The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutComments Miscellaneous 2/29/2008 !; , ' MOTT Greqory From: Sent: To: Subject: MCKINNEY Lydia S [Lydia.S,MCKINNEY@cLeugene.or.us] Friday, February 29,200811:13 AM MaTT Gregory RE: FW: Springfield's Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Funny timing. ..1 was just going to update you on what I heard from Ross Williamson in Emily's office yesterday; agreement that as described, it's a Type II amendment. Ross included .additional information noted below. Regarding the question about how Metro Plan amendments fit into things as the Metro Plan does not contain the PFSP maps/lists. I believe that the answer is that the Metro Plan does contain the maps, but only by reference to the PFSP. As stated in the PFSP: "The Metro Plan text amendments, the proj ect lists', and the maps in this chapter are adopted as of the Metro Plan. The Metro Plan text is physically located in the Metro Plan. The project lists and maps in this chapter are located in this refinement plan. An amendment to the Metro Plan text, the project lists, or the-maps in this refinement plan, require a Metro Plan amendment as well as an amendment to thls refinement plan." PFSP at page 7. The maps 1-3 that he mentions are actually in the PFSP, but are incorporated into the Metro Plan. See Metro Plan page III~G-2. Map #2 is the wastewater project map. The same would be true of the PFSP project list at Table 4 (the Springfield wastewater proj ect list). So, it appears that as Springfield amends the map and/or list, they are amending both the PFSP and the Metro Plan. This procedure complies with the OARs that govern the PFSP.' OAR 660-011-0045(1) directs jurisdictions to adopt the plan lists and plan map as part of the jurisdiction's c~mp plan as well as include them in the PFSP. Greg also noted that it appears that the PFSP projects are confined to 24" lines or greater and pump stations. I would agree with that, and this is" confirmed by the Metro Plan definitions' section which was amended by the PFSP. The PFSP is to include a list of "significant'public facilities projects." OAR 660-011-0010(1). The PFSP amendments to the Metro Plan included a new definition of "Public Facility Project" and defines the term, for wastewater purposes, as "Pump stations and wastewater lines 24 inches and larger." So, it certainly looks to me like the projects that need to be in the list are only those that involve 24" pipe or pump stations. Lastly, I did not see the PFSP amendment language that Greg I'm not sure wher~ it carne from. But, in any event, since this an amendment of both the PFSP and the Metro Plan (Map and project probably look to the Metro Plan amendment language as well. Lydia quoted in his email. looks like it 'would be' list), they should Messages to and from this e-mail address may be a~a~lable to the public under Oregon Public Records Law. -----Original Message----- From: MOTT Gregory [mail to :,gmott@ci. springfield. or. us] Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 10:44 AM To: MCKINNEY Lydia S Subject:.RE: FW: Springfield's Sanitary Sewer. Master Plan Date Received FEB 'J, 9 2008 1 Planner: BJ . " Lydia, Thanks for keeping current on this. I'm going to give Steve Vorhes and Emily copies of maps showing project locations and copies of all tables identifying those projects. I ran into Steve after PO I s the other day and he was reluctant to offer an opinion unt~l he '.d seen these docs, so I might as well give Emily a copy too. gmott -----Original Message----- From: MCKINNEY Lydia S [mai1to:Lydia.S.MCKINNEY@ci.eugene.or.us] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 8:10 AM To: MOTT Gregory Subject: FW: FW; Springfield's Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Hi Greg, I'm still waiting to hear from Emily.. .are you waiting on this? Let me know if I should push harder for an opinion. LM ~essages to and from this e-mail address may be available to the public under Oregon Public Records Law. -----Original Message----- From: Emily JEROME [mailto:Emily.N.Jerom~@harrang.com] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 9:54 AM To:'MCKINNEY Lydia S Subject: R~: FW: Spring~ieldrs Sanitary Sewer Master Plan I'll take a look, Emily. Emily Newton Jerome Harrang Long Gary Rudnick PC 360 E 10th Suite 300 Eugene OR 97401 541-485-0220 emily.n.jerome@harrang.com This message is a confidential communication under the attorney-client or attorney work product privilege. >>> "MCKINNEY Lydia S" CLydia.S.MCKINNEY@ci.eugene.or.us> 2/22/2008 8:11 AM >>> Hi Em, Can you co~firm what seems to be our agreement {Eugene, Springfield, and LC stafff that what Greg has described for the PFSP and Metro Plan 'amendments Springfield is proposing is a Type II, not requiring Eugene's participation? All the lines are within Springfield's City limits, 'and the amendments are site specific. . Thanks, Lydia (call 682-5485 if you have questions) Messages to and from this e-mail address may be available to the public under Oregon Public Records Law. From: MCKINNEY Lydia S Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 To: MOTT Gregory; SCHULZ Stephanie Cc: VORHES Stephen L; JEROME Emily A Subject: RE: Springfield's Sanitary Sewer 6:14 PM E (Harrang) ; Date Received Bill Van Vactor;' STOUDER MattFEB"~~08isa , Master Plan 2 Planner: BJ Gr~g, Are you kidding? This is fascinating stuff! Based on your eloquent description, lid venture it's. a Type II site-specific amendment. Do you agree Stephanie? LM Messages to and from this e-mail address may be available to the public under Oregon Public Records Law., From: MOTT Gregory [mailto:gmott@ci.springfield.or.us] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:55 PM To: SCHULZ Stephanie E; MCKINNEY Lydia S Cc: VORHES Stephen L; JEROME Emily (Harrang); Bill Van Vactor; STOUDER Matt Subject: Springfield's Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Lydia and Stephanie are more up to speed than the rest of you, so some of this will bore everyone, just some more than others. The questions that I've posed to date have been around the involvement of Eugene and Lane County EO's in the adoption of the Springfield Wastewater Master Plan and concurrent amendments to the project lists and maps in the PFSP and related amendments in the text of the Metro Plan, Chapter III-G b~ing the most likely suspect, but I'll make no claim to certainty on that one. I mention this because Policy G.3 of the Metro Plan requires amending the PFSP and the Metro Plan for "modifications and additions to or deletions from the project lists in the PFSP planned facilities Maps 1, 2 and 3." At no place does the Metro Plan contain these project lists or maps, so I'm not sure what exactly we're supposed to amend in the Metro Plan; there are Appendices listed at page 1-3" and Appendix A is the Public Facility Plan Project Lists and Maps for Water, Stormwater, Wastewater, Electricity and Transportation. Maybe we need to amend this appendix? Maybe we need to reference the existence of this new WW Master Plan? What we're up to over here is updating a 20+ year old sanitary sewer master plan. Much of what's being proposed does a better job of describing basin-specific projects (lines, manholes and pump/lift stations) and whether or not these projects are new or are upgrades. As best as I can tell, the PFSP sanitary sewer projects are limited to lines 24 inches and larger and pump/lift stations (no regard to line size are associated with these facilities). We have three 24 inch lines proposed: .one is parallel to an existing 24" line that goes from Centennial @12th to Hayden Bridge @ 10th; another goes from 21st and E to 14th and Centennial; and the last 24" project will upgrade 15 and 18 . inch pipes in Main Street between 52nd and 69th. We're building two new lift stations, one at Oeadmond Ferry and International Way in Gateway and ,one in South Second Street near Harbor Drive. That is the sum total of all our new and upgrade projects that qualify for inclusion in the PFSP. We've completed two lift stations on the existing project list so I assume we should delete those but that too is an amendment identified in Policy G.3. Now that I've gone around the barn twice without going through it, I'Mose the question of participation based on the above descriptions and citations and th l!~~,i\~rv~,J the PFSP regarding the Process for making Changes: "For purposes of ~i~~\"ti CU amendments, as defined herein, such amendments are divided into two classes: FES Z 9 2008 Planner: BJ 3 a. Type I Amendments include amendments to the texL of the Plan, o~ to a list, location or provider of public facility projects which significantly impact a public facility project identified here, which project serves more than one jurisdiction. b. Type II amendments include amendments to a list, location or provider of public facility projects which significantly impact a public facility project identified herein, which. project serv.es only the jurisdiction proposing the amendment." What's your plea~ure regarding classification; are the projects as I've described them (if this is enough description) Type I or Type II? Type I amendments are forwarded to the respective agencies 'for adoption; ~ype II amendments. are the exclusive jurisdiction of the initiating agency. I can fax you a copy of the map if that would help. If you see a similarity to the Metro Plan amendment process you are correct. gmott 4 Date Received FEB z 9 2008 Planner: BJ