HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence CAO 5/6/2004
~,
-. -
-'." ,
MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY'
I
DATE: May 6, 2004
TO: Springfield Planning Commission
Eugene Planning, Commission
Lane County Planning Commission
FROM: Meg Kieran
Springfield City Attorney
SUBJECT: Metro Plan amendments; Public Facilities and
Services Plan amendments; response to material
submitted by ,Home Builders Association at April
20, 2004 public hearing
Home Builders Association submitted written materials into the
record of the above proceeding., MWMC submi 1:s this response,
1. Applicable standards.
Mr. Kloos states, without specfficity, that ft[s]tate statutes
apply," Certainly; this proceeding is governed, in part, by
state statutes, particularly, those provisions of ORSChapter 197
that govern post-acknowledgment plan amendments. In addition,
the amendments must be consistent with applicable statewide
planning goals, The LCDC administrative rules implement the
statewide planning goals. In-addition, the proposed plan
amendments must be consistent with existing, acknowledged plan
provision,
2. Planning Horizon.
Home Builders states that the use of the 2025 planning horizon
for the PFSP list of wastewater treatment and collection
facilities is inconsistent with the existin'g Metro Plan
provisions. Home Builders is incorrect,
r
First, the existing PSFP, dated December 2001,includes projects
that extend out 20 years from that time. For example, the
introductory text to the project lists contained in the existing
Plan states: ftLong-term projects are anticipated to be built in
six to 20 years_," (PFSP, P,28)~ That horizon would exten~to
2021. EWEB's list includes, as long-term projects, water system .
improv~ments 218 th:-ough 237, none of which has a date Bate Received
speclflc than the SlX to 20 year reference quoted above,
. MAY 06 (b1
Planner: BJ
, ~\f
,. I '
Second, the Department of Environmental Quality guide~ines
\' recommend that sewer treatment facilities should be ,p~anned arid,
constructed for a 20-year population projection perio?,
The planning horizon in the amendments is appropriate"for the
nature of the planned facilities. Sewer treatment facilities
should be constructed with long range planning goals,'
3. The proposed PFSP'amendments are a project list as reqUired by
state statutes and implementing regulations.
Home Builders insists that the proposed PFSP amendments,
particularly the proposed new tables, are not a .project list"
within the meaning ,of state statut~s and regulations, Home
Builders argument is ~ithout m~rit, The proposed sanitary sewer
project list is comparable to the existing project lists in the
PFSP by Springfield Utility Board, EWEB and the other.
participating jurisidictions' lists. The proposed list also
complies with ~the LCDC's Goal ri implementing. administrative
rules, I
,
OAR 660-001-0005 (6), defines .public facility project" as follows:
.A public ~acility project is the construction of
-reconstruction of a water, " sewer, or transportation
facilit~ within a public facility, system that is funded
or utilized by members'of the public."
I
Public facility system, as it relate's to sanitary sewers, are
limited to the following: a) tr~atment facility system; and/or b)
primary collection system, (OAR 660-011-0005(7)).
Proposed Table 16a lists six treat~ent facility system projects:
WPCF Treat~ent proj ect.; _ Residual Treatment proj ect; and
Beneficial Reuse Project. It also includes three pump stations
(i,e" collection system projects): Wil1akenzie Pump Station,
Screw Pump Station and Glenwood Pump Station, This list complies
with both the statute~anq the administrative rule definition' of
.project list."
In their oral testimony Home Builders stated that a more
appropriate list of projects for PFSP purposes would be MWMC's
20-year prqject list that is included in MWMC's 2004 Facilities
Plan, MWMC adopted the 2004 Fa~ilities Plan and 20-y~ar project
list to satisfy DEQ requirements for facilities planning and to
comply with the requirements of ORS 223,309 (1') that a facilities
plan and list of proposed capital improvements be adoJ:tl\e:1,ll~or , .
to the "establishment of a system development charge, Ualt~ necelved
MAY 06,0{
Planner: BJ
0R5 223.314 p~ovides:
"The establ~shment, modification or implementation 'of a *** a
p~an or list adopted pursuant to 08.5,223,309, or any modification
of a plan or list, is not a land use decision pursuant to OR5
Chapter 195 and 197,"
Therefore, requiring
in the PFSP would be
the inclusion of MWMC's 20-yearproj,ect
inappropriate.
list
'" !,
4. The ,proposed amendments comp~y with applicable
administrative rules; both the Metro P~an and PJi'SP,
with the proposed changes, satisfy all planning
requirements,
A. Public Facility Plan,
Home Builders' recitation of various Oregon Administrative Rules
that govern public facilities plans assumes that the proposed
amendments are the complete plan, They ,are not, The complete
plan is the entire Metro Plan Chapter III, Section G and the
complete PFSP, Read in context, the Metro Plan and the PFSP
, ,
include all the requirements recited by Home Builders from OAR
660-011-0010, The existing PFSP was enacted and acknowledged as
in compliance with the statewide planning goals in 2002 as part
of ,the region's comprehensive plan periodic review process. Even
without the proposed amendments, the PFSP has been found, by
virtue of being acknowledged, in compliance with Goal,l1. The
proposed amendments only bolster and augment the existing plan,
they do not remove any critical- elements of the plan,',
The complete inventory required by subsection (1) (a) is found in
the existing PFSP,
The plan includes a project list, The proposed amen~ents, read
in the context of the existing ~lan, include a "list of
significant'public facility projects," Any contention that it
does not is, merely a'restatement of Home Builders' earlier
argument that the ,proposed proj,ect list is not a "project list,"
as' they would define it, '
The plan includes cost estimates. The required "rough cost
estimates" are defined as "appr'oximate costs expressed in
current-year. (year closest to the period of publid fa6ility plan
development) dollars. It is not intended that project cost
estimates be as exact as is required for budgeting purposes."
OAR 660-01F0005 (2), The cost estimat'es provided aretsufficient
to satisfy the. rule, Date Received
Again, by-looking at the entire PFSP as amended, the remaMA'?eo=6of
the requireme~ts cited by Home Builders are also pres~nt: maps lo~
Planner: BJ
"
the projects; an estimate of when each project will be needed;
and a discussion of the possible funding mechanisms 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 deflnition of
"project list:~It is hard to imagine how the additi~n of
projects somehow makes an already sufficiently descriptive list
no longer'sufficient within the meaning of the rule.
C, Ti.Iil.ing.
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 comply with the rule." (Home
Builders letter, p.5), MWMC has responded to that argument
above;
D. Rough Cost Estimates.
As explained 'above, the cost estimates provided in proposed Table'
16a satisfy the rule's definition, of rough cost estimates.
E, Elements of the comprehensive plan,
Home Builders again re-state their unsupported "project list"
argument: "Again, a'project listing is required, not a
description of categories of projects." The Metro Plan and PFSP,
as amended, sati~fy OAR 660~Oll~0045,
Conclusion,
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 concerning
proposed improvement and capacity to the conveyance and treatment
facilities, This information should have been included with the
recently adopted amendments to Chapter III that occurred as a
requirement. ot' Periodic Review. The amendments to the PFSP are
also a compilation of information that should have beEm it>f.1,lldeA .
with the adoption of thePFSP in 2001. Such additional Ualel1eCelVed
information has no effect on policies of the Plan either, ,specific
. MAY 06 ('of
Planner: BJ
,
to public facilities or other chapters other than to. demonstrate
that these urban facilities will be constructed to accommodate.
planned build-out within Eugene's and Springfield's urban growth
boundary, These amendments therefore satisfy the Metro Plan
amendment criteria of approval that requires internal
consistency.
N:\CITY\MWMC\Response to Home Builders..wpd
I . '-1" .,
..., ,. ~A'')~\f'.-. ,,""".'Qf, ~1
'1~"-I~'I \-J~ .,::-'.i.f, ~.,,~'t$\'.'
~, n v',.;
~l ,_ I -, !\;"
Date Received
, MAY 0 6( 01
Planner: BJ
~ '.~ ':l..... ...~,..."...-:-.-l/t..;
l"~' tl,.<'l '1'\ '\ -'," ,
'-'
..~.
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF CITY AT'rORNEY_
I ,.
'j"
.'"
DATE:
'May 17, 2004
,
TO:
Spr1ngfield Planning Commission'
,:Eugene Planning Commission
Lane County Planning Commission
,.
FROM:,
Meg Kieran
'Springfield CiSY Atiorney
,4'
- Staff response 'to material, submitted into the
record by Ho~e Builders Association on May 6,
. 2004' " ~
'. .J
On May 6, -2004, 'Home Builder's Association subm:i!tted written
materials' into the record.MWMC submits this brief outline of
i$sues in', response.
SUBJECT:
,A. MWMC'S-'Pop1ar Farm Project;, (Hotnebuilders' letter at pp 2-3)
,
1. Th~ 596 'acre' Poplar 'Farm :site has been in. far1)l llse for
more: than 20 years;
,jl
2. The Poplar Farm' is a permitted use in an EFU zone. .
ORS215'.213 (l)-(bbh& 21'5.283(1) (y); ,
"
3. Thepoplar';Farm is apermittea
zone.' 'EC9. 2450
,
'use in Eugene "S industrial
4. Lane County's Notice of Land Use DeciSIon that the Poplar
'Farm complies with land use requi-rements, was April 14,
2000.
. ,
5. DEQ ,issued a 'permit -for the' operation of the.'-Poplar Farm
on the 596 acre site on June '27, 2000';
6. Construction "is on schedule- 'and the' poplar trees :hcl:ve been
planted by MWMC "s contractor.
", .
B. Liquid Effluent Dry arid Wet Weather Capacity'and
. _ .Biosoli~s ~,' ".
1':WM~~1~4Hl-i.d;;'ifiri~. '(Homebuilders' l!=tter ,at pp 9-1'8) "
:} ::lY!\!t: MWMC 'adopted its 2004 Facilities
'public_.hearing on May 6, 2004;
. ,.(>.)C' f"}""I!~. C
"-~ Ii Ii. .., -II 1
. ._ U.;I ,"
Plan after,a
Date Received
, MAY 06fof
Planner: BJ
I' ."
11 ~J;
\.,~[; J\
V:\ENVIROSV\Facility Plan\Kieran Response to HBA May Q4.rtf
,-
,.'
'.
"
..' ~,
. "..... I
2; HBA made the same argum~nts:',,~ound 'at .pages ,'9_ chrcn.igh1'8: fi:1 .
its wr~tten testimony to the MWMC' at its May 6-, 2004
Facilities Plan public hearing; -
, '
.. ,
3. MWMC's consult:~nt, CH2M Hill, responded in'writingto..each'
of HBA's capacity and biosolidE; loading."argulltents; the
responses ,were inserted ~}1 the }IBA te,st'imony in red text..
(a copy of the Homebuilder"s, l~tj:er containing the CH2M' '.
Hill response, is attached hereto as Attachment. 1.
,
",
C. Goal, 6': (Homebuilders' l;etter at p :3)
',-,.:'
" .
1. Statewide Planning Goal' 6 is. "to maintain and improve the'
qua-lity .of' the a'ir;,c ;,~ater, and land. re,sources of the sta,t~ 01",
, Go'al' ,6 ,requires that' "all waste" and process discharges from>
-- ., . - . ',. -" ". ';-. - . .
fut;u,;re development * *:. * shall not' threaten to violate, or'
violate 'applicablestateor federal environmental quality,
, statutes,., rules and standards. II"" 'I;he- Goal. 6 ,guidelineEj state
, tha,t: "'aU p:ians and progra,)l1s af~ecting waste gnd procE:;ss '
dischargeEj should be coordinated witninthe..applicablE;! air, <;;..
sheds and river basins described or included in state ,,'
environl!lental qua-lity ~tat1ite!3, .ruies, standard~ and H,.f ,
implementation plan./I,,> In addltion," plans -I'should buffer 'and
separate th?se land us~s which,;create .or. Jead \;0 conflicting
requirements a~d impacts upon the air, ,water and, land'
resources. '" " >',
'..... ."
'-C;
" ,',
1 .' ~_.
~li ,
2,. The treatment facilities and collection system improvements
included in the propose~'PFSP ~~endmentsHa~e respon'sive to
the reqUirements' of .MWMC' s r;rPDES permit. ~,A copy of MWMc.' s
NPDES permit, setting forth the federal and state water'
_' tr.",atme)'lt r~quirememt.s is ~ttached as' Attachment 2.
,
'.
I' ..
D.
" Miscellaneous"
W:astewater '
, ,
Issues: ',T,iming of Projects; Definition.of
. - .' , ~. . . . '. ..
.,." ~
"
)"
,.>
'I'~~ .:;
ldl .
, ~""
':~{~rJ~~r. ,9;" . ,~'c~ .
V:\ENVIROS~~ci1ity Plan\Kieran Re~~nse to HBA May'04'.rtf