Springfield, Lane County planning commissions recommend code and plan changes to enable EWEB Willamette treatment plant

SPRINGFIELD, Ore. — The Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions on March 17 recommended concurrent amendments to the Glenwood Refinement Plan and the Springfield development code that would allow "high‑impact public utility facilities" — a policy change EWEB said is needed to enable a proposed Willamette River treatment plant in Glenwood.

Staff framed the request as a narrow, textual change that would not approve any project but would permit such facilities to be contemplated and then subjected to site‑specific land‑use review and environmental permitting. "This is merely a textual amendment," Andy Limbert, project planner for the application, told the commissions. "The specific project will come back before the planning commission with design and operational details."

Why it matters: EWEB officials said the utility currently relies on one 75‑year‑old treatment plant and a single river source and that a second modern plant would improve regional water resiliency. "Having only one source of water does put us at a significant risk," said Karen Kelly, EWEB chief water operations officer. EWEB project manager Laura Farthing said the proposed plant would include a reservoir planned at about 15,000,000 gallons and an intake on the Willamette River.

What staff proposed: Sandy Belson, Springfield's comprehensive planning manager, led a work‑session overview of the state's Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities rules and explained the local code changes. Those include consolidating three Glenwood zoning districts into a single "Glenwood General Mixed Use" district, allowing a broader mix of residential, commercial and hospitality uses across the riverfront, and adding schools and child care as required CFA uses. Belson said the state framework requires at least one primary Climate Friendly Area that meets minimum size, height and density thresholds; she clarified that the 9,900–10,000‑unit figure cited in presentations refers to Springfield's total 20‑year housing need and the combined capacity of all designated CFAs (Glenwood, downtown and Mohawk), not Glenwood alone.

Key applicant points and mitigation: EWEB representatives said Glenwood was selected for proximity to a state‑approved point of diversion, favorable geotechnical conditions and reduced transmission needs. Colin McArthur, the applicant's land‑use consultant, said the amendments would apply to nine properties totaling about 33 acres, of which EWEB owns roughly 27 acres (about 82 percent). The applicant showed conceptual renderings and said the project would include habitat enhancements and compensatory mitigation for in‑water impacts and would be designed to minimize viewshed effects.

Questions and concerns raised: Commissioners asked whether the Glenwood area already has the densities and whether parking would be required for new housing. Staff replied that Glenwood allows a minimum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre in existing code (higher than the state's minimum), that the 50 units/acre is an allowance rather than a current built condition, and that under the city's current CFA implementation staff cannot require on‑site parking; the code contains parking maximums and design standards for any parking provided. Vice Commissioner Steve Schmunk criticized the state rulemaking and questioned the mandate's costs and assumptions, saying parts of the program "felt ideological" and noting the city had spent funds on compliance.

Public comment and local support: One in‑person speaker, John Hawkinson, voiced support for the amendments and for EWEB's resiliency rationale. Staff and consultants noted there has been public testimony in support and that any facility proposal will return for project‑level public hearings.

Votes at a glance: The Springfield Planning Commission voted 7–0 to recommend the City Council adopt the Glenwood Refinement Plan amendment (file 81125000062, Type 4) and then voted 7–0 to recommend adoption of the EWEB development code amendments (file 81125000061, Type 4). The Lane County Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend county approval of the related Lane County file (509P825‑054364).

Next steps: Both commissions closed the written record and forwarded recommendations to their elected bodies. The Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners will consider the planning commissions' recommendations and hold their own joint public hearing before making final decisions.