i I '<'f ~'.il'r' ~~; .
. ~': .~- I. ' '_', " . t!
Maximum Day
79,000
92,000
Maximum
Month
Percent of
Design
(Ave. Annual)
Date Received
_ MAY 1110~
Planner: BJ
MWMC - 000062.
3-5
,. .
I
,
1
, ~
I
,
t
I
r
~
;,,;~
"','01
,..,
~i
'""
~
~
~}
;:ij
r
I
~
i
~
=,r:.:.
A
-
~t
U
I
'''-
\;:r;J;;:
.,------
!
I
-- -
-------.-
- .1
I
Table 3-4
~ve!~" Pe,"- Capita Loadinlls
I Oesilln Criteria
177
Actual Loading
143 -
Dry weather flow (gallons per capita
, per day) ..'
II
I Wet weather flow (gallons per capita
: per Clay)
253
243
BOD (pounds per capita per day)
TSS (pounds per capita per day)
0.24
0.17
1
.0.26
0.19
The faCt that the plant is receiving average flows and loads'atabout half of its design
capacity can be attributed to the slow population growth duringtne 1980s and lower than
anticipated per capita pollutantloadings.
Based on LCoG's data for projected population growth through 2015 and existing influent
per capita loadings, the facility's remaining "seflrllife in years, as ,measured by the facility's
design capacity being reached, is presented in Table 3-5 and is shown graphically in
Figures 3-2 through 3"6. Flow projections shown indude 2.6 mgd to accblintJor 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 sE;wered by year
2000. A;brief discussion 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 flow (MMW>:VF) is based on the historical peaking factor of 1.34. The
generally accepted maximum month design criterion for secondary clarifier overflow
rates is 600 to 800 gallons per day per square foot (gpd/ft'), which for the eight 130-foot-
diameter secondary clarifiers equates to a MMWWF range of 64 to 85 mgd. The - -
projected MMWWF intersects 85 mgd, the flow rate corresponding to an over flow rate
of 800 gpd/ ft', in about year 2007.lf not for the ability to provide split stream treatment.
(the diversion of flows in excess of 103 mgd 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 improvements. The.MMWWF is highly influenced by collection system
infiltration and inflow and is closely" interrelated with the E/SWPCF peak hydraulic
flows discussed later.
'1,-,~' ;Qngy.I!T:.3:3)pry;YVeather Flow: Again, dry weath,er flow projections are extrapolated
" "fro"mhistoncal per capita dry weather flows and LCOG population projections. The dry
weat;hE;r ~Y};Jage to maximum month flow peaking factor is 1.34. Ample dry weather
'capaCity remains well beyond the current LCOG planning horizon. The dry weather
maximum mon~h.flow projection intersects the maximum month design criteria of 66
. '_ _ -~ _I' 'I'" '11'._." '
'~" mgd'at about year 2024. The eight 130-foot secondary clarifiers would result in an
overflow rate of 621 gpd/ft2, within the acceptable range. Date Received.
~
POX1nAA.()(X
456.
MvWlt - H9063. ')-tJI y.
Planne<3r: BJ
Table 3-5
Remaining Life of E1SWPCF .
___ __ _ . Based on 6 Years of Data, 19~ throullh 1995 ___
Remaining Life in Years - -
BOD, I TSS
NA NA
I
J..
<=--.---..- ------ -
. Years of life, remaining includes allowance for two major industrial developments
underway.
, NA = not applicable.
.
1=---
,
, .
f'" . .
'Wet Weather
Monthly Average
Wet Weather
. Maximum Month
'Flowl
18
10
I Dry Weather
I Monthly Average
30
. Dry Weather
I Maximum Month
Monthly Average
: Maximum Month
27
NA
NA
\~u
-.
'-F~ l.HH .....~:\ ~.~ . ':'ir~l .
',::-, ~~ :--,t_'~');.r ..', '1'1\
. '. '" j ., ': ~.'.' \
~. 1 I !\1;.:
UFE.DOC
!.- (~ . ',' .,~ .,'f"'.'ll(J
'.,l':; t :I)ll:!l '1),',1' -1:
NA
NA
NA
I
J
40
33
457.
NA
NA
NA
I
~_29
35
----~
Date Received
MAY 11(O~
Planner: BJ
MWMC.000064.
I
I
I
I
I
!'
~
~
. ~
.,
~ .:.
:;{
.:..
B
:.::c
=
'"'
'I;
Ii
I
I
I
- 'r-;I!
C' '~,V: "
. I. '" ""~Cr'(), h.\ .~\ ..,
:'!:-',1Ij--",)",1. .
r,,-.-
- '(i',M
.. l-,l.
. ,
" "
.-:-t'_
\'_ Ii
. r~'"
,..", I. ',.,. "
'l~j'h h"
.. .
.1
.
Date Received
'MAY III o~
Planner:BJ
Ii' .
". .
\ . Wet, Weather
.
~ .
.
. Flow..
.
.
\. .
. Management
. Plan
, .
..
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
C~4'IJ .~~.
parlne.rs in wastewater management
1453.
Executive Summary
Introduction
In late 1997, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) 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 Facilit\es Master Plan and results
of preliminary analysis using a hydraulic model developed for the regional wastewater
collection system.
The treatment plant was designed in the 1970s to provide adequate capacity through 2005.
From a base flow and loading standpoint, the treatment plant 'performs well within its
capacity (49:million galJons per day [mgdJ) in dry-weather months. However, 'Yiliter .'
rainfalJ creates flows to the treatment plant that exceed the plant's peak capacity (175 mgd)
on average se~eral times per year and exceed full (secondary) treatment capacity (104 mgd)
more frequently. Figure Es-1 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 (104 mgd) receive primary
treatment onJy and are mixed 'with fully treated water before being released to the
Willamette River.
Peak flow estimates for conditions associated with the 5-year storm event are used to size
and plan for future system improve~ents at the h;eatment plant and in the collection
". system. Through system m04eling, the 5-year peak was estimated at 264 mgd. Peak flows
. are attributed to high infiltration and inflow (I/l) rates in many areas of the collection
system. 1/1 occurs from extrane<;>us water getting into the system from illegal roof drain .
connections, sewer pipe cracks, and other sources.VI is oftenassociated with <;>lder pipes in
. : the system that have deteriorated.. Sanitary pipes-in older areas are also more likely to be .
subject to improper storin drainage (inflow) connectionS when construction inspectiof!
practices were more lenient and/ or such connections were alJowed, creating a combineq.
flow s:yst~m. Newer pipe systemS reflect improvements in construction techniques, .
materials, and inspection and typicalJy,..~bit far less I/L In Eugene, 11 percent of the pipes
are at least 50 years old. :1n,Springfi.eld;th.:ejpei:~entage of pipes at least 50 years old is
, . _.'~. ~ .f., .. "I AI, f . '. . ','
15 percent. Because the prirnary sources of 1/1 are in the existingsystem.and limited 1/lis
anticipated from system expansion'igro'o/,t;l1.iin the system does riot contribute significantly
to projected system deficiencies. The 5-year peak is . estimated at 298 mgd. Of this peak, onJy
4 percent, or 12mgd; is ep~ted ,to i?,e, the:FesiI1~ of 1/1 from future pipes. '.
".". '_ - ',.f ..\ ,'.I".);jl:} 1\"',;-1\i '.". ." '.
Estirnatesmade at the time of design of the treatmentplant, relative to the amount.of
rainfall-derived infiltration and inflow (RDIl) that could be cost-effectively removed, were
overly opt:ilnistic. This has resulted in insufficient capacity to manage peak fRv:sp! tlje. _ _ _ .
treatment plant and has increased the risk of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOWaUjnM808IVed
locations in the collection system. Example problems include basement and street flooding
;;"', MAY 11 /6c.f
MWMC - oPlanner:>5BJ
. -'
USFW0367ZlJO.OOC
.'
i
WET WEATHER FLOW Ml.NAGEM3fT PlAN
and discharges to stormwater facilities and receiving waters. Although the magnitude of
wet weather flows differs greatly, they are significantly diluted because the source of a
majority of the flow is rainwater, not sanitary sewage. Treatment plant flow data indicates
, that wet weather flow is diluted such that the concentration of typical pollutants in wet
'weather flow is 50 percent to 60 percent of that in dry weather flow.
FIGURE ES-1
Seasonal Measured RCNis at the Wastewater T realment Plant
Seasonal Measured Flows at the Wastewater Treabnent Plant
20C)'
I
I
I
.
180
160
;; 140 . .
~ L _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _f!.e~~~8!1~~-,S_e~<!."2~ry!':.e!~:~t_L~el_ _ __
f=i '. . .
& r _ -- - - - - - - - - - ~~~~n!J ~:~a~:.r~~~~nl~':.v~__~ _ _-_,_ "
11001 '
I ~ I
~ 60 I
~'I
201
0"
----.130
.----~,05
I
.
Average wrier Aows
A~geSummer~
1999.2000PeakVVinter Fk:JNs
_Storme;"nts'
The overall objective of the plan is to determine the most cost-effective and politically
feasible method to manage peak wet weather waStewater flows that is acceptable to the
Eugene and Springfield communities. .
Summary of WWFMP
Deveioping the plan essentially consisted of evalwiting four technologies for managing
excess wet weather flow relative to performance'(frequency ofSSOs), cost, and political and
community acceptance. The four technologies 'included: (l)system rehabilitation to control
RDll; (2) in-line and off-line storage of peak flows; (3) additional conveyance (including
greater pipe conveyance and pump station capacity); and (4) additional capacity to treat
peak flows at the treatment plant
I . 1 , . 6 ~ tr .
,)" ,"'Ii ,"'lr.~\..' '-\.,[,.'" ,
! '-;''':.; ....,:I~VI~'lll...!::.}~I.~ ~t:. ,..,,',
r-. ,....c.j:, .,.,,,,, "
1466. '11y,\~1":""
! I "1 -''''1'' ?'I't(~l~ 'l\f-:1
i~...', 'ES-2 .~. ,/1 ~)" il .
- - . ". r;,,\'.~\' \,;!-:r:.;;.;.'[
Date Received
MAY 11 (o~
Plarwi~f~ot3~
US~I~DOC
B
.,..
!!!.
f,j
""
~
~.
""'
'.}~
.-.
-
~
tHo
~.
ij
~...
.~
It
if
'1'
:!.
..
.
. " ..
.
:1 ...... ,~
. )~I:;""h\'l'{'~"':' 1'\'\:'1":~< tj
. '~:"2:;'''. .;,;'ti" ,\".',-. ;-:!! ":-"".
e "
!,,~iI
Date Received
MAY 11,0'1
1 ~"
t.,," "
J~" "
.'
1;:.( \(~~'-\i'~"k<J::.:.}
I .!~i N' ~l ~ ~:/"'il}; I;
Planner: BJ
, "
, ~.I-.,
"-r
It
-<
~-
S~~.'
:d,
:.:[)
.~...,
-=~ ~.
<;" .
'0..
'~:"'t
F-,
~.....
..e ~
-<
:::.;:, .,.;.-,
.:z~ :.=:i....
jf
....-.-
"
.~<
(/) 130.
c
o.
ctl ~
~ m ~
.~ I
.r:: fj
1-. 50ij.
'f
~
~
~
~
'1J 0
- 'D)
s:u s:: -
'::J ~ CD 4.0
"-
"
;';:J - ::D
~)CD - CD
(")
g-r CO> CD
c<' . -C-
Q -.
iOJ <
CD
C- o.
2186.
. .
,
7.0
Average Monthly Residential Sewer Usage.
~i\)>'!il1'$i#!\\1!illill~"'1tii""'"''''''''
.,\~:~~_.)~...,.~~.~. "~~r~~~' ,::t":'.<i:"" ...."
."
:~
.~
,~ji
~:
FY89/90 FY90/91 FY91/92 FY92i93 FY93/94 FY94/95 FY95/96 FY96/97 FY97/98 FY98/99 FY99/00
Fiscal Year.
[-.......................-.-.............-..... .............. .... "',
III Eugene II Springfield 0 Regional i
1..__......_...._............. ......... -.-. ... -.......-......... c--'
(~:r
".
" .
A./erage MontlHi Residentia! Usage 1 ;000 ga:
Fiscal Year Eugene Springfield Regional
FY89!90 5.8 6.2 6.0
F Y90!91 5.5 6.3 5.8
F'1'91/92 5.5 6.1 5.8
. FY92193 5.5 6.0 5.7
FY93/94 5.6 5,4 55
FY94/95 5,4 5,4 5,4
FY95/96 - ? 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/Ol . 4.9 4.9 4;9
FY01102 4.6 4.8 4.7
. -~'.4f :'~:\;':'~~"H.~ ~'~"Il :~j'}~i;::"~
,'_'1' ~.Jltl.. ". " 'J
r-.:
00 ,
N""
t ~\,l'l1i
Date Received
MAY II, o~.
MRiaMer:. BJ
, .'
"
,~. . ('''(,', '~~i.I':'J
~ ;. ~.I!~ :it ' ''''. \ t. h
,-':.
. It..' ).
Technncal Background Report:
Existing Conditions
. .'
and AI.ternative.s
.,
Eugene~Springfield Metropolitan Area
Public Facilities and Services Plan
,
,_ ",' . _,... . "' .. I ,-',
,L"."il""C\ ,'.""'1'
"l- ,>.". 4',t,r .' Ji'f 'i .+..~ I k-"'" j
... .' ':""". "\,.,,1.,.."
April 1999
Date Received
MAY 1110~
Planner:. BJ .
.. (\'
. ,., j."
. '.' "r"
, .t:~ '.;"3 ',;';. :'~.. H ":'.'t.__
J '- I j ,,,,",, ,I~ '.
'1"'-' 'I' "111j .',.1....1
.. . ", lj ,). ':'l.. lJ .
1167.
".
"
Regional Wastewater Treatment System Condition Assessment.
Regional Wastewater Treatment System Capacity
The MWMC Master Plan for the Eugene-Springfield Water Pollution Control Facility,(Master
Plan), completed in 1997, provides a comprehensive evaluation, of the facility. The Master Plan
estimates a fully sewered population within the metropolitan UGB to reach 402,5~67 by 2040,
with a regional population of 443,033 receiving wastewater se,rvice at full build-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 wet weather
conditions that cause large volumes of stormwater to enter the wastewater collection s'ystem .
constrain the plant from achieving its designed capacity. Wet weather related iniprovementsare '
needed at the plant and within the collection system to extend the plant's wet weather capacity
, beyond the year 2007. .
The treatment plant, which officially began operation in.ApriI1984, replaced the separate plarJts
previously owned and operated by Eugene and Springfield. At the time of construction, the
capacity of the plant was projected to serve the growing metropolitan area for a period of 20
years. However, slower than anticipated groWth in the 1980s has extended the design life of the
plant by at least 15 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 growth throughout the PFSP planning horizon. However, peak wet
weather volume of flow. not influent wastewater cha~acteristics, currently constrains the life span
ofthe 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 the design capacitY for flow. High
levels of wet weather flows are generated by infiltration and inflow (III) of stcirmwater into the
sanitary sewer system. Infiltration is a process by which groundwater enters the system through
cracks and joints in sewer pipes. Inflow is the process by which storm water enters the system
through' improper connections of roof drains and other stormdrainage facilities to the sanitary
sewers, and by surface runoff entering through manholes. '
Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities Condition Assessment
The physical condition of the regional wastewater treatment facilities is maintained through
equipment replacement programs and major rehabilitatioriprograms funded by MWMC to
maintain and extend the life of major regional wastewater collection and treatmerit infrastructure.
" ,;SV>.\s:.!Iq:'Rtp~~,si(a!, conditions with planned future equipment replacements and ongoing
,.' .
. r(1
.. -' -.~ ft' ,I
.. iL,:"!.II~ '. ,'.~11"1'
. ". : It ,'.t- I
19
Date Rec.eived'
MAY 111 b~
Piannef~6BJ
. ,.'!"i1ilit
.
rehabilitation projects will maintain all regional wastewater facilities in good working order for
the duration of the PFSP planning period. .
Compliance with regulatory parameters is a good indicator of facility conditions. The treatment
plant has always operated in compliance with its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit during wet weather conditions. The mismatch of wet. and dry weather
treatment plant design is due to the fact that the amount of III targeted for removal through .
collection system rehabilitation to match the wet weather hydraulic capacity has not been
achieved. To address this issue, MWMC, Eugene and Springfield are developing a W et Weather
Flow Management Plan (WWFMP) to determine the optimal mix of treatment plant and .
collection system rehabilitation improvements. Recommended improvements will be
incorporated into MWMC, Eugene and Springfield Capital Improvement Programs to extend the
wet weather capability of the system. .
Since 1990, the amount of sludge produced by the Biosolids Management Facility has exceeded
the process capacity of the facility's drying beds. This has occurred because two drying cycles
per year are necessary to keep pace with production. Frequently, summer rains prevent two
cycles from being achieved. Expansion ofthe facility's dewatering capacity is needed to extend
the capacity of the lagoons beyond the year 2000. MWMC is currently completing
designs/engineering, and will construct a mechanical dewatering facility in 1999/2000 that will
eliminate the biosolids processing capacity constraint.
The condition ofbiosolids qualitY is excellent, and consistently meets or exceeds all federal
standards. No degradation ofbiosolids quality is anticipated over the PF~P planning period.
Eugene Wastewater System Inventory and Assessment
Eugene Wastewater System Inventory
Map 7 shows the existing wastewater system basins in Eugene, the Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant (treatment plant), existing pipes 24 inches or greater in diameter, and the eight
inch line to the Eugene Airport. .
As of 1998, the wastewater collection system totaled 607 miles in length, with over 20 miles of
pressure lines. The collection system consists of 433 miles of eight-inch pipe, and 46 miles of.
pipe 24 inches or greater in diameter. There are five main collection system-areas (system areas)
within Eugene's seIVice area, each of which is divided into basins, as follows.
1. Central Eugene:
Downtown Westside, Downtown Central, Downtown Amazon, and
Downtown Franklin basins
Willakenzie North and South and Willamette River basins
Bethel-Danebo North and South basins
Glenwood and Lane Community College basins
River Road, Santa Clara and Highway 99 basins
2. Willakenzie:
3. Bethel-Danebo:
4. Southeast Eugene:
5. River Road:
Date Received
MAY 11 /O~
. \..t...:i\,~.I:":;''''11...1\l-,..,..'! . ~{,~t1~~ ~
1<00.;1- ',.to" 'l.:," , \:~,~r:~1
"".:''''[ i
,'I. :'
".1'1'"
20
'/ i\l\'~
Planner: BJ
1187.
. ~. f ~ I
i )1'; ~ - I ""'; ;-,
..'
,
.., ,. ,.
. .
. . _ I . _. .T-1
. ,~ (, ,l '~~_"')ff:.1 I
: ~{"'J'\;'~~kY"}i:"llf -I:f..,f;.:ll~' ..
..' ~~ :,: 1.: Yj~t~~
h - ::.~, I' ~:, n:~;'~~-';: .
Date Received
MAY Illb~
Planner: BJ
"
"
Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines
GOAL 6: AIR, WATER AND LAND
'RESOURCES QUALITY
OAR 660-015-0000(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 not (1) exceed the
carrying c?pacity 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
('l":\' :i~.;.;./cor:itrbllih[fP. bl.lutionincluding but not '
~ .1 t ...~ .1''' ..,,t.!, ':\ Ir, '\.
. .,.""', limited to waste water treatment plants,
.c' ,. I'" '1'1';
, .t ': i. .l~l
'l ,:!I
. 'hl...j
"\.,, , . ~,,~~::-:;
'. ~ ',,.1 ,Ill ,''>>f I
~ . '<\..... "I .. '
solid waste disposal sites and sludge,
disposal sites.
) 2, Plans should designate areas
for urban and rural residential use' only
where appravable sewage disposal
,alternatives have been clearly identified
in such plans. '
3. Plans should buffer and
separate those land uses 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 of the
planning area should consider as a
major determinant the carrying capacity
of the air, land and water resources .of
the plan fling area: The land
conservation and development actions
provided for by such plans should not
exceeq the carrying capacity of such
resources.
5. All plans and programs'
affecting waste and process discharges
should be coordinated within the
applicable air sheds and river basins
described or included in state
environmental quality statutes, rules,
standards and implementation plan,
6. Plans of staie agencies before
they are adopted should be coordinated
with and reviewed by local agencies
with respect to the impact of these plans
on the air, water and land resources in
the planning area., Date Received
MAY ll,c,~
'Planner: BJ
.1
7. In all air quality maintenance
areas, plans should be based on .
applicable state rules for reducing
. . indirect pollution and be sufficiently
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 implementing
this goal, including but not limited to the
following:
(1) tax incentives and
disincentives,
(2) land 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 management program that
details the respective implementation
roles and responsibilities for carrying Qut
this goal in the planning area should be .
established in the comprehensive plan.
3. Programs should manage land
conservation imd development activities
in a manner that accurately reflects the
community's desires for a quality .
environment and ahealthy economy
and is consistent with state
environmental quality statutes, rules,
standards and implementation plans.
. . :.;.'.:.p~. . - {"'It-. ! ,',. ',1,' I
!. -:1.' .:'-i:.'" '~,;..!n: ..-,~" .'":'!'l
, .. ........--
.~ I
y/\~.~
.
,
t. " .";.... -; .! ~ '~
I "_I I .'.1 I. \.'. ~
T.' ,/.
~ -, ~ t. ,,.
2
Date Received
MAY 11 ,crt
Planner: BJ
" ,t
.
MINUTES
Minutes approved by the Springfield
Planning Commission:
Joint Planning Commissions
Springfield, Eugene and Lane County
Regular Session'f,
Springfield Library Meeting Rooin ';;;:;~f'
225 5th Street, Springfield, OR 97477<i~ ';f
d),~;f~;~~i:)f;' April 206 ~o::.
.Q~\~;;,; pr ,'''i:-~':;;j,~
PRESENT: Steve Moe, Chair; William Carpenter, Vice Chair; Lee Beyer, James Burfon(Gayle Decker, David Cole,
Greg Shaver, Springfield Planning Commission ,m'~#}b~rs; Charles'Rusch, presidejJ,i;'!phn Lawless, Vice
President, Adell McMillan, Rick Duncan, Jon Belcher, Anne Marie Levis, Mitzi Colbath, Eugene
Planning Commission members;.Juanita Kirkil$" Chair; Steve Dignam, Vice Chair;'Edwin Becker,
. " ' , ",,,."1,:', " .' . ~'A'",-,,'- " , . ~-",!" '.
James Carrmchael, Chris Clemow, Mark Herbert;Wmcent Ma:rrorello, Manon Esty, Lane'County
Planning Commission members; Kent Howe, Lanlf'Gollnty PI:tiiriing Manager; StephaiIie Schulz, Lane
County stiff; Gary Darnelle, Lane:, <:;ouncil of Govefiriii'~~tS Planning staff; Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter,
Eugene Planning staff; Greg Moij;Lel!9oodwin, Susie s#Uth, Springfield Planning staff; Meg Kiernan,
City of Springfield Attorney. '\ff:l<';;~:t(?l;;,,; . ,".;;~ili~& .
. . . ':;i:::r.;:~~" <:'::':;~t(t/J~:W~~it),; _'~:':\fJ;~\'/" . 'I
ABSENT: Jacque Betz, Lane County PlanriingC~r,nmis~;5ri:ii!~mb~. . '~~t~j:i
, . S"':~i~;' _ ,.7t;~~J"~h _..~~r~f;t~~s:I;~~-,:~}.,,-> '~~;'
1. Open Joint Meeting, Qe~lar~iiiill ,of Cont1icts~fJntete~tand Ex:eqfteContacts
. .",.~}~lZ;~~"~~%(':f!;)~~i~.'~~', , I -~~~dri~;~:j.,. . .t ~,~-~;-
Mr. Moo asked the,Comfuissioners to:declare any 20iillicts of interest or ex parte contacts. It was deemed there
were none 0z~Yi:~ i:\~~i';' ;~~1~;> '
Mr. Moe called the Springfield PI3nriing,Commission to 'order.
<, ,j"'~',r\ ':~, "'if:'i~;J.%~t,d~{~~~j} i' ,~r '''k;'~:'~~:}~~\~~~~~~j;,''i~:~:~_,., .:"~~';"
MS..J<i!IsMiiI3@led the Lan~;Gounty Planning Coniffiission to order.
<;,!),~~~~;;"~""":"';~~~~0'~~':t)'}_,.. "tt~1r~:J:,":,. .
,."J'v1t'\Ruschcalled t1ie:Iliigene Planning Commission to order. '
2. ';;rl'~~;:~~~sentation~4~f~~l~;~,'"*;1~\:i9" , ' . .
Greg '1\1.o!,t" City of Springfi~!g,Planning Manager, provided an overview of the proposed amendments to the
Eugene~Sp'hngfield Metrop.olitin Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP)
initiated bYti1e,:~pringfield.:~#y CounciL He said the proposed amendments included Chapter ill,. Section G
Public Facilities,'and Se!:0ces Element and Chapter V Glossary, oftlie Metro Plan; several tables and maps in the
PFSP and a new'ci!liptei,Vi"Amendments to the Plan.". He added that the specifics of the amendments were
included in the staff rejJbrt which'he entered into the record. .
, . . .
Mr. 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 jurisdictions to deliberate and develop a recommendation to their respective elected
officials. He said no decision would be made at this meeting. He said a public hearing of the joint elected
officials was tentatively scheduled for June 22, 2004 to consider the amendments.
. I 'I' '
.1' ,~\w;
April 20, 2004
Date Received
MAY 11, ()~
Page I
Planner: BJ
. ,,_ ."..( I ." :,'^-
\/:'-'~1jl~ ..l"-.Il_~~.' L..., !''''
1'::'1 . II. 1'1 ;, ~." I ". .
, MINUTES~Joint. Sp'r.~gfiel.d, ~ugene, an~ Lane ~ounty
, 1. . .. 't, ~- ,_n1'~::-r._'-':r"_-_.__._-- n..'Ll__ TT_____
J('''! ..; l;(_;;1 t:!' 'I..:. :;' .1
,.
!. " :"
Mr. Mott said that the proposed cl. -,es in the Metro Plan had been reviewed t. /.e Joint Planning Commissions
during the 6:00 p.m. work session. He identified the following errors in the Metro Plan amendment proposal that
was included in the staff report as Findings, Appendix A and Appendix B:
. Staff report Page 1-5, the population should be 297,585.
. . Staff report Page 1-13, change the last sentence to read Services to Development within the Urban
Growth Bonndary: Wastewater .
. No errors in Appendix A. ','-
. Appendix B, page 1-17, Table 4a, add project number 302, Beneficial)teuse Project.
. Appendix B, Page 1-17, Table 4b. change project numbers from 3.02,303, 304 to 303, 304, 305:
. Appendix B, page 1-19, paragraph three, change October 7, 2003 to,ApriI12, 2004,
. Appendix B, page 1-19, 5. change Lon~Term Service to Long-Telm SeJVjce,
. Appendix B, page 1-20, change Table 16a to read t"7;'~;' ',':::i>\::.
(~. ,;: , ',,' '." '.
.- ~. .::.;..;:~;,.'
I Project Project NiunelDescription,.,:.S9,st *($) Estim:ite,~:
Number' Xi',"" Completion Year
I 300 WPCF Treatment Project . ;$120,500,000 2025
1 301 Residuals Treatment Project $6,000,0001 2018
I 302 Beneficial Reuse Project ',*{$25,000,000 " 2018
I 303 Willakenzie Pump Station ''': $6,000;000 2010
.1 304 Screw PuIDp Station -,. $2~000;000 2010 .
I 305 . Glenwood Pumo Sta~oii';>i". . $500:000 2012 J .
.~~~~,; .' ..;,' t:~~/?1';. . ":',{/~,'w~,
. Appendix B, page 1-21, B.2, NatiofuiiEn~Janilienta1 Policy A&~6f 1996 should be Policy Act of 1969'
I .. ';~~~tt ""~-jff~l~t;.&~,...- ~~,. .,,;~~~~>
Mr. Mott entered the follo~ pieces of correspondence mtothe record:'
, d:~~tf~~~'~'~;~~::;}~~\~,. . ;~~f~1~~,_~:~;~1.;:~~J.""" . ., ~:~:-'i:~;~~:t
. An e-mail fromiTerry Coilriolly . '.;.",;';'t'
!.:,';::"~:''-;i "',"-;..,;," <'-'!~.~~:
. An e-mail',from Roxie Cuellar.'~i'~;":,.
., ...": ..~,..,. ...,;t.:',~~,,~- " '~"
. A letter fr6m, Jim Welsh. .N,:::.': "',',
"~ft;ji'..i~~;ft:~v,.; 'i)";;~~
Mr. Moo opened the pupliS h~g):Hesajd~~pe~ers.worild he limited to five minutes for their testimony.
. ,~:;"f/);1it,j:"f"7o-;:'" \l~';):~;jt}~~':~j;X;;"" "~~';~-';.~;:;fX~C:~i~'" ,"
Roxie'Cuellllr;',2053 Laur3"Street, Springfield, Oregon: Ms. Cuellar stated she represented the Home Builders
. ..~s~j~tion (HB:A)~'She said;sh~'0lS concerned with the amendment. process as a rate payer. She expressed
;,':;'eoncern about a $16()'Inlllion projecflist that no one knew anything about. She expressed an interest in
"\[.;g~~~rating more publici~!6j~st hy Ke;;~!I:!g the record open. She said the OARs required that facility plan
3rijej)(,bnents contained pioj~ct. titles aIIdreferred the members to the Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan
(T~,P!!m) for examples ofJ:!1e al'P<VI'.;ate level of project detaiL Referring to a handout she had distributed
earliet~ti!!edMWMC Wasl~ater Proposed 20-Year Project Lis! (Draft), she said the project titles identified on
the document should have,been included in the amendment process. She said the MWMC was scheduled to meet
on April 22;"2g<J1to re"ilvy.tbe list and forward a recommendation to the elected officials, She said the correct
procedure was'fot~~,M,WMCto make a recommendation to the Joint Planning Commission for review and
recommendation to~~,.elected officials. She asked thatthe public record be kept open until May 7, 2004.
Bill Kloos, 576 Olive Street, Eugene, Oregon. Mr. Kloos distrihuted a letter dated April 20, 2004 regarding
Metro Plan Text Amendments; Public Facilities and Services Plan Amendments April 20, . 2004 Joint Public
Hearing to Metro Area Planning Commissions. Mr. Kloos addressed the issues identified in his letter related to
Goal II of the Metro Plan. Mr. Kloos said,that .the Joint Planning Commissions were both creating process for
handling future major and minor changes to the PFSP, a,nd amending. substantive provisions of the Metro Plan and
the PFSP. Mr, Kloos questioned the validity of the plan for wastewater treatment extending to the year 2025
, . while the Metro Plan extends to the year 2015. Citing various elements of OAR 660-011-0010 through 660-011~
~I 'd'."........ C"",,'.":, , ~
. "'-:7 11'0.45, Mt:'Kloossaid the amendment process required an inventory of and general assess e . .
. sigrnficantas~ects of existing wastewater treatment system, as well as a list of specific p ~e~~_(ed
>1,\,' .' ,
MINUTES-Joint Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County April 20, 2004 PalMAr lID II
Phuining'Commissions - Regular Session I '1
" 1......;1
~.!:'_".1)i. '1';C\f,~~, t '~. :1
..... r, ,l> ...' q
~J1': .
Planner: BJ .
, .
.
identified funding mech"..,sms. Mr. Kloos likewise suggested that th~ r.oject list in TransPlan provided guidance:
on the ap~ropriate level of detail. .
Mr. Beyer asked how long the reCord should rem~in open, what pressures existed on the adoption of the proposed
. amendments, and if there was a need for a more definitive project list.
Mr. Mott replied 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. M9~(iiaid keeping the record open
impacted the entire timeline for response and deliberation of the Planning Co~si(jns.
._<T:';~\t.:-~;}r~' .
Ms. Smith said staff was under tremendous pressure through the facilitie,splamring process that occurred over the
last year, construction on facilities to upgrade peak flow capacity n.ee'd;:4 to d;1iiinence by July I, 2005 to meet
the discharge permit requirements. She added that failure to complete\:onstruction.;cQuld result in the system
overflow of raw sewage into the basements of homes, into the streets, and into the'ri\ihs.
. . _,~d:;iIiS';':""'- _ '-\\:l~{\~z.
Ms. Smith said issuance ofa new discharge permit in 29g:?)~ntained significant changes ali9.jimitations for peak
wet weather management facilities that resulted in steppmg"ilp the pace of the implementatio~)1lleline.
. .<~::~~\;~;~;~:~ <7;~~:;'i;: ~~:E~~~~~,
Ms. Kieran stated that Metro Plan was a broad, comprdl&~ive plan thiit,was intended to be in plai:e for a long
periOd of time. She added that the definitions and list wer~'ri1fentioDa1iy'broad. She said that nothing could be
financed that did not fit under the umbiell~projects. "!;l~:~~!)'
. _ . , _ ',r*4;i~;~:-\-~~.:-;>,_, , ,'~\~:;~~~~
Mr. Goodwin said that TransPlan had anioI1g"hlliriyprojects; one pfbj"ei:t;titled 1-5. He noted that the project
subsumes a number of identifiable capital collstni'Ch<iii:j}rojects. He siud1ifthe level of detail in the Metro Plan'
'. . 'i""",'> .....,.. :(,,<., .1'.~.,,, '''''''''<''-~~' .
were too high, it would no longer be aplann~g,~ocumerift~\.a;.PJ,?grammi,~~}gocument. He added that the Metro
Plan was a document Intended to proVide broad plannmg Jor: ur15an:servlces.!;'" . ,
<,~t~1~f.~'~~*:~~?~L '-W~~., _ .~]~~st~f!;.~~'!?' ~,;,~jt;7#J.Q'f*~t!.-
Ms. Smith said: . "The;re~sFa.'IOt'otox~~lap in the pt6q~~~~sfthat are gofug'on right now for us. One is establishing a
new SDC methodo}<:>gy[;Jid adoptuig'~"sharge for.the','~ext,year and the Commission has just undertaken quite a
process to upda!f~~finethodology t9;~€Omply with'ap::~fthe new statutory changes that will go into effect July I,
and are aiming, Wider:i settlement~~ement with the)::I()me Builders, to put a new charge in place for July 1,
because the cities aitd;th.~.ConnW.ssi.o~imd;W~ H.ome B~!j9~rS agreed to work diligently to get that to happen...."
. _ '_~'^_ ,\_, ~~V~~~~';t~o,}gJ}jtfi{~??r~i~/,~,~~:..%~~t~1;:~~~~};::tb;;)1i~'w' . -
In re,~Jl9i\S~!~?;~,lJ\!estion frR~:~s. Levis, Mr. Motto:ffered clarification on extending the timeline for public
testirifciny;'sayiiig:May 10 wai:.the last day for public testimony to meet a June 22 public hearing date.
. _-if~;flf!Y,}' .. -<({t~\~fj~\~~. "~~tf~~\i,:~" . . .
,e:M'v1;S: Levis said she uriaerstllod there ,had been a significant amount of planning and the new permit was driving
'..'~t:'_ " >:i::' . ""...>.k' , ," 'If:~': ,', :-. '
"<the'.timeline to reach compliance.. \':,'1;:,:"
';'1~1~~~, .. ~~~:;\l. '-~~~(fr."'-. '." . .
Ms. SiWfH..added that it the p:p'rpose was to be in compliance with the requirements of the new permit as well as
the compltlt:!<:>n of the previo~~ly scheduled projects in the MWMC plan to meet the conditions of the old permit.
~{lTi~;}:t,,~.. . : . "dig!~fi. .. '. - . .."... _
In response to'a'questl?n from Ms. Colbath regarding plant capacity, Ms. Snuth Said there were four measures of
capacity that til(j'pllint;s'processes served. She added that the project components were aimed to meet all aspects
of capacity "'.:i'6,,;t/.
. . ~'<l.:-
Responding to Ms. Colbath, Ms. Kieran said the intent of rough cost estimates under OAR 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.
Mr. Dignam said he understood Mr. Kloos to say that the PFSP was not perfect. Mr. Dignam asked if the
" respective; Planning Commissions could adopt the proposed amendments while recognizing that the entire
: ""Y':'''''dci6umenfWi!s not perfect.
i>.~. ";~_'':'.''~'.'~'-:'~<,..'' .-" f.' ,- ~
" ~';".\! ;Y~~~:--if..ii~r';;I' ~:~YA~
_ _ ~ '1 rg,H., ),. II,. ',\ I. I ,
"',;'- ,. '
MINUTES-joint'Springfield, Eugene, and Lane Coun~
nl___~__ r"o_-,,_:__~___ nnt.l!_ TT___!__
April 20, 2004
Date Received
t4~ jc 1 Ie cp~
Planner: BJ
"j"
i .~~..
'J'
1'.---
i . \ ;):;.;-\:...._~~~\:.'~
;~k/lr. M, ".' .,1. ';-:
'. ";,.,
Mr. Mott affirmed Mr. Dignam's query, that the PFSP was part of the periodic review. He said the amendment
proposal included components of the PFSP, specifically to include tables, maps and text changes that had
, originally been omitted or needed to be updated. He added that the proposed amendments 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 not feel the findings were adequate.
Mr..Goodwin said that there was no specific discussion in the proposed affiendm~nts of financing alternatives
because Chapter 5 ofthe'PFSP, as currently in effect, included a discu~sion on both the existing arid alternative
financing,strategies. ,,;J::;:~;:"
'. '1'''''.'
. , '. s,.,.~",:{:'.
Noting the previously identified level of urgency to commence cOnstru~~~by.!uly I, 2005, 'Mr. Duncan asked
,what the ramifications of being in violation of the permit would be:-i'/~' '''''';1"
." . ,..t~'\. '~.~:~-: ~<q~%~~,.
Ms. Smith responded there was the possibility of untreated, l}i",:sewage being dumped m the streets, basements
and river creating a public health issue. She said the wet\Veather flow management plfu'i-approved by MWMC
and the cities would be violated, thus raising the possibilify'tit dissatisfaction and Jlotentiit1'clairns by citizens, and
potential water quality violations based upon the exiSii!ig\vater quality SUUldards. ':;t;0:;L;'
. . - ~f~~::~Q~~:t~... -' .?!;51;:::~;i~:>":~~~i:~t' J
Ms. Smith stated that there would be a violation of the Natiop,aI Poll)J1:kt-Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES") discharge permit that could result in one of seveii1i'oufooiiles, including:
. . '. jj.t'~~1:',", . . "\~j~~gj(
o Issuance of a notice of non-comRli@i8~'or'1l notice of vioI1i#~~ that.could result in the agency being
, .. .;,".'..' .... ...~,-."... ,~--',:...... ' .
placed on a compliance schedule to,J:!?rrect,1:I);::PJ~blem approY~!k!>Y the DEQ, '
. Direct enforcement action by the EP&,\Vhich'hli4;~~e;ntly occurred,ip Portland, resulting in'significant
fines. . ~':"~~i%.~;,.",~::;,t~fJi~~i~].(_~,::.,". ";~~;:'i.'..: '. .
o Significant fines,equ<1l.t<!,Pie cost ofb~ilding rpefllCilitYcoi\l4belevied if the agency knowingly failed to
comply with~i~~~~'~rrnif~req~.~~ments. ".~~t1j~%t~t\!ir~ '"~:~{2f~';:' .'. :.. .
o Third party!aw'smts related't<i:stormwater,wscharges and combined seweroverflows could result in both
monetary(.llil!'civil pena1ties~'i!tf,;~j;i:, ,
..;t~~~{i)~~.~ . '" ~f~~~;f:f ~;~r, . .
Ms, Smith concluded'that the result5vouldbea dissatisfied ,public; legal defense costs incurred, and regulatory
review costs in additiCiri"jQC()~JiJb~iid the,reqliU:t:~,fadliiy , " " "
..~~g~~\~~:f,~~~,-~,;.,-,._,) ,.~~~~~~~t~~tif"'. ':~"~'.t':'~:';.~:)f~t;" _.' . .
Mr,'.HerbertilSk'ed how muclibf~e $157 to $160 million addressed the compliance issue.' He questioned what
,app'ifui.;a to be an iii2oilsistency'\Jciween the Metro Plan'extending to the year 2015 and the FSFP extending to the
,:1';'year 2025. He sugge~i~undert<ilihg'a greater level of review by the Joint Planning Commission before
"":forwarding onto the respective PlanrtiligGommissions. He asked if specific project elements could be isolated to
me~(1Ae permitrequiremeniS\, 'Ft'
''':$!,c'_:~_' , .' {~';i':f~
Ms."i!t'said that from th~~~water utility's perspective, facilities plans by definition were 20 year plans to
meet app;()va):,criteria by Q~q;' in order to do cost effective long-range planning. She added that significant
planning was'dol\eto p~ej:i*e'a schedule that would result in a'cost effective construction schedule that would be
as easy as possible f()r me'payers to fund. Ms. Smith said only a few specific items were not compliance related,
including changes to').he" disinfection system made in response to policy decisions to meet homeland security and
employee safety reqUirements because the system was aging significantly. She said there had been leaks
requiring responses by the Hazardous Materials Team. ,She added that there were no projects she could think of
without reviewing the list in the first ten years excc;ptthe disinfection system, which were not related to permit
compliance.
Ms. Levis said she understood that the charge of the Joint Planning Commission was to make updates to the plan
rather than rehashing the plan.' '
: ~'_' ,,,!"1~,,,Kjf!an s~id1th~ MWMC had conducted an extensi.ve re~iew .process that inCI~de~ub.lic in~t t~at resulted in
,; "S 'proposed1changes. She added that the wastewater projects lIst should have been mcl
MINUTES-Join! Sppngfield, Eugene, and Lane County April 20, 2004 age
, Planning'C~~missions - Regular Session, MAY 11,6<('
i,
u'fI,' '
. ;.-\~ fJ'-""j ~~~}; C},.
.J,r '!It t.; ')'j /I
Planner: BJ
-, "" ~ ..
."
,I
~
Facilities and Services 1- ....., and the action before the Joint Planning" .amission was a housekeeping task to
correct the oversight. .
In response to a question from Mr. Martorello, Ms. Smith rc;plied that the MWMC would be,in compliance upon
, completion of the projects to enable t)1e 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. '
-,;(1,",'_
Ms. McMillan said she understood that there would be further opportunity for ~ubli~ input regarding cost issues
before the MWMC for inclusion in the MWMC CIP, ,;:""
~'.. .
-,..'.
'i', _.,,/5(.-,,"'1"
Mr, Belcher asked when any arguments made by the HBA, the real.toTs'ill the'p\;Jn would be addressed, He asked
if there were other components of the Metro Plan that were not tied to 2015. He requested that each of the '
commissioners be provided with copies of the PSFP. He asked if the projects could,be placed in the CIP for,the
coming year..{,.ni~~!.ir) i~~:;?r)\~,
Ms, Kieran replied that this would be the app,yp,;ate tiri:ieJomake any changes to Chapter3:'ofthe Metro Plan if
the ]PC was so uiclined, She said the process was dri~~~,by specific OA&. 1\;.-;-""
- ';;:'~~i;: .,:/:~./~~~;t.{ . ",<: .
Mr. Mott noted that inventories were based on population'iili.d;employffient projections on 2015 outcomes. He
- . '<':',.--,',.-'._,...-"1.-....
added that review of the data was ongoing,., ';i';<:1~;'1*.ii"
4:~~tr5;;'f,/;:n':>:~, '~t~i!:~~\,. . .
Ms, Smith said staff preferred to move ahei!d'1ino"Wing they were U;'&mpliance with the letter and the spirit of
local ordinances and adopted comprehensivfpl~>ai1~J:l1e ,SDC methbdR1()gy.
\~~t--i>" ,;.~,I~+{~~~~_~:t~bt:", . ~:~~~t;:~,-
Mr, Carpenter asked if there had been a legafopinion or ~ic1$ilge:in State l<iW'that required incorporation into the
PSFP, He said he knew,t.1fei~\'v'etecommunities()ut of'dOiriplian~e''tnili, pollution discharge permits that had been
:-''''''_"'-'$, '.'l.":';"'-" .'-t. .......y~.:. 'f');I'" ',. ", "1"-
given years to achiev~compliai1ce'.;,',fI~ asked ifthep~ifuit required a coDstruction start date of July I, 2005 to
remain in compliance With the eXistilig)2002 pemrii,i!!f.
~:t~i;%ff _ ' i_~~~1"~~;1ij,%~.
Ms. Smith said t1f(f'e~~ng pe~i~,~~_ ~corporated th~~?pted wet weather now ~gement plan that laid out
the CIP to meet peak flow requ\remellts;"She added that there was not a specific condition wntten Into the permit
requiring identified coristri1'<:ti6ri'~y\.iisp~~ific- date:\She;;'bpined that DEQ would do nothing to the agency if
constnlCtiSkdid not comirieilBe;.Hy July I, 2005:--"'~~:f~' '
.. ;:t,~~J~~r09'J:dt-~,~,?,~~,S:~~{~~~t~~f,~,.. .,,~~:~t~;~}..' _ - 0'
/Inrihponse to Mr,earpenter's 'question about the ran1ificatioOs ofa two week delay in construction start up, Ms:
!~;tSliUth rc;plied that frorria~nstrUcti6n::,standpoint, the time could be made up, However, she said from a funding
'""stIDdpoint, implementation of the SDCcb,arges on July .1 was necessary to provide for collection of sufficient
r';~~nhes to fund the projeCtS'.'i, ',"J
\:~{~$t~:\__ t~~~ir; -
Respondlngt() Mr. Becker's-iI1iestion that there would be subsequent NEPA style environmental analysis that
would involvfp!fblic involveinent at later date, Ms. Smith replied that the plan undertaken by the commission
was consistent ~'.vii:h thep1j:Q required guidelines that were published for community wastewater facilities plans.
She added that the'8o~ssion review process had taken place over a year, with the public review process
including advertised '~~ening open houses and work sessions with interactive input with the commission that
began in November 2003, She added that most of the analysis had been completed by October 2003,
Mr. Goodwin said a public hearing before the MWMC was scheduled for April 22, 2004, followed by public
hearings at both city councils. He added there would be additional public hearings when capital budgets
incorporated the projects.
. I ,..--
t.\I'~\P~I.....'lik:'~,~' :'::'~*:r::-\. ! . .. . .,
Ms: Decker'sald the.list In some way confused the diSCUSSIon, since the overall scope being considered was not
intended,to be, project specific. She added that she did not have a problem with the very general table for the
various, sites. I ,( 1\1,)
. ,:.'-~~~$.".;~':1.;;i'?':l'~:':1 ~ .t :o.:..~> ~'t~'.:~tt'!:!: r \. ..'
,,' "-,, . \i,,-"!
I . ; . .. ~ "10" ''''-'-'IJ~''
,..( " . ! ,I; ,I ;..,' :
, MINUTES"':Joint Springfield, Eugene, arid Lane Counry
Date Received
April 20, 2004
MAYplg\5 rt>+
Planner: BJ
nl___:__ r"I___:__:___
nuL.l:~ TT__-=__
"
.!,"" .~~.. "
'.
Mr. 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, but to get the general.projects on the list
so that imposing methodology for the SDCs could proceed I;Ie summarized his understanding that the request
_ was to approve the concept that some time in the next 20 years, the capacitY of the Metro Plan needed tooe
expanded at a cost of $100 million in a manner to be determined. ' ,
Ms. Kieran confirmed Mr. Beyer understood. ,
.,.o"~'~
,;~~i~, '., ,
Mr. Belcher said he understood that if individual projects were included in,the Metro Plan, would it be necessary
to revise the Metro Plan each time an individual project was added o~ deleted:' ,.
o. . ~',\.\~?':~:"}'~~~'_:"t:t'
Mr.Moe closed the public hearing for the Springfield Planning Co~ission.Y,"<;_:"
. '':o.t',-~,\ "1" ':?j:,~t~:~:
Ms. Kirkham closed the public hearing for the Lane County PI3i:miD.g Commission, "("\
. ~A:~f~~l"'~ "'~~:~:~';';~~;::,
Mr. Rusch closed the public hearing for the Eugene PlaniliiigTommission "(!iz;:\"
Foll~wing a brief discussion regarding a date to hOld{fu~tk:bliC recordo~~~;i~1~~~;,\
. . -'" .t~':0t~~~i~., _ ,,:3;~';~09'~ ,
Mr. Herbert, seconded by Mr. Dignam, moved to iieep," !h~'L.aneCounty Planning Comni,ission public
record open until May 7, 2004 to,'!zHowfor appropriate t;~for staff to respond to the issues raised at
the April 20 public hearing. Th~~~il~wpassed unanirno~sly, 8:0.
~~:!~~i~:i~,"_'- {;~'~~~jtfj~.,\,.,:. . '. ~i;~1f.tr~:~. . , '
Ms. McMillan, seconded by Ms. Colbafh, moveo.,tdkeep the Eugene Planning Commission public
record open until May 7, 2004 to aH;;j;;for apP;()P'fjijtY.tiple for si~JJ; to respond to the issues raised at
the April 20 pub~,h,et!':J.!,g. The motioripassed,iiiiiiiiimously, ,7:0. ' , -
)~~$~r~I~:~~_t~~~~;~,.. . "J~3';1'di~~~~~}t-" . ,..,~~;;:~~\~~'~:;
Mr. Beyer, .~~c.~~ded by Mr:' ~~aver, muveiito-keep the SpringfieldPlaniling Commissio!l public record
open un!1!-M(JY 7, 2004 to a[{ifji;.for approP?lf!e time/or staff to respond to the issues raised at the
,. April20~~,~{ff: hearing. 1Jf~:(!wtion passed~,~,!nimously, 6:0.
i"k~~:~~\, , ,::J>~jf{~1:~_b ':::krt. r. .,: .'~;~i.1~;.. ' .
Mr. Moe adjourned ilie"meeting for~ilie;SpriD.gfieldPlarinin:g Commission at 8:40 p.m.
"_,o:};\f;h;;;t~f~lj.,;,':,;;".., "':J;~~.~":)'!1~t~X~~FY ""~'~i;f)t~~~n~'l"
, Ms; 'I<ll:k1i3niiifij91!11),ed the~eeting for the Lane County Planning Commission at ~:40 p.m.
t}.~~:*J::f\~:~it , . . "~.t~i[~~~~~;~~" -;,~",t~:,~:" '. .? . .
;,~~W, Rusch adjournedtlf~"1J1eeting.t;9t.1pe Eugene Planning Commission at 8:40 p.m.
;~-::~!)~~{"
,'~'
)J
..~/
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
R: 12004VointlP lanning CommissionVtpc0404 20, doc
Date Received
MAY ll,of
Planher:6 BJ
"_""~ .; ,_ . t , -:
- ',~_'\./,r,L~:."~L~I)""~ ". \ .1:1 ,;
,. I ",., '., 'J" ~ " ;}
MINUTES-Joint Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County
Planning CilJnmissions - Regular Session
April 20, 2004
,J"::," -, .;!-::'~-~;r):.t~!;(J 'i
y
.
\\
M E !VI 0 RAN D U !VI City of Springfield
To: Springfield Planning Commission
From: Gregory Mott, Community Planning and Revitalization ~
Date: May 11, 2004
Testimony entered into the record of LRP 2004-0000 I, Amendments to Chapter 1Il, Section
Subje~t: G Public Utilities and Services Element and Chapter IV Glossary of the Metro Plan, and
, ame'ndments to,. the Public Facilities and Services Plan
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 Jhis memorandum.
The information provided by the Homebuilders was submitted at 4:30 p,m. on the 7'h, 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, however, given the extremely
brief interval between the close of the record and preparation of the Commission packet in time for
deliberation on the IS'h, staff could not include a response to the Homebuilders submittal in this packet.
We are prepared to provide both a verbal and written response;as the Commission directs, on the evening
of the IS'h. Your packet does include a memorandum from the ,City Attorney responding to the
information submitted into the record during the joint public hearing on April 20th, "corrected" versions of
the staff report and appendices, and a copy of the draft minutes.
; ~.~/~,
As you will see from the table of contents of testimony, many of the documents are well known to the
Commission (Trans Plan, The J':.1etro Plan) and are quite bulky and expensive to reproduce. We will bring
this record to the meeting on the I Sth, and it can be made available to any member of the Commission or
public who is interested in reviewing this material personally. To ensure this opportunity, please contact
Brenda Jones at 726-36 10 to confirm availabili~, .
Date Received
MAY l1(iJc(
P1anfJer: 8J
v
Staff Report and Findings of Compliance with the Metro Plan and Statewide
Goals and Administrative Rules
File LRP 2004-0001 Amendments to the Metro Plan and Public Facilities and Services
Plan
Applicant:
City of Springfield on behalf of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(MWMC)
Nature oftbe Application:
The applicant proposes to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Plan) and the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP)I to (1) more
adequately reflect the impact that new discharge permit restrictions will have had on the
capacity of the regional wastewater treatment system, (2) to clarify the relationship
between the PFSP project list and locally adopted capital improvement plans, and (3) to
modify (streamline) the administrative and legislative processes that govern the
implementatiott and amendment of the PFSP projects list. .
Background:
MWMC's regional wastewater treatment facilities were designed and constructed in the
late I 970;s with a 20-year life expectancy. Slower that expected population growth in the
1980's extended this life expectancy. In 1996-97 MWMC developed a Master Plan to
evaluate the performance of its facilities, to ascertain areas of constraints within the
existing permit conditions, to identify short-term improvements (e.g. how to address
seismic hazards), and to address other major issues that needed to be studied further.
In May of2002 the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) imposed new
and more stringent discharge permit standards on the regional wastewater treatment
facilities, particularly in regard to the treatment of ammonia and thermal loading. As
MWMC staff began to evaluate design needs for its wastewater facilities, it became
apparent to them that the existing fucilities could not meet the demands imposed by the
new discharge permit restrictions.
Recognizing that a thorough assessment of wastewater collection, treatment and
disposal/reuse needs for the next 20 years was essential the MWMC began work on.the
2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan, a comprehensive facilities plan update. The objectives
of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan are twofold. First, it is intended to provide for
adequate community growth capacity through 2025, considering policies in the Metro
Plan and current planning assessments for population and development. Second, the 2004
Wastewater Facilities Plan is intended to protect community health and safety by
addressing sanitary sewer overflows, river safety, permit compliance and the cost-
effective use of existing facilities and the efficient design of new facilities.
Staff Report and Findings Page I
Date Received
MAYll,v~
Planner: BJ
I See appendices A & B, respectfully,.
The 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan recognizes and addresses the fact that the regional
wastewater system for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area does not have the
capacity to meet all of the discharge standards imposed by state and federal law. Neither
the Metro Plan nor the PFSP currently reflect this situation. Statewide Planning Goal 2
requires that the city, county and special district plans be consistent. In large part, the
amendments proposed by this application address the issue of consistency between the
Metro Plan and thePFSP and consistency of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan with the
former documents. The p'''pvsed amendments provide information that should have been
included in the PFSP when it was adopted and present a more accurate description of
wastewater services that will be available after certain capital hup'u lement projects are
comPleted.
Phasing objectives of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan necessitate that construction of
several key facility components begin by June of 2005 in order to meet federal standards
that,require that peak wet weather events be managed by 20 I O. In order to meet this
rigorous construction schedule, MWMC must have released Requests fur Proposals
(RFPs) for engineering design for by October of2004. Prior to this date, the 2004
Wastewater Facilities Plan must be adopted by the three metropolitan jurisdictions and
the Metro Plan and the PFSP should be updated to reflect current information.
In summary, the application proposes the following changes:
Metro Plan
I. Specifically recognizes "wastewater" as a subcategory of service within the Urhan
Growth Boundary. [Chapter III-G]
2. Amends Finding #6 and Policy #3 to recognize the addition of Map 2a "Existing
Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems" to the PFSP. [Chapter III-G]
3. Amends Policy #2 to include local capital improvement planS as a means to
implement policy in the PFSP. [Chapter III-G]
4. Inserts two findings regarding local and regional wastewater services to
development within the urban growth boundary. [Chapter III-G]
5. Adds a new policy G.9 that makes a commitment to proViding the conveyance
and tre!ltment of wastewater to meet the needs of projected growth within the
urban growth boundary and that meets regulatory requirements. [Chapter III-G]
6. Modifies definition 37. Wastewater: Public Facilities Projects. [Chapter V
Glossary]
PFSP
Staff Report and Findings Page 2
Date Received
MAY IlIDY
Planner: BJ
I. Modifies the text on page 28, preceding Table 3, and adds Tables 4a and 4b that
identifY MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Primary Collection System
improvements, respectively.
2. Modifies Map 2, which shows Planned Wastewater Facilities, and adds Map 2a
that concerns Existing Wastewater Facilities.
3. Modifies the existing narrative on "Wastewater System Condition Assessment" in
Chapter IV. (Page 82)
4. Modifies existing paragraphs #1 and #2 under the discussion of "Wastewater" in
the subdivision entitled "Long-Term Service Availability Within Urbanizable
Areas" in Chapter IV. (Page 97).
5. Adds new Table 16a (following Table 16) entitled "MWMC Wastewater
Treatment and Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost Estimate, and
Timing Estimate." (Page 101)
6. Adds new Chapter VI regarding amendments to the PFSP.
Metropolitan Area General Plan Amendment Criteria
The proposed amendments are considered to beType I Metro Plan amendments because
, they are non-site specific amendments to the Plan text. Amendments to the Plan text,
which include changes to functional plans such as TransPlan and the PFSP, and that are
non-site specific require approval by all three governing bodies to become effective.2
Springfield, Eugene and Lane County each adopted identical Metro Plan amendment
criteria into their respective implementing ordinances and codes. Springfield Code
Section 7.070(3) (a & b), Eugene Code 9.128(3) (a & b), and Lane Code 12.225(2) (a &
b) require that the amendment be consistent with relevant statewide planning goals and
that the amendment will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. These criteria
are addressed as follows:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevan( statewide planning goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and DeveloplIJent Commission;
Goal! - Citizen Involvement
To develop a dtizen 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 interested parties; 2) Notice
Staff Report and Findings Page 3
Date Received
MAY 11/ of
Planner: BJ
2 See SDC 7.070(J)(a), EC 9.7730(1)(a), and LC 12,225(1)(a)(i).'
shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation; 3) Notice shall be
provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at
least 45 days before the initial evidentiary hearing (planning commission).
Notice of the joint planning commission hearing was published in the Springfield
News and in the Register-Guard on March 31,2004. Notice to interested parties
. was mailed on April I , 2004. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was provided
to DLCD on March 4,2004. The notice to DLCD identified the City of Eugene,
Lane County, DEQ and EPA as affected agencies.
Requirements under Goal 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
9.7520; Lane Code Sections 12.025 and 12.240.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning - To establish a land use planning process and
policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land
and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions..
All land-use plans and implementation ordinances shall be adopted by the
governing body after public hearing and shall be reviewed and, as needed,
revised on a periodic cycle to take into account changing public policies and
circumstances, in accord with a schedule set forth in the plan. Opportunities
shall be provided for review and comment by citizens and affected governmental
units during preparation, review and revision of plans and implementation
ordinances.
Implementation Measures - are the means used to carry out the plan. These are
of two general types: (1) management implementation measures such as
ordinances, regulations or project plans, and (2)site or area specific
implementation measures such as permits and grants for constl-uction,
construction of public facilities or provision of services.
The most recent version of the Metro Plan is being considered on May 17, 2004
for fmal adoption by Springfield (Ordinance No. ~, by Eugene (Council Bill
No. 4860) and by Lane County (Ordinance No. 1197) after numerous public
meetings, public workshops and joint hearings of the Springfield; Eugene and
Lane County Planning Commissions and Elected Officials.
The Metro Plan is the "land use" or comprehensive plan required by this goal; the
Springfield Development Code, the Eugene Code and the Lane Code are the
"implementation measures" required by this goal. Comprehensive plans, as
defmed by ORS 197.015(5)3, must be coordinated with affected governmental
units.4 Coordination means that comments from affected governmental units are
3 Incorporated by reference into Goal 2.
4 See DLCD v, Douglas County, 33 Or LUBA 216, 221 (1997).
Staff Report and Findings Page 4
Date Received
MAY II, 04
Planner: BJ
"
solicited and considered. In this regard, DLCD's NQtice QfProposed Amendment
form was sent to. the City of Eugene, Lane CQunty, DEQ and EPA.
One aspect Qfthe GQal2 coordinatiQn requirement concerns populatiQn
projections. In this respect, the proposed amendment to. the PFSP Glossary
cQncerning Wastewater inco.y~.~es a projected year 2025 populatiQn fQr the
Eugene-Springfield Urban GrQwth Boundary Qf297,585.5 This projectiQn is
cQnsistent with the mQst recent (1997) final fQrecasts provided to' Lane County by
, the OregQn Office Qf ECQnomic Analysis and the Year 2000 Census. The adQptiQn
Qfthis mQdificatiQn to. the PFSP willeiTectively "cQQrdinate" this PQPulatiQn
assumptiQn.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands
This gQal dQes not apply within adQpted, acknQwledged urban grQwth boundaries.
Goal 4 - Forest Lands
This gQal dQes nQt apply within adQpted, acknowledged urban grQwth boundaries.
GoalS - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
This gQal is not applicable ,to. the proposed amendments.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality - To maintain and improve
the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. .
This gQal is primarily cQncerned with compliance with federal and state
envirQnmental quality statutes, and hQW this cQmpliance is achieved as
develQpment proceeds in relatiQnship to air sheds, river basins and land reSQurces.
The Federal Water PQllutiQn CQntrol Act, P.L. 92-500, as amended in 1977,
became known as the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). The gQal Qfthis
Act was to. eliminate the discharge Qf PQllutants into. the navigable waters. ORS
468B.035 requires the OregQn Environmental Quality CQmmissiQn (EQc) to.
implement the Federal Water PQllutiQn CQntrQl Act. The primary method Qf
implementation Qfthis Act is thrQugh the issuance Qfa NatiQnal PQllutant
Discharge EliminatiQn System (NPDES) permit priQr to. the discharge Qf any
wastes into the waters Qfthe state. (ORS 468B.050) AmQng the "pollutants"
regulated by the EQC are temperature (OAR 340-041-0028) and tQxic substances
(OAR 340-041-0033),
One purpose Qfthe Y'''lwsed amendments is to. ensure that the Metro. Plan and the
PFSP accurately reflect regiQnal wastewater system needs as imposed by Federal
and State regulation. Currently, the PFSP states that "... the RegiQnal Wastewater
Treatment Plant has sufficient design capacity to. accQmmodate PQPulation
, 'Table 3 of technical memorandum entitled "Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission-
Population Projections for Wastewater Facilities Plan,'~ prepared by Matt Noesen, CH2M Hill, el al (April
9,2004) , Date Received
StaiTReport and Findings Page 5
MAY 11,04
Planner: BJ
increases and serve,all new developmentatbuildout:" Recent analyses have
determined that facility imp. v lements are now required to address both dry and
wet weather requirements relating to pollutant loads and wastewater flows. The
section in Chapter IV ofthe PFSP entitled "Long-Term Service Availability
Within Urbanizable Areas" is proposed to be modified to reflect the need for
facility improvements necessary to address dry and wet weather regulatory
requirements.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments.
GoalS - Recreational Needs
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Goal 9 - Economic Development - Go,al 9 provides, in part, that it is intended
to: "Provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types,
locations, and service levelsfor a variety' of industrial and commercial uses
consistent with plan policies." The proposed amendments are consistent with
this objective in that the Metro Plan, the PFSP and the 2004 Wastewater Facilities
Plan must be consistent in order to comply with State discharge permit conditions
that will determine the improvements to the Regional Wastewater System that are
necessary to address new regulatory standards. The improvements are necessary
to allow adequate service and conveyance, treatment, reuse and disposal capacity
to serve new and existing industrial and commercial uses.
Goal to - Housing - To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Goal 10 Planning Guideline 3 states that "[P Jlans 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. "
OAR 660-008....{)010 requires that "(S]ufficient buildable land shall be designated
on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density
range as determined in the housing needs projection." Goal 10 defines buildable
lands as ". . . lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available and
necessary for residential use." 660-008""{)005(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 faciiities are necessary to accomplish the
objectives of this goal and applicable administrative rules (OAR Chapter 660,
Division 008). The purpose ofthe proposed amendments is to provide the
comprehensive planning framework to allow for the improvements to the regional
Date Received
Staff Report arid Findings Page 6
MAY 11/ D4
Planner: BJ
wastewater system that support the housing needs of the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area.
Goalll - Public Facilities and Services - To plan and develop a timely, orderly
and efficient a"angement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework
for urban and rural development. '
OAR Chapter 660, Division 011, implements goal II. OAR 660-011-0030(1)
requires that the public facility plan identify the general location of public
facilities projects. In regard to the Metro Plan, the reference to Public Facilities
and Services Plan Map 2a in Finding 6 and Policy 0.3 in the proposed '
amendments addresses this requirement. In regard to the PFSP, the modification
of the introductory narrative under "Planned Wastewater System Improvements
(Page 28)," the insertion of new Tables 4a and 4b (page 28), and the modification
of Map 2 and the insertion of new Map 2a, also address this requirement.
OAR 660-011-0035(1) requires that the public facility plan include a rough cost
estimate for. sewer public facility projects identified in the facility plan. In
conformity with this requirement, it is proposed that the PFSP be amended by the
insertion of Table 16a (Inserted following Page 101), which addresses rough cost
estimates and a timing estimate for MWMC Wastewater Treatment and
Collection System Improvements.
OAR 660-011-0045(3) provides that modifications to projects listed within a
public facility plan may be made without amendment to the public facility plan.
This application proposes to add a new chapter to the PFSP regarding
amendments to that plan. Proposed Chapter VI incvlpV".tes the standards for
amending a public facility plan allowed by OAR 660-011-0045(3) and adopts an
amendment process.
Goal 12 - Transportation
This goal is not applicable 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 transitionfrom
rural to urban land use.
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments, as they do not affect the
existing urban growth boundary.
Staff Report and Findings Page 7
Date Received
MAY 111 o~
Planner: BJ
Goal 15 - WilIamette River Greenway
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Goal 16 Estuarine Resources, Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands, Goal 18 Beaches
and Dunes, and Goal 19 Ocean Resources
These goals do not apply to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area.
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent.
The proposed changes to the Metro Plan are essentially of a "housekeeping"
nature. They essentially recognize the role of wastewater service provision within
the urban growth boundary by the addition or modification of applicable findings
. and add or modify policy language to clarify the relationship between the Metro
Plan and the PFSP in regard to capital improvement plans and the commitment to
comply with regulatory requirements. The proposed changes, as presented, will
not create internal inconsistencies within the Metro Plan.
The proposed changes also amend the PFSP to more accurately reflect MWMC's
planned improvement projects for its wastewater treatment system and primary
collection system, to provide rough cost and timing estimates for those
improvements, update narrative information regarding necessary improvements to
the wastewater treatment system and primary collection system, and more clearly
implement the plan modification standards contained in OAR 660-011-0045(3).
The proposed changes to the PFSP do not create any inconsistencies within the
PFSP nor do they create any inconsistencies between the PFSP and the Metro
Plan.
Date Received
MAY III 64
Planner: BJ
Staff Report and Findings PageS
APPENDIX Aa
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE METRO PLAN
(Current version a/the Metro Plan)
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 Plan 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. This policy direction is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11 : Public
Facilities and Services, "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement
of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development." 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 urban growth boundary.
Urban facilities and services within the urban growth boundary 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
development fundamental principle of the Metro Plan.
Appendix Aa Page 1
Date Received
MAY 11 ,oti
t
Planner: BJ
This element-incorporates the findings and policies in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services
Plan), adopted as a refinement 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 II , the Public
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 information for
electrical 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 and costs, and decisions on timing and financing of projects are not part of the
Metro Plan and are controlled solely by the capital improvement programming and
budget processes of individual service providers.
This element 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,
inehiding waste', vater service, 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 Growth Boundary
. Planning and Coordination
. Water
. Wastewater
. Stormwater
. ' Electricity
. Schools
. Solid Waste
. Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
. Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
. Financing
The applicable findings and policies are contained under each of these topic headings,
below.
The poliCies listed provide direction for public and private developinental and program
decision-making regarding urban facilities and services. Development should be
coordinated with the planning, fmancing, and construction of key urban facilities and
services to ensure the efficient use and expansion of these facilities'.
, The exact location of the projects shown on the Public Facilities'and Services Plan planned facilities
maps is detennined through local processes.
, Goal II also requires transportation facilities to be included in public facilities plans. In this metropolitan
area, transp~rtati<in facilities are addressed in Metro Plan Chapter III-F and in the Eugene-SU' t>i'.;1d. Rece'l ed
TransportatIOn System Plan (Trans Plan). aLt:1 V
Appendix Aa Page 2
MAY 11)0<.1
Planner: BJ
Goals
I. Provide and maintain public facilities and services in an efficient and
environmentally responsible manner.
2. Provide public facilities and services in a manner that encourages orderly and
sequential growth.
Findin~s and Policies
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Planning and
Coordination
Findinl!!s
1.
Urban expansion within the urban growth boundary is accomplished through in-
fIll, redevelopment, and annexation of territory which can be 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 and services.
2.
In accordance with Statewide Planning Goal II and OAR 660, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies jurisdictional 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 improvements are included in the Public Facilities and Services Plan,
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 growth boundary 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 almost all areas within the city
limits of Eugene and Springfield are served or can be served in the short-term (0-5
years) with water, waStewater, stormwater, and electric service. Exceptions to
this are stormwater service 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.
Wit.h the. improvemen~s specified in .th~ Public Facilities',and Servi~R. :~an ,
project lists, all urbamzable areas Within the Eugene-Spnngfie1d tirwarevRecelved
MAY II, oc.f
Planner: BJ
Appendix Aa Page 3
boundary can be served with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service
at the time those areas are developed. In general, areas outside city limits
serviceable in the long-term are located near the urban growth boundary and in
urban reserves, 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 be included in public facility plan
project lists for water, wastewater, and stormwater. These definitions are shown
in the keys of planned facilities'Maps I, 2, ~ and 3 in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan.
7. In accordance with ORS 195.020 to 080, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and
special service'districts are required to enter into coordination agreements that
define how planning coordination and urban services (water, wastewater, fire,
parks, open space and recreation, and streets, roads and mass transit) will be
provided within the urban growth boundary.
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. Duplication of services prevents th~ most economical distribution of public
facilities and services.
10. As discussed in the Public Facilities and Services Plan, a majority of nodal
development areas proposed in TransPlan are serviceable now or in the short-
term The City of Eugene's adopted Growth Management Policy #15 states,
"Tliget publicly-fmanced infrastructure extensions to support development for
higher densities, in-fill, mixed uses, and nodal development."
policies
G.I Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and services iri an
orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in
Chapter II-C, relevant policies in this chapter, and other Metro Plan policies.
G.2 Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide
the general location of water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical projects in
the m"';wpvlitan area. Use local facility master plans, refmement plans, caoital
imorovement olans.' and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning and project
implementation.
G.3 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 desc~ tAeceived
MAY II} 0 ~
Appendix Aa Page 4
Planner: BJ
Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities Maps I, 2, 2lh and 3,
requires amending the Pubic Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan,
except for the following:
a. Modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do
not significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing,
capacity, or other general characteristic of the project; or
b. Technical and environmental modifications to a public facility which are
made pursuant to final engineering on.a project; or
c. Modifications to a public fucility project which are made pursuant to
fmdings of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact
Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural
provisions of the national Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any
federal or State of Oregon agency project development 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 p'-'pvsed public, facilities, plans, programs, and public
improvement projects or changes thereto that may affect one another's area of
responsibility.
G.5 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.
G.6 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 affected jurisdictions;
G.7 Service providers shall coordinate the provision offaciIities and services to areas
targeted by the cities for higher densities; inf11L 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
regional public facility needs.
Services to Develoomeot Within the Urban Growth Boundarv: Wastewater
F indinl!s
Appendix Aa Page 5
Date Received
MAY 11 I o~
Planner: BJ
II. Snrim:dield and EUl!ene relv on a combination of reQional and local services
for the nrovision of wastewater services. Within each City. the local
jurisdiction nrovides collection of wastewater throu\!h a svstem of sanitarY
sewers and numninl! systems. These collection facilities connect to a reczional
system of similar sewer collection facilities owned and onerated bv the
MetroQOlitan Wastewater Manal!ement Commission ("MWMC"," an entity
formed under an intenwvernmental aczreement created nursuant to ORS 190.
TOl!ether. these collection facilities (which exclude nrivate laterals which,
convey wastewater from individual residential or commercial/industrial,
connections) constitute the nrimarv co lIection system.
12. . The nrirnarv collection system conveys wastewater to a treatment facilities system
owned and onerated bv MWMC. This system consists of an interconnected Water~
Pollution Control Facilitv ("WPCF"). a biosolids facilitv. and a beneficial reuse
facilitv.
Policies
0.9 Wastewater convevanceand treatment shall be nrovided to meet the needs of
proiected lrrOwth inside the urban IITowth boundarY that are canable of comnlvinl!
with rel!Ulatorv reouirements I!overning beneficial reuse of effluent and beneficial
reuse or disnosal 0 f residuals.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Water
Findinl!~
I,D. 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 not confer rights to a groundwater source.
Policies
0.910 Eugene and Springfield and their respective utility branches, EWEB and
Springfield Utility Board (SUB), shall ultimately be the water service providers
within the urban growth boundary.
O.HH
Continue to take positive steps to protect groundwater supplies. The cities,
county, and other service providers shall manage land use and public facilities for
groundwater-related benefits through the implementation of the Springfield
Drinking Water Protection Plan and other wellhead protection plans.
Management practices instituted to protect groundwater shall be coordinated
among the City of Springfield, City of Eugene, and Lane County.
Date Received
r
Appendix Aa Page 6
MAY 11, oy
Planner: BJ
G.I+2 Ensure that water main extensions within the urban growth boUndary include
adequate consideration of fire flows'.
G.1~3 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, as well as coordinated source and delivery systems.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Stonnwater
Findings
1;!4. 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
withiri their municipal storm drainage systems. These requirements applied
initially to the City of Eugene and subsequent amendments to the Act extended
these requirements to Springfield andLane County.
1J.5. 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 for reducing
stormwater pollutants to "the maXimum extent practicable."
146. Stormwater quality improvement facilities are most efficient and effective at
intercepting and removing pollutants when they are close to the source of the
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 ku'p".",ture and bacteria. This will require the
development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these 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 revetment of river banks, non-point source
pollution, alterations of natural hydro graph by increased impervious surfaces in
the~in, an~ d~gradation ofna~al functions of riparian lands dQatenAeooived
alteratIOn of mdlgenous vegetation. '
MAY 11 I oq
Planner: BJ
Appendix Aa Page 7
11-9. There are many advantages to keeping channels open, including, at a minimum,
natural biofiltration of stormwater Pollutants; greater ability to attenuate effects of
peak stormwater flows; retention of wetland, habitat, and open space functions;
and reduced capital costs for stormwater facilities.
~20. 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 drainageways
such as streams serve as an integral part of the stormwater conveyance system.
2G2. In genera~ there are no programs for stormwater maintenance outside the Eugene
and Springfield city limits, except for the Lane County roads program. 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 Management Agency (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 of the drainage area This poses risks to other properties in
or adjacent to floodplains and can change the hydrograph of the river.-
Policies
G. B4 Improve surface and ground water quality and quantity in the un:,;wpolitan area
by developing regulations or instituting programs for stormwater to:
a. Increase public awareness of techniques and practices private individuals
can 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 drainage;
d. Increase storage and retention and natural filtration of storm runoff to
lower and delay peak storm flows and to settle out pollutants prior to
discharge into regulated waterways;
Appendix Aa ~age 8
Date Received
MAY 11 ( 6~
Planner: BJ
e. ' Require on-site controls and development standards,:as practica~ to reduce
off-site impacts from stormwater runoff;
f. Use natural and simple mechanical treatment systems to' provide ;,,,,,;,,,ent
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;
I. Include containment measures in site review standards to minimize the
effects of chemical and petroleum spills; and
J. Consider impacts to ground water quality in the design and location of dry
wens.
0,145 Implement changes to stormwater 'facilities and management practices to reduce
the presence of pollutants regulated under the Clean Water Act and to address the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
0.1,)6 Consider wellliead protection areas and surface water supplies when planning
stormwater fucilities.
0.167 Manage or enhance waterways and open stormwater systems to reduce water
quality impacts from runoff and to improve stormwater conveyance.
0.1-78 Include measures in local land development regulations that minimize the amount
of impervious surface in new developmettt in a manner that reduces stormwater
pollution, reduces the negative affects from increases in runoff, and is compatible
with Metro Plan policies.
0.1 &9 The cities and.LaneCounty shall adopt a strategy for the unincorporated area of
the urban growth boundary to: reduce the negative effects offilling in floodplains
and prevent the filling of natural drainage channels except as necessary to ensure
public operations and maintenance of these channels in a manner that preserves
and/or enhances floodwater conveyance capacity and biological function.
0.-l-920Maintain flood storage capacity within the floodplain, to the maximum extent
practical, through measures that may include reducing impervious surface in the
floodplain and adjacent areas.
Services to Development Within theUr~an Growth Boundary: Electricity
Appendix Aa Page 9
Date Received
MAY II, 6~
Planner~ BJ
Findines.
2;M. According to local municipal utilities, efficient electrical service is often
accomplished through mutual back-up agreements and inter~connected systems
are more efficient than iso Iated systems. .
Policies
G.2GI 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, if any, will occur.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Schools
Findinl!s
235. ORS 195.110 requires cities and counties to include, as an element oftheir
comprehensive plan, a school facility plan for high growth districts prepared by
the district in cooperation with the city or county; and for the city or county to
initiate the planning activity. The law defmes 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
school 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."
2fJ7. Enrollment projections for the five public school districts in the metropolitan area
and the University of Oregon and Lane Community College(LCC) are not
consistent. Bethel School District and the University of Oregon expect increases
while Springfield and Eugene School Districts and LCC are experiencing nearly
flat or declining enro Ilments. Enro Ilment is increasing fastest in the elementary
and high school attendance areas near new development.
;!68. Short-term fluctuations in s(:hool 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 pattern affects the
willingness of districts to allow out-of-district transfers and to adjust district
boundaries. Adjustments in district boundaries inay be feasible where there is no
net loss or gain in student enrollments between districts.
~9. Creating or retaining small, neighborhood schools reduces the need for busing and
provides more opportunity for students to walk or bike to school. Quality smaller
Appendix Aa . Page 10
Date Received
MAY 11,01
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 bedroom communities.
However, growth patterns do not always respect school district boundaries. For
example, natural cycles of growth and neighborhood maturation result in uneven
geographic growth patterns in the metropolitan area, causing a disparity between
the location of some schools and school children. This results in some fringe area
schools exceeding capacity, while some central city schools are under capacity.
;6830. Long-range enrollment forecasts determine the need to either build new schools,
expand existing facilities, or close existing schools. 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 school,sites may not meet
current local parking and other code requirements.
;!931. Combining educational facilities with local park and recreation facilities provides
fmancial 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 urban growth
boundary for coordinating land use and school planning activities. The cities and
school districts shall examine the following in their coordination efforts:
a. The need for new public school facilities and sufficient land to site them;
b. How open enrollment policies affect school location;
c.' The impaCt of school building height.and site size on the buildable land
supply;
d. The use of school facilities for non-school activities and appropriate
reimbursement for this use;
e. The impact'ofbuilding and land use codes on the development and
redevelopment of school facilities;
f. Systems development charge adjustments related to neighborhood
schools; and,
Appendix Aa Page 11
Date Received
MAY II, D~
Planner: BJ
g. The possibility of adjusting boundaries, when practical and when total
enrollment will not be affected, where a single, otherwise internally
cohesive area is divided into more than one school district.
G.2;1;3 Support fmancial and other efforts to keep neighborhood schools open and to
retain schools sites in public ownership following school closure.
G.234 Support the retention of University of Oregon and LCC facilities in central city
areas to increase. opportunities for public transit and housing and. to retain these
schools' attractiveness to students and faculty.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Solid Waste
Findin~
3G2. Statewide Planning Goal II requires that, "To meet current and long-range needs,
a provision for solid waste disposal sites, including sites for inert waste, shall be
included in each plan."
Policies
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 serve
the metropolitan area. Industries that make significant 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 areas outside the urban growth
boundary increases pressure for urban development in rural.areas. This can
encourage premature development outside the urban growth boundary at rural
densities, increasing the cost of public facilities and services to all users of the
systems.
324. Land application ofbiosolids, treated wastewater, or cannery waste on
agricultural sites outside the urban growth boundary for beneficial reuse oftreated
wastewater byproducts generated within the urban growth boundary is more
efficient and environmentally beneficial than land filling or other means of
disposal.
3~5. Lane County land use data show that, outside the urban growth boundary, land
uses consist of:
Appendix AaPage 12
Date Received
MAY j 1 O~
,
Planner: BJ
I) , Those which are primarily intended for resource m3l)llgement; and
2) Those where development has occurred and are committed to rural
development as established through the exceptions process specified in '
Statewide Planning Goal 2.
Policies
G.2,56 Wastewater and water service shall not be provided outside the urban growth
boundary except to the following areas, and the cities may require consent to
annex agreements as a prerequisite to providing these services in any instance:
a. The area of the Eugene Airport designated Government and Education on
the Metro Plan Diagram, the Seasonal Industrial Waste Facility, the
Regional Wastewater Biosolids Management Facility, and agricultural
sites used for land application ofbiosolids and cannerybyproducts. TheSe
sites serve the entire metropolitan area.
b. An existing development outside the urban growth boundary when it has
been determined 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 of the service.
In additiOJi, under 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 witjJ. the necessary urban services required to
operate the airport as an urban facility. Development outside the urban growth
boundary in the vicinity of the airpOI1; oUtside the portion of the 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 designations outside the urban
growth boundary within the Plan Boundary:
a. Agriculture. Forest Land. Sand and GraveL and Parks and Ooeil Soace.
No minimum level of service is established.
b. R,nral Residential. Rural Commercial. Rural Industrial. and Government
and Education. On-site sewage disposal, individual water systems, rural
level of fire and police protection, electric and communication service,
schools, and reasonable access to solid waste disposal facility.
Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
Appendix Aa Page 13
Date Received
MAY 11 I o~
Planner: BJ
Findinl!s ,
346. In accordance with statewide planning goals and adrninistrative rules, urban
water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities may be located on agricultural land
and urban water and wastewater facilities may be located on forest land outside
the urban growth boundary when the facilities exclusively serve land within the
urban growth boundary, pursuant to OAR 660-006 and 660-033.
3~7. In accordance with statewide planning goals and administrative rules, water, and
wastewater f;icilities are allowed in the public right-of-way of public roads and
highways.
368. The Public Facilities al1d Services Plan planned facilities maps show the location
of some planned 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 coordination with and
permitting by Lane County and possible Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
31-9. Statewide Planning GoalS and OAR 660-023-0090 require state and local
jurisdictions to identify and protect riparian corridors.
3840. In accordance 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 planning goals prohibit locating school buildings on farm
or forest land within three miles outside the urban growth boundary.
Policies
G.2&9 Consistent with local regulations, locate new urban water, wastewater, and
stormwater facilities on farm 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.2930Locate urban water and wastewater facilities in'the public right-of-way of public
roads and highways outside the urban growth boundary,- as needed to serve land
within the urban growth boundary.' '
G.3GI Facility providers shall coordinate with Lane County and other local jurisdictions
and obtain the necessary county land use approvals to amend the Lane County
Rural Comprehensive Plan, or the Metro Plan, as needed and consistent with state
, law, to appropriately designate land for urban facilities located outside the urban
growth boundary or the Plan Boundary.
Date Received
Appendix Aa Page 14
MAY) 1 fO{
Planner; 8,J
0.3+2 The cities shall coordinate with Lane County on responsibility and authority to
address stormwater-related issues outside the Plan Boundary, including outfalls
outside the Springfield portion ofthe urban growth boundary.
0.3~3 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 riparian standards.
0.334 New schools within the Plan Boundary shall be built inside the urban growth
boundary.
Financing
Findinl!~
3941. ORS 197.712(2)(e) states that the project timing and ~ancing provisions of '
public facility plans shall not be considered land use decisions.
4G2. ORS 223.297 and ORS 223.229(1) do not permit the collection 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. '
4+3. Service providers in the m,;,~,vt'vlitan area use, SDCs to help,fimd the following
facilities:
o Springfield: stormwater, wastewater, and transportation;
o Willamalane Park and Recreation District: parks;
o SUB, Rainbow Water District: water;
. Eugene: stormwater, wastewater, parks, and transportation; and,
. EWEB: water.
~. Oregon and California timber receipt revenues, a federally-funded source of
county road funds, have declined over the years and their continued decline is
expected.
~5. Regular maintenance reduces long term infrastructure costs by preventing the
need for frequent replacement and rehabilitation. ORS 223.297 to 223.314 do not
allow use ofSDCs to fund operations and maintenance.
446. The assessment rates of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County are each different,
creating inequitable financing of some infrastructure improvements in the
metropolitan area.
Policies
Appendix Aa Page 15
Date Received
MAY 1110~
Planner: BJ
G.345 Changes to Public Facilities and Services Plan project phasing schedules or
anticipated costs and fmancing shall be made in accordance with budgeting and
capital improvement' program procedures of the affected jurisdiction(s).
G.3% Service providers will update capital improvement programming (planning,
programming, and budgeting for service extension) regularly for those portions of
the urban growth boundary where the full range of key urban services and
facilities is not available.
G.367 Require development to pay the cost, as detennined by the local jurisdiction, of
extending urban services and facilities. This does not preclude subsidy, where a
development will fulfill goals and recommendations of the Metro Plan and other
applicable plans determined by the local jurisdiction to be of particular
importance or concern.
G.3-78 Continue to implement a system of user charges, SDCs, and other public
financing tools, where appropriate, to fund operations, maintenance, and
improvement or replacement of obsolete facilities or system expansion.
G.3&9 Explore other funding mechanisms at the local level to finance operations and
maintenance of public facilities.
G.;;940Set wastewater and stormwater fees at a level commensurate with the level of
impact on, or use of, the wastewater or stormwater 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
36. Public facility oroiects: Public facility project lists and maps adopted as part of
the Metro Plan are defined as follows:
a. Water: Source, reservoirs, pump stations, and primary distribution
systems. Primary distribution systems are transmission lines 12 inches or
larger for SUB and 24 inches or larger for EWEB.
b. Wastewater: Primarv Collection Svstem: Pump stations and wastewater
lines 24 inches or larger.
, Treatment Facilities Svstem: Water Pollution Control
Facilitv (WPCF) oroiect. beneficial reuse oroiect and
residuals oro iect necessary to meet wastewater treatment
facilities svstem design caoacities for average flow. oeak
flow. biochemical oxvgen demand and total su~wAeceived
Appendix Aa Page 16
MAY 1 1 , 0'1
Planner: BJ
solids so as to Drovide service within the urban Qrowth
boundary (uGB) for a Droiected noDulation in 2025
consistent with the noDulation assumed in this Plan. in
comDliance with MWMC's dischame oermit. MWMC's
CaDital ImDrovements Plan. as amended from time to time.
shall be used as the Quide for detailed DlanninQ and
imDlementation of the WPCF Droiect. the beneficial reuse
proiect and the residuals Droiect.
c. Stormwater: Drainage/channel improvements and/or piping systems 36
inches or larger; proposed detention ponds; outfulls; water quality
projects; and waterways and open systems. -
d. Specific projects adopted as part of-the Metro Plan are described in the
project lists and their general location is identified in the planned facilities
maps in Chapter II of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public
Facilities and Services Plan (Public FaCilities and Services Plan).
Appendix Aa Page 17
Date Received
MAY ill (Je.{
Planner: BJ
APPENDIX Ab
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE METRO PLAN
(Version currently before the elected officials as a part of Periodic Review)
G. Public Facilities and Services Element
This Public Facilities and Services Element provides direction for the future provision of ::l
urban 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 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 Iand,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 11 :
Public Facilities and Services, "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development." 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, ana, in some areas outside the cities, they provide water, electric,
frre service or parks and recreation service. This element provides guidelines for special
service districts in line with the compact urban development fundamental principle of the
Metro Plan. .
Appendix Ab Pagel
Date Received
MAY III ot/
Planner: BJ
This element incorporates the findings and policies in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (public Facilities and Services
Plan), adopted as a refmement to the Metro Plan. The Public Facilities and Services
Plan provides guidance for public facilities and services, including plarmed water,
wastewater, stormwater, and electrical facilities. As required by Goal II, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies and shows the general location 1 of the water,
wastewater, and storinwater projects needed to serve land within the UGB.' The Public
Facilities and Services Plan also contains this information for electrical 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 and costs, and decisions on timing and financing of projects are not part of the
Metro Plan and are controlled solely by the capital improvement programming and
budget processes of individual service providers.
The policies listed provide direction for public and private developmental and program
decision-making regarding urban facilities and services. Development should be
coordinated with the plarming, financing, and construction of key urban facilities and
services to ensure the efficiettt use and expansion of these facilities.
Goals
I. Provide and maintain public facilities and services in an efficient and
environmentally responsible manner.
2. Provide public facilities and services in a manner that encourages orderly and
sequential growth.
Findings and Policies
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, ifleklEling VI",""("",,,~ 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 Growth BoUndary
. Planning and Coordination
. Water
1 The exact location of the projects shown on the Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities
maps is determined through local processes.
, Goal II also requires transportation facilities to be included in public facilities plans. In this metropolitan
area, transportation facilities are addressed in Metro Plan ' Chapter 1lI.F and in the Eugene.SprifSti.el;l. R . d
Transportation System Plan (Trans Plan). uate ecelve
Appendix Ab Page2
MAY 11,01
Planner: BJ
,..
. Wastewater Treatment
. Stormwater
. Electricity
. Schools
. Solid Waste Treatment
. Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary ,
. Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
. Financing
Services to Develooment Within the Urban Growth Boundarv: Plannin2 and
Coordination
Findings
1. Urban expansion within the UGB is accomplished through in-filL redevelopment,
and annexation of territory which catibe served with a minimum level of key
urban services and fucilities. 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 and services.
2. In accordance with Statewide Planning Goal II and OAR 660, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies jurisdictional 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 improvements are included in the Public Facilities and Services Plan,
, although not required by state law. Local fucility master plans and refinement
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 almost all'areas within the city
limits of Eugene and Springfield are served or' can be served in the short-term (0-5
years) with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service. Exceptions to '
this are stormwater service to portions ofthe 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 and Services Plan
project lists, all urbattizable areas within the Eugene-Springfield UGB can be
served with water, wastewater, stormwater, lind electric service at the time those
areas are developed. In generaL areas outside city limits serviceable iNh~loni'\ "d
' Uale neCelVe '
MAY 11} OL{
Appendix Ab Page3
Planner: BJ
tenn are located near the UGB and in urban reserves, 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 be included in public facility plan
project lists for water, wastewater, and stonnwater. These definitions are shown
in the keys of planned facilities Maps 1,2, 2!h..and 3 in the PublicPacilities and
Services Plan.
7. In accordance with ORS 195.020 to 080, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and
special service districts are required to enter into coordination agreements that
define how planning coordination and urban services (water, wastewater, fire,
parks, open space and recreation, and streets, roads and mass transit) will be
provided within the UGB.
8. Large institutional uses, such as universities and hospitals, present complex
plamting problems for the metropolitan area due to their location, facility
expansion plans, and continuing housing and parking needs.
9. Duplication of services prevents the most economical distribution of public
facilities and services.
10. As discussed in the Public Facilities and Services Plan, a majority of nodal
development areas proposed in TransPlan are serviceable now or in the short-
term. The City of Eugene's adopted Growth Management Policy #15 states,
"Target publicly-financed infrastructure extensions to support development for
higher densities, in-fill, mixed uses, and nodal development."
Policies
G.I Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and services in an
orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in
Chapter II-C"relevant policies in this chapter, and other Metro Plan policies.
G.2 Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide
the general location of water, wastewater, stonnwater, and electrical projects in
the metropolitan area. Use local facility master plans, refinement plans, caoital
imorovement olans, and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning and project
implementation.
G.3 Modifications and additions to or deletions from the project lists in the Public
Facilities and Services Plan for water, wastewater, and stonnwater public facility
projects or significant changes to project location, from that described in the
Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities Maps 1, 2, 2!!.. and 3,
requires amending the Pubic Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan,
except for the following:
Appendix Ab Page4
Date Received
MAY 11 J oif
Planner: BJ
a. Modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do
not significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing,
capacity, or other general characteristic of the project; or
b. Technical and environmental modifications to a public facility which are
made pursuant to fmal engineering on a project; or
c. Modifications to a public facility project which are made pursuant to
fmdings of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact
Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural
provisions of the national Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any,
federal or State of Oregon agency project development regulations
consistent with that act and its regUlations; or
d. Public facility projects included in the PFSP to serve land designated
Urban Reserve prior to the removal ofthe Urban Reserve designation,
which projects shall be removed from the PFSP at the time of the next
Periodic Review of the Metro Plan. .
G.4 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 p"'pvsed public facilities, plans, programs, and public
improvement projects or changes thereto that may affect one another's area of
responsibility.
G.S 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.
G.6 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 affected jurisdictions.
G.7 Service providers shall coordinate the provision of facilities and ' services to areas
targeted by the cities for higher densities, infil~ 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
regional public facility needs.
Services to DeveloDment Witbin tbe Urban Growtb Boundarv: Wastewater
Findinl!s
Appendix Ab PageS
Date Received
MAY 11 ( o~
Planner: BJ
II. Snriru1-field and EUl!ene relv on a combination of rellional and local services for
the nrovision of wastewater services. Within each City. the local iurisdiction
,nrovides collection of wastewater throullh a svstem ofsanitarv sewers and
,Dumnine systems. These collection facilities connect to a rellional system of
similar sewer collection facilities owned and ooerated by the Metrooolitan
Wastewater Manallement Commission {"MWMC"t an entity formed under an
intemovernmental allreement created nursuant to ORS 190. To<!ether. these
collection facilities (which exclude nrivate laterals which convey wastewater from
individual residential or commerciaVindustrial connections) constitute the nrimary
collection system
12. The nrimarv collection system conveys wastewater to a ;""";ment facilities system
owned and onerated bv MWMC. This system consists of an interconnected Water
Pollution Control Facility ("WPCF"). a biosolids facility. and a beneficial reuse
facility.
Policies
G.9 Wastewater conveyance and treatment shall be nrovided to meet the needs of
proiected g:rowth inside the UGB that are canable of comnlvinll with relrulatorv
reauirements eoverning: beneficial reuse of effiuent and beneficial reuse or
disnosal of residuals.
SUBSEQUENT FINDINGS AND POLICIES SHALL BE RENUMBERED
ACCORDINGLY WITHIN THIS CHAPTER
Chapter V Glossary
37. Public facility nroiects: Public facility project lists and maps adopted as part of
the Metro Plan are defined as follows:
a. Water: Source, reservoirs, pump stations, and primary distribution
systems. Primary distribution systems are transmission lines i 2 inches or
.larger for Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and 24 inches or larger for
Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB).
b. Wastewater: Primary Collection System: Pump stations and wastewater
lines 24 inches or larger.
Treatment Facilities System: Water Pollution Control
Facilitv (WPCF) nroiect. beneficial reuse nroiect and
residuals nroiect necessary to meet wastewater treatment
facilities system desien canacities for averlU!e flow. neak
flow. biochemical oxveen demand and total susnended
solids so as to nrovide service within theurb~eCeived
MAY II) oL/
Appendix Ab Page6
Planner: BJ
boundary (uGB) for a oroiected oooulation in 2025
consistent with the oooulation assumed in this Plan. in
comoliance with MWMC's dischanze oermit. MWMC's
Caoital Imorovements Plan.. as ainended from time to time.
shall be used as the guide for detailed olannine and
imolementation of the WPCF nroiect. the beneficial reuse
oroiect and the residuals oroiect.
c. Stormwater: Drainage/channel improvements and/or piping systems 36
inches or larger; proposed detention ponds; outfalls; water quality
projects; and waterways and open systems:
d. Specific projects adopted as part of the Metro Plan are described in the
project lists and their general location is identified in the planned facilities
maps in Chapter II of the Eugene-SpringfieldMetropolitan Public
Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan).
Appendix Ab Page7
Date Received
MAY ] 1 {if
' I
Planner: BJ
APPENDIX B
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP)
1. Modify the text preceding existing Table 3 to read as follows:
Planned Wastewater System Improvements
Planned sllort aflj ILel; ~-emi wastewater system'improvement projects are listed in
tables3,-ftf1d4, 4a and 4b. The general location of these facilities is shoWn in Map 2:
Planned Wastewater Facilities, and Map 2a: Existing Wastewater Collection and
Treatment Systems. [NOTE: This map presently exists as Map 6 in the Technical
Background Report: Existing Conditions and Alternatives and should be
incorporated without change.)
2. Insert, following Tab'l,e 4, Tables 4a and 4b, as follows:
Table 4a
MWMC Wastewater Treatment System Improvement Projects
Project
Number
Project Name/Description
300
301
302
WPCF Treatment Project
Residuals Treatment Project
Beneficial Reuse Project
Table 4b
MWMC Primary Collection System'Improvement Projects
Proj ect
Number
303
304
305
, Project Name/Description
Willakenzie Pump Station
Screw Pump Station
G1enwood Pump Station,
3. Modify Map 2 to show Projects 300 through 305, and insert Map 2a.
Date Received
MAY 1110~
Planner: BJ
Appendix B Page I
-
,,--_.....
-------
. ".,....._.._..._____ e__.
- ..--
,
,
Eugue-Springf..1d Public f .lolitiu: ..nd S.nriOfl. Plan
PI.anud IvtWNC Vi I II P,o;eotSies
~_d''';1 ~~;" 1111111
Ii
"-
I
";;'1.I.\~'-4.l '
..-.....-
. ......__.~
......"..--...
c___...,
CJ____...
-.....-
------
-------...-
---
+
MAP2
--
,
,
,
.-
)-'
,
l
--------
. --,
-.-.--...........
,,..._-
---
---
c:J ---_
"'
I
Eugene.Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan
Existing MWMC Wastewater Treatment Systems
,-
-,
..'
~
+
~:':_":-IW -
_,MAP2a
--.
4. Modify Chapter IV. Ofthe Puhlic Facilities and S". 1.._" Plan, by modifying
the subdivision entitled "Wastewater System condition Assessment"
(presently on page 82) to read as Collows:
A".. .:ix B Page 2
Date Received
MAY] 1,04
Planner: 8J
Wastewater System Condition Assessment
Con~'e,'llnee ellplle:!i' ;,,,,.iI-iDDe "''' J infiltmtion (III) mtios llFe impoRllnt eriterill
by whieh to llssess the per'~, '"," _1 ,-",,-stewllter eollection system. ConveYllnee
ellplleity is II function of lld, .",t,~, r'r ,sizing llnd mellsures II system's llbilhy to
mo\'e emuent eDieient!}'. InDow llnd infiltmtion mtios express the, ",,,i-M-
st&Fco" ""'~eF-",,-h,-:,,,g-tt-U'H'~' .J".~~'" thRlugh defediv,. ..:.. "3 llnd pipe joints, or
through the eress ",',' ,Nion of stor_llter lines, eombined sewers, ellteh bllsins, or
mllnhole eovers. Such eItraneous stormwllter entering the Wllstll'l'llter system
unneeessllrily burdens both eonveyllnee llnd tf(" '" ",I faeilities.
Treatment: MWMC Wastewater Treatment System
MWMC existiru! infrastructure is monitored for oroblems that need to be addressed
~urinl! ooerational and maintenance activities. MWMC has omwinl! orol!rams to helo
olan for and imolement eouioment re1J1acement and maior rehabilitation of existinq
systems. With these on l!oinll orol!rams used to detect existinl! oroblems. the
jnfrastructure can be maintained and oreserved to helo extend its useful life for future,
years,
In March of2003. MWMC hired CH2M illLL to evaluate and olan for reqional
wastewater caoital imorovements that will serve the EUllene/Sorinl!field urban !!Towth
boundary into year 2025. MWMC will need to imolerilent the recommended
jmnrovements to meet rel!U!atorv reouirements based on oroiected oollution loads and
flows. CH2M illLL as oart of its work to evaluate and olan for rellionaI wastewater
imorovements has oreoared a technical memo related to "Flow and Load Projections"
dated Aoril 12_ 2004_ This historical and oroiected information is beinq used to olan for
needed MWMC caoital imorovements based on enqineerinl! evaluation methods and bv
comoarinl! technology ootions. It is estimated that aooroximatelv $160 million dollars
(in 2004 dollars) are needed for MWMC oroiects to address re<lUlatorv reauirements and
!!Towth throUlrn year 2025.
Convevance:
Conveyance caoacitv and inflow and infiltration WI) ratios are imoortant criteria bv
which to assess the oerformance of a wastewater collection system. Conveyance caoacitv
is a function of adeouate oioe sizinl! and measures a svstem's ability to move effluent
efficientlv. Inflow and infiltration ratios exoress the amount of stormwater enterinl! a
sewer system throul!h defective oioes and oioe ioints. or throullh the cross connection of
stormwater lines. combined sewers. catch basins. or manhole covers. Such extraneous'
stormwater enterinl! the wastewater SYstem unnecessarilv burdens both conveYance and
treatment facilities.
s.
Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying
the discussion of wastewater, in the subdivision entitled "Long-Term Service
Availability Within Urbanizable Areas" (presently on page 97) to read as
follows:
Appendix B Page 3
Date Received
MAYIIIO~
Planner: BJ
'I. There are no areas within the metropolitanUGB that will be difficult to serve with
wastewater facilities over the long-term (six to 20 years) assuming that oublic
infrastructure soecifications and reauirements of the deve1ooinl! area can be
addressed. Aoorooriate enl!ineerinl! desil!n oractices must be used durin\! the
develooment and exnansion into sensitive areas that are aDoroved for
develooment (ex, - hillside construction. etc.). : however, eltpansioH Expansion of
the existing collection system will be necessary to meet demands of growth over
this time period. '
2. Based on 2003 analysis, the EUl!ene-Soril1l!field metrooolitan area treatment
facilities will reauire facility imorovements to address both drv and wet weather,
rel!Ulatorv reauirements relatin\! to oollutant loads and wastewater flows.
Rel!ional and local wastewater imorovementsto the collection and treatment
systems are beml! olanned for and will be imDlemented to allow for \!rowth within
the UGB and for rel!Ulatorv comoliance. 'The BHgeHe Springfield me~3p3IitaH-
ftfea R"5;onAI Wastewater Treatment P1arit has SIlffieieat design .l.:.p.:..:.it-y-te--
!ieeom=oAate POplllatiOH iftereases ani :;:r:J all He'll develepment at IlHildout.
However, peak wet '",eather eonditiellS limit the treatmeat pkmt Hom aehieying its
~,,;,d zai'-.:.~:ty. W-et, weather related improyemeHts are Heeded at the pHmt
and within the r-egizT.z.! zzll",,,,';;o.', ~Jstem to exteoo the pHmt's wet weather
eapaeity Ile)'iloo the year 20g7.
6. Add Table 16a following Table 16, as follows:
Table 16a
MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost
Estimate, and Timing Estimate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 305 , G1enwood Pump Station
.Cost estimated in 2004 dollars
Project
Number
300
301
302
303
304
Project Name/Description
Cost"
($)
$120,500,000 I
$6,000,000 I
$25,000,OQO
$6,000,000
$2,000,000
$500,000 I
Estimated
Completion Year
2025
2018
2018
2010
2010
2012
WPCF Treatment Project
,Residuals Treatment Project
Beneficial Reuse Project
Willakenzie Pump Station
Screw PumP Station
7. Add a new chapter to the Public Facilities and Services Plan, to be Chapter
VI., reading as follows:
VI. Amendments to the Plan
Appendix B Page 4
Date Received
MAY 111m!
Planner: BJ
This chapter describes the method to be used in the event it becomes necessary or
appropriate to modifY the text, tables or the maps contained in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan (''the Plan").
Flexibility of the Plan
Certain public facility project descriptions, location or service area designations will
necessarily change as a result of subsequent design studies, capital improvement
programs, environmental impact studies and changes in potential sources of funding. The
Plan is not designed to either prohibit projects not included in the plan for which
unanticipated funding has been obtained, preclude project specification and location
decisions made according to the National Environmental Policy Act, or subject
administrative and technical changes to the plan to post-acknowledgement review or
review by the Land Use Board of Appeals.
For the purposes of this Plan, two types of modifications are identified.
A. Modifications requiring amendment ofthe Plan.
The following modifications require amendment ofthe Plan:
I. Amendments, which include those modifications or changes (as
represented by Table 16a) to the location or provider of public facility
projects which significantly impact a public facility project identified in
the comprehensive plan, and which do not qualifY as administrative or
technical and environmental changes, as defmed below. Amendments are
subject to the administrative procedures and review and appeal procedures
applicable to land use decisions.
2. Adoption of capital improvement program project lists by any service
provider do not require modification of this Plan unless the requirements
of subparagraph I above are met.
B. Modifications permitted without amendment of the Plan.
The following modifications do not require amendment of this Plan:
I. Administrative changes are those modifications to a public facility project
which are minor in nature and do not significantly impact the project's
general description, location, sizing, capacity or other general
characteristic ofthe 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 fmdings of an Environmental Assessment
or Environmental Impact Statement conducted under regulations
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 or any federal or state agency project development
regulations consistent with that Act and its regulations.
Appendix B Page 5
Date Received
MAY ) 1( ec(
Planner: BJ
Process for making Changes
A. Administrative and Technical or Environmental Changes. Any jurisdiction may
make an administrative or technical and environmental change, as defined herein,
by forwarding to each jurisdiction covered by this Plan, and to the Lane Council
of Governments a copy ofthe resolution or other final action of the governing
board of the jurisdiction authorizing the change.
B. Ainendments
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, orto a
list, location or provider of public facility projects which significantly
impact a public facility project identified herein, which project serves
more than one jurisdiction.
b. Type II amendments include amendments to a list, location or provider of
public facility projects which significantly impact a public facility project
identified herein, which project serves only the jurisdiction proposing the
amendment.
C. ' Processing Amendments
Any of 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 governing boards of all agencies. If a Type I
amendment is not adopted by all agencies, the amendment shall be
referred to MPC for conflict resolution. Subsequent failure by agencies to
adopt an MPC-negotiated proposal shall defeat the I'wl'vsed amendment.
If an amendment is adopted, all agencies shall adopt identical ordinances
b. Type II amendments shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission of '
the initiating agency and, following their recommendation, shall be
considered by the governing board of the initiating agency.
Appendix B Page 6
Date Received
MAY 1 I; ot(
Planner: BJ