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