Item 4 - Ord./Metro Plan Amend. - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Lastly, it is not clear that MWMC intends for the planning commission to recommend specific projects to the elected officials through the comp plan arnendment process had the public wished to comment on them. MWMC also suggests that the Goal 2 needs are met because of the use of Citizens Advisory Committees (CAC) throughout the planning process. A CAC met in 1977 to look at the Biosolids Management Plan. That was seven years ago. In 1998, a CAC met to look at the issue of wet weather flow. That was six years ago. In 2004, a CAC was created to look at the SDC methodology, but it was not their purpose to look at or comment on the facility plan projects. In short, the CACs have not provided any recent review of the projects being proposed by MWMC. The Appeals Process If members of the public, for one reason or another, are sufficiently opposed to all or part of the proposed projects to seek judicial remedy, where exactly do they go? MWMC contends that the specific projects (i.e. disposal of dry tonnage ofbiosolid waste at a poplar plantation inside the UGB, for example) do not need to be included in the comp plan or PFSP amendments. IfMWMC is correct, concerned neighbors could not seek relief from LUBA after the adoption of the comp plan and PFSP amendments because the amendments do not discuss projects of that specificity. Another possibility would be an appeal of the adoption of the Facility Plan and 20-Year Project List to LUBA on the basis that the decision is a land use decision. The Home Builders Association and the Homebuilders ConstruCtion Company have filed such an appeal against the City of Springfield after it adopted the Facility Plan. Springfield and MWMC, as an intervenor, have filed a Motion to Dismiss. The rationale behind the Motion to Dismiss is explained as follows: ' Here, the decision at issue is a facilities plan and capital improvement plan enacted Under the provisions of ORS 223.297 et seq (the system development charge statutes).. Such plans are specifically excluded from LUBA's jurisdiction by the provisions of ORS 223.314. Consequently, LUBA does not have jurisdiction over this matter. Is MWMC suggesting that the road to appeal the disposal ofbiosolid wastes at the poplar plantation would be by challenging the system development charge by writ of review? Surely not. If not by way of LUBA and not by way of challenging the SDC, then how? Or is MWMC suggesting that the public has no remedy if projects are adopted to which members of the public object? MWMC's past practice has been to have the elected officials adopt the projects as part of the budget process. 4 1-4