HomeMy WebLinkAboutRecommendation Sheet PLANNER 5/1/2004
"
d
.
Y\t.~ () 4-
Staff report summary:
The proposed amendments are primarily housekeeping, but the importance of this action
should not be minimized by this tenn. The existing PFSP only identifies some parts of
the collection system and nothing about the treatment facilities. The definition of
"Sanitary Sewer" in OAR 660, Division II, is: "Treahnent facilities systern and Primary
collection system." The inclusion of new Tables 4a, 4b and 16a, and maps 2 and 2a are
specifically intended to correct this omission in the PFSP as required by law. (See
Appendix B, page I, 2 and 4 of the staffreport packet) ,
The degree of detail or specificity this infonnation is required to provide is also described
in the administrative rule:
,
"The public facility plan shall identify significant public facility projects which are to
support the land uses,designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan. The public
,facility plan shall list the title of the project and describe each public facility project in
terms ,of the type offacility, service area, and facility ,capacity." (OAR 660-011-0020)
"The governing body of the city or county responsible for development of the public
facility plan shall adopt the plan as a supporting document to the jurisdiction's
comprehensive plan and shall also adopt as part ofth~ comprehensive plan:
a) The list of public facility project titles, excluding (if the jurisdiction so chooses) the
descriptions or specifications of those projects." (OAR 660-011-0045) -
On page 3 and 4 of Appendix B, the new narrative under Wastewater System Condition
Assessment and the new Table 16a respond specifically to these requirements of the law.
It should also be noted that the Metro Plan text, at page 11l-G-2, is very clear regarding
the reach of the PFSP: 'The project lists and maps in the Public Facilities and Services
Plan are adopted as part of the Metro Plan. Infonnation 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."-
Documents #13 and-#14 were included into the record to show how the respective service
providers implemented a specific project from the PFSP project list.
The proposed inclusion of a separate amendment process for the PFSP inCludes the
requirements of OAR 660-011-0045 AdoDtion and Amendment Procedures for Public
Facilitv Plans and includes the distinction of Type I and Type II amendments as those,
, '
class of amendments are articulated in Chapter IV ofthe Metro Plan and in the
development ordinances of Springfield, Eugene and tane County.
- ~
, Amendments to Chapter III, Section G of the Metro Plan are included in this proposal
and are intended to meet the internal consistency criteria required of Metr<fI\IAIi.... [) .
amendments. The question of consistency exists because,of the relationsh~Wefi\eCeIVed
MAY 061 01
Planner: BJ
.. .
a-~
functional plans (the PFSP) and the Metro Plan text. For this reason, the Metro Plan text
. was amended to'recognize the new maps, the existence of the treatment facilities and
collection systems, and the definition of "primary collection system" and "treatment
facilities system."
A single new policy has been added, Policy G-9, which states: "Wastewater conveyance
and treatment shall be provided to meet the needs of projected growth inside the urban
growth boundary that are capable of complying with regulatory requirements governing
beneficial reuse of effluent and beneficial reuse or disposal ofresiduals." This responds
specifically to the requirement of OAR 660-011-0020 and is consist~nt with the new
language in the PFSP under Wastewater System Condition Assessment.
The staff report packet includes a response to testimony entered into the record the night
of the joint public hearing.. That response immediately follows the Table of Contents of
the Record Extension in the staff report 'packet. I will let that response speak for itself
unless you have questions. '
The infonnation entered into the record after the clos() of the public hearing is itemized in
the Table of Contents included in the staff report packet. Only one of these documents
was submitted by the public, and that is item #3 Letter from Lane County Homebuilders,
dated May 6, 2004. That letter, and its attachments, is included in the staff report packet.
This testimony was delivered to the Springfield Development Servi~es Department at
4:30 p.m. on Friday, May. 7th. Staff was not able to provide a response to this testimony
prior to the deadline for packet delivery to the Planning Commissions. We have
subsequently prepared a written response and can pro;vide a brief oral summary if that is
your wish; otherwise we have copies of our written r~spbnse available for each of you.
In conclusion, I would simply reiterate that these amendments to the PFSP and Metro ..
. .'
Plan are required by the law and respond specificallYto that law. Each of the issues.
raised in public testimony has been addressed, even those issues that have no relevance to
the Metro Plan amendment criteria of approval or the'iapplicable administrative rule. If
you harbor any discomfort about the level of detail pr~vided in the proposed project list
and definitions, and clearly that issue has been raised~'in the testimony, I believe the cause,
of that concern is attributable to the requirements of the Administrative Rule, and not to'
:~
the adequacy of the record or the proposed amendments. Staff requests that the Lane
County Planning Commission forward a,recommendation of approval of these
amendments to the Lane County Board of Commissioners, based on the record
demonstrating consistency with criteria of approval for Metro Plan amendments in Lane
Code 12.225(1) (a) (i).
Date Received
MAY 06
Planner: 8J