HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4 - Ord./Metro Plan Amend.EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Action: 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
and
An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and
Services Plan (PFSP) by Adding New Tables and Maps Identifying Wastewater
Treatment Facilities and Conveyance Systems in Chapter II; Amending Chapter IV
Wastewater System Condition Assessment and Adopting Table 16a; Adding a New
Chapter VI Amendment to the PFSP; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an
Effective Date
(Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, File MA 04-01)
Meeting Date: July 26, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 4
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter
www. cl. euget~e, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-8379
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) requests amendments to the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and Public Facilities Services Plan (PFSP) so
that policies will be consistent with its plans for future service improvements.
A more detailed explanation of the proposed amendments and issues raised during the public hearings is
provided in the attached memorandum. The attached ordinance has been amended slightly from
previous versions based on the recommendations of legal counsel from Eugene, Springfield, and Lane
County to provide better clarity.
BACKGROUND
MWMC provides for all operations, maintenance, administration, and capital project management for
the Eugene/Springfield Water Pollution Control Facility, Biosolids Management Facility, Biocycle
Farm, Seasonal Industrial Waste Facility, and the regional wastewater pump stations. These proposed
land use actions are but one of several separate actions the MWMC is taking to update its services.
Council Action History
MWMC was formed by intergovernmental agreement in 1977 to provide wastewater collection and
treatment services for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The City Council annually reviews the
MWMC budget and capital improvement plan, most recently at its May 24 and June 14, 2004, meetings.
Councilor Poling is Eugene's elected official representative to the MWMC.
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040726\S0407264.doc
The council held a joint public hearing on this matter on June 22, 2004, and, in a separate but related
action, approved MWMC's facility plan and project list, and SDC methodology and rate increase on
June 28, 2004.
Policy Issues
The proposed amendments would add policies to the Metro Plan and PFSP in support ofMWMC's
updated capital improvement program.
Council Goal Action Priority
The proposed actions relate directly to the following City Council 2003-2004 goals:
· SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A community that retains a high quality of life and a healthy economy, effectively links land use
and transportation planning, and successfully manages growth and change in the urban
environment
· HEALTHY NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT
A community that conserves and enhances the natural environment and provides an attractive
and healthy place to live
The following Growth Management Study policy applies:
Policy 17 Protect and improve air and water quality and protect natural areas of good habitat value
through a variety of means such as better enforcement of existing regulations, new or
revised regulations, or other practices.
Financial and/or Resource Considerations
None.
Other Background Information
Please see attached materials. Publications entered into the record during the Planning Commission
open record period are available in the Council Office at Eugene City Hall.
Timing
The Springfield City Council adopted the ordinances on July 19, 2004. Action by the County Board of
Commissioners is scheduled for August 24, 2004.
OPTIONS
1. Move to adopt ordinances.
2. Request more information prior to action.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Eugene Planning Commission recommends adoption of the proposed ordinances.
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040726\S0407264.doc
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to adopt 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.
Move to adopt an ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and
Services Plan (PFSP) by adding new tables and maps identifying wastewater treatment facilities and
conveyance systems in Chapter II; amending Chapter IV Wastewater System Condition Assessment and
Adopting Table 16a; adding a new Chapter VI Amendment to the PFSP; adopting a severability clause;
and providing an effective date.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, with:
Appendix Aa: amendments to current version of Metro Plan
Appendix Ab: amendments to periodic review version of Metro Plan
Appendix B: PFSP amendments
Exhibit 1: Findings
B. Ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities Plan, with:
Appendix Aa: amendments to current version of Metro Plan
Appendix Ab: amendments to periodic review version of Metro Plan
Appendix B: PFSP amendments
Exhibit 1: Findings
C. Memorandum from Gregory Mott, City of Springfield, dated July 19, 2004, with the following:
Attachment 1 - Letter from Home Builders Association (6/22/04)
Attachment 2 - Letter from Bill Kloos (6/22/04)
Attachment 3 - Letter from Dave Jewett, Meg Kieran, and Jerome Lidz (5/27/04)
Attachment 4 - Springfield City Council Agenda (6/21/04)
Attachment 5 - Springfield motion to dismiss an appeal by Homebuilders Association
Attachment 6 - Register Guard calendar listing joint public hearing,
Memo from Meg Kieran (5/6/04)
Public Hearing notices
Memo from Meg Kieran (5/17/04)
Memo from Kieran, Jewett, and Lidz (5/27/04)
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner
Telephone: 682-8379
Staff E-Mail: Kurt. M.Yeiter~ci. eugene, or.us
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040726\S0407264.doc
ATTACHMENT A
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 of the Eugene Code, 1971.
B. On February 17, 2004, the Springfield City Council initiated proceedings for a
Metro Plan text amendment.
C. Following an April 20, 2004 joint public hearing with the Springfield and Lane
County Planning Commissions, the Eugene Planning Commission, on May 24, 2004,
recommended Metro Plan text amendments to Chapter III, Section G. Public Facilities and
Services Element to include "wastewater" as a subcategory of service within the UGB; 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 UGB; 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 Appendix A attached and adopted as part of this Ordinance.
D. Text, maps and tables set forth in Appendix B at pages 1 and 2 also amend
Chapter III-G of the Metro Plan as amended in Chapter II of the PFSP.
E. On May 24, 2004 the Eugene Planning Commission, and on June 1, 2004, the
Springfield Planning Commission and Lane County Planning Commission recommended Public
Facilities and Services Plan and Metro Plan amendments.
F. The City Council conducted a joint public hearing on this amendment on June 22,
2004, with the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners, and is now
ready to take action based upon the. above recommendations and evidence and testimony already
in the record as well as the evidence and testimony presented at the joint elected officials public
hearing.
Ordinance- 1
G. 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
law as described in findings attached as Exhibit 1, and which are adopted in support of this
Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Metro Plan Chapter III Section G. Public Facilities and Services Element,
and Chapter V Glossary, are amended as described in Appendix A attached and adopted as part
of this Ordinance. The text amendments in Appendix A shall apply to that version of the Metro
Plan in effect at the time of the effective date of this Ordinance.
Section 2. The text, maps and project lists in Appendix B at pages 1 and 2 are adopted as
amendments to the Metro Plan.
Section 3. Although not part of this Ordinance, the City Council adopts the findings set
forth in the attached Exhibit 1 in support of this action.
Section 4. 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 5. 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
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
substantively identical provisions to those described in Sections 1 and 2 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
APPENDIX Aa
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE METRO PLAN
(Current version of the Metro Plan)
G. Public Facilities and Services Element
This Public Facilities and Services Element provides direction for the future provision of
urban facilities and services to planned land uses within the Metro Plan Plan Boundary
(Plan Boundary).
The availability of public facilities and services is a key factor influencing the location
and density of future development. The public's investment in, and scheduling of, public
facilities and services are a major means of implementing the Metro Plan. As the
population of the Eugene-Springfield area increases and land development patterns
change over time, the demand for urban services also increases and changes. These
changes require that service providers, both public and private, plan for the provision of
services in a coordinated manner, using consistent assumptions and projections for
population and land use.
The policies in this element complement Metro Plan Chapter II-A, Fundamental
Principles, and Chapter II-C, Growth Management. Consistent with the principle of
compact urban growth prescribed in Chapter II, the policies in this element call for future
urban water and wastewater services to be provided exclusively within the urban growth
boundary. This policy direction is consistent with Statewide Planning 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." On urban lands, new development must be served by at least the
minimum level of key urban services and facilities at the time development is completed
and, ultimately, by a full range of key urban services and facilities. On rural lands within
the Plan Boundary, development must be served by rural levels of service. Users of
facilities and services in rural areas are spread out geographically, resulting in a higher
per-user cost for some services and, often, in an inadequate revenue base to support a
higher level of service in the future. Some urban facilities may be located or managed
outside the urban growth boundary, as allowed by state law, but only to serve
development within the urban growth boundary.
Urban facilities and services within the urban growth boundary are provided by the City
of Eugene, the City of Springfield, Lane County, Eugene Water & Electric Board
(EWEB), the Springfield Utility Board (SUB), the Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission (MWMC), electric cooperatives, and special service districts.
Special service districts provide schools and bus service, and, in some areas outside the
cities, they provide water, electric, fire service or parks and recreation service. This
element provides guidelines for special service districts in line with the compact urban
development fundamental principle of the Metro Plan.
Appendix Aa Page 1
This element incorporates the findings and policies in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services
Plan), adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan. The Public Facilities and Services
Plan provides guidance for public facilities and services, including planned water,
wastewater, stormwater, and electrical facilities. As required by Goal 11, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies and shows the general location~ of the water,
wastewater, and stormwater projects needed to serve land within the urban growth
boundary.2 The Public Facilities and Services Plan also contains this information for
electrical facilities, although not required to by law.
The project lists and maps in the Public Facilities and Services Plan are adopted as part
of the Metro Plan. Information in the Public Facilities and Services Plan on project
phasing and costs, and decisions on timing and financing of projects are not part of the
Metro Plan and are controlled solely by the capital improvement programming and
budget processes of individual service providers.
This element of the Metro Plan is organized by the following topics related to the
provision of urban facilities and services. Policy direction for the full range of services,
'"*~"~'~'"*'~-'~;"~I"A; ....... .. ,.o,,~' ..... .. ,.,,,* ....... ~,,~., ;~.,~,,, may be found under any of these topics, although the first
topic, Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary, is further broken
down into sub-categories.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary
· Planning and Coordination
· Water
· Wastewater
· Stormwater
· Electricity
· Schools
· Solid Waste
· Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
· Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
· Financing
The applicable findings and policies are contained under each of these topic headings,
below.
The policies listed provide direction for public and private developmental and program
decision-making regarding urban facilities and services. Development should be
coordinated with the planning, financing, and construction of key urban facilities and
services to ensure the efficient use and expansion of these facilities.
~ The exact location of the projects shown on the Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities
maps is determined through local processes.
2 Goal 11 also requires transportation facilities to be included in public facilities plans. In this metropolitan
area, transportation facilities are addressed in Metro Plan Chapter III-F and in the Eugene-Springfield
Transportation System Plan (Trans Plan).
Appendix Aa Page 2
Goals
1. Provide and maintain public facilities and services in an efficient and
environmentally responsible manner.
2. Provide public facilities and services in a manner that encourages orderly and
sequential growth.
Findings and Policies
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Planning and
Coordination
Findings
1. Urban expansion within the urban growth boundary is accomplished through in-
fill, redevelopment, and annexation of territory which can be served with a
minimum level of key urban services and facilities. This permits new
development to use existing facilities and services, or those which can be easily
extended, minimizing the public cost of extending urban facilities and services.
2. In accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 11 and OAR 660, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies jurisdictional responsibility for the
provision of water, wastewater and stormwater, describes respective service areas
and existing and planned water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities, and
contains planned facilities maps for these services. Electric system information
and improvements are included in the Public Facilities and Services Plan,
although not required by state law. Local facility master plans and refinement
plans provide more specific project information.
3. Urban services within the metropolitan urban growth boundary are provided by
the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, Lane County, EWEB, SUB, the
MWMC, electric cooperatives, and special service districts.
4. The Public Facilities and Services Plan finds that almost all areas within the city
limits of Eugene and Springfield are served or can be served in the short-term (0-5
years) with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service. Exceptions to
this are stormwater service to portions of the Willow Creek area and southeast
Springfield and full water service at some higher elevations in Eugene's South
Hills. Service to these areas will be available in the long-term. Service to all
areas within city limits are either in a capital improvement plan or can be
extended with development.
5. With the improvements specified in the Public Facilities and Services Plan
project lists, all urbanizable areas within the Eugene-Springfield urban growth
Appendix Aa Page 3
boundary can be served with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service
at the time those areas are developed. In general, areas outside city limits
serviceable in the long-term are located near the urban growth boundary and in
urban reserves, primarily in River Road, Santa Clara, west Eugene's Willow
Creek area, south Springfield, and the Thurston and Jasper-Natron areas in east
Springfield.
6. OAR 660-011-0005 defines projects that must be included in public facility plan
project lists for water, wastewater, and stormwater. These definitions are shown
in the keys of planned facilities Maps 1, 2, 2a, and 3 in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan.
7. In accordance with ORS 195.020 to 080, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and
special service districts are required to enter into coordination agreements that
define how planning coordination and urban services (water, wastewater, fire,
parks, open space and recreation, and streets, roads and mass transit) will be
provided within the urban growth boundary.
8. Large institutional uses, such as universities and hospitals, present complex
planning problems for the metropolitan area due to their location, facility
expansion plans, and continuing housing and parking needs.
9. Duplication of services prevents the most economical distribution of public
facilities and services.
10. As discussed in the Public Facilities and Services Plan, a majority of nodal
development areas proposed in TransPlan are serviceable now or in the short-
term. The City of Eugene's adopted Growth Management Policy #15 states,
"Target publicly-financed infrastructure extensions to support development for
higher densities, in-fill, mixed uses, and nodal development."
Policies
G. 1 Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and services in an
orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in
Chapter II-C, relevant policies in this chapter, and other Metro Plan policies.
G.2 Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide
the general location of water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical projects in
the metropolitan area. Use local facility master plans, refinement plans, capital
improvement plans, and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning and project
implementation.
G.3 Modifications and additions to or deletions from the project lists in the Public
Facilities and Services Plan for water, wastewater, and stormwater public facility
projects or significant changes to project location, from that described in the
Appendix Aa Page 4
Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities Maps 1, 2, 2a~ and 3,
requires amending the Pubic Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan,
except for the following:
a. Modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do
not significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing,
capacity, or other general characteristic of the project; or
b. Technical and environmental modifications to a public facility which are
made pursuant to final engineering on a project; or
c. Modifications to a public facility project which are made pursuant to
findings of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact
Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural
provisions of the national Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any
federal or State of Oregon agency project development regulations
consistent with that act and its regulations
G.4 The cities and Lane County shall coordinate with EWEB, SUB, and special
service districts operating in the metropolitan area, to provide the opportunity to
review and comment on proposed public facilities, plans, programs, and public
improvement projects or changes thereto that may affect one another's area of
responsibility.
G.5 The cities shall continue joint planning coordination with major institutions, such
as universities and hospitals, due to their relatively large impact on local facilities
and services.
G.6 Efforts shall be made to reduce the number of unnecessary special service districts
and to revise confusing or illogical service boundaries, including those that result
in a duplication of effort or overlap of service. When possible, these efforts shall
be pursued in cooperation with the affected jurisdictions.
G.7 Service providers shall coordinate the provision of facilities and services to areas
targeted by the cities for higher densities, infill, mixed uses, and nodal
development.
G.8 The cities and county shall coordinate with cities surrounding the metropolitan
area to develop a growth management strategy. This strategy will address
regional public facility needs.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Wastewater
Findings
Appendix Aa Page 5
11. Springfield and Eugene rely on a combination of regional and local services
for the provision ofwastewater services. Within each City, the local
jurisdiction provides collection of wastewater through a system of sanitary
sewers and pumping systems. These collection facilities connect to a regional
system of similar sewer collection facilities owned and operated by the
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission ("MWMC"), an entity
formed under an intergovernmental agreement created pursuant to ORS 190.
Together, these collection facilities (which exclude private laterals which
convey wastewater from individual residential or commercial/industrial
connections) constitute the primary collection system.
12. The primary collection system conveys wastewater to a treatment facilities system
owned and operated by MWMC. This system consists of an interconnected Water
Pollution Control Facility ("WPCF"), a biosolids facility, and a beneficial reuse
facility.
Policies
G.9 Wastewater conveyance and treatment shall be provided to meet the needs of
projected growth inside the urban growth boundary that are capable of complying
with regulatory requirements governing beneficial reuse or discharge of effluent
and beneficial reuse or disposal of residuals.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Water
Findings
14-3. Springfield relies on groundwater for its sole source of water. EWEB water
source is the McKenzie River and EWEB is developing groundwater sources.
The identification of projects on the Public Facilities and Services Plan planned
facilities map does not confer rights to a groundwater source.
Policies
G.910 Eugene and Springfield and their respective utility branches, EWEB and
Springfield Utility Board (SUB), shall ultimately be the water service providers
within the urban growth boundary.
G. 101 Continue to take positive steps to protect groundwater supplies. The cities,
county, and other service providers shall manage land use and public facilities for
groundwater-related benefits through the implementation of the Springfield
Drinldng Water Protection Plan and other wellhead protection plans.
Management practices instituted to protect groundwater shall be coordinated
among the City of Springfield, City of Eugene, and Lane County.
Appendix Aa Page 6
G. 1-1-2 Ensure that water main extensions within the urban growth boundary include
adequate consideration of fire flows.
G. 133 SUB, EWEB, and Rainbow Water District, the water providers that currently
control a water source, shall examine the need for a metropolitan-wide water
master program, recognizing that a metropolitan-wide system will require
establishing standards, as well as coordinated source and delivery systems.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Stormwater
Findings
lg4. Historically, stormwater systems in Eugene and Springfield were designed
primarily to control floods. The 1987 re-authorization of the federal Clean Water
Act required, for the first time, local communities to reduce stormwater pollution
within their municipal storm drainage systems. These requirements applied
initially to the City of Eugene and subsequent amendments to the Act extended
these requirements to Springfield and Lane County.
1~35. Administration and enforcement of the Clean Water Act stormwater provisions
occur at the state level, through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitting requirements. Applicable jurisdictions are required to obtain
an NPDES stormwater permit from the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), and prepare a water quality plan outlining the Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to be taken over a five-year permit period for reducing
stormwater pollutants to "the maximum extent practicable."
146. Stormwater quality improvement facilities are most efficient and effective at
intercepting and removing pollutants when they are close to the source of the
pollutants and treat relatively small volumes of runoff.
157. The Clean Water Act requires states to assess the quality of their surface waters
every three years, and to list those waters which do not meet adopted water
quality standards. The Willamette River and other water bodies have been listed
as not meeting the standards for temperature and bacteria. This will require the
development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these pollutants, and
an allocation to point and non-point sources.
168. The listing of Spring Chinook Salmon as a threatened species in the Upper
Willamette River requires the application of Endangered Species Act (ESA)
provisions to the salmon's habitat in the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers. The
decline in the Chinook Salmon has been attributed to such factors as destruction
of habitat through channelization and revetment of river banks, non-point source
pollution, alterations of natural hydrograph by increased impervious surfaces in
the basin, and degradation of natural functions of riparian lands due to removal or
alteration of indigenous vegetation.
Appendix Aa Page 7
lg9. There are many advantages to keeping channels open, including, at a minimum,
natural biofiltration of stormwater pollutants; greater ability to attenuate effects of
peak stormwater flows; retention of wetland, habitat, and open space functions;
and reduced capital costs for stormwater facilities.
-1-820. An increase in impervious surfaces, without mitigation, results in higher flows
during peak storm events, less opportunity for recharging of the aquifer, and a
decrease in water quality.
-1921. Stormwater systems tend to be gravity-based systems that follow the slope of the
land rather than political boundaries. In many cases, the natural drainageways
such as streams serve as an integral part of the stormwater conveyance system.
202. In general, there are no programs for stormwater maintenance outside the Eugene
and Springfield city limits, except for the Lane County roads program. State law
limits county road funds for stormwater projects to those located within the public
right-of-way.
2-1-3. Filling in designated floodplain areas can increase flood elevations above the
elevations predicted by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
models, because the FEMA models are typically based only on the extent of
development at the time the modeling was conducted and do not take into account
the ultimate buildout of the drainage area. This poses risks to other properties in
or adjacent to floodplains and can change the hydrograph of the river.-
Policies
G. 134 Improve surface and ground water quality and quantity in the metropolitan area
by developing regulations or instituting programs for stormwater to:
a. Increase public awareness of techniques and practices private individuals
can employ to help correct water quality and quantity problems;
b. Improve management of industrial and commercial operations to reduce
negative water quality and quantity impacts;
c. Regulate site planning for new development and construction to better
manage pre- and post-construction storm runoff, including erosion,
velocity, pollutant loading, and drainage;
d. Increase storage and retention and natural filtration of storm runoff to
lower and delay peak storm flows and to settle out pollutants prior to
discharge into regulated waterways;
Appendix Aa Page 8
e. Require on-site controls and development standards, as practical, to reduce
off-site impacts from stormwater runoff;
f. Use natural and simple mechanical treatment systems to provide treatment
for potentially contaminated runoff waters;
g. Reduce street-related water quality and quantity problems;
h. Regulate use and require containment and/or pretreatment of toxic
substances;
i. Include containment measures in site review standards to minimize the
effects of chemical and petroleum spills; and
j. Consider impacts to ground water quality in the design and location of dry
wells.
G. 145 Implement changes to stormwater facilities and management practices to reduce
the presence of pollutants regulated under the Clean Water Act and to address the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
G. 156 Consider wellhead protection areas and surface water supplies when planning
stormwater facilities.
G. 167 Manage or enhance waterways and open stormwater systems to reduce water
quality impacts from runoff and to improve stormwater conveyance.
G. lg8 Include measures in local land development regulations that minimize the amount
of impervious surface in new development in a manner that reduces stormwater
pollution, reduces the negative affects from increases in runoff, and is compatible
with Metro Plan policies.
G. 189 The cities and Lane County shall adopt a strategy for the unincorporated area of
the urban growth boundary to: reduce the negative effects of filling in floodplains
and prevent the filling of natural drainage channels except as necessary to ensure
public operations and maintenance of these channels in a manner that preserves
and/or enhances floodwater conveyance capacity and biological function.
G.4-920Maintain flood storage capacity within the floodplain, to the maximum extent
practical, through measures that may include reducing impervious surface in the
floodplain and adjacent areas.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Electricity
Findings
Appendix Aa Page 9
254. According to local municipal utilities, efficient electrical service is often
accomplished through mutual back-up agreements and inter-connected systems
are more efficient than isolated systems.
Policies
G.201 The electric service providers will agree which provider will serve areas about to
be annexed and inform the cities who the service provider will be and how the
transition of services, if any, will occur.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Schools
Findines
235. ORS' 195.110 requires cities and counties to include, as an element of their
comprehensive plan, a school facility plan for high growth districts prepared by
the district in cooperation with the city or county; and for the city or county to
initiate the planning activity. The law defines high growth districts as those that
have an enrollment of over 5,000 students and an increase in enrollment of six
percent or more during the three most recent school years. At present, there are no
high growth school districts in the urban growth boundary.
246. ORS 197.296(4)(a) states that when the urban growth boundary is amended to
provide needed housing, "As part of this process, the amendment shall include
sufficient land reasonably necessary to accommodate the siting of new public
school facilities. The need and inclusion of lands for new public school facilities
shall be a coordinated process between the affected public school districts and the
local government that has the authority to approve the urban growth boundary."
257. Enrollment projections for the five public school districts in the metropolitan area
and the University of Oregon and Lane Community College (LCC) are not
consistent. Bethel School District and the University of Oregon expect increases
while Springfield and Eugene School Districts and LCC are experiencing nearly
flat or declining enrollments. Enrollment is increasing fastest in the elementary
and high school attendance areas near new development.
-248. Short-term fluctuations in school attendance are addressed through the use of
adjusted attendance area boundaries, double shifting, use of portable classrooms,
and busing. School funding bom the state is based on student enrollment for
school districts in the State of Oregon. This funding pattern affects the
willingness of districts to allow out-of-district transfers and to adjust district
boundaries. Adjustments in district boundaries may be feasible where there is no
net loss or gain in student enrollments between districts.
2-79. Creating or retaining small, neighborhood schools reduces the need for busing and
provides more opportunity for students to walk or bike to school. Quality smaller
Appendix Aa Page 10
schools may allow more parents to stay in established neighborhoods and to avoid
moving out to new subdivisions on the urban fringe or to bedroom communities.
However, growth patterns do not always respect school district boundaries. For
example, natural cycles of growth and neighborhood maturation result in uneven
geographic growth patterns in the metropolitan area, causing a disparity between
the location of some schools and school children. This results in some fringe area
schools exceeding capacity, while some central city schools are under capacity.
-2-830. Long-range enrollment forecasts determine the need to either build new schools,
expand existing facilities, or close existing schools. Funding restrictions imposed
by state law and some provisions in local codes may discourage the retention and
redevelopment of neighborhood schools. Limits imposed by state law on the use
of bond funds for operations and maintenance make the construction of new,
lower maintenance buildings preferable to remodeling existing school buildings.
In addition, if existing schools were expanded, some school sites may not meet
current local parking and other code requirements.
g931. Combining educational facilities with local park and recreation facilities provides
financial benefits to the schools while enhancing benefits to the community. The
Meadow View School and adjacent City of Eugene community park is an
example of shared facilities.
Policies
G.2-1-2 The cities shall initiate a process with school districts within the urban growth
boundary for coordinating land use and school planning activities. The cities and
school districts shall examine the following in their coordination efforts:
a. The need for new public school facilities and sufficient land to site them;
b. How open enrollment policies affect school location;
c. The impact of school building height and site size on the buildable land
supply;
d. The use of school facilities for non-school activities and appropriate
reimbursement for this use;
e. The impact of building and land use codes on the development and
redevelopment of school facilities;
f. Systems development charge adjustments related to neighborhood
schools; and,
Appendix Aa Page 11
g. The possibility of adjusting boundaries, when practical and when total
enrollment will not be affected, where a single, otherwise internally
cohesive area is divided into more than one school district.
G.293 Support financial and other efforts to keep neighborhood schools open and to
retain schools sites in public ownership following school closure.
G.2~34 Support the retention of University of Oregon and LCC facilities in central city
areas to increase opportunities for public transit and housing and to retain these
schools' attractiveness to students and faculty.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Solid Waste
Findines
302. Statewide Planning Goal 11 requires that, "To meet current and long-range needs,
a provision for solid waste disposal sites, including sites for inert waste, shall be
included in each plan."
Policies
G.245 The Lane County Solid Waste Management Plan, as updated, shall serve as the
guide for the location of solid waste sites, including sites for inert waste, to serve
the metropolitan area. Industries that make significant use of the resources
recovered from the Glenwood solid waste transfer facility should be encouraged
to locate in that vicinity..
Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
Findings
3t-3. Providing key urban services, such as water, to areas outside the urban growth
boundary increases pressure for urban development in rural areas. This can
encourage premature development outside the urban growth boundary at rural
densities, increasing the cost of public facilities and services to all users of the
systems.
334. Land application ofbiosolids, treated wastewater, or cannery waste on
agricultural sites outside the urban growth boundary for beneficial reuse of treated
wastewater byproducts generated within the urban growth boundary is more
efficient and environmentally beneficial than land filling or other means of
disposal.
335. Lane County land use data show that, outside the urban growth boundary, land
uses consist of:
Appendix Aa Page 12
1) Those which are primarily intended for resource management; and
2) Those where development has occurred and are committed to rural
development as established through the exceptions process specified in
Statewide Planning Goal 2.
Policies
G.256 Wastewater and water service shall not be provided outside the urban growth
boundary except to the following areas, and the cities may require consent to
annex agreements as a prerequisite to providing these services in any instance:
a. The area of the Eugene Airport designated Government and Education on
the Metro Plan Diagram, the Seasonal Industrial Waste Facility, the
Regional Wastewater Biosolids Management Facility, and agricultural
sites used for land application ofbiosolids and cannery byproducts. These
sites serve the entire metropolitan area.
b. An existing development outside the urban growth boundary when it has
been determined that it poses an immediate threat of public health or
safety to the citizens within the Eugene-Springfield urban growth
boundary that can only be remedied by extension of the service.
In addition, under prior obligations, water service shall be provided to land within
the dissolved water districts of Hillcrest, College Crest, Bethel, and Oakway.
G.267 The Eugene Airport shall be served with the necessary urban services required to
operate the airport as an urban facility. Development outside the urban growth
boundary in the vicinity of the airport, outside the portion of the airport boundary
designated Government and Education in the Metro Plan diagram, shall not be
provided with urban services.
G.2~8 Plan for the following levels of service for rural designations outside the urban
growth boundary within the Plan Boundary:
a. Agriculture, Forest Land, Sand and Gravel, and Parks and Open Space.
No minimum level of service is established.
b. Rural Residential, Rural Commercial, Rural Industrial, and Government
and Education. On-site sewage disposal, individual water systems, rural
level of fire and police protection, electric and communication service,
schools, and reasonable access to solid waste disposal facility.
Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
Findines
Appendix Aa Page 13
346. In accordance with statewide planning goals and administrative rules, urban
water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities may be located on agricultural land
and urban water and wastewater facilities may be located on forest land outside
the urban growth boundary when the facilities exclusively serve land within the
urban growth boundary, pursuant to OAR 660-006 and 660-033.
357. In accordance with statewide planning goals and administrative rules, water, and
wastewater facilities are allowed in the public right-of-way of public roads and
highways.
368. The Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities maps show the location
of some planned public facilities outside the urban growth boundary and Plan
Boundary, exclusively to serve land within the urban growth boundary. The
ultimate construction of these facilities will require close coordination with and
permitting by Lane County and possible Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
399. Statewide Planning Goal 5 and OAR 660-023-0090 require state and local
jurisdictions to identify and protect riparian corridors.
gg40. In accordance with OAR 660-033-0090, 660-033-0130(2), and 660-033-0120,
building schools on high value farm land outside the urban growth boundary is
prohibited. Statewide planning goals prohibit locating school buildings on farm
or forest land within three miles outside the urban growth boundary.
Policies
G.289 Consistent with local regulations, locate new urban water, wastewater, and
stormwater facilities on farm land and urban water and wastewater facilities on
forest land outside the urban growth boundary only when the facilities exclusively
serve land inside the urban growth boundary and there is no reasonable
alternative.
G.-2-930Locate urban water and wastewater facilities in the public right-of-way of public
roads and highways outside the urban growth boundary, as needed to serve land
within the urban growth boundary.
G.301 Facility providers shall coordinate with Lane County and other local jurisdictions
and obtain the necessary county land use approvals to amend the Lane County
Rural Comprehensive Plan, or the Metro Plan, as needed and consistent with state
law, to appropriately designate land for urban facilities located outside the urban
growth boundary or the Plan Boundary.
Appendix Aa Page 14
G.3-1-2 The cities shall coordinate with Lane County on responsibility and authority to
address stormwater-related issues outside the Plan Boundary, including outfalls
outside the Springfield portion of the urban growth boundary.
G.333 Measures to protect, enhance, or alter Class F Streams outside the urban growth
boundary, within the Plan Boundary shall, at a minimum, be consistent with Lane
County's riparian standards.
G.394 New schools within the Plan Boundary shall be built inside the urban growth
boundary.
Financing
Findings
g941. ORS 197.712(2)(e) states that the project timing and financing provisions of
public facility plans shall not be considered land use decisions.
402. ORS 223.297 and ORS 223.229(1) do not permit the collection of local systems
development charges (SDCs) for fire and emergency medical service facilities and
schools, limiting revenue options for these services. Past attempts to change this
law have been unsuccessful.
4-1-3. Service providers in the metropolitan area use SDCs to help fund the following
facilities:
Springfield: stormwater, wastewater, and transportation;
· Willamalane Park and Recreation District: parks;
· SUB, Rainbow Water District: water;
· Eugene: stormwater, wastewater, parks, and transportation; and,
· EWEB: water.
4g4. Oregon and California timber receipt revenues, a federally-funded source of
county road funds, have declined over the years and their continued decline is
expected.
435. Regular maintenance reduces long term infrastructure costs by preventing the
need for frequent replacement and rehabilitation. ORS 223.297 to 223.314 do not
allow use of SDCs to fund operations and maintenance.
446. The assessment rates of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County are each different,
creating inequitable financing of some infrastructure improvements in the
metropolitan area.
Policies
Appendix Aa Page 15
G.345 Changes to Public Facilities and Services Plan project phasing schedules or
anticipated costs and financing shall be made in accordance with budgeting and
capital improvement program procedures of the affected jurisdiction(s).
G.356 Service providers will update capital improvement programming (planning,
programming, and budgeting for service extension) regularly for those portions of
the urban growth boundary where the full range of key urban services and
facilities is not available.
G.367 Require development to pay the cost, as determined by the local jurisdiction, of
extending urban services and facilities. This does not preclude subsidy, where a
development will fulfill goals and recommendations of the Metro Plan and other
applicable plans determined by the local jurisdiction to be of particular
importance or concern.
G.3~8 Continue to implement a system of user charges, SDCs, and other public
financing tools, where appropriate, to fund operations, maintenance, and
improvement or replacement of obsolete facilities or system expansion.
G.389 Explore other funding mechanisms at the local level to finance operations and
maintenance of public facilities.
G.g-940Set wastewater and stormwater fees at a level commensurate with the level of
impact on, or use of, the wastewater or stormwater service.
G.3940The cities and Lane County will continue to cooperate in developing assessment
practices for inter-jurisdictional projects that provide for equitable treatment of
properties, regardless of jurisdiction.
Chapter V Glossary
36. Public facility projects: Public facility project lists and maps adopted as part of
the Metro Plan are defined as follows:
a. Water: Source, reservoirs, pump stations, and primary distribution
systems. Primary distribution systems are transmission lines 12 inches or
larger for SUB and 24 inches or larger for EWEB.
b. Wastewater: Primary Collection System: Pump stations and wastewater
lines 24 inches or larger.
Treatment Facilities System: Water Pollution Control
Facility (WPCF) project, beneficial reuse project and
residuals project necessary_ to meet wastewater treatment
facilities system design capacities for average flow, peak
flow, biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended
Appendix Aa Page 16
solids so as to provide service within the urban growth
boundary (UGB) for a projected population in 2025
consistent with the population assumed in this Plan, in
compliance with MWMC's discharge permit. MWMC's
Capital Improvements Plan, as amended fi:om time to time,
shall be used as the guide for detailed planning and
implementation of the WPCF project, the beneficial reuse
proiect and the residuals project.
c. Stormwater: Drainage/channel improvements and/or piping systems 36
inches or larger; proposed detention ponds; outfalls; water quality
projects; and waterways and open systems.
d. Specific projects adopted as part of the Metro Plan are described in the
project lists and their general location is identified in the planned facilities
maps in Chapter II of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public
Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan).
Appendix Aa Page 17
APPENDIX Ab
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE METRO PLAN
(Version currently before the elected officials as a part of Periodic Review)
G. Public Facilities and Services Element
This Public Facilities and Services Element provides direction for the future provision of
urban facilities and services to planned land uses within the Metro Plan Plan Boundary
(Plan Boundary).
The availability of public facilities and services is a key factor influencing the location
and density of future development. The public's investment in, and scheduling of, public
facilities and services are a major means of implementing the Metro Plan. As the
population of the Eugene-Springfield area increases and land development patterns
change over time, the demand for urban services also increases and changes. These
changes require that service providers, both public and private, plan for the provision of
services in a coordinated manner, using consistent assumptions and projections for
population and land use.
The policies in this element complement Metro Plan Chapter II-A, Fundamental
Principles, and Chapter II-C, Growth Management. Consistent with the principle of
compact urban growth prescribed in Chapter II, the policies in this element call for future
urban water and wastewater services to be provided exclusively within the urban growth
boundary (UGB). This policy direction is consistent with Statewide Planning 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." On urban lands, new development must be served by at least the
minimum level of key urban services and facilities at the time development is completed
and, ultimately, by a full range of key urban services and facilities. On rural lands within
the Plan Boundary, development must be served by rural levels of service. Users of
facilities and services in rural areas are spread out geographically, resulting in a higher
per-user cost for some services and, often, in an inadequate revenue base to support a
higher level of service in the future. Some urban facilities may be located or managed
outside the urban growth boundary, as allowed by state law, but only to serve
development within the UGB.
Urban facilities and services within the UGB are provided by the City of Eugene, the City
of Springfield, Lane County, Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), the Springfield
Utility Board (SUB), the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC),
electric cooperatives, and special service districts. Special service districts provide
schools and bus service, and, in some areas outside the cities, they provide water, electric,
fire service or parks and recreation service. This element provides guidelines for special
service districts in line with the compact urban development fundamental principle of the
Metro Plan.
Appendix Ab Pagel
This element incorporates the findings and policies in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services
Plan), adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan. The Public Facilities and Services
Plan provides guidance for public facilities and services, including planned water,
wastewater, stormwater, and electrical facilities. As required by Goal 11, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies and shows the general locationI of the water,
wastewater, and stormwater projects needed to serve land within the UGB.2 The Public
Facilities and Services Plan also contains this information for electrical facilities,
although not required to by law.
The project lists and maps in the Public Facilities and Services Plan are adopted as part
of the Metro Plan. Information in the Public Facilities and Services Plan on project
phasing and costs, and decisions on timing and financing of projects are not part of the
Metro Plan and are controlled solely by the capital improvement programming and
budget processes of individual service providers.
The policies listed provide direction for public and private developmental and program
decision-making regarding urban facilities and services. Development should be
coordinated with the planning, financing, and construction of key urban facilities and
services to ensure the efficient use and expansion of these facilities.
Goals
1. Provide and maintain public facilities and services in an efficient and
environmentally responsible manner.
2. Provide public facilities and services in a manner that encourages orderly and
sequential growth.
Findings and Policies
The findings and policies in this element are organized by the following four topics
related to the provision of urban facilities and services. Policy direction for the full range
of urban facilities and services, ;.~,..a~....~.~..~...~. ....... ....o~..+ ..... ....~...+ ....... o.........,;~ may be found under any of
these topics, although the first topic, Services to Development Within the Urban Growth
Boundary, is further broken down into sub-categories.
· Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary
· Planning and Coordination
· Water
t The exact location of the projects shown on the Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities
maps is determined through local processes.
2 Goal 11 also requires transportation facilities to be included in public facilities plans. In this metropolitan
area, transportation facilities are addressed in Metro Plan Chapter III-F and in the Eugene-Springfield
Transportation System Plan (Trans Plan).
Appendix Ab Page2
· Wastewater Treatment
· Stormwater
· Electricity
· Schools
· Solid Waste Treatment
· Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
· Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
· Financing
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Plannin~ and
Coordination
Findings
1. Urban expansion within the UGB is accomplished through in-fill, redevelopment,
and annexation of territory which can be served with a minimum level of key
urban services and facilities. This permits new development to use existing
facilities and services, or those which can be easily extended, minimizing the
public cost of extending urban facilities and services.
2. In accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 11 and OAR 660, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies jurisdictional responsibility for the
provision of water, wastewater and stormwater, describes respective service areas
and existing and planned water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities, and
contains planned facilities maps for these services. Electric system information
and improvements are included in the Public Facilities and Services Plan,
although not required by state law. Local facility master plans and refinement
plans provide more specific project information.
3. Urban services within the metropolitan UGB are provided by the City of Eugene,
the City of Springfield, Lane County, EWEB, SUB, the MWMC, electric
cooperatives, and special service districts.
4. The Public Facilities and Services Plan finds that almost all areas within the city
limits of Eugene and Springfield are served or can be served in the short-term (0-5
years) with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service. Exceptions to
this are stormwater service to portions of the Willow Creek area and southeast
Springfield and full water service at some higher elevations in Eugene's South
Hills. Service to these areas will be available in the long-term. Service to all
areas within city limits are either in a capital improvement plan or can be
extended with development.
5. With the improvements specified in the Public Facilities and Services Plan
project lists, all urbanizable areas within the Eugene-Springfield UGB can be
served with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service at the time those
areas are developed. In general, areas outside city limits serviceable in the long-
Appendix Ab Page3
term are located near the UGB and in urban reserves, primarily in River Road,
Santa Clara, west Eugene's Willow Creek area, south Springfield, and the
Thurston and Jasper-Natron areas in east Springfield.
6. OAR 660-011-0005 defines projects that must be included in public facility plan
project lists for water, wastewater, and stormwater. These definitions are shown
in the keys of planned facilities Maps 1, 2, 2a, and 3 in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan.
7. In accordance with ORS 195.020 to 080, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and
special service districts are required to enter into coordination agreements that
define how planning coordination and urban services (water, wastewater, fire,
parks, open space and recreation, and streets, roads and mass transit) will be
provided within the UGB.
8. Large institutional uses, such as universities and hospitals, present complex
planning problems for the metropolitan area due to their location, facility
expansion plans, and continuing housing and parking needs.
9. Duplication of services prevents the most economical distribution of public
facilities and services.
10. As discussed in the Public Facilities and Services Plan, a majority of nodal
development areas proposed in TransPlan are serviceable now or in the short-
term. The City of Eugene's adopted Growth Management Policy #15 states,
"Target publicly-financed infrastructure extensions to support development for
higher densities, in-fill, mixed uses, and nodal development."
Policies
G.1 Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and services in an
orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in
Chapter II-C, relevant policies in this chapter, and other Metro Plan policies.
G.2 Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide
the general location of water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical projects in
the metropolitan area. Use local facility master plans, refinement plans, capital
improvement plans, and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning and project
implementation.
G.3 Modifications and additions to or deletions from the project lists in the Public
Facilities and Services Plan for water, wastewater, and stormwater public facility
projects or significant changes to project location, from that described in the
Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities Maps 1, 2, 2a, and 3,
requires amending the Pubic Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan,
except for the following:
Appendix Ab Page4
a. Modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do
not significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing,
capacity, or other general characteristic of the project; or
b. Technical and environmental modifications to a public facility which are
made pursuant to final engineering on a project; or
c. Modifications to a public facility project which are made pursuant to
findings of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact
Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural
provisions of the national Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any
federal or State of Oregon agency project development regulations
consistent with that act and its regulations; or
d. Public facility projects included in the PFSP to serve land designated
Urban Reserve prior to the removal of the Urban Reserve designation,
which projects shall be removed fi:om the PFSP at the time of the next
Periodic Review of the Metro Plan.
G.4 The cities and Lane County shall coordinate with EWEB, SUB, and special
service districts operating in the metropolitan area, to provide the opportunity to
review and comment on proposed public facilities, plans, programs, and public
improvement projects or changes thereto that may affect one another's area of
responsibility.
G.5 The cities shall continue joint planning coordination with major institutions, such
as universities and hospitals, due to their relatively large impact on local facilities
and services.
G.6 Efforts shall be made to reduce the number ofuunecessary special service districts
and to revise confusing or illogical service boundaries, including those that result
in a duplication of effort or overlap of service. When possible, these efforts shall
be pursued in cooperation with the affected jurisdictions.
G.7 Service providers shall coordinate the provision of facilities and services to areas
targeted by the cities for higher densities, infill, mixed uses, and nodal
development.
G.8 The cities and county shall coordinate with cities surrounding the metropolitan
area to develop a growth management strategy. This strategy will address
regional public facility needs.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Wastewater
Findings
Appendix Ab Page5
11. Springfield and Eugene rely on a combination of regional and local services for
the provision of wastewater services. Within each City, the local jurisdiction
provides collection of wastewater through a system of sanitary sewers and
pumping systems. These collection facilities connect to a regional system of
similar sewer collection facilities owned and operated by the Metropolitan
Wastewater Management Commission ("MWMC'), an entity formed under an
intergovernmental agreement created pursuant to ORS 190. Together, these
collection facilities (which exclude private laterals which convey wastewater from
individual residential or commercial/industrial connections) constitute the primary
collection system.
12. The primary collection system conveys wastewater to a treatment facilities system
owned and operated by MWMC. This system consists of an interconnected Water
Pollution Control Facility ("WPCF"), a biosolids facility, and a beneficial reuse
facility.
Policies
G.9 Wastewater conveyance and treatment shall be provided to meet the needs of
projected growth inside the UGB that are capable of complying with regulatory
requirements governing beneficial reuse or discharge of effluent and beneficial
reuse or disposal of residuals.
SUBSEQUENT FINDINGS AND POLICIES SHALL BE RENUMBERED
ACCORDINGLY WITHIN THIS CHAPTER
Chapter V Glossary
37. Public facility projects: Public facility project lists and maps adopted as part of
the Metro Plan are defined as follows:
a. Water: Source, reservoirs, pump stations, and primary distribution
systems. Primary distribution systems are transmission lines 12 inches or
larger for Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and 24 inches or larger for
Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB).
b. Wastewater: Primary Collection System: Pump stations and wastewater
lines 24 inches or larger.
Treatment Facilities System: Water Pollution Control
Facility (WPCF) project, beneficial reuse project and
residuals project necessary to meet wastewater treatment
facilities system design capacities for average flow, peak
flow, biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended
solids so as to provide service within the urban growth
Appendix Ab Page6
boundary (UGB) for a projected population in 2025
consistent with the population assumed in this Plan, in
compliance with MWMC's discharge permit. MWMC's
Capital Improvements Plan, as amended from time to time,
shall be used as the guide for detailed planning and
implementation of the WPCF project, the beneficial reuse
project and the residuals project.
c. Stormwater: Drainage/channel improvements and/or piping systems 36
inches or larger; proposed detention ponds; outfalls; water quality
projects; and waterways and open systems.
d. Specific projects adopted as part of the Metro Plan are described in the
project lists and their general location is identified in the planned facilities
maps in Chapter II of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public
Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan).
Appendix Ab Page7
APPENDIX B
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP)
1. Modify the text preceding existing Table 3 to read as follows:
Planned Wastewater System Improvements
Planned °~ 4. ~...~ ~ .... ,.~ imp oj
.............. ~, ...... wastewater system rovement pr ects are listed in
tables3, and 4, 4a attd 4b. The general location of these facilities is shown in Map 2:
Planned Wastewater Facilities, and Map 2a: Existing Wastewater Collection and
Treatment Systems. [NOTE: This map presently exists as Map 6 in the Technical
Background Report: Existing Conditions and Alternatives and should be
incorporated without changed
2. Insert, following Table 4, Tables 4a and 4b, as follows:
Table 4a
MWMC Wastewater Treatment System Improvement Projects
Project Project Name/Description
Number
300 WPCF Treatment Project
301 Residuals Treatment Project
302 Beneficial Reuse Project
Table 4b
MWMC Primary Collection System Improvement Projects
Project Project Name/Description
Number
303 Willakenzie Pump Station
304 Screw Pump Station
305 Glenwood Pump Station
3. Modify Map 2 to show Projects 300 through 305, and insert Map 2a.
Appendix B Page 1
Appendix B Page 2
4. Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying
the subdivision entitled "Wastewater System condition Assessment"
(presently on page 82) to read as follows:
Wastewater System Condition Assessment
Treatment: MWMC Wastewater Treatment System
MWMC existing infrastructure is monitored for problems that need to be addressed
during operational and maintenance activities. MWMC has ongoing programs to help
plan for and implement equipment replacement and major rehabilitation of existing
systems. With these on going programs used to detect existing problems, the
infrastructure can be maintained and preserved to help extend its useful life for future
years.
In March of 2003, MWMC hired CH2M HILL to evaluate and plan for regional
wastewater capital improvements that will serve the Eugene/Springfield urban growth
boundary into year 2025. MWMC will need to implement the recommended
improvements to meet regulatory requirements based on projected pollution loads and
flows. CH2M HILL as part of its work to evaluate and plan for regional wastewater
improvements has prepared a technical memo related to "Flow and Load Projections"
dated April 12, 2004. This historical and projected information is being used to plan for
needed MWMC capital improvements based on engineering evaluation methods and by
comparing technology options. It is estimated that approximately $160 million dollars
(in 2004 dollars) are needed for MWMC projects to address regulatory requirements and
growth through year 2025.
Con veFan ce:
Conveyance capacity and inflow and infiltration (I/I) ratios are important criteria by
which to assess the performance of a wastewater collection system. Conveyance capacity
is a function of adequate pipe sizing and measures a system's ability to move effluent
efficiently. Inflow and infiltration ratios express the amount of stormwater entering a
sewer system through defective pipes and pipe joints, or through the cross connection of
stormwater lines, combined sewers, catch basins, or manhole covers. Such extraneous
stormwater entering the wastewater system unnecessarily burdens both conveyance and
treatment facilities.
Appendix B Page 3
5. Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying
the discussion of wastewater, in the subdivision entitled "Long-Term Service
Availability Within Urbanizable Areas" (presently on page 97) to read as
follows:
1. There are no areas within the metropolitan UGB that will be difficult to serve with
wastewater facilities over the long-term (six to 20 years) assuming that public
infrastructure specifications and requirements of the developing area can be
addressed. Appropriate engineering design practices must be used during the
development and expansion into sensitive areas that are approved for
development (ex. - hillside construction, etc.).,' ~.,~ ................, ,~ · ,~-, ,,~v,,-o,,-l;^" Expansion of
the existing collection system will be necessary to meet demands of growth over
this time period.
2. Based on 2003 analysis, the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area treatment
facilities will require facility improvements to address both dry and wet weather
regulatory requirements relating to pollutant loads and wastewater flows.
Regional and local wastewater improvements to the collection and treatment
systems are being planned for and will be implemented to allow for growth within
the UGB and for regulatory compliance.
6. Add Table 16a following Table 16, as follows:
Table 16a
MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost
Estimate, and Timing Estimate
300 WPCF Treatment Project I $120,500,000 2025
I
301 Residuals Treatment Project $6,000,...,., 2018
302 Beneficial Reuse Project $25,000,000 2018
303 Willakenzie Pump Station $6,000,000 2010
304 Screw Pump Station $2,000 ...... 2010
305 Glenwood Pump Station $500,000 2012
· Cost estimated in 2004 dollars
Appendix B Page 4
7. Add a new chapter to the Public Facilities and Services Plan, to be Chapter
VI., reading as follows:
VI. Amendments to the Plan
This chapter describes the method to be used in the event it becomes necessary or
appropriate to modify the text, tables or the maps contained in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan ("the Plan").
Flexibility of the Plan
Certain public facility project descriptions, location or service area designations will
necessarily change as a result of subsequent design studies, capital improvement
programs, environmental impact studies and changes in potential sources of funding. The
Plan is not designed to either prohibit projects not included in the plan for which
unanticipated funding has been obtained, preclude project specification and location
decisions made according to the National Environmental Policy Act, or subject
administrative and technical changes to the plan to post-acknowledgement review or
review by the Land Use Board of Appeals.
For the purposes of this Plan, two types of modifications are identified.
A. Modifications requiring amendment of the Plan.
The following modifications require amendment of the Plan:
1. Amendments, which include those modifications or changes (as
represented by Table 16a) to the location or provider of public facility
projects which significantly impact a public facility project identified in
the comprehensive plan, and which do not qualify as administrative or
technical and environmental changes, as defined below. Amendments are
subject to the administrative procedures and review and appeal procedures
applicable to land use decisions.
2. Adoption of capital improvement program project lists by any service
provider do not require modification of this Plan unless the requirements
of subparagraph 1 above are met.
B. Modifications permitted without amendment of the Plan.
The following modifications do not require amendment of this Plan:
1. Administrative changes are those modifications to a public facility project
which are minor in nature and do not significantly impact the project's
general description, location, sizing, capacity or other general
characteristic of the project.
2. Technical and environmental changes are those modifications to a public
facility project which are made pursuant to "final engineering" on a project
Appendix B Page 5
or those which result from the findings of an Environmental Assessment
or Environmental Impact Statement conducted under regulations
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 or any federal or state agency project development
regulations consistent with that Act and its regulations.
Process for making Changes
A. Administrative and Technical or Environmental Changes. Any jurisdiction may
make an administrative or technical and environmental change, as defined herein,
by forwarding to each jurisdiction covered by this Plan, and to the Lane Council
of Governments a copy of the resolution or other final action of the governing
board of the jurisdiction authorizing the change.
B. Amendments
For purposes of processing amendments, as defined herein, such amendments are
divided into two classes.
a. Type I Amendments include amendments to the text of the Plan, or to a
list, location or provider of public facility projects which significantly
impact a public facility project identified herein, 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 serves only the jurisdiction proposing the
amendment.
C. Processing Amendments
Any of the adopting agencies (Lane County, Eugene, or Springfield) may initiate
an amendment to this plan at any time on their own motion or on behalf of a
citizen.
a. Type I amendments shall be forwarded to the planning commissions of the
respective agencies and, following their recommendation, shall be
considered by the governing boards of all agencies. If a Type I
amendment is not adopted by all agencies, the amendment shall be
referred to MPC for conflict resolution. Subsequent failure by agencies to
adopt an MPC-negotiated proposal shall defeat the proposed amendment.
If an amendment is adopted, all agencies shall adopt substantively
identical ordinances
b. Type II amendments shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission of
the initiating agency and, following their recommendation, shall be
considered by the governing board of the initiating agency.
Appendix B Page 6
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).
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)~ to (1) more adequately reflect the
impact 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 implementation 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 of 2002 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 community 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
1 See appendices A & B, respectively.
Exhibit 1 - 1
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 2010. 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
1. 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. [Chapter III-G].
4. Inserts two findings regarding local and regional wastewater services to development
within the urban growth boundary. [Chapter III-G]
5. Adds a new policy G.9 that makes 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 III-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 1 - 2
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" in
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 IV. (Page 97).
5. Adds new Table 16a (following Table 16) entitled "MWMC Wastewater Treatment and
Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost Estimate, and Timing Estimate." (Page
101 )
6. Adds new Chapter VI regarding amendments to the PFSP.
Metropolitan Area General plan Amendment Criteria
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 will not make the
Metro Plan internally inconsistent. These criteria are addressed as follows:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted
by the Land Conservation and Development Commission;
Goal 1- 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: 1) Notice to interested parties; 2) Notice shall be published in a newspaper of
general circulation; 3) Notice shall be provided to the Department of Land Conservation
and Development (DLCD) at least 45 days before the initial evidentiary hearing
(planning commission).
2 See EC 9.7730(1)(a), SDC 7.070(1)(a), and LC 12.225(1)(a)(i).
Exhibit 1 - 3
Notice of the joint planning 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 1, 2004. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was provided to DLCD on March 4,
2004. The notice to DLCD identified the City of Eugene, Lane County, DEQ and EPA
as affected agencies.
Requirements under Goal 1 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 and 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 base for such decisions 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 (Ordinance 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 Development 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 EPA.
3 Incorporated by reference into Goal 2.
4
See DLCD v. Douglas County, 33 Or LUBA 216, 221 (1997)
Exhibit 1 - 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 not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries.
Goal 4 -- Forest Lands
This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries.
Goal 5 - 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 Pollution 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 Plan," prepared by Matt Noesen, CH2M Hill, et al (April 9, 2004)
Exhibit 1 - 5
need for facility improvements necessary to address dry and wet weather regulatory
requirements.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Goal- 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 amendments 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 10 - Housing -- To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Goal 10
Planning Guideline 3 states that "[PJlans 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 projection." 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 that 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
framework 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 Services Plan Map 2a in
Exhibit 1 - 6
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 conformity 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
examined alternatives ranging from $144M to $233M (See Attachment 3). The preferred
alternative, found in Table 16a, 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 modifications 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 proposed amendments, as they do not affect the existing
urban growth boundary.
Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Goal 16 Estuarine Resources, Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands, Goal 18 Beaches and
Dunes, and Goal 19 Ocean Resources
These goals do not apply to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area.
Exhibit 1 - 7
(b) Adoption of the amendment must hot make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
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 1 - 8
ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
(PFSP) BY ADDING NEW TABLES AND MAPS IDENTIFYING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES AND CONVEYANCE
SYSTEMS IN CHAPTER II; AMENDING CHAPTER IV WASTEWATER
SYSTEM CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND ADOPTING TABLE 16a;
ADDING A NEW CHAPTER VI AMENDMENT TO THE PFSP;
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, and by extension, amendment of
refinement and functional plans that supplement the Metro Plan, which for Eugene are
implemented by provisions of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971.
B. On February 17, 2004, the Springfield City Council initiated proceedings for a
Public Facilities and Services Plan amendment and related Metro Plan text amendments.
C. Following an April 20, 2004 joint public hearing with the Springfield and Lane
County Planning Commissions, the Eugene Planning Commission, on May 24, 2004,
recommended the related Metro Plan text amendments and Public Facilities and Services Plan
amendments to include new tables identifying wastewater treatment system and primary
collection system improvement projects as identified in Appendix B; to include new maps
showing existing wastewater treatment systems and planned wastewater project sites; to revise
the wastewater system condition assessment by describing and distinguishing treatment system
and conveyance; to include an expanded discussion ofwastewater service within the urbanizable
area; to include project titles, rough cost estimates and completion dates for the wastewater
treatment and collection system improvements; and to add a new Public Facilities and Services
Plan amendment process, the exact language for each of the preceding amendments being
contained in Appendix A and B attached and adopted as part of this Ordinance.
D. On May 24, 2004 the Eugene Planning Commission and on June 1, 2004, the
Springfield Planning Commission and the Lane County Planning Commission recommended the
Metro Plan text amendments and Public Facilities and Services Plan amendments.
E. The City Council conducted a joint public hearing on this amendment on June 22,
2004, with the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners, and is now
ready to take action based upon the above recommendations and evidence and testimony already
in the record as well as the evidence and testimony presented at the joint elected officials public
hearing.
Ordinance- 1
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
law as described in findings attached as Exhibit 1, and which are adopted in support of this
Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Public Facilities and Services Plan is hereby amended as follows: (a)
Chapter II is amended to include the text, tables and maps set forth in Appendix B at pages 1 and
2, attached hereto; (b) Chapter IV is amended to reflect the text and tables set forth in Appendix
B at pages 3 and 4; and (c) Chapter VI is added and shall consist of the text set forth in Appendix
B at pages 5 and 6. Appendix B is adopted as part of this Ordinance.
Section 2. Chapter II of the Public Facilities and Services Plan is further amended to
reflect the changes to Chapter III-G, Public Facilities and Services Element and Chapter V,
Glossary of the Metro Plan as set forth in Appendix A, attached hereto and by this reference
incorporated herein.
Section 3. Although not part of this Ordinance, the City Council adopts the findings set
forth in the attached Exhibit 1 in support of this action.
Section 4. 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 5. 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
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 Lane County Board of Commissioners have adopted ordinances containing
substantively identical provisions to those described in Sections 1 and 2 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
APPENDIX Aa
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE METRO PLAN
(Current version of the Metro Plan)
G. Public Facilities and Services Element
This Public Facilities and Services Element provides direction for the future provision of
urban facilities and services to planned land uses within the Metro Plan Plan Boundary
(Plan Boundary).
The availability of public facilities and services is a key factor influencing the location
and density of future development. The public's investment in, and scheduling of, public
facilities and services are a major means of implementing the Metro Plan. As the
population of the Eugene-Springfield area increases and land development patterns
change over time, the demand for urban services also increases and changes. These
changes require that service providers, both public and private, plan for the provision of
services in a coordinated manner, using consistent assumptions and projections for
population and land use.
The policies in this element complement Metro Plan Chapter II-A, Fundamental
Principles, and Chapter II-C, Growth Management. Consistent with the principle of
compact urban growth prescribed in Chapter II, the policies in this element call for future
urban water and wastewater services to be provided exclusively within the urban growth
boundary. This policy direction is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11: Public
Facilities and Se?vices, "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." On urban lands, new development must be served by at least the
minimum level of key urban services and facilities at the time development is completed
and, ultimately, by a full range of key urban services and facilities. On rural lands within
the Plan Boundary, development must be served by rural levels of service. Users of
facilities and services in rural areas are spread out geographically, resulting in a higher
per-user cost for some services and, often, in an inadequate revenue base to support a
higher level of service in the future. Some urban facilities may be located or managed
outside the urban growth boundary, as allowed by state law, but only to serve
development within the urban growth boundary.
Urban facilities and services within the urban growth boundary are provided by the City
of Eugene, the City of Springfield, Lane County, Eugene Water & Electric Board
(EWEB), the Springfield Utility Board (SUB), the Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission (MWMC), electric cooperatives, and special service districts.
Special service districts provide schools and bus service, and, in some areas outside the
cities, they provide water, electric, fire service or parks and recreation service. This
element provides guidelines for special service districts in line with the compact urban
development fundamental principle of the Metro Plan.
Appendix Aa Page 1
This element incorporates the findings and policies in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services
Plan), adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan. The Public Facilities and Services
Plan provides guidance for public facilities and services, including planned water,
wastewater, stormwater, and electrical facilities. As required by Goal 11, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies and shows the general location~ of the water,
wastewater, and stormwater projects needed to serve land within the urban growth
boundary.2 The Public Facilities and Services Plan also contains this information for
electrical facilities, although not required to by law.
The project lists and maps in the Public Facilities and Services Plan are adopted as part
of the Metro Plan. Information in the Public Facilities and Services Plan on project
phasing and costs, and decisions on timing and financing of projects are not part of the
Metro Plan and are controlled solely by the capital improvement programming and
budget processes of individual service providers.
This element of the Metro Plan is organized by the following topics related to the
provision of urban facilities and services. Policy direction for the full range of services,
including .........o~..* ..... .. ~.~...~ ....... o.........,;~ may be found under any of these topics, although the first
topic, Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary, is further broken
down into sub-categories.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary
· Planning and Coordination
· Water
· Wastewater
· Stormwater
· Electricity
· Schools
· Solid Waste
· Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
· Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
· Financing
The applicable findings and policies are contained under each of these topic headings,
below.
The policies listed provide direction for public and private developmental and program
decision-making regarding urban facilities and services. Development should be
coordinated with the planning, financing, and construction of key urban facilities and
services to ensure the efficient use and expansion of these facilities.
~ The exact location of the projects shown on the Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities
maps is determined through local processes.
2 Goal 11 also requires transportation facilities to be included in public facilities plans. In this metropolitan
area, transportation facilities are addressed in Metro Plan Chapter III-F and in the Eugene-Springfield
Transportation System Plan (Trans Plan).
Appendix Aa Page 2
Goals
1. Provide and maintain public facilities and services in an efficient and
environmentally responsible manner.
2. Provide public facilities and services in a manner that encourages orderly and
sequential growth.
Findings and Policies
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Planning and
Coordination
Findings
1. Urban expansion within the urban growth boundary is accomplished through in-
fill, redevelopment, and annexation of territory which can be served with a
minimum level of key urban services and facilities. This permits new
development to use existing facilities and services, or those which can be easily
extended, minimizing the public cost of extending urban facilities and services.
2. In accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 11 and OAR 660, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies jurisdictional responsibility for the
provision of water, wastewater and stormwater, describes respective service areas
and existing and planned water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities, and
contains planned facilities maps for these services. Electric system information
and improvements are included in the Public Facilities and Services Plan,
although not required by state law. Local facility master plans and refinement
plans provide more specific project information.
3. Urban services within the metropolitan urban growth boundary are provided by
the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, Lane County, EWEB, SUB, the
MWMC, electric cooperatives, and special service districts.
4. The Public Facilities and Services Plan finds that almost all areas within the city
limits of Eugene and Springfield are served or can be served in the short-term (0-5
years) with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service. Exceptions to
this are stormwater service to portions of the Willow Creek area and southeast
Springfield and full water service at some higher elevations in Eugene's South
Hills. Service to these areas will be available in the long-term. Service to all
areas within city limits are either in a capital improvement plan or can be
extended with development.
5. With the improvements specified in the Public Facilities and Services Plan
project lists, all urbanizable areas within the Eugene-Springfield urban growth
Appendix Aa Page 3
boundary can be served with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service
at the time those areas are developed. In general, areas outside city limits
serviceable in the long-term are located near the urban growth boundary and in
urban reserves, primarily in River Road, Santa Clara, west Eugene's Willow
Creek area, south Springfield, and the Thurston and Jasper-Natron areas in east
Springfield.
6. OAR 660-011-0005 defines projects that must be included in public facility plan
project lists for water, wastewater, and stormwater. These definitions are shown
in the keys of planned facilities Maps 1, 2, 2a, and 3 in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan.
7. In accordance with ORS 195.020 to 080, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and
special service districts are required to enter into coordination agreements that
define how planning coordination and urban services (water, wastewater, fire,
parks, open space and recreation, and streets, roads and mass transit) will be
provided within the urban growth boundary.
8. Large institutional uses, such as universities and hospitals, present complex
planning problems for the metropolitan area due to their location, facility
expansion plans, and continuing housing and parking needs.
9. Duplication of services prevents the most economical distribution of public
facilities and services.
10. As discussed in the Public Facilities and Services Plan, a majority of nodal
development areas proposed in TransPlan are serviceable now or in the short-
term. The City of Eugene's adopted Growth Management Policy #15 states,
"Target publicly-financed infrastructure extensions to support development for
higher densities, in-fill, mixed uses, and nodal development."
Policies
G.1 Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and services in an
orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in
Chapter II-C, relevant policies in this chapter, and other Metro Plan policies.
G.2 Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide
the general location of water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical projects in
the metropolitan area. Use local facility master plans, refinement plans, capital
improvement plans, and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning and project
implementation.
G.3 Modifications and additions to or deletions from the project lists in the Public
Facilities and Services Plan for water, wastewater, and stormwater public facility
projects or significant changes to project location, from that described in the
Appendix Aa Page 4
Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities Maps 1, 2, 2a, and 3,
requires amending the Pubic Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan,
except for the following:
a. Modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do
not significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing,
capacity, or other general characteristic of the project; or
b. Technical and environmental modifications to a public facility which are
made pursuant to final engineering on a project; or
c. Modifications to a public facility project which are made pursuant to
findings of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact
Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural
provisions of the national Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any
federal or State of Oregon agency project development regulations
consistent with that act and its regulations
G.4 The cities and Lane County shall coordinate with EWEB, SUB, and special
service districts operating in the metropolitan area, to provide the opportunity to
review and comment on proposed public facilities, plans, programs, and public
improvement projects or changes thereto that may affect one another's area of
responsibility.
G.5 The cities shall continue joint planning coordination with maj or institutions, such
as universities and hospitals, due to their relatively large impact on local facilities
and services.
G.6 Efforts shall be made to reduce the number of unnecessary special service districts
and to revise confusing or illogical service boundaries, including those that result
in a duplication of effort or overlap of service. When possible, these efforts shall
be pursued in cooperation with the affected jurisdictions.
G.7 Service providers shall coordinate the provision of facilities and services to areas
targeted by the cities for higher densities, infill, mixed uses, and nodal
development.
G.8 The cities and county shall coordinate with cities surrounding the metropolitan
area to develop a growth management strategy. This strategy will address
regional public facility needs.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Wastewater
Findings
Appendix Aa Page 5
11. Springfield and Eugene rely on a combination of regional and local services
for the provision ofwastewater services. Within each City, the local
jurisdiction provides collection of wastewater through a system of sanitary
sewers and pumping systems. These collection facilities connect to a regional
system of similar sewer collection facilities owned and operated by the
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission ("MWMC"), an entity
formed under an intergovernmental agreement created pursuant to ORS 190.
Together, these collection facilities (which exclude private laterals which
convey wastewater from individual residential or commercial/industrial
connections) constitute the primary collection system.
12. The primary collection system conveys wastewater to a treatment facilities system
owned and operated by MWMC. This system consists of an interconnected Water
Pollution Control Facility ("WPCF"), a biosolids facility, and a beneficial reuse
facility.
Policies
G.9 Wastewater conveyance and treatment shall be provided to meet the needs of
projected growth inside the urban growth boundary that are capable of complying
with regulatory requirements governing beneficial reuse or discharge of effluent
and beneficial reuse or disposal of residuals.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Water
Findings
14-3. Springfield relies on groundwater for its sole source of water. EWEB water
source is the McKenzie River and EWEB is developing groundwater sources.
The identification of projects on the Public Facilities and Services Plan planned
facilities map does not confer rights to a groundwater source.
Policies
G.910 Eugene and Springfield and their respective utility branches, EWEB and
Springfield Utility Board (SUB), shall ultimately be the water service providers
within the urban growth boundary.
G. 101 Continue to take positive steps to protect groundwater supplies. The cities,
county, and other service providers shall manage land use and public facilities for
groundwater-related benefits through the implementation of the Springfield
Drinking Water Protection Plan and other wellhead protection plans.
Management practices instituted to protect groundwater shall be coordinated
among the City of Springfield, City of Eugene, and Lane County.
Appendix Aa Page 6
G. 1-1-2 Ensure that water main extensions within the urban growth boundary include
adequate consideration of fire flows.
G. lg3 SUB, EWEB, and Rainbow Water District, the water providers that currently
control a water source, shall examine the need for a metropolitan-wide water
master program, recognizing that a metropolitan-wide system will require
establishing standards, as well as coordinated source and delivery systems.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Stormwater
Findings
lg4. Historically, stormwater systems in Eugene and Springfield were designed
primarily to control floods. The 1987 re-authorization of the federal Clean Water
Act required, for the first time, local communities to reduce stormwater pollution
within their municipal storm drainage systems. These requirements applied
initially to the City of Eugene and subsequent amendments to the Act extended
these requirements to Springfield and Lane County.
135. Administration and enforcement of the Clean Water Act stormwater provisions
occur at the state level, through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitting requirements. Applicable jurisdictions are required to obtain
an NPDES stormwater permit from the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), and prepare a water quality plan outlining the Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to be taken over a five-year permit period for reducing
stormwater pollutants to "the maximum extent practicable."
146. Stormwater quality improvement facilities are most efficient and effective at
intercepting and removing pollutants when they are close to the source of the
pollutants and treat relatively small volumes of runoff.
157. The Clean Water Act requires states to assess the quality of their surface waters
every three years, and to list those waters which do not meet adopted water
quality standards. The Willamette River and other water bodies have been listed
as not meeting the standards for temperature and bacteria. This will require the
development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these pollutants, and
an allocation to point and non-point sources.
168. The listing of Spring Chinook Salmon as a threatened species in the Upper
Willamette River requires the application of Endangered Species Act (ESA)
provisions to the salmon's habitat in the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers. The
decline in the Chinook Salmon has been attributed to such factors as destruction
of habitat through channelization and revetment of river banks, non-point source
pollution, alterations of natural hydrograph by increased impervious surfaces in
the basin, and degradation of natural functions of riparian lands due to removal or
alteration of indigenous vegetation.
Appendix Aa Page 7
lg9. There are many advantages to keeping channels open, including, at a minimum,
natural biofiltration of stormwater pollutants; greater ability to attenuate effects of
peak stormwater flows; retention of wetland, habitat, and open space functions;
and reduced capital costs for stormwater facilities.
-1-820. An increase in impervious surfaces, without mitigation, results in higher flows
during peak storm events, less opportunity for recharging of the aquifer, and a
decrease in water quality.
4921. Stormwater systems tend to be gravity-based systems that follow the slope of the
land rather than political boundaries. In many cases, the natural drainageways
such as streams serve as an integral part of the stormwater conveyance system.
202. In general, there are no programs for stormwater maintenance outside the Eugene
and Springfield city limits, except for the Lane County roads program. State law
limits county road funds for stormwater projects to those located within the public
right-of-way.
24-3. Filling in designated floodplain areas can increase flood elevations above the
elevations predicted by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
models, because the FEMA models are typically based only on the extent of
development at the time the modeling was conducted and do not take into account
the ultimate buildout of the drainage area. This poses risks to other properties in
or adjacent to floodplains and can change the hydrograph of the river.-
Policies
G. 1434 Improve surface and ground water quality and quantity in the metropolitan area
by developing regulations or instituting programs for stormwater to:
a. Increase public awareness of techniques and practices private individuals
can employ to help correct water quality and quantity problems;
b. Improve management of industrial and commercial operations to reduce
negative water quality and quantity impacts;
c. Regulate site planning for new development and construction to better
manage pre- and post-construction storm runoff, including erosion,
velocity, pollutant loading, and drainage;
d. Increase storage and retention and natural filtration of storm runoff to
lower and delay peak storm flows and to settle out pollutants prior to
discharge into regulated waterways;
Appendix Aa Page 8
e. Require on-site controls and development standards, as practical, to reduce
off-site impacts fi.om stormwater runoff;
f. Use natural and simple mechanical treatment systems to provide treatment
for potentially contaminated runoff waters;
g. Reduce street-related water quality and quantity problems;
h. Regulate use and require containment and/or pretreatment of toxic
substances;
i. Include containment measures in site review standards to minimize the
effects of chemical and petroleum spills; and
j. Consider impacts to ground water quality in the design and location of dry
wells.
G. 145 Implement changes to stormwater facilities and management practices to reduce
the presence of pollutants regulated under the Clean Water Act and to address the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
G. 156 Consider wellhead protection areas and surface water supplies when planning
stormwater facilities.
G. 167 Manage or enhance waterways and open stormwater systems to reduce water
quality impacts from runoff and to improve stormwater conveyance.
G. 1~8 Include measures in local land development regulations that minimize the amount
of impervious surface in new development in a manner that reduces stormwater
pollution, reduces the negative affects from increases in runoff, and is compatible
with Metro Plan policies.
G. 189 The cities and Lane County shall adopt a strategy for the unincorporated area of
the urban growth boundary to: reduce the negative effects of filling in floodplains
and prevent the filling of natural drainage channels except as necessary to ensure
public operations and maintenance of these channels in a manner that preserves
and/or enhances floodwater conveyance capacity and biological function.
G.-1-920Maintain flood storage capacity within the floodplain, to the maximum extent
practical, through measures that may include reducing impervious surface in the
floodplain and adjacent areas.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Electricity
Findings
Appendix Aa Page 9
294. According to local municipal utilities, efficient electrical service is often
accomplished through mutual back-up agreements and inter-connected systems
are more efficient than isolated systems.
Policies
G.201 The electric service providers will agree which provider will serve areas about to
be annexed and inform the cities who the service provider will be and how the
transition of services, if any, will occur.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Schools
Findings
235. ORS 195.110 requires cities and counties to include, as an element of their
comprehensive plan, a school facility plan for high growth districts prepared by
the district in cooperation with the city or county; and for the city or county to
initiate the planning activity. The law defines high growth districts as those that
have an enrollment of over 5,000 students and an increase in enrollment of six
percent or more during the three most recent school years. At present, there are no
high growth school districts in the urban growth boundary.
246. ORS 197.296(4)(a) states that when the urban growth boundary is amended to
provide needed housing, "As part of this process, the amendment shall include
sufficient land reasonably necessary to accommodate the siting of new public
school facilities. The need and inclusion of lands for new public school facilities
shall be a coordinated process between the affected public school districts and the
local government that has the authority to approve the urban growth boundary."
257. Enrollment projections for the five public school districts in the metropolitan area
and the University of Oregon and Lane Community College (LCC) are not
consistent. Bethel School District and the University of Oregon expect increases
while Springfield and Eugene School Districts and LCC are experiencing nearly
flat or declining enrollments. Enrollment is increasing fastest in the elementary
and high school attendance areas near new development.
-2-68. Short-term fluctuations in school attendance are addressed through the use of
adjusted attendance area boundaries, double shifting, use of portable classrooms,
and busing. School funding from the state is based on student enrollment for
school districts in the State of Oregon. This funding pattern affects the
willingness of districts to allow out-of-district transfers and to adjust district
boundaries. Adjustments in district boundaries may be feasible where there is no
net loss or gain in student enrollments between districts.
L)--79.Creating or retaining small, neighborhood schools reduces the need for busing and
provides more opportunity for students to walk or bike to school. Quality smaller
Appendix Aa Page 10
schools may allow more parents to stay in established neighborhoods and to avoid
moving out to new subdivisions on the urban fringe or to bedroom communities.
However, growth patterns do not always respect school district boundaries. For
example, natural cycles of growth and neighborhood maturation result in uneven
geographic growth patterns in the metropolitan area, causing a disparity between
the location of some schools and school children. This results in some fringe area
schools exceeding capacity, while some central city schools are under capacity.
-2-830. Long-range enrollment forecasts determine the need to either build new schools,
expand existing facilities, or close existing schools. Funding restrictions imposed
by state law and some provisions in local codes may discourage the retention and
redevelopment of neighborhood schools. Limits imposed by state law on the use
of bond funds for operations and maintenance make the construction of new,
lower maintenance buildings preferable to remodeling existing school buildings.
In addition, if existing schools were expanded, some school sites may not meet
current local parking and other code requirements.
g931. Combining educational facilities with local park and recreation facilities provides
financial benefits to the schools while enhancing benefits to the community. The
Meadow View School and adjacent City of Eugene community park is an
example of shared facilities.
Policies
G.2-1-2 The cities shall initiate a process with school districts within the urban growth
boundary for coordinating land use and school planning activities. The cities and
school districts shall examine the following in their coordination efforts:
a. The need for new public school facilities and sufficient land to site them;
b. How open enrollment policies affect school location;
c. The impact of school building height and site size on the buildable land
supply;
d. The use of school facilities for non-school activities and appropriate
reimbursement for this use;
e. The impact of building and land use codes on the development and
redevelopment of school facilities;
f. Systems development charge adjustments related to neighborhood
schools; and,
Appendix Aa Page 11
g. The possibility of adjusting boundaries, when practical and when total
enrollment will not be affected, where a single, otherwise internally
cohesive area is divided into more than one school district.
G.2~3 Support financial and other efforts to keep neighborhood schools open and to
retain schools sites in public ownership following school closure.
G.2434 Support the retention of University of Oregon and LCC facilities in central city
areas to increase opportunities for public transit and housing and to retain these
schools' attractiveness to students and faculty.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Solid Waste
Findings
302. Statewide Planning Goal 11 requires that, "To meet current and long-range needs,
a provision for solid waste disposal sites, including sites for inert waste, shall be
included in each plan."
Policies
G.245 The Lane County Solid Waste Management Plan, as updated, shall serve as the
guide for the location of solid waste sites, including sites for inert waste, to serve
the metropolitan area. Industries that make significant use of the resources
recovered from the Glenwood solid waste transfer facility should be encouraged
to locate in that vicinity.
Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
Findings
3-1-3. Providing key urban services, such as water, to areas outside the urban growth
boundary increases pressure for urban development in rural areas. This can
encourage premature development outside the urban growth boundary at rural
densities, increasing the cost of public facilities and services to all users of the
systems.
3~-4. Land application ofbiosolids, treated wastewater, or cannery waste on
agricultural sites outside the urban growth boundary for beneficial reuse of treated
wastewater byproducts generated within the urban growth boundary is more
efficient and environmentally beneficial than land filling or other means of
disposal.
355. Lane County land use data show that, outside the urban growth boundary, land
uses consist of:
Appendix Aa Page 12
1) Those which are primarily intended for resource management; and
2) Those where development has occurred and are committed to rural
development as established through the exceptions process specified in
Statewide Planning Goal 2.
Policies
G.256 Wastewater and water service shall not be provided outside the urban growth
boundary except to the following areas, and the cities may require consent to
annex agreements as a prerequisite to providing these services in any instance:
a. The area of the Eugene Airport designated Government and Education on
the Metro Plan Diagram, the Seasonal Industrial Waste Facility, the
Regional Wastewater Biosolids Management Facility, and agricultural
sites used for land application ofbiosolids and cannery byproducts. These
sites serve the entire metropolitan area.
b. An existing development outside the urban growth boundary when it has
been determined that it poses an immediate threat of public health or
safety to the citizens within the Eugene-Springfield urban growth
boundary that can only be remedied by extension of the service.
In addition, under prior obligations, water service shall be provided to land within
the dissolved water districts of Hillcrest, College Crest, Bethel, and Oakway.
G.267 The Eugene Airport shall be served with the necessary urban services required to
operate the airport as an urban facility. Development outside the urban growth
boundary in the vicinity of the airport, outside the portion of the airport boundary
designated Government and Education in the Metro Plan diagram, shall not be
provided with urban services.
G.298 Plan for the following levels of service for rural designations outside the urban
growth boundary within the Plan Boundary:
a. Agriculture, Forest Land, Sand and Gravel, and Parks and Open SpaceJ
No minimum level of service is established.
b. Rural Residential, Rural Commercial, Rural Industrial, and Government
and Education. On-site sewage disposal, individual water systems, rural
level of fire and police protection, electric and communication service,
schools, and reasonable access to solid waste disposal facility.
Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
Findings
Appendix Aa Page 13
346. In accordance with statewide planning goals and administrative rules, urban
water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities may be located on agricultural land
and urban water and wastewater facilities may be located on forest land outside
the urban growth boundary when the facilities exclusively serve land within the
urban growth boundary, pursuant to OAR 660-006 and 660-033.
357. In accordance with statewide planning goals and administrative rules, water, and
wastewater facilities are allowed in the public right-of-way of public roads and
highways.
368. The Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities maps show the location
of some planned public facilities outside the urban growth boundary and Plan
Boundary, exclusively to serve land within the urban growth boundary. The
ultimate construction of these facilities will require close coordination with and
permitting by Lane County and possible Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
3g9. Statewide Planning Goal 5 and OAR 660-023-0090 require state and local
jurisdictions to identify and protect riparian corridors.
3,g40. In accordance with OAR 660-033-0090, 660-033-0130(2), and 660-033-0120,
building schools on high value farm land outside the urban growth boundary is
prohibited. Statewide planning goals prohibit locating school buildings on farm
or forest land within three miles outside the urban growth boundary.
Policies
G.259 Consistent with local regulations, locate new urban water, wastewater, and
stormwater facilities on farm land and urban water and wastewater facilities on
forest land outside the urban growth boundary only when the facilities exclusively
serve land inside the urban growth boundary and there is no reasonable
alternative.
G.g-930Locate urban water and wastewater facilities in the public right-of-way of public
roads and highways outside the urban growth boundary, as needed to serve land
within the urban growth boundary.
G.301 Facility providers shall coordinate with Lane County and other local jurisdictions
and obtain the necessary county land use approvals to amend the Lane County
Rural Comprehensive Plan, or the Metro Plan, as needed and consistent with state
law, to appropriately designate land for urban facilities located outside the urban
growth boundary or the Plan Boundary.
Appendix Aa Page 14
G.3-1-2 The cities shall coordinate with Lane County on responsibility and authority to
address stormwater-related issues outside the Plan Boundary, including outfalls
outside the Springfield portion of the urban growth boundary.
G.393 Measures to protect, enhance, or alter Class F Streams outside the urban growth
boundary, within the Plan Boundary shall, at a minimum, be consistent with Lane
County's riparian standards.
G.334 New schools within the Plan Boundary shall be built inside the urban growth
boundary.
Financing
Findings
43941. ORS 197.712(2)(e) states that the project timing and financing provisions of
public facility plans shall not be considered land use decisions.
402. ORS 223.297 and ORS 223.229(1) do not permit the collection of local systems
development charges (SDCs) for fire and emergency medical service facilities and
schools, limiting revenue options for these services. Past attempts to change this
law have been unsuccessful.
4-1-3. Service providers in the metropolitan area use SDCs to help fund the following
facilities:
· Springfield: stormwater, wastewater, and transportation;
· Willamalane Park and Recreation District: parks;
· SUB, Rainbow Water District: water;
· Eugene: stormwater, wastewater, parks, and transportation; and,
· EWEB: water.
494. Oregon and California timber receipt revenues, a federally-funded source of
county road funds, have declined over the years and their continued decline is
expected.
435. Regular maintenance reduces long term infrastructure costs by preventing the
need for frequent replacement and rehabilitation. ORS 223.297 to 223.314 do not
allow use of SDCs to fund operations and maintenance.
446. The assessment rates of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County are each different,
creating inequitable financing of some infrastructure improvements in the
metropolitan area.
Policies
Appendix Aa Page 15
G.345 Changes to Public Facilities and Services Plan project phasing schedules or
anticipated costs and financing shall be made in accordance with budgeting and
capital improvement program procedures of the affected jurisdiction(s).
G.356 Service providers will update capital improvement programming (planning,
programming, and budgeting for service extension) regularly for those portions of
the urban growth boundary where the full range of key urban services and
facilities is not available.
G.367 Require development to pay the cost, as determined by the local jurisdiction, of
extending urban services and facilities. This does not preclude subsidy, where a
development will fulfill goals and recommendations of the Metro Plan and other
applicable plans determined by the local jurisdiction to be of particular
importance or concern.
G.398 Continue to implement a system of user charges, SDCs, and other public
financing tools, where appropriate, to fund operations, maintenance, and
improvement or replacement of obsolete facilities or system expansion.
G.389 Explore other funding mechanisms at the local level to finance operations and
maintenance of public facilities.
G.3-940Set wastewater and stormwater fees at a level commensurate with the level of
impact on, or use of, the wastewater or stormwater service.
G.&940The cities and Lane County will continue to cooperate in developing assessment
practices for inter-jurisdictional projects that provide for equitable treatment of
properties, regardless of jurisdiction.
Chapter V Glossary
36. Public facility projects: Public facility project lists and maps adopted as part of
the Metro Plan are defined as follows:
a. Water: Source, reservoirs, pump stations, and primary distribution
systems. Primary distribution systems are transmission lines 12 inches or
larger for SUB and 24 inches or larger for EWEB.
b. Wastewater: Primary Collection System: Pump stations and wastewater
lines 24 inches or larger.
Treatment Facilities System: Water Pollution Control
Facility (WPCF) project, beneficial reuse project and
residuals project necessary_ to meet wastewater treatment
facilities system design capacities for average flow, peak
flow, biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended
Appendix Aa Page 16
solids so as to provide service within the urban growth
boundary (UGB) for a projected population in 2025
consistent with the population assumed in this Plan, in
compliance with MWMC's discharge permit. MWMC's
Capital Improvements Plan, as amended from time to time,
shall be used as the guide for detailed planning and
implementation of the WPCF project, the beneficial reuse
project and the residuals prqiect.
c. Stormwater: Drainage/channel improvements and/or piping systems 36
inches or larger; proposed detention ponds; outfalls; water quality
projects; and waterways and open systems.
d. Specific projects adopted as part of the Metro Plan are described in the
project lists and their general location is identified in the planned facilities
maps in Chapter II of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public
Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan).
Appendix Aa Page 17
APPENDIX Ab
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE METRO PLAN
(Version currently before the elected officials as a part of Periodic Review)
G. Public Facilities and Services Element
This Public Facilities and Services Element provides direction for the future provision of
urban facilities and services to planned land uses within the Metro Plan Plan Boundary
(Plan Boundary).
The availability of public facilities and services is a key factor influencing the location
and density of future development. The public's investment in, and scheduling of, public
facilities and services arc a major means of implementing the Metro Plan. As the
population of the Eugene-Springfield area increases and land development patterns
change over time, the demand for urban services also increases and changes. These
changes require that service providers, both public and private, plan for the provision of
services in a coordinated manner, using consistent assumptions and projections for
population and land use.
The policies in this element complement Metro Plan Chapter II-A, Fundamental
Principles, and Chapter II-C, Growth Management. Consistent with the principle of
compact urban growth prescribed in Chapter II, the policies in this element call for future
urban water and wastewater services to be provided exclusively within the urban growth
boundary (UGB). This policy direction is consistent with Statewide Planning 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." On urban lands, new development must be served by at least the
minimum level of key urban services and facilities at the time development is completed
and, ultimately, by a full range of key urban services and facilities. On rural lands within
the Plan Boundary, development must be served by rural levels of service. Users of
facilities and services in rural areas are spread out geographically, resulting in a higher
per-user cost for some services and, often, in an inadequate revenue base to support a
higher level of service in the future. Some urban facilities may be located or managed
outside the urban growth boundary, as allowed by state law, but only to serve
development within the UGB.
Urban facilities and services within the UGB are provided by the City of Eugene, the City
of Springfield, Lane County, Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), the Springfield
Utility Board (SUB), the Metropolitan Wastewatcr M .anagement Commission (MWMC),
electric cooperatives, and special service districts. Special service districts provide
schools and bus service, and, in some areas outside the cities, they provide water, electric,
fire service or parks and recreation service. This element provides guidelines for special
service districts in line with the compact urban development fundamental principle of the
Metro Plan.
Appendix Ab Pagel
This element incorporates the findings and policies in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services
Plan), adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan. The Public Facilities and Services
Plan provides guidance for public facilities and services, including planned water,
wastewater, stormwater, and electrical facilities. As required by Goal 11, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies and shows the general location~ of the water,
wastewater, and stormwater projects needed to serve land within the UGB.2 The Public
Facilities and Services Plan also contains this information for electrical facilities,
although not required to by law.
The project lists and maps in the Public Facilities and Services Plan are adopted as part
of the Metro Plan. Information in the Public Facilities and Services Plan on project
phasing and costs, and decisions on timing and financing of projects are not part of the
Metro Plan and are controlled solely by the capital improvement programming and
budget processes of individual service providers.
The policies listed provide direction for public and private developmental and program
decision-making regarding urban facilities and services. Development should be
coordinated with the planning, financing, and construction of key urban facilities and
services to ensure the efficient use and expansion of these facilities.
Goals
1. Provide and maintain public facilities and services in an efficient and
environmentally responsible manner.
2. Provide public facilities and services in a manner that encourages orderly and
sequential growth.
Findings and Policies
The findings and policies in this element are organized by the following four topics
related to the provision of urban facilities and services. Policy direction for the full range
of urban facilities and services, ;~'"~; ....... ~ ..... ~ ...... ;~'~ may be found under any of
these topics, although the first topic, Services to Development Within the Urban Growth
Boundary, is further broken down into sub-categories.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary · Planning and Coordination
· Water
~ The exact location of the projects shown on the Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities
maps is determined through local processes.
2 Goal 11 also requires transportation facilities to be included in public facilities plans. In this metropolitan
area, transportation facilities are addressed in Metro Plan Chapter III-F and in the Eugene-Springfield
Transportation System Plan (Trans Plan).
Appendix Ab Page2
· Wastewater Treatment
· Stormwater
· Electricity
· Schools
· Solid Waste Treatment
· Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
· Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
· Financing
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Planning and
Coordination
Findings
1. Urban expansion within the UGB is accomplished through in-fill, redevelopment,
and annexation of territory which can be served with a minimum level of key
urban services and facilities. This permits new development to use existing
facilities and services, or those which can be easily extended, minimizing the
public cost of extending urban facilities and services.
2. In accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 11 and OAR 660, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies jurisdictional responsibility for the
provision of water, wastewater and stormwater, describes respective service areas
and existing and planned water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities, and
Contains planned facilities maps for these services. Electric system information
and improvements are included in the Public Facilities and Services Plan,
although not required by state law. Local facility master plans and refinement
plans provide more specific project information.
3. Urban services within the metropolitan UGB are provided by the City of Eugene,
the City of Springfield, Lane County, EWEB, SUB, the MWMC, electric
cooperatives, and special service districts.
4. The Public Facilities and Services Plan finds that almost all areas within the city
limits of Eugene and Springfield are served or can be served in the short-term (0-5
years) with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service. Exceptions to
this are stormwater service to portions of the Willow Creek area and southeast
Springfield and full water service at some higher elevations in Eugene's South
Hills. Service to these areas will be available in the long-term. Service to all
areas within city limits are either in a capital improvement plan or can be
extended with development.
5. With the improvements specified in the Public Facilities and Services Plan
project lists, all urbanizable areas within the Eugene-Springfield UGB can be
served with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service at the time those
areas are developed. In general, areas outside city limits serviceable in the long-
Appendix Ab Page3
term are located near the UGB and in urban reserves, primarily in River Road,
Santa Clara, west Eugene's Willow Creek area, south Springfield, and the
Thurston and Jasper-Natron areas in east Springfield.
6. OAR 660-011-0005 defines projects that must be included in public facility plan
project lists for water, wastewater, and stormwater. These definitions are shown
in the keys of planned facilities Maps 1, 2, 2a, and 3 in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan.
7. In accordance with ORS 195.020 to 080, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and
special service districts are required to enter into coordination agreements that
define how planning coordination and urban services (water, wastewater, fire,
parks, open space and recreation, and streets, roads and mass transit) will be
provided within the UGB.
8. Large institutional uses, such as universities and hospitals, present complex
planning problems for the metropolitan area due to their location, facility
expansion plans, and continuing housing and parking needs.
9. Duplication of services prevents the most economical distribution of public
facilities and services.
10. As discussed in the Public Facilities and Services Plan, a majority of nodal
development areas proposed in TransPlan are serviceable now or in the short-
term. The City of Eugene's adopted Growth Management Policy # 15 states,
"Target publicly-financed infrastructure extensions to support development for
higher densities, in-fill, mixed uses, and nodal development."
Policies
G. 1 Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and services in an
orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in
Chapter II-C, relevant policies in this chapter, and other Metro Plan policies.
G.2 Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide
the general location of water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical projects in
the metropolitan area. Use local facility master plans, refinement plans, capital
improvement plans, and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning and project
implementation.
G.3 Modifications and additions to or deletions from the project lists in the Public
Facilities and Services Plan for water, wastewater, and stormwater public facility
projects or significant changes to project location, from that described in the
Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities Maps 1, 2, 2a, and 3,
requires amending the Pubic Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan,
except for the following:
Appendix Ab Page4
a. Modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do
not significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing,
capacity, or other general characteristic of the project; or
b. Technical and environmental modifications to a public facility which are
made pursuant to final engineering on a project; or
c. Modifications to a public facility project which are made pursuant to
findings of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact
Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural
provisions of the national Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any
federal or State of Oregon agency project development regulations
consistent with that act and its regulations; or
d. Public facility projects included in the PFSP to serve land designated
Urban Reserve prior to the removal of the Urban Reserve designation,
which projects shall be removed fi.om the PFSP at the time of the next
Periodic Review of the Metro Plan.
G.4 The cities and Lane County shall coordinate with EWEB, SUB, and special
service districts operating in the metropolitan area, to provide the opportunity to
review and comment on proposed public facilities, plans, programs, and public
improvement projects or changes thereto that may affect one another's area of
responsibility.
G.5 The cities shall continue joint planning coordination with major institutions, such
as universities and hospitals, due to their relatively large impact on local facilities
and services.
G.6 Efforts shall be made to reduce the number of unnecessary special service districts
and to revise confusing or illogical service boundaries, including those that result
in a duplication of effort or overlap of service. When possible, these efforts shall
be pursued in cooperation with the affected jurisdictions.
G.7 Service providers shall coordinate the provision of facilities and services to areas
targeted by the cities for higher densities, infill, mixed uses, and nodal
development.
G.8 The cities and county shall coordinate with cities surrounding the metropolitan
area to develop a growth management strategy. This strategy will address
regional public facility needs.
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Wastewater
Findines
Appendix Ab Page5
11. Springfield and Eugene rely on a combination of regional and local services for
the provision ofwastewater services. Within each City, the local jurisdiction
provides collection ofwastewater through a system of sanitary sewers and
pumping systems. These collection facilities connect to a regional system of
similar sewer collection facilities owned and operated by the Metropolitan
Wastewater Management Commission ("MWMC"), an entity formed under an
intergovernmental agreement created pursuant to ORS 190. Together, these
collection facilities (which exclude private laterals which convey wastewater from
individual residential or commercial/industrial connections) constitute the primary
collection system.
12. The primary collection system conveys wastewater to a treatment facilities system
owned and operated by MWMC. This system consists of an interconnected Water
Pollution Control Facili _ty ("WPCF"), a biosolids facility, and a beneficial reuse
facility.
Policies
G.9 Wastewater conveyance and treatment shall be provided to meet the needs of
projected growth inside the UGB that are capable of complying with regulatory_
requirements governing beneficial reuse or discharge of effluent and beneficial
reuse or disposal of residuals.
SUBSEQUENT FINDINGS AND POLICIES SHALL BE RENUMBERED
ACCORDINGLY WITHIN THIS CHAPTER
Chapter V Glossary
37. Public facility projects: Public facility project lists and maps adopted as part of
the Metro Plan are defined as follows:
a. Water: Source, reservoirs, pump stations, and primary distribution
systems. Primary distribution systems are transmission lines 12 inches or
larger for Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and 24 inches or larger for
Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB).
b. Wastewater: Primary Collection System: Pump stations and wastewater
lines 24 inches or larger.
Treatment Facilities System: Water Pollution Control
Facility (WPCF) project, beneficial reuse pr0iect and
residuals proiect necessary to meet wastewater treatment
facilities system design capacities for average flow, peak
flow, biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended
solids so as to provide service within the urban growth
Appendix Ab Page6
boundary (UGB) for a projected population in 2025
consistent with the population assumed in this Plan, in
compliance with MWMC's discharge permit. MWMC's
Capital Improvements Plan, as amended from time to time,
shall be used as the guide for detailed planning and
implementation of the WPCF project, the beneficial reuse
project and the residuals project.
c. Stormwater: Drainage/channel improvements and/or piping systems 36
inches or larger; proposed detention ponds; outfalls; water quality
projects; and waterways and open systems.
d. Specific projects adopted as part of the Metro Plan are described in the
project lists and their general location is identified in the planned facilities
maps in Chapter II of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public
Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan).
Appendix Ab Page7
APPENDIX B
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP)
1. Modify the text preceding existing Table 3 to read as follows:
Planned Wastewater System Improvements
Planned ~'~" ~ ~ .... ~'~ oj
.............. ~, ...... wastewater system improvement pr ects are listed in
tables3, and 4, 4a and 4b. The general location of these facilities is shown in Map 2:
Planned Wastewater Facilities, attd.Map 2a: Existing Wastewater Collection and
Treatment Systems. [NOTE: This map presently exists as Map 6 in the Technical
Background Report: Existing Conditions and Alternatives and should be
incorporated without change.]
2. Insert, following Table 4, Tables 4a and 4b, as follows:
Table 4a
MWMC Wastewater Treatment System Improvement Projects
Project Project Name/Description
Number
300 WPCF Treatment Project
301 Residuals Treatment Project
302 Beneficial Reuse Project
Table 4b
MWMC Primary Collection System Improvement Projects
Project Project Name/Description
Number
303 Willakenzie Pump Station
304 Screw Pump Station
305 Glenwood Pump Station
3. Modify Map 2 to show Projects 300 through 305, and insert Map 2a.
Appendix B Page 1
Appendix B Page 2
4. Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying
the subdivision entitled "Wastewater System condition Assessment"
(presently on page 82) to read as follows:
Wastewater System Condition Assessment
Treatment: MWMC Wastewater Treatment System
MWMC existing infrastructure is monitored for problems that need to be addressed
during operational and maintenance activities. MWMC has ongoing programs to help
plan for and implement equipment replacement and major rehabilitation of existing
systems. With these on going programs used to detect existing problems, the
infrastructure can be maintained and preserved to help extend its useful life for future
years.
In March of 2003, MWMC hired CH2M HILL to evaluate and plan for regional
wastewater capital improvements that will serve the Eugene/Springfield urban growth
boundary into year 2025. MWMC will need to implement the recommended
improvements to meet regulatory requirements based on proiected pollution loads and
flows. CH2M HILL as part of its work to evaluate and plan for regional wastewater
improvements has prepared a technical memo related to "Flow and Load Projections"
dated April 12, 2004. This historical and projected information is being used to plan for
needed MWMC capital improvements based on engineering evaluation methods and by
comparing technology options. It is estimated that approximately $160 million dollars
(in 2004 dollars) are needed for MWMC projects to address regulatory requirements and
growth through year 2025.
Conveyance:
Conveyance capacity and inflow and infiltration (I/I) ratios are important criteria by
which to assess the performance of a wastewater collection system. Conveyance capacity
is a function of adequate pipe sizing and measures a system's ability to move effluent
efficiently. Inflow and infiltration ratios express the amount of stormwater entering a
sewer system through defective pipes and pipe joints, or through the cross connection of
stormwater lines, combined sewers, catch basins, or manhole covers. Such extraneous
stormwater entering the wastewater system unnecessarily burdens both conveyance and
treatment facilities.
Appendix B Page 3
5. Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying
the discussion of wastewater, in the subdivision entitled "Long-Term Service
Availability Within Urbanizable Areas" (presently on page 97) to read as
follows:
1. There are no areas within the metropolitan UGB that will be difficult to serve with
wastewater facilities over the long-term (six to 20 years) assuming that public
inl~astructure specifications and requirements of the developing area can be
addressed. Appropriate engineering design practices must be used during the
development and expansion into sensitive areas that are approved for
development (ex. - hillside construction, etc.).,' *'..,,..,~.,~., ......... expansion Expansion of
the existing collection system will be necessary to meet demands of growth over
this time period.
2. Based on 2003 analysis, the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area treatment
facilities will require facility improvements to address both dry and wet weather
regulatory requirements relating to pollutant loads and wastewater flows.
Regional and local wastewater improvements to the collection and treatment
systems are being planned for and will be implemented to allow for growth within
the UGB and for regulatory compliance.
w,.~l~W~,J ,.,wj,.,,,,,o. ,.,.Aw j,.,o.,. ,..,..,-,.,, .
6. Add Table 16a following Table 16, as follows:
Table
MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost
Estimate, and Timing Estimate
300 WPCF Treatment Project $120,500,,,,,,, 2025
301 Residuals Treatment Project $6,000,,~,,,, 2018
302 Beneficial Reuse Project $25,000,,~,,,, 2018
303 Willakenzie Pump Station $6,000 .... 2010
304 Screw Pump Station $2,000~,,,,,, 2010
305 Glenwood Pump Station $500,,,,,,, 2012
*Cost estimated in 2004 dollars
Appendix B Page 4
7. Add a new chapter to the Public Facilities and Services Plan, to be Chapter
VI., reading as follows:
VI. Amendments to the Plan
This chapter describes the method to be used in the event it becomes necessary or
appropriate to modify the text, tables or the maps contained in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan ("the Plan").
Flexibility of the Plan
Certain public facility project descriptions, location or service area designations will
necessarily change as a result of subsequent design studies, capital improvement
programs, environmental impact studies and changes in potential sources of funding. The
Plan is not designed to either prohibit projects not included in the plan for which
unanticipated funding has been obtained, preclude project specification and location
decisions made according to the National Environmental Policy Act, or subject
administrative and technical changes to the plan to post-acknowledgement review or
review by the Land Use Board of Appeals.
For the purposes of this Plan, two types of modifications are identified.
A. Modifications requiring amendment of the Plan.
The following modifications require amendment of the Plan:
1. Amendments, which include those modifications or changes (as
represented by Table 16a) to the location or provider of public facility
projects which significantly impact a public facility project identified in
the comprehensive plan, and which do not qualify as administrative or
technical and environmental changes, as defined below. Amendments are
subject to the administrative procedures and review and appeal procedures
applicable to land use decisions.
2. Adoption of capital improvement program project lists by any service
provider do not require modification of this Plan unless the requirements
of subparagraph 1 above are met.
B. Modifications permitted without amendment of the Plan.
The following modifications do not require amendment of this Plan:
1. Administrative changes are those modifications to a public facility project
which are minor in nature and do not significantly impact the project's
general description, location, sizing, capacity or other general
characteristic of the project.
2. Technical and environmental changes are those modifications to a public
facility project which are made pursuant to "final engineering" on a project
Appendix B Page 5
or those which result from the findings of an Environmental Assessment
or Environmental Impact Statement conducted under regulations
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 or any federal or state agency project development
regulations consistent with that Act and its regulations.
Process for making Changes
A. Administrative and Technical or Environmental Changes. Any jurisdiction may
make an administrative or technical and environmental change, as defined herein,
by forwarding to each jurisdiction covered by this Plan, and to the Lane Council
of Governments a copy of the resolution or other final action of the governing
board of the jurisdiction authorizing the change.
B. Amendments
For purposes of processing amendments, as defined herein, such amendments are
divided into two classes.
a. Type I Amendments include amendments to the text of the Plan, or to a
list, location or provider of public facility projects which significantly
impact a public facility project identified herein, 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 serves only the jurisdiction proposing the
amendment.
C. Processing Amendments
Any of the adopting agencies (Lane County, Eugene, or Springfield) may initiate
an amendment to this plan at any time on their own motion or on behalf of a
citizen.
a. Type I amendments shall be forwarded to the planning commissions of the
respective agencies and, following their recommendation, shall be
considered by the governing boards of all agencies. If a Type I
amendment is not adopted by all agencies, the amendment shall be
referred to MPC for conflict resolution. Subsequent failure by agencies to
adopt an MPC-negotiated proposal shall defeat the proposed amendment.
If an amendment is adopted, all agencies shall adopt substantively
identical ordinances
b. Type II amendments shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission of
the initiating agency and, following their recommendation, shall be
considered by the governing board of the initiating agency.
Appendix B Page 6
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).
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)~ to (1) more adequately reflect the
impact 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 implementation 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 of 2002 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 community 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 appendices A & B, respectively.
Exhibit 1 - 1
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 2010. 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
1. 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. [Chapter III-G].
4. Inserts two findings regarding local and regional wastewater services to development
within the urban growth boundary. [Chapter III-G]
5. Adds a new policy G.9 that makes 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 III-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 1 - 2
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" in
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 IV. (Page 97).
5. Adds new Table 16a (following Table 16) entitled "MWMC Wastewater Treatment and
Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost Estimate, and Timing Estimate." (Page
101 )
6. Adds new Chapter VI regarding amendments to the PFSP.
Metropolitan Area General plan Amendment Criteria
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 will not make the
Metro Plan internally inconsistent. These criteria are addressed as follows:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted
by the Land Conservation and Development Commission;
Goal 1- 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: 1) Notice to interested parties; 2) Notice shall be published in a newspaper of
general circulation; 3) Notice shall be provided to the Department of Land Conservation
and Development (DLCD) at least 45 days before the initial evidentiary heating
(planning commission).
2
See EC 9.7730(1)(a), SDC 7.070(1)(a), and LC 12.225(1)(a)(i).
Exhibit 1 - 3
Notice of the joint planning 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 1, 2004. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was provided to DLCD on March 4,
2004. The notice to DLCD identified the City of Eugene, Lane County, DEQ and EPA
as affected agencies.
Requirements under Goal 1 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 and 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 base for such decisions 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 (Ordinance 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 Development 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 EPA.
3
Incorporated by reference into Goal 2.
4
See DLCD v. Douglas County, 33 Or LUBA 216, 221 (1997)
Exhibit 1 - 4
One aspect of the Goal 2 coordination requirement concems 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 not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries.
Goal 4 -- Forest Lands
This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries.
Goal 5 - 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 concemed 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 Pollution 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 Plan," prepared by Matt Noesen, CH2M Hill, et al (April 9, 2004)
Exhibit 1 - 5
need for facility improvements necessary to address dry and wet weather regulatory
requirements.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Goal- 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 amendments 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 10 - 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 pubi.c 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 projection." 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 that 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
framework 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 Services Plan Map 2a in
Exhibit 1 - 6
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 conformity 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
examined alternatives ranging from $144M to $233M (See Attachment 3). The preferred
alternative, found in Table 16a, 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 modifications 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 proposed amendments, as they do not affect the existing
urban growth boundary.
Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Goal 16 Estuarine Resources, Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands, Goal 18 Beaches and
Dunes, and Goal 19 Ocean Resources
These goals do not apply to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area.
Exhibit 1 - 7
(b) Adoption of the amendment must hot make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
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 1 - 8
ATTACHMENT C
To: Elected 0fficials of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County
From: Gregory Mott, Planning Manager, City of Springfield ~
Date: 7-1-04
Response to testimony entered into the record of the June 22, 2004 Joint Elected Officials
Subject: Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Metropolitan Area General Plan Chapter III,
Section G. Public Facilities and Services, Chapter V Glossary; and to proposed amendments
to the Public Facilities and Services Plan.
Issue
Two people testified at the June 22"d joint elected officials' public hearing: Mike Hudson, Administrator
of the City of Coburg, and Roxie Cuellar, Director of Government Affairs for the Home Builders
Association of Lane County. This memorandum responds to that testimony.
Discussion
Mr. Hudson's remarks were unrelated to the proposed amendments, and instead focused on the possibility
of extending sanitary sewer service to the City of Coburg.I Ms. Cuellar addressed the proposed
amendments by oral testimony and with several documents she placed into the record. After the public
hearing closed, the elected officials discussed the hearing testimony and asked staff to respond to the
following question: why weren't the Metro Plan and PFSP amendments combined with the MWMC
Facilities Plan into a single land use application and processed as comprehensive plan amendments?
In addition to the single-issue response requested above, written material submitted by the Home Builders
and Bill Kloos, attorney-at-law representing the Home Builders, raise the same questions about process,
and additional questions about land use planning, statutory requirements for content of public facilities
plans, and the appellate process.
Response
These same issues were raised by the same representatives at the joint planning commission hearing on
these amendments. Staff responded to this testimony and entered these responses into the record of that
hearing (6-22-04 JEO packet, Attachment #3 Table of Contents, Documents #1 and #22; and Attachment
g4). In addition, Ms. Cuellar submitted a memorandum dated May 27, 2004, prepared by legal counsel
for MWMC, City of Springfield and City of Eugene. Though this May 27th memorandum is directly
related to these proceedings, it was not part of the record until Ms. Cuellar submitted it on June 22nd. As
it happens, this memorandun~ is very much on point to the single issue request made by the elected
officials after the close of the record on June 22na (see last two lines of the first paragraph under
Discussion above).
Our review and comparison of the documents submitted to the joint elected officials and those submitted
to the joint planning commissions confirms that this testimony has changed very little (i.e., note the
Header on pages 2 through 7 of Mr. Kloos' testimony). Rather than preparing new responses that would
simply repeat what is already included in the record, we will append to this memorandum our earlier
responses but provide them with new cataloging.
The elected officials did discuss the question of sewer extension to the Town of Coburg and asked their
administrators to prepare a response to the procedural issues and policy implications of such a request. This
issue, in terms of content and any response that may be provided regarding process, is not related to the
proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and PFSP and therefore will not be addressed in this memorandum.
Documents Submitted into the Record of the Joint Elected Officials, June 22, 2004
Attachment 1: Letter from the Home Builders Association of Lane County, dated June 22, 2004
Attachment 2: Letter from' Bill Kloos, Attorney representing Home Builders Association of Lane County
and the Home Builders Construction Company, dated June 22, 2004
Attachment 3: Memorandum from Dave Jewett, Attorney for MWMC, Meg Kieran, Attorney for City of
Springfield, and Jerome Lidz, Attorney for City of Eugene, dated May 27, 2004
Attachment 4: City Council Agenda, City of Springfield, June 21, 2004
Attachment 5: Springfield's Motion to Dismiss an appeal filed by Home Builders Association of Lane
County and Home Builders Construction Company to Land Use Board of Appeals concerning Springfield
Council adoption of MWMC's Facilities Plan and 20-year project list
Attachment 6: Page D2 of the June 22, 2004 Register Guard, Calendar, listing the joint elected officials
meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the Library Meeting Room of Springfield City Hall.
Responses to the Preceding documents
Exhibit 1: Memorandum from Meg Kieran, City Attorney, dated May 6, 2004 (responds to Attachments
#1 and #2)
Exhibit 2: Published public hearing notices advertising the joint planning commissions and joint elected
officials' hearings for these proposed amendments (responds to Attaclument #1)
Exhibit 3: Memorandum from Meg Kieran, City Attorney, dated May 17, 2004 (responds to Attachment
#1)
Exhibit 4: Memorandum from Dave Jewett, Attorney for MWMC, Meg Kieran, Attorney for City of
Springfield, and Jerome Lidz, Attorney for City of Eugene, dated May 27, 2004 (responds to question
raised by the elected officials; responds to Attachment #1. Exhibit 4 and Attactuuent 3 are the same
document)
Conclusion
As with the first time we responded [to this testimony] we do not believe a very strong case has been
made that links the issues raised with the relevant criteria of approval for plan amendments found in the
Metro Plan, the individual jurisdiction's codes, or the applicable administrative rules. Much of this
testimony attempts to connect separate activities under the umbrella of one statute or administrative rule
when the law expressly provides separate rules subject to separate appellate processes. This testimony
did not persuade any members of the three planning commissions to vote against a recommendation of
support for these amendments. The testimony submitted on June 22na is substantially the same
information already in the record.
Home Builders
ASSOCIATION
of Lane County
June 22, 2004
Mayor TOrrey and Councilors
Eugene City Council
777 Pearl Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Mayor Leiken and Councilors
Sprin.~field City Council
225 5"' Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Commission President Green and Commissioners
Lane County Board of Commissioners
125 East 8th Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Re: Proposed Comp Plan and Public Facilities and Services Plan Amendments
Dear Mayors~ Councilors, and Commissioners;
Most of the issues of concem to the Home Builders Association have been presented in
my May 6 letter to the joint planning commissions. This letter will elaborate of Goal 2
issues and the appeals process.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning
Goal 2 involves process. The first consideration is the adequacy of the process by which
the public provides review and comment to the elected officials prior to their decisions.
The second consideration is that the planning process assures an adequate factual basis
for such decisions and actions.
The first issue is the adequacy of the process by which the public provides review and
comment to the elected officials prior to their decisions. Providing notice to the public
involves much more than simply publishing the relevant hearing dates so the public
~ knows when to submit their comments. It involves the adequacy of the information
provided to the public during the process so the public is aware of the proposals and can
make meaningful comments to the elected officials.
ATTACHMENT
2053 Laura Street Springfield, OR 974177-1 (541) 484-5352 FAX: (541) 484-5386
MWMC staff essent'iall.y relies on tWo things to support the public process that was used.
The first is that required meeting notices were placed in the local newspapers informing
the public of the hearings. However, today's Register Guard is an example of the type of
notice provided for the public hearings. Under the Calendar Section in the local section
of the Register Guard, page D2, residents of Eugene would read:
Joint Meeting of Eugene City Council, Springfield City Council, Lane County
Board of Commissioners - 6 p.m., Library Meeting Room, Springfield City Hall,
225 N. 5th Street. 682-5017.
Residents who checked under Lane County in the Calendar would find:
Board of Commissioners - 5:30 p.m. joint meeting with Eugene and Springfield
City Councils, Library Meeting Room, Springfield City Hall, 225 N. 5th Street.
Presentation of ACTSO certificates; work session and public hearing on
amendments to Metropolitan General Plan public facilities element.
Residents who checked under Springfield would receive no notice at all of the public
hearing or that their council was meeting. Eugene residents would know there was a
meeting but have no notice of its subject or the fact there was a public hearing. Residents
who checked to see what the county commissioners had on their schedule would receive
the most information, but certainly not information that would alert them to the proposed
approval of $160 million of wastewater projects.
Other than tWo limited references to the proposed projects (one in the Springfield Beat
.and one in the similar section for Eugene) in the Register Guard, there has not been a
stow in either of the local papers discussing the proposed projects. The wastewater
projects proposed by MWMC are of a monetary scope that has never been built with
lOcal money in the metro area before. A good,sized article in the local papers or other
media coverage would be appropriate given the size of the proposed projects. The public
can not be expected to provide comments if they don't know there is something to
comment about.
MWMC staffhas indicated that MWMC itself has held public meetings and public
hearings on the projects. MWMC holds its meetings and hearings at 7:30 A.M. On more
than one occasion, the General Manager of MWMC has justified holding the meetings
and hearings early in the morning because no one attends MWMC meetings. Again, the
public has to know there is a reason to attend before they are going to show up.
However, another reason that people do not show up is that the public does not follow the
activities of MWMC in the same way that they follow the activities of the planning
commissions and the elected officials. A large segment of persons active in the
community follows the land use process diligently because it knows that that is where the
public discussion of community projects typically begins.
1-2 2
The second problem involves the information that has been available to the public about
the comp plan and PFSP amendmentS themselves. :
As we have previously pointed out, the actual amendments to the comp plan and PFSP do
not discuss the proposed projects with sufficient specificity to allow the public to
understand what projects are being proposed. Are they the projects in the proposed
MWMC Facility Plan? If so, why not make that clear to people who are looking at either
the staffmaterials or the amendments themselves? The only reference in the staff
materials for the planning commission hearings that made any note to the MWMC
Facilities Plan is found under the first section, entitled Issues. It says that the
amendments are being proposed for five reasons. Reason #3 is to "reflect current
conditions and planned regional wastewater facilities consistent with the MWMC
Facilities Plan." There is nothing in that sentence that would suggest to the public that
the proposed projects in the comp plan and PFSP amendments are the same projects
being proposed in the proposed MWMC facilities Plan. Instead, the opposite impression
is given - that the MWMC Facility Plan is an adopted document and the proposed
amendments are intended to make the new proposed projects consistent with the existing
Plan.
At the time of the joint planning commission public hearing on April 20, 2004, the
proposed MWMC Facility Plan- a very large and technical document- was not yet
available for the public to review, let alone to digest and comment upon.
However, even now, it is not clear what projects are being proposed in the Comp plan and
PFSP amendments. For example, the proposed MWMC Facility Plan and 20-Year
Project list is being submitted to the elected officials and adopted through a totally
different process that does not involve the planning commissions at all. If the proposed
projects in the amendments before the elected officials tonight are essentially large
buckets made.up of the actual projects in the MWMC Facility Plan, why not use the
comp plan process to discuss the actual projects?
Instead, MWMC is using a bifurcated process. MWMC sent the proposed Facility Plan
and its projects, directly to the elected officials for adoption, bypassing the planning
commissions. Springfield city council adopted the Facility Plan and 20-Year Project List
before the planning commissions began their consideration of the proposed amendments.
How is the public supposed to understand what projects are being proposed in the comp
plan and PFSP amendments if the projects that are presumably the Subject of the
amendments are being adopted through a different process entirely?.
Bifurcating the process also makes public comment'more difficult. Instead of having two
public hearings, there have been five public hearings on these projects - two public
hearings before the joint planning commissions and the joint elected officials on the
amendments, and three public hearings before the three groups of elected officials on the
Facility Plan. Because the issues are different in the amendments than the facility plan,
the public had to participate in both processes rather than a single process. The more
. difficult the process becomes, the more the public is discouraged from participating.
3
1-3
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
In 2002~ MWMC directed staffto prepare a 20 year estimate of capital needs, ·
given that the design life of the water pollution control facility would be reached
by 2004. When that analysis was completed, and reviewed by MWMC as part of
its ordinary budget process for FY 2002-03, the capital needs were estimated at
about $105 million, including the $36 million that remained in the previous
planning efforts.
This year's MWMC budget contains $13 million of capital improvements, none of which
have received any public scrutiny or review by the elected officials except through the
budget process. The only time that those projects were adopted by the elected officials
was through the budget process. Presumably the governing bodies do not want the public
to have to appeal their budgets in order for the Public to have a remedy for a specific
wastewater project.
The appropriate place for the public to apply for a remedy aRer the adoption of
wastewater projects is LUBA. To the extent that the jurisdictions attempt to shut offthat
remedy, the more difficult the process becomes for everyone- the public and the
goveming bodies alike.
The simple solution is to eliminate the bifurcated adoption process of the wastewater
projects and follow the land use amendment process under OAK 660~011-000 to 660-
011-0065. Start over and let the public review the projects through the planning
commissions and ultimately the elected officials. It may take a total of a couple of
additional months, but the process is done as the state legislature intended.
I have heard persons from MWMC say that they do not want to have the projects adopted
through the comp plan amendment process because they don't want to have to.do a comp
plan amendment every time they change a project. The Goal 11 process only requires
amendments for significant public facility projects. If the change is insignificant, the
amendment is not necessary. If the project is significant, the public should be given the
opportunity to weigh in on it if they choose to do so.
Last evening, the Springfield City Council had the following item on their agenda:
ORDINANCE NO. 1 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-
SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA PUBLIC FACILITIES AND
SERVICES PLAN (PFSP), TABLE 8 AND MAP 4: PLANNED ELECTRICAL
FACILITIES TO SHOW A NEW 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE FROM THE
MARCOLA SUBSTATION SITE TO THE LAURA STREET SUBSTATION,
AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
If Springfield Utility Board can act to amend the PFSF when it is appropriate to do so,
presumably MWMC can also. A desire to avoid compliance with the Goal 11
requirements for the sake of convenience is not a justification for depriving the public of
their right to review and comment on public facility projects.
5
1-5
I want to make'it clear that the Home Builders Association is not trying to prevent
MWMC from constructing needed projects. Our wastewater infrastructure is crucial to
the livability of the community. However, we also do not accept the idea that the
proposal of $160 million of projects should not receive adequate public review and
comment. Bring the public along in this process and it may reduce any negative reaction
to the 57% to 67% rate increases that will be necessary over the next five years to fund
the first $109 million of projects.
Thank you for your consideration of our issues.
Sincerely,
Roxie Cuellar
Director of Government Affairs
1-6 6
LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC
576 OLIVE STREET, SUITE 300
OREGON LAND USE LAW ' EUGENE, OR 97401
PO BOX 11906;
EUGENE, OR 97440
TEL (541) 343-8596
FAX (5411 343-8702
E-MAIL BILLKLOOS~LANDUSEOREGON.COM
June 22, 2004
Metro Area Elected Officials
c/o Lane Council of Governments
99 East Broadway, Suite 400
Eugene, OR 97401
Re: Metro Plan Text Amendments; Public Facilities and Services Plan Amendments
June 22, 2004 Joint Public Heating
Dear Elected Officials:
Please accept this letter on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Lane County and its
subsidiary, the Home Builders Construction Company.]
1. What standards apply.
The standards that apply to these proposed plan amendments are found in several locations:
State statutes apply. Statutes always apply to local governments' land use decisions.
McKa¥ Creek Vallev Assoc. v. Washington County, 18 Or LUBA 71, 75 (1989)
(acknowledgment of plan and code leaves statutes directly applicable).
· Statewide Planning Goals. ORS 197.175(2)(a).
· LCDC Rules implementing the statutes and the goals apply, for the same reasons that the
statutes and goals apply.
· Acknowledged, unamended plan provisions apply to plan amendments, because plans
have to be internally consistent. South of Sunnyside Neighborhood League v. Bd. of
Comr's of Clackarnas County, 280 Or 3, 13 (1977); ORS 197.015(5).
2. Planning Period: The 2025 planning horizon for the Wastewater Primary Collection
System is inconsistent with and not coordinated with the planning period for the balance of
the Metro Plan.
Both the Metro Plan and the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) amendments propose a
1 The proposed amendments, if adopted, will be post-acknowledgment plan amendments (PAPAs). My clients request notice
of the final decision of each local government on this matter, as required by ORS 197.615.
ATTACHMENT
2-1
Metro Area Planning Commissions
April 20, 2004
Page 2 of 7
2025 plan horizon for the planning for treatment facilities. With these amendments the
comprehesive plan will not be integrated and, in fact, will have inconsistencies. That's because
the exiting plans have a 2015 planning horizon. A comprehensive plan, by definition, must be
coordinated, integrated, and internally consistent. The definition of"comprehensive plan" in
ORS 197.015(5) is:
"Comprehensive plan" means a generalized, coordinated land use map and policy
statement of the governing body of a local government that interrelates al! functional
and natural systems and activities relating to the use of lands, including but not limited
to sewer and water systems, transpOrtation systems, educational facilities, recreational
facilities~ and natural resources and air and water quality management programs.
"Comprehensive" means all-inclusive, both in terms of the geographic area covered and
functional and natural activities and systems occurring in the area covered by the plan.
"General nature" means a summary of policies and proposals in broad categories and
does not necessarily indicate specific locations of any area, activity or use. A plan is
"coordinated" when the needs of all levels of governments, semipublic and private
agencies and the citizens of Oregon have been considered and accommodated as much
as possible. "Land" includes water, both surface and subsurface, and the air."
A comprehensive plan really can't be "coordinated" in the meaning of the definition if
different functional parts of the plan have conflicting planning time frames.
3. State statutes regarding public facilities planning, ORS 197.712(2)(e), requires a
project list, which is not in the proposed amendments.
The statute that sets the stage for public facility plans is ORS 197.712(2)(e). It provides:
"Acity or county shall develop and adopt a public facility plan for areas within
an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 2,500 persons.
The public, facility plan shall include rough cost estimates for public projects
needed to provide sewer, water and transportation for the land uses
contemplated in the comprehensive plan and land use regulations. Project timing
and financing provisions of public facility plans shall not be considered land use
decisions."
It is worth noting that the statute anticipates a listofprojects. The proposed amendments do
not include a list of project. Instead, the amendments would include categories or baskets of
projects. Presumably, the individual projects would be worked out administratively.
4. LCDC Rules relating to public facility planning.
The public facilities statute and Statewide Planning Goal 11 are implemented through the
LCDC's Division 11 Rule - OAR 660-011-0000.
2-2
Metro Area Planning Commissions
April 20, 2004
Page 3 of 7
(a) Contents of"public facility plan."
OAR 660-011-0010 defines the contents of a public facility plan. The definition is:
"(1) The public facility plan shall contain the following items:
(a) An inventory and general assessment of the condition of all the significant
public facility systems which support the land uses designated in the
acknowledged comprehensive plan;
Co) A list of the significant public facility projects which are to support the land
uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plah. Public facility project
descriptions or specifications of these projects as necessary;
(c) Rough cost estimates of each public facility project;
(d) A map or written description of each public facility project's general location
or service area;
(e) Policy statement(s) or urban growth management agreement identifying the
provider of each public facility system. If there is more than one provider with
the authority to. provide the system within the area covered by the public facility
plan, then the provider of each project shall be designated;
(0 An estimate of when each facility project will be needed; and
(g) A discussion of the provider's existing funding mechanisms and the ability
of these and possible new mechanisms to fund the development of each public
facility project or system."
The proposal is to bolster the existing PFSP to include the required components for the area's
wastewater treatment system. The amendments made should be double checked against the
required list of contents above. At first glance, it would appear that the proposed amendments
fall short of meeting the minimum required contents in the following respects:
1. The amendments need to include an inventory and general assessment of the condition
of all the significant aspects of the wastewater treatment system. The required
evaluative information is missing. OAR 660-011-0010(1)(a).
2. A "list of significant public facility projects" needed to support the land uses
designated in the Metro Plan'is needed. OAR 660-011-0010(1)C0). No project list is.
proposed for the plan. Instead, categories of projects are proposed. This obfuscates
the ultimate policy choices that Goal 2 and Goal 11 require to be reflected in the plan.
Furthermore, the projects are to support the land use designations in the plan. Those
designations have a 2015 planning horizon. The proposal is to designate projects for a
longer timeframe, which would violate this rule.
3. Cost estimates need to be by project, not by categories of projects. OAR 660-011-
0010(1)(c). ·
2-3
Metro Area Planning CommissiOns
April 20, 2004
Page 4 of 7
4. Each project needs to be mapped. OAR 660-011-0010(1)(d). Without a project
listing, the mapping requirement can't be met. "
5. An estimate is needed of when each project will be needed. OAR 660-011-0010(1)(f).
Absent a project list, this requirement can't be complied with.
6. A discussion of the funding mechaniSms and prospects for funding for each project.
OAR 660-011'-0010(1)(g). Again, a project list is the starting point for this discussion.
(b) Need for inventory of existing facilities and need for future projects.
OAR 660-011-0020 requires establishes inventory requirements and the need for a list of
future projects. The Rule provides:
"(1) The public facility plan shall include an inventory of significant public
facility systems. Where the acknowledged comprehensive plan, background
document or one or more of the plans or programs listed in OAR 660-011-
0010(3) contains such an inventory, that inventory may be incorporated by
reference. The inventory shall include:
(a) Mapped location of the facility or service area;
Co) Facility capacity or size; and
(c) General assessment of condition of the facility (e.g., very good, good, fair,
poor, very poor).
(2) The public facility plan shall identify significant public facility projects
which are .to support the land uses designated in the acknowledged
._ comprehensive plan. The public facility plan shall list the title of the project and
describe each public facility project in terms of the type of facility, service area,
and facility capacity.
(3) Project descriptions within the facility plan may require modifications based
on subsequent environmental impact studies, design studies, facility master
plans, capital improvement programs, or site availability. The public facility
plan should anticipate these changes as specified in OAR 660-011-0045."
An inventory of existing facilities is needed, in terms of mapped location, capacity, and
condition. OAR 660-011-0020(1). This inventory would provide the baseline for planning. It
does not appear to be within the scope of the proposed amendments.
The plan must include a list of specific proposed proj cots. OAR 660-011-0020(2). There is no
list of projects proposed. Approval of categories of projects would mean that the governing
bodies are not making ultimate policy choices. Rather, they would be writing quasi-blank
checks.
2-4
Metro Area Planning Commissions
April 20, 2004 '.
Page 5 of 7 ..
(e) Timing of required projects.
OAR 660-011-0025 requires that the Plan include a general estimate of timing of projects. The
Rule states:
"(!) The public facilities plan shall include a general estimate of the timing for
the planned public facility projects. This timing component of the public
facilities plan can be met in several ways depending on whether the project is
anticipated in the short term or long term. The timing of projects may be related
directly to population growth, e.g., the expansion or new construction of water
treatment facilities. Other facility projects can be related to a measure of the
facility's service level being met or exceeded, e.g., a major arterial or
intersection reaching a maximum vehicle-per-day standard. DeVelopment of
other projects may be more long term and fled neither to specific population
levels nor measures of service levels, e.g., sewer projects to correct infiltration
and inflow problems. These projects can take place over a long period of time
and may be fled to the availability of long-term funding. The timing of projects
may also be tied to specific years.
"(2) Given the different methods used to estimate the timing of public facilities,
the public facility plan shall identify projects as occurring in either the short
term or long term, based on those factors which are related to project "~
development. For those projects designated for development in the short term,
the public facility plan shall identify an approximate year for development. For ..
those projects designated for development over the long term, the public .
facility plan shall provide a general estimate as to when the need for project
development would exist, e.g., population level, service level standards, etc.
Timing provisions for public facility projects shall be consistent with the
acknowledged comprehensive plan's projected growth estimates. The public
facility plan'shall consider the relationships between facilities in providing for
development.
"(3) Anticipated timing provisions for public facilities are not considered land
use decisions as specified in ORS.712(2)(e), and, therefore, cannot be thebasis
of appeal under ORS 197.610(1) and (2) or 197.835(4)."
Although the timing analysis does not have to be precise under the Rule, it does have to be
specific to projects. Where, as here, the proposal is to approve categories of projects, rather
than a list of projects, it is not possible to comply with the rule.
(d) Need for rough cost estimates of specific projects.
2-5
Metro Area Planning Commissions
April 20, 2004 ..
Page 6 of 7 '-
OAR 660-011-0030 requires the plan to include rough cost estimates for projects listed in the
plan. The Rule provides:
"(1) The public facility plan shall include rough cost estimates for those sewer,
water, and transportation public facility projects identified in the facility plan.
The intent of these rough cost estimates is to:
(a) Provide an estimate of the fiscal requirements to support the land use
designations in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; and
Co) For use by the facility provider in reviewing the provider's existing funding
mechanisms (e.g.,-general funds, general obligation and revenue bonds, local
improvement district, system development charges, etc.) and possible
alternative funding mechanisms. In addition to including rough cost estimates
for each project, the facility plan shall include a discussion of the provider's
existing funding mechanisms and the ability of these and possible new
mechanisms to fund the development of each public facility project or system.
These funding mechanisms ,may also be described in terms of general
guidelines or local policies.
"(2) Anticipated financing provisions are not considered land use decisions as
specified in ORS 197.712(2)(e) and, therefore, cannot be the basis of appeal
under OR8 197.610(1) and (2) or 197.835(4)."
Again, the failure of the proposed plan amendments to list individual projects in the plan
precludes compliance with this role. The rUle only requires"~ough" cost estimates, but the
estimates have to be by project, not large groups of projects.
' (e) Required elements of the comprehensive plan. -
OAR 660-011-0045 requires that certain elements of the public facilities plan be made a part
of the plan itself. The Rule requires:
"(1) The governing body of the city or county responsible for development
of the public facility plan shall adopt the plan as a supporting document to
the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and shall also adopt as part of the
comprehensive plan:
(a) The list of public facility project titles, excluding (if the jurisdiction so
chooses) the descriptions or specifications of those projects;
(b) A map or written description of the public facility projects' locations or
service areas as. specified in sections (2) and (3) of this rUle; and
(c) The policy(i, es) or urban growth management agreement designating the
provider of each public facility system. If there is more than one provider
with the authority to provide the system within the area covered by the ·
public facility plan, then the provider of each project shall be designated."
Metro Area Planning Commissions
· April 20, 2004
Page 7 of 7
The minimum requirement for inclusion in the comprehensive plan is the list of project titles
and a map of the projects' location or service areas. Again, a project listing is required, not a
description of categories of projects.
In summary, it appears that the proposed amendments conflict with the structure of the Metro
Plan because they are for a different, longer time frame. As such, they can't be demonstrated
to consist of the projects needed to implement the land use designations in the plan. They
implement something more than what the plan provides for.
More significantly, it appears that the amendments are too skinny. The target for the
amendments should be to provide, as a part of the PFSP and the Metro Plan the information
that the LCDC Rules require be a part of any element of a public facilities plan. The essential
information that is missing is baseline information on the existing infrastructure, its location,
and its condition, and a listing of specific projects proposed, their location, their rough cost,
and their approximate timing.
As a starting point, the Planning Commissions might ask staffto analyze their proposed
amendments in light of the requirements of the LCDC Rule.
Thank you for your consideration.
~h!.cerely,
Bill Kloos
cc: Roxie Cuellar
2-7
MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: May 27, 2004 :
TO: Interested Persons
FROM: Dave Jewett
Attomey for MWMC
Meg Kieran
Attorney for City of.Springfield
Jerome Lidz
Attorney for City of Eugene
SUBJECT: MWMC Processes
The Home Builders Association's (HBA) complaint about the processes employed by MWMC to
seek elected officials' approval for needed improvements to the regional sewerage facilities
arises out of flawed assumptions about the statutory framework for government actions
regarding the provision of public facilities for wastewater conveyance and treatment and their
funding with System Development Charges.
Back,qround:
MWMC was formed by a 1977 IGA between Eugene, Springfield and Lane County to construct,
~ operate, maintain and update regional sewerage facilities (Regional Facilities). MWMC is
governed by seven commissioners appointed by the Governing Bodies, three of whom are
elected officials of the Governing Bodies.
MWMC constructed the Regional Facilities with about $115,000,000 in federal grants and local
matching funds based on a facilities plan that was developed by MWMC's consultant, CH2M Hill,
in 1979 (208 Plan).. Pursuant to state and federal rules, the 208 Plan planned the Regional
Facilities to have a design life of 20 years. The Regional Facilities opened in 1984. Since then,
the community has invested several million dollars more in preserving and upgrading the
Regional Facilities.
While MWMC operates the Regional Facilities pursuant to a NPDES Permit issued by DEQ
(Permit), the Permit implements federal and state discharge requirements to protect the water
quality of the Willamette River. For several years it has been clear that, without significant
improvements, the Regional Facilities will soon be incapable of accommodating pcojected metro
area growth while meeting the discharge requirements of the Permit. The driving factors include
the need to manage peak flows to the Water Pollution Control Facility, to properly dispose of
residuals and to meet new Permit requirements governing the temperature and ammonia levels
of discharges to the Willamette River.
(doc.84616) ATTACHMENT
3-1
MWMC MemorandUm re:process
May 21,2004
Page 2
Deiermining the scope of the needs, planning to address them and funding their cost is complex.
The HB^'s complaint about the processes employed by MWMC oversimplifies and misstates the'
rules that govern the processes.
MwMC 2004 Facilities Plan:
The MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan is a comprehensive 20-year facility plan that replaces the 208
Plan. However, the 2004 Facilities Plan is the product of a long, multi-phased planning process
that has involved significant public involvement, including three citizen advisory committees. It is
an outgrowth of and combines and updates prior studies such as the 1997 Master Plan, the 1997
Biosolids Management Plan, the 1997 Systems Development Charge Methodology Update, the
2001 Wet Weather Flow Management Plan, and the 2003 Management Plan for a Dedicated
Biosolids Land ^pplication Site. The previous plans were reviewed by MWMC, the public, and
the Governing Bodies and have provided the basis for the annual MWMC Capital Improvements
prOgram (CIP) since their adoption. Of the $144,000,000 in projects currently anticipated in the
2004 Facilities Plan, $100,000,000 in projects are carried forward from the pdor plans. MWMC
has proceeded to implement each of the projects and policies in the plans, which has been
reflected in each annual MWMC budget and CIP.
Several key planning considerations were factored into the completion of the 2004 Facilities
Plan. Among them was the implementation of recommendations from Citizen Advisory
Committees that represented diverse community interests, values and involvement and which
had been adopted by MWMC as plans and policies. The City Councils have also adopted the
Wet Weather Flow Management Plan. The 2004 Facilities Plan also needed to factor in new
regulatory limitations DEQ included in the Permit. This factor caused some modifications to the
type and phasing of already planned projects, and resulted in $44,000,000 in additional projects.
over twenty years. The 2004 Facilities Plan was adopted by MWMC on May 6, 2004 after a
number of public meetings and two public hearings. MWMC chose to refer it to the Governing
Bodies for concurrence pursuant to Section 3 of the IGA.
Land Use PlanninR:
The proposed upgrades t° the wastewater treatment facilities system are to be done at three
different locations including the Water Pollution Control Facility, the residuals site and the
beneficial reuse site as well as upgrades to pump stations serving the primary collection system
at three separate locations. Since the Metro Plan did not include wastewater among the list of
services to develop within the UGB and did not identifY the wastewater treatment facility system,
MWMC proposed a number of amendments to the Metro Plan to correct the omissions. In
addition, MWMC proposed a number of changes to the Public Facilities and Services Plan to
correct similar omissions and make this functional plan internally consistent with the Metro Plan.
Consistency was to be'achieved by inserting vadous tables and maps identifying the six overall
projects and showing their location as well as including a condition assessment for MWMC's
treatment and primary collection system. The proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and the
PFSP were submitted for consideration by the Governing Bodies' planning commissions and
subsequently by all three Governing Bodies as required by the Springfield Development Code,
the Eugene Code, and the Lane Code. That process is continuing with its attendant public
3-2
MWMC Memorandum re: process ..
May 21, 2004 :
Page 3
meetings and hearings.
,System Development CharRes:
MWMC has had a SDC since 1991. The methodology that is the basis for the current SDC was
adopted in 1997. In June 2003, partly in response to concerns expressed by HBA, MWMC
directed staff to retain a consultant and form a CAC to review the 1997 Methodology and
recommend changes. Home Builders designated a representative who participated on the-CAC.
The consultant, CH2M Hill, and the CAC recommended changes to the 1997 Methodology. On
Apdl 1,2004, MWMC adopted a revised methodology after a number of public meetings and a
public hearing (Proposed SDC Methodology).
ORS 223.297 to 223.314 governs SDCs. ORS 223.309(1) requires the adoption of a facilities
plan and a capital improvements list prior to the establishment of a SDC. The pertinent MWMC
resolution states that the 2004 Facilities Plan including the 20-year project list are being adopted
to provide the facilities plan and list of capital improvements that are required by ORS
223.309(1). ORS 223.314 provides that the establishment, modification and implementation of a
system development charge and a facilities plan and list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309 are
not land use decisions pursuant to ORS chapters 195 and 197.
Pursuant to Section 3 of the IGA, MWMC referred the Proposed SDC Methodology and the 2004
Facility Plan and liSt to the Cities of Eugene and Springfield for implementation through their
respective City Codes in accordance with the SDC statute and applicable city code procedures.
That process is continuing.
Conclusion:
Three separate processes are involved in MWMC's effort to obtain the Governing Bodies'
approvals necessary to plan, site and fund the improvements that are necessary so the Regional
Facilities can continue to meet federal and state environmental standards governing wastewater
discharges to the Willamette River as well as the disposition and beneficial reuse of residuals.
For'the reasons explained above, HBAs' complaint inappropriately combines and misstates the
processes involved with which MWMC has fully complied.
(doc.$4616) 3--~
Ci~ of Sprin~eld m 225 Fifth Street m Springfield m Oregon m 97477 m (541) 726-3700
Contact · Amy Sowa · Ci~ Manager's Office
~.ci.sprin~eld.or. us
~e mee~g location is wheelc~-accessible~ For ~e he~g-~p~d, ~ ~t~reter ~ be prodded ~ 48 ho~
notice prior to ~e meet~g. For meet~gs ~ ~e Comet Mee~g Room, a "P~o~ PA Reviver' for ~e h~g
~p~d is a~able. To ~ge for ~ese s~ces, c~ 726-3700. Mee~gs ~ end prior to 10:00 p.m. ~ess
extended by a vote of ~e Council.
~ proc~gs before ~e Ci~ Co~c~ ~e recorded
Jme 21, 2004
6:00 p.m. Work Session
Jesse Maine Room
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL - Mayor Leiken , Councilors Ballew , Fitch , tLalston , Lundberg ,
and Woodrow
1. Springfield's Acknowledgement of National Home Ownership Month and an Allocation of $52,976 in American
Dream Downpayment Incentive .(ADDI) Funding From Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
[Jodi Peterson] (1.5 Minutes)
2. Proposed Springfield Development Code Amendments.
[Gary. Karp] (30 Minutes)
3. Development Code F~es Ordinances and Resolution.
[Mel Oberst] (15 Minutes)
ADJOURNMENT
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
Council Meeting Room
CALL TO ORDER
. ROLL CALL- Mayor Leiken ., Councilors Ballew , Fitch , Ralston' ., Lundberg ,
and Woodrow
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ATTACHMENT
.4-1
Co~mcil Agenda
;Iune 21, 2004
Page 2
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT : ~
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
2. Minutes
a. ~une 7, 2004 - Regular Meeting
b. Sune 14, 2004-Work Session
c. June 14, 2004 - Special Regular Meeting
3. Resolutions.
a. RESOLUTION NO. 1 - A RESOLLrrION TO ACCEPT PERMIT PROIECT P30370, PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS IN SHADY CREEK SUBDIVISION.
4. Ordinances
a. ORDINANCE NO. 1 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP), TABLE 8 AND MAP 4: PLANNED
ELECTRICAL FACILITIES TO SHOW A NEW 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE FROM THE MARCOLA
SUBSTATION SITE TO THE LAURA STREET SUBSTATION, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
b.' ORDINANCE NO. 2 - AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO SIGN STANDARDS~ AMENDING CHAPTER 8
OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE BY REVISING, ADDING, AND DELETRqG PORTIONS OF
SECTION 8.254, ADDING SECTION 8.267, REVISING MAP NO. 2 AND ADDING MAP NO. 4.
$. Other Routine Matters
a. Award the Bid for One Vekicle for the Land and Drainage Alteration Permit Program with Funds Contained in
the FY03-04 Budgetand Award a Bid for One Vehicle for the Capital Improvement Program Contingent on the
Adoption of the Proposed FY04;0$ Budget for a Total of $43,202.50 tO Kendall Ford.
b. Award the Subject Contract for Project P20404 to Eugene Sand and Gravel in the Amount of $102,966.50.
c. Approval of the Recommended 2.5 Percent Pay Increase for City Non-Unionized Employees for FY200$.
d. Approval of Amendment Number One to the Intergovernmental Agreement Providing Housing for Springfield'
Prisoners in the Lane County Adult Correction Facility.
e. Approval of the Proposed Management Agreement Between the City of Springfield and the Springfield Museum
Board.
MOTION: APPKOVE/EP. JECT THE CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances.
Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not yi.'eld their time to others.
4-2
Council Agenda
June 21, 2004
Page 3
· 1. Fiscal Year 2004/05 City Budget Adoption.
[Bob Duey] (20 Minutes)
RESOLUTION NO. 2 - A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2004/05 SPRINGFIELD CITY
BITDG~T, MAKING APPROPRIATIONS, LEVYING A PROPERTY TAX, AND APPROVING THE CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD'S PARTICIPATION IN TIlE STATE REVENUE SHAKING PROGRAM.
MOTION: ADOPT/NOT ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2.
2. Prop({sed Resolution Establishing a New Regional Wastewater System Development Charge (SDC) Methodology and
a New Kegional Wastewater SDC Fee' Schedule.
[Gary Colwell] (20 Minutes)
RESOLUTION NO. 3 - A RESOLUTION OF TI-IR CITY OF SPRINGFIRLD COMMON COUNCrf.
ESTABLISHING A NEW METHODOLOGY AND FEE SCHEDULE FOR ~ REGIONAL WASTEWATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE AS SET FORTH IN TI-IR SPRINGFI'R!.D CITY CODE
MOTION: ADOPT/NOT ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 3
3. Proposed Springfield Development Code Amendments.
[Gm-y Karp] (20 Minutes)
MOTION: CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JULY 6, 2004.
4. An Ordinance Repealing Appendix 1 of the Springfield Development Code.
[Mel Oberst] (05 Minutes)
ORDINANCE NO. 3 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIg. T.D
REPEALING APPENDIX 1, DEVELOPMENT CODE FEE SCI-IEDUI.R OF THE SPRINGFrRI.D
DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DECLARING AN EMEKGENCY.
Ordinance ~Enactment and Effective Date: In the event an ordinance contains an emergency clause, the ordinance shall become
operative immexliately upon passage by the council by a two-thirds majority of all members of the council. Ordinances not
containing an emergency clause shah not take effect until 30 days after its passage.
MOTION: ADOPT/NOT ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3.
'5. An Ordinance Amending Section 1.070 "Fees" of the Springfield Development Code.
[Mel Oberst] (05 Minutes)
ORDINANCE NO. 4 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1.070 "FEES" (1) OF ARTICLE 1 "GENERAl,
PKOVISIONS" OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PROVIDE THE CITY COUNCIL TO
ESTABLISH FEES BY ORDINANCE OR RESOLLrrION FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF TIlE ACTIONS AND
REVIEWS REQUIRED BY THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
Ordinance Enactment and Effective Date: In the event an ordinance contains an emergency clause, the ordinance shall become
operative immediately upon passage by the council by a two-thirds majority of all members of the council. Ordinances not
containing an emergency clause shah not take effect until 30 days after its passage.
MOTION: ADOPT/NOT ADOPT ORDINANCE NO, 4.
473
Council Agenda
June 21, 2004
Page 4
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE. Limited to 20 minutes. Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to
Speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City
Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
1. Correspondence from Andrew H. Stamp, Attorney at Law, 4248 Galewood Street, Suite 2, Lake Oswego, OR
Regarding MWMC Regional Sewer SDC Methodology. (see attached memo)
2. Correspondence from Roxie Cuellar, Home Builders Association, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, OR Regarding
Attached Letter from Michael H. Kortenhoff of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
3. Correspondence Submitted by Reed Fuel and Trucking, 4080 Commercial Avedue, Springfield, OR Signed by Eight
Individuals Representing the Trucking Industry Regarding the Springfield Fuel Tax with Attached Letters of Incurred
Costs Since Three Cent Tax was Implemented.
MOTION: ACCEPT FOR FILING AND/OR PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION/FOLLOWUP.
BIDS
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Comra]ttee Appointments
a~ Police Pla~nlng Task Force Appointments. :
[Jerry Smith] (05 Minutes)
MOTION: APPOINT MARK WATSON TO THE POLICE PLANNING TASK FORCE AS THE
SPRINGFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE WITH A TERM EXPIRING JUNE 21, 2008.
MOTION: APPOINT DIANA GAR. CIA, BRUCE WEBBER AND FRED SIMMONS TO THE POLICE
pLA_NNING TASK FORCE AS CITIZEN-AT-LARGE MEMBERS WITH TERMS EXPIRIlqG JUNE 21, 2008.
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
b. Other Business
BUSINESS ·FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Amend the Mast6r Schedule. of Miscellaneous Fees and Charges, Rates, Permits and Licenses to Include all Fees in
the Attached Development Code Use Fee Schedule.
[Mel Oberst] (05 Minutes)
· 4-4
Council ~_~enda
Sune 21, 2004
Page $
KESOLUTION NO..4 - A REsoLUTIoN OF TIlE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AMENDING THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD MASTER SCHEDULE OF MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND
CHARGES, RATES, PERMITS AND LICENSES TO INCLUDE ALL FEES AS SET FOP. TH 1N THE
ATTACHED REVISED DEVELOPMENT CODE FEE SCHEDULE.
MOTION: ADOPT/NOT ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
4-5
3
4 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE Of OREGON
HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF
6 LANE COUNTY and HOME BUILDERS LUBA No. 2004-090
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, (MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan;
7 Springfield Res. 04-19)
Petitioners,
8
vs. RESPONDENT CITY OF
~) SPRINGFIELD'S MOTION TO
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD,' DISMISS
ll Respondent,
and
13
THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER
13 MANAGEMENT COMMISSION,
14 Intervenor-Respondent.
15
16 Respondent, City of Springfield, moves the Board for an order dismissing this
l'/ appeal. Intervenor, Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MVVMC),
18 joins in this Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner's appeal challenges a resolution adopted
19 by the City of Springfield Common Council, Resolution 04-19 (attached as Exhibit 1
20 and by this reference incorporated 'herein). For the reasons Set forth below, LUBA
21 does not have jurisdiction to consider Re~olution 04-19 and therefore should dismiss
22 this appeal.
23 I. Background Facts.
24 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commmission ("MWMC") is a regional
2s Commission established by an Intergovernmental Agreement, signed by the
26 governing bodies of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County in February of'1977.
LEAh~
(Resolution 04-19, para. 1). The regional wastewater facilities were designed and
'F,~(,,),,~-4,o~ Page 1- RESPONDENT C~:~/~~GFIELD'S MOTION TO DISMISS
5-1
2 constructed in the early and mid-1980s with a projected design'life of 20 years~. '
3 (Resolution 04-'19, para. 2). In MWMC Resolution 02-05, MWMC entered into a :
3 contract with a consulting firm for professional services for, among other matters, a
4 recommendation for an MVVMC facilities plan update and 20-year project list.
s (Resolution 04-19, paras. 4, 5, 7 and10). On MaY 6, 2004, MWMC adopted the
6 MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan and 20-year Project List, the first comprehensive
? ·facilities plan update since the odginal facilities were designed and constructed in the
8 eady 1980s. On May 17, 2004, the Common Council of the City of Springfield
9 adopted Resolution 04-19, approving the MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan and the 20-. -
20 year Project List that were adopted by MVVMC on May 6; 2004. That decision is the
21 subject of this appeal.
23 II. The Merits.
13 The MWMc .2004 Facilities Plan and 20-year Project List were prepared to
14 provide the public facilities' plan and list of capital improvements that are required by
15 ORS 223.309(1)4 prior tothe establishment of a system development charge
~6 (,SDC"). (Resolution 04-19, para. 8). ORS 223.297 to 223.314 govern the
27 establishment, modification and implementation-of a System DeveloPment Charge
t8 and Methodology. The adoption of a public facilities plan and/or capital improvement
19 plan is required prior to the establishment of a system development charge. (ORS
~ !! .
~ORS 223.309(1) states: "Prior to the establishment of a system development
charge, by ordinance or resolution, a local government shall prepare a capital
improvement plan, public facilities plan, master plan or comparable plan that includes
a list of the capital improvements that the local government intends to fund, in whole
HAROLD, LEAHY
~ ~a~.~ or in part, with revenues from an improvement fee and the estimated cost, timing and
~"=~,,*,~ percentage of costs eligible to be funded with revenues from the improvement fee for
223 A Street
su,. o each improvement."
(541) 746-9621
Fax:(541)7'16-4109 Page 2 - RESPONDENT CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S MOTION TO DISMISS
5-2
1 223.309(1).. As relevant here, that statute requires Respondent to prepare a "caPital
2 improvement plan, public facilities plan, master plan, or comparable plan that
3 includes a list of the ca pital improvements that the local government intends to fund"
4 with revenues from the SDC's.
s ORS 223.314 provides:
"The establishment, modification, or implementation of a system
development charge, or a plan or fist adopted pumuant to ORS
? 223.309, or any modification of a plan or list, is not a land use
decision pursuant to ORS Chaptem.195 and 197." (Emphasis added).
8 ~f~...cedair~.:excel~tionS,:not.~appl~,c~ble.he.~e, ~RS.1'97.O25(!,)giv~s LUB'A '
9'
exclusive jurisdiction for "review of any land use decision or limited land use decision
of a local government, special district or a state agency." In the absen~ of this
statutory jurisdictional requirement, LUBA may not review a decision of a local
government.
Here, the decision at issue is a facilities plan and capital improvement plan
enacted under the provisions of ORS 223.297 et seq. Such plans are specifically
15'
excluded from LUBA's jurisdiction by the provisions of ORS 223.314. Consequently,
LUBA does not have judsdi~tion over this matter.
17
Conclusion.
As explained in detail above, the facts set forth in Resolutign 04-19, the
19
definitional language of ORS 223.314 and LUB^'sjurisdictional limits' under ORS
20
197.825(1) should compel.this Board to dismiss this appeal.
DATED this t/ y of June, 2004.
22
Respectfully sUbmitted,
23 HAROLD...I,.F. AHY & KIERAN .
By: , ~--
25 Meg E. Kiel, OSB No. 89068
Of Attorneys for Respondent City of Springfield
26
& KIERAN
2~3 A
Suite D
Sprbg~U Oregon
(541)746-9621
F=~C~)7.~o, Page 3 - RESPONDENT CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S MOTION TO DISMISS
5-3
· ' RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF 8PRINGFII=LD COMMON COUNCIL APPROVING
THE MWMC 2004 FACILITIES'PLAN AND ADOPTING THE 20-YEAR PROJECT UST.
.' WHEREAS, on February 9, 1977~ the City of Spdn~eld, the City of Eugene, and Lane
County (the Govemlng BOdies) entered Into an intergovernmental agreemerlt
, which establL~ed the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) as
' an ORS Chapter 190'entity responsible to co,ct, Operate, and maintain, regional
wastewater facilities; and,. ' .. '
WHEREAS, the regional wastewater facilities, whioh Include the Eugene,: pringfield
Water Pollution. Control Facility (WPCF), the Biosolid~ Management Factlity (BMF).
Bi°c'ycle Farm (BF), the Seasonal industrial WaMa Faolllty (SIWF), several regional
wastewat~r pump stations and regional conveyance ~Tstern, were de.~gned ~ind.
constructed in the early and mld-1980s with a p~oJected design F~e .of 20 years; :and,
WHEREAS, the MVVMC 'ha~ undertaken several plans and stUdies, baleen 1.gg$.and
2001 to.determine short-, and long-term regional wastewater facilities improvements
needed to-provide adequate wastewater'tmat~ent capadb/.and meet all applicable
regulatory.permit requirements, indudlng but not limited to the MWMC -Master Plan, .
1997, 'the aiosoli~ Management PJan, 1997, and the Wet.Weather Row Management
.Plan, 2001 (WVVFMP); and,
WHEREAS, the MWMC enacted Resolu~on 02-O5, ~uthorizin~l the execution of a
· c. ontmct with CH2M HILL, In~.. for pmfess, ional services for an MWMC predesign study
and facilities plan [Ipdate (Project no. P80010); and
WHEREAS, the MWMC enacted Resolution 03-11, amending.the ptofesslenal~ervlces'
contract with CH2M HILL, In~. to include technic, al support for: (a)..MWMc's system
development charges (SDC} ..meth~01~ ..Update, and
WHEREAS, applie, a. bio' ad~)pt~d' MWMC goats,, pollcles and'management strategies,
,:uch as those contained in the .FY 03-04 P~9.ional Wasteevater Program B~dget, the
WWFMP and the Bl~olids Management Plan, along with the requirements of the
MVVMC.Natlonal Pollutant Discharga Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued, by th;-
Oregon Department of Enyimnme'ntai Qua!ity (DEQ) in May, 2002, ~a "DEQ Guidelines
for the Preparation of Facilities Plans aad Environmental Repo .r~ for Community
Waslawater Pro~ect~.,' (1999) (DEQ Guiderme's), and MWMC guidance pmvicled the
foundati°n and direction for the MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan (attached hem~o and by
this reference inoorpOrated herein); and .. '
,. EXHIBrr I '
" 10f9-
$-4 Page
WHEREAS, the MWM¢ 2004 Faci{~es Plan ana{yses mhow thai capEa{ {mprovements (..
¢onlalned in tho 20.Year ProJmot List included-in the MWMO 2004 Faci{rdes P{an need
to be Iml~iemented in accordance with the 20-Year Project U.mt Schedule In order to
achieve the regulatory ~mpliance and capacity objectives stated 'in the MWlVlC 2004:
" Facilities Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the MVVMC 2004 Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List have been
prepared, in part, to provide the public f~¢il{tles plan and list of caPital improvements
that am required by ORS 223.309(t) prior.to the estabr~h~nent of a system
development charge; and .
WH. EREAS.P~e~meei~gs ~and blWMC'work sessions wee conduc~,:{ to Provide.
gu'kl, ance on preparation of'the'draft MWMO.2(~04:Faclllfles Plan on November 24,
2003, January. 8, 2004, e,nd March 3, 2004;' and
WHEREAS, public hearings were noticed and conducted by fl~e MWMC to acceFt..and
consider publio ~omment on the draft MWMC 2004 Facfi'~es Plan on April 22, 2004 and
May 8, 20O4; and.
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2004 'MVVMC enacted Resolution 04-04 adbptlng the MWMC
2004 Facil'~ies Plan and 20-Y. ear Project List; a~ '.
WHEREAS, the Springfield City Council conducted a publ{o hearing on the MWMC (';" '
2204 Facilities Plan and the'20-Year Project List on May 17, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Springfield City Council has. reviewed and ~onsidered testimony from
thelpubl'~ and disoussed the MWMC 2004 Faoil'~des Plan and 20-Year Project List.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE'SOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Springfield. as.follows: The .Common Council of the City of SPringfield appmve~ tl~
Plan and hereby adopts the 20..Year ProJ~L
'Fnis Resolution mhali taka effect :upon adoption :bYthe City Coun~.andappmval by the
.t,~dopted by_the Commo~ Council o[the City of Springfield the ].7=h d'ay of May, 2004.
· v~c.-~.~a=a o~. ---
Mayor ~ ..
ATTEST:_ ~.. ~,,. Amy Sow~ City Recorder
J.
,
Page a'~ '~ , ,.'-,.'FI~-OF Crl~ A~']/I'ORI~iEY'
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I served the foregoing Motion to Dismiss by depositing true, full
and exact.~j3ies thereof in the United States Post Office at SPringfield, OregOn on
June ./._.~,-f"~2004, enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage paid, addressed to:
Bill Kloos
Attorney at Law
'P.O. Box 11906
Eugene, OR 97440
Attomey for Petitioners
Laurence E. Thorp
THORP-PURDY JEWETT
URNESS & VVILKENSON, P.C.
1011 Harlow Road, Suite 300
Springfield, OR 97477
Of Attorneys for Intervenor-Respondent
HAROLD, LEAHY & KIERAN
Me"g E. Kieran, OSB No. S90~8 ..,
Of,3,ttomeys for Respondent City of SpfingT~e~a
I certiflj that the fore~,oing is a true and full copy of the original.
DATED this ./.-~ day of June, 2004.
19 Meg E. , OSB No. 89068
Of Attorneys for Respondent City of Springfield
2'0
22
N:\clTYL°Wo~C~acilitles Plan & Project List LUBALMotion to Disrniss.wpd
23
34
HAROLD, LEAHY
& KIERAN
Attomey~ At Law
223AStre~
Suite D
Sprklg~ld Oregon
(541) 74e-~21
F.=(~1)7,~10~ Page 4 - RESPONDENT CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S MOTION TO DISMISS
5-6
6 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
-/
HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF
8 LANE.COUNTY and'HOMEBUILDERS .LUBA'N°..20{34-090....
CONSTRUC.TION COMPANY, (M~tC'2004 Facilities Pian;
~ Springfield Res. 04-19)
Petitioners,'
10
vs. RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO
1] EXTEND RECORD FILING
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, DEADLINE PENDING DECISION ON
]2 MOTION TO DISMISS
Respondent,
and
THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER
MAI~GEMENT COMMISSION,
16 lntervenor-Respondent.
1'/
]8 .. Pursuant to OAR 661-010-0067, Respondent City of Springfield (the City)
]9 moves the Board to extend the June 25, 2004 deadline for filing the Record on
2o Appeal to allow time for'the Board to .rule on a.. Motion to' Dismiss·'LUBAN°I' 2004-
2] 090, filed contemporaneously with this Motion. In the event the Board grants
22 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, no Record on Appeal will be necessary. If the
23 Board denies the Motion to Dismiss, the City requests 21 days from the Board's
24 ruling to submit the Record on Appeal. Accordingly, this extension is reasonable and
2s necessary to Prevent the City from incurring unnecessary costs and attorney fees.
& KIERAN
Attomeys At I.aw
223 ^ Strea{
. Su~ O
s,,~r,,o~ Page 1 - . RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO EXTEND RECORD FILING DEADLINE
(541) 746-as21
F,~(~1)7,~10~ PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Intervenor-Respondent Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission joins in
3 this Motion. Petitioner's attorney objects to this Motion to Extend the Record.
3 DATED this [ ~.day of June, 2004.
4 Respectfully Submitted
s HAROLD, LEAHY & KIERAN
? By: Meg ~. l<,:~'~/rafi, O~SB No. 89068 - ,
s . . Of Attort~s for Respondent City.of Springfie~d
20
23
HAROLD, LEAHY
& KIERAN
223 A Street
Sul~ D
S~,~,,dO~., Page 2 - RESPONDENTS MOTION TO EXTEND RECORD FILING DEADLINE
(541) 746-9621
Fa~(541)745-410~ PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
5-8
~-. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I served the foregoing Respondent's Motion to Extend Record
Filing Deadline Pending Decision on Motion to Dismiss bY depositing true, full
and exa..ct~oPies thereof in the United States Post Office at Springfield, Oregon on
June [~, 2004, enclosed in a sealed, envelope, with postage Paid, addressed to:
Bill Kloos
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 11906
Eugene, OR 97440
Attorney for Petitioners
LaurenCe E. Thorp
'THORP PURDY'JEWETT :.
URNES8 & WlLKENSON, P.C.
1011 Harlow Road, Suite 300
Springfield, OR 97477
Of Attomeys for Intervenor-Respondent
HAROLD, LEAHY & KIERAN
Meg E.. ~ieran, OSB No. 89088
Of Attorneys for Respondent City of Springfield
! certify that the fo~ .,~,~oing. is a true and full copy of the original;
DATED this /~" "'day of June, 2004.
By: Meg.E.' '~ , O~B.No.. 89068 --
Of:Attorneys for ~Resp°nde.nt City of Springfield~ ·
21
22 N:\CITY~Pworks~MWMC~Facilitles Plan & Project List LUBA~Motion to Extend.wpd
23
24
25
26
HAROLD. LEAl'iff'
& KIERAN
Att~neys At Law
223 A Street
Suite D
s~,~o~o~ Page 3 - RESPONDENT'S' MOTION TO EXTEND RECORD FILING DEADLINE
(541) 746-9621
F~(~)7,~-~o~ PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
5-9
. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I cert. ify that I served the foregoing Motion to Dismiss .by depositing true, full
and exaqt~oies thereof in the United States PoSt Office at SPringfield, Oregon on
June _~.~_.,r'2004, enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage paid, addressed to:
Bill Kloos
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 11906
Eugene, OR 97440
Attorney for Petitioners
Laurence E. Thorp
THORP' PURDY JEWETT
URNESS & VVILKENSON, P.C.
1011 Harlow Road, Suite 300
Springfield, OR 97477
Of Attorneys for Intervenor-Respondent
HAROLD, LEAHY & KIERAN
U~g E. Kie~'an, OSB No. Eg0'-~8
Of Attorneys for Respondent City of Springfield
I certify that the fore,.~oing is a true and full copy of the original.
DATED this ./..~.9~.day of jUne, 2004. '
By: ,
g E. Kieran, OSB No. 89068
· Of Attorneys for Respondent City of Springfield
21
N:\C~orks~lWMC~Facilities Plan & Project List LUBA~J~1ofion to Dismiss.wpd
23
34
25
HAROLD, LEAHY
& KIERAN
~At Law
223 A Street
Suite D
Sprilgfleld Oregon
(541) 746-9621
Fax:(541)746-4109 Page 4'- RESPONDENT CITY Of SPRINGFIELD'S MOTION TO DISMISS
5-10
· ~. REGION ....
o' Book sale sCheduled aact Specialty Care, along ~i_th
~ Junction City Residential Cen-
', at Waldport library ter, will host Summer SPlash Several Schools in the
WALDPORT -- The . Show 'n' Shine-2004 from noon Eugene, Springfield an,
' Friends of the Waldport Public. to 4 p.m. at Gd0 Birch St. Bethel d~stricts see shif
t · Library will host a sale of Admission is a suggested
more thai~ 12,000 donated . ' donation of two canned food . Students at some Schools
books June 24 to 26. The sale items, to be given to Junction the Eugene, Springfield and
· ' : ' willbe from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. City Local Aid to help hungry, thel school distriCts will s
: .. Thursday;, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. people and the homeless. Priz. new principals when they col
Friday;, and 9 ~m. to noon Sat;. es, free lemonade and cookies, back to school in the fall, mos:
': urday. After 12:30 p.m; Satur. and oldies music will be because of a continuing ilar
day, a bag sale will offer re- featured. " of retirements.
malning books at $t per bag. These are the changes, sol
The group has raised mOre Republican Women plan of which have been previom
than $2~,000 to supplement theMondaY meeting announced:
librazy's budget du~ing the · Eugene School District: Sa
past eight years. Donations The Republican Women of Cramer, currently, principal
have funded computers, a bi- . Central Lane will hold their River Road/E1 Camino del
cycle rack, a copy machine next meeting Monday at the Elementary, will be the
and other items as well as a Ramada Inn, 225 Coburg Road, principal at Cai Young Elem~
capital improvement fund for with the doors opening at 11:15 tary School. Her replacemE
· future needs. . a.m., lunch at ll:30 a.m. and· wilibePacoFurlan, who.is¢
the mee '.t~ug at noon. The rently assistant principal
Car show to benefit speaker will be Jarrett White, .' North Eugene High .SchOol.
a college Republican from the Young Principal Tom Malon,
:::. .'. area food bank University'ofOregon~ meanwhile, will be the .n
· JUNCTION CITY-- Aclas- The cost of lunch is $8, with' principal at Edison Element~
· sic car show $aturday. will reservations needed by taking over from Jards $w.'
benefit aiocal food banl~ ' - ' Thursday. Call Muriel at 1t44-
· - GrandviewRehabilitation ~. 47~dfor reservations.
GA!,ENDAR . 1 BDRM'V
~oburg Rfth St. Presentation of ACTS0 certifi-
cates; work session and public hearing
TODAY ' ' "' on amendments to Metropolitan Area
Fire District Board -~- 7 p.m, Fire General .Plan public facilities element.
Station, 91232 N. Coburg ROad. Open 682-4203.
' ' house and grant discussion. 686-1573. Commission' on Children and
· ' Families- 4 p.rm to 8 p.m, Fireside
Eugene Room, Laurelwood Golf Course~ 2700
TODAY Columbia St., Eugene. 682-6656.
joint Meeting of Eugene City' Fair Board -- 5 p.m., Meeting
Council, Springfield City Council, Room No. 2, Convention Center Build-
Lane County Board of Commission- lng, Lane Events Center, 796 W. 13th
ers ~- 6 p.m., Library Meeting Room, Ave., Eugene. 682-7338. * *
Springfield City Hall, 225 N. Rfth St. Finance and Audit Committee
· 682-5017. '1:30 p.m, Commissioners' conference
Neighborhood Leaders Council -- Room, Public Service Building,/25 E.
7 p.m., SlOat Room, Atrium Building, Eighth Ave., Eugene. 682-6503.
99 W. lOth Ave. 682-5009. Lane Workforce Partnership, Em-
WEDNESDAY ployer Workforce Committee-- 8
· ' · a.m., Suite 120, 300 Country Club
City Council work session -- Road, Eugene. Review status of local
Noon, McNutt Room, City Hall,· 777 work force training fund projects. 686-
Pearl St. 682-5017. . 3570.
Housing Policy' Board Allocations Local Government Boundary
Subcommittee -- 2 p.m,, Saul Room, Commission -- Noon, Fourth Floor
· - Atdum Building, 99 W. lOth Ave. Large Conference Room, Lane Council
682-5529. of Governments, 99 F. Broadway, Eu-
' Public Works Rates Advisory gene. Meet with. advisory committee.
- Committee -- 6 p.m., Garden Room, 682-4425.
Public Works Englneedng, 244 E. WEDNESDAY
Broadway. 682-6687. Board of commissioners -- 9 a.m.,
: Racial Profiling Task.'l:%am.- Commissioners' Conference Room,
6'30 p.m, Emergency Ser~ee~/Train- Public Service Building, 125 E Eighth
lng Center, 1705 W. Second Ave., Ave., Eugene. Public hearing on 2003-
RoomL 04 supPlemental budget; Siusla.w
ATTACHMENT ' ":" ~ .... '
EXHIBIT
1-1
MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: May 6, 2004
TO: springfield planning Commission
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 s~a~dards.
Mr. Kloos states, without specificity, that ~[s]tate statutes
apply.# Certain~y, this proceeding is governed, in part, hy
state statutes,' particularly, those provisions of ORS Chapter 197
that govern post-acknowledgment plan amendments. In addition,
the amendments must he 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. ~l~ing Ho=izon.
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, d~ted 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. '
6--2 '
Second, the .Department.Of Environmental Quality~uidelines
recommend that sewer'treatment facilities should be planned and.'~.
constructed for ~ 20-~ear pOpulation projection period.
The plgnninghorizon in the amendments is appropriate for the
nature ofthe planned facilities. Sewer treatment facilities
should be constructed with long range planning goals.
3. The. proposed PFSP amendments are a pro~ect list as required by
state statutes and implementing regulations.
Home Builders .insists that the proposed PFSP amendments,
particularly the proposed new tables, are not a ~project list"
within the meaning of state statutes and regulations. Home
Builders argument is without merit. The proposed_ sanitary seWer
project list is comparable to the.exiSting project lists in the
PESP by Springfield Utility Board, EWEB and the other
participating jurisidictions' lists. The proposed list'also
'complies with the LCDC's Goal 11 implementing administrative
rules.
OAR 660-001-0005(6) defines ~public facility project" as follows':
~A public facility project is the construction or
reconstruction of a water, sewer, or transportation
facility within a public facility/system that is funded
or utilized by members'of the public.."
Public facility system, as it relate~ to sanitary sewers, are
limited to the following: a) treatment facility system; and/or b)
primary collection system. (OAR 660-011-0005(7)).
· ' ProPosed Table 16a lists six treatment 'facility system projects:
WPCF Treatment Project; Residual Treatment Project; and
Beneficial ReuseProject. It also includes three pump stations
(i.e., collection, system projects): Willakenzie Pump Station,
Screw Pump Station and Glenwood Pump Station. This list complies
with both the statute and the administrative rule definition of
~project list."
In their oral testimony Home Builders stated that a more
appropriate list of projects for PFSP purposes would be MWMC's
20-year project list that is included in MWMC's 2004 Facilities
Plan. MWMC adopted the 2004 Facilities Plan and 20-year project
list to satisfy DEQ requirements for facilities planning and to
.comply with the requirements of ORS 223.309(1) that a facilities
plan and list of proposed capital improvements be adopted prior
to the establishment of a system development charge.
ORS 223.314 .provides:
~The establ$s~hment,., modification or implementation of a ***
plan or list adopted pursuant to ORS. 223.309, or any modificatioh
of a plan or list, is not a land use decision pursuant to ORS.
Chapter 195 and 197."
Therefore, requiring the inclusion of MWMC's 20-year project list
in the PFSP would be inappropriate.
4. The proposm~ amendments compl~ with applicable
a~nistrative rules; both the Metro Plan and PFSP,'
with ~he proposed changes, satisf~ all planning
requirements.
A. Publi='FacilityPlan.
Home Builders' recitation of various Oregon' Administrative Rules
that govern public facilities plans assumes that the proposed
amendments are the complete plan.. They are not. The. complete
plan is the entire Metro Plan Chapter III, Section G and the
complete PFSP. Read in context, the Metro Plan and the PFSP
include all the requirements recited by Home Builders from'OAR
660-011-0010. The existing PFSP was enacted and acknowledged as
in compliance with the statewide planning goals in 2002 as part
of the region's comprehensive plan periodic review ProcesS. Even
without the proposed amendments, the PFSP has been found, by
virtue of being acknowledged, in.compliance'with Goal 11. The
proposed amendments only bo!ste~ and augment the existing plan,
they do not remove any critical elements of the plan.
The complete i~ventory required by subsectiQn (1) (a) is found, in
the existing PFSP.
~he plan includes a project list.' Th~ proposed .a~.endments, read
in the context of'the existing plan, lnclude'a ~llst of
significant'public facility projects." Any contention that it
does not is merely a'restatement of Home Builders' earlier'.
argument that the proposed project, list is not a ~project list,"
as. they would define it.
· The plan includes cost estimates. The required ~rough cost.
estimates" are defined as ~approximate costs expressed in
current_year. (year closest to the period of public facility plan
development) dollars. 'It.is not intended that project .cost
estimates be.as exact as is required for budgeting purposes."
OAR 660-011-0005'(2). The cost estimates provided are sufficient
to satisfy the rule.
Again, by looking at the entire PFSP as amended, the remainder of
the 'requirements cited by Home Builders are also present: maps of
the projects; an estimate of when each project Will be needed;
and a discussion· bf the possible funding mechanisms for each
project. "
B. Inventoz~.
The £FSP as amended by the proposed amendments includes a
complete inventory of the region's sanitary sewer system. Again,
Home Builders attempts to restate it's ~'project list" is not a
'~project list." argument. 'Clearly, the existing list, which'.
passed muster prior to the proposed amendments without the
addition of the new projects, satisfied LCDC's definition of
"project list." It is hard to imagine how the addition of
projects Somehow makes an'already sufficiently descriptive list
no longer s~fficient within the meaning of the rule.
Home Builders argument here is not really about timing, .but about'
the definition of "project list:" "Where, as here, the proposal
is to approve categories of projects, rather than a list of
projects, it is not possible to comply with the rule." (Home
Builders .letter, p.5). MWMC has responded to that argument
above.
D. Rough Cost Estimates. '
As explained above', the cost estimates provided in proposed Table
16a satisfy the rule's definition of rough cost estimates.
E. Elements of the cc~rehensiVe plan.
Home Builders again re-state their unsupported "project list"
argument: "Again, a project listing is required, not a
description of.categories of projects." The Metro Plan and'PFSP,
as amended, satisfy OAR 660-011-0045.
Conclusion'.
The proposed amendments comply with state statutes, statewide
planning goalS, and the administrative rules 'that implement Goal
11. The proposed amendments to Chapter III, Section G, and.
Chapter IV of the Metro Plan are necessary additions concerning
proposed improvement and capacity to the conveyance and treatment
facilities. This information should have been included with the
recently adopted amendments to 'Chapter III that occurred as a
requirement of Periodic Review. The amendments to the PFSP are
also a compilation of information that should have.been included
with the adoption of the PFSP in 2001. Such additional
information has no effect on policies of the-Plan either specific
to public facilities or other chapters other-than to demonstrate
that these u~ban..faci!ities, will be constructed to accOmmodate
planned build-ou~ within Eugene's and Springfield's urban growth
boundary. These,amendments therefore satisfy the Metro~Plan
amendment criteria of approval that'.requires internal
consistency. "
N: \CITY\~MC\l~esponse ~o Home Builders..w~d
6-6
EXHIBIT
Affidsv[t of ? bl csdo
Sate of Oregon, County of I.~e-ss
I, Belinda DuBeli being duly swoTM, depose :
And say that 1 am the iegal clerk of the
Springfield News an. ewSpaper of general
circulation, as defined by OKS 193.010 and
193.020; printed and published at
Springfield in the aforesaid county and state,
that the legal publication re:
Notice of Joint Public Hearing .in Springfield
and Eugene City Councils and the Lane Co.
Board of Commissioners.
A printed copy of which is hereto annexed,
was Published in the entire issue of said
· newepapei' one successive and consecutive
weeks in the following issueS:.
June 09, 2004.
· THE, SPRINGFIELD NEWS
by: ,
Subscribed and sworn to me this 1 lth day
of June, 2004 by:. Belinda DuBell
6-7
J~J. L-07-2004 16:45 SPRINGFIELD NEWS , 1 541 ?46 063~ P.02
2-2
'.. PUBUC H~RING'&' M~ro PI~ to. ~m a~ '
' · ' ~RINGFIEL~ E~E rat~ de~ ~e mia ~
ANO ~NE COU~' · the M~ to ~lud; '
' NO~CE IS HERESY' -
Mee~ng Room e~ nilion el Wa~ate~
Rrlh ~e~ 8pd~flela, W~tewa~r S~tem
OR, ~e P~lng . Condition
'" ~t gov~ a~mena
Lane ~WwB ~' IQ ~e PFSR (See a~
Ame~dmenb Io -lhe' nUmbem.)
: ': Eugen~-Sprlngfie'ld Cd~a of~m~l
evalUam.a Melro ~n
Se~ Element an~' In
C~oler V'~ Gl~sa~: I Developmen~
l[~(2)(a&b) ~ ~ds
~ge 111~-4~ 'lme~ng ' (a) The
· '" :' U~n 6mw~
: : rm~ ? a~ 12 ~her ' and ~ve~p~
'. ' ~g ~ P~.~.O at (b) Adoption of
~ptef Ilhe; 'M~fy. 81afl Re~ Pro, ding
· ' being ot ~ng
~ ~ TaS~ 3 = Depar~enl~ ~o
~ l al ~ge ~ ~ 'flew ', ~5 F~h · Street,
~l~ da a~ ~ al ~g ~ 8p~, OR 974~, or
· ." I UrbaN~UI°,.:'~mas;' al Springfield Daveb~eot
· · ~ D~a~.
~e Puli= F~.~d ~W ~r pu~ te~eny.
"' 8eM~s~,~ ' ~..
TOTRL P. 02
- GUARD PUBLISHING COMPANY
· P,O. BOX 10188' PHONE (541) 4~. -~'234 " 5
'.. '' · ,. N tie' : · :
Legal Notice Advertising ..
"OTIC" OF JOINT P'UaUC I)escriptt~n of t~e Relue~'t ' '
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ...................
, · ~d M~ps Ide~mg MWMC
Springfield Me~ll~n
~..~ m.. ~.~ m c.~ (See addiflon~i descrlptlo~
STATE OF OREGON, } .ss. '
COUN~ OF ~E, }
, Section
l, Kelly Gant being first duly affixed, depose ,., Cod,
and say ~at I ~ the Ad~eKising Manager, Or his princip~ cler~ of ' .~0,~ .
~e Register-Guard, a newspaper of gener~ circulation as de~ned
in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Eugene in the aforesaid
coun~ ~d state; ~at'the Notice of Public Meetin~earing, ·
printed copy of which is hereto ~nexed, was published In the enUre
issue of s~d n~wSpaper for one suc~ssive ~d ~nsec~ive
day(s) in the following issues:
March 31, 2004
· - ~e Plan. Th~ new
flo~ to
. ~ ). of ~e proposed
No./714156- ~ 31,~?04
**)
//~//~ ~ -' .
SubS.ribed end
ublic of Oregon
My commission expires: July 24, 2006
Ac~unt f: 110787
INVOICE 2714156
C~e: Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan~a General Plan and PFSP
. GUARD PUBLISHING COMPANY
P,O, BOX 10188 PHONE [~1) 4~1234 '.. Legal
'. -. ~ o~bN ~7~ . .. 2750475
· -.. ~o~ce .' ..
Legal Notice Adve~ising "'
Cl~ OF SPRINGFIELD
~REN
Sprln~eid ~d Eugene
COUN~ OF ~NE, } ~. ,... ~ ~ .~ ~ ~'
' ' -~d~ ~ ~ ~ (See additlon~l, des~pUons
~d say ~at I am ~e Adve~ising Manager, or his pdncip~ cler~ of ~nc ~m. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~e RegiSter-Guard, s newspsper 0f gener~ circulation as defined ~ ~ ~u~q ~ ~'~n spd~m
in*ORS 193.010 sod 193.~0; published st Eugene in ~e afores~d ~g~ ~x ~ t,~ ~ Cod~ S~ion
mg ~ ~ ~ ~e ~;~ Eugene .Code Section
. coUn~ and stste; ~at the Notice of Joint Public Hearing- ~,0 ~ ~ p,~ m~; ~.~x~b). ~ ~e
printed copy of Which is hereto annex~, was published in ~e entire ~; ~ nw h~lnu ~u. ~ ~.:.~
issue of said newspaper for one successNe ~d consec~ve ~" ~ ~op~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~me~ ~ be
see additional infom~tlon ~ ~ g .
: to ~e' Developme~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 · do~men~ subm~ed ~ ~e
Development
· e PI~. Th~ new chapter m~ ~t ~a ~*~
~ tions ~ e~ng, Identified ~ ~e p~llc he~n~
. ~' pmj~ ~ mqul~ or do n~ s~lan m~ng b
Subscribed ~d ~i~e re ~ 2004
. ~ Public of Oregon .
My commission expires: July 24, 20'06
Account ~: 110787
INVOICE 2750475
c~e:~ Springfield & Eugene Ci~ Count& Lane Co. - June 22, 2004
JLIL-O?-2004 10:32 SPRINGFIELD NEWS 1 541 ?4G 0G33 P.02
?:' [,~c~,--',~.'u" '~':~..~!1 ~;~' '.---~-% {,',' 2.-'5' '~*
· ~.;'ifiS _,!~/~= ceum'~;~,~.; I i,.'!;~.:, .':~ ~ .
... .. ~..~, ~ .,., ~, ~ ~ · :'~ .'*':.
';~.. ~~._.. ~ ~~~'~ . ...:,
.... .~ .~ ...... . ~ .;,.
:~: ................... ..._ ...
.:... ~~;~/',~,~'~ r.'
':; Eugen~S~flng(l.l~l '1 · ;.':'"
~ ..... ;.'..' ·
',*. ~'~':~1/. ~'.~ ~ ~ v.
...: ..
..
[~ ..?.. .::' ..2.'
~-., . --;; ..
;':: ::: .
;;" ..:~... '.
'/, ':,
~." ~ ;... .'
~:}.2.. [.::-' · .
~g~4: ',"
· ..,,..,... ,~. ~: ; ,,.... ).
~'~.; . · :~ ...~.
.. :.:. ~
:~,~.'.~' , M~g. .
~'~'~:t ~ ..... ~ "/
,~ :. . '.?'
~.,
~,,.~ .: ~ '.*;. ·
~ ~i~..~. · .
~7,... .',,. ~.~'
~?;,:.~:~ .. - : ..'~ :~.,.~.
~..ff~, ~ ~ '.": :: .
:;~.'...
~ >j~... 'M..:....
~.,. .. ~. ':..
,~.~,.. ? ..
~, ~t,. '~' '"
:~:~, :~' .....
~:~ / . ~.' ·
~;~ , ;,., · .
, :{b,. :}'.:..:
~ ~.,, ,
~*,,~,,,~: :"~
, ;, , . .~.., - ::
~. ~, ;'. "~
¢~., *:~.~. ~ .,'~
·
~<.. .' ').
.,2r.' · ~ ~ '.'".
;~ : ;.. }.},'..".:..':~
· ~: ,.,. · '..
S~". '" "
5' ,~¥ :?
EXHIBIT
3-1
MEMORANDUM - OFFICE OF.CITY ATTORNEY ·
I I '
DATE: May 17, 2004
TO: Springfield Planning Commission
Eugene Planning Commission
Lane County Planning Commission
FROM: Meg Kieran
Springfield City Attorney
SUBJECT: Staff response to material submitted into the
record'by Home Builders Association on May 6,
2004
On May 6, 2004, Home Builders Association submitted'written
materials into the record. MWMC submits this brief outline of
issues in response.
A. MWMC'S 'Poplar Farm Project. (Homebuilders' letter at pp 2-3)
1. The 596 acre Poplar Farm Site has been in farm use for more 'than 20 years;
2. The Poplar Farm is a permitted use in an EFU zone. 0RS215.213(1) (bb) & 215.283(1) (y);
3. The Poplar Farm is a permitted use in Eugene"s industrial
-' zone. EC9.2450
4. Lane County's Notice of Land Use Decision that the Poplar · Farm complies with land 'use requirements.was April 14,
2000. "
5. DEQ issued a permit for the operation of the Poplar Farm on the 596 acre site on June 27, 2000;
6. Construction is on schedule and the poplar trees have been planted by MWMC'S contractor.
B. Liquid Effluent Dry and Wet 'Weather Capacity and Biosolids
Loading. (Homebuilders' letter .at. pp 9 - 18)
1. MWMC adopted its 2004 Facilities Plan after a "
public hearing on May 6, 2004;
6-12
2.HBA made t~e same arguments foUnd at pages 9 through
its written testimony to the MWMC at its May 6, 2004
Facilities Plan public hearing;
3,MWMC's consultant, CH2M Hill, r~sponded in writing, to each
of HBA's capacity and biosolids loading arguments; the
responses were inserted in the HRA testimony in red text
(a copy of the Homebui!der's letter containing the CH2M
Hill response is attached hereto as Attachmgn
C. Goal 6.' (Homebuilders' letter at p '3)
1. Statewide Planning Goal 6 is."to maintain and improve'the
.quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state."
Goal 6 requires that-~all waste and process discharges from
fut~ure development * * .* shall n6t threaten to violate, or
violate applicable state or federal environmental quality
statutes, rules and standards%" The Goal 6 guidelines state
that ~all plans and programs affecting waste and process
discharges should be coordinated within the applicable air.
sheds and river basins.described or included in state
environmental quality statutes, rules, standards and·
implementation plan." In addition, plans .~should buffer and
separate those land uses which create or lead to conflicting
requirements and-impacts upon the air, water and land'
'resources."
2. The treatment facilities and collection system improvements
included in the proposed PFSP amendments are responsive to
the requirements bf MWMC's NPDES permit. A ·copy of MWMC'S
NPDES permit, setting forth the federal and state water
treatment requirements is attached as Attachment 2.
D. MiscellaneOus IsSues: Timing of Projects; Definition of Wastewater-
Other issues raised by Home Builders have been addressed by MWMC
in our memo dated May 6, 2004 or.are resolved by the plain
language of the proposed amendments, existing Metro Plan
language, and administrative rules that implement Goal 11. These
include challengesto the completeness of the project list; the
timing, c0~t estimates and possible financing method~ for the
projects; and the definition of wastewater. Some of these
issues Were raised and discussed at the May 6, 2004 MWMc public
hearing on the MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan and 20-year project
list. A.copy of the minutes of that meeting is. attached as
Attachment 3.
6-13
EXHIBIT
4-1
MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
I
DATE: May 27, 2004
TO: Interested Persons'
FROM: Dave Jewett
Attorney for MWMC
Meg Kieran
A.ttomey for City of Springfield
Jerome Lidz
Attorney for City of Eugene
SUBJECT: MWMC Processes
The Home Builders Association's (HBA) (~omplaint about the processes employed by'MWMC to
seek elected officials' approval for needed improvements to the regional sewerage facilities
adses out of flawed assumptions about the statutory framework for government actions
regarding the provision of public facilities for wastewater conveyance and treatment and their
funding with System Development Charges.
.BackRround:
MWMC was formed by a 1977 IGA between Eugene, Springfield and Lane. County to construct,
operate, maintain and update regional sewerage facilities (Regional Facilities). MWMC is
governed by seven commissioners appointed by the Governing Bodies, three of whom are
elected officials of the Governing Bodies..
MWMC conStrUcted the Regional Facilities with about $115,000,000 in federal grants and local
matching funds based on a facilities plan that was developed by MWMC's consultant, CH2M Hill,
in 1979 (208 Plan), Pursuant to state and federal rules, the 208 Plan planned the Regional
Facilities to have a design life of 20 years. The Regional Facilities opened 'in 1984. Since then,
the community has invested several million dollars more in preserving and upgrading the
Regional Facilities,
While.MWMC operates' the Regional Facilities pursuant to a NPDES Permit issued by DEQ
(Permit), the Permit implements federal and state discharge requirements to protect the water
quality of the Willamette River. For several years it has been clear that, without significant
improvements, the Regional Facilities will soon be incapable of accommodating projected metro
area growth while meeting the discharge requirements of the Permit. The driving factors include
the need to manage peak flows to the Water Pollution Control Facility, to properly dispose of
residuals and to meet new Permit requirements governing the temperature and ammonia levels
of discharges to the Willamette River.
(doc.84616) 6-14
'4.
MWMC Memorand'um're: process .. '. ' ·
May 21, 2004
Page 2 '"
Determining the scope of the needs, planning to address them and funding th(~ir cost is complex.
The HBA's complaint about the processes e.rnployed by MWMC oversimplifies and misstates the
rules that govern the processes.
MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan:
The MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan is a comprehensive 20-year facility plan that replaces the 208
Plan. 'HoWever, the 2004 Facilities Plan is the product of a long, multi-phased planning process
that has involved significant public involvement, including three citizen advisory committees. It is
an outgrowth of and combines and updates prior studies such as the 1997 Master Plan, the 1997
Biosolids Management Plan, the 1997 Systems Development Charge Methodology Update, the
2001' Wet Weather Flow Management Plan, and the 2003 Management Plan for a Dedicated
Biosolids Land Application Site. The previous plans were reviewed by MWMC, the public, and
the Governing Bodies and have provided the basis for the annual MWMC Capital Improvements
Program (CiP) since their adoption. Of the $144,0001000 in projects currently anticipated in the
2004 Facilities Plan, $100,000,000 in projects are carded forward from the pdor plans. MWMC
has proceeded to implement each of the projects and policies in the plans, which has been
reflected in each annual MWMC budget and ClP.
Several key planning considerations were factored into the completion of the 2004 Facilities
Plan. Among them was the implementation of recommendations from Citizen Advisory '
Committees that represented diverse community interests, values and involvement and which
had been adopted by MWMC as plans and policies, The City Councils have also adopted the
Wet Weather Flow Management Plan. The 2004 Facilities Plan also needed to factor in new
regulatory limitations DEQ included in the Permit. This factor caused some modifications to the
type and phasing of already planned projects, and resulted in $44,000,000 in additional projects
over twenty years. The 2004 Facilities Plan was 'adopted by MWMC on May 6, 2004 after a
number of public meetings and two public hearings. MWMC chose to refer it to the GoVerning
Bodies for concurrence pursuant to Section 3 of the IGA. ·
Land Use PlanninR:
The proposed upgrades` to the wastewater treatment facilities system are to be dOne at three
different locations includir~g the Water Pollution Control Facility, the residuals site and the
beneficial reuse site as well as upgrades to pump stations serving the pdmary collection system
at three separate locations. Since the Metro Plan did not include wastewater among the list of
services to develop within the UGB and did not identify the wastewater treatment facility system,
:MWMC proposed a number of amendments to the Metro Plan to correct the omissions. In
addition, MWMC proposed a number of changes to the Public Facilities and Services Plan to.
correct similar omissions and make this functional plan internally consistent with the Metro Plan,
Consistency was to be achieved by inserting various tables and maps identifying the six overall
projects and showing their location as well as including a condition assessment for MWMC's
treatment and pdmary collection system. The proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and' the
PFSP were submitted for consideration by the Governing Bodies' planning commissions and
subsequently by all three Governing Bodies as required by the Springfield Development Code,
the Eugene Code, and the Lane Code. That process is continuing with its attendant public
6-15
.' MWMC Memorand'bm re: process '~ ' ! '.~
May 21, 2004
Page 3
meetings and hearings.
,System Development Charges:
MWMC has had a SDC since 1991. The methodology that is the basis for the current SDC was
adopted in 1997. in June 2003, partly in response to concern~ expressed by HBA, MWMC
directed staff to retain a consultant and form a CAC to review the 1997 Methodology and
recommend changes. Home Builders designated a representative who participated on the CAC.
The consultant, 'CH2M Hill, and the CAC recommended changes to the 1997 MethodologY. On
April 1, 2004, MWMC adopted a revised methodology after a number of public meetings and a
public hearing (Proposed SDC Methodology).
ORS 223.297 to 223.314 govems SDCs. ORS 223.309(1) requires the adoption of.a facilities
plan and a capital improvements list prior to the establishment of a SDC. The pertinent MWMC
resolution states that the 2004 Facilities Plan including the 20-year project list are being adopted
to provide the facilities plan and list of capital improvements that are reqUired by ORS
223.309(1). ORS 223.314 provides that the establishment, modification and implementation of a
system development charge and a facilities p!an and list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309 are
not land use decisions pursuant to ORS chapters 195 and 197.
Pursuant to Section 3 of the IGA, MWMC referred the Proposed SDC Methodology and the 2004
Facility Plan and list to the Cities of Eugene and Springfield for implementation through their
respective City Codes in accordance with the SDC statute and applicable city code procedures.
That process is continuing.
Conclusion:
Three separate processes are involved in MWMC's effort to obtain the Governing Bodies'
approvals necessary to plan, site and fund the improvements that are necessary so the Regional
Facilities can continue to meet federal and state environmental standards g0veming wastewater
discharges to the Willamette River as well as the disposition and beneficial reuse of residuals.
For the reasons· explained above, HBAs' complaint inappropriately combines and misstates the
processes involved with ·which MWMC has fully complied.
(~o~.s4616) 6-16