Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-26-2009 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes SPECIAL MEETING March 26, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Todd Samuel. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Todd Samuel, Chairman No. 2 James Hay No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 David Little No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Ray Rose No. 7 Tony Schouviller No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Vacant APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairman Samuel read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairman Samuel asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. No declarations were made. Chairman Samuel then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. Chairman Samuel asked the audience if there were objections to any commissioner hearing any matter. There were no objections from the audience. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairman Samuel explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Samuel swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: -1- A. Special Permit Remand Hearing on Location of an Asphalt Batch Plant (CPM Development Corporation) (11919 Harris Road) (MF# SP06-010) Chairman Samuel stated this report and testimony occurred at the March 19, 2009 regular Planning Commission Hearing. The public hearing was closed on March 19, 2009 and therefore no new evidence or testimony would be considered this evening. The City Attorney and staff are available to answer questions on procedure or issues raised in the staff report and during the public hearing. Chairman Samuel questioned the Planning Commission if they had any questions for the City Attorney on the procedure or process for deliberations. There was no response. Chairman Samuel questioned the Planning Commission if they had any questions for City staff on the staff report dated March 19, 2009 or any issues that were presented during the testimony. Commissioner Little questioned how the sum of $250,000 regarding traffic type issues was determined. Mr. White stated that figure was calculated at the time the FEIS was completed in 2006. It was based on a traffic study performed by CPM and that represents their portion of the needed improvements in that intersection that could be expected to occur if the application is approved. Commissioner Little further questioned that was a done over two years ago and would that consist of stoplights, additional lanes, street maintenance causing additional fees. Mr. White stated it would not, however there are extenuating circumstances that need to be explained. In the two years that have passed since the study was performed, the City will actually now install those signalized improvements to that intersection using funds other than funds contributed by CPM. CPM will contribute a like amount towards the reconfiguration of the intersection rather than the signalization of the intersection. Commissioner Little questioned if that money was required to be paid up front, or as necessary or immediately. Mr. White stated no it would be a condition that will be implemented at the appropriate time. It can be either money or a combination of money and like contributions. The proposed mitigation states following all plant permitting and at such time the City and/or private parties determine to construct the west portion of the intersection of realigned Harris Road at Road 100/Sandifur Parkway pay or contribute $250,000 for the cost of and improvements to the Harris Road realignment and intersection improvements. -2- Commissioner Little further questioned "like kind" projects of significant value and would their competitors be eligible to bid on those projects. Mr. White stated yes, it would be an ordinary road project. At the time the road project is undertaken CPM would comply with mitigation condition #12 either by contributing money towards that project or a contribution of labor and materials for this project or some other item related to the project itself, or both. Commissioner Anderson stated he has a concern if recommending approval for this special permit that ten years down the road there could be a significant improvement in technology that controls odor and noise on the plant. Would CPM be required to maintain the plant with the best available technology to suppress the odor and noise? He understands comparing the Richland plant to the proposed plant is light years ahead and his concern is that technology should be improved and included in the conditions. Mr. Kerr stated no. We are not the only regulating agency; the Dept. of Ecology is also a regulating agency. There is nothing to say as those changes in regulations take effect that they may impose those on CPM. We can impose the laws and regulations that are in effect now and since we cannot determine what may happen in the future we are limited on imposing future regulations and restrictions. Commissioner Anderson questioned if the City is giving up any regulatory control over the operation of the plant and will it be regulated by the EPA as far as the odor mitigation and noise. Mr. White stated no. The Dept. of Ecology monitors air quality and what is proposed in Exhibit #27 is a continuous odor response program. That has a significant City role involved in it. Commissioner Anderson understands that, his concern is that in five to ten years down the road or however long the permit exists for the gravel pit, he wants the best available on that plant. The City can say if someone wants to develop property in that area, here is a state-of-the-art plant that maintains the technology today that eliminates the odors and assures this is the best in this situation. He further mentioned that at the public hearing on March 19, 2009 stated the Dept. of Ecology would make them update the plant and his concern is he does not want the proposed plant to end up like the Richland plant. Commissioner Rose stated he does not see how we could predict events that might happen. We need to deal with the present situation and hold them to standards. Commissioner Anderson stated we still need to protect the residents. -3- Commissioner Rose agreed yes that is why we are here. He questioned Commissioner Anderson if he was implying that we would require CPM to get new equipment. Commissioner Anderson stated he is not saying that they would not need to replace the whole plant, rather set conditions that they maintain the best available technology for odor suppression and noise suppression on that plant and if they need to retrofit it, then they retrofit it. Chairman Samuel questioned Commissioner Anderson if they add a timeline for permit approval in five years to reevaluate the special permit would that be sufficient. Commissioner Anderson stated yes he would be in favor of such. Mr. Kerr stated they can put a reasonable time for review and expiration of the permit. The difficulty is with a project of this size, it has to likewise amortize out and make sense for the applicant. We cannot put restrictions that are unreasonable and which could literally put them out of business or make the business unprofitable or unaffordable. You can identify a reasonable length of time for the expiration or reconsideration. This is a unique situation due to the fact there a couple of other permits that are outstanding which gives them use of the premise until 2025. There will not be many opportunities to review the permit as suggested, but if they do propose a certain limitation, it has to be reasonable and based on evidence heard at the hearing. Commissioner Cruz questioned based on the CORP, are we allowed to charge a fee to cover the cost of additional monitoring that the City may elect to do. Mr. White stated there is a provision that allows for such where the City would be reimbursed for testing and monitoring as a result of a pattern of complaints. Commissioner Cruz questioned what type of restrictions we can place on operating hours. The noise study states noise confined within the facility not necessarily noise generated by additional truck traffic. Are we allowed to restrict certain hours for truck travel from 7 am - 6 pm for example. Mr. White stated he was not sure if we would be able to restrict operating hours based on the asphalt plant application because it would not cause a violation of noise standards. The truck travel question would be closely based on the existing permit which does not include hours of operation. Commissioner Cruz further stated the net increase in traffic was not discussed regarding mitigation of the additional traffic other than the flow of traffic stand point vs. a noise stand point. He referenced trucks backing up with alarms as early as 5 am is not pleasant. Mr. White stated Mr. McDonald mentioned there is evidence in the record that indicates the location of those trucks entering the plant will be different than the -4- current entrance which is further to the east and not directly in front of Rivershore Estates. Chairman Samuel stated there are several cities that have restrictions on hours of operation for asphalt plants and the hours trucks can travel to and from the plant and is in favor of adding such an item to the criteria. Commissioner Little questioned if it would be permissible to add a restriction which would allow for filling of the tanks during certain hours. Commissioner Anderson mentioned the effect of an inversion on the residents and would like to add a restriction to prevent filling of the tanks during an inversion. Mr. White stated he was not aware of how a condition like that could be monitored or implemented. Mr. Hood described a fiberglass type of filter among other additions that would remove the odor from the tank filling operation. Chairman Samuel mentioned to Commissioner Anderson it would be possible to add that as a special condition. Commissioner Anderson complemented CPM on their presentation and providing the information. He is opposed at this time due to the fact of expanding their operation in that area and is not needed. He is skeptical due to his experience driving through Richland and noticing the odor issues. He does not want to expose the residents in the area to that. They purchased their property with the understanding they were next to a concrete plant. They did not purchase their property with the idea of a hot mix asphalt plant built on that site. Commissioner Cruz also complemented CPM on the quality of the material and their presentations. The difficulty on this is the assertion that CPM is a good neighbor where as there early actions do not indicate that. The decision to migrate the Richland plant to Pasco causes a nuisance. Where CPM could have prevented the nuisance by making improvements to the Richland plant and would've mitigated a lot of energy on this topic. He further stated we have to accept what Judge Swisher ordered even though some of it is difficult. Looking at the basis for the decision and based on the information presented there are only a few areas where they have any latitude to do anything about it. The noise information is reasonable, background industrial hygiene is reasonable and all of the items presented are credible. After reading through the information for hours, he did not find any holes or flaws in their information. Discussions need to be focused on the responsibility and ability to influence and control the time of the permit rather than extending the entire time. After four or five years of successful operation and things change we lighten up on it and if the existing technology is good enough, then we don't require it. Granting ten years creates the situation like the Richland plant. He further states this does not stop with -5- the City; it goes to the Dept. of Ecology, OSHA requirement, etc. The majority of the concerns will be addressed through those agencies and their processes. Commissioner Rose agreed with Commissioner Cruz and does feel like the mitigation recommendations are quite generous. He has driven out there many times and has a feel for the area. He is in favor of proposing a time limit on the permit. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. White regarding the status of the continuous odor response program draft prepared by the City and the draft prepared by CPM. Mr. White stated the continuous odor response program submitted by the City (Exhibit #27) and the continuous odor response program submitted by CPM (Exhibit #28) which was withdrawn during the public hearing by CPM. There also was a form of continuous odor response program submitted by Ms. Hodgson (Exhibit #31). It was indicated in the staff report that would be a subject of refinement during this process and it still is. Staff and CPM are working towards producing the appropriate language to use for the continuous odor response program but incorporates the Dept. of Ecology notice of construction that incorporated dust control and complaint resolution. It is not finished at this time and will be produced for the Planning Commission when they formally consider what the recommendations will be. Chairman Samuel questioned Exhibit #27 which appears to be identical word for word after a program in Spokane, what else would need to be done and what type of changes would he expect to see between the draft and the final. Mr. White stated there is a concern that staff does not have the resources to identify some of the items for measurement that are contained in the continuous odor response program (Exhibit #27). There is also a concern, if something wound that tight in terms of what is going to be measured and how it is going to be measured and the thresholds for measuring are incorporated into the permit similar to what Commissioner Anderson spoke of may in fact occur. If something better comes along, it is better to base the permit on the Dept. of Ecology permit rather than on a land use permit that is fixed in time. If the Dept. of Ecology has enhanced standards over the lifetime of the permit, we do not want to lock them into a lesser standard with the land use permit. Exhibit #31 in essence eliminated the standards and said it will be a product of the Dept. of Ecology permit. Chairman Samuel stated in looking at Exhibit #27 and Exhibit #31 he prefers the City's proposal which went into much of the necessary detail and being patterned after a successful program in Spokane and communicates strongly that we have a lot of energy about this issue in regard to notification, how much time needs to go by when the City would be notified, and feels this has the teeth in it that the City and residents would expect if the City authorizes an asphalt plant to be operated. -6- Commissioner Cruz sided with CPM on this issue and a lot of the technical forms of testing things, the City would have to hire a consultant. He does like the idea of giving the City some transparency in teeth as complemented by the permit that Ecology will issue, especially in the frequency and response levels. As far as sending the City out to do samples and some of those other things would not be practical. Chairman Samuel questioned Commissioner Cruz regarding an approach where the City has proposed Exhibit #27 for the first 2-3 years and then if CPM operates they way they have advertise and we do not have any difficulty or complaints, then we back off of being this prescriptive and allow for language similar to what CPM or the consultant proposed. Commissioner Cruz does not feel that mitigates his original issue which is there are a lot of technical things that need to happen; air samples, getting analysis done, you would need industrial hygienists to do that. He does not want to put that burden on the City; the State is available to do a lot of those things. The City should have the teeth to deal with issues in a quick timely fashion and not develop an undue burden on everyone else in town to pay for the asphalt plant that we really don't want. Parts of this should be retained, but does not want to put the City in the business of Ecology's business. Chairman Samuel stated in the public hearing it was addressed the nearest Dept. of Ecology office was located in Spokane and asked it that was true. Mr. Kerr stated the state is divided into divisions and we are under the division that is administered from the Spokane office. There is an office in Yakima and that office applies to people on the other side of the river. Chairman Samuel further questioned if citizens have complaints or issues, if Dept. of Ecology conducted a spot review they would have to travel from Spokane to do so. Part of the reason this was listed as Exhibit #27, initially it was recognized that citizens have a lot of concern with this plant operating and the intention is to set up a very responsive, proactive response system vs. waiting for the State to handle the situation. Commissioner Cruz does not dispute any of those ideas, he does not feel the City should be responsible and should be delegated to the State. Asking the City to do samples, etc is out of hand in his view. He is not advising to give them free reign but instead let the process go. We have the ability to levy fines and penalties in the case they do not behave themselves. In regards to the State, just as we see in Hanford, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If Rivershore is up in arms, it would not be very long before the State is on top of it. Commissioner Kempf referenced Exhibit #27 would set a dangerous precedent for the City if they start going too far into regulating this industry. What happens to the industries near Lamb Weston and the homes out there? Are we going to start testing all their air once we receive complaints from that side? It -7- needs to be balanced just because people that reside there built after the plant was there. There are other places in the City that are going to have the same effect. If we put this on CPM then we would have to put this on other industries and it would not be good for our economy in the long run. Commissioner Hay stated there was a comment by one of the environmental experts that the response time is erratic at best when odors are noticed and reported. Is it a basic periodic drive by type of thing? If a person has a complaint what happens? Do they have to smell it for a while? Also regarding the filters, they have an outrageous maintenance requirement. What is the plan in monitoring these filters? Is there a way they can monitor them when they are clogged? When do they get changed? He is sure during their peak season in the summer, what is their process in changing them? Do they stop operations in the middle of a run and change them? Chairman Samuel stated he understands that in a continuous odor response program there are a series of measurements that are required. One would be a pressure drop across the filters and once the pressure drop reaches a certain amount, it is realized that the filter is not working correctly and it needs to be taken care of. Mr. White stated yes that is true and there is also a requirement for an Operations & Maintenance (O & M) plan. That requires record keeping, which is a requirement of the continuous odor response program and is certain it is part of the O & M plan. That is one of the things that is not only incorporated into our permit, but also the permit that the Dept. of Ecology considers. Commissioner Hay thanked Mr. White for clarifying that. He does not recall hearing anything from the applicant regarding an O & M plan. Commissioner Anderson referenced Ms. Hodgson's proposal where she mentioned RCW 70.94.200 and asked Mr. Kerr if he would be able to describe what that refers to. Mr. Kerr stated that relates to controlling, recovery, and release of contaminants in the atmosphere and in accordance of that statute on air quality control. He mentioned they needed to identify what mitigating efforts ought to be. The RCW which has been included would be a part of either of the plans submitted by the City or CPM. Commissioner Cruz mentioned the City has talked about double containment for the tanks and spill control plan. There are dangerous waste regulations and petroleum tank regulations that are similar and this is not the purview of the City. He feels keeping language as far as response times and the ability to inspect the records, etc. give us the teeth to go into it. It is not an ideal solution, but a reasonable compromise. It is not our business to regulate, rather focus on the parts we have the ability to regulate. -8- Mr. Kerr stated there was a question on the period of review for the permit and was reminded by Mr. McDonald that in each plan there are provisions that provide for revocation of the permit if they fail to comply with any of the terms. If the machinery or filters deteriorate beyond function or maintain their standard of specification as required, the applicant will then be brought to account and the permit may be revoked regardless the remaining time of the special permit. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Kerr if that would be an item the Code Enforcement Division would enforce. Mr. Kerr stated there a couple of mechanisms available for the City right now. The end and most drastic result would be revocation of the special use permit which would occur at a public hearing in front of the City Council. They are the granting authority as well as the revoking authority. There are number of other practical which would deal with compliance and violations which would be in front of the Code Enforcement Board. They have the capacity to require abatement as well as impose penalties for the violation. Commissioner Little stated whether they approve or deny the application, it is based on a number of conditions that are put together. Commissioner Cruz referred to code and it clearly states the City's decision is final. He suggested putting a fixed amount of time on the permit which would require a review and he would like to put a ceiling on the number of years for the permit. Chairman Samuel stated he wanted specific opinions from each Commissioner and whether he is in favor or opposed on approving the special permit. Commissioner Hay stated his concerns are regarding noise and odors. He has suggested limiting hours of operation to prevent noise during certain hours. He also mentioned monitoring filters and is concerned with odors. He is on the fence at the present time in regard to approving the special permit. Commissioner Anderson stated his position has been clearly stated and realizes given the fact that CPM has proposed to install a new state-of-the-art plant and with mitigation factors that have been proposed, plus the recommended review within five years he is in favor of approving the special permit. The reason he is in favor is due to the fact he believes we have won a victory for the residents in getting a new plant. If we had the old Richland plant that would have been a mistake. He thanks CPM for proposing the new plant with the new technology and it makes it palatable for him and his is in favor. Commissioner Kempf stated she agrees with Commissioner Anderson and thanks CPM for proposing the new plant with the proposed mitigating factors. She is in favor in approving the special permit for the new plant. She feels CPM are doing great things for the community and the people who live along the river as well as the neighboring residences. She does not believe they need any -9- additional factors; the trucks are going to be driving on a new driveway next to the freeway. Chairman Samuel stated he is proposing the wording on condition #2 from retrofit the new asphalt oil tanks and he suggests they state they retrofit all asphalt, oil, and cement tanks. Commissioner Cruz questioned why cement? Chairman Samuel stated in the testimony that he has reviewed odors came from both oil tanks and cement tanks. Not cement tanks from the concrete operation, rather the actual binding agents they use to make the asphalt or after the asphalt have been made in the storage tanks. It has been referred to in testimony as cement. He does want not to restrict any concrete activities, just enforce odor control devices on them. Commissioner Anderson questioned if that is already mentioned in the conditions. He understands there is one oil tank that ends up being the binding agent for the gravel, etc. and there is a 6 foot filter bed on top of that one and does not feel it is appropriate to add such a condition or change the language. Commissioner Little stated when using the word retrofit, that means taking something old and making it more doable. Being that this is a proposed new plant he feels that it is redundant. Commissioner Cruz stated the focus needs to remain with Ecology and make sure the intent is clear and that they do not allow any excess odors or any unmitigated odors. Language should be general and defers to the State and the State should understand what the concerns are when they go through permitting as efficient. Chairman Samuel withdrew his request to make a language change. His next request is for a new special condition which replaces condition #19 which states that the hot mix asphalt plant shall only operate between 7 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday and shall not operate on Saturdays or Sundays. Commissioner Kempf stated that would be too restrictive on the business and may hurt the company economically and it would be bad for the community. Commissioner Cruz agreed with Commissioner Kempf and is in favor of 6 am to 6 pm. The noise study states the plant will comply with the night time noise regulations which would allow them to operate the plant 24 hours a day. He is not sure what they are trying to achieve with a permit condition. Chairman Samuel stated there would not be asphalt operations going on other than the proposed times and evenings and weekends would allow for opportunities for odors and noise and everything else the residents have so much concern about, that would be a further mitigator of that risk. If it turns out the neighbors do not see any type of issue with that going forward, CPM la would like to come back in a year or two and say they would like to expand our operations and we have demonstrated we are good neighbors. Commissioner Cruz does not thing that is practical and stated like cement, asphalt has a clock on it, and it has temperature limits. You can't just stick it in the truck and let it sit all day long. Being overly restrictive will cause problems later on and will give CPM an avenue to protest the whole thing and that is not fair. He believes we have made a lot of headway and is supportive of time limits and does not want to get out of hand with it. Commissioner Anderson stated he totally disagrees with Chairman Samuel's proposal. He stated we need to rely on the City's noise ordinance, the Dept. of Ecology and by accepting his proposal it would be considered micro-managing this situation and putting undue business restrictions on CPM and believes that is not fair. Chairman Samuel mentioned they heard a lot of concern from the residents and would the proposed restrictions be significant enough? Commissioner Anderson stated he would agree with Chairman Samuel if their driveway would remain where it currently exists. He has not been made aware of any testimony as far as complaints from neighbors across the street regarding concrete trucks coming out of the plant at such times. Commissioner Rose agreed that Chairman Samuel's suggestion is considered micro-managing and it should be left up to CPM regarding their hours of operation. Chairman Samuel proposed that CPM would operate on a weekly basis a street sweeper that would sweep rocks and related debris off of Harris Road from Road 100 to the west entrance of CPM. Reason being there was testimony, in the beginning of this special permit application in 2006 that was causing damage to cars that would be required to keep that road clean by CPM. Commissioner Cruz stated the testimony mentions they have changed their practices. They mentioned they have to have 4 walls on a truck before they will fill it up. He visited the site a few days ago and it was not that bad, not that big of a deal. And he is not in favor of supporting Chairman Samuel's proposal. Chairman Samuel proposed that asphalt trucks exiting the site would be required to be covered without exception. Commissioner Kempf stated she has a problem with that due to the wind. And also that covering trucks does not control any odor. The wind around here kicks up pretty strongly and she feels that having tarps on trucks might come loose and would litter the roadway and be more of a hazard than a benefit. Commissioner Cruz does not feel tarping the trucks would not make a difference and trucks are going to smell some amount, some days more than others no 41- matter what they propose. Testimony stated they took samples off the trucks and one thing he struggled with in reading that was that it is a volatile compound so when it is cold it is not going to have the same aroma as when it is warm and they do not say whether it was warm or cold when they took the samples. They did state that at some point when a cold cap and effect covers it does cut the smell way down. Chairman Samuel stated the reason he brought it up is because a significant amount of testimony from individuals that they did not smell it at the plant itself, rather they did smell it when following a truck out of the plant or were next to a truck. He thinks that if there were a cover over those trucks where those vapors could not be blown by the wind and they would not be directly exposed to the atmosphere, there would be a mitigating effect. Commissioner Cruz does not see that happening. It is not a Ziploc bag. The one thing to remember is that the plant is set down and back away and cooling will happen before it even pulls out of the lot. Commissioner Anderson agrees with Commissioner Cruz and wants to point out the location of the driveway and the location of the residents is far enough which will allow for some cooling to take place. Chairman Samuel proposes that operations of the CPM plant be reviewed after the first year of operation and subsequently be reviewed every three years after that. Commissioner Little stated that is a little short sided and tends to think no longer than five years. A review in one year is too short and the sizeable investment that CPM is putting into this, you would assume they are going to run it as a good project and meet all criteria. Chairman Samuel questioned if he would be in favor of a review in five years. Commissioner Cruz stated he would support a review in five years and is a term that is used frequently and provides operationally reasonable amount of time for CPM to recoup their investment and we need to be mindful that we do not want to set the City up for further litigation. With the knowledge that we can provoke the special permit if the conditions aren't adhered to and CPM knows that on a certain date they are coming back for a special condition review and if the audience is full with people who oppose the plant, then there would be a legitimate basis for denying the permit at that time. Commissioner Anderson questioned if they put a five year review on the special permit, does that mean CPM would come back to the Planning Commission, a staff review, or how would that work for us. Mr. White stated he heard two different things. A five year review period and some indication of a five year term period and needs clarification on that. He 42 suspects that a five year review would simply be an examination of the history of any complaints, the history of the plant and anything that is appropriate towards making sure that the mitigation conditions have been met or adhered to. He does not see as reopening the entire issue again and making a discretionary decision on whether they are allowed to continue or not. It would be a review of the adherence to the conditions. Commissioner Rose questioned if that means it would be a staff review. Mr. White stated no, there wouldn't be any problems with it coming back to the Planning Commission for an update or that the information gets transmitted to the Planning Commission somehow. Commissioner Anderson mentioned holding a workshop to discuss it if there were complaints and then they could recommend a hearing. Mr. Kerr stated there would have to be a reasonable expectation at the end of five years and CPM would know what they need to prepare for. If their permit is simply subject to expiring and burden of starting the process all over again, they would need to be made aware right now. If the five year is simply a review for compliance with the terms and conditions of the existing permit, then a review would be conducted with a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission which would determine whether or not they have fulfilled the mitigation of it. If they have not, then the question is if they would be subject to revocation for failing to live up with the terms. If they have, then they would continue approval and then go on for another five years. There needs to be clear direction on what alternative the Planning Commission suggests. Commissioner Cruz stated under the review process it does not give them the same ability to influence technology. That is continuing on with the same set of mitigating actions and performance and is not opposed to it; rather he wants to understand the difference. Mr. Kerr's suggestion should be kept in mind as far as the expectation because they do not want to be overly punitive they want to be responsible. He is ok with either and just wants to make sure know what they are getting out of either choice when they have the discussion. Commissioner Anderson favors a review with a public hearing and reviews any complaints as well as review if CPM has met the mitigating conditions. If they have not, then they would recommend to the City Council that they revoke the special permit. He does not feel CPM would not need to go through this process again. Chairman Samuel stated his proposal would be that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing in five years. CPM would present how the plant is operating, staff would provide testimony as to the number of complaints, and the public would be able to provide any testimony. That would allow for the Planning Commission to decide if there are issues and what direction they would need to go. 1a Chairman Samuel proposed to revise the storm water and spill response plans for the site to address new hot mix asphalt activities. CPM would submit them to the City for review and approval prior to the hot mix asphalt plant activity and initiation. The reason being when the operations are over, a lot of the plans he has seen turn into a marina or where water develops. His concern is having control over rain water, storm water and spill should be a big deal which ensures the future of the site. Commissioner Cruz agrees and mentions that SPCC which is in active legislation. Franklin County PUD had to put berms and containment around all transformers located a certain number of feet from the river. The one just down the way from the plant on Court Street had to undergo this. That is a part of the States permitting process. The likelihood of a spill from a transformer wouldn't be called high but at $25,000 to $30,000 a pop they are subject to the same kind of rules and regulations. It is not under the purview of the City it is under the State. Commissioner Anderson referenced it is present as #8 in the proposed conditions. Commissioner Little mentioned the hours of operation from 6 am to 5 pm with the option to extend if a massive project needs to expand past those hours. He would not want operations on Sundays and if on Saturdays hours would be from 7 am to 3 pm. He does not think the $250,000 is not sufficient and the City may need to reconsider. Commissioner Anderson does not agree with hours of operation. Reason being the plant will operate March through the fall. When they have a project they need to be able to put in the time to get the project done. Time is money and he referred to the fact the trucks will not be running by any residences. The noise level of the plant is at or below the present levels that are currently going on. The berm and other mitigation conditions already are going to be applied and he feel they are trying to micro-manage their business. He does want to protect the residents and he does not feel that will significantly protect the residents in the area. Commissioner Hay feels it is too restrictive. Commissioner Kempf feels it is not their job to dictate their hours of operation. Commissioner Rose is opposed to restricting the time from 6 am to 6 am five days a week. Commissioner Cruz took into consideration the realities of construction projects and they are mostly done at night. They have a need to operate at night to feed construction projects. He is not happy about it and Commissioner Anderson brought up the access road being further and feels that is not a reasonable option. 44 Commissioner Anderson stated the new interchange at the Blue Bridge will cause the bridge to close for paving and if we restrict their hours, we take away their ability to operate their business and that is not the role of the Planning Commission. Chairman Samuel stated the special condition would not be added. Commissioner Rose was originally opposed to the general idea and now with the proposed mitigated measures they are more generous than expected. He is in favor of the special permit. Commissioner Cruz stated based on citizen concerns he is not in support of the plant. He does not believe CPM would cease to operate in the Tri-Cities if they were not allowed to put their asphalt plant here in Pasco. A lot of the energy did not have to occur because of choices CPM made in the past and the current situation is their doing. He reiterated that the focus is on giving the City the leverage for ongoing requirements and regulation by the State and not duplicating. He feels CPM should pay the City a fee for the special permit to ensure the citizens are protected through those avenues. Most of the mitigating actions are ok and the evidence they provided is sound and supports the case. If we focus on giving the City the ability to respond appropriately and quickly we can demonstrate protection of the citizens. With the time frame of the permit, whether it is for review or expiration, we have given CPM all the incentive to be the good neighbor they say they are. Commissioner Anderson questioned on which odor response program they are going to recommend. Chairman Samuel stated it is currently listed as a special condition #3 which implements a continuous odor response program. Exhibit #27 was discussed and decided it was too restrictive. Commissioner Anderson questioned Mr. White if this was sufficiently broad enough to negotiate with CPM and create an odor response program the City would be happy with. Mr. White stated yes, he stated the kind of assurances the Chairman and Commissioners are referencing can be incorporated into the special permit. Which will still leave the technical enforcement piece to the people best equipped to do that, which would be the Dept. of Ecology? What is really important is that the continuous odor response program has a local face on it which would be the City. We would have a proper relationship with CPM so that any complaint will be resolved quickly and a paper trail would be created for all that occurs. Commissioner Anderson stated that was his concern and further mentioned the relationship with CPM and the City in the past compared to the present and he now has faith it will work out the best for everybody. 1S Commissioner Cruz states he has a lot of faith that the City staff can work something out with CPM and gives them the opportunity to do that when this comes back for approval. Commissioner Rose questioned if this has been advanced to the State Dept. of Ecology to see what their opinion is on the odor control. Mr. White stated no it has not but will after the resolution of the land use process. Commissioner Rose further stated the City is not in a position to get into the sophisticated business of odor evaluation. Chairman Samuel questioned City staff if they had sufficient guidance to develop the Findings of Fact and the special conditions. Mr. White stated yes. The staff report introduced a number of mitigating measures. The most complicated among those is the continuous odor response program. Many of the other will be left to State jurisdiction and in essence we do not have to double our efforts as long as we propose a continuous odor response program that incorporates their ability to enforce the technical aspects of the permit. What is important is that there is a manner for the City to be involved in a complaint resolution process and that we are working closely with CPM to make certain that we have the right procedure in place to accommodate that or to come to resolution quickly with the importance to be able to review the permit and having a punitive hammer in case the conditions are not adhered to. The Planning Commission is looking at approving the plant with the proper mitigation measures and then the City will bring back the findings many of them are perfunctory, and then the conclusions and a draft of the responses the Planning Commission can consider for the criteria that is important for the special permit application. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. White mentioned training from the Washington State Insurance Commission for land use liability is available to the Commissioners. With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:23 pm. David McDonald, Secretary Ira