Item A - PH on MWMC/Metro Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY DATE: May 6, 2004 TO: Springfield .PlanningCommission 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 submits this response. 1. Applicable stanclard~. Mr. Kloos states, without specificity, that ~[s]tate statutes apply." Certainly, this proceeding is governed, in part, 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. 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_ existing Metro Plan provisions. Home Builders is incorrect. 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: ~Long-term projects are anticipated to be built in six tO 20 years .... "(PFSP, P.28). That horizon would extend to 2021. EWEB's list includes, as long-term projects, water system improvements 218 through 237, none of which has a date more specific than the six to 20 year reference quoted above. · ATTACHMENT 2-1