Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Miscellaneous 3/6/2000 . . . EMILY N. JEROME I I I -....IIP...:-4I::...IIlIlI... II CO............. .C'..lC"1tHU::..A:.. l'IlI...... ..1l~..~;.jll..l_ ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW March 6, 2000 RECEIVED 3~~'~2ooiJ By:. CI~! \.MIl~ Mayor and City Council City of Springfield 225 5th S1. Springfield, OR 97477 Re: Voith Sulzer Paper Technology Dear Mayor and City Councilors: I am writing to you on behalf of our client, V oith Sulzer Paper Technology. Voith Sulzer is not opposed to the City's adoption ofa Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Ordinance, but does have specific concerns about the current version proposed for adoption. Specifically, there are numerous vague terms used throughout the DWP Ordinance that are insufficiently defined, or that are not defined at all. An unintended interpretation of anyone ofthese terms in future implementation would countervene the City's intent and have a devastating effect on the continued operations at Voith Sulzer. V oith Sulzer has been a Springfield business, under changing ownership, for approximately 22 years. Currently, the company employs 55 people, working two shifts. Very generally, r:he company produces and services rolls that it markets for use in production of paper. The rolls are constructed to meet very specific specifications which differ for each type of paper to be produceg by. the rolls' purchaser. V oith Sulzer uses two different processes, one that bonds 'rubber to a metal base and another that bonds polyurethane to a metal base. Neither process can be accomplished without the use of specific hazardous substances, including four types of DNAPLs, although the amount of DNAPLs used in the process is surprisingly minimal. V oith Sulzer is dedicated to the use of management practices which meet or exceed applicable environmental laws relating to the use of hazardous chemicals, and specifically DNAPLs. Voith Sulzer has continuously grown its operation in Springfield and has recently completed major renovations of its two-building facility so that it may accommodate future growth of its business. While the company was aware that the City was studying ways to protect City wells, V oith Sulzer did not receive a mailed notice of the public heanng before the Planning Commission and therefore did not provide testimony before that body. I have reviewed the local record and it is my understanding that the Planning Commission received no testimony at all on the In! EAST BROADWAY SUITE40{) EUGF.r\E,OREGO" ':17401-3114 CORRESPONDENCE: P.O. BOX 11610 EUGEt\E, OREGON 97440-3H10 TELEPHONE 541.4~5.0220 'FACSIMILE: . S4L6H6.6564 OFFICES ALSO IN . SALEM & ROSEBURG, OREGON AND SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA .' Mayor and City Council March 6, 2000 Page 2 proposed Ordinance. V oith Sulzer was unaware of the existeoce of a proposed Ordinance until it received mailed notice of the City c:ouncil hearing. We question whether the notice provided is legally sufficient. We therefore requestthat the City Council leave the record open for at least 14 days so that we can work with City staff to address issues that are needed to clarify the Ordinance's effect. The Ordinance contains a number of terms that are essential to its implementation but that lack sufficient definition. For example, it is not clear when a DWP development application is required. Section 17.050 of the proposed Ordinance is intended to resolve this issue, but it is does not provide sufficient clarity. Section 17.050(1) provides: "(1) A Drinking Water Protection Overlay District Development Application shall be submitted in instances (a) through (d) that include storage, use, handling, treatment, production, and/or transportation ofhazardous materials or which increase the quantity of hazardous materials used or produced within the DWP Overlay District. "(a) when there is a~ng~L~e, occupancy or tenancy of a property, including bur not limited to a change from vacant to occupied, "(b) during the Building Permit process, "(c) when there is an internal alteration ofa building that does not require a Building Permit, or "(d) in conjunction with any development application in.~luding but not limited to Site Plan review and Minimun{ Development Standards. "DWP Overlay District applications shall be reviewed under Type I procedures. Development approval within the DWP Overlay District shall be obtained before any .. change of use, construction, storage or development begins." It is not clear whether an application would be required if one of the instances listed in (a) through (d) occurred, but did not did not have any effect on the lot's existing "storage, use, handling, treatment, production, and/or transportation of hazardous materials." For example, what if a company applied for a building permit to add an additional parking space, but the additional parking would not result in a change in the company's practices with regard to hazardous materials? Would the City require a DWP application simply because the existing operation already included the "storage, use, handling, treatment, production, and/or transportation of hazardous materials"? ~ Mayor and City Council March 6, 2000 Page 3 There are extreme ambiguities within the instances lisJed in (a)-( d) of Section 17 .050( I). Subsection (a) uses the term "change of use." How is this term defined? Would a change in use occur if the company added a third shift or added a new operation within its facility? Subsection (a) also uses the term change in "occupancy or tenancy." 1t is not clear how this term would be interpreted in the future. Subsection (c) would require a DWP application when there is "an internal alteration ofa.building that does not require a building permit." Does this section mean that Voith Sulzer would need to apply for a DWP application if it remodeled a bathroom in its office and did not need a building permit to do so? What if the remodeling of a bathroom did require a building permit? Would (b) require the remodeler to apply for a DWP permit? We believe that the use of such terms requires further discussion by staff and by the Council. Such terms should be defined or replaced with more definitive terms. We would like an opportunity to work with City staff and legal counsel to suggest revisions to address the ambiguities. Ambiguities also pervade section 17.070 ofthe proposed Ordinance. IiI subsection (b) of (1), (2) and (3), the term "hazardous materials" is used. That term is defined in the Ordinance, but includes "any material that may degrade groundwater quality when improperly used, stored, disposed of, or otherwise mismanaged," This definition of "hazardous materials" could include nearly anything, including stormwater runoff. Is it the Council's intention that anything that could be a hazardous material under the preceding definition be stored in areas with approved secondary containment in place? This is an incredibly strict standard and one with implications beyond imagination. Other subsections of section 17.070 rely on terms such as: "new uses," "change in type of use or an expansion of any existing use," "new facilities," and "changes in chemical use and/or storage." Each of these terms has a vital role in the Ordinance's implementation but none ofthese terms is defined and all are subject to a great deal of interpretation. 1t is in both the City's and its constituents; best interests to better define these terms. On a more substantive level as well, we believe there are provisiofts of the Ordinance which should be changed. Section 17.030 states that the specific Overlay arid Time Of Travel Zones "shall apply." However, it is not clear that these will apply immediately upon passage of the Ordinance, or only after each lot is rezoned to the DWP Overlay District. There are standards within the Ordinance that refer to requirements found in the Uniform Fire , Code. 1t is not clear from the text ofthe Ordinance whether an applicant would need to comply with the specific sections of the Uniform Fire Code if the Uniform Fire Code, itself, exempts the applicant from compliance with those standards. Of particular importance to Voith Sulzer is the provision of g l7.030(3)(c). Voith Sulzer is a two-building facility that is located on one tax. lot. 1t appears that the northern building is within the 0-1 year Time of Travel Zone (TOTZ), but the building on the southern portion of the lot is within the 1-5 year TOTZ. Voith Sulzer's use of hazardous chemicals (depending upon how that term is defined) is limited to the southern structure. When deliveries of hazardous substances is made to the facility, the substances are delivered directly to southern building. The Ordinance .. '". Mayor and City Council March 6, 2000 Page 4 generally states that tax lots having parts lying within more than one TOTZ shall be governed by the standards of the more restrictive TOTZ. However, there is an exception, allowing the less restrictive TOTZ regulations to apply when the "storage, use, handling, treatment, production, andJor transportation" of hazardous materials does not take place on the portion ofthe tax lot with the more more restrictive TOTZ standards. Determining whether the exception would apply in this case requires a very specific delineation ofthe line between the two zones, because V oith Sulzer would need to measure 50 feet from the line, according to S 17.040(3)(c)(2). How will that specific line be drawn for purposes of measuring? Also, under the scenario described above, would V oith Sulzer be disqualified from the exception simply because the delivery truck drives over the northern portion of the lot in order to deliver the substances to the southern building? What is the Council's interpretation of the word "transportation," as it is used in this section? As you can see, there are numerous sections of the proposed Ordinance that require revision. We therefore request that the City Council leave the record open for at least 14 days so that we may work with City staff to clarify the Ordinance's effect. Sincerely, (W"~I N, Emily N. Jrome " .f< , IP; '0'1;1 V l~'LC (VL>,-- ENJ/gb., cc: Client ./ .. ~ /