HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5831 07/01/1996
.
ORDINANCE NO. 5831
(GENERAL)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING POLICY 2, SECTION III-G OF THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXTENSION OF
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE FROM THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
TO THE LANE COUNTY SHORT MOUNTAIN LANDFILL SITE AND ESTABLISHING
CRITERIA TO BE USED IN CONSIDERING FUTURE PLAN AMENDMENTS WHICH ARE
APPLICABLE TO POLICY 2, SECTION III-G; ADOPTING AN EXCEPTION TO LCDC GOAL
11; AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE (JO. NO. 96-04-73)
THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Policy 2 of Section III-G of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan is
removed and replaced with the following language:
2. Sewer and water service shall not be extended beyond the urban growth boundary except to:
a. The Mahlon Sweet Field Airport and the Regional Wastewater Sludge Management Facility,
both public facilities service the entire metrop.olitan 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 of the metropolitan
area that can only be remedied by extension of the service.
c. Allow sewer service to the Short Mountain Landfill for the purpose of disposing of leachate.
No other connections will be allowed beyond the urban growth boundary. Connections
inside of the urban growth boundary will be in accordance with this Plan.
Future requests to allow for extensions of sewer lines beyond the urban growth boundary or
connection of properties beyond the urban growth boundary to existing sewer lines may
only be approved as amendments to this policy, and only if the request meets all of the
following criteria:
1) the facility requesting such an extension or connection existed prior to August 23, 1982, the
date the Metro Plan was acknowledged by LCDC;
2) the facility primarily serves the metropolitan area, and
3) the facility is publicly owned.
In addition, the cities may require annexation, a revocable permit, and/or an intergovernmental
agreement as a prerequisite to extending these services in any instance.
Section 2. The preceding plan amendment controls over any other inconsistent textual provisions of the
Metropolitan Area General Plan.
Section 3. The preceding plan amendment shall become effective when identical amendment to Policy 2,
Section III-G is adopted by the Eugene City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners,
.
Ordinance No. 5831
Page 1
.
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 effect the validity of the
remaining portions hereof.
Section 5. While not a part of this Ordinance, findings in attached Exhibit "A" are adopted in support of
this decision.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this ~ day of J u 1 y
1996 by a vote of ~ for and ~ against.
APPROVED by the Mayor this ~ day of J u 1 y
,1996.
(Ji5:r/UAt~
ayor
ATTEST:
~~
City Recorder
.
~C)1=-~"~ ~ L~\~\
. --~.- ~--"-::'''''''':-_'":F.-;:-=-~~--:,::;:-:-~:;....,..-_ -._-
o u~e.. ~6 ql..,.
. ," .. o"~~.~..=~,,,\,..:-. .~'~..-..
- ~ -. ,.: 7
.r\'-~ '~'~'" '-.;'1 ~i~' :~;. ~:~!
, .
.
Ordinance No. 5831
Page 2
0:\ IS % \Ill'\ IO':;Li 1:,\\ 50:3 ubi :I!J-l7
IX\I': CO 1..\\1) \IC\I\T
~;I'I< I \c;i I iTIi 1'1.'.,-: , !,' i i
.
.
.
EXHIBIT "A"
"REASONS" EXCEPTION TO STATEWIDE PLANN1NG GOAL 11
("PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES")
L Introduction
A. N,tturc of the Exception
nlc.~ third paragraph of Goalll, as amended, states in part:
Counties shall not.., allow new extensions of sewer lines from within urhan gro\llchboundarics,.. to l:Jnd outside
. t},oye buundaries,
An Exception to this portion of the goal language is necessary to allow the implcmcnlalje,o of the Selected
Alternative from the 1995 Leacbate Management Plan for Short Mountain Landfill, Lane County.
Oregon, as adopled by Lane County in the form of Board Order 95-10-17-1 (hereinafter, the "Plan") The
Selected Altemi3tive method of dealing with leachate from the Short Mountain Landfill (SML) site is ,he
placement of a dedicated sewer force main between the SML and the Metropolitan Wastewater M311agcmehl
Commission (MWMC) treatment facility within the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area.
This force main is only to provide a means of transporting leachaterrom the SML site to the MWMC facility
for treatment. Leachate will be collected from the landfill site into a storage lagoon, and then pumped by for<:c
main to the Eugene sewer system, which will take it to the treatment plant. Two buried pwnping stations along
the force main would move the leachate along. The force main will not be used to transport sewage from any
other source on or off the SML site, Other connel.1ions to the force main \\';11 be prohibited. It will not be sized
or designed to accommodate additional sewage or intervening connections.
This action is being taken to comply with permit requirements of the state Dcpanment of Environmenlal
Quality, which is requiring that current spray irrigation of leaChate at the SML siLe is to be terminated and ~
new mC:Jns of leachate management be developed.
B. Applicable Administrative Rules.
...
"Rcasolls"\' exceptions are governed by the provisions of Oregon Administralive Rules 660-o~..020 LInough
660-04-022, Pursuant to OAR 660-04-018(3), uses allowable by "reasons" exception are t" be lImited to that
use only,
IL Exception Arguments
A. "'Reasons why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply'"
The intent of me goal language is to pre-emp. unwelcome urbanizing influences in rural arcas outside of urban
growth bound:u-ies by preventing the development of sewer systems in rural areas or the illlr\lduclloll of S'::W~I
force mains from urban areas or unincorporaled communities. "Urban" tacilities and services are broodly
defined in the goal and "rural" facilities and ~rvices arc defined only as levels appropnale lor the "lIeed;;; of
rural lands" -- presumably less than an "urban" level of need, "Sewer syste::ms" and "sewer force mains" (aho
undefined in the goal) appear to be exclusively "urban" features and not "rural" features, excepl where th\:)'
OCCllT in rurai unincorporated communities,
3-3
Page I
f)J 13 ~H; '10\ 10,JI 1',\\ ;'0:1 tiS7 39.17
L\NE CO L\:\()\IG~I:\T
~;i'l; I \er: 11:1.1.. l'I\,l,:
Jd'-:
.
.
.
Arguably this proposal is outside the envelope of what the goal language addresses, The "~wer for\;c main"
under consideration here is not a typical sewage collection main in that it does Dot (I) serve several users, (2)
provide support for a level of development greater than that possible without it, (1) collect and transport all
manner of sewage, and (4) have a design which would allow those along its rOllte to easily connect to it. The
goal language should not apply to the proposed action,
B. "Area!! which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use."
Alternative methods of disposal are examined in the Leachate Management Plan. chapters 1 and ), These
include:
L Discharge by force main into the Creswell sewer system;
2, Trucking to Creswell sewer system;
3. Discharge by force main into the MWMC system (the selected alternative);
4, Trucking to MWMC system; ,
5. Discharge by force main to future Lane Community College sewer interceptor;
6, On-site treatment with discharge to Coast Fork Willamette River;
7, On-site trealment with winter discharge to Coast Fork WilIamette River and summer on-site wetland
application;
8, On-site spray irrigation;
9. Off-site spray irrigation;
10. Evaporation using landfill gas;
11, Evaporation using natural gas;
12. Evaporation using landfill gas and natural gas.
,
A discussion of all alternatives is found in the cited report and will not be repeated here, From this list, three
preferred alternatives were gleaned for further review.. nos. I, ) and 12, Thc'selected alternative was chos~n
and is the subject of this exception, In essence, the only area which'could accommodate the use and not reqUIre
an t:xception is the SML site itself, a site ruled o~t due to cost of developing and maintaining on.site disposal
facilities (especially startup costs) and concerns over the anticipated impacts of on-site disposal on local
environmental quality and area landowners.
Of the three preterred alternatives, two (#1 and #3) would require a goal exception; the dilTerence being 0111y
into which city UGB the force main would ron. The third (# I 2) would not bur would cost si!,'llificantly morc
(han the other two as well as involve new technology unfamiliar to DEQ,
" .
'\
A founh altcmative, an on-site sewage treatment facility, would also not require a goal exception but "ould
result in a duplication of existing treatment capacity in the MWMC system as well as cost substantially mocc
as the selected alternative, In addition, it would involve discharge to the Coast Fork and/or ared lands,
To summarize, while tlle use could be accommodated in areas lIot requiring tillS exception to gonl 11.
variables such as environmental impacts, cost of developing and maintaining the use, and the duplic:ltj,e
dWraC'ter of developing onsite a treatment potential now in existence in the MWMC system leads the Board 10
conclude that this accommodation is nOl "reasonable,"
C. '"The long-term environmental, economic, social and energy con~e4ucnces re~ultinl: from the use of the
prOfJosed site with measures designed to rcduce adl'cr3C impacts are not significantly more adverse than
would typicaJly result from the ~ame "roposal being located in areas requiring a goal excepticln othc,'
than the proposed site."
Environmental, economic, social and energy consequences of each alternative noted above arc evaltLlted in tll~
Ptan, The actual "use'" .....ill have negligible impacts on the lands through which it passes, Given the identilkd
3-4
Page 2
I):, !~ !IG'lll'. lU,:;9 r:.\\ ;;03 D87 39,17
L,\\l': CO L.\\D MC'I.VI
SI'I<I'.C1 i U.lJ 11.(. '~I.'
..
.
.
impacts of on-site disposal, it can be readily concluded that these impacts of transporting leachate by forc~
nuun to the MWl\.1C system are less than any alternative which requires truck transport or Sl\iIL-bascd disposal
with discharge into the air, local lands, or the Coast Fork Willamctte River,
n. "The proposed uses are compatible with otber adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measun.:s
designed to reduce adverse impacts."
The proposed use wiu have no measurable impacts on other adjacent uses, nor \viil. It produce the same in the
SML site Itself, By contrast, development of many of the alternalives discussed in the Plan could well be
incompatible with adjacent uses and resources.
E. ""There is a demonstrated need for tbe proposed use or activity, based on one or more of the
requi,rement!l of Statewide Goals 3 to 19."
, The proposed use is in accordance with the intent and purpose of statewide goal 6, which seeks to maintain
and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state, Permit requirements of DEQ tor a
satisfactory method of leachate disposal reflect goal 6's mandate, The proposed use di!.poses of Sl\lL I::achatc
in a manner having no measurable net impact on the environment, and thus complies mth goal 6,
}'. "The proposed use or activity has special features or qualities that necessitate its location on or near the
proposed exception site."
There is no "proposed exception site" other than the SML facility which is in existence, and the route of the
leachate disposal force main. The objective of sound leachale disposal is a special feature justifying the
exception, and the wtique and limited nature of the proposed use is a which quality also justifies it.
l
... .
). ~
3-5
Page 3
(!:\ Iii !lti '10\ IO::-;!) F,'t\ 30:1 [j!)7 39-l7
I.:\\E CO 1..\\1) ~IC,'I\T
S I'I( I '-lY 11.11; 1'1 '\', 'd: il -
.
.
.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
IN SUPPORT OF ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT
l Applicable Criteria
In ;)ccMdan~ with the Lane Code 12,225 (2), Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendm~nl, the following criteria arc
addrcs;;cd as justitication for the amendment.
(II) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land
Conservation and Development Commission,~ and
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Afetro Plan internally inconsistent,
1I. Analyses, Findings and Conclusions
The need for this amendment proceeding was initiated by the Board of COWlty Commissioners when il adopted
Order 95-10-17-1 adopting the 1995 "Leachate Management Plan for Short Mountain Landfill for Lane COUllty,
Oregon." This Plan was prepared in response to a mandate of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
that Lane County implement an acceptable means of leachate disposal in order to renew its Solid Waste Disposal
Permit.
This amendment was initiated by the Lane County Board of County Commissioners in the ronn of Board Order 95-
12-13-3, pursuant to the' Metro Plan amendment procedure set forth in Chapter IV of the Metro Plan and
implemented in Lane Code Chapter 12. It follows Board acceptance of the .1995 "Leachate Management Plan for
Shon Mountain Landfill (SML), Lane County, Oregon," adopted by Order 95-10-17-1.
Of several alternative methods identified in the Plan for disposing of leachate from SML, extending a limited-use
sewer line from the landfill site to the Eugene sewer system and MWMC treatment plant was the selected
alternative. This alternative involves installation of a small dedicated force main between the landfill sile and the
sewer system, and two buried pump stations enroute to move the waste through 1heline, A third pump station will
be located at the landfill site itself.
The approval criteria cited above will now be addressed in turn.
" .
A. The amendment must be conllistent witb the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land
Co"~ervation and Development Commission.
nn:ll~ :u" ont ,..it..rl hilt :or,.. ~r1r1r"'':l:,..ri \vh,..r,.. rf!'le~'2ot belo." I\,fol:t 80,u~ h"ve little or no irnp::>ct on, nor ::>cO
impacted by, the proposaL Statcwide planning goals most relevant to the proposal are Nos, 6 ("Air, Water, and
Land Resources"), II ("Public Facilities and Services"), and 14 ("Urbanizauon"), For facts and reasons slated
below, the Board of County Commissioners finds that the proposal is consIstent willi relevant sLllewide
planning goals,
Goal 1. Citizen involvement is being achieved by the proposed amendment being subject to citizen review and
mput as established by state and local law, including but not limited to public hearings at the Planni.lg
Commission and Board of Commissioners levels,
Goal 2. Land use planning requirements of this goal are being satisfied through the adoption process. A
"reasons" exception complying with the requirements of part II of the goal is being taken and is addressed
in the goal 11 discussion
3-6
Page 1
(d I,'i :Hj\IO\ 11: 0 I '1',\\ 30:3 GS7 39,17
1.:\\1-: CU 1..\\1> "C\l\T
". SI'I:~I\(XlEI.U I'I.\C G'il:i,~
.
Goal 3. Agricultural land is not affected or impacted in any measurable way by the proposed amendment. No
connections to this force main will be allowed in agricultural land between the Eugene-Springfield UGB
and connection of the line to the MWMC sewer system,
Goal 4, Forest land is not affected or impacted in any measurable way by the proposed amendmeHt. No
connections to this force main will be allowed in forest land between Eugene-Springfield UOB and
connection of the line to the MWMC sewer system.
Goal 5, Location of the line and pump stations will have no net increased impacts on resources govemed by
goal 5,
Goal.6, This proposed amendment is consistent with the goal to maintain and improve the air, water, and land
resources of the state, The extension of sewer service is necessary to convey leachate from the SML to the
MWMC treatment plan, This is necessary to dispose of leachate from the SML in accordance with
regulatory requirements and to minimize potential impacts to groundwater and suriace waler. This
amendment is intended to specifically satisfy those portions of goal 6 which mandate protection 01
resources governed by the goat It is the judgment and findings of Lane County, Eugene and Springfield
that moving leachate generated by the SML waste disposal operation through the line to the MWMC
facility in the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area is the most effective, efficient and readily available means of
meeting disposal objections and preventing any threat to environmental quality, especially in the vicinity
of the SML. This amendment satisfies goal 6 by accomplishing the objectives spelled out within it
Goal 7, By its nature and the fact it is to be placed below ground, it will neither create or increase natural
ha7.ard such as qooding; nor will such hazards aftect it in a measurable way.
.
Goal 8, 9, 10. Not applicable.
Goal 1 L The proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives of timely, orderly. and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services .described in the goal. The extension of service outside the
UG8 will serve only the SML No other service connections will be permitted, The proposed action is
arguably prohibited as an "extension of sewer line" by goal 11. Accordingly. an eXI:eption to this goal i:;
taken, Findings addressing "reasons'" exception criteria are contained as Exhibit "A" to this amendment
proposal, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Goal ]2, This goal is applicable only in the sense that the proposed amendment involves a dedicated force
ma1n which could be considered a type of transportation facility.
Goal 13, Analyses contained within the Leachate Management Plan indicate that an installed force main is a
more energy-efficient means of transporting leachale than alternatives such as mm.;ng it by tanker trocks,
Goal 14, The extension of service outside of the UGB will not cause or require a revision to the UGB. The
disposal site to which the force main will be connected is a facility of regional imponance (refer to Table 1
below), but is a use typically rural in nature, Disposal of leachate by any means -- whether through the
selected alternative or another alternative -- will not have the effect of urbani7.ing the landfill property or
making it any less rural, The SML provides a necessary senice (refuse dispOSdl) to the metropolItan area,
Goals 15, 16,17, 18, 19, Not applicable,
B. Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally incon~istcnt.
.
The Board of County Commissioners finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with provisions of the
Metro Plan, Peni ncnt sections of the Metro Plan are discussed below,
3-7
Page 2
o:s IS % \ill\ I I : O~ F.\\ 50.1 tiS7 :19-l7
1.:\1'\1-: CO 1,\\1)\1(;\1\'1'
. .. SPR I \GF I LI.Ii 1'1.\(; GJ (Ji)'J
-..,'"
.
The Metro Plan defines solid waste management and sanitary sewers as key urban facilities in P\J(icy 7,a" pagf.
IJ-B-4 and on page III-G-I of the Metro Plan, The Short Mountain Landfill (SML) is an integral part of Lane
County's solid waste management. The S1'v1L is the sole facility for refuse disposal in Lane County, and a:;
such, 100% of the refuse generated in Lane County in 1994 was disposed of in the SML
Table 1 below shows that 248,682 tons of refuse went to the SML in 1994, approximately 216,417 t0l1s(87%)
of which was generated within the UGB, The number oftons generated within the UGB is assumed to be all of
the refuse delivered to the Glenwood Central Receiving Station (CRS) and refuse delivered directly to the Sl'v1L
(SML Direct), excluding refuse from Cottage Grove that was hauled directly to SML. All refuse delivered to
the rural transfer sites is assumed to be generated outside of the UGB. This information was compiled from the
WMD Information Lookup & Reports system. Based on this information the S1'v1L should be considered (l
regional facility,
'.
TABLE 1
REFUSE GE:"JERA TED IN LANE COUNTY Ir-; 1994
.
Cottage Adjusted
Total Cover Grove Total
Total to SML 310,442 tons (61,760)ton5 248,682 toilS
SML Direct 124.989 tons (61,76O)tons (6,339)tons 56,890 tons
eRS 159,527 tons 159,527 tons
Rural Transfer 25,926 tons 6,339 tons 32,265 tons
l
UOB (SML Direct +- CRS) 216,417 tons
~":.
100%
23%
64%
13%
87%
Policy 21 on page II.B-7 of the Metro Plan states that sewer service shall not be extended outside of city limits
to seJVe a residence or business, The proposed amendment is consistent \\ith this policy as the SML is a key
urban facility and not a residence or business.
Policy) 2 on page III-G-6 of the Metro Plan states that environmentally sound use of solid waste and sewage
disposal systems is to be encouraged. The proposed amendment is consistent with this policy as the proposed
method for disposal of leachate from the SML is used at other landfills and has been approved by the Oregon
Departm~nt of Environmental Quality.
>. ~
.
3-8
Page :1