Item 5: PH on Ordinance Concerning Amendments to Public Facilities and Services Plan

Home Browse Search

The acknowledged Metro Plan and 2001 PFSP (the Land Use Plans) did not include the capital improvement projects described in the MWMC Facilities Plan. The Land Use Plans needed to be updated to include all existing regional wastewater facilities and planned regional wastewater projects, so that the MWMC Facilities Plan would be consistent with them. Therefore, in 2004, MWMC proposed several changes to the Metro Plan and PFSP. The proposed changes to the PFSP included adding three tables (4a, 4b and 16a) to describe the projects recommended by the MWMC Facilities Plan and their projected cost and timing, and modifying Map 2 to show the location of the planned projects. Table 4a listed three anticipated wastewater treatment system projects: Project 300, WPCF a Treatment Project; Project 301, Residuals Treatment Project; and Project 302, Beneficial Reuse Project. Table 4b listed three anticipated collection system projects: Project 303, Willakenzie Pump Station; Project 304, Screw Pump Station; and Project 305, Glenwood Pump Station. Map 2 depicted the general physical locations of these projects and Table 16a provided an estimate of the cost of each project and its estimated completion date. b The Eugene City Council adopted the amendments to the Metro Plan and PFSP on July 26, 2004, by Ordinance Nos. 20325 and 20326 respectively. Springfield and Lane County adopted similar ordinances adopting identical amendments. The Home Builders Association of Lane County appealed the amendments to the Land Use Plans on numerous grounds. Among other contentions, it argued that the ordinances violated Goal 11 land use requirements because: 1) the list of projects in Tables 4a and 4b were “categories” of projects; not projects; 2) the project descriptions were not sufficiently detailed; and 3) the cost estimates in Table 16a were deficient because they were based on “categories” of projects and not individual projects. Essentially, the Home Builders wanted the cities and Lane County to take the exact list of projects recommended in the MWMC Facilities Plan and incorporate it verbatim into the PFSP. LUBA rejected several other arguments that are not discussed here. LUBA remanded the PFSP amendments on narrow grounds. The remand is limited to an instruction to the cities and County that Project 300 (WPCF Treatment Project) should be described with greater specificity. LUBA suggested that the cities and County also take a second look at the descriptions for Projects 301 (Residuals Treatment Project) and Project 302 (Beneficial Reuse Project) to see if greater specificity was warranted, but did not require that these project descriptions be revised. In response to LUBA’s remand, legal counsel and staff recommend four modifications to the PFSP. A complete copy of the amendments is attached, with the recommended remand revisions shown in legislative format (Attachment B). 1) Table 4a. First, staff recommends the addition of Projects 300A to 300I to provide the greater specificity expressly required by LUBA as to Project 300. Although not expressly required, staff also recommends the addition of Projects 301A, 301B, 302A and 302B. Staff believes these additions are advisable in light of LUBA’s directive to re-evaluate Projects 301 and 302. 2) Maps 2 and 2a. Staff recommends that Map 2 be modified to depict all of the projects and sub-projects, including the projects shown on Map 2 of the 2001 PFSP. Map 2a was misprinted. Staff also recommends that Map 2a be replaced with the correct map (from the Technical Background a A new Map 2a has been inserted to show the location of the existing regional wastewater system. b Other changes were recommended, but they were not part of the appeal to LUBA. L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060109\S0601095.doc