Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance CAO 7/26/2004 . ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE. EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN TEXT, CHAPTER III, SECTION G. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT, AND CHAPTER V GLOSSARY; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan, which for Eugene are implemented by the provisions of Chapter 9 oft he Eugene Code, 1971. B. On February 17, 2004, the Springfield City Council initiated proceedings for a Metro Plan text and Public Facilities and Services Plan amendments. C. Following an April 20, 200 joint public hearing with the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions, the Eugene. Planning Commission, on May 24, 2004, recommended Public Facilities and Services Plan and Metro Plan text amendments to Chapter III, Section G. Public Facilities and Services Element to include "wastewater" as a subcategory of service within the DGB; to amend Finding #6 and Policy #3 to recognize the addition of Map 2a to the 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 regional wastewater services to development within the DGB; to add a new policy #G.9 that. commits the wastewater conveyance and treatment systems 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 being contained .in Exhibit A attached and adopted as part of this ordinance. " ' D. On June I, 2004" the Springfield Planning Commission and Lane County Planning Commission recommended Public Facilities and Services Plan and Metro Plan amendments. E. The City Council conducted ajoint public hearing on this amendment on June 22, 2004, with the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Comrnissioners, and is now ready to take action based upon the. above recommendations arid evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the evidence and testimony presented at the joint elected officials public hearing. . F. Substantial evidence exists within the record demonstrating that the proposal meets the requirements of the Metro Plan, the Eugene Code, 1971, and applicable state and local Ordinance - I Date Received JUL 261 oL{ Planner: BJ law as described in findings attached as Exhibit B, and which are adopted in support of this Ordinance. NOW, !HEREFORE, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section J. The Metro Plan Chapter III Section G. Public Facilities and Services Element, and Chapter V Glossary, are amended as described in Exhibit A attached and adopted as part of this Ordinance. Section 2. Although not part of this Ordinance, the City Council adopts the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit B in support of this action. Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional 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 4. Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided by the Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall become effective upon the date that all of the following '1:. , have occurred: (a) the ordinance has been acknowledged as provided by ORS 197.625; (b) at ~ least 30 days have passed since the date the ordinance was approved; and (c) both the Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners have adopted ordinances containing identical provisions to those described in Section I of this Ordinance. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this _ day of June, 2004 _ day of June, 2004 City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - 2 Date Received JUL 26 iOl( Planner: BJ FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE METRO PLAN AND STATEWIDE GOALS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Applicant: City of Springfield on behalf of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC). I,' Nature of the Application: The applicant proposes to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan and the Public Facilities and Services Plan (pFSP)l to (I) more adequately reflect the irnpact that new discharge permit restrictions will have 'had on the capacity of the regional wastewater treatment system, (2) to clarify the relationship between the PFSP project list and locally adopted capital improvement plans, and (3) to modify (streamline) the administrative and legislative processes that govern the imple1!lentation and amendment 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 than expected population growth in the 1980's extended this life expectancy. In 1996-97 MWMC developed a Master Plan to evaluate the performance of its facilities, to ascertain areas of constraints within the existing permit conditions, to identify short-term improvements (e.g., how to address seismic hazards), and to address other major issues that needed to be studied further. In May of2002 the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) imposed new and more stringent discharge permit standards on the regional wastewater treatment facilities, particularly in regard to the treatment of ammonia and thermal ,loading. As MWMC staff began to evaluate design needs for its wastewater facilities, ,it became apparent to them that the existing facilities could not meet the demands imposed by the new discharge permit restrictions. Recognizing that a thorough assessment Of wastewater collection, treatment and disposal/reuse needs 'for the next 20 years was essential, the MWMC began work on the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan, a comprehensive facilities 'plan update. The objectives of the 2004 Wastewater. Facilities Plan are twofold. First, it is intended to provide for adequate cornmunity growth capacity through 2025, considering policies in the Metro Plan and current planning assessments for population and development. Second, the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan is intended to protect community health and safety by addressing sanitary sewer overflows, river safety, permit compliance and the cost-effective use of existing facilities and the efficient design of new facilities. The 2004 wastewater Facilities Plan recognizes and addresses the fact that the regional wastewater system for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area does not have the capacity to I See app~ndices A & B, respectively. Date Received JUL 261uL( Exhibit B-1 Planner: BJ meet all of the discharge standards imposed by state and federal law. Neither the Metro Plan nor the PFSP currently reflect this situation. Statewide Planning Goal 2 requires that the city, county and special district plans be consistent. In large part, the amendments proposed by this application address the issue of consistency between the Metro Plan and the PFSP and consistency of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan with the former documents. The proposed amendments provide information that should have been included in the PFSP when it was adopted and present a more accurate description of wastewater services that will be available after certain capital improvement projects are completed. Phasing objectives of the 2004 wastewater Facilities Plan necessitate that construction of several key-facility components begin by June of 2005 in order to meet federal standards that require that peak wet weather events be managed by 20 10, In order to meet this rigorous construction schedule, MWMC must have released Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for engineering design by October of 2004. Prior to this date, the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan must be adopted by the three metropolitan jurisdictions and the Metro Plan and the PFSP should be updated to reflect current information. ' In summary, the application proposes the following changes: Metro Plan I. Specifically recognizes "wastewater" as a subcategory of service within the Urban Growth Boundary. [Chapter III-G] 2. Amends Finding #6 and Policy #3 to recognize the addition of Map 2a "Existing Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems" to the PFSP. [Chapter III-G] 3. Amends Policy #2 to include local capital improvement plans as a means to implement policy in the PFSP. [ChapterIII-G] . 4. Inserts two findings regarding loca] and regional wastewater services to development within the urban growth boundary. [Chapter III-G] 5. Adds anew policy G.9 that malfes 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. [Chapter ill-G] 6. Modifies definition 37. Wastewater: Public Facilities Projects. [Chapter V Glossary] . PFSP 1. Modifies the text on page 28, preceding Table 3, and adds Tables 4a and 4b that identify MWMC Wastewater' Treatment' and Primary Collection System improvements, respectively. Exhibit B-2 Date Received JUL 26(lltf 'Planner: BJ 2. Modifies Map 2, which shows Planned Wastewater Facilities, and adds Map 2a that' concerns Existing Wastewater Facilities. 3. Modifies the existing narrative on "Wastewater System Condition Assessment" m Chapter IV. (Page 82) , 4. Modifies existing paragraphs #1 and #2 under the discussion of "Wastewater" in the subdivision entitled "Long Term Service Availability Within Urbanizable Areas" in Chapter N. (Page 97). 5. Adds new Table 16a (foIlowing Table 16) entitled "MWMC Wastewater Treatment and CoIlection System Improvements, Rough Cost Estimate, and Timing Estimate." (Page 101 ) 6. Adds new Chapter VI regarding amendments to the PFSP. Metropolitan Area General plan Amend!"entCriteria The proposed amendments are considered to be Type I Metro Plan amendments because they are non-site specific amendments to the Plan text. Amendments to the Plan text, which include changes to functional plans such as TransPlan and the PFSP, and that are non-site specific require approval by all three governing bodies to become effective.2 Springfield, Eugene and Lane County each adopted identical Metro Plan amendment criteria into their respective implementing ordinances and codes. Springfield Code Section 7,070(3) (a & b), Eugene Code 9.7730(3)(a)(b), and Lane Code 12.225(2) (a & b) require that the amendment be consistent with relevant statewide planning goals and that the amendment wiIl not make the Metro Plan intemaIly inconsistent. These criteria are addressed.as follows: (a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide plann'ing goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; Goal!- Citizen Involvement To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The two cities and the county have acknowledged land use codes that are intended to serve as the principal implementing ordinances for the Metro Plan. Citizen involvement for a Type I Metro Plan amendment not related'to an urban growth boundary amendment requires: I ) Notice to interested parties; 2) Notice shaIl be published in a newspaper of general circulation; 3) Notice shaIl be provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at least 45 days before the initial evidentiary hearing (planning conunission). 2 See EC 9.7730(1)(0), SDC 7.070(1)(0), and LC 12.225(1)(o)(i). Date Received JUL 2 6 I ~~ Planner: BJ Exhibit B-3 Notice of the joint plmming commission hearing was published in the Springfield News and in the Register Guard on March 31, 2004. Notice to interested parties was mailed on April I, 2004. Notice ofthe first evidentiary hearing was provided to DLCD on March 4, 2004. The notice to DLCD identified the City of Eugene, Lane County, DEQ and EP A as affected agencies. Requirements under Goal I are met by adherence to the citizen involvement processes required by the Metro Plan and implemented by the Springfield Development Code, Articles 7 and 14; the Eugene Code, Sections 9.7735 m1d 9.7520; Lane Code Sections 12.025 and 12.240. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning - To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual basefor such deci~ions and actions, All land-use plans and implementation ordinances shall be adopted by the governing body after public hearing and shall be reviewed and, as needed, revised on a periodic cycle to take into account changing public policies and circumstances, in accord with a schedule set forth in the plan. Opportunities shall be provided for review and comment by citizens and affected governmental units during preparation, review and revision of plans and implementation ordinances. Implementation Measures -- are the means used to carry out the plan. These are of two general types: (1) management implementation measures such as ordinances, regulations or project plans, and (2) site or area specific, implementation measures such as permits and grants for construction construction of public facilities or provision of services. The most recent version of the Metro Plan was approved for final adoption by Springfield on May 17, 2004 (Ordinm1ce No: 6057), by Eugene on April 21, 2004 (Ordinance No. 20319), and by Lane County on June 2, 2004 (Ordinance No. 1197) after numerous public meetings, public workshops and joint hearings of the Springfield, Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions and Elected Officials. The Metro Plan is the "land use" or comprehensive plan required by this goal; the Springfield Developrnent Code; the Eugene Code, 1971 and the Lane Code are the "implementation measures" required by this goal. Comprehensive plans, as defined by 'ORS 197.015(5)3, must be coordinated with affected governmental units.4 Coordination means that comments from affected governmental units are solicited and considered. In this regard, DLCD's Notice of Proposed Amendment form was sent to the City of Springfield, Lane County, DEQ and EP A. ) Incorporated by reference into Goal 2. Date Received JUL26{c4 Planner: BJ 4 See DLCD v. Douglas County, 33 Or LUBA 216, 221 (1997) Exhibit B - 4 One aspect of the Goal 2 coordination requirement concerns population projections. In this respect, the proposed amendment to the PFSP Glossary concerning Wastewater incorporates a projected year 2025 population for the Eugene-Springfield Urban Growth Boundary of 297,585.5 This projection is consistent with the most recent (1997) final forecasts provided to Lane County by the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis and the Year 2000 Census. The adoption of this modification to the PFSP will effectively "coordinate" this population assumption. Goal, 3 - Agricultural Lands This goal does riot apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. Goal 4 -- For'est Lands . This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. GoalS - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments. Goal 6 -- Air; Water and Land'Resources Quality -- To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. This goal is primarily concerned with compliance with federal and state environmental quality statutes, and how this compliance is achieved as development proceeds in relationship to air sheds, river basins and land resources. The Federal Water Pollntion Control Act, P.L. 92-500, as amended in 1977, became known as the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.1251 et seq,). The'goal of this Act was to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters. ORS 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 wastes into the waters of the state. (ORS 468B.050) Among the "pollutants" regulated by the, EQC are temperature (OAR 340-041-0028) and toxic substances (OAR 340-041-0033). " , One purpose of the proposed amendments is to ensure that the Metro Plan and the PFSP accurately reflect regional wastewater system needs as imposed by Federal and State regulation. Currently, the PFSP states that "... the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant has sufficient design capacity to accommodate population increases and serve all new development at-buildout." Recent analyses have determined that facility improvements are now required to address both dry and wet weather requirements relating to pollutant loads and wastewater flows. The section in Chapter IV of the PFSP entitled "Long-'-Term Service Availability Within Urbanizable Areas" is proposed to be modified to reflect the 5 Table 3 of technical memorandum entitled "Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission- Population Projections for Wastewater Facilities PHm," prepared by Matt Noesen, CH2M HiIDat~P'F\ecelved Exhibit B - 5 JUL 26 101 PI~nnAr: RJ need for facility improvements necessary to address dry and wet weather regulatory requirements. Goal? - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards' This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments. GoaJ- 8 - Recreational Needs This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments.. Goal 9 - Economic Development - Goal 9 provides, in part, that it is intended to: "Provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, locations, and service levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies." The proposed amendmepts are consistent with this objective in that the Metro Plan, the PFSP and the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan must be consistent in order to comply with State discharge permit conditions that will determine the improvements to the Regional Wastewater System that are necessary to address new regulatory standards. The improvements are necessary to allow adequate service and conveyance, treatment, reuse and disposal capacity to serve new and existing industrial and commercial uses. , , Goal 1 0 - Housing -- To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Goal 10 Planning Guideline 3 states that "[P}lans should provide for the type, location and phasing of pubic facilities and services sufficient to support housing development in areas presently developed or' undergoing development or redevelopment. " OAR 660-008-0010 requires that "[S]ufficient buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density range as determined in the housing needs pn:>jection." Goal 10 defines buildable lands as "...lands in urban and urbanizable, areas that are suitable, available and necessary for residential use." 660-008-0005(13), in part, defines land tl1at 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 administrative rules (OAR Chapter 660, Division 008). The purpose of the proposed amendments is to provide the comprehensive planning frainework to allow for the improvements to the regional wastewater system that support the housing needs of the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. Goal 11-- Public Facilities and Services - To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. OAR Chapter 660, Division 011, implements goal 11. OAR 660-011-0030(1) requires that the public facility plan identify the general location of public facilities projects. In regard to the Metro Plan, the reference to'Public Facilities and Servif)2ite 1fJteooived JUL 26M Exhibit B - 6 Planner~ BJ' Finding 6 and Policy G.3 in the proposed amendments addresses this requirement. In regard to the PFSP, the modification of the introductory narrative under "Planned- wastewater System Improvements (Page 28)," the insertion of new Tables 4a and 4b (page 2S), and the modification of Map 2 and the insertion of new Map 2a, also address this requirement. OAR 660-011-0035(1)) requires that the public facility plan include a rough cost estimate for sewer public facility projects identified in the facility plan. In confonnity with this requirement, it is proposed that the PFSP be amended by the insertion of Table 16a (Inserted following Page 101), which addresses rough cost estimates and a timing estimate for MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Improvements. The rough cost estimates 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 exarnined alternatives ranging from $J 44M to $233M (See Attachment 3). The preferred alternative, found in Table J 6a, was selected because, among other reasons, it provides the least expensive means to comply with federal requirements, and maximizes MWMC's existing investments. OAR. 660-011-0045(3) provides 'that modifi~ations to projects listed within a public facility plan may be made without amendment to the public facility plan. This application proposes to add a new chapter to the PFSP regarding amendments to that plan. Proposed Chapter VI incorporates the standards for amending a public facility plan allowed by OAR 660-011-0045(3)and adopts an amendment process. , Goal 12 - Transportation This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments. Goal 13 - Energy Conservation ' This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments. Goal 14 - Urbanization" To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. ' This goal is not applicable to the p~oposed amendments, as they do not affect the existing urban growth boundary. Goal 15 - Willamette River Greehway This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments. Goal 16 Estuarine Resources, Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands, Goal IS Beaches and Dunes, and Goal 19 Ocean Resources These goals do not apply to the Eu~ene-Springfield Metropolitan Area. Date Received JUL 26(6'-1 ExhibitB-7 Planner~ BJ (b) , Adoption o/the amendment must hot make the Metro Plall intemallyillcollsistellt. The proposed changes to the Metro Plan are essentially of a "housekeeping" nature. They essentially recognize the role of wastewater service provision within the urban growth boundary by the'addition or modification of applicable findings and add or modify policy , language to clarify the relationship between the Metro Plan and the PFSP in regard to . capital improvement plans and the commitment to comply with regulatory requirements. The proposed changes, as presented, will not create internal inconsistencies within the Metro Plan. The proposed changes also amend the PFSP to more accurately reflect MWMC's planned improvement projects for its wastewater treatment system and primary collection system, to provide rough cost and timing estimates for those improvements, update narrative information regarding necessary improvements to the wastewater treatment system and primary collection system, and more clearly implement the plan modification standards contained in OAR 660-011-0045(3). The proposed changes to the PFSP do not create any inconsistencies within the PFSP nor do they create any inconsistencies between the PFSP and the Metro Plan. . Exhibit B - 8 Date Received JUL 26 ,ext Planner: BJ