HomeMy WebLinkAboutAIS PLANNER 7/19/2004
;l : "'~--,- ..
i""~"
-:'., . ii,
"'-
,-
Meeting Date:
Meeting Type:
Department: '
Staff Contact:
Staff Phone No:
Estimated Time:
July 19, 2004
Regular Session
Development Services
Gregoty Mott ~
726-3774 '
10 Minutes
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
SPRINGFIELD
CITY COUNCIL
ITEM TITLE:
ACTION
REQUESTED:
,
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
ATTACHMENTS:
DISCUSSION!
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
.... ... ...'"
AMENDMENTS i'c, IlW EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN), CHAPTER III, SECTION G, PUBLIC
FACILITIES AND SERVICES, CHAPTER V GLOSSARY; AND
AMENDMENTS TO TIIE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN, A
FUNCTIONAL PLAN OF TIIE MEfRO PLAN (JO. NO, LRP 2004-00001),
METROPOLITAN W ASTEW ATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION,
APPLICANT
Conduct a second reading and adopt/not adopt the following Ordinances:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIIE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN TEXT, CHAPTER III, SECTION G,
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT AND CHAPTER V
GLOSSARY; AND ADvr 1ll-lG A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP)
BY ADDING NEW TABLES AND MAPS IDENTIFYING WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS; AMENDING
CHAPTER IV WASTEWATER SYSTEM CONDITION ASSESSMENT;
ADDING A NEW CHAPTER VI AMENDMENTS TO TIIE PFSP; AND
ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
The subject amendments to the PFSP are required to comply with State of Oregon
Administrative Rules for public fucilities plans, The amendments to the Metro Plan
are required to make these two documents consistent,
Attachment I, Council Briefing Memorandum
Attachment 2, Ordinances
The subject amendments were the subject of a joint elected officials' public hearing
on June 22, 2004, Two people testified at this hearing, though only the
representative of the Home Builders Association of Lane County provided
testimony related to the proposed amendments, Please refer to Attachment I for
more information regarding this testimony and the staffs response,
Date Received
--, -.., - _: -.... ,
JUL X 9 I of
Planner: BJ
I
t~~",-\"; ,
". ; 'I i
, i
. "
.,' ,.' '(",," ;," "
, ,',. __ .,'O.t, ~ ,
. .,. " . " , .
' -. .
Date Receivecl
JUL 191~~
,,'~; . ,;j t
Planner: BJ
"r '.;r~.
,/
.
if
To: 1 Elected Officials of Spri~gfield, Eugene and Lane County
From: I Gregory Mott, Planning Manager, City of Springfield (it'"
Date: 17-]-04 ' v
Response to t~stimony entered into the record of the June 22, 2004 Joint Elected Officials
Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Metropolitan Area General Plan Chapter III,
Subject: Section G, Public Facilities and Services, Chapter V Glossary; and to proposed amendments
to the Public Facilities and Services Plan.
Issue
7
,
Two people testified at the June 220d joint elected officials' public hearing: Mike Hudson, Admiuistrator
, of the'City of Coburg, and Roxie Cuellar, Director of Government Affairs for the Home Builders
Association of Lane County, This memorand\l:" responds to that testimony,
Discussiou
Mr. Hudson's remarks,were unrelated to the proposed amendments,imd instead focused on the possibility
of extending sanitary sewer service to,the City of Coburg,' Ms, Cuellar addressed the proposed
amendments by oral testimony and with several dqcuments she placed into the record, .After the public
hearing closed, the elected officials discussed the hearing testimony and asked staff to respond to the
, following question: whj'wer~n 't the Metro Plan and PFSP amendments combined with the MWMC
Facilities Plmfinto a single landuse application andprocessed as comprehensive plall amendments?
In addition to the single-issue 17sponse requested above, written material submitted by the Home Builders
and Bill Kloos, attorney.at-law representing the Home Builders, raise the same questions about process,
'and additional questions about land use planning, statutory requirements for content of public facilities
plans, and the ,appellate process, '
Response
These same issues were raised by the same representatives at,the joint planning commission hearing on
these amendments, ,Staff responded to this testimony and entered these responses into the record of that
hearing (6-22-04 JEO packet, Attaclllllent #3 Table of Contents, Documents #1 and #22; and Attachment
#4), In addition, Ms, Cuellar submitted a niemorandum dated May 27,2004, prepared by legal counsel
for MWMC, City of Springfield and City of Eugene. Th~ugh this May 27'h memorandum is directly
related to these proceedings, it was not part of the r!,cord until Ms, Cuellar submitted it on June 220'. As
it happens, this memorandum is veri much on point to the single issue request made by the elected
officials after the close of the record on June 220d (~ee last two lines of the first paragraph under
Discussion above),' '
Our review and comparison of the documents submitted to'the joint elected officials and those submitted
to the joint planning commissions confirms that this testimony has changed very little (i,e" note the
Header on pages 2 through 7 ofMr. Kloos' tesiimony), Rather than preparing new responses that would
, simply repeat what is already included in the record, we will append to this memorandum our earlier
responses but provide them with new cataloging,
"I~~ i7!lp;;~.l-"t," rj I ~;(r'o~1i - "
" ,~, N..1r:, ., \,., I'" .
',The elected'officials did discuss the question of sewer extension to the Town of Co burg and asked their
l:fdmij1istrators to prepare a response to the procedu,ral issues' and policy implications of such a req~, ]'lis R ' . d
' issue, 'in tenus of content and any response that may be provided regarding process, is not related t lIe ecelve
proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and PFSP and therefore will not be addressed in tilis memoran um,
'.'') i, F'\; ((;1 ' ' JUL X 9, of-
"
:;
ATTACHMENT 1
Planner: BJ
. .-, -------- -~'- -,
i'~"""~11'9 ~'
;J....~'!{ .. ""'...\ "
u_.ft~ .,' ,: ~;lf;;;;;. ~
t.'''' '
';l,., JUt,
n Cr
n.~rr...);
,;',
';'\1~",.~'1t
.;::.;p) ~~~! ~,\J',
,~--:-
.J
I,;
1.'/':;....~". 't~f,q",..
,lj.",r,;,n,,::,,,,'-I
~ J.~':1i-;-.r 1..i),,~.i,,:J\:.'
. ~,'
..,'._ ..J
.'"'
,,","
"
'",
:'1.
"j
to:
-, ,,~
"
','
,;/
:
;
"1:,
'.:.
",
"
,1
'"
, ~,'
"
: ,:.
>
'I
0'
"
.
,>
.I
;
.'~
'.,-,
.
.
i"
",I
,,1,
"\
1.1
"
"
"
'Date Received
JUL 1 ~o{
Planner: BJ
",
-",)')
;
"
Documents Submitted into the Record of the JointiElected Officials, June 22, 2004
Attachment r Letter from the Home Builders Association of Lane County, dated June 22, 2004
, , . ,
Attachment 2: Letter from' Bill Kloos, Attorney representing Home Builders Association of Lane County
and the Home Builders Construction Company, dated Jnne 22, 2004
Attachment 3: Memorandun; from Dave Jewett, Attorney for MWMC, M!'g Kieran, Attorney for City of
, Springfield, and JeromeLidz, Attorney for City of Eugene, dated May 27, 2004
Attachment 4:' City Council Agenda, City of Springfield, June 21, 2004
Attachment 5: Springfield's Motion to Dismiss an appeal filed by Home Builders Association of Lane
, County and Home Builders Construction Company to Land Use Board of Appeals concerning Springfield
Council adoption ofMWMC's Facilities Plan and 20-year project list
Attachment 6: Page D2 of the June 22, 2004 Register Guard, Calendar, listing the joint elected officials
, meeting a16:0b p.m, in the Library Meeting Room of Springfield City HalL
;Responses to the nrecedinl! doCuments
',Exhibit I: Memorandum fromMeg Kieran, City Attorney, dated May 6, 2004 (responds to Attachments
#1 and #2) , ,:', ' ,
Exhibit 2: Publishe'd public hearing notices advertising the joint planning commissions and joint elected
officials,' hearings for these proposed amendments: (responds to Attachment #1)
Exhibit 3: Memorandum from Meg Kieran; City Attorney, dated May'17, 2004 '(responds to Attachment
#1)
Exhibit 4: Memorandum from Dave Jewett, Attorney for MWMC, Meg Kieran, Attorney for City of
Springfield, and JeromeLidz, Attorney for City of Eugene, dated May 27,2004 (responds to question'
raised by the ,elected officials; responds to Attachment # I, Exhibit 4 and Attachment 3 are the same
document)
Conclusion
As with the first time we responded [to this testimony] we do not believe a very strong case has been
made that linkS,the issues raised with the relevant criteria of approval for plan amendments found in the
'Metro Plan, the individual jurisdiction's codes, or the applicable administrative rules, Much ofthis
testimony attempts to connect separate activities under the umbrella of one statute or administrative rule
when the law expressly provides separate rules subject,to separate appellate processes, This testimony
did not persuade any members of the three planning commissions to vote against a recommendation of
support for these amendments, The testimony submitted on June 22,d is substantially the same
information already in the record.'
" ' , I ." 1 " "
. 'MY ""V ;(',\; l' '(",'?! '1
~\. ~:~~':.V:!i'__ ..i!"i-)[' ',",n:.~"," '.
r,.t ;~_ ' t,t , :. "
Date Received
JUL x 9;1
Planner: BJ
i. io' '. i ....~',f -<I'll; ;--;(' ~.~1~!
,<-,II," ::. ';--." ': ~! ,~."
"o~~ .
~)~\iij~,m)\;1. :i,jijJ;K~,
3 ~l~.
!..-~'I,_I:
, 'cl., '\'1' ,
, ",,,.J),
. .,..-1'1
,.,,~ ", ~I~'~'" "l.'
,~.\., /" ~,...:'1t,~'
, r""RY' ,'I, ,_J31 ;'
"
,
, '
",
"
"",t
,,'
"
, "
" '-
.1..."
.,'
.
.
.'
'.
"
Date Receivec I
JUtl 91 Df
Planner: BJ
',' ..:~ .
.
" ,
1(<'
Home Builders
A 5 50 C I AT ION
of Lant c.ounty
',.,'
June.22; 2004
Mayor Torrey and Councilors
Eugene City Council
777 Pearl Sireet
Eugene; Oregon 97401
Mayor Leiken and Counci~ors
Sprin~eld City Council
225 5 Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
, '
Commission President Green and Commissioners
Larie County Board of Commissioners ,
125 East Slh Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Re: ~roposed Comp Plan and Public Facilities and Services Plan Amendments
Dear Mayors; Councilors, and Commissioners;
Most of the issues of concern to the Home Builders Associaiion have been presented in
my May 6 letter to the joint planning commissions~ This letter will elaborate of Goal 2
issues and the' appeals process, " , , , '
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning
Goal 2 involves process. The first consideration is the adequacy of the process by which
the public provides review and comment to the elected .officials prior to their decisions.
The second consideration is that the planning process assures an adequate factual basis
for such decisions and actions,
The first issue is the adequacy of the process by which the public provides review and
comment to the elected officials prior to their decisions. Providing notice to the public'
involves much more than simply publishing the relevant hearing dates so the public
" ')I;~V'~,~9.,:v~,w,heri,tos,ubmit their comments. It involves the adequacy of the infOlmation
-. ' ptoVided to't~e(public during the process so the public is aware of the proposals a~ c~ R ., d
make meaningful comments to the elected officials, Uale ecelve
, - ~ ~': " ~ ' , . .
, 2053 Laura Street
, ATTACHMENT
, Springfield, OR 974-h-1 (541) 484-5352
JUL X 9
FAX: (541) 484_5386Planner: BJ
'...,'.0;0.."
""". ,
, ,
': (i~ ,,:'" I; r j: i ~'r f;,.:1
. '"'_ 1,_
.
MWMC staff esseniially relies on two things to support the public process that was used.
The first is that required meeting notices were placed in the local newspapers informing'
the public of the hearings. However, today's R~gister 'Guard is an example of the type of
notice provided forthe public hearings. Un!ier the Calendar Se,ction in the local section
of the Register Guard, page D2, residents of Eugene would read: '
Joint Meeting of Eugene City Council, Springfield City Council, Uine County
Board of Commissioners - 6 p.m" Library Meeting Room, Springfield City Hall,
225 N. 5th Street. 682-5017, " , , "
Residents who checked under Lane County in the Calendar would find:
i
Board of Commissioners - 5:30 p.m. joint meeting with Eugene and Springfield,
City Councils, Library Meeting Room, Springfield City Hall, 225 N. 5th Street.
Presentation of ACTS 0 certificates; work session and public hearing on
amendments to Metropolitan General Plan public facilities element.
, . ' '
. '
Residents who checked under Springfield would receive no notice at all of the public
hearing or that their council was meeting. Eugene residents would know there was a
meeting but have no notice of its subject or the fact there was a public hearing. Residents
who checked to see what the county commissioners had on their schedule would receive'
the most information, but certainly not information that would alert them to the proposed
approval of $160 million of wastewater projects. " '
Other than two limited references to the proposed projects (one in the Springfield Beat
and one in the similar section for Eugene) in the Register Guard, there has not been a
story in either of the local papers discussing the proposed projects.' The wastewater '
projects proposed by MWMC are of a monetary scope that has never been built', with
local money in the metro area before, Agood-sized article in the local papers or other
media coverage would be appropriate given the size of the proposed projects. 'The public
can not be expected to provide comments if they, don't know there is something to
comment about. ' "
MWMC staff has indicated that MWMC itself has held publicmeeting~ and" public, ,
hearings on the projects, MWMC holds it.s meetings and hearings at 7:30 AM. On more
than one occasion, the General Manager ofMWMC has justified holding the meetings
and hearings early in the morning because no one ~ttends MWMC meetings. Again, the
. '
public has to know there is a reaSon to attend before they are going to show up.
However, another reason that people do not show up is that the public does not follow the
activities of MWMC in the same way that they follow the activities of the planning
commissions and the elected officials. A large segment of persons active in the ,
, community follows the land use process diligently because it knows that that is where the
public discussion of community projects typically begins.
'\ ,~,
" . 'I
-l ~ ~ - I:
, ,1~~':J~J 'I~~~,;'~t.
1-2 '
, Date Rece\ved
,Jlll 1 9 \ D~
P\anne~: BJ
"', '" '. '~il." '. )~'~1'-,
"T'qr.y.".....',~\,', 'nile'",
, ,-!\.,\:.'a~t,lJt~r.l t...)..'.~\
~;! ~ .Ii.i:,
,~
. " -~ ,',
.'
The second problem involves the information that has been available to the public'about
the comp plan and PFSP amendments themselves.
';0.
:l,"
As we have previously pointed out, the actual amendments to the comp plan and PFSP do '
not discuss the'proposed projects with sufficient specificity to allow the public to
understand what projects are being proposed. Are they the projects in the proposed
MWMC Facility Plan? If so, why not make that clear to people who are looking at either
the staff materials or the amendments themselves? The o~y reference in the staff .
materials for the planning commission heiuings that made any note to the MWMC ' ,
Facilities Plan is found undeithe first section, entitled Issues, It says that the '
amendments are being proposed for five reasons, Reason #3 is to "reflect current '
conditions and planned regional wastewateifacilities consistent with the MWMC
Facilities Plan.'; There is nothing in that sentence that would suggest to the public that'
the proposed projects in the comp plan and PFSP amendments are the same projects
being proposed in the proposed MWMC facilities Plan, Instead, the opposite impression
is given - that the MWMC Facility Plan is an adopted document and the proposed
amendments are intended to make the new proposed projects consistent with the existing
Plan:
At the time ofthe joint planning commission pubiic heiuing on April 20;2004, the
propose'd MwMC Facility Plan - a very large ahd technical document - was not yet
available for the public to review; let alone to digest and comment upon. '
However, even now, it is not clear what projects are being proposed in the comp plan and
PFSP amendments; ,For example, the proposed MWMC Facility Plan and 20-Year
Project list'is being submitted to the elected officials andlldojJted through a totally
different process that does not involve the planning commissions at all. If the proposed
projects'in the amendments before the elected officials tonight are essentially large
buckets madeup,ofthe actual projects in the MWMCFacility Plan, why not use the "
comp plan process to discuss the actual projects?
Instead, MWMC is using a bifurcated process. MWMC sent the proposed Facility Plan
, and its projects directly to the elected officials for adoption, bypassing the planning
commissions. Springfield city council adopted the Facility Plan and 20- Y ear Project List
before the planning commissions began their consideration of the proposed amendments,
How is the public supposed to understand what projects are'being proposed in the comp
plan and PFSP amendments ifthe projects.that are presumably the subject of the
amendments are being adopted through a different process entirely? .
Bifurcating the process also makes public comment more difficult. Instead of having tWo
public heiuings, there have been five public hearings' on these projects - two public
, , hearings before the joint planning commissions and the joint elected officials on the
I ,." ~endments, and three public hearings before the three groups of elected officials on the
, 4f+,i:~:I:' q'~cility'P.llm, Because the issues are different in the amendments than the facility plan,
;"the public J:1ad to participate in both processes rather than a single process. ThemAate R .' d
,.'difficult ,the process becomes, the more the public is discouraged from participatin'l(.' , ece/ve
JUL X 9f()~
. Planner: BJ
!
~ ;,",
"
t~. '. I ':;j! .;.i.,..),::t$ 'u
1-3
t ~ ,.,
~ ' '
Lastly, it is not cleaithat:MWMC i~tends, for the piawiing commission to recqrrtinend
specific projects to the elected officials through the comp plan amendrrient process had
the public wished to cOmq1ent on them,;
MWMC also, suggests that the GoaI2'ne~ds are met because of the use of Citizens
Advisory Committees (CAC).tlrroughoutthe plannIng proces~. A CAC met in 1977 to
look at the Biosolids MapagementPlan. That was seven years ago. In 1998, a CAe met
to'look at the iss]le ofwet.weather flow. That was six years ago. In 2004, a CAC was
created to look at the SDC methodology, but it was not their purpose to look at or
comment oll:thefacility plan projects. In short, tl)e,CACshave not provided any recent
review of the projects being proposed by MWMC. '
The Appeals Process
"
, ,""
Ifmembers of the public, fq,ro,ne reason or anqtJ1~[,.aresufficientIYbpposed,to'all or part
of the proposed projects to'seekjudiciaLrem,edy, where exactly do they go?
MWMC contends that the specific projects (i.e. disposal of dry tonnage ofbiosolid waste
at a poplar plantaiioninside,the UGB, for example) do not need,to be included in the
comp plan or PFSP amendm'ents. IfMWMC is correct, concerned neighbors could not
seek relIef from LUBA after the adoption of the comp plan illld PFSPamendments ,
because the ,amendments do not discuss projects of that specificity. ' '
Another possibility would be an appeal of the adoption of the 'Facility Plan and 20- Y ear
Project List to tUBA on the basis that the decision is aland use decision. The Home
Builders Associationand,the HomebuildersConstruction C,ompany have filed such,an '
appeal against the City of Springfield after it adopted the Facility Plan. Springfield and
MWMC, as an intervenor, have..filed a Motion to Dismiss. The'rationale behind the
Motion'to Dismiss is explained as follows; ,
, Here, the decision at issue i.s a facilities plan and ,capital improvementplan
enacted under the provisions of ORS 223297 et seq (the system develoRment
charge.statutes), ,Such plans are specifically excluded from LUBA's jurisdiction
by the provisions of ORS 223.314. Consequently, LUBA does not have
jurisdiction over this matter.,' ,
Is MWMC suggesting that the road to appeal the disposal qr'biosolidwastes at the poplar
plantation would be by challenging the system development charge by writ of review?,
Surelyno!", If not by way ofLUBA and not by way of challenging the SDC, then how?
Oris MWMC suggesting that the public has no r~l1ledY,ifpr9jects are adopted to which
member's of the public object? ' .
, ,.' , .MWMC's past practice has been to have the elected officials adopt the proj1:)atErRecei"e d ,
; \ ;"~ ' .,' \ ,the,budget process. " . '
r v.'.' l't:.:;;. .:,...~t;;..: ~.. ~';i;'! . ".
,..d h. """11,, d",i\' ,',' '" ' . JUL 19 0[,( ,
, f '
fl ~~
~A
lut
~ .,;.,~
1 "
\~1~' ,
. . - ~";,,""" .'
~"'F:t"L( ., ,,', l"'<!~ t."
, '\;~!~ " \:', "Hi i..
1-4
Planner: B J
'I '
.', i ~_ 'I.
, ,!J{2002;'MWMC directed staffto'prepare a 20 year estimate ot-capital needs,
given that the design life.of the water pollution control facility would be reached
by2004. When that analysis' was' completed, and reviewed'by MWMC as part of
, its ordinary budget process for FY 2002-03; the capital needs Were estimated at
about $HlS million, including the $36 million that remained iirtheprevious
, ' , . .
planning efforts. "
This year's MWMC budget contains $13 million of capital improvements, none of which
have received any public scrutiny or reviliw by the elected officials except through the
budget process. The only time that those projects were adopted by the elected officials
was through the budget process. Presumably the governing bodies do not want the public
,
to have to appeal their budgets in order for the public to have a remedy for ilspecific, ,
wastewater project.
"
, The appropriate place for the public to apply for a remedy after the adoption of ,
wastewater projects is LUBA. To the extent that the jUrisdictions attemprto shut off that
remedy, the more difficult the process becomes for everyone - the public and the
, governing bodies alike.' , . ,
The simple solutionis to eliminate the bifurcated adoption process of the wastewater
projects and follow the land use amendment process under OAR 660-011-000 to 660-
011-0065. Start over and let the public review the projects through the planning
cominissions and ultimately the elected officials.- It may take atotaJ of a couple of
additional months, but the process is done, as the state legislature intended. '
I have heard persons from MWMCsay that they do' not Want to have tlie projects adopted
through the comp plan aJ1fendment process because they don't want to have to do a comp
plan amendment every time they change a project The Goal 11 process only requires
amendments for significant public facility projects, If the change is insignificant, the
amendment is not necessary. If the project is significant, !he public should be given the
opportunity to weigh in on it'if they choose to do so. '
"
Last evening, the Springfield City Councjl had. the following item on their agenda: '
, '
ORDINANCE NO, 1 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDIN,G THE EUGENE-
SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA PUBLIC FACILITIES AND
SERVICES PLAN (PFSP), TABLE 8 AND MAP 4: PLANNED ELECTRICAL
, - ",
FACILITIES TO SHOW A NEW IISKV TRANSMISSION LINE FROM THE
,MARCOLA SUBST AnON SITE TO THE LAURA STREET SUBSTATION,
AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
If Springfield Utility Board can act to amend the PFSF when it is appropriate to do so,
presumably MWMC can also. A desire to avoid compliance with the Goal '11 .
, " " 'ibiuir6me'nis for the sake of convenience 'is not a justification for depriving the p~lic of R" .
, , their right to review and comment on public facility projects, uate ecelved
,\ ),.....' .,' '\ " , , "
'}!"jn:f~IL: Cit..'~,""':" ,l.J'!-';r~f ' : .. .
. ~, ( ..,.'..."" " ,,~,~,' " , JUL t 9 f I ~
, ] '.1,',:
"
, I "
,I "J.<,
,d.
, "L '\'I'~ ~ ;-,' ....:,(.:;:;
, .~<l.'l ..1 },I>"1\ - j
1-5
Plallner: BJ
l,',.). 1,"
I warit to ~akeit clear \hat the Horrie 'BuilciersAs,sociatlon)s not trying to preyent "
MWMC from constructing n,e.eded projects, Our wastewafer infrastructure is crucial to '
the livability ofthi: community. Howeyer, we alSo,do not accept the idea thatthe
proposaJof$160mil1ion of projects',shou1d not rece.iv~adequate public ~eview~d
comment. Bring the public along (n thisproce~~ ljlld,it!]1iiy reduce .~y \legative reacti~n "
to the 57% to 67% rate increases that will be necessary over the next five years to. fund
, the~st $109 million of projects. ' , ,..'
.'
, .
Thank,Yo,u for 'your, consideration. of our issues: ..
.:'
Sincerely,
f) , , :/', '
/\ox'^ l~?./
ROXie,Cueliar " ,
Director of GovemriIent 'Affaiis;
";
,';,' ".1,
," . '.,"
..
,
, ,'J
"'...
I'."
I'
, .,
.: 'l'
, ,
,
:,."'"
"
.
. ,;.., - ,- ~ ~'
"', I:, '.
",
".
, '
",'I.. ";!
~':;
'.,
. '
".I.'
,"
';!f
. ,
.
..
'r
..'
.,.'
,t ,,' ,,,,,f' J fij"[:.I,;"Ji,'-
Iti!,'~k'R,_,.;~n. .If''-,, '~f, Ii'.,: ,Ii
"',~\H'C',,r,.1.. '. "ii, ,~
.
, t,r:.7':\ ~ .~:') ;.~ ";t ~
.' ~,' \, 'I 1.'
:r:" .I~ i";t .
."
}','
. . " . ~, \1 rr"'\~
1 t...:';J ".,tl- \,."P' ,ll( '!I~,'
i L"~.. ~ ~., ~'~.j~ 1 ',':. ''''.}i ~
_i ',:
Date Receivec i
JUL 19 i oV
6 "
Planner: B.J "(~:~
1.-6
, '
"I ._,.).
LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC
OREGON LAND USE LAW'
576 OLIVE STREET, SUITE 300
EUGENE,OR 97401 '
PO BOX 11906:
EUGENE, OR 97440
TEL (541) 343-8596
FAX (541) 343-8702 '
E,MAIL BILLKLOOO@LANDUSEOREGON,COM
June 22, 2004 '.
, Metro Area Elected Officials
c/o Lane Council of Governn1erits , '
99 East Broadw~y, Suite 400' ,
Eugene, OR 97401
Re: MetroPlan Text Amendments; Public Facilities and Services 'Plan Amendments
June 22,2004 Joint Public Hearing:, , " ,
Dear Elected Officials:'
Please accept this letter on behalf ofthi: Home Builders Assodatiori of Lane County and its
subsidiary, the Home Builders Construction Company,' ' "
1. What standards apply. '
Die standards that apply to these proposed pl~ amendments are" found in several locations:
, 'I,
. State statutes apply. Statutes always apply to localgoveInments' land use decisions.
McKav Creek Vallev Assoc, v, Washin~ton Countv; 18 Or LUBA 71, 75 (1989) ,
(acknowledgment ofplaq and code leaves statutes directly applicable). '
, , ,
o Statewide Planning Goals. ORS 197.1:75(2)(a).
,-
o LCDC Rules implementing the statutes and the goals apply, foi'the same'reilsons that the
statutes and goals apply. ' " , "
o Acknowledged;unamended plan provisions apply to plan amendments, l:1ecause plans'
~, ' :' , . ~ ' '" , .
have to be internally consistent. South ,of Sunnyside Neighborhood League v, Bd, of
Comr's of Clackamas County, 280 Or 3,13 (1977); ORS 197.015(5). '
, , .
2. PI~nning Period: The 2025 planning horizon f6r the W~steWaterPrimary Collection
System is inconsistent with and not coordinated with th.e planning period for tlie'balance of,
the Metro Plan. ' ", '.',.,'," , ., " -' . .
, '
, .. I . ,,-
Both the Metro Plan and the P~blic Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) amendments propose a ,
I, .~ ,!he pr?J;osed aI)1en?ments, if adoPt~d, will b~ post-ackno~ledgment pian amendments (P AP ~), My cr[;)ateeReGeiVed
':, )~:of,tl1":f!11~:de'i:is~oii'of,each local government on this matter, as required by ORS 197.615" tI '
" ,." " , ' " " " JUL X 9) o~
~ ~, t;,
ATTACHMENT
'2~1
Planner:, BJ
'i..
," t..~.. ~'~ . ',( .
_. : r :..;t-
,-"',- .,'
Metro Area Planning Commissions
, April 20, 2004 '
Page2,of7.' "
, '
, ,
" ' . ' " .
, .2025 ,plan horizon for the planning for treatrD.ent facilities.' With these amendments the '
comprepe,sive plan will not be integrated and, in fact, will have inconsistencies. That's because
the exitingplanshive a 201S"planning horizon. A comprehensive plan, by definition, must be
coordinated, integrated; and internally consistent.:', The definition of "comprehensive plan" in
ORS 197.015(5) is:' , '
"Comprehensive plan" means a generalized; coordinated land use map and policy
staterhent of the goveming body of a local governJnent that interrelates ali funCtional '
and natural systems and'a7tivities relating to the use oflands, including b~tnot,limited
to sewer and water systems, transportation systems, educational facilities, recreational
,faCilities, and natural resources aItd aJrand .water quality m~agerrient progra,ms. .
'~Comprehensive" means all-inclusive, both in terms of the geographic area covered and ,
functional and natural activities'ilrid systems occuning in the area covered by the plan.
"General nature" meansasunlmary of policies and proposals in broad,categories and
does not necessarily indicate speciJ:i910caiions of any area, activity or use. A plan is
i~coordinated"when the ne.eds of all levels of governments, semipublic and private
',agencies and th~'citizens 6f Oregon have been con,s!de~ed and accommodated as much
as possible. "Land" includes water, both surface and subsurface, and th~ air." ,
, ,,' , " " -
A comprehensive pilin rea'ny can't be "coordinated" in the meaning of the definition if
different functional'p,arts oftlJ.eplan have cqnflicting.planningtime,frames'" , ,
. .' , .
"
3. State statutesregaI;ding public facilities planning, ORS,197.7.12(2)(e), requires a
project list, ~hich is~ot in the proposed amendments. ., i' '.
- ,i" , ' , : '~ '.,
'The statut~ that set~'th~ st~ge for publidacility plans is ORS 15J7.712(2)(e). It'proYides:
" '~A city o~ county shall develop and ad~pt ~ publi~ facility plan [0;' areas within
, an urban growth ,boundary containing a popul~tion greater than 2,500 p~rsons.
,The public facilitY plan shall include rough cost estimates 'for public projects
.' needed to' provide sewer, water and ,transportation for th61arid uses" "
, contemplated'i~ the comprehensiye pjan and land use regulations, Project timing
and financing provisions of public facility pl~s :;hail not be considered land use'
decisions." - , " :", " '
" "
It is worth noting that the statute anticipatesa.listofprojects. The proposed amendments do
noti,nciude a list of project: Instead,th.e amendments would include categories or caskets of
projects.. Presumably, the individual projects would be, worked out administratively.
"
4. ,:LCDC Rul~s relating to publicfacility planning,
, , '
l.r~'."
,,'"' The publie:facilities statute and Statewide Planning Goal i I are implemented through the
;~)~'M!;jtJbL<Ebd?s~Division II Rule ~ OAR 660~011.-0000,' ; , ' ' .
,~: X Ii)I, " ' , " . Date Rec~lved
JUL 19 ,Drj
,....:.~ - ,
PI~nnp.r~B~
:" :'(-" '---"('t. "';"1 ,,1':'<4II{r'~:'
:. ';'Jil' li~ ' }; \\) .'i'
,2-2
<-
.,r ~....
Metro Area Planning Commissions
April 20, 2004
Page 3 of)
(a) Contents of "public facilitY plan."
OAR 660-011-0010 defines the contents of a public facility plan. The definition is:
"(I) The public facility plan shall contain the following items: "
(a) An inventory and general assessment of the condition of all the significant
public facility systems which supportithe land uses desigriated in the
acknowledged' comprehensive plan; t
(b) A list of the significant public facility projects which are to support the land
uses desigitated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan. Public facility 'project
descriptions or specifications of these projects as necessary;' - ,.
(c) Rough cost estimates of each public facility project; ,', '
(d) A map or, written description of ea,ch public facility project's general location
or service area;' -,
( e) Policy statement( s) or urban growth management agreement identifying the
provider of each public facility system. If there is more than one provider with
the authoritytoptovide the systein within the'area covered by the public facility,
plan, then the provider of each project. shall be designated;, ,
(f) An estimate of when each facility project will beneeded; and
(g) A discussion of the provider's existing funding mechanisms and the ability
of these and possible new mechanisms to .fund the developm,ent of each'public
facility project or system." '
, "
The proposal is to bolster the existing PFSPto inClude the required components for the area's
wastewater treatment system. The amendme~ts'made should be doubl'echecked against the
required list of contents above, At first ghince, it would appear that the proposed 'amendments
fall short of meeting the minimum required cbntents in the following respects:"
, ,
, ,
1. The amendments need to include an iilventory and general. assessment of the condition'
of all the significarit aspects of the wlistewater treatment system. The required
evaluative information is missing:'OAA'660-011:001O(1)(a). " .
, , 1(' .. .,.'
"
2. A "list of significant public facility projects:' needed to support the land uses
designated in the Metro Plan is needed. OAR 660-011-0010(1)(b). No project list is
proposed for the plan. Instead, categories ofprojects are proposed, This obfusc'ates
, the ultimate policy choices that Goal 2 and Goal I I require to be reflected in the plan.
Furthermore, the projects are to support the land use designations'in the plan. Those
designaiions havea2015 planning horizon. The proposal is to designate projects for a
longer limeframe, v:.liich would violat~ this rule. .,' ,
.... ' t' , ,;
, , ,
, 3. Cosi estim'ates need'to be by project, not by categories of. prcij ects.
; F"''\:''; ",:; , ,OOIO(I)(c). '
,~}::, ,h-:t, Ilfo..o.'lL_A..J;,..i1,.. -
, .. I~ ".' " ' !II l"'" I
. ,;"'. ,c'"., 1'.
"'f
OAR 6600~te Received
JUL X9 }b~
',1"1' ,
, .'i,.:
. ~~~";. );
-: :.f~,'-'::i{rtt ,:~.} r- .
:,2-3
,
, Planner.,: \~~J
. '-... 1,_
Metro Area Plailning Commissions'
April.20,2004
Page 4 00 ' '
Ii; ,
,<,<.-I
"
,.
4. Each project needs to be mapped. QAR 660:01 l-OOIO(I)(d). Without a project
listing; the mapping requirem~nt can't be'rriet
.1:
, " ' JJ
5. An estimate is,neededofwhen ea~h project will be needed. OAR 660-011-00'10(1)(t).
. Absent a project list, this r~qu,irement can't be, complied with.
. "" '.". ;" ,/ , _1: '. '~' ,- , .;;> . '
6. A discussion of the funding mechanisms and'prospects for funding for each project ,
,OAR 660,-011"0010(1)(g). Again, a project lis~ is the starting poiritfotthis discussion.
" .. " ' . "~ - ,
, ,~ '~ " .
(b) 'Need for inventory of existing factlities and n~ed for future projectS._
OAR 660-0 II "0020 requires establishes, inventory r,equirelIlents and. the need for a'list of
future'p'fojects. The Rule provides: ",'" ,,", ' .. j" " "
. "~,
;- " ,~.. , -.' _ '
. "(1 ) 'The public facility plan shall'include an inventory of significant public
facilitYsy~teffis..Wherethe acknowledg~4 comprehensjve,plan, b<ickgf'OUll9 .
document or,one or more of the plans or programs listed in OAR 660-,011- '
00 I 0(3) contains such an inventory" that inventory may ~e incorporated by ,
"reference, The inventory shall ipclude: , "
, ,(a) Mapped locationofthefacility 9r service area; .; ':
(b) F:acility capacitx.or size; and. , ,
, (c) General' assessme~t of condition ofthdacility (e,g., very,good,good,'fair, .
"poor, very poor). ", , " .,'
,,-.
, , (2) The public facility plan shall identifysigllifitant publidacility projects ,
" which~e to support the land usesdesignatedj!l'the.<lcknowl~dged, .
~ comprehensive plan, The public facility pl~ shalll!st the title 'of the project and '.,
describe each p,!blic facility project in terms <:if.the ,type <if facility"serYice area,
, and facility capacity., ' ,
'j "
" 'J
, "
(3)ProJe~tdescriptionswiihin th!l facility p,1<m, may require modificatipnsbased
on, subsequent enviro!lI11ental impact studies, design studies, facility master ' ,
plans, capital improvement programs; or site availability, The public facility
plan should-anticipate these changes as specified in OAR 660-011-0045." , ,
. . ~. , .
"
I,'.
. .- ,
An inventory of existing facili,tiesis needed, in terinsofmappedJocation, capacity, and
condition. "OAR.660~011-0020(1). This jnventory \yould provige the baseline for plalining, It
does not appear ,to be within'the scope'<iftheproposed amendments,
. ' , , . "" ~' ~~','
" ,I,
~ ~
I ,"'"
, ;;::.>:
,.,' t
, .
.,.'
, ',' ,"'''-!' "'~..'. ... .1.1:- J
'l"-I! "II -Ii' ,,;'i-,:-,
" :1.', '111 (l;,.....:1 '"I.
.2-4
"I ;:-.
Metro Area Planning Commissions
April 20, 2004
Page 5 of? '
~\
.-I'!
(c) Timing of required projects.
OAR 660-011-0025 requires that the planinclude a general estimate of timing ofprojects. The
Rule states: . ' ' ..
.
"(I) The public facilities plan shall include,a general estimate of the timing for
the planned public facility projects. This,timing component ofthe public
H . .
facilities plan can be met in'several ways depending on whether the project is
anticipated in the short term or long term. The timing ofprojects maybe related
directly to population growth, e,g., the expansion or new construction of water
treatment facilities, Other facility projects can be related to a measure of the ' '
facility's:service level being met or exceeded, e.g., it major arterial or,
intersection niachirig a maximum vehicle-per-day standard, Development of
other projects may be \nore long term and tied neither to specific population'
levels nor measures of service levels, e~g" sewer proj ects to correct infiltration
and inflow problems. These projects can take place over a long period of time
and may be tied to the availability oflong-term funding. The timing of projects'
may also be tied to specific years.
"(2) Given the different methods used to 'estimate the timing of public facilities,
th.e public facility plan shall identify projects as occurring in either the short '
term or long term, based on those .factors which are related'to proJect
development. For those projects designated for development in the shori term,
the public facility pian shall identify an approximate year for development. For
those projects designated for development over the long term, the public
facility plan shall provide a general estimate as to when the need for project
development would exist, e,g., population level, service level standards, etc.
Timing provisions for public facility projects shall be consistent with the,
acknowledged comprehensive plan's projected,giowth estimates. The public
facility plan shall consider' the relationships between facilities in.providing for
development.' ' , '
"(3) Anticipated timing provisions for public facilities are not considered land,
use decisions as specified in ORS. 712(2)( e), and, therefore,' cannot be the basis
of appeal underORS 197,610(1) and(2) or 197.835(4)."
Although the timing analysis does not have to be precise under the Rule, it does have to be
specific to projects, Where, as here, the proposal is to approve categories'ofprojects, rather
than a list ofprojects, it is not possible to compiy with the rule.
!.";,, .. ",' -" '.
. 11 "\:,f!U'\t-"~' '\. f ,_,,' .. . " '
, 1;:}~7,~~ ,. ~"'.,f/' "t ' "IVii'_'}'"
. " ... ~,"',' , -:, ,.....' " . ".,.'
, (d),' :'Needfor rough cost estImates of speCific proJects.
2-5
Date Received
JUL ~ 9,6{
Planner: BJ
,. :; Jl'!
r_""
l t,' ~. "
. " {
ill 1
l :. ,:. i, ~~:.'-: -'f
'J,__ .,.
,?
Metro Area Planning Conimissions
April 20, 2004 '
Page 6 of7 ,
d
,,:.
, I
OAR 660-011 c0030 require.~ the plan to in,clude rough cost estimates, for projects listed in the
plan. The Rule provides: ' '
"(I) The.public facility plan shall include rough cost. estimates for,those sewer;
-' .. .
water, and transportation public facility projects identified in the facility plan,
The intent of these rough cost estimates is to: '
(a) Provide an estimate of the fiscal requirements tosupport,the land use
. , .' ' ...
designations in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; and
(b) For,use,by the facility provider in reviewing the provider's existing funding
mechanisms (e.g" general funds, general obligation and reveniJe'bonds, local
improvement distHct, system development charges, etc.) and possible .' "
altemativeftJnding mechanisms.Jn adc!ition,to including rough cost estimates,.
I for each project, thdacilityplan shall include adiscussjon oftne providers,
, eztistingfunding mechanisms and the ability of these and possibl!< new ,
m~chanisms to fund the development of each public,facility project or system.
These funding mechanisInsmay also be described in kr:ms,of general, ,
gUidelines or local policies. "
"(2) Anticipated financing provisions are not considered land use decisions as, '
specified in ORS 197.712(2)( e) and, therefore, cannot be the,basis of appeal
, under ORS 197:610(1) and (2) or 197.835(4).';"
Again, the failure'of the proposed plan amendments to list inslividual projects in the plan
precludes compliance with this rule. The rule only requ~res "rough': cost estimates, butthe
estimates have to be by project, not large gro!lPs of projects;, " ,
(e) ,Required elements of the comprehensiveplan. '
OAR 660-on-q045 requires that certainel~entsofthe'public facilitiesplanbe made apart
of the plan itself. The Rule requires: ' " II' ! '
" ..
..
"(1) The governing body of the city,or county responsible for development
ofthepublic facility plan shall adopt the plan aS,a supporting document to
the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and shall also adopt as pilIt of the ' ,
comprehensive plan: ," , .. " " ;, "
, (a) The list of pub lie facility project titles, excluding (ifthejurisdi<ition so
chooses) the descriptions or specifications 'of those projects; .
(b) A map or written description of the public facility projects' locations or
service areas as specified in,sections (2) and (3) pfthis rule; and
(c) The policy(ies) or urban gro~h management agreement designating the
'. provider of each public,facilitY system. Iftl1ere is Inorethan one provider .,'
I , , , with the authority to provide the system within the area covered by the" R' . I '
"jfJV",f'2: ]Gi~;;: Ht:~p~blic fa~ility plan~ then theproyjder of each, project shall be des!gnatJi)ate ec:~~u
I;, ,lilt, ' " JU~ 19 I '
1 ,',I "'c>" :~,~4::'1
., r~',\ 1 ~_.;:! 1: f \J'-"')~ f
2-6
Plam'mer: BJ
,;",-oj;' , -
',' ,- .:..
Metro Area Planning Commissions
April 20, 2004
Page? of?
The minimum requirement for inclusion in the comprehensive plan is the list of project titles'
and a map of the projects' location or service areas. Again, a project listing is required,'not a
description of categories of projects.
In summary, it appears that the proposed amendments conflict with the structure of the Metro
Plan because they are for a different, 'longer time frame. As such, they can't be demonstrated
to consist of the projects needed to implement the land use designations in th'e plan. They
impl~ent something more than what the plan provides for.
More significantly, it appears that the amendments are too skinny. The target for the
amendments should be to provide, as a part of the PFSP and the Metro Plan the information
that the LCDC Rules require be a part of any element of a public facilities plan. The essential
information that is missing is baseline information on the existing infrastructure, its location,
and its condition, and a listing of specific projects proposed, their location, their rough cost,
and their approximate timing. '
As a starting point, the Planning Commissions might ask staff to analyze their proposed
amendments in light of the requirements of the LCDC Rule.
Thank you for your consideration.
, Sincerely, \
/.:/~t{ 'lLJ ~- ~'
Bill Kloos
cc: Roxie Cuellar
, . ~ t I,.: I~ .~.
Date Received
JUL x 9 J o~
Planner: BJ
,.J'
"r:"'\\"~ ""-'\8''1'.\ '-j' '~'~".'\(
IlL:. ,I l,!,' t'~' " - '.
,.I' 'I" ,} ~~.t !' t,. .o.J',' _,'
l'-'
~. :<
,..r'
'1:,""1'"
, .
, I': :I~-'
, ",I
2-7
", ~,
','
",
, '
"
c
,
, f -, "",
~, ", "r. 'I '~.'iiI"'V
';;" ," , . ~'-'I' '1 "'r" ',' ,
.J\ .IT!!" 'i"'~~~~4.II,:~""':'f"~f. :;
\ '..
.;'\,
;~, " .il JJ~ ,
Date Receivec I
JUL 1910~
Planner: B~
f r.,;<
.it ','
;r;~,
: . '.""'~ ,""l_:' ;"~ i
,'14,,' ',". t
'. ,/' ......"
',, --I-
MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
I I
DATE:
May 27, 2004
TO:
Interested Persons
FROM:
Dave Jewett
Attorney for MWMC
:,
Meg Kieran " '
Attorney for City of Springfield c
Jerome Lidz .
Attorney Jor City of Eugene
"
SUBJECT: MWMC Processes
The Home Builders Association's (HBA) complaint about the processes employed by MWMC to
, seek elected officials' approval for needed improvements to the regional sewerage facilities
arises out of flawed assumptions about the ,statutory framework for government actions
regarding the provision of public facilities for wastewater conveyance and treatment and their
funding with System Development Charges, '
" '
Backaround:
. 1
MWMC was formed by a 1977 IGA between Eugene, Springfield. and Lane County tp construct,
, operate, maintain and update regional sewerage facilities (Regional Facilities). MWMC is
governed by seven commissioners appointed by the Governing Bodies, three of whom are
elected officials of the Governing Bodies. . '
, MWMC constructed the Regional, Facilities with about $115,000,000 in federal grants and local
matching funds based on a facilities plan that was developed by MWMC's consultant, CH2M Hill,
in 1979 (208 Plan). ' Pursuant to state and federal rules, the ,208 Plan planned the Regional
Facilities to have a design life of 20 years, The Regional Facilities opened in 1984, Since then,
the community has invested: several million dol!ars more in preserving and upgrading the
Regional Facilities. "
, ' ,
While MWMCoperates the Regional Facilities pursuantto a NPDES Permit issued by DEQ
(Permit), the Permit implements federal and state dis~harge requirements to protect the water,
quality of the Willamette River: For several ye<:lrs it has been clear that, without significant
improvements, the Regional Facilities will soon be incapable of accommodating projected metro
area growth while meeting the discharge requirements of tpe Permit. The driving factors include
the need to manage peak flows to the Water Pollution Control Facility, to properly dispose of
residuais and to meet ~,ew Permit requirements governing the t~mperature and time Received
'Ci~,);f~L:~ \?-!J9.1~<;,h)~~~,;~s.to the Willamette River, . ' , " " ~
. ' '" ". '. , C.," JULX 9 I 0
.
f: .It.!:
- "'"
,
ATTACHMENT
3-1 '
Planner:BJ
,-;';
"';)'".-
-i'" (doc.846,16) ,:;':'>1
''*'''1"1''-' : '\~'f"'_ ,..,,>; ,
),.,... <j "'I' ,,"
,; ~ '. Ie., -'~: b. .', ,..- '; '., . -"
'J,,-.. ','
MWMC Memorandum re: process .'
May 21, 2004
Page 2
Deiermining the scope of the needs, planning toaddiess them and funding th~ir cost is c~niplex.
The HBA's complaint about the processes employed by MWMC oversimplifies and misstates the
rules that govern the processes,
MWMc 2004 Facilities Plan:
The MWMC 2004 F~cilities Plan is a comprehensive 20-year facility plan that ~eplacesthe208
Plan. However, the 2004 Facilities Plan is the product of a long, rnulti-phased planning process
that has'involited significant public involvement, including three citizen advisory committees, It is
an outgrowth of and combines and updates prior studies such as the 1997 Master Plan, the 1997
Biosolid,s Management Plan, the 1997 Systems Development Charge Methodology Update, the
2001 Wet Weather Flow. Management Plan, and the 2003 Management Plan for a Dedicatec;l
Biosolids Land Application Site. The previous plans were reviewed,by MWMC, the public, and
the Goverl)ing'Bodies andhave provided the basis for the annual MWMC Capital Improvements
Program (CIP) since their adoption. Of the $,144,000:000 in projects currently anticipated iiithe
2004 Facilities Plan, $100,000,000 in projects are carried forward from the prior plans. MWMC
has 'proceeded to implement each of the proje,cts and policies in the plans, which has been',
reflected in each annual MWMC budget and CIP:, , ' ,,' " !',' ,
.'
Several key planning considerations were factored into the completion of the 2004 Fa'cilities
Plan. Among them was the implementation of recommendations from Citizen Advisory
Committees that represented diverse community interests', values and involvement and which
had been adopted by MWMC as plans and policies. The City Councils have also adopted the
Wet Weather Flow Management Plan. The 2004 Facilities Plan also needed to factor in new
regulatory limitations PEQ included in the Permit. This factor' caused some modifications to the
type and phasingof~lready planned projects, and, resulted in $44',000,000 in additional projects
over twenty years, The 2004 Facilities Plan was adopted by MWMC on May 6,2004 after a '
, number of public meetings and two public hearings; MWMC:chose to refer it to the Governing
, Bodies for concurrence pursuant to Section 3 of the IGA, .
land Use Plannina:
;: ~
.}I"',i I
. , ,
The,prgposed' upgrades to the wastewater treatment.facilities system areto,'be done at three.
diff!3rent locations including the Water Pollution Control Facility, the residuals site a,nd the' ,
beneficial reuse site ,as well as upgrades to pump stati6ns'serving the' primary collection system
atthree separate'locations. Since the Metro Plan did not include wastewater among the list or
services to develop within the UGB,and did not identify the wastewater treatment facility system,
MWMC proposed a number of amendments to the Metro Plan to correct the omissions. In
ad'dition, MWMC proposed a number of ,changes to'thElPublic Facilities and Services Plan io '
con'ect similar omissions and make this functional plan internally consistent with the Metro Plan,
, Consistency was to be achieved by inserting various lables'and maps identifYing'the/six overall
projects'and showing their location as well as il]cfuding a condition assessment for MWMC's
, , treatment and primary collection system, The propbsed amendments to the Metro Plan and the
~t;:'tn(PfSp,i,were)~ubmitted for consideration by the Gove,rning Bodies' planning commissions and '
subseque~t1y by all three Governing Bodies as requir~d by t~e ~prin~fie.ld Develop~~dRecei'led
the:Eugene Code, and the Lane Code, That process IS continuing With ItS attendan~~~!;i ,
, " q ..
JUL 1 9 I Df '
, Planner:IBJj:![i
';J" . e:'1l1 ,,,,\1<<-/
_ 1'~~'li: )~"1\11'"
,(doc,84616) ,',,'
3-2
'J' :.
MWMC Memorandum re:.process
May'21, 2004
Page 3 '
, meetings and hearings.
Svstem Develooment Charcies:
MWMC has had a SDC since 1991, The met~odology that is the basis for the current SDC was
adopted in 1997. In June 2003, partly in response to concerns expressed by HBA, MWMC
directed staff to retain a consultant and form a CAC to review the 1997 Methodology and
recommend changes, Home Builders designated a representative who participated on the" CAC,
, The consultant,CH2M Hill, and the CAe recommended changes to the 1997 Methodology. On
April 1, 2004, MWMC adopted a revised methodology after a number of public meetings and a
public hearing (Proposed SDC Methodology).
ORS 223.297 to 223.314 govern~ SDCs, OR~ 223,309(1) requires the adoptio(l of a faciliti,es
plan and a capital improvements list prior to the establishment of a SDC, The pertinent MWMC, ,
resolution states that the 2004 Facilities Plan including the 20-year project list are being adopted
to' provide the facilities plan and list of capital improvements that are required by ORS
223.309(1), ORS 223,314 provides that the establishment, modification and implementation of a
system development charge and a facilities pliln and list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309 are
not land use decisions pursuant to ORS chapters 195 and 197. '
Pursuant to Section 30f the IGA, MWMC referred the Proposed SDC Methodology and the 2004
F'acility Pian and list to the Cities of Eugene and Springfield for implementation through their
respective City Codes in accordance with the SDC statute and applicable city,codeprcicedures.
That process is continuing,
,1
'Conclusion:
Three separate processes are involved in MWMC's effort to obtain the Governing Bodies'
" approvals necessary to plan, site and fund the improvements that are necessary so the Regional
Facilities can continue to meet federal and state environmental standards governing wastewater
, discharges to the Willamette River as well as the disposition and beneficial reuse of residuals.
, Forthe reasons explained above, HBAs' tomplairit inappropriately combines and misstates the
processes involved with which MWMChas fully complied.
",
. . ~ :.
. .'1;1
~.; ,":' ....
(doc,84616f
3-3
, Date Received
JUL X910~
P!anner:B~,~
i.., , '~ ",:,)) r~,
: ~"-\)iitC'l-".\::i,L(, t"IC",j
d,'~ ,j:,;~'", ':; It,ll ~. ~:'":.}\..~~ ':
"
i'! !',
~
"
r:~
,.'.
"
",-
,"
, . ,,~~' ,,' r :\\F'r;'
-'4f:~~ '~l~'f.:};j~~h' '~';;/d., ~~':
"
~;..... .
1~." .jj Ii
>
!':~~'<~;
~:!l ~ t
,. ~\,
"j 'Y.,
~~ ~. ,di:' '~;,-i;
,J'
"
",'
~
t'
.:;,
.f
(""
'j'.
/,
Ik
,;t:..
. "
, ,
,P';,-
..
, "
.t.
"
..
"','
,f
< '
.' .".
1,;'
<
"
':,1
"
.'..
"
,','
'"
Date Received
, JUL19'"D~ "
Planne'r':~J~, '
',' ,,<- ,.
. Oi
(1)' COU~C l AGE~CA ~~~
City of Springfield II 225 Fifth Street II Springfield II Oregon II 97477 II (54'1) 726-3700
Contact II Amy Sowa . City Manager's Office '
WNW, ci :springfi eld ,or ,us
The meeting location is wheelchair-accessible, For the hearing-impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours
notice prior to the meeting, ,For meetings in the Council Meeting Room, ~ "Personal P A Receiver" for the hearing"
impaired is available. To arrange for these services, call 726-3700. Meetings will end prior to 10:00 p.m. unless
, extended by a vote of the Council. ' , . .' , ,
All proceedings before the City Co~cilare recorded
Jun,e 21, 2004
,t"
"
6:00 p.rn, Work Session
, Jesse Maine Room'
,CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL - Mayor.Leiken -' COUJ,lcilors Ballew ~;Fitcli~, Rals!on -' Lundberg _,
and Woodrow_. '
,I. Springfield's Acknowledgement of National Home Ownership Month and.an Allocation of$52,976 in American
,-' " '~ ' ,. ,
Dream Downpayment Incentive (ADD!) Funding From Housing an4 Urban Development (HUD).
, [Jodi Peterson] , (15 Minutes)
2. Propo~ed Springfield Development Code Amendments.
[Gary Karp] , ,
(30 Minutes)
.' ."
3. Development Code Fees Ordinances and Resolution. '.
[MeIOberst]
ADJOURNMENT
(15 Minutes)
h',
7:00 p,m, RegularMeeting
Council Meeting Room
CALL TO ORDER
"
.,
, ROLL CALL - Mayor Leiken -' Councilors Ballew _, Fitch -' Ralston ~ Lund,berg -'
and Woodrow-,-.
. ''''''''~ )1.... .', '_." , k'
r Date Received
JUL X91o~
PLEDGE OF,ALLEGIANbE ,
'- :-,~\~~[~~ ~t~~i_. 't;~'i~r".tr'T'
~ . ,."."".,rJ! ~ ~ 'f..r~.i\. "
'::: \f~< I~,:,' ~;)!.
A TT ~CHMENT
.4-1
Planner: ..8,,)
",,' "',;
,Co~cil Agenda,
Jurie 21'; 2004
Page 2 '
,,::,
"
'I'"
,
~ " ", . , .
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
>'
,CONSENT CALENDAR
"
',,' 'I
"',
1. ,Claims
..
, ,
"
2. Minutes
,
a June 7, 2004 .;; Regulaf Meeting " ,
b. Jtine 14,2004 - Work Session
c. June 14, 2004 - Special Regular MeetiIig
",
,',
, ,
, 3. Resolutions
",
, ' , ,. ,
a. RESOLUITON NO, 1 - ARESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PERMIT PROJECT P30370. PUBLIC
rMPROVEMRNTS IN sHADy CREEK SUBDIVISION,
-. -.
4. Orcllii.ances
"
a.ORDINANCE NO, J -"AN ORDINANCE AMENDiNG mE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN CPFSPt TABLE 8 AND MAP 4:, PLANNED' :
ELECTRICAL FACILITIES TO SHOW A NEW 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE FROM tHE MARCOLA
SUBSTATIONSI'TE TOmE LAURA STREET SUBSTATION, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY
CLA USE. ,
. b:' ORDINANCE NO.2 ..: AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING:TO SiGN STANDARDS, AMENDING CHAPTER:.
OF mE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE BY REVISING, ADDING, AND DELETING PORTIONS OF
\ SECTION 8,254, ADDING SECTION 8,26~. REVISING MAP NO.2 AND ADDING MAP NO: 4.
'5. Other Routine Matters
. ," ,."
.j .
a. A wardtbe Bid for One Vebide for the Land and Drainage Alteration Permit P~ogram with Funds Contained in
the,FY03c04 Budget and Award a Bid for Om; Vebicle for the Capital Improvemerit-Program Contingent on the
Adoptiori. of the Proposed FY04~05 Budget for a Total of $43',202.50 to Kendall Ford. ,'.. ,
b.' Award the Subject Contract for Project P20404 to. Eugene:Sand and Gravel in the Amount of $102,966.50.
" c, Approval ofthe:Recommended2.5 Percent Pay Increase for City Non-Unionized Employee~for FY2005, , ,
d.' Approval of Amendnient Number One,to ihe Intergove=entru Agreement Providing Housing for Springfield
, Prisoners in the Lane County Adult Correction Facility. '
e; Approval of the Proposed Management Agreement Between the City of Springfield and the, Springfield Museun,
, Board., " ,- ,', , ,
MOTION: APPROVEJREJECT mE CONSENT CALENDAR,
ITEMS REMOVED FROMmE CONSENT CALENDAR
j"J~ ,,' -' _ ,:1
PUBLIC HEARINGS" Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are'available at both entrancl s.
)(r5\J :;~'~:'~~);.-(i ',:i'llr::;'f ,Please present cards t() City Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others.
, ., ',-," ,PI - '
,'.! ;', j(J1 ' " , anner. t)~
'1 ~,
.{ f:.~
, ,~"-~,
",. "1;'" 'I
:"p.f" !!r?~ ~~'~'J.
.'
4-2'
'..
.,,'
._ I.
CoUncil Agenda
June 21, 2004
Page 3 ,
, 1. Fiscal Year 2004/05 City Budget Adoption.
[Bob Olley] , , '
(20Minutes)
RESOLUTION NO.2 - A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2004/05 SPRINGFIELD cn"'( ~ ,
);lUDGET, MAKING APPROPRIATIONS, LEVYING APROPERTY TAX, AND APPROVING THE CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD'S PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM"
MOTION: ADOPTINOT ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2.
" '~'
2. Proposed Resolution Establishing a New Regional Wastewater System Development Charge (SDC)Methodology and
a New Regional Wastewater SDC Fee Schedule. i,
[Gary COlweUj, ". ,,"
"
(20 Minutes),
"
. . . ,,1' ,. . ,
RESOLUTION NO, 3 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'COMMON COUNC~
EST ABLISHTNG A NEW METHOl)OT,00Y o\ND FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE REGIONAL W ASTEW ATF~
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE AS SET FORTH IN THE SPRINGFIELD CITY CODE. '
MOTION: ADOPTINOT ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 3
3. Proposed Springfield De~elopment Code Amendments.
[Gary Karp]
(20 Minutes)
, ,
MOTION: CONTINUE THE PuBLIC HEARING liNTIL JUL Y6, 2004. '
J
4. An Ordinance Repealing Appendix 1 ofthe Springfield Development Code,
[Mel Oberst] , ,
(05 Minutes) ,
ORDINANCE NO, 3 - AN ORDINANCE OF THH:OMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
REPEALING APPENDTX L DEVELOPMENT CODE FEE SCHEDULE OF THE SPRTNGFTELp
DEVELOPM]':NT CODE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Ordinance Enactment a~d Effective Date: in the event ani'ordinance containian emergency clause, the ordinance shall become
,operative immediately upon passage by the council by a two,thirds mdjorityofall members of the council, Ordinances not ,
containing an emergency ciause shall not take effect until 30 days after its passage. ' '. .
, " , ... . -,f
-MOTION: 'ADOPT/NOT ADOPT ORDINAl\!CE NO,. 3.
5. An Ordinance Amending Sedion 1.070 ,"Fees" of the Springfield Developnient Code.'
[Mel Oberst] ,
"
(05 Minutes)
, ,
ORDINANCE NO.4 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1.070 "FEES" (]) OF ARTICLE 1 "GENERAL
PROVISIONS" OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PROVIDE THE CITY COUNCIL TO
ESTABLISH FEES BY ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ACTIONS ANP
REVIEWS REOUIRED BY THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY. , ,. '
1'.1
, . f .
Ordinance Enactment andBffective Date: In the eVent an 6rdinance cohtains em emergency clause" the ordinance shall become
oper:ative immediately upon passage by the council by a IWocthirds majo/-ity of all members, of the council: Ordinances not
containinran em~rg,e~cr,'{!~F~ shall not take effect until 30'days after its passage, ' 0 t Race'Iv' ad
'1f..\I#r:"V\!-~\': :!>,~",,,, ' . a a '
MOTION:~ADOPT/NOT ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.A. " , v 9 Dil
, , ", , JUL ^' I r
,. . , 'r-l~' , ,t I ~. : ; p
'ol, .
, .~:.,,~ ';.: . -,~:.?,,:,\ '
4~3 ,
Planner: BJ
"
'~ -
80uncil Agenda
june 21, 2004 '
Page 4, '
t
').
;BUSINESS FROM TIffi AUDIENCE ~,Limited toZO minutes, ,PleaseJbDj.t commentS to 3 minutes. Request to
, '. ' Spellk:card.sllre a,vailable at b,oth entranc~s. Please prese~t cards to City
Record,er. Speakers,may not yield their time to, others. , , , ,
..; .. "I' . <, .
-t-
~t "
,
"
.' '~ .-'
r ~
COUNCIL RESPONSE
, ,
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
. '
1. Correspondence from Andrew H, Stamp, Attorney at Law,,4248 Galewood Street, Suite 2,Lake Oswego, OR
Regarding,MWMC Regionai Sewer SDC Methodology. (see attached memo)' ,
2. Correspondenyefrom. Roxi~ Cuellar, Home Builders AssoCiation, 2053 4ura Street, Springfielq, OR Regarding
Attached, Letter.fromMicl:!aelH.J(ortenhoffoftlie pepartin~nt of Envrronmen!ll1 Quality (DEQ). " . "
3. Con'espo~dence Submitted, by Reed Fuel 'l!1d Truckfug;~080 <::oIDm,ercial Avenue, Spririgfield, OR Signed by Eight
Individuals Representing the Trucking Industry Regarding thi: Springfield'Filel Tax with Attached/Letters ofIncurre(
, Costs Since ~e Cent Tax was Implemented. ',' , " "
MatroN: ACCEPT FOR FrIJNG AND/OR PROVIDE'STAFFDlRECTIONIFOLLOWUP.
, . .
.'
BIDS
. "ORDINANCES
:r
, "~
BUSINESS FROMTIffi CITY COUNCIL
'.'
','
L CommitteeA-ppointments
l' :. '
',-,.
".. ,
,
-t t' <" ", -,'
a. Police Plariillng Task'Force Appointments'.' , , , :.J '.
[Jerry Smi~] , , . '. (05 Minutes) ,
,MOTION:' APPOINT MARK W ATSONTO"TIffi'POiXCE PLANNrnG TASK FORCE AS'TIffi ' ,
, SPRINGFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE W:rrnA TERM ExPnUNG nJNEZ1, 2008.' ,
; " , ", '-. -' --, -. ,.' , - , '..., '." ---"
~ ,/.
" .",',
~OTICJN: APPOINT DIANA-GARCIA, BRUCE wEimER AND FRED SIMMONS TO THEp'OLICE
" PLANN!N'GTASK F()RCE AS CITIZEN.AT -LARGE MEMBERS WITH TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 21, 200 L '
2., Business froID;CC?uncil
'.'
, ,:
,!,,, ,
, a., Com.IDitt~ Reports ,
, "
1 ~ '^
, ' ,
" ", ,/"-4;,'
,b. Other BiJsiness,' "'"
.
" ,
"'-1'
BUSINESSFROtfTir1::,GT1:Y MANAGER'
"
. , -.
--'.'
,L ,P,unend,the'Master Schedul(: of Miscellaneous Fees and Charg~s;Rates, Permits.and Licenses to,Include all Fees in
the Attached Development Code Use Fee Schedule.," ,
J'"lM;el,OberstY'r' ;, ['l0o ' ' ' " D t (~Minutes)
'4.,~tl~,';:J!1i."" '.l;:;,'~I"~,, " " ' ~. eec' ,e,'vad
' ,'" II , l!c.,. .1-"1,, ' ~~ . , '
, JULI'9', Dff"","" "" ,
J> ~'l .' i' .:~,~.,"
" P'anner;B~~!
:~\ J'Ji.,
l' -~;~'~q'
11r.'!:'!j
~'J:.":,,
, ~J,,,, ;~,;.;~"" firs':!
., -;I";',JP, '(U '/' ~'H '
, ,,1 1 I' ":~' ~~ ,f
, ,
, ,"" , , 474
<
',' .....
Council Agenda
June 21, 2004
Page 5 ,
RESOLUTION NO,4 - A RESOLUTION OF TIlE COMMON COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
AMENDING TIlE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD MASTER SCHEDULE OF MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND
CHARGES, RATES, PERMITS AND LICENSES TO INCLUDE ALL FEES AS SET FORTH IN TIlE
ATTACHED REVISED DEVELOPMENT CODE FEE SCHEDULE.
MOTION: ADOPT/NOT ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.4.
BUSINESS FROM TIlE CITY ATTORNEY,
ADJOURNMENT
, . " ~j ,., ,~
11 "",.'L~, ..,;..:., "'1.'4'.Ii
; I ~ ' ;'.. .
4-5
Date Received
JULX9,O~
Planner: B~.J
,
'L "; t' ~, '. t" -~,
> -,..,; 01,: ~;' ~C"\;t . r-"j\(;"l!(-.:
\1 ':. 4' ~( I.J '. _ A,' f"'-: I,' I .
" " ' ~ '" 1
?' ;1 ri
, "
",' .
"
~:,....'~'I ':':"~ .~~...; ,. i'!,",-l1i/?',
"~' ~'j".'~ 'i ':'1~\,,-,~::
.t~-, '~,: :,. -"'11 i~~\ I~-~~' ~':";l .
4-6
Date Receiverl
JUL 1 9 I tJ~ '
, -!4.~tl.
PlanneEt3,)x,
" I' liP .
" ,...1
by the City of Springfield Common po~ncil, Resolution 04-19 (attayhed as Exhibit 1
20 I and by this reference incorporated herein). For the r~asons set forth below, LUBA
;.:p :,:A9~s..Q,8rh,ave jurisdiction to consider Resolution 04~19 and therefore should dismiss
.' -". I" ,IJ.. I':;~l' .i _" ,:
22 thi~ a'ppeaL
,..' I":
23' I. Background Facts.
24 ".,:,: :,;.~~~tropolitan Wastewater Mana'gement Commmission ("MWMC") is a regional
251' Com"2ission established by anlnte~govenimental Agreement, signed by the
26 governing bodies of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County in February of1977.
HAROLD, LEAHY_
& KIERAN ~
_AlLaw' '. (Resolution 04-19, para. 1). The regional wastewater facilities were designed and'
223 A Stroot -
SuiteD
. Sprlngflelcl Oregon ,
(54'l7~9621
Fax:(541)7-46-4109
',' -' "
, ' ,
~ ' 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
'9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
I,): ..
.','1,\
BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF
LANE COUNTY and HOME BUILDERS
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, '
LUBA No. 2004-090
(MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan;
Springfield Res. 04-19)
Petitioners,
VS.
RESPONDENT CITY OF,
SPRINGFIELD'S MOTION TO
DISMISS
" CITY OF SPRINGFIELD,
Respondent,
and
Date Received
JUL 19, oif
Planner: BJ
THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION, '
Intervenor-Respondent.
Respondent, City of Springfield, mov'es the Board 'for an order dismissing this
appeal. Intervenor, Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC),
.
joins in this Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner's appeal challenges a resolution adopted
.. " -
, Page 1 ~
RESPONDENT ~ffA(fHM'MGFIELD'S,MOTION TO DISMISS
5-1
','
'1(
, 1 constructed in the earlyand mid-1980s with a projected design life of 20 years",
2 (Resolution 04-19, para. 2). In MWMC Resolution 02-05, MWMC entered into a
3 contract with a consulting firm for professional services for, among other matters, a
4 recommendation for an,MWMC facilities plan update and 20-year project list.
5 (Resolution 04-19, paras. 4, 5,7 and10). On May 6, 2004, MWMC adopted the
. , ',' j . .
6 MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan and 20-year Project Lis~, the first comprehensive
7 ,facilities plan update since,the original facilities were designed and constructed in the
8 early 1980s, On May 17, 2004, the Common CounCil of the Cityof Springfield
, 9 adoptedR~s()lution 04-19, approving the MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan and the.20- '
10 Year Project List that were adopted by MWMC on May 6,2004. That decision is the
11 subject of this appeal.
, ,'.. It'I'lt~\ ('1T"'iJ1M '15
~l~'\~J~2' \; . I -:../t '119., en .
13 ,{j 1 lUL The MvVMC 2004 Facilities Plan and 20-year Project List were p~epared to
1 ,~~;14: )/,:g~~i~6~h~1 public facilities plan and list of capital improvements that are required by
. '15 ORS'223.309(W prior to the establishment 'of a'system development charge,
16 ("SDC"). (Resolution 04-19, para. 8). ' ORS 223.29710 223.314 govern the
, ,
,17 establishment, modification and implementation of a System Development Charge
, '
18 and Methodology. The adoption ota public facilities plan and/or capital improvement
19 plan is required prior to the establishment of a system development charge. (ORS
20 I //1/
21 //I
, Date Received
JUl19, Df
"
22 /I
23 /
Planner: B\~
1,ORS 223.309(1) states: .Prior to the establishment of a system development
25 charge by ordinance or resolution, a local government shall prepare a capital
improvement plan, public facilities plan, master plan or comparable, plan th.at includes
26 a list ofthe capital improvements that the local government intends to fund, in whole
orin part, with revenues from an improvement fee and the estimated cost, timing and
percentage of costs eligible to be funded with revenues from the improveme.nt fee for
, each improvement"
24
HAROLD, LEAHY
1;'.& KlERAN '.
_AI Law
223 A Street
SuiteD
Springfield Oregon
(541) 746-9621
Fax:(541)746-4109
Page 2 - ' RESPONDENT CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S MOTION TO DISMISS
5-2 ' .
','
... . ~
, 6
15
11
223.309(1). As relevant here, that statute requires Respondent to prepare a 'capital
imprOvement plim, public facilities 'plan, master plan, or comparable plan that
includes a list of the capital improvements that the local government intends to fund'
with revenues from the SDC's.
2
3
4
5
, "''I
ORS 223.314 provides:
"The establishment, modification,or.impler:nentation of a system'
development charge, pr a plan or list adopted pursuant to ORS
223;309, or any modification of a plan or list, is not a land use
decision pursuant to ORS Chapters .195 arid 197." ,(Emphasis ~dded). '
,7
8
. '
cY.Yltl1.certain.etGepttons nQtapplic~t>!ei'e,e; ORS1~7 .8,25(1) gives LU~A "
. . . . .. ,
9
exclusive jurisdiction for 'revie:-v of,any,land use decision or limited land use decision
of a local government, special district or a state agency.', In the absence of this,
. , .. . 1, ,,' _"
statutory jurisdictional requirement; LUBA may not review a decision'of a local'
, government.
10
11
12
13
. '
Here, the decision at issue is a facilities plan and capital improvement plan
enacted under the provisions of ORS 223.297 et seq. Such plans are specifically'
excluded frOm LUBA's jurisdiction by the provisions o(ORS 223.314. Consequently"
LUBA does not have jurisdiction over this matter.
Conclusion.
As explained in detail above,the facts se~ forth in Resoluti~n 04-19, the,
definitional language of ORS 223.314 and LUBA'sjurisdictionallimits under ORS
197.825(1) should compel this Board to dismiss this appeal.
DATED this / ~ay of June, 2004: ,~. .' ,
14
16
17
18
191
20
21
22
" .
Respectfully submitted,
"
23
",
HARO~~HY & KIERAN
By:, -'. j/t1,~h, <<-
Meg E. Kie@!, OS8, No. 89068
Of Attorneys for Respondent City of Springfield
Date Receive j
JUL 1 9, rJf
RESPONDENT CITYOF SPRINGFIELD'S MOTION T~SMISS, . BJ
" , '5-3 u' ,"/t""lanner. ':
24
25 "
! V" 3n: .~,I-;~, ~ ',ov:\,-,('l
. I;~::' l\;ft\"'L;~' ,)/;'.- i ~'~l!l~'i\, ;
" 26 '. ". .
HAROLD. LEAHY
& KIERAN ; ~l. HJt..
Attorneys At law
m A Street
.SuiteD . ,''- .
, SprlngfieldOregon ,,' ~r~ ~~ol ":'".., '.t--.
, F~~;)f~:" I"Pag~'S ~
,. ',"
4 ~
RESOLUTioN'
NO. 04~lq"
"
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OFSPRINGFIE:LD COMMON COUNCIL APPROVING
THE MVl/MC 2004 FACIL/TJES PlAN AND ADOl:TfNG THE 20-YEAR PR.OJECT UST.
WHEREAS; on February 9, 1977; the City of SPrf~gfiel~. the CIty of gugene" and Lane
County (the Goveming BodIes) ~ntered Into anrntergovelTlmentaJ'agreement OGA) "
Which established the Metropolitan Wastewater Mlimegenient CommIsSion (MWMc) as
an ORS Chapter 190 entilyresponsible to co~ct, operate,and maintain regional '
ytastewater facilities; and, ,
, WHEREAS, the,reglonalYi'l~tewaterfacilitles, w~ich Include the Eugene-Springfiefd
Water,.PolJution Control Facility (wpCF), the BiosolidS Management Fatlllty (BMF),
, Blbcycle Farm (BF), the Seasonallndustrfal Watts Facility (SIWF), several regional
Wastewater,purnp stations and regional conveyance &yStem, were deSigned an~.
constructeci}n the early a~d mld-19BOs with a projected design life of 20yearaiSnd,
WHE!U:AS, the MIJIIMChEl$ undertaken several plans and sttJdies.between 19,96 and
2001 to determine short- and lone-term regional Wastewater faclntles Improvements
needed to provide adequate WastewatertreatTnent capacity and meetalJ eppHcabJe
regulatory permit requirements, including but notl!mlb~d to the MWMC Master Plan, .
1997; the Biesolids Management Plan; 1997, and the Wet Weather Flow Management
' Plan, 2001 (WWFMP);and, ' , , ,
r WHEREAS, the MIJIIMC enaCted Resolution 02-05, ~utl1orizing the executIon Of a
, contract with CH2M Hill, Ino. for professional services for an MWMC predesign study, ,
. and facilities plan ~pdate (Project no. PB0010); and
WHEREAS; the MWMC enacted Resolution03-11,ar,nending thlil pi'ofesslanal -servIces
contract With CH2M HII:L, Ine. to lncllld,e technical support for: (a)~C's system ,
development charges (SDClmethOdologyllPdate,and (b) evaIU<t~oi1Qfthebestuse of
MWMC's~i\Ar~ pl"()pertyfor{aGiljtjesp,lannirtg.PUrposes, and{c:)J~WMC's 2004. ','
Facifrties Plan tidoptionprocess;and" '"
, ','
, WHEREAS, applicable adop~d MWMC goals, policies andmanagenient strategies,
such as those contained in,the J=Y 03-04 Regional WaStewater Program Budget, the'
WNFMP and the Bl6sonds Management PI~n, along with the requiremen~ of the '
MWMC National Pollutant Discharge !;lIm.JnaUon Syst~m (NPDES) permit issueQ by the
Oregon DeparttTlent of Environmental Quality (DEQ) In ,May, 2002, the 'oeQ Guidelines
for the Preparation of FaclUtles Plans llnd Environmental Reports for Community , .
',Wastew~ter ProJects,' (1999) (DEQ Guidelines), and MWMC guidance provided the ' " , ' , .
fo~ndation an~ direction for the M~C 2004 FacllftJes Rlan (a~ched herelDAtef~eCeIVe( j
thIS reference incorporated herein); and "
}'ir.:.:\!k,rH!!'4'~~11 ':':Iy~~'r ~ ' JUL 19/. btl '
,'-.., 'f~~,~~_,{"tJ~ ~.lo~" -t;... 1
RJaflrler: BJ '
pago I ot ~ , ,[
, I
ft-; ~' . n i/.
'-j,., . 'of'
"
, '
t "(
,+~', ".1'
..;\t ..;r'{J.~r~~'r{~~
, ! ~:::";J jl .; l' .,\ I; ,J
"
5~4 ,
"",
~
.
,
, .. '
~
RtSOLII'rIOll' 04-19
, ,
WHEREAS, the MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan analyses show that capital improvements (.
contained in the 2o.Year Project Ust Included in the MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan need
to be Implemented in accordance wllh the 20- Year Project Ust Schedule In order to
achieve the regulatory compliance and capacity objectives stated in the MINMC 2004
FacflJtJes Plan; and.
WHEREAS; the MWMC 2004 Facllities Plan and 20-Year Project List haVe been '
prepared, in part, to provide the public fgclrrtles plan and fist of capltallmproxements f
, tijatare required by ORS 223.309(1) prior.to the establishment of a system
development charge; and
, WHEREAS public'meGtfngs,and;MWMC work sessions were conduc18c1tO provide.
guldance on preparation ofthe:draft MWMC2004Facllltles Plan on Nov~mber 24,
2003, January 8, 2004, and March 3, 2004; and '
WHEREAS, public hearings w~re noticed and cOnducted by the MWMC to accept ~nd
consider public comment on the draft MWMC 2004 Facirrtles Plan on April 22, 2004 and,
May 6, 2004; and '
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2004MWMC enacted Resolution 04-04 adoptfng the MWMC ,
2004 Facirrti~ Plan and Zo.Year Project List; and '.
. , , '
WH~E:AS, the Springfield city Councll conducted a pubnc hearing on the MWMC ('" ': '
2204 Facifities Plan ilnd the20-Year Project list on May 17. 2004; and .
WHEREAS, the Sprlngfield City CounCil has reviewed Bnd i::onsldered testimony from
thepubrlC and dIscussed the MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan and 2o.Year?roject List
NOW, "QiEREFORE, BE,IT RESOLVED by the Common CounCll of the City of _
Springfield as follows: ' The Common Council oftha City of Sprlngfield approves the
, ...4 .
MWMC 2004 FacUlties Plan and hereby adopts the 20-Year ProjecfUst. . ,
, This Resolution shall t$ke effect upon edoptionbythe City Counci(and'appreval by the ,
Mayor. ' '" ' , , " . ~ '.' , ,
. , .
Adopted by the Common Councll o.t the, City of Springfield the ~ day of May, 2004.
Oy avot.-~aru1 ~n- ' .
Mayor ~ ~ rr - -' Date Received
( , JUL 191D~
, ..,~ ' , ",-, \ i ,_ ~'I.f', ,
,t.... r ~''';( . ~,"!I'''''lr '-"";{ Itl~~ '
.." ." '".1' 'ii .
, ,ArrEst'.'~';~ J.rnl.n.-_
, ~,jfqAmY sowJf City Recorder
Planner:eJ
:;' ' L' " . ,I {:1,
T'-, , J, -.' ,. t-t ' '-;ll ':
' I' " .. '
." ;'.::-~r:,:,. ~ 4
I,
EXHIBiT '
., b'f ~
Pagp do
. ":,-, J ".n"'~!JV-:;O.
~. ._,..;' 1/
" .
.1 " -
:. . ~~-tJ 0.L;~/ n r; ,
, ;F~'CE OF Cliv An-ORNEY
'.
, '
','
.
, 1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I served the foregoing Motion to Dismiss by depositing true, full
and exa<;t4aoies thereof in the United States Post Office at Springfield, Oregon on
Jun~~004, enclosed in a seale~envelope, with postage. paid, addressed to:
2
3
4
'.
5
, Bill Kloos
Attorney at Law .
P.O. Box 11906
Eugene, OR97~0
Attorney for,Petitioners .
6
7
8
Laurence E. Thorp
THORP PURDY JEWETT
URNESS & WILKENSON,P.C.
1011 Harlow Road, Suite 300, -. "
Springfield,-OR 97477 " .
Of Attorneys for Intervenor-R~spondent
. ,,'r
9
10
11
.: .. ,,'
HAROLD; LEAHY & KIERAN
12
13
.
By: "1/J~/"'~" it "
MEfg 1::. Kie~n, aSB No. '1rnu68 , ,,'
Of Attorneys for Respondent City of Springfield
14
15
16
- '
I cert,ify th~t th~ forling is a true and full copy of, the original.
DATED thiS' /,f day of June, 2004. ,',
By: '~}I~h, it -"
Meg E. Kiedln, OSB No. 89068
Of Attorneys for Respondent City of Springfield
'17
18
19
20
I,
,21
22
N:\ClrnPworksIMWMClFacililies Plan & Project List LUBAIMotlon to Dismiss,wpd
23
'.0\ 11,;;241 .,':'1..:.'~~(':
I ~I] l'lr-"I_:,I~ ' ?" .~",~ .
" 26
HAROlO:'LEAHY "1
& KIERAN! .
Attorneys AI. Law ,
223 A'Street
....,0
S_~ Oregon
(541)74&-9621
Fax:(&41)7046-4109 : '
. :,,'
25 ,) J: iUL
Date Received
" 'JUL 1 9 I b1
, ,"It-v);
'Irf.I.-I1 ,-I., to -~l
'}i' III lj'..o:-,., .
';,' "I ... '
....'-,..
Planner: BJ
,'RESPONDENT CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S MOTION TO DISMISS
. . .-,t.
5-6
, Page 4 -
"
','
1,
,r.
, 1 "
it
2
3
4
.5
6
BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS
, OF THE ,STATE OF OREGON.
"HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF
LANECdUNTY andHOMEBUILDERS
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
LU8ANo,200~090 " "
, (MWv1C2004 Facilities Pian;
Springfield Res. 04-19)
"7
8
9
10
Petitioners, '
11
vs.
RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO
EXTEND RECORD FILING
DEADLINE PENDING DECISION ON
MOTION TO DISMISS '
12
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD,
13
Respondent,
14
and
15
THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER
, MANAGEMENT COMMISSION,
16
Intervenor-Respondent.
17
18 Pursuant to OAR 661-010-0067, Respondent City of Springfield (the City) ,
191 ' moves the Board to extend the June 25, 2004 deadline for filing the Record on
20 Appeal to allowiime for the Bo~rdtb rule on aMotion t() Dismiss LUBANo: 2004-
21 '090, filed contemporaneously with this Motion. In the event the Board grants
,I'
22 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, no Record on Appeal will be necessary. If the
23 Board denies the Motion to Dismiss, the City requests 21 days from the Board's
24 ruling to submit the Record on Appeal. Accordingly, this extension is reasonable and
'~\""i~%:i~,i~", ,) 'ri~~~~~l~ry to prevent the City from incurring un~ecessary costs and attomey fees.
. , ':,1
26' ' -/":
,HAROLD, LEAHY
& KIERAN , 1'1-,;'" ',~
AttomsYSAJ. Law (' l"'P -.... -"li't:::--4\
223'AStreet ,\,"', '; ~k>:,;,~":,t:.!;;
',SuiteD, -, "
s~~~~ "Page 1 -
Fax:(541)7~109
Date Received
JUL 19} of
, RESPONDENTS MOTION TO EXTEND RECORD FlbJ.NG DEADLINE
PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS ,~Ianner: BJ
5-7
'~, '
",.
'. '
. '
1
Intervenor-Respondent Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission joins in
, '
, ,
this Motion. Petitioner's attorney objects to this Motion'to Extend the Record.
DATED this I ~ay of June, 2004.
Respectfully Submitted
Page,2 -
" '" .>fI\\.!
'. k"~-4'i-,
" .';c.
HAROLD, LEAHY & KIERAN
By; ~/l,C_' '/r .
, ,Meg E. IE ran"OSB No",89068,
, " Of Attor s for Respondent City of Springfield,
," r;, ,:,1'
, , '
2
3
4
5
6
7,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Date Rece;v~d
, JUL 1,9 }of '
, " " ", ," Planner: BJ
RESPONDENTS MOTION TO EXTEND RECORD FILING DEADLINE
PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
5~8 '
, "
, ;":-~/~ ~~2.~; H I.t)'f'1if
HAROLD:LeAHY ", ,. .Jh::~ ""
& KIERAN .
Attorneys N. Law .;., .' I"'
223ASlreel OJ JI.
SuIleO "
S_~ O<egon
(541) 746-9621, -,
, Fax:~~,1)716-o4109
..,'
"
, .
.,.C"
,
~ h
1
CERr!FICA TE OF SERVICE
, .1 certify that I s,erved the foregoing Respondent's Motion to Extend Record '
Filing Deadline Pending Decision on Motion to Dismis,s by depositing true, full
and e~a pies thereof in the United States Post Office at Springfield, Oregon on
June , 2004, enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage paid, addressed to:
. . . I " , ,
2
3
4
5 Bill Kloos
Attorney at Law "
6 P.O. Box 11906 ~ "
Eugene, OR 97440 .. d'
7 Attorney for Petitioners
8 Laurence E. Thorp , '
THORP PUROYJEWETT .-
9 URNESS & WilKENSON, P.C.
. ' "
1011 Harlow Road, Suite 300
10 Springfield, OR 97477 " '. '
, Of Attorneys for Intervenor-Respondent
11
',' ,
','
, , HAROLD, LEAHY 8. KIERAN
c/;A_ 0: ~ " ','
M'eg ~ran, OSB No. 89068 ' , .'
Of Atfbr~~~s for Respondent City of Springfield '
, By:
12
13
, 14
15
16,
18
I certify that the fO~Oing, is a !rue and full copy of ttle originaL ',.
DATED this / X- '"'Clay of.June, 2004.
By: ~:/X.// _', _ '.
'MegE. ki(ra~, QSB No. 89068 ' ,
Of Attorneys for Respondent City of Springfield'
,,' " '
e ...
17
19
20
21
22 N:\CITYlPwol1<sIMWMC\FacHities Plan & Project Ust ~UBAlMotion to Extend,wpd,
23
24
Date Received
JUL 1 9 IO~
25
......',..., 'I I~ "", .,,26~
"<-'.1 'i." '1." ," ii.....)ll.~
HAROlO,'lEAHY "/
, &K1ERAN
Attorneys At LaW., ;, .
223 A Slteel ";, ',',' j .
SuiteD
Springfield Oregon
; (541) 746-9621
F~(54,1)7~~09' ..
" ,"
;,,:;\l~"'t~l" r
, -r :' '\~:. .
,
. Plann:er;' Bd
Pa,ge,3 -
i ')~"~;
RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO EXTEND RECORD FILING DEADLINE
PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
5-9
11
12
13
,
14
15
,''il' !"., ,,~
16
17
,18
19 ..
20
21
22
"
','
, . ,,',' 'r
4,..""
,/-',
,I'
CI;RTiFICATE OF;'SERVICE "
, 'I certify that I-served the foregoing Motion'to Dismiss by depositing true; full
" and exaGt~iesthere6f in theUl)ited States P6s(Office at Springfield, Oregon on'
,,~un: -f...k::,?00~, enclose~ in a\sealedenvelop~'with pos~age p~id, addresse,d,to:
.,.'.
Bill Kloos ,
Attorney at Law
" P.O. Box 11906
, Eugene, OR 97440
, Attorney for Petitioners ,
'l:'
"
1[' -
:,,'1 ,-'
7
, ,
Laurence E. Thorp "
THORP PURDY JEWETI
URNESS&:WILKENSON, P,C.
1011 Harlow Road, SUite 300
, Springfield,,0R 97477 " ,
10' ,Of ~ttomeys for Intervenor-Respongent ,
I
8,
9
. ,
"
~,' ,-' !
:. 'J
-HAROLD, LEAHY & KIERAN,
.~. . j,f~:aSB N{t..;~ -
,', ~f Attorneys for Respondent City of Springfield
, , .
" ". . ,,! '
':' ,J~
. , ,
I'certify tti~~ the~~orting is a true an~ ~u.n copy ot'the original.
, DATED this /[ day of June, 2004.', '
, "B~: ' 0A _ "'~,;; .
Meg E.~n, OSB No. 89068 ,
Of At,torneys for Respondent City of Springfield
, ' ' , ",' ~,
, ,
/"
'.,.,
23
N:\ClTY\PworksIMWMClFacilitles,Plan 1\ Project Ust LUBAiMotlon to Dismiss,wpd ' ,
, ' ,
I'
,~h "~I~;""
. '1' ' '\,.. 't "
r .... ~ ,r ".24 ,.....,,'...'~ I 'I
""" ~ Io..v ,-~ -.. ''', _
. ./1;." .I,+'J'f...4" ! ".1...\oj} ,"
25' " ," '
," ~ 1 ,.I)l,
",
, " 26, ''',_'
b.~~...-o 'D',,;';"LfVJ~'!': ;j~"i.,~"~:,,,,'':' ~'!l\:';',t'!
;'~ K1ERAN"'':1~;', 1:'~i1'it't,~;ij .. ",
AttOlneyS At. Law' , .
. 223 A Street '
SuiteD'
Sprilgfield Oregon;' . .f
(541) 74&-0021 ,', '
'"",("')7464'09 ,I Pag~ 4 - '
Date Rec.eivl K!
, ' '
" , , ,'" . , JUL 1 ~'t f '
. ' , ., , . I' '.- _I
,H~SP9NDENT CITY Of ;SPRINGfiELD'S MOTION TN!SMls..Ser~'
, ' , H9' " FicHU I " .
11"",' I ~,
Dc
I' '
.":;.',
.'
, ' I. '
}'l: "e ~ii:j'l'<\\;\
1'';:"; '.f.,t,...9~.,), J '
,:,.,,'q,~(i~Y'
~..-Il \.,;,' r '." \
.(,i rut
'...
'j ;{-::'
l.r.t>
Jl";,""~;/'-;";I~'~'';'''',;J1'lri
. ,.,..-.\ ~ '1 'I 4,-,~""~ l' ':la;
,......"f; 1 '\ " ~",_J i.l '
'I,'
UII.
P:~
.p~
"
"
<,:,/
"
..
BRIEFLY
.. REGION
Book sale scheduled '
at Waldport librarY
WALDPORT~The
Friends of the Waldport Public,
Library will host a'sale of
mote than 12,000 donated
books June 24 to 26. The sale..,
will be from 5 p.m. to 8 p,m,
Thursday; 10 a,m, to 6 p,m,
Friday; and 9 a,m, to nQon Sat, , ,
urday, After 12:30 p.m, Satur,
day, a bag sale will offer re-
maining books at $1 per bag.
The group has raised more
than $25,000 to, supplement the '
library's budget during the
past eight years, Donations
have funded computers, a bi-
cycle rack, a copy machine
and oiher items as wen as a
capital improvement fund for
, future needs,
'and Specialty Care, along with
Junction City Residential Cen-
ter, will host Swnmer Splash
Show 'n' Shine 2004 from noon
to 4 p,m. at 530 Birch SI.' '
A"rr.....,.,;C'C'inn is a suggested.
donation of two canned food
items, to be given to Junction
City Local Aid to help hungry
people and the homeless. Priz.
es, free lemonade and cookies,
and oldies music will<be
featured,
Car show to benefit
area food bank
, ,
,: JUNCTION cm-Aclas'
sic car show Saturday will
benefit a local food baTIk,
, Grandview Rehabilile.tion '
Republican women pliin
MondaY meeting ,
The Republican Women of
Central Lane will hold their
.. -next meeting Monday at the
Ramada Inn, 225 Coburg Road,
with the doors opening at 11:15
a,m., lunch at 11:30 ",m. imd
the meeting at noon. The
speaker Will be Jarrell White,
a college Republican from the
University of Oregon.
The cost oflunch is $8, with'
reservations needed by
Thursday. Call Muriel at 344- '
4753 for reservations,
, CALENDAR
,"
Fifth St. Presentation of ACTSO certifi~
cates; work session and public hearing
TODAY.- ' . "on amendmentS to Metropolitan Area
. Fire District Board 1. 7. p,m., Fire General-Plan pUblic facilities element,
Station, 91232 N, Cobllrg Road, Open' 682-4203. ,.'
house and grant discussion, 686-1573, Commission on Children and'
, c' , Famllies- 4 p.m;' to 8 p,m., Fireside
.ugene Room; laurelwood Golf Course, 2700
TODAY Columbia St" Eugene. 682-6656,
Joint Meetln~' of Eugene.' City Fair Board - 5 p,m" ~eeting
Council, Springfield City Council, Room No, 2, Convention Center Build-
Lane County Board of :Commission- lng, Lane Events Center, 796 W. 13th
ers ~ 6 p.m., Library Meeting Room, ~ve" Eugene, 682-7338. '
Springfield City Hall, 225 N. Fifth St Finance and Audit Committee -
682-5017, 1:30 p.m., Commissioners' Conference
Neighborhood leaders Council - Room, Public Service, Building, 125 E.
7 p.rn" Sloat Room, Atrium Building, Eighth Ave., Eugene, 682-6503.
99 W; lOth Ave, 682-5009, Lane Workforce Partnership, Em-
WEDNESDAY ployer Wo:kforce Committee' - 8
, , '. . a,m., Suite 120, 300 Country Club
,CIty Council work. session Road, Eugene, Review status of local
Noon, McNutt Room, City Hall, 7n work force training fund projects, 686-
Pearl st. 682-5017. 3570.
Ho~ln~ Policy' Board Allocations local Government Boundary
Su~comml~,:e - 2 p.m., Saul Room, Commission"": Noon, Fourth Floor
Atnum Bulldmg, 99 W, 10th Ave. large Conferenc::e Room Lane Council
682-5529, of Governments, 99 E. Broadway, Eu-
. .Public Works Rates Advisory gene, Meet with advisory committee.'
Committee - 6 p.m"Garden Room, 682-4425.
Public Works Engineering, 244 E.
Broadway. 682-6887,
. Racial Profiling Task Team. -
6:30 p,m.,Emergency serGeel Train.
lng Center, 1705 W" Second . Ave"
Room L
Coburg ',.
WEDNESDAY
'Board of Commissioners - 9 a,m.;
Commissioners' Conference Room,
Public'Service Butlding, 125 E, Eighth
Ave" Eugene. Public hearing on 2003-
'. 04 supplemental b~d:~et; Si~SIt)a:
A TTACHMENL
6~1
, Retiree
Several schools in the
Eugene, Springfield an,
Bethel districts see shifi
Students at some schools
the Eugene, Springfield and I
thel school districts will s
, new principals when they COI
back to school in the fall, mos'
'because'of a continuing fIur
of retirements,
These are the changes, SOl
of which have been previoUl
announced:
Eugene School District: Sa
Cramer, currently, principal
River RoadIE! Camino del F
Elementary, will be the n,
principal at Gal Young Elem.
tary School. Her replacem(
will be Paco Furlan, who,is Cl
rentiy assisle.nt principal
North Eugene High School. (
Young Principal Tom Malon'
meanwhile, will be 'the ,n,
principal at Edison Elementa
laking over from Janis Sw:
1 BDRM'V
JUL19,0(,f
Planner:",Bcl./
, " ", ,'..>!"""".
t,' .
EXHI ~IT
1,
, MEMORANDUM'
'OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY -;
I
..,,'
'oj, .
l
DATE:
Ma,y 6,2004'
'1\
~ 1,\ .
Springfield PlanningCommissio~
EugenePlannin~ Commi~siori
'Lane' County ,Planning Commission
'"
TO:
,u,
FROM:
Meg Kierar ' .
Springfield City Attordey
. ,
, SUB,JECT:
Metro Plan amemdnients;, ,Public Facilities and
"SerVices Plan"amendmeIlts;, .response to, material
submit~ed'by Home Builders Association at Aprir
;:0, 2004 publicl;learirig
, ,
, Home Builders Association submitted:writben 'materials into the
record of the above proceeding. 'MWMC subIri ts ' this response.
, '
,1. Applicable standards.
Mr. Kloos states, without specificity,' that "(s]tate' statutes
apply."; Certainly, this :proceeding'ts 'governed, in part, by
state,' statutes, particularly, those, provisions of ORS Chapter 197
that govern post-acknowledgment plan amendments. In ,addition, ,,'
the,amendments must be'consistent with applicable statewide
planning goals. ' Th!,! IiCDCadmini'strati ve rules implement the
:statewide pl,anning goals. In' additiori, 'the proposed plan
amen~entsmust be consistent with ex~sting, acknowledged plan
provis'ion. "
2. Planning HOJ:'i:zon.
,Home Builders states,that the use of the 2025 planning horizon
for tne PFSP,list ot' w,astewater treatment and,collection
facilities is inconsistent with the,'exil;)ting Metro pla,n
provisions. . Home Builders is ,incorrect '.
- , .. ". ' '~ '
Fi;st" the e~istirig 'PSFP, dated Decemb~r2001,'inc1udes projects
that ,extend o'ut 20 year's, from that time" For example" the
introductory text to ~he project lists contained in the existing
P1;an states: "Long-term ,projects are anticipated to be built in
>- " ~i* to 2.0 years:.,." (PFS?; P.28). That 'horizon would extend:to
'\ ,~" j,ji;:\!: ):~~;:~:~:";~WEB' s iist includes, as long..;term proj ects, waternaten Receive' 'd'
, ' '~mprovements 218 through 237, none of which .has a date moYe:1 "
. ~spe~ifi:c than the six to 20 year reference quoted above. JUL 19 Il '
, " b1
jj , ~ - . - '.' 1l . ' I
'l.jJ .'jf',P'b' ,. r!'''l\ PI
\'r>'." fr.J1 h\: 'I,i:;~~'''" '6-2 ,anner: BJ
..
1-2
Second, the Department of Environmental Quality guidelines
recommend that; sewer-treatment, facilities should, be planned and', ,
constructed for' a 20-yearpopulation projection period'.
The planning horizon in the amenpments is appropriate for 'the
nature of the planned facilities. Sewer treatment facilities
should be constructed with'long' range planning goals:
,
3. The proposed PFSP, amendments are a,project list as reqaired by
state statutes and implementing regulations ~
Home Buildersirisists that the proposed PFSP amendments,,'
'particularly the proposed new tables, are not, a ,"project list"
, within the meaning of state statutes and regulations. 'Home
Bu~lders argument is without merit. The proposed, sanitary sewer
project l:Lst.is,coinparable 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 tCDC'S Goal '11 implementing ,administrative
. ,<. , " ,
rules. \
OAR 660-001-0005 (6) defines "public fac'ility project" as follows:
, ,
~A public facility project is the construction or
reconstruction of a water~ sewer, or'transportation
facility within a pUblic facility system that is funded"
or utilized by members of':the public."
" ,
Public facility system, as it relate's to sanitary sewers', are
limited to the following: a) treatment facility system; and/or b)
, p:r:llnary collection system. (OAR 660-011-0005 (7) ) ;
" '
Proposed ~able "16alists six treatment 'facility system prqJects:
WPCF.Treatment E'r,9ject; Residual Treatment Project; and
Beneficial Reuse Project . It also includes three pump stations
(i.e., co11ection.,system projects): WiHakenzie Pump Station,
Screw Pump Station and Glenwood Pump' Station. This list complies
with b'oth the statute and 'the,administrative rule definition of
"project list.- '
: ,~ _ I
"
.~1f~-~
.:..'1:
In their oral testimony Ho~e Builders' stated that a more'
]"appropriate list of projects ~or PFSE', purposes would;be !<l"/lMC's
':;~, 20~year project nst j:hatis included in MWMC's 2004 Facilities
:;i;;,Plan. MWMC adopted the 2004 Facilities Plan.and 20-year project
~: l;i.s!;" to' satisfy DEQ requi,reme(lts for facilities planning and to
::' <;. comply with the requirements of ORS 223.309 (1) that a fanl~~EJf\ ' , .
,.~.: plan an~ list of proposed cap~tal improvements be adopte!lJ~lI1eCeIVed
'~to the ,establ,ishmerit of a sys~em development, charge.
, ~~')
. t"~,,'"
,1" J.
6-3
, JUL 1 9(oIV
Planner: BJ
. ~,
,".
=
~-...
'r,"
,;:~'
,'ORS 223. 3l4,prevides: , ,'"',
"The establishment; medificatien er implemepf~tieri, ef. a *** a"
plan er list ~depted pursuant to, ORS":Z23. 309, or any:modificatioh
of a plan or list, is' not a land use decisien purs~ant to ORS'
Chapter .195 and 19:7." "
Therefore, requiring the inclusion of ~C's 20-year 'project list
in the ~FSP would be inappropriate.
4. The proposed amendments comply with applicable
acl-4~. strative rules; both the MetroPl.an' and ~FSP~
with the proposed changes, satisfy aU plarl,,;nq'
requirements.
A:P1*llic' Facili~ Pla.
Heme Builders' recit;;ttie~ er variel,ls ,oregenAchnini~tpt~ve 'Rules,
that gevern public, faci~itiesplai1$ assUmes that the' propesed
amendments are thecempleteplan. They a,re net: Th'ecomplete'
plan is"the entire" Metre;> 'Plfln Chapter III; Sectien G' a!1d the
complete PFSP. Read in 'centext, the Metra Plan andthe,PFSP
, ,include all the requirements recited by Home Builders from OAR
660~011-0010. The existing ~FSP ~as enact~d and acknewledged as
in compliance with the statewide planning goals in 2002 'as part
of thereg:i:on's comprehensiye plan periedic review process: Even
without t,he propesed aIltendments, the PFSP has been feund, by
virtue 'of' being acknewledged, i'hcempliance with Goa'l 11. ,The
proposed, amendments only/bolster,' and augment the existing plan,
they de, not remove any critical, elements of the :plan.
;',
The cemplete, invehtoryrequired by subsecti9n ,(1) (a) is found,in
the existing PFSP.
The plan includes' a project list. 'The prepesed amendments,read
in the centextef' the existing plan, incltide'a'" "listef: ' ,
significant publicfaci,lity prejects." Ariy contentien'that it
, dees"net is merely a'restatement of Heme Builders" earli:er
argument. that the prop'esedprej ect, 'lis;t, is not a "prej ect ' l'ist,! "
,as they'weuld define 'j,t. ",
The plan includes cest estima~es. The ,required "teugh cost,
estimates" are defined as~appreximat;e co'sts exprepsed in
c0.trent'-year (year clesest t.o th~ period'ef pub~ic, facility plan
qevelepment) dellars.',' His,ne.t intend~d that prejectcost' "0'
estimates be as ,exact as is required for budget,ingpurpeses. 'f '. ~,
" OAR 660-011-0005(2). The cost est~mates provided ,are ,suffic:ient:(j;
,1,'", "L~"'>>Hlo",Eo,~sati'sfY the rule. ,,(.)
, j,6"I," ~,,' ".",'.." ' "..
" 't:;:/7 l!........ f !',-t' l~,~~,~' 7! ~/,:' ,>., , - '-10'
';1 :~~~in, by lookin~ at the~ntire PFSp'as '~end~d, th~ rema~nder ~
~ ,.the requi.rements cited by Heme Builders are alsopre'sent: ,mapso~
ro
o
1 .....r
, ".1
L"~~JI
, , 'I~O"
l''\i.t -:~ ("1q(1~ (:~:. !,lidf:
~ J',",-,d '. ~..... 1,' i~
6-4
','
,..,1
, -')
CO
'Sc . .
'<, '-
e, a:
,.., c
-' C
:D
-, ('(
-
n
','
theprojectsi iln e'stimate of when each project will be needed; ,
and a discussion, of the possible funding mecha~isms for each
project.
B. Inventory.
"
,
The PFSP as amended by the proposed amendments includes a
complete inventory'of 'the region's sanitary sewer system. Again,
Home Builders attempts to restate its "project 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 definiti:on of
"project list." It is hard to imagine how the addition of
project's somehow'makes an already sufficiently descriptive list
no longer ,sufficient within tne meaning of the rule.
C. Timing.
Home Builders argument here is not, really about timing, ,but about
, the definition of "project list:" ~Where, as' here, the proposal
is to approve categories of projects, rather than a list of
projects, it is not possible to. cpmply with the rule." (Home
" Builders letter, p.5) .MWMC has responded to that argument
above'. .
D. Rough Cost Estiiilates:
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 pian.
Home Builders again re-state t.heir unsupported "project list"
argument: "Again, a project listing'is required, not'a
description of categories of projects." The Metro Plan and PFSP,
as amended, satisfy'OAR,660-0ll-0045.
Conclusion.
. I.'"
, .
The proposed amendments comply with state statutes, statewide
planning goals, and the administrative rules that implement Goal
11. The proposed amendments to Chapter III, Section G, and ~
Chapter IV of the Metro Plan are necessary additions concernitB
proposed improvement and capacity to the conveyance and trea~~t
~ facilities. This infomation' should have been included with ~ ~
,<:::'., :refen'i:~Y" adopted amendments to Chapter III that occurred as a ~ 0'>
requir'ement .of Periodic Review. The amendments to the PFSP am: -
;". also'.a compilation of infoma~ion that should have been_ inclu~ :::
! with the adoption of the PFSPin 2001. Such additional ' bi ~
I ~nfo,~~tfon has,~o effect on policies of the Plan either specf:Jc
, 6-5
t'
1-4
,
""")
to
o 0
, '-
())
t:
C
'as
-
,a...
'J'
.
~~""I
"-
-,
-.i:::l,
".::
,''''''.
:0',"
..0
','
H
to public' facilities, or other' chapters otherthahto demonstrate'.
that these urban, tacLLities .will be constructed to acco~odate . ,
planned buiid-out within Eugene's and, Springfield's urban growth .
boundary. These amendments therefore. s'(3,tisfy, the Metro' Plan' ,
amendment criteria of approval that'requires internal."
consistency.
, ,
N:\CITY\MWMC\Response to BomeBuilders..wpd
, \ ..
" '
'"
,
, '~~;1,~' .
,,'
, '
"
'.,
"
~~.
':J.C,'
,,",,,,,
~',
1'....,,\
,~
"';".:'
I,.'j'
'tt.. '~li.
:'.~}:~::' '
'. ..-'.,
,..,~~.._, ", '
~/:'~..'~c:,<;;'
, , ;, . , ,
Date ReceiVE ld
,Jot 19 I o~
Planner: E;~J
. f'"
~'-
(t;' ,~ '
f',.~,
1;.7;
"~'
..- ..;&
. ,[
6-6
F
":
~ .~':
:.:~~:~~,~grg;~~~I~j~:~? :~-~~~,~~:~~tt~:~~~'
;'::::~:; ~sPRiNGFia:o:,AND-V;t ,W~~ter..,_M~agemE!n~i
~;t~3~~"!;;:;:EijGENE::~~'~;~~U '. CQ~lSst9.'n'-~.;,::,(~~J,:~
~~,\~.., ~ ',' ,<'00 ~" '-'- ..,~".~ .-,}\ ,The-.,' :':SP'nnmlefd,,"~CftY~
In ~.."Ub,"ry;", e~flng ,/ilifup,'ilF,laP:' ,!tl.. .,'
'r~"'~:!!'., f"S ..,. """I'''C'''' ',''''''i''' ,'.'~...lh
".nIOl\.IIW.~O ," pnnl:l"e _,' ~\1:' '~ra'''!1'' escnl,l, _..'_
/ HaIli~'{2iS:;j~F"Jfittf.1:Stteet~~ ..th\1'MWMbdo.,iriCli1cfl( .
'.'$"driQfleldf;:!iiRi',;;;ffi"l :''''';IlaJ)roptOV''ff!
... ",,' fl.'ld'!'.":.,'..",..'...,...'''L......,..''''!.
..Spring e ,':af1"":'::l:;{,lge",~" ~as"_,............."w:.
".., " ".' '. ',... . ''',. ,.. "",' ".,". '.'" """"'PF
:"C~.CO,u(l=:'~d.,~Ia,~e... "PI:IBCY:~.lI:tjtll,,~,; "..
:-:eoiin...f *~;H~oa'id:~:>~{lofi : it1f6.n'natlon~;ta;:]
'.:~comJ":istl.l;ne~;wtit~~~ ;jk ~s':::'li:lliiltl!Yf!'lg
'du'~',"~i'r.::::~.k';.""b1t:';h-"'""if ".,,: ~i..,"-p,;;;.4,:.'.~-"~!and~oj;~fa' ,
.' r.;l,a_~l".. U l/C. ea"n, i. e......., .,__, .
;:D(r,~~}j'~~i:ifeJ;9~=l' ", =arid f th'e' ,CS~~m:o~, of
. :_kti~."-dm~ntS~;<t~'~1tiEE ''v\'astewater...- __', .~eY.1S8.
~Eug,~~,~:e:~~.~~Rtf:~'.'g.~(~ r~~ d~,t1<?!1.,of;,~~~ter
;'Me~I1taJi_:Area~Generar1 :.'e..'stem'.;...~~:~:.~\~.Co~d1~,oI'!,.
,'- -,' -.".. """"" "', '..;-'" --, -'.' ..,~I..,.J"'_..,,.-",~,:.,"'_' -: ,,"' rf "a-~
".Pjari..~.~C:Ii8,' ',I'\e, r...(IIl,i':'~~,., ,0-",.'; ':"h,.- '. _.'.~. ,.,>~,,.',~,:.81id,.',~.,'~'~,""'~...""
G;' 'PiJbllc,'FaciUtfes, and; ~',Mw~'ch8pter/:th8t:,gave~~
SerVi.~ :.': EJem~nt;,;~d 'I" :'amendmEmts::to"ttjd::'fFsP/
Chapter ,Y.~~1oSSary:; \\';'::,~' 'i{SeG"',~'addltl~nai~':jj~cn~~;'
"!<Icd!~ng the InJltlductory'~ciils'~fbiP:ii90i;!libl....
:~,~~'~~~~~l~~~d.~ ~~~':~\~~~~~~l~~~:'
,at paga;l1f~'JiOdIfyjQg; t~Cilleria\l>OEl:Q$ect1Q~"
tfu~jM~:~6!~~~~~i,~~~!~~ i~h:~~~~:~~~l:Qtf~in::
')'~~~: ~!!~;;1~~!;![~Q,n;~~~ ~SPi%9fiet~_\~_Q.eyefop~en~
;A~~!~i~i;~~ ~~~~~~Y6~(~;;i~~:
,1~lr~\'(Il1ll',:.e~lrcy"~,lt.".f f9:12Bt~)(a&b){a..d'.: La(1.
ff~~~f!i~i~i*f~f~m!~;~1l1i,
::<~R!flg:.-q~'~~21}CV~~_~\,,~~i ~.'mi8<:$1lfmctmE!nt.l11~t_:.~.,
~:P'~9-~5: U~~:13;:',s~~~~~~~ ~ cOiis~ent:~',Ule'-~I~~~
~~~n~bE:r.f!l!1;~of ~.r.er~~~ln~{: ~'Siatewlde<p!~JlIn9.':'99&!S'-
,':pqlide.s~Jand~:';,n,n,d'flgs ;-: ln~ ~'ai:lQptecU:'_by/;'Uiir :~" lapd~
.: Chanter.{~,<:'"l;III1G~'-;.l..:Mt\QIDs ''', ".... ",,'"'i:iir-l~";::':",~,::ancr .
"", " 1"",- ''''fl' ..", 'st-',..'.,' '.... '" ~ ,a on",,,..:':;:,,.,, ~"~
;!~~~tii~i ~~t3t~~i!!,
qhagl$"Y;(l!9S=Y.t (for ".I~ti#_iOteirl8IJyIi1CC11-'
i~~~lf~~l~; ~{lJl~i~ii,
"E~gen~p'rrn9t1~I~:,J~u~n~, f~",thiS~~auer-_~, (ri,i,~'1~1
J;~~):~;:).~~~~0i~,~~~ ;'~-r:z~~~t'~~;~~~~j.
',:. tAod,lfY'.~' teict,\~"prE!c:,e'dfn,g; ~bt':$endlhg,'j.yrlttenx.eqr.te:-'\.-
: ~g :TCl;ble 3 3:t;R?ge,2~;, '~s#()n'denCa~qrlc;wCfI,ri'~~~~~,~
"1riSE!n::.!)e~','Tag.re~~~4a:;~" r:"'~;'DevetOPfrfent
'.~ iI(p~g6,2ei';m:~.IfY_~,ap., ~ :Oepartment:;."<Vo:
:.~M:t':-j;~~'~n~~~~f:~~ ~e~_age}~~:~~]~:;~',
. mC!91~:,:;';; .R.~B;~,:r. ic;,:--:. ty~ ~Spi1tfgfield;;"OR-:;97.4T!~_~or:
:'~~~~~~.t~r~;-);,::',,'$y,~t~!!I.~ ?:~mallto:gmoltC"i:f;s'p~!ng,~'
:',,~.1).d,I~9~;.}~:Ss~,ssme~t:~t ~1ield;6i.tis\;:'~;,::~.~,~:i-t :::t;;j;:::
'~g"B2' modlfY;texfltong'i ",. , ',,, 'Ii" .".." " ~.,
,",r:-. ._!'", "'c'o. ."-". ,.," ...:-~e.;,~p..~~~n~:~P~'.r;
': term," .,,~er\1~~ \~~yail~I.Il!y,: . ~lng/dOC;~Te~'_:, $ubl!l.itt~;
, ,'-~t.h,rt. ,,~rb.~f1iZabr6';, ~8S::: ,by;\h~~ app\leanF~C! 'the,
'.,at pa~e, _~;:(.;ad,d:,;rabl&,.~6.a: ;: stiltflioreswur oe- avallapie.
::,fOIl9W'~g::~istfng-'T~I!3:, JEt '~jor-Vl8Wing:ot:p:u~e:,,~,
t ~ ' ':810:', pege-, '::'Q~';"-"a~,d[,n~'?f; ',"3:0~P,in'./'6n FridaYi:Jurie;~
" i.ul'~ \ChaPler IV, A:'ne..ndl'l1en.. to, "H,..20O'fiIQilli.;spilngji,ak!:,
.,~_9,p:1~~.: :Th!s.:new,~apt~.; .. D-evelo'piTient':';:'~,::SefY!~H
, r~~llIde.s"',d~s?tlp~~~. :'~~' .cDepartmeni.':.::::.::':~~,~'<:-:rf;:~:.
modfflc.~t1ons.' .to.',',exIstfng" :::' :rhe:join1-:electea: 6.lficjals:
.ld_entlfJed. !projects::Wh.lc,h' '~wiuCrinduCt a wor!<":sesslon'
: require, -or.do'not require;, :-:discuSSion".oL,tt\;ese,:'pi'lr.
'am,~nd~~,n~':.to ,.the.,~u!Jlic:. . :,:posecfameOdr!i,~~:at-5:3Q,
,Fa~!Il~es: '_..a~d..:.~e:l)".~~s" ~ pm;'fn:,t~e'L!!JrarY,Mestl~g.
.. p'1?:";"~(~~r,.l?xac.t~g~~ge., ,':R~bmjpe.~~!!l~,!y~l}i,~g-aa:
!'1ap~_~~,t~l~s,~_~_ne~:,., ths':::pubn<:"Jleanng;<.,::'lJ1e.:
,,_, l~l7~1S: proP.~s~.;se9:'~~,dd,I,': ~:wo'i'k"seSStoii 5. 'nie:~tfng,' :}s_' ,
,tion~'lnf~~t1,on, ~;~~e~ ,~:bp~r{'jir~_e 'p_~~~.-:_~'~?
vnth _this 1},O~~~')5:. ::>:~\. "~.::~ ' djUb~C-:'~'~_~_rrlq!lY,;,:,WJIr;:'.b!~
' -, .::acQ36fed,~ufrtir. .the.,;p.ub!IC.~
......."
"
:1.
EXHIBIT
2-1
"
Affidavit of Publication
,I
State of Oregon, County ofLane.ss
, L Belinda DuB ell being dcly sworn, depose
c And say that 1 am theJegal clerk of the
Springfield News a newspaper of general
circulation,as defined by ORS 193,010 and
'193.020; printed and published at, ',..;, ,
Springfield in the aforesaid county and state,
'that the le'gal,publication re: '
Notice of Joint Public Hearing in Springfield
and El},geneCity C()uncils and the Lane Co. "
,Board of Com,missioners.
A printed copy of which is hereto annexed, ,
. was Published in the entire issue of said
, , newsPape~, one successive and consecutive
weeks In the following issues:.
June 09, 2004.
I
,
" ruE SPRINGFIELD NEWS
:!
by: .-6dL~t:iu~d
i
!
-------------~----~--_.
, Subscribed' andswom to me this ll,th day
of JUne 2004 by: Belinda DuBell '
'f- ,:1 ' " " '
c?~~ "t! ",X~~
, ',:' ,V'NotaryPUblicfo~egon
6-7
---,-'-'-- *-~---
F-- 'OFAClALSCAL " ,
i' ~ ROSEMARYE UUA
'::~~.~ N~~~~~~1h -6 ceived
, ~~COMM\SSlcm EXP\R~~~,l oJ
P_,~-'-----"'..?-=-?'-jUL i 9 6f
, ' , ) .
Planner: BJ
" /
JjJL:-07-20134 ' 16: 45
",
'.
" .'
,..'.,
, ,
, "
',';
~'"
" "'~' ~'~ " f' ,'~, ~~,;;
,1". 'I'. ij,,," )..'1"' ,I
' 10 f ii~~-t,-.,-!; ,
"
'",~, 1'1 Jl,
,," .l. .. ~'v
,,- ..,I
..
,
."
.., ~.,-
1~\'!rHt ,
!~."lJ".. '",It.
" ,.~~
'1";'-'
L'I'...,~~
~"'~. ~... r'j..f'a~l,!G
. Jt,1),. ,I ' _'-"" " '
SPRINGFIELD NEWS
'..';t
'.,'
",'
/
, ,
NOTleS QPJO\MT ',.
, PUBLIC HEARING '&,'
, SP~INGFlELD. EUGENE
, AND LANe COUNTY'
PLANNIHG' . ,
, , 'COMMISSIONS.'
',NOTICe IS HERBBY
GIVEN-thaIM Tuesday,
April 20, 20ll-, at 7:00,
p.rn. In' 'ha Ub.ary
M9aUnQ ; Room ' af
Springfield CllY Hon, 22S
Firth SlreC!, Springfield,
OR,U\Ii'- Planning
Commissions'. . cd
, SprlngrlBld, Bogen. and
Lana County W~I,cooduc:l'
a joinl,pubUc Maring ',on,
the following pmpowr. .
Amendments lo,lhe'
eoo.nu-Sprlngflel,d
Metropolitan 'Alea GenQr;I,
Plan. CttapIOf III, ~licn
, G., PubUc Fac:iIilieG and
Services EI~mentand
, ChaD,ar, V." Glo..ary: I'
Modifying Ihe InlltlduolOry ,
text; pages III;-G.' and 1!I..h
, G.2: modllylng POlicy 'Go:!
.. pago III.G-l: modifYing
Finding 6, poge' III'G"I;
, modlfymg' 'Policy' G.3 01-0
~gB', nl-G-4: 'l~s!lrting
n9V'/ heading "Sia1Viee, to ~
'Oevelopment' \YSlhin .IhG
Urban Glowih ~uMary'"
'lollOWing ,: Pcr.ey :~;8 8.l'
pa~e UI-G.5:,ad<lil1g ~OW',
Find'mgs 11 and ~2 ah,er
poliC)' G.8 at pa.p; IU-G-S:'
.;d(f1ng new'PCllll~y'G~ at
'paoe,:l1l.G-6: subs~el)t
: renUmbering of'remaininO
poliCIes Bnd < finding.: In
Chopt" III.G;' Modify.
Chap.", V Glossa/)', by
modifying the' definition Qf '
pUb6cFadllllGs"Project& '
at' ", poga ',/ \(.,4:'
'Wastewaler' Chapfo! Y
Gloss.ary,~~ , .' 1_. ':'." ~
, Amendmenla. to, lhe,
, , EUgenll-Sp~nglield P~bl\C; "
FaeUIIlGs:' and' SGJ'\Ilces~'
Pion (PFSP): :Modify toXl: "
preceding Qxlsting Ta~G 31
at p_;gs' 28; Insert ne~ '
! ,TabIIJS da and ~b at page;
" 28: modlly Mop 2 0' page '
35:"tnsert new MaQ"2a.
.ner 'page:' 35; 1 modify
Ch,pler IV,' Wa8tewnlar ,
,." ._, _, M ".', ". :,..,..~ :',--; ,
,Syalem " .:; :' .~h~!UQ"
Ass...",ont al poge 82:
modify....leJ:t. ,long-Ierm" ,
; S(ltvicQ' Awnabillly Wrlhin : r
'UrOanizatilo ,,:'A108G '.' 81 ' ,
,pagg"97;:'8dd Table::1Sa'-:
10Uowing e.ls.ingTabla,16" :
, 'at 'page"101; .a.dd,l'lew,
, C~Gr.IV,: Amendmenls '_
10 lIlo',Plon, ,1h~ ,"''' :
,chaplG' lridudaa descrip-
lions Of:modincallons:'lo.
ezlsllng;.' Idel'Jllned" 'P~~
IBcts which 'eaulre,;o' do'
not require, arnendmElnJ to
lhe PUCIllo Fscfltlies. and
Setvleo. Plan. I' '" ,~ . ,
AppUeanl ,', \ :,,' , I ~ II
The" .' .1 Metropolitan"
Wastewarei'Management"
Commission "'(MWMC),.
t.mder !he a~Ce-& .of .the
. Cll}' of Springfield (inlliafot '
01 lhe amsndmonl). " "
Oescriplion of . lhe '
Aeqr,lesl '
"",.
-:;..
6':'8
P:'02.
1 54:1, 74613633
, :~I:
"
I The nl'plicanl;iG,;propos.~'
Ing to, modIfy ,telll ,iri- I h~ "
" Metro Plan 10 more Bca1J.
'ralety describo Ih$ rala 01
the MWMC;' to Inelu~o:,
IQc.aI capital improvamenl .
pla-ne 'as a means. 10 .
Implemenl, poRC)'" ia the
PFSPj add, infol'fl1a~iqn to:"
, Tablcs';nd Ma~ identlly.-
In9 MWMC 'pIOI"CIS .n~
loellllio" ..pond tM do',.
nilion 'of, W8su~wal8"1j
revise deseriplion of lit
. Waslewatv,' Syslem
Condilion ASf~eril:
i and add'mg 8 new, ~tor
that 'governs amendments
10 {he, I'FSP. (See~adOl-,
. donal deScriptionS, above
, lor page" lab!e Bnl1 map
numberB.) ,
Crltoria of ApproVa1'1 ...
Crlleria to "be, 'used 10
evslU~l1e' 8' 'Memo Plan
, Texl ArMndmenl, is lound
In ' SpringOeld '
Developmenl , , Code,
Seelion 7.03D(3)(a&b);
Eugene, Coda SecUon
e,'28(3)(a&b), .nd, Lane, '
'Code - " Section.
12.225(2)(.&b),and roads
. Q3 follows: '. - ,
", (a), The. ~and~~nl .
musl bla WnSI$ton1 Wllh .
tha'relevanl' SlaleWide
,planning goals adopled by
the land' Const:lVaUon
al'ld ~ Developmcn!
CornmmsiotT. .and , ;
. (b) .' Adoplion, 01',1119
amel'lC3monl mual not
make \tie MettO Phil; Inler-
nally Inconsistent.,' , .
Additional 'Inlormallon'ft
'.Slaff Repan." ProWJing
Teo\lrnony, , ' "
, Anyono w10hlng lotostlfy
on lhis matter may I do so ,
ill pe{san. In. ,wriUIl9,:ar
belh ~y opp.a~ng e' Iho ,
haaringot aendl"g wrillcn,
cortesponclenca, including..
e~man;, .- .to, Ih,e
'Development ,J, Sa/'Vlc8$
Ooparlnililnli ,c/o' G!'90 ,A'
Motl.' PIa'nning ~na.ger,"
225 Fifth Sneet,
Springfie-ld, OR 97477,or
gmc~@d.sprh;griel~ol,ue;
The application. suppa"- '
Ing dc-cumenl_s submitted
by lhe 'applii;8nt <<nd Ihe
&latl "_olea:,wiU be_' avail.-
able, fer vk!Wlng: or pu'.'
chaae ,by' 3:00 p.m...'en
Fricloy, Jlpri12, 200.& in the
Springfield DElvt;t_lopmenl
: Serv'reos OepBIImen~ '
: The 10int p1QMing l;Om-,^
1t11~lol'ls,;,wi1lM.QOfl.dUCli,a
work: sasaion diSCUSSion
oHhlJse ptoposed amend.'
monl$ ~l S~O p.rn. in'lhe
. Ubrary MeeUrlg' Room the'"
'same evening as Iho p~
,lie hesritlQ.:The ~ork SS$-
alan ',moQting' is Clpetl-IO
the pubn~, but no CI;:tportu:.
nity, for PUr>f1C lestl1npny,
will be pf?lidO" ,,'
m.31 t,'i' ,.
, , (!lsak
.,'
.,
2:':2
'.
,'il.
'-, -')
"'I..
-"
\:
.1;<
,',
,,'
"
, ')
. ",;.:
.'
>,,;,'
Date Receh red,
JUL 19/of
:"Plapn,er:, BJ
\i',
, '~
TOTAL P.02
, , I
,
'..
"
"
j~
liJ;7]O"O / .... /170 0i-t' 2'-3
GUARD' PUBLI.sHiNG COMPANY
, P,O, BOX 10'88 .' "PHONE (541) 480-;234 .
" " EUGENE, OREGON 97440 " : "
, ,
,Legal Notice Advertising
CI1Y OF SPRINGFIELD
ATTN:BRENDA
225 5TH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 ~
"1'
'"
"
','
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF 'OREGON,i ' ' '
COUN1YOF LANE, } ,sS.'
I, Kelly Gant' "'" , being first duly affirmed, depose
, and say that I ain the Advertising Manager, or his principal clerk, of
The Reglster:Guard, a newspaper of general circulation as defined
in ORS 193.0,10 and 193.020;,p~!Jlished at Eugene in the aforesaid
county and state; thatthe Notice of Public MeetinglHeiiring, .
printed copy 01 which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire
, issue of said newspaper lor one, successi'{e and consecutive,
day(s) in It}efolJowin'g;issues; ,
,
March 31, 2004
"
.1"'\
,I'
F
I,
!
"'" 'l~"l."'~".'\"'" .< rJ"'l/{/r '/v'1,\" . '"
~'f;1 t,-'fll' 4~1>/ ~ /-"
/ Ii; J \ .
. . ! \ ,{." \
I'," It'.1 " ~.
" .' I: 4li- ~, n ',.
,~Ub;~~r)b~ld'!!1d':~r' 'ed belore ~~J004 ,
, ," " /M.?~~j7p#1f?7(/
" ',,-'" " . . .
',' ' ',. ei)',PUbIIC 0,1 Orego~
MY,Trnmission ~xp.iies; July 24, ,2006' .
.r;\.~
, Legal 2714156
Notice :'
I'
NaTIC~Of JOIMTP\l'allC o-utrlptionofthllR!quesl"
HEARlNG~SPRINGflELD . The appticanfls proposing ta
EUGENE AND lANE COUNTv . modify .text In the Metro Plan to
PlANNING COMMISSIONS : more aecurareJy desalbe the role
NOnCEISHEREBY'GIVENthat'of!he ~WMC;,to Indude local
'on Tuesday, AprU' 20, 2004, a.t capItal Improvement plans as I;
7:00 ' p.m.In tbeUbrary Meeting means tolmpltrTle~poncy In the
Room of springfield CIty Hall. ns PFSP; add info~ti~n to Tables
fifth Street, Sprlngfleld," OR, the llldMa.ps Ide.nt~fylng MWMC
. Planning Commissfons of Spring- prole~ and faclnties: expand ~e
field, Eugene and lant County defimtlon of. Wastewater; revISe
wmconductajointpubRchearlng descriptions of Wasteytater Sys-
:, thefoUowingprapasals:, ,tem Conditlon Assessment: IIld
. Amendments to the Eugene- adding lI. nl!W chaptet that gO'l-
Springfield Metropoliu.n Area mt5 L,........~,_ to th~ PFSP.
General Plan Cha;rt.erlll Section (See additional deSCriptions
. G. Public' Facilities and'SeMces above for page, table and map
Element and Chapter V Glossary: num~m.) , ,,' .
Modifying the introductory tut,l c~teriaofApp~
pages 1II-G-1 and 1lI-G-2; modify-r Criterla,tobcll$edtoevaluate
Ing PoliCY G.2 at page 1lI-G-4;: a Metro Pial! Text Amendment Is
modifying FInding S, page 1II-G_4;,;found In Spnngfield Development
modifying poney G.3 at page 1II.,code, Section 1.030(3)(a&b),
G~;i",ert1ng new heading "Ser.1 Eug eoe Code Se~t1on
. vlcesto Development Within the 9.12S(3)(a&bl. and lane code
urbait Growth Boundar(' fallow.ISeclion 1.2.225(2)<a.&~)and u~,
ingpoIiCYG.8atpagelll-lHi;,asfollOWS:' '
ad'd1ng new findings 11 and U (a) The amendment must. be
lfter Pa6ty G.s at pa!;e lll-G-S' consistent wlththe .relevant
addlngnewPolic:yG.9atpagelll; statewldeplannlnggoalsadopted
G"',' subsei[llent renumbering of by the Land Cons~tion and- .
" I" d fin ,Development CommISSion; and
remallllllg pol lOles ~n dings In (b) Adoptlon of the amendment
Chapter Jll-G; Modify Chapter V must not make - the I.lelro Plan
G1ossa.ry,by!f1od~I~~thedeflnl.linterrialIYIR'ClInSistent.
tl on of PlI~IC FaClhtles Pralec:tsi AdditionaJ-'lnfonnation - Staff
at page V4. "Wastewater" Chap., 'Report, providlng Testlmonr
terVGlossary. Anyone wishing to t!5tlfy an
A,mendments ,to the ~gene-" this matter may da so in peoon.:
Spn~gfield Public Facilllies and ~In writing. or,both by apPearing\
SerYlce5 P!M (P~p): Modify text : at the hearing or seiltflng written
precedin~' existing Table 3 at Ittlrrespond~ce.,lnclUd1n9e-1lW1.
, page 28; Insert new Tables 4a and to the Development' Serv":~
4b at page 28; modify Map 2 at Department, c I 0 ~'Mott.1
' page 35; Insert ~ew Matl2a after I Planning Manager. 225 Flfth
page 3S; modify Chapter IV, i Street, Sprin~field, OR 974n, or
Wastewater System Condition _ gmo~C1.spnngfield.cr.u:s' . I
Assefment at page:. 82; modifY: The applicatlon..supportlng,
text Long-tenn s~ce AvaRabif. documents, submlt:t:ed' by.,the'
lty W1t~ln Urbamzable Areas, at .applieant'and the staff notes Y111l
paJile,97, add Table 1&1 followm9 be avalia.ble flll' viewing or pur.
eJCistjng Table 16 at page 101; add chaSe by' 3:00 pm.. on Fridayi
new Chapter I'{. Amendments to April 2. 2004 h1 the Springf.eld
the Plan. T~1S new chapter Dnelopment 'Servlce5
includes descnptloll5 of modifica' Department. '
tio~s to ~xlstlng! Identified The Joint planning comml:ssloll$
Prol~cts whIch reqUire, or do n~t will conduct a wcrk session db-
. req~!re.amendme!lttotheP\lbllc cusslon of these proposed
FaCIlities and SerVIces Plan. amendments at S:JO p.m. in the
ApplICant , Ubrary Met!t1ng Room !:he samf
The Metropolitan W:mewater evening as the public hearllt9-
Management ComlTl!s;sion (MW. The work session mettln!lls oper.
~~Slt.l,u.n~~.h~.~~~!~~ft~e to,the pubnc,"bllt no opp~it1
'ClNofSprinlliield't~"litlifor\."'~ ,for public t~lmony will bl
:IUl1endmenO: provided.
Na.2714lS6-March31,20D4
Date Received
JUL 1 9 r of
Planner: BJ
, . _ _ _, ,':,.E...::.-3S)
:' ,-,~~._." v
~,....._' '-;:=-O';CIAL SEAL y
~.. 1'". ,~" '
, , ..~, , CARO,-I.JOHN_O,.. ,J
~'i;l~. -';; OT.~ FUBUC.ORSGON . I,
,,___ " N""--" .,~c~- (,
~;;#" CO,MMIS.'S10NNO....~"oa,.,.i "'I":n::~l
, MYCbMM\SSION2ICP!,~~~~~;:M
--,~:..-~~=---"'~~ -
INVOICE
Case:
110787
2714156
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan&rSea General Plan and p~S~
Account #:
IL"
,GUARD PUBLlSHINGCOMP"ANY
P.O. BOX 10188 ,: , ' .' PHONE (541) 485"1234'
,EUGENE:OREGON SI440, . :', , ",
"
Legal Notice Advertising'
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
KAREN '
225 N 5TH
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
"
#
: AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
, ,STATE OF OREGON, }"
COUN1'( OF. LANE, } ss. " '
~"
, ", ,. .'
I; Kelly'~ant , ,,' ,being first duly affirmed, depose
and say that I am the Advertising Manager; or his principal clerk, of. ',;
TheRegister"GlJard;.anewspaperof general circulation as defined "':'!
hORS 193.010 and 193;020; published at Eugene in'.the aforesaid, :
, county and state;, that the Notice of Joint Public Hearing', , , "
'printed copy ofwh.ichis hereto annexed"waspublished in the ~;'tire:
, issue of said 'newspapei for one successive and con~~cutive
, day(s) "in the f?lIowir]gissues:
." ,
June 9,2004 ,;
'" .
":"
1"
"J,
,~,'
':1'
"'I,.
','
.~ .
,
'" .'
",
t
-"I,' "".,..,.,(,.; 9'1. ,,;,",
\'~'--4;1~t). ~~'llt\1 0;..' ~-O~r. 'I "
, " I, -~",:,:,:, 'f \..,'}/.1.....:,.: r
".' . ~'jv.~{, .,
:s'~:~~r~~ ~rJ~r~d1 ()b~iore
, ", ,~
, fl~,
'. \..l.!~,
,~ . , . ~
My commission' expires: July 24, 2006
. I .,
r
4g4~
Ct1'bOO{~(tJt),,~
-:M-1'11ctt
leg.al 2750475
Notice "
"
'I"
2.,.1
:
"
,"
NOTICE OF JOINT PUBUC DtStrIIrtIon of the Request '
HEARJNG _ SPRINGFlaD AND lbe IPp'Ueant is propOsIng to'
EUGENE em COUNCILS AND mcdify text In tbe.Metro Plan to'
THE lANE COUNTY BOARD OF ,nttlI1! accurately deserlbe tlze me' .
COMUISS10NERS: . _ of,~ MWMC; to indude: IoCaJ :.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that - capita! impronment,pla.ns as .. .
on Tuesday, June 242004 at 7;:00 means to Implement peRcy In the'
p.m.1n the Ubrary Meeting-Room PFSP; add tnfonnatIonto-,Tables
of Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth and., Maps_ : Identifying 'MWMC
Stred.',Sprlngffeld,_ OR" the: Pf_oI!d:saridfaciIitle:s;!:Cpandthe
Sprln~fleld and, Eugene, City definl~ of Wastewaterj revbe
Counells and the. lane County desenpUon of ,wastewater, Sys-
Board of CommiSsIoners wm,con. ttin CandltloR Assessment; and
ductaJC!lnthearingonthetollow- adding a new,chaptertbat gay.
IngpropoSals: . '. '.. ems amendntents,to the PFSP.
, Amendmeilts;to the 'Eugene.. (See additional. descriptions
. Springfield' Me'tropolftan, Area ' ,above fOr ~1Ie. table ~ map
General Plan. Chapter III SectIon aumbes.). ", .
Go' Publle Faeirltles and 'Smites .' Criteria of Approval '.' - ,
Element and Chapter V_ GlossarY: Criteria to be us~d toMluate
Modifying the introductory tei a Metro'Pla.n Text Amendme:itt ls
: pages 1II.,G-1 and 11142; modIfy- 'found in Springfield Development
Ing Policy G.2, at pagelll-G-4. Code., S~lon 7.o30(3)(a&b),
modifying Rmflng 6,'page 111-0-4: r E ug ene' Co de'S eetlon
modffylng fancy G..3at page'llI; 9.J.28(3)(aAb), and Lane Coi:Ie
lH; ,lnserting'new heading ':'Su- Sectfon lU25(2)(a&b. ),an~ rmds
vicl!Sto Dev!lopment,WitlJin tne ' asfoUows:" ,'".'., ,,'.','
, Urban,Growth Boundary" foHeW- .(3) The' amendment. must. be
lng, Ptlllcy G.a ,at: page' III-G-S.." 0> consistent, with' the:- releyant
adding neY/Flndlngs 11" amici, . stIttwlde_plannlnggoalsadopttil
after porq G.8 at page IIIV5; by thi! --land eansemilion and
add'mg new PorlC'/ G.9 at page III. De-rtlopment tommisslt.in; and "
G-6; $llhsequl!nt,renumbering of (b}Adoption_oftbeamendment
I'emll1nlng poUcil!S lnd findings' In must not, make, the M,l!.tro Plar.
Chapter.IlI-G;,Modify Chapter V lnttmaIIymconsi:stent.....,
_ ~Iossary. by mOQrfying the detinJ. . AddltiorW Infonnatlon - staff
tic" of PtlbUc FildUties Projects Rl!1IOrt,Providlng Test!, m~ny: I
at page V-4: "'Wastewater" cmi 'Anyone wishing to testify on
ter _Y Glossaly. (Fqr exact ~ this ~er',may do so In pers~n.1
guage contained In this proposal In wntIng., or both by appl!UJng
su additional InformatIon at the hearing or sending written
Includedwiththi5notla!)'.-.:'. ..........l'w,...~lndudin9~
Amendments of the' Eugene..' to the' Development Semel!!
. Springfield Ptlblic -Facilities and Deputme~ c I 0 Greg Mottl
,ServlO!S Plan (PFSP): MOdlfytext Planning Managl!r,. 225 Fifit!
. preceding'existlng Table J at Stn!et,_ Sprinfl1leld. OR 97477, or
page2S;fnSertnl!wTables4aand ~pnngfleld.or.us . '1
, 4b at page 28; modify Map'2 at Tbe appllcatlon. supporting
page35;lnsertnewMap2a-after' documentS: submitted_bY the,
page 3S;' modify Chapter IV appDcant and the smff notl!S 'Nil.
. Wastewater Sjstem Condition' btavallable for v1ew1ng,or pur;-
Assessment at page 82; modify chUe by'3:OO p.m.,:on.Frlday.-
text "l.ong.term serviee Avallabif.. June 11. 21J04 In the Springfiel~ '
Ity Within UrbanizableAreas,at ' Development S,ervrcu
Pl,ge 97; add'Table lOa_ following Department I
existing Table l6at page 101' add The Joint Elected officialS wiD
new ChapterlV/A.,,~..~..,_.:' to ~nduct I.; work sesSlon'dJsc:u5.
the Plan. This new chapter SIOIl of ' these proposed am~
l~cludesdl!Scilptloll:lofniodlfi12_ mentsat5:3_~ p.m:lnthelibrary
tIO~.s 'to "existing, ,IdentIfied Meeting Room the,same evening
projects which require, or do not as the pubilc heanng. The work
n:~!r~amendmenttothePubllc ' sess!on meeting Is,opl!ll to the
Faahties and SeryfeesPIM. (For, . public, but no pubD~ testimony
exact.language;'maps and tables will pe ac:~pted Llntll)he publlc
"',ntained in this propo.sal',~ Ohearingbegmsat7:1lOp.nl.
addltlOnal,lnfOnnatl,'onlncluded . ~-- - Q~i'd"
with thi.s natlce.) , . ", ' , e
. AppDcant ~
The Metropolltul Wastewater '
. Managl!ltlent Commls5lo:l {MW.
MC,'. The Springfield City Coui\ci(
InitIated these amendme:11son
Feb~,17,2Il~
"<-.;
"
. JUL 19,tJif
Planner: ,. BJ
r4:. ~':~~'~~~_~~'.2'~'::-~...'~_~-=-~ '
'~ OFFlCL'L SEAL '9'
, '!S~ CAROL L JOHNSON Q'
: .~,~~T~.~~~~:91~~" 9.'
ll~ _ _ _ ~_ ~~M~foN E<PIAES'JUL Y 24, 2006 ~I
,_' '--:""'---'------.J
, ,
, ~'.
Account #:
INVOiCE
110787
2750475
Springffeld & Eugene,City Coun&H1&. Lane Co.' June 22, 2004
, ' ' j . .
Case:'
',..>
',.
JUL:-07-2004
10:32
SPR I NGF I ELD NEWS
t'UI:lUl,: nUAKINU:'
..~ S-P:fUNGFlELDAND ";,
,,~'~~:":,El.iCiEHE'!.:~~\'::;;;
~ ~'crrr;CCitJJtcn:s;'-ND':~:
,:~:tii~:W.~-1'.
~~W:tK)~~:OF,;~~rr
t~.eoWMLSslO"Eas!o!~t
'..:~ttOTIc:e~"\iISi:~eREDV. '
-..~rt!N~ ,111dl.:ofi.ii:r.u6&dll;v,'
~!~: ' ~~;'I'
"",,!.l;I!~,~s !:erM
:Ho.n;.'~225~. . u-;
[SCrInglllJld.:.;'t.. '
-Sglfrt;neld-;;cM'tI~98rnl:;
'Clll<,_..iilll'Ih,t8iii:.
}daUntt ~~\:l;ao8rd2,jr;:\Of: '
:'Carnml6-ilcnir;';'.Ufll~
"cIud:llI ~ putlllc.h8arinSl
,anth8fa1lcitJlI1g~~:
AmelJdmonts:",'lo')':41e: .
Eugentt.o:Sptln gllald
Me~I/1'AtI!I.':G8ruuaJ'
.P!on,.Cl1_III.,Sodl<in
, G;" ~lIo :Fedlll108'lUld
. ~ell . Elemem ,I,ftnd.'
l~f"t3~"."'"
:'~Mot1Ir,1fI;:m8,1nl " "" . "
~18~::PaQllll'IPoGo~~~I~l, , .
G;l;_"""J'olw.Q~' :
~'l ' - ~ '~l
\~' d ~,. "'"I~G~, i
~ 'I) !'~".a\"
I..,., ilhJlI ;;..;.~'
nGa,dIn9~\ilS 'l'Yh;eB1:~ t
,OuiQij_'I~"m~~!~,.,tIi,lJ'
p, fD8n.:'QrOWU'i.';aol,l~; ~
"oQ....,r.'P...ey;"",,,,.,' \
f' :~,,~~:-m.;f.!'iii,
~=_'i11,_"~:.""'. ,
P.(iDc'J!~I8t" '6' i';"lJt~,
'a"';;'''''''~' ,~l"""",
tt "!"''!I'I~I$!.~-t~ ;~~i~~!
Ir.-g~, ..,... t.;' . 1I11lll\., ,
,..n_rtng'!'l,rjlnB"
!DOll<;l" ,~.,n':'lJ1l~"'I>';1i( ,
,ChQp\er:;~ li,l-G;.1l<i:M~~ft,
.CIla"""V, ,GloilalY,~Qy;( .
'fI'IOdU~,Ihe'd9Iin1\1on::" ,
~P.uel~'h.dlI!'*i~.~t
;1KIge."',Y..~',~le"'e.I8r'~
'Cha~r 'v, BIo8aarT-'~'IFo'" ,
:a.uct..~Q8.,~Ii1i;d
,In'p*'prCposal;'llG,;'~':
'lIonalJriOfnllll!Qn kdiJde<l
'wf1htlbi'p:)t/l;C1l""i',"':;"
;'~Am~dm""'lI ,:'tQ)"lh.'
___ :Eug_~_ld'Publlc'
:F;;dPlI&$eM,aiei'vlcilsPIM'
. (PFSP):':j"'~ :i:~,.,.;i!.~. 'ii1.l-
;;, ModJt~'" :te,ct ~iClfoc:oi:nng'
~~tablQ3QIp.llg:028;
InHft',nC_II~D1e~,41Il;. i:md
"'~'.I,p'age.Q8~:inldIff.~~:
2'=a1~~:~Ul'ISerI;iniYi,
),IJ:ap},~all8({;tiQg~;;.35~
\j;b<ll!f.i.~~t!!i~"'Ni,
,~'W~~~\~"'\
'pBOa:e.z~lf.tm\~~i
(crmif~er.wl;iIl'}1Av4l'_
'>'~:~l;l!uflleJ'A""lizlj
, ,Ol:II'O.'m....::iibI.lj'''!'
f:1QlJQy'!!'OlelilBllnlj"::raDIIl'1S: :
[~Ij;Ii*,.~'!l.":\' ~dl,,iifilj
:Cl\Bpt8(JV:~en~li'!
, :\tl...P\tn~,Thlq.nd'~SI'"
{incj~o~"~C1e~lIqnf~,:O~
~tn(ldI~s'.:toR,&;d;lJng.'
:-I~nllf\ad " proI8.C.te;,'_ld'llcn
:,n!ICluli.,:llt'~;nolreqvlr8,'
1am.~nt.lI:t'Jne.P.ut:6:
. ~ Fai:ft11la.,~"lII1d ~:&It.wfcel
h.Plen.:,(~'.riclllatig~.,1
~,m;opo ~,biblos.CiCfROIn4d'
'51n:1PU prollioeia!iM"ct':)ItfdJ.,~
._,_Jcn,lnc:iIl<tod
'.\)'IlIh1f1!l1no~~.) :','.:,7 '0;:;
,~.~.... . ..,~~"~
~:~TM,,;';,!:.l(;i;Mbt(ci~liii6' '
L Wulewatar,:.Milns98..nOnt
~'Comm\j,tI(II;~'!;,..,(MWMC);'
;' TJw ~ \,:Spri~f1.rd :f~ CUy'
l'eoiJncll'~'\ InhlakiO ~ ffheall:
~,8I'neMmol'ltl > Oft~~,
;0.11 2t'I04.: i/.;"l.,' ;\:,',,~ ",' ,',
~.~~t~~~.~;:~f~:l)~:
~,~,~pp~;ld'J!~~',:
t~~~r!'=!l~
, r6Ii1y'-4G8dtbO'~~;fdio1'oI'i
!\hieMWMQ.:blrickide'lOcaI
~,cap""'l;.~pp'liemGnt:'Cl!n
~..r~:.,~f~lln\tll,~(!IB,I'Jl'
;~(ln~,~.~PFSP.I~:lIifi:l'
t,~lan..,ttJ\'.iabMl!i'lir4
.:"~DB' k:lllrtUlylng:.MWMC',
:: P~J8ct&~ ;,tndi ;"'laellllleiii~
~ ewpllnd '!he ,:dellnl~lon" i 01
:'Wll!.tewlllet;.. "':",v~lI.
,~tIonofW.,st..,atar
~ $~S.lcun .;...., ,i,"~ Candlllon,
; ~$Mnllrn:lI"I:l"a~ta'
~:~~, ~~~!\~':p'~~.;
__,.l,., .'. ,";,:':.
" .
-/:::., ,
S~'.,."
~~, .
:f~:' .'
~M;....'
!tr,',:; ;
,~:},
. '~~" .'
~k".':
~:,."
',~~,"
1~(:,
.~n
tf{:'
f~~i;i.
[~;{~
.:"':"..
ii:
I
:~;~~~,' '1
"Ii. . r_-':' ,::'-~"l" -:.~,' ';"(,
?i,~':,-
I;, · , " ...
'. ~':i{ ..:,? P ;~';i! 1:":;~ (. ~l L~:~\'ilt
,~!.l."\",::,',,.,(j.U,,', "
". ;!;*'..:; ''"i:
6-'11
,.
JmcutrJmlfl'll$ 10 Ihe t'
,($l;IO IddlIJQn:d de,
: :lJcln$.abo...e.fOl'paqs......
':,~"":~) ; , ~.
, ::(f.:rhArtll hi" Af'l!:!rnvRr~, ..'
~..C?rI,L:!ri$\CI'Oe.'.~I(!,(tWBJ:.1
...ull.~':"'lL}eI!f!.':..f!Ian,:.T~xt
~.Am&MrhaN .'It :-found,,\n
,;Sorl~ld.~.C~OlopmOl'lt'
CQCle.... .:'::'. " &CGtIOll
"1 ,C3Ol'){~&b}.:":e\iol:ln. '.
:Codll':\ ..,.", :"'-:SecllOn
~9,12B(3)("'&b)" arid' Ld~
'COde.: '. ..', ',: ~Ilon
',z.22S(21I.&liVimo'..... '
""talloM: "::
>:Tr\e amendmert ~l ~e
'~lwlI1:'I1h6.rellMJ'l1
'.lItallJ\lfidepll1..I,,'ing.,pc,
'BdoDI!l-d rrt'!he l.ar'ld
,Com;.8fV8Uon ,'.,' ,BIld
'. OGwlOpment, commlaal ' '
and' ..:', '.' ' '., . , on;
. AdOpoOn':ol'ltIO, emend.
ment rnuat rd make \tlo
'MllItroPlan;~aIIy,\ncor'Io
~~'}'.',:"":",,
t,~'~~Il;"l'II;,,"\nl...imbIlOfl ' I
~: ,S1alf.~\I;l,QpOn.:, PtCrriding
~~'''''''.''''''-'
i~AnY~8"~~"rO";.J~'t
~on trlls I11littotfNIYdo';o In~
',pMaCn;':ln''WiUInG: o(bQln~:
:'P')', l!.Ppcl3.Mg 81 rNl Malin"
~DI':; B_endlnQ 'ywrltlen' ~.;
~~~a;,~lnelUdlng"a1
1~J.''':~lhf..;c~en'l''
,~.$e~B"Copo.rtme6l..'cJoi
'IG"g:(r',~Oll. :;tPlar'lc\ng;
..._r,~ F!lll.$I""l
:,~,ngllB"':'OR'914n~ or.
tl!lall~o,:gmott~,l:;l,Qrlng;! ;
i.t101d~tJlt:i~...;~~;'.'; ,:,;;:,: ~'1
..n....p....,...,t_"'.
~lncii;-,,~um.ems' :~'ubinllI9d~
1)y',,,,.,p_iJ>dIh.
ldallnol.S1$wIlIbe IIQlaDte.
'foi\'lOwin9ot~.by'
;,..<(Xl '."",,,:" 'FF.'.V::,lunei
,,1,,':!004,In.\hO,~II4l4.
'Q"...e1op,mcnl ;;U~Sorvlee8J
.pepal'trrionLl"?.t~.:" ,!:"y~...,"
:'1ile JoInI et8ded':dt1cl8lrl:
,-MlIt'CClfldud a wOrt; ;a$Slonf
'~a1on' GI tFlOss' PfO"l
',;~am~llillIS:aO,;
:".m,'In,lhOI.ll>mr1MaoIlng'
:Rc;lam'ltio'ltme evening as
f~~':p'ubllC:':l\oamo.' TJ'lB;
~WQ",,8ss:;ibn;mll8tlng,1s
..i~n,tO.u,'ll.p~'bUtno'
jDubUr:,lllll,t1mofl.Y wid be,
r.:&CCG;II~d;~unlil:,\hll ~c,:
i'tlearJ ~.$,~',!llrto p.tn.:
if; !;\J~t1,,~.':.;~\t\' \~ (',1~9)j
,~~~~f~k~.i1::l~~.:'P':',h. \.~
.'
"
",
1 541 746 0633
P.02
"
"
2f5:,
,'~'
;"
'..,.
::,
":
).
"
, j',
','
...'
:"
:;
, ".~'
'...
"
."."
I,' .,'
...
.::;.
..,'...
:',,'
,,.
'.'r
~, ,'.
."..
: ~,;. "
., ,..
" '
....
"';'
"",
"'}
D.8te Recei~~d
s'
JUL l~/o{
.Planner: · aJ
, TOTAL P,02 ..
",
"
"
'., ,:'
I,',
"~ ,~
,it .
,.'....
EXH BiT '
3'""1
, ".,'
,...~ '
~- I,;
'" r
MEMORANDUM'
, ,
OFFICE OFCITYA TIGRNEY
, '. ",' . ,
,- .;'
:.,,;
::
'.
DATE:
May 17; ':2004. J
, "'';/,
TO:
Springfield Pla!1Iling'c~~ssion
Eugene Planni~g Cemmission
, ,- - ,
Lane Ceunty,Plannihg'Comrrlission
" .' ~ "-,' . "~I' .
'"
. ).~
.>,'
, ~.
FROM:
Meg Kieran:~, .
Springfield ,City
," ~
At terI1;ey'
,.' ~,
.".
\. " ,
'Staff"resperi~etoinaterial submitted inte,the
, recerd"by'" Heme Builders Asseciation on May 6,
2004
"',
SUBJECT :',
"
, .
On'~ay 6, 2004, Heme, Bui14ers Asseciation submitted written
materials 'into. the recerd.Ml'iMC submits' this brief 'eutline ef
" issues in 'resp;nse.. ': '.,. " .' , , ""
A.MWMC'SPop1ar ra~ Project. (H~mebu:I:ldersl letter at pp2-3)
" :1"
1. The 596 acre poplar Farm
- - I'
more 'than 20 years;,' _'
s'ite has been in farm use, fer
, ,
:":'
, ' ,
2"The Peplar'Farm is'a permitt~d ~se in,
, ORS215.213 (I) (bb)& 215.283 (1) (y).; .,
,an EFU zenE:!'
'.'
.,'
3. The Poplar Farm i,s a permitted use i,n E~gene"s industrial
zone; EC9.2450
"
4. Lane, County's ,Notice 'of Land' Use' Dec{sion that .the Poplar
Farm complies with land use re,quirelllents was 'April 14;
2000. " ..
. "",
".!'
5 .DEQ issued, a
"
C?n the~96
permit for the operation of the'Poplar Farm
acre site on June 27'; 260'0;,
..
~(Construction is en'schedule and,the, poplar trees have been
" ,planted by MWMC' s ,contractoI:."
, .. !; ", .
,'" ',':.",," ,;.\Blj,r;igiiid. E'ffluent Dry and Wet Weather Capacity arid
, ,--',jl... j",c 1'''.'.'' , ,,'
'.1"/ .. ,- ".". ',;> ""Bio'solids '
,il~' )1)/, Loading. (Honiebuilders' lettElr:at pp9 - I8)
:,('
] -,-
"
:,,(,"j
".t~,.; hH2il~ ,MWMCadopted its 2004 Facilit:l:es
'".,.~!~II"\i;piililic hearing,on~ay 6, 2004; ~,
,,' 6-12"
Plan after a
Date Received
,JUL J 9( ~Lf
Planner: BJ
'L'
3-2
2. REA made the s;l.me' arguments .foUnd at pa,ges 9 through 18 in,
its written testimony'to the MWMC at its May 6, 2004
, Facilities Plan public hearing r
3. MWMC' s consultant, CH2M Hill, responded in writing, to each
of HBA's capacity and biosolids loading arguments; the
responses were inserted in the HBA testimony in red text,
(a copy of the Homebuilder's letter containing the CH2M
HiD, response is attached heret,o as Attachment, 1_.
"
C. Goal 6. (Homebuilders' letter at p3J
1. Statewide Planning Goal 6 is, ~to,maintain and improve'the
quality of the air,' ,water 'and land resources of, the state. /I
Goal 6 requires that ~allwaste'and process discharges from
fut~re development * ** shall not threaten to violate, pr'
violate applicabl~ state or federal environmental quality
statutes, rules and standards~/I The Goal 6 guidelines state
that, ~all p~ans and programs affecting waste and process
discharges should b~ coordinated within' the applicable air
sheds and river basins described or included in state
environmental quality statutes, rules, standards ,and,
implementationplan./I In addition, plans ,~should buffer and
separate those land uses which create or lead to conflicting
requirements and impacts upon the air, water and land'
'resources./I
" . .
2. The treatment faCilities andcollectioI1' system improvements
included in the proposed PFSP amendments are responsive to
the ,requirements of MWMC's NPDES pe~it.A copy of MWMC's
NPDES permit., setting forth the federal and state water
tteatment requirements is:attached'as Attachment 2.~,
"
.. -,',,'
D.
Miscellan~ous, Issues: ,Timing of, proj ects; Definition of
W.as tewa ter'
"
Other issues raised by, Home Builders have been addressed by MWMC
in'our memo dated May 6, 2904 or are resolved by the plain
language of the proposedamendmehts, ,existing Metro Plan
language and"administrati ve r\.l!les, that, 'implement Goal 11 ~ The'!W
include challenges to the completeness ..of 'the project list; th~
timing, co'st estimates arid poi'-sible financing methods for' t~e .>
projects i' and the- definition of wastewater. Some ,of these ~,
""~e"~,f ~,>iss\les; <were raised and discussed at the May 6, 2004 MwMCpublic(J)
. ,j',,~':," ;h'~~;~ihg1'on theMWMC 2004 Facilities Plan and 20-yearproject a: -"
." " ~'~s~I."A, copy of the minutes, of that meeting is' attached as .sa =;
Attachment 3. a3
o
'"'"'J
m
'::J-
"'"
~'
. .
.... '
!...
(J)
C
C
ctS
-
.a.
;i........
:'.; ,
, ,'i ,:
, ~" ~ ,8f' j1~:" .1
. .\-i ,1:::\,'. ~ 1,';,: I
."\.1, lJ';"
i ~ :,
,; "
6-13
, ,
,.,~." I
&.
'~('
,\ "
.~. ':
:
,;;:
;;:M
=
."
*-'"
~~,
:fi~:~
"'.'
#-':f-:-'
I'
'J',
EXHIBIT
, 4-~
" MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY',
I " I
" ~~
-,',;'-
<J
DATE:"
May 27, 2004 "
,
TO: Interested Persons
, FROM:
.
Dave Jewett
- Attorney forMWMC
'f
"
Meg Kieran
Attorney for City of, Springfield
Jerome Lidz ..
Attorney for City of Eu~ene
,~
'--,
" .'
SUBJECT: ivlvVMC Processe~'
.
, ' ,
, " ",' " '." '.;. '-, . ..'. ',}"
The HomeBuilder's Association's (HBA)' cqmplaintabout the processes employed by MWMC to'
seek elected officials' approval for needed improvem,ents to the, regional sewerage facilities'
, arises out of flawed assumptions about the statutorY framework for government actions '
regarding,the provision of public facilities for wastewater conveyance and treatment and their,
'funding with System Development Charges. ..
Backarou'nd:
MWMC was formed by a 1977 IGA between ,Eugene, Springfield and Lane County to construct,
operate, maintain and update regional sewerage facilities (Regional Facilities). MWMCis
governed by!seven' commissioners appointed by the Governing Bodies, three of whom are
elected officials of the Governing'Bodies. " "
MWMC constructed the Regional Facilities with about41,1'S,000,000 in federal gr~mts and local
matching funds based on a facilities plan that was developed by MWMC's cOnsultant, CH2M Hill,
in '1979 (208 Plan),' Pursuant to state and federal rules, th~ 208 Plan planned the Regional
Facilities to have a design life of 20 years. The Regional Facilities opened in 1984, Since then,
the cornmunityhas invested severar miilion dollars more in preserving and upgrading the '
RegionaLFacilities.' , ' '
While MWMC operates,theRegional Facilities pursuant to:,a NPDES Permit issued by DEQ
(permit), the Permit implements federa} and state.dischargerequirements to, protectthe water
{qljality of the Willam~tte River. For several years it'has been clear that;without significant '.
i::}f];1provell)erits, the Regional Facilities will soon be \ncapable;of accommodating projected metro
~:larea growth while meeting the discharge requirements ofthe Permit. ,The driving factors include
5";\I1e ne'ed to manage peak flows to the Water Pollution Control FaciIity, to properiy dispose of ,
~ '::.ifesiduals and to meet new Parmitrequirements'governing the temperature and ammoni~~vels. d
_ :;pf discharges to the Willamette River, " ,', Date l1ecelve
--.. ~l~~, .,' ...., "", ',..,' '~"".
~t JUL 1 9 'o~
, r' , ': r "
; ~ ",
planner: ~J
(do<:.84616)
6:"14,
, '0'
4-2
MWMC Memorancl'umre: process
May 21, 2004
Page 2,
, " Determining the scope of the needs, planning to address them and funding th~ircost is complex.
The HBA's complaint about the processes employed by MWMC oversimplifies and misstates the
rules that govem the processes. '
MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan:
"
The MWMC.2004 Facilities Plan'is a comprehensive 20-year facility plan that replaces the 208
Plan. However, the 2004 Facilities Plan is the product of a long, multi-phased planning process
that has 'involved significant public involvement, including three citizen advisory committees, It is
an outgrowth of and combines and updates prior studies such as the 1997 Master Plan, the 1997
Biosolids Management plan, the 1997 Systems Development Charge Methodology Update, the
2001 Wet Weather Flow Management Plan,.and the 2003 Management Plan for a Dedicated
Biosolids Land Application Site. 'The'previousplaris were re,viewed by MWMC; the public, and
the Governing Bodies and have provided the. basis forthe annual MWMC Capital Improvements
Program (CIP) since their adoption. Of the $144,000,000 in projects' currently anticipated in the
2004 Facilities Plan, $100,000,000 in projects are carried forward from the prior plans.MWMC
has proceeded to implement each' of the projects and policies in the plans, which ,has been,
refiected in eachaJin'ual MWMC'budget andCIP.
, "
Several key planning considerations were fa~tored into the completion of the 2004 Facilities
Plan. Among them was the implementation q,f recommendations from Citizen Advisory
, Committe'es that represented diverse community interests, values and involvement and which
had been adopted by MWMC as plans and policies. Tne CityCbuncils have also adopted the
Wet Weather Flow Management Plan. The 2004 Facilities Plan also needed to factor in new
regulatory limitations DEQ included in the Permit. This factor caused some modifications to the
type and phasing of already planned projects, and resulted in $44,000,000 in additional projects
over twenty years. The 2004 Facilities Plan was adopted by MWMC on May 6; 2004 after a
number of public meetings and two public hearings. MWMC chose to refer it to th'e Governing
Bodies for concurrence pursuant to Section 3 ofthe IGA.' '
. . 'f:< '1. { ','
Land Use Plannina: '
-. I
I,
.'
The proposed upgrades to the wastewater treatment facilities system are to be done at three '
different locations including the Water Pollution Control Facility, the residuals site and the
beneficial reuse site as well as upgrades to pump stations serving the primary collection system
at three separate locations. Since the Metro Plan did not include wastewater among the list of
services to develop within the UGB and did not identify the wastewater treatment facility system,
MWMC proposed a number of amendments to the Metro P.lan to correct the omissions. In -0
addition,MWMC proposed a' number of changes to the Public Facilities and Services, Plan toCl)
correct similar omissions and make this functional plan internally consistent with the Metro P~ '
'Consistency was to be achieved by inserting various tables and maps identifying the six over~
" pn;>jects alld showing their location as well as including a condition assessment for MWMC's ,jD
,'~:\"'i;:' ..,~',tn3a!m,enfand primary collection' system. The proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and EE:
,> , , PFSP were submitted for consideration by the Governing Bodies' planning commissions and '
I' subsequently by all three Governing Bodies as required by the Springfield Development Cod",~
, the Eugene Code, and the Lane Code, That process is continuing with its attendant public ~
. ,.,~.J.
,. " "I': -j'
@
':::Y .: .. .
<::> !....
<:r> Q)
-' C
-' C
? ~
.-,
-
c...
(doc,84616) .
'6-15
..~"""~
'if .
, \,"
I ~ "
.J..:'
.
"
II':
l,,!.
lIl;;'}
.,':'_,
;::'1,
:lJ
;;:-,=t.;,
:r-<::
._,t;.:~l
, "
4-3
MWMC Memorandum re: process
'Ma/21,2004 ' '
Page 3
'c,
, . ..~,~
meetings,and ,hearings:
"
, ,
" ,',
System Devel~t?ment Charaes:
.~
."
MWMC has had a SDC since 1991. The methodology that is the basis for the current SDC was
adopted in 1997. In June 2003, partly in response to concerns ex'pressed by HBA, MWMC , ,
directed staff to retain,! consultant and form a CAC to review the 1997 Methodology and
recommend changes. Home Builders designated a representative who 'participated on the CAC.
The consult,,!nt, CH2M Hill, and ,the CAC recommended changes to the 1997 Methodology, Cln
Apiil1, 2004, MWMC adopted a revised methodology after a 'numbe(of,publ)cmeetings and a '
public heaiing(Proposed SDCMethodology)." '
"
" ..', _' '. . ' J' ,
ClRS 223.297 to 223.314 govemsSDCs; Cl~S 223.309(1) requires the adoption ota fa,cilities
plan ana 'a '~pital imprOvements list prior to the est,ablishme:nt of a. SDC. The pertinent MWMC
resolutio'n states that the 2004 Facilities,Plan'includiilg the 20-year.prSlject Iist~rebeing adopted
to pfovidethe facilitiesplari and list of capital ill1PrOvements that areJequ!red"by ORS., ' " ,
223.309(1):ORS 223.314 provides that the establishment, modification and implementation of a
system development charge and a facilities plan andlist'adopted pursuant to,ORS 223.309 are,
not land use. decisions pursuant to ORS chapters .195 ana 197., :' ' , '
" ,,' '." -'!' . " ' ,
, , Pursuant to'Section 3 of th'e IGA, MWMC referred the Proposed SDC Methodoiogy and the 2004 ' ,
Facility Plan and list to the Cities of Eugene and Springfield for implementation through their ,
respective City Codes in accordancewith theSDC statute and appliCable city co~e procedures,
That process is continuing, '
,
,~ '
. '
'Conclusion:
Three separate pro~esses are involved in MWMC's effort to, obtain the Governing Bbdies' .','
, approyals necessary..to plan, site and fund the improvements ,that are necessary so the Regional
Facilities can'continue to meet federal and state environmemtal standards governing wastewater"
discharges to the Willamette River as well as the dispositioll and beneficial reL!s~ of residuals.
For the reasons explained above, HBAs' complaint inappropriately combines and misstates the
processes involved with which MWMC has fully complied,
, '
......
.(
.......'
;'.....
{,~i,.'
..
lOT:!' '-,,=._1
;.....,,: l\:J
:~l:;'
. 1 ~
Date Received
,JUL19(ltf
, "Planner:B,J
,-,
-- '.'~~~; .... L
(J') "
,j_:
;~,
,.'
.'
(dod4616)
6-16
"
, ,
~
ORDINANCE NO.
. . ' I~ )
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROP.oLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN TEXT, CHAPTER Ill, SECTION G. PUBLIC F ACILI1:IES
AND SERVICES ELEMENT AND CHAPTER V,GLOSSARY; AND1\DOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE: :' '
"
WHEREAS, Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
, , Plan (Metro Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan" ",hich for
Springfield are implemented by the provisions of Article 7 of the Springfield
DevelopmentCode; and ,i"
I . .,.
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2004, the Springfield City Council initiated
proceedings for,a Metro Plan amendment; and
". ,1
WHEREAS, following an April 20, 2004 joinfpublic hearing with the Eugene
and Lane County Planning Comm;..ions,the Springfield Planning Commission, on June
1, 2004, recommended Metro Plan amendm!lnts to Chapter Ill, Section G. Public
Facilities and Services Element to include "wastewater~' as a subcategory of service',
, within the UGB; to amend Finding #6 ang Policy #3 tofrecognize the addition ofMap2a
to tlie Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP); to amend Policy #2 to include local '
capital improvement plans as a means to implement policy in the PFSP; to insert two new
, findings regarding local and,regionalwastewater seivices to development within the
UGB; to add a new Policy #G.9 that comli1its the wastewater conveyance and treatinent
systelns for this area to ,accommodate projected groWth and regulatory requirements; and
to modify definition #36 in Chapter V Glossary to include Treatment Facilities System,
the exact language for each of the preceding amendments bt,ing contained in App;ndix' A
attached and adopted as part of this Ordinance; and ' '
'WHEREAS, text, maps and tables set forth in Appendix B at pages 1 and 2 also
amend Chapter Ill-G ofthe Metro Plan as amended in Chapter II of the PFSP; and
, WHEREAS, on May 24, 2004, the Eugene Planniilg Commission, ~d 6n June 1,
2004, the Lane County Planning Commission recommended Public Facilities and '
Services Plan,and Metro Plan amendments; and '
WHEREAS, the City Council con?ucted a joint public hearing on thiS amendment
on June 22, 2004, with the Eugene City ,Council and Lane County Board of
Commissioners, and is now ready to takeiaction based upon the above recommendations
and evidence and testunony already in the record as well as the evid~nce and testimony
presented at the joint elected officials public hearing; and
~REAS, substantial evidence exists within thetecord demonstrating that the
proposal meets the requirements of the Metro Plan, Springfield Development Code, and
, , ,applicable state and local law as described in findings attached as Exhibit 1, ~ which ' '
. '~~" ',:'~':o': ~~~r<U"e:agopt'ed in SUPPVH of this Ordinance. uate Received
, JUL 19 (o~
"Planner: BJ
, ,',:,:" Hit
. ~ '. .
" ~(,~:..:" ... . " "'" ' '" ,.,' '.' :'~ -j,
, -'.,.. lt~. Ii II ,- , .~ '"I' '-i
'_f" ; ".,./.'.' 1;, " " .
ATTAcHMENT,
2-1.
,"
,
,
,
" NOW, THEREFORE; the Common Council of the City of Sprmgfield does
or~ as follows:" '
. . ..'
-' .
, . ~ '.",' ~.-
Section I ; 'The Metro'Phin Chapter III Section 0: Public Facilities and Services:
Element, ahd Chapter V Glossary; are hereby amended as deScribed in Appendix A
attached and adopted as part of this Ordinance. The text ameildments in Appendix A
'shalhipply to that versionof~eMetrOpolitanP1an in,effect at tp.e time'oftheeffective
date of this Ordinance. , '
',' ".....'..
Section 2: The text, maps and project listS in Appendix B at pages, 1. and 2 are , ' '
adopted a,s amendments to the ~etro Plax: '
,,;' "."
, Section 3: ' Ahhough not part of this Ordinance, 'the' City ,Coimcil adopts the
, . findings set forth ill theattach~dExhibit 1in sUpport oft!lis action.
" '" ,'.. .. . -
" Section'4:' Ifany section, subsection, sentence, clauSe, pIrrase or portion of this,
Ordinance is for "any 'reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of cOl!lpetent
jurisdiction, suchpoition shaH be deemed a separate, distinct .and independent provision
,and~uch holdiri~ shaU'not,affect the validity Mthe re~g portions, thereof,,,
"j , Section 4: 'Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided by
Section 2.1 IOioftheSpringfield Municipal Code 1997, this Ordinance shall become'
effective upon the date that all of the following have occurred: (a) the ordinance has been
ackrio",ledged as provided by ORS' 197.625;;(b)at least30days hlive passed since. ih~
date the ordinance was approved; and (c ) both the Eugene City Council and tho eLane,
, County Board ofComrnissioners have adopted ordinances cont~in;ngsubstantively,
'. identical proviSions to those described inSections I and ,2 of this Ordinance.'
" Adopted by ,the CommonCoun'Cil of the City of Springfield this
July, 2004'by a.vote of in favor and ' ' against.'
day of '
,', i, "Approved by the' Mayor, Of the City"of Springfield this
, ." .
,day of July, 2004.
. ' ' .
i,
_ l,."
"
Mayor
ATTEST:
","
~' :: 1-, .
"
,
','
City Recorder .
"
,l : .,' .
";.;.., x~ lV \';"'\~,(~,;.'(,r:
~.. (Jl11~;.':i-",.4~)f~ i' .,:'.!'J10"t:.1.
;":~ ",:('" I:'M" ~(iiiQj,
-'. -"L,;..rt 7' 1\ '~ J "-~Ili ,11 ~ 11,\,,11, 1.,
'2-2
'Date Received
JUL '1:9 Il)~
Planner: BJ
, I
,I ~ ~ Ii);"
, "APPENDIX Aa ,
.' ~ " ' .
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE METRO PLAN
(Current version' of the Metro Plan)
, ,.
;.
- , ,
G. Public Facilities and Services Element
.' ~
This Public Facilities and Setvices Element provides direction for the future provision of
urban facilities and services to planned land uses within the Metro Plan Plan Boundary ,
(plan Boundary). ,.' '
..' ..1..'.
-1 .
The availability of public facilities and services is a key factor influencing the location
and densitfoffuture development. The public's investment in,.and scheduling ot: public,
facilities and servicesaie a major means'of implementing the Metro PlcIn. 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, usillg consistent assumptions and projections for '
po'pul~tion and land use. ' . , '
"
The policies in this eleni~nt complement Metro Plan Chapter II-A; Fundamental
Principles, and Chapter II~~, Growth Management. Consistent with the principle of
compact urban growth prescribed in Chapter'II, the policies in this element call for future
urbati 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 ruXal
development:" On urban lands, new dev~lopment 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 s~rvices in rural areas are spread out geographically, resultillg'in a higher
per-user cost for some services and, often; in an inadeqUate revenue base to Shl'tM; 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 withiii 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 Vtility Board (SUB), the Metropolitan' Wastewater
Management Commission (Mw,MC),' electric cooPeratives, an(special seIYice diStricts.
Special service districts provide 'schools alld 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 servlcedistricts in line with the compact urban ,
'e ,; ,.... .t~~~~r~~~t fundamental principle of the Metro!'!an. " ' Date Received
"~'~ll.j~~"l" ~""l,L " .'I~I~:{.'
,.....,...j'':,,:'"\'.Jf'~.~'I1.\'h."",., JUL19 If
'" . ,(0'(
\) \ :1111
" , .'" , Append~_~ Page 1 Planner: BJ
, ' ',', ,'","
r:'" . ,-i .,.-l .",~:t!
'"
This element incv<p"<..,es the findings and policies in the Eugene-Springfield, i
Metropolitan Area Public Facil!ties ,4nd Services Plan (public Facilities and Services
Plan), adopted as a refinement to the M~tro Plan., The Public Facilities dndServices
Plan provides ~idance for public facilities and services, including planned water,
, waste,Water, storIDwater, and electrical facilities. As ~equired by Goalll, the Public
Facilitielimd Services Plan identifies and, shows the general location' oftbe.w,ater,
wastewater; and ~'V<ll<.vater projects n~ded to serve land Within the urban growth
bonndary.2 The Public Facilities and Services Plan also contains this informa~ion for,
electrical facilities;, although not required to byJaw: ~, ' ,
The project lists and maps in the Public Facilities and Services Plan are adopt~ a~ part
of the Metro Plan. 'Information in the Public,Facilitiesand~ervices Plan on pf()ject, ,
phasin,g'andcosts, and decisions ontimfug and 'financing of projects are not part of the
Metro Plan and are'controlled solely by the capital improvement prOgI"'mmingand '
b\ldget processes of individual service providers., :', . ','
',. " ,
. ,',
'~.- .
This element of the Metro Plan,is cirganizedby the following topics related to the,"
provision of urban facilities and services. Policy directi!>D. for the, full range,of services;
inelOOing wastewater serviee,may be found under any of these topics, althovgh tjJ.e first
topic, Services to Development Within the, Urban Growtli Boundary, is further broken
down intQ sub-categories. ..', j" <',
Services to Development WithintheUrban GrowthBom!dMy
.,./
"
o . , P!ani1ing,and Coordination '" ' .
. Water'
o Wastewater
. Stormwater',
o , ElectriCity
. Schools, . '
. Solid Waste' r"',
,., ,Servipes to Areas Outside the Utban Gro~Boundary , ' ,
. I:;ocating and ~ging'Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary ,
., Financing ,.' ' " . '.' '.
l , '
'il" .
;/' ,
';1,
,
, ,'" ", ' , ' '~1' ":' -' . " . .. '. ". ~" '.'
The applicable findirigs and policies are contained under,each ofth~se topicheaditigs,
below; , ,
, "
',' . I'
The policies listed provide dir~ci:ion for public and private developmental and progrn,m
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,theefflcient Use and eXPansion of these 'facilities. '. "
, " " 1" ',.
I ' .
1 The exact locati~n of the projects shoWn on the Pub)ic Facilities and Sel-v;ces Plan pl~~d fucilities
, , , . maps is determined through local processes. .. , ',,' " ',' " '
!;"~~V\~0~jd{\2 S1,~~:~I,j~so r~quir'es .~sportation facili~iesto.be includ~d in public facil~ti~s plans. Inthis.metroi>oli~ ' , '
. ' , "area,' transportation faCIlitIes are,addressed m Metro Plan Chapter UI-F and m the Eugene'Slj!J.ngfi.eld 'd'
, . 'I; r:C'!psportation System Plan (Trani Plan). , , , . uate' Receive
;J;("j!
. ,fr
'-.AI,>;,..,
.' " A~4
" 'il!""'>
,..,,,'-", ,-' jQ' 1'='
: "",:l~;~j; ?!~ roo': ";1, ",
, Appendix Aa gage 2
2-4
JUL-1~D~
Planner: ~J
,.
If,
,
GOlds
." I .
1. Provide and'maintain public facilities andservices ill ari,efficientand, . .
envirorimimtalIy responsible manner. '
.
,2.
, '
, Provide public ,facilities and services in a manner tj1at encourages orderly and
sequential growth. :' " ,," , "
~ '. I
. ...
Findih!!S and Policies,
. '. ,','
Services to DevelopmentWithin the Urban Growth Boundary: Planning and
Coordination ' , " ,
I";. ',..
Findin~
....
_.'-f
, ,~
1. Urban expansion within the urban ,growth boundary is acComplished through in-
fill, redevelopment, and annexation of territory which can be served with a
, miniInum le~el of keY, urban'servibes 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.. 'lh~ordan~ewithStateWide PIahning Goal 11 and OAR 660, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies jurisdictional responsibility for the
provision of water, wastewater and stormwater, describes ""~p,,~tive service areas
and existing and planned water: wastewater, anditorID.water facilities, and '
contains planned facilities maps f6r these sernces. Electric system information
and improvements are included inithe Public Facilities and Services Plan,
although not required by state law; Local facility master plans and refinement
plans provide more spe~ific project information; , . ,
I,
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 cooperll;tives, andspedal service districts: ' , ·
,
4. The Public F~cilities and Services Plan fmdsthatalmost all areas within the city
limits of.Eugene and Springfield are served or can be served in the short-term (0-5
yeats) witli water, wastewater, stolmwater, and electric service. Exceptions to
this'are Stormwater servic,e to portioDsofthe Willow Cteekarea arid southeast '
, 'Springfield and full,water service at some higher elevations in Eugene's South
, Hills: Service to these areas will lie available in the long-term. Service 'to all
areas within city limits are either in a capital improvement plan or can be
. i: .
extended With development. ',' ,
. . ." ~
.., ".' '.b
, "';':,: I'; '," [..\J:.',~:,~~t.\fit.hth~.itnp'rovemen~s specille1ll;1.th~ Public 'Facilities. and Servicea~e Received,
"I;. d~',", 1 (,;,o,t:proJect lists, all urbarnzable areas within the Eugene-Sprmgfield urban growth ' . ,
"":JI"'" , ' " ',' JUL19/o,j..
:~.": ':l.{ . 1
"
, "
. ~(
, ,'. .. ,t;jl
;~'I"l -.,_ I' ..\1: '_.,
~. '1<' ',- ,'_' r I.
Appendix Aa Page 3
'2-5
Planner: BJ
','
.
. "
,botindaty can be ~erved with watet, wastewater, stormvv~ter, 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, wes,t Eugene's :Willow
Creek area, south Springfield, and the 1p.urston and JaSper-Natron areas in eaSt
Springfield~ " ,
','
6.
", .'1' " ...~.', '
oAR 660-011-0005 defines projects that muS! be included in public facility p~ '
project lists for water, wastewater, and storInwater. These definitions are shown
in the key's of planned' facilities Maps 1, 2,2lh and 3 in the Public Facilities and
Services P~an; , " ,
,
7.
'~ ;':- <1,', , ' ", <, ';,:\_ . . ' . ,', " _, .
In acCordance with ORS 195.020 to p80, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and',
special S:ervice districts are required to enter'into coordination agreenientsthat'
define how planning coordination, and urban services (wa~er, wastewater, fire, , ,
parks;'openspace imd recreation, and streets, roads and mass transit) will be
provided witfili the urban growth boundm,Y. " ..
L;ttge institutional ~se~, such as u1i~etsiti~s' and hospitals, prese~ coniplex
planning problems for the metropolitan area due to their location; facility
eXpansion P.lans, widcoutinuing housing aiid parki.ng needs.'" '" "
'. . .
8;
9.
, Duplication of services prevents the ,moSt ,ecOnomical distribution of public '
facilities and services. '.:' " , ," ' . ' "
. " - .
As discussed ~the Public Faciiities and Servici~ Plan; a majority ofnodal
develop~ent ar~as 'proposed inT;ansPIan are serviceabie I\ow or in the short"
term.Th~ City,ofEUgene;s adopted Growth Management Policy #15, states,
"Targetpublicly",ffuanCed infrastructure 'extensions to'SuppOrt develOpment for
" !Jigher densitie.s;in- fiil, mixed uses; an~~ n?dal Aevelopment.", . ' ",'
Policies", "
10.
G.I Extend theminimumleveiai1dfui1!~\?ofkeyurban faciliti~;~d ser:vices in an " ,
orderly arid efficient 'nianner consistertt With the growth management policies in
Cliapte.r II-C,relev~t policies ,in this'chapter~ and other Metro Plan po,licies: '
, .'.,
G.2", Us~ the p~l::d facilities maps of the Public fa.c1littes dnd Services '!JIl!" to guide
,the general location of water, wastewater"stormwater, and electrical projects in
th<? Irletropob area. :Use local facility mast,er plans, refinement p~; canital
imnrovement Dlans. and ordinances as the guide for detailed plannirig and project
. . "," f ,
~pkme~atIDn, ~,
, ~
G.3 Modifications and additions to or deletions fron; the project lists in'the Public
,~~~;.vj,/1~)f;;&t:'~J!';~~ijities an~ ~ervices PIa, n for.,!:"atci~, wast, ,.evv:at~, andstorirJwat~r pu~c;,f~ili\X.' 0
, '- "," ,;",' "'; proJects,or slgnificil!lt~banges to project 10c~tlOn,. from that descr:bed:l2Iate HeCelV~d
" ~~j JUt
JUL 19 , tlf
" - ~
;' ~l'-\. ,....fr"-"]' [."1<;"",1 ('" '
l- '''-\ 'l\c.>.:"" i' \ '.,.,;,.,;" ...
, ,1.;.1," " I l:.:...-.&o'~ ,11 ,<\.'11';' :
_".' l'_ _", ,,,;, ,. ',' _
"
Append~ Aa Page4
" 2-6'
Planner: B\j'
<. "I " ,
7'C' ~
"
Public Facilities,.and Services Plan planned facilities Maps 1,2, 2!1. and 3,
requires amending the Pub,icFaciljties and Services Plan and the Metro Pian,
except for the fo llowing: '
,a.
'I . , . , .
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 aproject; or , ,. '
,,'
, Modifications to a publicili;cility 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 . .
c: ,
GA
The cities and Lane County shall coordinate with EWEB, SUB, and special
service districts operating in the nietropolitanaiea, to provide the opportunity to
review and comment on proposed public fucilities, plans, programs, and public
improvement projects or changes' thereto that may 'affec{ one another's area of
responsibility. '
G.5
G.6
G.7
,","
FindiDl!s
I. .' /.}<' .... ,~' :, ~ I r"',r.., k"'-~,
~i~i~JJ\~-~_'" '~~Vr'l :,:'.t{J" '. ;.
., ,', " ~ ,:11; ~.A,lt~;}~i.~~t:~ ,r;
1 .','
,
. .,', ~r:l" ,.)\~...-:-:t, ,
Appendix Aa Page 5
2-7
Date Received
JUL 1 9, o~
Planne'r: BJ
'), r :/
'"
II. I Stiruu!field and EUl!ene relv on a combination ofrel!:ional andl.ocal services
for the brovision of wastewater services, Within each City. the l.ocal '
iurisdiction nrovides collecti.on of wastewater throuim a system of sanltaiv
sewers and numninl! svstems, These collecti.on facilities connect to a recional
svsteniofsirililar sewer collection,facilities owned andonerated bv the_
MetrOoolitan Wastewater M3na'2:ement Comniission ("MWMC''). an entity
formed under an interl!.overnmentalaereement created nursuant to ORS 190.
:r.ol!etbef. these collecti.on facilities (which exclude orivate laterals which
c.onvev wastewater fr.om individual residentia1..or ~~=ercial/industrial ,
"onnCCClti.ons) constitute the nrimarv c.ollecti.on svstem. ' ",
.12, The nrimarv collection svstem c.onvevs wairtewater t.o a treatment facilities svstem
.owned and .onerated bvMWMC T\iis sVstemc.onsists .ofan interc.onnected Water
Polluti.on C.ontrOl Facilitv ("WPCF"'l. a bi.os.olids facil#v, and a beneficial reuse
facility. .
"
.. 'J
Policies '
G.9 Wastewater conveyance and treatment shall 'be oroVided t.o meet the needs .of
'tmjiected lITOwth inside the urban l!1'.owth boundarv that are canable .ofcomnlvinlL
with rel!l1lat.orv reauirements I!.oveminl! beneficial reuse or'discharl!e .of effluent
~"r1 I1enefieialteuse .or diso.osal.of residUals, '
, .
.Seryices to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Water
, , ,
, ,
,Findings'
'. "
1+3. ,Springfield relies .on ,groundwater far its sole source .of water. EWEB water
source is the McKenzie River and'EWEB is devel.oping gr.oundwater sources.
The identification of projects .on thePilblic FaCilities and Services Plan planned
facilities map' d.oes not cOnfer lights t.o a gr.oundwater source, '
',1,
Policies
'.
, , ,,' ',~
G.916 Eugene and Springfield and their respective 'utility branches, EWEB, and,
, Springfield Utility B.oard (SUB), shall ultiinately'l:ie the water service pr.oviders
within the urban gr.owth boundary. ' , .
, '.
G. UH C.ontiilUe t.o take positive steps t.o pi-.otectgr.o~dw~ter supplies. The cities,
p.ounty, and .other service providers shall mapage land use and public Jacilities f.or
"gr.oundwater-related benefits thr.ough the implementati.on .of the Springfield
Drinking Water Protection Plan arid .other wellhead protection p~. "
Management practices iIisiituted,t.o protect gr.oundwater shall be c.o.ordinated
am.ong the City .of Springfield, City .of Eugene, and Lane C.ounty. '
Date Received
JUL 1 9, 0<<
, ." ii',,~i,j;,.~""~':'~ij U\~'pt f
~ ~t";'''J1h-111.:R~-A~, 'l~';'~lj\'1\~.'
, 'r' '8 j Jdl '
_I , '
, -,
" z,'
. "it) !
.. ,.~~~ rl'~:.tf"'{~ r~;.<t<~'
lIt.'.:, *~ J1..,_."::
Appendix,Aa Page 6
2'"8
Pianner~ BJ
..,
,,'
, " G.1-l-2 Ensure that water main extensions,within the' urban growth bo~dary include
, adequate' ~nSideration of fire' flow,s. '
, .
G.12,3 SUB, EWEB, and Rainbow Watei"District, the water providers toot currently
control a water source, shall examine the need for a metropolitan-wi~e water
maSt!?r program, recognizing that ametropolitan-wide system will require
establishing ' standards, aswell as coordinated source and delivery systems.
Services to Development 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 of the federal Clean Water
Act required, for the first time, local communities to.reduce,stormwater pollution
within their municipal Storm drainkge systems. These requirements applied
initially to the City of Eugene. and ' subsequent amendmentsto the Act extended
these requirements to Springfield and Lane County.
gS. Administration and emorcement orthe Clemr Water Act stormwater provisions
occur at the state level, through National PollutantDischargeElimination System
(NPDES) permitting requirements. Applicable jurisdictions are required to obtain
an NPDES stormwater permit from the Oregon Dep"",,-~...~t 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. Stormwat~r quality iwp,vvement facilities are most efficient and effective at
intercepting and removing pollutants when they are close to the source of the '
pollutants and ,freat relatively small volumes of runoff.
, ,
1$7. The Clean Water Act requires states io,assess the quality of their surface waters'
every three years, and to list those'waters wliich do not meet adopted water
quality standards. The Willamette River and other water bodies have been listed
'as not meeting the stan~ards for temperature 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 Salinon as a.threatened species in the Upper'
Willamette River requires the application of Endangered Species Act (ESA)
provisions to the salinon's habitat in the McKenzie and Willainette Rivers. ,The
decline in the Chinook Salinon has been attributed to sUch factors' as destruction .
of habitat through channelization and revetment of river banks, non-pqint source
, pollution, alterations of natural hydro graph by increased impervious surfaces in
the basin, and degradationofnatui"al functions of riparian lands due to removal or
", ' ,~:_' ,'! "'.'.'- "al1eration of indigenous vegetation. Date Rece'lved
',t -"i~"L, ~~\~"l\ .-~'ff. L.
i..' I" rl ."" .J~t. ~ " , ,I, '. .
.,' ',: < :,l1\' JUL 1 9IO~
, .,'" \ ' " " Appendix Aa Page 7
, 2-'9 '
. ~"t'~l'<~.r.:,r.r'; ~i~...:~f
I' .--' !- ',1:'-1' t
" .,' ~~.'
Planner: BJ
, '
f~'-
, '
'1+9,
. .' }~ .., . .~. tl':' "..
There are many advantages to keeping chai1i:1els open, including, at a mi.ni.iD.um, .
natural biofiliration of stormwater pollutants; greater ability to atten~te ~ffects,of,
'peakstorlnwatei flows;retentioi:1 of wetland, habitat, and'open spaCe functions; ,
, and r~4uced capital costs for stormwater facilities. . ' '
-IS20,
"
An increase in impervious surfaces, without mitigation, reSuhs in highctflows
during p~ak storm events, 1essoppv,;.mity for recharging of the aquifer, and a
decrease;in water quality. '"
-l921.
Stormwater systems tend to be gravity-baSed systemS that follow,the slope of.thl;:
land rather than political boundaries; In many cases, th~ natural drainageways'
such as streams serve as an integraJ'part'ofthe stormwater conveyance system
'", ,"" ..' '. '.
2G2.,
,Ill gene~aI, there are no programs for storinwater mainh,nan~~outside'the'Eugei1e
",aile! Springfield city limits, except for the"Lane County roads Progtam." State law ,
limits county road funds for ~"'.wNater projects to those located within the public
righ~-of-way. .
2B.
Fi11ing in designated floodplaiIi areas can mcreaseflood 'elevations above the
elevations predicted by Federal' E.u....6,,~cy Management Agency (FEMA)
1llOdels, becausetheFEMA models are typically b'ased only on the extent of
development at the time the modeling was conducted and do nottl!ke into account,
the ultimate buildout of the drainage area, This poses risks ,to other propeities in
or adjacent to floodplaii1s and can change tb,e hydrograph oft4e river.", .
, . ,
.'
'h
,Policies..
G;l~' Inwrove ~urface and groundwater quality and quantity in the metrppoliFan area,
, ,bycieveloping regulations or instituting programs for stormwater to: ".:
.-,., a.
Increase public awareness ,of techniques and pi:actices'private individuals
can employ tohelpcotrect water quality and quantity problems;' '
,
t:'ir
b:, Irilprove mai1agement ofirtdustria1,andcommercial operations to reduce,
negative water quality and quantity impa6ts'; .. '
, .' . - " '. I '. '.
c. Regulate siie planning for new development'aI1d construction to better
manage pre- and post-construction storm runoff, including~osion,
veloCity, pollutant loading, and drainage; ,
d" 'Increase storage and ,,,,;,,,..;;on ~d natural fi1tratipnof storm runoff to
. lower and delay peak storm flows and to settle out poqutants prior to
, discharge into regulated waterways;
't',_
. '. ,
I ,\i<t!',)i,1'{i.~I)~~k, :'::.;.lt~;;:"lr; .'
. Jr.. : l'\.. '~" '. "d'~'lr. '\,."
..~ .;
I ~, . _ .' ". (' . \; ,~~ \ ~~}_ '
,(">,1 ~f' t'b\,
,. " il _1_,..".... \
, iWpendix Aa Page 8
. 2-10
Date Received
JUL 19 r oL/ ,
; . ~ .:'
,Planner:B. J
,) ,. I"
\,~~.'\.d it.
"
,g,
h.
e.
, Require on-site controls arid development standards, as, practical, to reduce: ,
, off-site impacts from stormwater runoff;
:(
Use natui-aI and,simple mechanical treaW,<-ll' systems to, provide treatment
, for potentially ,contaminat~d runoff waters;
Reduce streeFrelated water quality and quantity problemS;
Regulate use and require containment and/or pretreatment oftoxic
. substances;
i.
, "" l' .
Include containment measUres in site review standards to minimi7.e the
effects of chemical and petroleum spills; and
: Consider impacts to ground water quality b'the design and location of dry
wells. ' . ' '
j.
G.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. ' ,
G.I~ Consider wellhead protection are~ and surface water supplies when planning
, stormwater facilities.
"
G.167 Manage or enhance waterWays and open stormwater systems to reduce water,
, quality impacts from runoff and to improve stormwater conveyance., .
. G.I +8 Include measures in local land development regulations that minimize the amount
of impervious surface in new development in a maimer that reduces storlnwater '
. pollution, reduces the negative affects trom increases'in runoff, and is'compatible
with Metro Plan policies. .,' .'
0:1&9 The cities and Lane County slia11 adopt a,strategy fO.T,the uninco".M...~ed area of '
, the urban growth boundary to: teducethe negative effects of filling in floodp1ains
and prevent the filling of natural drainage chamiels except as necessary to ensure
public operations and maintenance of these, channels in a mannerJhat preserves
,.and/or enhances floodwater conveyance capacity and biological function.
0.W20Maintain flood storage capacity within the floodplain, totIiemaXimum 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
h' .'", :'Findin1!s
": ,.:::';" ;!~_)'l-','J ...,.,:/,~~, " .~;
i ~.
, I,'" ~,. '
- ,~ I, ~.
,
":". ~ I .11 :.(.'i1. .~.
.'
, ,
',1'
Date Received
JUL 1 9 ro4
Planner: BJ
, '
,"
AppendixAa Page 9
,'2'-11
"
,~
"
.;.
2;!4,' Accordingto 10caI"muiIiCipalutilities, efficient electricali?Crvil?e is ,often
accomplished throughriiutuillback-up agreementsand inter-connected systems :,
are more 'efficient than.isolated systems. ,
:1
Policies
-,
G.2G1 The electric ~ice providers will,agree ,which provider will_ serve areas abOut to
'be anriexed and;infonU the cities who the service provider will be and how the
.tilmsitionofservices,ifany, will occur. ' '
Services to Development Within the Urban GroWt~, Boundary:, SchoolS
Filidilll!~ "
2;5, ": ORS i 95.11 0 requJreslcities'iind counties to include, as an element of their
cVLUJ.-',...Jiensive plan, a'school facility plan-fur high growth districts prepared by
, the district in cOvp~.",,:;o'n with the city or county; andfor the city or county to
,; initiate thep1anning activity.; The law defines high growth diStricts as,those that
have an enrollment of over 5,000 Students.and.an increase in em6llmeht,of six
percent or more during the three mOSt're~nt scl!ool years. At present, there are no'
hig1).groWth school districts in the ,urban growth boundary, '
,r . "
..'.
246.'
ORS 197~29i5(4)(a) states that when the urban growth boundary is amended to
provide needed housitig; "As part of this process, the amendment ,shallinclucle
;. sufficient land reasonably necessary to accommodate the siting of new public'
school ,facilities. The need arid inclusion of Ilinds Jor new public school facilities
shall be a,coordinated process between the affected public school districts and the
local gove~ent that has the,authority to approve the urban growth boundary."
'I
. '..
,
2f7. Enrollment projections for the five,publlc school districts in them..."-vpvlitan area
and the University of Oregon and Lane COmIDunity College (LCC) are not, '
, consiStent Bethel School Distric,t.and the University of Oregon expect increases'
,;' while Springfield arid Eligene SchoolDistricts andLCC are '::Ap,;,,;encingnearly
flat or declining enrollments..: Enrollment is increasing fastest in the elementary'
. arid liighschool attendance areljS near new, development, ' '
.,-.,
.,
"
2,68. ;Short-term:fluctuations in school attendance are addressed through the use of
, adj~sted \Itlendance 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 traDsfers and to adjUst district
boundaries, ACljti.:.;w,;,,,;s in district boundaries may be feasible where there is no
.net loss or gain in,student enrollments between districts, '
~
Ii \'F ."j!~~)81;'R9.~I~~ea~ing or retaining sm:ul, neighborhood schools r~duces tlie need fo~.~i?!l~ "'ad
,t. " _ prOVIdes more opportunity for students to walk or bike to schooL Q~t'\ecel
f.. I: 'Jill ' ' ,) , i
" . , " ' , ' ,'JUL 1 9 r 01
',', '. " . .'. .~ .', t''''~1 .
~ I, "'~ 't,-~ .l"~f~{; p~-~. ~4
" '~'. ' ~~ :jJ, ! II ~ ~...' If'
AppendixAa Page 10
'2:,12 .
Planner: 8::~'
.. .,'
.," I'
'0'
schools may allow more parents to stay in established neighborhoods and \0 avoid'
moving out to new su1:iclivisions on the urbaiJ. fringe or to bedroom coiiununities.
However, growth patterns do not always respect school district boundari~s. For'
, example, natuta1 cyCles of growth and neighborhood maturation result in uneven
geographic growth patterns in the ':""';"vp.:>litan area, causing'a disparity,between
the location of some schools and school chi1dren~ This,resuhs,in some fringe area
.' ,
schools exceeding.capacity, while some central city schools are under capacity.
Ii.
,..'
;;G30: LOng-range enrollment forecasts determine the need .to either build new schools,
expand existing facilities, or c10se existing schools. Funding restrictions imposed
, by state law and some provisions iD. local codes may discourage the retention and
redevelopment of neighborhood schools. Limits imposed by state law on the use
of bond funds for vp......t:onS 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 me~t
currentlocal parking and other code requirements., ,...
'2,931. Comb~ 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
e~ple .of shared facilities. " ,
.r. .
Policies
,
I'"
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:
, ' ,
, ,
ii
a. The need for new public school facilities and sufficient land to site them;
b, How open enrollment policies a:ffec~ school location;
" , ..
c, The impact ofschool"building height'and site size on the buildable land
, Supply; ...,: I ,', " , ' ,
. ,.' ,
d. The use of school facilities for non~school activities 'and appropriate
, reimbursement for this use;
.
, e. The impact ofbui,lding and land use codes 'on the development and
redevelopment,ofschool facilities;
~
, '
t: Systems development charge adjustments related to neighborhood
schools; and, ,
" '~- ~')' t' .' f'.,
'~.r J.J' .1U.., "
"I 1.-
"
Appendix Aa Page 11
,2-13
Date Received
JUL 1 9, ol{
Planner:BJ
""'."
~,~..., - " ,"",' t'.1:."r~;>,""'.i' d .p,.
..;;....q~'~,I")!4.\'c' ."t._;'f'i)h(
rl~_" :," n~"~-"fJ'Jf J[- 'ft',<r:"':,l\
" :'~'.,~ yJ:. "~\{>~,~'~:r',,'...;";,\I~ij1
'.!li,t. ,I. t--. ;!: 1'l:1 l! .....I~ -it
.' r.. .:' . .
"
,r~,
, "g.
,
The possibility of adjusting boundaries, whell practicaL and ~hen total
enro11Inent will not be affected, where a single"otherwiSe internaliy
cOhesive area is divided into more than one school district.' ,
~,' ,,'
,
00,
, '
'G.22,3 Support fiilancialandother efforts to keep neighborhood schools open ~d to
retain schools sites,in,publicownership followipg sch09l closure. '
. ,~,,'
G.2a4 Support the retention of University of Oregon and LCC faCilities in central city
arellli to increase opportunities for public transit and housing an<i to retain these
schoolS~.attractiveness to students,and faculty. . "
"
l~ ;.,
, ".
Services to Devei()pment Within, the' Urban Growth Boundary:' Solid Waste'
Filidinl!s
..',1'
.>
r .'
Statewige Planning Goald 1 requires that;"To meet current lind 10ng~rangei1eeds,
a provision for solid waste disposal sites, including sites for inert waste, shall be
included in each,plan';!' ,
, Q
342.
Policies,
, G:245 The Lane County Solid Waste Managemeni,Pl~n, as uPdated, stan serve as the ,
. guide for the location of solid waste sites, includirig sites for inert waste, to serye
, ,"the m"';'vpvlitan area; Industries that make significan. t use of the resources
~ . ' "
,recovered from the Glenwood solid waste transfer facility should be.encouraged '
,to locate in'that vicinity. ' '
~ ,- ., .
,
Services to Areas Ontside the Urban Growth Boundary
. ~ .
..r.:"I,
Findings
. -. -'. ..' .',
3+3. Proviging'key urban services, Such as water, to areas outside the urb?D- growth '
boundary increases pn;ssure for urban development in rural areas:-ThiS can ,
encoUrage p'remature 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 callnery-waste6n,
agricultural'sites outside the urban gro~,boundary for, beneficial reuse of treated
wastewater byproducts generated ~thinthe urban growth l10undary is more
efficient and em;",,~ueDta11y beneficial than land fJ1ling or other means of
disposal ~ ' ~ \ .
" 0' . OJ "
(!"~';J'I!'-t),.;)JJ~',*Jr.'llJ?e Co~ty land use data show that; outside the urban growth boundarr" land ,
". "" , ,::", ,'.,.uSes consist of. ' ' ,,',' ,
. .
Date Receivec
JUll 9 ( 6{
, J' "I" 'iJI
.' '.' .<;. _/:I; {;
n ~.:I
l.<1:~ ;ff'
?'
,,' ,,,-~
,,:iif:~f!1n~~M';"j
Appendix Aa ,Page 12
,2-14.
Planner: B~
.'
1) Those which ,are primarily ,intended f~r resource management; and
. , "
; 2) 'Those where development has occurred and are committed to rural
, development as established through the exceptions process specifie~ in
Statewide Pbnnine Goal 2: ~
Policies
G.2% Wastewater and water service shall not be provided outside the ~ban growth
boundaiy except to the following areas, ,and the cities may require consent to
annex agreements as a prerequisite to providing these services in any instance: _
r '
a. The'area'ofthe Eugene AiIport designated Government and Education on
the Metro PIal! Diagram, 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 immediate threat of public heahh or
safety to the citiZenS withiii the Eugene-Springfield urbah'groWth '
hOUIldary that can only be remedied by,e'xtension of the service.
'i
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. Development outside the urban growth
boundary in the vicinity of the ,airport, outside the portion of the. airport boundary
designated Goverhmentand Education in the Metro Plan diagram, shall not be
provided with ,urban services., :: ' '
. -",
G,2-78 Plan for the following levels of service fbr rural designilti~ns outside the urban
, growth boundary within the Plan Boundary: '
.:j J
, ,
'a. ' Al!Ticulture, Forest Land. Sand and'GraveL and'Parks and DDen Space,
No minimum level of service is established.
'P. Rural Residential. Rural Commercial. Rural Industrial. and Government
and EducatioQ. On-site sewage disposal, in4ividual water systems; rural
level offire and police protection, electric and communication service,
schools, and reasonable access to ~olid waste disposal facility.
, '~ocating,a!ldManaging Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
''''''1 .~ I'~' lit. ~L""I'~'f f~ :'~~I' ~,; . : . ~! . .' <
" . .' , I "t,- _~_.~ '1" 'I ' , -, .. '.'. '. ,"
. '. ':;' .. :lin~:~~ ". ' Date Received
" "',.'
JUL 1910~
. '...~,
. .\.
. \"t ~ I'
;:;; ':, (. ",{':~~~:
':"
, Appendix Aa Page 13
2-15 '
Planner: BJ
'I ',.
,
- . .....,,::....., .. jo ",I'.
346. In accordance with statewiqe planning goals and aATnin;'ltrative rules, urban ,
water, wastewater, and stormwater. facilities may b~ located on agn.cultural hind
:and urban water and wastewater facilities may,)Je located on forest land outs~de
the urban groWth boun~ when the facilities exclusively serve land within the
urban growth boun~, pUrsuant to OAR 660"096 and 660-033.
"
3$7; In accordance with statewide p1arining goaIs and lj(lTn;niottative rules, water, and
'wastewater facilities are allowed in the public right-of-wayof public roads and,
',highways.' '
368.
. -,...... ~
"
The Public Facilities and Se,..;,ices Plan planned facruties maps show the location "
of some planned public facilities outside the urban growth bouri~ and Plan
Boundary, exclusively to serve land within the urban groWthbo1!1ldary. The '
,ultjroate construction of these facilities will require close coordinatiori.withand
permitting by Lane County and possible Larie, (:ounty RuralComprehensive Plan
amendments, '
"
3+9.' ; Statewide PlanDing'Goal5'and OAR 660-023~0090 require state and local '
jurisdicti()ns to identify and'protect riparian corridors. . ' '
,3&40. Inaccordlince with OAR 66q,033-0090, 660-033-0130(2), and 6,60-033-0120,
building schools on high value farm land outside the urban growth boun~ is '
prohibited. ,Statewiqe planhing goals prohibit locating school buildings on farm
, or forest,land within thr.eemiles.outsidetheurbangroWthboundary.,
Policies
, ,.,.'
G.289 Co~istent with local regulations, locate new urban water, wastewater"aIld
'stormwater facilities on :furm land and'urban water and wastewater. facilities on
, ,forest land outside the urban growth boundary only when the' facilities exclusively
serve limd inside the urban growth boundary and there is no reasonable '
:alt~mative,' '- '"
o
., ,
G.;!93'OLocate urban water and wastewater facilities iD. the j:lUblic right-of-way of public
roads'and highways outside the urban growth boun~, as needed to serve land
within the urban growth boundary. "
G,3G1 Facility providers shallcoor.dinate with LaneCourtty and other 10caljurisdictioDs
and obtain the necessary'county land use approvals to amend the Lane County
Rural Comprehensive Plan, or theM~tro Plein, ,as needed and consistent with state
law, to "PI,,,v~.;atelydesiguate land for urban facilities located,outside the urban
gro~ boundary or the Plan Boun~. '
, , . . , ['"
J.'t,~ ""i:"'(~~"\I.: ~Ji,~f'
~c,. . !... J","i ~ . ..1 _I '
Appendix Aa Page 14
'2-16 '
Date 'Receive d
JUL19r94
Planner:
'B?r""
;.k".'fl'.:" '"""lk~ ~'\,<'R'<<',
"lk:jl~.li'r'\.l, r;""""1.{"r 't,'f.li.~ \,
, I)} IIlL
,/
"
"
.'.
,
, ,
G.3-l-2 'The cities shall coordinate with Line County on responsibility:and anthority to
, address stormwater-related issues outside the Plan BoUndary, including outfalls
outside the Springfield Portion oftbe urban growth boUndary." : ,
, , .
,
.' f:' . '.
G,3~3 Measures to protect', enhance, 'or alter. Class F Strci\ms outside the urban growth
boUndary, witl1in the Plan Boundaty shall, at a minimum, be consistent with Lane
County's riparian standards. ' " . "
,",
'..-
G.334 New schools within the Plan Boundary shall be built inside the urban growth
boundary. ' ,
" "
,
Financing ,
Findio!!'s
"
,.
'.
"\ ',.
:.- .,'..-' ',' 1:";
, '
3941. 'ORS i97.712(2)(e)states that the project timing and financing provisions of'
, public facilIty plans shall not be considered land use decisions,'
402.
4l-3.
4;!4. ,
43-5,
446.
ORS 223,297 and ORS 223;229(1) do ~ot 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'
Service providers in the metropolitan area use SDCs to help fund the following
facilities: ,,' . , '
; . .
o Springfield: stormwater, wastewater, and transportation; .
o Willamalane Park and Recreation District:- parks; , "
o SUB, Rainbow Water District: water;
.. Eugene: ~;vLwHater, 'Yastewater, parks, and transportation; and, '
'0 .EWEB: water.
. ,~
<',_ .'. " I' .. .
Oregon and California t~ber rec~ipt revenues, a federallY. funded 59u!ce of
" county road funds, have declined <;>ver the y,ears and their continued decline is
expeeted; , '
.' - "f' ~
Regnlar maintenance reduces long term iIifrastructure costs by preventing the
needJor frequent replacement and rehabilitation. ORS,223.297 to 223.314 do not
allow use of SPC~ to :f,i.md operat~ons !IDd maintenance. '
,The IISses~""o;.ll; rates of Eugene, Sprlngfie1d~ and Lane,Countyare each different,
creating inequitable financing of some infrastructure imprpvementsin the
, metropolitan area. ' ,.,
"
.!, .11
'. ;~ '; ~ I.,~ ~'"
, "', '. ' 'Policies',,' ,
, ~,,~"_if~:".'>.~;"~'~\:"': ",.~;';-~f~
~~r?~I;,',:~J1;,..I~t} ,i; I~ft;\\\. '
.(,,"- .,.,'
, !
I,,' '
, UL ,
;'J
'J. I
.. .:. '. .....,':,..
'" -,
~""~' ',' '-:: ~r~ .:.:; Jl~. '1
, . . ',' .J,
':.
','- .
Date Received
, JUL 1910~
Planner: B~J
C,""",
.~ .
.'
- ::"
,
..r '.
" Appendix Aa Page 15
.,2-17
"
,
G.345 rh~nges to PubiicFacilities elM Services Plarz project phasing schedul~s or:
anticipated costs and financing shall be, made in accordanc~,with bu~geting lUld '
capital,improvement,program pr\lcfJdures of the'~ffect~d jurisdiction(s).
. . . ,,~, .
G.3% Service providers will update capital imProvem~nt pro~g (planning,
progr9mming, and ~udgeting for service extension) regularly for.those portions of
the urban growth boundBry where the full range of key urbaii services, and,
facilities is not availa1:>le. ' ' .
"
.,.. "
,G.367 Require dlwe!opmentto pay the cost, as determined by the local jurisdiction, of
" extending urban services and facilities. This does not preclude subsidy, where a ,
development will fulfill g9a1s and recommendationS of the Metf.o Pian and.l?t)1er
applicable plans determined by the local jurisdiction to be of particular '
, _ unportance 9r concern.
G.3.78: ,Contin'ue tb'iniplement,asystem of user .chafges, SDCs, and other public
. , fmancing tools, where app...,p.:ate,to fund ope11Jl;ions, maint~ance, and,
improvelllent or replacement of obsolete faCilities orsysteni exp~ion.
0'
. ,. ,"., I
G.3&9Explore other funding niec~ms at the 10ca1lev-e1 to finance operations ilnd
.. "mainteriance of public faeiljties.. , ' t ." ~ ' ,
. ".'. .
, ,
" '
Q,"940Setwastewater and,stormwater fees.at a.1evel commensurate with the level of
impact on, or use of, the' wastewater 01:, storm water ,service.
, ' '
. -. '
G.~OThe cities'and Lime County will continue to coope~ate in developing 'assessment
practices for inter7jurisd~ctional,projects ~t'provide for equitable treatment of
properties, regardless of jurisdi~tion.
Chapter Y Glossary
"
36. Public facilitvnroiects:Public facility projeCt liSts ilnd 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 tr~";.mission lines 12 inches or
, ,'larger for SUB ~d 24, inches orIarg~r for EWER '
"
, '
b, Wastewater:
Primarv Collection SvsteIJ1;
,. lilies 24 inches or larger. '
.. T '.
Pump' Stations and wastewater
, ~.'
, ,
/:
.','
,
Treatment Facilitie's Svstem:"W~ter Pollution Control
Facilitv (WPCF) oroiect. beneficial reuse nro;ect and
residuals oro iect nece.sarv to meet wastewater tre'ltment
facilities svstem desip'n caoaciiies for avera!!e flow, ..,eak
flow~ biochemical OXVllen demand a.iJ.d total susn~ffI;e Receh red
'JUL 191D,~
. Appendix AaPage 16
'2-18
PI.anq~f~~J
.
r. ,""~ '~-\;""...\ ",; i'i,;)!.''''f''
. Tti; ~!l'I:~ ...,,,,,p~r:r pin.l. ,. ~:
,~. .It',
,
" ...
A~' .
",.~'... ..:' ; '"" \~'l
j) ;~: . t ' I.. ..n 'J
1'-,' ,;.';' . , .
"
solids so asto nrovide service within the urban growth
!:JOundirv ruGm for a nroiected nonulation in 2025
,conSistent With the nonulation assumed in this Plan. in'
comnliancewith MWMC's discharl!e nermit. MWMC's
Canita] Imnrovements Plan. as amended from time to time.
, shall be used as the l!Uide for detailed nlanninl! and
imnlementation of.the WPCF nroiect. the beneficial reuse
proiect and the residuals nroiect,
c. ,Stormwate~: Draiuage/channeliInprovements anOlor pipu;.g 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 ill the planned facilities
maps in Chapter IT of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public,
Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan).
,
(-
. '"., . ,('.. 1'.. ,', ~~ /P' .
. \..._~\..~~~:}...:". 'i'.1ooo~jl"~ ~_~t" ,tjl'
,.. "... iI~., '.' \':,- J t: ",::.J", .
a_,,/~ ",i.
" .'.,'!l
.j'.: -
".;:. "t..,"
Appendix Aa Page 17
2-]9 '
Date Received
JUL 1 9 (0 r
Planner: BJ
, ~ ~ 'Y;~"f '~.
',' t:~ } ,;,() r~ .,
t <.'~ :.;~ ":.'-f-::r'-',(..tf'.~~
, ".,',' 1 ~'" to"~ ~ ,.,~}'(. :.
..,. ". . ," I .,.' ,
::~,!kj: H1h (~fl'''( ,i
.. '-'.,'.1..
'. . .~. ~~..
" ,
:t1,.,,~~:"<:,\
" :' ' jUI
" ,ft.', ~'- ,~ 'L:"';'
~-""'ln ~ "-v'!i_~ .l~
~ '. --....", ~.", '1. ~ I
..
,
, ,
".
.. ..
, ,
" I
",'.
",
"
"
Date Received
JULl 9 i D1
Planner: B,J
,,'
APPENDIXAb
PROPOSED CHANGE'S TO utE MErRO:'PLAN
, (Version currently before the elect~d officials as a part of Periodic Review)
~
G, ,P~blic Facilities and Services Element
, 0,
, "
This Public Facilities and Services Elemeht proVides direction for'the futuiiproVision of
urban facilities and services to pIan'ned Iarid Uses within tlii: Metro Plan Plan BoundarY
(plan Boundary), " " ' ,
" . . '. . ~
The:av~ilability of public, facilities and setvices is a key factor infiue~cing the location'
and density of future development. The public's invt,:stment in, and scheduling of, public
facilities and services are a major means 9f 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 lissumptions 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 Managpnlpnt, 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 JJe provided exclusively within the urban growth
boundary (UGB). This policy direction is conSistent with Statewide P1arining Goal 11:
Public Facilities and SerVices, "To plan and develop a iiin~ly, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities an~ services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development." On urbari 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 soine services and, often, in an inadequate revenue base to si.1pporta
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 Wastewate~ Management Conmiission (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 serviceorpark,s and recreation service, This elementproVid~s guidelines for special
,;",)",1<;,,; -"!":"'\~leMf,e,AiStricts in line with the compact urban development fundamental principle ofthe
".",""" ""',,,.,....'" trio <"PIJ. I ' '
;. ,t. ._" . - .; ~:;:'';' ",.j:V.Le 0,'. an. :',. .j
_,r~ ,
... "i ~".,,:
.~:!~,; j::;' }f\l.g~.~.~:;h.,
'Appeziaix Ab'Page1
2-20
bate 'Received
JUL 1 916 ~
Planner: BJ
"
I l ",11,
I '.' I"
"
, .
This element incorporates the findings and ,policies in the Eugene-Springfield ,
Metropolitan Area Public Facilities' and Se.rvices Plan (Plfblic Facilities and Services
Plan), adopted as a refinement 'to the Mefro:Plan. The Public Facilities and Services
Plan proVides gwdance for public facilities:and,services, including pIanned water,.' '
~ewater, stoimwater, and electrical facilities. ,As required by Goal II , the Pu~lic
Facilities imd Services Plan identifie~ and shows the genei"al location' ,of the water; ,
, wastewater, and stormwater projects. needed to serve.\and within the" UGH,' ThePublic
Facilities and Services Plan also contains this nlformation for electrical facilities, ,
a1thouihriot requiredto ,bY law, ,'r, ,.' ,_' ',: .
"
"
, '
. - .,
The project lists and maps in the Pulilic'Facilities and Services Plan are adopted as part
of the Metro Plan. InforriIation in the Public Facilities and Services Plan on project '
phasingaridc()sis~ and decisions or- tinting and ~ancmg of projects are not part of the
, Metro Plan and are..contiolled solely by the capit8.J.i.'upw/ement programmingaiId '.,
btidget:processes dfindividual service providers; ,,' . , t
- .,... - '," ,- .,-..' .
" . ',.
,
Th~ 'pcilicies list~d providedir~ion for pablic arid private developmental an:dpro~
decision-niaking 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.
"(jl
1.
. , '
Provid~ and maintain puqlic facllitids and setVice~ in !U). efficient and
eIl,vir~nmentallyresporis'lblemanner. " ,'.,',' " .,
2. h()vide publicfacilhies and~ervices in a ~erthat en~~urages orderly and
"sequential gro\Vthi '. , .
,-
" -:
Findings and PoliCies
., ~
t i'
.. L_
';.' . '.' .. . .
The fin<fings and polici~s in this element'are org~d by the following fourtopitsi" ,
related to the provision of urban fiu:ilities ,Mil serviCes. Policy direction for the full!,ange
of urban facilities and services,iReludiBg waste';iater sefViee, may be found'underany of
, " - - - . ..' ".- ' . . .1' .! .r" . ". ~
these topics, although the first topic, Services to Development Within the urban GroWtiJ.
'Boundary; is further broken down into sub-categories. " " "
y..
.~'" ' .;.. , .
o , ' Services to Deyelopment. Within the Urb,an ,Growth Boundary
,. Planning and Coordination
. ::'Water
.' "
,', Thi'hact loc;tion of.the projects sho~~n fue,Public Facilitie~ and Se;"ices Plan ~lann'ed facilities'
, maps"is ~etermined through local processes.., " '... " ,'. , " .' n......;.. n... '
,'; , ~Goa! n.also requires transportation facilities to be included in public facilities plans, Inthi~liJlltIt:ceIV~d
. '\>,1f ';P(:'(:'~l"-):i"~,~;r;:~~l9rtation fa~iliti~s are addressed in Metro Plan Chapter ill.F and in the Eugene-Springfield', , '
~"I,,'T;;I~~POrlatiOnSYSlemPlan(TransPI!'n), " I ' JUL 19, o{
,_' ' , , , AppendiX Ab Page2 Planner: BJ
.. '-{''',c' ''''''''~' I;~jl ",' 2-21 b I
'0(: " ~; .' ~. ";;.~.\" D ~~, .~~: ~ ~' -::
;','
"
0,,1
','
o ' Wastewater Treatment'"
o Stomiwater
, 0 Electricity'
. Schools
. Solid Waste Treatment
,0 Services to Areas Outside tlWUrban Growth Boundary
o 'Lo~ting and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary'
. Financing
..
Services to Develonment Within the Urban Growth Bounda~:
Coordination
,c
Plaoninq and
Findings
1. Urban expapsion within the UGBiis accomplished through in-fill, redevelopment,
, ,",. ( . '. ;
and annexation oftemtory which can be served with a minimum level of key ,
urban services and facilities. This permits new develoP!llent to \1Se 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 Plalining Goal 11 and OAR 660, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies jurisdictional responsibility for the,
provision of water, wastewater im,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 inforniation
and improvements are included ill th~ 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 UGB are provide~ by the City of Eugene,
the City 6f Springfield, Lane CoUl1ty, EWEB, SUB, th.eMFMC, electric
cooperatives, and special service districts.
4. The Public Facilities and Services Plan finds that alinost all areaS within the city
limits of Eugene and Spripgfield are served or can be seIv~ in the ~hort"term (O-S
years) with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service. Exceptions to
,this are stormwater service to portions ()f the Willow Greek area and southeast
Springfield and full water service at some higher elevations iJ? 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 bp,vvement plan or can be
extended with development. : , ' ,
_ . . Ii'. . _:,
S. With the improvements specified in the Public Facilities and Services Plan
" . c., ',l?r()JectliSts, all urbanizable areas within the Eugene-Springfield UGB can be
, , 1 , '4 ) "'served with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service at the time those
~~I";i'i(~:1bJ!,"ill.;j.rE':lt, ;are~ are developed. In general, areas outside city limits serviceable~ate>Qeceived
JUL 19 f D~
Planner:, B,J
1:" H;L
'.
'.t
. ..~
....'.1
I,
-'v, ..,:';. "'-'.-'>' it.,
.\ -,:\ Ii}! >h'I':"'-';
Appendix Ab Page3
; 2"-22
," ",-
, " term are located near the UGB and in llrban re~es, priinarily. in River Road,
Santa Clara, west Eugene's Willow Creek area, south Springfield; and the '
" ThurSton and Jasper-Natron areas in east Springfield., ';
6. QAR 660-011-000S defines projects that must be inc1uded in public facility plan'
project lists for water, wastewater, andstoimwater., These,defu1itions are shown
, ,iJ:1 the)~eysof pI~ed facilities Maps 1, 2, ~and 3 in the Public Facilities and
, Services Plan. ' '
7. " lnaccordahce with ORS 19S.020 to 080, E1igene"Springfield, Lwi.e County and
special service'districts are requiroo to enterintocOOrdination'lier......~ents that.
define how p1annihg coordination and urban services (water, wastewater"fire,
'parks"open spac,e and recreation, and ~reets; roads and mass transit) will be
prqvided within the UGH. '
, 8; "Large 'institutional use~, Stich as uclverslties and hospitals, present complex
" 'P1aI:ming,probletnS' for the metropolitan area due to their location, facility
. , 'expapsion p1,aiis,'and coIltinuing hOusing and parking needs. '"
ohplication of service~ prevents the'most ec6Iioinical distribution of public,
facilities and services, ' '
I "-
9.
10.
".'1'. '
Mdiscussed in thePubli~ Facilities and s,e,P"ices,pian,'a majority of nodal
development areas proposed in TransPlan are serviceable nOw or hi the short-
term: The City of Eugene's adopted Growth Mana!5"''':''~ll; Policy #l,S states,
'!'Target publicly-financed infra;;tructure extensions to support development for,
, ,l}igher densities, ,in-fill, mixed Uses, and nodal development:" , ' , '
.'J';
,t'
'lo,.
Policies '
, .'
G.-I ~ Extendthe minimum level and fun range of key urban facilities and services in an
orderly and efficient'manner consistent ?Vith the groWth m~T)~gemerit pOlicies in ,
Chapter ll-C, relevant policies in this chapter, and other Metro Plan policies.' '
,G.2'
,
" '
Use thep1anned facilities map~ of the. Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide
thegeileral }ocation'.of.\Vater, ~astewatei, Stormwatei, and electricarprojects in
the metr()politan area Use'local facility master plans, refIDerilent plans, caoitaI'
imorovement olai1s,and ordinaIices'as the guide' for detailed planning and project '
" imp~e~entatiori. ' , " ' ,
. ',I ';,
'G.3 Modifications and additions to ~r deletions from'th~project liSts in the Public.' ,
Facilities and Services Plan for water, wastewatei"an(f stormwater public facility
,projects or sigruficant ,changes to project location, from thatdescnbed in the
Public Facilities and ServicesPlan planned facilities Maps 1,2, 21h and 3,
U ' . -'. '
, _ requires amending tlie Pubic Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan"
if , .._,-,,' '.-__"- '. ,',' '. ' "," ' ,; "
'~'\:liHi.. "1'~"'" ~: "', ,except for the followmg: Date Recel" led
' ,"'ON -', ,,' {,," L; "R" "
, ". ,.~,:, ,C ,11 Ii, '/' :~)/ 'i.._ -\\>;,," ..' ~.
JUL 1911>~
-",
\'t' : II.
. 'd
.,~~.I,
.:-;; "~i":"~ ;HV~
.-!'.\ '
'Appendix Ab Page4 .'
, , " 2:"23
Planner: BJ
"
G.4
d.s
G.6
G,7
a.
1 ,
Modifications to'a public'facilityproject 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; OJ ..,
. I 'I
b.
Technical and environmental modifications to, a public facility which are
, made'pursuant to final engineering on a project; or
. . c. ,
c;
Modifications t01 public fl),cilityproject which are ~e purSuant to
findings of an Em;"v~ental Assessmentor Envirorimenta1 Impact
, Statemt,:nt 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 desiguated
Urban Reserve pnor to the removal of the Urban Reserve desiguation, .
which projects shall be removed from the PFSP at the time of the next
Periodic Review of the Metro Plan.
. the cities aD.d Lane County shall coordiuate 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
improvt,:pent proj<;cts or changes ~ereto that may affect one another's area of
responsibility. " .: .
The cities shall continue joint planning coordination with major institutions, such
as imiversities and hospita1s, due to their relatively large impact,on local facilities
and serVices. ' ,',,' , ," ",,'
. I,
Efforts shall be made to reduce the number of unnecessary special service districts
and to revise confusing or illogical s~rvice boundaries; inc1udmg 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. '
. . " : ... .
Service,providers shall coordinatti' the provision offa:~ilitiesand services to areas
targeted by the cities for higher densities, - infiR mixed uses, and nodal
,development.
" ,
, G.8 The cities and county shall coordiktewith cities surrounding the metropolitan
li!'ea to ~evelop a growth ITIlIilligement strategy. This strategy will address
,regional public facility needs. '
,
, ' ,_,Service~ to Develonment Within the Urban' Growth Boundarv:
'\' 'I \ fl!l ~.,\~ ....(..'; 1';..1 _ "1jI' ~'; ,
.' \~t:).Y:i~~;h)'':''"'lIt t '..I!( r. ",..... ,. . : _'.
, " 'Fin'dInes ,"
'1 I,!. j: if'f'-, ,\
... '(i '..
.~ ,:.~:':; >.\..~_~;t\~'"' "'"-'i~~"
Appendix Ab PageS
" 2-24
Wastewater
Date Received
JUL19 /01
Planner: BJ
, ,
11;
, Sorim,field and EUl!ene relv on acombinatioii ofrel!ional and focal services for,
, the orovision of wastewater services, Within each City: the localiurisdiction"
orovides collection of wastewater throul!h a svstem of sanitapl sewers and
:~umnilliz svstems. These collection facilities connect to a re~ional svstem of
,similar sewer collection facilities owned and ooerated b" the Metrooolitan,
, Wastewater'Manal!ementComrriission ("MWMC"t an entitv formed uoder an
mtergovemmental a!!Teement created oursuant to ORS 190: TOl!ether. these, '
collection facilities {which exdude,orivate laterals which convev wastewater from
individnal residential or cominerciaVindustrial connections' constitute the priinarv
co llection svstern.
'-'.,'
12,
, The,primarv collection svstem'convevs w~ewaterto a ;"~";m...~; facilitiess"stem
owned and operated bv MWMC, This'svstem consists:ofan interconnected Water
Pollution Control Facilitv {"WPCF't a biosolids facility. arid a beneficial reuse
f2Utilitv. ' "
"
" ,
'~l "
"..;."
. Policies
0,9' Wastewater conveyance and tn;atmerit'shallbe provided to meet the needs of '
oroiectedllTOwth inside the'UOB that are caoahleofcomnl"inl! withrel!lilatorv
. reouirementsl!overninl! beneficial reuse or.discharge of effluent and bimeficial '
':reuse or disoosal of residuals;
" ".' . .
SUBSEQUENT FINDINGS AND POLICIES SHALL BE ,RENUMBEl,U:D
ACCORDINGLY WITHIN THIS CHAPTER I'
...."
~. .
, '
Chapter V Glossary
,.,. ,
37. Public facility o~iects: Public facility project ,liSts and maps adopted as part or '
the Metro Plan are defined as follows:
-. .. ~ -~ .
....,
'a. Water: Source, reservoirs"pl!PlP statibris, and primary distribution,
'systems. Primai-y distribution systeIDsare transmission lines 12 inches or
larger for Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and 24 inches or iarger for
',. Eugene 'W~ter &Electric Boarq (EVf.EB). .,'
b. ,Wastewater:
PrimarY ,Collection Svstem:, Pump stations and wastewater
lines 24 inches or larger:
"'0' t,J'!f 1I1l
\' " FlU
,
Treatment Facilities Svstem: Water Pollution Control
Facilitv (WPCF)oroject. beneficial reuse nro;ect imd
residuals oro iect necessary to meet wastewater treatment, . , '
facilities svstem desiqn capacities f~r :iveragidlo~ Re' eel" r d
flow. biochenPcal Q){Vl!en demand and total SUS1)~ti . e
solids so ,as to orovide service within the urban !!Towtb: JUL 1 9.1 IJ f
Planner: 13;,1
AppendixAb Page6
, 2.:..25
~ ','~>: / '''". ,;:', '::" _ 1..~__!'_.-=tl
" : -',{~,~,P'I~"'iiA\"" I. ,j. r. ,/ "
..",1..;'pt,_h,.l;l. I' I:" t,.,.:~Jtt~" '
: J:~ ~~",' ""'i,F'.~;j,/!Ii.::J'
'.,'l T' . \. ..iJ ~l I. r \';1::-:- ;)bt.
"
-t' "
.'
, ,
, boundarv mOB) for a oroiected nonlllationin 2025,
consistent with the nonulation assumed m this PJ8n, in,
comnliance with MWMC's discharQ'e 1Jermit, MWMC's
Canital Imorovements Plan. as amended from time to time.
, shall be used as the cruide for detailed nlanninQ' and
imnlementation cifthe WPCF nroiect the beneficial reuse
proiect and the residuals oroiect,
c. Storm~ater: Drainage/channel improvemeIitsandlor piping systems 36. ,
inches or larger; p,vpvsed detention ponds; outfalls; water quality
projects; and waterways and open systems. ' '
d,' Specific projects adopted as part t;lf the Metro Plan are described in the
, ' project lists arid 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).
, !
"
, ..
" ",~,~.\".t':"'" t, .~ )~"';.,~
....... ..;.......1 ,,,,-It'''l. ,,.,,,...F-"'I.'
'" ' .... ".", ..""~';';::~:,;,"\.:". 5:-
i?!l . l~jL
Appendix Ab Page7
2-26
Date Received
JUL 1 9 ,D~
Planner: ,BJ
, .
,...;'1'-.
_ . . 'II"
J ~.1/ 1:1'[ 1i'~""':'ll' "-,"
".. '.' .".. ,
1 ~.
t.
,T,.,) c ,.r :'- :' .,
,~, "'~~~l "'i'Pittf" ~.:\. ';.: to_
,!"\':J!:"I.I;,,,~f'.J;:'i"
. . :"'0".1'
.ii~.~:,~':;r(~'.~'''.'; .
{'~:;\~R '~1~
"~:t1.1i~\' 'l
,~."
,.',-
:l"
, ,
1 .,~,
,.~<f.~'r.'. ~ ",',....'i.~"'.!;(...
, '111'\'" 'I".fl""',
, : -::,:, ", .1:;'- ;"~.f;I'>i:i .~
~~ r '"
o
i
:
"
"
""
,.
.: '
'I,
',... ,'~
,
"
.
,
"'.'
,:,
.'
.Date ReceivE~d
JUL 19,O{;
Planner: BJ
-,' "
.,',
';'
,
-. ..,
.::~'. '
APPENDIXB
.. . j
PROPOS~D CHANGES TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
. , " AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP)
,
"
'. ,.'
" '
.'
. ~'L
",.1. Modify the text prec~ding existing Table 3to read as. follows:
, 'Planned Wa~tewater System Improvements, ' ,
_'iI..
Planned sftsrl ad loW term wastewater system U:npro\"ement projects'are liSted in
tables3,-!lfld 4, 4a and,4b. The general location o(these facilities is shown in Map 2:
Planned Wastewater'Facilities, and Map 2.a: Exisiing~ W~tewater Collection and
Treatment Systems. [NOTE: This map presently exists' as Map 6 in the Technical
Background Report: Existing Conditions aodAltematives and should be
incorporated withont change.] , ' ."
, , '
2. ,Insert, following Table 4, Tables 4a and ~b, a.sfollows:.. . "
.' Table 4a
,MWMC :Wastewater Trea~ent System Improvement Projects
, :i'Table 4b' , '.'
,MwMCPrimary Collection Syste~Impro~ement Projects
I
I
I
I
Project
Number
303
304,
305
Project NamelDescription ' ,
Willakenzie Pump Station
Screw Pump Station
GlenwoodPump Station
-'
"
3.
Modify'Map 2to show projects'300 through '305"and insert Map 2a.
Jo -:..
'-I:~~\jiq!;.,,'''1/2'~ I t \';~~~
''':_':' .J ~'_.d' l.'~' ,I ';::::IfW, "
, . ~ 1..1'.' '._
: -'., .-'
~,:.,l/ ':"lj'U '.
,,'.. ..);_,;1..-
'Appe~dix BPage I
, 2-27
. i ;.:r:'Y
I)', __ . . .__.j\ _~ __.' Jl', .
,-,'~ ,/.. ~ ~,,;',-'"
'~,-,"i' .. __':-;\ I, ~.
,
.-' .
. ;~
.'
1
. '. ,
" ',.' " .. . _, '. .., '." . _ _ ,,_" ,..'~". ,7,.
~,U9~ne-S.P,_~,gfleld PUbliOT .OIlI~U,',I~d, $f1!Vr~s_:'pi~~
, ,PI.anned MWWC,WastewaterP,rOjeOtSIt_" .-',.:/:.'
':"';': '. -:,:',":'-".' ._-,~~~~~~~".,
,..,'
':1
"",
,
, "t."
\,
I'
-.--;.....-:.:.-.-'. ';~'
~I! -.t...I,...""*" .:' '.:'
. ..~:'!:::=:~.. S~~::~""':'>:':"
O.....-...;.~.~'oII).: .'" _.'
....0__.......-...,.......,.0".
.'~:(r;;:;T=.:i~'~.: "
~.' --
>....:....:-j-;"..~.>,:;.,:,','~._.
",
-.'.. :"'.".,--
'r_.__....... -'.
-
. '..
...:."..4___~_....____~
~ -...- '
.
~-
';-!~ ,. .' \
!~.
j"
. ~,': ,~:' .~.__. ',:",' .,,"',' .:.'_:...:,' ....::;, ',' ", J"~' .) /~,_: 1.:- .:.:.~,:,;~:<,,"':,':;';/>.
:; :..:E~_g_ene. Sprin gfield "p ~blic F_a:~il~ie s','~ndStrV,ic e's 'Plan"iT:;{,t:
. . ~';;'::'~'i EXiSting MWMC _Wastewater Treiltme'nt:SySi91n-s~:}'_;~:
~;~;;i:,'...'\~~~~!;~
.,...~:~:,::":'\; /' " ~... _..,.~, ,.",.,0.
'.~ ;'/:>~':'{9' ..::., "....,:_~.J-'" "':':;":~;~:;~:{::i ';"~'-,";'c,_
.' ,,';.:. . ":~'.;":\,';,:".,'l:'" ",,' ,"'_., ..,.- .
. " . :":;j'i; ',,:'::~:\~:;';;:;-,:;\<~~f
'~'.: .:~;. -
',':-'
---..........-.-
..'__...._n.._.._
...-----
I
",---
'.'
-....
;~. ,
I,
4.
, Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying,
'.the subdivision entitled "Wastewat~r System condition As.sessment",
(presently on page 82) to read as follows: ' , '
,,{'"'' '.,' , '
~-;.; ..~Jti ~ ""~ .
<,'
,',". HI., ",",' .}f( ,-
., .1l',-"\ll.fJi .:::i tf;;,.... ;"~
,.II I' "':).",,.' :/ 1;
..'.'.
~ ~,
.p.'i" .\
'- '"
. .:" '. .' ,'._ I. III
.~~JJI r,J):J~" ~',ii'~'-
. - ~ _.. . -~t .
Appendix BPa'gl< 2
, 2:'..28
.,",
- Date Received
'JUL 19,of,
Planner: S.I
,
" .
". ~,
"1"
.d I.
., ~ .'
Wastewater System Condition As~~ssment
(;.....",."aaee ellplleity and inflow'aBd infiltFfttioB {l.1)'ntios aR :....,1' :"~Jlnt eriteria ' '
by '",kiek to assess tke perf".,.....,:....! of a~a~tewater eoUeenoB system. COlI"ieyanee
eapaeity is,a funetion of adequate pipe simlg and measures a system's ability to
"';"'.".. .efDueltt-flli..:..",Jy. Inflliw and infiltl'fttion l'fttios cXl'rcss tke~,...","..",,*
storlll'Water enteriBg a sewer ~'stem thJ'9ugh defective pipes and pipe'joiBts, or
thJ'9ugk theeross eOBneetioB of stO.-....'H..':er JiBeS, e"...:..:.....J sewers, eateh basiss, or
malikole eovcrs. Such cll...-.......aus st9rmwat....- "..L:'::..;; ~J;e wastewater system '
uilBceessaril}' burdens both eOB'ieyaBce,and tRBtment faeilities.
Treatment:.MWMC Wastew~ter Treatment Sy~te",:,-
MWMC existinl! infrastructure ismonitored'for'nroblems that need to be addressed,
gurinl! onerational and mairitenance activities, MWMC hasonl!oinl! prOgraIns to helo_
plan for and imnlement eouipment replacement and maior Tlihabiiitation of existinl!,
systems. With these on I!oinl'! nrOlrrarns usedJp diCtiCct iCxistin,? nroblems. the
infrastructure can be maintained and preserved to help extend' its useful life for future
vears. ",
In March of2003, MWMC hired CH2M WLL to ev~luate and plan for re'lional
wastewater capital improvements that will serve the EUl!enelSorinl!field urban growth
boundary into vear 2025, MWMC will need to imnlement the recommended
imorovements to meet rel!lllatorv reauirements based on proiected riollution loads arid.,'
flows, CH2M IDLL as part of its work to evaluate and Plan for re2'ional wastewater
imu>u vements has prepared a technical memo related to "Flow and Load Pro:ections"
dated Aoril12, 2004, This historical'and proiected information is being used to plan for,
needed MWMC 'caoita1 improvements based'on enl!ineerinl! evaluation methods and bv
!;omnarinl'!technoloQ:V options,' It is estimated toot approximatelv $160 million dollars
(in 2004 dollars) are needed for MWMC proiects to address regulato1"r'reauirements and
growth throul!h vear 2025. , "
Convevance:' ,
Convevance caoacitv and inflow and infiltration (lm ratios are imoortant criteria bv
which to assess the oerformance of a wastewater collectionsvstem. Conveyance caoacitv,
is a function of adeouate pipe sizinl! and measures a svstem's abilit" to. move effluent
efficientlv, Inflow and infiltration ratios eX'Jress the amount of stormvvater entering a.
sewer svstem throul!h defective oi1Jes and-nipe ioints. or throUl.!h the cross connection of
~ormwater lines, combined sewers. catch basins. or manhole covers, Such extraneous,
. stormwater enterinl! the waStewater system unnecessarilv burdens both conve"ance and
treatment facilities, " ,
5. Modify Cbapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying
the discussion of wastewater, in the subdivision entitled "Long-Term Service
()'.,.It'' . "',' A~ai.1ability Within'Urbanizable Areas" (presently on page 97) to FliP{l a1 R "' d'
"':::),"""'~<~"!fonows': ' ' Uale ecelve
, : . . :;'.Ili~ ' JUL 1 ~ (O~
. I ';1(\ .~~,.{),.\(!~
::pr~1l ...:-.;.; :.\. :"\.",
'.t
ApperidixB Page 3
2-29
Planner: BJ
'"
1.
. , "~. ," .," .
There are no areas within themetropolltaJi UGB that will be difficult to serve with
wastewater facilities overthe long-term (six to 20 years) assuming that oublici '
infrastructure soecifications and reouirements of the develooin!! area caD. be
'addressed. Aoorooriate en!!ineerinl! desi'l:n oracticesmust be used:durjrw: the
deveJooment and eXDansion into sensitive areaS that are f!I1Proved for ','
develooment (ex. -hillside construction, etc,," ; hewe'ler, ,en~tmSieB ExPansion of
the,existing collection systemwill be ne~ssaryto meet demands of growth over
this time period. " ",. , .
,
2.
Based on 2003 analysis,the EUliene~Sn~field metl'oooiit~ area treatment
facilities wiil reouire facilitv im1Jrovements to address both drv and wet weather
, rel!Ulatorvreouirements relatini1'to lJOllutant loads and wastewater flows.
,Reliional.and local waste",ater imorovem~nts to tbe,coUection and trea.tment,
svstems are bem!! olanned for and will be imolemented to allow for m-ciWth withlll
the UGB and for rel!Ulatorv comoliarice; .TheEagenz '~rr'.oflg:lieId metrepelitaa.
, . afea R-egi:c:::u WB5tewater Treatmellt PIlmt bus s:Jffieiellt desigil eapaeity te .
, aeeornmad.lte popwatieB mereases aB6serve aU Be'l/ de'/elopment Et ZU~~
,RoY/eyer, peak wet weather eenditieaslimit the treatmlint p1aflt Fem aeh.;,,~~ .
desigBed eapaeity. Wet, weather related :.w.pro /emeRts ...r" ="Jild at the pla!lt
aaa ':iit~ :~bi3K~ l11lleetieB s,ro<=> io "",,,ud the PHmt's wet weather
euP~;';;'J eeyeBEl the year2oQ7.' '
6.,
Add Table16a following Table '16, as follows:
. . - - .
.Table 16a
MWM,C Wastewater Treatmellt and Collection ~ystem Improvements, Rough Cost
, , " ,Estimate, and Timing Estimate
, .
111~i!~?~~;lil~iY~{~i~f$~fi'iion"
I 300 WPCF Treatment Project
1 ",301 Residuals Treatment Project,
I 302 Beneficial Reuse Project'
I, ,303 Willakenzie P.umo Station':'
,I 304 Screw Pump Station'
I 305 Glenwood Pump Station,'
*Ccistestimated in 2004 dollars
$,' fc'~,?~~~i~ltiml~:;~~f~~.t,j,;1
'i ' ,,;; omp etion;''',ear.%'
$120,500,000 2025 '\
$6,000,000 2018
$25,000,0002018,1
$6,000,000 2010 1
, $2,000,000 2010 1
$500,0002012 1
"
7. Add anew chapter to the Public Facilities and Services Plan, tobe Chapter'
VI., reading as f~llows: ' ,
::1(1;:;!"~;'.t;;ll,~1Y.~~I,~mendments to the Plan
'. -.1 f. ' .. ,., ,..,t\. -
:;-;; './1[,
;. :i..)l
, .'i t~ ~ L
~:1 ~),~ 1 !;~ ~.:~ :~~:r!'~
Appen<:1ix B Page 4
'2-30
Oate Received
'Jud 9 a,L
, . { ~
Planner: BJ
, r
','
TIiis chapter describes the method to be used in the event it ,becomes n~essary or '
appropriate to modify the text, tables or the maps contained in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan ("the Plan"). ' "
Flexibility ofthe Plan
, .
Certain public facility project .descriptions,:location or service iu-ea 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 i '
unanticipated funding has been obtained, preclude project specification and location
'decisions made according to the National Environmental Policy Act, or subject '
a~ist~aHve and technical changes to th~ 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 identifieu.
. '.~. - "- . . .
A:
", "',
Modifications requiriI!g amendment of the Plan.
The following modifications requirll amendment of the Plan:.
1. Amendments, which include those modificationsor changes (as '
'represented by Table 16a) to the location or provider ofp1,1blic facility
, projects which significantly impact a public facility project identified in
the comprehensive plan, and whi,ch do not qualify as admini$11tive or
teChnical and enVironmental changeS; as defined below. Amendments are
subject to the administrative procedures ~d review and appeal procedures
applicable to land use decisions. . ' ' ' ' ,
2, Adoption of capital improv(:ment program project lists by any service
provider do not require mouification of this Plan unless the requrrements
of subparagraph 1 above are met. '
. . . - ~
.;"
,
B.
Modifications permitted without ~enclment of the PlaJi
The following modifications do notrequiie amendment'ofthis P1ari:
, Administrative'~hanges are'thosemodificatioDS toa public facility project
which are minor in nature anfi dq not significantly impact the project's
general description, location, sizing, capacity or other general
characteristic of the project. . ,
, Technical and enVironmental changes are those modifications toa public
facility project which are made pursuant to "final engineering" on a project
or those which result fronl:the findings of an EnvirorUnental Assessment
or Environmental Impact Statement conducted under regulations
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
, 'I.,~;;~';i .();:: !,";'pf rolicy ~ct of 19?9 or llIl;yfederal or stat~ agency ~roject development
" '" , , "J~'; ," .h ",.regulatIons consistent With that Act and Its regulations.
, . "~l:: ..;;;r. .' ,,' Date Received
JUL 1 9J16~
1.
2.
'"
~q ,..-, '.r""". i:iL,;
. j( :,r 1. J.'--,'\'!;
. ~ '.,.'
~. '.
"
..
..
Appendix B Page 5
,2-31
'Planner: BJ
','
Process for making Changes,
A. 'Adm.inistrativeand Technical or Environmental Changes. Any jurisdiction may
make an administrative ()rtechnical apd environmental change, as defined herein,
by forwarding to each jurisdiction covered by this Plan, and to the Lane Council '
ofGovernIDents a copy of the resolution or oth~ fina1 action 'of the governing .,
. board of the jurisdiction authorizing ~e change.
I', .
B.
Amendments
....
F~r pti!poSesofprocessing amendments, 'as defined herein; such ~endments~e
" divided into two classes.' ',,' '
a...." Type I Amendments include amendments to the text ofthe Plan, or to a,'
list, location or provider of public facility projects which significantly
. impact a public facility project identified herein, which project serves;
more thim' 6ne jurisdiction.' ')',' " ,,:' ,",
b. Type II amendm(:nts include amendments to a liSt, locatioll or providtlr of
_ 'public facility projects which sigIiificantly impacta public facility project
, . identified herein, which project serves only the jurisdiction proposing the
ameoPJpent. '
C. ,'ProccisingAmendments
f'""" ". .'
" ,
Any oftlie adopting agencies (Lane COUnty;'Eu~ene, orSpiingfleld) mayiIlitiate
an amendment to this plan at any time on their own motion or on behalf of a,
citizen. . . . ,j" .
a. Type I aIJ'pn..1"'<;:nts shall be foi:warded tothe planning cqmmissioDs of the
, respective agencies and, followiJi.g,their recommendation, shall be ,',
. - ;. - .-,
considered by the governing boards ()f all agencies. If a Type I
amendment is not adopted by all agencies; the amendment',shallbe
, referred to MPC for conflict resolution. Subsequent failure by agencies to
adopt anMPC-negotiate~ ,proposal shalldefeat.the proposed amen..1",pnt.;
If an amendment is adopted, all agencies shall adopt substantively
identical ordinances ' "
'b. Type IIa1I!-epdnients shall beJorWarded to the Planning Commission of"
the initiating agency and, following their recommendation, shall be
considered by,the governing board of the initiatiJi.g agency.
." ,
.10:'
.."
-,
-," ,,'-
..~
'" .,,'.
")
: ._t..~f ';. .':' ~iJ!t;-_I"ltt~",i>;P.~:~~
, '-~' ~ ~,'
Appendix B Page 6
2'-32
Date Received
JUL 1 9 ,6{
Planner:' BJ '
, ~"L'1\4~,~" >:''1>1,:':1 t::i~lC'!\t '
" .":.. .1,:") ~.~.}~;. ,~.1,;10"~:!~
',10:1'; i1"
1 "I.
,
,,'
-
"
-
Exhibit 1
'.>
,
" C 1'..
"
, '
,,'
"" " \ ',," '.-. I,,' _", ,.' .."'~."; ":>:(') ,'. " '-', '.
staff Report imd'F'in~ingsofQ6ri1pliaric~'Wit4 the Metro Plaj:J. and Statewide' ;
Goals and AdmUtistrativ~ 'Rul<~s ';' ,.' , ,."
I '. "1' 'l .~ ~ -r-'
.' "
File LRP 2004-0001 Am~ndments to the Metro pian ~dPublic Facilities,and S~ces '
Plan . "". ,'....... :.- ,,- .~....~....- '.".il< ".,;',"': . "
. . ' . , . , 1~' .. I~. . ,,-," - 't, i
", -,
. i ' .~
"
,,'
", .
Applicant: " ' , ",'
City,qfSpringfieldon behalf of~e Metropolitan Wastewater Management,CoIllIIllilsion -
(MWMC)" ,"c".:,;, ',;:" '::",," '" ... .,'
( .
. . . 'i-
,Nature of the Application: ',.,.., I;' . "", ,'; , '
Th~ applicant proposes to amlmd the Eligene'"Springfield Metropolitan Area General .
PIan (Metro Plan) and tl1.e Public Facilitiesand'Services Plan (pFSP)l to (l),more ,
a,clequately reflect the impact that new., discharge permit rel!1rictions will mve had on the
capacity of the regiolial'wastewater,treatnient system, (2) to, clarify the relationship
between the PFSPproject liSt andJocally adopted capital imprOvelllent plans, and (3) to
, modify (StreaniIine) the administrative. and legislative processes that govemOthe" ·
implementation and amendment of the PFSP projetts list. .' <, .. "
. . . . ., '
"
\\ .
Background:' , , " ,1, ,~. . '. " " .
'l ., " , .
MWMC'sregionalwliStewater ;';~,ent facilities were designed and constiucted in the
late 1970~s with a 20-year fife expectancy. Slower that expectedpopulaiion grqWth in the
1980!s extended this life expectancy. In 1996-97 MWMC developed a,Master Plan to
'evaluate the p....1v".:.ince of its facilities, to ascertain areas,of,collS1raintS within the
e~ing permit conditions, to, identify short-term improve,ments'(e;g, how to address
seismic hazlirfIs), and to address other major issues that ne,eded tq be studied further.
.','. .
~. - '~'" ' .'
In May of200i,the Oregon Depiirtinent ofEnvironmeriiaI,Qtiality (DEQ) imposed new,
and more stringent. di~rurrge peinnt stlindardson the regi6nal wastewater t~eatffient '
facilities, particularly.iriregard to the treatment of ammo!fui'lllldthenrui1loading. As
MWMCstaffbegan to evaluate designm:edsfor itS, waStewater facilities, it became
apparent to t1i.em that the e,usting,facilities could not meet the demands 'impoSed by the'
,'new discharge permifrestrictions. . :~: , ' ' .,' '
'. " J~., . ,
Recognizing that'a thorough assessment ofwastewaterco,llection, treatment and. ,
disposaVreuse ne~d5'forthe next 20 years w.is essential, tl1e,MWMC1:Jegan work on the
,2004WaStewater'Facilities Plan, a Cv"'l"...hensiv~ facilities pllU1 update. The objectives
of the 2004 W~tewater Facilities Plan ar~ twofold.Fir~,}tis'intended to pti)vide, for '
adequate community growth capacity thr\>ugh 2025, consid~ policies in'the Metro
Plan and current jJ!anningassessments for populatiOl;!;and development. St;cond, the 2004
, ,"Wastewater Facilitie,s PI8n is intended to ;protect coIl)inunity 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, ' .
'; ,11';'1 :ijl:';,~(~~;d 1;~il'l""tF:. , '" .
-t I.._;.J~.; ~~J!~ Ji>ty1l! II Q/)J"t',.~,;, i., ' .
-: ,-:l;.~~'_..J:('; '''';~__''''li~'''if,~,:7''
f .~:r' ~ ,y ',\";,\~..;f-'J( '11.it" "
,,,,"'V.,'; . " 11 ~',~ J :t_ (~';, ;L":"';'.r."ril. . .'
'lJ._
.','
Date Received
JUL 19/ Q1
. '.
,,-'
':'
.1':"'~
S~RePcirt and Findings Page 1 ' ,
" 2-33 -:>
" '
P1?lnner: B~j
."
Exlnoit 1
- 2-
The 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan recogJ).izes and addresses the fact that the regional '
wastewater system for the Eugene-Springfield metropOlitan area 'does not have the
, capacity to meet'al1 of the discharge standards imposed'by state and federal law. Neither .',
, the Metro Plan nor the PFSP l.)urrently reflect this situation. Statewide Planning Goal 2
requires that the city, county and special district plai1s be consistent. In large part, the
amendments 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 amendments provide information that should have been
inchided,in the PFSPwhen 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 wetweirther events be managed by 2010. In order to meet this
, rigorous construction schedule, MWMC must 'have released Requests for Proposals
(RFPs) for engineering design for by OCtober of2004, Prior to this date, the 2004 ,
, Wastewater:Facilitit;s PIan must'be adopted by the three metropolitan jurisdiCtions and
the Metro Plan and the PFSP should be updated'toreflect current informatio!1: '
. ~-
In summary, the application proposes the following 'changes:
Metro Pl~
'.,
1. Specifically recognizes ''wastewater'' as a subcategory of service within the Urban
Growth Boundary. [Chapter III-G] ,
2. Amends Finding #6 and Policy #3 to recognize the addition of Map 2a "Existing
WasteWater Collection arid Treatment Systems" to the PFSP. [Chapter III-G]
,3. Amends Policy #2 to 'include local capital'improv...~....~~ plans as a means to ,
j}nple,ment policy in the ~FSP. [Chapter III-G],
4. Inserts two findings regarding local and regional wastewater services' to
development within the, urban growth boundary, [Chapter I1I-G]
. h
5. Adds a new policy G.9 that ma1<.:es a commitment to providing the conveyance
, and treatment of wastewater to meet the needs of projected growth within the ,
1l!ban growth boundary .and,that meets regulatory requirements, [Chapter III-G]
6. Modifies definition 37. Wastewater: Public Facilities Projects. [Chapter V '
Glossary]
PFSP
Date Receive d
JUU 9,of
I .' .~.1 II;', "".,1; :~ ~"'~"\'f
\ ~l"~f,t..:..."1 .~-d'/.-'l..... ,iI.j\
:~, "'';0' 'i;:~ .....!: " ., 1::' . ....-',
'-~:J ~ ti g .'
.' -.
? 1,
, .:'
."t.__"
\'''''~''f:~:;;: :--~'tO( :~.
Staff Report and Findings Page 2
'2-34 ,."
Planner: BJ
".,
,
,!l
I!
,
,'"
,
'"
Exliibitl
,- 3 - ·
,~'
~
" 'i",
'.' ,
"" ' ,. , .'" .. ~ .'
L Jy.lodifi~; the text pn p~e 28,Prec~g Tilbl~3:' arid adds T,ao1es 4a'and4~ that
identify MWMC Wastewater Treatment andPrimaty Collection System .
improvements; respectively.' ':: " ,. .' ,', .'
-. ,. .
2'M.odifi~~ Map 2; whi~hs~ows pIarined WasiewaterF~i1iti~~,'andaddsMap 2a
that coricegJS Exi~~g WastewateiF:acilities. ' -, ,"
'. "t' , , ,'~' :...
'3.., r-:1:odifiesfue existing narr~tive on i'Wa5tewat~ Sy'~~m CondiiionAss~ssment" in
, Chapter IV. (Page 82) "" 'r. '.' , ... ,',', ,
"., . ", - .,
4. Modifies eXiSting paragraphs #1 and #2i.uider the discUssion of "Wastewater"in ,
, the subdivision entitled ,"Long-Term Ser:vice Ayallability Within Urbanizable ,
"'Areas"inClliIpter IV. '(page 97), :~I,' , ',,' " ' '
""',-.
5" Adds new Tab!e 16a (followingTable 16) entitled "MWMC. Wastewater
'. Treatment and~CoIiecdon System Improvements, Rough Cost Estim?te, and
'Timing Estima!e." (page 101) : ~, ,', ,
. ,.; " - T' " .', j! 1": . ..
6. Adds new Chapter VI'regarding ~endmehts to'the PFSP.
. " .,.. '; c"
, '
~ ,_. .,.,.. . , I', . . .,
" Metropolitan 'Area Gene':3' Pia!! ,Amen,dment'Criteria ,,' , ' " "
The p,vl'vsed amendments arc:: considered to b~ Type I'Metro Plan amendments'because
they are non-site specific amendments to the Plan text. Anie:udments to the Plan text,
which include changes to' furictional pians such as TraDsPlan 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 intotheir,respective iIDplementhtg'ordinancesand'ccide's. Springfield Code
Section i070(3) (a &'b), Eugene Code 9.128(3) (a & b),a'ndLane Code 12.225(2) (a&
,b) require that tht; api.~ndi11entbe consistent With relevant statewide.plfuming goals and
thatthe amendment will :o.otmakethe Metro Plan internally inconSistent. These criteria
are addressed as follows: . " , 'Ii," ',' " ' "
",.... :."1>.......'
(aJ ,The anie,n4mf!ntmustbe 'consistek't with ifterel~ant statewidiplanning goals,
. adopted by the L.and Conservation aniJD~elop-",ent Commission;'
:. .. '.;'. -':~ ".~'::' - .' '; _ .,'; ,!~~ '.; ,,~',. ..' . _; .,,:t "',,, :' ,
. Goall-CitizenInvolvement ',; ',' ": ,',' ,',' ':,: . '
To develop a ,citizen i~volvementprog;ain that insures 'the opportunity for citizens
'"' .' ,fob.e,involved in all p.1:zases of the pldnningprocess: ";' , ' .
',The two cit,ies and'the county have acknowledged land useco,des $It are intend~
, 'to servjl~the principal implementing ordinarices for the Metro,Pl3.n. SDC Article
7 METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS and So'CArtiCle ,14 PUBLIC HEARINGS
, '. >,' :pre~cti1;Je)Jlli fuanPerin which a Type I Metro'P~ airiendmimt must be noticed.
"'.ci':'~'i:i",,:~,~:ltl:.t"_,;~j~iz,en involvement for a Type ~ M.etroPlan ~n~ei1t not relate? to an urb:m
"".,~Wi,,,l';;!,:[;I;:-i\.]'i,.groWth boundary amendment reqwres: 1) Nonce tomterested parties; 2) NotIce
.' . , , ,"
',' " .-', Date Received
,': -
". '.r.' I' 1;".i;;L . _'. . .
, ''-'See'SDC 7,070(1)(a), EC9.7730(lXa),and LC 12.225(1)(aXi),
.' ", ,. . ,. ',r
',,:;,:;.j~'~
.', ~', ,_.J.~. '''-: " . _, ~:~;1*l1
-;")r(/.,..,;...li."'l;{,,&.~,~.l':-ati' .
y:t_:-IJ;,.'ffi~,a"i,:,.~;tt ,...."
'j "'}..l",! 'I .w. ~ . . . 'f.,'
, 'StaffReport"andFindings Pag~\3
',2-35
JUL 19, O~
,Planner: B.,j
Exhibit 1
- 4,-
shall be published in,a newspaper of general circulation; 3) Notice shall be
provided to the Department ofLand Conservation and Development (DLCD) at ,
least 45 days before the initial evidentiarY hearing (planning co~~sion).
Notice ofthejo~t planning commissi?n hearing was published in the Springfield
News and in the Register-Guard qn March 31,2004. Notice to interested parties '
was mailed on April 1, 2004. Notice ofilie' first evidentiai-yhearing 'was provided
to DLCD on March 4,2004. The notice toDLCD identified the City of Eugene,
Lane County; DEQ and EPA as affected agencies.
Requirements under Goal 1 are met by adherene<: t~ 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'llI1sl
9,7520; Lane Code Sections 12.025 and 12.240.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning -,To establish a'landuse pkinningp~ocess and
policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actio!ls related to use of land
and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions,
All land-use plans'and implementati~n ordinances 'shall be adopted by the
governing body after public hearing and shall be reviewed and, as needed,
revised on a periodic cycle to ta~ 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 a.ffected governmental
unitsduringpreparation, reviewand revision of plans and implementation
ordinances, ' ' , ' , ,
, ,
Implementation 'Measures - are the meanS used to carry out the plan. These are
of two general types: (I) management implementation measures such as
ordinances, re,gulations or projectplans, and (2) site or area 'specific
,implementation measures Sl!ch as permits and grants 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(Ordiriance No. -.J, by Eugene (Council Bill
, .. '. . -, \i'"
No, 4860) arid by Lane CoUnty (Ordinance No. 1197) after numerous public
meetings, public workshops and joint hearings of the Springfield; Eugene and
. Lane County Planning Commissions m:l;dElected Officials.
;l. I):'
,J ~
,ii.';.
,The'Metro,Plari is the "land us~" or cOmPrehensive plan required by this goal; the
Springfield Development Co~te, the Eugene Code and the Lane Code are the
"implementation measures" required by this goal. Comprehensive plans, as '
defined by ORS 197.015(5i, must be coordinated with affected governmental
units.4 Coordination means that cou.u-.uo;,,,.s from affected governmental units are
Date Receivel j
JUL'19/ (4
,Planner.: B~J
Staff Report and Findings Page 4
2-36
, ,~:l')'ii:)t 1~>:l'.~Jn{'t(Piitii&d by refe;ence into, Goal 2, '
, ' 4 See DLCD v, Douglas County, 33 Or LUBA 216, 221 (1997).
,
". j ~:"'>
. '.,' ..
. '. - .
. 't:' / ~f . - " -"'~, < \;i t~ +'::
',.'
".,
,',..,. ..
\"!
.t, '
"
",
,"
\'
Ii'
Exhibit 1
,
- 5'~
If"
..
,.
". 1 ~: ~: -' '-
" solicitedahd corisid~red:in this regard, DLCI)"s.Notide 6fpr0p6sed,Amimdment
. ,_' ' ." . . . ,1
form vyas sellttci.th~ City qfEugene, Lane CquntY, PEQ andEP A.', '. '
. _ .-,'.... , " ';!. p. ~ i' !" h", '.' : .' ..~., -~, ...
O~eRspect of the, Go Ii! 2 co,otdinaHOIl requiremer\.t~onceriIs p6pulation. "
!, proj~ct!ons, In:tills re~eCt, the proposed 'amend.1neni.to the PFSP Glossary
, cO,ncerning Wastewater incorporates a projected year 2025 population for the
"Eugene--Spi:ingfieldUrban GroWtli'Bowidary 6f297,585.5 ThisprojectiOIi is',
consistent with the most recent (1997) final forecasts provided to Lane County by
the Oregon Office of EcoIioinic' ADalysis and the Xear 2000 Census:irhe ildoption
.ofthis modifica#on to ,the PFSP :wi1leffectively "coordinate" this population '
,assumption., ", ";".'!" ' '
, ,
II,
, ~ . " ,
G!lal3 - Agiicultura,lLands T, ,-" ;.. '.' '
,T,hisgoal does riot apply within adQpted., acknowledged urban growth boundaries.
,', . -' ",~ . ~~., :,. .' ,. '. ' '
. Goal 4 --ForesfLands ~,i; "' . ~, .
.' ,.' ,.'_" .- .', I'. ..- .', ,"
, This goal does, no~ apply Within aa,optoo, ,aCknowledged Urban growth boundaries.
, '. " ., " jt.. _. .,j ..1. .__.' I.. "
. ' ..:; .. "" '.' (.,' ';.". (1'. . I ,. ',~ .' . . - " '.- " ..
'. GoalS -Open,Spaces, Sce,ni~ au4 Hi,s'!oric :Are~s,andNatural.Resour~es
.This goal is ,not applicable to the proposed'ainendrilents, ',) , .
..A<"....".;~.,..,..'~:.:- ',~:_..~;'-' :.,,~~- ..
, Goal6.., Air; Water and Land Resources Qnality'-' To maintain and improve
the'qualiiy oftije 'air, water a,nd lafzdresources of the state:' .
. ,',' \.' ...' .. ." '
'.~ . oJ "
T~ goalls priiDarily concerned with c:"mPliimce' With federal and state
environmental quality statutes, ang how this compliance is achieved as
, development p~ceeds in relationship;to air sheds, river basins and land resources.
l' . . : . . .':t' '. c,. j'~ ".. . .::. ',_ ' ," ,,'
'.. ,The F'tideral :Water Pollution Control Act, P.L. 92-500, as amended in 1977,
,.' becameknown.'as the Clean Wat6- Act (33U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). The goal of this
. ,Act ~asto efunimite the diScbargeof pollUl:!mtsinto the navigable waters. ORS
468R035 requires the Oregon Environmental QUality .Coniinission (EQC) to,
implement,theF~era1 Water Pollllti~n Coritr"l Act. The p~ method of
implementatioR9fthis Act is through the issuance'of a Nati()nal Pollutant
,.Piscbarg~ Elirrli!}ation System (NPDES) permi(p.rior to the disc,barge of any
w!\Stes into the waters of the state.: (ORS'468R050)' AnioiIg the ,"pollutants"
. ',' regUlated by the EQC are temperature (OAR 340-041-0028) and toxic substances
, (OAR 340:041-0033): , 'i' ,>'".;,;, ";'
, f""\!" ':/" .
I' ' .
One,purpose of the p'~l-'used amendments is to ensure that the Metro Plan and the
'" ,PFSP accurately r,eflect regioruu wastewater system needs as imposed by Federal
~d Stateregu1ati9n. Ci:irtehtly, th~ PFSPstatesthat"..;'the RegionalWastewater
Treatm,ent p~ ~ sufficient design capacity:to accommodate population
J'" ", '1:,. '.. ." ."j.,..,-:! .(.', . iJ!. .
~j~J\it~dHHjabi~;:i~~ilecimi~al m~mo~dum entitled "Me~opolitan W~~ewaier Management comll\issi~n n",+ R . '. d
, ' ' , .' ;Pop~lati6nProjectioris f()rWastewater Facilities rIan;" prepar~d by Matt Noesen; CH2M Hill, et'a~e ecelve
, , \J 19,\2004)' '" ,.." . '
, ,', ~' , ' ,', ; " ' JUL 1 9, A' (
. ,'.1" v'f
, "r' :', 1'"." \\(5].. ',., '. I
, ~ ~ :~E~nl'l,~~\: ".:" .. Staff Rep()rtand Findmgs,Pilg€ 5: . , " PI
''1J'', {';,' ,.", ' ,2'-37" ,'" anner: BJ
" '
~ . . ,.
,.
Exhibit 1
-6-
increases and serve all new development at buildout." Recent analyses have ,
determined that facilhy 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
Whhin Urbanizable Are~s" 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 Natu~1 Disasters and Hazards
, ' -
,
This goal is not applicable to the propo~"amendnients:
._'1 "
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs'
',' ! ~ '
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments. .
Goal 9 - Economic Development - Goal.9 provides, in part, that h 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 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, treanp.ent, reuse and disposal,capacity
to servt; new and existing' industrial and commercial uses. '
Goal 10 - Hoosing - To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state,
Goal 10 Planning Guidelir).e 3 states that "[PJlans should provide for the
, appropriate type, location and phasing of pl.ipic facilities and services sufficient to
support housing development in, areas presently deyeloped or undergoing .
development or redevelopment, ", , ' ' ,
.'
,
OAR 66~08-0010 r~uir~s that "[S]Ufficientbuildable land sh8.l1 00 designated
on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housiiJ.gneeds by type and.denshy ,
range as determined in the hoUsing needs projection." Goal 10 defines buildable
lands as ".. .lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, a~ailable and
necessary for residential use."'66~08-0005(i3), in part, defines land that is
"suitable 'and available" as land "for which public facilities are plimned or to
which public facilities can be made available." - .
, ' ,
, ,{! ~ I ~ : i
Similar to Goal 9, adequate public facilhies are necessary to accomplish the
objectives of this goal and, applicable admmistrative rules (OAR Chapter 660,
Division 008), The purpose of the proposed amendments is to proVide the
comprehensive planning framt;work to allow for the improvements to 1bqJ.~ionA ,
',,' , . , ' , .' ,,' ,~Clle HeCelVed
JUL 19/0 (:
Planner: '~J.';'
Staff Report and Findings Page 6
,2-38 ". ,"
, .-.'
I. ,." .' .. _ '
-.i\. -., IJ .-~ -.. . \i. j ,-, '(1---'
!~;)'J."-/ l~f~;r"~, '._i/ ~::~
'r '::' _ J, :r ,~'i"1, !f\~~~~
.,"
ij
. r.
Exhibit 1
,"... 7'-
':l Ii".
,',
. . ' ~, :.. _, i:, ,
: wastew~ter sy~t~m that support th~ housing needs oftbe Eugene-Sprmgfield '
.. ' _.. . '..' ., . I.t ..~, :. ~ or" -
metropolitan area: '
ii'
. ". of' , . . . ." '.'
Goal 11- Public, Facilities and Services - To plan and develop a timely, orderly,
and efficient arrangement ofpubliCfacilities andservii:es to servlasafrdmework
forurban andrura!.development. ,:, ' . .
. """ . ~'. ,-',
,....". ,
, OAR Ch\ipter 660, Divisio.n 011, Unplements goal 11. OAR 66().-{)11-OO30(l) ,
, ' requires that theptiblic facility plan identify the generallocatioD.'orpublic . '"
.facilities projects. In regard to the Metro Plan, the reference to Public Facilities'
and Services Plan Map 2a in Finding 6 and PolicyG.3 in the proposed
amendments addresSes ibis requirement. IIi regard to the PFSP, thelI!odificatlon , '
of the introductory narrative under ''Planned WasteWater System Improvements .
(page 28)," 'the insertion of new Tables 4a and4b (page 28), arid the modification'
. of Map 2 and the insertion of new' Map 2a, alsO address thiS requirement.
, J... ' " .
OAR 66(4)11.:..0035(1) recfulresthat the publiCfacility pllin'includearough cost
estllnatefor sewer publicfacilityprojects:identifiedfu the facility plan. Iil
conformit)'with tliis requiremerit,,'it is proposed that.the PFSP be amended by the
msertion of Table 16il'(lIiserted fo.llowmg' Page 101), which addresses rough cost
eStimates and a tiining estimate f6r'MwMC Wastewater Treatment and '
.'.' ,,'. ;j' '.'
'Collection System Improvements: The rough cost estUnates in Table 16a are
based on costs'set forth in the MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan and Project liSt. This
2004 Plan was the'result of an exhaustive study that examined alternatives
. . . .. -, _ ",
ranging fr9m~1,44Mto $233M (See Attachment 3): The preferred alternative,
, found in Table '16a, was selected because,' among othe(reasons, it provides the
, lea~feJWe~siye means to comply ~ federal requirements and maximizes
MWMC's eXisting investments. ;"', '
. ... . ",.. . 11- - ',' ,- ~ ,
OAR 660-:-011;:0045(3) providesithat modificauoiis to prOjects liSted within a
public facjJ.ityplan may be made without amendmeIiHo the public facility plan.
This application proPoses to' add Ii new chapter to: the,PFSP regarding .
amendments'to that plan. Propostid Chaptel',VI incorpOrates the standards for
amending a public facility pIan allowed by OAR 660-:-011.:..o045(3)and adopts an
amehdmeht pr~cess., ' , ,', ,
G~~I12 - Transportation
',' .",'
. i .
, This goal is not applicable to the proposed amem1,m~~ts.
. . 1 .
" G~a113 - Energy Conservation
This goal is not applicabl~ to the proposed ~endments:
"
"
'.'A . - . -' .
'f -. '.~. ,-' ,,",'. 'GO,a. 114. -Urbanization;... To provide for,"an ord~rly and efficient trcp:Jfiti2nfr{l('!. .
'~~,)'n~~~}!S\t-i r;Y'J:r;f1 tq urban land use, , '_ " , " ' . Uale necelved
, ',".. " .;
@; 11'1""
," ..... J.-
..
,
,JUt 1 9,o{
" Planner: BJ
I. "
II
Staff Report and Findings Page 7. '
2-39 '.
r~.:o-t ,;. "'~:l't{\jl\\ r'~~(~~ I'
. .'~ '- '. ,~t, ,!....,)1.,~s
.'..
, i;\
Exlubit 1
-8-
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments, as they do not affect the
existing urban groWth boundary.,
,
, Goal IS - Willamette River Greenway
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendJilents.
, 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 ~ugene-Springfield M",,-vy;~IitaD. Area.
, Adoption of the amendment must not mak~ the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent.'
(b)
, The proposed chimges to the Metro Plan are essentially ofa "housekeeping"
" uature. 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 pr~ented, will
not create internal inconsistencies within the Metro Plan.' ,
, The proposed changes also amend ,the PFSP to.more a~urately reflectMWMC's
planne~ improvement projects for iis wastewater treatment system and primary
collection system, to provide rough cost and timillg e~imates for those
improvements, update narrative information regarding necessary improvements to
the wastewater ;""""-.uent system and primary collection system, and more clearly
. implement the plan modification standards contained in OAR 660-011~045(3),"'
"The proposed changes to, the PFSP do not create imyinconsistencies within the'
PFSP nor do !hey create any inconsistencies between the PFSP and the Metro,
Plan..
'"
. "
. '\"~ !~' :;..~3 ~:~ ~.i~~V~:f:~d:! /~~~.:::~f;t
~'"'~ "'11.,1.
,., iJr..-... - 'J.
n} ':< j~t;~. '
Staff Report and Findings Page 8
2-40 '
, , Date Receiver
JUL 19fn~
Planner: B~'
, ,
I. ~ " t'
'.""'" , j
,
-,".
.:: .,
"
,j"
"
ORDINANCE NO.
,.t.
,"
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFlELD METROPOLITAN
AREA PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVicES PLAN (PFSP)'"BY ADDING NEW
'T At\LES AND MAPS IDENTIFYING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES,
'AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS IN CID\PTER II; AMENDING CHAPTER IV
WASTEWATER SYSTEM CONDmONASSESSMENT AND ADOPTrim TABLE
16a; ADDING iNEW CHAPTER VI AMENDMENTS'TOTHEPFSP;AND " ,',
ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.' -, , ',~
WHEREAS, Chapter IV6fthe Eugeile-SpnngfieldMetrop6litan Area General '
Plan (Metro' Plan) setsforth procedures for amendment of:ilie Metro PIan, and by , I,
extension" amendment of refinement and functional planS that supplement the Metro'
Plan, whi<ih for Springfield are implemented by the provisions of Article 70f the
Springfield Development Code; and, '; , " ,;- , , '
., , " . ;. l~t I. ;, ~...!' '
WHEREAS, on February 17,2004, the Sprihgfield'City Council iriitilited
proceedings fora ~blic Facilities and SerVices Plan amendment and related Metro Plan
,text amendments; and ' '" 'j" " -:" " ",' " . ' '
.." ... ,:.,..' r . ~ f ..f' " , '
, WHEREAS, follpWing an April 20, 2004 joint public hearing with the Eugene '
andLane CountY Planning Commissions,)heSpiingfield P1anningCommission, on June
1, 2004, recommended the related Metro Plan text amendments and Public Facilities and,
Services Plan amendments to hiclude new, tables identifying wasteWater treatment system '
and primary collectionsystein improvem(lnrprojects as,identified'in Appendix B; to','
hiclude, n.ewmaps showing existing wastewater,treatment systems and planned
waste,waterproject, sites; to revise the wasteWater sYstem ~l.}dition assessment by,
, describmgand distingUishing treatment system and conveyance; to include an expanded
discussion of wastewater service withintI1e urbanizable m;ea; to include projecttitles, ,
rough cost estimates and completion dates for the wastewater treatment and collection '
syStem improvements; and'to add a new Public'Facilities and'Services Plan amendment
ptocess, the eXact language for eich of the precedingame~d!llents being contained in
, Appendix A and 'B attached and adopted ~ part of this Ordinahce; and ' '
'. : '.<< ',." ' I~ -. _' -' ~_~' ',: '. - '.:.. . , I' .
WHEREAS~ on May 24, 2004, the EugeneP1anning Commissionand on June 1,
2004, the Dane County Pl~ Comniission recomme'ridedtheMetroPlan text '
amendments and Public Facilities and Services Plan am, eridments; and
. -..- - .
., ,.
'Or'
if ,'-,it
',i..l;,(f-_;I!
-,"'i'",,",(i"j1 ,"Ii ,~Vi{:T\'
'~ Ilt..../~ ~t~<:~/;. ,I
(
, 2-41
'"
Planner': B~J
'"
~
applicable state and local law as described in findings attached as Exhibit 1; and which
are adopted in support of this Ordinance.
NOW; THEREFORE, the Common Council oftheCity'ofSprlngfield does
ordain as follows:'
.'
Section 1: The Public Facilities and Services Plan is hereby amended as follows:
a) Chapter II is amended to include the text, tables and maps set forth in Appendix. B at
pages 1 and 2, attached hereto; b) Chapter IV is amended to reflect the text and tables set
forth in Appendix B at pages 3 and 4; and c) Chapter VI is added and shailconsist of the
text set forth in Appendix B !11 pages 5 and 6. Appendix B is adopted as part of this
Ordinance. ,',', '
Section 2: Chapter II of the Public Facilities and Services Plan is further amended
to reflect the changes to Chapter IlI-G, Public Facilities and Services Element and '
Chapter V, Glossary of the Metro Plan as set forth in Appendix. A, attached hereto and by
this reference. incorporated herein. ,
Section 3 ~ Although not 'part of this Ordinance, the City COwlcil adopts the
findings set forth in the attached Exhibit 1 in support of this action.
Section 4: 'Ifany section, subsection, sentence, clause; phrase or porlionofthis
Ordinance is for any reason.held invalid or unconstitutioDal by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision
and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining Portions thereof.
Section 5: N~tWithstandillg the etIectivedate of ordinances as provided by
Section 2.110 of the Springfield Municipal Code 1997, this Ordinance shall become
effective upon the date that ail of the following have occurred: (a) the ordinance has been
acknowledged as provided by ORS 197.625; (b) at least 30 days have pas'sed sinc~ th~.
date the ordinance was approve_d;and (c) both the Eugene City Council and Lane CoUnty
Board of Commissioners have adopted ordinances containing identical provisions to ,
thoSe described in Section 1 of thiS :Oi:dinance, ,,' ,
,
Adopted by the'CommoI). Council of the City of Springfield this
July, 2004 by,a vote of ,in favor and against.
day of
Approved by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this'. day of July,2004
,
:."
Mayor
ATTEST:
, ;1 .. f ~. ~"'r
~,
~'V . ,'~,.:. .~ .;:(1 ' .r. 1;:':,'
ij....;l"\f!~:..~\~'.'~;;,;jl...:l (',T'f(V ~ .
,~. . '1 I ..'. ',.. Jf 11 t. '; .l~,;l~._
City Record~r
~ats neeeived
JUL 1 9;01
Planner: BJ
.l . .. ;
:< , " " 2-42
I
',' '.
J
"
'iI
ji'
, . ',APPENDIXAa'
,< '" l" '" ','. " " '~;
EROPOSED CHANGES TO THE METRO PLAN
, " (Current.version,ofthe Metro Plan)
"
..
G,
'I
~ublicFacilities and SemcesilHement
;.'"
, <",
"I"
, '
.... ,. ",'", . , ,""
This Public Fadlities and Services Element provides direCtioft for tJ:!e'future provision of
urban facilities and services to planned Iaiid uses Witbin the Metro Plan Plan Boundary
, (Plan Bo.undary); ,
The avai1abi1itY"~fpublicfacilities and serVices is a k~y fact~:r influencing the" location ,
and densityoffuturedevelopniellt. The public~s,investi:D.entin, and schedulliLg ot;public
facilities and services 1ll'ea majormeansOfimpleme~ing ili,e.A{etro Plan. As the '
population of the Eugene-Springfield' area increases and land development patterns '
change oyer timei;the dc:mand for urban services also increases and changes" These
changes require that ~ice'providers,boih public-and private, plan for the provision of
services in a coordinated manner, using consistent assumptions and projections for
. ' ., . '," '
pop'u1ation and land use., ", .,i ',,: ' , ,
11' " '?,'r,", "
",j.,
The policies in this eletnent cOmplement Metro.'Pliln Chapter II-A, Fundamental
Principles, and Chapter II-C, Growth Management. Consistent with ,the principle of
compact urban growth prescn"bedin ChaPter II, the policies iJithis element'ca11 for,future
, urban water and wastewater services to be provided exclusively, withiD. the urban growth-
'boundary. This policy direction is consistent with Statewide plAnning Goal II : Public
Facilities and Services, "To plan and develop !l 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 conipleted
and, uliimately,by a full range of key urban serVices and facilities. On rural lands within
thePIaD. Bound8.ry, development must be- served by rura11eveis of serVice, Users of
facilities and Services:in rural areas are sr,read out geographically, iesuhing in a higher
per-uset cOst fot some services and, often, i.D.anini\4equate revenulibase tostipport a
higher leveJ'of service in the future. Some urban facilities may.be located or managed
outside.the urban growth boundary, as allowed by state hlw, but only to serve '
development within the urban growth boimdary. ',.: "," " i
~ . "
Urban facilities and services Within the urban growth bOundary are provided by the City
, " ' '. ~ l' ." ,'.
ofEugeIie, the City of Springfield, Lane County, Eugene Water & Electric Board
(EWEB), the SpringMld Utility Board (SUB), the'M,etropolitanWilstewater
Management Comn,;..ion (MWMC), electric cooperatives, and speCial'service districts.
Special service districts provide schools and ,bus service, 1IDd. in some areas outside the ' ,
.' ' ", ' cities, they pro,vide water, electric, fire service ouarks,~d *reationservice. This' '
:' (1':,; jc..""l:';jc:~~/?J~I?-~PE~yides guidelines ~or .special service districts,h.j.line with the co~mb3jl'), . '
"Ji,;l(";;I,Jd,\ . development fundamental prmclple of the Metro Plan. " ",Ui:1le necelved
" 'illlUC ' 'c II', ,;;'~ JUL 191 oq
Planner: B~!
'4 i~;' "';1, a~,'~;,r: ,', "",';;,i e,i
'. ,\..,1,.. _, '. j, ~,.~l: ':'~ ,,!\.!!".* ~ q
"ApPe~~,* Pagel
'.,'
This element inCo~ pv,..~<lS the findings and policies in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Public Facilities imd 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.1l, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies and shows the genera1location' 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 Plim are adopted as part
of the Metro Plan. Information in the Public Facilities and Services Plan ~nproject ,
phasing and~costs, and decisions on timing and financing of projects afe not part of~e '
Metro Plan and are controlled solely by the capital impI:9vement progr:<mming and
budget processes ofindividu!!,l 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,
ifIelooiag wastewater serviee, may be found under any of~se 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
, .,YVastewater
. Stormwater
. Electricity ,
. ' , Schools
., Solid Waste
. Services to AreaS Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
. Locating illidMariaging Public Facilities Outside the Urban Gro~ BouncJai.y
. ,Financing,
The applicable findings and policies are coritainedunder each of these topic.headings,
'below.
The policies liSted Provide direction for public and private developmental and program
decision-making regarding urban facilities and service,S. 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.
I The exact location of the projects shown on the Public Facilities and Service:rPlan planned facilities
.' .1.; ...~[~, ".,maps is:aet&rinined through local processes. ' ' i!te [') . d' '
. ,'._, .,., '. '1' G, oJ,(li','aiso'r~quires .~sportation facili~ies to be included in public facil~ties plans, In thi , i1f\eceIV, 3
, '(" ,'i.', area,.tI;msportation facIlities are addressed m Metro Plan Chapter ill-F and m the Eugene-Spnn e Ii
, , c'Traiisportation System Plan (Trans Plan). JUL 1 9 6i'
, ~
... ",'
) ~I'.)
:f'~ H
, ..
". '.... .1,.'"
'j'::" .,,;,, ~';;i' '~,
~,_.<: 'r ~i' :. 1 i \;
Appen~~ Page 2
Planner: BJ
"" "
...
, ,
I,
"
,",
,"'
"
. :',
J.
'"
, <
)' ,.,
Goa~s
.,:"
.;' ,
, 'Ii
"
I."
,,' . . ,
Provide' and IDain~public facilities and"~ervice~ in an efficient and '
" ._ . ,. _ .' I" p,," 1
environmentally responsible manner.' " " " ;' ,,' :
, "II ' ' ,
2, Provide,pl,lblic facilities and services in a manner, tl1at enc~urages orderly and
"seguential grovitlL " ' ,':'::,' "",oo .',' " " ' '
. '_"", ,..' '" ..' 't - .
"J:. ,l-,.'
fin dines and Policies "
,. ,j .
i'",'1
'.
,
" '
I: ','
Services to Development Within the,Urban Growth, Boundary: Plal,!ning and'
C d"'." , . \"", '-
oor lDation'. ' " , " . ' ' " '
" ',:S J'.. " ... '.,
,..c ~-
"
L
.o'
~
2.
". ' ,\, .
In accordance with Statewide Planning Goil11 f arid OAR 66.0, tIie Public
. Facilities and Services Plan identifies jurisdictional responsibility for the
'provision of water, wastewater and stormwater, descnbes reSpective service areas
'and existing andplanned water, Wastewater; ~ stormwater facilities, and '
containsp1anned fac~ies map~ for ,these SeMces. El~ctric system inforination
and improvements are:included iJithe Public Facilities, qnif S~rvices Plan, "
although not rl<quireg by state law. Local facility IDaster p1arisandrefinemerit
plans provide more specificproj~ci Uiformatibn. " " , " . ',,: "
f,' '-
""i,',!.
3.Urbim services within the m",,-v;:"litariurban gro~ "oundary are provid~d.by'
,the city of Eugene, the City;()fSpringfield,1lme County, EWEB, SUB, the
" ,MWMC, electric cooperatives, 31i4 special~4e. distri~ts: ",' .'i:;
. ~ '.J' .- , '-, '. \1." ,0' "' I: ,. ., ,,:. "~ . .. '". .' j , " ',' . I .-
4, The Public Facilities aiu:l Servi~es Plan finds'tgat ~ost all areas within the city ,
,lirriits ofEugene,and:Springfieldareserved,or.can beseryed in the short-term (0-5
,.years) with water"wastewater;stormwater, and electric 'service.'Ex:ceptions to
, '" ,; t!iisare1st()rmwater service to portionsofthe'Wiliow Creekm;ea,,~d'southeast
, Springfield and fuU water service a.t some liigheielevations iri Eugene's South
, . '.. 0 ';. . ". . '~'. . .'. ."~ ''''.' J" , " ,:. -. "
,Hills. Servlce to these areas will, be available m ~e long"term., '~ervlce to all
areaS within city limits are either,in a capita1improvement plan or ClIIl be
, '" '.' extended ,,!\,itlulevelopment. , . ' ,
" . , .' . , '. I".') . .1 ,~
'!.;~1~;~~:~fjtt:t]j;~~:~~~::p~~i:~~;ci~:~ ~~~I~~:~~{~;::;~j~':~i~'fetReceived
) . ~l<L~ Jt J. .,' ~
," ~,,' " , .. ';. " .,', " JUL 1 9 I 01
i,p'::~ .:'~!~)lruH~1l~'l;;, . , Appe~~~~ pag!:3,~' . ",' Plan ner: BJ
','
, '
boundary can be served with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service
at the time those areas are developed" In general, areas outSide city liinits ",
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 Jaspei-Natrcin areaS in east
Springfield." '
6. ' OAR 660-011-0005 defines projects that must be included in public fiicility plan'
projectlists for water, wastewater, and stofmwater. These definitions are shown
in the keys of planned facilities Maps I, 2, ~ and 3 in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan. "
7. hi accordance ~ ORS 195,020 to 080, Eugene, Sprinifield, Lane County and
special service districts are required to enter intocoordID3.tionagreements 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 mstitutioilal'uSes, such as universities and hospitals, present complex
p1anningproblems for the metropolitan ~ea due to their location, facility
exparision plans, aI).d continuing housing and parking needs,.
9. 'Duplication of services prevents the most economical distribution of public
facilities and services. '
, I
10, 'As discus~ci in the Public Facilities and Services Plan, a inajority ofnociaI ,
development areas proposed in TransPlan are serviceable now or in the short"
term. The City of Eugene's adopted Growth Manligement Policy #15 states,
''Target prtblic1y-ffuancedinfrastructure extensionS to support development for
higher densities, in-fill, mix\ld uses, andno&1 development.'" , '
Policies
0,1 ExteDd the minimum levelanq fu1I:range of key urban facilities and services in an
orderly and efficient mariner consistent with the growth imm"gement 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 genera! location of water, wastewater, stormwater,and electrical projects in
" the m~;"'''pvlitan area. Use local facility master plans, refinement,plans, canital
imnrovement n1ans"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 pq1$~ i:1E~ . ' ,
H ,1-'\i';i,.,i.,!hl ty:;,projects or significant changes to project location"from that descn'b~ tteCelve dI
. -.- ,.."'". r.'_, I: . ".f/. 11'; t t. :
'>';";'1:,' " .. ,..',' JUL19{~4-
. .:.....~,
_.~.~
.." ",,",.. \' :'.{',':Jl
, . ~. .'1-~1"1l" I'~.:.l: .~!
.
!--ppen~&: Page 4
Planner: ~J
1:
'j"
,,'
~
,>
"
Pl'
, .~.
" '~', .
. ' ','
," Public Fadities'and Seryices Pl~ plan,necJfacilit1.bs ~ps i ,~,~,~d 3,' ' .
requires amending thePubicPacilities and Services:Pl~n.and"the Metro Plim,'
except for ihe following:' "" ' < '
",
G.4
,
a., "Moc\ificatioI)ll,to it public facility project which,are minor iI1 Dature and do,'
. , "not significantly impact th~ project's general description, location, sizing,
',. 'capacity"qr other general c~cteristic of the ptofect; or ,,' "
,. '''. , ' " '~.~':. ' . 1,', ,.,' : ." , '.
, b. 'Technical ~d"enviiorimentaiinodifications to a public facrutYwhich are
, made pursUantto final eIigineering on a project; ~r; , " '
, I '
, ,. , " I',"', ", "
c, - ,::, Modifica~ions to apublic ~ilityproject w,hich are ,made Pursuant to'
.- " -:. ~ findings of an Environmental Assessment. orE~vironmental Impact
Stirtement'conducted under, regulations iinplementing the procedural
, provisions of the ' national EhvrronmentaI Policy Act of 1969 or any
federal or State of Oregon agency, project' development'regulations
consistent with that act and'its regulations ' ,
, ,
~. ',' .
The cities and Lane <:;punty sha1l toordiruit~ mth'EWEB, SUB, 'and special
, ,service districts operating in the metropolitan area, to'proVide the vppv.L.mity to
review and comment on p.v~~sed public faciliti~s, plans, progfains, and public,
, improvement projects or changes Thereto thai may,affect one another's'area qf
responsibility., '" ,,' , '., ,j " ' "
,(...... ',-
'/
G.6
The cities shan continue joint p1anningcoordination with major institutions, such
'as universities and hospita1s, due to tp.eir relative1y,,1arge impact onlocal'facilities
and seJ;Vices., ';,'
'~ l' , ' " "
, \: '
Effortssha1ljJe made to reduce the number ofiInnecessafy special service districts
and to revise confuSing or illOgiclll service boundaries, including those th3.tresUIt '
, - ", ; -.. .'.''- . '. ' '. '
in a duplication of effort or overlap Of service. "When possible; these efforts sha11
,be pursued incoope~on with th~ affectedjurisd.ictions. ' "
" ,,/ .' '", - '. ;,'.- .: . ,.." '. ' .' "!' ,,;
Service providers shim coordinat~ the provision of facilities and,Services to areas
.targeteclby the cities 'for higher d~nsitieS,'~ mixed uses; and nodal:' :" '
development, ',.c' , '. ',.'.., ''':, , :", .,/, ,:',
. :/.-' .
G,5
"
G.7,
......'
j; I ".
,G.8 The cities and counD',shiill coordir1ate with cities surrounding the metropOlitan
,: 'area todevelop~ growthmanage;nentstrategy:"This stpitegywill.add.ress " '
,", : regional public facilityneeds.t '"... "
. " , .. :""~.... -.' .... :1'.'.. ;' ,;," I;' ,
Services t~ DeveIoilment Within the Urbarl Gro:wth Briu~dan: Wastewater.
,',
-".
'l~, "
.~ '-i,' .c" II-. '
,'1".
Findinl!s
., . \ .:':-,- "'$~~':;;:.:,-l!::{,i ,.,t/:'~A(" 'f
" :-~; ~t.;,~\,r.\'f,~,.{,~~:.J.~, c,~>h,;,>)J~,<, :"','
'. It. ~ ..,,- r",",,,.~.r~'I. .
"
Date Received
JUL 19,01
Pianner:BJ
'l;l"fl)1 ','
,. .J:\,:I, ...;:.r .....
, '
, ," -, .
r' .-.<* _.:. '1'.,.:_';.""
- ,~ '{'~~' ~'.'ll..,.~=;~;t'k-ti.t,)'lq..);
, ;', I,;~,~)I, :~.: l'~M"'t,V ,n.! JJit,' ~ !:'l,
APpe~t!j~~. 'Page.5.-;
'""
11. ~rim!field and EUlzene relv on a combination of relrional and local services
for 'the urovision of wastewater services. Within each Citv. the local '
iurisdiction nrovides collection of wastewater throulZh a'svstem of s8nitaiv
~ewers and oumning SYstems, These collection facilities' connect to a reIDonal
SYstem of similar sewer collection facilities owned and ooerated bv the
Metronolitan Wastewater Manaaement Commission ("MWMC"1, an entity
formed under an intergovernmental am-eeinent created oursuant to ORS 190.
To\!ether. these collection facilities (which exclude nrivate latirraIs which
cOlivev wastewater from individual residential or commercial/industrial
connections) constitute the orimarv collection SYstem '
12, The orimarv collection system convevs wastewater to a treatment facilities svstem
owned and ooerated bv MWMC, This ~stem consists ofan interconnected Water
Pollution Control Facilitv ("WPCF'),:i biosolidsfacilitv, and a beneficial reuse
, '
facilitv~
Poiicies
G.9 Wastewaterconvevance and treatment shall be orovided to meet the needs of
orojected Ql'oWth inside the urban Ql'owth bouncIa,rV that are caoable of comolvirig
with re\ffilatorv reauirements governing beneficial reuse or discharl!e 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. EWEBwater
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 C9nfer rights to a groundwater source.
Policies
G.910 Eugene and Springfield and theii: respective utility branches, EWEB and
Springfield utility 130ard '(SUB), shall ultimately be the water service providers
within the urban growth boundary.
,
G,l Q 1 ,~ontinue to take pOsitive steps to protect groundwater supplies. 1?e chies,
cOunty, and other service providers shall mAnage" land use and public facilities for
groundwater-related benefits through the implementation of the Spririgfield
Drinking Water Pr.otectionPlan 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.
"
';f.:..,!:{'''i/',t~ ~~l,~~ ~1
Appen*& Page 6
Date Received,
JUL 19, D~
Planner: B.J
.;, ';; l\/~~":~ ~.~. 'fl;~? \'~'):r:.~:. t~...;;, ~~ ~
, -/.. If.
"
'"
....
','
. ~.
"."
'C
,"j
"r..
'f'; .
.'
. -, """
'L ri , '. .
G.H-2 Ensure thiltwaterniain extensions ,within the urban growth boundary include
, ' ,'adeqiiate cO!1Sideritiono'f fire flo~s." .' , . ,.'.. " ,
!'; , .,- . " ,", . .
. . ~ . '. ,.. :"~ , , . ; ~:
G.12,J SUB, EWEB, and Rainbow Water Distfict; the water providers that cu'rfehtly' ,
control a ,water source,sball examine tlie need for a m~;;vpvlitan-wide''wilter
, master program, recognizing that a metropolitan-wide systeIll will require
estiililisbingstandards, as well'asco.orc1iciLted so~e and dellverysysteins.
.', . ", '. ,', '.,' v'.. " " . 1
, .< . > .' .. ..".J" . ".
Services to Development'Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Stormwater:', '
"
Findings,
, , ~
,. .
~! ."^ .
" ,.
, i.-o.....".
, -'.,;l.
.,t.
. ,,' .
.~. !l'
\"": ~!;, ".
, ,
"I;!4, H~()ricau)i, stormwatfd systems mEug'eneand Springfidd,were designed .
" ,: priniarily:tocontrol floods. 'The 1987 re-authorization of the federal Clean Water'
.. '" Act required; for 1l1.e first iliiIe, local communities to ieduce'stoi:mW~er,pollution
" .", '\Vnhin theu;,~1piicii>.~ ~oim dr~e'sysiemS. , These' r~quirements applied
initially to the CitY of Eugene and, subs~quent amendments to the.Act ~xtended ,
these requirements to Springfield and Lane County. '
.'., I
, I' ,
m. Adri:iiriisir~tion and enforcement of the Clean Water Actstormwater provisions'
oc:cut l!t the state le>:~~ throughNatioDalPollutant Discharge Eliinination System
(NPDES) permitting requirements. Applicab1e'juriSdictions are required to obtain '
,an NPllESstormwater permit from thebregoil. Dep",- ;..'"...."'; of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), and prepare a water qua1ityplan outlining the Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to be taken over a five-year permit period for reducing "
stormwater pollutants to "the maximum extent prliCticable." ," '
.'
S~~rmWater quality improvement facilities are most effi~ient and'effective at
intercepting and'removlng pOllutants when they are close to the soUrce. of the
pollutants and freatrehitively'sma11 volumes of runoff. ' ' '"
,~ . ,", . ,..' , - . t., - - -'. :
" 146.
"'
"
.; ,\;./
n'~ . .
The Clem; :Water Act requlres'states to assess the quality of their surface waters
ev~ry ti)ree y~ars, i1ndto Iisttbose wirte~ which do riot nieet adopted water '
quality stan<lards. The Wil1amett~ ,River ljrid ~ther water bo4ies have beep. liSted
as not,meetijigthe standards for t~~.'"ture"arig bacteria." This will require the
development of Total Maxiinum Daily Loads (TMDLs)'for'these pollutants, and
an allocation to point'and non-point sources. ' '
;:~' . '. ' . . t'.". ,', '" . ".. ",
,. '.. '
168. "The liSting of Spnng'Chiriook sai.inoil. as a thfeatened species in,the Upper '
"?Iillamette River requires the application ofEndal}gered Species Act (ESA) ,
"provisions to thesalinon's habitat in the McKeIizie and Willamette Rivers. The
- , .' _ ~ , ,'l. . . ~.,.. .",. '.
,decline in the Chinook Salinon has been attributed to Such factorS as destruction
''''''f: "oJ' . . ~ l" , ,_ . ",
, , " '.' P: ,of habit, at tlirough cillonnpl;7~~ion,and ,revetment o,Jri,verbanks, non-point sour, ce , ,
C"'"'''rf''f''),j " , "~'.'" .
');jI\1;-" ~ "~Olt'~ ~,;. I; ':I"" pollution, alt~a?ons of natural hydrograph by increased impervious surfaces in
;'.' nil" the ~iri,'an~ d:gradation ofna:unu functions of riparian lands due to removal oh . 'd
" """"', "alteratIon ofmdlgenous vegetation. ' ,Date l1ecelve
" '
JUL 19(tJ~' '
Planner: 1~~
,1$7.
r.~....... '..'
;41"~~i~1. ,~;~,,,,,~~,)}":'" .
'l<lb,;)" -ti~! ..tI...... ~ ~,
1 '-;''''.,:!'' _i~:.. ,- . .
"
'.<0'"
r.
Appen,di~a Page..?, '
;
... ,.:
Ft9.
~20.
'"
-1921.
2G2.
2+3.
Policies
"
There ~e many advantages to keeping channels open, including, at a minimum,
natural biofiltration of stormwater pollutants; greater ability to "attenuate effects of
peak stormwaterflows; retention of wetland, habitat, and open space funl?tions;
and reducedcaP,ital costs for stormwater fucilities, ' '
. 'j',' .
,An mcreas,ein irppervious surfaces, Without mitigation, results in higher flows
during peak storm events; less oPPOrtunitY for recharging of tIie aquifer, and a
decrease in water quality.
, ' '
Stormwater systems tend to be gravity-based systems that foIiowthe slope of the
land rather than political bound:iries. In many cases, the natura1 drainageways
such?S streams serve as aT( integriU part of the stormwater conveyan~e system.
.In general, there are no programs for stormwater nuiintenance outside the Eugene
and,Spririgfield'city limits, except for the Lane County roads progTlHTI. ~tate law
, limits coUl).ty road funds for stormwater ,projects to those located withiil the public
right-of-way. " .
Filling in designated floodplain areas.can increase flood elevations above the
. ' . - -, . - ,
elevations predicted by F~deral Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
models, becl!uSe the FEMA models are typically based only on the extent of
d<:velopmerit at the tim~ the, modeling was conducted and do not take into account
the ultimate buildout of the dnuuage area. This poses risks to other properties in
or adjacent to floodplains and can chaniethe hydrograph of the river.-
,:
G.B4 Improve surface and ground waterquility ~d quantity in the nietropolli~ area'
, by developing regulations or instituting programs for stormwater to: ,',
a. ' Increase public a",areness of techniques and practic,es private individuals
can employ to help correct water q~~y and quantitY prpb1e~;, '
-',:. t' f.,.- . ~;. _ ~ _ ' ,-,.,' "\ . .
: '1'''''lI,''h~'::~ ,It ~~~~.. ~~~,;Ir~'f.""
.' ,~, '''~..'' tt.'.;t-~"'/f5 '1 ~:brji:._ "
. .',
"
Jill
- ,
~.t: "_~' -' ;0."
. I/:'~;' " .. i.~t~';;"'~'Wll~~,!;~':r -
, '
b. 'Improve rnonogemeiitof mdustrla1 and commercial operations tO,reduce
negative water quality and quantity impacts; , '
. . . '. .
c. Regulate site planning for new development and constrUction to be~er
manage pre- and post-co~ction storm \}lI10ff, including erosion,
ve.1ocity, pollutant loading, and, drainage; ,
d. Increase storage and retention and natural filtrlltion of stonD~off to
, lower and delay peak Storm flows and to settle out pollutants prior to
, ,discharge into regulated waterways;' , , " , ", Date Rec~ :ivec
". "
JUL 19 liI~ '
Planner.' BJ
Appen~stf Page 8
,,'
,
.",,: ""j,':. ' ", ,,:_:: " .:; . ' ""-', . - "
e. Requireon~'site contrOls and development standards,as;practical; to reduce'
off-site impacts from stormwater iunoff;, '.'. '. .'.:.,,' '
. Lj r,
- . I' " "'
uSe natunil and simple mechanical treatment SystemS to provide treatment
for potent.iiilly cont~m;mrteli runoff waters; , ",'
. , ~ .
t:
g:
h.
i.
j.
-j.
,. ". .
R,ed~ce street-related water, qUality and quantity problems;'
~ : j' '. . '. ~ I~ . ~" " ,', : '_' '.: _... .
Regulate use and requirecgntai:im1ent and/or pretreatment 'of toxic
, substances; " '
'. . ,~: . . .
Inc1udecOnt~;nment meastl1'es ~ site re~ew Standards to minim;.,'e the
effects of chemical and petroleum spills; and "
. .' JI, -, -
,
, " ,COIisider ~pacts to gI'oun~ 'wat~r quality,in the'~\lsigb. and location of dry
, wells., ' ;'; .'," " r' , ",: " .
I'"
. <[ ." (,q -" " . '- ..
G~145' Implerrtent cJUmges to,stormwater:facilities and ~e~en{:piactices to reduce '
, the prest;nCe '&f p\lllutants regulated und~theCle3.n Water Act and to address the
" . requirem, ents of,the Ei1dangered Spec, ie,s Act. .-
rr ,.
'. .,
G.l % ,COnsider wellheadpr,otection areas and surface water Supplies when planning ,
. ~' . . _' I ' . " .
, stormwater, facilities.' ". ,'." . ' " , " ' , ·
. - ""-"1': ". ,.', I . . . .
. . .,' . " '" - i.'- .
q.16.7 Manage or enhancewaterways anP opeli'stormwater systems to reduce,-water
, "q1Jlllity impacts'fro.m runoff and to improv~ stormwater com;eyance., ' ' ,
. "." . ,"" .. ,- '.-,,- ."', ;','" ", ;"':A "",_. ,,' '.' ~', '.' ,,' "
G.1 +8 Ili.cfude measures ill local land development regulations that minimi7e the amo,unt
of impervious Surface in new development in a manner that reduces stormwater
pollution, reduces the negative a;ffects from increases in runoff, and is compatible
with Metro Plan policies. ' "'" :' ," , ,,' : '
",'~ '. .:.'1~" .,' '.~ . . ";11, J,.'" ~ ",... ,.' I.j.
G.189 The cities lindLane County ShaIllmopfa'strategy for the unincv.pv,";'.::d areaoL
, the 'urban grOWth boundary to: redUce the negative effects 'i>f fi11ilig infloodp1ains
and prevent the filling .of natural drainage channels except as necessary to ensure
public operations andmaintenand: of these channels in a.maimer,that.preserves
and/or enhances floodwaterconveyancecapaeity and biological fuhctiOn. '
. .... #. "" ,.- - ':" . . ;~. '., _' " . '7r . . . . ~
G.!920Maintafn flood storagecaplicny.Whhin the floodplain; to'the maximuIh extent
practiCal, tlirotiih measures' thatrilay include reducing imPerviouS ~.face in the
floodplain and,- adjacent areas., " ,,' _' '
~. ":,,'.' . C I'. . . . :~, . ..[ ) ,- ,". "t - ..... .... "'. .J'..
Services to Development With!n the Ul'ban Gl'!IWth Boundary: Electricity
~ J d .
. -. ...' ,".~ ~i"J tJ.~.f$.n~J !.
f,"'-I,t'i"vLa\""'j.~"..,._~.,.. I' ,'_~ ''h
;;4 ~.'I'\'~. ~iT,"-...J" II Findin1!s '.'" .'
,'-:.,.
'.
\l,.1,!UI,
" (~\l-;
.1 -I~
~\\.;,'l
. . 0'..' '.
" " t!l'l'"
",':~"fr,.lr~~II'~ c
, !''",~~ "~.'\!4~';" "
'_,:I!,
.J."
'Date Received
, JUL 1 9, oL{
, \.'
,.,.
,
II,"
ii.
,
, '
Appe~ Page 9 ,
, Planner::B,,J
"
"
2;!4. , According to local Illllllicipalutilities, efficient e1ectricalservi~e is often
accomplished through mutua1back-upagreements and inter-connected systems "
are more efficient than isolated systems.
Policies
..~.
, G.2Gl 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
Findiu!!s
"
2<1-5. ORS 195.110 requires cities and counties to include, as an element of their
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 defines high growth districts as those that
have an eurollment of over 5,000 students and an increase in enrollment of six '
percent or more duriD.g the thtee 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 ~ban growth 1X>imdary is amended to
provide needed housing, "As part of ibis process, the amendment shall include
sufficient land reasoill\bly necessary to accommodate the siting of new public',
sChool facilities. The need and inclusion of lands 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$7. Enrollment projections for the five public, school distriCts h1 the ~':'~,vpvlitan 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 Sprlllgfield and Eugene School Districts and LCC are "'i'P'" :encing nearly
flat or decl.iniIig,enrollments. Enrollment 'is increasing faStest in the elementary
, and high school attendance~as n~ar new development.
.'-
U8. Sh~it-t=fluctuations in school attendance are addressed through the ~ of
adjusted attendance area boundaries, double shifting, use of portable classrooms,
and busing. School funding fropl the state is based 9n 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 may be feasible where there is no
net loss or gain in student enrollments b~tween districts.
':';;~"'\:\;i ,., dJ?':[ ,~~rea~ing or retaining s~,~eighborhood schools ~ducesthe need for .~ecei\ 'ed
, !" L' , ',' , , 'prOVIdes more opportunity for students to walk or bike to school. Qua1ity smaller ' '
.' ' ' ' JUL 1 9
'I' ' 100
Planner: BJ
",
1 > ~.'I . __.:.';!t
Appendf-* Page 10
.,'
.
','
J
, , ' .
schoolsmay,a1lowinore parents to stay in established neighbOrhoods and to avoid'
moving out to new subdivisions o~ 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 resuhs in some fringe area
schools exceeding capacity, while some central city schoolS are under capacity. '
~ ~ ~
,
2,931.
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.
, Combining educational facilities with local park and recreation facilities provides
financial benefits to the schools while enhancing benefits to the community. ' The '
Meadow View School and adjacent City, of Eugene community park is an
example of shared facilities. '
2,&30.
~
Policies
"
!.:
G.2-l-2 The cities shall initiate a process ~ ~hool districts Within the urban gro~
boundary for coordinating land use and school planning activities. The cities ilnd
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 ro;,p'act of school builoing height arid'site siZe on the rnilldable land
supply;' ' '
"
d. The uSe of school facilities for non-school activities and appropriate'
reimbursement for this use;
, '
"'. '.
"
,e.
The impact of building and lanci'use codes on the development and
, redevelopment of school facilities; , '
L
Systems development charge adjustments related to 'neighborhood
sch<;>ols; and,
: . ""I,'
(.'./.
i ..,~\..
.., _ ""ii,' ;,~,"; l.,,";,~,,:.,'t
;' 'I,."," -~,;y -'';'"i.... (,-
,,~-":_,'I!k~-. :.~V,...~.,I
1 (>-.' . "Vi.: ,'.l.(':'- ,1if.tr'
r.\,. "j;',"\ Ii!!:' 1 .....:it. ...,1/
. ., .
"-,
Appendr-~ Page 11
Date Received
JUL 1 9 ( 0 ~
Planner: BJ
~ I;'
J JUl.
'"
g.
The possibility of adjusting boundaries, when practicai-.and when total
enrollinent will not be affected, where a single, otherwiSe inteinal1y ,
cohesive area is divided into more than one school district.
G.2~3 Support financial and other efforts to keep neighborhood schools open and to
retain schools sites in public ownership following school closure.
G.2;4 Support the retention of University of Oregon and LCC facilities in central city
areas to increase opportUnities for p~blic 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,
3()2~ Statewide Planning Goal 11 requires that, "To meet current and long-range needs,
a provision for solid waste disposal sites, including sites for inert waste, s1ilill 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, inc1udingsitesfot 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
3-1-3. ProvidiD.g 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 rura1
densities, increasing the coSt of public facilities and services to all users of the
systems.
3;!4. Land application ofbiosolids, treated waStewater, or cannery waste on
" agricultural sites outside the urban growth boundary for beneficial reuse of treated '
waStewater byproducts generated within the urban growth boundary is more
efficient and environmentally beneficial than lail.d filling or' other means of
disposal , '
,33-5. j"aneCounty land use data show that, outside the urban growth boundary, land
'.: ,\1 : l~.;.. \ :.}r'~ .~'.'~':::~I Uses consist of:
f ,I "
. . ~ I
r
Append~tt Page 12
, Date Received
JUL 1 9 /,61
Planner: B.J
"
.." '
,,'
;i'
1)
,2)
.. '
" those .which are primarily intended for ,resource inanag"~",,i; and
. ' " _ ' , . < . . , . ;: - 'h") .., ~.. :' , '. .'
'ThoSe wtlere development Iiasoccurred and are committed to l1l1'li1
development as estab1iShed:thr~ugh the exceptions process specified in
StatewidePI~nning; Goal2j; " ", '.', ,"
, '. " ,.j .1,'
, Policies '
'" .
..'
.....
G.2$6 ,Wastewater and water"service ~hall riot, be provided outside the urban growth "
, boundaryexceptto the following areas, and the cities may require consent to '
aIIllex. agreements as. a prerequisite to providing, these ~rvices iri any instance:
r,. ":,',..' .' . .. .:' ii,', .
a.. The area of the Eugene Airport designated, Governm~nt and Education on
, the MetroPlahDiagram, the seaSonal Industrial Waste Facility, the
Regiorial Wastewater BiqsolidS Management Facility; and agricultuIaI ,
sites used for ~dapplicationofbiosolidS and cannery byproducts. These
sites serve.the entire metropolitan area, ' .. " ,:
.1
b. ,'" An existing developmeIrt ~irtsideilie urban growth boundarywhe~ it has ~,
been determiried that it wses an immediate, threat of public health or ..
safety to the citizens withiiltheEugene-Springfield urban growth
. , boundary that can only be remedied by extension 'ofthe service"
. ,-,' . h, !,. !. . .. . ,. '<
In iloditiop; under prior obligations, water servi~e ~hall be provid~ to land within ,
. the dissolved waterdistrl.cts ofHi11crest, College Crest;. Bethel, and Oakway.
.' ' \'.... .
G.267 The Eugene Airport shal1 be serv~ withthen~cessary'urban services required to '
operate the airport as an urban facility. Development outSide theurbari growtIi ' '
booo,dary iD. the yicinity of the arrport,outsidet)1eportion of the airPort boundary
de~ignated Gove~ent arid Education in the Metro Plan diagram, shal1 not be
prqvided wfr!1urbanservices, ': , .", ;" ,', ',.!.,
'" "l
',- ,- p
G2~8 Plan for ,the following leve1s.of service forrura1 designationsoirtsidethe urban ,
, 'growthboundary'withinthe Plan Boundary:' ,
. ' .-... I '., . ~ - " .,
,.. ,. ' '.' ,- . "
'~. 'i . . " ; . ' . '
a. A2TIcultui"e. ForestLand. Sand aiJ.d,Gr3.veL and Parks and OoenSoace.
No minimum levei of seryice is established. "",'
, "
'Rural ResidentiaL Rural'CommerciaLRural Industri~ and Govenrient,
and Education, ' On"site sewage disposal, individUal water systems, rura1
leveloffueand,police protection, electric and communication serVice,
, schools, and reasonable ~ce~s to solid.waste di~osal facility. ;
'\' '., ~ - '..". ., ' .. . j: ' ' .. " ". '-', .' ',' , .' ." . .
'~';:L},j:8i: i!9H" ('~~ting and M,ana~ing Public Facilities Outside ,the Urban G! u I,:!. Boundary
. . . I
, b,
", c,
. .~.
'i1 K JUFindin!!s '
~".
Date Received
JUL 19({)~
Planner: -8~j
.~,
.j ~.
it ,_;"
'- i ~.,
~,.r, . ~
" " 'j.j
"1 !;A:j 1 1('>11 [~.: 'lr~.j~.~ J1{
. ",r,'.-itj "<,ilh' f'l~ 'i,
. l,..-..
" ~ .'
" "
'Appe~~ Page 13,
"
.
346.
3$7.
368.
3-79.
','
"
~
, , '
In accordance with statewide planning goals and administrative rules, urban .
water, wastewater, and stormwater,facilities may be located on agrictiltural hind'
and urban water and wastew.ater facilities may be located on forestland outside
the urban growth boundary When the facilities exclusively serve land within the
urban growth boundary, pursuant to OAR,660-006 ~d660-033.. '
In accordance with stateWide planning goals and admini.trative rules, water, and '
wastewater facilities are allowed in the public right-of-way of public roads and
, highways, '
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, '
- '
Statewide Planning Goal 5 and OAR 6{>O-023-0090require state and local
, jurisdictions to identify and protect riparian corridors. '
as40. In accordance with OAR 660-033-0090,660-033-0130(2), and 660-033-0120,
, building schools on high valuerar-U;.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 !Joundary.
Policies
G.2&9 ,Corisistent with local regnlations, locate new urban ,water, wastewater, and
stormwater facilities on,faim land and urban water and wastewater fucilities on
forest land outside the urban growth bOundary only when the facilities exclusively,
serve land inside the urban growth boundary and,theie is no reasonable'
iliernatM. '
G.2,930Locate 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 local jurisdictions
and obtain the necessary county land use approvals to amend the Lane County
,RuralComprehensivePlan, or the Metro Plan, as needed and consistent with state
law, to ",pp.vp.:ately desiguate Iimd for urban facilities located ol,rtside the urban
growth boundary or the Plan Boundary.
.,.' ..,...- I;'
, \:...L ~"~:"~~,~"~lC~I("" -\~'('l:'~~:
. i "0 < ',', "!.'._-I
t; t .'"
,."
. '.:': - ~ '
r ~ 'j - :_ '; _:,', ,I ,- "-'I
, Append~_~ Page 14
, Date Received
JUL 19 r t~
Pla'nner: BJ
",.,
, .
!'
"
!i
j.
".,I.
i-,
, '
"
,.,'0
t
,'.
.: " ';1 '," . .','.,
'G.3-l-2 The cities shiJ.i.coohliruli~ with L3:ne cbunty on responsibilit}i,mili a~~rity to
- "'address storiI1Water~re1iited isSues oirtsidethe Plan Boimdary, including outfalls
outside theSpri!lgfie1d portion of the I Urban: groWth boundary.' .' " '; ': '
, ., " ' .
,
, ,
, ,
G.3~3 Measures topr6tect"enhance,or,aJterClass F Streams oUtside the Urban growth '
boUndary, within the Plan Bounda,i"yshall,at:aminim\lIll;be consistent with Lane
County's ripirianstandards. ';1" ,'. ' " .' ,.' "
, ,
G.3;4 New schools within the Plan Boundary shall be b~i1t inside the urban'growth
boundary,""',"'" , ;", "',;' " , .. "','".'.'
. ", . '"1 .'~ '. ! '.", ' " ,. ; .' ~, . .
r" f,""
..
"
Financing
"I,
,,:
';:
: ,~~
.. ',".
'., '
;Findi~2s
, '~.,
Ii .
;,_ .' -,} '." t '. ~:
. - ~,
,
"
" "
"j,,-,
'".
".' ~"..
II ., "".
. '. ",. ',' "
0".' 'Springfield: stormwater, wiiSteWater, and transport!ltion; ,
. , Wi1l~m"l~ne Park andlRe~eation District: !kks; ".
,0 SUB, Rainbow Water:District: water; , . ,
. Eugene:stormwater, Wastewater, parks; and triuiSportation;,an~
o .EWEB: water. ' " '. '
,
e4.
....t',. '-" , . ~ .} "'.,... ,I," . , ' " '
Oregon 'and California timber receipt revenues, afedeni11y-funde{f sourc,e of
county road funds, have declined "over the years aild their continued decline is
, ,<t' '" . I
,';exp'ected~'-:.~~.,',:;. . ". !.,,' ".j,
l'
" . (. ..J., ' ' " "', .,' ~ ,;..". '-~ i ,"1"' ." : ,
4;5:' Regular maintemuicereduces)ong term irifrastruCture.costs by preventing the ,
"need for frequent replacemeni and rebabilitation.'ORS 223.297 t02}3.314 do not'
allow,use ofSDCs to,fun4 vp,,<.,,;.;ons '!lJ.d J?llljnte~ce., ;',,, ' "
, '" ',. , ' , . 'i'" ;'1, " " ~. ~ - .-' ,
446. The assessm~nt rates of Eugene, Spri,ngfie1d, ahd Lane County are ~hdifferent,
cr~ating ineqilit?ble financing o,fsonieinfrastru~e improvements in the
. ,', ': . - ,metropolitan area.';: .'''. ' ,J, ',' '.',:; , .
'''\.: '~~"''''''Ii)i'":l ,~..,;w..i ,," " " ' ,',
. ~ ,':;j'k~:.~';.h"~'M,_, 'fi"1, -;~/~~,.~~'" ~ ..:-,J'" ,......." .".~ -I~
. ,~ . ~ ~"., ",
Policies' .
. {l r' Jt;t, . f;' ,; ,,1"'~' I~'
," .,..... . - '..t.
F
Date Received
,
.; ^
.1"
'.
~;, .:'
.IUL l~ ID~
Planner: ti.'?~"
. ," "
,',,-
, '..'~' 'it -.... < '
"I( '('ii~'1IY\I€'} , , '
. ~....'t ,.l~ ~,"")J.'~,1!
,
,
'!
,-_:,t ,I
,."
,Appen4!f-:5'f1 Page ,15
,.;"
I
. '
'L,'
.'
, '
'G.345 Changes to Public Facilities and Services Plan project phasing schedules or ,
anticipated costs and financing shall be made in accordance witli budgeting and .'
capital improvement,pr!Jgram procedures of the affectedjurisdiction(s),' '
. ., - ~
G,3$6 Service providers will update capital improvement programming (planning,
programming, and budgeting for service extension) regularly for those portions of
the I!l'ban growth boundary where the full rimge of key, urban services and
facilities is not available.' ,
, G.3e7 Require development to pay the cost, as determined by the local jurisdiction, of
extending urban services 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
kpv.tance or concern.
, ,
" G.3=f8 Continue to implement a systerp. of user charges"SDCs, and other public
, financing tools, where app~opriate, to fund operationS, maintenance, and
improvement or replacement of obsOlete facilities or system expansion.
G.3&9 Explore other funding mechanisms afthe 10calleveLto fin;mce operations and
mainteuance of public facilities, ' " "
, "
G.3940Set wastewater and storm water fees at a level commensurate :with the leveJof
impact on, or use of, the wastewater or storm water service.
G.3940The cities and Lane CoUnty will continue to cooperate in develop~g assessment
practices for inter-jurisdictional projects that provid~ for equitable treatment of
properties, regardless of jurisdictioil. ", -
,
Chapter V Glossary ,
36. ' , Public facilitv 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 12 inches or
larger for SUB and 24mchesor larger for EWER. ..
b. Wastewater:' Primarv Collection Svstem:Pump stations and wastewater,
lines 24 mches or larger. '
t.<
" TreatmenfFacilities Svstem: Water Pollution Control
Facilitv (WPCF\ proiect. beneficial reuse proiect M<!.:a._ ' '
, residuals nroject ~,ecessarv to meet wastewater tr'~ Received
facilities system desien canacities for average f\ow..neak
flow, biochemical oxygen demand and total susnendedJUL 1 9( 61
Planner: BJ
Append~* Page 16p
, . 'l',~ !,:!" ',' ':j:~"~' "-"'f~/"
, .. 'J It ;~' _
'f; . ~ \- tr~ti~:'
',' ,
.
',\~." . ,~, -~,,;..1:-;L" ,~;);,;~;:.~-,..
,- I!l.:.c.llf _ '>>",.0.:1 .;11.,1 I". ~:'<I,.~"
.., <I t-.: .,' ,'-; j~ r'T:;>I':/ '''','';'~;'l't.:<:.'f'.' ,
, .' . ., ;;'.. '~;,~.!~"'::';,~"" ,
"
, {,,;;' 't' 'I '
, .... ..I ~ "
^. -V' ',--;,/i't", >:~"'Y:
i ~~,.... .il~:~" 'li'" {";rl:r."~%;,,
',. .~- ,',,' '.:J:..-~, tl.",,}\.}" ,J
,'"
"
''','
"
ii
,
.".
'"
- ' . . -'r ,.' .,
c.Stormwater:Drainagdchann.elL.p"v vements and/or pip1ngsyStems36'
inches or,Jarger; propOsed detention ponds; outfalls; Water quality
.'__. 1"
projects; and waterways and open systems, " " '
, " 1
" .. . .. . '
d. Specific projects adopted as part of the Metro Plan are described in the
, projeC't lists and their generaHocation is id.entified in the planned facilities
maps in Chapter II of the Eugene-SprlizgfieldMetropolitan Public
,'Facilities and Services Plan (public Facilitiesand ServicesPlan/
:'
, '
t' .
I - ~
If,
"..~" . .
, .~."
..
"
',' ,I
I.,
, ,
;,.
.
I.. J',
'1.
Date Received
JUL 19, of
"
,,'
<~
. "
"
t
.'
. 'i . . ......u,
,Append~5'g1 Page 17 .' ~
Planner: BJ
,,"
',"-
. ,
"
:'t'i
Date Received
JUL 19, b~
'. ,-, -,', -/ "
,,;t'""J:~:'i'!.:.::bVl'f ~.:"t.,"+~"...\
. " ~, '"
. . ,"
~ " . .
"
. 'J,,' "
~. ).,",!: ".' i ,,-. b," " \' t"l j'r-,
J''l ~~-:"!' tt.)-\t'1
Planner: BJ
.." '; : :. ~ j
. ,'-;:t"t_' 'J
','
, ,
" . APPENDIX Ab ,
,.._, "
PROPOSED CHANGES TO TtlE METRO PLAN
, (Version currently before the, elected officials as apart of Periodic Review)
.ii
.." "
G, Public Facilities and Services Element,
. I. ~ . . .
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). '
,
.' I: ,. ' , , '
The availability of public facilities and semces 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 th~ 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
cbange~ require that service providers, both public and private, plan for the provision of,
services iIi Ii coordinated manner, using c,onsistentassumptions and proje,ctions' for
,population'and land use. ',',' ," ',." , " . .d ..',
, , '
The pOlicies in this element complement Metro Plan Chapter iI-A, Fundamental
Principles, and Chapter II -C, Growth Management. ~onsistent with the principle of
compact urban growth prescribed in Chapter,I!, the policies in this element call for future
urban water and wastewater ,se~ces to be provided exclusively within the urban growth
boundary (UGB). This policy direction is consistent With Statewide Planning Goal 11 :
, Public Facilities anq Services, "T~ plan and develop a timely, orderly arid efficient '
arrangement of public facilities and ~ces to serVe as a,framework for urban and rura1
deVelopment." On urban lands, new deveJopmeiIt 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 facilitie~.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, resUhing in a higher
, per-user cost for someservic,es and, often"in. an ina4~quate revenue base to support a
,higher level of service in the future. Some urban facilities maybe located or managed
outside the urban growth boundary, as allowed by stilte law, but only to serve
development within the UGB., ',' . , , ' ' " ' '
.,' ~ ., .
if' /,i'_.
n,."
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 ~ement CoIDmission (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 sen;ce ' cir parks and ...~.....:.ion service. This element provides guidelines for Special
: i~H!!~:' !:);!?~e~1::cts in:line Mth the cPmpact1urban develop~i1t ~damental princ~~t~theReCeiVed
'1.,:.1 , ,W;i~f,'r:'~V~': , JUL 19{ of
Appen~ttbPage1 Planner: BJ
. ~ .. r .
, "-
This element iricorporates the findings and pOlicies in the Eugerle-Sprlngfield ,
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 gliidance 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 generallocation1 of the water,
wastewater, and stormwater 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 tinring and financing of projects are not part of the '
Metro Plan and are controlled solely by the capital improvement prOgT"mm;ng and
budget .l'rocesses of individual service providers:
,
The policies liSted provide direction for public and privilte 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 use and expansion of these facilities.
, ,Goals
, '
1. 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; ~5 'n'",,;E)'.vater semee, 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
J The exact location of the projects shown on the Public Facilities and Services Plan planned filcilities
, ,maps is detennined thro.ugh local processes.,' " ' ," " 'd
" .\<19a1.,I1.aISo requires transportation facilities to be included in public filcilities plans. In thi~iHecelVe '
, '\,: 'il1o,r ,:,..j\~ i are~,tiimsportation filcilities are addressed in Metro Plan Chapter ill-F and in the Eugene-SpM~~J"
, . "', '," ", ir~nspoftation System Plan (Trans Plan), ' ,JUL 1 9, b~ ' '
.~I ;.. ~! 'I,
Z.o".'
~;.
. " . .
. , , ~~ }:~ ;:j~:' i.o~~,~~ :
Appen~fb Page2
Planner: BJ
','
","
"," .
',. ",
l' .
~. r
o WastewaterTreatmenf'
..... ',4
. Sio,rmwater' ' ,
o ,E!ectricity?'
,.' Schools" ,
.. .' ~
'! Solid Waste Treatment ,
" ., . ,. . ~ ..
, 0 ',Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary, .
. . ',," - " '.1
. Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary ,
. , .~inancing . . I "
,~.. ...
,.t.
,r
, ';if,
,1"'-
. ,,'
"1 :
~ ': ( <(~ i;
Services to DeVelopment Within the Urban Growth Boundarv: PlanniD!! and,
,Coordination " . ,., '~i, '
or;..
" ...
"
, Findings
, I:
. "
,"
',:>
1. " Urban expansion within the UGB,;isaccoIDplished ~ougIi in-fill, redevelopment, , '
and annexation of territory which~,canbe,serV~ witli. ,aminiJnuin level ofkey ,
, urban services and facilities. This,permitS new d.evelopment to use existing
, facilities and services, or those which can be easily extended, minimi7ing the
piibliccostofextending urban facilities and services. ,
.,
2. In aCCV"J......... with Statewide Planning Goal II aDd OAR 660, the Public
Facilities andServicesPlmi identifies'jurisdictionalresPonsibility for the
, ,provision of water"wastewater and stormv.:ater,descn'bes'respective service areas .
, ' and existing and plaDnedwater, Viastewater, and stormwate~ facilities, and
contains planned facilities maps for these seJ,'Vices..' Electric system'information
and imptovementsare inc1udedin,the Public Facilities,aml Services Plan, '
a1thoughnot required by state law. Loeill facility master plans and refui.ement
plans provide more specific project information.
i~ J '
3. Urban Services withiilthemetrowlitan,UGB are provided by the City of Eugene,
,the,City ofSpringfldd, Lane CoUnty, EWEB, S,llB,the MwMC;electnc' '
" cooperatives,andspecialservice,districts".' '
:l-
The Public Faci~Uies'and SerVices Plan finds thatalinoSt all areaS within the city
limits of Eugene and Springfield ,are served or can be served in the shorM= (0-5
',years) with water':wastewater, '~;V"w.vater,:aDd electric Service. Exceptions to
thisiare stormwaterservice to portions ofthe,W~lmy' ~reek'areaand southeast
, Springfield and full water servic~ at some higher elevations in Eugene's South '
. . - . . ," ' ,..., -I. .
, ,Hills.' SerVice to these areas wilJ:!be available,in the long-term. SerVice to all
.' 'areas withiri' city:Iimits are either;,in a ~ap!tal impr~vemellt pIan or can be '
.. ' :exiended',with development., , ii,' ',',.:' ",., " , '
. . J i "-:', ..,
. . . ..." , .. '.' \
::li1;_V1:;)~:i '~V~1'; ',Wrt~ ~~Pallro:vembanizaen~s SPb'lecified mwithin' .th~ PthublEic,Facilisties:anfid Sledr.YuiGceBs Planb
'''j''''''~^'}''.'''''''''r';'~::r.'''rproJect=Ls,ur ,eareas, e' ugene-pnngle, ,can e
,i.i iUI, .,.. served y,rith water, ,wastewater, stormwater, and electric serviCe at the tim~ Received
, areas are developed. In general, areas outside citY limits serviceable in the1o'tt~~
~ n ~, ' " " ".,"" " ' , ' , JUL 1 9 D,[
~- :'1 _ ,..... ),ot, '-r.I'I~4~~I', ,.' '. I I y-
r.', \~....~!~. ~'l\~, :
> \"" ' '1 I "t? ;
..f,
'4.
r,
Appei:J.~1--b Page3 , '
"Ii ..
i.-'
Planner: BJ
','
, '
term 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 forwater, wastewater, and stormwater. These definitions are shown
in the keys of planned facilities Maps 1, 2, 2lh,and 3 in the Public Facilities and
. Services Plan. " "
J
7. In accordance with ORS 195.020 to 080, Eugene, Springfield, Lari.e 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
provide~ within the UGB. ' ,
, '
" ,
, '
. ,. - .
8. 'Large'institutional uses, 'such as universities and hospitals, present complex
planning problems forthe 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,
Policies
,'. 'if :','~,i':'l'~! ',~':J' ,"('f',i
", .' .....1i :J"'~ -'t1!.71\.'.}~ .' ';f.1.:> .1,
\. ~? ;i-'; J J i,
," '.
",;
,,~,~~~~ .~:+ '.' T f~~~;~ .~ ~ '~,,~.~'1"\ Ii (1-_;
'.,"
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."
.. "
",' ,
G.1
EXtend the ininimum level and full range of key urban facilities and services in an
'orderly and efficient manner consisterit with the growth Illlinagementpolicies in
Chapter D-C, relevant policies ili. this chapter, and other Metro Plan policies. '
, Use the pmed facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide
the generiu location of water, wastewater, storm water, and electrical projects in
the metropolitan area. Use local facility master p1ans,refinement plans, canital '
imnrovement nlans. and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning and project
iIDpl~mentation.
G.2
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 descn"bed in the
Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities Maps 1, 2, ~ and 3, D '-.
, requires amending the Pubic Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan ate Rec :eIVE
except for the following: '
JUL 1 9 I of
Appe~b Page4 ,
Planner: 8
'.'
."
a. , Moamcations to a public facility project which are minOr in nature ~d do
not significantly impact the project's general descriptiqn, 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 fina1 engineering on a project; f)r ' , ' ,
c~ 'Modifications to a public facility project wJllch ,are niade pursuant to
findings of an Environmental Assessmentor EnViromriental Impact
, Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural
provisions of the national Environmental POlicy Act of1969 or any
fecteral or State of Oregon agency project development regulations
consistent with that act and its regulations; or '
), " .1,.'
d. Public fa~i1ity projects included in the PFSP to serve IRnd designated
Urban Reserve prior to the removal of the Urban Reserve designation,
which projects shall be removed from the PFSP at the time of th~ next ,
Periodic , Review of the Metro Plan.
G.4 " The cities and Lane County shall coordinate wiih 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 the~eto that may affect one ,another's area of
responsibility. ' ," '-',', ': ,', " , '
, '
0.5 The cities shall continuejoint planning coordination with major institutions, such
as universities and hospitals, due:to their relatively large impact on:local facilities
and services. " '
G.6 'Efforts sfun be made to, reduce the number Qf~~cessary 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 ii1 cooperation with the affected jurisdictions, , ,
G.7 Service providers shall coordinate the provision of facilities lind 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 Deve!llDment Within the Urban Growth Boundarv:
, >~ \~;~L","'":'r~,"Y' ;; ',.~'d':':-,\: ~ . -
. '.'::l'" I t ~ ~I,"---'''. .. ..~ 't '
" ' , , , ' Findinl!s, '
'I' I J'
~, :'. _ l "
~" .
WastewateJ:
_ ' ,:' nrF'1
1 'f.",:"M~qi;'~r;;~~~"'I!
_ ;..\-, . ,~<;ll I, ..' , "
" Appe~tb Page5 "
Date Receivec
, ' JUL 1 9r o~
Planner: BJ
'"
"
11. Sorimmeld and Elli!ene rely oil a combination of rel1:ional and local services for '
theorovision of wastewater services. Within each City. the local,;,ffisdiction:
orovides collection of wastewater tbroul!h a svstem of sanitary sewers and,
pumoinl1: SYstems, These collection facilities connect to a relrional system of,
'siniilar sewer collection facilities owned and onerated bv the M"w.vuulitan
, Wastewater ManaI!ement Commission ("MWMC'''I, an entity formed under an',
interl1:overnmentallll!l'",,=';~~ created I)ursuant to ORS 190. Top.:ether. these
collection facilities (which exclude I)rivate laterals which convev wastewater from
individual residential or cOmmercia1/iridustrialconnections~ constitute the nriIDarv
collection SYstem.
,12. The primarv collection system convevs wastewater to a treatment facilities svstel]l
owned and vu",...;,ed bv MWMC, This svstem consists ofan interconnected Water
Pollution Control Faciliiv ("WPCF'"l. a biosolids facility. and a beTIeficialreuse
facilitv,
Policies
, 0,9 Wastewater convevance and treatment shall be nrovided to meet the needs of
oroiected sirowth inside the UOB that arecanable ofColl1')lvinl1: with rel!lllatorv
reauirements l1:oveminl1: berieficial reuse or discharl1:e of effiuent and beneficial,
reuse or disnosal of residuals,
, SUBSEQUENT .l'liWINGS AND ~OLICIES SHALL BE RENUMBERED
ACCORDINGLY "'luw-l 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 distribirtionsystems 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: Primarv Collection Svstem; Pump stations and wastewater
lines24 inches or larger.
~l{: .:.
. "'.' :, ~" <.,~,'i'.::
.: I
Treatment Facilities System: Water Pollution Control,
Facilitv (WPCFI oroiect. beneficial reuse nroiect and
residuals oroiect necessarY to meet wastewater tr"''''~'''H~,
facilities' svstem desi!lIl caoacities for aVeral!e flow. oeak
flo~. biochemical ~~Qen~e~d:md total susne~e Race," fed
solids so as to oroVlde servIce WIthin the urban lIT~
JUL 19rDf
Appe~~5"b Page6 Planner: 'BJ
I
:.. .. . + .
I ~t'J.;._<,::4 ii.....~l.....i ... "\'/':>1 ,
~ ,:7;: l'. P ,". _ 't. ;1',' . . ''J.~ 'I.',
'.'
... '/"-' ,. "'-" " , ""~;"'t.i;,f'
.... '," ,.-,,. ,.
"fit,,,,:..)11 r, .'"",(.,,~~,r
t~j~ :~
'.I. :::ili'i
i.>.r:
'I ",' ..." ,1".' ,"I1~'""
!~_J"~.. ~...:.)~ til ,I.}t1lP ~!
", boundarv mGm for a nro;ected nouulatio~ in 2025
consistent with the Do1:lUlation assumed ii:i. this Plan'-in.
comoliance with MWMC's discharl!e nermit, MWMC's,
Canital L~u'u vements Plan. as amended from time to time..,
shall be used as the wide for detailed olanninl!'and
imnlementation of the WPCF uroiect.. the benefidal reuse
uroiect and the residuals oroiect.
c, Stormwater: Drainage/channel iu...p.v venients and/or piping systems 36'
, inches or larger; proposed detention ponds; outfalls; water quality
projects; and waterways and open ~ystems.
d. 'Specific projects adopted as part of the Metro Plan are descn"bed in the
project liSts and their general location is identified in the planned facilities
maps in Chapter II of the Eugene-Springfield Me,tropolitan Public
Facilities and Services Plan (public Facilities and Services Plan).
Appe~iitb Page7
Date Received'
JUL 19,tJQ
Planner: BJ
,
"
1'\L,'\q'it:;: :-~. :'Y :-,; "'_~' "\','.:..~.," .
, "ii.". .\,,1 ",'
" :', ! " .
I ; ,- .-.... -'.. "~.: Ii: ":;;.-:~? ~.
'.'
,
Date Received
JUL 19" D~
Planner: BJ
. F"
-,I ..
""
J . ,
, '
:.'.,
,'-,
,APPENDIX B,
PROPOSED CHANGES TOlti]!; PUBLIC FACILITIES,
" AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP) ,
'.
~
, '
.,
, ,
Ii ,
1. Modify the text preceding existing Table 3 to read as follows:'
" ,. . ",.' "... ;' . " ',~ '. .
,; "
,"
Planned Wastewater System'Improvemen~ "
, 4, :'.' ",. ..: '. ," ...... ,. '. ,t" ,. "
Planned shaft lIfle1lsftg teffil wastewater system improvement projects are liSted in '
tab!es3,aHti 4, 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: ExistiJig Conditions and Alternatives and should be
incorporated witho,!lt chang17] , <
2. Insert, follow~g Table 4, Tables 4aand 4b, a~follows:'
"
, Table 4a
MWMC :wastewater Treatment System Improvement ProjeCts
Table 4b
MWMC Primary Collection System ImprovementProjects
" '
" l:~~\r::t~tjH3~~ eiM:~~u;, Map 2 to show Projects 300 t~rough 305, and insert Map 2a. -
, , ,WI .Iltl." ,.,' .-, , ,','. " : ',' , ' Date Received
JUL 1 9 \ 6~
I Project ' Project NameIDescription
Number
I -303 Wi11akerizie Punip Station ,
I 304 Screw ~ Station !
I 305 GlenwoodPump Station j
"'11 <
'. ..
, ,
,<' :,Jl
'~fk...'\!
""",,"~,,"-"''''_~','''''~)1 ,
,... > ,''''" ~ """ '
. '.; 1;p ~ f !. ~ ,~'rr,' 1
Appetp_~ Page 1
"
Planner: BJ
,,'
'-
'. i. ,__~...- ..-
t" ...______M....._ 0....,
,- -
..1-
,',
"," .'.... .....,
FEug~I!":~prlngticld ~~bllo.~. ~oi~s ~~d.Sfl,:"loe~ Pl.ln".> ."::
'. .: PI.nned ..WhlC VI .aste..ri.r PrOject Sl.tS,;-~)'1 . .
>.' d. '. r. ',...-n~~.~':
\
'I
\-.
, I
, \
,..
--
I
'(' ,,1\
,rl-;:tJ'\ !J=
,..',\~"'\,?:;:,;I
,', ,\ 2i1f'", """
". "'. . 'y" _.,. . . '....: .c<. .. ::' :\':'l'f;~~,;,.,{..::j,/
. Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities,and-S.ervices:'Plan'<r~;':.:
'.~\,::" ElliStiryg MWtt..1C'Wastawater, Treatm:~nt'syStem-s'\:.\~,
""., :,.:::<','"".,:.,,:,.',,.:::'.,,?.:'-~:.~~lfllj~~f~,
.' ,"" "{ ;. ,~' ." ':'.; :. ~,"-"..- .\::".:~~:'!-:..,'.:
.s, "'., .": .:,:: .. ,." ,. A'L;l~::;;t~,(,~,"~,;~;-,.,i",",-.,_l~.".,;:,,'......,,;.:~,:;.:
'. , i,r~;..:'G;. ",d
":~ .
. .,:
',;,',"
",','..
-- .........-
-.....-.-
--...---
-
Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying
the snbdiVision entitled "Wastewater System condition Assessmw" R - , ct
',': " "" (presently on page 82) to read as follows: : uate ecelve
.t ",:~ll~:.. ~~~': "',' ~. ;, ~ ,1.
".~',,' JUL 19, D~'
4.
,"
~. ,"
'j';_'! i[....,
Appen2!.t~ Page 2
Planner:
81
.,
.')
,.'
,
.'
Wastewater System Condition Assessment
. .. ,f
.;
CeBveyaBee eapaei~' aBd iRile'iV aDd iBfilt;..-t:"", tJII) fllties llAl''''i ;-;.mt-....:~.;..- '
, k;r ....,Lich te assess.the perL ,""'............ ef II wlutewater eeD"..,;,:..... ,Jystem. Convey~Bee
ellplleityis II fUReUeR ef adequate pipe siziBg and measures II system's ability te
me...e emuent effieientl).. lBilew ani in~....":...", ......ies express the ameunt ef
stef'Bl'l"ater eB~...:.... .. """" er system thrllugh defeew.,... ..:r..J aad' pipe jeiBts, er
threu..k ~~.;. eress' e..,,"'....JioB efstermwater liB.es, eembiBed sew en, eatch ba5ins,er
manhele e8'/en. Such ~,m."\{&..ftH~"",,,"iilter-..:-;,t.;.:-=;; ~he '\\"asteW..t... sJ"...tem-'
, UiIi1eeC,,;ll:-::17 ~urtleBs beth eeIWeyftnee,llBd ""..6.~Rt faeilities. '
.. '. \
..
Treatment:,MWMC Wastewater Treatment System
. ~..
MWMC existinl! infrastructure is monitored for uroblems that need to be addressed,
dUrinl! onerational and maintenance activities, MWMC has oll\Zoinl! prOl!Tll1llS to heIn,
plan for and implem~nt eqUipment replacement and maior rehabilitation of existirll!:
, 'lvstems, Wrth these on l!oirll!: programs used to detect exiStinl! problems, th~ '
infrastructure can be maintained and preserved to help extend its uSe:fiIllife for future
vears,
j.'"
In March of2003, MWMC hired CH2M HILL to evaluate andnlan for rel!ional
wastewater capital imQrovements that will serve the EUl!eiJelSorin!1:field urban Ip'owth
boundarv into vear 2025, MWMC will need to imnlement the recommended,
im'orovements to meet ref?:lllatorv reauirements based on proiected pollutioIlloads and'
flows. CH2M HILL as nart of its work to evaluate and plan for regional wastewater,
, imnrovements has ........""',xI"a technical memo related to ''Flow and Load Ptoiections"
dated Anril12, 2004, Thjs historical and nroiected infornlation is beinl! used to plan for
needed MWMC canital imnrovements based on enl!ineerlnl! evaluation ~....t:.vds and bv
pomnarinl! technology options. It is estimated that ,w";wA.Jnatelv $160 million dollars
(in 2004 dollars) are needed for MWMC proiects to addresS'rel!Ulatorvreauirements and,
l1l'owth throlll1'h vear 2025.
,.
ConveVance:
, Conveyance capacity and inflow and infiltration '(1/1) ratios are important Criteria bv
which to assess the performance of a wastewater collection SYstem. Convevance canacitv
is a function of adeauate nine sizinl! and measures a s.!stem's ability to move effluent
efficiently. IIrl10wand irifiltration ratios exnress the amoilnt of Stormwater enterinl! 8_
sewer system through defective pipes and pipe ioints. or throUlm the cross connection ~f
stormwater liD.es, com\;1ined sewers. catch basins. or manhole covers. Such extraneous
stormwater enterinl! the wastewater S"15iem unnecessarilv bnrdensboth convevance and
treatment facilities '
5. Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying
',.' ',", \'1[.31:'" ,',~'i,~~e~isc~~8ion ?f'."astewat~r, in the subdivisio~,entitIed"Long-Term Service '
, "" ,...., u'.' !vAvai1a~ility Wdhm UrbanJZllble Areas" (presently on page 97) to read as, 'Ned
\ ',J -" Ii ,'I fOllo",8., ',,'" ";, " , Date Recet
o ' r'" " .\D\...l\l(D~ 8
, :',~t,..{r\li:.';U;!tf' Appe~is~Page3 " 'P\~nner':'~~,
'"
1. There are no areas within the metropolitan UGB that will be difficuh to serve with
wastewater facilities over the long-term (six to 20 years) assuming that public '
infrastructure SPecifications and reauirements of the developinlr area c~ be
addre~d, Annronriate eng:ineerinq desilID nractices must be used during the
, develonment and exnansion into sensitive areas that are approved for
develonment (ex. ..:. hillside' constriIction. etc"" ; heweYef, elEJ3Em5ioB Expansion of
the existing 'collection system Will be necessary to meet demands of growth over
this time period.
2. Based on 2003 analysis, the Eug:ene-Snriru!field metrooolitan area treatment
facilities wi}! reouire facilitY imnrovements to address both drv and wet weather
re!IDlatorv reouirements relating: to oollutant loads and, wastewater flows. ,
Reqional and local wastewater irrrorovemimts to the 'collection and treatment
sYstems are being planned for and will be jmnlemented to allOw. for l!Towth within
the UOB and for re!IDlatorv comn1iarice. ' The EugeR~ ~fF'.cIlgfielE1 metreflEllitwi
area R-egieBal. Wastey.'lltef Treatment PlaBt has 5tiffis;;:at lbigR ellpaeiP;. te
&'Qo=oi",!eil",ytJat:",a ~z;.:;s;.s ud serve all new de'/elepIBCB: ~ ";.:1l~~'
HElwever, peak y;-et '.veatBer eeBtiitiellS limit the ;..^~~..t plaftt Rem aeL;o~
designed eapaeity. Wet, weather related i........f'ro..~BtS are needed at 2.; ;:.:m::-
ana withiBth: re;;iz::z.l .:JhztioB system ta ,eJ!teRd the plllilt's ,:at weather
eapaeify eeyeBti the year 2997. '
6, Add Table 168 following Table 16, as follows:
Table 16a
MWMCWastewater Treatment and Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost
", ' Estimate, and Timing Estimate '
'Pro' ect'j:)?;,',:Pfo'eCt-N ameme;icrrtioii'!~i1'
--c., . ~ib:~r~~J~i ~~~~~~}t~r~~rlf:f~t~$;:~~l~P;4W~
Cost'"'"
-, .,'>- _.~
($\
$120,500,000
$6,000,000
$25,000,000
$6,000,000
$2,000,000
$500,000
~1&~X~Estun_at~1t~?1'1E1
!~e~iBBI~ti~;it~l~~
2025 I
2018 1
2018
2010
2010
2012
I
I
I
I
I 305 Glenwood Pump Station
*Cost estimated in 2004 dollars
300
301
302
303<
304
WPCF Treatment Project
Residuals Treatment Project
Beneficial Reuse Project
WillakenziePump Station
Screw Pump Station
,
7. Add a new chapter to the Public Facilities and Services Plan, to be Chapter
VI., reading as follows:
'1(.'1\;;;;;;,: ,','VI:Amendments to the Plan<
.: i1.~!~ ~~"'t~J~, 'v\.. f
-'i, -( ~ ,if ,I .~I,
. ,.,.<I.II';'jl
~ )-:.1.,.,,:;"(;, ',' " "," .
1"l. j, 11_ I! ~ ~" ~
. Ii .''''''}If''.:
Appen2!.1~ Page 4
, Date Receive j
JUL 19 I'bf
Planner:' B.'b_
:il-:-;J-. .-:-:::;
"
\ ~ 'I' '1
, "
O,~ I' '. I',
-~'i ".
'j'
:.1
" ,
:::;
, 0,'
'. I'
"
'Thk chapter deScnoes th~ method to be ~d in the evep.t it becoines n~eSsary or " " '
, al'p,vl',:ate to modify the text, tablesor the~inaps contained in the Public Facilities and '
SeJ:Vi.ces Plan (''tlle Plan"); " ' ii' ,~ '"
,
".~' '..,' ,.
. ,,'
I,
Flexibility of the" Plan ·
:: . ,~1. ~'.
j,.i'Jo
, ,:"~
,"
, Certain public facility project descriptions, location or service' aiea designati~nswill
, necessarily change as a result of sUbsequent desigll Studies, capital improvemerit '
programs, enVironmental impact studies ,and changes in potential sources of funding. The
Plan,i.$ not desigD.ed to either prohibit projects not nicluded in the plan for which '
unanticipated fuiiding has ,been obtained; 'preclude project specification, and, location
'decisions made according to the National Environmental. Policy Act, or subject
, admiliistrativeand technical chaDges to the p1antopost~acknowledgementreview or
, , ' review by the Land UseBo~d of~peals, ", '" , ' '
. "\,
, '"
'1'".;
"
"
- '~'.,'''' ..., " ". "'.:'
...." - ,(
< ,,'
, '..' ,,'" <
For the purposes o(,~ P1aJi, twO types of modillcations are identified. '
~ , .. -I . ~. ;. . " _ ; .~'. . ,
. :',.<i<v,r. ", ,. . -,,"", ,- If,,', " " ".
, A ' . M:odificatii>nsreq~iriri.gamendmerit of the Plan., '",' ,!
" , The'fonqWihg)ni>dificatiOlis reqUire amendmentof'j:he'Plari:
",
B.
, ..' ' ~"
L ,Amendments,wbichinclude those modificanons'or changes (as
'represehted by Jable 16a) to the location or provider ofpubl,ic facility
, projects ~l:1ich significantly impaCt a public facility project identified in
" the c.,.=;:.Jiensiv:ep!an; and which dono't qualify as adminimative or
teChnical and environnienta1changes, as de'fin~dbelow. Amendments are'
subjec.t to the administrative procedures and review and appeal procedUres '
applil:able to 1aIiCi use decisions. ' , ,,' '.' ' " ,,' " ," " '
, 2~': Adoptioh of capital iu..p'y;'ement'pf!Jgramproject liSts by ll:DY service
I , proYJd,er do not require modification of this Plan Unless the requirements
'. ~, l~ f . -
,,: ofstibparagraph l'above are,met.", "',.' "
II. "-1:;' t, ,'!
Modificatibns ~edWithout ~endment ofth.e P1ail."" , '
The follovlmg modifications do not req1rlre am~ndment ofthisP~: '
..
.' ~
"
'. ,!'
,
.,':
" < ' ..' '! ,,' ,f .,~ _' '. --to, _.'..
': 1.' '"' Ad.mini>rtra.tiVechanges are ihose'modifications ioapublicfacility project
which m:emmor inpatureand do not significantlyimpa~ the project's '
, general description, locati,on, sizing, capacityprothergeD.t?ral
chaiacteristic of the proje9t. ' '
,Technical an~ environmental c1)anges 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 Envir()DJ]1ental,Assessment, '
, or Environmental Impact :Statement conducted under regulations , '
" ,,',' , "implementmg the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
, >, LV',,.,,,': f, ,. ~.,' ,'...Polic~ ~ct.o,f19~9 or ~y federal or stat~agency ~roject development ',' ,
I, J, !~'J~IIi! l?],i;;({regulatlOns consistent WIth that Act an~ ltsregulatlOns. ',Date Received
" 'i:,<{il'lift" ", ',,' ". .". JUL 1901
:4 !. 'J; -: ~:' ,:~,~,' """, ,;' ~ (
':,,'('~'\':\jj~n$:~lSl 'AppeDfi7f3P~~~ ' ',,, ,. Planner:B~{
2.'
"i-
~, '
, .
II' "_"
~
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 L~e Council
of Governments a,copy of the resolution or other fina1 action of the governing
, board' of the jurisdiction authorizing ~e ,?hange. .
. B. Amendments
'For' purposes of processing 'amendmems; as'd~fined herein, such amendments are
divided into two classes. ' "
a. Type I Amendments include amendments to the text of the PIa'n,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 IT amendinents 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. PJ;ocessing Amendments, ,
~
Any of the' adopting agenci~s (Lane County, Eugene, or Spnngfield) may initiate
, an amendment to this ,plan ,at any time on. their own lDOtion or on behalf of a' ,
citizen. "
a. Type I amendments shall be fonvardedtothe planning commissions of the
I...~p"w::ve agencies and, following their recommendation, shall be '
considered by'the governing ,boards of all agencies. l(a Typer "
amendment is not adopted by all ,agencies, the ameridment shall be'
, referred to MPC for conflict resolution. Subsequent failure by agencies to
adopt anMPC-negotiated proposal shall defeat the proposed arnpntlment.
If an amendment is adopted, all agencies shlill adopt substantively
identical o~ces ' ",
, ' b,' Type II amendments shall be forwarded to the I?lanning Commission of'
" the initiating agency and, following ):heir recommendation, shall be
considered by the governing ~ard ofth~ initiating agency.
"
, ,
'.
Date Received
JUL 191 ~~ '
Planner: BJ.
, -. .' 'r"
. ~__ I;.';', ';' '.or"I',,;., ;' "~.',,.,,;r
,'" "'-',' "''''''', '1,11..._,
" .~ ',>I -\ ~ ~",'; -,~ ."; <.
~~ ::. .It J;' .
I .
-."
, -" - ' (G'
" ~ 'J, Ii ~ ,.....~ - ",!"
'. ". .- t. ~ ,",
,Appe~i7~ Page 6
."" 'II
/
Exlu"bit 1
~'1 -
Staff Report and F:inding~:~f Complfance with the Metro Pl~aridStatewide
Goals and Ac1ministrative Rules '
^
File LRP 2004~0001 Amendments to the Metro Plan 'and Public Facilities and ,Services
~ . '
,
",r,
Applicant: '
City of Springfield on behalf of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
-(MWMC), ' - ' , ,',
,.'~
N afore of the Application:
, The applicant proposes to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area.Genera1
Plan (Metro Plan) and the'Public Facilities and Services Plan (pFSP)l to (1) more
., adequately reflect theimpact.that new discharge permit restrictions will have had on the '
capacity of the regional "Yastewater treatment system,' (2) to clarify the relationship
between the PFSP projeCt liSt and locally adopted capital hup.u vemeIii planS; arid (3) to'
modify (streainline) the ad.mi.nistrative ~d legislative process~ that govern the'
implementation andam~ndment 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 perfo~ce of its facilities, ,~oascertain areas ()f constraints within the ,
, existing permit conditions, to identify short-term improvements (e.g. how to address '
, seismic ~ds), and to address other major issues thlit needed to be studied further.
Recognizing that a thorough assessment of wastewater collection, ;",,~etrt and
disposal/reuse needs for the next 20 years was essential, the MWMC began work on the
2004 waStewater Facilities Plan, a ~w;,...hensive facilities plan update. The objecti~es
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 p1anningassessments 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-
'., ,~" ,:' _' , d'fective,useof existing facilities and the efficient design of new facilities.
, 1",--' /.)']t.-\l) t ,)(...,,. , ' , ',' ,
lw.' . ...... ,~;.}r, }JI,:^""':~ ';. , .
I ..,' . '..
In May of2002the Oregon Department of Environmental Qua\ity (DEQ) impoSed new
and more stringent discharge permit standards on the regional wastewater treatment
facilities, particularly inregatd to the treiltment of ammonia andtherma1loading. As
MWMCstaffbegan to evaluate design needsfor,its wastewateifacilities, it became
ap;''''''ll' to ,them that the existing facilities could not meet the demands impoSed by the
,new discharge permit restrictions, '
. . . "1'
,..,.
(1 L ;:;". .
'I S~e appendices A & B. respectively.
,;, -il-t' ." ;~U-f":
~.., ~ ,I ~ .~ 1,:)1; - I'
Staff Report an2_93'-dingS Page"l '
Date Received'
JULI9,6{
Planner: BJ'
~ ,.',
'1 ;h.",,"
."'....; ~'.
Date Received
JUL 19 (Iut
,
Planner: ~J
Exb.1"bit 1
-2-
The 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan recognizes and addresses the fa~ 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
ameridments proposed by this application address the issue of consistency between the
Metro Plan and the PFSP and consistency of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plim with the
former documents. The proposed amendments provide information thai should have been
,included inthe 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 bemanaged by 2010. In order to meet this
rigoroUS construction schedule, MWMC must have released Requests for Proposals
(RFPs) for engineering design for by October of2004. Prior to this date,the 2004
Wastewater Facilities Plan must be adopted by the thretl IIk.w.vpvlitanjurisdictions and
the Metro Plan and the PFSP should be updated to reflect current information.
In !'IJ';'nim-y, the application proposes the following changes:
Metro Plan
1. Specifically recognizes "wastewater" as a subcategory of service within the Urban
Gro~ 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. Am~ndsPolicy #2 to inClude local capital improvement plans as a means to '
implement policy in the PFSP. [Chapter III-GJ
4. Inserts two finding~ regarding local and regional wastewater services to
development witblnthe urban growth bOundary, [Chapter III-GJ '
5. Adds a new policyG.9 that makes a commitment to providing the conveyance
and treatment of wastewater to meet the needs of projected growth within the
urban growth boundary and that meets regulatory requirements. [ChapterIII-GJ
, , '
, 6. Modifies definition 37. Wastewater: Public Facilities Projects. [Chapter V
Glossary]
PFS? ',<, ",':,
. '.'....,.,. 'j
" ,
.~....!~V'.-;:I '0
" , -'-. '. .l<' ;' ' . ",'.r,d.,
. J.....~/~I. ,\ i......'".--I .. ",'t.-hl
", . . to. . _ -l .'~ "f. - '., .
",
,-
<!,.
Staff Report an~!ndings Page 2
I . r
",.' r.
.; I, 'i"
""Ill
: f~ "j "
.
, ..
Exhibit '1
-3~
1. Modifies the text onpage 28, preceding Table 3, and addS Tables 4a and 4b that
identify MwMC Wastewater Treatment and Primary Collection System '
l' . I "., ',.",
improvements, respectively. " ' > , ': '~
, .', '.
2. ' Modifies Map,2, which shows P1anb.ed Wastewater'Facilities, and adds Map 2a ,
that concems Existing Wastewater Facilities, ' . "
.-. .
3. Modifies the existmg narrative on "W8stbwaterSyStem Condition Assessment'; in
Chapter IV. (page 82) ,
4. ,Modifies existing p.phs #1 and #2 UIider the d~cus~ion of "Wastewater" in
the subdivision entitled "Long-Term Service Availability Within Urbanizable
. I.'" .
Areas" in Chapter IV. (page 97). .'
5., A-~ds new Table 16a (following Table 16) entitled "MWMC Wastewater
Treatment and Collection Systein Improv...=....Js, Rough Cost Estimate, and
, Timing Estimate." (page 101) ,
6. Adds new Chapter VI regarding amendments to thePFSP.
Metropolitan Area General Plail Amendment Criteria'
The p>u!-'used amendments are considered to be Type I Metro Plan amendments bepause
they are non-site specific amendments to the Plan text. AIDendments to the Plan text,
which include changes to functionli.J. plans such as TranSPlan and the. PFSP, and that are
, nOHite specific require 8pproval 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 LaIieCode 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 interna11y inconsistent. These criteria
are addressed as folloWl!: '. ,,' '
(a) , , The amendment must be consistitit wi~h the,relevantStatewide planning goals'
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission;,
, , .
Goa] 1 ~ CitizCD'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' ackllowledged land use codes that are intend~d
to serve as the principal implementing ordinances for the Metro Plan. SDC Article
7 METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS and SDt ArtiCle 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS
, prescribe the m3nner in which a Type I Metro ,Plan amendment must be noticed.
.: ':~i,',i'~I#;" :; ~N[~~ involvement for a Type I:~etroPlan ~n~nt not relate? ~~e' , d
", .f ~ ",.I' ,I . "groWth boundary amendment reqwres:' 1) Notice to mterested partieS:"lt~g ,CelVe
i See~siit 7.070(1)(a~, EC 9.7730(lXa), and LC'12,225d)(aXi). JUL 1 9,0+
, J' "':\;"r.l;f'~.!~It:~ Planner: BJ
Stafl'Report an~.f~dings Page'3, '
':J
tI; " .~..
.'
~
Exhibit 1
-4-
'shall be published m.a newspaper of general circulation; 3) N~ce shall be
provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at '
least 45 days J.,,,,fv.'" the hiitial evidentiary hearing (planning corilmission), : '
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 1, 2004. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was provided
to DLCD on March 4, 2004. Thenl)tice to DLCD ident~ed the City of Eugene,
Lane COImty, 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, 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 arid
policy framework as a,basis for all decisions i:md 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,
revisedon a periqdic 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 ciffected 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 tis
ordinances, regulations or project Plans, and (2) site or area specific
implementation measures such as pe17Tlits and grants 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 p1ari required by this goal; the
Springfield Development Code, the Eugene Code and the Lane Code are the
"implementation measures" required by this goal Comprehensive plans, as
defined by ORs 197.015(5l, must be coordinated with affected governmental
, '.;. units.4 Coordination means that Cvww...u;.s from affected governmental units are
" " u " ,.t, D t R .
'""'" ,('"" .')1<: ii',,"'.' ' ,', a e ecelved
. ", .-., , '-'-~ -,.... '. ' .
, " " ,; l Incorpornt~ by reference into Goal 2. . ,
'4 Sef!DLCDv, DouglasCou1IIy,33 OrLUBA216,221 (1997). JUL 1 ~ 01{
Planner: BJ
:",'Jl.
, ,
,- .;1
, , ( '. ~'i'\t.-*'
'\ ~, ',I' '\, :'
Staff Report ~_7wdiligsPage 4
"'.
'f' ,f ,)
"
--
Exhibit 1
~ 5 - ' '
solicited and 9DllSidered.,In this regard, DLCD's NoticeofPro~sed Amendment
form was sent to the City ofEiIgene, Lane County, DEQ and EP A '
One aspect of the Go3I i coordination requirement :coricerns population
projections. In this respect, the proposed,amendmeiltto the PFSP Glossary
'concerning WastewaterincV"pV"";'es a projected year 2025 population for the
Eugene-Springfield Urban Growth Boundary of297,585.s This projection is
, consistent with the most recent (1997) fina1 forecasts provided to Lane County by
the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis and the Year 2000 Census. The adoptio!l
of this modification to the PFSP will effectively "coordinate" this population
,assumption.' , ' '
, ,I:
Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands
, This goal does no~ apply within adopted, acknowl~dged urban growth boundaries.
, "
,'-', ','
Goal4 - Forest Lands,
This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boU?daries.
." ,I, .
d, , " ~ .
, GoafS - Open SpaceS, 'Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendmeiJts.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resou~es Qnaiiti '"' To maintain imd improve
the quality of the air, Water and land resources of the state,
This goal is primarily concerned with compliance with federal aDd state
envir01>TnPnt~ 1 qUality statutes, and how'this compliance is achieved as
development proceeds in relationship to air sheds, river basins aDd land resources.
-'
, ,
, ' '
The Federal Water Po,llution Coi1frol Act; P.L. 92-500,asam~i1ded in 1977,
became known as the Clean Water Act (33 U,S.C. 1251 et seq,). The goal of this
, Act was to' e1imiruite the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters. ORS
468B.035 requires the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) to
implement the Federal Water Pollution' Control Act. ,The primary method of
implementation of this Act is through the issuance of a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit prior to the discharge of any
Wastesinto th~ waterS of the state: (ORS 468B.050) Among the "pollutants"
regulated by the EQC.are t..."""'f^"~ure (OAR 340-041-0028) and toxic substances
(OAR, 340-041-0033).' '
One p~se of the proposed amendments is to ensure that the Metro Plan aDd the
PFSP accurately refleCt regional wastewater system needs as imposed by Federal
and State regulation. Currently, the PFSP states that "... the Regional Wastewater
Treatnlent Plant has sufficient design capaCity to ~ommodate popUlation
, ,
:~h/ f,i(-il:"~t;;!Tabi{3f;;itecbnical memorandum entitled <<Metrop~litan Wastewater Management Commi~A !:!eceived
, " ' Population Projections for Wastewater FacilitiesiPIan, >> prepared by Matt Noesen, CH2M Hilttt 'a}tApn~ ' " (
,,~POO,4) " " JUL 1 9/ ~'i '
: -', ,.10 ... '.,\,:';' ~~-i{' 1'~'I-;-:J:tJ~
. ,':' -.~ . '':', 11 - '11,~~ '; Ii
SiaffReport~_ ~ipdingsPage5' "
Planner: BJ,
Exhibit 1
C-' I t ~..
.f .~. .
-6-
increases and serve all new development at biilldout." Recent ll;IJa!yses have '
determined that facility kp~vvements are now required to address both dry and,
wet weather requirements re!liting 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 the proposed amendments;
GoalS ~ Recreational Needs
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments,
Goal 9 - Economic Develop'ment - 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 coml'!uircial 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 ~~v vements are necessary
to allow adequate service and conveyance, trea~ent, reuse and disposal capacity
to serve new and existing industrial and co=ercial uses.
Goal io - Housing - To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Goal 1 0 Planning Guideline 3 states that "[P lions should provide for the
appropriate type, location and pliasing 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 1he comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density ,
range as determined in the housing needs ,projection. " Goal 1 0 defines buildable
lands as .... .lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available and
, necessary for residential use." 660-008-0005(13), in part, defines land that is
"suitable and available" as land ''for which public facilities are planned or to
which public facilities can be made available,"
Similar to Goal 9, adequate public facilities are necessary to accomplish the
objectives of this goal and applicable 8nministrative rules (OAR Chapter 660, '
,Division 008). The purpose of the proposed amendments is to provide the
\:d\'i i ;,t;h",:,:~:'r."\;::;.,;i,comprehensive planning framework to allow for the improvements Wl!etregippa1 .
" : ,",. 'hi.. . "','I~\: ' ", , , ua e HecelVed
, '
s".t.;
~ '" j'.-
,',
, Ji."
':: L. .:"r:":' ' "~' \" \l~~: t
';5'
Staff Report ~_Wdings Page 6
, JUL 1 9,df'
Planner: 8,,1
, I
\.
;......., 'to ;.'
~. .
, "
~
';'"
,
i'
" ,j
'~ '.
Exln'bit 1 ,
-;,7:,,:
:1" ,.I'
'\.- "
': . .~ . . i:' 1. ',,' -.' . - ';',
. wastewater, system that support the housing needs of the Eugene-Springfield
, metropOlitil.n'area. .,,' '~ ' ',I!,!' ,. ," " : ' , , " "':"
'J .' Jrlf'
. . :1".. .
" GoaI1!..., Public Facilities and Services - To plan anddevlflop a timely, orderiy
" and efficient arrangement ofpublicfacilitiesandsenices toserve as a/ram~rk
for urban and rural development. I: : '
. ", " ..1'....' .
,t",
<
'.,
,
!,-
"
OAR Chapter 660, Division 011; iriiplements goal 11. OAR66~ ll,-0030(1)
requires'that the "public facility plai1:ident~ 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.imd Policy <;13 in the p,vpvsed
amendments addresses this requirerneilt.In regard to thePFSP,the modification'
~f tlie introductqrY il.arrative under "Planned WasteWater System Improvements ,
, (p~e28)," the ~ion ofilew Tilbles,4ii and'4b'(i>age 28); arid the modifIcation
, ,of Map '2 ahd the iDseition of new Map 2a,also:address this requirement."
- " - . I. ;; '.' . . : " '.,' -, " ~. '
. ,'.. ., I, " '. ,'. .
pAR 6~o:-on ~035(1) re'cjuires that th.eip1.!hlic'faCiIity plan include a roligh cost
estimate for sewer public, facility p~ojects identified in the facility plan.,In
" conformity with tIiis,requitement, it is propOsed thlit the PFSP be amendep by the '
, insertion ofTable16a (Inserted followmgpage 101), which addresses rough cost '
estimates and a timing estimate for MWMC:Wastewater Treatment and ,
'Collection SyStem Improvements.: The rough cost estimates in Table 16a are
based oncosts set forth ill'theMWMC 2004 Facilities Plan and PrOject list. 'This
'2004Plan"wasthe result of an exhaustive stUdy thai examined alternatives
, " , ' ranging from $ 144M to $233M (See Attachment 3); The preferred alternative,
found in Table l~a,was selected because; among otherreasons;,it provides the
, least expensive means to comply With f~deral requirements and maximizes ' '
MWMC's,eXistinginv...~;..........~;s. "!'''~''':' ,:' ".'. " , , ",;
" . ' ',I' ,,,' '
. . '. " ,It .'-i,:'" . "
. OAR66~1l""()045(3)providesthat modifications to projects liSted within a
pub'licfacili!Y'planmaybe made ~out amendment to'the publidacility plan.
, ThiS application proposes to add a'newcMpter to the PFSP regarding ,
" amendmentS to that plan. Proposed Chap~er VI iilcotpoTl:ites the standards for "
" ameIidingapublicfi:\~ility plan al19wed!:lY OAR 66~l1-O045(3) and adopts an '
amendmeJttprocess, ,i ,I "
",.,
, "
"
,I
r
, Goal 12 -,Transportation
"
.
,t.,
. ;1
r
This goal is hot applicable to theproposed'ameri~ents, ,
~J .
Goal'13:" Energy Conservation '~
"' ,": II
. ' ,.," " . ,. . lJ "
, ,''; ,', I" ,TNs'goal'is not applicable to the proposed ~endm~nts. : . .. ,', ,
"T'li!l0'\i~r!Jff."g:'L' ",,' '.. " ", ,'" ",'
,": -.:'=;' ;',~J:~h~~i 14 -Urbanization -To pr~~idefor an,iJ~derlyande.Qlcient trQam;&ceived
.,," ) ,,', rural to urban land use, ' , ',{
,,, ;, , ' J,UL I 9 r D,\
~o} "\~l3':r,'Rf"t~~~;:, ',' , S~~Report an2!-indfugs page:,7 , Planner: BJ
i" F -:~.
, . ~. ,I' ^' ~ ,I':'
~... il,_..'."
~, 'Y
Exlnbit 1
-8-
, .
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments, as they dooot aff~t the
existing urban growth boUndary. " '
Goal IS' - WiUamette River Greenway
This goal is not applicable to the proposed ari1endmerits.
Goal 16 Estuarine R,esources, Goal 17 Coastal'ShoreJands, Goal 18 Beaches
'and Dunes, and ,Goal 19 Ocean Resources
, "
These goiUs do not appJy to the Eugene-SPringfield Metropolitan 'Area
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Pian internally ,
inconsistent., '
The proposed changes to PIe Metro Plan are essentially of a ''housekeeping''
ruiture. 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 thePFSP to more accurately reflect MWMC's
, planned improvement projects {or its wastewater treatment system and primary
, collection system, to provide rough,cost and timing estin,Jates for those
improvements, update narrative information regarding necessary improvements to
the wastewater treatment system and primary collection system, ahd more clearly ,
implement th\l,plan mf,ldification standards contained,in OAR 660-011-0045(3).
, The proposed changes to the PFSP do not create any inconsistencies.within the
PFSPnor do they create any inconsistencies between the PFSP and the Metro,
Plan. ' " ,
."'.
Date Receivl ~d
JUL 1 9 I if
Planne~:':J
r I~'
I. ,. r; '.~.; "i'd;\ 1",\';'~;:Hl
t, j;.i'<.:)..,J~'''''~'; L,:: i '. ,I~
't: ~ ;!' 1
,
,
.,,'
.' ~~, ,
i~~.I~:::,r.I' -~ It.~.~l~~---:,
Staff Report ~_~dings Page 8
.~:.,";~ ..'c<.