Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/24/1997 3510 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington June 24, 1997 CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Os~xowski called the special meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order REGULAR MEETING: at 5:05 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mayor Ostrowski, Councilmembers Braun, Campbell, Doyle, Hulett, and Wiggins. Members Absent: Councilmember McKeown. Staff Present: Manager Pomeranz, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Upton, and B. Collins. Public Present: Doc Reiss, Darlene Schanfald, Barbara Osborne, Don Schwendiman, Paul Pedowitz and Richard Osborne. Appeal of ~he planning Mayor Ostrowski stated the purpose of this meeting was to conduct a closed record Director's Mitigated appeal of the Planning Director's mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MDNS) Determination of for the Rayonier Mill demolition permit. He stated that the hearing would be opened Nonsignificance for the with remarks by the City Attorney, followed by testimony by Darlene Schanfald and Rayonier Mill Demolition Barbara Osborne, the Rayonier Attorney, Don Schwend~iman, and planning Director Permit Brad Collins. Mayor Ostrowski stated that the Council will be free to ask questions during or following the presentations. Each party will be allowed five minutes for rebuttal after presentations have been made. Deliberations will be made following testimony and a decision could be made this evening. Mayor Ostrowski informed everyone that the Council had listened to the tapes of the planning Commission hearing and was given copies of minutes and all supporting documents. He requested that the information presented this evening not be repetitive. Mayor Oslxowski then requested Attorney Knutson to make the opening remarks. Attorney Knutson restated the reason for the meeting, explained how the planning Director was empowered to make the determination of nonsignificance, and defined MDNS. He went on to explain the process which brought the Council to the point of this appeal. This is the first time that the City Council has heard a State Environmental ~0,'~,~ ~ ~ (SEPA) appeal, as previously this was a duty of the Planning Y~ ~!~t4.Commission. Due to new State statutes, the City has the restriction of conducting only one public hearing on any given project. The public hearing on this project was conducted by the Planning Commission, as there had to be a hearing on the Shoreline Permit decision, and the two hearings were consolidated. Because only one public hearing is allowed, tonight's meeting is called a closed record appeal and the Council is restricted to hearing arguments from those parties that are part of the appeal which has been filed. Attorney Knutson then explained the intent of the appeal and the information that will be reviewed during the appeal. Attorney Knutson stated that the planning Director took his determination very seriously. 'Under the law, the Council is required to give that determination great weight. The parties involved have had the oppommity to discuss the procedures for this appeal and the only procedural disagreement is regarding some submittals the appellants inend to make as part of theft presentation. New evidentiary type documents are not appropriate to be submitted at this time. A letter recently received from a nurse's union cannot be presented at this appeal; however, it will be included in the City Clerk's records. Following Attorney Knutson's presentation, Mayor Ostxowski invited Darlene Schanfald and Barbara Osborne to give theft arguments. Barbara Osborne, 1129 East 8th Street, stated that neither she nor Darlene Schanfald was privy to the rebuttal of Rayonier Mill that was hand delivered to the City Council on June 20, 1997. Ms. Osborne felt, as a point of law, this hearing could not be continued, as she and Ms. Schanfald have not had an opportunity to examine these materials. Ms. Osborne cited from the Rayonier rebuttal, which stated the appellants did not have standing to make the appeal as they were not aggrieved by the decision, and then reviewed the two-part lest which determines whether a person is aggrieved by a decision. Ms. Osborne stated she had proof that she will be specifically and perceptively harmed by the proposed action. She has been impacted by particulated material from Rayonier in her home. She has taken it to be analyzed and has had to have medical treatment from breathing the particulate. -1- 3511 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 24, 1997 Ms. Osbome then displayed particulate matter she had collected from the window sill of the Olympic Memorial Hospital respiratory therapy unit. She showed photographs which demonstrated the impact of any work on the Rayonier site on Olympic Memorial Hospital. With the wind pattems experienced by Port Angeles, there is no question that it can be proven that demolition of the Rayonier mill will affect Ms. Osborne as well as thousands of other residents. Ms. Osborne estimated that between 6,500 and 9,500 residents live or work within 1.2 miles of the Rayonier stacks. She went on to explain and defend how she arrived at her numbers. Attomey Knutson noted that under the City's SEPA Ordinance standing isn't an issue, as the Ordinance says any agency or person can challenge the Planning Director's determination. The type of testimony submitted by Ms. Osborne is new evidence which would only be relevant to help her establish her standing, if standing were an issue, which it isn't. Ms. Osborne then submitted two photographs of low level air currents across Port Angeles, one taken in the 1960's and one taken in the 1980's. The City has one of the most complex air patterns in the nation, as determined by the Department of Ecology (DOE). In each picture, emissions and dust are being carried in three different directions. Ms. Osborne then showed pictures she had taken in 1995, and noted again the particles being carried over the City. Demolition dust will follow the same patterns. She felt there was not proper protection for the community. Darlene Schanfald, 3632 O'Brien Road, asked to submit information to the Council. Councilman Wiggins asked if this was appropriate. Attomey Knutson stated that it was inappropriate for the Council to consider new evidence that was not submitted uring the public comment and public hearing process. If this proceeding is appealed to a court of law, a judge would decide the legal status of this new information. The Council also has the option of deciding whether or not to consider it at this hearing. Councilman Doyle felt passing it along the Council would be distracting while listening to testimony and preferred to wait. Ms. Schanfald distributed copies of her arguments to the Council and stated that no additional arguments are being introduced. She is simply supporting arguments already submitted, including an exhibit from the Health & Human Services Division of Toxic Release and Disease Registry. Ms. Schanfald urged the Council to not make a decision tonight but to thoroughly review all the documents and continue the hearing to another Ms. Schanfald stated she and Ms. Osborne based their arguments on their strong feeling that this is a significant project and that a case has not been made that it is a nonsignificant project. They would like to see the MDNS changed to significant and Rayonier be required to do a full environmental impact study (EIS)~scuss the issues affecting human health and natural resources. This shoul~o-phase permit, building to concrete, and concrete down to the soil and water. A determination of si~nificance will give public oversight rather than voluntary oversight and will bring the public into the process and give the community a chance to review and be involved in the demolition. A full review will allow analysis and provision for safe dust control methods. This is a major issue as the dust will not be contained on site. There are ways to contain the dust on site, and particulate monitors should be stationed on and off site to measure the level of dust leaving the site. A full review will allow analysis and provision for appropriate noise control methods and allow the application of language consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Conservation Policies. Ms. Schanfald then summarized for the Council the concerns she and Ms. Osborne had as contained in their handout, stressing their concern over the possible toxic waste that will be left behind. She again asked that no decision be made tonight. Councilman Wiggins asked if any complaints have been made by the hospital, and Attorney Knutson stated this would be addressed by Director Collins during his presentation. Councilman Doyle asked who would monitor Rayonier if demolition continues as approved if the appeal is denied. Ms. Schanfald stated that Rayonier desires a two-stage procedure and then described it. DOE will have someone do periodic checks on the site; however, to date no records have been or are required to be kept. Rayonier will have its contractors assess the hazardous waste, limiting it to lead, asbestos and PCB's. She and Ms. Osbome argue that there are numerous other hazardous wastes on the site and an outside agency needs to perform the site assessment. An independent expert is definitely required. Mayor Ostrowski then introduced Rayonier's attorney, Don Schwendiman. Mr. Schwendiman thanked the Council for the oppommity to address the issue and introduced Paul Perlowitz, Environmental Manager at the Rayonier Mill in Port Angeles. -2- 3512 CITY CODI~C~L MBETING June 24, 1997 Mr. Schwendiman reemphasized what was said by the Rayonier Vice President, Denni.~ Snyder, at the original hearing. Rayonier has a strong commitnj~t,a~ ,p~erating in a~ safe and environmentally responsible manner. The goal for ~tl~.' ~eate a safe site that can be returned to productive use. Responsible things are being done to accomplish thisend. RaYonier has committed to a comprehensive environmental assessment of the site lhat will be closely overseen by the DOE. He felt the company's position has been misrepresented by the appellants. Rayonier intends to perform a full site asses .sment and it will be overseen by the DOE. Mr. Schwendiman stated there are two separate processes to accomplish this. The most commonly used is an independent remedial action program, and Mr. Schwendiman described this process. If the DOE does not feel a company has done a good enough job using this method, it must be done all over again. The second process, is to sign a consent decree with the DOE. Mr. Schwenrliman explained this process, which includes a public review. Rayonier has not yet made its decision as to which method it will use. The proposal submitted to the City is only to take down the structures to ground level. The DOE can issue a compliance order and force a land owner to clean up. This can only be done if there is evidence of contamination, and there is no such evidence on the Rayonier site. There are two known areas on the site that have petroleum contamination. One of them is being handled pursuant to an order by DOE and the other by an independent remedial action, which DOE is fully informed of. Mr. Schwendiman stated Rayonier has hired ICONCO, a firm with 25 years experience in taking down this type of facility. Rayonier will work closely with the S'Klallam Tribe to respect their concerns for the history of the site. Noise will be controlled with an abbreviated week day schedule, and Rayonier has committed to expedite the establishment of the Waterfront Trail through the site. Mr. Schwendiman then addressed some of the legal issues raised by the appeal. He stated that the duty of the Planning Director is to determine whether the project proposed by Rayonier will have a probable, significant, adverse effect on the environment. The planning Director determined that the proposed project would not have a probable, significant, adverse effect on the environment. The appeal is over whether his decision is correct, based on the information he had at that time, hence this is a closed record appeal. The rebuttal statement submitted by Rayonier was arguments based on the evidence at the planning Commi.qsion hearing and contained no new material. The question is not the size of the mill or whether tearing it down is a significant project. The question is whether there is a probable, significant, adverse impact. 'It is not based on speculation. There must be specific evidence of an impact probably occurring. There is no evidence of such an impact that hasn't already been mitigated by the conditions which City staff placed upon the application. The appellants want the City to tea Rayonier that it'should undertake a different project from that which has been proposed. That is not the question. Contamination cannot be evaluated until it is known what and where it is. This can be accomplished after the building is gone. The appellants address EPA/DOE oversight. This is the wrong proceeding to raise that issue. The EPA and DOE already have oversight over the dismantling and clean up project. Dust control is best controlled by wetting. Most of the demolition will be done by using large hydraulic shears on a boom, which will cut structural members of various tanks, supports, etc., then lower them to the ground. A large amount of dust will not be created. Councilman Braun asked how the concrete walls would be removed, and Paul Perlowitz, Environmental Engineer for Rayonier, responded. Mr. Schwendiman then described how the stack will be brought down and stated it is not possible for the concrete in the stack to contain toxic particulate. He then addressed the noise conlrol issue and stated the City has a noise ordinance in place and Rayonier is bound to meet the noise levels. He then thanked the Council for the oppommity to respond. Councilman Campbell expressed concern regarding toxic materials being transported off the site with demolition debris. Mr. Schwendiman explained the handling plan. Councilman Hulett stall that according to one of the appellants' handouts, the second stage of demolition at the Hoqniam site was never completed and contaminants remain in the soil. Mr. Schwendiman statell,flli~ ~sj~j[e&t. The two phase approach was used ~ and a complete environmental sitetk~~d the land was cleaned up to levels required by the Model Toxic Control Act. A revieTM was received from the DOE and no further action was required. Part of that facility is still being operated and there are different clean up levels for industrial sites. Councilman Campbell was still concerned over the dust issue and asked if the -3- 3513 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 24, 1997 procedures for dust control were subject to oversight of the various regulatory agencies. Mr2 Schwendiman responded affirmatively. Counc~qman Braun asked how dust control would be ac~mplished with the trucks transportin'~"lfla~-fffi. Mr. Perlowitz "~ ' ~ ' 6~.{g~O~ ~ ,t~ responded and assured Council that the wetting process would be used in this instance ~ as well; however, 90% - 95 % of the fill would be recycled. Councilman Wiggins asked if the process used in Hoqulam to achieve demolition is the same one being used here. Mr. Schwendiman responded affirmatively. Mayor Ostrowski asked if the concrete floors would be part of Phase I or Phase II of the demolition and Mr. Schwendiman responded that the cement floors will be part of Phase II. Mayor Ostrowski then asked Planning Director Collins to address the issue. Director Collins referred to a report he had provided which addressed each appeal point and read aloud from that report. Director Collins then distributed copies of revised Findings and Conclusions and reviewed those that had been changed. He pointed out that Finding 18 refers to the first appeal point of the appellant. A minor change was made to Finding 12 regarding the answers provided by Marc Crooks of DOE. In regard to the second appeal appoint, the lead agency, using discretion authorized in the SEPA regnjl~dons, determined that above and below ground were meaningful points in the City's construction and shoreline permitting processes. This is important, as one of the allowances for a phased environmental review in the same SEPA regulations says phased review is appropriate when the sequence is from an environmental document on a specific proposal at an early stage to a subsequent environmental document at a later stage. Director Collins continued to cite from the report and give further explanation of the various points. He then addressed the remainder of the appeal points and gave a riffler explanation of them. Director Collins agreed with the appellants regarding the magnitude, complexity, and significance of the Rayonier proposal and impact; however, the very nature of the impacts does not mean that they cannot be mitigated adequately. The mitigation measures, in part, based on agency and public comments, were incorporated into Rayonier's proposal and SEPA checklist through two additional submittals as well as through public testimony of Rayonier representatives. Following the SEPA procedural requirements, the City's responsible official appropriately has made a mitigated determination of nonsignificanse for the first phase of the site clean up. He asked the Council to accord substantial weight to that decision, as required by SEPA. Mr. Collins felt all the points of the appeal should be denied, and the SEPA threshold determination be upheld as made final and issued on May 14, 1997. At Mayor Ostrowski's request, Director Collins explained that the Findings and Conclusions he presented tonight were not adopted by the Planning Commission but are offered in support of the Council's decision. Some of them may have been part of the planning Commission's decision on the shoreline permit, but they are referencing more the specific regulations in SEPA and the City's Municipal Code and referencing testimony given at the public hearing on May 14, 1997, and Findings 18 - 24 specifically reference each appeal point, one through six. The Conclusions are directed at upholding the MDNS as issued. Discussion followed and Director Collins responded to questions posed by the Council. At Councilman Wiggins's request he pointed o]~[~t~t hospital representatives had provided no testimony but had been advised of a# ~'fdL'~dings. Director Collins stated that during testimony, no comments had been made regarding the phasing at the Hoquiam Mill site, and he was not aware of it. Councilman Braun suggested the dump trucks carrying the fill dirt be covered to further minimize the dust problem. Councilman Doyle asked who else could have been considered as lead agency if the City had declined. Director Collins responded that it most likely would have been DOE, as it is the State agency of expertise in hazardous and toxic clean ups. Lead agency responsibility was offered to the DOE, but they felt that it was better to keep the decision making process local so citizens and agencies did not have to travel to Olympia to address officials. Director Collins further stated there were discussions with Clallam County Environmental Health regarding their concerns that materials in the debris which may go to Rayonier's Shotwell Landfill site may contain hazardous material, which would make them an agency with jurisdiction. They chose to work with the City and not assume lead agency status. The __acl_dendnm to the mitigation measures required that any materials be taken to an approved landfill site. Until Shotwell is an approved landfill site, that would not be an option for any of those materials. The Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) also has jurisdiction, as it has a hydraulics permit which allows them to add conditions they feel necessary to protect water quality. -4- 3514 CITY COUNCIL MF. bTFING June 24, 1997 Councilman Hulett inquired about the consent decree and how it works if something is missed. Director Collins felt that national toxic clean up requirements would still hold sway, so Rayonier would not be excused from meeting all those requirements. At Councilman Campbell's request, Director Collins reviewed the response received from the DFW. He stated the DFW made comment after initial issuance of the mitigated determination. There were some concerns if the runoff plan would be sufficient during fogging and hosing of dust, but the conditions that could be placed through the hydraulics permit application would safeguard the stream, Ennis Creek, and the Strait from degrada~fion. Not wanting to take any chances, a mitigation measure was added to revise the spill containment plan to ensure there won't be that kind of failure. Break This concluded the presentations. Mayor Ostrowski recessed the meeting for a break at 6:37 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 6:55 p.m. Attorney Knutson stated that the parties had concurred with the Mayor that rebuttal would proceed with a time limit of five minutes per party, in the same order of appearance. Barbara Osborne, 1129 E. 8th Street, stated the Council had asked the same questions the citizens were asking. She stated the Council does not have the control it should have over the situation, because there has been an MDNS. This is 80 acres containing buildings, tanks, piping, etc. rising seven stories or more. It is chemically impregnated. Much of it is concrete and needs to be sawed. She asked what Council's solution was. She stated it was Council's right and the right of the citizens to call for a determination of significance. Tearing down 80 acres of buildings is significant. Tearing down all this over a two-year period is likely to have an adverse effect on the environment She felt that the Council would assume control of the situation by calling for a determination of significance and urged them to do so. Rayonier will then have to go to an independent environmental agency and perform an EIS. She reminded them of the photographs showing the particulate matter which ~es over Port Angeles and which the DOE does not protect the City from. She again urged the Council to call for a determination of significance. Darlene Schanfald read from the letter from the Department of Health and Human Services Division of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The salient points covered included soil sampling prior to demolition, ak monitoring during the demolition process, precautions to protect the nearest off site population from possible on-site events, an asbestos removal plan, detailed procedure for lead removal, health and safety plan for employee protection, and adequate securing of the site. Ms. Schanfald stated that Rayonier has a long history of ak and water quality violations. She said she heard Brian Jones saying Fish and Wildlife have no jurisdiction and that is the way Rayonier has handled Fish and Wildlife over the years. She again asked that the Council withhold its decision tonight and go carefully through all the records submitted. Don Schwendiman, Regional Counsel from Rayonier, had no additional comments but offered to respond to questions. Councilman Hulett stated that worker protection would fall under WlSHA and OSHA standards and Mr. Schwendiman agreed. ~ ~ , . Councilman Doyle asked if the stack had an emission control devic~ responded affirmatively, and deferred the explanation to Paul Perywitz. There were ~ no further questions of Mr. Schwendiman, and Mayor Ostrowski asked Attorney Knutson for his rebuttal comments. Attorney Knutson stated that the basic issue is whether or not an EIS should be done. It is staff's position that the MDNS has addressed all the significant issues that an EIS would address and has done so in a satisfactory fashion. It is staffs position that the appellants have not demonstrated what an EIS would specifically accomplish that the MDNS has not already accomplished. Regarding the letter read by Ms. Schanfald in rebuttal, it is staff's position that it is outside the record as it was not part of what the Planning Director considered and was not submitted at the planning Commission heating. It was .submitted for the first time this evening and is improper. Similarly, regarding the appellants' request that deliberations be delayed until the Council can review evidentiary documents submitted for the first time this evening, it is staff's position that these documents are not properly in the record and therefore should not be considered at all. Responding to comments made and questions asked during the arguments, staff has revised the Findings of Fact that will be presented to the Mayor should Council decide to deny the appeal. Attorney Knutson asked to add Finding #25, which deals with the mitigation measure added in the revised MDNS regarding storm water nm off. Staff also requested adding Finding #26, which would address the proper scope of the deliberations. Attorney Knutson read both Findings aloud. Councilman Wiggins noted the appellants stated they had received the Rayonier -5- 3515 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 24, 1997 information today and asked Attorney Knutson if this was justification for the Council to extend the decision de~line. Attorney Knutson responded negatively and explained that this information consisted of the same argument that Rayonier made this evening and it contained no new evidentiary information. The only new issue, as Ms. Osborne referred to, had to do with standing. The testimony that she submitted regarding the impacts of the mill operation on citizens of Port Angeles would only be relevant in this proceeding for her to establish her standing or why she is affected by the decision she was appealing. As previously explained, under the City's SEPA ordinance, standing is not an issue so the appellants were not prejudiced by Rayonier raising the standing issue late in the proceeding. Mayor Ostrowski stated that the presentations and rebuttals were concluded and called for discussion by the Council. Councilman Wiggi~ moved that the Findings 1 - 24 and Conclusions 1 - 7, as set forth in Exhibit "A" which is attached to and become a part of these minutes, offea~ in support of the denial of the MDNS appeal be accepted, and to support the decision of the Planning Director. Councilman Campbell seconded the motion. Lengthy discussion followed. Councilman Doyle asked if substantial weight should be given to the Planning Director's decision. Attorney Knutson explained there are three references in the law that use those exact words; twice in SEPA, RCW 43.21C.075 and .090, and once in Port Angeles Municipal Code 15.04.280. The Washington Supreme Court and the Washington Court of Appeals have both upheld this requirement. Councilman Doyle stated he had reviewed all the documents, listened to the tapes, and is satisfied he will make the right decision tonight. Councilman Campbell also reviewed all the documents and listened to the tapes and searched specifically for evidence of unmitigated, significant, adverse impacts. He stated he had considerable respect for the appellants' concerns, and they have raised issues that must be dealt with and are being dealt with under the MDNS. He was concemed with demolition methods and procedures but felt it would be cumbersome to submit all issues for public approval and/or vote. He felt the two phase process would accomplish the project efficiently and effectively. Neither the City nor its citizens would be served by an undue delay in getting the site cleaned up appropriately and properly. Councilman Campbell felt the people employed by the regulatory agencies are competent to insure that all standards and regulations will be complied with on the Rayonier site. Citizens have immediate access to all agencies should concerns arise. Therefore, he felt the MDNS was appropriate. Councilman Wiggins moved to amend his motion to include Findings 25 and 26. Councilman Campbell seconded the motion. Further discussion followed. Councilman Braun echoed the feelings of Councilman Campbell and again urged that Rayonier's contractor cover the fill dirt on the trucks before txansporting. Councilman Doyle agreed ~ project was significant; however, the size of the project is not under discussion. The concern is the adverse effect on the environment. He felt the project was sufficiently covered to prevent any adverse environmental effect. Mayor Ostrowski admitted this was not an easy decision to make. The Council has many concerns regarding this project also. However, Mayor Ostrowski felt that the mitigation measures in place will protect the environment. On call for the question, a vote was taken on the amendment to add Findings 25 and 26 to the main motion, which carried unanimously. A vote was taken on the motion to deny the appeal, which carried unanimously. Councilman Hulett moved to adjourn. Councilman Braun seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at7:25fn~i B~-~ky-J: Ul~-~(3~t~ Clerk [ '~-~rosper Ostro~'~ayor -6- 3516 Exhibit "A" Rayonier Mill Demolition Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance Appeal The following findings and conclusions are adopted by the Port Angeles City Council in support of denial of this MDNS appeal: Findings: 1. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-340 provides the regulatory procedures for making a threshold determination ofnonsignificance. 2. WAC 197-11-350 provides the regulatory procedures for making a mitigated determination of nonsignificance. 3. Port Angeles Municipal Code (PAMC) 15.04.080 provides the legal basis for making a mitigated determination ofnonsignificance. 4. WAC 197-11-055 and 197-11-060 provide the regulatory procedures for timing of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process and for phased environmental review. 5. The Washington Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) requires responsible parties meet established standards of hazardous material cleanup for sites where these materials are found. 6. The City of Port Angeles has notified agencies with jurisdiction, the Department of Ecology (DOE), affected tribes, local governments whose public services would be changed, and the public about the Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance (MDNS) for the Rayonier proposal. 7. The City of Port Angeles has consulted with the Department of Ecology and Clallam County Environmental Health in addressing the technical issues of the Rayonier proposal, which requires expertise. 8. The City of Port Angeles has requested technical assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 9. Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.21C.075(3)(d) and PAMC 15.04.280(D) provide that procedural determinations made by the responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. 10. An open record public heating on the underlying shoreline substantial development permit was held on May 14, 1997, and provided public testimony on the MDNS for the Rayonier proposal. 11. The appellants Darlene Schanfald and Barbara Osborne gave testimony on the MDNS at the May 14, 1997, shoreline permit public hearing before the City's Planning Commission. 12. In response to questions requiting expert opinion, Marc Crooks, a representative of the Department of Ecology, gave answers in support of the City's SEPA process and MDNS decision at the May 14, 1997, shoreline permit public heating. 13. RCW 36.70A and PAMC 15.04.280 allow for only one open record public hearing and one close record public hearing on a determination of nonsignificance. 14. The MDNS appeal of Darlene Schanfald and Barbara Osborne was filed on June 10, 1997, in a timely manner. 15. An MDNS administrative appeal is heard by the City Council and was scheduled for June 24, 1997. · 16. The Rayonier Mill site is zoned Industrial Heavy (IH). 3517 17. The Planning Commission approved the Rayonier shoreline substantial development permit for demolition ofaboveground structures on May 14, 1997, based on the MDNS. 18. Additional SEPA review for a second phase of the Rayonier Mill site cleanup is required by necessary grading and shoreline restoration work needing City permits, the MDNS statement that the City is using a phased environmental review for the demolition permit, and by the Shoreline Permit Condition No. 1, which states "Once the buildings and aboveground structures have been removed, the applicant shall conduct a 'complete environmental site assessment' and, after which, apply for a separate shoreline permit for the cleanup phase of the project." 19. At the May 14, 1997 public heating on the project in respond to a Planning Commission question about phased environmental review, DOE representative Marc Crooks stated, "It is too early to define the containment area, that time period is one and a half to two years down the road, following demolition including monitoring wells and grid lines all over the site. A feasiblity study cannot be done until the site is cleared of buildings and structures." 20. EPA, DOE, and Clallam County Environmental Health have the authority to conduct independent site assessment without an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being.reguired by the City. 21. According to DOE representative Marc Crooks in respond to a question about dust control asked by a Planning Commissioner at the May 14, 1997, public hearing, he stated, "fog misting (method described earlier in the public hearing by John Webber of Iconco, Rayonier's demolition contractor) during demolition is an acceptable method of dust containment as long as the water doesn't leave the site." 22. In response to several questions about noise control asked by Planning Commissioners at the May 14, 1997, public hearing, an Iconco representative John Webber stated, "that the number of pieces of equipment working on the site versus the machinery noise during mill operation is a fraction of the previous operation.., that he is aware of the condition that demolition operation will take place only between the hours of 7 am and 5 pm Monday through Friday." 23. The Planning Department and the Planning Commission both concluded that the proposed project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, specifically, Land Use Element Policies A2, 1-t3, and H4, Conservation Element Policy B1, B2, B9, B10, B11, D1, D3, and D7, and Economic Development Element Policies Al, A2, and A4, and the City's Industrial Heavy (IH) zone. 24. After commenting on the MDNS issued on April 29, 1997, other agencies with jurisdiction and other citizens have accepted the City's MDNS as finaled on May 14, 1997. 25. In response to agency and public comments about surface water control and water quality protection concems, the MDNS was revised by adding a new mitigation measure in the May 14, 1997, SEPA Threshold Determination Addendum as follows: "The applicant shall revise its spill containment plan, shall clean up any deleterious materials accidently spilled in Ennis Creek or Port Angeles Harbor, and shall assure that all contaminated stormwater runoff' is diverted, as necessary to address state agency concern about potential impacts to Ennis Creek and Port Angeles Harbor." 26. The new documents and evidence submitted by the appellants at the closed record appeal were improperly submitted and were not considered by the City Council. 3518 Conclusions: 1. The Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance for the Rayonier Mill demolition proposal was issued following proper SEPA and PAMC procedural requirements. 2. The Responsible Official's procedural determination to do a phased environmental review should be accorded substantial weight. 3. A second phase environmental review is required under SEPA of Rayonier to complete cleanup of its site. 4. The Department of Ecology as a consulted agency with expertise can assure the City and the public that established standards such as MTCA and pollution controls such as NPDES requirements will be met. 5. The proposed Rayonier Mill site cleanup will protect the environment of the site and surrounding area through the mitigation of adverse impacts and through the restoration of site to safe public health standards. 6. The City's SEPA Responsible Official relied on other agency experts in making this MDNS. 7. The City Council concludes that as proposed and mitigated the demolition of aboveground structures in the first phase of the Rayonier Mill site cleanup has no probable significant ,,~,~~~adverse impact on the environment. X'~l~r~sper bstrows~,---~ayor Date ' ,/ Attested by