Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Miscellaneous 5/1/2000 , , 'I, 'I.. VOITH SULZER PAPER TE.CHNOLOGY Voith,Sulzer Paper Technology 'North America, Inc, Service Division Mayor and City Council City of Springf1eld 225 Fifth St. Springfield, OR 97477 Spril1(llieldServiceCemer 28850lympic'Streel po. Box 846 Springfield. OR 9747i Tel: (541) 726-5014 Telefax: (541) 746-9573 May'!, 2000 'Re: Article J7-Drinking Water ProteCtion Overlay District Dear Mayor and Councilors: We appreciate this opportunity to comment again about the draft Article 1'7. As before, we continue to support the policy objectives of Article 17, We also very much appreciate the City Council's willingness to consider improvements to the draft ordinance, as well as City staff s efforts in proposing changes to the draft. ordinance to address some of the concerns which have been raised during the past public hearings, .. We have reviewed the r~vised draft which became available last Monday" Although the newer version is a definite improvement over the original version, we continue to be concerned with some,portions ofthe ordinance, To address those concerns, we have prepared some minor revisions, which we have enclosed, Some of the revisions are merely intended'to clarifY provisions bas~d on the staffs stated intent for those provisions (for example, by taking part of the "commentary" and inserting it into the description of Article 17), Other amendments offer minor substantive changes which previously had been shared with staff but not incorporated into staffs reVIsed draft, "} ',- Since the revised draft of the ordinance only became available last week,we have not had an opportunity to share our suggested amendments with City staff. Nor have we had ari opporttmity to 'share our suggested amendments with all. of the businesses that might be affected by the amendments or the draft ordinance, However, we fIrmly believe that if the Council intends to act tonight on the draft ordinance, the Council should include each of the attached seven amendments, Below is a brief description of those amendments, . (l) CodifY the stated intent of the ordinance, Pait,of the commentary. included with the revised draft addresses one of the significant concerns of some busiqesses, To ensure that the commentary d,o~s not get "lost" in the future, .this particular part of the comn,entary should be 'incorporated as part of section 17,020 of the ordinance, which consists of a description and .intent of the ordinance, , (2) Lots With Multiple' Time of Travel Zones - Tile ordinance provides that if a site is located in more than one time of travel zone, the site is governed by the more restrictive time of travel zone standards, However, w.here a building or process is or will be located entire Iv in " VOlT" SULZER 'PAPER TECHNOLOGY Mayor and City Council May I, 2000 Page 2 the less restrictive, time of travel zone, the standards for that less restrictive time of travel zone should govern that particular building or process, Otherwise, the Council would be necessitating lot line adjustments, partitions or other unnecessary legal work in order to ensure that a building not be governed by standards from a different time of travel zone, In addition, clarifying changes should be made to the Exception already contained in section I7,040(3)(c) for the reasons expressed in the April 28th letter submitted by Kingsford and Clorox companies, (3) The "trigger" for when a DWP application is required needs to be clarified, The commentary makes clear that an application is filed only where (I) a site is affected by a change ofland use occupancy or tenancy, by a building pennit, or by a development application; and (2) the previously-described action will either affect the storage, use or production of hazardous materials, or will increase the quantity of hazardous materials stored, used or produced, The language in the draft ordinance, however, does not clearly reflect that both of these requirements must be met. Draft amendment language is offered to make that language clyar. (4) The ordinance should exempt existing environmentally responsible businesses, Amendment language is offered that would provide that a business which meets all four of the following conditions would be exempt from Article 17: the business (I) existed prior to the effective , date of Article 17; (2) has had no unpennitted releases of DNAPLs into the environment within the past five years; (3) has in place a plan for responding to spills of ha7..ardous substances; and (4)uses no more than 25 gallons of DNAPLs during any 24-hour period, Such existing environmentally responsible businesses ~hould not be forced to go through the expense and delay of a DWP application in order to expand, (5) The standards in section 17,070 need to be clarified, At a minimum, the term "use" needs to reflect the stated intent that "use" for purposes of Article 17 means land uses, Therefore, "new uses", and "change of use" ,should be revised to state "new land uses" and , "change ofland use," Similar changes should be made wherever that tenn is used, In addition, other changes, reflected in the testimony of , --< Mayor and City Council May I, 2000 Page 3 (6) (7) Andrew Poynter, should be made, , , Appeals should be allowed whenever an applic!tnt is dissatisfied ~ith the director's decision ona OWP application or on the granting or . . , . denying of an exception to the time of travel zohe, Section 17,090 of the draft ordinance currently provides that "th6 only portion of this " t article that is subject to appeal is section i7,06p, exemptions," The Council should allow affected businesses the right to appeal decisions affecting their businesses, I, II Finally, the definition of "hazardous material',: for purposes of the , ordinance should',be narrowed to be consistent vJith the stated purpose of the ordinance, To do so, the definition should be revised to define hazardous materials to include (I) ONAPLs; apd (2) other specifIc individually listed chemicals or substances on a list maintained by the director that are not ONAPLs, but which the dirJctor determines ha<:e a significant potential to degrade groundwater qVality, The ordinance should provide that such terminations would h~ve to be based upon I ' chemical-specific data, and be preceded bY, public notice and opportunity for' affected parties to coinment. In addition, the determination should be eligible for appeal to the hearings official. Again, we appre~iate the Council' swillingness to appreciate the input of affected businesses, and staffs efforts toward trying to address some of the concerns that businesses have raised, We, " . " would be happy to sitdown with you and your stafft~ further.improve the draft ordinance, , . " C\:el~l "~ ' ~ cry~ c't'.~. Jim Spear, ,I, . ,,' " I, ~1 Amendments to Revised Draft ofDWP Ordinance · ~Odify stated inte~t: ;ncorporate the fOllO~ing langLge - taken from the revised draft's -~ ~ommentary" (see back side of page 8 of revised draft of ordinance) - as a new subsection (3) to section 17,020: ,~ ~'l~~. Article 17 is not intended to prevent existing companies, including those companies that use DNAPLs, from continuing or expanding their operations, Instead, the intent is to prevent an increase in the maximum quantity of DNAPLs on a site at anyone time, As an example, a company wishes to build an addition and increase the quantity of DNAPLs used, The company could submit a DWP application, The application would show that the company is not changing the type of use of the DNAPL. The application would also demonstrate that the maximum quantity of the DNAPL on site at a given time would not increase, which could be accomplished by scheduling more frequent deliveries, Such a DWP application would be approved under Article 17, Apply less restrictive TOTZ standards to buildings or processes located eutirely in less restrictive TOTZ: Add the following language as an"exception to section 17,040(3)(c)'s requirement that a site located in more than one TOTZ is governed by the more restrictive TOTZ: EXCEPTION: Where a building or process is or will be located entirely'in the less restrictive TOTZ, the standards of the less restrictive TOTZ shall govern that b~ilding or process, .. In addition, revise 17,040(3)(c)'s existing Exception ~o protect tax lots having multiple TOTZs from being required to meet the most stringenfTOTZ due to an existing use: EXCEPTION: Unon annlication, the Director may shall waive the 'requirements that the more restrictive standards apply when all of the following apply: (I) Storage, use, handling, treatment and/or production of hazardous materials, previous Iv subiect to 17,050, do will not take place within the portion of the tax,:lot having the more restricti~e TOTZ standards; and (2) [retain existing language]; and (3) [retain existing language]; and (4) the Director finds that the waiver will not unreasonablv comoromise nrotection of I!roundwater.. ~ Clarify the "trigger" language for DWP application to reflect stated intent: Amend 17,050(1) to read as follows: ' ,,' (I) A DWP Overlay District Development Application shall be required only where the criteria of bO,th paragraphs (a) and (b) are 511/00(4:00 PM) met: (a) A site is affected by one of the following: (I) there is a change of iand use, occupancy or tenancy of a property, including but not limited to a change from vacant to occupied; or (ii) a building permit application is filed after the effective date of Article 17; or (iii) a development application, including but not limited to Site Plan review and Minimum Development Standards, is filed after the effective date of Article 17, (b) The action in paragraph (aYabove will: (i) affect' the storage, use, and/or production of hazardous materials; or (ii) increase the quantity of hazardous materials stored, used or produced, ~~ . Exempt existing environmentally responsible businesses: Add a new subsection (3) to section 17,060 (Exemptions) to read as follows: (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of Article 17, a business' operations at a particular site shall be exempt from all of the provisions of Article 17 if all of the following standards are met: (a) The business was operational at the site prior to the effective date of Article 17; , (b) There have been no unpermitted releases of DNAPLs into the environment at the site within the past 5 years, For purposes of this paragraph, "environment" means outside a building (a spill within the building that does not reach the soil does not constitute a release); '(c) The business has in place a plan for responding to spillsof hazardous substances; and (d) The business uses no more than 25 gallons ofDNAPLs during limy 24 hour period, \jJ~. \ 5/I/OOt4 00 PM) Clarify approval standards in 17.070, Andrew Poynter's testimony will identify problems (Y- J ~/ " "', .:'. ": with some of the approval standards, Inaddition to those, the Councij sho'uldclarifYthe section by ,changing ",use" to "land use"; so, for example, "new uses" should become "new land ,uses", a~d "cha~gliof use" should become "change of land use:" Allow' appeals of Director decisions, Amend 17,090 (Appeais) to allow a person dissatisfied with a Director decision ona DWP application or denying an exception on TOTZ .' to appeal that,decision:' ' , . 'l., - .... Narrow definition of '~hazardous material" to be consistent with stated purpose: Revise defi!lition of "hazardous in S~ction 2 of the Ordinance to iead as follows: HAZARDOUS MA TERlALS: For purposes of this Article 17, ,"hazardous materials" means (1) DNAPLs; and (2) specific chemicals or substances on a list maintained by the Director that are not DNAPLs but which 'the Director determines have a significant potential to degrade groundw,\ter quality':' Such det~nnin~tions (I) must ,be based upon chemical specific data and be preceded by public' rioticdmd an opportunity to comment, and (2) shall be eligible for appeal to the He<lrings OfficiaL , , .. '. 1" " : "J,. . : ~ " , 5/1/00(4:00 PM) ""