The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-19-2009 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING March 19, 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: Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, that the minutes dated February 19, 2009 be approved as mailed. The Motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: -1- A. Special Permit Daycare/Preschool (Jigsaw Development LLQ (6200 Block of Burden Blvd.) (MF# SP 09-002) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff explained that during the public hearing last month the Planning Commission raised some concerns about the impact of this facility on restaurants serving liquor, the standard language prohibiting objection of issuance of a liquor license from this facility; night lighting and landscaping of a screening hedge or small fence that will prohibit lights from cars reaching into the neighborhood. Chairman Samuel questioned if there was an example of a daycare/school with 250 children in such close proximity to a residential neighborhood. Staff mentioned there is a new school Maya Angelou Elementary, is located in the Columbia Place subdivision. That school is required to place a barrier between the parking lot and the homes to the east for lights, noise, etc. All Elementary Schools are located in the middle of residential neighborhoods with the exception of Captain Gray. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf that the Planning Commission adopts the Findings of Fact as contained in the March 19, 2009 staff report. Commissioner Anderson further moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf based on the Findings of Fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Jigsaw Development LLC for the location of a daycare/pre-school in the 6200 block of Burden Boulevard with conditions as contained in the March 19, 2009 staff report. Staff stated this item would go to the City Council at their first regular meeting in April. Staff briefly explained the appeal process. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Remand Hearing on Location of an Asphalt Batch Plant (CPM Development Corporation) (11919 Harris Road) (MF# SP06- 010 Chairman Samuel read the master file number and made introductory remarks on how the hearing would proceed. In August and September of 2006, the Planning Commission held a series of public hearings and deliberations on a request for a special permit by CPM Development Corporation to move the existing asphalt plant located in Richland, WA to their gravel pit operations -2- located at 11919 Harris Road, Pasco, WA. The applicant presented documentation and testimony from a number of recognized professionals that stated that no probable significant adverse environmental impacts or any that could be mitigated would occur from the operation of their proposed asphalt batch plant with their proposed mitigation actions. Planning Commission reviewed their written documentation including the Final Environmental Impact Statement together with oral and written testimony from the applicant as well as a large number of citizens who participated in the meeting. The Planning Commission took all this input and combined with their experience and fact finding and concluded that there was an unacceptable probability of adverse impacts on citizens living in the vicinity of the proposed asphalt plant. Further the Planning Commission concluded that the operation of the proposed asphalt plant was not a complimentary activity in a location zoned residential transitional and bordering on a commercially zoned property. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council deny the request for a special permit for a plant in this location. City Council reviewed our deliberations and voted unanimously to deny the request for the special permit to operate the asphalt plant. CPM Development Corp. appealed the City Councils decision to the Franklin County Superior Court where upon looking at all the evidence the Court remanded or sent the matter back to the Pasco City Council for further proceedings on CPM Development Corp. request for a special permit. Based primarily on the Courts following findings, the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to reexamine the facts. 1. The findings contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement that was prepared under the direction of the City of Pasco concluded that the asphalt plants operations would result in no significant impacts. 2. The City of Pasco has permitted several other industrial activities to be performed in this general area including the concrete batch plant and the roof truss fabrication facility. 3. The area proposed for the asphalt batch plant has been specifically designated in the City of Pasco's Comprehensive Plan as a mineral resource area. 4. The applicant currently permitted by the City of Pasco to operate the proposed location as a gravel pit for the next 17 years. CPM Development Corporation has made a number of changes to their special permit request primarily they are no longer proposing to move the Richland Asphalt Plant to Pasco, rather set up and operate a new state-of-the-art asphalt batch plant which we will hear the details about this evening. With the background information, we are here this evening to hear about CPM Development Corporations revised special permit request. Our deliberations tonight are focused on the new additional information relating to the applicants proposed state-of-the-art asphalt plant and the operational environmental impacts that are affected by proposing this new plant vs. proposing moving the -3- Richland plant to Pasco. The Planning Commission wants to stay focused this evening on the understanding the following: • The impact of the plant design • Odor control • Noise control • The height of the plant and related impact mitigation activities such as landscape berms, etc. • The impact of the odor response program We are here tonight to receive input, ask questions, and to receive testimony from the public so that the Planning Commission can make a well reasoned recommendation to the City Council. In order to facilitate these proceedings the hearing will be conducted in accordance with the following protocol. • The City Planning Department will provide a brief staff report identifying issues raised by the new information relating to the hot mix asphalt plant. • CPM Development Corporation will present their revised proposal, including any witnesses. • The Public will then be invited to give oral testimony. There is a transcriptionist recording the hearing and when speaking at the podium, speak slowly and clearly, state your name and address for the record. All comments should be made by individuals who are recognized by the Chairman, at the podium address your questions/comments to the Planning Commission. While there is testimony received at the podium, no member of the audience will be allowed to interrupt or disrupt the proceedings of the Planning Commission. The public will be given 5 minutes for oral testimony, if more time is needed, you will be allowed to come up again after others have had a chance to speak. After public testimony, CPM may make rebuttal testimony and will be given 10 minutes for a final statement. City Staff will also be given 10 minutes for final comments. The hearing will be closed at that time and then the Planning Commission will decide if deliberations will be held at that time or schedule for another time and date. Chairman Samuel asked staff for comments. Community 8s Economic Director stated the last page of Exhibit 7 should be removed; it was an inadvertent copy that was slipped into that exhibit. Exhibit 24 had 2 identical photographs and the correct page 2 has been provided at this meeting; strike the last page which was a copy of the City's tax rate which was inadvertently added by mistake. Exhibit 29 is a letter received by email. -4- Community & Economic Director stated that tonight the Planning Commission will consider testimony relating to issues that are addressed in the FEIS Addendum which are related to odor, noise, the height and construction design of a berm, and a continuous odor response program that are associated with the installation of a "GENCOR" plant which is a state-of-the-art or equivalent at the West Pasco location. As you mentioned it comes back to the Planning Commission by way of a remand from City Council. In October, 2008 City Council adopted Ordinance 3109 and essentially remanded this issue back to the Planning Commission consistent with our special use permit process so that the Planning Commission could consider the impacts about the state-of-the-art hot mix asphalt plant and any appropriate mitigating measures. Rick White, Community 8v Economic Director stated that Section #8, Page 3 of the Staff Report identifies the special permit criteria that the Planning Commission is charged with making a determination about based on the evidence submitted and on the record. There are 6 issues here and you will be analyzing what you hear tonight and what you have before you in your packets and what you may receive as additional exhibits in light of these 6 special permit criteria. Mr. White stated the additional new information directly relates what is contained in the FEIS Addendum which was prepared in late winter of 2008 and distributed in February 2009. The state-of-the-art plant is a GENCOR plant or better or equivalent. It is something called a counter flow design drum mix plant and what that means is the aggregate is heated by a burner flame it is then transported to a position behind the burner flame where it is mixed with asphalt cement. That is different than the Richland plant which had basically this process occurring in the same mixing chamber the heat, aggregate and the asphalt cement application. The plant is designed so that the vapors and emissions produced through this process are reintroduced into the burning chamber so that they are used as fuel and that the dust that comes from the bag house collection system is reintroduced into the dry aggregate mix so it's not lost into the air. Since the plant is a new state-of-the-art plant the noise analysis is based on a GENCOR style plant that has a more sophisticated design particularly for the burner and the mixing chamber and that of course is contained in the FEIS Addendum. The noise produced by the plant will meet the PMC day and night time regulations. The applicant may want to call any experts that are present so that any of these issues may further examined by the Planning Commission. The FEIS Addendum identified that height of the plant would be 64 feet opposed to the original height of the Richland plant at 54 feet which caused the staff to ask that the identification and construction of the berm be included in the addendum. That has been contained in your packets. The berm has been described as roughly an average height of 15 feet. There are plantings that would take place between Harris Road and the berm itself. The berm would be landscaped with a rye grass mixture as a soil holding stabilizer. The Addendum describes the continuous odor response program referred to as the CORP. The CORP is a system a hierarchy basically of reporting that would -5- take place if a complaint were received. It is important for the Planning Commission to note that on your list of exhibits, you'll see exhibit 27 and 28 and they are two different versions of the same CORP that is enclosed in the FEIS Addendum. One is a City proposal and one is a similar proposal received from CPM. Staff believes the criteria for a special permit can be met and that the staff recommendation is that the Planning Commission directs staff to prepare findings and conclusions in support of the request after appropriate deliberations and to consider the development of mitigation measures as appropriate. Chairman Samuel questioned Exhibit #11; a report of Mr. White's visit to the very near identical plant in Auburn, WA and would like Mr. White to briefly describe his visit. Mr. White mentioned he and Mr. Kerr made a visit on September 5, 2008. They visited a GENCOR 600 plant which produces 200 tons an hour more than the proposed plant for Pasco. It was a clear day in Auburn; the plant inspection was made around 12 noon, approximately 68 degrees in temperature, little wind. Mr. White and Mr. Kerr received a briefing from CPM on the plant mechanics and compared that to the Richland plant. They physically walked up the gang plank while it was operating standing next to the drum and proceeding later to the area where the aggregate came in and the where the cement was injected down below. They also walked around the perimeter of the plant. They toured the area where the oil plants were located at and they followed an asphalt truck out of the plant itself on the way to interview citizens that live in the area. In preparation for the trip to Auburn; research was done with the Puget Sound Air Quality Control Authority's complaint log. They had a very good idea of what locations in Auburn experienced complaints from the plant. There were several citizens from the complaint log that were still residing in those homes. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. White's observation regarding odor control and noise. Mr. White stated the noise level as they approached the plant was surprising low even standing up to the mixing chamber where the internal burners were operating, the mixing chamber was rotating and gravel was being loaded into the chamber, conversation could still be maintained. There was a slight asphalt scent while walking next to the mixing chamber. The asphalt odor became more pronounced at the base of the hot asphalt storage tanks and the loading facility. It is also where a spill had occurred which had been covered by gravel without a noticeable odor. The strongest odor was noticed either directly under the filters or at the gravel loading facility which is raised approximately 30 feet above the plant level and downwind from the filtering unit. The odor was only present within about 100 feet of the filters. The loading facility which dumped the finished product unto a waiting truck trailer did not present a noticeable odor at a distance of approximately 60-80 feet. Other than close proximity to the filters, the only place the odor was -6- noticeable was following a fully loaded truck off the site until the asphalt cooled sufficiently to create a surface shell. Chairman Samuel questioned the conclusion in interviewing residents around this plant. Mr. White stated Exhibit #11 references that a number of residents were not aware of the plant. There were several residents in the past that had issues with odors. Three of those residents were interviewed. One lived on a street on Jasmine Lane that had indicated he had filed 3-4 complaints in the past 20 years about odor, particularly in the morning during weather inversions. The second interview on 53rd Avenue stated they were actively opposed to plant operations and submitted neighborhood petitions about complaints prior to the end of 2005. She had not had an issue with odor from the plant since the new operation started-August 2005 and actually meant August 2006. There were nine interviews taken and some residents that were aware of the plant had no complaints, the others were not aware of it. The residents reside between the State Park, White River, the plant site and the road itself. Chairman Samuel questioned the distance the residents lived in what proximity to the plant. Mr. White stated residents to the southeast lived approximately 1/2 a mile from the plant and the residents which resided on the numbered streets lived approximately 3/4 of a mile. Commissioner Little questioned how the complaints were handled. Mr. White stated this location has an Air Quality Control Authority which enforces air quality and they have their own system of investigation which provides a separate agency specifically for that purpose. Chairman Samuel asked Central Pre-Mix to provide an update. John Ziobro, 1333 Columbia Park Trail, Richland, WA a local attorney representing CPM stated as a preliminary matter has sat in Mr. Kerr's position for several years with the City of Kennewick. He appreciates the role of citizen volunteers who sit on the Planning Commission to represent the community interest on projects. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding which is a tough job when you are not a lawyer or judge to sit there and "kind of act like you are a" judge. He is not trying to talk over or under the Planning Commission; he wants you to understand he appreciates some of the difficulties you may have tonight. He is happy to come before you and they support the position of staff with the exception of the CORP program which was identified by Mr. White. They do appreciate the efforts staff has made including the trip to the Icon Plant. Mr. White also did a well job explaining how this matter ended up back in front of you. One impression we had is that in 2006 there was a fundamental disagreement about whether the plant could be permitted and diverted some of -7- the attention from the focus CPM had about how to mitigate and provide assurances to the staff, the public and the commission on how the plant might properly be located at this location and those concerns could be addressed. They feel like they have a better opportunity to come before you to discuss and mitigate impacts and address the concerns the citizens have. They have brought a group of experts on emissions, noise, and HMA plant process and hopefully can answer any questions they might have. There is a good State Supreme Court opinion that actually originated from Pasco. Sunderland Family Services vs. the City of Pasco on a conditional use permit. A lot of times special use permit and conditional use permit can be used interchangeably. The underlying theme of that case is that the special use permit or conditional use permits are to accommodate uses that are beneficial to the public at large but may have a more undesirable impact on the surrounding neighbors. The focus of that case wanted to emphasize that uses are permitted rather than prohibited and they are subject to the right of conditioning. And only when they cannot be conditioned can they be denied. Standing before the Planning Commission tonight, they can represent you that there may be some impacts and they have been identified. The other case cited by Judge Swisher was the Maranatha mining case. Which stands for the proposition that generalizes fear and unsubstantiated claims cannot form the basis of denying a permit. Again that goes back to the task before you, if there is objective evidence that there is a problem or basis to critique the scientific or technical data, those are things that should cause you concern. This is not a popularity contest; it is more of a technical analysis of will this project have any impact on the surrounding neighbors. The real starting point for that are the FEIS and FEIS Addendum. Through that process, the impacts have been identified and conclusions have been reached through an independent consultant that those impacts can be mitigated. Tonight the focus is on the four issues in the FEIS Addendum which includes; testimony on the odor control mechanisms, testimony on noise, the height of the plant, and the mitigation associated with that and the use of the berm as both a visual screen. The evidence will also show mitigation of noise impacts. Judge Swisher also focused on the fact the City has an FEIS document and it says there are no significant environmental impacts which are an important theme to keep in mind. The FEIS must be considered when applying the City standards. One thing that is unique about this hearing is you will have a lot of applications that come before you and there is no discussion of SEPA because they are exempt and in those cases, your six use criteria are the sole guide for whether you approve the permit. In this case, the SEPA process which also is tailor made to identify and mitigate those impacts and in this case, you kind of have to merge those two together because it just would not be proper to say well we did an FEIS and there is no impacts, yet when we applied the City of Pasco conditions of approval we find that there is an impact. So one of the things we hope you can appreciate is we kind of have to put the FEIS and the City's approval criteria together and at the conclusion of this when we sum up, we can provide what we think are findings that fit the City of Pasco use criteria. The other thing that Judge Swisher commented on, even though the neighboring property is zoned -8- residential, the gravel pit will still remain in this area and it is an authorized use through 2025 and that the City would have to deal with this fact. Doug Migas, 99003 E. Whidbey Drive, Kennewick, WA, Plant Manager of the Richland plant stated he has been with the company for 16 years and has been located at the Richland plant his entire professional career. He provided a picture of the model plant which is located in Eugene, Oregon that is the same as the proposed plant for Pasco. He also stated it is not fair to compare the 1970 era Richland plant to the proposed GENCOR plant. The technology is different and literally decades ahead in design of the Richland plant. The most notable feature is the counter flow drum design as opposed to the parallel flow design in Richland. A GENCOR brochure has been provided with details on how these drums work. There is a huge reduction in the amount of emissions and odor that escapes into the atmosphere during production. There is a RAP mixing system which provides the ability to add reclaimed asphalt pavement, otherwise known as RAP, is far superior to what they currently use at Richland. Essentially, the separate mixing chamber exists in the new GENCOR drum away from the area of the flame and allows the plant to operate without any visible emissions. The GENCOR also features the totally enclosed burner which allows for a quieter operation and the general air tight design results in a much more effective blue smoke system and limits the emissions you see from the conveyor and the top of the silo area. The new plants are awesome with the emissions, energy efficiency, as well as the ability to process RAP. The HMA industry as demanded asphalt plants, have the ability to operate in areas and not attract attention to them. Commissioner Little questioned if Mr. Migas would be the manager of the Pasco plant and what business hours were expected. Mr. Migas stated the production season runs from early March to the middle of December. It is heavily dependent on the workload and weather. A typical day starts at 6:30 - 7:00 am and as early as 5:00 am and ends around 2:30 pm Monday through Friday, an occasional Saturday and very rare to conduct business on a Sunday or at night. Steve Diambra, Diambra Equipment 200 Valley Court, Lincoln, CA represents GENCOR industry and has been in the industry for nearly 30 years and has witnessed dramatic changes in technology. New technology has been driven by environmental issues which; eliminate smoke, lower emissions, handle dust and odor control. Commissioner Anderson questioned introducing RAP into the GENCOR plant, which causes odor and asked for an explanation. Mr. Diambra stated the RAP is introduced behind the flame so it does not come into the hottest part of the drum. The older technology that you would see in a parallel flow drum similar to the Richland plant, you introduce the RAP into the flame area which creates a lot of smoke and odor which was an environmental -9- issue. That prompted the change to counter flow technology to add RAP and higher percentage RAP. Regarding the odor, Mr. Diambra was not familiar with regard to the literature on odor. Commissioner Anderson stated it was included in an exhibit or letter that mentioned someone was in the area when RAP was introduced and expressed the opinion that there was odor at that time. Mr. Diambra was unaware of such. Commissioner Anderson further questioned if RAP was ground and how it was introduced into the drum. Mr. Diambra stated it is similar to the virgin aggregate that goes into the end of the drum where the RAP material comes in on a conveyor belt and is crushed down to 1/2 inch minus material similar to the aggregate and is introduced into the center of the drum behind the flame process. It then mixes with the liquid asphalt and the hot aggregate. Mr. Diambra further stated he was involved with the ICON operation in Auburn, WA and they did have a parallel flow drum similar to Richland. They did receive complaints from the neighbors regarding odor. Changes were made and the complaints dramatically reduced. Bob Hood, Filter Technology, 4080 SE International Way, Milwaukee, OR stated his involvement with this is regarding the vapors that come off of the hot melt/hot oil tanks which is a source of the odor. When they are filling the tanks, the odor is greater than just sitting still. Vapors still fume from the tanks. They built a piece of equipment which is referred to as a fiber bed which is basically a tightly wound very fine fiberglass which is wound 3 inches thick to a 15 pound density. That contains approximately 98% of the vapors from that system. This process has been upgraded over the past 20 years. 80% of their equipment is oil related and mostly relates to roofing plants and asphalt related systems for ship load outs and truck load outs, etc. Oil is the more common use for this equipment. A unit was introduced 3-4 years ago at the Perry plant and contained a 12 pound density fiber bed which was replaced with the 15 pound density fiber bed. Commissioner Anderson questioned how long the product existed on the Richland plant. Mr. Hood stated the first one was introduced 4 years ago and it consisted of a three stage carbon bed which had maintenance issues. It was replaced 2 weeks ago due to the carbon bed was not repairable. Commissioner Anderson questioned the efficiency of the old version. Mr. Hood stated it was anticipated to achieve 90-95% efficiency; they are currently at 98%. la Commissioner Anderson questioned if it emits odor what would be the distance the odor would be perceptible. Mr. Hood stated it would not be noticeable within 30-50 feet. He compared your bathroom fan at home multiplied by three would be similar to the volume of air that would blow from there. Commissioner Anderson stated as recently as this summer, driving by the Richland plant, he has smelled the odor. Mr. Hood stated the odor that was tested came from the older design of the plant and the actual trucks leaving the plant. Commissioner Little questioned if the filter system maintained a 98% efficiency at all times. Mr. Hood stated generally the reason to replace is during the off season where it tends to gum up due to the amount of heat that goes into the system during the summer to clean up. It is a coalescing filter and even though the media is 3 inches thick it collects on the outer 1/4 inch and it gathers there as a vapor and it begins to coalesce and it drains down into the tank. Generally the reason it begins to fail is over the shut down period where it turns into a tar and it plugs up and that causes the need to replace. Kristen Wallace, Environ International Corp., 19020 33rd Ave. W, Suite 310, Lynwood, WA conducted the noise analysis which was included in the DEIS, FEIS and FEIS Addendum. The noise limits that are applied to the proposed plant are the most stringent because Pasco applies them based on zoning and the site and surrounding properties are zoned for residential use they are subject to the residential source affecting residential receiving property limit which is 55 decibels during the day and 45 decibels at night. Night time noise limits are applied during 10 pm and lam and because CPM is proposing to operate occasionally starting as early as Sam, the night time noise limits would apply during the hours of Sam to lam. The benefit is that because CPM now needs to comply with the night time noise limits between 5-7 am, they essentially comply with those stricter night time noise limits during all daytime operations as well. They will be very quiet during the entire day. For the Addendum to the FEIS, she was asked to address what changes there might be to the overall noise levels with installation of the GENCOR plant instead of the old Richland plant. She has reviewed the noise data from the new GENCOR plant and recalculated the sound levels at the receptors that she had previously looked at. The GENCOR plant the noise levels at all the surrounding residences and residential properties including the nearest resident directly south of the plant complied with the night time noise limits. The highest level was 44 decibels and was well below the ambient levels in the vicinity and with the GENCOR plant the increase was generally 0 decibels and at 2 locations was slightly less than 1 decibel (.6 or .7 decibels). A less than 1 decibel increase in noise is indiscernible even in a controlled laboratory setting and in an active 41- outdoor environment it is just not discernable at all. It should be noted that these calculations were done without any benefit of the proposed 15 foot high berm. It was still in a conceptual stage and it wasn't necessary to show that the plant would comply and be a very good neighbor and not cause a discernible increase in noise. In preparation for this hearing, she went back and remodeled with the assumption there was a 15 foot high berm and found that the noise levels from the plant and the associated loader and trucks was 6-8 decibels lower with the berm. Without the berm the noise levels are complying and are lower than ambient. With the berm, the highest noise levels were 37 decibels at the nearest residence south of the site. At all the other locations, it was 34 decibels or less which is extremely low and well below the ambient levels and results in 0 decibel increase in noise. She confidently states this asphalt plant will operate very quietly and will not result in discernable noise increases. Chairman Samuel questioned where the noise data comes from. Ms. Wallace stated noise data was provided from the GENCOR folks for the 400 TPH Ultra plant. They had multiple sound levels taken in areas around the plant. Chairman Samuel questioned if the measurements were originated from GENCOR or a consultant hired by GENCOR. Ms. Wallace did not know. Beth Hodgson, Spring Environmental, 1011 N. Cedar Street, Spokane, WA is a consultant for CPM as well as a variety of different industries and has permitted or negotiated or in the process of negotiating 12 plants in Washington State. Her role is to negotiate it. She works between the regulators in the facility to identify what the plants can do as well as how much the regulators can get into the permits. Ecology regulates currently 736 toxics and they actually have revised their regulations to focus on chemicals that are toxic by inhalation and to focus on the air quality area. She has been a member of a community group of 30 that was working with Department of Ecology agency to revise the regulation. Ecology goes through a continuous process of revising the requirements for different plants. For instance, a facility that is permitted 5 years ago has less stringent requirements than a facility permitted today. They go through different requirements about technology, what types of reporting, what information and what parameters can be monitored. She was asked to look at Exhibit 27 with an eye to see what this going to do for the City of Pasco and the impact on the facility. One of her concerns was looking at the list and the way it was drafted, it would take a lot of resources on the City's part if you actually put it into permit and write it. Her understanding is that the City is interested in protecting the citizens and their health. You can write terms in the final order that get across the point about having the odor plant, about having the proper control equipment in place for the minimum requirements that have been discussed. Without having to speciate that you would have to train someone on staff to do odor testing, or that they would have the expertise and the credibility to stand 42 up against a PCHB if there is a dispute on it. Ecology already has to go through that, they have requirements for the inspections. Their process when they go through permitting, they have to go through a process of identifying the emissions of all the sources, which some of the questions were already related to. Identify the source of the emissions; identify the control technologies and identifying for today's standards or two months or a year from now what the best available control technologies are. That is a minimum of what they have to put in the permit and that is the process that they have to go through for it. There is a public comment period on that as well, it is either a 15 or 30 day public comment period unless a public hearing is requested on that. When that permit is issued, they do have requirements to do follow up and Ecology has requirements that depending on the size of the facility, and the ramifications as a minimum they have to inspect the facilities to do an unscheduled and un- notified inspection every 3 years. In addition, they also have requirements. One of the questions was relative to complaints and what kind of response would come from complaints. They will do an initial response on it; it may not be instantaneous which is sometimes a concern. You call in at 6 am Ecology does not have staff there. They do follow up on all of them and they do follow up on what the basis is of them. Basically, there is a proposed language for Exhibit #27 which would minimize the resources you might have to apply to it but will still cover the core conditions of what you are looking for in an order. It actually covers all the components in there it just gets some of the minutia out to allow for Ecology to put it in with the most current requirements. Chairman Samuel stated in reviewing the City of Pasco's proposed instruction in this area, is it a workable plan or is it an erroneous plan on the City's part, who would encounter the difficulty in executing the plan? Ms. Hodgson stated it would be erroneous on the City from the point of there are several components on there that, she does not live here and does not know how often the City gets to go out and follow up on drive by's and training their staff to do odor inspections to go through permit reviews. Part of this is CPM is going to have to negotiate terms with the agency. She understands the City wants to have participation on what the permit terms are as well as what the source testing requirements are observing the source test. If there are conditions that are written in this order that are less stringent or written differently than what Ecology puts in the final order you are going to end up negotiating terms in that final order that are going to be different than what you have in here already. The intention of the proposal has 8 or 9 terms, but the intention is not putting a minutia of what the number needs to be or what the terms have to be in the O & M plan to let Ecology define that. You can stipulate you want an O 8, M plan on it. She is suggesting from the point that having a lot of terms in there will make it for someone to go to the site and follow up with each of those details is going to take a lot of time to verify that there is an O & M plan and that Ecology has done it that you can locate it on will make it a lot easier on City staff. 1a Chairman Samuel questioned if the particular terms have been adopted by other communities in the State of Washington. Ms. Hodgson stated no, actually special permits or conditional use permits the only requirements seen in the 12 plants she has done in Washington as well as several in Idaho have simply stated they have to comply with their permits. They do not have such stringent details on what has to be in the permit or what has to be an additional reporting requirement. Commissioner Anderson questioned with this brand new state-of-the-art, where are we going to be 30 years from now, is DOE still going to require them to use the best available control technology and retrofitted on it, or somewhere down the line it is getting worn down a bit... Ms. Hodgson stated they would not have to retrofit it unless they expanded their facility and again that is one of the criteria if you increase your emissions then you have to comply with a review of the best available control technology. Commissioner Rose stated she refers to herself as the negotiator but is not entirely clear as to the nature of your employer. Is this a non-profit organization? Ms. Hodgson states she works for whoever the regulated facility is, CPM in this case, but she comes into it with experience with a variety of different plants, different companies, CPM is not the only company she works for, she works in different industries. One is bringing in experience in reasonable terms, what's been done in another place; there is a concern about odor. The continuous odor response plan that was originally drafted was something that came from another facility or adapted from another facilities approved plan. So part of it is being able to adapt her experience with other companies to those facilities. She negotiates between her clients CPM with the regulators. They have to meet the minimum criteria of the regulations, but the actual language is something they work through together. Mr. Steven DiJulio, council to Mr. White asked to inquire Ms. Hodgson how a public agency response to an odor emission would be effective from an agency out of Spokane. Ms. Hodgson states Ecology has requirements to travel to the facility. They actually do have to follow up, it does follow through from the question of if they get a call at 6 in the morning and they do not get until 8 when they get in, they will schedule a site visit. Whether or not it is that day it won't necessarily be, but they do follow up with the facility as soon as they get the complaint. So that is the first follow through of do you have a problem, what's going on at the site. Then they do drive-by's throughout their jurisdictions on a regular basis. A regulator stopped in at a Colville facility and was driving through at another facility and they just dropped in unannounced. 14 Mr. DiJulio further questioned the probability that that inspector would observe the odor in that delay in responding from Spokane or from other locations. Ms. Hodgson stated the complaints are not a onetime occurrence for facilities that have problems. If a piece of equipment is broken and then is fixed, it does not show up on the inspection. If it is a recurring basis, not operating correctly, not maintaining the filter beds correctly, the filter bed is degrading, not changing the filter on time, which would show up with their inspections. Chairman Samuel questioned how prevalent that these type of plants are receiving complaints. Ms. Hodgson states she works with 12 facilities. The changes from the carbon system to a filter technology, the source of odors are more related to aerosols than to gaseous materials. Part of her study was to identify where the sources of pollutants were coming from as well as what were the sources of odors. That was the only facility that she dealt with that had a lot of complaints and they were relative to innovative technology at the time and it was not the right technology. Jana McDonald, CPM Engineer that works with company personnel to make sure the company meets or exceeds environmental regulations stated: There are 92 sites in Washington, Idaho and Oregon that she works with. She described a real experience involving CPM and a hot mix asphalt plant in a neighborhood. The comment letters and photos reference the Perry quarry in Spokane. This site is 167 acres surrounded by residential lots which have been developed. The access road goes through the residential property. It is a quarry, hard rock deposit which consists of blasting the material. Pasco would not have to blast; it is an unconsolidated material which is able to retrieve with a front end loader. The Perry site has been in operation for over 50 years and was originated as a 43 acre site. This site is designated as a mineral resource area under the GMA. It has been operated by various properties including CPM under lease from the owner. Over the history there have been several portable or temporary hot mix plants that have been operated at the facility. Activities at this site include blasting, crushing, processing, and asphalt plants. In 2005 CPM acquired the property and proposed the installation of a hot mix asphalt plant on a permit basis. Prior to this, the last time a plant had operated here was in 1999. During the last 50 years, residential development nearby the Perry quarry has increased and moved closer to the site. Based on what was learned in Richland and Pasco in 2004, Inland proposed that the Perry site the same model but an older used 1994 version of the GENCOR counter flow plant with the same environmental controls that are controlled here. The Perry plant had existing development in 2005 when CPM installed the older plant. Now the entrance to the site is lined with recently approved residential developments like Perry over the years the development has moved closer to the Pasco site and like Perry there will probably be more coming. The differences are that here there will be a new plant at Perry the plant was a 1994 used plant installed in 2005. Here CPM has proposed a new version of the Perry hot oil odor control device. It is a simple design that works better than the original equipment that was designed in 4S Richland in 2004. In 2007 based on a source test results at the Perry quarry on the plant they requested an increase in their annual production. They were able to do this because the plant passed the source test and was below the air permit conditions and standards that allowed the increase. Even after the increased production, there were no odors due to the fact they have the right equipment for the job and they believe this to be true for Pasco as well. In September of 2008, the Perry quarry permits were expanded from the 43 acre site to the 167 acre site. The entire property had previously been designated as a mineral resource. For the hearing there were over 100 notices that were sent out to the surrounding property owners. The criteria for that hearing were 400 feet from the property boundary. Only 5 people attended that hearing and spoke. They did not mention odors from the asphalt plant, their concerns were regarding the blasting at the site and the fact they were unaware their homes were near a site that was designated a mineral resource of long term commercial significance. At Perry they chose the equipment that not only meets ecology standards but that from experience knew would be good for the neighbors. Inland has a proven track record with this plant. It did not and does not produce off site odors. One impression to leave with you tonight is that Pasco is not a test case. They are not newcomers to the issues, but leaders in the industry and are proposing a plant with environmental controls that work. That is the kind of neighbor they like to be, one that complies with the regulations. They are confident that they will be successful in operating a hot mix asphalt plant that is a good neighbor, not a nuisance. The nearest resident to the site is 1000 feet to the plant. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Thorpe's role in the process. Robert W. Thorpe, 705 2nd Avenue, Suite 710, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that he prepared the Environmental Impact Statement when the process started, the City asked for consultants to send qualifications. Three firms were interviewed and based on the experience of this type of issue and writing such EIS's they were selected to write the draft and come to the hearings, take testimony, respond to it, write the final response to the agencies, incorporate all the technical reports for the technical consultants and also applied their expertise in land use, noise, landscape architecture berms and that type of analysis. They prepared the FEIS, and pursuant to the court order were again contacted by the City and they prepared an FEIS Addendum addressing five questions. There were originally nine issues in the draft EIS and they were reduced to two issues. Chairman Samuel asked Mr. Thorpe to summarize any relevant experience with environmental review of hot mix asphalt batch plant applications. Mr. Thorpe has had experience in all sorts of gravel extraction, coal extraction and the associated uses that rock crushing, rock blasting, the cement plants and asphalt plants at those facilities throughout the State of Washington on a continuous basis for 30 years with expanded environmental checklists or EIS's 35-40 reports for this type of operation, maybe 4-5 of them had asphalt batching plants. Ora Chairman Samuel questioned in the context of this permit to explain the relationship between the GMA, the City's Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code. Mr. Thorpe stated that is one of the special criteria in the special review permit, is it compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states this is a natural resource area and is mapped as such. The underlying zoning says that it is a residential area, but the GMA says it is a natural resource area and says that use should be exhausted before the ultimate use occurs. This is typical in most codes where you take the timber off first, and then you take the gravel, rock or whatever the natural resource is, you may refill this site with material from sites and eventually you build the housing, shopping center, the golf course or park. The City's code is fairly clear that the Comprehensive Plan has precedent over the zoning code under GMA and it says it is a natural resource. At the time the resource is exhausted, the underlying zoning would come into play for the use of the property. Chairman Samuel asked Mr. Thorpe to briefly summarize the purpose of the FEIS Addendum as opposed to the FEIS that was prepared in 2006. Mr. Thorpe stated the FEIS covered odors and dust, noise, pollution, traffic impact, groundwater quality, fire and explosion and based upon the review by the Corp and the decision by the City, it was reduced to five issues. Two relating to odor, number one is the description of the odor minimizing features of the new state-of-the-art plant and the odor control processes and number five which is how the continuous odor response program would be implemented. The second thing was a relook at the noise with the new state-of-the-art plant, the location of the facility at approximately 330 foot level at the bottom of the site and then how that height of 65 feet would sit at that 325-330 feet, in simple terms the height of it would be even where the road is upon entering the site. The very tip of it would be just below the road. What would the earth berm do for visual, land use, use of the residence next door and what would happen to noise effects and other effects. They are registered landscape architects and this is often what they do in the permitting of these facilities is suggest mitigation. The berm is not only there for noise, light and also the vegetation it creates a transitional zone from two unlike uses. The Planning Commission often thinks of it as an industrial zone and a transition zone or a single family - multiple family - commercial. This creates in the area a 15 foot high berm and that would double the size of the very low berm which is 5-8 feet which would be planted with evergreens and they suggested paupers because of the 40 year life of those. They have water on site that will be pumped uphill for irrigation and they can use the overburden for the berm so they are not importing. They suggested in the FEIS which was then not agreed to, but at this time the applicant has agreed to that mitigation element of the berm. The noise analyst and other analyst were able to use our analysis to determine how that would change odor or noise impacts. 4'- Chairman Samuel asked Mr. Thorpe, based on the evaluation reported the conclusions that were reached. Mr. Thorpe stated in the FEIS he found there were no significant impacts and that they could be mitigated. He also helped prepare the SEPA guidelines years ago as a SEPA Official and using the language in the SEPA guidelines, it says mitigate means to soften not to totally avoid. Some people say if you put something there, you need to totally avoid it. If you look at noise decibels, it is reduced, if you look at odor, it is reduced, if you look at the visual impact, it is reduced, if you look at the transitional, that speaks the land use transitions and the protection of the single-family area next door, they found there were no significant impacts. The impacts have been mitigated and in the sum have been significantly reduced for air quality or at the level or below for all other impacts. In conclusion, the conditions set forth in the FEIS Addendum and the draft FEIS could be incorporated in the special use permit and speak to the six criteria to support the compliance with those criteria to issue the special use permit. If you put a condition in the EIS you have to assume it is probably going to be a condition unless it is appealed. Everything in the FEIS documents is addressed and contained regarding the criteria for compliance with the special use review permit. SEPA becomes a big part and piggy backs with the special use permit. Chairman Samuel asked for a description of Mr. Thorpe's relationship between conclusions reached and conducting the FEIS and FEIS Addendum and the City's permit approval criteria. Mr. Thorpe stated he spoke to the goals and policies that they adversely do not affect public infrastructure, the road mitigation of $250,000 for road improvements speaks to that, location and height of the construction of the site would not discourage development where you will not be able to see below the roads and the surrounding area and the berm. The EIS covers noise and fumes which shows they are equal to or less than the ambient area. Vibrations, dust and traffic, there will be watering of the site, paving of the road, the traffic, low wash lights and hours of operation. In terms of public health safety and welfare, it will not be a nuisance and traffic mitigation and conditions state that all the issues can be addressed and the criteria can be met if all of the conditions in the FEIS and the FEIS Addendum are applied to this permit process. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Thorpe if the application is approved what his opinion would be on the existing condition compares to the post build condition. Mr. Thorpe stated the Richland plant which is old and is the same wind rows and the fumes will travel in the same general pattern. By moving the plant and having new equipment, odor control, noise control and placing the plant down in the bottom of the facility, building the earth berm and doing all those things and the monitoring programs that are set up, you will have a significant improvement over the Richland site and a substantial improvement over what was proposed in the FEIS in the summer of 2006. 49 Commissioner Anderson questioned the mitigation items that were discussed were primarily been to the south of the proposed plant. Given the prevailing winds what is Mr. Thorpe's opinion on the impact of the condominiums to the northeast of the site and the housing developments in that area. Given the proposal of the new plant and the odor control, etc... Mr. Thorpe stated view wise, he has not gone out there and looked at the road and taken a profile, but does know there is a higher profile between when you drop in the pit. From his recollection from driving to see where the water is pumped he is not sure if they could see that. As far as noise, there will be 1 decibel at that distance and you will not know it particularly considering the ambient or background noise. In terms of air quality, they have shown a significant reduction in smell and as the experts has testified. It has been reduced significantly as distance increases. The properties to the north the distance away emirates the impact and it becomes insignificant or non-existent by the time it reaches those properties. Commission Anderson questioned if Mr. Thorpe had a house there would he live there. Mr. Thorpe stated yes. Reason being there is a lot of talk about valuation of real estate and he teaches classes at the State level, he is the author of the COMAC I 8v II that states there is no diminishment of value for any unlike use surrounding it, there have been dozens of studies. He has lived near these facilities, state highways, and arterial with a park downhill. He would not have a problem and the general idea of diminishment of value is a false concept. The use has existed when people started building houses and it has been there for a long time. There is a constructive notice to someone who wants to buy in that area. He stated you could turn your house away from it and a wall could be added. He has a strong disagreement with that assertion. Mr. DiJulio questioned for clarification if Mr. Thorpe agreed that the GMA demands that a local government regulations be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan unless and until those development regulations are in fact adopted, the currently in place regulations would apply. Mr. Thorpe agrees with Mr. DiJulio that they are supposed to update to be consistent but until the time they do the ones that are in place are required to look at and rule accordingly. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing. Bob Link, 4604 Shoreline Ct., Pasco, WA states he is an interested party that lives in the Rivershore Estate development that is immediately across the street from the CPM site. He has provided written and verbal comments for the Planning Commissions consideration and deliberation on this matter. Regarding the FEIS Addendum he appreciates CPM's now implied commitment to the supposed improved technology his underlying issues remain the same. There is 49 no compelling reason for the scope of operations is significantly broadened beyond the sites existing limitations. Without significant economic impacts and surrounding property values and continued growth of the residential area supporting the development of the western region of the City. The first note where the deficiency in the Addendum filed is the lack of treatment of the already acknowledged emissions from the filing operations of the trucks. This is a significant source of emissions of gasses and odors and is essentially ignored in the Addendum. This is in reality both a significance source that is not treated and as a mobile source is not restricted to the site. By their own admission, the number of trucks as sources both during the filling and transport returning empty to the site during the filling and leaving constitutes no worthy sources of emissions and odors not dealt with and a significant impact on the neighbors surrounding area. Additionally while the plant stated technology reduces the noise and odor for the production as compared to the original proposal, it does just that, reduces the impact of the site and the surrounding area. It does not negate it, it mitigates it at best. He urges the commission to seriously consider visiting an operation plant reprocessing RAP material downwind and personally experience the odor and noise prior to making their final decision. He supports economic development in the City and feels it should be done with the consideration and location which makes most sense for the City. He did purchase his property knowing CPM's existing operations were there. He does put up with the current noise at 5 am with the gravel and cement operations which require him to raise his voice for a simple conversation at his home. Additionally, with the increased scope of activity in the proposal, the additional noise and odor do nothing to maintain his property value and in fact he still suggests a net increase in the overall for the City of the placement in this location where there are more appropriate already zoned for this type of situation in the City. He respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission deny this application of the special permit. If they accept this special permit, he urges that the Planning Commission consider the following conditions: No operation of the plant earlier than lam; Do not advocate the responsibility to the Department of Ecology; limit the term of the special permit to 5 years to allow for reassessment of the operation of the plant and its impact of the surrounding area and the City's growth in that area; with regard to the Corp, require that all complaints be reviewed by the City Council with potential for suspension of the permit if they are not adequately reconciled and all costs of the program to the City be supported by its operation of the plant. Raymond Kohne, 6016 Mia Lane, Pasco, lives upwind of the proposed plant and his main concern is the odor. He stated they have been presented new and old information but feels they fail to tell you that the old plant has the best technology that they can put out today to stop the odor and it is not doing it. He agrees with Commissioner Anderson that when he drives by the Richland plant he can smell that. Growing up on a farm he is familiar with air inversion where airplanes were restricted to fly chemicals and if this plan is granted, he would like to see a restriction on operations on days that there are air inversions. 2G Shirley Dunlop, 10107 W. Court, Pasco, stated that she and husband purchased their home in West Pasco in 1995, due to the beauty, pastoral quality, the homes in the area, and the large lots. She pointed out that the plant appears to be isolated with no fancy homes around it. She questioned if the plant would be a 24 hour operating plant and what are the specs on any fumes leaving the plant. She was diagnosed with asthma and the slightest smell such as dust could cause an asthma attack. With elderly people living in the area with breathing problems, children playing outdoors, if her health worsens or any other person in the area, who will be responsible for the bad health. The intersection at I-182 and Broadmoor Blvd is terribly congested and will become busier with increased truck traffic from the plant and would create more noise. There is a bike path in the area which is frequented by runners, walkers, cyclist, as well as fisherman along the river. She further described that exercise raises the heart rate and you ingest more air, and she questions what that will do to people who love to exercise in that area. She believes this plant will affect property value in that area. She also mentioned the joy of sleeping with the windows open at night and questioned the thought of what kind of air is that. CPM wants to combine the Richland and Pasco plant for their convenience and at the residents' inconvenience. Bart Gallant, 12999 Shoreline Road, Pasco thanked the City for their bold decision 2 years ago and wants to draw your attention to the fact they would be living with a version of this plant which has been openly decried as the dinosaur and they would not have a do over if the decision was made where they found subsequently in question. He asserted that the appropriate weight has not been given to the issue of air inversion in that zone. He has raised cherries for the past 23 years and knows how frequently the micro climate is inverted. It is probably the most inverted micro climate within a 30 mile radius. Any activities which would occur at the CPM site are suspended in the air mass until the inversion lifts or if there is enough air mass movement to evacuate the result of their activity. He has had a long time relationship with CPM and states this is very difficult for him due to the fact he has had a good relationship over the years and at each turn he has been asked to put up with greater and greater inconvenience for the benefit of their commercial enterprise. He states he is an advocate of private property rights and believes they have crossed the property line and have diminished his property rights. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Gallant regarding the proposal in building a berm and landscaping the berm which will make the facility unsightly and his opinion on the risk of odors and any other inconvenience. Mr. Gallant stated the berm coincidentally is designed to shelter the plant from the south exposure. He stated his 205 acres that is adjacent to the west of the CPM site has nothing to gain from the currently configured proposed berm. Barbara Conrady, 12621 Jaylene Way, Pasco, stated they are new residents that retired and relocated from California. She and her husband were disappointed when they learned there was a proposed asphalt plant. Her main concern is -21- regarding the prevailing winds and feels it is ludicrous that residents would have to put up with odors. She would like the Planning Commission to consider that there are no guarantees and the area was designed for residential and states CPM could locate somewhere else and not in a residential neighborhood. Brian Dawson, 4008 W. 341h Court, Kennewick, states a year and half ago purchased a lot in Rivershore Estates with the intent to build and move there within 3 or 4 years and when their children were older and they were not afraid their children would drown in the river. At that time, they were aware CPM was there and they were only hauling dirt at that time which caused little noise. His biggest concern is the odors that would emit from this plant. He wants his children to be able to play outside and this would greatly affect his decision to build a home in this location. The property values have gone up in the past couple of years and they are seriously considering not to build due to the potential decision on this plant. They assumed the plant would move on over the next few years and development would continue with new homes, new commercial retail, and maybe a golf course or hotel. Their belief is that building a hot mix asphalt plant would discourage that future development and put it on hold for 15 years and make everyone in the area upset. Based on the proposals they have given, they have not addressed the odor issue very well. They do state they have a gold star rating for energy efficiency, maybe due to the fact they consume less power, but they do not state they will cut down the odors. He stated he and his wife drove by the Richland plant a couple of days ago around 5:30 in the evening on Aaron Drive and they rolled down their windows and they could smell the asphalt without the plant operating at that time. It was from the piles of gravel and the tar on the machines. The City sewage treatment plant is right next to that and you cannot smell the sewage. He strongly recommends that the Planning Commission denies the proposal. Jerry Roach, 10316 W. Court, Pasco stated he has submitted a written letter and three things that were said tonight, one issue was regarding the property value, the trade off is reduced value for homeowners in the area vs. increased revenues to the plant due to the fact they will not have to haul further to do the work it should do. He understands this can be done somewhere on Glade north and should be looked at by this group. The second issue is regarding the length of time the special permit should be granted for, and rather than give it 30 years, he agrees with the suggested review in 5 years to determine if there are things that can be done at that time. He is strongly opposed in granting this special permit. The third issue is regarding the air inversions where he has experienced over the years he has lived on the river. He feels the problem will continue if this is allowed. After three calls and no further response from the audience, the public hearing continued and CPM was allowed a rebuttal period. Patrick C. Jordan, 3055 NW 84th Place, Portland, OR 97229 states he is a commercial real estate appraiser with offices in Portland and Kennewick. He has been asked to estimate whether or not any damage to the market value of the 22 bordering residential properties would be expected from operation of the CPM plant. He has a B.S. in law, Masters in Business Administration, and has been appraising commercial property and residential properties for 40 years. He has operated 26 subdivisions at the same time on the west coast. He has been an advisor to the Oregon legislature in plan use developments and plan use development legislation. He summarized that the problems experienced with the quality and location for example if you live next to a golf course and the sprinklers go off at 4:30 in the morning and it bothers you even though you knew about it. His understanding in the law in the State of Washington that each of the purchases of the property under the zoning in place, in their deed there is a very expressed statement about the effect that the plant is in place and many other related things could go on even mining and a lot of noise operations. They have been alerted about that even during refinancing. He visited the Perry plant in Spokane and wanted to see a real operation of the plant. He stated the plant is sitting right adjacent to a multi-million dollar new planned unit development. Investors spent millions upon millions of dollars to install this planned unit development next to an operating asphalt plant and quarry where they have blasting. The houses along the edge were appraised at $600,000-$800,000 a year ago and their property to date is less than that for reasons that have nothing to do with the operation of the plant. Part of his research of the Perry plant found there was no history of complaints from residents or from continuing monitoring governmental agencies regarding noise or odors from the plant disturbing adjacent residents. There is also no history of any proof that any sale of any adjacent residential site has been negatively impacted by the operation of that plant. He measures what the market says about a piece of property and he finds no conclusive evidence that this will negatively affect property value. The plant in existence is not operating and you would have to look at the value of the property before and then look at it after the plant has been running, you would have to prove that is tied to the plant. Today there are no before sales or after sales which gives nothing to measure. He has studied the substantial data developed by the noise and health and environmental consultants that was provided by experts. He believes that at the best of their ability there is no measureable increase in the noise with any distance at all. The plant will be 1000 feet from the nearest house, 600 feet off the new road which starts several blocks east of the subdivision and it will be down in the pit which is a substantial distance below the current surface, there is the berm and the trees on top of it. There is nothing for him to use to measure if anything is wrong or will be wrong. In 2001 the EPA stated that hot mix plants are not a major environmental problem anymore and are not something that they regulate directly on a day to day basis. He mentioned a study from a lady who is a PHD from MIT who lectures on biological engineering at Harvard on a regular basis that emissions are too small to affect public health. In conclusion, there is no measureable basis for estimating a possible future loss in value caused solely by installation of this plant. There is no sales data available. Laurie Pinard, CPM Development, P.O. Box 88050, Tukwila, WA 98138 stated she has been involved with this proposal since 2004 and it has generated 2a concerns from the general public as well as City staff not familiar with this business and hot mix asphalt operations. The existing Richland plant is an older plant and is not a good poster child for this industry or their company. Mr. Ziobro commented the last time they were before you they were not in agreement with staff and as you know, staff has recommended approval. They have agreed with the mitigation proposed by staff with the exception with the odor program which is proposed as Exhibit 27. They withdraw Exhibit 28 from the record. The plant can be permitted to address the concerns during this process they have listened to concerns and have continually addressed them. The questions you have tonight relate to plant design and odor control. The EPA no longer feels that asphalt plant emissions are something of concern that needs to be monitored. The Washington State regulations are very protective, emission standards are set at property boundary and those standards are 1/1000th of what is allowed to be exposed to a worker working a lifetime of 40,000 hours. The workers two years ago were perfectly healthy and indicated they have worked in this industry a long time. They talked about a continuously improving plant technology and you did not know what they meant. They meant something like the Perry plant. You now have information before you and these plants are award winning, they do not have regulatory violations and they do not have neighborhood complaints. The new technology addresses concerns of odor and the IKON plant had complaints and after the new plant went in the complaints were quiet. The only improvement was the ULTRA flow plant which did not include the odor control device on the asphalt tanks. There has been mention of odor from truck loading and from delivery that is a small percent of emissions which has been testified by experts. There are economic and legal realities in this process and they have done their best to provide mitigation that meets all the applicable standards and addresses the concerns that have been raised. The City has reviewed the information; there is mitigation for the plant design regarding noise and for the height of the plant. The odor response program is a matter that is not completely resolved and Ms. Hodgson has proposed options to consider. There have been comments regarding traffic and they believe that has been adequately mitigated. In conclusion, they appreciate the time that was put in to this matter and they believe your job is easier now than in 2006 on this and with the knowledge that they have and with the right team and the right technology, they believe you can approve this plant. Mr. Ziobro stated in looking at the staff report and their material there really isn't a good road map for how you can take the testimony and evidence that was presented and tie it into the City's criteria for approval (Exhibit #). As indicated, they support the staff recommendation. He further stated they just received the City's proposed core program in the last few days and they submitted Exhibit #28 to try to quickly respond to that document. They feel they are not workable tools for approval when deliberating. The written documents submitted by Ms. Hodgson reflect what they believe to be an adequate program. They also suggest that there is a condition that the Core program is agreed upon with a timeline. They want to work with staff to refine the Core program to make it better due to the fact that when the Planning Commissions job is done, their job begins. He -24- suggested a little more time to develop a product that takes care of the City's needs, and is a practical one where they both can agree upon. If there is an agreed upon product it is a win-win for everybody. Chairman Samuel questioned operation of the asphalt plant new or old, there is an opportunity to produce dust from trucks, gravel crushing or conveyors and how that will be controlled in operation of this plant. Ms. Pinard stated the proposal includes mitigation measures such as a paved roadway from the asphalt plant to the street, it also includes pavement around the asphalt plant area and with movement from the loader and other equipment to create the product, dust would not be generated by traveling on the ground surface. In addition, fugitive dust is regulated by the Dept. of Ecology they will be responsible in monitoring fugitive dust. Commissioner Little questioned the asphalt being a new entity at that site will create more activity on the existing loading of the gravel and so forth, would it double the quarry production and will it create more dust. Ms. Pinard stated no, the sand and gravel that feed the existing Richland plant come from the Pasco site. Instead of the gravel going from Pasco in a truck to Richland being included in asphalt mix and then leaving the Richland site. Now the product will stay within the Pasco site, move in a loader to the location of the asphalt plant, go into a bin, enter the plant, produce the product and leave the site. Commissioner Little further questioned that the Richland site is not producing the product necessary. Ms. Pinard stated the Richland plant is producing some product for that, but the product can now go from Pasco to Richland when they run out of product at the Richland site, should this not be approved, material would go to Richland. Chairman Samuel further questioned if the gravel crushing activities or uncovered conveyors would produce dust. Ms. Pinard stated not as part of this proposal. There is an existing gravel operation at the existing Pasco site. There is already gravel being produced at the Pasco site. Chairman Samuel questioned that on the paved surfaces if it is their plan to periodically street sweep or wash these paved surfaces that accumulate dust. Ms. Pinard stated yes and directed Mr. Mayfield to answer that question. Craig Mayfield, 11919 Harris Road, vice-president of the south region stated they would clean as needed. The footprint of the new plant vs. the old plant is night and day. There is a wheel wash that was installed at the old plant to cut 25 down on dust from the wheels of the trucks. The conveyors are governed, they run a water truck and they do have a street sweeper. Commissioner Samuel questioned if anything is new regarding truck traffic from the original proposal in 2006. Ms. McDonald stated no, and clarified that when the asphalt plant was remodeled the calculations included the loaders and trucks. Commissioner Samuel questioned the configuration regarding trucks backing up causing the backup alerts sound. Ms. McDonald stated that was her understanding. Commissioner Samuel questioned the front end loader operation which would be used to load gravel onto the conveyor, would that front end loader backup alert sound. Ms. McDonald stated it is the same as the backup alert sound. Chairman Samuel questioned the way the unit would be maintained three years from now, is there an expectation from CPM that would maintain appearance. Mr. Migas stated that Inland Asphalt maintains a pretty rigid repair and maintenance program during the months of January and February. That is when the routine maintenance is done. The new plant will be an O 8v M document prepared and followed. If something needs to be replaced, it is replaced sooner rather than later. Tidiness is important and if paint starts to flake, they will repaint. Chairman Samuel questioned how they would rate the current concrete plant. Mr. Migas stated it is in fairly good shape and is appealing from the road. Chairman Samuel questioned if there was any new information regarding wind conditions and inversions which would further address those concerns. Ms. Hodgson stated one of the components of the permit application with the Department of Ecology is an air dispersion model that has to include the worst case wind speeds in all situations. They also include zero to the highest wind speed. The meteorological data that is used is both at a 10 meter height which is considered a stratospheric height, up in the atmosphere balloon data. Those are all considered as components in the modeling and it includes calm conditions as well as higher speed and it does incorporate inversions as part of the model. Spokane also has significant inversion conditions in the valley and plants end up dealing with that. Chairman Samuel asked for clarification on what end up dealing with that means. 265 Ms. Hodgson stated they are in a condition with inversions and they do not have complaints. Chairman Samuel questioned if CPM is proposing to do anything different now than they were in 2006 regarding gravel on Harris Road between Road 100 and the entrance or exit of the plant and if there is a plan to address the condition of the road. Mr. Mayfield stated they have made improvements since 2006 and they have added a wheel wash as well as they have a street sweeper. They no longer load pickups. If you have a trailer that has four sides, they will load that. They will not load pickups due to the fact in previous years the pickups would overload with no tailgates. Any time there is a spill on Harris Road, they will clean it up. The City can attest that they have not had to go to out and clean up. Chairman Samuel questioned if trucks leaving the plant would be covered. Mr. Mayfield stated they do use tarps depending on what materials are loaded but wind and tarps necessarily don't go together. Chairman Samuel questioned if it was a requirement if a truck leaving the plant with asphalt to be covered. Mr. Mayfield stated no. They do cover trucks to maintain the temperature of certain trucks. Chairman Samuel questioned if they added this as a special condition to cover the trucks would they have an objection. Mr. Mayfield stated there is no supporting evidence that would work. They cover trucks to maintain the temperature not control odor. Ms. Hodgson stated she did research on comments submitted and Mr. Link questioned the emissions from load out as well as the emissions from the truck. She spent time looking through research developed by the EPA and other organizations and the analysis she has based on the proposed plant is that the majority of the organic emissions which contribute to the odor are from the drum dryer. The load out would account for 6% of the emissions which is 420 tons per year depending on the final application is and the trucking process. This was based on a limited amount of studies. The emission factors for this are A tons per year. A compared to 417 pounds per year is a very small portion of the total emissions from the site. It ends up being approximately .2% of the emissions from the site. Chairman Samuel questioned if it was cost prohibitive or operationally prohibitive to require the trucks to be covered when they leave the site and would you be opposed to this condition. -27- Mr. Mayfield again stated that is not the answer regarding controlling odor with tarping. Tarping is only used to maintain the temperature of the covered asphalt. Mr. Ziobro presented proposed findings of fact (Exhibit #) Chairman Samuel questioned City staff if they had any further comments. Staff stated no. Commissioner Hay motioned to closed the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Anderson. Mr. DiJulio further stated the exhibits received in their packet and added the following exhibits during the hearing. Exhibit # 29 - Email from Roach Exhibit # 30 - Summary of Kristen Wallace - Environmental Noise Exhibit #31 - Letter from Beth Hodgson - Emission Standards Exhibit #32 - Summary of Jana McDonald - Perry Plant Engineer Exhibit #33 - Summary of Bob Hood - Filter Technology, LTD Exhibit #34 - Appraisal report from Patrick Jordan Exhibit #35 - Applicants proposed Special Permit Criteria Exhibit #36 - Applicants proposed Findings The meeting is continued to March 26, 2009 to hold deliberations on this item. Staff stated they would provide any material needed, notably a packet of exhibits received this evening, deliberations would be held on March 26 as noted and based on direction of the conclusion of the deliberations, Findings and Conclusions will be prepared for the Planning Commission for their regular hearing in April. OTHER BUSINESS: With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:42 pm. David McDonald, Secretary 29