The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit L92-0011 - TOMKINS RICHARD / BAKER COMMODOTIES - UNCLASSIFIED USE This record contains information which is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to the Washington State Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW as identified on the Digital Records Exemption Log shown below. L92-0011 BAKER COMMODITIES UNCLASSIFIED TH 5795 SOUTH 130 PLACE DIGITAL RECORDS (DR) EXEMPTION LOG THE ABOVE MENTIONED PERMIT FILE INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING REDACTED INFORMATION Page # Code Exemption Brief Explanatory Description Statute/Rul e The Privacy Act of 1974 evinces Congress' intent that social security numbers are a private concern. As such, individuals’ social security Personal Information – numbers are redacted to protect those individuals’ Social Security Numbers 5 U.S.C. sec. privacy pursuant to 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(a), and are DR1 Generally – 552(a); RCW also exempt from disclosure under section 42.56.070(1) 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(a); 42.56.070(1) of the Washington State Public RCW 42.56.070(1) Records Act, which exempts under the PRA records or information exempt or prohibited from disclosure under any other statute. Redactions contain Credit card numbers, debit card numbers, electronic check numbers, credit Personal Information – expiration dates, or bank or other financial RCW DR2 Financial Information – account numbers, which are exempt from 42.56.230(5) disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56.230(5) except RCW 42.56.230(4 5) , when disclosure is expressly required by or governed by other law. Redactions contain information used to prove Personal Information – RCW identity, age, residential address, social security DR3 Driver’s License. – 42.56.230 number or other personal information required to (7a & c) RCW 42.56.230 (7a & c) apply for a driver’s license or identicard. Redacted content contains a communication between client and attorney for the purpose of 34, 35, 36 obtaining or providing legal advice exempt from RCW Attorney-Client Privilege – disclosure pursuant to RCW 5.60.060(2)(a), 5.60.060(2) DR4 RCW 5.60.060(2)(a); *Staff Note: An unredacted which protects attorney-client privileged (a); RCW RCW 42.56.070(1) copy of these pages from the communications, and RCW 42.56.070(1), which 42.56.070(1) record is available in the protects, under the PRA, information exempt or Staff-only portal.* prohibited from disclosure under another statute. l92-0010 5795 south 130th place l92-0011 applications baker commodities unclassified use 04/05/96 13:27 0206 223 0152 REED McCLIJRE SEAT= (206) 292 -4900 TO: Steve Lancaster FROM: Michael Monroe RE: If there are any problems receiving this transmission, please call Cathi Key at (206) 386 -7145 MESSAGE OR SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Steve: Per my voicemail message, I'll call you later today. Reed McClure Client/Matter No.: Land FA a oR szn Reed McClure • A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3600 COLUMBIA CENTER 701 Firm AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98104 -7081 Facsimile Transmittal FAX NO.: 431-3665 FAX NO.: (206) 223 DATE: 4/5/96 Total Number of Pages Including This Page: 2 FAXTIELECOPIER (206) 223 -0152 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials enclosed with this facsimile transmission are private and contidentiaL The information contained in the material is privileged and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly probiited. If you have received this facsimile transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for ream of the forwarded documents to us. (dj ool 04/05/96 13:28 2t206 223 CODE INTERPRETED: SECTION NO.: DATE INTERPRETATION MADE: Interpretation: 6405AG03_CAK REED McCLURE C1 002 CODE INTERPRETATION FORM ZONING CODE 18.66.020 USES REQUIRING AN UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT (UPP) DRAFT 04/04/96 Normal Upkeep. Repairs ant_ienance Normal upkeep, repairs, maintenance, strengthening, or restoration to a safe condition of any building or structure being used as part of an unclassified use shall not require a new or revised unclassified use permit The replacement of existing structures with either new structures of equivalent size and /or capacity,, or with new structures which do not change the use and do not } constitute an = expansions or': enlargement as; daxibed below, shall not require a new or revised unclassified use permit; provided that;'' in any event; any structure that is non - conforming by reason of its height; bulk, or setbacks shall not be re- constructed in a manner which increases the extent of the nonconformity. Nothing in this interpretation chA1l modify applicable requirements that such construction work may require a building permit or other construction permits pursuant to '1MC ch.16 (construction codes). 1. New section TMC 18.66.110: Normal upkeep, repairs, and maintenance; replacement of existing structures. TMC ch. 18.66. the Proposed new sections to add to Zoning Code: Normal upkeep, repairs, maintenance, strengthening, or restoration to a safe condition of any building or structure being used as part of an unclassified use shall not require a new or revised unclassified use permit. The replacement of existing structures with new structures of equivalent size and/or capacity shall not require a new or unclassified use permit, provided that any structure that is non - conforming by reason of its height, bulk or setbacks shall not be re- constructed in a manner which increases the extent of the nonconformity. Nothing in this section shall modify applicable requirements that such construction work may require a building permit or other construction permits pursuant to TMC ch. 16 (construction codes) 2. Revised TMC 18.70.100 Conditional and Unclassified Uses A legal use does not become nonconforming because the zone in which it is located is changed to a zone which requires a conditional or unclassified use permit for the use, or because the use is changed from an allowed use to a conditional or unclassified use within the same zone; provided, however, the use may not be allowed or buildings may not be enlarged without first obtaining a conditional or unclassified use permit if required pursuant to requirements of TMC ch. 18.64 or 512 /�b IV 64-- o 3. New TMC 18.66.120 Expansion of Existing Unclassified Use - Animal Rendering Facilities Existing animal rendering facilities shall be allowed to construct additional facilities subject to the following requirements: A. The construction of additional facilities shall be permitted as a,prdslecision if: 1. The total area of the site is not increased. 2. The construction of additional facilities does not generate more than ten new vehicle trips at peak hour, as determined pursuant to TMC ch. 9.48, related to traffic concurrency. 3. No new facilities are located in the River Environment or Low Impact portion of the Shoreline. 4. The new facilities will comply with the performance standards set forth in TMC 18.66.130. 5. The construction of new facilities does not result in more than a 5% cumulative increase in the capacity of the processing facility. B. Any proposed new facility which does not qualify as a Zyj ,?decision pursuant to Subsection A shall be a Tpe_5 decision. 4. New Section TMC 18.66.130 Performance Standards for Rendering Plants The following performance standards shall apply to rendering plants, in addition to the performance standards for the applicable zoning district.: A. Any new facilities constructed at a rendering plan which will be used for storage or transmission of liquid or semi - liquid products will be protected by containment facilities capable of preventing the release of any product into surface or ground waters in the event of a spill or breakage. B. Any new facilities will utilize the best feasible air pollution control equipment and shall be designed, constructed and operated so that the new facilities will not increase the risk of air pollution emissions from the site. C. The facility, including both existing and new facilities, shall comply with applicable air pollution control requirements of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, including both procedural and substantive standards. D. A copy of the current Operations and Maintenance Plan for the facility shall be approved by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and filed with the DCD. Notes: 1. A Type 1 permit will, under the proposed HB 1724 implementing ordinance, be a permit reviewed and approved by the Director of DCD. 2. A Type 5 permit will, under the proposed HB 1724 implementing ordinance, be a permit reviewed and approved by the City Council, following a public hearing. 3. TMC ch. 9.48 is a new chapter which will, under the proposed HB 1724 implementing ordinance, establish the traffic concurrency standards for the City, including the LOS standards and thresholds for requiring traffic studies and mitigation of impacts. SEA *T BY: GORDON, THOMAS g000 TACOMA OFFICE sl00 FIRST INTERSTATE PLAZA POST OFFICE SOX IIe7 TACOMA. WARRINGTON Rem0I -IIS7 (ace) aPa•5o5o 9ACBIMILE (BOe) •716.0310 REPLY TO TACOMA OFFICE 5TCPMAMIE A. AREND Robert D. Johns Reed McClure 701 Sth Avenue, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98104 -7081 rr,.olts3.00111}1 4. ,, .. 1 _10 -B6 ; 10 :03 ; LAW OFFICES CORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL MALANCA, PETERSON 8 DAHEIM, March 10, 1996 SEAT11.E Or,ier ORE UNION sQU•pI SOO UNIVERSITY. SUITS 1101 scATTLC. WASHINGTON •e10I•4I *D (UDR) 4 -P 0* FACSIMILE (zee) ea2-07751 FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY NOT YORE ADMITTED MANY LITIGATION OR ACTION VIA FACSIMJL$ FOLLOWED BY REGULAR MAIL Re: Proposed Amendments to Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Dear Bob: TAB' ^MA - ► 20B 223 0152;#1 2 I am enclosing with this letter Baker Commodities' proposal language changes to the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations. Although we raised several issues in our petition to the Growth Hearings Board, Baker Commodities has primarily two issues: the unclassified use permit process and being designated as an essential public facility. Both of these issues can be addressed through changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations, and our proposed changes only address these two issues. If we can reach agreement on these changes, Baker Commodities will, dismiss its appeal to the Growth Hearings Board. If we cannot r+eech agreement, we are prepared to argue all of the issues raised in our petition. As you and I have discussed, based on past decisions of the Growth Hearings Board it is in both of our client's best interests to try to settle this case. I thought it might be helpful for you and the members of the City Council and planning staff to understand the legal bases and rationale for our requested changes. So, by way of explanation, I offer the following: It appears from the Comprehensive Land Use Map Legend reference to light industrial that it is Tukwila's intent to have the policies of the MIC guide development on light industrial properties located outside of the 1VIIC. However, this intent is not earpoJ Peel! MO egg 90Z %V3 9Z:60 96 /it /C0 SENT BY= GORDON' THOMAS GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL MALANCA, PETERSON 6 DAHEIM. RL.LC, March 10, 1996 Page 2 clearly stated. Moreover, since some provisions differentiate between light industrial development inside the MIC from outside the MIC (such u the Shoreline element), there is great potential for confusion as to which policies apply. Many of the changes Baker Commodities recommends are intended to eliminate any confusion. See sp eifirlty proposed policy 8.3.11. The note following the transportation policies should be self explanatory. Here, we need Tukwila to provide the missing information that is required by the OMA before we can agree to any particular language. We are also uncertain whether any of the roads over which Baker trucks travel are designated as residential access streets. If they are not, then the proposed revision to policy 13.3.9 is not necessary. The Tukwila Plan policies governing essential public facilities are deficient in at least three respects, First, policy 15.2.1 is very restrictive and therefore probably violates the legislature's admonition that 'no comprehensive plan may directly or indirectly preclude the siting of essential public facilities." RCW 36.70A.200(2); WAC 365 - 195- 340(2)(e). Second, the definition of essential public facilities is similarly restrictive and probably violates the same prohibition. Finally, there is no process for either identifying or siting essential public facilities, as clearly required by the OMA. RCW 36.70A.200(1). For Baker Commodities' purposes, modifying the definition of essential public facilities, providing a process for identification of essential public facilities that includes Baker Commodities, and providing a process for expansions of existing essential public facilities will be sufficient. It is not of great significance to Baker Commodities that the Plan does not include a process for siting essential public facilities, because Baker Commodities is an existing facility. Of course the biggest benefit to Tukwila of including Baker Commodities on its list of essential public facilities is that, to the extent it only has to accept its fair share of regional essential public facilities, Tukwila can say it already has accepted an essential public facility of regional significance. This may enable Tukwila to put pressure on neighboring jurisdictions to accept other regional facilities before Tukwila must accept more. The Tukwila development regulations governing unclassified use permits only require one permit for a facility. Yet it has bean Tukwila's practice to require a new permit for each expansion or improvement to Baker Commodities' facility. The criteria for siting a new unclassified use are not really appropriate for expansions of unclassified uses. What we aro proposing focuses on the impacts created by the expansion, rather than on reevaluating whether the use itself is appropriately sited. I [tulane:x .I + 1-10 -88 ; 10:03 ; COON eJnT33J peal; TAC'MA-' 206 223 0152;# 3 ZSTO CZZ 90Z IVA 9Z:60 NON 96 /TT /C0 : �` :'% :�", am certain that the litigation would never have occurred if Tukwila had a process for perinitt ng expulsions of unclassified uses along the lines of what wa.propose. Finally, the Tukwila development regulations regarding siting essential public facilities use the =classified use permitting process. I think this process is inappropriate bemuse one of the criteria for issuance of an unclassified use permit is that the we be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses. By definition, an e ssential public facility is a facility that is typically difficult to site, such as solid waste handling facilities. RCW 36.70A.200; WAC 365 -195 -340. Moreover, the prohibition against directly or indirectly precluding the siting of essential public facilities resulted in the legislature's recommendation that "provision therefore should be made to establish a general use category which will provide for the siting of such facilities." wAC 363 -195 -340. We are therefore recommending that a different process be established for the siting of essential public facilities. Again, because Belem Commodities is an existing facility, we only focused on the process for expansions of essential public facilities, rather' than the process for siting new essential public facilities. You will find that the basic process tracks the process for expansion of unclassified use permits. The fundamental dif eomce is grounded in the legislature's recognition that These types of facilities are •essential" Consequently, although being identified: u an essential public facility does not mean that a permit must issue, it should mein that the scales should tip in favor of siting the facility. The some should be true about expansions of existing facilities. I hope this helps Tukwila understand why we are proposing these changes, although I am certain we will have a lot to talk about on the 20th. If you have any response thit could be shared with us prior to the 19th, 1 think it would mate our meeting far more productive. It would also be helpful if you could provide me with a draft of the development regulations that are being considered to implement EMIR 1724, if such is available. We look forward to working with Tukwila to resolve these issues and are emuraaJ pang TAGMMA" 208 223 0152;# 4 ZSTO CU 90Z IYI LZ:60 NON 96 /TT /CO ` Tg9,,QMA-• 208 223 0152;# 5 SOOICJ asfT30II . Paa2I ZSTO. CZZ IVA LZ:60 NOW 96 /11/C0 J 900Z SENT BY: GORDON, THOMAS SHORELINE a -10 -88 ; 10:05 TA7 1MA-► D$_311019 52_,AX 1 'TUKWILA COMPREIIENSIVE PLAN 5.1.5 Urban -Open Space Environment: In the Urban -Open Space Environment, priority shall be given to the following: -- Maintenance of existing single- family residential development patterns; and Redevelopment of existing commercial and industrial areas, with enhanced access to the river; and Policies for.Development Outside /WIC 5.6.6 Require subdivisions, multi- family residential uses and commercial and industrial uses along the shoreline to provide a trail for public access along the river in areas identified for trail connections, consistent with the King County Green River Trail Master Plan. Require any property not included in the King County Green River Trail Plan to provide public access or a private natural area in lieu bf physical public access. .1,• : .,, .,_ •, I. 6.1 ._ .. • .V •: t• 'I _•1 . � ■ •1 . .•l<1, ' . t I .1•• • 1 • . - 'f• • _•SLL • • 9 u p • .• i •, • t p.A, .4. IT — Protection and restoration of natural environment features and riverbank characteristics. Pl ymeal a s ■hall net. be rleuire 1 when it ;i i practieal_ ot_ When access to ti'te river teCLrei crossi! p. The following VMS shall be designated u the Urban - Open Space Environment: The entire shoreline zone from the Highway 99 bridge upstream extending to the South 204th Street. (Figure 6) G.(ci11 e.IniO3I4 peel' 205 223 0152:# 8 �✓av uc. ( u") M t( ZSTO £ZZ 90Z lYd 9Z :60 NON 96 /TT /£0- SENT BY :GORDON, THOMAS LOOI Policies ••w TRANSPORTATION Goal 13.3 Level -of- $orrice sass t7400•001).0171 . . TAMIA-■ 205 223 0152# 7 Goal 1.3 Interurban Corridor Goal A high -ar eadty multi-modal transportation corridor with a varied mk of office, commercial, recreational, high-density residential and light industrial uses. 13.3.9 Regional or non -local traffic should be discouraged on residential access stress i±el a th ie nO h 1 t mu te. [NOTE: The GMA requires the transportation element of a Comprehensive Plant to include the land um assumptions used in estimating travel; specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any facilities or services that are below an established level of service 'standard; forecasts for traffic for at lerst tan years based on the adopted land use plan to provide information on the location, timing, and capacity needs of future growth; system expansion needs; and funding sources. RCW ._. 36.70A.070(S) ] -2- __.....— . .. • eunT03J peel! ZSTO CZZ 90Z rid 8Z:60 HOST 96 /TT /CO SENT 8Y:G0RDONITHOMAS 900! Goal 15.2 Policies • • tussoile ! -38 i 10 :08 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES . •.. ... -3- eanT0zJ1 pee TAVMA. 208 223 0152 ;# 8 Faster a strong sense of regional responsibility and accountability balanced by an 'want s of regional impede on the City and its dikes. 15.2.1 In reviewing proposals to site new or expanded essential public fieilitics within the City, Tukwila shall consider accepting its regional share of facilities which provide essential services, provided other communities accept their share as well, provided the funding of regional facilities sited in Tukwila relies on an equitable regional source of funding, and provided the siting of all essential public facilities is based on sound land use planning principles and is developed through working relationships with affected neighborhoods, spacial purpose districts, ports end other agencies which serve the Tukwila community. 15.2.2 "Essential public services" are facilities which provide basic public services, provided in one of the following manners: directly by a government agency, by a private entity substantially funded or contracted for by • government agency, by a private entity subject to public service obligations (i.e., private utility companies which have a franchise or other legal obligation to provide service within a defined service area )? 15.2.3 Applications for aline neq. essential public facilities will be processed through the permit process established in the City's development regulations. This process shall assure that such facilities are located where necessary and that they are conditioned as appropriate to mitigate their impacts on the community. l5.24 11.2Arastablialuromilazidgadeftwentilainamillaim. A idea fi 1i of essential public fccilities aria be bawl +tent lrin■ t<he br�ese -`F vim+ a q conL a public tbdlie • .141 I. 1- -• • t I ••t. • 1 .:I ZSTO CZZ 903 xvi 93:60 HON 96 /1T /CO 03/11/96 MON 09:29 FAX 206 223 0152 Reed McClure B #!Z9LO EZZ 90Z • 1 I . '*uinpozi.Kci 1UW us 3o 4Qulpul i L : 1 • 1 • , • II .p I . wwwin►L 3o A of l . • • : I - ?;' VZ 'SI armor vu BO$Z IO MOM 'Aw .. .— maTlararzluriamollmluaggliIi FdW0V1 BO ;OL ; 98- 01 -L '"' 'egvpmaaws ignatrIgnIllmr 7111 u►regan11 SVWOH. INCOHO :) i i S 0 009 03/11/96 MON 09:29 FAX 206 223 0152 Reed McClure • O Ltd: ZS l0 EZZ 9OZ e-vWcaa anuttivraprasiunaisvomsnuontraruaujo • IXIMITRIIIRIPTI JO AllnugnmLL • Wirogrierratralmer W orra aniffirtrUntrunrmegroprogrinwmfrmsaunnzu purimpirvrionerstipRpXFTWITSVIVNIUMITI 57 4 - TarraleXaMir 7 1 115 15 - Mulf05 -1 0TY Inman( Fur TWOBEIRpris51735FIUnazormuniamq-ata otrimpostriplozrzeptrarpgrgenrsgavritwxyz LO:OL 98 -0L -t 1[�o efaII11 SVWO141'N00N09:I9 JIGS . SENT BY : GORDON, THOMAS 112,8 GLOSSARY frAINS110.0171 mi 40-10-00 ; 1007 ; • • • • - smalmaLguismugintenamuliosudatha Jiang szundamuuscallaublasibou joicsoisilimlemossug .• —_• • • • t—..._•)11 or —1 • • _I I '../1 • ) 1 — . 1 0 ) 1, • .• ' • facallilitLltUsecLia124-1X8111134.11LISIbliaLliindta. iniblicilallissiLlb&musilitiiLawilLbeargagrod • 1 •. • •,■ • • •i. ■ • I •1 muaandiwiguat =mum jomuitwaLdmmownaLnwagra B. ulanzgailualoatumiagIL jusamildai rch •J • shateatouscOmmidaleumesumsosaliosug inchviaLaubsizmitiamita. ). mWsnMoni of c B • perm be i n d i n ai mei are Incated. auliget to the rugglitauscomiminch sumatmilausitgitualhowerlosuosatna TASPM A 20 223 0152:#11 Remittal Public Iradlity: A facility which provides basic public seavices. provided in one of the following manners: directly by a government agency, by a private entity substantially funded or contracted for by a government agency, by a private entity -6- em1T30K poet' • ZSTO CZZ 90Z XVd 6Z:60 &OJ 96/TT/C0 : . SENT BY:GORDONI THOMAS .? -10 -88 ; 10:08 . ZTOf2j TAB MA. subject tb public avice obligations 044, private utility companies which have a franchise or other legal obligations to provide service within a defined savior a1a> I • .0 \1 :i • k ./i —1 1• I • .•i• •, i •j CO LAND DS$ MAP LEGEND Tight Ld st iah Mess chino :sued by distributive and light manufacturing uses, With supportive commenial and office 11tH but not loestiedJo the 2441C_ c the (• Corcidommulldminficizinzandultialrailua RAMpUpals1 a.inTO3yl peel; 208 223 0152 ; #12 ZBTO. CZZ 9OZ 'Yd3 0060 NON 86 /TT /C0 • SENT BY:GORDONITHOMAS ;r ; 10:08 TACIPMA" 206 223 0152;#13 TUKWILA ZONING CODE 111.06.278-__Ementisl public fadity. A facility which provides basic public IICIViCCS, provided in one of the following manners: directly by a government agency, by a private entity substandally funded or contracted for by a government agency, by a private entity subject to public service obligations (i.e., private utility companies which have a franchise or other legal I obligations to provide Envies within a defined service area.aataxisatrantily.iihra it iglAlltailidllLball=idiaLallEt181kkalnkru. Chapter 11.32 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (11) DISTRICT. 18.32.080_4bu1e development ittandards. Development within the Light Industrial district shall conform to the following listed and referenced standards: • t .'•1 .1,•1 • . 1 • • ie I I 1..1 •if I • • —jib •• I kt III —•11 k ' — •k•kk_• I I - • •,.•,1 1t• • .•1.■ II 1,•1 • • II— •11 . . • •I• •I% •(• emissions is typically made apart of_afacw added to such a am as a aeoliIltelomat flalliM—Xiill1=1156111a1flASmanLA • lk — 'I • • . •5 •••,1 1.• •••11 "L I- •—• s of • I f S •,••t • I.. • th. frall.0000.01) -8- CTOO emITDDR pee a CZZ 90Z ZYd OC:60 NON 96/TT/CO . _ 03/11/98 MON 09:30 FAX 206 223 0152 tl#:ZS111 93Z 90Z NIPlarmenrammenw mirgrinrttiarlianrnpum • mp TwaralirMelerS 5117155MITIVOIrarw •ywuIVi 10uniffepasstarav515ur10rverlimmun mr Reed McClure Q5014 -6- /15 Nieariapivwarisqrxrutrzgratrw INTErsurr- wa4 ls3 maty sqr alp wawa.= 1537231012rAINMERT1111111WMTPRIT WOMP55 umasmyvicirmoRPlavosiagrniqrmune. uaetTater grovemnaristirjawrimagettarstmes 2114 Jo tii wigusa imwmumal =rpm ZEGSFINGC1.21:rsia= zou soap oin pay atfrpritptranr1519a1Mar p)ADJIMI Aj1fl0TA3Z UV MW A amItasol, ntrimanotax *41 JuUI 1I3w gn JO % OTIMagriffint trFr,RIPIRDI511111MRUM przazaa5 - tvnapantlarmprM761 - 77 irrmesntrienritir mum IIMPlag3 SERfilitn1 ,1411121MME11VM e ntiwpaziumencrograrMwaritelM I 0 • I I I 3 1 1 /11allisniever — IMOria 90:01 : 98-01-L- SYWOHIWOOMOD:AG 1N3S- 03/11/96 MON 09:31 FAX 206 223 0152 Reed McClure • No -0 Sl #;ZSLO CZZ 90Z t - . '1 - - • • •1 % - Ii .)I I • ..r• T• � 1 I • I • • • • II •r• f — .'1 • • 1111.'1 F?. r. • • r. III •. . - I •i• . • lib- '-. — I • I 0- . tuutuoaeuw liViWata ?MT or luvnund ram d mitrana ;o ittgza aq3 lu; i u.ld s 11RglTS o) iaqdliqo Inp 3o CIOXLI tc► aq I • •I• - 1 - • ' to I. -. - •-•r• 1• f 1 n 1r- ;. -► • =► - • •r I l: r1R1 - I r: i .'17. • I I •.r• . . 1 '. 1 r. . •.- .. I.- .'7 -►�. - 1 4If•ff . -/ I • I' • ,1 I Or »: _j* 111") I. I /.. .Ii. • • _•. . I I14 •) Ir. rr.jiw_'•I . - ft s ac • 4t:1 y) ' csr'c`2, Ma a v s*aLarlaLB'SLOT! ONIAIIIo NODN.0aN10L'$I andvq3 Ur4 lsotrugairmilrraPtentaMtVal lastomenermompanicariagrapavrsuping 4-VW dl - 01- aO :OI 99 -01 —t IL►CONenllll SVWOHl'N008O0:AG J 3S Z015 � r 03/11/96 NON 09:31 FAX 206 223 0152 9LCM0 Egg 90E 4 -V0bn • ntreillairaintrarTaTivwvannintreorM prewsworquatomesrpraarannriospulass TpantsnOrlqamitruspasmaratqms •� molverwartamergisnaramqvurrnmiss InnfraultilawlinirffanzeitiPulan ri 3 *mite MusD= awgruPuPg W ` I .'I- • ••• .-Tii \ r. T Auggg1q Ivor APO U • .• • f• • r_ i 1 • . I •r u li. • •Ii.r { " --1 r. I I,- I I: -).: - r 4. . - \I t '♦ - /• , • 7• • • % 11 T.' Reed McClure liargpasnrivpaantimramppregamprviw 98- 01 .1 • •• r. . • utintilommU SYWOHI WOO oD :1. 1N3S 03/11/96 NON 09:31 FAX 206 223 0152 Reed McClure LLCZSLO EZZ 90Z •YWddil :,; > To: Steve Lancaster, Director Dept. of Community Development From: Vernon Umetsu, Assoc. Planner Date: August 2, 1996 RE: Baker Commodities: Construction Permits MEMORANDUM An unclassified use permit was issued for the tallow tanks and landscaping installation, as specified in file L92 -0010, on February 15, 1996. Subsequent to this, Mr. Charles Frame inquired about issuance of construction permits which he understood Mr. Bill Hammond to have submitted. I met with Mr. Frame and noted that neither the Building Division nor the Permit Coordinator could find a record of such a submittal. I then discussed the permit requirements for construction and landscaping (e.g., irrigation) in coordination with Building and Public Works staff. Mr. Frame said that he would consult with Mr. Hammond about this. I may have talked with Mr: Frame again about this with similar information being exchanged and similar results. On July 28, 1996, both Mr. Frame and Mr. Hammond came to the counter where they presented a building permit application form (attached) and a utility permit application form. No supporting plans or calculations accompanied these forms. Baker staff stated that all permit information was included in a construction application which was submitted in April, 1992. Ken Nelsen and I separately searched for this information in the Sierra system, but could not find any evidence of the submittal. The Sierra system was implemented in January, 1992. Receipts for permit fees could only be made if the application was logged on the system ::.Inability. to.find the permit listing indicates that no construction permit application was received. , Baker Commodities Construction Permits August 2, 1996 We agreed to further search City records and Baker staff agreed to either submit permit information which evidenced their earlier permit application, or submit a new application. Application requirements were discussed with Ken Nelsen, Building Division Plans Checker and Mike Villanueva, Public Works Dept. Permit Technician. Ken Nelsen did further research on July 29, 1996, but did not find anything. Mike Villanueva researched Public Works permits and found nothing. I will further check with Bob Benedicto, Building Division Sr. Plans Checker before responding. cc: Ken Nelsen /Mike Villanueva file render \cnstprmt Page 2 PROPERTY OWNER BAKER COl�M1ODITIES, INC. PHONE (206 243 -7387 ADDRESS . P.O. BOX 58368 - SEArrLE, WA. ZIP 98138 CONTRACTOR PHONE ADDRESS ZIP WA. ST. CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE # EXP. DATE ARCHITECT, PHONE ADDRESS ZIP SITE ADDRESS SUITE # 5795 S0. 130th PL. SEATTLE, WA. 98178 VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION - $ ,-- . $210,000 PROJECT NAME/TENANT . BAKER COMMODITIES,' INC. ASSESSOR ACCOUNT # ( TYPE OF U New Building U Addition 0 Tenant Improvement (commercial) U Demolition (building) : 0 Rack Storage 0 Reroof 0 Remodel (residential) 0 Other: Pre Fah tank installation DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE: INSTALL 9, :TALLOW TANKS BUILDING USE (office, warehouse, etc.) TALLOW' STORAGE NATURE OF BUSINESS: RENDERING PLANT WILLTHERE.BE.A CHANGE IN USE? 0 No ® Yes If Yes, new building requirements may need to be met. Please explain: • '' INCREASE STORAGE CAPACITY SQUARE FOOTAGE - Building: • ;' ',Tenant Space: Area of Construction: 1 It , WILL THERE BE STORAGE OR USE OF FLAMMAB E, COMBUSTIBLE OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN THE BUILDING? 0 No ® Yes IF YES, EXPLAIN: TALLOW WILL' BE STORED IN EACH TANK FLASH POINT IS 575 ° F FIRE PROTECTION FEATURES: 0 Sprinklers 0 Automatic Fire Alarm System CITY ,OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development - Building Division 6300 Soutliceriter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 (206) 431 -3670 PLAN AN CHECK NUMBER ,.... T.` E � . ,E3 APPLICATION IVl US FILLED f OUT :. -OMPLE>TEL DATE APPLICATION ACCEPTED BUILDINC PERMIT APPLICATiON :<« ?D ES C.R1.P..TI O N F ... BU ILEA G :PERM E PI'A : 1'CHECK ?::FEE . N . .. ,S ` RC€, BUILDING U HARGE . C PMM MORW MO gli MONVONWM :RCPT {?` l wmimmi BUILDING. OWNER OR ' AUTHORIZED AGENT'" SIGNATURE PRINT NAME WM. HAMMOND, III ADDRESS P.O. BOX 58368 CONTACT PERSON RICK TOMKINS P.E. c/o PACIFIC ENGINEERING CO. DATE • PHONE (206) 243 -7387 E, WA. 98138 PHONE 431 -7970 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL In order to ensure that your application is accepted for plan review, please make sure to fill out the application completely and follow the plan submittal checklist on the reverse side of this form. Handouts are available at the Building counter which provide more detailed information on application and plan submittal requirements. Application and plans must be complete in order to be accepted for plan review. VALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION Valuation for new construction and additions are ca culated by the Department of Community Development prior to application submittal. Contact the Permit Coordinator at 431 -3670 prior to submitting application. In all cases, a valuation amount'should be entered by the applicant. This figure will be reviewed and is subject to possible revision by the Building`Division to comply with current fee schedules. BUILDING OWNER / AUTHORIZED AGENT If the applicant is other than the owner, registered architect /engineer, or contractor licensed by the State of Washington, a notarized letter from the property owner authorizing the agent to submit this , application and obtain the permit will be required. as part .of this submittal. If you have any questions about our process or plan submittal requirements, please contact the Department of Community Development Building Division at 431 -3670. DATE APPLICATION EXPIRES ' EXPIRATION OF PLAN R EVIEW Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitations. .The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days,upon written request by the applicant as defined in Section 304(d) of the Uniform Building Code (current edition). No"appliication shall be extended more than once. • 0 10/ 22199 February 15, 1996 City of Tukwila . Office of the City Attorney Linda P. Cohen, City Attorney "' Stephanie Arend Gordon, Thomas, et al. 2200 First Interstate Plaza Tacoma, WA 98401 Re: Baker Commodities v. City of Tukwila Dear Stephanie: Enclosed please find a letter from Steve. Lancaster, Director of Community Development, issuing Baker Commodities' unclassified use permit. As you know, the permit has been available to you for quite some time. On August 19, 1994, you received a letter from Mike Kenyon reminding you that the permit remained available for you to pick up. I look forward to meeting with you in March in an attempt to resolve outstanding issues with respect to Baker's appeal of the Comprehensive Plan and, perhaps, to resolve the potential damage claim associated with Baker's previous litigation. Very truly yours, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Linda P. Cohen City Attorney LPC /cc Enclosure CITYAITY \LTR \BARER , I,t %g 5 GG'rGZ) A 7 ((d 7 °. U CAS 7 (2/ 7?c) t- (At ono z it 1 /6L 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (208) 433.1867 • Fax (208) 433.1833 ,•, -�-, ..... . John W. Rants, Mayor February 15, 1996 Mr. Bill Hammond Baker Commodities, Inc. P.O. Box 58368 Seattle, WA 98138 Dear Mr. Hammond: City of Tukwila SUMMARY PROJECT FINDINGS John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director RE: L92 -0010 (Baker Commodities Unclassified Use Permit). I herewith issue an Unclassified Use Permit for the proposed action in Tukwila Planning Division File L92 -0010, subject to the conditions established by the Tukwila Planning Commission, which you had agreed to. I have included a summary of project findings and specific permit conditions below. 1. An application of an unclassified use permit to install tallow storage tanks was received on January 7, 1992 (file number L92 - 0010). It was accompanied by a SEPA checklist (L92 - 0011). No Actions are proposed within the Shoreline area. 2. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on April 8, 1992 (L92 -0010) (Mitigation listed below). 3. A Planning Commission public hearing was held on April 23, 1992, during which the Planning Division recommended several conditions. The applicant agreed to the Planning Division's recommended conditions. The Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council with conditions (see below). 4. The City Council, after public hearings and deliberations, made an "oral decision" to deny the unclassified use permit application on September 21, 1992 (BAKER Writ of Certiorari, Pg. 5, Item 18), and subsequently adopted Resolution 1229, DENYING the unclassified permit application, on October 5, 1992. 5. The applicant filed a writ of certiorari with King County Superior Court on September 30, 1992, appealing the Council decision in a timely fashion. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100. • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 Bill Hammond 2/15/96 • Page 2 7. To minimize odor impacts: 6.. The Superior Court overturned the City Council denial and ordered the permit to be issued. CONDITIONS TO APPROVAL Planning Commission Conditions (agreed to by the applicant) 1. The Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Tukwila, in addition to (the) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority. 2. Tanks shall be sited with the 18.5 ft. tall units toward the river to provide visual transition to the 34.5 ft. tall units. 3. Tanks shall be painted a flat, non - reflective color which is similar to the existing green painted structures and reduces their visual prominence. 4. Tallow truck traffic shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. 5. Landscaping screening shall be installed as specified in Attachment C (attached). 6. Baker Commodities (shall) make every effort throughout its existence withinNthe City of Tukwila to reduce and keep at a minimum odorous and noxious emissions from the plant. SEPA Mitigating Actions (Per SEPA MDNS L92 -0011) -- These mitigating actions were established prior to unclassified use permit review. A "Notice of Construction" application shall be approved by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency prior to building permit approval. This Notice shall include, but not be limited to addressing tallow tank filling with a tight line from the processing area, a monitoring program to prevent over filling of tanks or line pressure, and a spill response plan. Earlier presentation of an approved Notice may be required due to conditions imposed in other permits. 'Bill Hammond 2/15/96 Page 3 .,, ... ... 8. To minimize visual prominence: Landscaping shall be required to provide year around screening and visually breaking up the tank mass. Screening shall reflect well branched 8 -10 ft. evergreen trees planted in sufficient quantity and depth to provide year around screening. A landscape plan shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission. A building permit and other utility permits (e.g. irrigation) are required for tank installation. A review of the application will be made for consistency with the above conditions at that time. Please contact Vernon Umetsu at 431 -3684 or myself if we can be of further help. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster DCD Director cc: Linda Cohen, City Attorney weeds i t`i • ! r01'05ED TALLOW 51 TAI1K5 111 EXI5TINC1 COIICnETE • LAC,OO11. (5EE SHEET C-1.) 1 ; • t t. ` RC( Ina I)DL1C,La5 ; OHO' HIC { H, BALLED c int.O PED, IJELL f AI1CHED, SPACED 15'-20' O.C. 5EE DETAIL, ABOVE LEFT. • Q • Loodinq 'Lock 1 PHOTIflIA TnEE ; SPACED I5'- 2,0 --- ►r .- , -,-ntS nn "1 IF I r Fr Bid. LEA FF: /9.3' Of3t1ANEr1rpL 5HALLOIJ • 590TIt1G • 5H13Ub5 40, :;11111: LIiTH 6A5K• • O 0/01% roP -17. C ) ,I r 1 131d. CB FF: 19.5" Tc :lae 1 5 L ■ :EMEARLD QUEE11 Af eofr VITAE in' HIGH GALLED . 6UALAPPED, (o' • • •te '- r• V.. 1 1 7? K w • t6 - • Bid FF :2: fiOTE ALL PLAHYTED AF}EA5 TO HAVE AIJTOI1ATED InnIC,ATIO1 • • .7 / TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Mayo Coun Lind Bake Sept Attached pleas you can see, J Council. He d the existing r constitute an legal nonconfo The judge rule about Baker Co the ongoing op found that the substantially application wa The judge also issue of enlar enlargement wo intensificatio hand, would no In determining enlargement, J address the pe 20 Wn.App.1, 5 Wn.2d 726 (197 facility in 19 zoned for hea designed and c feet in width 1965, although pertinent zoni City of Tukwila Office of the City Attorney Wally Rants it Members Commodities tuber 7, 1993 MEMORANDUM IaO4- P. Cohen/ City Attorney 1.v111r • arts. ROTECTED BY ATTOR EY-C E (T PRIVILEGE Linda P. Cohen, City Attorney APO W ED SEP 8 1993 DE John W Rants, Mayor find a copy of Judge Wesley's letter opinion. As dge Wesley remanded the matter back to the City rected that Council make appropriate findings from cord regarding whether the proposed tanks nlargement or an intensification of an existing ming use. That is the sole issue before you. that, although you have reason to be concerned odities' operation, your concern relates only to ration of the facility. Accordingly, the judge criteria enumerated in TMC 18.66.060 were et and that the unclassified use permit improperly denied. stated that the City has not fully analyzed the ement of a legal nonconforming use. Such an ld be grounds to deny Baker's permit. An of an existing nonconforming use, on the other be grounds to deny Baker's permit. whether a particular use constitutes an dge Wesley specifically invited the City to tinent criteria discussed in Keller v. Bellingham, 8 P.2d 881 (1978); and Keller v. Bellingham, 92 ). In Keller, a corporation constructed a 5 that manufactured liquid chlorine in a district manufacturing. The facility was originally nstructed to house 32 cells (50 feet in length, 5 nd 1 foot in depth). There were only 26 cells in the corporation intended to add 6 more. The g code was changed in 1969 to prohibit the 6200 Southcenter Boule and • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433 - 1867 • Fax: (206) 433 MEMORANDUM Page 2 September 7, 1993 manufacture of chlorine in such zones. In determining whether the addition of 6 cells was an enlargement or an intensification, the court found the corporation intensified not enlarged its use. 92 Wn.2d at 732. The court stated: "At all times material, Georgia- Pacific Corporation had intended to add the six new cells within its existing building." Id. The court elaborated: "[I]f a use is established in part but not all of a building prior to enactment of a zoning ordinance, the right to continue the use as 'nonconforming' may not include the right to extend it to other portions of the building. 1 R. Anderson, supra, at § 6.45. Such extension is permissible, however, if the 'design of the structure indicates that at the time of the passage of the zoning restriction it was intended to dedicate the building, in its entirety, to such use.'" Keller, 92 Wn.2d at 732, citing 3 A. Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, ch. 60 § 5 (4th ed. 1975). The Court goes on to state, "The test is whether the intensified use is different in kind' from the nonconforming use in existence when the zoning ordinance was adopted." Keller, 92 Wn.2d at 731, quoting 3 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, ch. 60 -1, § 1 (4th ed. Cum.Supp. 1979). ".... [A]n owner can modernize facilities and employ improved instrumentalities in connection with a nonconforming building or use. However, the instrumentalities must be ordinarily and reasonably adapted to make the use in question available to the owner, and, moreover, the original nature and purpose of the undertaking must remain unchanged. One entitled to a nonconforming use has a right to repair, restore and replace structures in connection with the use, to engage in uses normally incidental and auxiliary to the nonconforming use, and to modernize and employ improved instrumentalities in connection with such use." Keller, 20 Wn.App. at 10 quoting McQuillan on Municipal Corporations S 25.200 and § 25.210. City of Tukwila . Office Of the City Attorney Linda P. Cohen, City Attorney TO: Mayor Wally Rants Council Members FROM: Linda P. Cohen City Attorney RE: Baker Commodities DATE: September 7, 1993 MEMORANDUM �, irus iv1csv u uric. ROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE SEP 8 1993 DEVELQPMEN John W. Rants, Mayor 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433 • Fax (206) 433 MEMORANDUM Page 2 September 7, 1993 MEMORANDUM Page 3 September 7, 1993 LPC /cc Attachment cc: John McFarland Rick Beeler CITYATTY \MEMO \RAEER.001 TACOMA OFFICE 2200 FIRST INTERSTATE PLAZA POST OFFICE BOX 1157 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98401•1157 (206) 572-5050 FACSIMILE (206) 572-4516 REPLY TO TACOMA OFFICE STEPHANIE A. AREND VIA FACSIMILE Ray Kelly Baker Commodities 4020 Bandini Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90023 Sandy McCullough Pacific Public Affairs 601 Union Street, #1601 Seattle, WA 98101 -4032 Linda Cohen City Attorney City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 (TA9E0740.01 E)Z + March 14, 1996 Charlie Frame Baker Commodities PO Box 58368 Seattle, WA 98138 Re: Baker Commodities /Tukwila Settlement Meeting LAW OFFICES GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL MALANCA, PETERSON 8 DAHEIM, PL.L.C. Robert Johns Reed McClure 701 5th Ave. #3600 Seattle, WA 98104 -7081 SEATTLE OFFICE ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY. SUITE 2101 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101•4185 (206) 447.9505 FACSIMILE (206) 622.9779 RECEI VED MAR 1. 5 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Steve Lancaster City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 This letter is a reminder that representatives from Baker Commodities and the City of Tukwila will be meeting on Wednesday, March 20, 1996 at 9:00 a.m. in my offices located at 600 University, Seattle, WA 98101, which is on the 21st Floor of One Union Square. We have reserved the conference room for the day if necessary. As we have previously provided Tukwila with our proposed settlement, we would appreciate it if Tukwila can make every effort to provide us with a written response no later than 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 19. This will provide all parties with a greater opportunity to come to the settlement meeting fully prepared to reach agreement. GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL MALANCA, PETERSON & DAHEIM, P.L.L.C. Steph I look forward to meeting with you on the s Very ly yours, lir 1 ie A. Arend TACOMA OFFICE 2200 FIRST INTERSTATE PLAZA POST OFFICE BOX 1157 TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98401-1157 (206) 572.5050 FACSIMILE (206) 572-4516 REPLY TO TACOMA OFFICE STEPHANIE A. AREND Robert D. Johns Reed McClure 701 5th Ave. #3600 Seattle, WA 98104 -7081 Dear Bob: (TA980510.023J1 + LAW OFFICES February 20, 1996 Re: Baker Commodities v. City of Tukwila GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA, PETERSON 8 DAHEIM, P.L.LC. SEATTLE OFFICE ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY, SUITE 2101 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-4185 (206) 447.9505 FACSIMILE (206) 622.9779 This letter is to confirm that the meeting between Baker Commodities and Tukwila will occur on Wednesday, March 20th. I propose that the meeting take place in my offices at One Union Square beginning at 9:00 a.m. Attending on behalf of Baker Commodities will be Ray Kelly, Vice President, Charlie Frame, Assistant Area Manager, and Sandy McCullough, Pacific Public Affairs. I understand that attending the meeting on behalf of the City of Tukwila will be Linda Cohen, Tukwila City Attorney and Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development. You also indicated that Jack Pace may attend and that the Mayor may make an appearance. We also discussed providing you with our proposed code changes at least two weeks before the meeting to provide you an opportunity to review the same with the Mayor and City Council. We will make every attempt to do so. Finally, we discussed the Growth Hearings Board schedule. By the time you receive this letter you should have received a fax from me of the Growth Hearings Board's Notice of Hearing setting forth the tentative schedule. We have agreed that when we receive documents from the Growth Hearings Board that we will confirm with each other that we both have received the same documents, as you apparently did not receive this notice. RECEIVED FEB 2 2 1996 REED MCCLURE Additionally, I understand that you will be on vacation from March 30th through April 15th. I will be on vacation from April 9th through April 26th. While we are on our respective vacations, the only thing set on the Growth Hearings Board agenda are motions. At this time I do not anticipate filing any motions and you indicated likewise. If that proves not to be the case, we can either agree to an alternative schedule or my partner, Bill Lynn, would be prepared to handle the motions in my absence. RECEIVED FEB 2 3 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • . GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL MALANCA, PETERSON & DAHEIM, P.L.L.C. February 20, 1996 Page 2 SAA:gam cc: Baker Commodities Sandy McCullough [TA960510.0231.1 + Very / yours, 1/40 teph. e A. Arend I look forward to working with you and the City of Tukwila to reach a prompt and amicable resolution of this matter as I believe it is in both parties' best interest to do so if possible. Thank you for your professional courtesies in this regard. February 15, 1996 Very truly yours, Stephanie Arend Gordon, Thomas, et al. 2200 First Interstate Plaza Tacoma, WA 98401 Re: Baker Commodities v. City of Tukwila Dear Stephanie: Enclosed please find a letter from Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development, issuing Baker Commodities' unclassified use permit. As you know, the permit has been available to you for quite some time. On August 19, 1994, you received a letter from Mike Kenyon reminding you that the permit remained available for you to pick up. I look forward to meeting with you in March in an attempt to resolve outstanding issues with respect to Baker's appeal of the Comprehensive Plan and, perhaps, to resolve the potential damage claim associated with Baker's previous litigation. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Linda P. Cohen City Attorney LPC /cc Enclosure CITYITrY \LTR \M IR City of Tukwila Office of the City Attorney John W. Rants, Mayor Linda P. Cohen, City Attorney 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433-1867 • Fax (206) 433-1833 February 15, 1996 Mr. Bill Hammond Baker Commodities, Inc. P.O. Box 58368 Seattle, WA 98138 RE: L92 -0010 (Baker Commodities Unclassified Use Permit). Dear Mr. Hammond: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director I herewith issue an Unclassified Use Permit for the proposed action in Tukwila Planning Division File L92 - 0010, subject to the conditions established by the Tukwila Planning Commission, which you had agreed to. I have included a summary of project findings and specific permit conditions below. SUMMARY PROJECT FINDINGS 1. An application of an unclassified use permit to install tallow storage tanks was received on January 7, 1992 (file number L92 - 0010). It was accompanied by a SEPA checklist (L92- 0011). No actions are proposed within the Shoreline area. 2. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on April 8, 1992 (L92 -0010) (Mitigation listed below). 5. The applicant filed a writ of certiorari with King County Superior Court on September 30, 1992, appealing the Council decision in a timely fashion. John W. Rants, Mayor 3. A Planning Commission public hearing was held on April 23, 1992, during which the Planning Division recommended several conditions. The applicant agreed to the Planning Division's recommended conditions. The Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council with conditions (see below). 4. The City Council, after public hearings and deliberations, made an "oral decision" to deny the unclassified use permit application on September 21, 1992 (BAKER Writ of Certiorari, Pg. 5, Item 18), and subsequently adopted Resolution 1229, DENYING the unclassified permit application, on October 5, 1992. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 8100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Far (206) 4313665 Bill Halamond 2/15/96 Page 2 7. To minimize odor impacts: 6. The Superior Court overturned the City Council denial and ordered the permit to be issued. CONDITIONS TO APPROVAL Planning Commission Conditions (agreed to by the applicant) 5. Landscaping screening shall be installed as specified in Attachment C (attached). SEPA Mitigating Actions (Per SEPA MDNS L92 -0011) -- These mitigating actions were established prior to unclassified use permit review. Earlier presentation of an approved Notice may be required due to conditions imposed in other permits. 1. The Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Tukwila, in addition to (the) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority. 2. Tanks shall be sited with the 18.5 ft. tallnits toward the river to provide visual transition to the 34.5 ft. tall units. 3. Tanks shall be painted a flat, non - reflective color which is similar to the existing green painted structures and reduces their visual prominence. 4. Tallow truck traffic shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. 6. Baker Commodities (shall) make every effort throughout its existence within the City of Tukwila to reduce and keep at a minimum odorous and noxious emissions from the plant. A "Notice of Construction" application shall be approved by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency prior to building permit approval. This Notice shall include, but not be limited to addressing tallow tank filling with a tight line from the processing area, a monitoring program to prevent over filling of tanks or line pressure, and a spill response plan. Bill Hammond 2/15/96 Page 3 8. To minimize visual prom Landscaping shall be re screening and visually shall reflect well bran in sufficient quantity screening. A landscape by the Planning Commiss A building permit and other required for tank installati be made for consistency with Sincerely, Steve Lancaster DCD Director cc: Linda Cohen, City Attorn y nence: Please contact Vernon Umetsu at 431 -3684 or myself if we can be of further help. , uired to provide year around reaking up the tank mass. Screening hed 8 -10 ft. evergreen trees planted nd depth to provide year around plan shall be submitted for approval on. tility permits (e.g. irrigation) are n. A review of the,application will the above conditionWat that time. • weeds / ■ Pf)01: TALLOW 51 05ACIE TAt11C5 ill EXI5T111C, Cor1METE • LR5 (5EE SHEET G •11, . �L t \` ; \ J \ \ \4 ��- - - - - -� X X �S= DD() LA5 ; 6-10' HIGH, bALLED 4 5M1- 017th, 1JELL bAtCHEO SPACED 15' O.C. 5CE DETAIL, ABOVE LEFT. AT rActimekvr Loodinq 'L:ock .is . dro -) lile rlir)rlrlrn MIT; 5rru:Lr) IS' ?o' O.C. Did. ® FF= f 9.3 Rld. FF= 19.5 :EfirnQLD grEE11 CInbOn VITAE o ' HIC,H, r. LLED. 511nLAPPED, brill M tITOL SHALLOLI ncottric • 5I f505 4a' :1�1t1: IJiTH aanK Drain Top =17.0 ,, l.E•14.,= 1,? • •i8 . r AD (1'YP): C8 Tcp =Jae; 1.E•IC,. Bid FF =2. 110TC: nu_ PLANTED Qf)EQ5 TO HAVE, (1JTOI 1ATED Jr f 1 riot "di 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BAKER COMMODITIES, INC., a Delaware NO. corporation, vs. Petitioner CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal corporation, PETITION FOR REVIEW - 1 RA900300.O60I:3 + i C- i L C f C: 1 1 ::- / F 2 7993 CM/ C F BEFORE THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD STATE OF WASHINGTON Res ndent. RECEIVED FEB - 1996 CITY OF TUKWu. drr PETIT ION FOR REVIEW 1. The Petitioner is Baker Commodities, Inc., located at P.O. Box 58368, Seattle, WA 98138, (206) 243 -7387. The Petitioner is represented in this matter by Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson & Daheim, P.L.L.C. and Stephanie A. Arend, P.O. Box 1157, Tacoma, WA 98401, (206) 572 -5050 and (206) 572 -4516 fax. 2. Baker Commodities plays a vital role in the management of solid waste in this state. Baker collects and processes approximately fifty percent of this part of the waste stream for the State of Washington. Baker is also the sole provider located in King County of collection and disposal of the following products: (a) cooking grease, trap grease from restaurants, grocery stores and meat processing plants; (b) fish from seafood processing plants; (c) offal from packing plants and custom shops; (d) dead stock, including cows LAW OFFICES GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL MALANCA, PETERSON & DAHEIM P.L.L.C. 2200 FIRST INTERSTATE PLAZA POST OFFICE BOX 1167 TACOMA. WASHINGTON 88401.1167 (2081 672.6060 . FACSIMILE ROM 6724618 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 2 3 from dairies, horses, cattle, hogs; and, (e) dead animals from veterinarians and private and public animal shelters. The rendering plant that Baker operates in Tukwila has been in continual operation since 1936. The site is approximately 12 acres in size and is surrounded on three sides by the Duwamish River and on the fourth side by six sets of railroad tracks. 3. Petitioner seeks review of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code adopted on December 4, 1995, and published in the Seattle Times on December 6, 1995. 4. • Petitioner presents the following issues for review and determination by the Board: 4.1 Whether the light industrial designation in the comprehensive plan includes objectives, principles, standards, and building intensities required by RCW 36.70A.070. 4.2 Whether the comprehensive plan directly or indirectly precludes the siting of essential public facilities in Tukwila, as prohibited by RCW 36.70A.200(2) and WAC 365- 195- 340(2)(c). 4.3 Whether the comprehensive plan is consistent with the King County comprehensive plan and King County County -Wide Planning Policies for the siting of essential public facilities, as required by RCW 36.70A.100 and WAC 365- 195- 340(2). 4.4 Whether the comprehensive plan includes a comprehensive analytical transportation element that is consistent with and implements the land use element as required by RCW 36.70A.070(6). 4.5 Whether the development regulations are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan, as required by RCW 36.70A.040(4). PETITION FOR REVIEW - 2 1TA950900.0901:2 LAW OFFICES GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL MALANCA, PETERSON & DAHEIM P.L.L.C. 2200 FIRST INTERSTATE PLAZA POST OFFICE SOX 1167 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 95401.1167 1208) 672.6060 • FACSIMILE 12081 672.4615 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 26 4.6 Whether the development regulations establish time periods for governmental action on permit applications as required by RCW 36.70A.065 ( recodified as RCW 36.70B.080). 4.7 Whether the permit review process is integrated and consolidated. 4.8 Whether the comprehensive plan and development regulations are coordinated with other land use legislation, such as the solid waste management plan. 4.9 Whether the development regulations specify contents of a completed permit application as required by RCW 36.70A.065 (recodified as RCW 36.70B.080). 4.10 Whether there was an opportunity for "early and continuous public participation," as required by RCW 36.70A.140, in the adoption of the development regulations when they were adopted at the same time as the comprehensive plan and there were significant changes made to both the comprehensive plan and development regulations that the public had no opportunity to review or comment upon. 4.11 Whether Tukwila utilized the process established pursuant to RCW 36.70A.370 to assure that the comprehensive plan and development regulations do not result in an unconstitutional taking of private property. 4.12 Whether the Tukwila comprehensive plan and implementing regulations are in compliance with the Growth Management Act. 4.13 Whether the Tukwila comprehensive plan is in compliance with Chapter 43.21C RCW. 5. Petitioner has standing before the Board pursuant to RCW 36.70A.280(2) because they own property located in Tukwila at 5795 South 130th Place, Seattle, and have appeared frequently before the Tukwila Planning Commission and City Council during their consideration of the comprehensive plan and implementing development regulations challenged here. PETITION FOR REVIEW - 3 ITAe60300.090I:2 4. LAW OFFICES GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL MALANCA, PETERSON & DAHEIM P.L.L.C. 2200 FIRST INTERSTATE PLAZA POST OFFICE BOX 1167 TACOMA, WASHINGTON G{401.1167 12061 672.6060 • FACSIMILE 12061 672.4616 21 23 25 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 6. Estimated length of hearing is one (1) day. 7. Petitioner seeks the following relief: 7.1. Upon considering the merits of this Petition, the Board should find that the City of Tukwila is not in compliance with the requirements of the Growth Management Act as outlined above. 7.2 The Board should remand the comprehensive plan and implementing development regulations to the City of Tukwila with an order that a comprehensive plan and implementing development regulations consistent with the Growth Management Act be adopted within 150 days. 8. Petitioner has read this Petition for Review and believes the contents to be true. Dated this 2nd day of February, 1996. PETITION FOR REVIEW - 4 1TA110300.0101:2 GORDO PETER B OMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA, & DAHEIM, P.L.L.C. Steph ie A. Arend WSBA No. 18224 Attorneys for Petitioner LAW OFFICES GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL MALANCA, PETERSON & DAHEIM P.L.L.C. 2200 FIRIT INTERSTATE PLAZA POST OFFICE BOX 1167 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 11401 -1167 12061 672.6060 • FACSIMILE 120616724611 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 29 BAKER COMMODITIES, INC., Petitioners, v. CITY OF TUKWILA, Respondent. On February 2, 1996, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (the Board) received a Petition for Review from Baker Commodities, Inc. (Baker). The matter was assigned the above - captioned case number. Baker alleges that the City of Tukwila (the City or Tukwila) adopted a Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) that does not comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA or the Act), the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and the King County Countywide Planning Policies (KCCPSs). Further, Baker alleges that the City has adopted development regulations that do not comply with the GMA and are not consistent with and implement the Plan. The Board held a prehearing conference on March 13, 1996, at the Board's office, 2329 One Union Square, Seattle. Board member Joseph W. Tovar, Presiding Officer in this matter, conducted the conference. Petitioners were represented by Stephanie Arend. The City was represented by Bob Johns. Also present on behalf of Tukwila was Vernon Umetsu of the Planning Department. The Board discussed with the parties the possibility of settling or mediating their issues, emphasizing that the Board encourages such efforts and offers its assistance in facilitating mediation. The parties indicated that they were involved in settlement discussions and requested appropriate revision to the schedule for the filing of the index and briefs to reflect the possibility of a settlement. The Board then reviewed its procedures for hearing, including motions; the composition and filing of the record and supplemental exhibits; the legal issues to be decided; and a final schedule of deadlines. On March 18, 1996, the Board received a letter from Baker providing supplemental citations to the King County Comprehensive Plan and the King County County -Wide Planning Policies for inclusion in Legal Issue No. 2 (formerly Legal Issues 2 and 3). Baker also clarified that the focus of Legal Issue No. 8 (formerly Legal Issue No. 13) was best characterized as an alleged inadequacy of the EIS. Based on the above referenced documents and discussions, the Board enters the following Prehearing Order. (6308PHO.DOC; March 18, 1996) 96 -3 -0008 Prehearing Order Page 1 CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD STATE OF WASHINGTON Case No. 96 - - 0008 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND PREHEARING ORDER RECE VED MAR 2 l 1996 REED MC LURE FILE . Central Paget Sand Grow* Management Heariirp Board 2329 Ono Union Square • 600 University Street Seattle, WA 98101 -1129. (206)389 -2625 • Fax: (206)389 -2588 OPY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 26 27 28 29 FINAL SCHEDULE FOR CASE NO. 96-3-0008 Documents must be filed with the Board by the dates and times listed (one original plus three copies on three -hole punched paper, copied back -to -back) and a copy served upon the other parties by 4 p.m. on the designated day, unless otherwise noted. DATE EVENT Fri., Feb. 2, 1996 Petition for Review filed Mon., Apr. 1, 1996 Mon., Apr. 8, 1996 Fri., Apr. 19, 1996 Wed., Apr. 24, 1996 Mon., Apr. 29, 1996 Fri., May 3, 1996 Wed., May 8, 1996 Wed., May 15, 1996 Tue., May 21, 1996 Thur., May 23, 1996 Wed., July 31, 1996 Deadline for Respondent's Index (original plus one copy only) Deadline for Motions and Memoranda to Supplement the Record i. w /witness testimony ii. w /exhibits Deadline for proposed Preliminary Witness Lists Deadline for Response to Motions Deadline for Rebuttal to Response to Motions (optional) Board Order on Motions due Deadline for Rebuttal Exhibit and/or Witness List (if permitted) Deadline for (Optional) Stipulated Exhibit List • Deadline for Petitioner's Prehearing Brief (with exhibits) Deadline for Respondent's Prehearing Brief (with exhibits) Deadline for Petitioner's Reply Brief (optional) Hearing on Merits of Petition: 9:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m., Board's offices Final Decision and Order due H. FINAL SCHEDULE AND HEARING Notice is hereby given in the table above of the final schedule for this case. The hearing on the merits of the petition will be held at the date, time, and place shown in the Final Schedule table. III. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS There will be no dispositive motions in this case. IV. PRELIMINARY WITNESS LIST Only under extraordinary circumstances is witness testimony allowed. However, if a party wishes to call witnesses to testify at the hearing on the merits the party shall file a preliminary Witness List by the date and in the manner stated above in Part II, Final Schedule. In addition, a Motion to Supplement the Record must be filed. See Part VII. (6308PHO.DOC; March 18, 1996) 96 -3 -0008 Prehearing Order Page 2 Carted Paget Sound Growth Mawgmert Hearings Homer 2329 One Union Square • 600 University Street Seattle, WA 98101 -1129., (206)389 -2625 • Fax: (206)389 - 2588 . • 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 26 27 28 29 The Preliminary Witness List shall include the name, daytime address and telephone number of each proposed witness. In addition, the list shall provide a brief but detailed summary of the anticipated scope of testimony by each proposed witness. (6308PHO.DOC; March 18, 1996) 96 -3 -0008 Prehearing Order Page 3 V. PRELIMINARY /STIPULATED EXHIBIT LIST From the Respondent's Index, each party shall file a Preliminary Exhibit List by the date and in the manner stated above in Part II, Final Schedule. Alternatively and preferably, the parties may jointly file a Stipulated Exhibit List. See Part VI below. The purpose of the Preliminary Exhibit List is to guide the Board in paring down the number of documents to review. .As a rule, the Board will admit only documents directly related to issues listed in the Statement of Legal Issues set forth below. Based upon experience, only a small portion of the documents listed in the Index will be admitted as exhibits. These admitted exhibits comprise the Record Below. If a party lists on its Preliminary Exhibit List any document not contained in the Index, it shall designate it as a Supplemental Exhibit and file a Motion to Supplement the Record. See Part VII below. The Board can take official notice of state law, and county and city ordinances and resolutions. WAC 242 -02 -660. The parties do not need to list state statutes or regulations as supplemental exhibits, as the Board has access to them. In contrast, local ordinances and regulations shall be listed as exhibits, as the Board may not have copies of such documents. VL OPTIONAL STIPULATED EXHIBIT LIST As an alternative to separate Preliminary Exhibit Lists, the Petitioner and Respondent are strongly encouraged to stipulate to one set of consecutively numbered exhibits (the Stipulated Exhibit List) for ease of reference, to avoid duplication, and to resolve questions of authenticity. The stipulation should include supplemental exhibits, if any, proposed by either party. By stipulating to one exhibit list, the parties need not waive any objections to the admissibility of a document specified on the list. The parties shall file their Stipulated Exhibit . List on the date and in the manner stated in Part II, Final Schedule. In addition, Petitioners shall reach an agreement with the Respondent at this time as to the responsibility for obtaining, paying for and distributing exhibits to the Board and each other. If they fail to do so, the public records provisions' of the Public Disclosure Act, Chapter 42.17 RCW, apply for obtaining copies of documents. VII. MOTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT T HE RECORD RCW 36.70A.290(4) requires that the Board base its decision on the record developed below. Additional evidence will not be considered unless the Board determines that it will be necessary or of substantial assistance. Casual Paget Sousa Growth Management Hear:p Board 2329 One Union Square • 600 University Street Scald., WA 98101 -1129 (206)389 -2625 • Fax: (206)389 -2588 In the case of exhibits found by either party to have been omitted from the Record by inadvertence, and where the Respondent agrees that they should have been listed, the Board will treat them as being part of the record below rather than as supplemental exhibits, and the Respondent will amend its Index to include such documents. Otherwise, if a party wishes to supplement the record below, either by witness testimony or through documentary evidence, it shall file a Motion to Supplement the Record by the date and in the manner stated in Part II, Final Schedule. If the other party objects to such supplementation, it shall file a Memorandum in Opposition to a Motion to Supplement the Record by the date and in the manner stated in Part II, Final Schedule. to The moving party may, at its option, file with the Board a reply rebutting any responses to its motion, by the date and in the manner stated in Part II, Final Schedule. 11 Unless otherwise directed by the presiding officer, the Board will make its determination 12 on proposed supplementation based solely upon the written motions, any responses and 13 rebuttal documents, and a review of the Preliminary Exhibit and/or Witness Lists. The Board will strive to issue its Order on Motions to Supplement by the date stated in Part II, 14 Final Schedule. 15 The order will constitute the Final Witness and/or Exhibit Lists in this case, unless the 16 parties are notified otherwise. 17 In the event the Board issues an Order Granting a Motion to Supplement the Record with witness and/or exhibit testimony, the opposing party shall, if it elects to call rebuttal 18 witnesses or submit rebuttal exhibits, file a Rebuttal Witness and/or Exhibit List by the 19 date and in the manner stated in Part II, Final Schedule. Copies of the listed exhibits need not be filed until briefs are due. 20 21 VIII. FILING OF EXHIBITS Only exhibits referenced in motions and/or prehearing briefs, responses or replies need to be filed with the Board, by the date and in the manner stated in Part II, Final Schedule. 23 Exhibits should be numbered according to the sequence in the Stipulated Exhibit List, if 24 such stipulation has occurred. If no such stipulation has been reached, the parties shall 2s refer to the number assigned to an exhibit in the Index, appending a prefix identifying Petitioner (P -) or Respondent (R -), when citing to that exhibit. When filing response or 26 reply briefs, the parties need only refer to exhibits previously submitted, including those 27 appended to Motions briefs, rather than submitting duplicate copies of such exhibits. 28 Copies of exhibits from the record below that have not been objected to, those exhibits (if any) that have been stipulated as admissible by the parties, and /or copies of supplemental 29 exhibits that the presiding officer has determined are admissible, will be distributed to all Board members upon receipt. Exhibits that have been objected to, or that have not been Catral Puget SoasN (6308PNO DOC; March 18, 1996) Growth Mattagami Hates Board 2329 One Union Square • 600 University Street 96 -3 -0008 Prehearng Order Seattle, WA 98101 -1129 Page 4 (206)389 -2625 • Fax: (206)389 -2588 • 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 stipulated to, and/or supplemental exhibits that the presiding officer has indicated may be offered at the time of the hearing (but the admissibility has not yet been determined) will not be distributed to Board members, other than to the presiding officer, unless and until they have been admitted into evidence at the hearing. IX. DISCOVERY Pursuant to WAC 242 -02 -410, discovery will be permitted only upon written approval from the Board. X. BRIEFING SCHEDULE The parties shall specify which Legal Issues, as set forth below in Part XI of this order, are being addressed in the Prehearing, Response, and Reply Briefs. The parties are reminded that their briefs and arguments must be confined to those issues, and that issues not briefed will be deemed to have been abandoned. Petitioners shall file their Prehearing Briefs by the date and in the manner stated in Part II, Final Schedule. The Respondent shall file its Prehearing Response Brief(s) by the date and in the manner stated in Part II, Final Schedule. Petitioners may, at their option, file a Reply Brief by the date and in the manner stated in Part II, Final Schedule. XI. STATEMENT OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Does the Plan's light industrial designation fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.070, because it does not include objectives, principles, standards and building intensities? 2. Does the Plan preclude the siting of essential public facilities in Tukwila, in violation of RCW 36.70A.100 and .200(2), WAC 365- 195- 340(2)(c), King County County -wide Planning Polices Chapter VIII, Siting Capital Facilities. of a Countywide or Statewide Nature [Nov. 1994], and the King County Plan Chapter Eight, Facilities and Services [Nov. 1994]? 3. Does the Plan fail to comply with RCW . 36.70A.070(6) because it does not include a comprehensive analytical transportation element that is consistent with and implements the land use element? 4. Are the development regulations regarding the light industrial zone, the Unclassified Use Permit process and the Essential Public Facilities process consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan, as required by RCW 36.70A.040(4)? 5. Do the development regulations regarding the light industrial zone, the Unclassified Use Permit process and the Essential Public Facilities process fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.065 because they do not establish time periods for governmental actions on permit application's; do not integrate and consolidate the permit review process; do not specify Ceara! Paget Sowed (6308PHO.DOC; March 18,1996) Growth Ma�e�e�t Swim Board 2329 One Union Square • 600 University Street 96 -3 -0008 Prehearing Order Seattle, WA 98101 -1129 Page 5 (206)389 -2625 • Fax: (206)389 -2588 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 29 7. Did the City fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.370? So ordered this 19th day of March, 1996. (6308PHO.DOC; March 18, 1996) 96 -3 -0008 Prehearing Order Page 6 . Tovar, AICP Officer 6. Did the City fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.140 in its adoption of the Plan and implementing development regulations regarding the light industrial zone, the Unclassified Use Permit process and the Essential Public Facilities, because they were adopted simultaneously and because substantial changes were made to both the Plan and the regulations that the public did not have sufficient opportunity to review and comment upon? the contents of a completed permit application; and are not coordinated with other land use legislation, such as the solid waste management plan? 8. Did the City fail to comply with Chapter 43.21C RCW in the adoption of its Plan due to the inadequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement? CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD Joseph . Caatral Paget Soong Grown Mammas* Hrrip Board 2329 Oar Union Square • 600 Uniwesity Street Scalds, WA 98101 -1129 (206)389 -2625 • Fax: (206)389 -2588 " .. Petitioner ill Represented By: Stephanie A. Arend Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson' Daheim, P.LLC. POB 1157 Tacoma, WA 98401 Tel: (206) 572 -5050 Fax: (206) 572.4516 Respondent: Cry of Tukwila Linda Cohen, City Attorney City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Tel: (206) 433 -1800 Fax: (206) 433 -1833 Central Puget Sound Growth Maaegemeat Mafriaga Board 2329 One Union Square • 600 University Street Seattle, WA 98101 -1129 (206)389 -2625 • Fax: (206)389 -2588 replacement of existing structures. Exhibit 2 Proposed new sections to be added to the Zoning Code: 1. New section TMC 18.66.110: Normal upkeep, repairs, and maintenance; Normal upkeep, repairs, maintenance, strengthening, or restoration to a safe condition of any building or structure being used as part of an unclassified use shall not require a new or revised unclassified use permit. The replacement of existing structures with new structures of equivalent size and/or capacity, or with new structures which do not change the use and do not constitute an expansion or enlargement described below, shall not require a new or unclassified use permit, provided that, in the event that any structure that is non- conforming by reason of its height, bulk or setbacks, such structure shall not be re- constructed in a manner which increases the extent of the nonconformity. Nothing in this section shall modify applicable requirements that such construction work may require a building permit or other construction permits pursuant to TMC ch..16 (construction codes) 2. Revised TMC 18.70.100 Conditional and Unclassified Uses A legal use does not become nonconforming because the zone in which it is located is changed to a zone which requires a conditional or unclassified use permit for the use, or because the use is changed from an allowed use to a conditional or unclassified use within the same zone; provided, TMC ch. 18.66. the however, the use may not be expanded nor may buildings be enlarged without first obtaining a conditional or unclassified use permit if required pursuant to requirements of TMC ch. 18.64 or 3. New TMC 18.66.120 Expansion of Existing Unclassified Use - Animal Rendering Facilities In addition to the structures permitted pursuant to paragraph 1, above, existing animal rendering businesses shall be allowed to construct new facilities to update and/or modernize such use without needing to obtain a new or revised UUP if such construction involves an intensification of the permitted existing facility. For purposes of this interpretation, "facilities" shall refer to all structures, including tanks, processing equipment, buildings and other improvements used in the rendering operation, and "intensification" shall mean new construction shall meet all of the requirements below. Any proposed new construction which fails to meet one or more of the requirements of intensification shall be considered an enlargement or expansion, and shall require an application for a new or revised UUP for the facilities which constitute the enlargement or expansion. A. The construction of new facilities shall be considered an intensification and may be permitted without the need to obtain an Unclassified Use Permit (UUP), if: 1. The total area of the site is not increased. .t Impact portion of the Shoreline. forth below. 2. The construction of new facilities does not generate more than ten new vehicle trips at peak hour, as determined pursuant to established City policy and procedure related to traffic concurrency. 3. No new facilities are located in the River Environment or Low 4. The new facilities will comply with the performance standards set 5. The construction of new manufacturing facilities does not result in more than a 5% cumulative increase in the manufacturing capacity of the processing facility. 6. The construction will not increase the extent of any nonconformity of any structure by reason of its height, bulk or setbacks. B. Any proposed new facility which does not meet criteria Al through A6, above, shall be considered an enlargement or expansion, and shall comply with the provisions of TMC Ch. 18.66, Unclassified Use Permits. C. Whether or not a proposed new facility is considered an intensification or an expansion/enlargement, all other applicable codes such as construction codes, SEPA, etc., shall continue to apply. 4. New Section TMC 18.66.130 Performance Standards for Rendering Plants The following performance standards shall apply to rendering plants, in addition to the performance standards for the applicable zoning district: A. Any new facilities constructed at a rendering plant which will be used for storage or transmission of liquid.or semi - liquid products will be protected by containment facilities capable of preventing the release of any product into surface or ground waters in the event of a spill or breakage. B. Any new facilities will utilize the best feasible odor abatement equipment and shall be designed, constructed and operated so that the new facilities will not increase the risk of odor emissions from the site. C. The facility, including both existing and new facilities, shall comply with applicable air pollution control requirements of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, including both procedural and substantive standards. D. A copy of the current Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP) as required by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency shall be on file with the DCD. 6503AG02.rdj SENT BY :Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 8 -97 ; 8 :45AM ; ROBERT C. KEATING JOHN L. MCCORMACK MARK R. BUCKLIN RANDAL W. EBBERSON WILLIAM P. SCHOEL STEVEN L,THORSRUD MICHAEL C. WALTER ANDREW G. COOLEY VIA FAX AND REGULAR MIL Mr. John McFarland City Administrator CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear John: KEATING, BUCKLIN & McCORMACK, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 800 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4141 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 88104.3175 FAX: (206)223•e423 (208) 823 -8861 April 8, 1997 RE: TUKWILA adv BAKER KING COUNTY CAUSE NO. 92- 2- 22629 -4 2062239423 -' 2064313665;# 2 JOSEPH R. KOPTA CHLOETHIEL W. DEWEESE STEWART A. ESTES DEBORAH D. BROOKINGS JAYNE L FREEMAN As you know, Judge Wesley heard oral argument on the City and Baker's cross- motions for summary judgment on the issue of liability on Friday, April 4, 1997. Surprisingly, Judge Wesley denied both motions. Judge Wesley ruled that both parties had brought a motion for summary judgment based on the facts and the law, and while he agreed that the law of the case revealed that his ruling of lack of substantial evidence did not equate to arbitrary and capricious conduct, he also ruled that it was "an ultimate question of fact" as to whether the undisputed facts in this case equated to arbitrary and capricious conduct on the part of the Tukwila City Council. This "ultimate question of fact" must be determined by a "trier of fact" according to Judge Wesley, and as he stated during his ruling, he was not putting on his "trier of fact hat" in order to make a ruling on whether the City Council's conduct in denying Baker's permit application was arbitrary and capricious. Judge Wesley ruled that the two parties should contact the court clerk to establish a trial date in the matter. It is uncertain, however, how this matter would proceed to trial, or who the "trier of fact" would be. While Baker would most likely want to depose City Council members and bring in evidence extraneous to the record, I would argue that the "trier of fact" could only make SENT BY :Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 8 -97 ; 8 :45AM ; John McFarland April 8, 1997 Page 2 a decision of whether the City Council's conduct was arbitrary and capricious by looking merely at the evidence that was before the Tukwila City Council at the time of the permit denial. In other words, it would appear to me that the trier of fact should only be allowed to look at the record that was before the City Council. Additionally, there is also an issue of whether the "trier of fact" should be a judge or a jury. I am currently researching the law to determine whether an argument can be generated that a judge, not a jury, must make a determination of whether the City's conduct was arbitrary and capricious. I do not know whether this issue has ever been explored in Washington courts as judges have normally made the determination as a routine matter in writ actions, and their ruling has been binding on the parties. For example, in the Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County case the judge in the writ hearing determined that the County's conduct was arbitrary and capricious. In the later damages segment of the trial, the court ruled that the previous judge's ruling of arbitrary and capricious conduct• collaterally estopped the county from re- litigating how the county's conduct should be characterized. The arbitrary and capricious ruling stood, and the county was therefore liable in damages. Another reason I believe it may be difficult to fully research this issue is that in dealing with writ hearings, the superior court is actually sitting• as an appellate court, and the court always makes the rulings in its appellate capacity. In light of Judge Wesley's unusual ruling, and the difficulties it obviously causes for the City of Tukwila, I am currently considering filing a motion for reconsideration requesting that the judge reconsider and grant the City's motion for summary judgment. Of course, there is always a chance that Judge Wesley would reconsider his denial of both summary judgment motions and actually grant Baker's motion for summary judgment as well. Thus, a motion for reconsideration may have adverse implications. At the end of his ruling, Judge Wesley suggested that there are ways of resolving this matter short of trial which the parties may wish to pursue. The clear implication was that Judge Wesley believed the parties should attempt to mediate a settlement to this case. This statement by Wesley does cause me some concern in the sense that it suggests risk to both sides if the matter headed to trial, and casts doubt on how Judge Wesley might rule if he were the trier of fact. At any rate, we will need to make a decision on 2062239423-' 2064313665;# 3 ' SENT BY :Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 8 -97 ; 8 :46AM John McFarland April 8, 1997 Page 3 WPS:bjd cc: Peg Campbell Mike Kenyon cs \vs \wcia9271 \04o7mcfa whether to move for reconsideration or not by the end of this week, so if you have any strong feelings one way or another please advise as soon as possible. Sincerely, William Schoel 2062239423-+ 2064313665;# 4 May 10, 1996 Dear Mr. Frame: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Mr. Charlie Frame Baker Commodities, Inc. P.O. Box 58368 Seattle, WA 98138 RE: L92 -0010 (Baker Commodities Unclassified Use Permit). I herewith issue an Unclassified Use Permit for the proposed action in Tukwila Planning Division File L92 -0010, subject to the conditions established by the Tukwila Planning Commission, which you had agreed to. I have included a summary of project findings and specific permit conditions below. This letter shall modify and supersede my pervious letter issuing an unclassified use permit, dated February 15, 1996. SUMMARY PROJECT FINDINGS 1. An application of an unclassified use permit to install tallow storage tanks was received on January 7, 1992 (file number L92 - 0010). It was accompanied by a SEPA checklist (L92- 0011). No actions are proposed within the Shoreline area. 2. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on April 8, 1992 (L92 -0010) (Mitigation listed below). John W. Rants, Mayor 3. A Planning Commission public hearing was held on April 23, 1992, during which the Planning Division recommended several conditions. The applicant agreed to the Planning Division's recommended conditions. The Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council with conditions (see below). 4. The City Council, after public hearings and deliberations, made an "oral decision" to deny the unclassified use permit application on September 21, 1992 (BAKER Writ of Certiorari, Pg. 5, Item 18), and subsequently adopted Resolution 1229, DENYING the unclassified permit application, on October 5, 1992. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 Charlie Frame 5/10/96 Page 2 5. The applicant filed a writ of certiorari with King County Superior Court on September 30, 1992, appealing the Council decision in a timely fashion. 6. The Superior Court overturned the City Council denial and ordered the permit to be issued. 7. Tukwila and Baker both filed cross appeals to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals confirmed the Superior Court. CONDITIONS TO APPROVAL Planning Commission Conditions (agreed to by the applicant) .1. The Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Tukwila, in addition to (the) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority. 2. Tanks shall be sited with the 18.5 ft. tall units toward the river to provide visual transition to the 34.5 ft. tall units. 3. Tanks shall be painted a flat, non - reflective color which is similar to the existing green painted structures and reduces their visual prominence. 4. Landscaping screening shall be installed as specified in Attachment C (attached). 5. Baker Commodities (shall) make every effort throughout its existence within the City of Tukwila to reduce and keep at a minimum odorous and noxious emissions from the plant. SEPA Mitigating Actions (Per SEPA MDNS L92 -0011) -- These mitigating actions were established prior to unclassified use permit review. 6. To minimize odor impacts: A "Notice of Construction" application shall be approved by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency prior to building permit approval. This Notice shall include, but not be limited to addressing tallow tank filling with a tight line from the processing area, a monitoring program to prevent over filling of tanks or line pressure, and a spill response plan. , Charlie Frame 5/10/96 Page 3 7. To minimize visual prominence: A building permit and other utility permits (e.g. irrigation) are required for tank installation. A review of the application will be made for consistency with the above conditions at that time. Please contact Vernon Umetsu at 431 -3684 or myself if we can be of further help. Sincerely, Earlier presentation of an approved Notice may be required due to conditions imposed in other permits. Landscaping shall be required to provide year around screening and visually breaking up the tank mass. Screening shall reflect well branched 8 -10 ft. evergreen trees planted in sufficient quantity and depth to provide year around screening. A landscape plan shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission. Steve Lancaster DCD Director • weeds / nS. rO1 TALL01J 5TOnACIE TArK5 In EXISTInG COnCf5ETE • LAGoori. (EE. SHEET' c - 1.) . • ItL voc (o1Tnuao. (ucx • (0.110 TftnOC.5 1)01JC,L15 fW ; 6-10' FIIC PALLED blinnLAPPED, (JELL tZnilcHcb, SPACED 15'-30 O.C. 5EE DETAIL, A50VE. LEFT. . Q � ors !mk acts d r o -) /I / PH0TIIIIA MEE ; SPACED 15'-'2,0' O.G. nOTE • Bid. I�1 FF= 19. ofygnicriroL sHaLLOIJ nootIt1C • SHIiUJ65 40..i91t1: '&1 -1 6AnK • • Droin Top =17.G' • i1 ! L 91d. FF= 19.5' Ill 1$� • ie • •' -i • • i ii • • • . • la • Bid FF =2: ALL PLANTED AnEA5 TO HAVE AIJTOtT1ATED InnIC ( CODE INTERPRETED: SECTION NO.: CODE INTERPRETATION FORM DATE INTERPRETATION MADE: Interpretation: (1) Normal Upkeep, Repairs and Maintenance. ZONING CODE 18.66.020 USES REQUIRING AN UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT (UUP) Mkt I Normal upkeep, repairs, maintenance, strengthening, or restoration to a safe condition of any building or structure being used as part of an unclassified use shall not require a new or revised unclassified use permit. The replacement of existing structures with either new structures of equivalent size and/or capacity, or with new structures which do not change the use and do not constitute an expansion or enlargement as described below, shall not require a new or revised unclassified use permit; provided that, in any event, any structure that is non - conforming by reason of its height, bulk, or setbacks shall not be re- constructed in a manner which increases the extent of the nonconformity. Nothing in this interpretation shall modify applicable requirements that such construction work may require a building permit or other construction permits pursuant to TMC ch. 16 (construction codes). (2) Effect of Changes to Zoning Code or Zoning Map. A legal use does not become nonconforming because the zone in which it is located is changed to a zone which requires an Unclassified Use Permit for the use, or because the use is changed from an allowed use to an unclassified use within the same zone; provided, however, the use may not 6503AGOI.rdj code intcrp RDJ /I 8555/31665 be expanded or buildings may not be enlarged without first obtaining an unclassified use permit for such expansion or enlargement if required pursuant to requirements listed under Intensification and Expansion, below. (3) Intensification and Expansion of Animal Rendering Facilities. In addition to the structures permitted pursuant to paragraph 1, above, existing animal rendering businesses shall be allowed to construct new facilities to update and/or modernize such use without needing to obtain a new or revised UUP if such construction involves an intensification of the permitted existing facility. For purposes of this interpretation, "facilities" shall refer to all structures, including tanks, processing equipment, buildings and other improvements used in the rendering operation, and "intensification" shall mean new construction shall meet all of the requirements below. Any proposed new construction which fails to meet one or more of the requirements of intensification shall be considered an enlargement or expansion, and shall require an application for a new or revised UUP for the facilities which constitute the enlargement or expansion. A. The construction of new facilities shall be considered an intensification and may be permitted without the need to obtain an Unclassified Use Permit (UUP), if: 1. The total area of the site is not increased. 2. The construction of new facilities does not generate more than ten new vehicle trips at peak hour, as determined pursuant to established City policy and procedure related to traffic concurrency. 6503AG0I.rdj code inter') 2 RD!/18555/31665 portion of the Shoreline. below. 3. No new facilities are located in the River Environment or Low Impact 4. The new facilities will comply with the performance standards set forth 5. The construction of new manufacturing facilities does not result in more than a 5% cumulative increase in the manufacturing capacity of the processing facility. 6. The construction will not increase the extent of any nonconformity of any structure by reason of its height, bulk or setbacks. B. Any proposed new facility which does not meet criteria Al through A6, above, shall be considered an enlargement or expansion, and shall comply with the provisions of TMC Ch. 18.66, Unclassified Use Permits. C. Whether or not a proposed new facility is considered an intensification or an expansion/enlargement, all other applicable codes such as construction codes, SEPA, etc., shall continue to apply. D. Performance Standards The following performance standards shall apply to rendering plants, in addition to the performance standards for the applicable zoning district: 1. Any new facilities constructed at a rendering plant which will be used for storage or transmission of liquid or semi - liquid products will be protected by containment facilities capable of preventing the release of any product into surface or ground waters in the 6503AGOI.rdj code intcrp 3 RDJ /18555/31665 event of a spill or breakage. If more than one storage or transmission facility is protected by a containment facility, such containment facility shall be of sufficient size to contain a spill of the largest storage or transmission facility so protected. 2. Any new facilities will utilize the best feasible odor abatement equipment and shall be designed, constructed and operated so that the new facilities will not increase the risk of odor emissions from the site. 3. The facility, including both existing and new facilities, shall comply with applicable air pollution control requirements of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, including both procedural and substantive standards. 4. A copy of the current Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP) as required by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency shall be on file with the DCD. (4) Why Was This Interpretation Developed? Legal action taken by Baker Commodities, Inc., has resulted in the need to clearly articulate objective circumstances under which modifications to Baker's rendering plant require the processing of an Unclassified Use Permit under the provisions of the Tukwila Municipal Code, and when such a permit is not required. 6503AGOI.rdj code intcrp 4 RDJ/18555/3I 66$ (5) What is the Justification of the Interpretation? Court decisions like the one involving Baker Commodities, Inc., focus upon a distinction made by our courts between improvements proposed to existing facilities that involve an "intensification" of the use and those which involve an "expansion or enlargement" of the use. Expansions or enlargement of the existing use are subject to requirements related to obtaining a new or revised use permit, such as a new or revised UUP for Baker Commodities' animal rendering plant. A proposed improvement which involves an intensification of the existing use, however, does not necessarily trigger a need under our zoning code to apply for a new or revised use permit. Without criteria, it is difficult to determine when a proposed improvement to an existing facility constitutes an intensification or instead involves an enlargement. This interpretation provides that criteria, and provides notice and guidance to owners of existing facilities with Unclassified Use Permits, the public, city agencies and the courts as to when new improvements constitute an intensification and when they constitute an enlargement or expansion. In addition to providing guidance, this interpretation furthers the City's goals of encouraging owners of such facilities to update, modernize and improve its facilities to minimize existing impacts upon the surrounding vicinity, without being inhibited from doing so because of the uncertainty as to whether the improvements require obtaining a new or revised UUP. 6503AGOI.rdj code interp S • RDJ/18555/31665 (6) Normal Upkeep and Repairs. These provisions articulate what has been the historic practice of DCD. They also recognize court decisions that have upheld the rights of property owners to maintain legally established improvements and investments. (7) Effect of Changes to Zoning Code or Zoning Map. These provisions echo similar provisions of TMC 18.70.100 relating to conditional uses. There is no logical or policy basis to treat conditional and unclassified uses differently with regard to the effect of code or map changes. Signature of Interpreter: Lk Approved By: LA/ Department of Community Development Director 65O3AGOI.rdj code intcrp Date: /44 2 6Cio Date: Mr-. 3, Kit. Verbatim Transcript Tukwila City Council - Regular Meeting October 5, 1992 Mayor Rants Old Business. A resolution denying the application for an Unclassified Use Permit for installation of nine tallow. tanks Iodated at 5795 - 130th Place and it's Baker Commodities. Mr. City Attorney? Duffle Robertson I move that the resolution be read by title only. Second. Rants Moved and seconded. All in favor say "aye ". (Unanimous response); those opposed (no response). Kenyon A resolution denying a request by Pacific. Engineering on behalf of Baker Commodities, Inc. for the installation of nine tallow tanks at 5795 So. 130th Place in Tukwila. Now for the Council's information, but really not at all to make you change anything that you plan to do tonight, Baker Commodities did file suit as they threatened to do on the 21st. We were served on the 1st. It's kind of a standard arbitrary and capricious action and then some constitutional claims for deprivation of property rights and a fairly typical constitutional claim involving government action. I'm not terribly troubled by it. I think that the discussion by the Council was limited to the record. I think the findings that Vern Umetsu has proposed here are supported by the record. You can feel free to add, delete, make any changes you want to these findings that you feel are appropriate given the record, but I do urge you not to let the existence of a lawsuit change anything that you'd do here tonight otherwise. Robertson Yea. I move that the resolution be adopted as read. Hernandez Seconded. Mayor Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Robertson Speaking to the. resolution. I read through it and I feel that it adequately and correctly states the things--the. basis—for my decision: And I think the facts that were presented before the Council and the two public hearings and in the material presented by the staff - -I think it represents the record and it is the basis for my decisions, my own:vote. Duffle Call for the question. Mayor Any further discussion? (No response). All in favor of the resolution as read say "aye" (unanimous response); those opposed (no response). The resolution passes. Transcribed by Jane Cantu, City Clerk 434 October 5, 1992 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OFFICIALS CITIZENS COMMENTS CONSENT AGENDA OLD BUSINESS Res.#1229 - Denying Un- Classified Use Permit for Installation of Nine Tallow Tanks (Baker Commodities) ' 3 r. c % a. Approval of Vouchers TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Mayor Rants called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Counci to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. JOE DUFFIE; JOAN HERNANDEZ; ALLAN EKBERG, Council President; DENNIS ROBERTSON; CHARLES SIMPSON; STEVE LAWRENCE, STEVE MULLET. MIKE KENYON, City Attorney; JOHN McFARLAND, City Administrator; ALAN DOERSCHEL, Finance Director, LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; VERNON UMETSU, Associate Planner. Roger Baker, 11662 - 42nd Ave. So., thanked the City for its donation of a surplus computer to the Duwamish Improvement Club. General Fund City Street Arterial Street Land Acq., Building, Dev. General Gov't Improvements Water Fund Sewer Fund Water /Sewer Construction Foster Golf Course Surface Water (412) Equipment Rental Firemen's Pension TOTAL Tukwila City Hal Council Chamber $103,675.16 165,78738 328,102.58 61,237.45 63338 2,052.61 669.72 1,994.28 9,38734 101,623.44 135,396.16 0.00 $910,559.50 b. Accept as complete Interurban Shops second floor remodel project with Bartley's Homes and Remodeling of Federal Way; authorize release of retainage. c. Authorize Mayor to execute developer's agreement with Whitney Bros. which includes a no- protest for future Nelson Place/Longacres drainage project (L.I.D.) and obligation to pay latecomers fees for S. 158th drain interceptor constructed by Embassy Suites development. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Attorney Kenyon read A RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST BY PACIFIC ENGINEERING ON BEHALF OF BAKER COMMODITIES, INC. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF NINE TALLOW TANKS AT 5795 SOUTH 130TH PLACE, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON. City Attorney Mike Kenyon reported that Baker Commodities filed suit against the City as they threatened on September 21. Kenyon stated he was not troubled by this action, that In his opinion discussiot by the council was limited to the record, and that the findings proposed by Vernon Umetsu were supported by the record. Kenyon told Council they could make any changes to the findings that they fell 429 'ukwila City Council - Regular Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 2 Old Business (con't) Res. #1229 - Denying Un- Classified Use Permit for Installation of Nine Tallow Tanks (Baker Commodities) REPORTS Council Staff Intergovernmental ISCELLANEOUS EXECUTIVE SESSION 7:28 p.m. Back to Order ADJOURNMENT 7:55 p.m. E were appropriate given the record, but he urged them not to let the existence of a lawsuit change any action they make take tonight. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, THAT RESOLUTION NO. 1229 BE APPROVED AS READ.* Councilmember Robertson stated he felt the resolution adequately stated the basis for his decision and the facts that were presented to the Council in the two public hearings and materials presented by staff. *MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Hernandez shared information obtained at the Regional Services Committee of the Suburban Cities Association on the Regional Justice Center which will be on the ballot in November. If approved, the five year, $166.2 million levy will cost homeowners $30 per year per $100,000 home. Hernandez reported that the health department also gave a presentation on the proposal to completely revamp the health department system. Their proposal includes the strategy to give Suburban Cities some representation in an advisory capacity on the Public Health Advisory Committee. City Administrator John McFarland told Council that the baby shower held at the community center to benefit the Interim Care Center in Kent was a huge success. Ann Keefe and Linda McFarland organized the event with the support of many city employees. Finance Director Alan Doerschel distributed copies of the Proposed 1993 -1998 Financial Planning Model and Capital Improvement Program and briefly explained the contents of the 157 page report. Council will meet in a special work session on October 14 to discuss the report in depth. Mayor Rants reported that King County has made a proposal to reduce the hours of operation of 12 suburban city pools in order to cut 'hack their expenditures for 1993. Rants emphasized that the proposed reduction is directed at suburban pools only and would not affect the unincorporated pools. Rants noted the consensus of the Suburban Cities Association was that treating swimming pools inside city limits differently than those located outside city limits does not convey true regional approach. Suburban Cities is looking at solutions. Council President Ekberg added his congratulations to Ann Keefe and Linda McFarland, Interim Care baby shower coordinators, and city staff for their work on the successful baby shower. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR 30 MINUTES TO DISCUSS LABOR MATTERS. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Rants called the meeting back to order at 7:54 p.m. with councilmembers in attendance as listed above. MOVED BY SIMPSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED. John W. Rants, Mayor Jane E. Cantu, City Clerk 430 . ITEM INFORMATION .; • CAS Number: 1A • If . Agenda Item Title: Baker Tallow Tanks, Unclassified Use Permit Application 7/13/92 Original Agenda Date: July 13, 1992 Original Sponsor: Council Admin. x Approved Timeline: Sponsor's Recommended Action: Applicant and Staff request continuance to September 14, 1992 without taking further testimony. 9/14/92 Committee Recommendations: 9/21/92 Administrative Recommendations: . Cost Impact Of known): Fund Source (if known): RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION Date Action 7/13/92 Staff presented proposal and summarized actions to date. Council 9/14/92 continued hearing to 7/27/92. 7/27/92 Continue to 9/14/92. 9/14/92 Council public hearing. 9/21/92 Council discussion, and direction that staff prepare a resolution reflecting denial of the application and the consensus basis justification ferthe denial. 10/5/92 APPENDICES Date Attachments 9/14/92 Memo from J. McFarland dated September 9, 1992 9/14/92 Revised Findings b Conc Memo from Rick Beeler, dated September 9, 1992 and recnowndatinns Memo from Rick Beeler, dated 9/9/92 re: Public Information Mgt. on 8/6/! 9/14/92 (Attachment A) gi1aig� �C 8/28.010 and 8/28/120 (Attachment B) 423 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS ITEM NO. &A__ 10/5/92 Memo from Rick Beeler, dated 9/17/92 with attachment letter from Ba Commodities representative. Draft resolution for council action ./Staff memo dated 9/30/92 2 .25 OLD BUSINESS Application for Unclassified Use Permit (Baker Commodities) Tukwila City Council - Regular Meeting September 21, 1992 Page 7 * *MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE; 4) THE NOMINATION BE SUBJECT' TO THE CITY COMPLETING AN UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; 5) THAT THERE IS A COMMITMENT FROM METRO TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED SERVICE FOR THE CENTERS; 6) THAT THERE'S AN ADOPTION OF A REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING STRATEGY THAT SUPPORTS OUR CENTERS; 7) THAT THE FINAL LIST OF CENTERS BE GIVEN VOTING SEATS ON THE PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL FOR LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION, AND INFRASTRUCTURE DECISIONS. ** *MAIN MOTION CARRIED WITH ROBERTSON VOTING NO. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, TO HOLD A SPECIAL SESSION ON SEPTEMBER 28 TO CONSIDER THE FINAL RESOLUTION WITH THE MAPS AND AMENDMENTS. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Mike Kenyon explained that a letter from Stephanie Arend, attorney for Baker Commodities, was received earlier this week and is technically outside the public hearing record of 9/14/92. A motion is needed to reopen the record to accept her letter and a brief response from Associate Planner Vern Umetsu. MOVED BY LAWRENCE, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL REOPEN THE RECORD AND ACCEPT INTO THE RECORD THE SEPTEMBER 16 LETTER FROM STEPHANIE AREND, ATTORNEY FOR BAKER COMMODITIES, AND THE RESPONSE FROM STAFF. MOTION CARRIED. Kenyon explained that Arend's letter states her position and her client's position on how the Council ought to consider the various criteria set forth for determining whether to issue an Unclassified Use Permit. Council's position may or may not be similar to Ms. Arend's. Kenyon pointed out that Vernon Umetsu's memo addresses what staff considers factual errors in Ms. Arend's letter regarding non- conforming use status. From a legal standpoint, Baker Commodities is a non - conforming use. It is a legal non - conforming use because it was in operation as of the adoption date of the Zoning Code in 1982. There are two parts to Council's analyses: 1) analyze the criteria for an Unclassified Use Permit in an up or down vote, and 2) an up or down vote on a non - conforming use status and whether this proposal would constitute an enlargement or increase of an otherwise legal non- conforming use. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO CLOSE THE RECORD AFTER ACCEPTING BOTH THE BAKER COMMODITIES LETTER AND THE MEMO FROM VERNON UMETSU DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1992. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO DENY TI IE REQUEST.* In support of the motion Councilmember Robertson stated that he was basing his argument two things. First, although there had been testimony from Baker Commodities that the tanks would in no way contribute to the air pollution or any other problems, he basically did not believe that, adding that he failed to see how any reasonable person could. Robertson continued that as a councilmember three or four years ago, Council listened to the same arguments and allowed the non - conforming use. The arguments presented to Council then were that the engineering things that would be done to the plant would prevent the release of obnoxious odors. The second part was, Robertson concluded, that they would operate the plant in such a way that there would be no odors. Robertson pointed out that three or four years ago as was testified by the citizens in the last public hearing 408 Tukwila City Council - Regular Meeting September 21, 1992 Page 8 Public Hearing (con't) on this topic, that's not what has happened. He stated he didn't know for a fact whether it is the engineering or the operations of the plant, but it is %'ery clear that the end result of this use of that property is a great nuisance to the properties surrounding it. Second, part of the conditions Council must choose is that "basically the proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses ". In the letter received from the applicant's attorney dated September 16, Ms. Arend states in the second paragraph, point 3, "the proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land use ". Council has to determine that in order to allow this addition. Ms. Arend's letter further states "the site is zoned M -1, is surrounded by river on three sides, and M -2 zoning on the fourth side ". That is true but it misses the point. The fact that the river is on three sides is not the issue. What is really the issue is what else is past the river on those three sides. If the river in question was the Columbia River, maybe we wouldn't have a problem. But since it's the Green River, it's a real issue. Robertson stated that if he took a look at that point and went into the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, there are a series of arguments on page 60 of the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy under Chapter 4, Commerce and Industry, Objective 1: "Encourage a smooth and planned growth of the business community. Policy 1: Encourage the grouping of uses which will mutually and economically benefit each other or provide necessary services'. Robertson stated he did not believe that the addition of these tanks or the enlargement of this facility in any way meets that need or that requirement. It is not beneficial to the businesses around it. Robertson noted his own observations and testimony have shown the opposite to be true. Quoting from Policy 2: "Expansion of existing one where this expansion is compatible with surrounding land use and not detrimental to the public welfare". As stated earlier, Robertson pointed out he did not believe the arguments presented by Baker Commodities that the use of any of their facilities would not be detrimental. Robertson states' "tat the testimony, his own observations, and the public record h:'. "wn that the plant is detrimental to the uses around it ? ^d the pu:i..c. There are very obnoxious odors, they a •xist am'. 'lave existed for a long time. Council listened to the , guments three years ago saying that they could be taken care of by the operation and the engineering of the plant. That same argument was presented a few weeks ago. Robertson asked why he would believe it now when he didn't believe it three years ago and practice and the record has shown that not to be true. Quoting Policy 5: "Promote renovation of areas which are not esthetically pleasing ". Adding tanks certainly does not promote the renovation of an esthetically non - pleasing area. It is esthetically non - pleasing. On three sides of the business there is a golf course, residential areas -- there's a tremendous impact. Objective 2: "Provide adequate land and opportunities for industries and warehouse uses ". Robertson stated he didn't see how this provides anything for warehouse and industrial growth. In fact, it interferes with that. Policy 1: "Discourage the location of hazardous industries or those admitting pollutants in excess of acceptable standards ". That's another Comprehensive Plan that the increased growth of this or the plant's goes against. Policy 2, page 63: "Encourages uses which are supporter of the industrial and warehouse uses to locate in or near such activities ". There is nothing in that use that would encourage the other kinds of uses we've tried to encourage in this area. In conclusion, Robertson stated that to grant this request would violate the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and he would vote to turn it down. *MOTION CARRIED. THE REQUEST TO APPROVE AN UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT IS DENIED UNANIMOUSLY. SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS INCLUDING THE MATERIAL FROM THE STAFF MEMO AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS. MOTION CARRIED. 409 Tukwila City Council - Regular Meeting September 21, 1992 Page 9 Old Business (con't) Application for Unclassified Use Permit (Baker Commodities) Ord. #1634 Recycling/ - Franchise Ord; Ord.# 1635 -TMC Revisions *MOTION CARRIED. Attorney Kenyon explained the second issue to be decided was whether or not the addition of these tanks would constitute an enlargement or increase in an existing non - conforming use. The standar(' non - conforming use law and the TMC prohibit increases or enlargements in non - conforming uses. Councilmember Robertson responded that he felt his argument addressed this issue. Councilmember Duffie agreed. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, THAT COUNCIL CONSIDER THE ADDITION OR ENLARGEMENT OF THE TANKS TO BE AN ENLARGEMENT OF THE EXISTING NON - CONFORMING USE.* Councilmember Robertson stated that based on public testimony and experiences, it was clear that the current use was not only non- conforming but produces obnoxious odors. Further, in his opinion, the enlargement of the use with these tanks would increase the non- conforming use and would be counter to the Comprehensive Land Use Policies. Councilmember Lawrence added that the use also violated the TMC. Mike Kenyon clarified that TMC 18.70 prohibits the enlargement or increase of an existing legal non - conforming use. City Administrator John McFarland gave a brief update of the issue explaining that Council reviewed the proposed ordinance at the 8/24 COW at referred it to the 9/8 Regular meeting. At that time Council directed the staff and the haulers requested the staff review the ordinance further for some possible changes. Rebecca Fox met with the haulers on September 9th and brought their comments and changes to be considered to the 9/15 Utilities Committee meeting. The ordinance being considered at this time includes an intent clause which provides a better perspective of what the City is trying to achieve. The origin of the ordinance lies with RCW 35a.14.900 which requires cities to either buy out or issue at least a five year franchise to solid waste haulers in newly annexed areas. With respect to the pre - annexed areas, the originally incorporated area, the City is free at any time to select a preferred hauler or mode of service delivery. What the City is trying to achieve with this ordinance is that we would not do that until the five year period had passed for the annexation area, thereby having a unified and single approach to consider recycling for the entire City. This is provided for in the intent clause of the ordinance. The hauler's comments have largely been incorporated into the ordinance with one exception. The hauler's had asked for a seven year franchise period. Staff felt that because the City is already two year delinquent in considering this ordinance since the annexations, in effect a seven year period would actually exist. At the end of the five year period, the City can exercise an option. It's not under any particular directive or requirement to make any changes in the program. McFarland explained that the ordinance in the packet had been revised to include the intent clause. Associate Planner Rebecca Fox distributed a copy of the revised ordinance. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Reading from the original ordinance in agenda packet Attorney Kenyon read: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, GRANTING EXCLUSIVE AND NON- EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISES TO COMPANIES OPERATING NOW UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF RCW 81.77 AND OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, FOR THE OPERATION OF A GARBAGE, REFUSE, AND RECYCLING COLLECTION AND REMOVAL BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA. 410 A verbatim transcript of the Public Hearing held September 14, 1992 at the Committee of the Whole Council Meeting (Baker Commodities). PUBLIC HEARING Baker Commodities unclassified use permit application. Vernon Umetsu: The Public Hearing opened at 7:42 p.m. Vern Umetsu, DCD, stated this hearing is a quasi judicial hearing, and the Mayor is a participant in these proceedings, no position is being presented on this issue on behalf of the Mayor's office. Umetsu stated that Baker Tallow Tanks is File #L92 -0010. He said the proposal is from Baker Commodities to install nine tallow tanks at the Baker Plant. These tanks are integral to increasing the operational efficiency of the plant and will not affect the level of odors generated or significantly affect the truck traffic generated from the site. As such, these tanks will be the first improvements since 1982 when the plant became legal non - conforming to deal solely with operations and not with decreasing level of odor non - conformity. Improvements since 1982 have been approved by the City, but they've all been related to reducing the level of nuisance odors. The key, initial question to reviewing this proposal is whether the plant continue to be a non - conforming use which generates nuisance levels of odors. If yes, then the expansion would not be allowed since it would violate the zoning code, which requires that "No such non - conforming use shall be enlarged, or increased, or extended to occupy a greater use than was occupied at the effective date of adoption of this title," -1982. If it is not nuisance operation, then the tallow tanks need to be reviewed for conformity with the unclassified use criteria. He stated that at the time of the Planning Commission review and public hearing, staff had had discussion with Foster Golf Course, maintenance staff, reviewed PSAPCA records for nuisance complaints /odor complaints, and discussed all data with the City Attorney regarding whether nuisance levels of odors or truck traffic existed. At that time, the data led staff to believe that there were no nuisances being generated at the site. This was reinforced by the absence of any residents or business testimony at the Planning Commission Public Hearing after wide- spread notice had been given in the Hazelnut. Now based on this information and the staff report and the testimony received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended Council approval in April. Now since that time, we've received additional information. This additional information was initially presented at the City Council Public Hearing on July 13, at which time the Council continued the hearing to allow the best possible resolution of three general issues: 1) Enforcement of odor regulation after PSAPCA had been closed for the day (after the normal working hours). 2) Resolution of truck traffic using 56th Avenue; and, 3) Reviewing the magnitude and scope of odor impacts with special notice being given to Foster Comments, I believe, upon Skyway. Enforcement of odor regulations after PSAPCA's closed, with respect to that, we've worked out an agreement with PSAPCA, the Tukwila Police Department, with the full support of the Administration that 911 is the number that will be available for residents to call. Tukwila Police verification would be accepted by PSAPCA, and PSAPCA would use their enforcement personnel and attorneys to levy whatever fines that are appropriate in those cases. PSAPCA has extremely significant fines, much more than our nuisance ordinance would allowed. We've already met with the Police Department, police staff, personnel, patrol officers have been briefed. We've met with PSAPCA's inspectors regarding the forms mat tney need to see filled out and we are pretty much ready to go with the program. Regarding truck traffic on 56th Avenue, the City Engineer has reviewed that issue and basically concluded that the voluntary system that is currently in effect, where Baker works with the independent haulers to let them know that 56th Avenue should not be use, has been very effective in keeping trucks off that roadway. However, he's concerned that a system of signage really would not be effective. His experience has shown that in these types of situations, signage, because they would have to, basically, make a turn- around -to go all the way up to 115th and it's very, very difficult. Ah, he thinks that the existing situation with additional, ah, reminders from Baker Commodities to the 20% truck traffic which independent haulers would be sufficient is the best, basically, we can get in this matter. In reviewing the magnitude and scope of odor impacts of the operations and truck traffic, staff has made significant additional work in focusing on this odor issue. We have summarized our findings in "G" which was distributed to you tonight. This is 361 Verbatim Transcript Public Hearing (Baker Commodities) September 14, 1992 Page 2 Umetsu: Council President Ekberg: City Attorney Mike Kenyon: Duffle: Ekberg: Duffle: Ekberg: Hernandez: Kenyon: Hernandez: Kenyon: Hernandez: Kenyon: Hernandez: Robertson: basically information that we got from July 13, 1992 Public Hearing; A public information meeting that the Planning Staff held for residents of Foster Point and businesses in the same proximity along Interurban and in Skyway. We've also held field interviews with Tukwila residents who live on exposed property and had discussions with other agencies' staff. This new information has led staff to conclude in findings 1, 2, 3 in our report that the testimony received at the Planning Commission was incomplete, made available to the Planning Commission at the time that the decision was incomplete. And that nuisance levels of odors are currently being generated on a regular basis from Baker Commodities. As such, Baker operations continue to be legally non- conforming and subject to TMC 18.70.040, Sub Section 1 which says that "No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased nor extended to occupy a greater use than was occupied at the effective date of adoption of this title." Therefore, staff reverses its previous recommendation and recommends denial of the proposed tallow tanks until such time as Baker is able to demonstrate no nuisance generated - -no nuisance odors, truck traffic, etc. generated at their site. Are there any questions? Looks like non at this point. I like to remind the Council this is a quasi-judicial hearing, and maybe Mr. Kenyon can give us a quick, one or two sentence on what that means for our recollection; and then we will go into citizen's comments regarding this public hearing process on the tallow tanks. It's real simple, just act as if you are judges with the black robes on. If you have had x -party or one -on -one conversation with anybody from the Planning Staff, or anybody from Baker since the last time we were here in July, disclose those now. If you haven't, stand mute and listen to Baker's presentation and any staff rebuttal and any citizens comments. We're not going to debate with the ...I mean we're not going to... This is a hearing, we'll only hear from the proponents and opponents of the issue. After we close the public hearing, we will have discussion. We're not discussing with the citizen? After the public hearing, we will have discussion. I would like to clarify that I've not had any discussion with Council, staff or Baker, but I've had discussions with citizens who have continued to complain to me about this issue that I believe are here tonight, they probably will testify. When were those, Joan? Since our last public hearing. How did those come about? It has come up by people saying that they had just become aware that it was an issue on the agenda, and I've said if it's still an issue, then you are to come tonight and voice your concerns. No further substantive discussion other than... Not in depth, no, nothing. I would like to make the same disclosure. I have had citizens bring the topic up to me and in every case I've told them that it is a quasi-judicial item and that I cannot discuss it with them, that they should come to the public hearing. 362 Verbatim Transcript Public Hearing (Baker Commodities) September 14, 1992 Page 3 Simpson: Kenyon: Council Ekberg: Umetsu: Ekberg: PROPONENTS Rick Thompkins: Stephanie Aaron: Same with myself. You haven't suggested any offensive courses of action for them, you haven't disclosed any discussions that might have taken place off the record? The Council responded by a nodding of heads signifying "no." Vern do you have any further comments? I'm just waiting here in case you have any questions. I'd like to hear from the proponents of the said project. Please feel free to come forward if you like to make any statements; otherwise, we'll open it up for general comments from the audience. Good evening, my name is Rick Thompkins, I work for Pacific Engineering, I'm here on behalf of Baker Commodities. I just want to bring you up to date on what we've been up to since our last hearing. As you may recall, we were concerned that we were hearing about problems from various sources and hearing about it now and not having been made aware of them in some, in some sort of, any kind of frequency before the hearing. Then we had a subsequent to our public hearing, we had a (public included) information meeting where various members of the community came and voiced their concerns, legitimate concerns, and at that point we could react to them. But the amount, numbers, of complaints we've had in the past months have been very minor and was brought to our attention by PSAPCA, so it was difficult to react to them when nobody had problems to address earlier. As a result of what we heard from the public information meeting, additional review was done of the plans, and it was determined that there was a possibility that there was some improvement could be made in handing the Bakers off of waste water treatment; and therefore, additional air scrubbers were ordered and one is in the process of being installed and another one is on it's, ah, ah, ah, in route, and ah, we hope that once those are installed that the...ah, ah, that will mitigate, ah some of these other episode we've been having. Basically, that's what we've done to date that's pro- active and made ourselves available for questions from staff and from the community. We have some general questions regarding how the, how the ordinance is being applied to us. Baker Commodities' Counselor is here tonight, and I would like to introduce her so she can ask those questions. Good evening, my name is Stephanie Aaron, I'm an attorney with the Law Firm of Gordon/I'homas/�ioneywell. My office address is 2200 First Interstate Plaza, Tacoma, 98401. And I am here on behalf of the applicant Baker Commodities. As Planning Staff has testified, this is an Unclassified Use Permit application to locate 9 tanks to store tallow on site; and currently, on the site, as you all know, is a rendering plant. The Planning Department originally reviewed this application and recommended to the Planning Commission approval of the permit. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission who analyzed the criteria of the Unclassified Use Permit Code for the City of Tukwila, and also recommended approval of the permit. Since that time, as has been indicated on September 9, staff issued a new report changing their recommendation of approval. That report was faxed to my client at 4:45 on Friday, September 11. That report is very troubling to me for several reasons and certainly to my client. First of all because it's out of order with regards to the procedure that is set forth in the Tukwila Code for Unclassified Use Permits; but more importantly, because it deflects the discussion away from the substance of the permit application which is whether or not a permit should be issued for 9 storage tanks on this site. As I'm sure you are aware, the hearing process is set forth in the Code at Section 18.66.050, and if 363 Verbatim Transcript Public Hearing (Baker Commodities) September 14, 1992 Page 4 Aaron: you would just indulge me for a moment, I'd like to go over with you what that Code provision says and what the process is that's suppose to be followed. It starts off by saying: "Upon completion of review of the proposed project by the Planning Department..." So clearly they are the first ones to review it. And when they are completed with their review, "The Planning Commission shall schedule a public hearing..." Which is what happened in this case. Jurisdiction is then with the Planning Commission who holds a public hearing after proper notice. And it goes on to state that--"The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation regarding the proposed project whi. , hall be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration..." And that has been done in this case. After completion of review by the Planning Department, it is no longer within their purview -. • heir jurisdiction--to go back and re- review the issue that had alreac'2 ::en before them. A public hearing was held and the recommendation of the Planning Commission is what you are suppose to consider. Why is that important? That's important for at least two reasons: one is because it's important that we follow the processes that are set forth in the ordinance. There are constitutional reasons for doing that. The other reason is because the public hearing process before the Planning Commission and here before the Council creates a record for appeal. The decision that you make, and if it is appealed (either by the applicant or by another party-- member of the general public) will be on the record that was formed before the Planning Commission and here tonight in this hearing process, not at any other time. And it is important that the process is properly followed for that reason. That's emphasized by the last portion of 18.66.050 which says--"The City Council need not hold a public hearing on the permit application but shall consider the Planning Commission recommendation at a Regular Council meeting..." In other words, simply on the evidence that was presented before the Planning Commission, you would have the authority, under your Code, to make a decision based on their recommendation. So it is my position that their September 9 report, where they changed their recommendation, is out of order and shouldn't be considered. I'd like to go back to the substance a little bit of Unclassified Use Permit and it's criteria which are set forth in Section 18.66.060. There are 5 criteria there which were very thoroughly analyzed by the Planning Department initially and by the Planning Commission. The most telling evidence on this criteria was submitted in letter format. The one issue that was raised as a concern, which is the odor; and, that is in the letter from Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency dated May 19, 1992. And there are two sentences that I would like to read to you: The increase of tallow stored is coming from offsite and is not process on site so there is no increase in rendering to the air in Tukwila. There were no complaints of air pollution or odor when these tanks were at the Port of Seattle. Now, to my knowledge that is the best evidence that you have before you as to the impacts on air quality as a result of storage tanks for storing tallow is in that letter. I'm not aware of any other evidence that is before you with regards to air quality with regards to tanks. Now the September 9 Staff Report and a lot of the testimony from the public, as I understand it (I wasn't at the hearing, admittedly) focuses on the plant as it currently exits. Well, that is an enforcement issue. That is not an issue that is properly considered under the criteria for the Unclassified Use Permit. And what suggests even more to me that it is an enforcement issue is the last paragraph in the recommendation of the September 9 staff report which says to you Planning Staff recommends that the Council should find that this improvement would be appropriate at such time as the use ceases to generate nuisance impacts, etc. What Planning is attempting to do is to enforce some other Code provisions against the existing facility which is not properly considered as part of whether or not this Unclassified Use Permit should be granted or denied. If there's an enforcement action necessary because an ordinance or a nuisance or something is being violated, that's a separate issue that your Code provides for that goes through enforcement channels is not considered under the Unclassified Use Permit provision. That raises another issue that was raised tonight by Planning Staff stating that this became a non- conforming use in 1982 and 364 Verbatim Transcript Public Hearing (Baker Commodities) September 14, 1992 Page 5 Aaron: for that reason who are you to look at nuisance in this analysis. Well, I would direct your attention to the Planning Commission minutes which state, in the Background Section--"Between 1976 to 1982, probably with the adoption of the 1982 Code, the Rendering Works became an Unclassified Use, with all further improvements requiring an Unclassified Use Permit. ". It did not suggest in there that it was a non - conforming use. I must admit to the Council that I have not had the opportunity to go back and research the history of the zoning on this particular piece of property. But it is zoned M- 1 - -that is in light of the permitted uses in an M -1 zone, and that a rendering plant is specifically listed as an unclassified use - -the most likely place for you to put these storage tanks. In summation, I would just like to say that there has been no evidence, no competent evidence, of any kind- -with regards to the storage tanks which is the issue before you - -that would allow you to deny this permit. All of the 5 criteria for the Unclassified Use Permit have been thoroughly analyzed, they are in the Planning Commission minutes and the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission and we commend you to approve the permit. I will be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Ekberg: Anyone feel free to step forward and give us your name and address and your comments regarding the public hearing and the tallow tanks. Ted Bear: My name is Ted Bear, I live at 5703 Pamela Drive South. That specific location is directly across the river from the ...I'm trying to locate this for you, it's...for anyone here .. it's the green at the end of the first fairway on Foster Golf Course and I'm directly, probably...almost do north /northwest of the plant of a half mile. I purchased a home and moved in June 10. So I ve been in there 94 days as of today, and I've kept pretty good track every since a lot of this came out. I was at this meeting about a month ago and in all difference to the lady that spoke, I wish she'd come down to my house 5:00 every morning, not every morning, I think it's 43 out of the 90 some days that I've been there that you literally cannot go outside my home. I'm a very early riser, take a cup of coffee and go outside and it makes me sick to my stomach, I go back in the house. And that's usually has to do with the wind or the lack of wind. The odor comes from the plant, comes.. moves north up the Valley until the sun rises and the air stirs, or whatever and things begin to move around. About a week ago I hesitated, I was at this meeting and they suggested calling 911. I've never called 911 in my life about anything, I'm just not inclined to do - that kind of thing, I finally did, about a week ago and I was surprised because the 911 people were appraised of the situation and said "Yes," we know what you are talking about, we're have an officer ... an hour and a half later he shows up and I knew he had better things to be doing than to be worrying about my nose. But anyhow, he came out and the young officer warned me that he had no ability to write a violation or anything like that. He suggested I call Puget Sound Air Pollution Control, etc. The main thing I was just making him apprised of it and realizing that this meeting was coming up. That was just one out of the last...every since this meeting a month or so ago... you just have to trust me. I live there and quality of life is really affected by this thing. It just...I, I can't even believe it doesn't get inside of my house. But for some reason, I'm able to live in the home, but when I go outside it's just unbearable, usually in the early morning hours, and there was a lady here that lives somewhat near me a week earlier... (a barn throw away)... that obviously ...It's been going on for many years and learned alot then.. . I wasn't aware of it when I bought my home. Now, ... it's a bad, bad thing, and I would invite this lady attorney who's, you know .. I'm sure she's doing her job... but I'd love her to come out to my home at about 5:00 in he morning and try and set outside with me and a cup of coffee on this coming Saturday morning. This Saturday... there were a couple of gentlemen from the plant here last time that acted dumb, like there was nothing ... well, why Saturdays, well, I don't know what they do, you know, I'm not familiar with their plant or whatever, and they talk about putting equipment in and struggling and this, that and the other. It doesn't matter, my quality of life is highly affected by this thing. And I have the feeling that anything that would 365 Verbatim Transcript Public Hearing (Baker Commodities) September 14, 1992 - Page 6 Bear: Ruth O'Brien: Anna Bernhard: create an odor that strong, this sickening, sweet odor... and I was two years in Nam and I know what dead people smell like and it's real close, it can't be good for your health. And ... I've heard through other neighbors that they've called Puget Sound Air Pollution and there's not all that much ... nobody does, you know...the calvary doesn't come charging down there. But I would dearly love to have them come down there, because I understand they have the authority and that's what the officer from the Tukwila Police Department told me that he couldn't ... he wasn't ... in authority to write a violation, that it would have to be Puget Sound Air Pollution. The whole thing amazes me that we live in a wonderful area, I love what I bought, the wild life, the river and all that, and then you sit out there and then to be actually driven away from the river, I have to get back inside of the house because you can't breathe out there when the wind's blowing wrong, that odor comes down the river, it's incredible. And, I, I, you know, I, I, my whole thing is, I don't want to be a bad neighbor, but I think, my God, how long you know whether you people make some kind of thing about worrying about 9 tallow tanks or not, how long can the plant itself ... unless they put a plastic bubble over the thing. .. and they can live with whatever goes on in there...how long can that plant stay in existence with the growth that's going on around this area ...and there's a tremendous pressure of, you know, ... if I just go out there, I'll find some homes, but there are new things going on, let's see, there a new apartment going up around me, and I know I can't be the only one that's complaining about this. And just a complaint, it really truly... it like a ...I wonder about...I guess I can appreciate the things I read in the paper about people living near Hansford, you know, that news. Well, what's the difference what kills you. This is not... you can't...no one here can convince me that the bacteria or whatever is creating the odor down there is something that is healthy to breathe and live with. And. ..I guess my question is the hell with the 9 tallow tanks, how long can the plant stay in existence there without pressure from me and all my neighbors banning it out because it is non-complying equipment. It belongs 50 miles on the other side of Yakima or wherever that kind of thing can be tolerated. Thank you very much. My name is Ruth O'Brien, and I live at 8429 5th Avenue Southwest, Settle. The reason I'm hear tonight is because I frequently play golf at Foster Golf Links. And I had the unfortunate experience of playing there twice on Labor Day weekend. And it was a much exaggerated experience of what I have had on many weekends this summer. The stench at 9:00 on Saturday morning from the rendering plant was so bad that one of the ladies in my group actually got physically ill on the second tee. She has an allergy problem, she began coughing, she could not breathe, we were all nearly sick. I played again on Monday, and had invited a group of family members out to have a little tournament, and I was totally humiliated at the smell that we had to put up with on the golf course. And this seems to go on weekend after weekend during the summer. My feeling about the plant is that they constantly violate on the weekend when they think that no one will complain and no one will catch them. I really hope that we will not be held hostage to some high- powered attorney coming in here threatening you, and that you will do what's right for not only citizens of Tukwila, but for those of us who use Fort Dent Park, Foster Golf Links, and who want to enjoy some quality of air. Thank you. I'm Anna Bernhard, 14241 59th Avenue South, and I have said this before, exactly what we've heard here tonight, the weekends seem to be the worst time that they just somehow don't seem to care or there's no control. And I have also said that is not only for the people in Tukwila, it is for the people that play on our golf course. It is ideally to play on the golf course, but it is for anyone that passes through our City of lives in the surrounding area and I think the Council is responsible. We need to take care of this problem. Twenty years ago this or. ..fifteen years ago this plant was modernized. I remember the problem was worse than it is now, much worse twenty years ago. And it was then modernized and we were guaranteed when we had all these hearing, that this was not going to occur, this modern equipment was going to be guaranteed, safe and everything, and it is not r r' Verbatim Transcript Public Hearing (Baker Commodities) September 14, 1992 Page 7 Bernhard: JoAnne McMannis: Ivory Davis: Rosemary Hersheff: Kenyon: true, it is not true. And if we're going to store this can they gu us that they are not going to leak or whatever. I mean, if ther guarantee, forget it. Lets not do this. We don't need this. W working on a new Comprehensive Plan and we're trying to im our City, we want to make it more livable, more beautiful, mo whatever. We do not need this. Thank you. My name is Rosemary Hersheff, I live at 13325 56th Avenue S and I didn't intend to speak tonight so I'm not very well prepa one comment I think should be made on the comment of the that for all the time that the tanks were at the Port of Seattle t were no complaints about odors. Well, the Port of Seattle is n residential area and people working in that area would not be complain about things like noise and odors, but we are. This f completely, totally surrounded by residences. All Foster Point residential with the exception of one or two lots. Up above, o there's a trailer park on Beacon Coal Mine Road. There's the Commons Apartments, there's the golf course there, there's a recreational facility. Up the hill on the other side of the golf c the south is all residential -- apartments mostly. So I think you . when you hear there were no complaints where the tanks we located previously, you have to take that with a grain of salt. you. 0 rantee 's no are p rove e My name is JoAnne McMannis, I live at 5610 South 133rd. Y u all know how I feel about it, I've told you many times. The one t ing that I feel, they say there will not be any odors if they put the tallo tanks in. They told us before when they renovated there would be n • odors. There is no guarantee and I live close and I don't want to take a chance. It's bad enough when we do have odors. My husban . golf every Wednesday at Foster. And every Wednesday he comes ome complaining about the odors - -it's early in the morning and lat at night. For years we called Puget Sound Air Pollution Control. We file complaints, they would come out when they got around to it. ter a couple of years you get tired. I mean, I've lived down there fo sixteen /seventeen years, and you complain year after year and ou get tired and then you quit complaining because it does no good. he other problem is the trucks coming down that one -way road. ey have stopped a lot of them from coming down 56th. However there are still some independent haulers that come down our way, a d there gas or whatever the big tanker truck is. But on that one -way road, there is going to be an accident, it is dangerous. On that corn :r down there when they have to stop at the stop sign the City put in, a lot of times stuff is running out the back of the truck where it leaves : mess on the road. Some of these cars don't stop at that stop sign. Somebody is going to get hurt or killed, and I think we should 't take anymore chances with them. We can't be guaranteed absolut ly where we could believe that we will not have more odors and don't think that they should be allowed to put the tanks in and subje t all the people, it isn't only the people on Foster Point, it's all over Tu ila. My daughter lives on the hill up by the Church, they have odo s. I have friends that live up in the trailer park on Empire Way, th y have terrible odors up there. I don't think the people of Tukwila should be subjected to all that noxious fumes. Thank you. I'm Ivory Davis, I live at 13341 56th Avenue South, I've lived t ere over 30 years, and I would like .. , the lady attorney made some comments that I don't believ are really true about the planning she...zoning because we were of in Tukwila and they were not in Tukwila in 1970s. I...so, I think she said some things that were really in error. I would just like to back up everything that has been said. The odors have been there for ; 0 some years and my visions of Tukwila is making it a beautiful place • live. I'm proud to be in Tukwila. I worked long and hard to get in to Tukwila and I wish that you would take that into consideratio that we want Tukwila to be a beautiful place to live. Thank you. uth, ed. But ttorney ere to pt to cility is is the hill, Foster urse, to hould.. e hank Council, may I interrupt just for a minute. Let me remind the ouncil and the speakers to the extent possible, the issue here is only t e addition of the 9 tanks. It is not Seattle Rendering Work or 36 ' Kenyon: Kenyon: Robertson: Bill Haggard: Verbatim Transcript Public Hearing (Baker Commodities) September 14, 1992 Page 8 Baker Commodities as guaranteeing whether it is good or bad. It is... It's just the addition of the 9 tanks, and whether that addition is deserving in your judgement of Unclassified Use Permit. So, to the extent there have been comments made by speakers so far along the lines that Seattle Rendering Works, this, this plant should not be, period, you are to disregard those and I encourage future speakers to try to avoid that topic. I realize this is emotional for some of you, but the Council cannot consider that. Duffle: Could I ask the attorney a question? Ekberg: Sure. Duffle: Even though she's the one addressed Seattle Port, where the tanks were, and yet the others have no right to comments. Kenyon: No, that was a fair comment, but there have been other comments sort of generally dealing with Seattle Rendering Works just being bad, that's not appropriate here. Certainly, anything that any representative of, of, of,...I guess it's Baker Commodities now, brings up is fair game for discussion and rebuttal. Duffle: OK, if the citizens want to talk about the smell, is that ok. I think one issue here, one issue addressed by the staff, is whether the addition of these tanks will increase the smell. Robertson: Could I ask a question right here? Ekberg:. Sure. Robertson: Could the past operation by Baker of their current facilities, can that past operation be used as a basis for suspecting the future or concluding the future operations of the tallow of the new tanks would possibly be a nuisance? The point I'm trying to say is that, that, there is ... if one concluded that the past operation had allowed a nuisance to occur, and that the new tanks were operating in such... in the same manner, then it's... from what... it may be possible that the addition of the new tanks would not conform to the comprehensive land use plan and zoning code as far as the permit use? is that possible? Kenyon: This really can't be a yes or no answer. If you concluded hypothetically (as some have concluded) that past operations may have constituted a nuisance, then as Ms. Aaron stated, that's probably is an enforcement question. What you need to focus on, however, are the factors, and I think it's 18.66.060 - -the factors that you look at to determine whether or not an Unclassified Use Permit is appropriate and a couple of things you just mentioned are listed there -- zoning, etc. Thank you. My name is Bill Haggard, and I live at 11532 40th Avenue South, and I'm north or northwest of Baler. But anyway, I'd like to say is that I think that Baker is in sort of a tough spot. I think that they are sort of a victim of urban sprawl. When Baker found their location down there, they probably found a good spot, because 50 years ago when they moved down there, there was kind of a hidden away, little corner of the City, you know, where farmers and butchers and whoever else uses it, you know, it could be, ah, you know farmers, ah, I think now, I think that they should be farther out of town. But ah, anyway, considering the tanks, I think we're just going in the wrong diection, with the tanks. I think Baker ought to be considering down sizing - them, outright, because I think of the future of Baker is probably limited, because as other people have said, you know, there are a lot of people moving down here, and it's really a beautiful little area where there... all the houses sitting on the river there and the golf course and, you know, and I think it's probably time for a change. Thanks. 368 • Verbatim Transcript Public Hearing (Baker Commodities) September 14, 1992 Page 9 Ruth O'Brien: REBUTTAL Ekberg: Ruth O'Brien: Attorney Aaron: Ted Bears: May I add another comment to my statement? The public hearing process is open for rebuttal or original statements. Again, my name is Ruth O'Brien, and from a business standpoint, it seems unreasonable to me that a company that has a petition before you for a Use Permit at this time, should continue to violate all the time that this is pending, and I think this is an indication of how they are going to continue to conduct themselves. And the worse violation I have seen this year occurred on the very weekend before, I believe, they thought you would make a decision to approve. So they apparently think that none of us will stand up and complain because people are so use to that smell. And I think that they have shown an ongoing track record down there of violating on weekends, thinking that no one will say anything about it because we haven't complained before. And I think that should be a factor that should be considered when you are looking at allowing them to bring in 9 more tanks, because I can't, for one little minutes, believe that 9 more tanks of tallow will not add that much additional odor for all of us to contend with. Thank you. If I might add, thank you for the opportunity to rebut some of the comments that have been made to clarify a few things. I was brought into this today, so I don't have a whole lot of history with this plant, or quite candidly, your processes. But I'm lying heavily on the Planning Commission minutes which are, I assume all of you have, which states that these tanks would not increase processing capacity and I think that maybe somewhere the information has gotten muddled. These storage tanks, as I understand it, there are no storage tanks existing on the site at the moment. So these are not 9 additional storage tanks, these are 9 storage tanks. My understanding, and I'm not an engineer, is that these have been engineered in such so as to eliminate the odors or substantially protect against the emission of odors from what's being stored in the tanks. It doesn't increase, from my reading of the minutes, and my consultation with the client, it's going to increase the amount of trucks that are brought in and out. If anything, the same amount of material is going to be processed, raw materials are going to be processed, that is what's brought in with the trucks. The only different now is that some of it will be stored on the site so instead of having to process it, take it off the site, bring it back onto the site for additional processing, it will just remain on the site. So you are not really adding anything, it's simply storing it. The mitigation measures that have been recommended by Planning and the Planning Commission really go to the aesthetics in concealing this and addressing the odor concerns of the storage tanks. Thank you. Well all of you, I understand what's she's saying and I want everyone of you all to understand I'm a new resident here and you are going to see my face a lot. I'm trying to make some common sense. That plant, as far as I'm concerned and all my neighbors and all the comments you've heard tonight, is heading downhill and better be out of here somewhere down the line - -not allow to grow. Now whether they can finagle all of us to believe that they're not going to increase the capacity of the place...I heard a gentleman, the manager or whoever it was talked here a month ago, and say that two thirds of the stuff that comes into that place comes from Eastern Washington. Great, move the plant over there - -about 40 miles on the other side of Yakima, downwind because I'm sure they will be doing the same thing that we're doing. I can't believe anybody here that got common sense, ah whatever, and we all pay taxes and whatever, I want quality of life, I going to fight this thing and if you all don't do it, I'll get an attorney, because ... this, I can't believe that the people in my neighborhood will put up with this. I heard a lady called out 30 years, no way. It better be out of here soon, and not standing here worrying about 369 Verbatim Transcript Public Hearing (Baker Commodities) September 14, 1992 Page 10 Bear: Ekberg: Rosemary Hersheff: putting 9 new tanks in and whether it increases or decreases the facilities of the plant or whether they're increasing the production or whatever. Horse, let's stop right here. Let's...I think you people better put the word to them that...I've heard that the attorney here, and that's what this is all about, and I spoke wrongly too, I'm saying 9 new tanks, don't kid me. That means- that there's new...whether it being brought off, on...it's for their facilitation to move it from someplace where it didn't stink before to a place where it stinks now, it doesn't matter. You are allowing them to increase the financial, whatever, into their plan. There are growing. It's not decreasing. They're not coming in here saying they want to remove 9 tanks so that they can decrease their product or whatever it is. So I'm standing on record as saying you don't pull any wool over my eyes. I know what they are doing and you all do to and whether it increases the stink or whatever, doesn't matter, the place is non - complying. I've heard that mentioned at the last meeting that that's a non - compliance use of that land. They've got an increasing, incredible rope around us. I've lived in Seattle now for 30 some years, in several different areas, and I've watch it like we all have. There's a tremendous pressure here of residential...and everyone of us is seeking one thing and that is a better life for ourselves as far as being able to have a quality of life and I just spent all of my money in buying what I thought an incredible place by a river, across from the golf course and I thought I had the perfect thing until after I signed the papers - -the first south wind blew and I said, Oh my God, what is that. OK, that...I have a capital investment also in my property. Obviously, I don't have the... unclear)... that they have because that is a commercial organization down there, but I do know where I...for some reason, to stand right where I am and I have my right to stand here and tell you, you're...I'm on your back, all of it, and this is not going to stay, attorneys or no attorneys. Thank you. Before we hear from staff I'd like to ask are there any other citizens comments tonight. Please. My name is Rosemary Hersheff, and I attended the last meeting this summer and I was given the impression that approval would be contingent on how well Baker Commodities conform to the odor compliance issue. And I would assume that they would have gone all out to make sure there were no odors between that day and this. But like several people have said, the very worst I've ever smelled was over Labor Day weekend. But it has been ongoing. I haven't notice that they've made really any effort even knowing that getting approval for those tanks - -and that was what was stated at that last meeting that it would be contingent on that they would comply with the odor abatement. Eric Thompson: This is a very emotional issue here. I just like to make one point - -these ladies here spoke earlier about somebody being very sick on Labor Day, on Labor Day weekend, and it was very emotional and a very telling testimony. The Plan was not operating on that weekend. The Plant was closed Saturday and Sunday and Monday. Now, I don't know if that has any great bearing on it, but there are other odor sources in the area, not to deflect blame, because I'm sure that there are improvements that can't be done to help mitigate any problems that occur generally, but has anybody considered the proximity of the Renton Treatment Plant. Obviously, when we're not operating we can't be generating the odors. And, I guess that's all I have to say. Vern Umetsu: We, we did talk with the applicant on approximately last Tuesday to discuss our preliminary findings; however, we didn't... Ekberg: Speak into the microphone, Please. Duffle: Yes, speak into the microphone. Umetsu: We did talk with the applicant to discuss our preliminary findings /preliminary recommendations on approximately last week (Tuesday); however, not any earlier because we were trying to keep an open mind trying, ah, collecting whatever information we could...we did...then...we had talked on Tuesday as 370 Verbatim Transcript Public Hearing (Baker Commodities) September 14 Page 11 Umetsu: the report was coming out. On page 9 of your attachment, Conclusions -4, that the nuisance odors generally mean that the plant does not satisfy the Unclassified Use criteria in TMC 18.66, items 3 and 4. Also, I want you to continue to note that these odors may be found in non - conforming use, clearly the purpose of the non- conforming use Chapter -- 18.70 - -was to insure that there would be no increase in size of the nonconforming uses (HARD TO DECIPHER) Specifically, in Section 1 where the (unclear) too much movement and rattling of paper...(unclear)... the tallow tanks themselves do not increase tank capacity, however, they do increase operation efficiency by moving it on site instead of having is some where else where this would have the effect of possibly extending the operational life or the economic life of the facility. NOTE: ... Umetsu spoke a few more lines here, but I was unable to decipher due to his shuffling of papers and not speaking directly into the microphone... Ekberg: At this point I'd like to open up for questions and clarification of the questions from the Council to the different people that spoke. It's not a time to make comments or statements, but time for asking for questions and clarifying those. Robertson: I guess the first question I would like to ask is of our City Attorney - -the arguments that were presented by the Baker Commodities' Attorney, have you heard those previously or did you receive them? Kenyon: No, but I...I was on vacation last week it's certainly wonderful to be back for this. A couple of things, it is important -- although it's difficult - -to separate the issues and really focus only on the addition of these tanks. Baker Commodities is there and it has a right to be there right now. So don't, don't let anything to the contrary affect your decision. Ms. Aaron indicated to you, correctly, that the Code provides that the...you, you do not need to have a public hearing on this after the Planning Commission has done so. You can, however, have a public hearing. That's your right, it's a good idea, you can tell by the turnout here - -that was originally scheduled in July. To the extent there may have been any procedural problems, and I don't believe there were, any of those problems would have been waived by the fact that the continuance, from July (whenever it was) til tonight, was agreed. The Planning Staff got together with the Baker people and said, hey, here is some new information that came up, we need to get together and work this out and that's what was mutually agreed. So, as far as tonight, you are free to have this hearing, you're certainly not prohibited from doing so, and you're free to consider what has been put in front of you tonight. So I don't ... with all due respect to Ms. Aaron - -and certainly that's why law suits start because two lawyers have different. opinions - -I don't think there's a procedural problem. If there was one, I think Baker waived it by agreeing (which I commend them) for frankly, by agreeing to try to work with staff and come up with a solution to this. Whether there's a solution or not is up to you, based on the fact there may be 66 dealing with the classified use permits and another issue whether 18.70 enlargement or increase of a non - conforming use. Duffle: OK, well, Kind of put me in a disadvantage because of what I want to say, but I'll say it and we can go from there. Number 1, I want to clarify one thing on air pollution. I don't know how many of you all out there have ever called (on the Council) have ever called air patrol, I mean air pollution. If you call and can get them out here, I would love to see them. I've been living in my home now for ...I have not had success in calling those people to come out. Last week I called, I leave my home every night at 7:30, around 7:30 or 6:30 going down Interurban. Now, I have to be honest, I don't know smell...what smell I be smelling, but it's terrible. And I live up there on 140th, on top of the hill. Now, my concern is we put a lot of these 9 tanks up there, number 1, how long will they stay there to hold the stuff that is in there once they put it in there, how long are they going to hold those for a holding tanks? And I have never seen anyone to be nh1P to trnncfer anything from one '2 M 1 Duffle: Bill Hammond: Hernandez: Lawrence: Hammond: Lawrence: IIammond: Verbatim Transcript Public Hearing (Baker Commodities) September 14 Page 12 Ekberg: Someone can respond to that. Duffle: OK, 1942 Hammond: Yessir. tank or one thing from one can without spilling. If they do, gee -wiz, I'd like to know because I think I would have a great deal of a problem with that. And even when we pump gas we have a great deal of problem ust trying to put gas in the tank. So if they can transfer garbage from one tank to the other without spilling and without the odor I'd like to know how we can do that. Because I'm having a problem with storing these 9 tanks on the site. What the condition is and what type of steel they are made out of, and I haven't seen a piece of steel yet that would not rust or that would not decay. So what quality of steel these tanks are going to be made out of, number 1. Are they galvanized, are they pure steel, are they aluminum, or what kind of tank? I'm Bill Hammond, General Manager, Baker Commodities and with regards to your uestions on...all of it is steel, it's 3 /16th steel, and it's impervious to tallow, will not rust. Those tanks have been down in Seattle at least since 1942 and when we sounded them, they are still 200th which would be 3 /16ths. Duffle: And they still solid...you haven't had any leaking in those tanks. Hammond: We had them sounded before we brought them over to our facility. No, there's never been a leak in Port of Seattle on record. Duffle: Another question I'd like to...ok, you say they come from the Port of Seattle, was that salt water or fresh water. Hammond: They were on Pier 18. Duffle: Is that salt water or fresh water? Hammond: That's salt water, yessir. Duffle: Thank you. Hammond: That has no bearing on the metal. Duffle: Oh, it doesn't. let me, ok, maybe it doesn't, one question, I'm not arguing with you but I worked in the shipyard for 21 years, and I haven't seen a piece of steel yet that didn't rust. Hammond: Well as long as you keep in...submerged in water it'll never rust. DutTie: OK. Ekberg: Thanks for responding to those questions, sir. Any other questions from the Council? Ah, I have some comments but I'd like to hear the answer to Steve's question that I think he's going to ask now. Well, I have a couple for the people that manage the plant, what are the hours there, the hours of operation. We operate basically, almost 24 hours a day except we start -up on Sunday evening around 2:00, in the morning or 1:00 Monday morning and we work until approximately 2:00 or 3:00 Saturday afternoon. So you do technically operate Saturday morning. It's about a 6- day -a -week operation. 372 Verbatim Transcript Public Hearing (Baker Commodities) September 14, 1992 Page 13 Lawrence: Kenyon: Lawrence: Kenyon: Lawrence: Kenyon: Ekberg: Hernandez: Hammond: OK, I was just curious about that. The other question is for the Attorney. In this process, you said you didn't see a procedural problem. The Attorney for Baker stated that having staff come back in with a recommendation after the Planning Commission hearing appear to be a problem. I know Dennis asked this, but I'd like it a little bit clearer just on that point. To the extent there would have been a procedural problem there, and I'm not all that sure that there would be, I think that was waived by Baker's agreement to continue the hearing and work with staff to find a solution, if one was possible, I think it was July hearing that there was a reschedule. I heard that part but I think that she was making a point that...it sounded to me like any staff recommendation that came after Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations, at that point it was out of order and sequence, is that correct? I don't think it's a jurisdictional matter, no. I think staff is free...no, I don't think so. So during a normal...cough...excuse me, a normal public hearing process the City Council would have, even though we have a recommendation from the Planning Commission, if additional information comes up after the Planning Commission meeting it's certainly allowed to be presented at that time? Yes, that's why you would have that public hearing, to take additional public testimony. Other questions? Just to clarify, I know we had a lot of material the last time this came before us, we don't happen to have all that material, ah, in front of us this evening, but if you can explain to us how the tallow gets in the tanks and if it's transported in the tanks or if it's permanently on the site, are they refilled, could you elaborate a little bit on that issue of the business? I think where we've lost the concept on the whole things is, is...as far as the Rendering Works - -it's a reduction of water -- you're taking water out of raw material and producing two substances which are oil or tallow and then meat meal. The rest of it, in that process, what you're doing is...we have to heat it up to 265 to 275 degrees fahrenheit as we produce non - communicable odors. That's why we came to you people here in 1989, we install an incinerator and a high speed boiler...and that...the only way to get rid of what you call hard gases is to burn them. So we set up a policy to burn them at 1400 degrees. The tallow itself, the liquid form, there's no odor to that, there are no gases. Gases have been released through the first process of it. That process is done on site, then. Yes, uh -huh, the process is done on site and then we store it in tanks for shipment. Hernandez: Hammond: Hernandez: And then The tanks are transported on and off the site by truck? Hammond: By truck and trailer, yes ma'am. but I wanted to be sure. 'Hernandez: OK, thank you for clarifying that. That's...I recall that was the case, Hammond: Now, the liquid part it in that is non odorous, it's all gases, it's like Crisco. Hernandez: OK, thank you. Verbatim Transcript Public Hearing (Baker Commodities) September 14, 1992 Page 14 Ekberg: Umetsu: Hernandez: Umetsu: Duffie: Umetsu: Hammond: Duffle: Hammond: Mullet: Hammond: Duffle: • Hammond: Robertson: Kenyon: Robertson: Kenyon: Robertson: Are there any other questions from the Council? Ok, a final question of Vern. What staff is recommending is a statement that it's a non- conforming use; thus, stating that there should be no increase in the size of the non - conformity, is that correct? That is correct. And I might also add that even if that weren't the...you know...that aside, ah, you would have to conclude...we have concluded in number 4 that it is an addition, not...it does not satisfy Unclassified Use criteria, number 3 and 4. And that would be an additional reason why we, ah...tallow tanks would not...(unclear). Vernon, was there previous testimony that the truck traffic would increase with the storage of the tallow tanks? The traffic increase would be relatively minor. I believe Mr. Hammond can respond, I believe it's something like 3 trucks per day increase as a result of moving the tallow tanks on to the site. How many trucks is that they have going in there every day? I believe Mr. Hammond can give you that information. I think it's 9 tallow tanks that are allowed. It would...depending on the shipping schedule which we went through on April 23, depends on what schedule runs on weekend which we alluded to the fact that we would not do Saturday shipments which will be approximately 4 more truck and trailer loads a month. Now presently now we're doing with total vehicles of employees, trucks, trailers, 146 and this is of June... ah, July 15. I gave this to Vernon, and May 17 we use to do 212 so we have reduced our size in trucking and vehicle people personnel. And Vernon has copies of all this. So, you saying right now the transportation will be 146 per day? Yessir. That includes personnel truck traffic in and out laundry service, coffee service. Did you have that broken down to truck that are hauling, just hauling the offensive materials? Vernon has copies of all of that. Once you put the, ah, whatever you put in the tanks, what is the length of the stay the tank would be on site before they move? Each tank, Mr. Duffie, is 100 tons capacity. The longevity might be determined to be 60 to 90 days. Totally all we're asking for is 925 tons storage which we presently we have 1400 tons. Mike, have you had a chance to review the staff report dated September 9 yet? I've read it once tonight, yes. Yes, basically, do you believe that the recommendations in it are sound and defendable? Well, let state...I, I, trust the work that the DCD staff did and what they have put forth on that report I think is defendable. Now, that obviously, and I really need to emphasize this, that it is only one portion of your decision. Your decision needs to be based on the factors in the Code for determining whether to grant the Unclassified Use Permit and whether there's a non - conforming aspect. But, yes, Baker and DCD staff tried to work out some identified problems. Apparently, that didn't happen, but the problems appear to be supported by enough imperical data to overcome any arbitrary and capricious challenge to the merits of this. The second question I would have would be one of process tonight. This is a C.O.W. and of course 374 Kenyon: Well I'm...I mean, If I were in her shoes I would have been here asking for more time. They may well have their own reasons not to do that. Lawrence So they need to actually ask that if they need it. Kenyon: I'm going to put the other attorney on the spot for awhile tonight. Attorney Aaron: You have a reasonably good point because quite frankly my initial reaction to my client was, "You need to go in there and request a continuance because there's no way I have an opportunity to digest all of this material." But when I looked at it more carefully, we decided that since it had been continued a couple of times already that it was likely that there were going to be neighbors here that it would be in everybody's best interest to move forward with this. The point I want to clarify is there seems to be a little bit of confusion of the point I was making, I must not have been very clear with regards to Planning's recommendation. I don't disagree with your City's Attorney with regards to the applicant and Planning's ability get together and try to resolve disputes or come up with mitigating measures or any of those kinds of things. My point was the legal significants of a recommendation. If a member of the Planning Staff or anybody else at a public hearing wishes to come and testify and submit evidence, and it's in the context of a public hearing, that is proper, I don't dispute that at all. What I do take issue with is a recommendation which the law recognizes a certain amount of deference to the recommendation of those people who are charge with enforcing ordinances. That's what I take issue with. And that recommendation came at an improper time. It would seem to me that there were two recommendations. One was the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission based upon the information they had at that time. We had a public hearing before the Council then, at the Council's request, and during that public hearing, the Council thought that there was further information that was not taken into consideration and we discussed it and we decided to have a continuation. this recommendation, it would seem to me is a recommendation not to the Planning Commission but a recommendation to the Council as part of our normal process. Because a final decision is indeed made by the Council and the staff is the staff to the Council as well as the Planning Commission. I would presume that the staff would make its recommendation to the Council based upon the best information that they had at the time that they make that recommendation. Is that reasonable logic? Verbatim Transcript Public Hearing (Baker Commodities) September 14, 1992 Page 15 Robertson: we've had a public hearing on it. Would it be appropriate for us to render a decision tonight or should that be during a Regular Council meeting? Kenyon: Regular Council meeting. Certainly, Allan needs to close the public hearing when he ready and you're free to discuss and even reach a consensus, but the official action in doing what you want to do is to be reserved for next Monday or some other Regular meeting. Umetsu: For clarification, the decision on any Unclassified Use Permit must he made by resolution of the Council. Ekberg: Are there anymore questions before we close the public hearing? Lawrence: One more for the City Attorney, if were to appear to come to a decision or a consensus tonight, if it informal, do you think the applicant would feel aggrieved if they did not get notice of new information until very late in the day Friday, is that inadequate time to prepare a response? Robertson: Keny Robertson Ekberg: Yes, that's what I think the case here is. Good, thank you. I will officially close the public hearing at this point and time and ask the Council how they would like to proceed. AIM Verbatim Transcript Public Hearing (Baker Commodities) September 14, 1992 Page 16 Robertson: Lawrence: I agree. Ekberg: Umetsu: Ekberg: I suppose the uestion I'm really trying to get to is would you need that as a resolution? Resolution form would work. Again, we don't have to have it prepared Monday. You can reach your decision next Monday and then direct staff to get to you the form of findings and conclusions or resolutions or whatever that you want afterward. Ekberg: I was thinking about saving the time and effort of doing a second phase of this and asking that draft resolutions for both issues be brought forth for our consideration. Robertson: I would prefer not to do that because I think the argument should be in both resolutions or what you might want is choice...what...will come from debate. Kenyon: One other important point is during this next week, do not discuss this. And if citizens contact you tell them I forbid you to speak. I don't know if that will carry any weigh but don't talk to them. Ekberg: Is there a consensus to move this issue to the next Regular meeting for approval or denial? Robertson: Ekberg: Council: Robertson: Ekberg: u6mitted by: e' i�`quare Deputy City Clerk Date: / — _X. I would like to request that the Council delay...I realize that most of the applicants and the citizens would like a decision as soon as possible. I personally would like time to review the material that was presented tonight to review the Comprehensive Plan - -I think that is a significant issue - -and I would request that we delay debate on this topic until next week. And I would like the chance just so that I could come prepared. Vern, you mentioned if we had chosen to by resolution to deny the Unclassified Use Permit, what would we need to do to approve the Unclassified Use Permit? In order to approve the Unclassified Use Permit, You're implying that you were persuaded that the use...for some...according to our analysis, you would have to find that the use is not making sufficient progress to insure that it is no longer or that you are sufficiently convince that it will not be a non - conforming use and that...then you would then look over the... For discussion. For discussion, approval or denial? The Council expressed approval by a nodding of their heads and low grunts and groans. Could I request at this point a break? Let's take a 5- minute break at this point and reconvene at 9:10. 376 RECEIVED our 2 1992 CITY Atr o CE September 14;"1992 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS OFFICIALS CITIZEN'S COMMENTS PUBLIC HEARING Baker Commodities unclassified use permit application. Vernon Umetsu: TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Council President Ekberg called the Committee of The Whole meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. ALLAN EKBERG, Council President; JOE DUFFIE, JOAN HERNANDEZ, DENNIS ROBERTSON, CHARLIE SIMPSON, STEVE LAWRENCE, STEVE MULLET. JOHN MCFARLAND, City Administrator; MIKE KENYON, City Attorney; RON CAMERON, City Engineer; DOUG MICHEAU, Public Works Coordinator; RICK BEELER, DCD Director; KEITH HAYNES, Assistant Police Chief; DON WILLIAMS, Parks & Recreation Director; LYNN DEVOIR, Recreation Superintendent; ALAN DOERSCHEL, Finance Director; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst. The following citizens commented on Crestview Park Development: Tod Byquist, 16211 45th Avenue South Lyle Wilson, 16203 45th Avenue South Leonard Hicks, 16043 42nd Avenue South Sherrie Huntz, 16037 45th Avenue South The citizens' concerns centered on the lack of notification and opportunity to give input during the development stage; displeasure with the 10 foot high embankment; and they were informed that only modest improvements would occur, instead, major changes were performed. The hill has been heavily excavated, fill material has been brought in, and old trees have been disturbed and probably killed. The residents have been left with a steep embankment (some 6 to 10 feet high). The development has taken away the privacy of their back yard, cut off the view into the park and has forced the neighbors to live with the dust blowing off the field. They are concerned about the run- off into the yards and the erosion of the steep bank. They think (even at this late date) the City should call for a planning meeting so that all concerned about the Park's development may attend. Mayor Rants responded that he understands the residents' concerns and that their concerns are valid. He assured the residents that measures would be taken to address the problems. The Mayor explained the City did mail a flyer to residents announcing the meeting date of January 8. Fifteen people were in attendance. Finally, the Mayor distributed a copy of the petition submitted by the those citizens impacted by the development at Crestview Park. The Council agreed that the enforcement of hours, gates and limited vehicle access, parking and traffic, lighting, dust control and police patrolling of the park appear to be doable; however, the field height might present a dilemma. Don Williams extended an invitation to citizens to attend the next Parks Commission meeting at City Hall next Tuesday night, 7:00 p.m. At that time the drawings will be available for viewing and discussion. The Public Hearing opened at 7:42 p.m. Vern Umetsu, DCD, stated this hearing is a quasi judicial hearing, and the Mayor is a participant in these proceedings. No position is being presented on this issue on behalf of the Mayor's office. Umetsu stated that Baker Tallow Tanks is File #L92 -0010. He said the proposal is from Baker Commodities to install nine tallow tanks at the Baker Plant. These tanks are integral to increasing the operational efficiency of the plant and will not affect the level of odors generated or significantly affect the truck traffic generated from the site. As such, these tanks will be the first improvements since 1982 when the plant became legal non - conforming to deal solely with operations and not with decreasing level of odor non - conformity. 37 ►7 Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes . September 14, 1992 Page 2 Public Hearing Baker Commodities (Con't) Umetsu: • •.. Improvements since 1982 have been approved by the City, but they've all been related to reducing the level of nuisance odors. The key, initial question to reviewing the proposal is whether the plant continues to be a non - conforming use which generates nuisance levels of odors. If yes, then the expansion would not be allowed since it would violate the zoning code, which requires that "No such non- conforming use shall be enlarged, or increased, or extended to occupy a greater use than was occupied at the effective date of adoption of this title," -1982. If it is not nuisance operation, then the tallow tanks need to be reviewed for conformity with the unclassified use criteria. He stated that at the time of the Planning Commission review and public hearing, staff had had discussion with Foster Golf Course, maintenance staff, reviewed PSAPCA records for nuisance complaints /odor complaints, and discussed all data with the City Attorney regarding whether nuisance levels of odors or truck traffic existed. At that time, the data led staff to believe that there were no nuisances being generated at the site. This was reinforced by the absence of any residents' or business testimony at the Planning Commission Public Hearing after wide - spread notice had been given in the Hazelnut. Based on that information, the staff report and the testimony received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended Council approval in April. Since that time additional information has been received. This additional information was initially presented at the City Council Public Hearing on July 13, at which time the Council continued the hearing to allow the best possible resolution of three general issues: 1) Enforcement of odor regulation after PSAPCA had been closed for the day (after the normal working hours). 2) Resolution of truck traffic using 56th Avenue; and, 3) Reviewing the magnitude and scope of odor impacts with special notice being given to Foster Commons. An agreement has been worked out with PSAPCA with regards to enforcement of odor regulations after PSAPCA is closed. The Tukwila Police Department, with the full support of the Administration, has agreed that 911 is the number that will be available for residents to call. Tukwila Police verification would be accepted by PSAPCA, and PSAPCA would use their enforcement personnel and attorneys to levy whatever fines that are appropriate in those cases. PSAPCA has extremely significant fines, much more than our nuisance ordinance would allowed. Umetsu stated DCD has already met with the Police Department, police staff, personnel, and patrol officers have been briefed. They've met with PSAPCA's inspectors regarding the forms that they need to see filled out and are pretty much ready to go with the program. Regarding truck traffic on 56th Avenue, the City Engineer has reviewed that issue and basically concluded that the voluntary system that is currently in effect, where Baker works with the independent haulers to let them know that 56th Avenue should not be used, has been very effective in keeping trucks off that roadway. However, the City Engineer is concerned that a system of signage really would not be effective. His experience has shown that in these types of situations they would have to, basically, make a turn- around to go all the way up to 115th which is very, very difficult. Umetsu continued that the City Engineer thinks the existing situation (with additional reminders from Baker Commodities to the 20% truck traffic with independent haulers would be sufficient) is basically the best we can get in this matter. Umetsu said in reviewing the magnitude and scope of odor impacts of the operations and truck traffic, staff has made significant additional work in focusing on the odor issue. Umetsu said the information included in the packet tonight is basically information gotten from the July 13, 1992 Public Hearing, a public information meeting that the Planning Staff held for residents of Foster Point, and businesses in the same proximity along Interurban and in Skyway. Field interviews were also held with Tukwila residents who live on exposed property. This new information has led staff to conclude that findings were incomplete, and that nuisance levels of odors are currently being generated on a regular basis from Baker Commodities. As such, Baker operations continue to he legally non - conforming and subject to TMC 18.70.040, Sub- 37 8 Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes September 14, 1992 Page 3 Public Hearing Baker Commodities (Con't) Umetsu: PROPONENTS Rick Thompkins: Attorney Stephanie Arend: Section 1 which says that "No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased nor extended to occupy a greater use than was occupied at the effective date of adoption of this title." Therefore, staff reverses its previous recommendation and recommends denial of the proposed tallow tanks until such time as Baker is able to demonstrate no nuisance generated - -no nuisance odors, truck traffic, etc. generated at their site. At this point, Council President Ekberg asked the City Attorney to elaborate on the term quasi-judicial. City Attorney Kenyon said it's very simple, just act as if you are judges with the black robes on. If you have had one -on -one conversation with anybody from the Planning Staff, or anybody from Baker since the last time we were here in July, disclose those now. If you haven't, stand mute and listen to Baker's presentation and any staff rebuttal and any citizens comments. Councilmember Hernandez stated she would like to clarify that she'd not had any discussion with Council, staff or Baker, but that she had discussions with citizens who have continued to complain to her about this issue. She believes those citizens are here tonight and will probably testify. Councilmember Robertson stated he would like to make the same disclosure. He stated citizens bring the topic up to him and in every case he has told them that it is a quasi-judicial item and that he cannot discuss it with them, and that they should come to the public hearing. The Council agreed they had suggested no offensive courses of action; and no discussions had taken place off the record with citizens or the like. Rick Thompkins of Pacific Engineering spoke on behalf of Baker Commodities. He commented that concerns were centered around problems from various sources. He said subsequeneto the public hearing, an informational meeting was held where various members of the community came and voiced their concerns, but he said the amount of complaints he'd had in the past months had been very minor and was brought to their attention by PSAPCA. As a result of what was heard from the public information meeting, an additional review was done of the plans, and it was determined that there was a possibility that some improvement could be made. Additional air scrubbers were ordered and one is in the process of being installed and another one is in route. It is hoped that once those are installed that will mitigate some of the other episodes occurring. Mr. Thompkins said basically that's what they've done to date that's pro- active and made themselves available for questions from staff and from the community. They still, however, have some general questions regarding how the ordinance is being applied to Baker. He then introduced Baker Commodities' Counselor, Ms. Stephanie Mend. Attorney Stephanie Arend of the Law Firm- - Gordon/Thomas/Honeywell -- office address, 2200 First Interstate Plaza, Tacoma, 98401. Ms. Arend stated she was representing Baker Commodities. She said as Planning Staff has testified, this is an Unclassified Use Permit application to locate 9 tanks to store tallow on site; and currently on the site, as you all know, is a rendering plant. The Planning Department originally reviewed this application and recommended to the Planning Commission approval of the permit. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission who analyzed the criteria of the Unclassified Use Permit Code for the City of Tukwila and also recommended approval of the permit. 3 79 Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes September 14, 1992 Page 4 Public Hearing Baker Commodities (Con't) Attorney Arend: Since that time, as was indicated on September 9, staff issued a new report changing their recommendation of approval. That report was faxed to her client at 4:45 p.m, on Friday, September 11. That report is very troubling to her for several reasons and certainly to her client. First of all because it's out of order with regards to the procedure that is set forth in the Tukwila Code for Unclassified Use Permits; but more importantly, because it deflects the discussion away from the substance of the permit application which is whether or not a permit should be issued for 9 storage tanks on this site. Ms. Arend stated she was sure the City was aware of the hearing process as set forth in the Code at Section 18.66.050, but proceeded summarizing that: "Upon completion of review of the proposed project by the Planning Department..." So clearly they are the first ones to review it. And when they are completed with their review, 'The Planning Commission shall schedule a public hearing..." Which is what happened in this case. Jurisdiction is then with the Planning Commission who holds a public hearing after proper notice. And it goes on to state that--"The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation regarding the proposed project which shall be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration. .." And that has been done in this case. After completion of review by the Planning Department, it is no longer within their purview -- their jurisdiction - -to go back and re- review the issue that had already been before them. A public hearing was held and the recommendation of the Planning Commission is what you are suppose to consider. Why is that important? That's important for at least two reasons: one is because it's important that we follow the processes that are set forth in the ordinance. There are constitutional reasons for doing that. The other reason is because the public hearing process before the Planning Commission and here before the Council creates a record for appeal. The decision that you make, and if it is appealed (either by the applicant or by another party--member of the general public) will be on the record that was formed before the Planning Commission and here tonight in this hearing process, not at any other time. And it is important that the process is properly followed for that reason. That's emphasized by the last portion of 18.66.050 which says - - "The City Council need not hold a public hearing on the permit application but shall consider the Planning Commission recommendation at a Regular Council meeting..." In other words, simply on the evidence that was presented before the Planning Commission, you would have the authority, under your Code, to make a decision based on their recommendation. Ms. Arend continued that it is her position that the September 9 report, where they changed their recommendation, is out of order and shouldn't be considered. There are five criteria which were very thoroughly analyzed by the Planning Department initially and by the Planning Commission. The most telling evidence on this criteria was submitted in letter format. The one issue that was raised as a concern, is the odor; and, that is in the letter from Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency dated May 19, 1992. There are two sentences that I would like to read to you: The increase of tallow stored is coming from offsite and is not processed on site so there is no increase in rendering to the air in Tukwila. There were no complaints of air pollution or odor when these tanks were at the Port of Seattle. Now, to her knowledge, that is the best evidence that you have before you as to the impacts on air quality as a result of storage tanks for storing tallow. Ms. Arend said she was not aware of any other evidence before the Council with regards to air quality of the tanks. The September 9 Staff Report and a lot of the testimony from the public focused on the plant as it currently exits. She said that's an enforcement issue. That is not an issue that is properly considered under the criteria for the Unclassified Use Permit. What suggests even more to her that it is an enforcement issue is the last paragraph in the recommendation of the September 9 staff report, which says the Planning Staff recommends that the Council should find this improvement would be appropriate at such time as the use ceases to generate nuisance impacts, etc. What Planning is attempting to do is to enforce some other Code 380 Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes September 14, 1992 Page 5 Public Hearing Baker Commodities (Con't) Attorney Arend: CITIZENS Ted Bear: Ruth Obrien: •I s ► . provisions against the existing facility which is not properly considered as part of whether or not this Unclassified Use Permit should be granted or denied. If there's an enforcement action necessary because an ordinance or a nuisance or something is being violated, that's a separate issue that Code provides for that goes through enforcement channels but is not considered under the Unclassified Use Permit provision. That raises another issue that was raised tonight by Planning Staff stating that this became a non - conforming use in 1982 and for that reason who are you to look at nuisance in this analysis. Ms. Arend directed the Council's attention to the Planning Commission minutes which state, in the Background Section- - "Between 1976 to 1982, probably with the adoption of the 1982 Code, the Rendering Works became an Unclassified Use, with all further improvements requiring an Unclassified Use Permit." It did not suggest in there that it was a non - conforming use. She has not had the opportunity to go back and research the history of the zoning on this particular piece of property. But it is zoned M- 1 - -that is in light of the permitted uses in an M -1 zone, and that a rendering plant is specifically listed as an unclassified use - -the most likely place for you to put these storage tanks. In summation, she stated there has been no evidence, no competent evidence, of any kind- -with regards to the storage tanks which is the issue before you - -that would allow you to deny this permit. All of the five criteria for the Unclassified Use Permit have been thoroughly analyzed, they are in the Planning Commission minutes and the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission and we commend you to approve the permit. Ted Bear, 5703 Pamela Drive South, commented he purchased a home and moved in June 10. He commented that, literally, he cannot go outside of his home; the air makes him sick to his stomach. The odor comes from the plant, moving north up the Valley until the sun rises and the air stirs. He called 911 about a week ago and was surprised because the 911 people were appraised of the situation and said "Yes," we know what you are talking about. However, the young officer warned Mr. Bear that he had no ability to write a violation. The officer suggested Mr. Bear call Puget Sound Air Pollution Control. He said his quality of life is really affected by these odors. He says he sure the Attorney Arend is just doing her job, but he would love for her to visit his home one early morning around 5:00 and try to sit outside with him and have a cup of coffee. He says he truly believes that anything that would create an odor that strong (a sickening, sweet odor), it cant be good for your health. Ruth Obrien, 8429 5th Avenue Southwest, Seattle, stated the reason she was present tonight is because she frequently plays golf at Foster Golf Links. She had the unfortunate experience of playing there twice on Labor Day weekend. It was a much exaggerated experience of what she had experienced on many weekends this summer. The stench at 9:00 on Saturday morning from the rendering plant was so bad that one of the ladies in her group actually got physically ill on the second tee. The lady in her group has an allergy problem, she began coughing, she could not breathe. The entire group became sick. She played again on Monday, and had invited a group of family members out to have a little tournament. She was totally humiliated at the smell they had to put up with on the golf course. Her feeling about the plant is that they constantly violate on the weekend when they think no one will complain and no one will catch them. She really hopes that the City will not be held hostage to some high- powered attorney threats; and that the Council will do what's right for not only citizens of Tukwila, but for those of us who use Fort Dent Park and Foster Golf Links. 381 2ommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes September 14, 1992 Page 6 Public Hearing Baker Commodities (Con't) CITIZENS Anna Bernhard: JoAnne McMannis: Ivory Davis: Rosemary Hersheff: City Attorney: I ou ncilmember obertson: City Attorney: Bi 11 Haggard: REBUTTAL Ruth O'Brien: 1;," Anna Bernhard, 14241 59th Avenue South, commented that the previous comments were her sentiments, exactly. She added the City needs to take care of this problem. If Baker can't guarantee the City that the tanks are not going to leak, forget it. The City is working on a new Comprehensive Plan trying to improve the City to make it more livable, more beautiful, etc. She said the City does not need Baker Commodities. JoAnne McMannis, 5610 South 133rd, commented that not only are the odors bad, but the other problem is the trucks coming down the one -way road. There are still some independent haulers that come down the one -way road. She's afraid there's going to be an accident, it is dangerous. Somebody is going to get hurt or killed. Ivory Davis, 13341 56th Avenue South, has lived in Tukwila over 30 years and the smell has been here equally as long. She says she's proud to be in Tukwila. She wishes only to keep it a beautiful place to live. Rosemary Hersheff, 13325 56th Avenue South, responding to comments made by Attorney Arend that all the time the tanks were at the Port of Seattle there were no complaints about odors; well, the Port of Seattle is not a residential area and people working in that area would not be apt to complain about things like noise and odors. Here in Tukwila the facility is completely and totally surrounded by residences. All Foster Point is residential with the exception of one or two lots. Up above, on the hill, there's a trailer park on Beacon Coal Mine Road. There's the Foster Commons Apartments, there's the golf course and there's a recreational facility. Up the hill on the other side of the golf course, to the south, is all residential -- apartments mostly. City Attorney Kenyon reminded the Council and the speakers that the issue is only the addition of the nine tanks. It is not Seattle Rendering Work or Baker Commodities as guaranteeing whether it is good or bad. It's just the addition of the nine tanks, and whether that addition is deserving (in the Council's judgement) of an Unclassified Use Permit. Kenyon encouraged future speakers to steer away from attacking the plant itself and ask the Council not to let the speakers' comments influence their decision. Robertson asked the City Attorney if past operations by Baker of their current facilities could be used as a basis for suspecting the future or concluding the future operations of the tallow of the new tanks would possibly be a nuisance? It may be possible that the addition of the new tanks would not conform to the comprehensive land use plan and zoning code as far as the permit use. Kenyon responded that this really can't be a yes or no answer. If you concluded hypothetically (as some have concluded) that past operations may have constituted a nuisance, then as Ms. Arend stated, that is probably an enforcement question. What you need to focus on, however, are the factors as noted in TMC 18.66.060 - -the factors to determine whether or not an Unclassified Use Permit is appropriate. Bill Haggard, 11532 40th Avenue South, commented that Baker is a victim of urban sprawl. When Baker founded their location, they probably found a good spot, because 50 years ago when they moved there, it was hidden away in little corner of the City. Ruth O'Brien, commented that from a business standpoint, it seems unreasonable that a company that has a petition before the Council for a Use Permit at this time, should continue to violate 382 Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes September 14, 1992 Page 7 Public Hearing Baker Commodities (Con't) Ruth O'Brien: Attorney Arend: Ted Bear Rosemary Hersheff: Eric Thompson: Vern Umetsu: Robertson: City Attorney: while the process is pending. She feels this is an indication of how they are going to continue to conduct themselves. She said the worse violation she has seen this year occurred on the very weekend prior to the public hearing. Arend stated that she was brought into this today, so she doesn't have a whole lot of history with this plant, or quite candidly, the City's process. But, she said, she's lying heavily on the Planning Commission minutes which states that these tanks would not increase processing capacity. She believes that maybe somewhere the information has gotten muddled. There are no storage tanks existing on the site at the moment. These are not nine additional storage tanks, she said. They have been engineered so as to eliminate the odors or substantially protect against the emission of odors from what's being stored in the tanks. It doesn't increase the amount of trucks that are brought in and out. If anything, the same amount of material is going to be processed, raw materials are going to be processed, that is what's brought in with the trucks. The only difference now is that some of it will be stored on the site so instead of having to process it, take it off the site, bring it back onto the site for additional processing, it will just remain on the site. So you are not really adding anything, it's simply storing it. The mitigation measures that have been recommended by Planning and the Planning Commission really go to the aesthetics in concealing this and addressing the odor concerns of the storage tanks. Bear stated he understands what Attorney Arend is saying but he wanted the Council to understand that he was a new resident in the City and that the Council will be seeing his face a lot. That plant, as far as he's concerned, is heading downhill and better be out of here somewhere down the line. Bear stated he wants quality of life and he's going to fight this issue all the way through even if he has to obtain an attorney. Rosemary Hersheff stated after attending a meeting this summer, she was given the impression that approval would be contingent on how well Baker Commodities conform to the odor compliance issue. She said she would assume they would have gone all out to make sure there were no odors between that day and this. But like several people have said, the very worst I've ever smelled was over Labor Day weekend. Eric Thompson said he realizes this is a very emotional issue and very telling testimonies, but the ladies who spoke earlier about somebody being very sick on Labor Day weekend- -the plant was not operating on that weekend. The Plant was closed Saturday and Sunday and Monday. He said not to deflect the blame, but there could be other odor sources in the area. Umetsu asked the Council to continue to note that the odors may be found in non - conforming use, clearly the purpose of the non - conforming use Chapter -- 18.70 - -was to insure that there would be no increase in size of the nonconforming uses. The tallow tanks themselves do not increase tank capacity; however, they do increase operation efficiency by moving them on site. Robertson asked the City Attorney if he had heard or received the arguments presented by Attorney Arend (Baker's Attorney) prior to tonight's meeting. Kenyon responded, No. Reason being he was on vacation last week. He said it is important, though difficult, to separate the issues and really focus only on the addition of the tanks. Baker Commodities is there and it has a right to be there right now. He advised the Council not to let anything to the contrary affect their decision. He said Ms. Arend indicated (and correctly so) that the Code provides that there's not a need to have a public hearing on this issue after the 3Rn ommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes September 14, 1992 Page 8 Public Hearing Baker Commodities (Con't) City Attorney: Duffle: Bill Hammond: Lawrence: Hammond: Lawrence: City Attorney: Lawrence: City Attorney: Hernandez: Hammond: Council President Ekberg: Planning Commission has done so. You can, however, have one. It's your right, and it's a good idea. Kenyon said, with all due respect to Ms. Arend, he does not think there's a procedural problem. If there is, he thinks Baker waived it by agreeing to try to work with staff to come up with a solution. Duffie commented he has had no success in getting a response when he calls Puget Sound Air Pollution. He concurred with the other citizens that the smell is awful. Duffie is also concerned about spillage and that the nine tanks might eventually leak. He asked what quality steel the tanks are make of. Bill Hammond, General Manager, Baker Commodities, responded that the tanks are 3 /16th steel, and they are impervious to tallow and will not rust. The tanks have been in Seattle at least since 1942 and when they were sounded, they are still 200th which would be 3 /16ths steel. Hammond said the tanks were sounded before they were brought to the Tukwila facility. He said there has never been a leak on record at the Port of Seattle. Councilmember Lawrence inquired at to the hours of operation. Hammond responded they operate almost almost 24 hours a day except start -up time on Sunday evening is around 2:00 and at 1:00 a.m. Monday morning. They work until approximately 2:00 or 3:00 on Saturday afternoons. Hammond stated it's about a 6 -day -a -week operation. Lawrence was concerned about the statement Attorney Arend made that there might be a problem with having staff come back with a recommendation after the Planning Commission had already had a hearing on this issue. Lawrence asked City Attorney Kenyon to clarify this a bit more. Kenyon responded that to the extent there would have been a procedural problem, it would have been waived by Baker's agreement to continue the hearing and work with staff to find a solution, if one was possible. Lawrence continued that during a normal public hearing process the City Council would have, even though we have a recommendation from the Planning Commission, if additional information comes up after the Planning Commission meeting, is it allowed to be presented at that time? Kenyon responded, Yes, that's why you would have the public hearing, to take additional public testimony. Hernandez asked for clarification as to how the tallow gets in the tanks and if it's transported in the tanks or if it's permanently on the site and are they refilled. Hammond explained: you're taking water out of raw material and producing two substances which are oil or tallow, and meat meal. It's heated up to 265 to 275 degrees Fahrenheit to produce non - communicable odors. That's why an incinerator and a high speed boiler were installed. The only way to get rid of hard gases is to burn them. They are burned at 1400 degrees. The tallow has no odors. The process is done on site and then we store it in tanks for shipment. The tanks are transported on and off the site by trucks and trailers. Ekberg asked Umetsu if staff was recommending a statement that it's a non - conforming use; thus, stating that there should be no increase in the size of the non - conformity. 384 Robertson: City Attorney Umetsu: Council President: Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes September 14, 1992 Page 9 Public Hearing Baker Commodities (Con't) Umetsu: That is correct, Umetsu responded. Hernandez: Vernon, was there previous testimony that the truck traffic would increase with the storage of the tallow tanks? Umetsu: The traffic increase would be relatively minor. I believe Mr. Hammond can respond, I believe it's something like three trucks per day,increase as a result of moving the tallow tanks on to the site. Duffie: How many trucks do they have going in there every day? Umetsu: I believe Mr. Hammond can give you that information. Mr. Hammond: I think it's nine tallow tanks that are allowed depending on the shipping and what schedule runs on weekend. Robertson: Mike, have you had a chance to review the staff report dated September 9 yet? City Attorney: I've read it once tonight, yes. Robertson: Do you believe that the recommendations in it are sound and defendable? City Attorney: Let me state that I trust the work that the DCD staff did. What they have put forth on the report I think is defendable. I need to emphasize that it is only one portion of your decision. Your decision needs to be based on the factors in the Code for determining whether to grant the Unclassified Use Permit and whether there's a non- conforming aspect. But, yes, Baker and DCD staff tried to work out some identified problems. Apparently, that didn't happen, but the problems appear to be supported by enough data to overcome any arbitrary and capricious challenge. The second question I would have would be one of process tonight. This is a C.O.W. and of course we've had a public hearing on it. Would it be appropriate for us to render a decision tonight or should that be during a Regular Council meeting? Regular Council meeting. Certainly, Allan needs to close the public hearing when he is ready and you're free to discuss and even reach a consensus, but the official action in doing what you want to do is to be reserved for next Monday or some other Regular meeting. For clarification, the decision on any Unclassified Use Permit must be made by resolution of the Council. Are there anymore questions before we close the public hearing? Lawrence: One more for the City Attorney. If we were to appear to come to a decision or a consensus tonight, if it's informal, do you think the applicant would feel aggrieved if they did not get notice of new information until very late in the day Friday, is that inadequate time to prepare a response? City Attorney: If I were in her shoes (Attorney Arend), I would have been here asking for more time. They may well have their own reasons not to do that. Lawrence: So they need to actually ask that if they need it. City Attorney: I'm going to put the other attorney on the spot for awhile tonight. Attorney Arend: You have a reasonably good point because quite frankly my initial reaction to my client was, "You need to go in there and request a continuance because there's no way I can digest all of this material." But when I looked at it more carefully, we decided that since it had been continued a couple of times already it was likely that there Q Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes September 14, 1992 Page 10 Public Hearing Baker Commodities (Con't) Attorney Arend: Robertson: Public Hearing Closed: Council President Ekberg: Robertson: Lawrence: Ekberg: Umetsu: Ekberg: City Attorney: Ekberg: Robertson: City Attorney: 1 1, \ were going to be neighbors here that it would be in everybody's best interest to move forward with this. The point I want to clarify is there seems to be a little bit of confusion of the point I was making, I must not have been very clear with regards to Planning's recommendation. I don't disagree with your City's Attorney with regards to the applicant and Planning's ability get together and try to resolve disputes or come up with mitigating measures or any of those kinds of things. My point was. the legal significants of a recommendation. If a member of the Planning Staff or anybody else at a public hearing wishes to come and testify and submit evidence, and it's in the context of a public hearing, that is proper, I don't dispute that at all. What I do take issue with is a recommendation which the law recognizes a certain amount of deference to the recommendation of those people who are charged with enforcing ordinances. That's what I take issue with. The recommendation came at an improper time. The Council held a public hearing. During the public hearing the Council felt there was information not taken into consideration. Therefore, a continuation was recommended. I would presume the staff would make its recommendation to the Council based upon the best information available at the time. Ekberg officially closed the public hearing at 9:03 p.m. and asked the Council how they would like to proceed. I would like to request that the Council delay its action. I realize that most of the applicants and the citizens would like a decision as soon as possible. However, I personally would like time to review the material that was presented tonight in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan - -I think that is a significant issue - -and I would request that we delay debate on this topic until next week. I would like the chance just so that I could come prepared. I agree. Vern, you mentioned if we had chosen to (by resolution) to deny the Unclassified Use Permit, what would we need to do to approve the Unclassified Use Permit? In order to approve the Unclassified Use Permit, you would have to find that the use is not making sufficient progress and that you are sufficiently convince that it will not be a non - conforming use. I suppose the question I'm really trying to get at is would you need that as a resolution. Resolution form would work. Again, we don't have to have it prepared Monday. You can reach your decision next Monday and then direct ,:tiff to get you the form of findings and conclusions or resolutions or whatever you want afterwards. I was thinking about saving the time and effort of doing a second phase of this and asking that draft resolutions for both issues be brought forth for our consideration. I would prefer not to do that because I think the argument should be in both resolutions; or, what you might want is choice - -what will come from the debate. One other important point is (during this next week), do not discuss this. If citizens contact you tell them I forbid you to speak. I don't know if that will carry any weight, but don't talk to them. 386 Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes September 14, 1992 Page 11 Public Hearing Baker Commodities (Con't) Council Action: Recess 9:06 - 9:20 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS Potential services/ projects funded by 1993 CDBG monies. SPECIAL ISSUES Designation of Seattle Times as City's Newspaper of record. Councilmember Robertson explained that the resolution originated in the Community Affairs and Parks Committee and was supported by the Administration. He said the financial impact is fairly minor. The Council agreed to forward the application for Unclassified Use Permit by Baker Commodities (Seattle Rendering Works) to the Next Regular Council for discussion, approval and /or denial. Council President Ekberg called the Committee of the Whole meeting back to order with those present as noted above. Council President Ekberg opened the public hearing at 9:22 p.m. Lynn Devoir, Parks and Recreation Superintendent, requested authorization to disperse the remaining CDBG funds amounting to $58,711 as follows: $2,000 for Dead Bolt & Smoke Detectors; $24,150 for Utility Assistance Connection Program; and, $32,561 for Playground Accessibility. Devoir continued that the funds will be used in conjunction with the he CIP project at Duwamish Park in 1993. The playground equipment is currently not accessible nor does it meet safety standards for playground equipment. She said that all projects must serve a 51% low to moderate income level or benefit handicap or senior adult populations. She informed the Council that the contracts are due to the King County Planning & Community Development Department by Friday, October 2nd. Discussion ensued. Council President closed the public hearing at 9:27 p.m. Councilmember Robertson commented that Hernandez had raised an issue about using some of the funds to purchase play grounds equipment to be used basically at apartment houses, trailer courts, etc. His concern was the legal ramifications this could entail and asked Devoir to research the matter and get back to the Council. The Mayor added there were five issues presently working through Karen Wright, Human Services; and through Lora Fowler, Vision Tukwila, where they've gotten businesses' and residents' support to fund said areas with playground equipment and to cover the labor costs. Most of the funds will be taken from Vision Tukwila Project Fund, however. Councilmember Robertson commented that discussions of possible discrepancy came up in a recent Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting and requested an update on the activities in question prior to Council approval. Councilmember Ekberg requested the program be expanded to include fire extinguishers or other fire protection devices such as second story escape ladders for kids' bedrooms. Devoir agreed to check into this matter and report back to the Council as soon as possible. The Council agreed to forward the potential services /projects funded by 1993 Community Development Block Grant monies to the next Regular Council (Consent Agenda) for approval. 387 ATTACH1VENT C dor • V:# y Cit o f Tukwila O • John W. Rants, Mayo, Rick Beeler, Directo, Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM To: John McFarland, City Administrator From: Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development Date: September 9, 1992 RE: Baker Commodities Public Information Meeting of 8/6/92. A public information meeting was scheduled for residents located in the immediate vicinity of the Baker plant who would be receiving specific invitations to attend the September 14th public hearing, as directed by the City Council. Businesses which shared a similar proximity to the Baker plant were also invited to the information meeting. The meeting was to orient them about the proposed action, project review status, and allow dialogue between the neighborhood, staff, and Baker. The following are very summary sketches of the comments and dialogue that occurred at the information meeting. 1. 14 persons registered on the sign -in sheet. This is less than actually attended since several spouses did not sign in. This includes a Renton planner, but not the five Baker staff who attended. Keith Haines from Police and Vernon Umetsu from Planning were present from the City. No representatives from near -by businesses were noted. 2. Several members noted that not all Foster Pt. residents were notified. Umetsu explained that Kroll map addresses were used as well as phone calls. DCD staff will review additional options for notice including a property owner. mailing list. 3. Many residents complained that the odors are bad on a weekly basis and one said strong odors occur almost every'Saturday morning. These odors are strong enough to drive them indoors. 4. Residents have not been registering complaints because they had not gotten any response years ago, got discouraged, and didn't know where else to turn. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Far (206) 4313665 356 /l Baker Tallow Tanks Public Information Mtg. Summary Minutes Page 2 Baker -- They did not know of the problem they had not received any complaints. They are surprised by the magnitude and prevalence of the problem. Baker has already had a PSAPCA inspector out and discovered one significant odor source (from the water filtration building) and several minor problems which they have corrected (i.e. closing doors and plugging holes). They have already ordered additional air filtration machinery for the water filtration building. All additional systems should be installed by Sept. 7th. 5. A resident at the 130th Pl. entry to Baker complained that carcass trucks were traveling uncovered with parts sticking out and several complained about offal /liquid leaking from trucks. Baker -- Independent haulers will be reminded to cover carcass trucks, but Baker could not guarantee compliance. Trucks with primarily offal will smell worse with a cover than without because the cover will create a good environment for bacteria to breed and the dirty covers are hard to clean. Having totally contained trucks such as tankers is not an option because the loading hole would have to be very large for carcasses to fit through. Leaking is an on -going event which is addressed through regular inspection of neoprene seals. 6. Several residents' noted that loaded trailers are sometimes left at the gate. Baker agreed that this has occasionally happened since a gate was installed. 7. Several residents complained about occasional truck traffic down 56th. Baker stated that their trucks don't use it unless there is a rare occasion of construction on 130th. Their drivers sign an agreement not to drive down 56th upon hiring; with violation being a basis for firing. Baker cannot guarantee independent hauler traffic. They will remind haulers not to use 56th. 357 '21‘ Baker Tallow Tanks Public Information Mtg. Summary Minutes Page 3 Note: The Public Works Dept. has preliminarily concluded that it is inadvisable to post this as a no truck street since there are no obvious alternative 'routes, a signage program is unlikely to be successful and a truck cannot turn around once across the 56th bridge. The existing Baker program of directing haulers to use S.•130th P1. has been effective in keeping trucks off of 56th Avenue. • 8. Staff discussed the need to call in complaints to establish a record and the importance of verified complaints as a basis for action. Staff discussed a system where PSAPCA could be called during work hours while Tukwila Police could be called at other times using the 911 system. PSAPCA has agreed'that verification by Tukwila officers or staff would constitute independent, actionable verification and that PSAPCA would be willing to use its own attorneys. Tukwila nuisance statutes could also apply. All were urged to report odors either to Baker or to the above agencies. Staff clarified that the City encourages resolving problems with Baker outside of the legal process, but that only verified complaints could be used as evidence for corrective action. 9. The consensus after discussion with Baker was that eliminating odors was the goal, not citation; and that all should work with Baker to eliminate odors. 10. Several members supported a process where odors were reported to Tukwila for verification and used to help Baker in eliminate odors, but not sanctions. If no significant odor reduction was achieved after some period, then the verified complaints would be submitted for use in enforcement actions or for future background information in future specific citations. 11. The audience was urged to tell the Council their complaints and concerns at the public hearing. Staff would present a very general summary of this meeting to Council based on the sketchy notes taken; but this would not carry the weight of actual residents and may not reflect their understanding of the meeting. 351 'Action Items Baker Tallow Tanks Public Information Mtg. Summary Minutes Page 4 12. A side issue was that residents were 'surprised that Baker had offered its sewer line to the City and the that City had declined. They had thought that sewer service to them was not feasible. 13. The 'meeting ended at about 8 P.M. Prior to the Sept. 14th public hearing, Planning Div. will accomplish the following: 1. Check with the Dept. of Health and PSAPCA on carcass and offal containment regulations during truck transfer. 2. Review again the problem of regulating trucks on 56th Avenue. • 3. Review all issues with Baker to see what resolution is possible. 4. Check with Police to see if we have received any odor complaints under the new system and what can be done about carcass loaded trailers left outside the gate. 5. Work with the Finance Dept. to supplement the mailing list with property owner addresses. cc: City Administrator /Haines /City. Engineer • 359 4 ATTACHMENT B Chapter 8.28 NUISANCES 8.28.010 General definition. A nuisance consists of doing an unlawful act, or omitting to perform a duty, or suffering or permitting any condition or thing to be or exist, which act, omission, condition or thing either: (1) Annoys, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of others; (6) Obstructs the free use of property so as to essentially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property. (Ord. 1363 51(part), 1985) 8.28.120 Place which occasions annoyances. The erection, continuance or use of any building, room or other place in the city for the exercise of any trade, employment or manufacture which, by occasioning noxious exhalations, offensive odors or other annoyances, is discomforting or offensive or detrimental to the health of individuals or of the public is declared to be a nuisance. (Ord. 1363 51(part), 1985) 360 15 mow -- • q i v City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayo Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Directo, • MEMORANDUM To: John McFarland, City Administrator From: Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development Date: September 9, 1992 RE: Revised Planning Division Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations For Baker Tallow Tanks (L92- 0010). The Planning Division's previous recommendations have bben based on information known as of the April 23rd Planning Commission public hearing. Since that time, staff has discovered new information at a City Council public hearing,.a Planning Division public information meeting (Attachment A), in various field investigations, and in meetings with various other departments and agencies. Based on this new information, a revised project evaluation is presented in three sections: FINDINGS,, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. FINDINGS The following FINDINGS supplement and modify those presented by the Planning Division at public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Significant changes in Planning Division findings revolve around the nuisance odor impacts of transporting material to the site and processing operations. 1. An actionable violation of odor standards has been established by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency ( PSAPCA). This level is defined to be the generation of any odor which is distinct, definite, and having any unpleasant recognizable characteristic (PSAPCA, Ch. 5, C.2). 2. Residents and Tukwila Street Maintenance staff report that trucks hauling carcasses and offal occasionally spill materials, emit definite identifiable odors, and have body parts protruding above container walls. A. Resident testimony at a public information hearing, field interviews, and Tukwila Street Maintenance crew information (Freemire (8/28/92), Anderson (9/8/92)) indicates that Baker responds reasonably within 15 minutes to clean up small spills, that they do not have the capability to rapidly and effectively respond to 6300 Southcernter Boulevard, Suite #1.00 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 352 Baker Tallow Tarb_ rr ( Unclassified Use Permit Page 2 File No. L92 -0010 mid -size or larger spills where sanding and sweep machines are needed, that some residents are concerned about rodent problems, and that many residents do not know how to call for quick effective spill clean up. B. Tukwila Street Maintenance staff are called dut when spills are large enough to cause a significant road safety problem and sanding is needed. This is a spill of about 6 sq. feet or a long linear spill. Street staff estimate one very bad spill in the approximately 4 -5 responses made each year. Street staff have been called out two times this year. C. Staff discussions with residents and resident managers in the western Skyway ridge area, above and north of Baker, demonstrate that there are definite strong odor impacts on units located due north along the ridge on an average twice per week basis. This is reduced to a once per week basis northeast of the Baker plant across Empire Way. No impacts were noted by managers north of 129th Street (i.e. Foster Commons and Empire Terrace). D. Neither Baker nor PSAPCA has a solution for containing odors within trucks during transport. Covering loads with tarps increases odors by creating an incubator for odor bacteria and tarps are very difficult to clean. A container truck does not have sufficient opening to accommodate carcasses. E. Animal material being visible above truck walls is an aesthetic issue which was an often mentioned complaint by residents, is inconsistent with several Comprehensive Plan Policies and should be considered in whether the Unclassified Use Criteria are satisfied. However there is no nuisance violation to be corrected since this practice is not regulated under any statute of the City of Tukwila, County Health Dept., State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, or PSAPCA. 3. Odors from processing activities are occasionally present at various levels from 30 seconds of barely noticeable levels (field investigations and public information meeting testimony) to long term (hours) strong unpleasant smells (public information meeting testimony and PSAPCA records). A. Short term, barely noticeable and definitely unpleasant odors were personally experienced several times in a 25 minute period at an adjacent residential site. Golfers report definitely unpleasant smells at the adjacent golf course (holes 4, 5 and 6) 2 -3 times per month. B. At a public information meeting, Foster Point residents asserted that they have experienced odors sufficient to 353. Baker Tallow TaL s Unclassified Use Permit File No. L92 -0010 Page 3 drive them indoors. They have not called to complain because calls years ago had no effect; they didn't know who to call during off hour odor events; and the odors are often of frequent but such short duration, that calls would seem meaningless and couldn't be verified. C. Baker has investigated their operations with the help of PSAPCA. This inspection resulted in correcting several air and waste water leaks and installation of an air filtration system for their waste water cleaning building (now being installed). 4. Transport of materials from the site to customers do not seem to be generating any nuisance odor impacts. CONCLUSIONS The following new and revised conclusions result from the above FINDINGS. 1. Baker has made significant reductions in plant odor since they took over the Seattle Rendering Works in 1985. However, this is an inherently smelly operation in which small problems can cause significant odor impacts, and where moderate problems . quickly annoy resident and corporate citizens, and essentially interfere with their comfortable enjoyment of life and property. 2. There is sufficient testimony and evidence to demonstrate that Baker plant operations generate nuisance levels of odor per TMC 8.28.010(1) & (6) and 8.28.120 (Attachment B). 3. As a nuisance producing operation, the use is not consistent with all others in this M -1 zone since: "The purpose of this district is to provide an area appropriate for light industrial uses which are non - nuisance activities in terms of air and water pollution, noise, vibration, glare, and odor." (TMC 18.40.010) 4. The'nuisance odors of the overall operation would mean that, in general, the plant does not satisfy Unclassified Use Criteria TMC 18.66.060(3) &(4) as follows: "(3) The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses;" -- The odors generated by the plant are not compatible with adjacent and nearby residential uses, the Foster Golf Course and businesses. "(4) The proposed uses shall be in keeping with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive 354 Baker Tallow Tah,cs Unclassified Use Permi ' File No. L92 -0010 5. Since the overall operation is not compatible with surrounding uses or in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, it is a non - conforming use per TMC 18.70. 6. As a non - conforming use the tallow tank installation would be inappropriate since: "No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased nor extended to occupy a greater use than was occupied at the effective date of adoption of this title;" RECOMMENDATION Land Use Policy.Plan;" -- The Zoning Code reflects and implements the sum total of Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies. Since the plant does not conform with the non - nuisance nature of M -1 zone uses • (Conclusion No. 3), it is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. Based on the information presented to the City Council as herein revised, the Planning Division staff continues to conclude that • the additional tallow tanks in and of themselves do not increase the level of nuisance activities (see previously submitted Planning Staff Report date April 15, 1992). However, the tanks are functionally linked with, and enhance the basic non- conforming activity (Conclusion No. 6). They thus cannot be considered as a separate element. Therefore, • the proposed tallow tanks should not be allowed since they would be an expansion of a non - conforming use per conclusions 2 6. Planning Staff further recommends that the Council should find that this improvement would be appropriate at such time as the use ceases to generate nuisance impacts, subject to a detailed evaluation of project consistency with all applicable laws. TMC 18.70.040(1) • Page 4 255 k f 0 4 1 , 1 , 1908 , �\ City of Tukwila I 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W Rants, Mayor MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT F To: Tukwila City Council From: John McFarland, City Administrator Date: July 25, 1992 RE: Baker Tallow Tanks -- Request for Con On July 13th, 1992 the City Council continued the Baker public hearing to July 27, 1992 to allow applicant response to new information and staff's evaluation to be presented. Subsequent to the hearing, we discovered that completion of all engineering and needed PSAPCA approvals, final negotiation, and legal analyses is not possible by July 27, 1992. Staff and the Applicant request that the Council further continue the public hearing to September 14, 1992. The applicant is confident of being prepared by August 17, 1992. This would allow staff preparation for a public hearing on September 14, 1992. • Phone: (206) 433.1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433.1833 • • 346 RECEIVED NOV 0 5 1992 Verbatim Transcript CMGCTJKWILA Tukwila City Council - Committee of the Whole CRYATTORNrEY'SOFFICE July 27,1992 Public Hearing - Item 5a: Continuance: Review request by Baker Commodities for unclassified use permit for installation of seven tallow tanks at Seattle Rendering Works, 5795 So. 130th P1. Ekberg Item 5a: Public Hearing Robertson I have a question. Do we have to open the public hearing before we can continue it? Kenyon No. Just move to continue. Robertson Then I would make a motion that the Council continue the public hearing to September 14, 1992. Duffie Second Simpson I'd like to state for the record that I listened to a portion of the public hearing that I missed the night of the public hearing which was about a half hour. Kenyon This is repeating myself and I think something Vern said last week, but it is quasi- judicial, it will remain quasi- judicial, so please don't take any steps on your own to look into this. If you hear from representatives or really even constituents, you ought to just politely turn them away. Ekberg Thank you, Mike. Alright, there's been a motion to move a continuance of the Baker Commodities project to September 14th. All those in favor? (unanimous response); all those against? (No response). Transcribed by Jane Cantu, City Clerk 347 TO: FROM: DATE: of Tukwila Department of Community Development M E M O R A N D U M • Mayor Rants Rick Beeler, D September 17, 1992 SUBJECT: Baker Commodities Unclassified Use Permit A public hearing on Baker Commodities unclassified use permit application was held September 14, 1992. Action on the application was not taken,•but was moved to the September 21, 1992 Council meeting. The applicant's representative submitted the attached additional information. Due to the lateness of receipt of this information, the City Attorney will respond during the Council meeting. Attachment I •.• • John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 11100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 4313665 396 Findings City of Tukwila Washington Resolution No. / AI c1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DENYING THE REQUEST BY PACIFIC ENGINEERING ON BEHALF OF BAKER COMMODITIES, INC. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF NINE TALLOW TANKS AT 5795 SOUTH 130TH PLACE; TUKWILA, WASHINGTON. WHEREAS, Richard Tomkins of Pacific Engineering Company made application on behalf of Baker Commodities, Inc. for an Unclassified Use Permit pursuant to TMC 18.66, to install nine tallow storage tanks at an animal rendering facility located at 5795 South 130th Place in the City of Tukwila, as described in Department of Community Development File No. L92- 0010, and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Determination of Non - significance was issued on April 8, 1992 and was not appealed, and WHEREAS, on April 23, 1992, the Tukwila Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application, considered the application with respect to the Unclassified Use Criteria (TMC 18.66.060), and recommended Tukwila City Council approval of the permit, and WHEREAS, the Tukwila City Council scheduled a public hearing for this application on July 13, 1992, which was continued by mutual agreement of the parties to September 14, 1992, and WHEREAS, on September 21, 1992, the City Council opened the record to receive additional information and then deliberated on the accumulated record, the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code and the recommendation of the Planning Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The application for an unclassified use permit for the installation of nine tallow tanks is denied based on the following Findings: A. Testimony arguing that the tallow tanks will not contribute to air (odor) pollution is not credible. Assurances of odor elimination upon approval of two previous applications for facility improvements were given by essentially the same parties. However, for whatever engineering or operational reasons, the facility continues to generate a high level of obnoxious odor to date. No reasonable council member could be expected to believe such assurances of no odor impacts a third time, B. The tallow tanks individually and as an integral part of facility operations, contribute to the obnoxious odors being generated. The tanks are thus not generally compatible with the surrounding residential areas to the northeast (Skyway) and northwest (Foster Point), the golf course to the west, and businesses to the southwest. This compatibility is required in Unclassified Use Criteria No. 3 (TMC 18.66.060), C. The continued generation of obnoxious odors makes addition of the tallow tanks or enlargement of the facility in any way, in conflict with the following Comprehensive Plan, Commerce/Industry Element objectives and policies: 281 Objective 1 (Pg. 60) -- "Encourage a smooth, steady and planned growth of the business community." Policy 1 (Pg. 60) -- "Encourage the grouping of uses which will mutually and economically benefit each other or provide necessary services." Facility expansion would be detrimental to surrounding businesses since this would encourage the continuation of a facility which generates a high level of obnoxious odors. Policy 2 (Pg. 60) -- "Allow for the location of new commercial and industrial areas and the expansion of existing ones when this expansion is compatible with surrounding land use and not detrimental to the public welfare." The historic generation of obnoxious odors and the anticipated continuation in the future makes the facility detrimental to the surrounding uses and the public, based on public testimony, the public record, and personal observations. Policy 5 (Pg. 61) -- "Promote renovation of areas which are not aesthetically pleasing." Adding the proposed tanks does not promote the renovation of an aesthetically non - pleasing facility. It would have a significant negative aesthetic impact on surrounding residences and golf course. Objective 2 (Pg. 62) -- "Provide adequate opportunity for industrial and warehouse uses." and The facility expansion would inhibit the growth of warehouse and industrial areas. Policy 1 (Pg. 62) -- "Discourage the locating of hazardous industries or those emitting pollutants in excess of acceptable standards." (Pg. 62) Policy 2 (Pg. 63) -- Encourage uses which are supportive to industrial and warehouse uses to locate in or near such activities." The facility does not attract uses envisioned by the City in this area. Encouraging facility expansion would be in conflict with this policy. D. The facility engages in an activity which is an unclassified use, was legally established prior to adoption of Zoning Code amendments in 1982, has no unclassified use permit per TMC 18.66 and testimony substantiating that it generates a significant level of obnoxious odors. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the City Council hereby enters the following conclusions: The Council concludes that the proposed tallow tank expansion fails to satisfy three of the five Unclassified Use Criteria in TMC 18.66.060 as discussed below: A. The tanks and facility expansion will be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity due to the anticipated odors generated and by enhancing a facility which generates a high level of obnoxious odors (TMC 18.66.060(1)). B. The tanks and facility expansion are not compatible with surrounding land uses due to the anticipated odors generated and by enhancing a facility which generates a high level of obnoxious odors (TMC 18.66.060(3)). C. The tanks and facility expansion would not be in keeping with the goal M, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan (TMC 18.66.060(4)). 282 2. The City Council further resolves and concludes that the facility is currently a legally non - conforming use, and that installation of the proposed tallow tanks would be an enlargement of an existing legally non - conforming use which is prohibited in TMC 18.70.040(1). This is based on Finding D, above. PASSED BY THE CITY COU OF THE ITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this ,7 ' day of r= :�- !��_G -E - , 1992. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: e E. Cantu, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THFICITY ATTORNEY: Filed with the City Clerk: /C - /- 7, Passed by the City Council: /0 - .� -r1.Z• Resolution Number, /.?,,Z 9 Allan Ekberg, Council Presid 283 TACOMA OFFICE 2200 FIRST INTERSTATE PLAZA POST OFFICE BOX 1157 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98401-1157 (206) 572-5050 FACSIMILE (206) 572.4516 WARREN R. PETERSON (1226.1960) THOMAS L. FISHBURNE (1939•1967) REPLY TO TACOMA OFFICE LAW OFFICES CORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA, PETERSON 8 DAHEIM Mayor John W. Rants Tukwila City Councilmembers City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 ALBERT R. MALANCA, RS. ELIZABETH PIKE MARTIN WARREN J. DAHEIM ALAN D. MACPHERSON L.R. GHILARDUCCI. JR. NATE D. MANNAKEE JOE GOROON, JR. THOMAS L. PALOTAS DENNIS 5. MARLOWE DIANE J. KERO MARK G. HONEYWELL. RS. WILLIAM R. WILKERSON DALE L. CARLISLE, RS. BRADLEY A. MAX* WILLIAM E. HOLT DONNA R. ROPER DANIEL R PEPPLE SAL MUNGIA RONALD B. LEIGHTON LINDA J. BARNARD•KING JOHN C. GUADNOLA WARREN E. MARTIN DONALD W. HANFORD EILEEN S. PETERSON CHARLOTTE N. CHALKER. R5. F. MIKE SHAFFER TIMOTHY J. WHITTERS H. JANE NORTH WILLIAM T. LYNN GREGORY A, PARKER KENNETH G. KIEFFER BRADLEY B. JONES JAMES C. WALDO TERRY L. BRINK ROBERT G. HUTCHINS, R5. STEPHANIE A. AREND MATTHEW W. STANLEY JACKSON SCHMIDT J. RICHARD CREATURA LAWRENCE F. BROWN, JR. MICHAEL O. HITT JUDY RAE JAAPRICA DONALO 5. COHEN JAMES T. SEELY ROBERT C. GRAYSON SHERRY CLARK PETERSON VICTORIA L. VREELAND MARY KAY HIGH WILLIAM 0. WHITMAN MARGARET Y. ARCHER JOHN R. CONNELLY, JR. TIMOTHY N. LANG ALFRED M. FALK KRISTEN R. LICHTENBERG MARYWAVE VAN DEREN MARILYN L. TAYLOR September 16, 1992 SEATTLE OFFICE ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY, SUITE 2101 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 -4185 (206) 447-9505 FACSIMILE (206) 622.9779 OF COUNSEL JOSEPH H. GORDON CHARLES L. THOMAS VALEN H. HONEYWELL W. WALLACE CAVANAGH. JR. JAMES A. FUR8ER. RS. HARDYN N. SOULE COUNSEL JOHN L. PATTERSON PATRICIA K. SCHAFER DAVID 0. CANTU RE CEIVED sE ci P 7 1992 1 MAYOR'S OFFICE ICE F�C Re: Baker Commodities Tallow Tanks, Unclassified Use Permit Application CAS No. 92 -114 Dear Mayor Rants and Tukwila City Councilmembers: On Monday, September 14, the City Council held a public hearing on Baker Commodities' unclassified use permit application to locate nine tallow tanks on Baker's site at 5795 South 130th Place. The Council deferred discussion and decision on the matter until its next regular scheduled meeting on Monday, September 21. Because Baker Commodities had insufficient time to respond to a staff recommendation that was issued. at 4 :45 p.m. on Friday, September 11, we submit this letter in support of issuance of the unclassified use permit. The Council's decision on this application is to be guided by the five criteria set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code § 18.66.060. Each of these criteria are satisfied here.. 1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. The primary concern of adjoining property, owners is air quality. The only evidence of the ,impact of these tanks on air quality was submitted by Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority. PSAPCA's staff concluded that installation of the tallow tanks would not be expected to ITA922E00.0371 GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL MALANCA, PETERSON 8 DAHEIM September 16, 1992 Page 2 ITA922000.0371 * ** significantly increase the odor from the site since it will be a field system until put into a transport truck. No evidence was submitted to the contrary. The other two concerns that have been raised are increased truck traffic and the visual impact of the tanks. Mr. Hammond testified that the storage tanks would result in an increase of four truck trips per month. No evidence to the contrary was submitted. Four additional truck trips per month is not "material," and therefore cannot be a basis for denial of the permit. Similarly, the staff has recommended conditions of approval to minimize the potential visual impacts of the tanks on adjacent properties. Aesthetic concerns would be addressed by large stature, quick growing evergreen trees, siting the shorter tanks riverward of the taller tanks to provide visual transition, and by painting the tanks with a low reflector color. Any visual impact of these tanks will not be material and therefore cannot be a basis for denial of the permit. 2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the same standards for parking, landscaping, yard and other development regulations that are required in the district it will occupy. There is no dispute that the tanks will be placed on site in compliance with all parking, landscaping, yard and other development regulations for the M -1 zone. 3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses. The site is zoned M -1, and is surrounded by a river on three sides and M -2 zoning on the fourth side. There is no question but that the tanks are compatible with the M -1 zone. Moreover, they do not render the site any more or less compatible with the surrounding uses than the current use. The current use is visually screened from adjacent properties by a mature landscaping buffer. Additional screening of the tanks has been proposed by Baker and agreed upon by Planning Staff. With proper screening, the tanks are generally compatible with the surrounding land uses. 4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. The zoning map designates the site as M -1. TMC § 18.40.020 lists the M -1 zone's permitted uses, which include: (2) Businesses which manufacture, process and /or package foods, including, but not limited to, . . . dairy products and byproducts ... and meats (no slaughtering); • CORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL MALANCA, PETERSON 8 DAH E I M September 16, 1992 Page 3 1TA922600.0371 (16) Outside storage of materials allowed to be manufactured or handled within facilities conforming to uses under this chapter and screened pursuant to Chapter 18.52; (17) Other similar and compatible uses of a light industrial character. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this site as "Light Industrial." The M -1 zone is Light Industrial. The M -1 zone contemplates storage of materials used in processing animal products and byproducts. TMC § 18.40.020(2) and (16). Therefore, the storage tanks further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. All measures shall be taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. Only three possible adverse impacts have been identified as a result of locating these tanks on the site: odor, increased truck traffic, and aesthetics. As set forth above, proper mitigating measures as recommended by staff, will minimize or alleviate any potential impact of locating the tanks on the site. The law does not require that all adverse impacts be eliminated. See Maranatha Mining v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795, 804, 801 P.2d 985 (1990). In light of the above analysis and as set forth more fully in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission prepared April 15, 1992, and as supplemented with the letter from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency dated May 19, 1992, the five criteria upon which the Council must base its decision have been satisfied. The unclassified use permit should be granted. Nevertheless, in a Memorandum dated September 9, 1992, from Rick Beeler, Department of Community Development to John McFarland, the Planning Staff reverses its previous recommendation for approval. In that Memorandum, the only basis that they state for recommending denial of the permit is grounded in allegations of ordinance violations by the current operation. This is not a proper basis for denying the permit. If the Council is concerned with Baker's ability to comply with the conditions of this permit, the proper remedy is to monitor the operation and to withdraw the permit in the event of noncompliance. See Maranatha Mining v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795, 804, 801 P.2d 985 (1990). Tukwila Municipal Code provides for such a remedy. TMC § 18.66.080. It is clear from the last paragraph of Staff's September 9 report, . \ GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL MALANCA, PETERSON 8 DAHEIM September 16, 1992 Page 4 SAA:bh cc Michael R. Kenyon Baker Commodities, Inc. Richard A. Tomkins 1TA022800.037; ... '. -.. Very truly yours, that Planning Staff is only recommending denial based on the allegations of ordinance violations of the current permitted use. Planning Staff states that the tanks would be appropriate if the current use ceases to generate nuisance impacts. Nuisance impacts of the current use are not properly before you. Moreover, the Council cannot base its decision on community displeasure with a current permitted use. leg Maranatha Minim supra. That issue must be addressed through proper enforcement provisions. Staff also seems to argue that the rendering plant is a nonconforming use that cannot be expanded. This argument fails for several reasons. First, the rendering plant is an unclassified use. Several unclassified use permits have been issued by the City for various aspects of the plant. Some of these permits were for upgrades and some were for expansions. Consequently, even if this is a nonconforming use, the City has allowed expansion in the past and has waived its right to now take a contrary position. More importantly, however, the location of these tanks is not an expansion because they will not increase processing activities or capacities. Consequently, the Council cannot deny this permit application on the basis that it is an expansion of a nonconforming use. The Council's decision must focus on the five criteria set forth in the Tukwila Municipal Code for unclassified use permit applications, and no other considerations. Because the evidence is undisputed that these criteria have been met, the permit must be granted. Stephanie A. Arend May 7, 1992 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Tomkins Pacific Engineering Design Inc. 130 Andover Park East Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98188 RE: Baker Tallow Tanks Dear Rick, This letter is to confirm my understanding of how we will proceed to resolve the City's concerns about potential odor impacts from the tanks. Please contact Jack Pace (431 -3686) immediately if I have misunderstood anything or you have any questions. 1. At this time, additional information must be provided on the equipment and practices which will be used to minimize the possibility of spills, and clean up when one eventually occurs. 2. This information should include, but not be limited to: a. what equipment is available to monitor tallow levels in each tank, b. what maintenance equipment maintenance practices will assure proper operations, c. what specific spill response actions will be taken (i.e. availability of equipment such as steam hose location, time to start steam cleaning, etc.) This is a partial list based on my lay knowledge and shall not be a substitute for the considered judgement of experts in the field. 3. I will be mailing a letter to Jim Nolan requesting an elaboration on the approved Notice of Construction. The hope is that PSAPCA will provide standards for best technology and practices to minimize odor potential from the tanks. 4. I will fax you the letter Tukwila intends to send to Nolan (attached). Jack Pace should be contacted if you wish to make minor technical editing changes. Phone: (206) 433.1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433.1833 19 Sincerely, Anything more than minor editing changes will have be await my return on June 1st. Jack will mail this letter on next Tuesday unless he hears from you. 5. If PSAPCA's response does not resolve Tukwila concerns, then the City will hire an independent consultant to help establish equipment and practice standards. 6. I anticipate going to Council no earlier than mid -June and no later than the end of July. 7. I have attached the Planning Commission's recommended conditions. ernon Umetsu, Assoc. Planner file:render \tomkins5.7 12.7 Planning Commission Recommended Conditions to Approval for L92 -0010: Unclassified Use Permit for Baker Tallow Tanks The Planning Division recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. An operations and maintenance plan shall be approved by the City of Tukwila and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority prior to permit review by the City Council. At a minimum, this plan shall include a monitoring and maintenance program to assure no tank overflow or equipment failure to the maximum extent possible, a rapid spill response plan and a training program for company staff. This application shall be forwarded to the Council for final action . within 60 days of Planning Commission recommendation, with or without the operations and maintenance plan. 2. Tanks shall be sited with the 18.5 ft. tall units toward the river to provide visual transition to the 34.5 ft. tall units. 3. Tanks shall be painted a flat, non - reflective color which is similar to the existing green painted structures and reduces their visual prominence. 4. Tallow truck traffic shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. 5. Landscaping shall be installed as proposed. 6. Baker Commodities shall make every effort throughout its existence within the city of Tukwila to reduce and keep at a minimum odorous and noxious emissions from the plant. 128 Opt''- ` �r l City of Tukwila •( „� ,*- r�1 t k , j�� f i 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor r 1908 __ May 5, 1992 Jim Nolan, Manager Compliance Division, Engineering Section Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority 200 W. Mercer Street, Room 205 Seattle, WA 98119 RE: Elaboration of Notice of Construction No 4431 (Baker Commodities). Dear Mr. Nolan, I have received your approved Notice of Construction for the installation of tallow tanks at Baker Commodities. The proposed tanks requires a special "Unclassified Use" permit from the City Council. There is a high level of concern from staff, area residents, the Planning Commission, and City Council members that this expansion not result in increased odors. Staff and the Planning Commission were hopeful that PSAPCA review would provide this assurance. Unfortunately, the approved Notice of Construction is very cryptic and does not seem to provide such assurance. I would appreciate your staff elaborating on the approval and include conclusions on: , 1. Best available equipment and practices which could be used to minimize the chance of accidents, human error, or equipment failure; '2. Best equipment and practices for spill response at this site; and 3. other issues the City should consider. This information would be presented at a City Council hearing in June. I would appreciate a response by June 1st. Please feel free to contact Jack Pace in my absence at 431 -3686. Sincerely, Vernon Umetsu, Assoc Planner cc: Tomkins Phone: (206) 433-1800 • C(ty Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 4. file:render \nolan 11 OLD BUSINESS b', 77217 ( / ) /(- 7 City Attorney Mike Kenyon explained that a letter from Stephanie Arend, attorney for Baker Commodities, was received earlier this week and is technically outside the public hearing record of 9/14/92. A motion is needed to reopen the record to accept her letter and a brief response from Associate Planner Vern Umetsu. MOVED BY LAWRENCE, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL REOPEN THE RECORD AND ACCEPT INTO THE RECORD THE SEPTEMBER 16 LETTER FROM STEPHANIE AREND, ATTORNEY FOR BAKER COMMODITIES, AND THE RESPONSE FROM STAFF. MOTION CARRIED. Kenyon explained that Arend's letter states her position and her client's position on how the Council ought to consider the various criteria set forth for determining whether to issue an Unclassified Use Permit. Council's position may or may not be similar to Ms. Arend's. Kenyon pointed out that Vernon Umetsu's memo addresses what staff considers factual errors in Ms. Arend's letter regarding non - conforming use status. From a legal standpoint, Baker Commodities is a non - conforming use. It is a legal non - conforming use because it was in operation as of the adoption date of the Zoning Code in 1982. There are two parts to Council's analyses: 1) analyze the criteria for an Unclassified Use Permit in an up or down vote, and 2) an up or down vote on a non - conforming use status and whether this proposal would constitute an enlargement or increase of an otherwise legal non- conforming use. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO CLOSE THE RECORD AFTER ACCEPTING BOTH THE BAKER COMMODITIES LETTER AND THE MEMO FROM VERNON UMETSU DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1992. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO DENY THE REQUEST.* In support of the motion Councilmember Robertson stated that he was basing his argument two things. First, although there had been testimony from Baker Commodities that the tanks would in no way contribute to the air polution or any other problems, he basically did not believe that, adding that he failed to see how any reasonable person could. Robertson continued that as a councilmember three or four years ago, Council listened to the same arguments and allowed the non - conforming use. The arguments presented to Council then were that the engineering things that would be done to the plant would prevent the release of obnoxious odors. The second part was, Robertson concluded, that they would operate the plant in such a way that there would be no odors. Robertson pointed out that three or four years ago as was testified by the citizens in the last public hearing on this topic, that's not what has happened. He stated he didn't know for a fact whether it is the engineering or the operations of the plant, but it is very clear that the end result of this use of that property is a great nuisance to the properties surrounding it. Second, part of the conditions Council must choose is that "basically the proposed development shall be compatable generally with the surrounding land uses ". In the letter received from the applicant's attorney dated September 16, Ms. Arend states in the second paragraph, point 3, "the proposed development shall be compatable generally with the surrounding land use ". Council has to determine that in order to allow this addition. Ms. Arend's letter further states "the site is zoned M -1, is surrounded by river on three sides, and M -2 zoning on the fourth side ". That is true but it misses the point. The fact that the river is on three sides is not the issue. What is really the issue is what else is past the river on those three sides. If the river In question was the Columbia River, maybe we wouldn't have a problem. But since it's the Green River, it's a real issue. Robertson stated that if he took a look at that point and went into the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, there are a series of arguments on page 60 of the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy under Chapter 4, Commerce and Industry, Objective 1: "Encourage a smooth and planned growth of the business community. Policy 1: Encourage the grouping of uses which will mutually and economically benefit each other or provide necessary services'. Robertson stated he did not believe that the 257 Recycling Franchise Ordinance addition of these tanks or the enlargement of this facility in any way meets that need or that requirement. It is not beneficial to the businesses around it. Robertson noted his own observations and testimony have shown the opposite to be true. Quoting from Policy 2: "Expansion of existing one where this expansion is compatable with surrounding land use and not detrimental to the public welfare ". As stated earlier, Robertson pointed out he did not believe the arguments presented by Baker Commodities that the use of any of their facilities would not be detrimental. Robertson stated that the testimony, his own observations, and the public record had shown that the plant is detrimental to the uses around it and the public. There are very obnoxious odors, they do exist and have existed for a long time. Council listened to the arguments three years ago saying that they could be taken care of by the operation and the engineering of the plant. That same argument was presented a few weeks ago. Robertson asked why he would believe it now when he didn't believe it three years ago and practice and the record has shown that not to be true. Quoting Policy 5: "Promote renovation of areas which are not esthetically pleasing ". Adding tanks certainly does not promote the renovation of an esthetically non - pleasing area. It is esthetically non - pleasing. On three sides of the business there is a golf course, residential areas -- there's a tremendous impact. Objective 2: "Provide adequate land and opportunities for industries and warehouse uses ". Robertson stated he didn't see how this provides anything for warehouse and industrial growth. In fact, it interferes with that. Policy 1: "Discourage the location of hazardous industries or those admitting polutants in excess of acceptable standards ". That's another Comprehensive Plan that the increased growth of this or the plant's goes against. Policy 2, page 63: "Encourages uses which are supporter of the industrial and warehouse uses to locate in or near such activities ". There is nothing in that use that would encourage the other kinds of uses we've tried to encourage in this area. In conclusion, Robertson stated that to grant this request would be to violate the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and he would vote to turn it down. *MOTION CARRIED. THE REQUEST TO APPROVE AN UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT IS DENIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS INCLUDING THE MATERIAL FROM THE STAFF MEMO AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS. MOTION CARRIED. Attorney Kenyon explained the second issue to be decided was whether or not the addition of these tanks would constitute an enlargement or increase in an existing non - conforming use. The standard non - conforming use law and the TMC prohibit increases or enlargements in non - conforming uses. Councilmember Robertson responded that he felt his argument addressed this issue. Councilmember Duffie agreed. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, THAT COUNCIL CONSIDER THE ADDITION OR ENLARGEMENT OF THE TANKS TO BE AN ENLARGEMENT OF THE EXISTING NON - CONFORMING USE.* Councilmember Robertson stated that based on public testimony and experiences, it was clear that the current use was not only non- conforming but produces obnoxious odors. Further, in his opinion, the enlargement of the use with these tanks would increase the non- conforming use and would be counter to the Comprehensive Land Use Policies. Councilmember Lawrence added that the use also violated the TMC. Mike Kenyon clarified that TMC 18.70 prohibits the enlargement or increase of an existing legal non - conforming use. *MOTION CARRIED. City Administrator John McFarland gave a brief update of the issue explaining that Council reviewed the proposed ordinance at the 8/24 COW at referred it to the 9/8 Regular meeting. At that time Council directed the staff and the haulers requested the staff review the ordinance further for some possible changes. Rebecca 258 ATTACHMENT B City of. Tukwila Department of Community Development PLANNING COMMISSION' MINUTES APRIL 23, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman, Malina. Members present were Messrs. Malina, Haggerton, Meryhew, Gomez, Knudson and Clark. Mr. Flesher was excused. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Vernon Umetsu, Denni Shefrin, and Sylvia Schrltrg. With regard to the minutes of March 26, 1992, Mr. Meryhew stated that the first motion on page two was missing a second to the motion. MR. UAGGERTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 1992; MR. MERYIIEW SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. There were no citizen's comments. . L92 -0010: Baker Commodities Tallow Tanks Vernon Umetsu presented the staff report. Mr. Umetsu stated that the applicant is proposing to locate nine tallow tanks on its site. The Unclassified Use Permit is required because of the rendering of animal fats. The tallow tanks are completely enclosed, five of them are 18 1/2' high, four of them are 34' high. They would be located in a five foot deep concrete lagoon which would also serve as a catch basin in the case of any spills. Between 1976 and 1982, probably with the adoption of the 1982 Code, the Rendering Works became an unclassified use, with all further improvements requiring and unclassified use permit. Several improvements have been made to mitigate impacts since 1982 with the issuance of several unclassified use permits. This would be the first to enhance operations. It would not increase processing capacity. The five zoning code criteria were considered in reviewing this project for. the unclassified use permit. Staff came up with three issues which concern them: 1. potential odor impacts 2. potential truck traffic 3. visual prominence of tanks. In terms of odor impacts, the 1987 improvement made by the applicant, significantly improved the overall situation. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) does not anticipate that these tanks would generate any odor impacts. PSAPCA will also review the operations and maintenance 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 11100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431.3670 • Fax (206) 431.3665 • John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director 295 11-7 • Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 • April 23, 1992 program for these tanks. With regard to truck traffic, Public Works Engineering and Planning reviewed the potential truck generation and do not anticipate any increase in the number of trips as a result of the additional tanks. There would be no increase in the processing capacity at this facility. However, staff would like to limit the hours of truck traffic of the tallow tankers. Finally, with regard to the visual prominence of the tanks, the tanks would be 18' and 30' high from grade. The applicant has agreed to place the 18' tanks in front of the 30' tanks to provide visual transition. The entire facility is now partly screened by a perimeter of evergreen and deciduous trees, as well as, heavy underbrush along the riverbank. This would be supplemented by a double row of Douglas Fir trees, planted 20 feet on center, which is very close. The tanks would be planted a light green to reduce their prominence. Bas4d on these findings, staff concludes that the applicant has satisfied the criteria for approval of the unclassified use permit. Staff has submitted five revised conditions to the recommendation of approval. Note that the truck traffic hours have been revised from 8:00 a.m.- 5:OOp.m. Monday thru Friday to 7:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday. Mr. Gomez stated that he was against the truck operating on Saturdays . due to safety reasons. Mr. Haggerton asked what the worst case scenario would be if the tanks were to rupture. Staff indicated that the tallow is not a hazardous material. The Fire Department has been consulted on this project as well as PSAPCA, and the Department of Health. There is a drain which would feed spillage back into the system internally. Mr. Malina asked if the lagoon had the capacity to contain a silo's worth of material should it rupture. Staff stated that the tallow must be above 140 degrees fahrenheit to remain liquid. Also, we're relying on PSAPCA to make sure that they're operations and maintenance program adequately addresses any spills. Staff went on to say that PSAPCA has to issue a "Notice of Construction" before the tanks can locate there and begin operation. Part of that notice of construction includes a maintenance and operation plan. Rick Tomkins, Pacific Engineering: He stated that if the tank were to rupture, as soon as the tallow, were to hit the air, it would solidify. The lagoon is quite large and would contain a large amount of the tallow if it were in liquid form. Production will not be increased; storage is just being relocated. Mr. Malina asked if there was a leak, how would the tallow be removed from the lagoon and ,;. are there chemicals involved. /4 . April 23, 1992 Mr. Knudson asked where the tanks were currently located. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 Mr. Tomkins stated they are located at Pier 18 at the Port of Seattle and reiterated the fact that the tanks are being relocated because the tank farm at the Port is being closed. The trucks would be leaving the site at the same rate because the same amount of material will be leaving the site. Bill Hammond, Baker Commodities General Manager: He stated that they had previously leased the tank space at the Port at a nominal rate. He said that truck traffic will increase by approximately 2 -3 trucks per week. Having the option of trucking on Saturdays allows them to accommodate shipping schedules which they cannot control. Mr asked if any chemicals were used to clean the lagoons. Mr. Hammond stated that they were not allowed to use any chemicals. The only thing allowable would be caustic which is bio- degradable in tallow. Mr. Malina asked how long he has been General Manager and if they have had any spills since his employment. Mr. Hammond said that he has been there since August of 1985 and they have had one spill and it was not at all devastating. They were fined $500 by the Department of Ecology. Mr. Clark asked if there were vents in the tanks. Mr. Hammond said there was a six inch vent on top' and a four inch vent on the side. Mr. Malina asked how long ago Baker Commodities had taken over for Seattle Rendering Works. Mr. Hammond stated since 1985. Mr. Malina asked how often the employees had an emergency drill. Mr. Hammond stated that they had a drill every quarter. Mr. Gomez asked how much of a hardship would it be if the trucks did not run on Saturdays. Mr. Hammond said that he didn't know if there would be a hardship, however, there could be a circumstance where trucking on Saturdays would be required. 297 • Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 1992 Janelle Baldwin, 5827 S 144: Ms. Baldwin stated that her neighborhood is exposed to a number of the odors and pollutants in Tukwila due to their geographical location. Both Metro and the rendering woiks emit noxious smells. The Rendering Works has a long history with Tukwila, while Metro is more recent. Ms. Baldwin said that she admits that she has had incomplete information regarding the need for use permits. Nonetheless, she expressed her concern for the growing tendency to allow the offenders to grow and become stronger. Therefore, local bodies must do everything within their power to protect and defend that quality of life that is a healthy city. It is the deterioration of the quality of life that will be reflected in community stability or lack or it. It is also these things that will destroy what. is desirable in a healthy, stable community. Joann McManus, 5610 S 133: . She stated that large trucks are using 56th street to do their hauling. These trucks are double in size and the streets there are very narrow. The trucks have hit animals in the past. The odor from the Rendering Works hasn't been as bad in the winter time but it's still bad in the summer time. She said that she is very much against anything. that will bring more traffic and odor in their neighborhood. Mr. Hammond stated that they do not allow their truckers to use 56th or 57th street. Mr. Gomez asked why the trucks are not covered when they travel along 124th. Mr. Hammond said that the tallow trucks are covered, they have to be; but the trucks carrying the carcass, by law, do not have to be covered. Mr. Malina closed the public hearing at 9:05 a.rn. Mr. Meryhew stated that he didn't feel the additional trucks would have much of an impact on the existing traffic problems. Mr. Haggerton said that he didn't feel that trucking on Saturdays was needed. Mr. Meryhew agreed that the applicant .does not have any control over the shipping schedules and trucking on Saturdays may be required. Mr. Haggerton said that if it were in any other area, he would agree, however, this residential area is very impacted. This is the opportunity to place some restrictions on truck traffic and lessen the impact on the residents. Mr. Clark stated that if the project gets approved, that the motion beseech the applicant to use every available means to keep the noxious odors at a minimum. 298 31' Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 1992 MR. CLARK MOVED TO APPROVE L92 -0010, UNCLAS BAKER TALLOW TANKS SUBJECT TO THE OPERATI PLAN BEING REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ADDITION TO PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTR ALSO TO ITEMS 2, 3, 4, AND 5 OF STAFF RECOMME REPORT; AND ALSO SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDA AND THE CITIZENS OF TUKWILA THAT THE BAKER CO EFFORT THROUGHOUT ITS EXISTENCE WITHIN TH REDUCE AND KEEP AT A MINIMUM ODOROUS AND NO THE PLANT. MR. IIAGGERTON SECONDED THE MO PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5 -1 WITH MR. GOMEZ OPPOS Mr. Malina called for a five minute recess at 9:25 p.m. Mt. Malina called the meeting back to order at 9:35 p.m. 91 -8 -DR, 91 -6 -CUP: Metro Denni Shefrin presented the staff report. She stated that she elements: building design, the art project, the trail, landscapin to the surrounding developments. The pump station would and includes an art project which would be located in the plaz be within a 19' X 19' square. The building design incorpo carried out into the street using a combination of brick and building is glass block. There would be screening walls on eith in the screening of mechanical equipment located behind the accessed by a single driveway located to the north of the bu intrusion into the pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Staff raises two issues with regard to the building, one being in the way the building has been treated with the exterior ma elevations differ from the front and rear elevations. The side concrete, whereas the front and rear have a majority of brick. with the rooftop element. There is a rooftop element which of the screenwall. Staff's feeling is that the rooftop element function. With respect to the screen wall, staff recommends that the w face and the vegetation be moved forward or in front of the the vegetation be lawn area. That would also serve to provide Page 5 IFIED USE PERMIT FOR NS AND MAINTENANCE CITY OF TUKWILA, IN L AUTHORITY; SUBJECT DATIONS IN THE STAFF ON OF THE COMMISSION ODITIES MAKE EVERY CITY OF TUKWILA TO OUS EMISSIONS FROM ON; THE MOTION WAS D. • would discuss five dominant , and how the project relates e approximately 7,900 sq. ft. area. The art project would ates a grid pattern which is concrete. The front of the r side of the project to assist building. The site would be Iding. It serves to minimize he importance of continuity erials. The north and south levations have a majority of The second issue has to do mulates the design features oes not serve any particular 11 be flush with the building all. Staff recommends that ore seating and picnic area. 299 To: Mayor Rants ATTACHMENT A City of Tukwila Department of Community Development • MEMORANDUM OF TRANSMITTAL From: Vernon Umetsu Department of Community Development Date: July 8, 1992 • RE: Synopsis of Baker Tallow Tank Review (L92- 0010). Proposal Baker Commodities (the new owners of the Seattle Rendering Works) is applying for an "unclassified use permit" per TMC 18.66, to allow the relocation of nine tallow storage tanks from Port of Seattle property to their Tukwila site at 5795 S. 130th Place. Relocation is required due to closure of the Port of Seattle Tank Farm where the tanks were sited. This is a quasi - judicial permit and the "appearance of fairness" rule applies. In general, Council members and the Mayor (as a voting tie breaker) should not discuss this matter prior to the public hearing. Issues Reviewed The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 23, 1992 which was advertised in the Hazelnut, by letter to all property owners and residents within 300 ft. of the property boundary, and in the Valley News legal section. The Commission deliberations focused on four main areas: odor, visibility to Foster Golf Course, truck traffic, and spill response. The staff analysis, 'public testimony, and Commission deliberations are attached. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of the unclassified use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. An operations and maintenance plan shall be approved by the City of Tukwila staff and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority prior to permit review by the City Council. At a minimum, this plan shall include a monitoring and maintenance program to assure no tank overflow or equipment failure to the maximum extent possible, a rapid 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 43/3665 John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, 'Director 293 C spill response plan and a training program for company staff. This application shall be forwarded to the Council ' for final action within 60 days of Planning Commission recommendation, with or without the operations and maintenance plan. 2. Tanks shall be sited with the 18.5 ft. tall units toward the river to provide visual transition to the 34.5 ft. tall units. 3. Tanks shall be painted a flat, non- reflective color which is similar to the existing green painted structures and reduces their visual prominence. 4. Tallow truck traffic shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. 5. Landscaping shall be installed as proposed. 6. Baker Commodities shall make every effort throughout its • existence within the City of Tukwila to reduce and keep at a minimum odorous and noxious emissions from the plant. Current Status The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority (PSAPCA) has approved tank relocation, and Tukwila Planning staff have reviewed the spill response plan on file with PSAPCA and is satisfied that spill events would be quickly and effectively cleaned up. ATTACHMENTS file render \eynopuie • 294 /CO ■ City of John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Prepared April 15, 1992 HEARING DATE: April 23, 1992 FILE NUMBER: L92 -0010: Unclassified Use Permit for Baker Tallow Tanks APPLICANT: Richard Tomkins, Pacific Engineering Co. for Baker Commodities Inc. REQUEST: To locate nine tallow storage tanks on site. LOCATION: 5795 S. 130th Place; Tukwila, WA ACREAGE: Tanks to be located in a 30,000 s.f. concrete lagoon on a 11.87 acre (517,057 s.£) site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial ZONING DISTRICT: M -1 (Light Industry) SEPA DETERMINATION: Mitigated D.N.S. issued on April 8, 1992. PLANNING STAFF: Vernon Umetsu ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed Tallow Tank Location and Elevations B. Surrounding Land Use C. Landscape Plan 102 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Staff Report to the L92 -0010: Baker Tallow Tanks Planning Commission Page 2 FINDINGS OF FACT VICINITY/SITE INFORMATION Project Description: Baker Commodities (new owners of the Seattle Rendering Works facility) proposes to install nine tallow storage tanks within an existing 120 ft. x 250 ft. concrete lagoon. The tanks would be located within an "L" formed by existing buildings and face west toward Foster Golf Course (Attachment A). Five tanks are 18.5 ft. high with a 16 ft. diameter while four are 34 ft. high with a 13.5 ft. diameter (Attachment A). The stored tallow is not classified as a hazardous waste. The proposed tanks are currently owned by Baker Commodities and would be moved from their existing location at the Port of Seattle Tank Farm. Tank relocation is required due to closing of the Tank Farm. Existing Development: The site is currently developed with processing facilities for the rendering and disposal of animal carcasses (Attachment A). Tallow is currently trucked to an off site location and thence to buyers. Surrounding Land Use: Surrounding land use is shown in Attachment B. In general, there are residences to the north, Foster Golf Course to the south and west, and rail road/light industrial uses to the east. The 120+ ft. wide Duwamish River separates the site from residences and golf course (Attachment B).. Terrain: Terrain is generally flat in the surrounding area except toward the east where a steep 100+ ft. high cliff rapidly rises to the Skyway residential area (Attachment B). Public Facilities: Foster Golf Course lies to the west and south (Attachment B). BACKGROUND The project site has been the location of an animal rendering facility since 1936. It was annexed into the City of Tukwila in 1957 and zoned M -1 under the original Zoning Ordinance (No. 251) in that year. The existing facility is the result of various upgrades and expansions from its origins as the Marolf Rendering Company. All applications for expansions and upgrades after annexation were approved by the City of Tukwila. 103 Staff Report to the L92 -0010: Baker Tallow Tanks Planning Commission Page 3 The facility has historically generated intense odors which have affected Tukwila neighborhoods. Upgraded air filtration equipment, operating procedures and Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority (PSAPCA) monitoring were instituted in 1987. The 1987 improvements have dramatically reduced odor generation. However, occasional off site odor impacts should be expected due to equipment failure or human error. DECISION CRITERIA The proposed tallow tanks are an "Unclassified Use" per TMC 18.66.020(3). As such, the Planning Commission is required to hold a public hearing, evaluate the proposed use based on the following criteria, and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will then make a final decision. 'The planning commission and city council shall be guided by the following criteria in granting an unclassified use permit:" (TMC 18.66.060). The decision criteria in TMC 18.66.060 are shown in bold followed by the applicant response, and staff response. These criteria may be used in determining if, on balance, the proposed use is appropriate based on the Purpose of this chapter (TMC 18.66.010) and in identifying conditions of development approval. 1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public we(are or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. Applicant's Response "Correct, the effect of this proposal is to maintain current production levels by moving storage tanks on -site rather than losing them with the closure of Port of Seattle's Tank Farm. The proposal will permit the additional storage of a . maximum of 985 tons of tallow on -site. (There are several tanks on -site already which store tallow.)" Staff's Response: The existing facility's odor impacts have been a significant nuisance in the past, to the extent of making many outdoor areas unusable. However this has been corrected through new facilities and procedures as discussed in "Background." Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority staff generally conclude that installation of the tallow tanks would not be expected to significantly increase the odor from the site since it will be a sealed system until put into a transport truck (Gribbens, 3/31/92). PSAPCA's conclusion relies on there being a maintenance, 104 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Page 4 monitoring and event response program, good faith implementation by the owner, and monitoring and quick complaint response by the owner and PSAPCA. Tank visual prominence would be reduced by large stature, quick growing evergreen trees as proposed by the applicant in Attachment C. Visual prominence could be further reduced by siting the shorter tanks riverward of the taller tanks to provide visual transition, and by painting the tanks with a low reflective color. L92 -0010: Baker Tallow Tanks 2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the same standards for parking, landscaping, yards and other development regulations that are required in the district it will occupy. Applicant's Response "The proposal shall have no effect on existing parking, landscaping, etc. The tanks will be installed in an existing concrete lagoon. This lagoon is a former anaerobic filter structure that is an open box 4 ft. deep by 100 ft. long by 50 ft. wide." Staff's Response All minimum standards are satisfied. 3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses. Applicant's Response 'There will be no change from existing conditions other than additional amounts of the tallow that is produced on -site will be stored on -site rather than trucked away to some distant storage facility. The additional tanks are relatively small (5 tanks are 18'6" tall, 4 tanks are 34' tall) compared with existing tanks on -site (tallest approximately 70' high). Site is well screened by trees and additional tanks will not be noticeable by home owners to the northwest. Additional tanks may be noticeable from some areas of Foster Golf Course, but *ill be relatively small in scale." Staff's Response The proposed additional tallow tanks would be as compatible with surrounding land uses as other Principally Permitted Uses allowed in the M -1 (Light Industry) zone, with the mitigation of odor and visual impacts as discussed in Criteria 1 above. 105 Staff Report to the L92 -0010: Baker Tallow Tanks Planning Commission Page 5 4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. Applicant's Response 'The proposed use is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. The proposal will allow current tallow production capacity to be maintained by replacing existing off -site storage which will be lost when the Port of Seattle closes its tank farm." Staff's Response Comprehensive Plan direction on the tallow tank addition at this site is provided in the Comprehensive Plan policies and map, and the implementing Zoning Code. Comprehensive Plan 1. Commerce/Industry Policy 1.2 supports this expansion: "Allow for the location of new commercial and industrial areas and the expansion of existing ones when this expansion is compatible with surrounding land use and not detrimental to the public welfare." (Emphasis added) 2. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as "Light Industrial." These are: "Industrial areas characterized by distributive and light manufacturing uses, commercial and office uses." (Comprehensive Plan Map descriptions of use areas). More intensive uses involving "...heavy or bulk manufacturing..." (ibid) are envisioned to be located in Heavy Industrial areas. Zoning Code The Zoning map designates the site as "M -1" (Light Industry). The appropriateness of tallow tank location at this site should consider the following: a. The M -1 zone is for "...light industrial uses which are non - nuisance activities in terms of air and water pollution, noise, vibration, glare, and odor." (TMC 18.40.010). The mitigating actions needed to minimize potential nuisance impacts are discussed in Criteria 1; b. The use is generally similar to the M -1 zone's Principally Permitted Use which allows: "Businesses which manufacture, process and /or packaging of 106 Staff Report to the L92 -0010: Baker Tallow Tanks Planning Commission Page 6 foods, including, but not limited to,...meats (no slaughtering);" (TMC 18.40.020(2)); and c. The use is specifically similar to M -2 zone's Principally Permitted Use which allows the "...processing, assembling and /or packaging of...animal products or byproducts (no rendering or slaughtering);" (TMC 18.42.020(2)); 5. AU measures shall be taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. Applicant's Response "By locating tanks in an existing 4' deep concrete lagoon, the apparent heights of the tanks are reduced. Also the lagoon provides a containment structure which will minimize the possibility of any spilled material leaving the tank area. Material spilled in the lagoon will be pumped back to the plant for processing or treatment." Staff's Response The major potential adverse impacts of the proposed use are odor, visibility of industrial structures close to a golf course, and potential truck traffic through residential neighborhoods. Mitigation of odors and visual impacts are discussed in Criteria 1. Tallow is currently put into company transport trucks to haul to other storage sites. The applicant asserts that these truck trips would be replaced with those of buyers' trucks on a general one for one basis. Public Works and Planning staff reviewers concur with this analysis. The only vehicle access to the site is via narrow residential neighborhood roads. A search of City complaint files did not reveal any truck traffic complaints. However, tallow truck traffic should be restricted to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. This restriction would maintain traffic safety on the narrow area roads during the evening and on weekends when residents and children are likely to be present. CONCLUSIONS The Planning staff concludes the following: 1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity based on the minimized 107 Staff Report to the L92 -0010: Baker Tallow Tanks Planning Commission Page 7 odors from the entire facility, absence of significant odor impacts due to the proposed tanks with an appropriate operations and maintenance program, and minimized visual impacts with the switching of short and tall tank location and use. of low reflective paint (see Criteria 1, Findings). 2. The proposed use satisfies the standards for parking, landscaping, yards and other development regulations that are required in the M -1 district it will occupy (see Criteria 2, Findings). 3. The proposed development is as generally compatible with the surrounding land uses as any other Principally Permitted Use in the M -1 zone, subject to having an appropriate operations and maintenance plan to minimize odors, switched short/tall tank location and paint to reduce visual prominence (Criteria 1, Findings), and truck traffic limitation (Criteria 5, Findings). 4. The proposed use is, on balance, in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan based on the minor nature of the tallow tanks to the existing facility, no increase in existing facility capacity, and the non - nuisance nature of the tank addition (Criteria 4, Findings). 5. The proposed project will have taken all measures to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located as discussed in conclusions 1 and 3 above. The Planning staff concludes that the proposed tallow tanks satisfy the Purpose of TMC 18.66, which is to adequately regulate unusual uses which cannot be automatically included in any specific zone; upon satisfying the conditions identified above for odor, visual, and truck traffic mitigation. The Planning Division recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. An operations and maintenance plan shall be approved by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority prior to permit review by the City Council. At a minimum, this plan shall include a monitoring and maintenance program to assure no tank overflow or equipment failure to the maximum extent possible, a rapid spill response plan and a training program for company staff. This application shall be forwarded to the Council for final action within 60 days of Planning Commission recommendation, with or without the operations and maintenance plan. RECOMMENDATIONS 108 Staff Report to the Planning Commission L92 -0010: Baker Tallow Tanks Page 8 2. Tanks shall be sited with the 18.5 ft. tall units toward the river to provide visual transition to the 34.5 ft. tall units. 3. Tanks shall be painted a flat, non - reflective color which is similar to the existing green painted structures and reduces their visual prominence. 4. Tallow truck traffic .shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. 5. Landscaping screening shall be installed as specified in Attachment C. 109 0 SEATTLE RENDERING %YORKS SITE SCALA 1 Ule • ' CROSS SECTION A-A scut s e. weimul. • UINTA GENRE JAN 0.7 133} CITY OFTUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. — ArrAcHmeNT A — CA L 011CIA111 1:1NiCAuxam/ nom; ore ( UMW AVIII181 u. turner r (ammo rimer A MAW 10 MTV AA Mt401011 oeu OW111111-1 rroon mmt to i tal tiro IICALI 11 le 1105101011/11004110A 0X11.111' f10100 TALLOW STORAGE TANKS 111111111=2111=113:1M1 14•(Of VICINITY MAP 5[4 (50 • CP V1101 mat otomrt 1111K5 5017011CD 01 kV CCM. 0:11111110005 (0M 5; optimal. DICti 5.0 LI 1 rourotrol 4(00&.01 • 54 0 KS 112410l1 tKwu 1050 wive() crinrucox fanixdiarb tt WIXICILftx WILT 1) 4 SHEET INDEX C-1 TALLOW ITONAOS TAMS ' PLAN 11 C110111 DICTION 1-1 FOUNDATION MAN AIFIC (ENIINEERING.C•QMPANY —01 cow arc AT(IT) — info cr tam (nr) 'RAO& 44, z Ti u 1 " 1.■ PROJEC1 NO ORAAN OY AIL _ ASuf O*IC 0-111-111 LATEST NW C 11 5 sr, 8 8 CIVIL ENGINEERING AN!) PLANNING CONSULTANTS LOW AUK • FOSTER • GOLF COURSE 4 ATTACHMENT B SURROUNDING LAND USE 1-111111- • • • weeds / 4 . li rhOr05ED TALLOW 5T0I)ACIE TAr1K5 Iri EXI5T1r1C, C011C1)ETE: \ urpori. (bEE. 5HT C • 1' .• • ;1 ') t%. :" I ' 0 I cl/ • • • • • • • • • " .• • • • • • • • • • • DOUC rir); 6-101 HIH BALLED 15UhLAITED, !JELL DhArICHED, 5rACED 15 O.C. 5EE. DETAIL, ABOVE LEFT. 5 imwa 11 srrA C 114 : CV Looding Dock 1 PHOTIMIA MEE.; 51'ACED Z,0 0.C. 17 r-srr nFrnit np./v/F 1 FFT" onE cr71( drain tile 17- .. • ofyintiErn 5HALL01,1 .• • • • • • ler. 500TIrlq • 5HF11.1155 4a:11111 IJITH 1301)K • .• , . , . • . , e- Bld. FF= /9. 3 19 Droin Top=17.6 li g I.E.r14.9 Bld, FF= 19.5' EMEhALD OEM I)1501) VITAE bALLEDi 10 ;55 ,, "• • le L 11.= OD • C8 Tcp=1,94 • e • .U1 ' ly1 Silo 1 • Bid FF=22.7' • - ()CEO" MOTE ALL PLa1TED nnEA5 TO HA 611TONATED InnICIAr1011. • / 4r/i To: John McFarland City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor MEMORANDUM From: Vernon UMetsu Department of Ctdmda=1 Development Date: March 30, 1992 RE: Update Briefing on Rendering Works and Multi- family Standards Projects. Planning would like to brief you and the Mayor on the current status of two projects. Rendering Works Tallow Tank Installation The Rendering Works proposes to expand their unclassified use permit to all construction of nine tallow storage tanks. These tanks are to replace other off -site tallow tanks. A D.N.S. is anticipated to be issued this week. The only SERA comment was a minor flood issue. Planning Commission review of the proposed unclassified use permit amendment will be held on April 26th, followed by City Council review and action. Multi- family Design Standards On March 23rd, the Planning Commission approved their modified draft for public review and comment. Notice of document availability (4/17), a public information meeting hosted by Planning staff (4/30), and a Commission public hearing (5/7) will be given in a Hazelnut article to be mailed on April 17th. The Commission Chair (George Malina) anticipates two work sessions in May after the hearing, subject to full Commission endorsement. Staff anticipates Commission transmittal to the Council on about June 15th. Please call me at x -1684 if you would like to schedule a briefing on these issues. Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • Clty Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 . 87 Verbatim Transcript Tukwila City Council - Committee of the Whole Meeting July 13, 1992 Public Hearing - Item 5a: Review request by Baker Commodities for unclassified use permit for installation of seven tallow tanks at Seattle Rendering Works, 5795 So. 130th Place. Ekberg At this point in time I'd like to open the public hearing and we'll take testimony from the staff. Umetsu Good evening. For the record my name is Vernon Umetsu, Tukwila Planning Division. The file number is L92 -0010. The proposal is actually for nine tallow tanks located by (undistinguishable)...The project site is located where the old Seattle Rendering Works is located. It was purchased by Baker Commodities and has been owned by Baker Commodities for a number of years. The site has been used for animal renderings since 1936. It was annexed into the city in 1957 and was an outright permitted use in the M -1 zone which was the designation back then. And it still is. However, since that time, animal rendering was moved- -was redefined as an unclassified use, and therefore, any expansions require an unclassified use permit. Now, at this time, about 90 percent of the site is legally non - conforming. It was built in accordance with all Tukwila regulations, but very few - -only the office building and the lab and some extensive air filtration systems received unclassified use permits and are thus in conformance with today's regulations. The proposal is to add 9 tallow tanks to an existing - -at an existing concrete pit, which is 120 by 250 feet. It faces the Foster Golf Course and the Duwamish River. Four of the tanks are 34 feet high and are 13 feet in diameter while 5 of the tanks are 18 feet high and 18 feet in diameter. The project site has gone through environmental review and a Mitigated Determination of Non - significance was issued on April 8th. We then scheduled a public hearing, and the Planning Commission hearing was held on April 23rd. This public hearing was extensively advertised with a special public notice insert in the Hazelnut and all property owners, residents and businesses within 300 feet of the property boundary were notified of this hearing and the nature of the request. The public hearing was held- -and we actually only got two people there - -there was one person who was concerned about additional odor generated by the facility by these tanks and another person who was worried about truck traffic down 56th Avenue generated by these tanks. Now, those concerns were dealt with fairly quickly in that the odor from the tanks- -the tanks would not expand the capacity of the facility. It's merely a relocation made necessary because the Port of Seattle tank farm where they were located closed down and they have to re- locate them, and they felt that this deep concrete pit would be a good place to put them. The tanks are currently stored on site pending decision by this Council on issuance of an unclassified use permit. • The traffic generated would be- -there would be no significant change in traffic generation without the tanks than with them. Without the tanks the tallow would be trucked off to another site, certainly not number of trucks. With the tanks, the people who would normally come and pick up the tank, tallow at that off site location, would come here instead. Baker tanker trucks are those which are used to move all tallow and there would be this balance. The Planning Commission reviewed all 5 criteria used for the unclassified use permit. And these criteria are specifically identified and discussed in the planning staff report which is Attachment C. The Planning Commission discussions are summarized in Attachment B which are the partial minutes of that meeting. In general, those discussions dealt with odor, with truck traffic, and with minimizing the visual prominence of the tallow tanks. In terms of odor there are two types of odors that could be generated by the facility and the 1 327 tanks themselves. One is normal operations, the other are Under normal operations both and the planning staff have reviewed the proposal and concur that the tanks really have no significant -- really have no potential for generating any odor impacts. It's a low pressure system completely sealed with venting tanks venting a line directly back into the sealed processing building. The ]ow pressure means that it's unlikely that there'd be any breakage. This is especially the case since all connections, pipes, tanks and other accessory lines would be inspected every six months for condition and placement as necessary. The overall facility does continue to generate some level of occasional odor impact. At the Planning Commission hearing we had initially thought that this would be - -it's general operations were that it would be -- there's no odor impacts generated and except for an occasional low level of odor event going over to the Foster Golf Course. Now, this was based on two discussions with the head greenskeeper who gave us that information, and two sites visits by myself to the Foster Golf Course and three sites visits on site. What I found was that there was some incidental smell just because of the occasional-- occasionally- -but this smell was fully contained on site. By the time I walked a few feet away, it was gone and I was well on this site. Or, to give you a sense of scale, all operations are located in this area (referred to site map). Nothing here except for some - -there was some equipment storage - -I understand that it's been junked out by now. And the distance from here to here is about 300 feet. Subsequent to that public hearing we received some information that led us to think that maybe's there's more of an impact than we had initially thought. So I went and talked with- -had more discussions with the head groundskeeper, some additional maintenance staff, people in the pro shop, and golfers who actually golfed frequently around holes 4, 5, and 6 which are directly across from the rendering works. The sum total of all those discussions are that you get some impacts that are generated from --that probably are generated from the rendering works once every two to three weeks. Now, this level of impact doesn't seem to be extremely significant in that it causes some discomfort because people know that they're there and it doesn't smell like a rose. But they play through it, it hasn't generated any verbal or written complaints to the pro shop, and- - much less cause them to terminate play. The pro shop folks had said that they received many more complaints about geese on the site than odors - -odor complaints. I believe they mentioned that they receive one or two complaints a year about odor. I'll come back to that particular overall odor issue at the end of this presentation if I could. So that's the existing conditions we find now. In terms of truck traffic, we've gone over this discussion before on how truck traffic in and out would be balanced generally between whether the tanks were here or not. The traffic down 56th has been prohibited for many years by Baker Commodities and the person who was concerned about it said that yes, indeed, it had been a while since she had seen any trucks there. There was still a concern about trucks going down 124th, going along 30th Place, going down 124th. However, the Planning Commission discussed that considerably and felt that in light of the thousands of trucks that currently travel down 124th, the existing level of trucks wasn't anything that they could address under this proposal because the existing level of trucks really wasn't changing --the truck traffic really wasn't changing. Finally then we come to minimizing the visual prominence of the tanks. What everyone has agreed to is that the higher tanks would be located toward the buildings with the lower tanks located in front to provide some sort of visual transition from the river to the higher buildings. These tanks will be set behind a row of arbor vitae which are very thin columnar high tree -like shrubs that will get up to 20 feet high easily. Behind that - -in front of that will be a double row of Doug firs or equivalent spaced 20 feet on center which would give you actually a very dense tight hedge very quickly. And in front of that you'll have some tree formed fotina to give you some texture and color when they're in bloom. The existing banks overall site is already shielded by a row of cedars and existing alder and willow 2 328 shrubs -- willows, shrubs, alders and snags. Now, the Planning Commission approved— recommended approval subject to certain conditions. These conditions are shown on the synopsis in Attachment A. All of these conditions have been fulfilled. However, because of the new information we have on the impacts of the overall facility on the Foster Golf Course area, staff would like- -these were recently discovered - -and staff would like the opportunity to work with Baker Commodities to come up with some additional measures to reduce the overall impact of the facility on the town and on Foster Golf Course. We feel that this is a reasonable approach. Staff, especially in site of the relatively innocuous effects of these tanks -- locating these storage tanks. Are there any questions? Councilmembers Yes Ekberg I just want to remind Councilmembers and the public that this is a public hearing and so objective questions not comments or statements if you will, and then we'll open it up to regular public discussion. Joan, go ahead. Hernandez Joe had one first. Duffle Are you going to go with the public first? Ekberg You may answer some of their questions. Duffle O.K. If we deny this, where would they be able to take these tanks to relocate these tanks? Umetsu They would have to relocate them somewhere else. I'm sure there's several options. Denial of the tanks, of course, would have nothing to do- -would have no - -we wouldn't be able to do anything. We'd just outright deny the tanks. There'd be no incentive for the Baker Commodities to go forward and work with us to reduce the existing level of odor. Duffie Why? The rendering works is still there. The smell is still there. The citizens are still complaining about the smell. So then if we say you have to relocate these tanks, they say well forget you and we just have to go along with the smell? There's nothing else we can do? Umetsu Well, I think that the city attorney should address this, but it's my understanding that because they're an existing grandfathered use, they get to have their existing level of impact. Now, actually, that level of impact has shrunk a lot since the 1987 air filtration system went in there. So it's no longer going up Tukwila Hill, but it is going to the Golf Course. Duffie It's not? It's not going up the hill? Umetsu Well, you know, we sent out - -I can only go by public hearing response, which is where we sent out a Hazelnut with a special notice to every household and business in the City. And we got two people. And both those people lived right around there, and I can understand their concerns. Duffie My concern is I'm looking up there on 57th and along up there where the ex- Mayor, Gary VanDusen, lived. I have been told that there's still odor - -and I have driven up and down that hill there on 58th and smelled it. Either that - -we have two different smells - -I don't know which one. You have rendering works and you 3 329 have Metro. So which one stinks? All I know is both of them stink. I haven't been able to determine which smell is coming from where. I mean, if I can get somewhere where I can tell that this is the rendering works and this isn't, then I can understand. But right now we do have - -I have been informed that we do have odor problems still up there on the hill. Hernandez Did you say that the tanks are currently being stored on site or off site? Umetsu On site. Hernandez Could you identify how close the river is to the tanks? Umetsu Well, (referring to map) this is the 100 year flood plain line, and so the river is a little farther out because it's a very low bank. This is a 40 scale map, so these tanks - -let's say from the 100 year flood plain line - -at the farthest, it is 390 feet and at the closest, it is, let's say, 190 feet. Hernandez How close is it to the nearest residential house? Umetsu The nearest residence is across the river from here so that it is 350 say plus - -let's give the river say 180, so 450 feet say. Hernandez This isn't a residential house right here on the map in this diagram right here? Umetsu No. This house is actually gone. This is all the rendering works site. Hernandez O.K. Thank you for clarifying that. Ekberg What initially was the existing concrete pit made for? Umetsu It was initially part of their air infiltration system. Ekberg Which is no longer being used? Umetsu That's correct. When they replaced it with the new extensive air filtration systems, this was abandoned. Ekberg O.K., another question was if the tallow is kept at 140 degrees within the tanks to keep its liquid form, what fire hazard or other hazard does that create? Umetsu The Fire Department had determined that this is not a hazardous material and there's no hazard that I can think of. Because of the low pressure nature of it, as soon as it comes out it solidifies and so it will leak out, I guess, until somebody turns a valve. It's smelliness -- somebody will come running and turn that valve very quickly. It would then go- -take the shovels and take off as much of that solidified tallow as they can, take it back to the processing building, and there is a steam hole station at the south end that will steam out all the tallow down through an existing joining that would be recirculated back into the processing building. Steam will be available 24 hours a day and (unintelligible) will be on site 24 hours a day. Robertson I'm a little puzzled. You started out - -I understood this to be a public hearing for conditional use permit with the conditions that the staff and Planning Commission had recommended. And after the public hearing, if we were to deal 4 330 with it, we could make a recommendation based upon those conditions whether our recommendation to prepare legislation for the next Regular session. Yet, you ended your presentation with the statement that because of some new data on the odors, staff wanted to work further with the Baker Associates -- Commodities- the owners. So, what exactly - -so, that implies to me that the conditions we have may not be the final conditions for the conditional use permit. So, exactly what are we looking at? Umetsu This is an Unclassified Use Permit which is different from a Classified Use Permit. The Planning Commission grants Conditional Use Permits subject to Council. With an Unclassified Use Permit the Planning Commission only makes a recommendation to Council; the actual permit is issued by the City Council. Robertson O.K., however, we still don't have a complete package in front of us. Normally, an Unclassified Use Permit has some conditions. I think I just heard you say that you didn't have a complete conditions package; you wanted to work further with the owners. Is that true? Umetsu That is correct. We would like to work further with the owners to..(unintelligible) the existing (unintelligible) odors. Robertson So when this public hearing is over with, you're not asking the Council to take action; you're gonna go back and work up something and come back to us with another package. Is that correct? Umetsu We would build upon the existing package. Yes, it would come back to you. We would actually - -we would cause to recommend that you continue this existing public hearing to allow us to introduce that new information at your next meeting two weeks from now. Robertson O.K., thank you. Lawrence While you're looking into the odors, could you check up on the hill outside the city limits. I think the prevailing wind, isn't basically southwest through that valley - -and perhaps the most impacted area might be to the northeast? Umetsu Yes Lawrence And since they're outside the City, they may not even think of calling the City for their complaints, but we should consider the impacts on them. Also, on this reservoir -- concrete tanks - -or pit I guess you called it that surrounds -- what's the capacity of that and can it hold the entire capacity of the largest of the tanks? Umetsu Yes. Lawrence The tanks themselves -- they're all used? Umetsu They would be all used after installation, that's correct. Lawrence I mean they've all be previously used and they're over there now laying around waiting for use? Umetsu Right. They're stood up. 5 331 Lawrence O.K. One of the conditions here that's proposed by staff and Planning Commission is that they should be painted a flat non - reflective color, something similar to the existing green painted structures, etc. Are you contemplatin& having any sort of a guarantee for maintenance of both the tanks themselves and tor their appearance? They're in horrible condition now. They're very rusty, and I assume that's the way they were at their previous site. Umetsu We don't anticipate putting on any kind of conditions. We can ask that these conditions be...(unintelhgible)..however, all of these conditions travel with the (unintelligible), and whether its owned by Baker Commodities or Lawrence Well, my concern is that if they're painted in 1992, in 1996 they may not look very good, and it's opposite a very large piece of City property that tens of thousands of people walk by each year and have to look at it. So I hope that it will be maintained well. Umetsu I believe we have the existing tools to do that. Lawrence I talked to some people about odor, too, and basically, I guess for the Council information, I didn't discuss the issue here, just the odor issue was all. At the golf course every golfer I talked to said they had smelled it, but it was rarely a problem, basically what you'd said. One resident that lived nearby had only lived there for one month and had smelled it severely for four days in that one month, so much so that he was unable to be outside. He considered that was probably because the wind had shifted, but the prevailing wind normally blew it away from his neighborhood, which made me concerned then where is it blowing to the other 26 days of the month. So that's why I wish you'd check up on the hill just in case they have a problem. Umetsu One of the measures that we anticipate doing is a live public campaign to let folks know that there is a number they can call at Baker Commodities when they have a problem. A lot of times there will be- -based on my research—there's lots of times when there have been moderate to high odor impacts, but nobody's recorded the problem or called Baker to tell them there's a problem that they could fix. Mullet I'm a little concerned about the truck traffic going in and out. At one time you said that Baker does control all the trucks that go in and out of there. Umetsu They do not allow trucks going down 56th Avenue. Mullet And those are all their trucks? Umetsu Not, well (unintelligible) dispatch. Mullet Are they in control of somebody else's trucks? If they're suddenly someone else's trucks are going to start coming in to get stuff out of these tanks, how do they control those trucks? Umetsu All tallow from - -to my knowledge, and please ask Bill Hammond to confirm this, Baker uses their own trucks and their own drivers, but please ask him that. Ekberg Other questions from the Council? 6 332 Robertson I have some comments, but I'd like to reserve them until after we close. Ekberg Questions, comments from the audience, please. Please state you name and address. Audience Anna Bernhardt, 14241- 59th So. If there's any increase in the odor at all with this new set up, I think the City should deny it, because we've had enough of this plant for the last whatever. I've been here almost 30 years, and I tell 'ya it gets pretty heavy. And it's not like it used to be. You know, it used to be horrendous, but it still gets pretty heavy, and to me this doesn't sound like any improvement. I don't know, I haven't heard anything that sounds like an improvement. I think the city should really investigate if the smell is going to get worse. If it gets any worse at all, even slightly, and I don't care if it goes in my direction or somebody else's direction, I mean after all we're responsible. You know, I don't care if they get it on the other hill or our hill or which direction. I mean, it shouldn't be there. So let's really be thorough with this and not do any quick decisions. Thank you. Joanne McManus, 5610 so. 133rd. I have to say that since the last meeting I have not seen very many trucks go down 56th; however, one thing you should remember, where they do go is on that little one way street underneath the freeway along the railroad tracks which is dangerous, I don't care what they say. There is odor - -if you go on the golf course, you will smell it every once in a while. It's not as bad as it was years ago, but there still is an odor. And it is unbearable sometimes for people who live down in that area. We had a nice beautiful little area when we moved in, and now between the noise from the freeway, the planes are re- routed over the top of us to Boeing field, and the odors, it's gotten quite bad to live in that area. Thank you. Ekberg We're taking other comments if there are anymore. Audience Don Williams, City Parks and Recreation Director, 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Without going into any great depth, the park crew is one of our crews and we have people that are 7 days a week. I would also echo some of the comments that have been stated that now we do not seem to have as many problems or frequency as we used to have with odors being emitted from the plant. I've toured the plant over the years. I haven't recently, but I can pretty well say that I believe for sure they were coming from the rendering works and not the Metro facility. What we believe at the golf facility, some of the staff, is not a question of what's there and the ability of the equipment to operate and handle what's there. We're more concerned that on a weekday evening from about 5 p.m. on that's when the most frequent odors are observed and on weekends. And I would say to the owner /operators that they have done a good job, I believe, fairly good during weekdays as a whole. We do know there are trailers parked out on the yard that once in a while will drip or whatever and create problems, but I think, and I don't know if it's through this process, but we would encourage the operators and supervisors that are there during the weekday evenings and on weekends, particularly on weekends, that that's when the pro shop gets the majority of it's complaints. And I myself- -I think some of you know we have our own golf league and I think I've golfed twice this year on Tuesday evenings- -one evening was absolutely fine. I don't know if it was the wind direction. The other evening it was pretty bad on the back nine. And those that play seem to all, at least people that talk to me, some of the men's club members indicate that weekends and weekday evenings seem to be a problem in an infrequent manner. But I would 7 333 encourage the owner /developers to keep an eye on who's supervising, and that may help to eliminate some of the negative comments when proposals such as this come forward. Ekberg If there are other questions, please step forward. We'd like to offer the opportunity for the applicant to say something on behalf of their project if they'd like to. (Applicant indicated "no "). Pass? O.K., at this time, since there are no other public comments on it, I'd like to close the public hearing so the Council can have discussion on it. Hernandez I have some questions of the applicant. I'd have to ask that during the public hearing session? Ekberg Probably so. Would you concur with that, Mike? If we have questions for the applicant, we have those questions during the public hearing? Kenyon No, that's o.k. The testimony's done now, but the Council's certainly fair to question the interested parties. Ekberg Joan, feel free. Hernandez Well, I'd like to know who I'm addressing my complaints to. Ekberg O.K., well will one of the applicants please stand and address the Council. Hernandez Yes, I would just like to know, do you have other plants in the Seattle area? Kenyon Would you identify yourself. Applicant I'm Bill Hammond from Baker Commodities. This is Rick Thompkins from Pacific Engineering. And to answer your question, we have (unintelligible) I notice that your application says that you have operators on duty 24 hours a day, 5 -1/2 days a week. What happens if an emergency occurs on the 1 -1/2 days that there is no one there? Hammond An emergency like what? Hernandez Well, like if there's a spill or if there is a complaint about odors? Hammond Usually there is somebody there. As far as operation -wise we do 5 -1/2 - 6 days a week, 24 hours a day. Hernandez And what provisions have you made for the time when there isn't anyone there on the 1 -1/2 days that there isn't anyone there? Hammond As far as spills, there would be no spills if nobody's there to pump the material in. Duffle So, you're saying that for 1 -1/2 days you're closed down. Is that correct? Nothing working. 8 334 Hammond people. Hernandez Hammond Hernandez Hammond Hernandez Hammond Hernandez Hammond Hernandez Hammond site. Hernandez Yes. Nothing working. And we log that in with the air pollution So that if there is an odor, it only occurs during hours of operation? Usually, that's all..(unintelligible) How many truck loads a day in and out of the site do you anticipate? There would be no additional increase of what we're doing now. How many truckloads is that now? On just the oil? On the tallow. On the tallow would be three. Three? That's three in and three out of the site? Most all our tallow is hauled by ourselves and the trucks are already on What about the trucks that carry the carcasses in to the site? Hammond That wouldn't change at all. That's the same amount. Off the top of my head I can give you an honest answer—the truck traffic was...(unintelligible) Hernandez I don't know if that's applicable to this particular request for a permit, but I think it is kind of important to get an idea of how many truckloads a day we're talking about. Kenyon Truck traffic was one of the factors considered by the Planning Commission, so it's fair for this. Hernandez And as I understand it the tallow trucks are covered, is that correct? Hammond Yes. They're like...(unintelligible) Hernandez But the carcass trucks are not? Hammond No. They're all open. Hernandez They're all open. O.K. Umetsu They are covered by a tied down tarp. Hammond They're covered by a tarp, but they're not fully enclosed Hammond The point is that there would be no increase in traffic (unintelligible) Ekberg How is the facility at Terminal 18 used? 9 335 Hammond It's used to be leased out from the Port of Seattle by Jason Sterns. They cancelled their lease 15 months ago, and Baker stored down there quite a bit of material, so we agreed to go for the duration, about 14 months. Ekberg Hammond Ekberg Hammond in Tacoma. Ekberg As tallow leaves your facility to some other place, is that shipped in a hard form or in a liquid form? Hammond It has to be liquid. We pump is at 140 degrees. Tallow at 109. All tallow then is stored at ambient temperature. At 109 it sets up. Ekberg Any other questions? Robertson Not really a question. Ekberg (to Hammond) Thank you. Robertson Allan, I have some questions of staff. Probably in 1987 or '88, there was a request for an Unclassified Use Permit before the Council. Was that in '87? Umetsu Robertson Umetus Robertson Umetsu Did you store tallow down there? We stored tallow and any other grease, yes. For my information, how is tallow shipped? Predominantly on boat. It all goes to the Pacific Northwest Terminal I believe that was in 1987. Was the Unclassified Use Permit for the current operation? For the air filtration system improvements. O.K., was it the current owners that applied for that? I believe so. Yes, yes it was. Robertson O.K., well I guess I have a couple of quick comments. At that time, we were promised that the new technology would totally eliminate all odors. We'd have no problems and everybody would be delighted. So we granted the Unclassified Use Permit. Probably six months later or a year later, we had a major issue before the council. Actually, and the current Mayor at that time was a very strong supporter of doing something to fix the problem since he was living in the middle it. It was the odors. We were told, however, by our city attorney that once we had granted the unclassified use permit there was really nothing we could do. All we could do is turn it over to the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. But if I remember the meetings correctly, what we were also told was that the PSAPC Agency only worked 8 -5 five days a week and were understaffed, overworked, and generally not available to monitor any odors or do anything about it. So, basically, our hands were tied. We're saying, hey, guess what, guys. You made a mistake. You authorized something that didn't do what you wanted, and now you have to live with the problem. So we did for several years. Now I have something in front of me again that says, hey, guess what - -we can assure you there will be no odors because of the 10 336 technology employed. It'll solve all the problems. Besides, if there are, the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency will monitor and take care of it. Well, perhaps they've been funded better, and they really have someone working seven days a week, 24 hours a day, but I doubt it. Most of the complaints at that time, before the citizens got discouraged and gave up coming down here, were all late in the evening. Insofar as the golf course commenting - -I don't think those are particularly relevant, because the citizens were complaining all the problems are after dark. Maybe that was plain dumb luck, or maybe it just happened because that's when the Air Pollution Control Agency wasn't available to monitor anything. So, anyway, what I want to point out very carefully - -I'm very dubious about anybody's claim that the technology is going to take care of the problem. I've already been down that path once, and then found after I granted it, there wasn't a damn thing I could do. Or anybody in the Council could. Next point, on the staff report to the Planning Commission, says the comprehensive plan direction on the tallow tank addition to site, is provided in the comprehensive plan policies and map and the implementing zoning code that they supported. You quoted Comprehensive Plan, Commerce and Industry Policy 1.2, supports expansion. It says, "allow for the location of new commercial and industrial areas and expansion of existing ones when this expansion is compatible with surrounding land use and not detrimental to the public welfare ". Now you underlined the part that says in expansion of existing ones. You, however, did not underline the part that says "and not detrimental to public welfare ". I'm just going to point out in my history with this comp plan, you can prove or disprove anything with it - -it was written so broadly. In fact, if we take some other policies on page 60 of it, it says "encourage the grouping of uses which will mutually and economically benefit each other or provide necessary services ". I failed to see what we've grouped with this particular use that will be mutually beneficial. "Promote renovation of areas which are not esthetically pleasing ". It doesn't seem that we're promoting the renovation of an esthetically displeasing area here. We're just enlarging it. "Encourage the diversity of business uses to promote maximum occupancy ". This isn't doing that. Oh, here's a good one. Compatibility, Policy 1. 'Discourage the locating of hazardous industries where those emitting pollutants in excess of acceptable standards ". And here's another one. "Encourage uses which are supportive to industrial and warehouse uses to locate near such activities ". Well, I don t see how that's helping any other industrial uses. "Promote an industrial park- like development in all industrial and warehouse areas ". I could go on. There s another good one here. "Encourage the location of commercial offices in areas of high natural amenities ". This is the area of the highest natural amenity in the whole darn City. So, I fail to see how this is doing that. And to prove that point - -in the TMC, 16.6.060, Special Review Guidelines for Interurban Special Review Area. This thing was created quite a while back. It says, "Purpose of Review: Owing to its unique physiography, the presence of natural amenities and recreation facilities the historical relevance of the area to the community, and the contemplated future mix . of a residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses, the Interurban area requires a special approach for coordinating the development of this area. To upgrade its general appearance to provide incentives for compatible uses, and so forth. It goes on for quite a while. What it finally comes down to it says "proposed development design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area ". Proposed development -- you should demonstrate "due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreation areas and facilities ". Proposed properties should be "compatible with neighboring uses and complimentary to the district in which it is located ". The point I'm trying to make is that the document- -staff report - -given to the Planning Commission picked one thing out of a whole lot of others and said guess what - -it fits. And then you only picked a part of what you picked out. I do not think in the broad sense if we looked at all that this use or increasing this use is in any way 11 337 • compatible with the surrounding uses, the area, the fact that it's a special review area, and the zoning code. So, when you negotiate with these guys, I guess I want to point out that you better come back with a package that is awfully attractive and very, very sound and tight to stop the current problems and nuisances or else I for one will take an extremely strong stand in opposing it. Because I've been down this path, and a few months after we went down and we believed everybody's promises, we found out there wasn't a darn thing we could do. I don't want to go down it again. And I'm not very much of a believer at this point that technology is going to solve the problem, 'cuz it hasn't. I don't know whether it's a lack of the technology, it's the operation, it just happens to be failure, or it's on purpose. I have no way of knowing. at I do know is that there's quite a stench coming from that area, very frequent, and usually that stench occurs when there's no one around to monitor it. End of my speech. Ekberg Questions or comments from Council? Steve? Lawrence Vern, if this was an open piece of property, even with the current zoning, that plant couldn't be build there, correct? Without an exemption of some sort? Umetsu If this was an open piece of property, that plant would require the same level of scrutiny as we're giving.... Lawrence I mean, within that zoning of M -1 that wouldn't be allowed, is that correct? Umetsu I think that we would have to look long and hard at whether or not we would recommend approval of this rendering plant as a non - nuisance type of use. Lawrence I thought that M -1 and M -2 neither one grants rendering plants. In fact, I think in M -2, which allows a higher usage, it expressly prohibits rendering plants. Umetsu Rendering plants are among a list of unclassified uses which require Unclassified Use Permits which are not located any Lawrence So they have no automatic zoning category that they can go into. Umetsu That's correct. If you could show that, for instance, there was a reason why a rendering plant should be located on an R -1 zoned property, it would be nothing administratively that would prohibit you from doing that, locating them there. However, one of the tests that we use is the proposed addition or new use, consistent with (unintelligible)..zoning. Lawrence Well, based on these conditions, it appears to me if we were considering a new facility, we basically really wouldn't consider it. In that locale. Umetsu It's likely...(unintelligible). Lawrence If we take into account the various testimony that we've heard tonight about the lack of impact that this addition will have, this addition to the plant, it'll have basically no negative impacts added on; however, I think there's a basic sentiment that if something shouldn't be there to begin with, why add to it. That seems to be a problem. But I'm wondering from staff's point of view if there is a 12 338 benefit in regulating what's already there. Is there some sort of a benefit we gain by allowing any addition? Umetsu Well, by allowing the addition, it seems like there are a couple of alternatives -- without defining what you're asking about —in any way eliminating them. If on the one hand, you deny this project, the tanks, it will be— basically, we have what we have. We have the rights and pejoratives without the tanks as we would with them. What we're shooting for is something that says, o.k., here are these tanks. Now, every piece of information that we have says that they will be —they will have no odor impacts. And if this were based on relying on a high tech pressure system with multitudes of microprocessors or what have you -- electrostatic deals - -I would say, well, you've got to prove it to me. But this tank system is such a low tech, you know, valve and gravity system... Lawrence It is vented though. Is there a possibility the venting within the system - -you said there's a top vent and a side vent. Now I assume, if there's a vent there, there must be some movement of air or gasses or something in and out. Umetsu Right. The tallow's pumped in from tubes that (unintelligible).. Lawrence So air's forced out. Now I assume the air would have a scent to it, perhaps. Umetsu The air is recycled, is pipelined into the processing pit. Lawrence So it's not been into the atmosphere. It's been into another system within the building. Umetsu It's vented right back into the building. So, because of the low tech system that they use, I'm fairly confident that that will be a pretty benign system, and when we first got the PSAQCA approval, we said, well this is not enough. This is what they gave us, and so we said... Lawrence Can you tell us what PSAQCA, just for everyone's. Is that Puget Sound... Umetsu Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Board. They're the people who set the standards, review the projects, and monitor the compliance with all (unintelligible) that happen with air quality. They - -we said give us something more specific. Why do you think that this is good. And they sent us additional information. They sent us a more extensive letter and used some fairly strong language saying that this is not expected- -this will not have any significant impacts on air quality. That (unintelligible) letter is included in your packet as attachment D or E, I'm not that sure. Now, with this approval pending for Council, there is a lot of incentive on the part of Baker Commodities to work with staff. Lawrence Could you give me a specific example of something they would do that would enhance their performance and would make their operation more benign to the community than it already is. Umetsu Well, they could have - -for instance, there are a lot of folks that have said, we had problems, we've been living with these problems for years, and even in the past couple of years when it was supposed to be great, we've still had problems. And yet, to records of this outfit don't seem to demonstrate this. So I'm 13 339 Lawrence Well, I think we have to leave them out. Umetsu O.K, but no one's called Baker...(unintelligible).. Duffie That's true. No one called Baker. That's why you have seven people here. That's why we're here. To represent those people out there. We're telling you that we get the smell. You're saying that just because the citizen hasn't called Baker, there is no smell. Where are you coming from? Get out there and ask the people. Forget about this—however you find out - -get out there and talk to the people. There's one lady right there -- there's two of them right there. Find out what they're smelling. Lawrence For the record let's leave out what Puget Sound Air Pollution Control- - because we have had a number of complaints up here, and people have been upset. But I must say, it hasn't been for a while. But just within my 2 -1/2 year term, there's been a number of times people have really been irate about it. Umetsu What we could do is set up a 24 hour hotline. Lawrence O.K., so we could monitor the complaints, but how do we get them.... Umetsu So we can call Baker. Baker will have to make out a report saying what happened, what they did to mitigate it, what's their (unintelligible); therefore, we know then that we can't (unintelligible) the complaints, and nothing happens, then we know that there's basis for enforcement here. Lawrence What enforcement do we have? I mean, what we have so far is a better recordkeeping system and a better way of communication between the City and Baker and complaining residents. But what enforcement possibilities do we have? Umetsu Well, definitely staff could be - -you mean, what kind of hammer do we bring to the table? Lawrence Yeh. And in what possible way does this processing increase our hammer or increase our method of making certain that things are done? Jack Pace I think the key to that questions would be that this is why staff asked for two weeks to re -look at those conditions and provide some better checks and balance, to respond to your compliance( ?) to those others. We're trying to take the most up -to -date information we have, given the history of the site, and try and come up with some solutions that deal with their concerns of wanting to make their system operate, as well as deal with the City's concerns. We're striving for a solution that provides a (unintelligible) for them to keep operating and at the same time improve air quality. That's what we want is better air quality. If you take the narrow approach and just deny it, there's no incentive for them to improve the situation. So we re trying to work out solutions and make the system better for the residents who live around that site. Lawrence I understand that, but Pace ...(unintelligible) we will provide (unintelligible) provide that check and balance so that there are some safeguards...(unintelligible) 14 340 Lawrence We need something very concrete, because in order for all of us to get past our initial gut reaction, which is quite frankly going to be negative, in order to get by that we have to see something really positive that this offers us. Pace This is why we requested, after the public hearing and testimony, two weeks so that we could work with the applicant and work with the city attorney to provide you some of that information. So we wouldn't be drafting something tonight that wouldn't have the time to review and come up with.... Lawrence Can you check with the PSAQCA if they're going to be involved in this in any way, shape, or form as part of the hammer, part of the enforcement agency. Do we have assurances from them of cooperation - -on call people, you know, if we have a complaint at 9 o'clock at night on a Tuesday, is it possible to get somebody out there from the agency that may be responsible? Umetsu In discussion with PSAQCA, employees do work a standard word day. They knock off at five. But they do feel - -they asserted to me that they get people out there almost immediately or as soon as possible, as soon as they get a complaint. Lawrence Even if it's after hours. Umetsu No. This is during the middle of the day. Lawrence Well, I don't know who has enforcement authority, but if it's not the City with enforcement authority, and it takes somebody with the state to monitor the situation, and they're not available, I don't see that we're going to gain an opportunities here. Umetsu Let us take a look and see what we can do for 24 hour enforcement (unintelligible). Lawrence I wish we could work with the owners of this and make everything better for everybody, I sincerely do. And I guess it falls in your court too now to work with staff and see what you can come up with for a positive proposal that can give us some incentive to allow an expansion of a use that obviously would be denied if it was being proposed as something brand new on vacant land. End of my speech. Ekberg I'd like to have a turn around the truck traffic once again. The tallow truck traffic versus regular truck traffic that frequents the site—could you tell me or inform me of the hours of operation of regular truck traffic? Hammond Regular truck traffic is - -we move trucks out of there about 2:30 in the morning and it will go until about 11 at night. Ekberg Is that in a form of an agreement with the City as far as your operating guidelines? Hammond (unintelligible) Ekberg O.K. With that in mind, I'm curious why we would restrict tallow operations between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. 15 341 Umetsu It's a start. We can impose conditions that are directly related to the tallow tanks. Ekberg You've answered my question. This has been a public hearing. We've taken testimony and we've heard comments and questions and statements from councilmembers and citizens. We have closed the public hearing. If there's no further questions or comments, we'd like to move on. Kenyon I understood earlier that rather than formally closing the public hearing, you were continuing it for two weeks so that the public would have another opportunity to talk, if nothing else, of any agreement that can be worked out. Robertson Would you like a motion to continue it? Kenyon That would be appropriate. Robertson O.K. I move that we continue this public hearing to the next C.O.W. in two weeks. Duffle Second. Ekberg All in favor: (Unanimous response). O.K., passes. Transcribed by Jane Cantu, City Clerk 16 342 A. BACKGROUND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Control No. N Epic File No. Fee$22_ Receipt NoSier8A22D 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Tallow Tank Relocation 2. Name of applicant: Baker Commodities, Inc. (Formerly Seattle Rendering Works) 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:5795 S. 130th Place Seattle, WA 98178, P.O. Box 58368, Seattle. WA 98138 (206) 243 -7387 4. Date checklist prepared: November 20, 1991 5. Agency requesting Checklist:• City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 'March - A ^ril 1992 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No -2- DIC�f IiIt'ii Igi L. hM 0 7 1992 1 CITY Or I uKwILH PLANNING DEPT. 16 -3- 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Unclassified Use Permit, Building Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. Install 9 tallow storage tanks within existing concrete lagoon, 5 tanks are 16' diameter x 18'6' high, 4 tanks are 13 6' in diameter x 34' high. Tanks will be relocated from Port of Seattle Tank Farm which is closing. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans.submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this checklist. 5795 S. 130th Place Sec. 14 -23 -4 Seattle, WA 98178 See plans and exhibits submitted with permit applications 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Site is bounded on three sides by Duwamish River. Proposed location of work is granter than,2QQ rnm tho.teli_ne_ 17 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANL Evaluation for Agency Use Only ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS "1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other bounded by Duwamish River on 3 sides - steep bank b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 6 %, note: at river bank 40% to vertical c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Puyallup very fine sandy loam. (U.S.D.A. Survey). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. v -r banks. 1• e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. None proposed f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No change -4- 18 2. Air h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: None propgsed a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. No change b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year - round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Site is bounded by Duwamish R iy.Q.T onth Pre sii des -5- 'Evaluation for Agency Use Only 19 Evaluation for 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the. site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No -6- Agency Use Only 20 b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No change c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters ?. If so, describe. Site run -off is due to rainfall and is (1) rnllprtPd is catch taSins and conveyed by pipe to detention facility prior to release via _auriall at tht river (2) collected in and con- veyed by ditch and culverts overland to river bank and then the Duwamish River eventually flows into Puget Sound. -7- Evaluation for Agency Use Only 21 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Ilo d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: No change 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs X grass _ pasture crop or grain _I_ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other X other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? No change c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not Known - Evaluation for Agency Use Only 22 ...G Yd MI l.0 vV 1!1 l,J �.., •V v. ..... u..V.r •.7r.�v.v.• v.. ....... site, if any: None gals Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Seagulls mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Knnwn __Nnt fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: List any threatened or endangered species known to to on or near the site. Not Known :s the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Do not know Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, i f any: None -9- 5. Ani a . b. c . d. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity used to power motor that runs pump to move tallow from tanks to tt - rte. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: N/A 1 `--r. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Small potential for tallow spill. But all tanks are confined within 4' deep concrete "Lagoon'' sr spill would be confined. Tallow is not classified hazardous. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. N/A 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: All tanks to be cam lvdewr in existing concrete i.AADNA providing containment for any possible spills. -1 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 24 b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? N/A__ 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long -term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Concrete truck & crane traffic. Normal founda- tion construction noise. Hours of operation 7:30 - 4:30. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Wastemeat and fish bv- products are rendered into feed meal. Adjacent property (east) is Northern Pacific Railroad Tracks with vacant property beyond. Bounded on north, west, and south by Duwamish River. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not known c. Describe any structures on the site. Single story office and lab buildings. Three processing buildings with attached meal storage_ silos. Five small out - buildings, two sheds and - a hrnnsp _ \.„... Evaluation for Agency Use Only 25 d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? MH -Light Industrial f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Light Industrial g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, Shoreline Classified: "Special D ve1_Qpment Considerations" i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 40 - 50 Workers j• Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: N/A -12- '\.. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 26 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? N/A b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? 34' Steel cylindrical tanks b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: N/A -13- i., Evaluation for Agency Use Only 12. Recreation 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? N/A b. Would the proposed project displace existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None -14- Evaluation for Agency Use Only 28 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A 14. Transportation f a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Sire iq presently accessed by South 130th Street. No change to access will be made. -15- b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No, approximately 1/2 mile to Interurban Avenue. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? No change r Evaluation for Agency Use Only 29 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? 12. Recreation -14- d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? Nan, b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. tA0 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Evaluation for Agency Use Only 30 d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No change — perhaps some ow would no longer need to be hauled off -site for storage. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: None 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. N/A -16- Evaluation for Agency Use Only 31 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. All available b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. No change C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: //‘/A.,2-_ PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. -17- Evaluation for Agency Use Only 32 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPL1 ( `" Evaluation for Agency Use Only D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Would not increase existing discharges or emissions. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: N/A 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? No Change Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: N/A 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? N/A Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourses are: N/A 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? N/A Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: N/A 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No Change -I9- Evaluation for Agency Use Only 34 Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: N/A How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? N/A 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? N/A Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. None -20- • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 33 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive.Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? No Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: N/A -21- Evaluation for Agency Use Only 36 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT r. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? R64 9 storage ranks (from Port of Seattle terminal 18 which is closing) to site. Proposal will allow additional storage of tallow on- site - Approximately 985 tons of added storage will result. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? Locate an appropiate site elsewhere to move tanks to. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Prefered course is to relocate tanks to site as proposed. If cannot move tanks to site will lose 9S5 tons of storage unless can find appropriate off-Or.? location to purchase or lease. Site has adequate space for tanks and by installing them in existing concrete lagoon offers additional benefit - of containment. Most cost effective way to maintain current storage level is to move tanks on -site. -22- Evaluation for Agency Use Only 37 . Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? No Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: N/A -23- Evaluation for Agency Use Only 38 = . VICINITY MAP — 5t0 IP 0'tW.• 115'. le NCH TRlOU mow TOP.5 UMW el) 011 RU Cat rOUt(T1r101D (Et omittuork WIT 5.1) I. vTtvtD 1 Ami , (nr) I r a . • SE' 0 rfl t U DIOr4IT7. IMO 'OT0AW 011 WE. rouncortos t t sii' to not DIITQ s 1) teat (nr) SIIF.ET INDEX — lTII1D Or roux (I lr) C -1 TALLOW ETONAOE TANKS FLAN 0 C11013 SECTION S -1 FOUNDATION FLAN [iDACIFIC ENGINEERING COMPANY : - - tl 4' MIT cart lir(Tv) • C) 5 i ti C 5 • S r+p,rcr I0 u -n DNAA• 131 DEL IT Or.II. 12-01-51 v Ip3Cii ITTTllr CIVIL ENGINEERING .INN) PLANNING CONSULTANTS • /1171 1111 _- /1 • 3E' O C - � ? .i e •1• 14 7 1' O C " 31' 1\4! •. U I. 7. �� Il I1M1•L 1101 1 {i1 1 ;. 1.1 i o .11 • LLD•V 1)11. 74 • I [71 011- 0. \1 •. 1' 004 17 .:,. ..0' 0C 11 • 1171 fl.. 07 1.1 n. 1 1' 0410 N•• •/ 30• 10 4 1•0•4 1/•' 004 K• 0 • 1.0 7 .1117 .Vx 7 171 '•0170 [o.c 30 -0' 30:0 _ TALLOW STORAGE TANKS FOUNDATION PLAN 1 JAN O7199Zj G.I ► VILA Pi.AN►v. PT. 07674 71740 3011 7 7 7 1 110.0111. 1013(0 • t P. 7l• 0101.11 01 11. 44 . Ou ••1 1 00170 70 741 • M IOOnO 3301 • *4 1. 74 :0 •* ^ .110( ISM 0 . l' 03 • .M- 7•73.00.0 -- r -o'• 0 7 00034 Cr 1001. •0 MARK A. ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES structural engineering consultants • CD 010 YT ONLY 1 S1 1 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Vtirar4Ki ) UNcLI S IFIED USE PERMIT ° 7 A99 APPLICATION 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR REQUEST: Relocate 9 cylindrical steel storage tanks from Port of Seattle to site. Tanks will be installed within confines of existing 4' deep concrete lagoon. 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub- division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) 5795 South 130th Place, Seattle, WA 98178 Quarter: Section: 14 Township: 23 Range: 4 OWNER (This information may be found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: Richard Tomkins. P.E. c/o Address: Pacific Engineering Company Phone: 130 Andover Park E. Suite 300 (206) 431 -7970 Seattle, WA 98188 Signature: Date: * The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. 4. PROPERTY Name: Baker Commodities, Inc. Address: P.O. Box 58368, Seattle, WA 98138 Phone: AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP (206 }p3 -7387 I /WE,[signature(s)] swear that I /we . - the owner( ) or contract purchaser(s) of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this application are true and correct to the best of - y /our knowledge and belief. Date: 00 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 69 UNCLASSIFIED USE PEFi..tiT APPLICATION 5. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY? Rendering Plant 6. PROPOSED UNCLASSIFIED USE REQUESTED (from list in TMC 18.66.020): Increase on -site tallow storage by installing 9 storage tanks 7. WHAT IS THE TIME FRAME FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PRO- POSED USE? March - April 1992 Page 2 DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR REQUEST FOR AN UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT WILL SATISFY EACH OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN TMC 18.66.060 (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY). 8. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or unjurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. RESPONSE: Correct,the effect of this proposal is to maintain current production levels by moving storage tanks on -site rather than losing them with the closure of Port of Seattle's Tank Farm. The proposal will permit the additional storage of a maximum of 985 tons of tallow on -site. (Thereare several tanks on -site already which store tallow.) The tallow will be stored in .25in thick steel tanks. The tanks will be installed on new concrete foundations in an existing concrete "Lagoon" providing containment for any potential spillages. 9. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the same standards for parking, landscaping, yards and other development regulations that are required in the district it will occupy. RESPONSE: The proposal shall have no effect on existing parking, landscaping, etc. The tanks will be installed in an existing concrete lagoon. This lagoon is a former anerobic filter structure that is an open box 4' deep X 100' long X 50'wide. L-- /. I lJ 1 J / 4' I J.; % 37 i9S2 1 t CITY ur- 1 L WILA PLANNING OE?T 70 UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT APPUCATION 10. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses. • RESPONSE: There will be no change from existing conditions other than additional amounts of the tallow that is produced on -site will be stored on -site rather than trucked away to some distant storage facility. The additional tanks are relatively small (5 tanks are 18' 6" tall, 4 tanks are34'tall) compared- :with existing tanks on -site (tallest approximately 70' high). Site is well screened by trees and additional tanks will not be noticeable by home owners to the north west. Additional tanks may be noticeable from some areas of Foster Golf Course, hilt will he relatively small in scale. 11. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. RESPONSE: The proposed use is consistant with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. The proposal will allow current tallow prodncti.on capacity to be maintained by replacing existing off -site storage will be lost when the Port of Seattle closes its tank farm. 12. All measures shall be taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. RESPONSE: By lnrating the tanks in an existing 4' deep concrete lagoon, the apparent heights of the tanks are reduced. Also the lagoon provides a Page 3 containment structure which will minimize the possibility of any spilled material leaving the tank area. Material spilled in the lagoon will be pumped back to the plant for processing or treatment. ......- .........-............. 0 CC0.7 ITC • 11 CC., r� •11 105104 Mae r - - -11-6 1.10 CZ e• CONC SAW •ANA • IV DC ANT h. vONTS) 12/ 1.0 .c.sr•L',1 , APPROA r 1' KR Ir / stott •/ , 0 • OC 011.4,4 PIA / 410041 trak" 1- 10104 TALLOW STORAGE TANKS FOUNDATION PLAN MARK A. ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES structural engineering consultants z 5 810 SET ONLY 1 (206) 431-7950 nE0151005 naitEl) 00CW1 All, 01)001) &0l ELEvoriOn5, ELME IED Don ROOD 11.0111 4-15.96 LEL o• D0 10 WHICH bionacE Trm. ozoL - TT Tx 5' Car conC TIT - SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS SITE SCALE 100' CROSS SECTION A SCALE :1". 10114onw. 6 VERT.I D V Din • 14'-0 1011.001 NOME TOM —Tr or Ex cot nr• 1 Ala. 1 nrrn00fir linCjIr • tcl.. r EXI5TinG CALM L I TIV IE • n i n t.. r114° 5 Ma EX VrOnctrialn V' MIKA Lotionio/ -- \ UnLOCDIN LIM •• 5U00ilirif (=auto nunorr o I_ Pump To Tula TOO 1100110607 mot% TO DeOicirla 5Urt Dt Oran MET - SCALE : 10' To ure0111011A Trantquir =HAT ••". 111.610 VICINITY MAP 5 En 114 DA • V- 1.* HIGH MUNI 51641EKE. 101%5 Wrenn an OW ELM TOOnCaTion5 (ME binallooL WELT 5-1) .'100065 4 riTTIMNITE) TU. /2 TO NILO& TUN* inOTOM1 TALLOW STORAGE TANKS [11.11kos Tu. - 6 'Lint (DT) 4E0 10'l.DIO • 54 CHIC,11 Tauou 5TOIXr,,E Tarn 5urrenTED Cain Car. retinDonctE) (000 011000711001 WM 5-1) VERTICAL DATUM VEnTiali COMM r0 Mal nit LIN Of TELMA EDICiinaNc 0110001011607 00601105 EfilourianA • 05 Ontly Coot Or 1 61) 0 650 • DIM= WV 00 56 COMM or 115T ilt101011 CAM Callan MD 0 1' MOD Milritlal 15NCE,E V)55 qo&o 1500 00 MOTU, C,oLf Caret ELEV. 65 41 C-1 TALLOW STORAGE TANKS PLAN & CROSS SECTION C-2 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPING PLAN 6-1 FOUNDATION PLAN NIN 66 R 1NG DM COMPANY — Ex 5' CCU Cott DT (ttr) -- Line or Tani( (Tyr) sm:1_,5 110TC 011. flfl116 10101.01 15 001E110116 oriLT SHEET INDEX Lq2-4-7010 RECEIVED D Ca 15 593 • • • 00-11 -• -• LEL 12 4-15-92 cirin ENGagERING AND PLANNING co.V.S1 TAN Ts .