Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018.03.19 Council Meeting PacketRegular Meeting AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m. March 19, 2018 Page 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance 3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by roll call vote as one motion (in the form listed below). There will be no separate discussion of these items. If further discussion is desired by Council members or the public, the item may be removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda and considered separately. 5 - 9 (a) Approval of Minutes To approve the minutes of the Pasco City Council dated March 5, 2018 and Special Meeting dated March 12, 2018. 10 - 12 (b) Bills and Communications To approve claims in the total amount of $1,849,721.24 ($1,059,478.25 in Check Nos. 221092-221412; $19,261.73 in Electronic Transfer No. 820090; $26,685.62 in Check Nos. 51468-51492; $744,295.64 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30117788-30118291. To approve bad debt write-off for Utility Billing, Ambulance, Cemetery, General Accounts, Miscellaneous Accounts, and Municipal Court (non- criminal, criminal, and parking) accounts receivable in the total amount of $297,938.82 and, of that amount, authorize $202,378.83 to be turned over for collection. 13 (c) Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Appointments To reappoint Arthur Job to Position No. 3, appoint Heather Watts to Position No. 5, and Jenny Rieke to Position No. 8 (term expiration date 2/2/21); and appoint Edgar Delgado to Position No. 4 and Kate Bonderman to Position No. 7 (term expiration date 2/2/19), all on the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board. 14 - 26 (d) DAHP Grant for Survey of African American Properties in Pasco (MF# Page 1 of 365 Regular Meeting March 19, 2018 HIST 2017-002) To authorize the City Manager to execute the Revised Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Grant Contract. 27 - 30 (e) Professional Services Agreement for the Harris Road Sewer Transmission Main Project To approve the Professional Services Agreement for the design services of the Harris Road Sewer Transmission Main Project, and further, authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. 31 - 33 (f) * Civil Service Commission/Personnel Board Appointment To confirm the City Manager's appointment of Ericka Garcia to Position No. 3 on the Civil Service Commission/Personnel Board (term to expire 2/17/24). (RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read. 4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: 5. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: This item is provided to allow citizens the opportunity to bring items to the attention of the City Council or to express an opinion on an issue. Its purpose is not to provide a venue for debate or for the posing of questions with the expectation of an immediate response. Some questions require consideration by Council over time and after a deliberative process with input from a number of different sources; some questions are best directed to staff members who have access to specific information. Citizen comments will normally be limited to three minutes each by the Mayor. Those with lengthy messages are invited to summarize their comments and/or submit written information for consideration by the Council outside of formal meetings. 6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: (a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers 7. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: 34 - 349 (a) Q* Rezone Appeal: Solid Waste Transfer Station in an I-1 Zone (MF#APPL 2018-001) CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING: MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the Planning Commission Report Page 2 of 365 Regular Meeting March 19, 2018 dated January 18, 2018. MOTION on the Special Permit: I move the City Council accept the Planning Commission recommendation and deny the Special Permit for the location of a Solid Waste Transfer Station under Master File # SP 2017 -019 as recommended by the Planning Commission on January 18, 2018. 8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 10. NEW BUSINESS: 350 - 355 (a) * Amendment No. 1 to Metro Drug Task Force Interlocal Agreement MOTION: I move to approve Addendum No. 1 to the "Metro Interlocal Agreement" Local Narcotics Control Program and Metropolitan Controlled Substance Enforcement Group Interlocal Agreement and, further, authorize the City Manager to execute the Addendum. 356 - 365 (b) * Award of Bid - Regional Fire Training Facility (RC) MOTION: I move to award the Fire Training Facility project to 3S Fire Training in the amount of $561,550 and, further, authorize the City Manager to execute the contract documents. 11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 13. ADJOURNMENT. (RC) Roll Call Vote Required * Item not previously discussed Q Quasi-Judicial Matter MF# “Master File #....” REMINDERS: 1. 6:00 p.m., Monday, March 19, City Hall Conference Room #1 - LEOFF Disability Board Meeting. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS and COUNCILMEMBER CRAIG MALONEY) Page 3 of 365 Regular Meeting March 19, 2018 2. 12:30 p.m., Thursday, March 22, 720 W. Court Street - Greater Columbia ACH Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER RUBEN ALVARADO, Rep.; DAVID MILNE, Alt.) 3. 9:00 a.m., Friday, March 23, City Hall - Meeting with Dr. Mancinelli and Chancellor Sandra Haynes, WSU Tri-Cities. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS) This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance. Page 4 of 365 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 8, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 3/19/18 FROM: Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Administrative & Community Services SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes I. REFERENCE(S): Minutes 03.05.18 Minutes 03.12.18 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: To approve the minutes of the Pasco City Council dated March 5, 2018 and Special Meeting dated March 12, 2018. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: V. DISCUSSION: Page 5 of 365 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES PASCO CITY COUNCIL MARCH 5, 2018 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Matt Watkins, Mayor. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers present: Ruben Alvarado, Blanche Barajas, Craig Maloney, Saul Martinez, David Milne, Pete Serrano, and Matt Watkins. Staff present: Dave Zabell, City Manager; Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager; Leland Kerr, City Attorney; Richard Terway, Interim Public Works Director; Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Richa Sigdel, Finance Director; Dan Dotta, Interim Administrative & Community Services Director; Bob Metzger, Police Chief and Bob Gear, Fire Chief; Dave Hare, Assistant Fire Chief; Michael Morales, Economic Development Program Manager. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of Minutes To approve the minutes of the Pasco City Council dated 02.20.2018 Bills and Communications To approve claims in the total amount of $2,093,289.66 ($1,216,113.23 in Check Nos. 220837-221091; $158,291.02 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 819595- 819629, 819640-819675, 819678-819738, 819748-819812, 819815, 819817- 820041, 820045-820047; $39,310.94 in Check Nos. 51437-51467; $679,574.47 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30117301-30117787). Benton-Franklin Community Action Connections Board Appointment To concur in the Mayor's reappointment of Alecia Greenaway to the Benton- Franklin Community Action Connections Board (term to expire January 2020). Historic Preservation Commission Reappointments To concur in the Mayor's reappointment of Marilynn Baker to Position No. 3 and Tom Brandon to Position No. 4 on the Historic Preservation Commission (terms to expire 8/1/21). Accept Work - City Hall Remodel (Phase 1) To approve Resolution No. 3822, accepting work performed by Vincent Brothers LLP for the City Hall Remodel (Phase 1) project. MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Ms. Barajas seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. Page 6 of 365 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES PASCO CITY COUNCIL MARCH 5, 2018 VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: Mr. Dale Adams: Owns acreage at Road 100 and has listed it for sale through a national realty firm. Looking to market it for a center for shopping that will appeal to the entire Tri Cities area. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: Mr. Maloney: Attended his first TRAC Advisory Board Meeting last week and learned how the TRAC functions. They are discussing putting concrete flooring down over the existing dirt floor at the facility, seems to be the primary focus. Mr. Serrano: Attended the Visit Tri Cities Board Meeting; recognized Chris Watkins for her decades of service. They are looking for a new CEO and have narrowed the search down to a few candidates. Mr. Maloney: Tri-Cities Public Market group met. They had a consultant attend who is doing an evaluation as to where a regional public market would be best located. Mr. Alvarado: Attended the Good Roads Association meeting, Bob Hooker with WSDOT gave a presentation on the Highway 12 Project currently in Phase 8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: Preliminary Plat: Northridge Estates (MF# PP 2017-010) Mr. White explained the details of the proposed preliminary plat. Council and staff discussed the record. MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to approve Resolution No. 3223, approving the Preliminary Plat for Northridge Estates. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Special Permit: Location of a Fire Training Tower in an I-3 Zoning District (MF #SP 2018-001) Mr. White explained the details of the proposed special permit. Council and staff discussed the record. MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to approve Resolution No. 3824, approving a special permit for the location of a fire training tower on parcel # 112 420 023. Mr. Milne seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Following the motion, Chief Gear showed a PowerPoint presentation on what the future fire training tower would look like. Special Permit: Location of a Recreation Complex in an RS-1 District (MF #SP 2017-022) Mr. White explained the details of the proposed special permit. Council and staff discussed the record. MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to approve Resolution No. 3825, approving a special permit for the location of a recreation complex located in the 10700 Page 7 of 365 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES PASCO CITY COUNCIL MARCH 5, 2018 block of Burns Road. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: Yes - Watkins, Alvarado, Martinez, Milne. No - Serrano, Barajas, Maloney. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: Mr. Zabell reminded everyone that the community forums will be held this week. One on Tuesday, March 6 at the TRAC and one on Wednesday, March 7 at the Collegium Café at Tierra Vida. Next Monday, March 12 at 11:30 a.m. a business forum will be held at the Chamber of Commerce Luncheon. Mayor Watkins inquired about the status of the survey. Mr. Strebel stated this would be discussed at a workshop later this month. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Council adjourned to Executive Session at 7:53 p.m. for approximately 10 minutes to discuss an enforcement action with the City Manager, Deputy City Manager and City Attorney. Mayor Watkins called the meeting back to order at 8:03 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of March, 2018. APPROVED: ATTEST: Matt Watkins, Mayor Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Page 8 of 365 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES PASCO CITY COUNCIL MARCH 12, 2018 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Matt Watkins, Mayor. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers present: Ruben Alvarado, Blanche Barajas, Craig Maloney, Saul Martinez, David Milne, Pete Serrano, and Matt Watkins. Staff present: Dave Zabell, City Manager; Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager; Leland Kerr, City Attorney; Richard Terway, Interim Public Works Director; Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Richa Sigdel, Finance Director; Dan Dotta, Interim Administrative & Community Services Director; Bob Metzger, Police Chief; Bob Gear, Fire Chief; Ken Roske, Deputy Police Chief and Dan Ford, City Engineer. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. NEW BUSINESS: Orthophoto Mapping Intergovernmental Agreement Council and staff discussed the proposed resolution. MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to approve Resolution No. 3826, authorizing the City Manager to execute the Intergovernmental Agreement with Benton County for aerial photography and orthophoto mapping of areas within the City of Pasco. Mr. Serrano seconded. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of March, 2018. APPROVED: ATTEST: Matt Watkins, Mayor Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Page 9 of 365 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 15, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 3/19/18 FROM: Richa Sigdel, Director Finance SUBJECT: Bills and Communications I. REFERENCE(S): Accounts Payable 03.19.18 Bad Debt Write-off/Collection II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: To approve claims in the total amount of $1,849,721.24 ($1,059,478.25 in Check Nos. 221092-221412; $19,261.73 in Electronic Transfer No. 820090; $26,685.62 in Check Nos. 51468-51492; $744,295.64 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30117788-30118291. To approve bad debt write-off for Utility Billing, Ambulance, Cemetery, General Accounts, Miscellaneous Accounts, and Municipal Court (non-criminal, criminal, and parking) accounts receivable in the total amount of $297,938.82 and, of that amount, authorize $202,378.83 to be turned over for collection. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: V. DISCUSSION: Page 10 of 365 March 19, 2018 Claims Bank Payroll Bank Gen'l Bank Electronic Bank Combined Check Numbers 221092-221412 51468-51492 Total Check Amount $1,059,478.25 $26,685.62 Total Checks 1,086,163.87$ Electronic Transfer Numbers 820090 30117788-30118291 - Total EFT Amount $19,261.73 $744,295.64 $0.00 Total EFTs 763,557.37$ Grand Total 1,849,721.24$ Councilmember 274,854.79 60,966.98 0.00 0.00 9,047.60 0.00 0.00 2,025.50 29,861.85 61.40 2,988.00 19,261.73 627.86 1,563.43 0.00 182.80 21,338.61 879.03 2,044.39 0.00 0.00 1,329.97 5,694.81 0.00 38,689.59 497,230.55 41,605.97 19,028.90 18,417.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 802,019.98 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS:1,849,721.24$ The City Council C I T Y O F P A S C O Council Meeting of: Accounts Payable Approved STREET OVERLAY City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington We, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury the materials have been furnished, the services rendered or the labor performed as described herein and the claim is a just, due and unpaid obligation against the city and we are authorized to authenticate and certify to such claim. Dave Zabell, City Manager Richa Sigdel, Finance Director We, the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, do hereby certify on this 19th day of March, 2018 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received and are approved for payment: Councilmember SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND: GENERAL FUND STREET ARTERIAL STREET RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAIN C.D. BLOCK GRANT HOME CONSORTIUM GRANT NSP GRANT MARTIN LUTHER KING COMMUNITY CENTER AMBULANCE SERVICE CEMETERY ATHLETIC PROGRAMS GOLF COURSE SENIOR CENTER OPERATING MULTI-MODAL FACILITY SCHOOL IMPACT FEES EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING BUSINESS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LODGING LITTER ABATEMENT REVOLVING ABATEMENT TRAC DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING PARKS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STADIUM/CONVENTION CENTER LID GENERAL CAP PROJECT CONSTRUCTION UTILITY, WATER/SEWER EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT BUSINESS MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE OLD FIRE OPEB FLEX PAYROLL CLEARING Page 11 of 365 BAD DEBT WRITE-OFF/COLLECTION February 1 – February 28, 2018 1. UTILITY BILLING - These are all inactive accounts, 60 days or older. Direct write-off are under $20 with no current forwarding address, or are accounts in "occupant" status. Accounts submitted for collection exceed $20.00. 2. AMBULANCE - These are all delinquent accounts over 90 days past due or statements are returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00. Direct write off including DSHS and Medicare customers; the law requires that the City accept assignment in these cases. 3. COURT ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE - These are all delinquent non-criminal and criminal fines, and parking violations over 30 days past due. 4. CODE ENFORCEMENT – LIENS - These are Code Enforcement violation penalties which are either un-collectable or have been assigned for collections because the property owner has not complied or paid the fine. There are still liens in place on these amounts which will continue to be in effect until the property is brought into compliance and the debt associated with these liens are paid. 5. CEMETERY - These are delinquent accounts over 120 days past due or statements are returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00. 6. GENERAL - These are delinquent accounts over 120 days past due or statements are returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00. 7. MISCELLANEOUS - These are delinquent accounts over 120 days past due or statements are returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00. Direct Write-off Referred to Collection Total Write-off Utility Billing $ 55.81 266.68 322.49 Ambulance $ 95,504.18 19,356.15 114,860.33 Court A/R $ .00 171,497.00 171,497.00 Code Enforcement $ .00 11,229.00 11,229.00 Cemetery $ .00 .00 .00 General $ .00 30.00 30.00 Miscellaneous $ .00 .00 .00 TOTAL: $ 95,559.99 202,378.83 297,938.82 Page 12 of 365 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 14, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 3/19/18 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager Executive SUBJECT: Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Appointments I. REFERENCE(S): II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to reappoint Arthur Job to Position No. 3, appoint Heather Watts to Position No. 5, and Jenny Rieke to Position No. 8 (term expiration date 2/2/21); and appoint Edgar Delgado to Position No. 4 and Kate Bonderman to Position No. 7 (term expiration date 2/2/19), all on the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is composed of nine members; terms are three years. The Board meets on the 1st Thursday of every month at 5:30pm. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board advises the City Council on recreation activities and facilities needed in the community. V. DISCUSSION: Following conduct of interviews at the March 12 Workshop meeting, the Mayor has suggested the appointments be made as outlined in the motion above. Page 13 of 365 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 15, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development Regular Meeting: 3/19/18 FROM: Jeff Adams, Associate Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: DAHP Grant for Survey of African American Properties in Pasco (MF# HIST 2017-002) I. REFERENCE(S): August 27, 2017 Memo from Tanya Bowers, Planning Commissioner Revised DAHP Grant Packet II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to authorize the City Manager to execute the Revised Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Grant Contract. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Approximately $6,300 in direct costs for City staff support for the receipt of the $10,000 grant. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Around the beginning of August 2017, Ms. Tanya Bowers (and a colleague - Dr. Robert Bauman) contacted the City of Pasco Community & Economic Development Department with a proposal to apply for and manage a $10,000 Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) grant financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. The focus of the application would be documenting properties associated with African-American heritage in east Pasco. With assistance from Ms. Bowers, the City applied for the grant which was subsequently approved by DAHP. The grant will be administered by the City. City Council was briefed about the potential grant and authorized the City Manager to Page 14 of 365 execute the contract in November of 2017. Staff put the grant out to bid for professional consultants and received two responses, including one from the Bowers and Bauman team. Unfortunately because both Ms. Bowers and Dr. Bauman, were named in the application, DAHP has disqualified them from competing for the research contract. As such, the contract will be awarded to the one other consultant who is well qualified to perform the task. Because the original scope of work included the "soft match" volunteer efforts through Dr. Bauman's professorial position, the City will now be obliged to cover that match. Fortunately, through the Historic Preservation Commission, the City has been engaged in a video production project detailing various aspects of City of Pasco history, which dovetails nicely with the grant. DAHP has agreed to alter the City's grant contract to include this video historic documentation process as its grant match. Therefore the City proposes to engage the services of its Communications and Planning staff to meet the match requirements of the grant per the attached Revised DAHP Grant Packet. City Council was briefed about the proposed revisions to the Grant at the Workshop Meeting of March 12, 2018. V. DISCUSSION: Underrepresented Community Grant projects include surveys and inventories of historic properties associated with communities underrepresented in the National Register of Historic Places. Projects can also include nominations to the National Register for specific sites. Grants are awarded through a competitive process. The survey objective is to document properties in East Pasco historically associated with African Americans. The revised scope of work proposes to video document the history of African Americans in East Pasco. The African Americans for Community, Cultural, and Education Success (AACCES) have already identified 7 public and private sites (a school, a park, a bridge, a commercial building, 3 churches) of significance. Page 15 of 365 1 Jeff Adams From:Tanya Bowers <tanyabowers@att.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 3:16 PM To:Rick White; Jeff Adams Cc:Robert Bauman Subject:WA DAHP Grant for Survey of African American Properties in Pasco Attachments:Pasco FY18 Schedule Budget-v3.doc; FY18 Pasco Scope of Work and Map.docx Gentleman, Kim Gant has informed me that the City of Pasco will be receiving $10K to survey African-American properties in Pasco. You will soon be receiving official notification of this in the form of a contract, but Kim wanted me to show this to you 1) to make sure it sounds kosher and 2) as you will want to assemble a list of bidders together to notify about the RFP. You will see in the attached budget, timeline that this will all be happening quickly. The scope of work is somewhat complicated, but there are three major things that need to take place: 1. Requirement that at least one publicized public meeting is held to try to gather more information about the African American residents of Pasco, including any more places of significance. 2. Hire a consultant to survey the resources in East Pasco that retain integrity from the period (mostly the houses that Tanya showed Kim saw that still look like they did in the 1940s – 1960s). This is where you will need the consultant – to determine which properties have enough integrity. You will need the City to provide a list of addresses in East Pasco that have a build-date before 1965. That list would then be used in the field to determine if the building has integrity. Those with integrity will be the ones that get recorded in Wisaard and put on the list for potential intensive-level research. 3. Choose a just few to get intensive level research because that type of research is expensive. After we determine which ones should get intensive level research, either use the consultant again or have Dr. Baumann put the students on it. Just a few things to note: --A couple of the buildings we already identified (Lewis Street Underpass, the Beasley residence behind the bus depot) fall outside the boundaries of the map. That's o.k., but the map helped to demarcate where the majority of the sites lie. --We may want to update the Historic Preservation Commission. I think the next meeting is September 12th. If that's the case I'm going to be out of town. Perhaps Bob can cover? --Rick mentioned that we'd want to notify the City Council. We had first told them about the federal application to the National Parks Service which we didn't receive the first time around, but we have yet to hear about our FY 18 application. If you still feel it's necessary, I'm happy to apprise them. This will probably be more relevant once the city receives the contract though. Let me know your thoughts about any of the above. Best, Tanya Tanya Bowers, M.A. tanyabowers@att.net 509.430.8772. Page 16 of 365 STATE OF WASHINGTON Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106  PO Box 48343  Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065  Fax Number (360) 586-3067 Contract No: FY18-61018-007 Amendment A The Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, the DEPARTMENT, and the City of Pasco, the GRANTEE, hereby mutually agree to amend Contract FY18-61018-007 to modify three statements in the Scope of Work. Section 3 SURVEY STANDARDS deletes referenced URL link, and replaces it with the name of the DAHP website. Section 4a COMPLETED SURVEY adds new section 4 that reads: Using information gathered from the research project and elsewhere, Grantee shall produce a short (15-25 minute) professional quality educational video presentation including narration, historic photos, and interview clips highlighting the African American experience in Pasco, to be included in the Historic Pasco video series, and to be made available on the City of Pasco’s public website. Section 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT shall now read the survey report AND VIDEO The DEPARTMENT acknowledges and approves this change by the DEPARTMENT for the above change to the Scope of Work of the grant. This amendment does not change the total value of the contract amount awarded by the DEPARTMENT to the GRANTEE. Department: Contractor: By:______________________________ By:___________________________ Allyson Brooks Director __________________________ ______________________________ Title Title Date:_____________________________ Date:_________________________ Page 17 of 365 Page 18 of 365 Contract # FY18‐61018‐007  Page 1 Scope of Work I. WORK TO BE ACCOMPLISHED: The GRANTEE shall conduct the following activities: A. CITY OF PASCO: The GRANTEE shall conduct a SURVEY and PUBLIC OUTREACH PROJECT as follows: 1. SURVEY AREA AND CRITERIA: The GRANTEE shall complete a survey of: a) AREA: Select resources in East Pasco (see map page 5). The map represents the approximate area. There are known resources that are not within the boundary and they shall be included in the survey. Resources discovered during the public outreach process may also be included (as long as they are in Pasco) if the project team deems then significant to African American history in Pasco. a) CRITERIA: Survey will include structures and/or sites built before 1965 that retain a moderate to high degree of physical integrity from their period of construction, within the boundary of the attached map of East Pasco. Reconnaissance level survey shall be completed first and a selection of those properties will be chosen for intensive level research. i. See Washington State Standards for Cultural Resource Reporting for more specific information regarding survey levels. http://www.dahp.wa.gov/sites/default/files/CR%20Update%20 2015%282%29.pdf. ii. A detailed statement of significance shall be written for approximately ten (10) properties based on research, which may include oral histories, deed searches, city directory searches etc… 2. SURVEY PROJECT MANAGER: The GRANTEE shall ensure that the personnel directing the survey activities meet the professional qualifications in 36 CFR 61, Appendix A. The personnel must be procured using a competitive process as outlined in the Historic Preservation Fund Grants Manual, October 1997, see Attachment #7. Before final selection, the GRANTEE shall afford the DEPARTMENT an opportunity to review ATTACHMENT 2 Page 19 of 365 Contract # FY18‐61018‐007  Page 2 and approve candidates for the historic preservation consultant conducting the survey project. 3. SURVEY STANDARDS: The GRANTEE shall conduct the survey activity and produce complete inventory forms consistent with the guidelines in the Washington State Standards for Cultural Resource Reporting: http://www.dahp.wa.gov/sites/default/files/CR%20Update%202015%282 %29.pdf: 4. a) COMPLETED SURVEY: (1) A COMPLETED SURVEY is understood to mean that the GRANTEE has used the WISAARD ONLINE SYSTEM to document all required survey materials of the defined survey area and has submitted the survey to the DEPARTMENT. The inventory records must be determined acceptable by the DEPARTMENT. (2) The REQUIRED SURVEY MATERIALS are understood to include a MAP of the ENTIRE SURVEY AREA with all sites marked and numbered. (3) A SURVEY REPORT is required. A SURVEY REPORT is understood to mean a report which follows the guidelines for survey project reports provided by the DEPARTMENT within the Washington State Standards for Cultural Resource Reporting which includes the introduction, survey methodology, analysis, recommendations, a map of the entire survey area with all sites marked and numbered, and a table of the properties with local and National Register eligibility recommendations. b) A COMPLETED INVENTORY FORM is understood to mean a completed record on the WISAARD ONLINE SYSTEM, with each field completed and at least three digital images of each property. c) The DEPARTMENT will be able to view draft copies of Historic Property Inventory Forms via WISAARD. The DEPARTMENT shall respond to the GRANTEE within 14 days of each draft submittal with comments. If the DEPARTMENT has not responded within 14 days, the GRANTEE shall assume that the DEPARTMENT has no comment on the draft submittals. 5. INCOMPLETE OR INACCEPTABLE MATERIALS: Any required survey materials submitted which are not considered acceptable or complete—which do not meet the DEPARTMENT’s cultural resource Page 20 of 365 Contract # FY18‐61018‐007  Page 3 survey editorial standards and/or do not contain the required level of documentation—will be returned to the GRANTEE for completion within the grant period. 6. REIMBURSEMENT: The GRANTEE will only be reimbursed for preparing acceptable and complete required survey submitted during the grant period. 7. DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITIES: The DEPARTMENT shall provide the GRANTEE with the information to gain access to the WISAARD ONLINE SYSTEM. 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The SURVEY REPORT shall include in its entirety the following acknowledgement, disclaimer, and non- discrimination statements: This survey has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior administered by the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and the City of Pasco. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, DAHP, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or DAHP. This program received Federal funds from the National Park Service. Regulations of the U.S. Department of Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in departmental Federally Assisted Programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, or handicap. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to: Director, Equal Opportunity Program, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. 9. PROJECT MANAGER: The GRANTEE shall ensure that the personnel preparing the survey documentation meet the professional qualifications in 36 CFR 61, Appendix A. The personnel must be procured using a competitive process as outlined in the Historic Preservation Fund Grants Manual, October 1997, see Attachment #7. Before final selection, the GRANTEE shall afford the DEPARTMENT an opportunity to review and approve candidates for the historic preservation consultant conducting the survey project. 10. INCOMPLETE OR INACCEPTABLE MATERIALS: Any required materials submitted which are not considered acceptable or complete will be returned to the GRANTEE for completion within the grant period. 11. REIMBURSEMENT: The GRANTEE will only be reimbursed for preparing an acceptable and complete Survey Product during the grant period. Page 21 of 365 Contract # FY18‐61018‐007  Page 4 B. PUBLIC EDUCATION ACTIVITIES 1. The GRANTEE shall conduct at least two public presentations/meetings during the grant period subject to the following conditions: a) The purpose of the first presentation(s) shall be to determine if there are historic properties associated with the African American experience in Pasco. The purpose of the second meeting shall be to present the findings of the survey. b) Following each public meeting, provide the DEPARTMENT with a summary of the number of participants, comments, and notable conclusions arising from the presentation. This may be in email format. c) Using information gathered from the research project and elsewhere, Grantee shall produce a short (15-25 minute) professional quality educational video presentation including narration, historic photos, and interview clips highlighting the African American experience in Pasco, to be included in the Historic Pasco video series, and to be made available on the City of Pasco’s public website. D. REPORTING ACTIVITIES 1. GRANT ADMINISTRATION: The GRANTEE shall establish and maintain contact with the DEPARTMENT throughout the grant period as to the status of all grant activities by preparing and submitting the requested documents to the DEPARTMENT at the times indicated in the SCHEDULE FOR PROJECT COMPLETION II. PRODUCTS: The GRANTEE shall at a minimum submit the following products to the DEPARTMENT: A. SURVEY FORMS and SURVEY REPORT: Historic Property Inventory form for each property surveyed. The SURVEY REPORT and map may be provided as a pdf and shall include a report cover sheet per DAHP standards. B. PUBLIC EDUCATION: One email memo per public meeting summarizing attendance and any notable conclusions from the meeting. Page 22 of 365 Contract # FY18‐61018‐007  Page 5 Page 23 of 365 Contract # FY18‐61018‐007  Page 6 Page 24 of 365 V. SCHEDULE FOR PROJECT COMPLETION List each proposed grant activity separately estimating the start and completion dates. This should be a complete listing of all potential activities associated with the grant including the two draft submittal dates of May 3, 2018 for the first draft and July 19, 2018 for the second draft. Final projects must be turned in by August 31, 2018. A start date and completion date are not sufficient for the Schedule of Project Completion. WORK TO BE ACCOMPLISHED Estimated Starting Date Estimated Completion Date City staff prepares scope of work and publishes an RFP to solicit proposals from Cultural Resources Consultants. (DONE) Feb 1, 2018 City staff works with Consultant to identify sources of existing information and all potential cultural heritage partners. Feb 1, 2018 Feb 28, 2018 First public meeting to introduce the project and help Consultant identify additional sites and resources. Feb 28, 2018 Mar 28, 2018 First Draft of Survey presented to project staff and partners for review. City staff begins work on educational video. May 1, 2018 Jun 2, 2018 Second Draft of Survey presented to project staff and partners for review. Draft video presented to HPC. Aug 1, 2018 Aug 15, 2018 Second public meeting to present results. Aug 15, 2018 Aug 31, 2018 Final report and completed video to be posted on the City's and respective partners' websites, as appropriate. All products sent to DAHP. Aug 31, 2018 Sep 31, 2018 Enter information on sites into WISSARD. Sep 15, 2018 Sep 31, 2018 Reimbursement requests submitted to DAHP. Oct 1, 2018 Nov 30, 2018 Page 25 of 365 VI. PROJECT BUDGET ELEMENT/OBJECT Salaries (include each position‐ volunteer or staff ‐ and attach  hourly wage justification if needed) Federal  Dollars (CLG  grant  requested) Hard Match* (Local  government  cash match =  Staff Hours) Soft Match* (Donated  goods and  services =  volunteer  hours) Total Community Econ Dev Staff (RFP, list of relevant  properties, community meetings reviewing, meetings) 70 hrs. @  $42.5/hr. $2,975.00 Communications Program Manager (Video Production)70 hours @  $47.5/hr $3,325.00 Historic Preservation Commission (meetings, reviewing)12 hrs.  @$24.14/hr. $289.68 $6,300.00 $289.68 $6,589.68 Indirect % (*include justification for indirect) Total Element/Object: $0.00 $6,300.00 $289.68 $6,589.68 Goods & Services Contract Services Federal  Dollars Hard Match Soft Match Total Cultural Resource Consultant $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Materials/Supplies/Equipment Public Meeting (Advertising, poster printing,  refreshments, room rental)$750.00 Report printing  travel Other Total Goods & Services:$10,000.00 $0.00 $750.00 $10,750.00 Federal  Dollars Hard Match Soft Match Total Total Funding Request $10,000.00 $6,300.00 $1,039.68 $17,339.68 Page 26 of 365 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 13, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick Terway, Interim Public Works Director Regular Meeting: 3/19/18 FROM: Dan Ford, City Engineer Public Works SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc. for the Harris Road Sewer Transmission Main Project I. REFERENCE(S): Vicinity Map Professional Services Agreement Summary II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Services Agreement for the design services of the Harris Road Sewer Transmission Main Project, and further, authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Revenue Bond - $269,085 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The Harris Road Sewer Transmission Main was identified in the 2018-2023 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The sewer transmission main will be located in northwest Pasco adjacent to Harris Road before crossing under the interstate to tie into Pasco's existing trunk sewer on Court Street. The addition of this sewer main is vital to the growth of this area of Pasco. The sewer will be designed accordingly to fit the long term growth projections for the area. V. DISCUSSION: On January 9, 2018, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was distributed to solicit prospective design consultants. The City received five submittals considered to be responsive, which were subsequently reviewed and scored by a Consultant Selection Committee comprised of City staff. Ultimately, the Committee chose RH2 Page 27 of 365 Engineering, Inc. RH2 will provide design services, right-of-way (ROW) acquisition assistance and minor construction management support for the project. The fee for the work is not to exceed the sum of $269,085 and the final design of the project will be submitted by Fall of 2018. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Professional Services Agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc. This item was discussed at the March 12, 2018 Council workshop meeting. Page 28 of 365 Professional Services Agreement (Summary Sheet) Project: Professional Services Agreement for design of the Harris Road Sewer Transmission Main Project Consultant: RH2 Engineering, Inc. Address: 114 Columbia Point Drive, Suite C Richland, WA 99352 Scope of Services: Design and necessary Right of Way acquisition for the Harris Road Sewer Transmission Main. Agreement includes minor construction support. Term: Completion Date: December 31, 2019 Payments to Consultant: Amount Not to Exceed: $269,085 Insurance to be Provided: 1. Commercial General Liability: ☐ $1,000,000 each occurrence; ☐ $2,000,000 general aggregate; or ☒ $1,000,000 each occurrence; and $2,000,000 general aggregate 2. Professional Liability: ☒ $1,000,000 per claim; ☒ $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit; or ☐ $________ per claim; and $________ per policy aggregate limit Other Information: Signature by: ☐ Mayor ☒ City Manager Page 29 of 365 HARRIS ROAD SEWER TRANSMISSION MAIN VICINITY MAP Page 30 of 365 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 12, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 3/19/18 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager Executive SUBJECT: Civil Service Commission/Personnel Board Appointment I. REFERENCE(S): PMC 2.33 Application, Ericka Garcia (Council only) II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to confirm the City Manager's appointment of Ericka Garcia to Position No. 3 on the Civil Service Commission/Personnel Board (term to expire 2/17/24). III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: State Law (RCW 41.08 Civil Service for City Fire Fighters and 41.12 Civil Service for City Police) requires the City to maintain a Civil Service Commission for its Police and Fire Departments. PMC 2.33 establishes a Civil Service Commission for Fire and Police employees, a Personnel Board for all employees of the City. Per statute, the appointment of its members are to six - year terms. The Civil Service Commission is to be composed of three citizens to assure fairness and impartiality in the hiring and promotion of uniformed police and fire employees. The Commission also decides appeals of discipline administered to uniformed police and fire employees, when such employees elect to u se the Civil Service Commission hearing process (rare occasions) rather than the grievance arbitration process afforded in their respective bargaining contracts. In addition, the City Council has previously designated the Civil Service Commissioners to fill the role of the Personnel Board to consider certain appeals of workplace issues relating to non-uniformed employees who are not otherwise covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement. Page 31 of 365 V. DISCUSSION: The purpose of the Civil Service Commission/Personnel Board is to: · ensure the provisions of the law are carried out; · ensure the continuance of the civil service system; · promote efficiency in the dispatch of public business; · ensure that the selection and promotion of employees is based on merit; and · ensure all employees in the classified civil service receive fair and impartial treatment at all times. Additionally, the Commission is tasked with certifying that no person in the classified civil service, or seeking admission thereto, shall be appointed, promoted, reduced, or removed, or in any way favored or discriminated against in their employment or opportunity for employment because of their race, color, age, religious or political opinions or affiliations, union affiliation or national origin. The key attributes of a Commission member are attention to detail, an interest in the civil service process and the ability to make fair and impartial decisions based on the facts surrounding an issue. Ms. Garcia has expressed her desire to understand more about the hiring, promotion, and appointment of the City’s public safety officers. She has also volunteered to be on the Diversity, Curriculum and Safety committees at Columbia Basin College. Although appointments to the Civil Service Commission are made by the City Manager, PMC 2.33 provides for “…consent of the City Council.” Consent of the City Council is hereby requested (in the form of the proposed motion). Page 32 of 365 CHAPTER 2.33 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & PERSONNEL BOARD Sections: 2.33.010 CREATED -PURPOSE ..................................................................... 28 2.33.020 MEMBERSHIP ................................................................................ 28 2.33.030 CIVIL SERVICE RULES .................................................................... 28 2.33.040 POWERS AND DUTIES OF PERSONNEL BOARD ................................ 28 2.33.050 FIRE CHIEF EXCEPTED ................................................................... 28 2.33.060 POLICE CHIEF EXCEPTED ............................................................... 28 2.33.010 CREATED -PURPOSE. There is created pursuant to RCW 41.08 and RCW 41.12 a Civil Service Commission for the Fire Department and Police Department, and a Personnel Board for all employees of the City. (Ord. 3266 Sec. 5, 1997.) 2.33.020 MEMBERSHIP. Residents of the City of Pasco being citizens of the United States will be eligible for appointment. The City Manager will make all appointments to the commission with consent of the City Council, following rules established in RCW 41.08 and RCW 41.12. Members of the Civil Service Commission will also serve as members of the Personnel Board. (Ord. 3266 Sec. 5, 1997.) 2.33.030 CIVIL SERVICE RULES. The Commission shall adopt rules as provided for in RCW 41.08 and RCW 41.12 respectively. Commission Rules may be amended and updated from time to time. (Ord. 3266 Sec. 5, 1997.) 2.33.040 POWERS AND DUTIES OF PERSONNEL BOARD. It shall be the duty of the Personnel Board to: A) Hear grievances in accordance with rules of procedures and practices to be adopted by the Board, but informality of proceedings or in the manner of taking testimony shall not affect any action of the Board. B) Advise the appointing authority on matters brought before the Board by the appointing authority. C) Keep such records as may be necessary for the proper execution of the powers and duties of the Board. (Ord. 3266 Sec. 5, 1997.) 2.33.050 FIRE CHIEF EXCEPTED. Any person appointed as Fire Chief after January 25, 1994 shall be excepted from inclusion within the perview of the Civil Service System created by this chapter. (Ord. 3545 Sec. 33, 2002.) 2.33.060 POLICE CHIEF EXCEPTED. Any person appointed as Police Chief after January 25, 1994 shall be excepted from inclusion within the perview of the Civil Service System created by this chapter. (Ord. 3545 Sec. 33, 2002.) PMC Title 2 12/1/14 28 Page 33 of 365 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 13, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development Regular Meeting: 3/19/18 FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Rezone Appeal: Solid Waste Transfer Station in an I-1 Zone (MF# APPL 2018-001) I. REFERENCE(S): Overview Map Special Permit Application Basin Disposal Appeal Reports and Memos to Planning Commission SEPA Materials Correspondence BDI Presentation Slides Transcript of Planning Commission Hearing Dated: 11/16/17 Transcript of Planning Commission Deliberations Dated: 12/21/17 Transcript of Planning Commission Deliberations Dated: 1/18/18 Link to the Planning Commission Hearing Dated: 11/16/17 - https://psctv.viebit.com/player.php?hash=61hLOkF1Ws9l# Link to the Planning Commission Deliberations Dated: 12/21/17 - https://psctv.viebit.com/player.php?hash=t66ZMYuVN8H9 Link to the Planning Commission Deliberations Dated: 1/18/18 - https://psctv.viebit.com/player.php?hash=L8BAlEOg1mH6 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING: MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the Planning Commission Report dated January 18, 2018. MOTION on the Special Permit: I move the City Council accept the Planning Commission recommendation and deny the Special Permit for the location of a Solid Waste Transfer Station under Master File # SP 2017-019 as recommended by the Planning Commission on January 18, 2018. Page 34 of 365 III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On November 16, 2017 and December 21, 2017 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application for the location of a solid waste transfer station to be located north of Commercial Avenue directly east of the existing Basin Disposal office at 2021 N. Commercial Avenue. After deliberations at the January 18, 2018 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the special permit be denied. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission recommendation. The Council set March 19, 2018 as the date to conduct a Closed Record Hearing to consider the appeal. V. DISCUSSION: Consideration of an appeal occurs in the form of a “Closed Record Hearing” consisting of a review of the written record of the special permit application including the Planning Commission’s deliberation. When considering this appeal, the City Council has the option of accepting the Planning Commission’s recommendation, denying the application, approving the application, approving the application with conditions or remanding the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review on a specific issue. In acting on the special permit application as per the criteria of PMC 25. 86.060 - Council should determine whether or not: 1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives, maps and/or narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan; 2. The proposal will adversely affect public infrastructure; 3. The proposal will be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity; 4. The location and height of proposed structures and the site design will discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof; 5. The operations in connection with the proposal will be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district; and 6. The proposal will endanger the public health, or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district. Any option the Council chooses to select for the special permit application will need to be supported by Findings of Fact. The Findings identified in the staff report to the Page 35 of 365 Planning Commission can be used as Findings to support denial of the special permit as recommended by the Planning Commission. For any action other than denial of the special permit the Council will need to develop a separate list of findings. If the Council decides not to accept the Planning Commission recommendation, staff recommends the Council continue the closed record hearing for two weeks to enable staff to prepare a set of findings to support Council act on this matter. Page 36 of 365 Item: Waste Transfer StationApplicant: 2022 Commercial Ave LLCFile #: SP 2017-019 Overview MapSITE0 600 1200 1800 2400FeetPage 37 of 365 4*“"' JPASCO CITY OF PASCO APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT 7 [FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY)FILE NO:3 F ,’{()L7_DATE: Fm‘;$500.00 +$50.00 (Public Notice 1'66)+$75 (SEPA):$625 I. The undersigned hereby apply for a special permit: Applicant:2022 Commercial Avenue LLC Applicant’s Address:2021 N Commercial Ave.Pasco WA 99301 Applicant’s Phone Numbers:Work:547-2476 (home /work,cellular,fax) Applicant’s E—mail address:darrick@basindisposal.com Property Owner’s Name (if different than Applicant):Same *Must have Property Owner’s notarized signature on page 3 General location of property (street address or other description): No address currently assigned.The subject parcel is located North of Commercial Ave,South of Garland St,and East of the property addressed as 2021 N Commercial Ave.See attached map —Tax Parcel #1 13-5 10-1 19 Legal description of property (attach separate sheet if necessary): Lot(s)Block Subdivision See attached map.Lot 11,Parcel #1 13—510»1 19 is the subject property applying for the Special Permit. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A COMPLETE APPLICATION TO REVIEW: 1.Present use of the land and structure(s)if any: No current structures.The land is in agricultural use currently. 2.If vacant,check here:E 3.Please describe any existing Violations of any portion of the zoning ordinance upon the property: Updated 7.18.2017 1 /9/2@/20!;RE 3JKMrI1 g; Page 38 of 365 FEE:$500.00 +$50.00 (Public Notice ree)+$75 (SEPA)=$625 No existing violations of the zoning ordinance. 4.Give a detailed description of the proposed use that requires a special permit (attach separate sheet if more space is necessary}: The proposed facility will be for the acceptance and handling of solid waste.As such,this use categorically requires the issuance of a special permit as per 2586.020 of the PMC.This solid waste transfer facility will accept the solid waste from commercial vehicles Monday through Saturday throughout the year.Refuse collection vehicles,as well as large transport trucks will operate at this location.Various pieces of industrial equipment,as well as employee vehicle traffic will result from normal operations. 5.A site map /plan,drawn neatly and to scale,showing the following: (a)Exterior property lines and any adjacent public street or alley rights- of—way; (b)Existing and proposed buildings and other structures; (c)Existing and proposed points of ingress and egress,drives,driveways, and circulation pattern; (d)The location of existing and proposed parking areas with each parking space shown; (e)Existing and proposed open spaces and landscape areas. NOTE:Provide a variance report giving a list and mailing address of owners of all property within 300 feet of the applicant’s property,as shown by a local title Company QB payment of $80.00 which shall be utilized by the City to obtain a current list of property owners of all properties within 300 feet of the applicants property. Fee for Special Permit —$500.00 Environmental Checklist —$75.00 Radius Notification —$50.00 (or provide Variance report in lieu of $50.00)$625.00 Updated 7.12.2017 2 Page 39 of 365 FILE:$500.00 +$50.00 (Public Notice i-<‘ee)+$75 (SEPA)=$625 2022 émumqlqi4/![LC Signature of Ap icant T 3 MA.- *Notarized Signatu e of Property Owner State of Washington ) ss. County of Franklin ) On this day oflg Dar ,30/2,before me the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,duly commissioned an sworn, personally appeared FYA/H/K being duly sworn on his/her oath that he/she has prepare and read the foregoing statements and has acknowledged to me that the recitations contained therein are true,and has signed this instrument as his /her free and voluntary act and deed for the purposes therein mentioned. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this EW clay of 00;/‘vbék ,9»/?. \\\\\\\\\\\mm Ad/ZVL<(M/_s‘;e\—‘EL"oC.”~. V‘S /,NO-¢.\-~““-m.,('1,...=5 5‘.'°'\!"9,0 Public n and for t e State of Washington5é‘¢of etc";’?'1 --‘5 :3 \‘“B.if.‘A g Residing at 10,11 ;m’;“'‘“'§2 My Commission expires M11 ‘/2 I A '6 05;)"5 -77'5'»1 5'Q 31/1,,.3 “g 0 - /l,«O""'Iuui\\\-““9"5 0”;#WASH‘‘S '|\\\\\\\\\“ Updated 7.18.2017 3 Page 40 of 365 |523.44'239.53’331.29’376.72 1 I 1 _V‘ I B 3 ~\ -3 <r I L0 O [0:)‘_'©\ Ln k0 _-OT 1 5 L ~g '- l g |—L.n<5 3 3$1-510-1 05 GM 3;_ ? 1 3 —':I 1,z l_,_|__>Lu 0'» \ _ L0 in.M 1 ’|3-51 O~’|20 m 8‘2):3 431 B6 236 63 3 O \an *----GA*:ssr*:.m:5g;;"*--B 2.94’Z4?.)B a 256.31%g ~.9?7"=a3Lm 1 .LQ?\(]:%8onAn8Q m “N V:.:_3.24mm G,= 3 N5=I'2=rn'\V:1 Q ‘~“113-(95 15 “‘ 1 1,M8-“,g%\"N89°24 41 E ~®gfi %\$LOT 2 m "‘5 1* ” \ E 2 I (/15355.350]:.1 I\- In §',: ELL,113~510-119 O; N \.v-m K0 .133 \In : °’\‘*8 U7 LL, 113—520~271 ‘O V7 :.o 1 \‘T Q OW \8 O "7 ‘ an L/)To\.rm \u ‘O O L/7 R=25Z7.51’ L_=353.89‘ L,‘,3,T_52f,’.,‘,,Dy‘1 13—51o—1 18 L=342.45' 113-510-111 H=2722.63’ 1 :IRR 74-.~ Page 41 of 365 PARCEL 2 THAT PORTION OF LOT 11 OF THE BINDING SITE PLAN 2011-O3 RECORDED IN VOLUME 1 OF BINDING SITE PLANS AT PAGES 139 THROUGH 144 LYING IN SECTION 21,TOWNSHIP 09 NORTH,RANGE 30 EAST,W.M.,FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT THENCE SOUTH 00°35’36”EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1139.56 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 00°35'36”EAST ALONG SAID LINE 917.47 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 46°06’16”EAST 681.95 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 43°53’44"EAST ALONG SAID LINE 316.14 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID LINE; THENCE NORTH OO°35’39”EAST ALONG SAID LINE 1169.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°24’41”WEST 708.05 FEET TO THE SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 19.44 ACRES SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS,RESERVATIONS,COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD AND IN VIEW. .~\\\\~.s~\\\\\\~\~.—u/1/,/4 »/,1-.,,.._.1 unit ;.»\‘§\uxsuw.‘-‘<4: Page 42 of 365 cuwagon_.© ¢5:3w_moo®. ,[.>m§w>__m3OE_.:._m. £059..”._£m:m._._.U¢mOQO._&.. ,I.in Page 43 of 365 WILLIAMS KASTNER" [IBU( January 25,2018 273470122 HAND DELIVERED TO CITY PLANNER Mayor Watkins and Councilmembers R ElVED City of Pasco ‘U A525N.3rd Avenue *§':;‘i’l 2 5 33ii’ Pasco,WA 99301 COMMUNITY&ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT Re:Special Permit Appeal Master File No.SP 2017-019 Honorable Mayor Watkins and Councilmembers: Basin Disposal,Inc.appeals the Planning Commission recommendation to deny an application for Special Permit approval to construct a solid waste transfer station (”SWTS”).Community Development professional planning staff recommended conditional approval of this application at Planning Commission meetings in November and December 2017.Staff changed its recommendation to denial at the January 18,2018 meeting,based on what we believe is misapprehension of an inherent condition of approval for any SWTS:no operation of the SWTS can occur without County and State Health Department approval of an operating permit requiring conformance with the County Solid Waste Management Plan (”SWMP”). We believe there is no issue of compliance with the current out of date SWMP.State law requires this SWMP to be updated prior to County and State Health Department approvals required for the proposal.City approval of a Special Permit is only one of several initial steps in the many layers of City,County and State approvals required for SWTS construction and operation.To confirm compliance with all these requirements,Basin Disposal stipulates to the following additional condition of approval to the list of conditions specified by Staff in its December 21,2017 Report to Planning Commission: 14.A building permit for construction of the solid waste transfer station will not be issued until the applicant presents documentation of Benton-Franklin County Health Department approval of an operating permit issued in conformance with the Franklin County Solid Waste Management Plan. Again,this has always been an inherent condition of approval for this project.Making SWMP conformance an express condition of approval answers Staff concern leading to a changed recommendation at the Planning Commission meeting of January 18"‘.Please review Tab A,which Williams,KasmerE GlnbsPLLC Two UnionSquare 60‘UnionStreet Suite 4100 Seattle Washington98101 mam 206 628.6600 lax 206 628 6611 \'."Nw ~.-.wH>an1sl<astner.cnm \.‘/ASHINGTON.OREGDNALASKAHRR17:17 1 Page 44 of 365 January 25,2018 Page 3 3.Pasco’s residents,businesses and garbage rate payers —your constituents —benefit from having a second SWTS efficiently serving needs of a rapidly growing community. Acting in the best interests of your constituents calls for efficient transfer of solid waste and market competition.Approval of Basin Disposal’s Special Permit adds great efficiency to current municipal garbage pickup activities by providing a transfer station located next door to Basin Disposa|’s truck yard and operations center.This offers reduced hauling costs and tipping fees.This efficiency reduces pressure on Basin Disposal’s costs,and in turn reduces pressure on garbage collection fees paid by your constituents.Public policy calling for the Council to advance the best interests of Pasco citizens and businesses warrants approval of this Special Permit. Additional grounds for this appeal are spelled out in two attached letters.The first is a letter presented to the Planning Commission on December 21,2017.The second is a letter to City Attorney Kerr addressing the Planning Commission question of whether two GMA statutes apply to Planning Commission review of the Special Permit application.See Tab B for both letters.Our letter to the Planning Commission is at Tab A in the letter to City Attorney Kerr.We will gladly answer any questions the City Council may have concerning the points of this appeal letter and the attached two letters further explaining compliance with Pasco and state laws, Very truly yours, WILLIAMS,KASTNER &GIBBS PLLC Alan L Wallace Attorney at Law awallace@williamskastner.com (206)628-6771 cc:Basin Disposal Enclosures:Tab A Tab B 4'1-=1t:1'7 I Page 45 of 365 January 25,2018 Page 4 TAB A WIR1 R17 1 Page 46 of 365 BDI is proposing to locate the solid waste transfer station directly to the east and adjacent to their main offices and operations center.The design of the proposed building may be more efficient in controlling odors and litter than the design of the existing transfer station on Dietrich Road.The existing transfer station has not become a nuisance to surrounding uses and has not discouraged the development of surrounding properties. 10. 11. 12. 13. APPROVAL CONDITIONS The special permit shall apply to Franklin County Tax Parcel # 113720139,being Parcel 2 of Lotl 1,Binding Site Plan 2011-03. The transfer building must be fully enclosed except for truck entrances and exits. The site must be developed in general conformance with the site plan submitted with this special permit application. The applicant must employ best available management practices to control dust and or litter generated by the operation of the transfer station. No outdoor dumping or storage of solid waste is permitted. All streets adjoining the site must be improved to City standards with the requisite utility infrastructure in conjunction with the construction of the transfer station. A masonry block wall of at least 6 feet in height shall be placed along the northern,eastern and southern boundary of the site to be used for the transfer station.The block wall shall continue down the shared west property line with Lot 13,BSP 2011. The masonry wall along Holland Street must be setback to allow a minimum of 10 feet of landscaping between the sidewalk and wall. The landscaping fronting Holland may contain shrubs and lawn with lawn occupying at least 70 percent of the landscaped area.Street trees must be placed at 50 foot intervals and said trees must match the varieties planted in front of the BDI office on Commercial Avenue. All driveways to and from the transfer station from Holland Street and the BDI facilities to the west must be hard surfaced. All truck maneuvering areas in and around the transfer station must be hard surfaced. All necessary state and local permit must be obtained prior to constructing the transfer station. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by December 31,2019. Page 47 of 365 January 25,2018 Page 5 TAB B r.'4:1 =1 '1 1 Page 48 of 365 January 10,2018 Page 2 In a nutshell,the GMA directs Pasco’s adoption of a comprehensive plan and implementing development regulations.An aggrieved person with standing must file a petition with the Growth Management Hearings Board (”GMI-IB”)to contest compliance of those Pasco enactments with the GMA.Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan and Title 25 Zoning (Zoning Code)are presumed compliant with GMA mandates. The State Supreme Court continually holds the GMA does not directly regulate site-specificland use activities.VikingProps.,Inc.v.Holm,155 Wn.2d 112,126,118 P.3d 322 (2005);WillapnGroup Harbor Oyster Growers Ass’n v.Maby Dick Corp.,115 Wn.App 417,429,62 P.3d 912 (2003);Skagit Surveyors Er Eng’rs,LLC 12.Friends ofSkagitCounty,135 Wn.2d 542,565,958 P.2d 962 (1998);and Woods 11.Kittitas County,162 Wn.2d 597,612-13,174 P.3d 25 (2007).An important aspect of this repeated holding is that ”...the GMA has no provision that it is to be liberally construed.”Woods, 162 Wn.2d at 612.In other words,there is no legislative mandate to give broad effect of GMA terms to the review of,site specific project applications. In Woods the Supreme Court rejected argument that GMA protection of rural lands barred a rezone to R-3,which allowed three acre lots.The Court found that ”challenge to the rezone’s compliance with the GMA is a disguised challenge to the adequacy of the comprehensive plan itself.This is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of a GMHB,not a superior court."Woods,162 Wn.2d,614- 15.Applying this law to the instant application,the Planning Commission simply has no jurisdiction to hear or decide argument concerning GMA compliance.Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code ”are presumed to comply with the GMA”absent timely petition to the GMHB, and that time has long passed.Woods,162 Wn.2d,615-16 We ?rmly view Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code as being fully compliant with GMA Sections 36.7OA.200 and .210.But any question of GMA compliance is irrelevant to Flaming Commission and City Council action on this application.Opponent argument that the Planning Commission must give effect to these GMA statutes is simply incorrect. 2.Special Permit application No.SI’2017-019 ”must only generally conform,rather than strictly conform to the comprehensive plan.A comprehensive plan does not directly regulate site- specific land use decisions.”Woods,162 Wn.2d at 613. Opponent’s argument that Comprehensive Plan Policy 4 must be strictly interpreted in a manner to deny SP 2017 simply misstates the law.A comprehensive plan is ”a generalized coordinated land use policy statement”providing ”a general blueprint for land use decisions;it does not directly regulate,nor was it intended to regulate directly,site specific land uses.”RCW 36.70A.030(4);Feil 22. Eastern Washington Growth Mrmr1gementHenringsBd.,153 Wn.App.394,409,220 P.3d 1248 (2009). 6335163.1 Page 49 of 365 January 10,20l8 Page 4 the zmiing rugiilntitnzs,Hit‘iqqizliztitiiismust p1'uzmi1.lltl Wn.App.I74,183,6]P.3d 332,337 (2002) (internal citations‘omitted,emphasis added). So in Timberlri/cvthe court held a ‘zoning code’s allowance by conditional use permit for a church located outside the urban growth boundary prevails over comprehensive plan policies generally restricting schools and churches to urban lands.In’,The same is true here.Pasco’s Zoning,Code is presumed compliant with the CM/—\,and therefore to be consistent with and implement Pasco's Comprehensive Plan.(l'VoorIs,"162Wn.App.At 6I5~'l6;RCW 36.7OA.040(4)(d).)Opponent's argument that Policy 4 requires denial has no merit under the holding of Timlzerla/cc.Indeed,as in Woorls and other cases,what the opponent is actually doing is implicitly arguing the Zoning Code conflicts with GMA requirements.But as explained in Wnurls,local land use permit decisioiwnakiiig bodies and reviewing courts have no jurisdiction to determine whether a regulation or site specific application comply with the Gi\/IA.Just as in Timberlake,opponent’s argument that a strained, strict interpretation of Policy 4 prevails over Zoning Code allowance for a solid waste transfer station by Special Permit must also fail. SL1mmarv GMA Sections 36.70/\.20tJ and .210 have no effect upon Planning Commission and City Council decisions concerning SP No.20'l 7-019.Staff gives proper effect to all relevant Comprehensive Plan policies and confirms this application generally conforms with same.Opponent’s argument that Policy 4 controls ”conl|icting”Zoning Code authority for approving a transfer station in an Industrial zone through Special Permit procedures is incorrect under the law that Timlvcrlnke explains. Very truly yours, WILLIAMS,KASTNER &GIBBS PLLC Alan L.Wallace awallace@williamsl<astner.com (206)628-6771 Enclosures CCI Dave McDonald,City of Pasco Darrick Dietrich,Proponent 633Sl63.l Page 50 of 365 \./\/ll.L_|Al\/i5 l</ASTNER " December 2],2017 Planning Commission City of Pasco 525 N.3rd Avenue Pasco,WA 99301 Re:2022 Commercial Ave,LLC Solid Waste Transfer Station MF SP 2017-019 Dear Chairman Cruz and Planning Commissioners: Williams Kastner is regulatory and land use counsel for the proponent of Special Permit 20'l7—O'l9.We serve as legal counsel for licensed solid waste companies throughout Washington State,from Spokane to Vancouver,and the Puget Sound region to Tri—Cities.We often assist solid waste companies with the whole array of land Lise,environmental and State and local Health Department regulatory and permitting requirements for solid waste transfer‘facilities. We urge Planning Commissioners to approve a motion adopting City Planning Staff's proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions Based on Staff Findings of Fact as detailed at pages 4 through 9 of the Report to Planning Commission.The professional planning analysis presented in this Report and in City Planner Dave McDonald's Memorandum dated December 21,2017 appropriately answers both the six City Code criteria for Special Permit approval and all issues opponents present against the application. City Staff analysis and proposed Findings and Conclusions are based on expert city planning opinion.This is the only substantial evidence now before the Planning Commission.Project opponents only present arguments that are either irrelevant to the six Special Permit criteria,or are merely speculative assertions of harm unsupported by substantial evidence.Land Lise law requires you to base your decision on substantial evidence,not speculation.The record established by the application,Staff Report and City Planner Memorandum,coupled with recommended conditions of approval,merit your recommendation for the City Council to approve SP 2017-U19. lnext highlight several points raised at the prior Planning Commission meeting. 1.The proposed transfer station activities will occur in a drive through steel building encapsulating most impacts,and fitting with the industrial buildings and zoning of neighboring properties. -City is requiring proponent to construct an extension of the current dead-end City local access street.This creates a loop road connection enhancing flow of truck traffic for neighbors and the transfer station. -Garbage trucks already access Basin Disposa1’s neighboring site,so no substantial increase in truck traffic is anticipated. -Full building enclosure of the solid waste tipping yard mitigates noise,odor and litter issues. 0 State Department of Ecology answers any complaints on air quality and odor pursuant to State and federal Clean Air Acts. _,.,;mi ),,.mg ('\1\1'.'1lW 1 Page 51 of 365 1 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2017-019 APPLICANT: 2022 Commercial Ave. LLC HEARING DATE: 11/16/2017 2021 Commercial Ave ACTION DATE: 12/21/2017 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Solid Waste Transfer Station in an I-1 Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Parcel 2 of Lot 11, Binding Site Plan 2011-03 General Location: SW corner of Ventura Rd and the PK Highway Property Size: 19.44 Acres 2. ACCESS: The site will have access from Holland Street which will be built in conjunction with the transfer station. Holland will connect to Commercial Avenue and Garland Street. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal utilities are currently located in Commercial Avenue and Garland Street. They will be extended in Holland Street in conjunction with construction of the transfer station. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: I-1 – Agriculture and Trucking SOUTH: I-1 – Agriculture and Trucking EAST: I-1 – Agriculture WEST: I-1 – BDI Facilities and Offices and Trucking 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The plan includes County Planning Policy # 4 dealing with essential public facilities such as solid waste facilities. County Planning Policy # 4 states that no local comprehensive plan or development regulation shall preclude the siting of essential public facilities. The proposed solid waste transfer station falls within the definition of an essential facility. CF-7-A through CF-7-D provide additional guidance for essential facilities. The County Integrated Solid Waste Plan states the County has established a goal of safely and cost- effectively transporting waste over a 20 year planning period. The Solid Waste Plan also recommends no additional Transfer Station should be built between 2010 and 2030. Page 52 of 365 2 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, testimony at the November 16, 2017 public hearing and other information, a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) has been issued for this project. Mitigation factors include the following: • The transfer building must be fully enclosed except for truck entrances and exits. • Best available management practices must be employed to control dust and or litter generated by the operation of the transfer station. • No outdoor dumping or storage of solid waste is permitted. • All streets adjoining the site must be improved to City standards with the requisite utility infrastructure in conjunction with the construction of the transfer station. • A masonry block wall of at least 6 feet in height shall be placed along the northern, eastern and southern boundary of the site to be used for the transfer station. The block wall shall continue down the shared west property line with Lot 13, BSP 2011. • The masonry wall along Holland Street must be setback to allow a minimum of 10 feet of landscaping between the sidewalk and wall. • The landscaping fronting Holland may contain shrubs and lawn with lawn occupying at least 70 percent of the landscaped area. Street trees must be placed at 50 foot intervals and said trees must match the varieties planted in front of the BDI office on Commercial Avenue. • All driveways to and from the transfer station from Holland Street and the BDI facilities to the west must be hard surfaced. • All truck maneuvering areas in and around the transfer station must be hard surfaced. • All necessary state and local permit must be obtained prior to constructing the transfer station. ANALYSIS The current CBLLC Transfer Station (not operated by Basin Disposal Inc. [BDI]) at 1721 Dietrich Road opened in 1992. At the time the existing transfer station was constructed Franklin County had a population of 39,200. Today the County population is estimated to be 90,330. BDI not only serves communities within Franklin County but, also provides solid waste collection service for communities in surround counties including West Richland, Benton City, and parts of Richland. The garbage collected by BDI is transported to the current Page 53 of 365 3 transfer station where it is packed into semi-trucks and hauled to the land fill in Oregon. Except for the purchase of additional acreage (10) in April of this year and some minor building improvements the existing Transfer Station has remained essentially the same since it was constructed in the 1990’s. Not only has the population grown within the region but so have commercial and industrial enterprises. In 1992 BDI delivered 52,000 tons of solid waste to the current transfer station. Last year 168,000 tons of waste was delivered. The Washington State Office of Financial Management estimated in 2017 Franklin County’s population could grow to 158,574 by 2040 creating the need for additional garbage service. Solid waste transfer stations play an important role in providing garbage disposal within the community. There is no longer a traditional garbage dump in Pasco. Refuse is collected from homes and businesses and then taken to the transfer station where it is loaded into large semi-trailers and hauled to a regional land fill near Boardman, Oregon. Transfer Stations are a critical component in addressing health and hygiene within the City. Seven or eight years ago the existing transfer station and two other functions of BDI (container rentals and recycling) were spun off into a separate LLC. Columbia Basin LLC now operates the transfer station and BDI operates the garbage collection service. The two entities more or less serve the same geographic area. To address current and future garbage disposal needs BDI is planning on constructing a new and larger transfer station adjacent to their main office and operations center on Commercial Avenue. The new transfer station will include a 25,600 square foot building to load garbage into semi-trailers for transport to the regional land fill along with a trailer storage area and an equipment laydown yard. The proposed transfer station will create economies of scale and operational efficiencies by being adjacent to the existing BDI truck storage areas, fueling systems and repair and maintenance facilities. The proposed facility will enable BDI to better control their hours of operation, flow of solid waste and manage their own recycling system. The proposed transfer station building will be an efficient drive through building with walls along the east and west sides to better contain blowing papers and debris. The new building may also be better suited for waste separation for future recycling. The site of the proposed transfer station has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan for industrial uses for over 35 years. The site has also been zoned for industrial activities for about 35 years. Surrounding and nearby uses include numerous trucking related businesses, farming, agricultural Page 54 of 365 4 processing, the current transfer station an industrial pipe supplier, the Oxarc facility and other related industrial facilities. Unlike the Waste Management transfer station at the corner of Ely and 27th in Kennewick which is located next to a residential neighborhood, the proposed station is adjacent to industrial properties. The character of the neighborhood is industrial and the proposed transfer station is an industrial use. The site is located conveniently to the Lewis Street Interchange and Highway 12 which provides the main transportation link to and from communities in Benton, Franklin and Walla Walla Counties. The current Franklin County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (2010) recommends that no new transfer station “should” be built during the planning period 2010 to 2030). The Solid Waste Management Plan is almost eight years old and has not been updated as required by RCW 70.95. The Solid Waste Management Plan was based on a 2030 population projection of 94,324 people. The 2017 OFM estimate for Franklin County is 90,330. The 2017 population has almost reached the 2030 projection used as the basis for the plan. The most recent population projects for the County indicate the 2040 population could reach 158,574. The Solid Waste Plan suggests there is capacity in the current transfer station to handle a population of 94,324. The County is about a year away from reaching that population milestone. The Solid Waste Plan needs to include projections and estimates based on another 68,244 people. The Solid Waste Management Plan also recommends the County should continue to export solid waste to the landfill in Morrow County, Oregon. To continue to export solid waste to a regional landfill the community must rely on solid waste transfer stations. As the City and County are in the process of updating the required GMA plans to reflect updated population projections and increased development it appears the County Solid Waste Plan also needs to be updated. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report and staff memo. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The parcel contains 19.44 acres. 2. The site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) allowing for the development of more intense land uses that can create noise, odors and heavy traffic. 3. All surrounding properties are zone I-1 allowing for more intensive land uses. Page 55 of 365 5 4. The City has been promoting the proposed site and general neighborhood for more intense industrial land uses for over 35 years. 5. The general neighborhood is characterized as an industrial neighborhood 6. The proposed use is industrial in nature. 7. There is an existing solid waste transfer station located at 1721 Dietrich Rd, 1.25 miles to the east of the proposed transfer station site. 8. The existing transfer station is zoned I-1 under County zoning. The existing transfer station is part of the character of the neighborhood. 9. Many of the nearby businesses are truck and transfer type businesses. 10. BDI is essentially a trucking and transfer type business dealing in the transportation of garbage and recyclables. 11. The proposed site is located adjacent to the main operational center of BDI. The BDI operational center contains administrative offices, truck fueling facilities, truck maintenance buildings, truck storage, slide off dumpster storage, a portable toilet business and other features. 12. Locating the proposed solid waste transfer station adjacent to the existing BDI operational center will enabled BDI to increase operational efficiencies that may result in benefits to rate payers. 13. A solid waste transfer station is defined as an essential public facility and by the City’s Comprehensive Plan (County-Wide Planning Policy #4 (B)) and GMA law (RCW 36.70A.200 (5)) the City and the County cannot create or have regulations that would preclude the location of essential public facilities within the County. 14. The site is located near the Lewis Street interchange providing convenient access to communities in Franklin County and surrounding counties. 15. The addition of a second transfer station will help diffuse truck traffic through the neighborhood. Additionally, some truck traffic on City streets will be eliminated because the garbage collection trucks will be able to return to nightly storage, maintenance facilities and the main natural gas fueling facility without re-entering and traveling on City streets. 16. Building plans and building elevations are not typically part of special permit applications in industrial zones. The City’s Plans Examiner reviews and approves building plans not the Planning Commission. 17. The approval of a special permit is a non-project land use approval. A special permit does not authorize the issuance of a building permit or a Health District permit or approval of any kind from the Department of Ecology. Page 56 of 365 6 18. The Franklin County Solid Waste Management Plan recommendations are based on a population estimate of 94,324. The current County population is 90,330 and the OFM projection for 2040 places the County population at 158,574. 19. The Franklin County Solid Waste Management Plan is a general guide, not a commandment, is seriously out dated and no longer reflects true needs within the County. 20. The Franklin County Solid Waste Plan indicates the current transfer station has a capacity of handling 1,200 tons of waste per day. BDI reports current deliveries of 646 tons per day to the existing transfer station. CBLLC reports during 2017 (January to October) BDI has delivered an average of 501 tons of municipal garbage and 13.38 tons of recyclable material per day. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the GMA that states no local regulation or comprehensive plan shall preclude the sitting of essential public facilities such as a solid waste transfer station. Policies (CF-7-A through CF-7- D) of the Plan suggest mitigation measure be included in the special permit review along with an environmental review and concurrency for utilities and streets and a review of alternate sites (a discussion about these policies has been provided in the attached Staff memo.) The County Solid Waste Plan recommends the community continue to export solid waste to a regional landfill in Morrow County, Oregon. This will require continued and heavier reliance on solid waste transfer stations. The County Solid Waste Plan also states no new transfer stations “should” be but during the 2010 to 2030 planning period. The plan however, is eight years old and seriously out of date. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The site is located in an area that the community has planned for industrial uses for over 35 years. Public infrastructure including sewer and water and streets are near the site and will be extended with construction of the facility. The nearby Lewis Street Interchange was designed for industrial traffic and is Page 57 of 365 7 currently utilized by the BDI fleet of trucks, trucks transporting to the existing transfer station, the carrot plant trucks and other agricultural related facilities. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The proposed transfer station is similar to the solid waste facilities that currently operate in the neighborhood. The proposed transfer station will be constructed to current building codes and City standards related to street improvements and landscaping which will enhance the character of the neighborhood. The site is located adjacent to the main BDI operational center where garbage trucks are stored, repaired and maintained and where roll off garbage containers are stored. BDI also operates a portable toilet company adjacent to the proposed transfer station site. The current BDI operations and surrounding trucking firms make extensive use of their lots for outdoor storage of trucks, equipment, containers and miscellaneous items. (4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? The existing transfer station on Dietrich Road has not discouraged the development of surrounding properties that developed after the transfer station was built. The existing transfer station also has not impacted the sale of nearby properties for other uses. The old Leavitt trucking property (based on 2017 County Assessor records) on Dietrich Road near the existing transfer station sold yearly this year for almost $700,000 more than the assessed value. The presence of the exiting transfer station did not hinder the sale of the property. The proposed transfer station building will be no taller than the existing BDI shop building on the adjacent property. (5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The operations of the proposed transfer station will be similar to the activities of the adjacent BDI operations center, the agricultural storage sheds that generate odors and the operation of nearby trucking firms that create traffic, dust, vibrations, and fumes. The operations of the facility will also be similar to the existing transfer station. (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Page 58 of 365 8 BDI is proposing to locate the solid waste transfer station directly to the east and adjacent to their main offices and operations center. The design of the proposed building may be more efficient in controlling odors and litter than the design of the existing transfer station on Dietrich Road. The existing transfer station has not become a nuisance to surrounding uses and has not discouraged the development of surrounding properties. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The special permit shall apply to Franklin County Tax Parcel # 113720139, being Parcel 2 of Lot11, Binding Site Plan 2011-03. 2. The transfer building must be fully enclosed except for truck entrances and exits. 3. The site must be developed in general conformance with the site plan submitted with this special permit application. 4. The applicant must employ best available management practices to control dust and or litter generated by the operation of the transfer station. 5. No outdoor dumping or storage of solid waste is permitted. 6. All streets adjoining the site must be improved to City standards with the requisite utility infrastructure in conjunction with the construction of the transfer station. 7. A masonry block wall of at least 6 feet in height shall be placed along the northern, eastern and southern boundary of the site to be used for the transfer station. The block wall shall continue down the shared west property line with Lot 13, BSP 2011. 8. The masonry wall along Holland Street must be setback to allow a minimum of 10 feet of landscaping between the sidewalk and wall. 9. The landscaping fronting Holland may contain shrubs and lawn with lawn occupying at least 70 percent of the landscaped area. Street trees must be placed at 50 foot intervals and said trees must match the varieties planted in front of the BDI office on Commercial Avenue. 10. All driveways to and from the transfer station from Holland Street and the BDI facilities to the west must be hard surfaced. 11. All truck maneuvering areas in and around the transfer station must be hard surfaced. 12. All necessary state and local permit must be obtained prior to constructing the transfer station. 13. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by December 31, 2019. Page 59 of 365 9 RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 21, 2017 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to 2022 Commercial Ave. LLC for the location of a solid waste transfer station Parcel 2 of Lot 11, Binding Site Plan 2011-03 with conditions as contained in the December 21, 2017 staff report. Page 60 of 365 Item: Waste Transfer StationApplicant: 2022 Commercial Ave LLCFile #: SP 2017-019 Overview MapSITE0 600 1200 1800 2400FeetPage 61 of 365 Item: Waste Transfer StationApplicant:2022 Commercial Ave LLC File #: Z 2017-019 Vicinity Map SITE 0 75 150 225 300 375 Feet Page 62 of 365 Item: Waste Transfer StationApplicant:2022 Commercial Ave LLC File #: Z 2017-019 Land Use Map SITE Farming Industrial 0 75 150 225 300 375 Feet Page 63 of 365 Item: Waste Transfer StationApplicant:2022 Commercial Ave LLC File #: Z 2017-019 Zoning Map SITE I-1 I-1 0 75 150 225 300 375 Feet Page 64 of 365 TRANSFER STATIONLAYDOWN AREAH O L L A N D S T . P R O P . L I N E ( 3 1 6 . 1 4 ' )PROP. LINE (708.05')PROP. LINE (1169.77')19.44 ACRESPROP. LINE (681.95')STORAGE AREATRAILERPROP. LINE (917.47')PARCEL 113-510-118PARCEL 113-510-118COMMERCIAL AVE.NEIGHBORING PARCELSHEET NO. :DATE:BY:CHKD:JOB #:LOT #:BLK #:SUBD:ADD:DESIGNGROUP17-020HP12-14-17A-101DWSCALE:NORTH1"=150'CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANPage 65 of 365 0 t' .1 "I I. !.'. 1 ....---- Page 66 of 365 Item: Waste Transfer StationApplicant:2022 Commercial Ave LLC File #: Z 2017-019 Proposed Layout 0 50 100 150 200 250 FeetPage 67 of 365 Looking NorthPage 68 of 365 Looking EastPage 69 of 365 Looking SouthPage 70 of 365 Looking WestPage 71 of 365 Memo to Planning Commission Dated: 12/21/17 Page 72 of 365 1 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: December 21, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: 2022 Commercial Ave LLC Solid Waste Transfer Station (MF# SP 2017-019) In July of 2016 staff met with representatives of Basin Disposal Inc. to discuss the need to plan for a new and updated solid waste transfer station. Staff was provided an explanation of how the proposed new transfer station would be configured and operated. Staff understood the new transfer station would be designed to improve operation efficiencies and enhance opportunities for recycling. At the July meeting a number of sites were reviewed and the special permit process was explained. In October of this year Mr. Dietrich of Basin Disposal Inc. and his real estate agent returned to the Planning Office to again discuss the need and plans for a new solid waste transfer station. The property adjacent to the main office and operations center for BDI was now available for sale. Mr. Dietrich wanted to know if a solid waste transfer station would be a permitted use on the adjacent parcel to his office. He was apprehensive about purchasing the property without knowing if a transfer station would be permitted. Even though the site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial), is adjacent to a garbage company and in an area that has a significant number of trucking firms staff could not could not give Mr. Dietrich an answer. Solid waste transfer stations are an unclassified use under PMC 25.86.010 and require review through the special permit process before being located in the City. Not knowing whether the City would permit a transfer station on the site in question Mr. Dietrich’s only option for obtaining an answer was to apply for a special permit. A special permit application starts the process for conducting a land use review only. A special permit does not authorize a building permit or right-of- way permit for the construction of a solid waste facility. The special permit does not and cannot grant Health District approval or the approval of a permit from the Department of Ecology. All the applicant is attempting to do at this point is obtain some form of assurance from a land use perspective that if he purchases the site a transfer station could be located on it sometime in the future. The applicant will still need to work through all the other required permits at the state and local level. At this point the applicant Page 73 of 365 2 is not asking for a permit to operate a transfer station. He is only seeking land use approval which is a non-project action. The application is strictly a land use matter and the Planning Commission’s is charged with the responsibility of reviewing it as a land use matter. It is not a business competition matter or a Department of Ecology permitting matter. The criteria list in PMC 25.86.060 is what the Planning Commission is to use as a guide for considering this land use issue. Having control over the land is the first step in the applicant’s long process of obtaining the state and local permits necessary before building and operating a solid waste transfer station. A solid waste transfer station is defined as an essential public facility and by the City’s Comprehensive Plan (County-Wide Planning Policy #4 (B)) and GMA law (RCW 36.70A.200 (5)). The City and the County cannot create or have regulations that would preclude the location of essential public facilities within the County. Essential public facilities include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities and state or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, regional transit authority facilities as defined in RCW 81.112.020, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and inpatient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020. The Comprehensive Plan contains a number of policy statements to guide the location of essential public facilities within the community. They are as follows: CF-7-A Policy: Review all reasonable alternatives for the location of essential public facilities prior to granting necessary permits. About eighty percent of Franklin County’s population lives within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. As more emphasis is placed on encouraging population growth to occur within urban areas that percentage rate may increase. The Office of Financial Management population projections for Franklin County indicate Pasco may grow by another 55,179 people by 2040 reaching a population of over 126,859. Therefore the greatest need for most of the garbage service over the next 20 years will be generated in and around Pasco. Locating a transfer station near a majority of the garbage customers and the main BDI truck yard and fueling station will create efficiencies in the garbage collection and disposal system generally benefiting the rate payers. Page 74 of 365 3 In 2016 Staff reviewed several potential sites for a new transfer station in the Commercial Avenue area, the “A” Street/Road 40 East area, the Industrial way area, the PK Highway area and near the Tri-cities Airport prior to the current application being submitted. The applicant reviewed the pros and cons of each site with City Staff. Due to the lack of utilities, water lines for fire protection, gas lines for truck fueling and conflicts with potential future uses the applicant was unable locate a suitable site. An offer was made on a site near the current Dietrich Road transfer station, but after consultation with CFR foods, an adjoining property owner, the offer was withdrawn. Several of the sites considered were being reserved for food processing related businesses. The airport site had issue related to airport protections zones. The southern boundary of existing transfer station property, which includes the 10 acres purchased earlier this year, is 150 feet from the Dietrich Road site that had to be dropped because of concerns expressed by CRF foods. Any expansion on the existing transfer station property may face the same issues as the site on the west side of Dietrich Road. The odd shape of the existing transfer station site, the existence of a large gas line easement through the site, the location and configuration of existing structures may also create some difficulties in expanding the current transfer station. The proposed site became available over a year after staff reviewed other sites with the applicant. The proposed site is in an area characterized by industrial development, utilities are nearby and easy to extend. The site is adjacent to the existing BDI office, operations center, fueling station and truck servicing and storage yard which will create efficiency for the operation of a transfer station that cannot be found at other locations. CF-7-B Policy: Ensure all potential environmental impacts are considered for each essential public facility including the cumulative impacts of multiple facilities. As with any special permit application a SEPA checklist was required to be reviewed for possible environmental impacts related to the location of the proposed transfer station. A MDNS will be issued for this project including a number of mitigating measures designed to address the operational concerns over the proposed solid waste transfer station. An additional SEPA checklist will be submitted and review at the project development stage. Policy CF-7-B was included in the Comprehensive Plan to address a major community concerns about multiple essential facilities locating Page 75 of 365 4 in and near Downtown Pasco. At that time the community was confronted with various problems related to the mission, work release, the Benton Franklin Alcohol Treatment Center and various group homes. These facilities were impacting the community’s tax base and ability to provide police and social services. These facilities contributed to general public disorder in the downtown area, loitering, vandalism and other acts detrimental to the overall public image of the community. A transfer Station, although defined as an essential services does not rise to the same level of concern as inpatient facilities, substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, secure community transition facilities and homeless shelters. The social and financial impacts are completely different. With the projected increases in population over the next 20 years the need for garbage service will only increase. Whether the garbage is process at one or two transfer station it will still have to be handled. The proposed transfer station may create economies of scale by locating adjacent to the main garbage company operations center and fueling station that may be reflected in other benefits to the community. Transfer stations are tax paying facilities that don’t create the negative external impacts that are associated with other essential services. CF-7-C Policy: Ensure essential public facilities contribute to necessary concurrency requirements for transportation and utilities. To fulfill concurrency requirements the proposed transfer station will be responsible for building Holland Street to the standard specification of the City Engineer. These improvements will include a street base, pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, storm drainage and all other appurtenances related to city streets. In addition water and sewer lines and other utilities will be placed in Holland Street or in an easement adjacent to the street. These improvements will be the responsibility of the applicant not the public. CF-7-D Policy; Adopt mitigating measures during the special permit review process to address potential land use compatibility issues with surrounding uses. The special permit process is used to ensure land uses are compatible and to avoid conflicts between properties. The Planning Commission often accomplishes this by recommending various conditions related to site development to protect the character of a neighborhood. The proposed site is in an industrial neighborhood within a mile of the existing transfer station. The existing transfer station is on a site that is not landscaped or sight screened and is accessed by a street that does not comply with the standard specification of the City. Staff has Page 76 of 365 5 included a list of conditions in the attached staff report that addresses potential compatibility issues. These conditions include landscaping along the street, a sight screening wall, probation on the outdoor dumping or storage of garbage and litter and dust control measures. During the hearing on November 16, 2017 a number of questions and comments were present to the Planning Commission. The following are responses to the main questions and comments: Procedural Questions Application: When staff met with applicant prior to submittal of an application for the transfer station the applicant was asked to submit an initial application to create a place hold for the November 16th Planning Commission meeting. The place holder allows staff to tentatively prepare an agenda, make assignments for report preparation and generally get an idea of the work load for the next Planning Commission meeting. The applicant submitted an application without signatures as a place holder and the City Planner set up a file (SP2017-018) to get the process started. Two days later the applicant returned with his completed application materials and fees. The Administrative Assistant took in the applicant and setup a new file (SP 2017-019). Two files were inadvertently setup for the same project hence the confusion during the hearing over the Master File numbers. Master File number SP 2017-018 has been voided. Planning Commission Reviewed the Wrong Packet: It was very clear from the packet the Planning Commission received that there was only one location under consideration for a special permit. The maps included in the staff report and discussion at the hearing provided unambiguous information on where the applicant was proposing his new transfer station. The hearing was held for the correct parcel. Application Signatures: The application was signed by both the applicant and the owner of the property. The owner of the property is Frank Teigs LLC. Frank Tiegs (A governor of the LLC) signed the application for the LLC as his free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in the application. A special permit application is not a petition and does not require the same level of owner verification as a petition. For example, a separate signature affidavit is required when a representative of a corporation signs an annexation petition. Mr. Tiegs was signing a simple application form. Having previously agreed to sell the land for a transfer station and freely signing the special permit application for his LLC, Mr. Tiegs and his company are well aware of the proposed use for his land. Page 77 of 365 6 Public Records Request: The attorney (Mr. Miller) representing the group opposing the application claims he did not receive the correct information from his public records request. Initially only the place holder information was delivered to Mr. Miller due to the fact two files were setup. Mr. Miller made a second public records request and now has the information contained within the file. Project Name: The applicants name is 2022 Commercial Avenue LLC with Darrick Dietrich being the only governor for the LLC. The staff report of 11/16/2017 incorrectly noted the applicant was 2011 (a typo) Commercial Ave. LLC. There was no confusion at the hearing over the fact that Darrick Dietrich of Basin Disposal Incorporated was the proponent/owner through the LLC for the new solid waste transfer station. Character of the Area The site of the proposed transfer station has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan for industrial uses for over 35 years. The site has also been zoned for industrial activities for about 35 years. The character of the neighborhood is industrial in nature. The proposed use is industrial in nature. Surrounding and nearby uses include numerous trucking related businesses, farming, agricultural processing, and other related industrial facilities. The existing transfer station is a part of the character of the neighborhood and much of the neighborhood developed well after the existing transfer station was built. The existing transfer station on Dietrich Road has not discouraged the development of surrounding properties. The use of the special permit process and the application of City standards will ensure the proposed transfer station site will be developed to a higher standard the current station on Dietrich Road. Unlike the Waste Management transfer station at the corner of Ely and 27th in Kennewick, which is located next to a residential neighborhood, the proposed transfer station is adjacent to industrial properties. Solid waste transfer stations are better suited for industrial areas but can often be found in or near residential neighborhoods. The North Transfer Station for example in Seattle was built directly across the street from a residential neighborhood. The Shoreline recycling and transfer station is also adjacent to a residential neighborhood as are others in the Puget Sound area. If solid waste transfer stations can be built adjacent to or across a street from a residential neighborhood there should be little problem with a transfer station being located in an industrial neighborhood that already contains a transfer station. Solid waste transfer stations are part of the character of the neighborhood. Page 78 of 365 7 Petition in Opposition Land use decisions are not based on popularity contests. Almost half (46%) of the concerned citizens submitting the petition were residents of Kennewick. Only 15 percent of the petitioners represented property owners in the general area. In addition to the opposition petition two trucking firms and an agricultural business submitted opposition letters. The Ag business is located about 250 feet south of the garbage truck storage area at BDI and one of the trucking firms is located about 110 feet north of the portable toilet portion of the BDI facility. The second trucking firm was originally located on Dietrich Road about 700 feet south of the current transfer station. This firm moved a few years ago to a site that is about 300 feet from where the BDI garbage trucks are stored. The firm’s site on Dietrich Road was sold earlier this year for almost $700,000 over the assessed value. This is a good indication that the location of a transfer station within an industrial area has little impact on the value of surrounding properties. Traffic Counts/Traffic Studies etc. None of the businesses located in the Columbia East Industrial Park were required to provide traffic counts or undertake a traffic study to obtain a permit. This includes the current transfer station on Dietrich Road and large trucking firms like the Conway cross dock facility to the north of the proposed transfer station. Traffic studies are not generally required for small to mid-sized industrial projects. The Auto Zone distribution center is an example of a project that rises to the level of needing a traffic study. Current City Code will ensure Holland Street is constructed eliminating the current dead-end situation on Garland Street improving traffic circulation for the three trucking firms at the end of Garland. Transfer station traffic currently exists in the neighborhood. The proposed transfer station may cause a dispersal of traffic. The same amount of traffic will be present in the neighborhood but it will be split between the two transfer stations. The proposed transfer station may lessen the amount of garbage truck traffic on City streets due to the fact that they will be able to drive directly from the proposed transfer station to the storage and fueling area on the BDI property. This will occur without the need to re-enter City streets. Currently garbage trucks dumping at the current transfer station must re-enter City Streets to return to the BDI yard for nightly storage or other reasons. Page 79 of 365 8 Solid Waste Management Plan The current Franklin County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (2010) recommends that no new transfer station “should” be built during the planning period 2010 to 2030). The Solid Waste Management Plan is almost eight years old and has not been updated as required by RCW 70.95. The Solid Waste Management Plan was based on a 2030 population projection of 94,324 people. The 2017 OFM estimate for Franklin County is 90,330. The 2017 population has almost reached the 2030 projection used as the basis for the plan. The most recent population projects for the County indicate the 2040 population could reach 158,574. The Solid Waste Plan suggests there is capacity in the current transfer station to handle a population of 94,324. The County is about a year away from reaching that population milestone. The Solid Waste Plan needs to include projections and estimates based on another 68,244 people. The Solid Waste Plan is a general guide which appears out dated and may no longer reflects true needs within the County. The use of the word “should” in the recommendation section of the Plan is not a compulsory term. No Plans Special permit applications typically do not include detailed construction drawings. Applicants typically seek land use approval before incurring costs related to building design. The Planning Commission is not charged with the responsibility of completing plan reviews. The plan reviews are the responsibility of the City’s Plans Examiner. Special permit applications require a neatly drawn site plan but no building elevations. However, for special permit applications in the I-182 Overlay District where there is a higher architectural standard for buildings, staff will often ask for building elevations. Schools and churches proposed in residential districts will also be asked to submit more than a site plan. The proposed site is not in the I-182 Overlay District and it is not zoned for residential uses so a simple site sketch will suffice. Page 80 of 365 1 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2017-019 APPLICANT: 2022 Commercial Ave. LLC HEARING DATE: 11/16/2017 2021 Commercial Ave ACTION DATE: 1/18/2018 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Solid Waste Transfer Station in an I-1 Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Parcel 2 of Lot 11, Binding Site Plan 2011-03 General Location: Directly east of 2021 Commercial Ave. Property Size: 19.44 Acres 2. ACCESS: The site will have access from Holland Street which will be built in conjunction with the transfer station. Holland will connect to Commercial Avenue and Garland Street. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal utilities are currently located in Commercial Avenue and Garland Street. They will be extended in Holland Street in conjunction with construction of the transfer station. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: I-1 – Agriculture and Trucking SOUTH: I-1 – Agriculture and Trucking EAST: I-1 – Agriculture WEST: I-1 – BDI Facilities and Offices and Trucking 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The plan includes County Planning Policy # 4 dealing with essential public facilities such as solid waste facilities. County Planning Policy # 4 states that no local comprehensive plan or development regulation shall preclude the siting of essential public facilities. The proposed solid waste transfer station falls within the definition of an essential facility. CF-7-A through CF-7-D provide additional guidance for essential facilities. The County Integrated Solid Waste Plan states the County has established a goal of safely and cost- effectively transporting waste over a 20 year planning period. The Solid Waste Plan also recommends no additional Transfer Station should be built between 2010 and 2030. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, the Page 81 of 365 2 Franklin County Integrated Solid Waste Plan, testimony at the November 16, and December 21, 2017 public hearings and other information, a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) has been issued for this project. Mitigation factors include the following: • The transfer building must be fully enclosed except for truck entrances and exits. • Best available management practices must be employed to control dust and or litter generated by the operation of the transfer station. • No outdoor dumping or storage of solid waste is permitted. • All streets adjoining the site must be improved to City standards with the requisite utility infrastructure in conjunction with the construction of the transfer station. • A masonry block wall of at least 6 feet in height shall be placed along the northern, eastern and southern boundary of the site to be used for the transfer station. The block wall shall continue down the shared west property line with Lot 13, BSP 2011. • The masonry wall along Holland Street must be setback to allow a minimum of 10 feet of landscaping between the sidewalk and wall. • The landscaping fronting Holland may contain shrubs and lawn with lawn occupying at least 70 percent of the landscaped area. Street trees must be placed at 50 foot intervals and said trees must match the varieties planted in front of the BDI office on Commercial Avenue. • All driveways to and from the transfer station from Holland Street and the BDI facilities to the west must be hard surfaced. • All truck maneuvering areas in and around the transfer station must be hard surfaced. • All necessary state and local permit must be obtained prior to constructing the transfer station. ANALYSIS The current CBLLC Transfer Station (not operated by Basin Disposal Inc. [BDI]) at 1721 Dietrich Road opened in 1992. At the time the existing transfer station was constructed Franklin County had a population of 39,200. Today the County population is estimated to be 90,330. BDI not only serves communities within Franklin County but, also provides solid waste collection service for communities in surround counties including West Richland, Benton City, and parts of Richland. The garbage collected by BDI is transported to the current Page 82 of 365 3 transfer station where it is packed into semi-trucks and hauled to the land fill in Oregon. Solid waste transfer stations play an important role in providing garbage disposal within the community. There is no longer a traditional garbage dump in Pasco. Refuse is collected from homes and businesses and then taken to the transfer station where it is loaded into large semi-trailers and hauled to a regional land fill near Boardman, Oregon. Transfer Stations are a critical component in addressing health and hygiene within the City. Seven or eight years ago the existing transfer station and two other functions of BDI (container rentals and recycling) were spun off into a separate LLC. Columbia Basin LLC now operates the transfer station and BDI operates the garbage collection service. The two entities more or less serve the same geographic area. To address current and future garbage disposal needs BDI is planning on constructing a new and larger transfer station adjacent to their main office and operations center on Commercial Avenue. The new transfer station will include a 25,600 square foot building to load garbage into semi-trailers for transport to the regional land fill along with a trailer storage area and an equipment laydown yard. The approval of solid waste Transfer Stations is guided in Franklin County by the Franklin County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (2010). The development of the plan was part of a regionally coordinated process between jurisdictions in Franklin County in an effort to plan for essential public facilities. The Franklin County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan recommends that no new transfer station “should” be built during the planning period 2010 to 2030). Even though the Solid Waste Management Plan is almost eight years it is still the guiding document for solid waste matters within the County and City of Pasco. Although an argument can be made for the need for an additional transfer station based on current population projections there is weakness in approving a project through mitigation measures or otherwise without updating the regional solid waste plan. The GMA requires regional coordination and consistency among jurisdictions for solid waste planning and moving ahead without that coordination would not promote the consistency required by the planning process. In addition to recommendation of transfer facilities the Solid Waste Management Plan recommends the County should continue to export solid waste to the landfill in Morrow County, Oregon. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Page 83 of 365 4 Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report and staff memo. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The parcel contains 19.44 acres. 2. The site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) allowing for the development of more intense land uses that can create noise, odors and heavy traffic. 3. All surrounding properties are zone I-1 allowing for more intensive land uses. 4. The City has been promoting the proposed site and general neighborhood for more intense industrial land uses for over 35 years. 5. The general neighborhood is characterized as an industrial neighborhood 6. The proposed use is industrial in nature. 7. There is an existing solid waste transfer station located at 1721 Dietrich Rd, 1.25 miles to the east of the proposed transfer station site. 8. A solid waste transfer station is defined as an essential public facility and by the City’s Comprehensive Plan (County-Wide Planning Policy #4 (B)) and GMA law (RCW 36.70A.200 (5)) the City and the County cannot create or have regulations that would preclude the location of essential public facilities within the County. 9. The County Integrated Solid Waste Plan states the County has established a goal of safely and cost-effectively transporting waste over a 20 year planning period. 10. The County Solid Waste Plan recommends no additional Transfer Stations should be built between 2010 and 2030. 11. The 2010 Franklin County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan is the most current plan available for guiding matters related to solid waste collection and disposal in Franklin County. 12. The Franklin County Solid Waste Plan indicates the current transfer station has a capacity of handling 1,200 tons of waste per day. BDI reports current deliveries of 646 tons per day to the existing transfer station. CBLLC reports during 2017 (January to October) BDI has delivered an average of 501 tons of municipal garbage and 13.38 tons of recyclable material per day. 13. The GMA requires regional coordination and consistency among jurisdictions for planning essential public facilities. The current proposal and application is not consistent with the existing Franklin County Solid Waste Plan. Page 84 of 365 5 CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the GMA that states no local regulation or comprehensive plan shall preclude the sitting of essential public facilities such as a solid waste transfer station. Policies (CF-7-A through CF-7- D) of the Plan suggest mitigation measure be included in the special permit review along with an environmental review and concurrency for utilities and streets and a review of alternate sites The County Solid Waste Plan recommends the community continue to export solid waste to a regional landfill in Morrow County, Oregon. The County Solid Waste Plan also states no new transfer stations “should” be but during the 2010 to 2030 planning period. The 2010 Franklin County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan is the most current plan available for guiding matters related to solid waste collection and disposal in Franklin County. Approving a special permit contrary to the existing plan does not promote regional coordination, cooperation and consistency among local jurisdictions as required by the GMA. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The site is located in an area that the community has planned for industrial uses for over 35 years. Public infrastructure including sewer and water and streets are near the site and will be extended with construction of the facility. The nearby Lewis Street Interchange was designed for industrial traffic and is currently utilized by the BDI fleet of trucks, trucks transporting to the existing transfer station, the carrot plant trucks and other agricultural related facilities. However, the proposal appears to conflict with the Regional Solid Waste Plan. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The proposed transfer station is similar to the solid waste facilities that currently operate in the neighborhood. The proposed transfer station will be constructed to current building codes and City standards related to street improvements and landscaping which will enhance the character of the neighborhood. The site is located adjacent to the main BDI operational center Page 85 of 365 6 where garbage trucks are stored, repaired and maintained and where roll off garbage containers are stored. BDI also operates a portable toilet company adjacent to the proposed transfer station site. The current BDI operations and surrounding trucking firms make extensive use of their lots for outdoor storage of trucks, equipment, containers and miscellaneous items. However, the proposal appears to conflict with the Regional Solid Waste Plan. (4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? The existing transfer station on Dietrich Road has not discouraged the development of surrounding properties that developed after the transfer station was built. The existing transfer station also has not impacted the sale of nearby properties for other uses. The old Leavitt trucking property (based on 2017 County Assessor records) on Dietrich Road near the existing transfer station sold yearly this year for almost $700,000 more than the assessed value. The presence of the exiting transfer station did not hinder the sale of the property. The proposed transfer station building will be no taller than the existing BDI shop building on the adjacent property. (5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The operations of the proposed transfer station will be similar to the activities of the adjacent BDI operations center, the agricultural storage sheds that generate odors and the operation of nearby trucking firms that create traffic, dust, vibrations, and fumes. The operations of the facility will also be similar to the existing transfer station. (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? BDI is proposing to locate the solid waste transfer station directly to the east and adjacent to their main offices and operations center. The design of the proposed building may be more efficient in controlling odors and litter than the design of the existing transfer station on Dietrich Road. Additionally the Regional Solid Waste Plan was in part develop to address public health issues within the County and said plan does not recommend more than one solid waste Transfer Station at this time. Page 86 of 365 7 RECOMMENDATION During the continued hearing of December 21, 2017 staff indicated additional advice and direction would be sought from the City Attorney before a final recommendation was drafted for the Commission’s consideration. Staff has done that and as a result of discussions with the City Attorney and a land use attorney for the City’s insurance pool this report has been modified to recommend denial of the proposed special permit. Promoting an additional solid waste transfer station within the County prior to the adoption of a new solid waste plan does not promote the regional coordination and consistency required by the Growth Management Act. Not knowing what the future regional plan may contain the attorneys are recommending denial of the current application. MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 18, 2017 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny a special permit for the location of a solid waste transfer station for 2022 Commercial Ave. LLC on Parcel 2 of Lot 11, Binding Site Plan 2011-03. Page 87 of 365 Item: Waste Transfer StationApplicant: 2022 Commercial Ave LLCFile #: SP 2017-019 Overview MapSITE0 600 1200 1800 2400FeetPage 88 of 365 Item: Waste Transfer StationApplicant:2022 Commercial Ave LLC File #: Z 2017-019 Vicinity Map SITE 0 75 150 225 300 375 Feet Page 89 of 365 Item: Waste Transfer StationApplicant:2022 Commercial Ave LLC File #: Z 2017-019 Land Use Map SITE Farming Industrial 0 75 150 225 300 375 Feet Page 90 of 365 Item: Waste Transfer StationApplicant:2022 Commercial Ave LLC File #: Z 2017-019 Zoning Map SITE I-1 I-1 0 75 150 225 300 375 Feet Page 91 of 365 TRANSFER STATIONLAYDOWN AREAH O L L A N D S T . P R O P . L I N E ( 3 1 6 . 1 4 ' )PROP. LINE (708.05')PROP. LINE (1169.77')19.44 ACRESPROP. LINE (681.95')STORAGE AREATRAILERPROP. LINE (917.47')PARCEL 113-510-118PARCEL 113-510-118COMMERCIAL AVE.NEIGHBORING PARCELSHEET NO. :DATE:BY:CHKD:JOB #:LOT #:BLK #:SUBD:ADD:DESIGNGROUP17-020HP12-14-17A-101DWSCALE:NORTH1"=150'CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANPage 92 of 365 Looking NorthPage 93 of 365 Looking EastPage 94 of 365 Looking SouthPage 95 of 365 Looking WestPage 96 of 365 Page 97 of 365 Page 98 of 365 Page 99 of 365 Page 100 of 365 Page 101 of 365 Page 102 of 365 Page 103 of 365 Page 104 of 365 Page 105 of 365 Page 106 of 365 Page 107 of 365 Page 108 of 365 Page 109 of 365 Page 110 of 365 Page 111 of 365 Page 112 of 365 Page 113 of 365 Page 114 of 365 Page 115 of 365 Page 116 of 365 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (509) 545-3441 I Fax (509) 545-3499 P.O. Box 293, 525 North Third Avenue, Pasco, Washington 99301 CITY OF PASCO NOTICE OF APPLICATION Si necesita ayuda para entender este aviso o necesita más información, por favor llame al Departamento de Desarrollo Comunitario y Económico de la Ciudad de Pasco a 509-545- 3441. Proposal: 2022 N Commercial Avenue LLC has applied for a Special Permit (MF# SP 2017-019) to locate a Solid Waste Transfer Station directly east of the Basin Disposal office and truck yard at 2021 N. Commercial Avenue in Pasco, Washington. The proposal is subject to regulations contained in the Pasco Municipal Code. Public Comment Period: Written comments submitted to The Community Development Department by 5:00 p.m. on November 16, 2017 will be included in the Planning Commission's meeting packet. You may also submit comments at the Planning Commission meeting advertised below. If you have questions on the proposal, contact the Planning Division at (509) 545 – 3441 or via e-mail to: mcdonaldd@pasco-wa.gov Open Record Hearing: The Pasco Planning Commission will conduct an open record hearing at 7:00 p.m. on November 16, 2017 in the Council Chambers in Pasco City Hall at 525 N 3rd Avenue in Pasco, Washington. The Planning Commission will consider public testimony concerning the above application at this meeting. Determination of Completeness: The application has been declared complete for the purpose of processing. Environmental Documents and/or Studies Applicable to this Application: Environmental Determination No. SEPA2017-053 has been assigned to this proposal. It is probable that a Determination of Non-Significance or Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance will be issued for this proposal (WAC 197.11.355 optional DNS process). The open record hearing on the Special Permit application may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of this proposal or to appeal any State Environmental Policy Act related decisions. Project Permits Associated with this Proposal: No other permits are currently in process. Building permits and a right-of-way permit will be needed for future construction activities. Preliminary Determination of Regulations Used for Project Mitigation: Titles 12 (Streets and Sidewalks), 16 (Buildings and Construction), 25 (Zoning) Regulations of the Pasco Municipal Code and the land use policies contained in the Pasco Comprehensive Plan. Estimated Date of the Recommendation: The Pasco Planning Commission is estimated to make a recommendation on the application on December 21, 2017. To Receive Notification of the Recommendation, Decision and/or the Environmental Determination: Contact the Planning Division at the address or telephone number below. Appeal: Any person aggrieved by the recommendation of the Pasco Planning Commission on this proposal may appeal to the Pasco City Council within ten (10) days of the date of the recommendation. Prepared 10/30/17 by: Dave McDonald, City Planner, PO Box 293 Pasco WA 99301 (509)545-3441 mcdonaldd@pasco-wa.gov The City of Pasco welcomes full participation in public meeting by all citizens. No qualified individual with a disability shall be excluded or denied the benefit of participating in such meetings. If you wish to use auxiliary aids or require assistance to comment at this public meeting, please contact the Community development Department at (509) 545 -3441 or TDD (509) 585-4425 at least ten days prior to the date of the meeting to make arrangements for special needs. Page 117 of 365 Page 118 of 365 Page 119 of 365 Page 120 of 365 Page 121 of 365 Page 122 of 365 Page 123 of 365 Page 124 of 365 Page 125 of 365 Page 126 of 365 Page 127 of 365 Page 128 of 365 Page 129 of 365 Page 130 of 365 Page 131 of 365 Page 132 of 365 Page 133 of 365 Page 134 of 365 Page 135 of 365 Page 136 of 365 Page 137 of 365 Page 138 of 365 Page 139 of 365 Page 140 of 365 Page 141 of 365 Page 142 of 365 Page 143 of 365 Page 144 of 365 Page 145 of 365 Page 146 of 365 Page 147 of 365 Page 148 of 365 Page 149 of 365 Page 150 of 365 Page 151 of 365 Page 152 of 365 Page 153 of 365 Page 154 of 365 Page 155 of 365 Page 156 of 365 Page 157 of 365 Page 158 of 365 Page 159 of 365 Page 160 of 365 Page 161 of 365 Page 162 of 365 Page 163 of 365 Page 164 of 365 Page 165 of 365 Page 166 of 365 Page 167 of 365 Page 168 of 365 Page 169 of 365 Page 170 of 365 Page 171 of 365 Page 172 of 365 Page 173 of 365 Page 174 of 365 Page 175 of 365 Page 176 of 365 Page 177 of 365 Page 178 of 365 Page 179 of 365 Page 180 of 365 Page 181 of 365 Page 182 of 365 Page 183 of 365 Page 184 of 365 Page 185 of 365 Page 186 of 365 Page 187 of 365 Page 188 of 365 Page 189 of 365 Page 190 of 365 Page 191 of 365 Page 192 of 365 Page 193 of 365 Page 194 of 365 Page 195 of 365 Page 196 of 365 Page 197 of 365 Page 198 of 365 Page 199 of 365 Page 200 of 365 Page 201 of 365 Page 202 of 365 Page 203 of 365 Page 204 of 365 Page 205 of 365 Page 206 of 365 Page 207 of 365 Page 208 of 365 Page 209 of 365 Page 210 of 365 Page 211 of 365 Page 212 of 365 Page 213 of 365 Page 214 of 365 Page 215 of 365 Page 216 of 365 Page 217 of 365 Page 218 of 365 Page 219 of 365 Page 220 of 365 Page 221 of 365 Page 222 of 365 Page 223 of 365 Page 224 of 365 Page 225 of 365 Page 226 of 365 Page 227 of 365 Page 228 of 365 Page 229 of 365 Page 230 of 365 Page 231 of 365 Page 232 of 365 Page 233 of 365 Page 234 of 365 Page 235 of 365 Page 236 of 365 m:__:ob_omqmo$._w:m:_mco_.._Eum 9:59.>95>=moo..mmm_m_:o_..o:._..mcoo262A mEmm:m 9.mm>>>Om_vcm>>m_>_.6mc_wmmoo._q_o2m_mm..:_A H.:,o>m_Em_oEmQLWQMEw>>o__m_ucm_nmqo_m>oU:3A mco=m.mn_o.5Zoo..mmAm._A w.v_c:._..c&o_..AomA__ooAmmEm__m_o._mEEoo 2_uo..miu._W%_o.@_u.b___oE.m..wcm._H=m:Anmmoa.Sn_- >.._A_HA_omn_ mco_..E®o_OEmmc_..w_xm£_>>vm..mLmmE_we2mzw- bmmmmomcm_b_omamomc__n%;£mm>>23:“.- m§§\_u\mm:ommomomaz_m<m_ Page 237 of 365 V_Ba2%mm-\+ %___\ Page 238 of 365 .J..u Fin! 2::_.._«_.s.329.Susanaco_Uw__ou.8uw~_..o£:mm.m_._mumE$50>5ucm.c_m.m:.m.mcozuwmc_umatummu>=m_:u_tmn 39.:mm=m.u._.:>>9:2>e...o5:mscammczc?m>m.._o>o_a:o:u_um::_Bmgoiaacm.0coznoum=2...u._._.<Sm5 .EwEo,u.m<£5yoE3...9:m£.=._n_ 3?E89._S_?mE:28.3...oE_.roumou_.r_owOn w.Eu6-._o._Eo>cZ .2:._._ue._2a.._mum E... 33..he.90 Page 239 of 365 4<:»o«L+zooVs8§\ z_m<m Page 240 of 365 xv ..=...§.E.5.2‘=—~.v2.3.:V2!‘5.222~\~.~._»...5.:==x_E:§.vT\E=Ch_.PN~=2:.w=:.=.. is.:=....:E..wQ.52:2:355.s:< ....:=E..3.:...M....2: :E<uE..:tv.=.<~...£\...E..:..£...:=c=:.§..:E...:.mi..~<=:.:...‘.2:.2E.._....€u..t=.~ :3E5..::E....,.:3:.....E.....=...n.:=.:§=..:.<E5..==:.=:::....:......:=..:Swe 3.~..:=..£3:..,....:.:.CE.:.::.3.2...==.=..E.5teen5..u.::&.==.\~..§.:,§.E: BE....:.E.5S=..$c......:Ew1:::::..:,w.:.3w....:.:...uE....:4=&\=.:=.3.§.<...4 Eu..§.z:&~==c.E...:.....:=.....&c:..=Q3..5!32%...:u.Z=nN.:.=.~§-.»..E=&5.2. N53:.:.:t...:......:...ES.._.=:=E.2:......u...:..:=..,.,..:=...:~:..=..~====.:=3» Page 241 of 365 uxgktk _. X m.wm_0®nn_zo_._om_._mmmtm Page 242 of 365 Q02:9BEQRA A um?g..u-.J.:0H.,... ..:,m‘§.__®®u_©<oo_>._mmm._>oowmn_U6 gm%;®> .3W3 Page 243 of 365 1 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON 2 CITY OF PASCO 3 In Re: Special Permit to ) 4 Locate a Solid Waste ) 5 Transfer Station ) Master File # SP 2017-019 6 (2022 Commercial Ave LLC) ) 7 8 9 EXCERPT OF THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 10 11 12 TIME: 7:00 p.m., Thursday, November 16, 2017 13 TAKEN AT: Pasco City Hall 14 Pasco, Washington 15 CALLED BY: City of Pasco 16 REPORTED BY: Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II 17 City of Pasco 18 Community & Economic Development Department 19 Page 244 of 365 2 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department 1 APPEARANCES 2 FOR THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION: 3 CHAIRMAN JOE CRUZ 4 COMMISSIONER TANYA BOWERS 5 COMMISSIONER JOSEPH CAMPOS 6 COMMISSIONER PAUL MENDEZ 7 COMMISSIONER ALECIA GREENAWAY 8 COMMISSIONER RUBEN ALVARADO 9 COMMISSIONER ZAHRA ROACH 10 COMMISSIONER PAM BYKONEN 11 COMMISSIONER GABRIEL PORTUGAL 12 13 ALSO PRESENT: 14 MR. RICK WHITE 15 MR. DAVID MCDONALD 16 MS. DARCY BOURCIER 17 MS. KRYSTLE SHANKS 18 19 Page 245 of 365 3 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department 1 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 7:00 p.m., 2 at Pasco City Hall, Pasco, Washington, the Pasco Planning Commission 3 Meeting was taken before Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II 4 of the Community & Economic Development Department for the City of 5 Pasco. The following proceedings took place: 6 7 PROCEEDINGS 8 9 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Item Number 6(A) on the agenda, which is a special 10 permit, location of a solid waste facility, applicant is Basin 11 Disposal Inc., master file number SP 2017-019. Mr. McDonald? 12 MR. MCDONALD: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Commission Members. By little 13 way of background perhaps before we get into the report, Staff was 14 approached a number of months ago by the operator of Basin Disposal, 15 who is the applicant this evening, with questions about the 16 possibility of locating a new or additional transfer…solid waste 17 transfer station within the community. And at that time, there were 18 not many options or properties available that had access, utilities, 19 street access and so forth. However, recently a piece of property has 20 become available and happens to be right adjacent to the Basin 21 Disposal main business campus if you will. And the applicant 22 Page 246 of 365 4 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department approached us again, came into the City and asked if a transfer…solid 1 waste transfer station would be permitted on this property. He wasn’t 2 keen on buying the property if he couldn’t some day in the future use 3 it for what he was intending to. Unfortunately with these types of 4 uses we couldn’t open the zoning regulations and run our finger down 5 the list of permitted uses and say, “Here it is.” Transfer stations 6 and similar facilities, garbage dumps, are unclassified uses so 7 they’re not permitted in any zone. They are required to be reviewed 8 through the special permit process and so the applicant made 9 application to see if he could get an answer from the City, yes or no, 10 whether or not that site would be appropriate for a transfer station 11 someday in the future. That is the only way to find out so before 12 purchasing the property he wanted that question answered. So all 13 you’re really doing tonight is considering a land use action. The 14 applicant will have to in the future go through other permitting 15 processes for building permit, permission or authority to extend 16 Holland Street, put in facilities, he’ll have to go to the Health 17 District to get permission or a permit from the Health District and 18 then eventually work his way up to the Department of Ecology to be 19 issued a, I believe it’s a solid waste disposal license. But your 20 review doesn’t do any of that. It just relates to the land use 21 action. 22 Page 247 of 365 5 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department You may hear this evening some discussion or testimony related to 1 perhaps competition between facilities. And we in the Planning Office 2 sometimes hear this. We’ll have individuals come into the office and 3 are concerned that a permit is being issued for a permit down the 4 street and they’ll say, “Well you can’t issue a permit for that new 5 truck wash down the street because there’s already one here.” That’s 6 a business type decision or discussion and you’re looking solely at a 7 land use action and determination this evening. So you’re to gather 8 information and facts and testimony and sift through that as it 9 relates to land use decisions and try to determine whether or not the 10 proposed us would be able to be located here as you consider the six 11 criteria that are found in the special permit section, 25.86 of the 12 zoning code. 13 You’ll also hear some comments like perhaps about the County Solid 14 Waste Plan. Most of you are familiar with plans. The City has 15 various plans; the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Water and Sewer 16 Plan. And those are used as general guides. They’re not totally cast 17 in concrete as far as what has to be done or not be done. They can be 18 amended, altered, changed in the future. However, if they do call for 19 certain facilities, either at a future date or stating perhaps now’s 20 not the time to build them, the City does far in advance of what those 21 dates state begin the planning process. Say like for a clarifier down 22 Page 248 of 365 6 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department at the sewer plant or settling basin at the water plant. They don’t 1 wait until the end of the comprehensive plan period to start thinking 2 about what to do with those facilities. Planning is ongoing and 3 design work and so forth moves forward so when you reach that date 4 you’ll have some facilities to take care of the population growth. 5 We’ve received a number of letters, correspondence. You should 6 have that on the bench before you this evening. I’d just like to 7 mention a couple of comments about the letter that we received from 8 Merten…or Miller & Company, a law office over in Kennewick. There was 9 a concern or an insertion within that letter that the City does not 10 have a signed and notarized application from the applicant. We do 11 have a signed, notarized application with the property owner’s name 12 affixed to it. Unfortunately, two files were set up for this project. 13 I had to ask the applicant to get a rough draft in early so that we 14 could get the thing docketed and then when the application came in, 15 another file was set up and so the lawyer received the copy that was 16 not signed but we do have a signed copy. And then there were some 17 more comments about the application itself, about no plans and things 18 like that. We do have a survey site plan that shows the streets that 19 are near the property and a little site sketch that provide us with 20 enough information to go through the process this evening. There was 21 a concern about the City not notifying the Department of Ecology. We 22 Page 249 of 365 7 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department did. We received a letter back from the Department of Ecology, which 1 we will make part of the record this evening. The Department of 2 Ecology received the notice of this hearing and they also received the 3 environmental checklist and dates in which to respond. So we got this 4 response letter in fact yesterday. There’s another concern or comment 5 on page 3 of the attorney’s letter about permit approval from the 6 State for a solid waste permit. The applicant’s not asking the 7 Planning Commission to grant one of those – you can’t grant one. All 8 he’s asking for is consideration of the land use. All of the other 9 items for permitting through the Stater, perhaps the County and the 10 Department of Health (Benton Franklin County Health Department) will 11 come some day in the future. 12 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: This is a lot like the asphalt plant discussion, 13 right? Whether or not we would allow it as a permitted use and then 14 all of the rest of it is somebody else’s challenge. 15 MR. MCDONALD: That’s right. 16 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Thank you. 17 MR. MCDONALD: And then I should point out that solid waste 18 transfer stations are what’s termed in planning law as “an essential 19 public facility”. They’re grouped with things like prisons, sex 20 offender facilities and the way the law is structured and the 21 Comprehensive Plan is structure, cities and counties cannot create 22 Page 250 of 365 8 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department regulations that would prohibit the location of essential public 1 facilities so we cannot have laws in the books that would not allow 2 these types of facilities. 3 So with that background, moving on to the site. The site is 4 located on Commercial Avenue just directly west of the existing Basin 5 Disposal office and business campus where they store their trucks and 6 service the trucks, store containers, the little carts and they do 7 also have another business there related to porta potties so there are 8 a number of porta potties and equipment also stored on the site. This 9 site has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan for over 35 years 10 for industrial uses and has been zoned for industrial uses for about 11 that same amount of time. It’s basically an area that is a trucking 12 mecca if you will. There is a large number of trucking firms within 13 that general area. The garbage company has trucks. They deliver a 14 product, that’s not similar, but they do deliver a product that is 15 then transferred somewhere else and we have trucking firms in here 16 that bring products and goods in that are then transferred onto other 17 trucks and distributed to other places. The Conway Facility just to 18 the northwest of this site basically does that. 19 This proposal site is a little bit different or quite different 20 from the waste management transfer station that you would see over on 21 Ely and 27th in Kennewick. That transfer station is located in a 22 Page 251 of 365 9 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department residential area basically. There’s residential around at least three 1 sides. This site is totally located in an industrial area with 2 industrial businesses surrounding it. The site contains about 19 3 acres, 19 ½ acres, zoned as I said, light industrial. It’s adjacent 4 to the main operation center of BDI so there’s some built in economies 5 of scale there. This whole general area with the I-1 zoning has been 6 established to allow more intense land uses, land uses that make 7 noise, have heavy truck traffic, perhaps have dust, perhaps have odor. 8 This whole general area is like that. 9 Just going through my list here…the Comprehensive Plan has for many 10 years encouraged the grouping of similar businesses and as I’ve said, 11 this whole area is a massive trucking center. And, again, the garbage 12 company is essentially a transportation company with many trucks. The 13 site is near the Lewis Street Interchange which was developed a number 14 of years ago and it’s attached to truck routes and provides easy 15 access to the community and the surrounding counties that this 16 applicant serves. 17 We’ve provided in your report a review of the six criteria that you 18 have to consider with each special permit. I’ll go throw a couple of 19 those. The first one or the second one related to “public 20 infrastructure”. The City’s been planning for 35 years for industrial 21 development within this area, King City and Columbia East. We do have 22 Page 252 of 365 10 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department facilities near and around the property. In the future part of the 1 requirement for developing this land will be to extend Holland Street 2 up to Garland Street on the north and place water and sewer within 3 those streets. Number 3, related to harmony and existing character of 4 the neighborhood. The site is located adjacent to the main BDI 5 operational center where garbage trucks are stored, repaired, 6 maintained, where roll-off garbage containers are also stored. BDI 7 also operates a portable toilet company on the adjacent site. And the 8 current BDI operations and surrounding trucking firms make extensive 9 use of their lots for outdoor storage for trucks, equipment, 10 containers and miscellaneous items. So we already have a number of 11 businesses that operate in a similar manner as the proposed transfer 12 station. 13 When we look at prospective land uses there’s always a concern 14 about what those uses may do or how they may impact surrounding 15 properties. And we can look at the existing transfer station on 16 Dietrich Road to see how it impacts the properties. Since that 17 station was built in the 90’s, a number of businesses have located in 18 the vicinity or across the street. We have the new carrot plant, the 19 Oxarc facility across the street. There’s an industrial pipe supplier 20 across the street. Prior to that time there were a couple of trucking 21 Page 253 of 365 11 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department firms that were across the street from the center. And that station 1 didn’t appear to discourage development of those facilities. 2 Now typically when we do these special permits we’ll have you hold 3 the public hearing and gather testimony and information and then 4 you’ll close the hearing and come back next month. We’re recommending 5 this month, because we’re not sure of everything that may be presented 6 tonight, that you listen, take testimony and then continue the hearing 7 to give yourself some time to respond to some of the issues that may 8 be brought up and then also to give staff some time to look at and 9 consider some of the items that are contained in the County Solid 10 Waste Plan. 11 So with that, I’d be open to any comments from the Commission. 12 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Ok, thank you very much, Dave. Any questions or 13 comments on behalf of the Commission before I open up the public 14 hearing? 15 COMMISSIONER BYKONEN: I just had one question for Staff. It seems 16 that the Franklin County Solid Waste Management Plan seems to be popping 17 up a lot in this particular item and I’m just wondering how much impact 18 does that Solid Waste Management Plan have on the City of Pasco’s 19 planning decisions? 20 MR. MCDONALD: Well, the Solid Waste Plan is not part of our 21 Comprehensive Plan. We really don’t have anything within our 22 Page 254 of 365 12 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department Comprehensive Plan that would prohibit another transfer station. Now, 1 we’re not to the point yet where the Comprehensive Plan, or the Solid 2 Waste Plan, would come into play because all he’s asking for is land use 3 approval and as he moves through the process, or if he does move through 4 the process with the Health District and the State, it may come into 5 play at that time. And the applicant of course has the opportunity 6 between now and then to work with the County to update that plan. As we 7 mentioned in the report, the plan is out of date. The plan itself 8 suggests it should be updated every 5 years I believe, and we’re 2 years 9 beyond that. If you’ll look at that the population projections that the 10 plan used to base their recommendations on, they’re severely out of 11 whack with what’s really happening in the community. The County’s 12 almost reached the population number that is shown in the plan 13 currently. And the population figures that we have received from OFM 14 puts us at 130,000 at the same period that the County plan has us at 15 90,000. So there’s some problems with the numbers. The plan needs to 16 be updated and we’ll be working with the County on that here in the next 17 couple of years. 18 MR. WHITE: But it should be noted that the plan is used by the 19 agencies that Mr. McDonald referenced earlier; the Benton Franklin 20 Health Department and the Department of Ecology. So they do in fact use 21 the regional model that the plan is formulated on. 22 Page 255 of 365 13 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Again, this goes back to the six questions in the 1 report for us. So all of this other stuff is not our purview. It’s the 2 six questions in the report. 3 COMMISISONER BOWERS: How far is the current BDI transfer station from 4 where this one is proposed? 5 MR. MCDONALD: It’s directly east just below the word…the “E” on the 6 site. I’m guessing it’s about a mile and a half, maybe. 7 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Ok, any other questions or comments on the behalf of 8 the Commission? 9 COMMISSIONER MENDEZ: Yes, just a clarification. It appears that you 10 are recommending that we continue the hearing because there’s some 11 issues that need to be resolved, including determining the “daily 12 tonnage estimates”. Is that something that you are working with the 13 applicant? 14 MR. MCDONALD: Yes, probably both the applicant and those that are 15 opposed to this proposal will provide some of that information. We did 16 receive some tonnage information from the applicant today and I 17 neglected to bring it but we’ll make that available to you. That’s 18 another reason to continue the hearing. 19 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Ok, any other questions on behalf of the Commission? 20 COMMISSIONER CAMPOS: Just a clarification, you mentioned that the 21 applicant had originally submitted a preliminary special permit? 22 Page 256 of 365 14 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department MR. MCDONALD: No, it wasn’t preliminary. I just asked him to bring us 1 some paperwork per say so that we know what’s coming up on the agenda 2 for November and so he did that and then followed up 2 days later with 3 the actual application. 4 COMMISSIONER CAMPOS: The reason I ask is because on some of these 5 responses they reference SP2017-018. 6 MR. MCDONALD: Yes, we set up two files and that was the first one that 7 had the wrong information. 8 COMMISISONER CAMPOS: So that’s just for clarification. 9 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Ok, I think we’re done with our part of it so I’ll open 10 up the public hearing at this time and invite the applicant to come 11 forward. Name and address for the record, please. 12 DARRICK DIETRICH: Darrik Dietrich, Basin Disposal, address of 2021 N. 13 Commercial Avenue. Anyway, I appreciate the opportunity to present this 14 request for a special permit for the land use. Throughout my testimony, 15 throughout discussion, it’s really going to center around two things. 16 One, there’s certainly demand for more transfer capacity in this 17 community. We’re all aware of the growth that we have out there. It is 18 stunning at times as to how much population growth is going on and the 19 impact that that puts on the solid waste system. That’s the first 20 thing. Second thing, is integration into the Solid Waste Collection 21 Agreement and I’ll talk a little bit about that and the special 22 Page 257 of 365 15 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department provisions within that. And so that really is the goal that I’m charged 1 with as operator of Basin Disposal. And for those of you who don’t 2 know, Basin Disposal has been a contractor with the City for many, many 3 years, many decades and what my job is to make sure there is sufficient 4 capacity for the future. And briefly, I have the site on Commercial 5 Avenue, a sizeable investment in it and recently million plus dollars’ 6 worth of natural gas investment into it. That’s not a short-term goal. 7 If I was in this for the short run that investment wouldn’t be made. 8 And so in light of that, that’s how this would be viewed also. It’s 9 easy to not plan for the future. It’s hard to plan for the future. 10 This is the process. And as Staff noted, this is not a binary yes or no 11 decision. The land use is a simple question but this is the beginning 12 of a process that will take some time to do but I believe it is 13 worthwhile for the community. And also remember that this is not just 14 for Pasco, this is the region. My business operates in many cities, 15 several counties and the infrastructure that is being proposed here is 16 integral to the operations of my company. And control of that is vital 17 to be competitive and offer the services that my city contract demands 18 of me. With that, I will see if I can make the Power Point work. 19 So, just a brief outline, Basin Disposal has been hauling garbage in 20 Pasco since 1941, a good number of years. With that we’ll go to the 21 next one. So, some key points on the presentation here. I will go over 22 Page 258 of 365 16 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department the proposed use of the site, I will certainly point out the location as 1 we’ve seen in other documentation and I will bring up the contractual 2 provisions that I think are key to this decision process and the 3 benefits of the community. I will revisit the site selection process. 4 This has been a process for better than a year, to locate sites that are 5 applicable and I think congruent with the community and congruent with 6 my operations. And then finally, a slide talking about planning for the 7 future, which is really what this is about. 8 Proposed use. As I indicated in the beginning, there is demand for 9 future capacity. You will hear that a number of times throughout my 10 testimony and no doubt other people’s testimony. And it certainly can 11 be debated but I think that is a false debate. The growth has been 12 phenomenal the last number of years so now is the time. I would suspect 13 that within 4-5 years there’s enough pressure on the existing 14 infrastructure to where real capacity is needed. So from that I think 15 this is the beginning point to plan for that future. Collocation of the 16 transfer station, of the proposed transfer station, right next door 17 to…I’ll use the word…my existing facility. That goes without question 18 as to how efficient that would be. To have the transfer station right 19 next to where the trucks are parked, the use is congruent and it further 20 adds value to the community and efficiencies within the current 21 operations. Minimal footprint by doing that instead of in two different 22 Page 259 of 365 17 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department locations. And even operational factors, and this is a key component. 1 And I want to dispel some notions that may be out there. Basin Disposal 2 does not own the current transfer station. And that is probably a 3 surprise to a number of people but it does not own it. Integral to 4 running a facility and running a collection operation is control over 5 transfer station operations, the hours the commodities that are 6 accepted, how they’re processed. And it really comes from a top down 7 system. The community is what matters and solid waste is not a 8 homogenous commodity. Solid waste has several different waste streams 9 to it and a facility needs to be purpose built to handle all of those 10 commodities in an efficient manner as possible. That is at its core of 11 what this request is asking for. 12 Certainly building a new facility is more cost effective than 13 retrofitting a facility that is existing. There’s certain constraints 14 to the land. And again, Basin Disposal doesn’t own it. There’s no 15 belief or perception or guarantee that Basin ever will own it. And even 16 if Basin did own it, there’s constraints at the current facility. It’s 17 bounded by roadway. It’s bounded to the north by a super fund site. 18 It’s bounded to the east by land that has conditional restrictive 19 covenants on it because of the super fund site. So there’s existing 20 land on the south of it. That land was recently purchased by the owners 21 of the transfer station. There’s also pipeline that runs through that 22 Page 260 of 365 18 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department facility with a 50’ easement. That is why the facilities that are on 1 that land are located where they are. It is not an easy expansion and 2 the expansion that is there is going to come further south and certainly 3 be closer to Grimmway Farms, CRF Foods and so the viability of that 4 expansion cannot be assumed as given. And when I look 30 years out, 40 5 years out, past my time of running Basin Disposal, I answer a simple 6 question. That facility will not do it for that many years and so that 7 is why the request is in front of you to seek land use on a brand new 8 piece of land. 9 With that, just to revisit the location. We’ve seen slides to that 10 before. You were about right, it’s a little over a mile away from what 11 the existing facility is. But again, the main benefit here is 12 congruence with the existing operations of Basin Disposal. And I’ll 13 site another statistic that drives why this site is so important. It 14 may sound funny, but those who know me know how detailed I am about 15 things. Part of the idea to go to natural gas was to eliminate the time 16 to fuel up the trucks. If you assume it takes 7 minutes to fuel up a 17 diesel truck times 260 days a year times the number of trucks that you 18 have and you multiply that out by a value, it is an excess of $80,000 19 that can be recaptured by putting those assets back on the routes and 20 making them productive. Imagine productivity by having a collocated 21 Page 261 of 365 19 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department facility within the same region without additional impact to trucks, the 1 same trucks that are there are going to be using this facility. 2 I will go into the contractual provisions. This is text from the 3 existing Solid Waste Agreement that was entered into a number of years 4 ago. This agreement was a wish and desire of mine for many, many years 5 to incorporate provisions that were not previously in any agreements in 6 this region. I’ve since rolled it out to a number of communities and 7 one of the major benefits of it is a regulatory method to expose fully 8 to the City Council, the operational costs, the financial costs, in 9 essence. Some cities have solid waste collection within their Public 10 Works. Pasco has never done that. They’ve always trusted Basin 11 Disposal. But part of that long term relationship is shared risks and 12 transparency. And baked into the contract is the ability to expose the 13 books to the Council Subcommittee, expose the books to Staff, to where 14 they have the same discretionary power as they would the Public Works 15 Department, even though we are a private contractor. And I think in the 16 long run, I know in the long run, that has provided the best collection 17 service in this region. Nobody else provides unlimited like we do and 18 frankly the price is better than anybody else. 19 So, with that, I’ll read those words. Contractor, shall be the sole 20 and exclusive provider to manage, collect, transport and dispose of 21 solid waste and household hazardous waste. And those are the key words. 22 Page 262 of 365 20 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department And the reason for that is to incorporate the whole system within the 1 service contract. And as that whole system is within the service 2 contract is now under purview of the City, to make better choices and 3 better pricing. And I will contrast that with what is the situation 4 today. About 40% of the cost structure of Basin Disposal is not owned 5 by Basin Disposal. This proposed land use would allow the integration 6 of those services with the collection service that is already enjoyed by 7 the City. 8 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Darrick, I want to ask a question on that before you go 9 any further. You are the sole exclusive provider but some of that is 10 subcontracted in the current arrangement, is that correct? 11 MR. DARRICK DIETRICH: It is. That conversation probably covered a lot 12 of that right there. So, I will talk about the current situation now 13 and go back to the beginning of the year. And I encourage the 14 Commission Members to review an earlier Council date. I didn’t have 15 time to get the date of it but earlier, late last year and early this 16 year, the rates…the disposal rates for Basin Disposal were increased. 17 Since I do not have control over what those rates are I had to pass them 18 through to the community and I had to get Council permission to do that. 19 That action was against the expectations of the Council and I encourage 20 everybody to look at that meeting and I will tell you that was the worst 21 public meeting that I ever went through. The Council Members visceral 22 Page 263 of 365 21 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department reaction to what was happening was well-founded. What I could not tell 1 them was that I did not have the ability to not allow that rate to come 2 through. And as tough as that meeting was, I have three other city 3 contracts that had the same reaction. And so the big picture here is, 4 to meet the goal of the new contract is to integrate those services 5 under the review of the City to where they can see and touch and feel 6 all of those things so that there’s no more surprise. And also to make 7 Basin Disposal to allow Basin Disposal to be competitive in the market 8 place. The rates that are paid now are 18% of above the posted rates of 9 the competitive on the disposal component. I’m not here because I can 10 do worse than what is being provided. I’m here because I can do better. 11 And I’m not here because I’ll be more expensive. I’m here asking for 12 this because I can do it at a better price. That is integral to what 13 this request is for. And I will have several examples and I’ll go to 14 the other waste streams. 15 In front of the Council, in fact we just closed it Monday or last 16 week, the City Council earlier in the year had requested proposals to do 17 a curbside recycling program, as have other cities that I service. What 18 is not easy to say and what is not able to be presented was, I currently 19 don’t have a good avenue to process that material. The costs of doing 20 that would be prohibitive. The service provider that provides that does 21 not have the equipment to do it efficiently. I operate in Yakima 22 Page 264 of 365 22 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department County. To process that material I pay $45 per ton. I operate in Walla 1 Walla County. To process those materials I pay $50 a ton. Within this 2 market, I pay $97 a ton. In order to integrate this, a new facility 3 could be built and would provide good service at an appropriate price 4 with a city review for decades to come. 5 This should look familiar (referring the presentation). This is a 6 chapter out of the City Comprehensive Plan and I won’t spend too much 7 time on it because Staff has introduced this and it was in the packet. 8 But I just want to point out that the City Comp. Plan says that no local 9 comprehensive plan or development regulations will preclude the citing 10 of an essential public facility. This is an essential public facility. 11 It’s not glamorous but it is important. 12 The site selection process. And I’ve kind of ran through that so I’ll 13 speed through this. It’s obviously congruent with the neighborhood. 14 There’s 30 plus parcels or properties in the region, in that 15 neighborhood, I’ll use that word that either are trucking or have 16 trucking related assets, parcels or business. The proposed is use 17 congruent with the City Comprehensive Plan. 18 Mitigating factors. This is important. The facility that is being 19 proposed is fully enclosed. Trucks will drive through it. Think of a 20 warehouse. That will mitigate vectors, sound, noise. In addition to 21 that there will be a full wall around the facility to visually minimize 22 Page 265 of 365 23 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department the impact of the trucks coming in and going. The use of the facility 1 is purpose built, specific to commercial garbage trucks. So it will be 2 different in nature. It will be quicker, more efficient. And it is 3 away from processing facilities. That is a concern of the neighborhood. 4 The processing facilities that are there have expressed desire to not be 5 too close to a facility. This is further away than the existing ones 6 and so I believe that is a benefit. And the current aesthetic 7 appearance. I believe my business on Commercial Street looks pretty 8 good. It has landscaping and I would extend that same visual appearance 9 to the transfer station. And then lastly, throughout the sites 10 looking…that we’ve looked for over the last year, there are really no 11 other viable land sites that are available. 12 So back to planning for the future, today is really the beginning of 13 that I would hope. To plan for the use into the future. This is not 14 going to be a binary yes or no. It’s a beginning if the Committee 15 approves a recommendation for the land use then it will certainly take 16 other agencies, the Health Department, Department of Ecology, to get 17 through this thing. But those steps are not exclusive to this propose. 18 Those steps will have to be gone through by anybody else who expands the 19 capacity of the transfer station…transfer capacity in here. And I’ll 20 briefly go through it again. The plan projected in 2030, to have 94,000 21 people in the County. We’re at 90,000 today. If you look at the 22 Page 266 of 365 24 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department tonnage from 1992 when the initial facility was built to today, and you 1 take an annualized growth rate – that comes to 9.5%, which to me is a 2 stunning number. It’s indicative of franklin how great our community 3 is. And every day we see the new houses going up. That’s where that 4 growth is coming from. And so when you project out a growth rate of 5 9.5% a year, or even 10% a year, you come to the real fast conclusion 6 that within 4-5 years there needs to be new capacity. And if you also 7 consider that it takes several months, at best, to go through the 8 process and maybe a year of construction, now is the time. And I’ll 9 also make the comment that in one of the letters it stated that there is 10 no need for additional capacity within the planning period. I flatly 11 believe that is written by someone who doesn’t understand math or is 12 trying to simplify the argument here. Particularly if that entity 13 purchased 10 acres of land, would they do it 13 years in advance? I 14 don’t think so. So that’s what’s in front of the community, that’s 15 what’s in front of this Commission. And with that, I will ask if 16 there’s any questions or if I can provide clarifying remarks. 17 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Ok, hang on, hang on. Who’s got questions? This way I 18 can go down the row. Why don’t we start with Tanya first and let us 19 move left so I can keep track. 20 Page 267 of 365 25 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department COMMISSIONER BOWERS: Thank you so much for speaking to us. Were you 1 saying that if you are able to open this new facility we will be able to 2 have curbside recycling in Pasco? 3 MR. DARRICK DIETRICH: Yes. Now it’s not excluded but I’ll tell you 4 what the issue is here. It literally to have equipment to process 5 recycling material – minimum $300,000 maybe $500,000 for equipment plus 6 a building. Land is needed to do that so that is part of what this 7 proposal would be to have a facility that could handle both solid waste 8 and recyclable material. Now, you will certainly hear testimony that 9 there is a facility in place. It is not viable. I made a joke with 10 Staff a couple of days ago. I was built in 1972. I was born in 1972. 11 The equipment that is in there is built in 1974. I would not sign a 12 contract with any jurisdiction with equipment that is that old. It 13 won’t work. Now, from a price perspective if you invested $.5 million 14 dollars in equipment to do curbside recycling, it wouldn’t work. Which 15 is part of the design, to have a facility that can handle both of them 16 and the main financial point here is to have enough volume and tonnage, 17 which is garbage, plus these other waste streams to spread that cost 18 out. That’s really what the proposal would be. It would make it 19 viable, let’s put it that way, whereas now it’s not really viable. 20 COMMISSIONER BOWERS: And one more question, what would happen to the 21 facility on Dietrich Road once you build this one? 22 Page 268 of 365 26 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department MR. DARRICK DIETRICH: I’ll try to refrain from speculating because I 1 don’t own it and I don’t operate it but I will point out that I’m 2 proposing to only manage, handle with this proposal, the commercial 3 trucks that I operate, the commercial garbage trucks. I’m not 4 soliciting for public customers. How can I clarify? I want to make 5 sure that I can clarify. 6 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: I want to bring us back to the light here for a second. 7 We’re here to talk about the land use action. You know, the 8 competitiveness and all that other stuff and the benefit to the City is 9 important but not for us. This is about whether it fits with the 10 surrounding community, the six questions in the report. I appreciate 11 all that, it’s important. Having been part of the City for a long time, 12 I know the history. But our focus is solely on whether or not this is 13 an appropriate land use decision or not. We go back to the asphalt 14 plant, whether that’s good or bad for the City. That’s not our concern. 15 What matters to us is whether or not that is going to be a nuisance and 16 destroy the surrounding character of the neighborhood, whether it’s 17 consistent with land use plans, etc. As we move through this, you know, 18 we need to focus on if we were to consider this, what would our 19 expectations be? For example, concomitant agreements, you know, about 20 it has to be an enclosed facility, some of the other stuff. With the 21 asphalt plant we had a number of fairly lengthy and complex requirements 22 Page 269 of 365 27 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department to preserve the surrounding area of the neighborhood. That’s kind of 1 where we need to keep our focus. Any other questions? Tanya? Ok, Mr. 2 Portugal? 3 COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: The plans that you have for the land use…have 4 you shared this with anyone in the surrounding area? With your 5 neighbors maybe? Or are you planning to have a session or time when you 6 can answer maybe local questions? Is that something that is doable? 7 MR. DARRICK DIETRICH: Certainly. Prior to this I have not. I have 8 felt that this is the correct form to introduce this to the community 9 plus there is a notification process that the City does and so I believe 10 that I the appropriate way to do it. But certainly if this indeed 11 receives approval and a special permit, I am absolutely open to share 12 with everybody. 13 COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: And have you been approached by anyone yet on 14 this matter? 15 MR. DARRICK DIETRICH: I don’t know how to answer that. 16 COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: Have you been approached by any of the 17 neighbors with any concerns or maybe support? 18 MR. DARRICK DIETRICH: I’ve had verbal with one neighbor and they just 19 wanted to know what was going on and felt comfortable with it once they 20 understood it. And then the rest of the communication has certainly 21 Page 270 of 365 28 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department come through the City through letters from the neighbors, primarily in 1 opposition. 2 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Alight, anyone? Moving left to right. Nope? Nope? Ok. 3 COMMISISONER ALVARADO: I know you’ve mentioned it and I know we’re at 4 the very beginning but you mentioned an enclosed facility to mitigate a 5 few of the impacts. Was smell one of that mitigation…was that part of 6 that equation as well? 7 MR. DARRICK DIETRICH: It will certainly help to have it enclosed. I 8 will give my personal opinion, being a garbage man my whole life, I 9 don’t think the smell is that bad in reality. Certainly if you’re in 10 there, there’s solid waste. Once you’re around that facility it’s not 11 too bad but to answer you directly, yes, having an enclosed facility it 12 certainly does help the migration of odor. 13 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: This is kind of where I was trying to lead everybody. 14 We can talk to things about stand-off distance from surrounding 15 properties, block wall, we can probably say enclosed facility can we 16 not? I see a nod from Staff. So we have a few things at our disposal. 17 This being solid waste, the permitting process for this, I can’t imagine 18 anybody wanting to go through that. That’s Ecology’s purview. But for 19 things that are within the land use, you know, surrounding landscaping, 20 harmony, stuff like that, we can push on that. The other stuff I’m 21 willing to have every confidence the State is going to make it complex 22 Page 271 of 365 29 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department if you were to go forward. Alright, anybody else? Thank you very much, 1 Mr. Dietrich. I’m sure you’ll get an opportunity to come back before 2 this is over. 3 Anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this item 4 you’re welcome to do so. 5 Name and address for the record, please. 6 KEN MILLER: My name is Ken Miller. I’m an attorney with Miller, 7 Mertens & Comfort. My business address is 1020 North Center Parkway, 8 Suite B in Kennewick, WA. I am the attorney for the opponent I guess 9 you would say, or one of the opponents to this project. Columbia Basin 10 LLC, with me tonight is Leonard Dietrich, who is the owner of that. 11 Steve Wheatley, who is a manager and also Chuck Anderson, who is also 12 someone who works regularly at that facility. They may also give 13 testimony in this. What I would pass on to the group as a whole is, 14 when I first got involved in this we had a number for this application. 15 That number was 2017-018. I did a public records request 3 days ago for 16 any application that had been filed by Basin Disposal or by the 17 applicant on 2017-018, which at that point was listed as 2022 Commercial 18 Avenue LLC. I received only 1 application and it was unsigned. So I 19 guess the question at this point to go to the City Department is, when 20 was there ever a signed application that was submitted to the City? 21 MR. MCDONALD: It was submitted 2 days after the blank one. 22 Page 272 of 365 30 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department MR. MILLER: Can anybody answer to me with a public records request 1 having been made, why that was never provided to anyone. 2 MR. MCDONALD: I wasn’t involved in that by our Department Secretary 3 said she was unaware of the 2 files. One was set up initially and then 4 2 days later the person that set the second one up was not aware of the 5 first one. 6 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Mr. Miller, I mean we’re talking about a question of 7 process, right? Proper notifications made… 8 MR. MILLER: Proper notice, proper…whether or not we are sitting today 9 with a hearing that has been handled in a proper fashion by law. 10 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: So I think that’s a pretty fair question and I get 11 where you’re coming form and so I think I would ask that we put that 12 question back to the City to consult with Kerr and others and say, ok is 13 this a do-over situation or not? Because that’s happened before. I 14 don’t want to belabor the point. 15 MR. MILLER: And as you know, I have to make a record. And I’m not 16 trying to be rude. I just have an obligation. 17 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: No, I get where you’re going. I don’t think we need to 18 bait it for 20 minutes. It’s a process question; the application, the 19 timeliness, the information has to be there for it to be a complete 20 application for a full public comment. I’m good – put that on #1 for 21 the to-do list. 22 Page 273 of 365 31 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department MR. MILLER: I have one other issue in regard to that. Who is the 1 current applicant? 2 MR. MCDONALD: The current applicant is, Commercial Avenue LLC with an 3 address. 4 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: To Mr. Miller’s point, that’s not consistent with 5 what’s on the agenda. 6 MR. MILLER: Correct. The next think I would ask is, who signed the 7 application? 8 MR. MCDONALD: The property owner signed the application and Mr. 9 Dietrich signed the application. 10 MR. MILLER: And who is indicated as the property owner? 11 MR. MCDONALD: Mr. Tiegs. 12 MR. MILLER: So, is that Mr. Tiegs individually? 13 MR. MCDONALD: As far as…he signed it individually, yes. 14 MR. MILLER: Ok, because the recent public record, the owner of that 15 property is not Frank Tiegs individually. It is an entity. 16 MR. MCDONALD: Ok, well he apparently signed it as a representative of 17 that entity. As a spokesperson for the property. 18 MR. MILLER: Which entity? 19 MR. MCDONALD: I haven’t looked up the entity so I’m not… 20 MR. MILLER: One of the findings we’re making is that the application 21 was executed by the owner of the land. 22 Page 274 of 365 32 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department MR. MCDONALD: That is not one of the findings that is required. 1 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: I was going to say, I hear you Mr. Miller but we often 2 times have potential purchasers making application for the land use 3 before they buy the land. 4 MR. MILLER: But it’s usually executed also by the land owner at the 5 same time. 6 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: I don’t know if I would agree with that. I hear you. 7 I’ll make a note for the City Council to research that one too. The 8 process questions, I want to get to the meatier stuff, because I think 9 we can put the process questions on the to-do list. And they are valid. 10 I get you. 11 MR. MILLER: I guess the point is at this point, is it clear that this 12 hearing is going to be left open and that we are going to have an 13 opportunity to give further testimony when it reconvenes? 14 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Absolutely. Because listening to all this, what I feel 15 like we’re going to have to do is establish whether or not this is a 16 valid application and that property notification was made and then based 17 on that we’ll have to chart a new path forward. As much as I don’t like 18 to say it, something like this could be resolved by a resubmittal, re-19 notification and everybody re-preparing the information if we have that 20 much incongruence. Because when I hear about that other…when I saw the 21 Page 275 of 365 33 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department issue…the information that we have versus what was sent out and the 1 numbering and stuff like that, it creates questions of process. 2 MR. MILLER: One thing I would ask you just as a point of procedure is, 3 we had supplied multiple documents in regard to 2017-018. I would ask 4 that those materials be also applied to the application under 2017-019. 5 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: I am certainly… 6 MR. MILLER: So that our records can be… 7 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: I’m ok with that. Is that ok? 8 MR. MCDONALD: They are on the bench before you so they’re a part of 9 this record. 10 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: So, Mr. Miller. The other thing about this, having to 11 continue it, this allows the whole record to be recompiled because I 12 have a feeling this is going to go on for a while. I just want to make 13 sure the file is really clean. And so if we continue it, then we can 14 get everything stacked up and make sure the whole file is complete. 15 What’s hard for us just for everybody listening or watching, is that 16 it’s difficult to read all of this on the bench when you’re trying to do 17 the meeting. Especially give it due consideration. So what I’d really 18 like to do for everybody here is get everybody’s concerns and issues on 19 the table so then they can process, we can get notified, the package can 20 go back out again and then figure out what we need to go do. 21 Page 276 of 365 34 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department MR. MILLER: I guess the three points that I would make deal with the 1 question as to whether or not the application could be conducted or the 2 plan or proposal could be conducted in harmony with the character of the 3 general vicinity of that particular area. Now I know there’s been 4 discussion that there is an existing Basin Disposal business there. 5 There is also the business that it currently is in effect by Columbia 6 Basin LLC, which is the solid waste transfer station as it currently 7 exists and has for a number of years. But what you don’t take into 8 effect is that that area is in constant state of flux from the 9 standpoint of how it is developing. It is being developed and proposed 10 to be marketed by the City to be a new waste, not waste, but food 11 processing area. 12 Also, it is there for another Commercial Avenue. There are plans that 13 I’m aware of that extend that road down the way. And the reality of it 14 is, you are now being asked to turn this into a regional facility for 15 waste. Does that fit with the picture? Or are we actually in a 16 situation where we have a waste handler located there and we have a 17 facility that’s there for the transfer that is perfectly adequate and 18 can take care of anything that’s needed in the near future without 19 expanding that into a regional waste area. 20 The next thing I would ask you is, from the standpoint of the 21 discouragement of development of permitted uses. Understand that you’re 22 Page 277 of 365 35 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department asking for a special permit. A special permit means you’re stepping out 1 of the currently permitted uses and you’re doing something special. So 2 then you have to take a look at it from the standpoint of need. But 3 also from the standpoint of how it happens to be harmonized with what 4 else is there - food processing plants. 5 And I’ve provided you with some objections already from some of the 6 businesses in that area including JR Carr who I think you are aware of 7 the fact that he is a food processes or has been for a number of years. 8 He has a facility there. It’s not a food processing facility but he’s 9 voiced his objection. So are some of the other owners there. You have 10 in front of you a petition signed by a multitude of individuals 11 objecting to this site. So when you get to this next thing as to 12 whether or not it’s object able to the nearby properties by reason of 13 nuisance, I think you have in front of you those objections. 14 What I haven’t seen is any voice in support other than Basin Disposal. 15 And the only reason I say that is because at this point in time the only 16 thing being proposed to you is that somehow there’s going to be a 17 savings to the people of City of Pasco if this is allowed to occur. How 18 do we know that? I mean, we really have no numbers. Normally when you 19 see a packet that comes out from the City in regards to something like 20 this you have a proposal, you have plans, you have a budget, you have 21 numbers that you can put on things. So you understand the cost of those 22 Page 278 of 365 36 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department things and understand how they all come into play. You actually have 1 citing’s on the property so you’ll know where the buildings are instead 2 of, well I could put a wall up, I could do this, I could do that, I 3 could do whatever. You’re being asked to take and speculate as to what 4 could be done as opposed to seeing a completed plan that you can look at 5 and say, hey that really does mesh with this area. That works. Look at 6 this. Here’s the whole complete plan. It’s got walls, it’s contained. 7 Look at this, how smooth that’s going to operate off our city streets. 8 How can you even make a determination as to whether it’s going to 9 increase traffic or decrease traffic when you have no traffic study in 10 front of you? None. You have no idea. You have no idea what the 11 additional count of vehicles is going to be. So, how do you talk about 12 public safety, which is one of the things, again, you’re supposed to 13 deal with. You have no idea as to what that’s going to be because you 14 have no proposal. You have a piece of bare dirt that you’re being asked 15 to do a special permit for with no plan. The plan is wide open. So you 16 are going to permit what use? What is it going to be? What is your 17 proposal? Nothing. A piece of dirt that I can use in any manner that I 18 want for a facility. That doesn’t meet the guidelines of the law and 19 that doesn’t meet the guidelines of what you are delegated to do. There 20 is no way can make a determination, a legal determination, with what’s 21 been proposed. 22 Page 279 of 365 37 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department And as a result, at this point in time, I don’t think you need to 1 continue, I think you just deny it. Because you can’t…he hasn’t met the 2 criteria to allow you to make a decision. At this point I’ll have Mr. 3 Dietrich come up and speak. 4 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. 5 LEONARD DIETRICH: Good evening. Leonard Dietrich, at 1721 Dietrich 6 Road. I sat there for 18 years. I loved every minute of it because you 7 were in the dugout understanding how a city would be developed and the 8 responsibility that you have, that I had, is mind-boggling. You’re 9 making decisions that will happen 20 years from now, 30 years from now, 10 5 years from now. Remember that. It’s an extreme responsibility. I 11 don’t take it lightly at all. 12 My father came here in 1941. I took over the business of Basin 13 Disposal in the early 80’s, late ‘70’s. I sold it to Mr. Darrick 14 Dietrich about 7 years ago. And I only chose to sell part of it to him 15 until he proved that he was going to be reliable to the City and to the 16 customers. In the meantime, Pasco Sanitary Land Fill was classified as 17 a super fund site. We made the determination along with the City of 18 Pasco to invest, probably at that time in ’93, $2.5 million. We started 19 with 5 trailers, 3 trucks. Now we have 28 trailers, 15 trucks. 20 Did we keep up with the demand even though the City Planners can’t 21 keep up with what’s going on out there? I can because I have an extreme 22 Page 280 of 365 38 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department responsibility to this community and every other community that I 1 serviced. Otherwise it would look like it did in 1993. If you read the 2 staff report it says, essentially the same since 1993. Baloney. They 3 haven’t been out there. They don’t understand what it takes. We 4 probably…I probably put just this year almost $600,000 in new changing 5 equipment to keep up with the demand. Our demand is somewhere around 6 600-650 tons a day, 5 days a week. They would have…Staff would have you 7 believe…Mr. Dietrich would have you believe that we’re going to be at 8 1,500 tons. Bring in 1,500 tons because we can handle it. It is not a 9 problem. 10 So we have…and what you need to do is understand whether or not you 11 want another solid waste transfer station within the city limits of 12 Pasco and whether or not it fits in that location. I would suggest to 13 you that it does not. You have one that’s a mile away that meets and 14 exceeds your needs. We can look at 2030. I will tell you that facility 15 will…I mean we’ve redone floors, trailers, everything. So we aren’t 16 sitting back in 1993, like Staff would have you believe and Mr. Dietrich 17 would have you believe. We make changes every year to carry that on. 18 And so you want to have another facility next to it. Is that the right 19 place to do it? I can tell you, we have talked to owners around there 20 and they don’t want the increased traffic. We’ve got enough traffic out 21 there as they say. But if you look at how we deal with the public 22 Page 281 of 365 39 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department coming in. It was suggested by the Staff and Mr. Dietrich that the 1 commercial trucks and the residential trucks all get together. We 2 invested probably $1 million in addition on to it so that we can 3 separate the residential customers from commercial customers. 4 I’m kind of off your six little points but I have to cover some of 5 this stuff that Mr. Dietrich talked about because he talks about the 6 access. His trucks have keys. They have 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 7 access to the transfer station. We just this year put in an automatic 8 weighing system and they have little tags in front of their truck that 9 it clicks on and weighs it. You put it on the thing and when it comes 10 back it weighs it again and it kicks out the slip. Don’t give me this 11 bull crap that it’s not available. Do you want two of them? 12 Your question, ma’am was, what happens to the general public that 13 comes in there? Well, it’s not open to the general public. You can’t 14 cut that much out of something that is now different than your water 15 treatment plant, your sewer treatment plant. We worked under the 16 guidelines of the Franklin County Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan that 17 the City and City Staff agreed that’s where we need to be. And it says 18 that you should only have one transfer station at this time. Why? 19 Because there’s not enough capacity to have two. You want them a mile a 20 part or do you want one in north Franklin? It says if we have a second 21 one we should have it in north Franklin County to cover that population 22 Page 282 of 365 40 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department up there. Put one in Franklin County, that’d be a great idea. Doesn’t 1 make sense to put this one in. I guess that’s where I’ll stop. Any 2 questions? 3 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Thank you very much, Leonard. Any questions for Mr. 4 Dietrich? 5 MR. LEONARD DIETRICH: Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: I do appreciate your comments about the responsibility 7 for being up here. I don’t know if I would say it’s fun every night, 8 but… 9 MR. LEONARD DIETRICH: My hats off to you. But at the end of the 10 evening, you have to love it because you’re changing and giving 11 directions to this City. And take a long hard look at putting another 12 transfer station. It’s interesting because Staff talked about 13 industrial still continues to develop around us. It did because we ran 14 a good, strong operation and if you look at it, it’s not your mom and 15 pop thing. It talks about Oxarc. Oxarc has a lime pond out there that 16 smells more than our garbage. And you move on down to the Heritage 17 Industrial Pipe System, it’s not your average business. It’s a heavy 18 industrial business and you will take…and I put the road in on 2021 19 Commercial where the garbage trucks are at now. We received, I 20 received, the first Business of the Month because of what we did. 21 That’s what I did. Mr. Dietrich didn’t do that. He happened to fall 22 Page 283 of 365 41 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department into it. You will take that area where he’s proposing to put it and you 1 will drive it to a heavy industrial. Why not put a scrapyard next to 2 it? That’s what you are just asking yourself to do. If you look down 3 Commercial Avenue, it is beautiful. All landscaped, all trees. 4 Everything down there. And you’re going to jeopardize that if you 5 believe this ought to be put there. Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Any questions for Mr. Dietrich? Oh, Mr. Dietrich, one 7 for you. 8 COMMISSIONER BOWERS: Thank you so much for coming up to speak with us. 9 I’m going to pose the same question to you that I posed to the last Mr. 10 Dietrich. So, what happens if the special permit is granted to the 11 current facility on Dietrich, the current facility? 12 MR. LEONARD DIETRICH: One of two things; it closes its doors because 13 there’s not enough volume there or you stay in business and you’ve got 14 to charge you when you come out there with your grass to dump it a price 15 that you cannot afford. And what we’ve tried to do, and what I’ve tried 16 to do, is make it credible for the pricing structure. And let me just 17 add one little thing. Mr. Dietrich talked about the price increase that 18 happened last January. He’s right. He used to be able to manage that 19 facility administratively. I asked at least 5 years for a rate 20 increase. I’ve received rate increases every year from the landfill. 21 Page 284 of 365 42 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department He denied those and it was going broke because of that. For the purpose 1 of driving it in the ground, it wasn’t right. 2 COMMISSIONER BOWERS: Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Ok, thank you. The next person that would like to 4 speak to this item at this time you are welcome to do so. 5 STEVE WHEATLEY: My name is Steve Wheatley. I work for Columbia Basin 6 LLC and I live on 1 Marigold Loop here in Pasco. I’d just like to make 7 a couple of comments. Leonard bought the 10 acres there to the south 8 and Darrick indicated that we would never be able to permit that. We’re 9 using the ground we have now, part of that, roughly an acre, we allow 10 him to store is drop boxes on. We also, all our trailers and trucks are 11 on the existing 10 acres. We can move the trucks and the trailers over 12 there without the pipeline issue and then expand the facilities there. 13 We’ve never been approached about improving our facilities to meet their 14 needs. There’s been no discussion with Basin Disposal. As Leonard 15 said, at the first of the year, we put in an automated system so their 16 trucks can come in. It’s called a Trans-Go tag. It’s in the 17 windshield. The scanner reads it. They go dump, they don’t have to go 18 back passed the scale. The only trucks that have to come back are the 19 roll-off trucks because those boxes are different every time they do it. 20 So we’ve tried to help speed up their thing. Their packer trucks, on 21 the time they spend there, runs from 6-11 minutes. From the time they 22 Page 285 of 365 43 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department weigh in to the time they get out. Roll-off trucks can vary depending 1 on the boxes they carry, if it’s a compact or something from IVP that’s 2 sludge that takes a long time to empty. But those are running 7—8 3 minutes, maybe 15. That isn’t going to change whether they dump here or 4 there. 5 One last comment, my understanding of a special permit is for an 6 essential service. This is not an essential service because that 7 service exists. If he wants to build a recycling facility, then he 8 should apply for that and he would not have this issue. He wants 9 control of the whole thing, the problem is, he will never have control 10 of the whole thing because you still have to dump it at a regional 11 landfill and you don’t control those rates. You go and you try to 12 establish the best deal that you can. One thing I will say is Mr. 13 Dietrich (Leonard) was off a little bit because I just checked this 14 today. This year to date, we are averaging 754 tons a day. That 15 includes everything; public, the whole works. Capacity in the comp plan 16 says 1,200 tons. We can go way beyond that. Our simple…our system is 17 simple. It’s gravity. You push it into a trailer. Most of our stuff 18 is done with one loader. We have a second one. We just bought a third 19 one so we can help increase that production because you run two loaders 20 at the same time. We used to have two yard goats, we now have four. 21 Move the trailers faster. We can probably…Chuck, our site manager, 22 Page 286 of 365 44 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department thinks we can do 1,500 tons. I think he’s lied. I think we can do 1 1,800 tons. We’re well beyond the 20 year comp plan. And that’s all 2 I’d like to say. 3 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Thank you very much, Mr. Wheatley. Any questions for 4 Mr. Wheatly? Ok, thank you. 5 Next person that would like to speak on this item, you are welcome to 6 do so. (Pause for audience.) I’m a little surprised with this many 7 people in the audience. 8 So, I’m going to try and summarize real quick before we continue the 9 hearing. And again, to your point, Mr. Miller, I understand that 10 there’s questions to process so please don’t take it as this is making 11 decisions, this is just so we can figure out whether or not a decision 12 could be made or not. I’d like to make sure that Mr. Miller’s questions 13 are addressed, specifically because we have the letter. I’m sure Mr. 14 Kerr will be busy. The other question I would like to add is, under 15 essential facilities, whether or not the number of facilities is 16 considered essential. I know why they use the word essential when Dave 17 uses examples, but I don’t think there’s necessarily some limit on the 18 number of essential facilities in a community, is there? 19 MR. WHITE: No, there is no limit. An essential, as you noted, is a 20 completely qualitative word instead of quantity. 21 Page 287 of 365 45 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department CHAIRMAN CRUZ: It’s a clever word, actually, considering the peer 1 group for tipping stations. Anyone else have anything on this item? 2 COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: So just to be clear then, this is going to be 3 reconciled to one file for the next meeting? 4 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: I don’t know but what I will say is the City needs to 5 establish whether or not all of the processes were filed. If not, we’ll 6 have to figure it out but Mr. Miller has asked that everything that we 7 got tonight be put into the record for whatever this file is. So I 8 don’t want to…that’s trivia. And I’m more than content to let the Staff 9 go deal with it. But we want to make sure that the file, the process is 10 clean. Because Mr. Miller’s point is valid. If you have an incomplete 11 or inaccurate application it’s not prudent for us to a decision on it. 12 I’ll defer that question to the Staff to answer and probably Mr. Kerr. 13 So, any other questions or comments on behalf of the Commissioner? If 14 not, I would entertain a motion. 15 COMMISSIONER CAMPOS: I move to continue the hearing on a proposed 16 solid waste transfer station to the December 21, 2017 Planning 17 Commission Meeting. 18 COMMISSIONER ALVARADO: Second. 19 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Moved but Commissioner Campos, seconded by Commissioner 20 Alvarado. All those in favor say, aye. 21 COMMISSIONERS: (Aye) 22 Page 288 of 365 46 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department CHAIRMAN CRUZ: All opposed? (Silent) 1 Let us show the motion passed unanimously. 2 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: (Inaudible) 3 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: I just got a question from Commissioner Greenway, why 4 not let the applicant come back. I have a feeling that it would be 5 better for next time. So let’s get all of the information on…into the 6 file. I would encourage everybody interested to meet with the City 7 Staff to make sure we get a complete set otherwise we’ll end up probably 8 continuing again. 9 Again, thank you everybody who came out on this item. 10 11 12 13 14 (CONCLUDED.) 15 16 Page 289 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF PASCO _________________________________________________________ In Re: Special Permit Location of a Solid Waste Facility (2022 Commercial Avenue LLC) ) ) ) ) ) ) MF# SP 2017-019 _________________________________________________________ PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING _________________________________________________________ TIME:7:00 p.m., Thursday, December 21, 2017 TAKEN AT:Pasco City Hall Pasco, Washington REPORTED BY:ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR License No. 2408 Page 290 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 2 APPEARANCES FOR THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION: Joe Cruz - Commissioner Tanya Bowers Joseph Campos Paul Mendez Zahra Roach Khan Pam Bykonen Gabriel Portugal FOR THE APPLICANT: Alan Wallace Williams Kastner 601 Union Street Seattle, WA 98104 206.628.6600 FOR THE OPPONENT: Kenneth A. Miller Miller, Mertens & Comfort, PLLC 1020 N. Center Parkway, Suite B Kennewick, WA 99336 509.374.4200 Page 291 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 3 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, December 21, 2017, at 7 p.m., at Pasco City Hall, Pasco, Washington, the Pasco Planning Commission Meeting was taken before ChaRae Kent, Certified Court Reporter and Registered Professional Reporter. The following proceedings took place: CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Item six on the agenda, 6A public hearings. 6A is a special permit, location of a solid waste facility, 2022 Commercial Avenue LLC, Master File SP 2017-019, continued from the November 16th, 2017 meeting. Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as you just mentioned, this meeting -- this public meeting, public hearing has been continued from the November 16th planning commission meeting. There were a number of issues that came up during the meeting. Staff has prepared a supplemental memorandum explaining in much greater detail the analysis, the procedural issues or questions and the special permits relationship to the Franklin County solid waste plan. Staff has also provided a detailed analysis of the comprehensive plan policies, the character of the neighborhood, the traffic impacts and, of course, the proposed findings, conclusions, and conditions that are required through the Pasco Municipal Code regarding Page 292 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 4 special permit applications. I won't go through that memorandum, unless the commission has questions, but fundamentally this is a land use application. The application seeks land use approval to locate a solid waste handling facility. It does not grant a building permit. It does not grant approval from the health department. And it does not grant approval from the Washington State Department of Ecology. As noted in the staff memorandum, each of those entities has advised that inclusion or amendment of the solid waste plan is necessary for them to consider the application. So, from the material presented both last month, and what we have, at least to date, which has been distributed to the commission on the bench, staff has concluded that this is an appropriate use of land at this location. Staff would also encourage that if the commission needs additional time to consider the additional information that you just received this evening that you deliberate for a month, as you would in a normal circumstance with the special use permit application. And so at the conclusion of the hearing, if you feel you need time to consider the additional information, you simply move the deliberations and the recommendation to the January planning commission meeting. Page 293 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 5 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. White. So before we get started, because that will temper the public hearing discussion, is there any opposition to pursuing this, as Mr. White had suggested, where we do the public hearing, sit on it for a month, and then come back and do deliberations? Looking down the line, no opposition. No opposition. None. Okay. So for everybody in the audience, what we're going to do is we're going to do the public hearing part tonight. We'll close the public hearing tonight. That will allow us time to go through what is most certainly a voluminous package of information over the next month, and then we'll do deliberations next month. Any questions or comments on behalf of the commission? Okay. If not, I'll reopen the public hearing at this time. We'll invite the applicant to come forward again, if you choose to do so. MR. DIETRICH: Mr. Cruz, Commissioners, my name is Darrick Dietrich, manager of 2022 Commercial Avenue LLC and the proponent of this request for special permit. I won't spend too much time going through the details. I think the staff report accurately portrays the request. And I think it's amply apparent that it fits Page 294 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 6 within the use of the neighborhood, the industrial use, within the comprehensive plan, the city's comprehensive plan. And what is important to know is there no illusion here, that this is an immediate permit to start construction. This is a deep process with many layers, many regulatory layers -- the state level, the county level, the health department level, planning. This is kind of a gateway decision. I have a business decision in front of me to purchase some land. And what I'm seeking is guidance from this body, and ultimately the city council, that this is a congruent use for the property. And so I encourage everybody to focus on the land use questions, the six questions that are in front of this board. And with that, I'd be open if there is any questions, and that's pretty much what I wanted to say. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Thank you very much, Mr. Dietrich. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. I see you brought counsel. Do you want them to speak next? MR. DIETRICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: So let's just do that, just so we get all the applicant stuff. So please come forward. Name and address for the record, please. MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chair and Planning Page 295 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 7 Commissioners, Alan Wallace, Williams Kastner. My address is 601 Union Street, Seattle 98104. And you have a letter from me. I understand from the requirement you have a letter from me, it's just a very short, two-page letter which kind of tries to hit the points here. And I was hoping, Mr. Chair, and maybe if this -- if you will allow for this, I could have some time for rebuttal. As you know, the applicant has the burden of proof here. There are some allegations that are made. There were a couple letters from opponent's attorney that says this is an illegal action by the planning commission to approve, to recommend approval of this to the city council. And I'm just here to briefly tell you that Williams Kastner, we represent solid waste companies around the state. We -- I am a land use attorney and environmental attorney and I have been involved in the permitting arena, permitting solid waste transfer stations. And as you deal with many different land uses, you can probably appreciate this is actually about the most regulated land use in the state, because of the many different layers of approvals that one has to go through. The other opponents are arguing that it's inappropriate for you to recommend approval of this to the council because of what they perceive as a conflict with Page 296 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 8 an out-of-date county solid waste management plan. There are several errors in their argument, and let me just hit on a couple of those. No. 1 is that the county, under state law and state supreme court decisions, counties control the waste stream within the borders of the county. And so, as such, they are solely responsible for approving -- the county commissioners are solely responsible for approving the solid waste management plan for a county. It is subject to review by the state department of health, the state department of ecology. But the City of Pasco is simply a consulting party. So in a solid waste management plan, an advisory committee is set up. Typically it will be set up with representatives from the city. And they will make a recommendation that -- they'll be involved in the plan update and they will make a recommendation to the county commissioners. But that's it. And the City of Pasco never passed an ordinance incorporating the county solid waste management plan into the county -- into the city's comprehensive plan, the staff report has explained that to you. So it is not a city document. And the city has no role or authority in enforcing the county solid waste management plan. As Darrick just mentioned to you, we fully understand and recognize -- my letter says to you as well -- we Page 297 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 9 cannot obtain state and county health department permits without being in conformance with the solid waste management plan. But that's a considerable investment of time and money for this private business person to undertake that process. And so this is a gateway step to understand if this site is appropriate for the -- by the city, per your recommendations, city council decision to proceed with a solid waste transfer station at this site. There are a couple -- I wasn't at your first night of public hearing but I did read the minutes, particularly detailed minutes of your first day of public hearing. And, Mr. Chair, I know you drew the planning commission very directly to the point that your purview is, does this proposal fit with this site? Does it fit with the light industrial zoning? And I think the first point 1 in my letter kind of really hits, tries to summarize those points. The fact is that this is a -- will be a fully enclosed transfer station. A drive-through transfer station. So that's a big you need, because we deal with some counties there will be an open tipping yard, as they call it. And with the winds here in the county and so forth, this would be fully enclosed. And that directly impacts the issues of liter and noise and odors. In terms of truck traffic, the garbage trucks are already at this site, instead of travelling down the Page 298 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 10 street to the other site. So there's considerable efficiency with having the site right next to the existing basin disposal parking yard. The state department of ecology regulates the federal and state clean air act. So any odor complaints can be addressed both to the health department and to the state department of ecology. In terms of the many layers of permitting and approval of solid waste management plan, you get this opened, including one of which will be to come back to the city for building permit and all of its review, and again the mitigation measures that are recommended by staff, this is also a unique use that typically you may approve a use or approve a rezone or so forth and that's it. The city doesn't have ongoing oversight of it. But here, county and state health departments do, what we call, a periodic review. Every five years they come back and look at the operations of the site and make certain it's not causing problems to its neighbors, not violating any standards. And so it's highly regulated both on the front end and on the back end, which I just mentioned that just to assure you as to the long-term compatibility of this use. And I did want to just mention to you as well that I did -- the letter from opposing counsel quotes an e-mail Page 299 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 11 from Megan Gilmore, Department of Ecology. And also a letter from the county health department asserting that and using those letters to assert that approval of the special permit would be illegal. I spoke with Megan Gilmore, the environmental planner, this morning. She reaffirms that her e-mail is only making the same point that the Department of Health letter is making, which is simply that approval of a operating permit by the health department to establish a solid waste transfer station requires conformance with the solid waste management plan. So that's all -- Megan said that her e-mail stands for that proposition. And that's, frankly, all I read in her e-mail as well. She went on to say that ecology has no role whatsoever in local government zoning decisions, land use approval decisions for solid waste facilities, for a solid waste transfer station. That is a -- that's for the local zoning authority to approve. And, in fact, when you look at the nuance of applying for an operating permit with the health department, that's one of the boxes you have to check that you have zoning approval. So, again, that just points out why it is common sense to secure the zoning approval first before you then undertake the very extensive process of county health department and state health department and state department of ecology Page 300 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 12 approvals for a transfer station. I mentioned that to Ms. Gilmore as well, and she fully understood and appreciated that fact. And understood our position. Certainly we agree that we have to comply with the solid waste management plan. I think, you know, it goes without saying, I believe the planning commission understands. I believe you understand from your minutes as well that all of these arguments about market conditions and need are not factors for you in terms of the six special permit criteria. And in deed my view as a land use attorney is that for a city to pick winners and losers in the marketplace or to base zoning decisions on individual businesses, that's a denial of equal protection of the law. And a denial of due process. So cities do not have authority to, through their land use permitting process and zoning decisions, to decide whether an individual business succeeds or cannot be conducted. That's not a lawful basis for decision-making. And, again, those issues of need, those are addressed in the solid waste management plan. Those are issues to be addressed by the county commissioners in approving an amendment to the plan, if necessary, or updating the plan, because the plan is out of date. I think one of the real salient points of the solid waste management plan that the staff brought up is that Page 301 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 13 that plan is eight years old. The 20-year threshold that was looked at for facilities, the population trigger for that threshold will be met next year -- it's just another 4,000 people in the two county area -- will then exceed the 20-year life span, projected 20-year life span was an eight-year plan. So it's out of date demographically. It's out of date. And also in terms of the state law that requires it to be updated every five years. So the county commissioners have undertaken that step. So it needs to be updated, perhaps amended and whatnot. And that's a step that will likely occur here in the next year or two. I think I've answered basically all the questions. Staff determines the legal adequacy of the application. That's not a matter for the planning commission to decide. SEPA is the responsibility of the city SEPA responsible official, which is Rick White is the community development director. And I would be very, very happy to answer any other questions that you might have or appreciate, if it's possible, if there is reason to provide some closing testimony after everyone else has had a chance to speak. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Thank you very much, Mr. Wallace. It is generally our custom to allow the applicant to come back for the last word. MR. WALLACE: Okay. Page 302 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 14 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Any questions for the applicant'S counsel? MR. WALLACE: Thank you for your time and attention. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Okay. Others who'd like to come and speak on this item are welcome to do so. MR. MILLER: Are you asking for the applicant or are you asking in general? CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Others. MR. MILLER: Good evening. My name is Ken Miller. I'm with Miller, Mertens & Comfort, 1020 North Center Parkway, Suite B, Kennewick, Washington. I was introduced to you the last time, and I apologize that we had a bit of confusion because we had obviously two files in play. And just to avoid any other additional confusion, I want to kind of do a housecleaning check to make sure that we have an adequate record and that you have all the documents that you should have in front of you at this point. Since the last meeting, there was a letter and some materials supplied by Columbia Basin LLC dated December 18th, 2017. Do you have that available to you? CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Uh-huh. MR. MILLER: Good. So everybody has got a copy of that. Also since that time, and I apologize for inundating Page 303 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 15 you with a big pile of papers, but there is a letter from myself dated December 19th, 2017, that attached basically all of the documents that should have been filed in what is 2017-019 but instead got filed in 2017-018. So do we have those in front us also. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Uh-huh. MR. MILLER: Good. I have two other things that I would like to provide to you this evening. And if I could, I'll provide a copy to the clerk and also copies for each of you to participate with because I think it's important for you to kind of follow along as I make this presentation. THE CLERK: Thank you. MR. MILLER: It's important this evening that you understand that we're here for an application for a special permit. In other words, we're allowing a development of land that's not allowed under the current zoning that's there. It's outside the zoning. As a result, it's not unusual for these hearings to be more in controversy, whether there be opponents or people to be in opposition to what's occurring because it is, again, something that's outside of the established zoning itself. But I think it's also important that you understand that what is being requested is something even additionally different than what you would normally have. Page 304 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 16 This particular siting, and this is what they're asking for, is for you to approve a site for usage. And the staff touched on but they didn't go very far with it. In fairness, city staff is not attorneys. You don't have in front of you a legal opinion from the city attorney in this regard. They're not attorneys. They're giving their impressions based on their experiences. But they did touch on the fact that this is an essential public facility. It's defined by that in the comprehensive plan. In fact, if you go to the comprehensive plan, it states clearly that the basic disposal of solid waste transfer stations, which is what is currently there, is an essential public facility. And it goes on to state that the essential public facilities are capital facilities typically difficult to site because of their potential adverse affects related to size, bulk, hazardous characteristics, noise or public health and safety. In other words, they're usually things that people don't -- when they write down what would you like to have next to you, that you raise your hand on. They include things like solid waste handling facility, such as this, sewage treatment facilities, correctional institution, mental health facilities, etc. That's what you're asking to say this is an appropriate site for. Now, keep in mind, there is already a permitted site Page 305 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 17 within eyesight of this location. So what you're doing, or being asked to do, say we're going to site this essential facility within eyesight of one that's already sited. It's already there. It's already permitted. And we're going to tell the landowners that have surrounding properties that's a good idea. We think it's appropriate. Not only do you get to have one of those facilities, you get to have two. Imagine that there might be some opposition, and I think you're going to hear some this evening to that. But before you even get to that, Counsel has touched on one of the things that I think you should go back to, and that's the fact that you have six findings of fact that you're supposed to make before you can approve this. And I think one that you should really pay attention to, and what I've been trying to deal with in my letters is, you have to find that this proposal, this application, is in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives, maps, and narrative text of the comprehensive plan. Not just one item in the plan. The entire plan. And the reason I just handed out those statutes to you is because not only is essential public facilities dealt with in the comprehensive plan, it's also dealt with by statute. And I gave you RCW 36.70A.200 and RCW 36.70A.210. And what it says is, each county -- or each comprehensive plan of any Page 306 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 18 county or city has to have a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities, such as this. They have to have a policy. They have to have a procedure. And it's not the typical procedure that is for a special permit. It's a different step, in addition, and that's the part we've never gotten to. And that's the reason I'm here objecting on a legal basis is we never got to that, because state law requires the City of Pasco to have a policy and procedure in place for siting these types of facilities. It does. And we're not following it. That procedure is located throughout, and part of it -- only part of it -- was cited by staff. It says no local comprehensive plan or development will preclude the siting of a central public facilities. Why is that there? Well, that's because they don't allow you to have not-in-my-backyard laws. The city can't say we're not going to allow this public facility, period. It can't preclude it. That's all it says. But the part that wasn't quoted to you, the part that's in my materials, is the policy for this is when an appropriate issue arises, the county and cities within and along the public participation, shall develop a cooperative regional process to site essential public facilities. Countywide. And City of Pasco is being asked to site this without any input from Franklin County, City Page 307 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 19 of Eltopia, City of Mesa, and they're required to, because under this, it's a regional process. It's not a city process. The city can't decide to site this. It has to go through the process of having the other governmental entities input with public participation. Now, when was the only time that the City of Pasco went through the process of doing that? Only -- the only time was in 2010 when the Franklin County solid waste plan was put in effect. I thought it interesting today that at times they were cited to give credence to things and other times it was said, well, it's outdated. But what's clear is, it's still in effect. The state has told us that. They say it's in effect. If you read that e-mail, that's what they're saying, that plan is still in effect, and so is the public health department. And by law, the City of Pasco has to have a plan in place, which it has in place if it is followed. And the only time that they had a regional input as to the siting of a transfer station, such as this, which is an essential public facility, is then. And at that point, they had people from all of the various cities within the county, plus the county, plus the city, plus public people, people that weren't even involved in it to come together to put together a plan and procedure for doing this. And they decided where the siting was going to be. The siting was where it currently Page 308 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 20 was, which is where it's been for a long period of time. And it's being operated at this point by my client. And when they looked at other possible sitings, what did they look at? North Franklin County. Because if you read the rest of the policy, again, it's in the comprehensive plan, it's listed multiple times. Anytime you get to any type of facility within the city of Pasco, it immediately goes back to this policy. The process will assure that such facilities are located so as to protect the environmental quality, optimize access, usefulness to all jurisdictions and equally distribute the economic benefit burdens and burdens throughout the entire region or county. Now, that's the hearing that has to occur. That's this planning that has to occur before you get to siting a public, an essential public facility. That's what's required. And it's required by the statute. It's required by the comprehensive plan of the City of Pasco. And, quite bluntly, it's required by the pub -- by the Pasco Municipal Code. The Pasco Municipal Code says you cannot take zoning action that violates state law. You know, really don't worry about the fact that we have a solid waste plan with Franklin County in place. We're going to go change that. We're in violation of it now. We can't do anything because this site hasn't been Page 309 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 21 properly done. But just ignore it. We'll go back and change it later, after the fact, because we just need you to tell us this is a proper site. Again, as proper site, that's comprehensive plan says is a regional process, not just a City of Pasco process. So you can just violate that plan that's in place. You don't have to pay any attention to it. This whole situation is backwards. The applicant should be going in and changing the Franklin County solid waste plan first. You should get his permission first. Because at that point, you would have regional input as to what the proper siting is for that facility. And I'm sure it's not going to be a stone throw away from this current facility. That makes no sense. How is that economic? How does that serve the entire region? How does that spread the benefits within the entire county, which is what the policy says? And, again, go back to your very first finding. And ask yourself, how do I make this finding? I'm on this, I'm looking at how do I make this finding? I have to find that proposal was in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives, maps and narrative text of the comprehensive plan. You can't. It fails. It doesn't go any further than that. Because the policy is already in place. And until it gets changed, it is also the law. Page 310 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 22 The City is required to have a solid waste plan in effect. They're asking you to go against it. They'll change it later. The City is required to have procedures in place in regard to essential public facilities, and they do. And if they don't, and all it is is besides this, they're violating the statute. But they do. And they tell you this is a regional decision. It's not a City of Pasco decision. It has to be taken to a regional body and it has to be approved in that manner. Now, there's all kinds of other issues. I don't think they meet the other portions of those six findings that you have to meet, because I believe that their materials are flawed. And I have some -- I have my client here today, several of them are going to speak on that, and I'm not going to go through it myself. But that's the essential part that I have to add to this is, how do you make that finding? You can't. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Any questions for Mr. Miller? You got one? COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: Kind of. So we're looking at this, one of the areas that pop into our mind was efficiency, that building, this facility right, like you say, is a stone throw or whatever. So are you saying that efficiency is not -- does not come into the equation? Page 311 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 23 MR. MILLER: Well, efficiency to whom? Efficiency to the county? COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: To the people that are building the company. MR. MILLER: That's not something -- again, you're in a land use decision. That's an economic decision for him. That's the part that -- see, I threw all the economics out to you last time, I said, look how efficient this will make us. Look how I can save money. And then you say, well, it's really just a land use decision. The efficiencies to the proponent don't come into effect in this. COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Thank you. We'd like to invite anyone else to come up at this time. MR. WHEATLEY: Commissioner, my name is Steve Wheatley, 1 Marigold Loop. I represent Columbia Basin LLC. I submitted a packet. I hope all of you got everything. Beside the letter, there were some frontage charts and other information. And I'd like to go through those one at a time. On the sixth criteria first, I'm going to touch some of the other things, because although this is a land use only issue, the proponent in his PowerPoint presentation brought the economics basically Page 312 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 24 threw our establishment under the bus. I'm sorry to see that Mr. McDonald is not here tonight, because his opinion that came to you tonight I was going to ask him if he's ever even been to our site. His report gets down to nitty-gritty, half the thing was about us. It had nothing to do with the land use thing. Brings up little things like we have no landscaping. Nobody else on Dietrich Road does either. Brought up the road. It's a city road. Our owner actually had the road rebuilt in front of our facility. I'm a little emotional about this because I've worked for both of those parties. I'm going to try to stick to the land use questions. So with that, if you could go to the comments on the staff findings of fact. The first one is a proposal, what our attorney just went over. The City of Pasco has a comprehensive plan. They do not have their own comprehensive solid waste plan, because they are a participant signed on through the Franklin County integrated solid waste management plan. So that is their plan. And their plan says there will be no new transfer station. It also says that the county should consider building a drop box facility in North Franklin County. So there's two points there that their own plan addresses. And I'll get to the proponent to say the tonnage grows at Page 313 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 25 9.5 percent. It is not. And we'll get to those charts a little later on. Proposal No. 2, will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? They have indicated there is no new traffic. Well, their trucks leave the facility in the morning and come to our facility three or four times a day on packer trucks. Roll off trucks can vary from 10 to 12 down to four, depending on where they're coming from. That's not going to their place. That's coming down Dietrich Road. So saying there's no impact to Commercial or Garland is wrong. Because they'll be going there, dumping and going back out, just like they are now, coming back three or four times, eight, ten times with a roll off truck, delivery truck. So Commercial Avenue, Garland Street and this new proposed street will see 200 trips. That's the number the proponent used of trucks ranging from 60,000 up to 105,000. So there will be impacts on those roads -- maintenance-wise, liter -- because vehicles that deliver garbage to transfer stations liter. We're constantly picking up stuff off of Dietrich Road. So that stuff, if it goes over there, is going to be going up Commercial, Garland and whatever this new street is. No. 3, will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated in harmony with existing or Page 314 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 26 intended character of the general facility? What they say, the reply to that was a proposed transfer station similar to the solid waste facilities that formerly operated in the neighborhood. This statement raises a couple questions. What former solid waste facilities are we talking about? Because I know of none. The only one is the old landfill and the current one is Columbia Basin transfer station. The other issue with that statement is since they haven't submitted any contemporary-type plans, ideas -- I've been in the solid waste business 49 years. And I've done these sites. And when you go in, you have some drawings, you have data to show so staff knows what you're talking about. Not just saying I'm going to build a steel building this or that. What I've done in the past, we had some artist conceptions of the facility. We had equipment manufacturers provide documentation so people knew what we were talking about. So I don't know how they can say that it's going to be an army unless they haven't provided that stuff to us when we requested. So I -- without that information, I don't know how they can answer these questions. No. 4 is, well, the location and height of the proposed structure, the site design discourages the development of permitted uses in the general facility or Page 315 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 27 impair their value. Well, they referred to us on Dietrich Road as not discouraging development. Well, we have an old landfill is enough discouragement. We were there before anybody else decided. And all of those facilities are down the road. They're not next to us. They're down the road. So I take exception to that point. Again, the applicant hasn't submitted any kind of conceptual drawing, information that has been available to us for this proposed facility. No. 5, will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, all that. And they're talking about buildings that's going to be a drive-through and it's going to mitigate all the stuff. Like I pointed out before, the trucks are still going to get there and they got to leave. And the liter happens going down the road. And any building that has an opening of any kind, when you dump the garbage on the ground and the wind's blowing like it does here sometimes, you have that issue. We're over there, we pick up the ground around our facility on a continual basis because of that issue. No. 6, will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the Page 316 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 28 district? I would say that since they haven't submitted conceptual drawings, blueprints, building, that we've been made available, that I just don't know how city staff can answer all these questions with the limited amount of information they have. Getting to the points that we were basically the proponent used the last time we were here, if you look at the tonnage analysis year over year chart, you will see 2012 and 2013 the tonnage actually went down. And over the 2010 to 2017 period, the average annual percentage tonnage growth is 2.4 percent, not 9.5. In fact, none of those years was at 9.5. And I went through a whole bunch of records, and this population number, there's something you guys need to keep in mind. Garbage tonnage growth is driven by a couple things more than population. One is economics. If people don't have money in their pocket, they're not buying stuff and garbage goes down. Look at the last recession. Tonnage fell really bad. We didn't have less people. And the purpose the proponent has used is that we are out of capacity, and they're basing it on population. The second thing that really drives tonnage is the weather. January and February, nobody coming to our place, except the garbage trucks, for the most part. Page 317 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 29 Population has some influence but it's not the overriding factor, especially if you do more recycling and everything like that, which they're talking about, tonnage goes down. The second chart is tons of waste accepted Pasco transfer station by county. The first six years there, I got out of it, Franklin County solid waste management plan, which the proponent was a member of the SWAC (phonetic) and they put this together. The year 2005, if you go back to the plan, those numbers were wrong because they had misapplied part of those tons that should have been in Franklin County over into Benton County. So if you're doing a lot of research, I adjusted those. So 2002 to 2006, the average percent for Franklin County with total tons was 63.19 percent. We're part of the Franklin County solid waste plan. Most of the other tons that we get come from the proponents garbage truck that serve Benton County, Walla Walla County, cities of Waitsburg and Dayton. He has no problem bringing those to us now. But then he wants to use that against us on the capacity issue that he brought up in his PowerPoint. Franklin county comes first to us. Going from 2007 to 2017, I applied those percentages. That's how you get that breakdown. From 2002 to 2017 there was a 60.64 percent increase in tonnage. That's Page 318 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 30 15 years. That's 4.04 percent a year. And at the bottom of that page, in 2029, applying the 4.04 percent average annual rate, we get to 281,888 annual tons. Proponent agrees with us that we can do 1,200 ton a day. Didn't argue that. 260 days a year, that there's 312,000 tons a year. So capacity is not an issue, even though we can increase the capacity by buying more equipment. The 9.5 percent population growth number that he has used, a lot of that, that is not an accurate number. From the Census Bureau in 2010 to 2016, Franklin County grew by 15.35 percent. That's an average just over 3 percent a year. The 9.5 percent I think he got the number from was for Pasco, but that number is wrong, because even by Dick Zabel's own article in the Tri-City Herald, a little over half of that growth comes from annexations. Those people are already here and they're already dumping. I put a little side note there, Benton County actually only grows 2.11 percent per year on that same period. Although that number is larger in numbers of people because they have a lot larger number. I won't go over the next thing except to say I provided you some numbers of our annual investment in the transfer station. Just due to the fact that Mr. McDonald's two reports to the commission basically threw us under the bus -- I took it personal because, Page 319 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 31 frankly, I was offended and insulted that we spend approximately three-quarters of a million dollars every year on equipment upgrades to keep up with the growth. Our commitment to the Franklin County solid waste plan, which includes the City of Pasco, is not taken lightly. We invest this money every year to stay ahead of the curve. We're always looking a couple years down the road. We see what comes in the door. We have to be ready to react right now. So we always have more stuff as far as equipment, manpower, whatever we need, we try to stay ahead of the game. I also provided you a little reading material for the beyond solid waste, how the state got to the comprehensive solid waste management plan situation, because we used to have landfills sitting all over the place. Illegal dumps. And that's how we got to this comprehensive plan. Again, which is the City of Pasco's plan. And our attorney had already covered policy number 4, which essential facilities are basically -- you just need to read the whole thing, because essential facilities are referred to as a regional countywide to benefit everybody. Not to benefit only the proponent. With that, thank you. I would take any questions. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Thank you, Mr. Wheatley. Any questions? Page 320 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 32 Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else on this item? MR. DIETRICH: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Leonard Dietrich, 1721 Dietrich Road. I won't go over what's already been hashed by my attorney and by Mr. Wheatley. But I will tell you that be careful on the numbers that are put out there. Steve pointed them out quite succinctly. And if I just go to one of them on the tonnage increase that Mr. Dietrich provided to you, usually on the first year of 50,000 tons, that number is probably correct, except the Pasco sanitary landfill was in operation from that period on for about another six years. So most of the material was going to the landfill. And then you look at why did it jump up so fast? Steve has already given you the numbers. I won't give you the numbers again, but with what Mr. Dietrich has provided you, verify the numbers. Verify the numbers. Don't accept what has been given to because they are there to benefit his discussion. Be careful. Let me just describe how we got to a comprehensive solid waste plan in Franklin County. How it was done back in the '60s, and I was there, was there was over 600 garbage dumps. They weren't landfills. They were garbage dumps. Every city had one. Pasco had two. Road 68 and the end of Wheatley Street. And you'd go to Prosser, they Page 321 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 33 had one. You go to Connell, they had one. The state understood that we had a problem. And we were going to eliminate all of these burning dumps that were out there. So they developed a plan, brought it down to the counties, and the counties were the correct place to bring it to. And at that time -- then they could put a solid waste plan together, a regional one. And why that worked is because you had one central location to go to. Now, any city can produce their own. City of Pasco could have produced their own comprehensive solid waste plan. They chose to be a part of Franklin County because they were working on a regional concept. So the City of Pasco, through several times, had representatives on there at every meeting. I was at most all of the meetings until it changed and I dropped off from it, but they participated. And when they came with a plan in 2010, the City of Pasco said, yep, we've all participated, as did Connell, Kahlotus, Mesa, Eltopia and Franklin County. And they said, yep, it's a good plan for the region. Pasco sanitary landfill is going out so this is what we're going to do. And they said let's give it a 30-year or a 20-year window, excuse me. And so they did that. They can say that it's out of date. It's not out of date. It's the law. It is what everybody agreed to. And when I made the proposal to put the transfer station Page 322 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 34 in, I committed tens of millions of dollars over that period of time from 1993 to 2030. And we do it every year every day, because we're taking care of the region. Now, the logical place to put it is where it's at because there is already a landfill there. There was nobody around us except agriculture. And so it fit the bill. Now you want to move -- now your task is to say, where is the next one regionally, not because it's convenient for an applicant to say that, oh, I think I can save some money on this thing. Well, yes or no, that's not a part of the equation. Where is it reasoning? Does it make sense to have two sewage treatment plants right next to each other when you have West Pasco? That's why you have a treatment, water treatment plant in West Pasco. They're more likely to have a sewage treatment plant in West Pasco. It costs money to move the stuff around. So you look at regionally. And that's what we did. And so we've committed to that. I've committed to it. And proper place is where it's at. What will it do to -- and like I told you, I served 18 years where you folks are. And what will that location do? If you look at the industrial business on Dietrich Road, it's all heavy industrial. Pipe, lime from Oxarc, on and on and on. And so it's not what is on Garland Page 323 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 35 Street, trucking. Mr. McDonald says, yeah, we got trucks going in and out there all the time. You don't. Even Conway and that, they typically come in and out middle of the day or middle of the night. They're in and gone. Mr. Martinez, his trucks go out to work all day long and at night they come back in. That's the point Steve was making is that you can say, or he can say and staff can say that it's close to the current operation. They leave at 7 o'clock in the morning, they come at 5:00. That's the only time they're there. They will be in and out of this location that you're trying to make a decision on, whether it should be there for regional basis, coming in and out of there many, many times a day. So you will put a burden on Commercial Avenue. Staff can say, well, it's already right there. I haven't taken it off but I would bet you it's more miles or more feet because it's so close going to this proposed site than it is coming off the Kahlotus Highway and going right directly to our facility. Some things don't hold water. I'll quit there, because you've listened to an awful lot. There is an awful lot to understand. Remember, it's regional that you're looking at. The comprehensive plan in Franklin County has bought on and supported by the City of Pasco. And therefore, I think it's ass backwards. Page 324 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 36 Should not -- and Mr. Dietrich served on the Franklin County solid waste committee and was a part of this recommendation that there will only be one transfer station and the next one being in Franklin County. Now he decides that's not the thing to do. Says it's outdated. My input from Franklin County is that they have attempted over the last year or so to make contact with Mr. Dietrich to do an update on the plan. He chooses not to return phone calls. Is this all part of his scheme? I don't have a clue. But I'm telling you, be very careful. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions, and you have a decision to make. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Thank you very much, Mr. Dietrich. Any questions on behalf of the commission? Thank you. Thank you very much. Next person who would like to speak on this. Name and address for the record, please. MR. MARTINEZ: Hello, my name is Zenaido Martinez, III. My address is 5108 Laredo Drive. I am representing Martinez Trucking, which is currently on both 2020 Garland Street and 2202 Garland Street. I will keep this short and ask permission to utilize my phone up here for my notes. Are you okay with that? All right. So we only have a few concerns regarding the proposed site that Mr. Dietrich would like to put. We Page 325 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 37 are, to point out on the map here, adjacent to the proposed site where the two properties would come up against each other. And, you know, as part businessowner and someone who we feel we've contributed to this area in a large way, we are -- one of our biggest concerns is the property value of the current location. How that would either impact negatively or otherwise to where we were at. We believe the City of Pasco has done a great job in making and putting requirements in place to keep that industrial park looking very nice, very clean with the requirements from sidewalks to landscaping and all of that. It looks really nice. We are concerned also with the liter that is potentially going to occur in that area as well, and who would essentially be responsible for that liter if it were to go into our property. I understand it is a drive-through site, but I am against the idea that nobody would be outside of that site. I believe it would occur and having negative impact on us as well. We also are under the understanding that although most of the traffic will occur on Commercial Avenue, we believe Garland Street would also be impacted by this in a negative way. We personally, in our company, we have 70 units that come in and out of Garland Street several times a day each unit. So up to two or three hundred times a Page 326 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 38 day where you will see our trucks going in and out of Garland Street. Garland Street, you can see does have an abrupt curve that goes down and down further into the street, which we have experienced, and I have personally experienced that. With the current businesses that reside in that area, which include Par Lumber, XPO Logistics formerly known as Conway, Line Castle, Martinez Trucking, and what you don't see there is a new building that we have put in, Martinez Technical Institute, which is the school we have input into the area has had a significant increase in traffic on an already somewhat complicated street, if you will, because of that curve. So my concern also, as part of businessowner, is the safety of my employees that come in and out of there to think of 200 -- additional trips coming in and out of there with proposed waste trucks and eventually even public utilizing that street, I cannot imagine what that street would look like if that were to be potentially used as entrance or exit out of that building -- out of that proposed site. I know, just from being there, XPO their company runs about 40 to 50 units, in addition to outside carriers that utilize that street and park on the sides there often. I mean, it's a daily occurrence. The school itself is showing significant growth where Page 327 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 39 we have student drivers coming in and out of Garland Street that would have a significant impact potentially on the safety of not just the vehicles going in there but any kind of pedestrian or Pasco member, or anybody coming to utilize that proposed site. Lines Castle, I believe they run somewhere between 20 and 30 units as well, that come in and out of there. It is a very, very busy street. I think I've made my point on that. Most, in most cases, I know specifically for us, we would also utilize Commercial where we would go down the street in front of the current BDI site and the proposed site entrance where to go in there on the new street or an -- I'm sorry, I don't really understand the map very as well as where it may be going into, the new proposed site. So whether it's Garland Street or Commercial, there will be a significant number of increase in traffic and potential accidents. And to me, as a citizen of Pasco and as someone who commutes to that area very often, I'm a little concerned about that as well. So value, overall value of the property is a concern of ours, how that may impact our future development, and what we would like to do in that area, which, you know, I will go without giving specific instructions or details on what we would like to do to develop that area. This new proposed site would definitely hinder that and I believe Page 328 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 40 hinder Pasco, the City of Pasco's opportunity and Martinez Trucking and like entities that are influenced with us to develop and grow our own businesses there as well. I believe that's the most of everything I want to say. I do like to note that I am speaking also on behalf of my father, Sam Martinez, Jr., who is the owner of that property and couldn't be with us today. He's currently out of the state and wanted me to share that he also is very concerned about this as well. With that, I can take questions. And again, I appreciate your time for listening to my speech here. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Thank you very much, Mr. Martinez. Any on behalf of the Commission? COMMISSIONER CAMPOS: Real quick. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Wait, one. COMMISSIONER CAMPOS: So just from listening to some feedback you had, it sounds like some of your questions and concerns would be answered if you saw some preliminary drawings to this proposed property? MR. MARTINEZ: Potentially. And maybe those drawings were provided in the first meeting. I apologize I was not here for that. But, yeah, we would personally -- I mean, for us, as far as where we're at, specifically on the site in relation to the proposed site, we would definitely like to see that and what the plans would be for the increased Page 329 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 41 traffic in and out of that area. COMMISSIONER CAMPOS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Martinez. Anybody else that would like to speak on this item are welcome to do so. We'll invite the applicant to come forward again at this time, if they choose to do so. MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Alan Wallace, Williams Kastner, Counsel for the applicant. Let me address the Growth Management Act code sections that were handed out to you. And I think, as you read those, they really don't say what they were represented to say to you. The first section is RCW 36.70A.200. This does speak to essential public facilities. And it does require that every city planning under the Growth Management Act must have a process for and may not preclude the siting of an essential public facility. And that's (5), 200(5). And that's exactly what Pasco has done here. This special permit process is Pasco's process to enable an essential public facility to be sited in this light industrial zone. So Pasco's special permit process is in compliance about RCW 36.70A.200(5). The second Growth Management Act section cited to you Page 330 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 42 is RCW 36.70A.210. I assume you may have a copy there. That's a little dense reading to look at, but that -- that only concerns the enactment of countywide planning policies. And I don't know how much the planning commission has ever had to deal with or read countywide planning policies. That's a whole other topic. But what it says there in Section 3C is that countywide planning policies -- and again, these are to guide the Growth Management Act planning of cities and the county that are located within the county. The county commissioners are solely responsible for adopting the countywide planning policies under the Growth Management Act. And 3C says that there must be a policy for citing public -- I emphasize the word public -- public capital facilities of countywide or statewide nature, including transportation facilities of statewide nature. This is not a public capital facility. It is an essential public facility as defined by the Growth Management Act. So it does kind of have super land use approval authority because cities cannot have regulations barring an essential public facility. For example, right now in King County there are many cities who are enacting regulations barring the safe heroine injection sites. Many cities don't want that to occur. And so they are barring that, but that's not an Page 331 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 43 essential public facility. So Pasco cannot bar the siting of the planning essential public facilities and, again, that's what the special permit process is doing. So that's what those Growth Management Act sections cited to you state. They nowhere state that there's some kind of a land use process where city of Pasco shares land use approval authority with the county or other cities when citing the transfer station. That's simply not the case. I can tell you that in obtaining land use approvals for solid waste transfer stations we are always dealing with the local jurisdiction in obtaining land use approvals from the local jurisdiction. And the City of Washougal for East Clark County, solid waste transfer station, it was -- we had a public hearing before -- not a planning commission but before the City of Washougal hearing examiner, and the hearings examiner approved a conditional use permit for that solid waste transfer station. And that was the final action by the City. The hearing examiner didn't make a recommendation to the city council. The City of Seattle in approving its solid waste transfer station rebuilds is solely the Seattle hearing examiner. There was absolutely no overlay of review or approval by other jurisdictions, other cities or King Page 332 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 44 County in approving the rebuild of the North Seattle solid waste transfer station. So I'm sure you appreciate that from your years or months experience on the planning commission. I don't know how many, how long any of you have been here, but there is no process for a multi-jurisdictional land use approval. There has been done a little bit in the past where you have a multi-jurisdictional approval process. In fact, the Walla Walla County and city of Walla Walla, you may know, just had a divorce a couple years ago. They used to have a joint planning agency. The City of Walla Walla and Walla Walla County -- Walla Walla County is not a whole lot larger than the city of Walla Walla, by the way, and they just recently separated and now they -- they don't have a joint planning agency. But even as a joint planning agency, they're -- the joint planning agency was really basically a cooperative of the planners. The planners there were still in Walla Walla, were still enforcing the Walla Walla County zoning code, incorporated Walla Walla County, and the City of Walla Walla zoning code, that matter was inside the city of Walla Walla, so there's no hybrid land use decision-making process. And to argue that the Growth Management Act requires one here in this instance is simply incorrect. And you've heard the argument a bit here that this Page 333 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 45 is -- that the process is backwards. But that -- to say that process is backwards is to say that you have to enforce a solid waste management plan and to follow its dictates when we have openly said to you that is another step in the process. This is, as the planning staff has recommended to you, this is a logical first step in the process to have the special permit approval because then -- without that, you can't check the box in the application for the operating permit that you have zoning approval. And so is it a perfect process? I won't say it's perfect. But this is a logical first step for Mr. Dietrich to then invest further in the process of working with the county commissioners to update the solid waste management plan and then to go back through the state and local health department permitting process. So just a couple other points here. I think that's basically -- I just want to really explain those sections of the Growth Management Act that were cited to you. And, again, the process I would just affirm to you based on many years of experience, I've been in this business a long time, and in permitting other solid waste transfer stations, this is exactly the same lawful process that is used recently in the City of Spokane Valley, City of Washougal. The local jurisdiction exercises the zoning Page 334 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 46 authority. Department of ecology has nothing to do with that. They will then do their job when they're called to do it. The county commissioners will do their job when it's appropriate to do so. But this is one step in the process. With that, thank you very much for your time and attention this December 21st late in the year before Christmas. Any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Thank you, Mr. Wallace. I got one real quick one. So an example in the public capital facility, are you saying an airport or something like that in the RCW 36.70A? MR. WALLACE: Yes, something of regional significance. And there are several solid waste transfer stations in this area. So this is not one. This is typically not a facility deemed to rise to the level of being a regional importance as would an airport or regional sewer plant, regional water reservoir or so forth. And again, those are public facilities. The airport is not a private facility. Now, some jurisdictions solid waste transfer stations are publically owned, but not in most areas of Washington state. Most areas of Washington state, outside of city of Tacoma, City of Seattle, King County, most are owned by Page 335 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 47 private hauling companies. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Thank you, Mr. Wallace. Mr. Mendez? COMMISSIONER MENDEZ: My same question. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Okay. MR. WALLACE: Thanks again for this opportunity for input. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else in the audience? Last call? Mr. Miller. MR. MILLER: Ken Miller, again, attorney representing opposing party. The thing that did not get brought up just a few minutes ago, or just a few seconds ago is how does this application comply with the comprehensive code? This comprehensive code defines solid waste transfer station as an essential public facility. It's right in it. It says it is. Right? And then how do you address policy number 4, which is located in every section of the comprehensive plan for whatever item you're looking at. It says, if you're working on a regional basis, you need input from the other jurisdictions. You can't site it by yourself. When they sited the original location and they agreed to the location, but then the solid waste plan, they had all the input. They had everybody's input. Where is any input from anybody else? This is -- this facility only Page 336 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 48 works within the confines of the solid waste plan for Franklin County. Right? It's a regional plan. It is -- it exists because of that. And they're saying we're going to site a new plan. Now, again, you would think by the indications the old one is going away. It's not. It's there. It's permitted. It's sited. So now they're going to site another one, again within a stone throw, and they're going -- they're asking you to say it's an appropriate siting. That statute that I gave to you talks about siting in regards to essential public facilities. And when it gets to that for the City of Pasco, the City of Pasco has told us this is a regional process. Over and over again they have told us that. And if it's not a regional process, then they're violating the law in the City of Pasco, which they're not. Because they have to come out with specific policies and procedures to site those plan, according to this statute, which they haven't done. They adopted the regional plan. Now, counsel says, well, gee, these other cities, they went through this and they didn't have to do it. Cities can opt out. And this city could opt out. They have not done that. They are still within the parameters of the solid waste plan for Franklin County. All you have to do is give them notice and they can opt out and then they're absolutely right. We don't know what those other Page 337 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 49 cities -- we do know the City of Seattle basically operates solely on their own in many regards because they're so large. The other cities I have no idea whether they opted in or opted out or what their policies are. But the policies that are in your comprehensive plan, since this is a regional basis, and you have in front of you a finding to make that you are meeting the policies of the comprehensive plan for the City of Pasco. You have to make that finding. And you can't. That's the short of this. I always forget. Questions? CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Anymore questions for Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER: I think everybody is probably tired of questions. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Well, it's part of the process. MR. MILLER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Thank you. Anyone else in the audience that would like to speak at this time? As long it's going to take, so if you want to come back up, please come back up. Before we close the public hearing, I'll give Mr. White a chance to add anything that he wants to add to the decision. MR. WALLACE: Thank you. Alan Wallace again. Policy No. 4, again, your comp plan is there ready. Page 338 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 50 It has a predicate when an appropriate issue arises. And so that's a judgment made by the planning department and by the planning commission and ultimately by the city council that will review your recommendation. When does a use rise to the level, such as a regional airport or a sewer plant, rise to the level of requiring interjurisdictional review and approval? And so, obviously, the planning department has given you their professional planning judgment and this use, as proposed within an enclosed building, of a scale and type consistent with the industrial zone, that doesn't rise to the issue. It's not a corporate ask other cities in the Tri-City area in the county to give their opinion on the City of Pasco land use decision at this time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Thank you very much, Mr. Wallace. Anymore discussion on behalf of the commission? Mr. White, anything you would like to add at this time? MR. WHITE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: I'm going to bring up something, just to make sure. It was mentioned during the discussion that this was the planning commission -- or the planning staff's input and perspective and not necessarily the city attorney's perspective; is that accurate? MR. WHITE: Not entirely. No. The planning staff Page 339 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 51 takes a great degree of direction from the city attorney. As a matter the fact, the suggestion to deliberate for the coming month is for another opportunity to review tonight's record with the city attorney to make sure the recommendation that comes to you is defensible and solid. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MENDEZ: To that point, it would be helpful for us, before we do deliberations, to get some insight as to whether the RCW'S apply or not because a lot of it was kind of technical for me. MR. WHITE: I'm not -- pardon me? CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Specifically, Mr. Miller referenced two RCW 36.70.200 and 210, I believe, and it was brought up during the discussion that those may be overapplied in the opposition's argument, so maybe a specific answer from Mr. Kerr as to his interpretation. MR. WHITE: Again, another reason to make sure the findings that you're presented with in the coming month are defensible and solid. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER MENDEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Any further discussion on behalf of the commission? Okay. I will close the public hearing at this time and entertain a motion. Page 340 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 52 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Will we need a motion that moves it to next month? Altered motion or just exactly as it is? CHAIRMAN CRUZ: We need the motions of finding of fact and conclusions, correct? MR. WHITE: I would just recommend that the commission make a motion that deliberations and a recommendation to council be schedule for January 18th. COMMISSIONER KHAN: So I move to adopt findings and fact and conclusions -- MR. WHITE: I would not make that motion. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: You want to use the first one. COMMISSIONER KHAN: Close the public hearing and then -- MR. WHITE: Mr. Chair, you did close the hearing, correct? CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Yes, I closed the hearing. MR. WHITE: Just a simple motion to move the deliberation and recommendation to January 18th will suffice. COMMISSIONER KHAN: Sorry. I'm blanking out, because I was wondering whether I actually heard you close the hearing or not. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: (Nodded head.) COMMISSIONER KHAN: I move to schedule the Page 341 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 53 deliberation for city council on January 18th to 2018. MR. WHITE: That's fine. MR. PORTUGAL: Second that. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Moved by Commissioner Roach, seconded by Commissioner Portugal. All those in favor say aye. COMMISSION IN UNISON: Aye. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Those opposed? Let the record show the motion passed unanimously. Again, this will come back next month for further discussion. Mr. White, I'm going to assume that ChaRae is probably done for the evening. MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Okay. So why don't we take a five-minute recess and allow everybody to shuffle out since we've been at this for quite a while, and for ChaRae to pack up. And once we're all seated, we'll start back up again. So thank you, everybody. (CONCLUDED AT 8:27 P.M.) Page 342 of 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 54 C E R T I F I C A T E STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF BENTON ) This is to certify that I, ChaRae Kent, the undersigned Washington Certified Court Reporter, residing at West Richland, reported the within and foregoing meeting on the date herein set forth; that said examination was taken by me in shorthand and thereafter transcribed, and that same is a true and correct record of the public meeting. I further certify that I am not a relative or employee or attorney or counsel of any the parties, nor am I financially interested in the outcome of the cause. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Washington State CCR number this day of , 2018. CHARAE KENT, RPR, CCR CCR NO. 2408 Page 343 of 365 1 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON 2 CITY OF PASCO 3 In Re: Special Permit to ) 4 Locate a Solid Waste ) 5 Transfer Station ) Master File # SP 2017-019 6 (2022 Commercial Ave LLC) ) 7 8 9 EXCERPT OF THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 10 11 12 TIME: 7:00 p.m., Thursday, January 18, 2018 13 TAKEN AT: Pasco City Hall 14 Pasco, Washington 15 CALLED BY: City of Pasco 16 REPORTED BY: Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II 17 City of Pasco 18 Community & Economic Development Department 19 Page 344 of 365 2 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department 1 APPEARANCES 2 FOR THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION: 3 CHAIRWOMAN PAM BYKONEN 4 COMMISSIONER JOSEPH CAMPOS 5 COMMISSIONER PAUL MENDEZ 6 COMMISSIONER ALECIA GREENAWAY 7 COMMISSIONER GABRIEL PORTUGAL 8 9 ALSO PRESENT: 10 MR. RICK WHITE 11 MR. DAVID MCDONALD 12 MS. DARCY BOURCIER 13 MS. KRYSTLE SHANKS 14 15 Page 345 of 365 3 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department 1 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 7:00 p.m., 2 at Pasco City Hall, Pasco, Washington, the Pasco Planning Commission 3 Meeting was taken before Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II 4 of the Community & Economic Development Department for the City of 5 Pasco. The following proceedings took place: 6 7 PROCEEDINGS 8 9 CHAIRWOMAN BYKONEN: The first item of Old Business is a special 10 permit. It is Master File SP 2017-019 – Location of a solid waste 11 facility at 2022 Commercial Avenue. Is there any information from 12 staff? 13 MR. WHITE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the Commission is very 14 familiar with this item. You’ve seen it several times now. I thought 15 what I might do though is perhaps distill the findings and the 16 recommendations down into a few phrases for the audience and the 17 Commission’s benefit. 18 The regional planning process that’s associated with the Solid 19 Waste Plan needs to establish the foundation for the land use through 20 the special permit process in this case. The consistency review 21 required by our own Comprehensive Plan and the regional coordination 22 Page 346 of 365 4 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department required by the Growth Management Act for essential public facilities 1 are just hurdles that Staff cannot overcome by proposing a 2 recommendation for the Commission for denial. The caveats, there has 3 been an argument made that the caveats could be included to allow for 4 approval of the special permit but practical consideration of caveats 5 this stage for a project that may not materialize for 5 to 6 to 7 6 years, simply are too weak to really be taken seriously at this point. 7 So, you have a number of findings of course and conclusions because of 8 the special permit requirements contained in our Municipal Code. 9 Staff is recommending that the Commission adopt the findings and the 10 conclusions and recommend to City Council that the special permit be 11 denied. 12 CHAIRWOMAN BYKONEN: Do any Commissioner Members have any questions 13 or comments for Staff? 14 And the public hearing on this was closed at the last meeting, 15 correct? 16 MR. WHITE: Yes, it was. 17 CHAIRWOMAN BYKONEN: And, did any of the Commission Members have any 18 comments among ourselves? No? I’ll entertain a motion. 19 COMMISSIONER CAMPOS: I move to adopt findings of fact and 20 conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 18, 2017 staff 21 report. 22 Page 347 of 365 5 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department COMMISSIONER MENDEZ: Second. 1 CHAIRWOMAN BYKONEN: Moved by Commissioner Campos, seconded by 2 Commissioner Mendez. All those in favor? 3 COMMISSIONERS: Aye. 4 CHAIRWOMAN BYKONEN: Any opposed? 5 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Nay. 6 CHAIRWOMAN BYKONEN: Let the record show the motion passed 4 in 7 favor, 1 opposed. 8 COMMISSIONER CAMPOS: I moved based on the findings of fact and 9 conclusions, therefrom, the Planning Commission recommends the City 10 Council deny a special permit for the location of a solid waste 11 transfer station for 2022 Commercial Ave. LLC on Parcel 2 of Lot 11, 12 Binding Site Plan 2011-003. 13 COMMISSIONER MENDEZ: Second. 14 CHAIRWOMAN BYKONEN: Moved by Commissioner Campos, seconded by 15 Commissioner Mendez. All those in favor, please say aye. 16 COMMISSIONERS: Aye. 17 CHAIRWOMAN BYKONEN: Any opposed? 18 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Nay. 19 CHAIRWOMAN BYKONEN: Let the record show the motion carried, 4 and 1 20 opposed. 21 22 Page 348 of 365 6 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department 1 2 3 (CONCLUDED.) 4 5 Page 349 of 365 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council February 14, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 3/19/18 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager Executive SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Metro Drug Task Force Interlocal Agreement I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Addendum II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve Addendum No. 1 to the "Metro Interlocal Agreement" Local Narcotics Control Program and Metropolitan Controlled Substance Enforcement Group Interlocal Agreement and, further, authorize the City Manager to execute the Addendum. III. FISCAL IMPACT: General Fund 2018: $2,943 2019: $11,483 (est.) IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The cities of Kennewick, Richland, Pasco and West Richland, along with Benton and Franklin counties, have operated the Metro Drug Task Force through an Interlocal Agreement for nearly 30 years. Metro continues to play a role in combating controlled substances trafficking within the Tri-Cities community. The Interlocal Agreement was updated and approved by the entities last year. The City of Kennewick serves as the administrative agency for Metro. V. DISCUSSION: Funding for the task force comes primarily from a grant (Byrne JAG Grant) through the US Department of Justice. As the Federal system operates under an October- Page 350 of 365 September fiscal year, funding would have normally been available for the task force, which operates on a July-June fiscal year. The DOJ has not released grant funding, causing the task force to draw upon its reserves to cover operating expenses. At a recent meeting of the Metro Executive Board, the operating shortfall was discussed and projected at $105,000 for the Metro fiscal year ending June 2018. Pasco's share of the shortfall is calculated at $2,943, per the proposed addendum. In addition, the addendum establishes the same formula for calculation of any 2019 shortfall. That current estimate for Pasco for the next fiscal year is $11,483, if necessary. Staff recommends approval of the addendum. Page 351 of 365 ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO METRO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT – Page 1 Return recorded document to: Kennewick City Clerk P. O. Box 6108 Kennewick, WA 99336 ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE METRO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THIS ADDENDUM is made and entered into this ______ day of February, 2018, by and between the following parties: City of Pasco City of Kennewick City of Richland City of West Richland Benton County Franklin County SECTION 1 - PURPOSE The Tri-Cities Metro Drug Task Force (Metro) is primarily funded by the Byrne JAG Grant, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The Byrne JAG Grant is primarily utilized for funding the legal secretary position and portions of the Metro Commander and Metro Sergeant’s position. The HIDTA funding has primarily been utilized for confidential buy funds, personnel overtime, and training reimbursement. The DEA has provided office space and electronic equipment. Metro applied for the 2017 Byrne JAG Grant as it has for numerous years. The Grant application was approved and the release of the funding should have occurred after the beginning of the 2017 federal fiscal year, which runs from October 1 to September 30. As of February 9, 2018, the Byrne JAG Grant has not been released by the Department of Justice. This has caused a financial shortfall for the task force. Metro’s fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30. The Task Force was able to utilize reserves through December of 2017 to cover the financial shortfall generated as a result of not receiving Page 352 of 365 ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO METRO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT – Page 2 the Byrne JAG Grant. However, to complete the current fiscal year (to June 30) the task force is expected to require an additional $105,000 to maintain its current operations and meet all financial obligations, which includes ending the fiscal year with an operating reserve of $30,000. It is the parties intent to adopt the foregoing formula to address the current shortfall and address the potential for a future shortfall during the next fiscal year through June 30, 2019. IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree to amend the Metro Interlocal Agreement for an interim period as follows: SECTION 2 – AMENDMENT Section 1. Section 5 of the Interlocal Agreement pertaining to the Task Force is hereby amended, adding subsection (e) which reflects the following formula the parties agree to utilize on an interim basis to cover the budget shortfall due to the delay/loss of grant funding as follows: “e. The following formula was approved by the Metro Executive Board on February 8, 2018: (1) 75% of the legal secretary position – paid by Benton County. (2) 25% of the legal secretary position – paid by Franklin County. (3) Remainder of the shortfall – split equally between all 6 jurisdictions (Benton County, Kennewick, Richland, West Richland, Franklin County and Pasco). To satisfy the projected shortfall ($105,000) to the end of the current fiscal year (June 30, 2018), and utilizing the above formula, the jurisdictions would be responsible for the following: • Benton County - $68,449 • Franklin County - $24,779 • Kennewick - $ 2,943 • Richland - $ 2,943 • West Richland - $ 2,943 • Pasco - $ 2,943 Total $105,000 (4) The formula utilized in this addendum will remain in effect after the conclusion of the 2017-2018 Metro fiscal year, but will last no longer than June 30, 2019, unless a new agreement is deemed appropriate by all parties.” Page 353 of 365 ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO METRO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT – Page 3 Section 2. All other terms and conditions contained in the Metro Interlocal Agreement dated May 16, 2017, not specifically amended above or inconsistent with the terms as amended above shall remain in full force and effect. DATED this _____ day of February, 2018. CITY OF KENNEWICK CITY OF RICHLAND ___________________________________ ____________________________________ MARIE E. MOSLEY, City Manager CINDY REENTS, City Manager Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: ___________________________________ ____________________________________ LISA BEATON HEATHER D. KINTZLEY Kennewick City Attorney Richland City Attorney CITY OF PASCO FRANKLIN COUNTY __________________________________ ____________________________________ DAVE ZABELL, City Manager RICK MILLER, Commissioner Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: __________________________________ ____________________________________ LELAND B. KERR JENNIFER JOHNSON Pasco City Attorney Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office CITY OF WEST RICHLAND BENTON COUNTY __________________________________ ____________________________________ BRENT GERRY, Mayor SHON SMALL, Commissioner Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: __________________________________ ____________________________________ BRONSON BROWN RYAN BROWN West Richland City Attorney Benton County Prosecutor’s Office Page 354 of 365 Metro Local Narcotic Task Force FY 2019 Shortfall Alternatives 75/25 Counties,  Balance Equally* Projected Shortfall 160,000                       Kennewick Contribution (11,483)                        Pasco Contribution (11,483)                        Richland Contribution (11,483)                        West Richland Contribution (11,483)                        Benton County Contribution (79,809)                        Franklin County Contribution (34,259)                        Remaining Shortfall:   ‐$                              *Legal Secretary II personnel costs estimated at $91,100 split 75% to Benton County,  25% to Franklin County, with the balance of shortfall split equally. Page 355 of 365 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 14, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 3/19/18 FROM: Bob Gear, Fire Chief Fire Department SUBJECT: Award of Bid - Regional Fire Training Facility I. REFERENCE(S): Bid Proposals II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to award the Fire Training Facility project to 3S Fire Training in the amount of $561,550 and, further, authorize the City Manager to execute the contract documents. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Total Project Cost: $667,350 Required Pasco match: $106,800 for site work and prop up-grade IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On February 16, 2018 the Pasco Fire Department received notification from the Federal Emergency Management Agency that we received the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) for a regional burn/training facility. The burn/training facility will provide for member training requirements as identified in WAC 296-305- 05502 (4)(6). Currently, in order to meet the requirements, the Fire Department must provide the training outside of the jurisdiction. A local live burn training facility will help toward achieving the Council goal of a WSRB Protection Class 4. V. DISCUSSION: Page 356 of 365 The Pasco Fire Department is signatory to a regional AFG that has been awarded in the amount of $517,350. The grant will provide partial funding for three regional modular burn facilities to be located in the City of Kennewick (2 modules), Benton City (2 modules) and the City of Pasco (7 modules). As part of a regional grant application the City of Pasco Fire Department will administer the grant process on behalf of nine partner fire agencies. The Fire Department is upgrading the 7 module system to a 10 module system in order to meet the multi-story training requirements of the WSRB and WAC 296-305-05502. The training facility is to be located at the Fire Administration (1011 E. Ainsworth). This project has been discussed during the 2018 Capital Improvement Plan, the SEPA process has been completed with a Determination of Non-Significance issues and meet zoning and Special Permit requirements. Council received a briefing on the specifics of the project as part of the special use permit presentation on March 5, 2018. The project was advertised by use of the City of Pasco website and the Tri-City Herald. Two bids were received by the closing deadline on March 9, 2018 and reviewed on March 13, 2018 by the Public Works Contract Specialist and Fire Department Training Captain. The lowest responsive bid was received by 3S Fire Training of Everett, Washington in the amount of $561,550. The bid totals include the building props and instructor training. Project costs by agency were bid as follow per the proposed bid: Agency Improvement Allocation of Project Cost Kennewick 2-box $100,000 Pasco 3-story $225,000 Benton City 2-box $100,000 Total Construction Cost* $461,550 *Includes WSST and Local Match In addition to construction, the bid provides for $100,000 of training for grant participants The AFG grant requires a match of $47,031 which will be split equally among the nine agencies participating in the grant. Construction management of the Pasco Project will be accomplished with City staff. If awarded as proposed, the project is expected to be completed by September 2018. Staff has reviewed the bid submittal and found no exceptions or irregularities. Staff recommends the award of the contract to 3S Fire Training. Page 357 of 365 ADVANCED run:'rnAm W LEARN on BIIIIN VOLUME ||-PRICE AND SCHEDULE PROPOSAL City of Pasco Request for Proposal (RFP)Mobile Facility for Live Fire Training SUMMARY PRICE PROPOSAL OPTION 1 —Price based on payment upon completion of the project Item #Description Quantity Unit Price Total 1 3 Story Modular Training Facility 1 $250000.$250000. 2 2 Box Modular Training Facility 2 $110000.$220000’ Subtotal $470,000. Sales Tax 8.6% $40,420. Total Price $510,420. Option 2 —Price based on monthly progress payments throughout project Item #Description Quantity Unit Price Total 1 3 Story Modular Training Facility 1 $237,500 $237,500‘ 2 2 Box Modular Training Facility 2 $105,000.$210,000- Subtotal $447,500. 8 I T 8.6"/a es ax o $381485. Total Price $485,985. Page 358 of 365 SSFIRE M3?ADVANCED I-‘IRE 'I'RAINlLEARNORBURN VOLUME |l-PRICE AND SCHEDULE PROPOSAL Option 3 —Based on 50%prepayment of contract upon Notice to Proceed ltem #Description Quantity Unit Price Total 1 3 Story Modular Training Facility 1 $225,000.$225,000‘ 2 2 Box Modular Training Facility 2 $100,000‘$200,000- Subtotal $425,000. Sales Tax 8.6% $36,550. Total Price $461,550. Live Fire Training Item #Description Quantity Unit Price Total ;f._e Live Fire Training the Trainer 50hr course 4 $25,000 $100,000- Sales Tax 8.6% 0 O 0 Total Price $100,000. By signing the signature page of this proposal,the Offeror declares: My firm,association or corporation has not,either directly or indirectly,entered into any Contract,participated in any collusion,or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free competitive bidding in connection with the project for which this proposal is submitted. The authorized representative signing this Proposal certifies that the firm complies with the terms set forth in the Request for Proposal CPO-FR-33-18—FR including Exhibits and the statutes cited therein which are incorporated by reference with full force and effect as though the statutes were included in their entire content. The undersigned representative hereby certifies that,within the three-year period immediately preceding the bid solicitation date for this Project,the offeror is not a “wi|lfu|“violator,as defined in RCW 49.48.082,of any provision of chapters 49.46,49.48,or 49.52 RCW,as determined by a final and binding citation and notice of assessment issued by the Department of Labor and Industries or through a civil judgment entered by a court of limited or general jurisdiction. Page 359 of 365 SSFIRE ?g;ADVANCED I-‘IRE TRAIN VOLUME ||-PRICE AND SCHEDULE PROPOSAL The undersigned representative hereby certifies that the offeror is an established business with all required licenses,fess,bonding,facilitates,equipment and trained personal necessary to meet at requirements and perform the work as specified in the RFP.The offeror is currently in good standing as noted in the System for Award Management (SAM).Offeror shall maintain compliance with these requirements throughout the life of any resultant contract. The undersigned representative hereby certifies that it will not and has not used Federal appropriated funds to pay any person or organization for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency,a member of Congress,officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with obtaining any Federal contract, grant or any other award covered by 31 U.S.C.1352. The undersigned representative hereby certifies (or declare)under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Mlliv‘Juezwrm P/157/wt (Corporate Seal)Name of Aut rized Representative Title 2-7+3 4 Date re of Authorized Representative Company Name:38 Fire LLC. Mailing Address:4916 123'“Street SE. City,State,Zip:Everett,WA 98208 Telephone:(425)231-8280 Email Address:juice@3sfiretraining.com Page 360 of 365 38!-‘IRE ‘yk."PW LEARN on BURN ADVANCED I-‘IRE TRAIN VOLUME ll-PRICE AND SCHEDULE PROPOSAL Payment Schedule:The following billing schedule shall apply based on Option 3: |t_em #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 Amount Description of Services $200,000.Prepayment of 50% $60,000.Delivery of 15‘Two Box System $60,000.Delivery of 2"“Two Box System $60,000.50%completion of 2"“Alarm System $81,550.Completion ofall Training Props $100,000.Completion ofall Training Preliminary Schedule: March March March April 12-]6-meet with Tri City Fire Services and go over site prep,timelines,details 12-31-begin fabrication of both the 2 box systems 30-delivery and set up of 15‘2 box system 30-delivery and set up of 2"“2 box system l-15-Fabrication of components and delivery of boxes to Pasco for 2"dalarm l5—30—Fabrication on and off site,delivery of components 1-15-Fabrication on and off site,delivery of components l5-30-On site fabrication and assembly,delivery of components 1-30-On site fabrication and Final assembly l-30-Train the trainer programs Page 361 of 365 38?“!ADVANCED I-‘IRE TRAIN VOLUME II-PRICE AND SCHEDULE PROPOSAL Life -Cycle Costing: The burn cells in the Two Box System are the sacri?cial component in this system,with an expectation to replace at about 5-10 years depending on care and usage.The essential components like the temperature monitoring system,water spray cooling system,vertical ventilation hatch,entry doors,and windows are all bolt on.These components would be removed and reinstalled on a new replacement bum cell for approx.$10,000.to $25,000. Price assumptions: 0 $5,000.(1)New 20’connex box $500.Delivery of box new box $1,000.Removal of old box $1 ,000.Replace ?oor pavers and any damaged parts $5,000.—$10,000.(5-10)days labor,cutting openings,replace components,painting The thermally protected burn cells are less forgiving than that of the water cooled system based on the fact that they retain a lot more heat,therefore will require shorter training intervals for shut down,cooling,and clean out cycles.The thermally protected bum cells have an expectation to repair or replace at about 5-10 years depending on care and usage.Depending on the degree of needed repairs,you can anticipate repairs or replacement of a 20’burn cell to cost approx... $25,000 to $35,000. Price assumptions: 0 $5,000.(1)New 20’connex box $500.Delivery of box $1,000.Removal of old box $1,000.Replace ?oor pavers and any damaged parts $5,000.-$10,000.New steel plate lining system $5,000.New ceramic ?ber insulation $l0,000.—$20,000.(10-20)days labor,removal of old lining system,cutting openings, replace components,painting,etc. The rest of the prop and components just need basic cleaning,lubrication,and maintenance. Repainting of any area showing wear or rust will only add to the longevity of the system.The key is to do a thorough post use cleaning of the bum rooms and other areas and allow the prop to be opened up and dried out. Page 362 of 365 EXHlBlT B —PRICE PROPOSAL Request for Proposal (RFP)Mobile Facility for Live Fire Training SUMMARY PRICE PROPOSAL Page 1 of 3 City of Pasco OPTlON 1 —Price based on payment upon completion of the project item #ILDescription Quantity _ Unit Price Total 1 3 Story Modular Training Facility I 1 !5453 'CV 3‘5455 'W “‘ =l I ‘l _,,-,2 2 Box Modular Training Facility 2 l >/‘C0‘;3');>lL1Zq')l,OCW ‘l t I Subtotal I $€g7,e0c no ;V i Sales Tax 3.5%l 3 as:342 mi i l i 1gTotalPrice1;$543 343 no Option 2 -Price based on monthly progress payments throughout project Item it Description Quantity §Unit Price Total 1 3 Story Modular Training Facility ‘1 3450 45‘:i 5450 450 3‘) i l ‘ 2 2 Box Modular Training Facility 2 [S7)290 30 314C580 CC‘ Subtotal ‘ $E3l‘O30 00 Sales Tax 8.6% l l l l l l Total Price 1 l l I l 1 U)9)(X)(nC!)«)10.» City 0fPasco -Request for Proposal Regional Burn Buildings »Mobile Facility for Live Fire Training Kirila Fire Training Facilities,Inc CPO—FR-33-18vFR 9 Page 10 of42 Page 363 of 365 EXHIBIT B -PRICE PROPOSAL Page 2 of 3 Option 3 ——Based on 50%prepayment of contract upon Notice to Proceed Item #Description _IQuantity Unit Price Total 3 Story Modular Training Facility i J 5-1“350 ‘)0 3443.35‘?'3‘. I 2 Box Modular Training Facility l2 555 97’?35 V37 '74‘N I I Subtotal 1 Sales Tax 86% Total Price I Live Fire Training item #Description Quantity 1Unit Price Total Live Fire Training the Trainer 50hr course 4 S‘3“?iii”.37 5‘3“797 ' Sales Tax 8.6%35 i ‘l Total Price S 3 745 7'3 By signing the signature page of this proposal,the Offeror declares: My firm,association or corporation has not.either directly or indirectly,entered into any Contract,participated in any collusion,or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free competitive bidding in connection with the project for which this proposal is submitted. The authorized representative signing this Proposal certifies that the firm complies with the terms set forth in the Request for Proposal CPO-FR-33-18-FR including Exhibits and the statutes cited therein which are incorporated by reference with full force and effect as though the statutes were included in their entire content. The undersigned representative hereby certifies that,within the three—year period immediately preceding the bid solicitation date for this Project,the offeror is not a “willful”violator,as defined in RCW 49.48.082,of any provision of chapters 49.46,49.48,or 49.52 RCW,as determined by a final and binding citation and notice of assessment issued by the Department of Labor and Industries or through a civiijudgment entered by a court of limited or general jurisdiction. The undersigned representative hereby certifies that the offeror is an established business with all required licenses,fess,bonding.facilitates,equipment and trained personal necessary to meet all requirements and perform the work as specified in the RFP.The offeror is currently in good standing as noted in the System for Award Management (SAM).Offeror shall maintain compliance with these requirements throughout the life of any resultant contract. City of Pasco -Request for Proposal Regional Burn Buildings -Mobile Facility for Live Fire Training Kirila Fire Training Facilities,inc,10 CPOAFR-33-18-FR Page 11 of 42 Page 364 of 365 EXHIBIT B «PRICE PROPOSAL Page 3 of 3 The undersigned representative hereby certifies that it will not and has not used Federal appropriated funds to pay any person or organization for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency,a member of Congress,officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with obtaining any Federal contract. grant or any other award covered by 31 U.S.C.1352. The undersigned representative hereby certifies (or declare)under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Jerry r<irila F’l35<‘d0Tii {Corporate Seal)Name of Authorized Representative Title »./1 7 /V9'7ocx05/.10 i 3 _%’,_,Wi,,/‘/_~.«.:,£.5;_, Date Sig,ature of 57-KtuthorizedRepresentative Company Name‘Kirila Fre Trninmg Facilities in-: Mailing Address P.O BOX2,509 Bediorrl Rial,‘ City‘State‘Zip:Brookfield OH -1.1133 Telephone:330-7870743 Email Address:lenna@kiriiafire com ACKNOWLEDGMENTOF RECEIPT OF ADDENDA I have received and examined the following addenda as part of the contract documents. No.Date Initial '- No. _? Date H y ____initial No. » Date A V _Initial ___ City of Pasco -Request for Proposal Page 12 of4Z Regional Burn Buildings -Mobile Facility for Live Fire Training Kirila Fire Training Facilities,Inc 11 CPO—FRv33~18—FR Page 365 of 365