Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA87-064v aG 4 t p 2s-- z3 9 I DM-H-S 300 8 20 7i4 0_3,44- 5 O re' c i 7'y of,eE/VrD.v LA, Pc L. Dc s c U,t'OE/e A.f SC J 2"-}-(. l -So/-o7-49 W7' O.m ..........,,,.. 1 RZo3/sos, SW. 0 zgo aL CO N I ei.06/2 ,Ti oI er L as f Cf J a r a L r o mo' a f` I Go' I n Q 300 I D 1- n 5 t&C' DI v— i v v v o 4 SAG i 35-7 9¢ 13 N ri(i-It'(-7 WL Crt() S'oKt- 4 o"‘ ell h7``' Z 8d o 4s : 4 5 7 o Q ftI AND 3 : 1 6.6-i9--z9, . 111 T H ERN0FtI'L'''—ec-±2L-1- r:N 597,o? 44 G w BO 1 4 0 Q ^ w L6- CD : , 6 0 : h 12 N 87-57-42 W JUL 8 icf)-7 Li', SE 25 - 2:3 - 4 ea...0o P S. EL. KK o S. timmair______ Imignmainw______ 4- 7—nW---- t e* irvcer N '` 4 I/ 7 2 O 3 y I o dAr y h i w O W R R & NAV CO R, R 0 y Fo eiyEiQ- C. M. sT, P, f P' R R R7/ 1 f Y U/ Yi• o y iv / Acif/ C RR.) . Z o 7. L 00 0 0 W 0 Zo CT; C\ N Aimminimmei s I Y N 4,- 6. 1,, o N. P. R R T^ Ts Kla/! LA C/ Ty rG/ M/ TS _ gd c? BI O . 4og C c--, air j m. mmmpf t- J Tu/( wiLA C/ Tr . AI. rs- SEE / 27E/ vTo TpENToN CITY L/ M/ Ts ORQ 40¢ 0 L— i ear0 4 C/ TY - / M/ T, R m iA r4J . A4. 2,,,, I d NI 0 li& t 1, tk ` i t z. i 1 a 1 1-- N ;\ d I\ cl R , _ 1% p CO k 4 1 z o m it IIC) N o 0 v. 13 307 33/. 4ta 60 Z. 24 7 \ r_,-— N. I- 2 i- 33E. s¢ s. o 1325. 60 r Staff Report/Dsk ERC BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT AUGUST 5, 1987 A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: Longacres Race Course Inc. PROJECT:Longacres Composting Facility ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-055-87 APPLICATION No(s) : SA-064-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Site Approval for composting waste from race course (straw/manure) . Facility includes a paved composting pad, 30 windrows, aerator turning areas and a pond to collect leachate and rainfall runoff before reuse or discharge. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located on Longacres Race Course Property, S.W. of 27th Street and West of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. (If both streets were extended) . B. ISSUES: 1. Whether there is a potential odor problem from this type of composting? Discussion Applicant says that there is no serious odor problem, but Andy McMillan of DOE suggests that the potential for odor problems is "great" and suggests a different kind of composting procedure such as in-vessel composting. 2 . Whether discharge of runoff from the composting could have a detrimental impact on wetlands? Discussion: DOE has stated that a Pollution Discharge Permit permit from Ecology would be required if any discharge of runoff waters from the composting into surface waters is to occur. DOE has suggested other alternatives such as routing the runoff through a settling pond prior to discharge or - connecting with a sewer line. 3. Whether the asphalt pad is an acceptable base for the composting operation? BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT LONGACRES RACE COURSE, INC AUGUST 5, 1987 PAGE 2 Discussion: DOE has suggested that there should be a clay lining or a synthetic membrane to control seepage. C. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to develop a 117,800 sq. ft. straw/manure composting facility at the south end of the forty acres racetrack south of the horse stables. A mixture of straw and manure would be laid out in linear windrows where an aerobic bacteria would eat the material reducing it over a 25 to 28 day period into a soils-like potting mix. This mix would be either used on the premises or possibly sold if a market develops for it. According to the applicant, the process is nearly ordorless and environmentally clean, since no air pollution, etc. results. There would be some leachate with driving heavy rain spells and could be released into a nearby wetland. According to the applicants, this leachate would be biologically clean before it would be released into the adjacent wetland. Generally, the applicants do not expect there to be much run-off off the site since the operation itself is very moisture consuming, generating a great deal of heat (up to 150 dences) and requiring daily irrigation to keep the material wet. What water does run off would be collected in a catchment area and recycled back on the windows according to their representative, Mr. Bill Taylor During a heavy rainstorm there could be runoff flowing directly into the adjacent wetland or the leachate could possible soak through the asphalt paving directly into ground. DOE has recommended a clay sealant or membrane to help prevent percolation of the leachate into the ground and having the surface runoff flow into the sanitary sewer. The proposed use is permitted under the M-P zone as a conditional use "whose activities including manufacturing and storage, are predominantly conducted out-of-doors rather than completely enclosed within a building". (Section 4-730.3.e. ) Outside storage areas must be screened from all adjacent properties with view obscurring fences at least six (6 ' ) feet high. Under the environmental performance standards for odorous gases Section 4-730. 10.c. ) , "no emissions of odorous gases and other odorous matter , shall be permitted in quantities which are unreasonably offensive beyond the exterior property lines of the lot or site" (emphasis added) . BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT LONGACRES RACE COURSE, INC AUGUST 5, 1987 PAGE 3 Staff believe that because of the experimental nature of this project, we should only be approving it for a year or two so that we can more fully evaluate its impacts. D. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the ERC issue a Determination of Non-Significance for this project subject to the applicant complying with the following mitigation conditions: 1. That the asphalt's membrane be tested for porosity prior to its full application noting that if it is not fully impervious, a clay membrane will be used as an undercoating (with proper drainage barriers) to prevent leachate from reaching underlying soils; 2. That surface water runoff be run through a retention/setting pond prior to its release into adjacent wetlands; 3. That the applicant contract with the King County Health Department to monitor air quality (including odor) and surface water runoff quality on a regular basis and report back to the Committee it's findings within six months after the facility is operational. 4. That this operation be approved for an initial one year period during which it will be evaluated. If conditions warrant, new mitigation measures such as draining all surface runoff into the sanitary sewer may be considered later. 5. That the applicant provide securities of a sufficient amount to ensure removal of the facility if its initial permit is not extended. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS: Various City departments have reviewed and commented upon the project. These comments are as follows: Police Department: The following comment was made: No traffic impacts. Fire Prevention Bureau: Probable minor impacts noted for Public Services with no further comment. Design Engineering: Probable major impacts noted for water and probable minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements. The following comments were made: 1. Effluent from process should be disposed of in the sanitary sewer system or receive Ecology approval on waste water disposal. BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT LONGACRES RACE COURSE, INC AUGUST 5, 1987 PAGE 4 2. Verify that asphalt paving is an appropriate base, chemically, for the proposed process. Traffic Engineering: Probable major impacts noted for water with minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements. The following comment was made: No noted traffic type problems. Utility Engineering: Probable minor impact noted for Utilities with no further comment. Parks and Recreation: Probable minor impacts noted for Aesthetics and Recreation. The following comments were made: No recreation or park impacts. Project could include landscape buffering in relation to the proposed Oakesdale project. Building Division: Probable minor impacts noted for earth, housing and aesthetics. The following comment was made: King County Health should preview this. Zoning Division: Probable minor impacts noted for all environmental elements with the following comment: Will wastewater be adequately treated before entering into the wetlands in the S.E. corner of the site? Policy Development: More information requested for Earth, Water, Energy and Natural Resources, Environmental Health, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics and Recreation. Probable minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements. The following comments were made: 1. This department has specific concerns regarding the applicants assumption that the P-1 channel will be constructed as currently proposed, which will drain the adjacent wetland. Perhaps the applicant should describe this operation under the assumption that the channel will not be built as currently proposed. 2. The department is concerned about the relationships between water flow from the compost pad/the wetland/and the recirculation system. This department supports the invitation of the applicant to an ERC meeting in order to explain the proposal in greater detail. 3. This department is also concerned about the eventual water quality of the adjacent wetland. 4. If this project is permitted, significant landscaping should be required to buffer the use from surrounding properties, and primarily the Springbrook Channel to the east. 5. How will this impact the possible creation of a trails system along Springbrook. dVLT ANDS 4 S 1 NORTH t r---:-. 3\\ L GRASS eeA U p I 1 POMP611: 37e' r S.Eo'e o f• Paved.Pd. Tt tr( S.W. 27 t*Sf- "_...___.;I I 1 V J l I • 2 0I I I Zi I r49ree Leret 0/7.O' V I M III i l N. V) S iI 30 'comPojr/N6 u//NDB°(LS(a xioo'+a 9) Q - I I k I a a : Ii 4 Q 2 q II 1,No re,• . V ll - J p p I Z - z`LIM I I S:°.o(0 1 - IL I j Canpes// Rod 9/O'X360; C/ores B 9.rP4•//pouamens! q m J- I t I y Z. Pad/t de-caned!o cone0,7 a//c//.es//Soch°fe eio! m a V 1 I(' g p I e S•eaf rf Gy ae/°fian-soff/i>> {ai',are !e ore/a'amparf J 1 o I rl t da op'irii4rr m•moufu/e CP/+ki f-GJ.$. r l v p 5, I I 3. AMA -r.P for re9v/iad cn .oi/rn9 dry e..8•,le lyir4I@tJ4tic%anind o/ofOmoyef, k 0 l ( e . . 4 ; 4 Dior/Hoye/ine sb eft°/dAnax usadon//. sor huy N' ' I a .. J Q i 7°info//Prerf/oe' and 4/• e%rainy(d94viopr) Q Y Oz If l r' ei f,— 2B, i RepoNmofe ConfoveS 44 2o•ee• Po•r 1 r N.B I—.NLC/•'G4/or N I lam._' Con/oor.8 Offer Grod/y h ie. • 4; Nader ono,Aerator Heals r9.5 c r/! a I/25 9= Tie/re../of/oa lc%fee Gne;Wake.fpo//•Lnia I 310' OMSn Leis° 0 e_ U.6. 07ea1/•ee Oe(oer LA8 I Al_ Ora/n Al Pvmp Hovse Sum, GRASS ARCH R— Pump Howe Sump to Oof.ro//PeOin h LON®ACRES RACE COURSE Waalo composting Prol®ol R,,,roRs,, SeAGE:/"+40e wrreorro or: 4 ^' 4-A.R. 20 LATE:3&31.183f 8EY/Se0: rz".:CEI r`Sc4e6+ r\ Composting Pad•Prallminary go Oa de de AMaI We Na: Rounoulp Engineering AA. Re D bB.932.o If I I II ry 032333. 353 9I ci I NORTH I W.ItIDV Him. , I I I I IOC ATION Jre.,<.n }.. O V C IIJA) AI I I I= IIND PT I 1 I• I I I I 1 Vve.vOl<er an Infl‘ .::: iI I f/RK//VG Ii Ifti2ARE.9 ICNofor41 I I I NOTESI IQ, I {/C/N/7y MAP 1.1" I I.TAIs sik p/an c drone on p p/ofo- h N g/vmmefric tempos/1e pryered h e I I I For"he Owner by Hryfi G Geb'rnv IiQp ` I f/kwc. h /976. 1- I S. Confou7S ore opP/oX/malt I In nj I I I not Fe/d cfi!'c n/.. U o 3. Fch/ee /acof/ons m/. P-/ J v I I C/ainv C' ehan e/o S P! Q IN I I I 27 tiS Access Rood hate I deer speeimPased hosed to Iw t I t I upon curre4g, & ,/v 6/e da, -j l I I J not cogF mrd c!!h the cilyQ o i I i L o ge o / I. 1,8saCOMPO37/N6 tiI Y V Q aAo littiO14u380'x9ro-' h I yPRRK/NG im 1 AREypSqN/TA y 53We J PPP -cx.) il ill I 1 it ,,, , -1 c= it : i . .._=. 0. ry 1 J wET GANGS a SCALE. r çi:i:ii:iLONOACRES RACE COURSEc.-TE:=9 .Waste Composting Proi©ct RenIon.M\ I i I r oT<.:/ =/ on h ? a.R\ ise'er P-/ ' 3Iv=734 2• LL__ u u u Site Plan-Preliminary I.... .dl. .Q e. oow eu....... NA NNE 04/7L DRAIN tee ,. n..w.. o,..e.a tPFUTU,QE o%, ' v.v Q 91lam= ' Rousoulp Engineering LC-1P<R•2 o 6.T Airve 4.14 _ a 1110. City of Renton March 31, 1987 Environmental Review Committee 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Gentlemen: For a number of years, the bedding material from our 1400 stables has been transported to a mushroom farm in Salem, Oregon. The material is processed and becomes the growing medium for the common grocery store variety of mushroom. This particular farm was the sixth lar- gest in the United States and produced 18 million pounds of mush- rooms a year. A mushroom farm typically has two choices for a grow- ing medium; one is to buy baled straw, mix bone meal and various chemicals to obtain the proper nutrient balance for mushroom growth; the other is to buy or obtain stable bedding which requires less chemical additions. It is essentially a matter of choice. Some mushroom farms use only straw, some use only stable bedding, and some use a combination. The farm in Salem required 26,000 tons of growing medium a year. They historically used 16,000 tons from Longacres, 2,000 tons from Portland Meadows, and the balance in baled straw. On January 16, King Mushroom in Salem, was served with a bank fore- closure. The lender has been in the process of attempting to sell this farm and two others since the foreclosure. It is likely that one or more of the facilities will simply be sold off as raw land. Regardless of the outcome, the Salem facility will never be in a position to receive all of our material since drastic production cutbacks will be required to maintain a presence in the market so that supply does nto exceed demand. Longacres Race Course must, therefore, develop a disposal alternative. The options available are few. The viable options are even less. It is neither economically feasible or realistic to assume that we can dispose of nearly 150,000 cubic yards of material at a landfill site. No single mushroom farm is large enough to use all of our material and, in its existing form, it has very limited use as a soil amend- ment. The two options that we focused our attention on were incineration and on-site composting. We have chosen to pursue composting, a system that incorporates the two highest priorities of the State of Washing- ton; waste reduction and recycling. Over the past two years, we have conducted extensive research and testing to establish a formula and method of operation that would achieve our objective of rapid waste Longacres Race Course, Inc. P.O. Box 60, Renton, Washington 98057 (206) 226-3131 Environmental Review Committee March 31, 1987 Page 2. reduction while, at the same time, be ecologically sound. Composting our material reduces its volume by approximately 80% and produces an inert, rich, organic soil extender. We accelerate nature's recycling program from the normal 18 month cycle to under one month. An on-site resolution to this problem will mean the reduction of the equivalent of 140 truck trips per week and in a small way, ease the traffic problem that currently exists in the Valley. The proposed system of composting reduced to the most understandable basics, consists of picking the material up from the barn area, haul- ing it to a central location on our property where it's ground to reduce its volume and increase the surface area for microbial activity. It is soaked with water to achieve approximately a 65% moisture level, laid in windrows and turned and aerated on a three-day cycle until stabilized (which is approximately 28 days) . The material can then be used as a topsoil substitute, soil additive, or turf-top dressing. Some possible concerns, as I anticipate them, are: (a) odor, (b) run- off, (c) pests, (d) fire, and (e) dust. a) Odor - The stable bedding, when ground, has a not unpleasant odor of moist straw. Composting can occur In aerobic or anaerobic con- ditions. This material, when composted in aerobic conditions, produce no unpleasant odor. The system maintains aerobic conditions through correct particle size, moisture content, and most importantly, aeration. Aeration is achieved through turning the material. C m 1.4,4 c:tj-s S AN,o t S 7E4 k -CM u- b) Runoff - The compoLing will occur on an asphalt pad, sloped 7 C®v kr*IA to collect moisture. Any o-c' llected liquid will be treated in a holding yolAL/1_,, area. As a practical matter, the moisture coming off the pad will be put back on the windrows since the heat generated by composting uses up large quantities of water. c) Pests - The windrows are turned when internal temperatures of 160°F to 170°F are achieved. The revolving flail drum in the turner is designed to transfer the material at the edge to the center. This pro- cess exposes all of the material to high temperatures and kills all weed seed, repels insects, and kills their eggs or larvae. d) Fire - In the past, large piles of stable bedding have raised some concern over the possibility of fire. Large piles tend to dry out in the center while experiencing a buildup of combustible gas and high temperatures; the result is combustion. In windrow composting, the material is maintained at approximately 65% moisture level, the piles are never over eight feet tall and the turning process keeps the pile aerated so that there is never a buildup of combustible gas. e) Dust - The straw has a relatively high moisture content after it's removed from the stable area and, when it's ground, moisture is added. So, during the entire process, the material is never dry enough to produce dust. r Environmental Review Committee March 31, 1987 Page 3. The problem of disposal of this stable material is .of criti. al importance to the continued operation of Longacres Race Course.Since the type of operation that we are suggesting is new and-Trnot supported by volumes of published data, I would ask the Environmental Review Committee to al- low me the opportunity to spend some time describing, in greater detail than is possible through a written memorandum, just what this process is and how it will benefit Longacres, the City of Renton, and its environment. Respectfully submitted, 06' 7174. Bill Taylo Director of Business Development A COMPOSTING SYSTEM FOR LONGACRES RACE COURSE BASIS OF DESIGN The purpose of this project is to provide Longacres Race Course with a means of economically disposing of its straw-manure by-broduct in an ecologically sound manner. Longacres produces 600 cubic yards of loose straw-manure waste each day of the racing season. Until recently, a mushroom farm took this material as a growth medium. The equivalent of 140 truck trips were generated per week. The racing season may be said to begin with the first of the 1400 horses arrive at the track in early February. Within six weeks, the rate of production of waste has reached maximum where it continues until about the 32nd week. It then, gradually, reduces to about 1800 cy per week by the 37th week, for a total of 131,094 cy (1986 figure) for the 37-week season. Alternative disposal locations are being explored, but the shifting from one mushroom farm to another, or to a land spreading operation where open land is available, will not reduce the environmentally unsound trucking operation. Race Course waste is a potentially valuable asset. Longacres' recognized this several years ago and in. 1985 began collecting data and performing experiments in composting this waste product. The results of these tests and data, obtained from others working in this field, indicated composting of this product could be speeded up to a 28- day cycle using windrowing and aerating (mixing) equipment. That this could be accomplished without unpleasant odors or producing a dangerous flammable) mass became clear during testing. Recent laboratory tests of the one-year old exposed compost indicate that an aerobic activity has been minimized by this method of composting (NH at 425) . This engineer was recently called into the project to formulate a system for performing windrow composting in the most ecologically sound and economical manner, optimizing the use of the space and equipment avail- able at the site. The requirements for the design were to meet or ex- ceed all City of Renton, County and State criteria, and to assure that the long-term operation would not conflict with air, ground, and water pollution standards. After studying the voluminous material collected by Mr. Taylor of Long- acres, this engineer believes that the goals of the project are viable and can be met at a reasonable cost. The system consists basically of a means of collecting the straw-manure waste, transporting it to a central site, chopping it thoroughly to re- duce volume, and increase its mass to a consistency that will optimize its aerobic reduction by microbial activity. The material is moved to an area where it can be placed in closely spaced windrows to begin its 28-day reduction cycle. Windrow aerating equipment, currently used in industrial and municipal applications for sludge composting, will be pro- cured to turn, aerate, and moisten the windrows approximately every three days. Temperatures in the biomass will reach 160°F. to 180°F. for suffi- cient time to kill all weed seeds, insects and larvae. Aerobic action will be maintained by the cyclic aeration and moistening of the windrows. The resulting composting action will reduce the volume of the material approximately 55% and produce a material that may be used as a top dress- ing for lawns and gardens. The loose straw-manure mix produced by the Longacres barns weighs approxi- mately 220# per cubic yard, before grinding. The 25-ton per hour hammermill grinder produces a mix that is approximately one-third the volume of the loose mix. After composting, the volume produced per day has been further reduced about 55%, resulting in a product black-grey in color and weighing between 25 and 30 pounds per cubic foot. The ratio of volumes produced per day during peak operations are 600 cy (loose) to 210 cy (ground) to 94 cy (composted) per day. The paved composting pad will provide space for 30 windrows, 16' wide, 100' long and 6' high, spaced 4' apart with 20' wide aerator turning areas at each end. Additional space will be provided for collecting and grinding equipment; a pump and blower, parking for six operator vehicles, and a pond area to collect leachate and rainfall runoff treatment before reuse or discharge. Moisture content is critical to optimizing aerobic composting. While experimental work indicated 60% to 70% to be ideal, the use of mechanical windrow aerating equipment may alter the amount of water required to main- tain peak biological activity. This design will provide up to 1% per day • makeup water for this purpose. It is proposed to provide water tanks on the mechanical aerators with spray nozzles to wet the mix during the pass- over. Six vertical standpipes, located between the East turn around area and the pond, will be used to load the tanks. Sufficient water will be carried to wet four windrows at a time. Water will also be provided at the discharge of the grinders to moisten the shredded material, as required. Water used for maintaining optimum compost moisture content will be reused after treatment in the pond. The pond is located to one side of the com- posting area and will receive all leachate and rainfall runoff. Fine bubble aerators will be spaced along the length of the pond on 38' centers to produce 8 to 16 cfm air per 1000 cubic foot of pond volume. Movement of the aerated water will be controlled by recirculation of the pond volume at the rate of 70 gpm. If pumped contnuously, this will move the water through the aeration portion of the pond at the constant rate of seven minutes per foot. In 33 hours, the recirculated water will receive 1/3 million cf of air which is expected to transfer in excess of 1# of oxygen per unit per hour to the water. Biological reduction (BOD) of approximately 98% per pass through the pond is expected. Suspended solids should be reduced proportionally. From the aeration unit, the water will pass through a perforated baffle wall into a 34 ft. long settling tank where suspended solids will settle to the bottom and be periodically removed by hand scrapers and placed in the fresh compost windrows for biological reduction. The velocity through the settling portion of the pond will be 0.15 ft. per minute, allowing 3.78 hr. of setting time, before passing through a second perforated baffle into the pump wet well, overflow, drainage area of the pond. One pump will be provided to recirculate and provide makeup water to the windrow aerator tanks (via the standpipes) . The pump will produce 70 gpm at 12 ft. of head. It is expected that this pump will operate full time until field study has established the optimum recirculation rate and air dosage and intermittently thereafter (by timer) approximately eight hours 2. per day. During and after rainfall, the pump will operate full time for a minimum of 60 hours. A surface overflow pipe, or "Marigold," will remove excess volume in the tank due to rainfall runoff. This device will limit the water depth in the pond to 3' at all times. Since the pad perimeter will be at one elevation, all rainfall that does not evaporate or is absorbed by the windrows, will flow into the pond. For example: a quarter inch rain will provide about 11,000 gallons to the pond. Discounting overflow and assuming a full (3') pond water depth, this will raise the pond level less than one-tenth of a foot. Since the pond will provide approximately 3000 gallons per day "makeup" water to the compost windrows, pond draw down (between rain storms) will average 1/3 to 1/2 inch per day. Makeup water from the City will be provided by a float controlled pipe (with free board set six inches above pad perimeter elevation) , which activates only when pond draw down is six inches (2.5 ft. pond water depth) , it is likely that during the dry summer months, no water will drain. However, whenever rainfall exceeds 1 inch in 14 days, some drainage will take place. During months where rainfall exceeds two inches, all in excess of one inch per 14 days will drain to the wetlands. A 2" asphalt "speed-bump" will be placed in the turn around area next to the pond diagonally, to direct all rainfall less than 1/4 inch per hour to the South end of the pond and largely prevent runoff from bypassing aeration treatment. A small five gpm pump will also be required to provide water to the grinder and for hand-held hoses (wash down, etc.) A gravity drain in the bottom of the pad will provide water to the pump house wet well, and be valved to drain the pond during cleanup operations. It will also be connected to the "Marigold" to provide pond overflow drainage. Makeup water will be required from the city lines only during dry weather months. It is calculated that this will occur only during July and August when approximately 900 gallons per day and 150 gallons per day will be needed, respectively. This water will be provided through a 3" dia line. It will flow to a float controlled standpipe in the North end of the pond - and be actuated when the water level in the pond reaches 2.5' depth - and will close when the 3.0' depth is reached. This system will be drained during the winter months. Aeration will be provided by blowers located in the pump. Blowers will be 4 HP units providing 15 cubic feet per minute of air per square foot of aerator face. There will be 10 aerators, each 6" wide by 4' long. Total air flow will ,be 300 cubic ft. of air per minute. Power will be required at the pad for pumps, lighting, and aeration. Total hourly power requirement will not exceed 6 KW. Several pieces of equipment will be required for economic operation of the composting system. On hand are several modified forklift trucks capable of loading two to three cubic yards of straw-manure per minute. They are to be used in the system. 3. Twelve-ton dump trucks are currently used to transport the straw-manure to the grinders. These are to be replaced by a tractor-pulled, 50 cubic yard trailer, with tipside unloading capability. Similar trailers are in use on large farm operations and readily procurable. Time study indi- cates one 50 cy trailer is optimal. One man will be responsible to operate forklift and drive the trailer. Twelve loads per five-hour day will be required. The 50 cy trailer will dump into a new metal hopper with a capacity of 120 cy. Hopper dimensions will be 8'x8'x50' . It will be provided with chain-driven floorboards which will move the load toward cutter blades at the end of the hopper. The cutter blades, mounted on 3-6" diameter cylinders, will chop the straw and an auger will move the resultant material onto a conveyor that will lift it into the top of the grinder. The hopper and conveyor will be diesel-driven with power takeoff and require a 75 HP engine. Such equipment is readily available on the used market. The grinder will reduce the size of the material to optimum size for composting. The discharge from the grinder will be periodically checked for moisture. Upon need, water will be sprayed upon the ground material and it will be moved by frontend loader or forklift to the windrow where it will be formed into 16' wide x 6' high rows. One windrow will be formed each working day. The procurement of a windrow aerator is necessary for the success of the composting operation. Its function is to mix the contents of the wind- rows so that all parts of the mass receive equal benefit of moisture, air, nitrogen and heat. This is done to each windrow once every three days, on the average. Water is added at the mixing, as required. As the composting cycle progresses, the piles will shrink in size, about 55% over 28 days. Upon completion of the cycle, the stabilized compost is moved by forklift and dump truck to be sperad over the grassed sur- faces of the Race Course. There is sufficient grassed area on the Race Course property to absorb a two-year supply of compost, spread in a 2" thick layer. As the compost will be absorbed into soil and vegetation, in one year the process may be repeated. I dhid a g.; r Robert A. Rousculp P.E. 4. Lon9.av es pace 'Course Com posivi The e 13 iarc& L987 R,ou3cv.7 ll t. eutsec Pfel,yn,viarr Das,9n Gt+err4 Co001 strew-I),a iur . /dal -to CoH,port "Pad 51/2, hours t.=eex. dots, Z 11z how% Wecxv,(4S Fork tic-4 C4pa4+7 2. +0 3 o7 loaded ia-o -l'ruret/-'r ileis q+ 1 land Per ihthu{'e • RRauo¢ -travel 'tine +o fad , in cseare spud 4. Iz MPH Rd• - rce dca-i a„ce = 1.4 .4;le.o , feu. 1.ata oh we,.1144S on,d ex,stir.t *to ci..er•ender Catoccfi w;11 be prytirde41 a+ L4A da+e. L041.,ic1: 600 c)Z to ' 4 hrsfc(a 4o,. 1 LG. der. Z•soy/*in. co Z Itrs All ttsvt 9 a. Lacier(' x-e., week days 4,d Cgp4ct+y reruwtd goo W«. Zq0 ey/l,r 6.00 loci- lo Cy / be_ z.5 S•S Ma+ental krr- ' 2 Z O /cy 2c.4 +.n.o la tov S illf.. d w". Cwi, * Cg re)att-r 04 G,.i.v,clert )1.ot %4t.owk,. Fte!d -1-e0.c- te+ u.pj -E., loe V„c'orMed b7 owr,r„ Ilk cow.1v.9 thnys at.uo-ctz.o_ Aswn., en, +1,444. cc,lci.4,1a-lions -Iwo cor,dtt74mA - a.- 15 +ono l ht. /soma er, b. 2S .. t. fey (,c. . — G O o x 7 X 2 2 0' = week days c.+.ic(ce tla 4 6 a +.,„/ u a.. _ t5 3 1 k LT,S 5 = 32.5(, Z000 42S : 1q lr.A w s b. Foc. zSo —46 r Z. = to,,.lda . \Producea) I 1 0 S.S k4.4 x IS -timo/4.. = 82.5 *u /da/. zoo CI z. S , )( IS ' /4„ = 57.S . r Ic 4 5"7t Sfe reo/ wee.&e tad a(cm/kn./g e,/ ma9er of ,so 4 An the /r,c e Jere d at /G.SL/o7 6/ fre¢/c,J.- 4e1 ..4ot4,4 017 9''af`i—t toll I eeid— I ( Sz.0 titn cesc copc.). SfciQJe I/ab e = .57f. . 5/8,e7, s e.-% so 1Cotoc1-7+7 IIK ~17 Z S 9-.ws /Lu` NtG 7 4.o f DteeS3 Zs : 6...(a4 lam. wc,.ttrel /cloy, a copac,+y zs t' weer..eetc a u,d.o c( t T W, T F, S 5 M T I t,v T ee F t 5 daps y Co Co : . c..4 (, l.4 lbw. /Gi. i.i dt„ rej w.*Z•S 14.. Sfore i1r - ZS x 2..S: 62.5 GG-62..S = 3-S +o'cley. (31.a2 cy icy wit St°talc. 2aoD 2 3 1.87.2(2 2 103.7 c3- hLorper Cop +•. /Tree, le, Ca pact- y Si-udL Rd +rip travet ; 1.4 n„le4 @ la JJ mph (o.z w,: /n,;h) • n,;Hv+cs CPd -rip) trtFS / daV S.S Ito x GO = 3 3 0 nit week (1473 ava,l4 61e. f-e,.. -}st.,l1, ,104d1). ' , lh,load tHa . p 23 A'(cireli 87 Revscucp- L art 9, Acres 'Ra ce. Caurse Conn t o s h ytcit Pfi,l ect- 2. Tra,le.i Collo Crly S+ud. Cowed- i otea cy CIFC . Load Tt i;_¢ @.51iry4t, Z-ro me.l F U_d .cr 10{Q l 1 rn e round l't iv e:/c,42hi, 330 w, LOd- 30 IZ. boa's. 7 w.we z thfi Sto 19.5 34ttito 17 1.5375 So?7 40 lG r 7x„r4 4 56o 23.5 14 1.762.2 SG1.7 SO Z 0 u 7 patio. tlz, z tis1 2 7.5 12` 1. 131f2. (io 0 o.c G0 24 ti Z h 1" L '' stleep 31.S to 1 .9048 (oi.G 20 p 7 12 4zo IS.5 LI 1. 2 q04 425 9 LL414ri% 50cy -{ ciileit ) (o22 : 12 -Fries /dof-.oritymUlhf so l Go- e so — h 1 43; A_ _ I p l- oad Cateactt7 -cor S.~toy . 5izea irar?CPI id,.. Desired l daily zo - 0+9L e ti - 2leaders ornate m 10 - o - ( 1 1. i t Gso Gee SS() Soo 41So . 400 3So Soo ZSo Zoe e4 tact,/_ 50cy +railer. is oy+1n+%U1•. stsel wke.ii ON_ Ca-KY) is -fro be Pu4c(nectecl bo-e mew% Com bo+Li load 4 Lr L -('miler._ 4,4, G1+410.N X s.S/L.p 4 .cf2. ustvc1 2. lockders — J Scy/}xritut"! Faded_ Mitn, Slza.d TtratleA (do 23 cisTtLtLo40Tvaµcl- tcfor Ti 1 Vol rC4?- t GO100Ad ry,, dd/ "-d 20 41r, s +?.S (I.5 28 Sbo 11Szx9 atoade.,3 wll +)M.-c= 30 4 7.513.5 24 720 Z7 tins l' aaV 40 8 7.5 6.5 21 too I, 44 a ca,s e S0 10 7.5 0.5 1$ Soo two z/Aect are Pe$u.itt 4 fo load - I,ci t_ G0 IZ 7.5 19.5 1 7 IOZo La tray. co si, AL, w 0- 23 4, to 7.5 12.1 27 Gzl 1 Z X Co x5.5 = e 6C /day M hk t uvt4 Cb.*ly r G` 31 x7 u 33 = #2rs47/I.r. Lew'acres ,Race Course Coal.stiHef Proleot 13 ft4C Cb. ‘A17 R.eurevM.' 3. Kt-atore A/Cot ' 317-7633 , v_UIs -to Kra,4se M4'1 Co. h,94 AumioL1+ +I ;t to e011e ct do+a 1.5 l o o der- 12. 3 eq. d04 Silue d L-1c,1,test. 04 h o?per da o i7, s of u.a c.4.41r ow nak 2- 4.s'ed.,. L= n 181 r Av .la.GCO ! EA,1,, itz+1-1 owtimo,) byt- nau.st be dose, be4ne, mid-r4 ediil _ Lorlacres mecst- (nrtu.g wick+enia( -to loe -}-es+-ed +o .Warn, - L,o41a4 Ava,(a..1 +0 9.5' hf Coo est,w.a+-es re%u.os+ecl -Cop ,l-rrailess• 8 hoppers , !Ali o.us Slice( , speedo_ 14 / cosh 19r7 R.O,43c Qcl SiLe Stud s C' z4-eaia 30 dal S)-u1.a r - 051A5 , K V W inc1-ow Coui ro t er , (I6' wilt t 4' .'keel row) LG' Y G'x G' int um,t ow = GZ G Ito' d., 1c,F wiucl,+ow. a00 cy-.- Z)0 el(ckorred2 x Z7 : 5G70 c a s Z : 9 1.41S LE Lentaro,) Vacv_ Uhioad - 6it&4cer Area. 8o' d Assume So ey dw i/er (o/vo y/h9 z'Pe) read-Km Trailer to' 7.SX 7. S.'xZ4' / - : Soc _ box Avc4) 8' v/o/opeir 1/o/orne. / L o o a/ OaHYeyor o' rI Troi/er-A 6' 7.Sa'8 x 30' = GG.7cytr op,op ao9 3o vGr+„ders 13-o6Per Uo/vriie - Z lo4ors A,edit enel) j2 ' 7.Sx8k(O' r /33,3c , r- — -- - -I I 63.7 S,zoro e ,der Ccx d 6 Z S.Tn 1, AP.(Sr,/4ILI.44CI",w /614-11 “,/11 a/vt w / y l 1 1 ao' I 1, wez d l C44/ Ze ftereo/ /4 hoPper) a wictatrbw/7! w,,eda"ow z i [ qKzansr coin 7 —Loac/ers l7L ( 5/B cy 524-or4/e cet. Con./ a.. /S ./G/r G1z.,14. 17urni 14,ovhde 2o'x /5: 3 op' in zest be st-erec/ in hal&. .o s7 pa,-envenf' r a N Q/ / 4 Q6 a ft,o n joyf /Jfrho holy,&/. S/8c" ce Go uofiver 9-5?)( Z7 _ do9Z SF s o/y Mo/f eco o,-n,=A/ 4Sa' eY q' c8 343.5 sp->eo i i,7 vr4.74/en a,e' a!l c o/ J'fera/r% 1J 56 ( S&_ e/COICAPtr 0,4. /9/d_ a Alt rn 9 /Qie,/ r• '1 c 4 rs. f71`/. /9rec;,5 Ao / = SF o 2O'x 4 = a40 sF zit), 80X G8 594/0 Tro,/er - In peer C32.' x4c3j 3g 74 norms_ 12 k 3Ox 20 LT O 0 3o Cu/Ndrew. 9 2 x 4 X Z = 73 6 4.ard i s fir' Po/4.7 ire A. -- "r s 7Io Yet y c a.l' z`ern 20x2x3o4 = fz /6 CO ten grbvses over e/r7L2,1e fl e 3 0 x 3 72 -6 O Fire Pon c O-Ce / f/4 )l'r /04/-1 o ll elz/ Tvra Q v'ov. 5GxS6 3 /3 Co Siora9e faz/enf 4 4r4.-47'U'. -a9/f4/ Zo'x2o' 32. x40 6 8 0 PaAtvyr9 Porzhl J eo/, /61.isl+p sfg. oJ' /2er67'o , Zo x /o = Zoo eyv/,o. 6/,w,i, Gla/9 a//o r"c90/ zo x /o L.00 y' Q ." 'J Race CoL.,r.re. co•ff/'o!f/n!/q /9/eptec,4Atai. 17 l2ouscu‘P 4. Cow P 9 vtQ7L/7rl i R°mod Acyburl 58 x 30¢ ' 2 /76 32 ctil 1 9, ar/wders i Se t; Sir. t/o+/.ti, T..-.r a.o Xc/ io" 8 a#6'acgs' /S XZD 74"¢ = .304 27 968 n —20 X 9 It z 7 wi„d b,4,Jo' 9c 09 k a f access Z 7 9 G A,cey is N — y____ .. .r, 0 Aond 3 D f X O (t) c /g,Y"4 4 t4l--- -- - - - -- - !° 32Z Tv`'11 ctroanal 3o4x20xZ 2 / 6 0 rn Li w/01.'s. 9 z 97/ J 8 grx3o4) 382x 3 64 = // b, D 7clSr' 97, 888Pr_ _ _ _ _ _ _ doPond--- crC o l7 /y .Z 9 o/a}.f -fi ox.aG _ t .co f 3 3 77 qS s,G. 3.o4, al 47 , Co by 49ur474le ; 8 o' ieo a e/ . -- S8, l .........— — .1" Me 36 2,x Z 74 = 9 9. /88 sd (//, o Z p I J, e 3a deity...' J,LQsa 20 Men e4Me TI 33oG4.26 .e 1 S' ek iIl /Set; o' di).. wcud. 1,weld d Poi° 1 y y fee-or rrre`ia/ 41 sylvs74 ep°Wc.,.Py»z b f Q2A3o4IgtxSO¢r, o pe S'ocE— l eo>! ed-e r. s rl 2c/Z.4252 I I IL9, rl 9, to 90 IL 274' 4 Tel. Cow. wtkI. fect o°r.e Ree.ov'xi Stertu Cole- T rNI K+ 1 Retd,v s e4 kii clr Cn .w .s+er is lith'l•!•1 .4 wa c1o , .a € - 0+& wl eel cak re.ven:e !. Discussed lw:IA.41 04 a. w4k-er +o iK_ -LN-e HIT 0, 1 c•LN rat* ,-uNlle. vwx,NG - Aaiwcr : 14- 1s SpaciGlo Stze o•G tau+t Pr•64I9I7 jt I-itj ito 3000 It - f,.'i-t cewk-ered! Steed opertgttn, = 0 }v 4 rr pin - l nil, wlitle 12cna4.111l Cesir i ile- let„'eJt' - 16 x 7' t'f ovv,yle oF- reyo e. will accept- le . ilaw' 'Tel Cep, w.irl., Kr40se NCIco: [Tec# oC (4ppci -Clnappincl Y ai•e nnvl+ be cl.o,e l°e4ere S r,nD Call Sol: T14If w141 e.ltwIsvIC re NA-e8 tt' ] Sire °f ira,ler Soci ok - yes bletptr AI 3o' ( 8e- C.111 IPecvesked . CoCil - SOey }r4,le, lG ,000 4 L.lkcluct•. Qa-41r'I re,,1},p, _ q d Q00o 3b' Hopper w ttA u&d'Erel ems- 3 S +%*40,000 T d r,al QuAlt t0) 4 w/o eklpu. P.T.o . t 25, o0o N LA Z -t. 16,0 o o L i l hi- I riles+. 0 a4r'ry Tre aol. Old Truck_ •ti:bt-i,..e - 7s-F.S 144" — easily AVkd +or 3SOr1 to Se0v -6r ewl, rutpse1 Z o Planck P 7 b?slZ itua a W dR7..Qtttvu .1^Nec.t Recopl S. TCIr?bov,- .io e Aoirell \— Ae+a f/,vx E ui Ftnp 8 1 ,G_ Aen a+a-/.a - 4'X 4" 7e4 - ( 1,0 0 0 Ca H. fete except `Fvt. bklo u {a wa-ter pi pry la e4 Zo,000 P P 114cl_ Z Blowers_ 4 tw eacL) I sta«a - elecov. Irt.,y4,M i., /Uot,.les - To let I5o'+ radius Curve - Udc 350 5p,n puIs? at 310 Mad I5ol14,0 noaaI _ Costs- ibozzla, ?Sot' ea.. PUM , 2I35,°'eq Z Y4o C401-?) C6r.oe11 , Part-I4-.4 ,Orc. Cs( . 3U6-c : Very costly wyt4kod 04 trr,yat, - 1-I414L,nly w4+etivaLco`t Ler'.rr cost r, ope cost tea: S+cid7 of- To kid - USe S,cl slope o4- 0.20 { u n,r>.Yr4 road err. al tn afpfng1t (PivAd w/o +roVl)-(dlia — Care 04 57stew. - Redu.ce s14 Gl.w 1..i pr,.d +o 1.44.6,0.o_4e. ee,uencr o>r &et 1(r>1. ge teat? 01 water V Liza - Q v )at7 o•C eC,C tut.* tr+ho w e4 I00.as mat toe 5aoclf Max./ L water dua.toi Lai a Airaw. cit-r G;es Ter we!- fans. y) ileq.a±,uv. data. r„- wo`L,,.i i' r (SPA) 2:tl7 liAd ca+ri Ilind fir C.Ohl born-uf* 04 slvdye a%}l,. 4dt1u4re eiir, S+,fl Sed1s:44A} ta.or_ rqcersart toelnt rectrc. a fe-u. . CQ for Prow f94-C4 t'(- re avettl.,_ - 6+,0 reK Ften,+n, c,, sed. per.4+,.o.t,rr,..S /L1.oter , below Z..4 dep}i.. +a hold o;1 st,11.5. bact ay, Allow ,rlow.i 4kat are rtArt 't'ur6u..Ifiwk •+k u ba 1l.e. Qluti1,. P1a+e,s t,,,, tI CA.c c 1I0ttcel bloct.S 147,1 6.1 41oor aIt raz+d_ A ova+e,,o 411 t,vo-c a eii rot,w s - 4-kQ, 1 Nte/1 14A rr -k (h Inver actuq+Ne d) O 1n ly w kt h e x p cn Con wAi rucets4 r7 - s4 VC p9 w ear •- Reurcwl4-+-,ir,.. - Si_eydr reL,rc. dzf,reel bvt not r+bd a1,1 flv 2-4,4 f de41 /irate OS }yy,i, - Gana be flower,33 efm = ZqG n p h PONp 4o P41i e0Vbtpoit 4era'rar a`vtits ya a.t 10e oo.,bn td '}i $qvt mon 3000 &j ter a 3Sq . .L - fw 3oo 1.0/loge — 1 TL +. loe,J - w/o sP,lla9e - 3 xa,„w.., = ,0O 9pYin 4 . 7S 9 pw+ ..F u,Se = 3"pipe Re JLce rec,rc . ra+t I\ PI +b 70 9 pv... also - o.•cc ccep+g6lc. rat UCr 4'low -fa tiro epa.ra+r -era%ft, reetrc. I,v.e t use sauna, ovt411 I U./ - byr_ vie aVa lac It srt.a.1 6e Co"' to Ina.. k ln04.vy raI$.l (v/a floc dev.t Co II-?DJ t_ ClncclL bk44 ivrFwea. u.c L. a,.-A w'e+ lan•dJ e. p1pe .0aw 14%nx Zoii ll will di/u*e re cif c . w44er i4 cdI4 . 2 rpe.cl Viiw_ IS ,-,Jecl ckami..el it h e 4 041 po„a- 61,1.7 IC ran, is 9 ra4+en Ye/tr.. — GOOJ &a1y. 20 Aar LQ77 RAFL 4t,1 [26u. 404,4.4,e, cam,p.tt)Y1 l ert % Recel_ -4, Atr - p eoae le Data 'Cron, EPA 3ivdY Heot,s A 33 Ixjlueu}: Bad c°,dn / L /.42- 15 30 130 D 35 33 102. R2»toued I?! 8Z CoD tii8 I14 343 of. Ale ne.d Gia 67 Susr. .Jolt 41 34 36 t53 R-ex,. 7 4 76 AJ.kj u i O.bSc44 /1000 4 t; up}, a,8 p blyA4 -rents 0.7 +0 1.4-4'/ 1-p kr, blowers - Avj.Q 1 /H?/hr. Atr ()Led io 0,27 i-o 1.03 S scM /000 4-1 OE/r (Ia o l >n nu C = 16 Z.a w, _ 8 c C , 4/t a tt 8 +)»'a4 9nta-r19 7_0,0o0•Ci3 1°eo 43 Erpe'cred 1^e c1u.c+ tr ..i wt4L. 424,14 !oad t.4,15 OD - qS°A CoP SS to Su.op, Saltds r15Nt Se_`j + -c solid! slw a br 1 .,L scn pens n. est Vow*, -q}y = W1,1 rI y Co. , Sea'M-4 ulC 3S,°,tcr,,, ower- "r- Pywp 14-6 R1gvtrecl 6. sGk- of elt.dr>ei.tt"-r - toe+ Life)! - cirry w21I i'1 - coY..S'dc. pvvt-.p +tas 41;1i-1 glare - 7114ik - 7o 9 p n1 - IS fo Zo' k•a d. 1 reid - vte dta:,c(6y Cn l.vt dr. Water I o 3 r rq 4 l 4 4 ho&e-d-ow"- Joa,L& Pvwtps 3501pM 3 lot kevd Dot,+ utel h° colrl71 i.e Z pvw"ps B l o w v-- 4 t-P - At•Ci,A. re ca m tn•ai,b4 si-aw,d lb 7 - Cl dey.i' bur ii•-(r 41,w pv tn,p kou,a.p Cax+r.1A - S+grtvt - 'b veers — Allay be at-1c +e ele+1^4,c.4-e wt 11 — Pe d!ACC Path„p!'iet.'- S17.e b7 co, i„ u,w. P,.w. t rt p o+•'d d.e p+t% EMU -"DAVIS Pv,ti.p 3. FA 4S I141 Teo 7. S' l'uad- 7o gyp+„ CO./0 C.4 or. F A 4 S 1LS I7. S' M t St er, m.Turb. Pv v,p 4. C. LlO CvrUe A -1 ;.614 e4C_ !411@ 7011.14i 1 ` Go RPh 0.3 w Lar•q 4c,re5 12ace Cowes C-ow f.11.%K.y Prefect 2.a ,Ka,e 87 P.R. 2eca e 7Rdslz9 Use bunt. 5 °Wo Itz 4 c -tb ett Cvcrt.t CS peed gyp) 8 C.u.tlA gate_ EhC.+-iacea i-. 2.or 4,1 20. crot.f atilt Ioe!ow c rnKderj *; to be. 100' 4ce, w?14140 ui Le t'1+t - c.,.stp4 d of q 2,' 3t1= I c n,.,K e-4 a oro,.el >zd. ,S u r ro v N d_ 461T1n Iat'AGO i.pac( 4r par le.w.el - F-tttor Cib - 40 ttictepied da-wale - "4,344 Prouide. c po.cc trole +o how - Qro-' ct-- ex.ytm.1)*_. epe.irnetit - wt+/low ,4e J Pal wLend-raw j - Ecu,tP 14'row + 4 wrLk c,,, trw!UJ) dPaeC =20'/ wt1.1 w Waist .?LLQ. & ess-Ftvrta{-eA 4SSuiwv t% l0 S dc1 d — As 220"art-oC loose Si t.w C,o SO°l° w,owT.wy . to 110 wq+cr )c6,00 aG6000fcoy- 41mat c1-08-a-v-d Straw. (a to eytd aL.c I.uc 46,o00' k , 3 14 r"/ e: av,d Cor.,..p.Sted lvo.41 (44Cy /d ) ka.o 7oZ Vey - C1,ve.1c - 1 e4 = gS+ 30t` badge! - 702. , 26, t txeorreect! 27 k trc wow,hry 2203I.C,+ I.o 2S°t. kv.otgk - 33, 00ah/daffy- I Cf• tj) 3 3 a'o, = )3 it rr..o1.4't-. Sa'!0 w,.. .;'t•) g4x27 So +144 (° w. b.,:l,% S eels vo-e 7.45't-. IAA. 3o d 4 s s kl p l .33 p o o x 3 o (..1-zS°!. 9 4 0,0 0 0 I+cvQrc,. - z Re duck_- 414.w%.a1 Cw. .`f e 2f'/. 14.0yt = G.7Sx7-7-I 18214/cy_ •, Qven.A.t.e, Fret. Sh-aw - @ SO%a '1 ii° I io /C. Z oZ. tb/cy oti pad C .e 314 Vol. licut a., p0. 4 1 Ot 14 =15Z cY x so dl0.yo - 4 Sd o x ZoZ 921 , 1104 w1CrLA @ So % — Z R 4Af aA {'n C,,Vie frow—t2 G°vUw.rt fi vh c,v,., V°1 41 ded 4-0 fro G S °lo - 4 2 1. tab -S .45 1,1 `1 71 c( .0 G t84'z 90 I I - c1 2 I 1 2 0 s= 2. 763 i6 * tuca Z 76,33(. 37.000 b° wTac. , Add 7.4 7 L Luz 'to Kc a* 7 GYQ Q e l °!° /d t 1 9 7 4 x ,01 _ 1 t' 4 l 0 9 Al, 1(03 : 53.4 1aL4lwwAdrow /cic 30 Pa14, 1>i .tiji,o w t a ra i'et. 7- 4 'I yr d. d w-o S 3.4 >e 4 =(Z l 51 ) Piro 6 S rL w e„d.nw`w c4 +0 6.S end 1 r.q l)y 37,o o o 1333 aQ0/w rd..aur_s 4.0 v.IAA e.a. .. 1e, 70.- 3 o o 9 x 4 = 17-0 o 0 Sc-w.e w a4 c u,,, Ire c.a de.d at' cr,wale — s o to P, — 14- ..ariue Is coltiy c p v..ta 1^+ - 3501 P>+• 2.o Ma•aL, .e2 IZAII.L 9n. 12a.e co c.,-.,p,d+-Prey-t.- GI f 8_ Ra.4,411 - Guai,e, - 1),r.,,1 37 s s 3, YaQ x Stc = 66 cC/t.F Vol 44. p avid - s 7 t 5 z— 4ru-E VA e 3i h = l S z,?0.4` cute. R4..4..?4Qi i v-e.. a 4.4, he pca d — 3 8 0 x 31 o = 1 1 7, g 0 0 c.'C / 1 a'' pa i IN ( e..4-o 4 $r+-10 -e c lx7.47 r. g y0,00(14.e-I" Rom" .., _ •7}, 330 rad CqY 17(.4) d'' 4 = .18332. 944. (z4S4c;4) u,Zoo ,Act At.ir ed. 3 0 0 0 5 o.fl a. 4 O 0 c-c ,) _ 1212,S o a.1=/ ki,...,te, Rco„,C4ii cI&t -Ru,xott/Uto. C Pa! F I,oco -la w2-C to.,.clo jW/O Coati pout-44.6-9n, j Agn - 2 .4k 23SG1 cC (4" 1, 000 AAA/ - 1. D"1 7 G 7 I C raw e3 0 0 g _ Jam- 1.7"17,6,71 ct cc' 1. 2" 18 7 f o a 0 Ef-- GciY wa+-e. Rc%a ! Se - L.e" lof .'S 4 '' 7 coo 6'- 12"f• Gt.' A it Crop ( ' 4o,,d provqPtnav —' P4— O elevlT.O r I% s or.p 3, Gi.'ty w4+e., 1-.,,.S-.01 C,r+v.ew-t a-< ri.. V.-1-rt. 1.C' Zo' -1.,ti Q...o ix.-41 ‘....aC to o It elLe Po.i lam*. 3.2'. So4to +.5 - 6o.Sx . 2 x 345 = 4174.Scc - 1/2. 1' Ra'n I. Ta.ly ch..o.w.eLou..K @ .3oa0 91d 01. : q o I c u.ac. Sox 344 = 17 Zovr Qc-_ o1 Oz' 02 ( b. 3.0 Aai1 ) zz days-17Loo 7 88 3 c . 2 2 Aar ,wr. Jwtr u.o.e, .tr...., rtos..•egtl 40' q Jo.yo inn,.. cot = t 7, coo y o. j Rai d Su'ply. Valy-e se+ Fo ac+waTe at ?a L e ley= (.7.S'dep{4-0 r low -i•o urcl La,,. 1'0 do q;., car,+•.plat 1y - h1 = L 3' w, 6" o I6..5 Etev Pei•1.+w 414.4 4'm-. M o..x.g4 d li = 4.3' 4jr2:6' n/ iS.q=t.. Peti.a 6.9' Ler.g4' a-2 dn.a,.... _ plo' 12.9 — 11.G $lea S = I.3 . 66 93 C,? =25o,0 0p niL3't40 S = 4_1 _ ,0307 Q 7. S 10.0 9P"+ 140 1T2,odo = 4 ,/3 ln..dTLN-c +ow.,. 4001p,, 1 ".51-01.4.,-, °I 2 17 x7.'V 7 a A krfStc1-cLA 5 +e . Loadw.9 -ko wiKd.,.ow Ae..a4'cN 5 10 st G•ON 1 p- Qiel- r To--,>; 3„p,e 30o gaSl. - f. S,ht to,po d Va.1 vC OF R4N 1'>, ECF: z t%. 0 z City of Renton LU: o WINO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST0, 9gTcD SEP1c, 0 Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43,21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before.making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for allproposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose. of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline. and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply. to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Use of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals: (Please Type or Print Legibly) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Longacres Race Course Waste Composting Project 2.Name of applicant: Longacres Race Course, Inc. 3.Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Mr. Bill Taylor P. 0. Box 60 Renton, WA 98057 206) 226-3131 4.Date checklist prepared: March 19, 1987 5.Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6.Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): As soon as approved. Project can be completed in six (6) months. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, 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. A research paper is planned by the Manager of the Longacres Composting study conducted in 1986. He was employed by Mr. Taylor for this purpose. 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 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. I do not believe other approvals are required. 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. The project is designed to compost 600 cy per day of race course waste (straw-manure mix) using an accellerated com- posting cycle. The composted material will be spread upon approx. 150 acres of race course land to enrich the soil. Composting will be done on paved pad about 13,000 sy in area, completely draining to an aerated pond which will recirculate the water for reuse on the compost. Mechanized windrow composting technique will be used after material is shredded to reduce ' volume. A detailed description of the system and equipment used is attached. 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 topography 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 applications related to this checklist. In the center of the South 1/4 of race course property. See attached site plan. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 17 c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, caly, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Clay-loam d. Are there surface indications 'or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No 2 - e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Site will be graded to conform to dwg #2, no fill will be required for the project. Excess soil will be spread, graded around pad. 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)? 13,000 sy of asphalt pad, less than 1% of race course property. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: None required 2. AIR 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. Soil type produces some dust when equipment passes over it when dry. Climate in area reduces hazard as rainfall is fairly uniformly distributed throughout the year. Equipment emissions during constructions will be minimal. Diesel engines will be employed on the grinder and the hopper, appx. 5 hrs/day. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air. if any: None required 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. Small wetlands area 100 feet east of site will probably be drained by drainage channel. P-1 when constructed. This area is about 500-300 feet in size and will be used as a catchment for treated water from this project during rain storms. 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. Edge of composting pad is about 110 feet from shore of wetlands area. 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. None 3 - 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximately quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Flood plain is not known, but elevation of pad will be 18.5 feet, while the water level of the wetlands is about 11.6 feet. 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. Collected, aerated and settled rainfall runoff from pad will be discharged to the wetlands through a 6" pipe. During 42-week composting season, an average of about 4500 gallons per day will be discharged. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and appaoximately quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, 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. None 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. Pad will drain to a paved pond, aerated, settled and discharged to the wetlands (near future site of P.1 drainage channel) . This will occur only during rainfalls exceeding 1/4" per day. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. Only treated discharge will leave pad. Volume of pad will be contained since perimeter will be at elev. 18.5 feet and all other pavement will be at lower elevation. Capacity of pad to hold runoff exceeds 18 inches of rainfall, if fully flooded. Waste itself is only compost (straw-manure) leachate. 4 - d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: See previous answers.) 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: o deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other o evergre.en tree: fir, cedar, pine, other o Shrubs CI grass o crop or grain o Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other o water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other o other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Grass c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Reseeding all disturbed soil. 5. Animals a. 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 Canadian Geese (10001 away) Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Mice Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other None b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not observed, Canadian geese remain year round. 5 - d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric power will be required to operate pumps and aerators. Diesel fuel will be required to power hopper, tractors, grinder, and compost aerator. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No 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: This project will eliminate truck trips between Renton and Salem, Oregon. 7. 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. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Basic pad design will prevent health hazards. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None 6 - 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: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Operation of shredder, compost aerator, and tractors will be daily, 7 days per week during 37-week season. Noise levels not measured but site location's isolation preclude problems. Personnel operate this equipment without need for ear protection, except for grinder, which may require sound and dust protection devices. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None. Grinder, hopper noise levels will not be a problem beyond the immediate proximity of the equipment. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Area is not currently used. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No, it's grassland. c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N/A e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Manufacturing Park f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Manufacturing Park 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. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 3-4 men working 5 hours/day, 7 days/week, 37 weeks/year j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? It will eliminate the need to transport the material off-site, approximately 140 semi-truck trips per week. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Same number of personnel will be employed regardless of the system used. 7 - 1. • Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None required 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? 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. All constructed material will be at ground level, with the exception of the pump and blower building and a garage for the compost aerator, sheet metal) . b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 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 8 - 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None b. Would the proposed project displace any 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 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed 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: None 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Site access is through S.W. 16th & 27th Street and Longacres Way. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximately distance to the nearest transit stop? No (3/4 mile away) c. How many parking spaces. would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Six - Parking in shredder area will be available for personnel on paved area. • None will be eliminated. 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 S 9 - 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. On site traffic only - 12; trips/day raw waste to shredder, 20 trips/day compost to spread on fields during all times of 8 hour workday. (See 14g) g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: No off-site traffic. f cont'd) Project would eliminate the equivalent of 140 truck trips a week on local roads. 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. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas. water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Site: defined as Longacres Race Course, has all utilities 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. Power line_ extension. 3" $ water supply line for wetting compost. 6" drain-line to Wetlands. C. SIGNATURE J, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: fl‘tivviLa //26w4b . Name Printed: Robert A. Rousculp, P.E. 10 - 4176 11-8-84 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. 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 implemented. 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 sutstances; or production of. noise? Water runoff aerated from paved pad. Air - insignificant, composting requires an aerobic process. Toxic - none. Hazard - none. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Pond will contain sufficient water for fire protection, if necessary. Total volume of pond is 150,000 gallons. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? No effect. Treated runoff to wetlands area should have a B.O.D. of less than 45; whereas wetlands water B.O.D. is probably 50. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: None required. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? None apart from power and fuel required to operate equipment. Project will result in a soil enriching product. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None required. 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? No effect. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: None other than described in project. 11 - 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No effect. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: None 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No effect 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. No conflict SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Robert A. Rousculp, P.E. 12 rr-, -r -iE -s7.7'1t`j Ni Ij Sound Resource Management Group 7220 Ledroit Court SW,Seattle,Washington 98136 Engineering—Jan W.Allen,P.E.,206/784-9070 Cornmuncations—Russell Beebe,206/932-3404 Prrgcam P!, nno—Craig H.Benton, 206/935-5088 Economic Analysis—Jeffery Morris,Ph.D., 206/592-2328 Education—Carl Woestendiek, 206/632-0189 September 2, 1987 Mr. Bill Taylor Director of Business Development Longacres Race Course P.O. Box 60 Renton, WA 98057 RE: LONGACRES COMPOSTING FACILITY / SA-064-87 Dear Mr. Taylor, Per your request we have reviewed your proposed composting facility de- sign and subsequent comments made by Glacier Park Company to determine if any expressed concerns are reasonable and relevant to your proposed facility. The following response is structured in a format to follow those concerns enumerated by Mr. John Keegan, Attorney for Glacier Park Com- pany, in his letter of August 4, 1987. 1. This facility is average in size. We reviewed the Biocycle Magazine annual survey of sludge composting facilities to corelate the number and size of facilities comparable to your -proposed operation. Although your operation would be greatly simplified due to the innocuous nature of your compost medium, such a comparison shows the physical state- of-the-art in material handling equipment. We estimate your facility would operate at a rate of 33 dry tons per day. This can be compared to 14 other windrow operations on a national basis, having a capacity of more than 5 dry tons per day. Of these 14 facilities the size ranged from 6 to 300 dry tons per day. The average size was 43 dry tons per day. Therefore, your proposed facility is smaller than average on this comparative basis. Glacier Park Company has understood that significant odors can result from anaerobic conditions. For a more typical facility composting sludge materials there is a risk of significant odors if the operation is improperly operated. However, for your proposed facility, which composts a medium of over 90% straw the potential for similar odors is not likely. Any potential odors developed in an anaerobic straw/ manure medium are of a less offensive quality than those developed in a municipal sludge or other highly putrescible material. Even under fully anaerobic conditions it is not likely you could produce an odor with similar characteristics to that of raw of digesting municipal sludge. EC'<C_ED PAPER Page 2 Mr. Bill Taylor September 2, 1987 Your proposed facility involves an aerobic process. As such its primary by-products are water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is not the same as an anaerobic process which produces methane, carbon dioxide, am- monia, hydrogen sulfide, and various mercaptans as by-products. Through the incentive to maintain a successful operation we believe you will be motivated to insure optimum management of the windrows to preclude the generation of even the most insignificant odor. This facility would not produce any odors that are not presently associated with your normal stable and boarding operations. The prevailing winds are from the south rather than the north as stated by Glacier Park Company. The attached wind rose is taken from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, 1981 Air Quality Data. A diagram showing prevailing wind direction from your proposed facility has been drawn from this data. The statistical variation from year -to year is relatively small.. This data demonstrates the pro- bability of positioning the Glacier Park Properties downwind of your facility. The aggregate probability of any portion of the two pro- perties being in a downwind condition is approximately 28%. Any one building would have a probability of downwind exposure of less than 10%. The temptation to compare your proposed process to Metro's sludge disposal process should be resisted. As mentioned above, the similar- ities of composting sludge and a straw/manure medium stop at the functional level. The qualitative difference between the two mediums is substantial. Furthermore, any complaints from Metro's neighbors would probably involve the grit removal or sludge thickening operations rather than composting. Metro's sludge disposal process has had nothing to do with composting in the past. Therefore we do not see any analogous process or odor characteristics. It is our understanding Metro uses an anaerobic digestion process; then thickens, dewaters, and transports dry sludge off-site for disposal. Your aerobic process should be associated with odors such as humus and peat. As we have discussed there are certain similarities to your process and both, the Woodland Park Zoo Zoodoo compost operation, and Pacific Topsoil's Manure composting operation. With regard to an odor anal- ysis one could approximate dispersion characteristics of a representative odor based on a probablistic approach. This mathematical modeling however, falls short when attempting to qualify specific odor charac- teristics at any given location. We recommend emphasizing a clear distinction between your process and the Renton Treatment Plant processes before turning to modeling as a predictor. RECYCLED R,RER vL'• Page 3 Mr. Bill Taylor September 2, 1987 2. After review of the Land Use Code we believe you are clearly an accessory use in the M-P Zone. Paragraph 4-730(B)2.b permits the outside storage of materials, products, or containers, subject to the limitiations and screening provisions of Paragraph 4-730(C)7. These limitations involve visually screening the operation from adjacent prop- erties (which you have proposed) and limiting storage area to 50% of the buildable site area (which you have proposed). Glacier Park Company should be informed that your primary compost material is straw (over 90%), not animal waste. As mentioned above, the likelihood of any odors being carried to the Glacier Park Company properties is anticipated to be small. However, in any case an effort should be made to address their predisposition against this facility which is made clear in their letter. The tone of the letter suggests a perceived liability to their development plans based on innaccurate information. In our opinion you can comply with the Environmental Performance Standards if your neighbors demonstrate a reasonable objectivity to this facility. The suggestion that this facility be identified as a bulk storage facility appears to be extreme. Paragraph 4-702(B)3 defines bulk storage as principally a collection, distribution, or storage use rather than a processing use such as your proposed facility. This facility would in fact, offer an improvement in air quality when compared to your alternatives of off-site trucking at 140 trips per week (status quo) and on-site incineration. Composting is a naturally occuring biological process and thereby has inherent environmentally sensitive qualities. 3. We do not see where this facility will be visible from the Glacier Park Company properties. Longacres has traditionally invested more in landscaping than the municipal code requires. We recommend you distinguish yourself in this regard, and if need be assure Glacier Park Company that you intend to develop this project in a sensitive manner. We presume visual screening is not a constraint you would resist. 4. Your design has considered anticipated drainage to the adjacent wet- lands in a rational and responsible manner. By aerating prior to dis- charging any runoff, and not increasing the volume of runoff you have demonstrated a willingness to comply with accepted stormwater management practices. Your aeration system will cause nutients and suspended material to be retained on-site using a practical and ef- ficient conditioning process. In addition, the capacity of the adjacent wetlands to further reduce nutient levels in the runoff is substantial. The attached article on this phenomenon may be helpful in considering the wetlands as a second step in your drainage design. Page 4 Mr. Bill Taylor September 2, 1987 5. Apparently Glacier Park Company is not aware that you have, in fact, considered .other alternatives to the proposed compost facility. It is our understanding this facility does represent the least-impact and least-cost alternative. By its nature composting demands less of the environment in the areas of energy, noise, traffic, pollution discharge, and level of development. In summary, we believe your design has anticipated potential adverse im- pacts and has provided appropriate mitigation measures. Your proposed facility demonstrates a sensitive and responsible approach to design that should assure interested parties that composting is appropriate and manage- able for this application. The composting process. is frequently misunder- stood, partly because of our cultural aversion to re-processing wastes, and a lack of knowledge regarding the difference between aerobic and anaerobic biological processes. You cannot produce a successful product unless you maintain an aerobic process. This aerobic operation will insure a substantially less offensive odor than Glacier Park Company anticipates. Also attached is a General Description of Operating Variables within the composting process which was prepared by Concept Kinetics Corporation for a similar windrow facility. Although the medium was landscape waste the description is relevant in that it discusses the compost mechanism in understandable terms. Please advise if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, S7ND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GROUP Jan W. Allen, P.E. Principal Attachments REc'r'CLED PAPER 1 0..—....or... Sound Resource Management Group ' 1)Alk 400rt_cL % e„..:„7...._,..:. •. titlfit 4°MD k i 2. ?ot..Lori D Ni I CoNIMPL At66h1csr . 1121 I N El R.-T 1-11 • Air( a0ALIT1 DMA 5LJArtAAARY,3 i ho in)-Ictkl-r EA_ WI MD (D4F.. r.' c'z ,,, i 2\. OA 1,16/6 \ It).C16 1 09 4/ 1,// 7 A/•274 S.T. US*6t0 I To A 92 L 0 LK_ I,4 1 Lo 11 dr 441 .LO L......, 1 i. --------‘- ---------- ,,-,,,ZA ---- ---2.0 i___1 1 1,,,i4c.---;;;,:,,,,,y,,?;4,,,,,,,,w-.4/iLyi-,,,.,-)--,.,,,,,,,..,,....7:,,,,,-,. i.>•---7k 4; iss ot 0 p)2... 6,. 7. ''-.•, :.;,`•:.• 6.' 1 • um .4_ sm i 1.Vit 1 13 fib/LlI13 i 0 7.0 0- i• i12:•... .• - / N.:. .'' / Z0.9 C• ' 1 6 tOjim \ - ,/ HOUR AVERAGE SURFACE WINDS hi?L °Li:- / clop LI- 1,; / PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE kfi • 1//P.:),77,17/Alin OP!f1,1 4 . .-;ii)'..v.;9;fx,11.41.,..!)!,4-,-.:S.//:tVt- / 1 16--- PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CENTAX AGEPCY 114-1‘... 34...,..1.- Soutncontor. 401 Ando:mar Pork E. TooIls. Rs ---1,---ssoC*111 km ALL MONIHS Mt be .6 ••• AS AS e.. vo'S MIK 411MASSIMS it WS V II MI R A 1M H .0 \\pi I) N (6. 461 SA SA SA 1841 OS 0,0(111 9 IR.EV A I L)1 N Cf VI A IN /13 rAI lit F V ir 11 0 NI AFT Rd:0X, cot,AL L r -zooi COMPOST DESIGN SERVICES Jeff Gage , Principle 9053 Dayton Avenue North Seattle, WA 98103 206) 789-6853 October 4, 1987 Mr . Bill Taylor Director of Business Development Longacres Race Course P.O. Box 60 Renton , WA 98057 RE: Longacres Composting Project, Renton City Files EFC-055-087 , SA-064-87 Dear Mr . Taylor , As you requested , I have reviewed both Longacres proposed composting facility design , and the comments you recieved from Glacier Park Company and have evaluated the validity of the concerns they raised about this facility' s impact on their adjoining property. The following response is addressed and outlined according to the letter dated August 4, 1987 from Mr . ' John E. Keegan, Attorney for Glacier Park Company. 1. Air Quality/Odor . After reviewing the design engineer ' s Basis of Design , the operational plans and materials to be used in Longacres Composting Facility, I conclude that there is no reason to believe that the Longacres Composting Facility will have unavoidable adverse odor impacts on Glacier Park' s property and other ' s located nearby. The straw stable bedding to be processed is a well-balanced non-odiferous compostable material . It has a well-balanced carbon to nitrogen ratio , thus allowing exceptional decomposition rates and the conservation of ammonia within the composting material . No ammonia odors or other fecal smells will be emitted once this material is ground , blended , moistened and stacked in windrows . The operational design of the facility provides state-of- the-art management of the composting material . If the moisture and aeration levels as described in the Basis Of Design are maintained, no anaerobic conditions will occur , thus no significant adverse odors will be generated by this facility. See the detailed explaination of the composting process following this outline . This facility will greatly reduce the current transportation of materials from the race course and the subsequent dust and vehichle emmision impacts on the City of Renton and the rest of the region . Two other larger animal waste composting facilities exist in Seattle suburban areas without odor impacts even though they use much more odiferous raw materials than Longacres , and do not use Longacre' s proposed ideal composting methods . Also , four horse racing facilities in the nation also compost their wastes onsite into a beneficial humus successfully with no odor impacts . A complete description of the composting process and a list of similar operations for public officials to interview follows this outline . In summary, this facility will provide an overall improvement in the current air quality in the Renton area by reducing trucking emmisions . Odors will be not unpleasant if the operation is maintained as designed. 2. Land Use . The placement of the Longacres Composting Facility near the race course is in keeping with the Manufacturing Park Zone Ordinance No . 3936 Section 1, " (1) Principal Uses : (a) Manufacturing , processing , assembling and product servicing of : 1. Articles , products , or mechandise from previously prepared natural or synthetic materials; . . . " The sand , hay and waste materials used are not being mined , grown or created at this facility. They are brought to the facility already prepared for processing into a usable end product . The proposed facility is really a recycling and waste reduction facility and follows the highest solid waste management priority of the State by reusing the waste materials generated by the race course. Manufacturing Park land use law Section lA (1) Principal Uses : (g) allow for recycling centers to operate within the required setback or landscaping areas . The handling methods proposed for this facility provide the highest level of environmental and health safety possible for handling these waste materials. Other traditional disposal options would severly impact the solid waste management system of the City of Renton , and thus would not meet with the purpose and intent of the MP Zone to meet high operational and environmental standards . " In an ecological and environmental sense the facility is quite compatible with, and beneficial to , the adjacent properties . During processing dust, odors and fire hazards are all reduced significantly. As designed there will be no odor impacts on the adjacent properties , if any arise from unforseen circumstances , there are several odor control techniques which have been successfully used in the sewage sludge composting industry that may be implemented at a moments notice . Furthermore the finished product will be used onsite and will increase the health and vigor of the flora on the grounds of the race course . In summary, the MP Zone explicitly allows for recycling centers to process previously prepared natural materials , as long as they meet high operational , development and environmental standards . The successful long-term operation of other similar facilities in the nation proves these systems work without any unreasonably offensive odors or emmisions . The facility reduces uneccesary economic strains on Longacres and thus improves the local economy. If the material is ever packaged for retail , the additional sales tax income will directly benefit the city and State. 3 . Visual Impact . Contrary to the opinion put forth by Glacier Park' s attorney, this facility is not and is not designed to be a storage facility. All products will be processed continuously for up to thirty days in six foot high windrows. There will be no large mountains of material to impact views either onsite or offsite . After a site inspection concerning the external view impacts of this project, it was found that the only exposed view lay to the east of the proposed facility. After review of the future use of that parcel as the P-1 channel and a new road by the City of Renton , it became obvious that Glacier Park would be unable to place a structure on the remaining marsh land of this parcel . Concerning the Glacier Park property to the south it is evident that because of the existing tree buffer there are no visual impacts at all towards Glacier Park' s southern parcel . Any future development on Glacier Park property would need to be greater than four stories high to allow this facility to become a view impact to Glacier Park. In summary, the view impact is not an immediate or obvious threat to any of Glacier Park' s future ability to build on their property. The operational design is of a neat and tidy processing facility that the City would more likely want to show off rather than hide . 4 . Drainage. Glacier Park has showed concerns for the facilities runoff water impact on water quality and subsequently so has the Department of Ecology. Within the original design , extreme lengths were gone to to provide proper water management. As water .. is not a by-product, but rather an important processing ingredient for this operation, the facility is designed to recycle all water coming off the piles and from the rain for processing purposes . Overflow from the facility will rarely occur as weekly irrigation demands for the composting process exceed the capacity of rainwater storage designed into the facility. During operation over fifty percent of the composting pad will be covered with highly absorbent organic material . The runoff retention pond is designed to hold enough water from 100% of the paved surface during a major deluge . The only times runoff from the pond could occur is during the times when operations are just beginning for the year and when they are just finishing as irrigation demands are reduced during these times and less absorbent materials are on the pad . During the rainy season there will be no composting operations . Thus it is highly unlikely that any overflow will occur . In the event that it does, the aeration levels designed for the pond are engineered such that the quality of the overflow will be well within DOE dishcharge regulations to a natural body of water . It is our understanding that this overflow is going to be tested by the DOE for these purposes . Alternatives to discharge to the wetlands do exist if tests prove the runoff to be problematic . 5. Alternatives . It seems that Galcier Park is unaware that many alternatives for handling the Longacres bedding have been seriously considered by Longacres management. Off-site alternatives have been used by Longacres for many years . They have been trucking over five double semi-truck loads per day down to a mushroom farm in Portland . The financial instability of this particular operation has forced Longacres to develop other alternatives . The impacts on traffic , dust and pollution will be just as great for any other offsite management of the fresh straw bedding , as it would require transportation of a light and fluffy material . If this material is pre-composted on-site there will be a 75% to 80% reduction in volume and thus truck transportation impacts on the region will be greatly reduced . As the material is able to be used onsite for agronomic purposes , there will be no traffic impacts by this operation . Typical stable odors already occur at this site (these stable odors are dramatically diminished within three days when composted) . Any other offsite alternatives would then have new stable odor impacts to contend with. This not-in-my-backyard attitude by Glacier Park is irresponsible considering there will be no new adverse odor impacts on their properties and the offsite options they suggest would force the continuance of traffic impacts on the region. A proposal was put forward. to Longacres by a consultant for the burning of the manure in an incinerator . But the expense and increased air pollution created would be untenable for this site . Methane producing anaerobic digestion systems could also be used but the odor impacts if there were leaks would be similar to those feared by Glacier Park. In summary, the onsite composting alternative is being developed because after extensive research it was found to be the least impact option for management of this material . More importantly, the recycling and waste reduction provided by this facility brings the City of Renton closer to it ' s highest stated goals in waste management . 6 . Time Limits On Permit . Putting this operation under a special building permit approval subject to a periodic review process as decribed by Glacier Park ' s attorney is uneccessary and would supersede current Health Department jurisdicton over this facility. Normally a recycling facility' s annual review process is maintained within the King County Health Department' s jurisdiction . Once the building permit is issued by the City of Renton , the Seattle/King County Health Department is responsible for the enforcment of health and safety regulations for recycling facilities , and has the authority to force new mitigation of impacts or force the closure of a recycling facility' s operation . The Health Department ' s yearly review process and authority is sufficient for protecting any affected property owner ' s rights . Even so , a shakedown period should be allowed for this facility. A substantial investment is required to develop a state-of-the-art composting operation . Usually the first full year of operation is spent gaining experience on how to properly stage the material and maintain the site. Negative results from trials made during this time period should not be used against this facility during the operational review and evaluation . Only the resultant operation at the end of the time period should be evaluated . (One full year of operation is a reasonable shake down period . ) This should be an acceptable shakedown period to all concerned parties since currently there are no properties adjacent to Longacres boundaries that are habitated or due to be habitated within the next year . In summary, I strongly believe that the Longacres Composting Facility will have no adverse environmental impacts during operation if managed according to their Basis of Design . The advanced degree of mixing , aeration , moisture control provided for in the facility design will assure a non-impacting composting operation . The City of Renton and Glacier Park should strongly encourage and facilitate this type of responsible waste management. Especially when other alternatives will produce much greater impacts and much fewer benefits . Sincerely, 7 Jeffrey P. Gage Compost Design Services Review and Analysis of The Longacres Composting Facility' s Materials and Processing Methods . By Jeffrey P. Gage, B.S . Enviromental Studies 1984 The Evergreen State College Introduction This document is designed to educate City of Renton Officials and concerned nearby property owners about what exactly the materials and processes are that Longacres will be using and what impacts the composting operations may have . I have three years of experience managing the Woodland Park Zoo ' s Zoo Doo program in an urban environment . I am also the Technical Consultant to Seattle ' s Solid Waste Utility for the Community Composting Education Program. I have worked with the Seattle/King County Health Department to provide them with new research on composted animal manures and the ability of the composting process to destroy potential pathogenic organisms. I have experimented with and compared different blends of straw, manure and yard wastes to achieve fast non-odiferous decomposition rates for the Zoo ' s manures . I have reviewed the composting trials that Longacres undertook and I feel that I am able to accurately reflect the impacts that may occur with a larger operation at Longacres . Raw Materials and Their Processing : Effects on Odor The composting operations designed by the Longacres Race Course reflects state-of-the-art biological controls and processes which will maintain ideal composting conditions over their decomposing straw horse bedding . When straw bedding is composted by the method outlined in the Longacres Composting Facility Basis of Design no adverse odors are going to be generated . One type of bad odor is emitted when dead plant or animal wastes are too rich in their nitrogen content, such as pure feces or urine . The bacteria which decompose the dead organic wastes release any excess nitrogen in the form of ammonia gas . Conversely, if there is insufficient amounts of nitrogen the bacteria will conserve all the nitrogen in the decaying material and pull in free nitrogen from the a.ir to supplement their activities . In this case no ammonia odors are emitted , but are actually absorbed into the material . A sweet smell of the original material usually predominates . The raw material to be composted at Longacres has an unusually high percentage of straw, and a very small amount of urine and manure . This is because of the high level of care given to their stabled thoroughbred horses . The ratio of straw to manure is very consistant . The high percentage of straw replaced in the stalls keeps the urine and feces well-absorbed at all times . The estimated amount of manure and urine soaked material does not exceed 5% of the total bedding generated . This means that the majority of material composting is dry straw. Composting material blends are important . Ideal composting conditions are obtained when the carbon to nitrogen ratio of the mixed materials is around 30 parts carbon to 1 part nitrogen . Straw on its own has a 60 : 1 carbon to nitrogen .(C: N) ratio . Manure and urine soaked bedding has a ratio of 7: 1. I estimate Longacre' s mixed bedding to have a 45 : 1 C: N ratio . At a 45 : 1 carbon to nitrogen level any ammonia that might be given off by the bacteria from the urine or feces will be absorbed by the bacteria on the straw. Since there is a net deficit of nitrogen no ammonia emmisions are expected from Longacres bedding during composting . The speed at which these odors are reduced vary from one hour to three days depending on how well mixed the raw materials are . Longacres design shows them shredding , mixing and moistening the fresh material within 24 hours . Thus any fresh stable bedding odors from a pile should be reduced to a hay odor within two days on the outside . The other more significant odors that could be generated are related to the level of agitation and aeration of the material during composting . Ideal composting conditions are obtained when aerobic bacteria exist in the piles. Then the Composting by- products are water vapor and carbon dioxide . When decomposing material has no oxygen available to it, the aerobic bacteria die off and anaerobic bacteria take their place . When this occurs methane and sulfide gasses are formed as a by-product. This is how odors that many people dislike are generated . Luis ' F. Diaz, Consulting Editor of Biocycle Magazine, provided commentary in the August 1987 issue and took a realistic look at odors which can be generated during the composting process . His conclusion is that most composting odors are generated by allowing inadequate mixing and subsequent small pockets of anaerobic conditions to occur . He down plays the effectiveness of static pile aeration with pipes and blowers and reccomends to assure completely aerobic conditions ,- that the material be agitated and aerated through frequent physical turning of the piles. The Longacres facility is designed to turn the compost piles with a straddling windrow turner . This is the best available equipment for turning compost piles . These turners are used for maintaining sewage sludge composting operations . This machine moves at one mile per hour through a pile lifting , turning , watering and reshredding the material so that complete agitation and aeration occurs with every pass . This machine will turn each pile once every three days so anaerobic pockets don' t form in the materials. If anaerobic conditions occur in a pile , that pile can be turned more frequently to increase the oxygen content. Usually the most important controlling factor of whether a pile goes anaerobic is the moisture content . The ideal moisture content of composting material ranges between 45% and 65% . At these levels there is sufficient moisture for the decomposing bacteria to thrive, yet not so much moisture as to occlude respiration by the aerobic bacteria. When moisture levels exceed 70% , as is the case in the materials being used by the Metro sludge disposal process reffered to by Glacier Park, the aerobic bacteria die off and are replaced by anaerobic bacteria who' s by- products are methane and hydrogen sulfides and adverse odors will abound . If moisture levels are below 40% , very little biological activity takes place and the original straw odor would be prevelant. Longacres shredded bedding is very absorbent and it will be difficult to raise the material ' s moisture content up to the ideal composting levels . Once these moisture levels are reached , active composting will begin with temperatures reaching 140 to 170 degrees Farenheit. The turning of the active, hot material will result in large amounts of water vapor to leave the piles . Drying of over wet materials can be thus controlled by their turning frequency. If the piles become too dry additional water can be added while turning them. With the equipment and processing procedures proposed by Longacres, I see no reason to believe that improper moisture levels and their subsequent anaerobic conditions will be the cause of significant odors at this facility. A third controlling factor in aeration rates is the physical characteristics of the material and the size of the pile . The ideal pile sie to reduce anaerobic conditions from compaction is 6 ' high and 15 ' wide at the base. The composting material will have short particles of hay that result from Longacres grinding operations . This will allow the material to decompose rapidly as many openings are made for the bacteria and fungi to infect the material quickly. The faster composting rate requires more oxygen to replenish the bacteria so that the process remains aerobic. However the small particle size reduces the amount of air able to travel through the pile. The piles I maintain at the Zoo only need to be turned once every two weeks because we do no initial shredding of the hay and the piles breath easier . An advanced turning schedule of every 2-4 days of Longacres shredded bedding will be sufficient to assure that aerobic conditions will be maintained. A fourth generator of odors that I am familiar with are ponds that are allowed to stagnate for three or more days. The Longacres Composting Facility has been well designed so that there is positive drainage from all portions of the facility to an aerated holding pond . The designed aeration rates for the pond would result in excellent odor control . In summary, there are three activities which if controlled correctly will assure a consistant odor that is reminicient of a sauna inside a hay barn: 1. Maintaining the incoming material carbon to nitrogen ratio above 25 : 1. 2. Maintenance of a 45% to 65% moisture content in the composting material . Positive drainage of all water on the composting pad to an aerated holding pond . 3 . Turning every pile every 2-4 days during the first 20 days of composting . There will always be a not unpleasant earthy odor coming from the Longacres horse stables . The odors coming from Longacres proposed composting operaton will be no more unpleasant than those occuring currently from the horse barns . Odor Masking If after a year ' s experience it is found by objective observation that the odors are objectionable beyond the current odors existing at Longacres , there are various control techniques to mask those odors so they are not objectionable . Using grape pomace as an additive to the piles will create a grapenuts smell . This technique has been used succesfully for many years by a mushroom company in inner Los Angeles. Perfume misting systems can be used effectively over piles to provide a stronger more familiar scent. Another product which is used by another racetrack (which has an inferior composting system to Longacres) is very effective in neutralizing odors is Odco Laboratories International Water-Soluble Technical Deoderizer , which would be included in the moistening water . Old finished compost can be used as a cover on the piles this material acts as well as an activated charcoal filter for absorbing odors . Aeration pipes can be used to draw air out of the piles. This exhaust air can then be scrubbed via bubbling through finished compost piles or percolating through activated soil beds. These techniques have been used successfully to control odors even at sewage sludge treatment plants , which have a vastly greater odor generation problem than straw and horse manure could ever have. Review of Other Composting Operations That Handle Animal Wastes The following facilities have been contacted by Compost Design Services and phone interviewed . They have all agreed to talk personally to City of Renton Officials about the impacts of their operations . I would reccomend a site visit to some of the local facilities to review their operations . Local Facilities Sawdust Supply Company 15 South Spokane Seattle, WA 98102 206) 622-3476 Sawdust Supply Co. is composting steer manure and sawdust in 30 foot tall piles, allowing it to sit for over one year before sale . They are also composting sewage sludge in a similar way. This operation meets all of the King Co . Health Department Standards and has never recieved a odor complaint from their operations . They would encourage just showing up at their site to review their process . Directions will be provided from myself upon request. Jeff Gage 789-6853 . Woodland Park Zoo 5500 Phinney Ave. North Seattle, WA 98103 Contact the Compost Coordinator Jeff Gage 625-7667 The Zoo' s Zoo Doo Program is composting hay and herbivore manures and yard waste in windrows for eight weeks turning once every two weeks . No odor complaints have been recieved by residents who live 1500 feet to the south of the project. Visitiation should be made by appointment on Thursday or Friday. Pacific Topsoils Inc . 18711 NE 65th Ave . Redmond , WA 522-7180 Contact Bruce Faldborg This facility composts steer manure and sawdust in 30 foot piles for eight months and also composts sewage sludge in windrows turned every two weeks . This facility has an approved pad for composting . There are residents who ' s homes border the composting facility down wind . No odor complaints have been recieved for eight years . Visitation may be arranged upon request. Blue Ribbon Down Organics Salisaw, Oklahoma 918 ) 775-3577 This facility takes all of the race course' s bedding , shreds wets and puts it in piles 40 feet tall , 60 feet wide and 200 feet long . The material is turned every 60 days . The operation has used this material for three years and it lies 600 feet away from the race course stadium. It also is upwind from a city park. No odors complaints have been recieved . They have tried to use the Saratoga Harness enclosed bin composting system outlined below and have abandoned it for pile composting . Nutra-Gro Rt. 1 Box 459 Bossier City, Louisiana 71112 Contact Mr . Wilbur Brasher (318) 742-5711 This operation takes all of Louisiana Downs Race Track' s 450 cubic yards per day of stable bedding and trucks it to a 25 acre rural site . It is watered in the trucks , unloaded on the field , and compacted to a three to one ratio under hydraulic pressure with a cotton module maker . The piles are turned with a frontend loader once every 60 to 90 days . The nearest neighbor is 1, 000 feet downwind . Mr . Brasher reports that the biggest odor problem he has is with the fresh material as it is brought to the site. Odors decrease substantially once it starts composting . Saratoga Harness Q' ea A 0S4414. 1i COMPOST DESIGN. SERVICES Jeff Gage , Principle 9053 Dayton Avenue North Seattle, WA 98103 206 ) 789-6853 October 4 , 1987 Mr . Bill Taylor Director of Business Development Longacres Race Course P.O. Box 60 Renton , WA 98057 RE: Longacres Composting Project, Renton City Files EFC-055-087 , SA-064-87 Dear Mr . Taylor , As you requested , I have reviewed both Longacres proposed composting facility design , and the comments you recieved from Glacier Park Company and have evaluated the validity of the concerns they raised about this facility' s impact on their adjoining property. The following response is addressed and outlined according to the letter dated August 4, 1987 from Mr . John E. Keegan, Attorney for Glacier Park Company. 1. Air Quality/Odor . After reviewing the design engineer ' s Basis of Design , the operational plans and materials to be used in Longacres Composting Facility, I conclude that there is no reason to believe that the Longacres Composting Facility will have unavoidable adverse odor impacts on Glacier Park' s property and other ' s located nearby. The straw stable bedding to be processed is a well-balanced non-odiferous compostable material . It has a well-balanced carbon to nitrogen ratio , thus allowing exceptional decomposition rates and the conservation of ammonia within the composting material . No ammonia odors or other fecal smells will be emitted once this material is ground, blended , moistened and stacked in windrows . The operational design of the facility provides state-of- the-art management of the composting material . If the moisture and aeration levels as described in the Basis Of Design are maintained, no anaerobic conditions will occur , thus no significant adverse odors will be generated by this facility. See the detailed explaination of the composting process following this outline. This facility will greatly reduce the current transportation of materials from the race course and the subsequent dust and vehichle emmision impacts on the City of Renton and the rest of the region . Two other larger animal waste composting facilities exist in Seattle suburban areas without odor impacts even though they use much more odiferous raw materials than Longacres , and do not use Longacre ' s proposed ideal composting methods . Also , four horse racing facilities in the nation also compost their wastes onsite into a beneficial humus successfully with no odor impacts . A complete description of the composting process and a list of similar operations for public officials to interview follows this outline . In summary, this facility will provide an overall improvement in the current air quality in the Renton area by reducing trucking emmisions. Odors will be not unpleasant if the operation is maintained as designed . 2. Land Use . The placement of the Longacres Composting. Facility near the race course is in keeping with the Manufacturing Park Zone Ordinance No . 3936 Section 1, " (1) Principal Uses : (a) Manufacturing , processing , assembling and product servicing of : 1. Articles, products , or mechandise from previously prepared natural or synthetic materials ; . . . " The sand , hay and waste materials used are not being mined , grown or created at this facility. They are brought to the facility already prepared for processing into a usable end product . The proposed facility is really a recycling and waste reduction facility and follows the highest solid waste management priority of the State by reusing the waste materials generated by the race course . Manufacturing Park land use law Section lA (1) Principal Uses : (g) allow for recycling centers to operate within the required setback or landscaping areas . The handling methods proposed for this facility provide the highest level of environmental and health .safety possible for handling these waste materials . Other traditional disposal options would severly impact the solid waste management system of the City of Renton , and thus would not meet with the purpose and intent of the MP Zone to meet high operational and environmental standards. " In an ecological and environmental sense the facility is quite compatible with, and beneficial to , the adjacent properties . During processing dust, odors and fire hazards are all reduced significantly. As designed there will be no odor impacts on the adjacent properties, if any arise from unforseen circumstances , there are several odor control techniques which have been successfully used in the sewage sludge composting industry that may be implemented at a moments notice. Furthermore the finished product will be used onsite and will increase the health and vigor of the flora on the grounds of the race course . In summary, the MP Zone explicitly allows for recycling centers to process previously prepared natural materials , as long as they meet high operational , development and environmental standards. The successful long-term operation of other similar facilities in the nation proves these systems work without any unreasonably offensive odors or emmisions . The facility reduces uneccesary economic strains on Longacres and thus improves the local economy. If the material is ever packaged for retail , the additional sales tax income will directly benefit the city and State. 3 . Visual Impact. Contrary to the opinion put forth by Glacier Park' s attorney, this facility is not and is not designed to be a storage facility. All products will be processed continuously for up to thirty days in six foot high windrows. There will be no large mountains of material to impact views either onsite or offsite . After a site inspection concerning the external view impacts of this project, it was found that the only exposed view lay to the east of the proposed facility. After review of the future use of that parcel as the P-1 channel and a new road by the City of Renton , it became obvious that Glacier. Park would be unable to place a structure on the remaining marsh land of this parcel.. Concerning the Glacier Park property to the south it is evident that because of the existing tree buffer there are no visual impacts at all towards Glacier Park' s southern parcel . Any future development on Glacier Park property would need to be greater than four stories high to allow this facility to become a view impact to Glacier Park. In summary, the view impact is not an immediate or obvious threat to any of Glacier Park' s future ability to build on their property. The operational design is of a neat and tidy processing facility that the City would more likely want to show off rather than hide . 4. Drainage . Glacier Park has showed concerns for the facilities runoff water impact on water quality and subsequently so has the Department of Ecology. Within the original design , extreme lengths were gone to to provide proper water management . As water is not a by-product, but rather an important processing ingredient for this operation , the facility is designed to recycle all water coming off the •piles and from the rain for processing purposes. Overflow from the facility will rarely occur as weekly irrigation demands for the composting process exceed the capacity of rainwater storage designed into the facility. During operation over fifty percent of the composting pad will be covered with highly absorbent organic material . The runoff retention pond is designed to hold enough water from 100% of the paved surface during a major deluge . The only times runoff from the pond could occur is during the times when operations are just beginning for the year and when they are just finishing as irrigation demands are reduced during these times and less absorbent materials are on the pad . During the rainy season there will be no composting operations . Thus it is highly unlikely that any overflow will occur . In the event that it does , the aeration levels designed for the pond are engineered such that the quality of the overflow will be well within DOE dishcharge regulations to a natural body of water . It is our understanding that this overflow is going to be tested by the DOE for these purposes . Alternatives to discharge to the wetlands do exist if tests prove the runoff to be problematic . 5. Alternatives . It seems that Galcier Park is unaware that many alternatives for handling the Longacres bedding have been seriously considered by Longacres management. Off-site alternatives have been used by Longacres for many years . They have been trucking over five double semi-truck loads per day down to a mushroom farm in Portland. The financial instability of this particular operation has forced Longacres to develop other alternatives . The impacts on traffic , dust and pollution will be just as great for any other offsite management of the fresh straw bedding , as it would require transportation of a light and fluffy material . If this material is pre-composted on-site there will be a 75% to 80% reduction in volume and thus truck transportation impacts on the 'region will be greatly reduced . As the material is able to be used onsite for agronomic purposes , there will be no traffic impacts by this operation . Typical stable odors already occur at this site (these stable odors are dramatically diminished within three days when composted) . Any other offsite alternatives would then have new stable odor impacts to contend with. This not-in-my-backyard attitude by Glacier Park is irresponsible considering there will be no new adverse odor impacts on their properties and the offsite options they suggest would force the continuance of traffic impacts on the region . A proposal was put forward to Longacres by a consultant for the burning of the manure in an incinerator . But the expense and increased air pollution created would be untenable for this site . Methane producing anaerobic digestion systems could also be used but the odor impacts if there were leaks would be similar to those feared by Glacier Park. In summary, the onsite composting alternative is being developed because after extensive research it was found to be the least impact option for management of this material . More importantly, the recycling and waste reduction provided by this facility brings the City of Renton closer to it ' s highest stated goals in waste management. 6. Time Limits On Permit. Putting this operation under a special building permit approval subject to a periodic review process as decribed by Glacier Park' s attorney is uneccessary and would supersede current Health Department jurisdicton over this facility. Normally a recycling facility' s annual review process is maintained within the King County Health Department' s jurisdiction . Once the building permit is issued by the City of Renton , the Seattle/King County Health Department is responsible for the enforcment of health and safety regulations for recyclingfacilities , and has the authority to force new mitigation of impacts or force the closure of a recycling facility' s operation . The Health Department' s yearly review process and authority is sufficient for protecting any affected property owner ' s rights . Even so , a shakedown period should be allowed for this facility. A substantial investment is required to develop a state-of-the-art composting operation . Usually the first full year of operation is 'spent gaining experience on how to properly stage the material and maintain the site. Negative results from trials made during this time period should not be used against this facility during the operational review and evaluation . Only the resultant operation at the end of the time period should be evaluated. (One full year of operation is a reasonable shake down period . ) This should be an acceptable shakedown period to all concerned parties since currently there are no properties adjacent to Longacres boundaries that are habitated or due to be habitated within the next year . In summary, I strongly believe that the Longacres Composting Facility will have no adverse environmental impacts during operation if managed according to their Basis of Design . The advanced degree of mixing , aeration, moisture control provided for in the facility design will assure a non-impacting composting operation . The City of Renton and Glacier Park should strongly encourage and facilitate this type of responsible waste management. Especially when other alternatives will produce much greater impacts and much fewer benefits . Sincerely, Jeffrey P. Gage e os r Compost Design Services Review and Analysis of The Longacres Composting Facility' s Materials and Processing Methods. By Jeffrey P. Gage, B. S . Enviromental Studies 1984 The Evergreen State College Introduction This document' is designed to educate City of Renton Officials and concerned nearby property owners about what exactly the materials and processes are that Longacres will be using and what impacts the composting operations may have . I have three years of experience managing the Woodland Park Zoo' s Zoo Doo program in an urban environment . I am also the Technical Consultant to Seattle' s Solid Waste utility for the Community Composting Education Program. I .have worked with the Seattle/King County Health Department to provide them with new research on composted animal manures and the ability of the composting process to destroy potential pathogenic organisms: I have experimented with and compared different blends of straw, manure and yard wastes to achieve fast non-odiferous decomposition rates for the Zoo ' s manures . I have reviewed the composting trials that Longacres undertook and I feel that I am able to accurately reflect the impacts that may occur with a larger operation at Longacres . Raw Materials and Their Processing : Effects on Odor The composting operations designed by the Longacres Race Course reflects state-of-the-art biological controls and processes which will maintain ideal composting conditions over their decomposing straw horse bedding . When straw bedding is composted by the method outlined in the Longacres Composting Facility Basis of Design no adverse odors are going to be generated. One type of bad odor is emitted when dead plant or animal wastes are too rich in their nitrogen content, such as pure feces or urine. The bacteria which decompose the dead organic wastes release any excess nitrogen in the form of ammonia gas . Conversely, if there is insufficient amounts of nitrogen the bacteria will conserve all the nitrogen in the decaying material and pull in free nitrogen from the air to supplement their activities . In this case no ammonia odors are emitted, but are actually absorbed into the material . A sweet smell of the original material usually predominates . The raw material to be composted at Longacres has an unusually high percentage of straw, and a very small amount of urine and manure . This is because of the high level of care given to their stabled thoroughbred horses. The ratio of straw ' to manure is very consistant . The high percentage of straw replaced in the stalls keeps the urine and feces well-absorbed at all times . The estimated amount of manure and urine soaked material does not exceed 5% of the total bedding generated . This means that the majority of material composting is dry straw. 1 Composting material blends are important. Ideal composting conditions are obtained when the carbon to nitrogen ratio of the mixed materials is around 30 parts carbon to 1 part nitrogen . Straw on its own has a 60 : 1 carbon to nitrogen (C: N) ratio . Manure and urine soaked bedding has a ratio of 7: 1. I estimate Longacre' s mixed bedding to have a 45 : 1 C: N ratio . At a 45 : 1 carbon to nitrogen level any ammonia that might be given off by the bacteria from the urine or feces will be absorbed by the bacteria on the straw. Since there is a net deficit of nitrogen no ammonia emmisions are expected from Longacres bedding during composting. The speed at which these odors are reduced "vary from one hour to three days depending on how well mixed the raw materials are . Longacres design shows them shredding , mixing and moistening the fresh material within 24 hours . Thus any fresh stable bedding odors from a pile should be reduced to a hay odor within two days on the outside . The other more significant odors that could be generated are related to the level of agitation and aeration of the material during composting . Ideal composting conditions are obtained when aerobic bacteria exist in the piles. Then the composting by- products are water vapor and carbon dioxide . When decomposing material has no oxygen available to it, the aerobic bacteria die off and anaerobic bacteria take their place . When this occurs methane and sulfide gasses are formed as a by-product . This is how odors that many people dislike are generated. Luis F. Diaz , Consulting Editor of Biocycle Magazine, provided commentary in the August 1987 issue and took a realistic look at odors which can be generated during the composting process . His conclusion is that most composting odors are . generated by allowing inadequate mixing and subsequent small pockets of anaerobic conditions to occur . He down plays the effectiveness of static pile aeration with pipes and blowers and reccomends to assure completely aerobic conditions , that the material be agitated and aerated through frequent physical turning of the piles. The Longacres facility is designed to turn the compost piles with a straddling windrow turner . This is the best available equipment for turning compost piles . These turners are used for maintaining sewage sludge composting operations . This machine moves at one mile per hour through a pile lifting , turning , watering and reshredding the material so that complete agitation and aeration occurs with every pass . This machine will turn each pile once every three days so anaerobic pockets don' t form in the materials . If anaerobic conditions occur in a pile, that pile can be turned more frequently to increase the oxygen content. Usually the most important controlling factor of whether a pile goes anaerobic is the moisture content . The ideal moisture content of composting material ranges between 45% and 65% . At these levels there is sufficient moisture for the decomposing bacteria to thrive, yet not so much moisture as to occlude respiration by the aerobic bacteria. When moisture levels exceed 70% , as is the case in the materials being used by the Metro sludge disposal process reffered to by Glacier Park, the aerobic bacteria die off and are replaced by anaerobic bacteria who' s by- products are methane and hydrogen sulfides and adverse odors will abound. If moisture levels are below 40% , very little biological activity takes place and the original straw odor would be prevelant. Longacres shredded bedding is very absorbent and it will be difficult to raise the material ' s moisture .content up to the ideal composting levels . Once these moisture levels are reached , active composting will begin with temperatures reaching 140 to 170 degrees Farenheit. The turning of the active, hot material will result in large amounts of water vapor to leave the piles . Drying of over wet materials can be thus controlled by their turning frequency. If the piles become too dry additional water can be added while turning them. With the equipment and processing procedures proposed by Longacres, I see no reason to believe that improper moisture levels and their subsequent anaerobic conditions will be the cause of significant odors at this facility. A third controlling factor in aeration rates is the physical characteristics of the material and the size of the pile . The ideal pile sie to reduce anaerobic conditions from compaction is 6 ' high and 15 ' wide at the base. The composting material will have short particles of hay that result from Longacres grinding operations . This will allow the material to decompose rapidly as many openings are made for the bacteria and fungi to infect the material quickly. The faster composting rate requires more oxygen to replenish the bacteria so that the process remains aerobic . However the small particle size reduces the amount of air able to travel through the pile. The piles I maintain at the Zoo only need to be turned once every two weeks because we do no initial shredding of the hay and the piles breath easier . An advanced turning schedule of every 2-4 days of Longacres shredded bedding will be sufficient to assure that aerobic conditions will be maintained . A fourth generator of odors that I am familiar with are ponds that are allowed to stagnate for three or more days. The Longacres Composting Facility has been well designed so that there is positive drainage from all portions of the facility to an aerated holding pond. The designed aeration rates for the pond would result in excellent odor control . In summary, there are three activities which if controlled correctly will assure a consistant odor that is reminicient of a sauna inside a hay barn: . 1. Maintaining the incoming material carbon to nitrogen ratio above 25 : 1. 2. Maintenance of a 45% to 65% moisture content in the composting material . Positive drainage of all water on the composting pad to an aerated holding pond . 3 . Turning every pile every 2-4 days during the first 20 days of composting . There will always be a not unpleasant earthy odor coming from the Longacres horse stables . The odors coming from Longacres proposed composting operaton will be no more unpleasant than those occuring currently from the horse barns . Odor Masking If after a year ' s experience it is found by objective observation that the odors are objectionable beyond the current odors existing at Longacres , there are various control techniques to mask those odors so they are not objectionable . Using grape pomace as an additive to the piles will create a grapenuts smell . This technique has been used succesfully for many years by a mushroom company in inner Los Angeles . Perfume misting systems can be used effectively over piles to provide a stronger more familiar scent. Another product which is used by another racetrack (which has an inferior composting system to Longacres) is very effective in neutralizing odors is Odco Laboratories International Water-Soluble Technical Deoderizer , which would be included in the moistening water . Old finished compost can be used as a cover on the piles this material acts as well as an activated charcoal filter for absorbing odors. Aeration pipes can be used to draw air out of the piles. This exhaust air can then be scrubbed via bubbling through finished compost piles or percolating through activated soil beds. These techniques have been used successfully to control odors even at sewage sludge treatment plants, which have a vastly greater odor generation problem than straw and horse manure could ever have. Review of Other Composting Operations That Handle Animal Wastes The following facilities have been contacted by Compost Design Services and phone interviewed. They have all agreed to talk personally to City of Renton Officials about the impacts of their operations . I would reccomend a site visit to some of the local facilities to review their operations. Local Facilities Sawdust Supply Company 15 South Spokane Seattle, WA 98102 206 ) 622-3476 Sawdust Supply Co. is composting steer manure and sawdust in 30 foot tall piles , allowing it to sit for over one year before sale . They are also composting sewage sludge in a similar way. This operation meets all of the King Co. Health Department Standards and has never recieved a odor complaint from their operations . They would encourage just showing up at their site to review their process . Directions will be provided from myself upon request. Jeff Gage 789-6853 . Woodland Park Zoo 5500 Phinney Ave. North Seattle, WA 98103 Contact the Compost Coordinator Jeff Gage 625-7667 The Zoo' s Zoo Doo Program is composting hay and herbivore manures and yard waste in windrows for eight weeks turning once every two weeks . No odor complaints have been recieved by residents who live 1500 feet to the south of the project. Visitiation should be made by appointment on Thursday or Friday. Pacific Topsoils Inc . 18711 NE 65th Ave . Redmond , WA 522-7180 Contact Bruce Faldborg This facility composts steer manure and sawdust in 30 foot piles for eight months and also composts sewage sludge in windrows turned every two weeks . This facility has an approved pad for composting. There are residents who ' s homes border the composting facility down wind . No odor complaints have been recieved for eight years . Visitation may be arranged upon request. Blue Ribbon Down Organics Salisaw, Oklahoma 918 ) 775-3577 This facility takes all of the race course' s bedding , shreds wets and puts it in piles 40 feet tall , 60 feet wide and 200 feet long . The material is turned every 60 days . The operation has used this material for three years and it lies 600 feet away fromtheracecoursestadium. It also is upwind from a city park. No odors complaints have been recieved . They have tried to use the Saratoga Harness enclosed bin composting system outlined below and have abandoned it for pile composting . Nutra-Gro Rt. 1 Box 459 Bossier City, Louisiana 71112 Contact Mr . Wilbur Brasher (318) 742-5711 This operation takes all of Louisiana Downs Race Track' s 450 cubic yards per day of stable bedding and trucks it to a 25 acre rural site. .It is watered in the trucks , unloaded on the field , and compacted to a three to one ratio under hydraulic pressure with a cotton module maker . The piles are turned with a frontend 'loader once every 60 to 90 days. The nearest neighbor is 1, 000 feet downwind. Mr . Brasher reports that the biggest odor problem he has is with the fresh material as it is brought to the site. Odors decrease substantially once it starts composting. Saratoga Harness PublicMNot ice"' Puib',lic Notice FLOOR OF CITY HALL, RENTON,WASH- ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID INGTON,ON OCTOBER 20, 1987,AT 9:00 PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRE- A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING SENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PETITIONS:,OCTOBER 20, 1987, AT 9:00 A:M. TO I KHATIBI (KHATIBI SUNSET WAY :EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. 4-PLEX) I Published in the Valley DailydNews:Octp Application to rezone .22.acres from R-1 i ber 9,1987.R2561 to R-3 to allow construction of a 4-plex. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBL Property located at 905 Sunset Blvd. N.E. File Nos:ECF-054-87,R-063-87.' LONGACRES RACE COURSE INC. COMPOSTING FACILITIES) Audrey Benner being first fac litylicforo ncomr post ngn wastev afrom Ithe that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the straw/manure of the race course. Property located in the south 1/4 of Longacres Race Course property, west of Oakesdale Ave. VALLEY DAILY S.W.and south of S.W.27th Street(if both extended). File Nos: ECF-055-87, CU-664- .• Kent Edition • Renton Edition ,.87HERNANDO CHAVES (POLLOS Dailynewspapers ublished six (6)times a we ESTATES) published Application for preliminary plat approval are legal newspapers and are now and have of,a 16 lot single family subdivision on'3.52 prior acres. Property located at 2116 Aberdeenmonths the Ep lisp NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Avenue N.E. at the northwest corner of the ing RENTON HEARING EXAMINER intersection of N.E. 20th Street and Aber- County,Wash RENTON,WASHINGTON deen Ave N.E. File Nos: ECF-031-87, PP- newspaper by A:PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY 035-87. THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT , Legal descriptions of the files noted King County. 'HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUN- above are on file in the Renton Building nIL CHAMBERS . ON THE SECOND and Zoning Department. The notice in t e-ex-acr-rorm atfacFie`d,was published in th`e;Kent-Ediffon---- Renton Edition X , Auburn Edition and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period.The annexed notice a Notice of Public Hearin, was published on October 9, 1987 R2561 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $ 33.82 Subscribed and sworn to before me this hday of October 191311- Notary blic for the State of Washington, t residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. VDN#87 Revised 11/86 I>, f I ' J PS 4 t i nJi, Public Notice =`'.n Public Notice NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL S.M.and south of S.W. 27th Street(if bothDETERMINATIONextended). File Nos.: ECF-055-87, SA-064'ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 87. RENTON,WASHINGTON Further information regarding this actionTheEnvironmentalReviewCommitteeisavailableintheBuildingandZoningERC)has finalized a revised Determination Department, Municipal Building, Renton,of NON-SIGNIFICANCE— MITIGATED for Washington, 235-2540. Any appeal of ERCthefollowingprojectundertheauthorityofactionmustbefiledwiththeCityofRenton AFFIDAVIT OF PUBIS the Renton Municipal Code. The City has Hearing Examiner by September 14, 1987.completed a commenting process pursuant Published' iny':the_'Valley Daily NewsitoWAC197-11-502(2);Condition #4 wasr.‘-/August 31;1987-R2485,modified. LONGACRES RACE COURSE INC. (COM Y i —' Audrey De Jo i e being firstPOSTING FACILITIES)that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the Application for site plan approval to allow" i facility for composting waste from the straw/manure of the race course. Property VALLEY DAILY :!located in the south 1/4 of Longacres Race Oourse•property, west of Oakesdale Ave. ; Kent Edition • Renton Edition •TAuburn-t.alnon--- - - Daily newspapers published six(6) times a week.That said newspapers are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King . County,Washington.The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the Kent Edition Renton Edition X , Auburn Edition. and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period.The annexed notice a Notice of Environmental Determination was published on August 31, 1987 R24 85 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $ 18.!}5 . 4- Subscribedandsworri,tobeforemethis?nñ day of Sept 1 Notary for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. 121i _ P VDN#87 Revised 11/86 I i i h : j l.S t 1, f CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director October 13, 1987 Bill Taylor P.O. Box 60 Renton, Wa. 98057 RE: .. PUBLIC HEARING Dear Mr. Taylor: A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for October 20, 1987. The public hearing commences at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you before the hearing. If you. have any questions, please call the Building and Zoning Department at 235-2550. Sincerely, Dona d K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:DB:plp 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director October 13, 1987 Longacres Race Course, Inc. P.O. Box 60 Renton, Wa. 98057 RE: PUBLIC HEARING Gentlemen: A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for October 20, 1987. The public hearing commences at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. The applicant or representatives) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you before the hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Building and Zoning Department at 235-2550. Sincerely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:DB:plp 200°Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 LipAicto k: CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ra Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director October 14, 1987 John E. Keegan Davis Wright & Jones 2600 Century Square 1501 4th Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR LONGACRES RACE COURSE CU-064-87. Gentlemen: A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for October 20, 1987. The public hearing commences at"9:00 a.m:`.:i•A1;;: ::'-: in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. The.applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at a public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be to you.before the hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Building.and Zoning Department at 235-2550. is f :; Sincerely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:DB:ss 200 Mill Avenue South.- Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 f 0 ;:CITY OF RENTON LL y BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director October 14, 1987 Mr. Bob Muilli ri Glacier Park Co. 1011 Western Ave. Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104 : .. r',, RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR.LONGACRES,RACE COURSE CU-064-87 Gentlemen: . . A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has,been ' scheduled for October 20, 1987. The public hearing commences at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City.Hall: The applicant at representative(s)` of the applicant....is required to be ' present at the public hearing. A. copy of the staff report will be mailed: . to you before the hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Building and Zoning Department:'at 235-2550. Sincerly, ctioi Donald.•K.-Erickson, AICP.. 1..,- ., 1 cam: Zoning Administrator r.. BKE:DB:ss ' 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 -. (206) 235-2540 0 , CITY OF RENTON o + • `' BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director October 14, 1987 Greg Bishop Seattle King .County. Health. f 1 201 Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98104 RE`: PUBLIC HEARING FOR LONGACRES RACE COURSE CU-064-87.i:., Gentlemen: A public hearing before the City of Renton.Hearing yyzenin er has Feen A•;i-_ it scheduled for October 20, '1987:'`The'public hearing commences at 9:00.a:in.' ';;:...:.;, _,_,;,.. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. 4``' The applicant or representative Cs) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you before the hearing: .If you have any questions, please call the Building and Zoning Department at 235-2550. r;'" '` Sincerely, otj I/ 7 "r„,‘‘-`.'', Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator,.. DKE:DB:ss 200-Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 l 7 @'; CIFY uF ;C:1 Cin of Seattle King County Charles Royer,Mayor Tim Hill,Executive Li UFEB 3 1987 Seattle-King County Department of Public Health Bud Nicola,M.D., M.H.S.A.,Director BU!LDlNG/ZON1PJG DEPT.January 30, 1987 Bill Taylor Longacres Race Track P.O. Box 60 Renton, WA 98057 Re: ONSITE USE OF COMPOSTED HORSE MANURE Dear Mr. Taylor: It has recently been brought to the attention of the Seattle-King County Health Department that the horse manure generated by your facility is to be composted and utilized at the Longacres site. Such activity is regulated by both WAC 173-304 (State Solid Waste Handling Standards) and King County Board of Health Rules & Regulations No. 8. The utilization of such material would require a composting permit if: 1. At least half of the material has not been shown to have been recycled in the past three years and any material has been on-site five years, or 2. Ground water, or surface water, air and or land contamination has or would likely occur under current storage conditions. In the event neither of the above conditions are found, the material could be sub-classified as: 1 . A landspreading product if applied to the ground at greater than vegetative rates, or 2. A recycled product if applied within vegetative rates and otherwise meets state and local recycling standards. Landspreading utilization requires a permit, whereas recycling utilization requires only an annual report. Please inform this department of your intended site usage of horse manure as soon as possible so that an expeditious review of your application can be made. Please contact me at 587-2285 to discuss the details outlined in this letter. Sincerely, Greg Bishop, Supervisor Solid Waste Program GB:mw cc: Southeast District Office Attn. Shelley Kneip Environmental Health Division Room 1510 Public Safety Building Seattle, Washington 98104 (206)587-2722 DAVIS WRIGHT & JONES LAW OFFICES A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 2600 CENTURY SQUARE ' 150I FOURTH AVENUE ' SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 9810I-1688 206) 622-3150 JOHN E. KEEGAN October 19 , 1987 ITC,;,'',-?NC) ..e.teer, ° - Mr. Donald K. Erickson Zoning Administrator City of Renton Building and Zoning Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Mr . Fred J. Kaufman Office of the Hearing Examiner City of Renton Building and Zoning Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Longacres Composting Facility, CU-064-87 Dear Messrs . Erickson and Kaufman: Thank you for providing a copy of the Building and Zoning Department ' s Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner for the above-referenced application. I would like to offer some further comments on behalf of my client, Glacier Park Company, who is the owner of adjacent property to the immediate east and south of the proposed facility. We applaud the intent of the preliminary report to put some meaningful conditions on the operation to minimize or eliminate the facility' s impact on nearby properties and to provide an opportunity to reevaluate the proposal once it is in operation. We believe, however, that the intent of the conditions should be spelled out more specifically to ensure their effectiveness . TELEX:328919 DWJ SEA ' TELECOPIER: (206) 628-7040 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA ' BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON ' RICHLAND, WASHINGTON ' WASHINGTON, D.C. Y Mr. Donald K. Erickson October 19, 1987 Page 2 We understand that the Staff ' s proposed conditions are a combination of the August 5 mitigated DNS, the September 24 letter to Bill Taylor and the conditions on page 6 of the preliminary report to the Examiner. We have consolidated the various recommended conditions and revised them in a manner we consider more effective at achieving what is intended. Our recommended conditions for the proposal are set forth below: 1. That the asphalt ' s membrane be tested for porosity prior to its full application noting that if it is not fully impervious, a clay membrane will be used as an undercoating (with proper drainage barriers) to prevent leachate from reaching underlying soils . 2. That in order to reduce any potential impacts on the adjacent wetlands and adjacent properties, the applicant be required to permanently discharge all surface water runoff into the Metro sanitary sewer system. 3 . That the applicant at all times achieve a standard of 100% odor dissipation at the boundaries of its property. 4 . That the applicant contract with the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency to regularly monitor air quality (including odor) and that the King County Health Department monitor surface water runoff quality on a regular basis and both agencies report back to the City' s Environmental Review Committee their written findings at least every six months once the facility is operational . The air monitoring stations shall include points directly south and directly east of the facility on the applicant ' s property boundary lines . 5 . That a perimeter landscape screen of mature landscape material found acceptable as to size, species, and location by the city' s landscape architect be installed by the applicant prior to occupancy of the site. Such landscaping shall be of a height and density to totally screen the composting facility from adjacent properties . 6 . That this operation be approved for an initial two year period during which it will be evaluated every six months to determine whether the permit should be Mr. Donald K. Erickson October 19, 1987 Page 3 extended beyond the initial period. Operation of the proposed facility will be required to cease at any time, even during the two year period, that conditions are not being met. At the end of the two year period, the City shall have the option of letting the permit expire, extending the permit or extending the permit with additional mitigation measures. Extension of the;; permit is dependent on the applicant demonstrating t that the facility can be operated without material odor, water quality or visual impacts beyond the applicant ' s property boundaries . 7. That the applicant provide security of a type acceptable to the City Attorney and of a sufficient amount to ensure cessation of the use and cleanup of the facility if the initial permit is not extended. The conditions which we are recommending are very similar to those recommended by the City' s Environmental Review Committee. They will allow the project to go forward while providing mitigation of air quality (and odor) , water quality, and visual impacts. Please consider these comments in your further deliberations together with our August 4, 1987 letter to Mr. Ron Nelson. Also please include Glacier Park Company (c/o Mr. Robert V. Miulli, 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700, Seattle, Washington 98104) on the mailing list of interested persons who wish to be informed of any decisions regarding this application. Very truly yours, DAVIS WRIGHT & JONES C Jo E. Keegan JEK:pjm 4094L cc: Mr. Robert V. Miulli Mr. William Taylor e ever ANos s i ` - ' J NORTH v I 0'A/Cet.rJ 4WD..___ 2 0 GRASS p22A O Nam, I- 9.4 T? l' RAG/ ioo'Y6'NOPPER PUMP lty'e' 1-_-. 37d' re J.Ede ee' Pered.eo! ` I STRUCTURE Fla9Tr ! y i COMPOJ> O'r/ GUL /70.2 I .' n r S>o cace ca.,/rrye,e III t6=7.e e..9f^'2o.2) S.w.. 2i r.,S{J ., -_ 11 AREa 0 a I' l PEA CAS 9"N/NC I w T I O ceoLvP£ERS / . S M.N. 11 m I y I,ALUM/NUM II 0 Pav l/[Wizear• I11 BPrrtes I1 ii s34TX 3767aNK ! M I I.1 p b1 11 r 1 ware:LEPEL CE/zo' N I N I I J Ii V 5 II 30 'COMPos}r/N6 W/NOBou/S 6KiSvoo'.,a)) q I 11 kI7::-/----- It I s o.trio 1 CamPerl`y Pad 1/0'X3d0' C/ors I.iOrPba/f Poremens! 0 11 J 0. Q II O 2.' trod/r_d.riyaed 7 Con{0,7 o//Camas//eochost Vnd 11 La y oral it 8" oe/ot/en-se{{/;j {r revue :/a r e/compostVL____ _ f I I I y is oPtiin_m ma.u/are epnknl-Gsr. r 1 W Q 2 I 3. Moae-uP G•ro{er reyuiied on/y Briny diy pe icdsfo!{f-r 1 k 14 C i i 2 c/eaniny(pd°/ofa/n°ye). v V 1 2 1 p1 1 4 Dio/Hoye//ne r'o w{La..v'.o/nt used troyr!Mary O I C J k °. rain fa//:peel/ow trod /or a%n/ (,,biddr5inoye) 1 e24 q r I I h I 5_0 SRO, I I J'• IL zo'i,/ZO 19 SYMBOLS. N es' 9 AP,roX/mote Contours 20'( too.. 20'o _ R vs ee'4T'oN I j it Contours 4F/er Groo, j0 r i 1 y LfZ • 4., Houk, one/Aeroerr Heo s p /9.5 , 14.1111166,.,/25 3• ,Pierre../o{ion G/o{e.L/ae;lark,J-k3P//.L/n6 I, Proia Lr/,B p E— U.S. E/eofrve Pouter L/rnC v M— Oro/4 ab Pump House s my k 62nss q.PER R— Pump House Sump to Ou{fa//Pro/' h LONGACRES RACE COURSE Waste oompoaling PI oleot e.aroaw.. APrlovfD ora 42 WN 20 SCALE:/"40' 4 2A.R. PATE:WO7ARRf P Y/SED:/s;fare/ SCAL6+ Composting Pad-Preliminary 0 m is v m roo 1 • Rousoulp Engineering oLC.-2P R2 I \7 ZGB•932"0 I II ry 52,333.353 9 l I01IIINORTHIIW"Vp[l 1Y NI a,..AM I I LPO ATeNJ I^\ if III I\ It til I I 1 \f IVe.Vpla[YRD I I O,9RK/NGq v riTh° I q L PE.9 ill NoTES v 0 Ne¢rn h i I 1.TAis s/f p/on ada`.-n nn 4 phafo-1IQIV/C/N/7Y MAP W I l I yV4mme>`/7c compose%pryaed q,Q 3I I I fog//e ou nee by Huh G-Geb'1mi>` Ii ..i Q a I f/ksoc. Ni/976. o I 2. Con/ours om opprox/!note f' h I not Fie//theca' llV 4 V3. FurB /a r/on5 a/• P-/ Wvdio/no e ch/we/ and S•W- IQNI27v,S/" gccesJ/Po4d have .•j I been scpeii nPoscd based W is Pon corenf/y 6w//6/e n'/, I1 l9 I Q t 1 J I not C /n/ed wifh the ci 4 z o _ I W lc W ce ti°W II4 ilif \ COMP03T/NG ti I yg v'`t hinP,40 I;l le II Is380'-3ro'-- a IW Q) 9 a y I P/aRE/NG IGImAREy I0I SAN/TA-r x ti sewe- IIill I I I r .L.. i --- WET GANGS7- X------'----: 4' h 9 15C.41 I t L.Cw a.G.t a SO ,Se -,ee- — 11,\ N LONGACRES RACE COURSE j 11 I t Waste Composting Project Reece,,.w, 1- I( I is u/+R e r e R.A.R. 3 Site Plan- PreliminaryP/ CHA NN L EN/RM/DRa/N 1 LL 5n-2$ - imi iOUTLET.'tUrUQE) _ V __ TQRCLL-RoueculP Engineering eLC-7PER•2 I., \el.....e.. F rr...d. a 206 398 1153 I_]i F HE MEAD ER DO •-nor,: 4 PRH I l IN 11 •_ E Awi NO. L I I 1 S 1 w Q II iI d I DL c z II, ei _ 6_ [1 Q I n I u . l I I I. C i IX Q I I z"a,[']I I O off! C1 41Iw IIz I I E I Q it P Cil -- -- J- _ - 1LL+--- I ii \y_ I i C_l ci I 1C=1 3JiJTn uN1 I, OF riENRY FIE +CtER DONATION CLAII+t NO 4.. I El D, 1 LOC*'foN 1 E, I , c,e,, .„;,>:, .__ N p ---- -- - --- - -- - - . 7. 1 1 ir.,., ems: - . t,l . II CW I I c, FUTURE RE TON I TUKWILA-C1T - - r.T-S LI IFTOBEtFECTIVE r 1 E) FE. ; : VARY. 4,- 19 -`' i l LONG ACRES RACE COURSE, INC. SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-064-87 APPL I CANT LONG ACRES RACE COURSE, INC TOTAL AREA 2.7 ACRES r PRINCIPAL ACCESS S.W. 27th STREET EXISTING ZONING M-P (MANUFACTURING PARK) EXISTING USE VACANT PROPOSED USE COMPOSTING FACILITY FOR COMPOSTING WASTE FROM STRAW/MANURE. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMMERCIAL . COMMENTS THE SUBJECT PROJECT WILL REQUIRE AN ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL. LOCATED SOUTH OF S.W. 27th STREET AND WEST OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. IF BOTH STREET WERE EXTENDED) . Staff Report/Dsk ERC BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT AUGUST 5, 1987 A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: Longacres Race Course Inc. PROJECT:Longacres Composting Facility ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-055-87 APPLICATION No(s) : SA-064-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Site Approval for composting waste from race course (straw/manure) . Facility includes a paved composting pad, 30 windrows, aerator turning areas and a pond to collect leachate and rainfall runoff before reuse or discharge. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located on Longacres Race Course Property, S.W. of 27th Street and West of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. (If both streets were extended) . B. ISSUES: 1. Whether there is a potential odor problem from this type of composting? Discussion Applicant says that there is no serious odor problem, but Andy McMillan of DOE suggests that the potential for odor problems is "great" and suggests a different kind of composting procedure such as in-vessel composting. 2. Whether discharge of runoff from the composting could have a detrimental impact on wetlands? Discussion: . DOE has stated that a Pollution Discharge Permit permit from Ecology would be required if any discharge of runoff waters from the composting into surface waters is to occur. DOE has suggested other alternatives such as routing the runoff through a settling pond prior to discharge or connecting with a sewer line. 3 . Whether the asphalt pad is an acceptable base for the composting operation? BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT a. LONGACRES RACE COURSE, INC AUGUST 5, 1987 PAGE 2 Discussion: DOE has suggested that there should be a clay lining or a synthetic membrane to control seepage. C. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to develop a 117,800 sq. ft. straw/manure composting facility at the south end of the forty acres racetrack south of the horse stables. A mixture of straw and manure would be laid out in linear windrows where an aerobic bacteria would eat the material reducing it over a 25 to 28 day period into a soils-like potting mix. This mix would be either used on the premises or possibly sold if a market develops for it. According to the applicant, the process is nearly ordorless and environmentally clean, since no air pollution, etc. results. There would be some leachate with driving heavy rain spells and could be released into a nearby wetland. According to the applicants, this leachate would be biologically clean before it would be released into the adjacent wetland. Generally, the applicants do not expect there to be much run-off off the site since the operation itself is very moisture consuming, generating a great deal of heat (up to 150 deuces) and requiring daily irrigation to keep the material wet. What water does run off would be collected in a catchment area and recycled back on the windows according to their representative, Mr. Bill Taylor During a heavy rainstorm there could be runoff flowing directly into the adjacent wetland or the leachate could possible soak through the asphalt paving directly into ground. DOE has recommended a clay sealant or membrane to help prevent percolation of the leachate into the ground and having the surface runoff flow into the sanitary sewer. The proposed use is permitted under the M-P zone as a conditional use "whose activities including manufacturing and storage, are predominantly conducted out-of-doors rather than completely enclosed within a building" . (Section 4-730.3.e. ) Outside storage areas must be screened from all adjacent properties with view obscurring fences at least six (6' ) feet high. Under the environmental performance standards for odorous gases Section 4-730. 10.c. ) , "no emissions of odorous gases and other odorous matter shall be permitted in quantities which are unreasonably offensive beyond the exterior property lines of the lot or site" (emphasis added) . BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT LONGACRES RACE COURSE, INC AUGUST 5, 1987 PAGE 3 Staff believe that because of the experimental nature of this project, we should only be approving it for a year or two so that we can more fully evaluate its impacts. D. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the ERC issue a Determination of Non-Significance for this project subject to the applicant complying with the following mitigation conditions: 1. That the asphalt's membrane be tested for porosity prior to its full application noting that if it is not fully impervious, a clay membrane will be used as an undercoating (with proper drainage barriers) to prevent leachate from reaching underlying soils;. 2. That surface water runoff be run through a retention/setting pond prior to its release into adjacent wetlands; 3. That the applicant contract with the King County Health Department to monitor air quality (including odor) and surface water runoff quality on a regular basis and report back to the Committee it's findings within six months after the facility is operational. 4. That this operation be approved for an initial one year period during which it will be evaluated. If conditions warrant, new mitigation measures such as draining all surface runoff into the sanitary sewer may be considered later. 5. That the applicant provide securities of a sufficient amount to ensure removal of the facility if its initial permit is not extended. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS: Various City departments have reviewed and commented upon the project. These comments are as follows: Police Department: The following comment was made: No traffic impacts. Fire Prevention Bureau: Probable minor impacts noted for Public Services with no further comment. Design Engineering: Probable major impacts noted for water and probable minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements.The following comments were made: 1. Effluent from process should be disposed of in the sanitary sewer system or receive Ecology approval on waste water disposal. r BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT LONGACRES RACE COURSE, INC AUGUST 5, 1987 PAGE 4 2. Verify that asphalt paving is an appropriate base, chemically, for the proposed process. Traffic Engineering: Probable major impacts noted for water with minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements. The following comment was made: No noted traffic type problems. Utility Engineering: Probable minor impact noted for Utilities with no further comment. Parks and Recreation: Probable minor impacts noted for Aesthetics and Recreation. The following comments were made: No recreation or park impacts. Project could include landscape buffering in relation to the proposed Oakesdale project. Building Division: Probable minor impacts noted for earth, housing and aesthetics. The following comment was made: King County Health should preview this. Zoning Division: Probable minor impacts noted for all environmental elements with the following comment: Will wastewater be adequately treated before entering into the wetlands in the S.E. corner of the site? Policy Development: More information requested for Earth, Water, Energy and Natural Resources, Environmental Health, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics and ' Recreation. Probable minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements. The following comments were made: 1. This department has specific concerns regarding the applicants assumption that the P-1 channel will be constructed as currently proposed, which will drain the adjacent wetland. Perhaps the applicant should describe this operation under the assumption that the channel will not be built as currently proposed. 2. The department is concerned about the relationships between water flow from the compost pad/the wetland/and the recirculation system. This department supports the invitation of the applicant to an ERC meeting in order to explain the proposal in greater detail. 3. This department is also concerned about the eventual water quality of the adjacent wetland. 4. If this project is permitted, significant landscaping should be required to buffer the use from surrounding properties, and primarily the Springbrook Channel to the east. 5. How will this impact the possible creation of a trails system along Springbrook. r , e I e WLr ANDS i w.L.OS/is O'AffCIJ .Popp y> V u C.PASS x eea I 95. 4 J6 J __ II C K P v UNOCPGLoa, 7,4 6} i 1 'One i60'rB'NAPPCa PUHP fdCdaf 37B'a J.Ede e f Poved.Pd. I i I STiU[TURG Flo9T Tp 7 /"" 9 CatiPa ST O•r/ vL I r 4 " ti Sreeaoe cmeeroP IA,/A'ee.•.i02o-2) Sw. Zis+Sd)_.._....- ill ARGa II q:4 I era G'raN/NC I I i Y'I ' 3e/NPCRJ S. M,.M. 7 111 CO J'f /t y 1 1 1 P,.•a.•/tiE r7F i IBA/F Gs'' Ili I f•CF4 11 i'Sera3 376 TFNK 1 I N\ III r 1 r 7A jll S. It, M II -S 1 I IQalICI WI I: t V ' wares LereL C/moo' v I y III - t „ I V II 30 -COMPO s}T/N6 u//NDBOf S (.L'/o01G J) q I li c - B h t II r it W 0 11 II Q y it f II 0, til 0lb it ' p lI I Y Z^l I i 0 1 s.ao'e q i j L ''P.r 4 9,•1/o'ysoa C/ors B/4.ydo//Poremenf. 0 _ 4 J 3 I y 2. Pad/f designed 70 eom'o/n o//a par/hounoet oexi. v1 I l a iaof r/ oero/ien-sP.//i r"ewe As ...elcompere/ m c 1 e epfi+mum mu,v/ure eenker/-GSA'. ti QN. f a 2 C II I J. Mo*..uP for rey.i41 c. 'Briny ' P C/icatlo.t4Pc---- I! c ' 2 I I • c/emeiy pdd°AP/noye), I` ti I Q ` 1 V ii 4 Oro/Hoye/me et, soE!to,,'.peen used en f. !r/kay - v I Z 11 a E i ji min/o//poe.//am oan' ,r e%aavy(ttvdo'ifiinoye) 7e n ti I Q 1 j e I B e 11 r I5 a 1 l._--_ 1 i I I 1 I 51i 20' /yo e SYMBoGS' sr`.. 28' Jf 9p ewurnp t Confeues N 20•ow. I ace 7• l.a Q Plei r•F gTroN I I li_ Confours a l/er Grgnebnii Q C h a .•. NmJm and.Gemsr'Weeds J9.5 SJ 9. R.e/rau/o/ion G/of.r h.'e;///o/e,,Tp//f.Lma NO' f.J DroSn L,i,B p d- U.G. a/eefrie Pomer L/A@ V fry- Orasn Tb l35/57P Nouse Sump GPASS •OPEA R- Pkrn /lop use Sump to Co/44W/P,n7' h LONG ACRES RACE COURSE Wools oomposting Protect a.el•n.R.. AlraeYriD oe, 4PA•YN 20 state:/".d0' eT .P.A.R. I Lyp7E;PEY/SCO:IaS./Cd/ 20 SCALE, r Composting Pad-Preliminary 0 to 40 N b /.e NI, Rouooulp E[nglnesring eLC,-2P RZ I \I G5.9l2.0 I I II ~ 57,377•SS3 J 4 I I 2\ y I f I NO PTH IIW.vun N;e....ar I tt"/f lIflta7ccr t».r... ' locnrow Imo o t1 h' C I I IS'i r.I - I r ^ I - I I 11 IvE.Mt eV acII g. PARK-7/VG•I ,. I 1: 0Him I APE/9 I NI rt I o, ` NorES INearIIIV/C/N/7Y MAC kr!. I I ran si/e plan a d,onn on a p3o%- wY., I yromme/ric compas.le prj+rt»' I`I f For/he owner by::: ox:776 adinv< i IIf/hsoc. %7/976. I I 2. Con/ours o.e ofC jI CI p I I not field ehrarvf. 17VV3. Fa/vre /oca//ons o/. P-/ VJ IQ vl I I - d iaa a chonx/ a.m.'S,w. IN I Acchave ..j deem scperi r7 cscd based lij L v° 1 I I coon orren/cywai/a.4/e da/a\•!(, t J no/ conF/rtmof uhi/5 Me c/O•Ato 7 3. I -N' I.: @It, I _ I I R CO/MPAOSDT/NG I [8 11 k a7ir .aeo z3ro-- til h I PRRK'/NG•om yJ ezisr / PEy 11 O 4 SANiTA YlV/ / SEW0 I (APpIS: IIIt L--- N... ......._:. /6,4..---.'f. 1. 114444444 1i l IS' r 1 1 FH, I i i-1—I t- . Y I' SCALE.WET GANo5 77.-_.0 u- WG.0//as I" , ` o So .co .So Tc ------------ 1 V " 9:.17--r_J--LT--r_x- 1 LONGACRES RACE COURSE\ 1 ac.c Wail® COrnpOatlnp Project-Renton.We Uj 3 r, r- El c.s m•o R Z as p/ CL/A- NNE stT /roe9 DRAIN it._ ,LI u u R Site Plan-Preliminary fUTUQE) O?6ET.y —_ 4t 2, a ,i QVL= Rouooulp Engineering LC-I P R•2 w- - cn......s•/ 206 398 1953\ Staff Report/Dsk ERC BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT AUGUST 5, 1987 A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: Longacres Race Course Inc. PROJECT:Longacres Composting Facility ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-055-87 APPLICATION No(s) : SA-064-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Site Approval for composting waste from race course (straw/manure) . Facility includes a paved composting pad, 30 windrows, aerator turning areas and a pond to collect leachate and rainfall runoff before reuse or discharge. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located on Longacres Race Course Property, S.W. of 27th Street and West of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. (If both streets were extended) . B. ISSUES: 1. Whether there is a potential odor problem from this type of composting? Discussion Applicant says that there is no serious odor problem, but Andy McMillan of DOE suggests that the potential for odor problems is "great" and suggests a different kind of composting procedure such as in-vessel composting. 2 . Whether discharge of runoff from the composting could have a detrimental impact on wetlands? Discussion: DOE has stated that a Pollution Discharge Permit permit from Ecology would be required if any discharge of runoff waters from the composting into surface waters is to occur. DOE has suggested other alternatives such as routing the runoff through a settling pond prior to discharge or - connecting with a sewer line. 3 . Whether the asphalt pad is an acceptable base for the composting operation? BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT LONGACRES RACE COURSE, INC AUGUST 5, 1987 PAGE 2 Discussion: DOE has suggested that there should be a clay lining or a synthetic membrane to control seepage. C. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to develop a 117,800 sq. ft. straw/manure composting facility at the south end of the forty acres racetrack south of the horse stables. A mixture of straw and manure would be laid out in linear windrows where an aerobic bacteria would eat the material reducing it over a 25 to 28 day period into a soils-like potting mix. This mix would be either used on the premises or possibly sold if a market develops for it. According to the applicant, the process is nearly ordorless and environmentally clean, since no air pollution, etc. results. There would be some leachate with driving heavy rain spells and could be released into a nearby wetland. According to the applicants, this leachate would be biologically clean before it would be released into the adjacent wetland. Generally, the applicants do not expect there to be much run-off off the site since the operation itself is very moisture consuming, generating a great deal of heat (up to 150 dences) and requiring daily irrigation to keep the material wet. What water does run off would be collected in a catchment area and recycled back on the windows according to their representative, Mr. Bill Taylor During a heavy rainstorm there could be runoff flowing directly into the adjacent wetland or the leachate could possible soak through the asphalt paving directly into ground. DOE has recommended a clay sealant or membrane to help prevent percolation of the leachate into the ground and having the surface runoff flow into the sanitary sewer. The proposed use is permitted under the M-P zone as a conditional use "whose activities including manufacturing and storage, are predominantly conducted out-of-doors rather than completely enclosed within a building". (Section 4-730.3.e. ) Outside storage areas must be screened from all adjacent properties with view obscurring fences at least six (6 ' ) feet high. Under the environmental performance standards for odorous gases > Section 4-730.10.c. ) , "no emissions of odorous gases and other odorous matter shall be permitted in quantities which are unreasonably offensive beyond the exterior property lines of the lot or site" (emphasis added) . BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT LONGACRES RACE COURSE, INC AUGUST 5, 1987 PAGE 3 Staff believe that because of the experimental nature of this project, we should only be approving it for a year or two so that we can more fully evaluate its impacts. D. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the ERC issue a Determination of Non-Significance for this project subject to the applicant complying with the following mitigation conditions: 1. That the asphalt's membrane be tested for porosity prior to its full application noting that if it is not fully impervious, a clay membrane will be used as an undercoating (with proper drainage barriers) to prevent leachate from reaching underlying soils; 2 . That surface water runoff be run through a retention/setting pond prior to its release into adjacent wetlands; 3. That the applicant contract with the King County Health Department to monitor air quality (including odor) and surface water runoff quality on a regular basis and report back to the Committee it's findings within six months after the facility is operational. 4. That this operation be approved for an initial one year period during which it will be evaluated. If conditions warrant, new mitigation measures such as draining all surface runoff into the sanitary sewer may be considered later. 5. That the applicant provide securities of a sufficient amount to ensure removal of the facility if its initial permit is not extended. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS: Various City departments have reviewed and commented upon the project. These comments are as follows: Police Department: The following comment was made: No traffic impacts. Fire Prevention Bureau: Probable minor impacts noted for Public Services with no further comment. Design Engineering: Probable major impacts noted for water and probable minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements.The following comments were made: 1. Effluent from process should be disposed of in the sanitary sewer system or receive Ecology approval on waste water disposal. BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT LONGACRES RACE COURSE, INC AUGUST 5, 1987 PAGE 4 2. Verify that asphalt paving is an appropriate base, chemically, for the proposed process. Traffic Engineering: Probable major impacts noted for water with minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements. The following comment was made: No noted traffic type problems. Utility Engineering: Probable minor impact noted for r Utilities with no further comment. Parks and Recreation: Probable minor impacts noted for Aesthetics and Recreation. The following comments were made: No recreation or park impacts. Project could include landscape buffering in relation to the proposed Oakesdale project. Building Division: Probable minor impacts noted for earth, housing and aesthetics. The following comment was made: King County Health should preview this. Zoning Division: Probable minor impacts noted for all environmental elements with the following comment: Will wastewater be adequately treated before entering into the wetlands in the S.E. corner of the site? Policy Development: More information requested for Earth, Water, Energy and Natural Resources, Environmental Health, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics and Recreation. Probable minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements. The following comments were made: 1. This department has specific concerns regarding the applicants assumption that the P-1 channel will be constructed as currently proposed, which will drain the adjacent wetland. Perhaps the applicant should describe this operation under the assumption that the channel will not be built as currently proposed. 2 . The department is concerned about the relationships between water flow from the compost pad/the wetland/and the recirculation system. This department supports the invitation of the applicant to an ERC meeting in order to explain the proposal in greater detail. 3. This department is also concerned about the eventual water quality of the adjacent wetland. 4. If this project is permitted, significant landscaping should be required to buffer the use from surrounding properties, and primarily the Springbrook Channel to the east. 5. How will this impact the possible creation of a trails system along Springbrook. c. r. f e i LT ANDS 1 G'.L.01//.i L= `--! S jyl( NORTH. GRASS ACCA b\ I F5' y w I rI a eq P f I v UNOGPGtbuv. A POMP Ccoe.!\ h.: Zvi, _ ','' 378' Je J.ed e F Pn fed.Pd. Zoe., 00're'NOirIR 57.PUe, 0 'r ' 9e ll' C5f06A6L'. Ca,v.e / O'r/S' G[L' Ir ID.2' Q S.W. Zi L.S/). ..._ -II A•ee,o I b'fv J o_ M S. H.N. 7 III I I'ALUM/NbM wl Pav }cgP•IIBR,Fres I I-SEM/No TANK i I 11; it y Ili Q II W e W Q 01 I I 1 .4rreo LereL L0/Zs,' N I yIIiIa F11 30 'coMPos /N6 1 I. 41 B h I 1 i 4 I 11 Nores'II i II Zt.II1, I 1 i Campos/fe.Oad 3/0'n3GO; C/ors a Alrj4o//Pa.'emenf. I o I i i h 2. Pad,i a g90ed is eanfo,h o//Ca,,, a,/eochoie o'exl, V • 11 d-limn.if A)Foe/of/tn-saf//ii/y 6' "-ewe !e re/eanpSS/ 1 i op imam mo,s. Conlon,'-GJ'.2. ti Q 1 I 7. Mo,r.-ue 'wfer rc9iid Only L>vrin9 did-periao6'0X1r; I p c%piny(Pdo/olo/neyeJ, • 1. I 4 Dro/noye/ine A. 4rcf 2'o/x/A/ar 'rod any fr/.hory O IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDvvi ; I raM O//ores-{km Corr' /Or e/eo.-o/ ( d/f,/noye..) 3 ti I Q MEMO IS 911111111111111111 I 1 el t SYMBOLS' IL... AiVIaX/mode 6onio,rrS q1 20'oo! 20' Q P. —,PO.-.4.2 ro v I j /_ Confounr o f/er 6rodi 9 o J d^ • e; geoo'er and Aerorer Heals p) nos C- i ns g: , Roe,ro../ofion 4/afar Line;!Lo>kr fPP/•['nit 3/0' r.J O e— /..G. 0/ecf/ve Power L4,e N H_ 0r444 74, P5Kn,110.,SC s:.,np k GPAS.e .4.PEF Q— Porn• Hoare S,rra io a oefo//G/em I. LONOACRES RACE COURSE Siesta composting Projeol sc4,,,/"7I0' API,ovsv ms Wriirfril 20 I Composting Pad-ProllminorySCAL6, 0 to N 00 Al M P ti'M6 Na: R Ip Engineering LC-2P R2 1I I T ZG8,992.0 y II1IIST,377.359 I I (..) NO.eTH c. ( I la eroH r or..,. V I II ' 7,yy,/ r Ssi ir. Jrr H I - 111(i) i IIn ki u.•."WI I N I IWs).. Q f1f PARK/ NGi . N a AREA s: ICNenyIA/s sk p/an adog.-n en q pho/a- ll l/C/N/7y MAP 1.1 H I _ inmme{ric canvas/le pryoieo' of Q I I I 6,-/he o,..ner-r Hryh G.6adrm/ 4. y Q J I j•Fssoc. io /976.I n I I I 2. Confours ore approX/male f I I y ej J I I not/e/a'cbrc f-r, 1-U i Q v I I I 3.Foiure /ocofions of P•/ 41 I I . c oinnfe Channee o.,d so% ZI27s/. gccecr Food have J I IN been supe./.noosed based W 7: 14 v I upon corren//1 oro//a 6/e dn/tl l l h I roil cone c/ui//h the c//y-4. Atie aif-. r ` COMPOST/N6 K. I I I'8 VINE.VI H PAD S Q s( 380'x 9/0= IQ I - ---__III 5 1. qu 1 y )..........P4Rt//vG 01,.m 1 9/PEy Iyk.../ k.:/ 177.19 h II c.) iCil 1 II y I 1 I 1 1 1_..i n.,_,_„_„_,I.... .. .t.-- I-r____I-r_J-1--- WET LANDS h • p ScacE• SO .00 /So -rm.' rj::: :1N LOR GACRES RACE COURSE 1 /7"-- 9• .: I Waato ComPoating Proloot e,.,,..a. I I o.. l.:/..,/00• .... o.eo o.. e... R.A.R. t. to• 3 ram- El E. c/Raa a' Silo Plan-Pr.11minary P_/_CHA NNE/ _ MeV: / DRAW i1-._ u u zs, Ell pp.wWoN eer.__ FUTU.eE our v z 26[oLt Rouooulp Cngln®erinp LC"P R-2 L j, i7 if Report/Dsk ' BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT AUGUST 5, 1987 A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: Longacres Race Course Inc. I PROJECT:Longacres Composting Facility ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-055-87 APPLICATION No(s) : SA-064-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Site Approval for composting waste from race course (straw/manure) . Facility includes a paved composting pad, 30 windrows, aerator turning areas and a pond to collect leachate and rainfall runoff before reuse or discharge. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located on Longacres Race Course Property, S.W. of 27th Street and West of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. (If both streets were extended) . B. ISSUES: 1. Whether there is a potential odor problem from this type of composting? Discussion Applicant says that there is no serious odor problem, but Andy McMillan of DOE suggests that the potential for odor problems is "great" and suggests a different kind of composting procedure such as in-vessel composting. 2. Whether discharge of runoff from the composting could have a detrimental impact on wetlands? Discussion: DOE has stated that a Pollution Discharge Permit permit from Ecology would be required if any discharge of runoff waters from the composting into surface waters is to occur. DOE has suggested other alternatives such as routing the runoff through a settling pond prior to discharge or connecting with a sewer line. 3. Whether the asphalt pad is an acceptable base for the composting operation? 7E2nING AND ZONING DE: ',TMENT JNMENTAL REVIEW CI___._ITTEE REPORT ORES RACE COURSE, INC ST 5, 1987 2 Discussion: DOE has suggested that there should be a clay lining or a synthetic membrane to control seepage. C. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to develop a 117,800 sq. ft. straw/manure composting facility at the south end of the forty acres racetrack south of the horse stables. A mixture of straw and manure would be laid out in linear windrows where an aerobic bacteria would eat the material reducing it over a 25 to 28 day period into a soils-like potting mix. This mix would be either used on the premises or possibly sold if a market develops for it. According to the applicant, the process is nearly ordorless and environmentally clean, since no air pollution, etc. results. There would be some leachate with driving heavy rain spells and could be released into a nearby wetland. According to the applicants, this leachate would be biologically clean before it would be released into the adjacent wetland. Generally, the applicants do not expect there to be much run-off off the. site since the operation itself is very moisture consuming, generating a great deal of heat (up to 150 dences) and requiring daily irrigation to keep the material wet. What water does run off would be collected in a catchment area and recycled back on the windows according to their representative, Mr. Bill Taylor During a heavy rainstorm there could be runoff flowing directly into the adjacent wetland or the leachate could possible soak through the asphalt paving directly into ground. DOE has recommended a clay sealant or membrane to help prevent percolation of the leachate into the ground and having the surface runoff flow into the sanitary sewer. The proposed use is permitted under the M-P zone as a conditional use "whose activities including manufacturing and storage, are predominantly conducted out-of-doors rather than completely enclosed within a building". (Section 4-730.3.e. ) Outside storage areas must be screened from all adjacent properties with view obscurring fences at least six (6' ) feet high. Under the environmental performance standards for odorous gases Section 4-730.10.c. ) , "no emissions of odorous gases and other odorous matter shall be permitted in quantities which are unreasonably offensive beyond the exterior property lines of the lot or site" (emphasis added) . JDING AND ZONING DE] TMENT IRONMENTAL REVIEW COmmITTEE iFF REPORT NGACRES RACE COURSE, INC JGUST 5, 1987 AGE 3 Staff believe that because of the experimental nature of this project, we should only be approving it for a year or two so that we can more fully evaluate its impacts. D. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the ERC issue a Determination of Non-Significance for this project subject to the applicant complying with the following mitigation conditions: 1. That the asphalt's membrane be tested for porosity prior to its full application noting that if it is not fully impervious, a clay membrane will be used as an undercoating (with proper drainage barriers) to prevent leachate from reaching underlying soils; 2. That surface water runoff be run through a retention/setting pond prior to its release into adjacent wetlands; 3. That the applicant contract with the King County Health Department to monitor air quality (including odor) and surface water runoff quality on a regular basis and report back to the Committee it's findings within six months after the facility is operational. 4. That this operation be approved for an initial one year period during which it will be evaluated. If conditions warrant, new mitigation measures such as draining all surface runoff into the sanitary sewer may be considered later. 5. That the applicant provide securities of a sufficient amount to ensure removal of the facility if its initial permit is not extended. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS: Various City departments have reviewed and commented upon the project. These comments are as follows: Police Department: The following comment was made: No traffic impacts. Fire Prevention Bureau: Probable minor impacts noted for Public . Services with no further comment. Design Engineering: Probable major impacts noted for water and probable minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements. The following comments were made: 1. Effluent from process should be disposed of in the sanitary sewer system or receive Ecology approval on waste water disposal. a —SIG AND ZONING DE] TMENT NMENTAL REVIEW C(.Gri,.,aITTEE REPORT ACRES RACE COURSE, INC ST 5, 1987 d 4 2 . Verify that asphalt paving is an appropriate base, chemically, for the proposed process. Traffic Engineering: Probable major impacts noted for water with minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements. The following comment was made: No noted traffic type problems.11/1! Utility Engineering: Probable minor impact noted for Utilities with no further comment. Parks and Recreation: Probable minor impacts noted for Aesthetics and Recreation. The following comments were made: No recreation or park impacts. Project could include landscape buffering in relation to the proposed Oakesdale project. Building Division: Probable minor impacts noted for earth, housing and aesthetics. The following comment was made: King County Health should preview this. Zoning Division: Probable minor impacts noted for all environmental elements with the following comment: Will wastewater be adequately treated before entering into the wetlands in the S.E. corner of the site? Policy Development: More information requested for Earth, Water, Energy and Natural Resources, Environmental Health, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics and Recreation. Probable minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements.The following comments were made: 1. This department has specific concerns regarding the applicants assumption that the P-1 channel will be constructed as currently proposed, which will drain the adjacent wetland. Perhaps the applicant should describe this operation under the assumption that the channel will not be built as currently proposed. 2. The department is concerned about the relationships between water flow from the compost pad/the wetland/and the recirculation system. This department supports the invitation of the applicant to an ERC meeting in order to explain the proposal in greater detail. 3. This department is also concerned about the eventual water quality of the adjacent wetland. 4. If this project is permitted, significant landscaping should be required to buffer the use from surrounding properties, and primarily the Springbrook Channel to the east. 5. How will this impact the possible creation of a trails system along Springbrook. 4/(11 di CITY OF RENTON LL FINANCE DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk February 12, 1988 Mr. Douglas W. Elston Ulin, Dann, Elston & Lambe 4800 Columbia Center, 701-5th Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-7010 Re: Appeal of Longacres Race Course, Inc. Conditional Use Permit, CU-Q64-87 Dear Mr. Elston: At its regular meeting of February 8, 1988, the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation presented by the Planning and Development Committee regarding the referenced appeal. A copy of the Committee recommendation is attached for your information. If you require further assistance regarding this matter, please feel free to Call. Sincerely, CITY OF RENTON Maxine E. Motor, CMC City Clerk cc: Mayor Council President Richard Ford, 5400 Columbia SeaFirst Center, Seattle, WA 98104 Enclosure 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2501 t N PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT TO: Renton City Council FROM: Planning and Development Committee RE: G & M Investment Appeal of Longacres Conditional Use Permit - CU-064-87 The Planning and Development Committee considered this matter at its regular meetings on January 28, 1938 and February 4 , 1988 . The parties both waived any objection to not having the meeting recorded. After consideration of the arguments of both sides, the Planning and Development Committee finds no substantial error in fact or law to overturn the Hearing Examiner and therefore recommends denial of the appeal . The appellant argued that odors would be a substantial problem but acknowledged that technology does not exist to measure the odors. . The Committee cannot find an error in the Hearing Examiner ' s decision because of that lack of technology. The only concrete evidence concerning odors is that they can be managed. If Longacres fails to manage the odor problem, then the conditional use permit may be withheld upon an annual review or earlier as detailed in the Hearing Examiner ' s decision. Dated: February 8 , 1988: f Nan Mathews, Chairman Richa ;d Stredicke Sohn Reed CITY4 : 84 N°T'.bN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT-, IF F_ lI.F.r_ .I E 1 I, 10 LI B Li TO: Renton City Council Jl.l FROM: Planning and Development Committee BU Lih,i6 / t NING DEPT. RE: G & M Investment Appeal of Longacres Conditional Use Permit - CU-064-87 The Planning and Development Committee considered this matter at its regular meetings on January _28, 1938 and February 4 , 1988 . The parties both waived any objection to not having the meeting recorded . After consideration of the arguments of both sides, the Planning and Development Committee finds no substantial error in fact or law to overturn the Hearing Examiner and therefore recommends denial of the appeal ., The appellant argued that odors would be a substantial problem but acknowledged that technology does not exist to measure the odors. The Committee cannot find an error in the Hearing Examiner ' s decision because of that lack of technology. The only concrete evidence concerning odors is that they can be managed. If Longacres fails to manage the odor problem, then the conditional use permit may be withheld upon an annual review or earlier as detailed in the Hearing Examiner ' s decision. Dated : February 8 , 1988 . e/rr Nan Mathews, Chairman RichaJd Stredicke ohn Reed CITY4: 84 z'" i V February 8, 1988 Renton City Council Minutes Page 39 Council members questioned whether provisions pertaining to clinic use in the Zoning Code will be revised in the future, and whether consideration has been given to granting a P-1 zone with conditional use permit or a B-1 zone with restrictive covenants for the Group Health site. Mr. Springer indicated that revision of the Zoning Code is a possibility, but timing is unknown; and because staff did not believe there was potential for change on the clinic site, restrictive covenants were felt unnecessary as a condition of a rezone to B-1. Council members also discussed need for buffering between multiple and single family residential use on Vuemont Place, and questioned whether restrictive covenants should be imposed on the rezone to require a minimum 50-foot buffer. Ralph Evans, 3306 NE Ilth Place, Renton, clarified setback requirements between R-3 and R-1 zones. MOVED BY KEOLKER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY KEOLKER, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO REZONE GROUP HEALTH t PROPERTY TO B-1. CARRIED. MOVED BY KEOLKER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO REZONE VUEMONT PLACE APARTMENTS AND CUGINI PROPERTY TO R-3. Moved by Stredicke, seconded by Reed, Council amend the motion to impose 50-foot setback from any building or future apartment building to the east property line. Motion failed. It was confirmed that any development in the R-3 zone would require site plan review, including consideration of buffers. MAIN MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Executive Session MOVED BY KEOLKER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION. CARRIED. Time: 8:35 p.m. Council reconvened at 9:10 p.m.; roll was called; all members were present. AUDIENCE COMMENT MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY KEOLKER, COUNCIL Advancement Requested SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT ON E & H PROPERTIES. CARRIED. Planning and Following close of the public hearings on this topic, the full City Council Development Committee referred the topic of traffic mitigation for these projects to this Committee Rezone: E & H for study and recommendation to the full Council. Subsequently, a court Properties, R-016-87 order was entered invalidating the rezone and site plans for failure to maintain a verbatim recording of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. Since this Committee is a study committee only and consists of only three members of the full Council, and because it would appear necessary to rehold any discussion of this Committee as part of a full Council session, this Committee recommends that the traffic mitigation for these projects be a subject of City Council discussion at the next regular City Council meeting. This committee declines to consider this topic further without the presence of the full Council. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY KEOLKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. For the record, City Attorney Warren stated that as part of the executive session, Council considered resolution and possible settlement of the dispute-that exists in this case, and has reached agreement in principal on that settlement. In order to further the settlement and not force the issue on this particular rezone, it would be the recommendation of Council after meeting in executive session that this matter be continued for one week to allow the City Attorney's office an opportunity to finalize negotiations on joint resolution, and if that can be finalized, present that resolution next week. If it cannot be finalized, then the Council can consider deliberating on the E & H rezone next week. Mr. Warren also indicated that he would address the appearance of fairness issue on which there has been correspondence. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY KEOLKER, COUNCIL TABLE THIS MATTER FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. Advancement Requested Douglas Elston, 14331 20th Drive SE, Mill Creek, representing G & M Investments, requested advancement to Planning and Development Committee report regarding the G & M Investments appeal of Longacres Race Track Conditional Use Permit, CU-064-87. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL ADVANCE TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT ON LONGACRES. CARRIED. February 8. 1988 Renton City Council Minutes Page 40 Planning and The Planning and Development Committee considered this matter at its Development Committee regular meetings on January 28 and February 4, 1988. The parties both Appeal: Longacres Race waived any objection to not having the meeting recorded. The applicant is Track Conditional Use requesting approval to compost waste from the Longacres race course, located Permit, CU-064-87 southwest of 27th Street and west of Oakesdale Avenue SW (if extended). The proposed facility includes paved composting pad, 30 windrows, aerator turning areas, and a pond to collect leachate and rainfall runoff. After consideration of the arguments of both sides, the Planning and Development Committee found no substantial error in fact or law to overturn the Hearing Examiner and therefore recommended denial of the appeal. The appellant argued that odors would be a substantial problem but acknowledged I that technology does not exist to measure the odors. The Committee could not find an error in the Hearing Examiner's decision because of that lack of technology. The only concrete evidence concerning odors is that they can be managed. If Longacres fails to manage the odor problem, then the conditional use permit may be withheld upon an annual review or earlier as detailed in the Hearing Examiner's decision. Speaking in opposition to the Planning and Development Committee recommendation were Douglas Elston, address above; August T. Rossano, 9427 NE 20th Street, Bellevue, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington; and Roger Blaylock, 10717 NE 4th Street, Bellevue, all representing G & M Investments. Among concerns were potential odors, dust, noise, large scale of operation, impact to City image, lack of buffering, loss of value to adjacent properties, creation of attractive nuisance for insects and seagulls, and insufficient monitoring of site. Also claimed were failure of the proposal to meet conditional use criteria, and incompatibility of the use with Comprehensive Plan. Speaking in support of the Committee recommendation was Dick Ford, 5051 Beach Drive SW, Seattle, representing Longacres Race Track. He stated that three technical experts had testified on behalf of the applicant at the prior public hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, and Longacres has traditionally been concerned with the City's image and being a good neighbor in Renton. Noting option to withhold the conditional permit upon annual review or earlier, Mr. Ford urged adoption of the Committee report. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Advancement Requested ert Van Siclen, 29 1st Street, Auburn, requested advancement to Planning and Development Committee report regarding the Tribe Short Plat Appeal. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL ADVANCE TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE TRIBE SHORT PLAT APPEAL. CARRIED. Planning and Planning and Development Committee Chairman Mathews presented a report Development Committee regarding the Thomas Tribe appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision to Appeal: Thomas W. Tribe deny requests for two-lot short plat, variance for frontage requirements, and Short Plat, Sh. Pl. 068-87 waiver of off-site improvements on 4.53 acres located at 5302 Talbot Road South. Upon review and after hearing argument by the parties, the Committee found the Hearing Examiner committed an error of facts: 1) Finding of fact #1 indicates that both lots would require a variance from the requirement that all lots have frontage on a public street. However, the Committee found that the west lot will be joined to the lot to the west which fronts on Talbot. No variance is needed. 2) Finding of fact #3 indicates that the Environmental Review Committee ERC) issued a Declaration of Non-Significance (DNS) for the subject proposal. However, the Committee found that the ERC issued a mitigated DNS. 3) It appeared to the Committee that the Hearing Examiner failed to consider the restrictive covenants to be imposed. 4) Finding of fact #13 is in error. The Committee found that the eastern lot is not landlocked inasmuch as it is served by an easement. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT TO: Renton City Council FROM: Planning and Development Committee RE: G & M Investment Appeal of Longacres Conditional Use Permit - CU-064-87 The Planning and Development Committee considered this matter at its regular meetings on January 28, 1938 and February 4 , 1988 . The parties both waived any objection to not having the meeting recorded . After consideration of the arguments of both sides, the Planning and Development Committee finds no substantial error in fact or law to overturn the Hearing Examiner and therefore recommends denial of the appeal . The appellant argued that odors would be a substantial problem but acknowledged that technology does not exist to measure the odors. The Committee cannot find an error in the Hearing Examiner ' s decision because of that lack of technology. The only concrete evidence concerning odors is that they can be managed. If Longacres fails to manage the odor problem, then the conditional use permit may be withheld upon an annual review or earlier as detailed in the Hearing Examiner ' s decision. Dated: February 8 , 1988 . Nan MatE)}ews, Chairman RichaJd Stredicke John Reed CITY4 : 84 44r\ 5 • 1 VITAE January 1988 NAME: August Thomas Rossano, Jr. RESIDENCE: 9427 NE 20th Street, Bellevue, Washington 98004 DATE OF BIRTH: February 1, 1916, New York City, New York MARITAL STATUS: Married December 1944; 8 children PRESENT OCCUPATION: Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 SCHOOLS ATTENDED: Primary and High School : All Hallows Institute, New York City, New York. College and Postgraduate Training: Massachusetts Institute of Technology - S.B. in Civil Engineering, 1938,Major: Sanitary Engineering University of Illinois - Research Graduate Assistant in SanitaryEngineering1939-1940. Harvard University - S.M. in Sanitary Engineering, 1941 . Major: Industrial Hygiene. Recipient of Gordon McKay Scholarship. U.S. Naval Training School , Treasure Island - Radiological Defense Training, February and March, 1947. Harvard University - Doctor of Science in Engineering. Principal field:Air Sanitation, June 1954. Numerous short courses, information meetings, and special seminars conducted by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission including one pertainingtoIndustrialandSafetyProblemsofNuclearEnergy. Emory University - Management seminar for Public Health Administrators,March, 1959. Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center - Computer Programming CourseIBM650) , May 1959. 2 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES: U.S. Public Health Service - June 2, 1941 to December 1, 1962. A. Division of Industrial Hygiene 1941 Arsenal Survey Team, Industrial Hygiene surveys of war plants. Washington, D.C. Health Department, Established the StateIndustrialHygieneDivision 1943-44 State of California Health Department, Industrial HygieneEngineer. 1944-46 State of Colorado Health Department, Established and directedStateDivisionofIndustrialHygiene. 1946 State of Alabama Health Department, Directed State Division ofIndustrialHygiene. 1946-48 U.S. Public Health Service Regional Office, Industrial HygieneConsultantfor10WesternStates, Alaska and Hawaii . 1948 Joint Task Force No. 7, Radiological Safety Officer-atomicbombtests, Operation Sandstone, Eniwetok Atoll . B. Division of Engineering Resources 1948-50 U.S. Public Health Service Headquarters, Washington, D.C. , Established Public Health Service Radiological Health Program,Assistant Chief of Radiological Health Branch. Initiated a national program of short courses in Radiological Health. 1950-54 Harvard School of Public Health, Senior Engineer, Harvard AirCleaningLaboratory. (Harvard-AEC project for the evaluationofairandgascleaningdevices, and for research anddevelopment, and training in the field of air cleaning andaerosoltechnology. ) Research Fellow in Industrial Hygiene. Lecturer on radioactivity hazards and measurement. 1953 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nevada Proving Ground. Off- site monitoring group. C. Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center 1954-55 Community Air Pollution, (Community Air Pollution Program name changed to Division of Air Pollution, and more recently toNationalAirPollutionControlAdministration) , Chief, State and Community Services Section. Special Consultant to California Department of Public Health. 1955-59 Director of Field Studies. Technical Director, Special Air Pollution Study of Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky. 3 D. Division of Air Pollution 1959-60 California Department of Public Health, Technical Liason Officer for California's ambient air and motor vehicle exhaust standards activities. 1960-62 California Institute of Technology, Visiting Professor ofEnvironmentalHealthEngineering (Air Pollution and Radiological Health) , on Loan from U.S.- Public Health Service. 1962-63 California Institute of Technology, Visiting Professor ofEnvironmentalHealthEngineering. (Sanitary EngineeringDirector-U.S. Public Health Service, Retired) . 1963-81 University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, Professor ofAirResourcesEngineering. Established new graduate programAirResources. 1981- University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, Professor ofEmeritus, Department of Civil Engineering. MEMBERSHIPS IN PROFESSIONAL AND HONORARY SOCIETIES: SIGMA XI Delta Omega Gamma Alpha Tau Beta Pi American Public Health Association American Industrial Hygiene Association American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Air Pollution Control Association Harvard Engineering Society Harvard Public Health Alumni Association (President, 1959) Diplomat-American Academy of Environmental Engineers Diplomat-American Board of Industrial Hygiene Registered Professional Engineer-State of Kentucky & Province of AlbertaLoyalOrderoftheBoar TECHNICAL COMMITTEES: American Society of Civil Engineers - Research Council on Air ResourcesEngineering American Industrial Hygiene Association - Program Committee American Society for Testing Materials - Committee D-22 (Secretary) Air Pollution Control Association: Committee on Education & Training,Committee on Ambient Air Standards (Chairman) , Membership Committee, Board of Directors, Vice President, Committee on International Affairs American Academy of Environmental Engineers - Trustee, Chairman, Committee on Air Pollution Examinations 4 American Society of Engineering Education - Committee on Education &Training Pacific Northwest - International Section, Air Pollution Control AgencyExecutiveCommittee National Air Conservation Commission NON-TECHNICAL ORGANIZATIONS: Toastmasters International Institute of Executive Power (OMEGA Seminars) , Board of Directors Pasadena Tuberculosis Association: Board of Directors, Committee onResearch - Chairman, First Vice-President Tuberculosis & Health Association of Los Angeles County - ResearchAdvisoryCommittee American Lung Association Bellevue Montessori. School - Board of Directors LECTURERS DELIVERED: Subjects: Industrial Hygiene, Radiological Health, Air Pollution Locations: Chengdu University of Science & Technology. P.R.O.C. Chongqing Institute of Architecture & Engineering. P.R.O.C.Tongyi University Shanghai . P.R.O.C. University of Alabama University of Calgary, Alberta University of California University of Colorado University of Houston University of Kentucky University of Southern California University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. University of Washington University of Western Toronto, Canada National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan Metropolitana University, Mexico Harvard University John Hopkins University New York University Purdue University California Institute of Technology Regis College (Massachusetts) Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5 Various Institutions in Europe. South American and Asia: Speaker at numerous meetings of medical , engineering, scientific, andserviceorganizations Many appearances on radio and television programsParticipantinNationalConferenceonAirPollution, Washington, D.C. ,1958, 1962, 1966. Participant in World Congress on Clean Air in London,, Washington, D.C.Tokyo, Dusseldorf Paris & Buenos Aires MILITARY SERVICE: U.S. Army, Reserve Officer Training Corps, 1933-1938U.S. Army, Reserve Officer, Corps of Engineering, 1938-1941U.S.. Public Health Service, Reserve Corps, 1941-1942 U.S. Public Health Service, Regular Corps, 1942-1962 Current rank - Sanitary Engineer Director, PHS (Retired) , equivalent to Captain in U.S. Navy) . HONORS AND AWARDS: Delta Omega-Prize Essay Contest, Co-winner, Harvard University, 1951SpecialActorServiceAward-Public Health Service, 1958Chairman, Gordon Conference on Environmental Sciences-Air, July 1969President, Harvard Public Health Alumni Association Who's Who in the World Who's Who in the West Who's Who in Engineering, 1964 American Men and Women of Science Engineers of Distinction Who's Who in America Community Leaders of America-American Biographical Institute National Register of Prominent Americans and International Leaders Who's Who in Environmental Engineering CONSULTATION: U.S. Public Health Service-Air Pollution Training Committee, ChairmanU.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service U.S. Department of State Washington State Air Pollution Control Board, member Washington State Highway Commission Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, Advisory CouncilCityofSeattle International Organizations: World Health Organization, Genva and Copenhagen Pan American Health Organization, Washington, D.C. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. 6 Foreign Governments and Academic Institutions: Barbados France Peru Brazil Finland PhilippinesCanadaGreatBritainPuertoRicoChileGreeceRepublicof China (Taiwan)Columbia Iran Sweden Czechoslovakia Italy Switzerland Denmark Mexico Syria Egypt People's Republic Venezuela Federal Republic of China of Germany Private Organizations: Boeing Southern California Edison CompanyNorthAmericanResearchandSafeco Development Corp. Allied Stores Ideal Cement Occidental Chemical Westinghouse Puget Power and Light Celanese Corporation Dart Industries Martin-Marietta Nippon Kokan (Japan)EKONO Bethlehem Steel Pittsburgh - Midway Coal Ford Motor Co. (Taiwan) PUBLICATIONS: 117 technical articles and papers 2 textbooks 3 significant contributions to textbooks 1 . A.T. Rossano Jr. , and G. Farnsworth Jr. , "Application of the HardyCrossMethodtoDistributionSystemProblems", Journal AmericanWaterWorksAssociation, February 1941. 2. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Division of Industrial Hygiene", Colorado BoardofHealthBulletin, 1944. 3. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Colds in Industry", Colorado State Board ofHealthBulletin, 1944. 4. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Dermatitis from Cutting Oils" , Colorado StateBoardofHealthBulletin, April 1945. 5. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Industrial Health, Chapter VII" - The Doctor Looks at Las Animas County, Trinidad, Colorado, April 1945. 6. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Colorado Division of Industrial Hygiene" , Rocky Mountain Medical Journal , July 1945. 7. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Handle Insecticides with Care", The Western Farm Life, Denver, Colorado, July 15, 1945. 7 8. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "A Fatal Case of Poisoning from Oxides ofNitrogen", Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, September1945. 9. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Health and Hygiene", Sixth Annual SafetyConferenceAccidentPreventionandFirstAidMeeting, IndustrialCommissionofColorado, Denver, Colorado, August 3-4, 1945. 10. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Special Report for the National Research andDevelopmentBoard, Washington, D.C. (Classified) , 1950. 11 . A.T. Rossano, Jr. , Chapter XIII, entitled "Radiological Health", forU.S. Public Health Service Bulletin "Environment and Health,Washington, D.C. 1951. 12. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Air Decontamination", Transactions NationalConferenceofStateSanitaryEngineers, Washington, D.C. 1951,Security Restricted Information) . 13. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Radioactivity-A New Factor in Public Health" ,Harvard Public Health Alumni Bulletin, 1951 . 14. M.J. Van Leeuwen and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Dust Factors Involved intheUseoftheAirdentMachine", Journal Dental Research 31 (1) ,1952. 15. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Air Cleaning Studies", Annual Report 1950-1951HarvardSchoolofPublicHealthNYO-1581, U.S. Atomic EnergyCommission. 16. A.T. Rossano, Jr. and L. Silverman, "Annual Survey of Air and GasCleaningActivitiesatPrincipalU.S. Atomic Energy CommissionFacilities, 1951-1952", Harvard School of Public Health NYO WasteDisposal , U.A. Atomic Energy Commission. (Classified) . 17. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Air Cleaning Studies", Annual Report 1951-1952,NYO-1586, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 18. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Studies on Electrostatically Charged AerosolFilters", Transactions Air Cleaning Seminar, September 1952,Institute for Atomic Research, Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa. 19. A.T. Rossano, Jr. and L. Silverman, "Annual Survey of Air and GasCleaningActivitiesatPrincipalU.S. Atomic Energy CommissionFacilities1952-1953", NYO-Waste Disposal , Harvard School of PublicHealth, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. (Classified) . 20. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Air Cleaning Studies", Annual Report 1952-1953,Harvard School of Public Health, NTO-1591, U.S. Atomic EnergyCommission. Report of Research in Progress. 8 21. A.T. Rossano, Jr. and L. Silverman, "Electrostatic Effects in FiberFiltersforAerosols". Presented at 14th Annual Meeting of theAmericanIndustrialHygieneAssociation, Los Angeles, California,April 23, 1953. Published in Heating and Ventilating's ReferenceSectionpp. 102, 108 (May 1954) . 22. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Further Studies on Electrostatic Separation",Transactions Air Cleaning Conference, September 1953. Los AlamosScientificLaboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico. 23. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Annual Survey of Air Gas Cleaning Activities atPrincipalU.S. Atomic Energy Commission Facilities 1953-1954",Harvard School of Public Health NYO - Waste Disposal , U.S. .AtomicEnergyCommission. 24. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Electrostatic Mechanisms in Fiber Filtration ofAerosols", Harvard University, May 1954. A thesis in partialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeofDoctorofScienceinEngineering. 25. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , and L. Silverman, "Electrostatic Mechanisms inFiberFiltrationofAerosols", NYO-1954", U.S. Atomic EnergyCommission, May 1955, Harvard School of Public Health. A condensedversionofthesispresentedbytheseniorauthorinfulfillmentof requirements for doctorate degree awarded by Harvard University,June 1954. 26. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , et al , "Clean Air for California", CaliforniaDepartmentofPublicHealth, San Francisco, California, March 1 ,1955. A Summary of existing information on the air pollutionprobleminCalifornia. 27. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Recent Developments in Air Pollution", paperpresentedbeforeannualmeetingoftheEasternBranch, AmericanPublicHealthAssociation, Phoenix, Arizona, April 1955. 28. A. T. Rossano, Jr. , "The Joint City, County, State, and FederalStudyofAirPollutioninLouisville, Kentucky", Proceedings 49thAnnualMeetingofAirPollutionControlAssociation, Buffalo, NewYork, May 20-24, 1956, Paper No. 56-19, Journal Air PollutionControlAssociation6, 176-81, November 1956. 29. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "The Louisville Study", Public Health Reports,Volume 72, No. 1, January 1957. 30. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , et al . , "The Air Over Louisville" , Summary of aJointReportbytheSpecialAirPollutionStudyofLouisvilleandJeffersonCounty, Kentucky, 1956-1957, SEC (May 1958) 57 pp. 31 . At. Rossano, Jr. and N.E. Schelle, "Procedures for Making anInventoryofAirPollutionSources", Golden Jubilee Meeting of theAirPollutionControlAssociation, St. Louis, Missouri , June 1957,Journal Air Pollution Control , 8(2) , August 1958. 9 32. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , and N.E. Schelle, "The Air Pollution Study ofLouisville, Kentucky", 51st Annual Meeting of the Air PollutionControlAssociation, Philadelphia, PA. , May 25-19, 1958. 33. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Is Healthful Environment Possible with ContinuedEconomicGrowth?" San Bernardino and Riverside Counties Boards ofTrade, Summary, 9th Annual Economic Conference, May 1960. 34. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "International Programme for Standardization inAirPollution", Mimeographed, Report to World Health Organization,Division of Environmental Sanitation, MHO/PA/1.61 January 5, 1961 . 35. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Sources of Community Air Pollution", Interdisciplinary Conference on Atmospheric Pollution, SantaBarbara, California, 1959, Atmospheric Pollution, June 29-30, 1959,American Meteorological Society; Boston, 1961. 36. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Interests of the Engineering Societies inRadiologicalHealthEducation", in U.S. Public Health Service,Division of Radiological Health, University Curricula inRadiologicalHealth; Symposium held at Princeton, New Jersey, August2-4, 1960, Washington, 1961. 37. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , (Co-author and Technical Director) "TheLouisvilleAirPollutionStudy", Technical Report, A61-4, USPHS,R.A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, 1961 . 38. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , Chapter 18, entitled "The Air Pollution Survey"Air Pollution, Volume 1, Academic Press, New York, 1962. 39. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Research Needs in Instrumentation for SamplingandAnalysis", Proceedings Research Symposium to Advance ManagementandConservationoftheAirResource, Engineering Foundation, ASCE,New York, March, 1962. 40. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Hydrocarbons - Their Role and Significance inAirPollution", 8th European Conference for Sanitary Engineers,Brussels, Belgium, October 2-9, 1962. Sponsored by the world HealthOrganization, Copenhagen, Denmark. 41 . A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Air Quality and Emission Criteria as Bases forAirPollutionControl " 8th European Conference for SanitaryEngineers, Brussels, Belgium, October 2-9, 1962. Sponsored by theworldHealthOrganization, Copenhagen, Denmark. 42. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Criteria for Air Pollution Measuring andMonitoringPrograms", Proceedings of the Pacific Northwest PollutionControlassociationConference, Salem, Oregon, October 23, 1962. 43. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "The Needs, Objectives and Capabilities for AirPollutionMeasuringandMonitoringPrograms", Proceedings of the National Conference on Air Pollution, Washington, D.C. , December 10-12, 1962. 10 44. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Analysis and Comparison of Available Data onAirQualityCriteriainMemberCountries", Symposium on Air QualityandMethodsofMeasurement, Sponsored by the World HealthOrganization, August 10-12, 1963, Geneva, Switzerland. 45. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Air Pollution - What is it and Where Does itComeFrom?" Proceedings Pacific Northwest-International Section oftheAirPollutionControlAssociationConference, Seattle,Washington, November 7, 1963. 46. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , and Hal H.B. Cooper, "Procedure for Calibrating aContinuousNO2Analyzer", Presented at the 56th Annual Meeting ofAPCA, June 9-13, 1963, Detroit, Michigan. Published in Journal oftheAirPollutionControlAssociation, November 1963. 47. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Air Pollution Terminology and Units ofMeasurementActivitiesintheUnitedStates". European ConferenceonAirPollution, Sponsored by the Council for Europe, Strasbourg,France, June 24, 1964. 48. A.T. Rossano, Jr. and C.L. Gaulding, "The Design, Construction, andTestingofaPrototypeCleanRoom", Annual Meeting, PacificNorthwest-International Section, Air Pollution Control association,Portland, Oregon, November 5-6, 1964. 49. A.T. Rossano, Jr. and R.R. Ott, "The Relationship Between Odor andParticulateMatterinDieselExhaust", Annual Meeting, PacificNorthwestInternationalSection, o Air Pollution Control Association,Portland, Oregon, November 5-6, 1964. 50. A.T. Rossano, Jr. and R.E. Johnson, "Extended Chemical Analysis ofDustfall ", Proceedings, Seventh Conference on Methods in AirPollutionStudies, sponsored by California State Department ofPublicHealth, Los Angeles, California, January 25-26, 1965. 51 . A.T. Rossano, Jr. and R.F. Pueschel , "The Problem of Reduced Visibility From Air Pollution", Proceedings of the 4th Annual Sanitary & Water Resources Engineering Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, June 4, 1965. 52. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , R.E. Johnson and R.O. Sylvester, "Dustfall as aSourceofWaterQualityImpairment", Journal of the SanitaryEngineeringDivision, ASCE. February 1966, page 4694. 53. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , and R.F. Pueschel , "Significance of VisibilityStudyforControllingAirpollution", Annual Meeting, PacificNorthwestInternationalSection, Air Pollution Control association,Vancouver, B.C. , November 2-4, 1965. 54. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Air Resources Engineering; A New Program with the University of Washington", The Trend in Engineering at the University of Washington, October, 1965. 55. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Training Needs and Resources for Community AirPollutionControlPrograms", American Journal of Public Health 56,No. 4, April 1966. 56. A.T. Rossano, Jr. H. Masaki and R.F. Pueschel , "Influence of AerosolCharacteristicsonVisibility", Progress Report on ResearchsupportedbytheU.S. Public Health Service Grant DAP/RTGB -AP00336, May, 1966. 57. A.T. Rossano, Jr. and R.F. Pueschel , "Light Extinction by MixedAerosolSystems", 59th Annual Meeting, Air Pollution controlAssociation, San Francisco, California, June 20-24, 1966. 58. A.T. Rossano, Jr. and D. Owens, "Air Filtration Study for the Boeing747" September 1966. 59. A.T. Rossano, Jr. and R.J. Charlson, "Research on the Visual QualityoftheAtmosphere", The Trend in Engineering, Quarterly Journal oftheUniversityofWashington, College of Engineering, Seattle,October 1966. 60. A.T. Rossano, Jr, "Air Pollution Principles", Annual Meeting,Pacific Northwest International Section, Air Pollution ControlAssociation, Seattle, Washington, November 3-4, 1966. 61 . A.T. Rossano, Jr, "Federal Abatement of Major Intrastate AirPollutionSources", Proceedings of The Third National Conference onAirPollutionP. H. S. Publication No. 1649, National Center for AirPollution. Control , Washington, D.C. 1967. 62. A.T. Rossano, Jr. and H.S. Gardner, "A Preliminary Study of theNatureandExtentofAirPollutionfromtheProposedMillofEurocanPulpandPaperCo. , Ltd. ", The Corporation of the District ofKitimat, British Columbia, September 1967. 63. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Forum Message, Journal of the Air PollutionControlAssociation, May 1967. 64. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , T.H. Moller and H.T. Dalmat, "Nationwide AirPollutionControlTrainingEfforts: Status Quo vs. Needs", JournaloftheAirPollutionControlAssociation, March, 1968. 65. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Fundamental Concepts of Atmospheric Pollution" ,Proceedings Banff Conference on Pollution, Banff, Alberta, May 15-17, 1968. 66. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Air Pollution Control for Chemical Processes, Manual for Manufacturing chemists Association Seminars on AirPollution. University of Washington, Seattle, August 1968. 67. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , and H.B.H. Cooper, "Air Pollution Control SourceSamplingandAnalysis", Chemical Engineering Journal , October1968. 12 68. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , " The Community Air Pollution Survey" Chapter 31,Air Pollution, 2nd Edition, A.C. Stern, Editor, Academic Press, NewYork, 1968. 69. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , and D.F. Owens "Design Procedures to ControlCigaretteSmokeandOtherAirPollutants" for inclusion in ASHRAETransactions, presented at Semi -Annual Meeting, Chicago, _ Illinois,January 27-30, 1969. 70. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , and E. Carlson, "Laboratory Procedure for TestingtheDustCollectionPerformanceofaScrubber" for presentation attheannualmetingofPacificNorthwestInternationalSectionoftheAirPollutionControlAssociation, Vancouver, British Columbia,November 21-22, 1968. 71 . A.T. Rossano, Jr. , and V. Mehra, "Performance of a Continuous SulfurDioxideAnalyzer/Recorder", presented at the Annual meeting of thePacificNorthwestAPCAInternationalSectionoftheAirPollutionControlAssociation, Vancouver, British Columbia, November 21-22,1968. 72. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , and H. Helmuth, "Technique for MeasuringCollectorEfficiencyasaFunctionofParticleSize", Journal AirPollutionControlAssociation, April 1970. 73. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "The Dynamics of Air Pollution and its Control "Pollution Editor, W.J. Maunder, University of victoria, B.c. , 1969. 74. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , Editor, "Air Pollution Control , Guidebook forManagement", Environmental Science Service Division, ERA, Inc.Stamford, Connecticut, November 1969. Reprinted 1971 . RepublishedbyMcGraw-Hill Book Co. 1974. 75. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Air Pollution Fundamentals", Fundamentals ofAerospaceInstrumentation", Instrument Society of American,Pittsburgh, PA, Volume 3, 1970. 76. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , B. Lighthart and Victor Hiatt, "The Survival of Airborne Serratia Marcescens in Urban Concentrations of SulfurDioxide", Journal of Air Pollution Control Association 21, (10) ,1971 . 77. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Air Pollution Aspects of Transportation" , Proceedings, 1971 Northwest Roads and Streets Conference, WashingtonStatehighwayDepartment, 1971 . 78. A.T. Rossano, Jr. and J. Thielke, "The Principles and Procedures for the Design and Operation of Air Quality Surveillance System" , Manual on Urban Air Quality Management, WHO Regional Publications European Series. Copenhagen, Denmark, July 1976. 79. A.T. Rossano, Jr. and T. Rolander, "Guidelines for Preparation of an Air Pollution Source Inventory", Manual on Urban Air Quality 13 Management, WHO Regional Publications European Series. Copenhagen,Denmark, July 1976. 80. H.B.B. Cooper, Jr. and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , " Source Testing for AirPollutionControl ", McGraw-Hill Inc. 1971 . 81 . A.T. Rossano, Jr. and C.E. Findley, "Continuous Monitoring ofParticulateMatterinAutomobileExhaust", presented at 1972 APCAmeetinginMiami , Florida, June 1972. 82. J.W. Roberts, and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , P.B. Bosserman, G.C. Hoffer andH.A. Watters, "The Measurement, Cost and Control of Traffic Dust inSeattle's Duwamish Valley", Presented at the Annual Meeting of thePacificNorthwestInternationalSectionofAPCA, Eugene, Oregon,November 1972. 83. P.A. Odabashian and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "An Initial Assessment of theLevelsofCarbonMonoxideontheUniversityofWashingtonCampus" ,Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pacific NorthwestInternationalSectionoftheAPCA, Eugene, Oregon, November 1972. 84. H.B.B. Cooper, Jr. and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Black Liquor OxidationwithMolecularOxygeninaPlugFlowReactor", Presented at theTAPPIAlkalinePulpingConference, Memphis, Tennessee, September 13,1972. 85. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , and H. Alsid, "Evergreen Point Bridge Toll BoothVentilationStudy", Research Project Report Y-1432 for theWashingtonStateHighwayCommission, University of Washington,Seattle, September 1972. 86. J.J. Paulus and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Siting of Air Quality andMeteorologicalMonitoringStationstoInvestigateAirQualityEffectsofaPointSource", Presented to the third InternationalCleanAirCongress, Dusseldorf, Germany, October 8-12, 1973. 87. J. Roberts, A.T. Rossano, Jr. , and H.A. Watters, "Dirty Roads-DirtyAir", American Water Works Association Reporter, November 1973. 88. H. Alsid, D. Des Voigne and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Control of GrainDustfromShipLoadingOperations", Presented at the Annual MetingofthePacificNorthwestInternationalSectionofAPCA, Seattle,Washington, November 28-30, 1973. • 89. D. Lamb, F. Badgley and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "A Critical Review of Mathematical Diffusion Modeling Techniques for Predicting AirQualitywithRelationtoMotorVehicleTransportation", Presented to the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Northwest International Section ofAPCA, Seattle, Washington, November 28-30, 1973. 90. D. Vidmar and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "An Initial Evaluation of Personal Carbon Monoxide Exposures at Street Level in the Central BusinessDistrictinSeattle, Washington", Presented to the Annual Meeting of 14 the Pacific Northwest International Section of APCA, Seattle,Washington, November 28-30, 1973. 91. H. McClannan and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Air Pollution by TurbojetAircraft", Presented to the Annual Meeting of the Pacific NorthwestInternationalSectionofAPCA, Seattle, Washington, November 28-30,1973. 92. A.T. Rossano, Jr. et al . , "Education Needs for Graduate Programs inEnvironmentalEngineering, Proceedings of the 3rd NationalEnvironmentalEngineeringEducationConference, at DrexelUniversity, August 13-15, 1973. 93. D.J. Lutrick, and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , F. I. Badgley and H.R. Alsid, "AComparisonofThreeDiffusionModelstoHighwayLineSources", Presented to the Annual Meeting of the Pacific NorthwestInternationalSectionofAPCA, Boise, Idaho, November 17-19, 1974. 94. H. McClannan and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Concentrations of Arsenic andLeadinAirborneParticulatesandHouseholdDustintheVicinityofaCopperSmelter - A Preliminary Report", Presented in the AnnualMeetingofthePacificNorthwestInternationalSectionofAPCA,Boise, Idaho, November 17-19, 1974. 95. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , and E.J. Lillis, "The impact of Motor VehicleTrafficonConcentrationsofLeadandCadmiuminHouseholdsand theAmbientAirAdjacenttoMajorRoadways", Presented in the AnnualMeetingofthePacificNorthwestInternationalSectionofAPCA,Boise, Idaho, November 17-19, 1974. 96. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , R.S. Johns, McPhillips and D.L. Estes, "Air Quality Impact of Changing Patterns of Traffic and Parking",Presented in the Annual Meeting of the Pacific NorthwestInternationalSectionofAPCA, Boise, Idaho, November 17-19, 1974. 97. F. Badgley, A.T. Rossano, Jr. , D.L. Lutrick and H.F. Alsid, "TheSelection & Calibration of Air Quality Diffusion Models forWashingtonStateHighwayLineSources", University of Washington,Seattle, Washington, Washington State Highway Department ResearchProgramReport, Seattle, June 1975. 98. R. Farber and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "A New Technique for MonitoringAmbientLevelsofAmmonia", presented at Annual Meeting of PacificInternationalSectionoftheAirPollutionControlAssociation,Vancouver, B.C. , November 1975. 99. V. Feltin and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , " Air Quality Maintenance ThroughLandUsePlaning", Presented at Annual Meeting of the Air PollutionControlAssociation, Portland, Oregon, June 27 to July 1, 1976. 100. M. Ruby, R. Josephson and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Zoning Control ofParkingSupplyasanAirQualityMaintenanceStrategy" , Presented at Annual Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Portland, Oregon, June 27 to July 1 , 1976. 15 101. A. Coleman, A.T. Rossano, Jr. , and A. Ritzen, "Atmospheric Lead andArsenicSizeDistributionPatternintheDuwamishUrbanAreaasComparedtotheKirklandSuburbanArea. The Concentration in AdultsandtheSubsequentPathologicalSignificance", Presented at AnnualMeetingoftheAirPollutionControlAssociation, Portland, Oregon,June 27-July 1, 1976. 102. D.V. Lamb, F. Carsey, F.I. Badgley, H. Alsid and A.T. Rossano, Jr. ,An Examination of the Feasibility of Using an Acoustic Sounder forAirPollutionStudies", Paper presented at 1973 Annual Meeting ofthePacificNorthwestInternationalSection, Air Pollution controlAssociation, Anchorage, Alaska, September 15-17, 1976. 103. D. Lutrick, F. I. Badgley, A.T. Rossano and H. Alsid, "A ComparativeStudyofThreeAirQualityDiffusionModelsforHighwayLineSources", Paper presented at 1976 Annual Meeting of the PacificNorthwestInternationalSection, Air Pollution. Control Association,Anchorage, Alaska, September 15-17, 1976. 104. V. Feltin and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Air Quality Maintenance throughLandUsePlanning - A Case Study", Proceedings, Fourth InternationalCleanAirCongress, Tokyo, Japan, May 1977. 105. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Air Pollution Surveys", Chapter 6, AirPollution, A.C. Stern, Editor, Academic Press, New York, 19. 106. L.R. Babcock, N.L. Nagda and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "IntegratedAssessmentofHealthEffectsofAirPollution", Proceedings,International Symposium on Recent Advances in the Assessment ofHealthEffectsonEnvironmentalPollution, Volume IV, EUR 5360,Paris, June 24-28, 1974. 107. W.D. Snowden, P.E. Alsid and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "High-velocityFiltrationExperiencesonWool -fired Food Preparation Processes" , Paper presented at Annual Meeting of Pacific Northwest InternationalSectionofAirPollutioncontrolAssociation, ANchorage, Alaska,September 15-17, 1976. 108. J.R. Farber and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "A New Approach for MeasuringAtmosphericConcentrationsofAmmonia", Presented at Annual MeetingoftheAirPollutionControlAssociation, Toronto, Canada, June1977. 109. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , G. Bang, P.C. Juhasz, F. Carsey and F. I . Badgley,Acoustic Radar and its Applicability to Highway Air PollutionStudies", University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, WashingtonStateHighwayCommission, Seattle, 1977. 110. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Air Quality Standards", Hydrogen Sulfide,National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. , 1977. 16 111 . A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "A Review of Manpower and Future Directions inAirPollutionControlatUniversities", Presented at Annual MeetingoftheAirPollutionControlAssociation, Houston, Texas, 1978. 112. P.C. Juhasz and A.T. Rossano, Jr. , "Improved Techniques for ModelingEmissionsfromMobileSourcesinUrbanAreas", Presented at AnnualMeetingoftheAirPollutionControlAssociation, Houston, Texas,1978. 113. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , G.A. McCoy and T.W. Gault, "Oil Superports as aPotentialSourceofAirQualityDeterioration", Presented at AnnualMeetingoftheAirPollutionControlAssociation, Houston, Texas,1978. 114. A.T. Rossano, Jr. , and H.M. Cota, "University Programs in AirPollution", Journal Air Pollution Control Association 28, No. 11,November 1978. 115. M.G. Ruby, A.T. Rossano, Jr. , and R.F. Halvorsen, "Procedures forEconomicEvaluationofAirPollutionAbatement", Proceedings 5thInternationalCongressonCleanAir, Buenos Aires, Argentina,October, 1980. 116. P.C. Juhasz, and A.T. Rossano, "Congeneration - A Regional ApproachtoEasetheEnergyCrisisandImproveAirQuality", Proceedings 5thInternationalCongressonCleanAir, Buenos Aires, Argentina,October, 1980. 117. A.T. Rossano, "Current Legislation and Regulatory Trends ConcerningtheAssimilativeCapacityoftheAtmosphere", Proceedings, Environmental Workship on Assimilative Capacity of the Atmosphere.Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. ,February 23-24, 1982. RECENT ACADEMIC AND CONSULTING ACTIVITIES 1 . Emeritus Teaching, graduate courses in air resource management.Environmental Engineering and Science Division. University ofWashington. 1981 to present 2. Air Quality Modeling study of the Meydenbrauer Bay Project.Bellevue, Washington. 1984. 3. Lecture tour of the People's Republic of China. May/June 1985. 4. Air Quality Modeling study of the Bellevue Center Washington. 1986. 5. Consultation on mobile source emission problems in Taipei , Taiwan. April , 1987. 6. Fullbright Travel/Lecture Award. Lectured at eight leading universities and research institutions in Italy. May/June 1987. II 1 SNvLA9Lw N-TA-L QU A-L S G ICJT oF La,JCrAc COMP S. . Pko P()Sect.. 1 Ross A Kia Sc.a/s/3 6 I OUTL i 1 J it A . Qr G T 1-k-E- C-OM.. POST I. tJCr P IZoCEss tP P114c e $ VAQIt & -r — C, 1 Os A-D d A_Tu' _1:_)0s71 tic I 11 DI IQ Gs A. L. A-c K._ c T G k ..1k. L. 'Do c. v t v rJ T 51.k!t0.00 e-alTi- . C le L S P o e.JS€S ZeS ckaZei-t PA-Pt=:Q,9 f Z. DUST C.R.,i'tiJF-Acc. Z 3 No1SE - v -CS 1C74. P 7 I — - kid l SE Co Tail)t_. 4 7 (3)P 7 D.kS ciA-AfIG- To Et-iv 1R . aCsiovrl- D P.11 Soi)Pcm. IAT a. z 7`L ct z.E a r- A /€ o D.I . S . B E_2.2o0En_cLs rA E h 6-Q S 1 T2E koz-iLt A.S C.v t.)c,cs 8? b j D etis S 8 L n 1,1 c..nc - \NI r -r'P T d Fu T u ac5 Y1- S ce.,tciv s O ss_ta-J-s - - AUJ ET-SE W c AT mac- _ LAP04cr D 2Y 0ER-t0 S1"' UU fvo-- W t J D C — r A-r-t-t o s P C(S,P F R.S t o V.3 - 4:_ e_j_- r/--,Lo.!ti.ept,u---,e444-e--;-a-/--fr-,-- z o A Gc TAL ()Cc-v (--0 c 6- rt-I T ERAu Tt o_u o VJ S t E©v 19 nit ENT F'A l i... v 2 F - o N4-1(1,04-4 Q P E 2.A-TQ (Z. E R R-O R S S N u--D ovJ rJ D u 6 TO STj E ail 3 . AT. T2 AST \1 U a- Ott- 4 . P e-5 s 4 i vr1 c4- v MP 2y I sue AS5 S E - r - TRE• Aa. CCL L U S t LACK O_t= Tec_4-UiciAcc. gAc.K. i P DATA I, YE-Cm AL.Ly v..S 1- Co UsLOr.0 i D1i_.EGAR, D or i POR.r/,U T' f= it etevqc DAVIS WRIGHT & JONES LAW OFFICES A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 2600 CENTURY SQUARE • 150I FOURTH AVENUE • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-1688 206) 622-3150 JOHN E. KEEGAN RECEIVED January 26, 1988 JAN 2 6 1988 CITY OF FREN I UN CITY COUNCIL HAND DELIVERED Ms . Nancy Mathews, Chair Planning and Development Committee 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal of Longacres, Conditional Use Permit File No. CU-064-87 Dear Ms . Matthews : On behalf of Glacier Park Company, I am writing to apprise you of our continuing interest in the above application and to reiterate our position. Glacier Park Company is the landowner immediately adjacent to Longacres ' proposed composting facility. Through several letters and by appearance before the Hearing Examiner, Glacier Park expressed its concern that the adverse impacts from the facility could negatively impact Glacier Park' s ability to develop and use its land for the office and industrial park uses intended for the Valley area. The Examiner imposed several conditions, favored by Glacier Park, to minimize the adverse impacts of the proposed facility. There may be other appropriate conditions, such as those mentioned by the Examiner, which would offer even further protection. Glacier Park considers the Examiner ' s decision to be one allowing the permit on a temporary or trial basis . The applicant is being allowed to proceed at its own risk. Glacier Park has not given its approval to the proposal . If the City Council approves the facility and the facility produces odors, Glacier Park will insist that Renton terminate the permit and the facility be closed down. TELEX:328919 DWJ SEA • TELECOPIER: (206) 6287040 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA • BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON ' RICHLAND, WASHINGTON • WASHINGTON, D.C. Ms . Nancy Mathews Page 2 The appellants have raised some serious concerns which should be examined carefully by the City Council . Please notify the undersigned and Robert V. Miulli, Glacier Park Company, 1011 Western Ave. , Suite 700, Seattle, WA 98104 of the City' s decision on this appeal. Very truly yours, DAVIS WRIGHT & JONES Jo E. Keegan JEK: j a h 5036L cc: Robert V. Miulli Richard D. Ford Wade R. Dann Douglas W. Elston Ljzf'(ilk) CITY OF RENTON oa m sooer C E Q V D ssock4tes JAN 2 0 1988 aroNtecotaBUILDING/ZONING DEPT. January 19, 1988 Mr. Don Erickson CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPT. 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Mr. Jim Hanson CITY OF RENTON BUILDING DEPT. 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: ALASKA DISTRIBUTORS Dear Sirs: Please hold in abeyance the permit applications for Alaska Distributors until the council appealOCU-064-87 by Mike Mastro and Benton Smith is decided. Sincerely, LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS c)\bL-%-c Bob Fadden Associate BF:ks cc: G & M Investments Alaska Distributors 130 lakeside • Quite 250 • oeottle,washington 99122[206)325-2553 Ionco muellor ells,col•senior 0000ciotea:robort olachowoky,olleon furnoy cecocleteo:robort fadden,mich©al galbrelth,richard harnlah,robort waits a weohington corporation furnishing architectural cervices by end under the ouporviolon of registered orchltooto January 4, 1988 Renton City Council Minutes Page 4 f. AUDIENCE COMMENT Sarah Nicoli, 3404 Burnett Avenue North, Renton, reported distressed Citizen Comment: Nicoli condition of water lines in her area and explained recent incident in which Kennydale Water Lines water heaters in her triplex were damaged by back flush from water lines during construction on abutting property. Test results indicated that one of the water.heaters contained large amounts of silicone which allegedly was manufactured in water lines due to deterioration and erosion of concrete at points in line. Ms. Nicoli expressed concern that lead and asbestos will be leached from the silicone into the water supply, although she advised that her water has not been tested for evidence of that element. Responding to Ms. Nicoli's suggestion that a bond issue be initiated to fund undergrounding of high voltage power lines and replacement of water lines in the area, it was clarified that high tension lines cannot be undergrounded and undergrounding of other utility lines is normally funded by local improvement district formed by the abutting property owners. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER, COUNCIL REFER MATTER OF WATER LINES TO ADMINISTRATION AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE FOR REPORT BACK. CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the Consent Agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Zoning: Annual Adoption Building and Zoning Department requested public hearing be set on 01/18/88ofMapjtoconsideradoptionofannualZoningMap. Council concur. Claim: Dyck, CL-61-87 Claim for damages in the amount of $153.50 filed by Arthur Dyck, 17717 160 SE, Renton, for damage to automobile tire and rim when vehicle allegedly struck pothole on SW 43rd Street (12/22/87). Refer to City Attorney and insurance service. Zoning: Group I, PI rcel City Clerk requested public hearing be rescheduled from 01/25/88 to 02/8/88 E-1 to consider City-initiated rezone, Group I, Parcel E-1 for Group Health Clinic, Vuemont Place Apartments, and Cugini property due to cancellation of January 25, 1988, Council meeting. Council concur. Court Case: North Court Case filed by North Renton/Kennydale Neighborhood Defense Fund v. Renton/Kennydale City of Renton, Eugene Horbach dba E & H Properties, and Lind BuildingNeighborhoodDefenseCorporationduetopotentialimpactsfromproposeddevelopmentofoffice Fund v. City and E & H buildings on Park Avenue N. and Garden Avenue N. (R-016-87). Refer to Properties City Attorney. Finance: Safekeeping Finance Department requested resolution to authorize certain Finance Agreement with Old Department personnel to enter into safekeeping agreement with Old National National Bank Bank. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Police: Jail Operational Police Department requested adoption of jail operational standards as required Standards by State law. Refer to Public Safety Committee. Police: Interlocal ' Police Department requested review and approval of interlocal agreement Agreement for Drug between cities of Renton, Tukwila, Kent and Auburn to investigate and Investigations counteract drug traffic in the Valley area. Refer to Public Safety Committee. Appeal: Longacres Race Appeal filed on Hearing Examiner's decision on Longacres Race Track Track Conditional Use conditional use permit to compost waste from race course, File No. CU-064- Permit, CU-064-87 'I 87. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Appeal: Stoneway Appeal filed on Hearing Examiner's decision on Stoneway Concrete, Inc. andConcrete,_Inc. and Parks City of Renton Parks Department special permit to fill and grade onDepartmentSpecialapproximately3.88 acres located at 1915 Maple Valley Highway and CedarPermit, SP-005-87 River Park with approximately 53,000 cubic yards of fill. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. MOVED BY KEOLKER, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Council President Keolker presented a Committee on Committees report Committee on recommending Council committee chairmanships and assignments for 1988. Committees See attached Committee on Committees report.) 1987 Council Committee Chairs and Memberships MOVED BY KEOLKER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES. CARRIED. For.Use By City Clerk's Office Only A. I . # AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING s=axa SUBMITTING Dept./Div./Bd./Comm. City Clerk For Agenda Of 01/04/88 Staff Contact M. Motor Meeting Date) Name) Agenda Status: SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Consent XX Decision on Longacres Race Track Conditional Public Hearing Correspondence Use Permit, File No. CU-064-87 Ordinance/Resolution Old Business Exhibits: (Legal Descr. , Maps, Etc.)Attach• New Business Study Session A. City Clerk's Letter Other B. Requests for Reconsideration/Responses C. Appeal Approval : D. Hearing Examiner's Report, 11/2/87 Legal Dept. Yes No N/A COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED:Finance Dept'. Yes No. N/A Refer to Planning and Development Other Clearance Committee FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required $ Amount Appropriation- Budgeted $ Transfer Required SUMMARY (Background information, prior action and effect of implementation) Attach additional pages if necessary.) Appeal filed and fee paid by Wade R. Dann/Douglas W. Elston of Ulin, Dann, Elston and Lambe, representing G & M Investments, on 12/29/87. PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: SUBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION. CITY OF RENTON us/ FINANCE DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk December 31, 1987 APPEAL FILED BY WADE R. DANN/DOUGLAS W. ELSTON, REPRESENTING G & M INVESTMENTS, REGARDING LONGACRES RACE TRACK CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision, dated November 2, 1987, Longacres Race Track Conditional Use Permit, File No. CU-064-87. To Parties of Record: Pursuant Ito Title IV, Chapter 30, City Code, written appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation has been filed with the City Clerk, along with the proper fee of $75.00. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee and will be considered by the City Council when the matter is reported out of Committee. The Council Secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council Secretary at 235-2586 any weekday after 1:00 p.m. for information. Sincerely CITY OF RENTON Maxine E. Motor, CMC City Clerk 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2501 t$ CITY OF RENTON FINANCE DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer; Mayor Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk January 12, 1988 RE: Appeal filed by Mr. Wade R. Dann/Douglas W. Elston, representing G & M Investments, regarding Longacres Race Track Conditional Use Permit, File No. CU-064-87. Parties of Record: In accordance with Renton City Code Section 4-3016(B), Hearing Examiner Ordinance, parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten days of receipt of notification of an appeal. Response to the referenced appeal has been received from Richard D. Ford, Preston, Thorgrimson, Ellis & Holman, representing Longacres Race Track. The Council Secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time this matter will be discussed by the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council Secretary at 235-2586 any weekday after 1:00 p.m. for information. Sincerely, CITY OF RENTON e Maxine E. Motor, CMC City Clerk cc: City Council Members 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2501 I LAW OFFICES OF PRESTON,THORGRIMSON, ELLIS a HOLMAN 5400 COLUMBIA SEAFIRST CENTER RICHARD D.FORD 701 FIFTH AVENUE 1735 NEW YORK AVE.,NM.,SUITE 500 WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104-7011 202) 626-1700 TELEX 904059 WSH 206) 623-7580 TELECOPY(202) 331-1024 TELEX 4740035 TELECOPY(206) 623-7022 ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501 907) 276-19139 TELECOPY(907) 278-1365 SEAFIRST FINANCIAL CENTER SUITE 1480 SPOKANE,WASHINGTON 99201 509) 624-2100 T TELECOPY(509) 4513-0146 January 11, 1988 1230 S.W.P AVENUE,SUITE 300 AND,OREGON 97204 RECEIVED TELEEOPY)(503) 246-9085 JAN 1.1 1988 Renton City Council Planning and Development Committee CITY OF RENIUN 200 Mill Avenue S. CITY COUNCIL Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner' s Decision, Dated November 2, 1987, Longacres Race Track Conditional Use Permit, File No. CU-064-87 Dear Members of the Council Committee: This responds to an appeal filed by Mr. Wade R. Dann/Douglas W. Elston, representing G&M Investments, regarding Longacres Race Track Conditional Use Permit, File No. CU-064-87 . Appellant, G&M Investments (Benton Smith/Michael Mastro, partners) , seeks to appeal 'the Hearing Examiner ' s decision denying its request for modification of his November 2, 1987 decision approving the conditional use permit. The Hearing Examiner considered essentially the same issues that are now before the Council. The appellant now requests a Council remand to the Hearing Examiner for yet further consideration, alleging that there is new evidence which has not been previously considered and which is materially and substantially different than evidence already reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. None of the appellant's assertions, however, provide any reason to believe that there is new evidence requiring further consideration. Appellant has presented a lengthy list of specifications of error. In doing so, however, it has incorporated numerous assertions which purport to represent material and significant new facts on the technical construction and operation of a composting facility. Appellant has made no showing that it is qualified to make judgments about the technical aspects of the facility or that its technical statements are based on the opinion of any recognized or reputable authority in the field. In short, appellant ' s technical arguments are simply bald assertions made in the form of a legal filing. Moreover, as the Renton City Counc: ' , January 11, 1988 Page 2 discussion below demonstrates, appellant' s comments indicate a poor understanding of the technical issues. Legitimate applicants such as Longacres should not be exposed to repeated and endless challenges based on unsupported allegations which are posed by counsel as truth, nor should the City Council take its time tolconsider such unfounded allegations . All of the issues raised by appellant were thoroughly addressed at the public hearing by a full range of interested parties . The Building and Zoning Department' s report recommended approval of the facility with conditions that were ultimately incorporated by the Hearing Examiner in his decision. Adjacent property owners testified that they were satisfied with the facility under the conditions that were imposed in the permit. Three technically qualified experts on composting testified at length and presented documentary materials supporting the issuance of the permit. The Hearing Examiner' s decision reflects a thorough consideration of and response to the issues now being raised by appellat. The Hearing Examiner placed a number of specific conditions on the permit which address these matters . These include requirements that any runoff of water or leachates be released into the sanitary sewer system, and that the site be landscaped with trees in order to provide a screening buffer. The Heairing Examiner further provided for annual review of the facility and allowed for imposition of additional conditions in the futjure. Finally, the Hearing Examiner provided for complete loss of permit approval should circumstances develop requiring the operation to cease. These conditions ensure continuous, long-term protection against any unforeseeable effects. Even assuming that any additional evidence was needed at the hearing, there is no reason why appellant could not have presented it at that time. This appeal is largely the fault of appellant' s lack of diligence in participating in the lengthy proceedings which were fully noted and published. Appellant' s attempt to introduce evidence into the record at this point is overdue according to the applicable appeal provisions. Section 4-3016 (D) of the Renton City Code provides : "No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. " Appellant has not made any showing that the evidence it now seeks to present was unavailable at the time of the hearing. The record is complete and science has not changed in the last 60 days since the Hearing Examiner ' s decision. This filing by appellant makes a mockery of the process by allowing those who do Renton City Counc: January 11 , 1988 Page 3 not elect to participate in a timely way to prolong and expand the process by reopening matters that have already been decided. While we continue to protest appellant ' s efforts to abuse the process, we are providing specific responses below to its specifications of error. Because all of the alleged factual and technical matters raised by appellant were considered in the hearingland were available and discussed in the preparation of the application for the conditional use permit, it is relatively simple for us to provide the Council with a summary response to each of ! the items raised. Our responses are supplemented by the affidavit of Mr. Jan Allen of Sound Resource Management Group, Inc. Mr. Allen is a professional engineer who specializes in the problem of composting. He was one of the three experts who appeared before the Hearing Examiner and provided technical testimony. Findings of Fact: lli Because the conditional use permit requires that any excess runoff be released into the sanitary sewer system, it is a given that Longacres would work with Metro in satisfying any treatment requirements before such release. Testimony as to the technical capability of a treatment system for this material was presented at the hearing. See also attached affidavit, ¶3 , for discussion of technical matters. 14 . See attached affidavit, ¶4, for discussion of these technical 15 . 1matters . Substantial evidence supports the finding that composting would result in a substantial reduction in the volume of matrial. See attached affidavit, ¶5 , for discussion of this technical matter. Longacres does not see how on-site volume reduction can be conceived as having an adverse impact on adjacent, or even neighboring properties. 16. Longacres has the capacity to use the product at the facility, and plans to use it on site. However, some of the product may eventually be sold. Even if this were to occur, the number of truck trips would be substantially reduced compared to those necessary in the past. See attached affidavit, ¶6 , for technical discussion of potential impact of importing sand to the site and possible trucking off-site. 19 . Because the conditional use permit requires that any excess runoffbe released into the sanitary sewer system, it is a given that this system will be utilized for such release. If Longacres fails to use this system, it will be in violation of the conditional use permit. See also response in No. 11 above. Renton City Councf, January 111, 1988 _ Page 4 20 . See attached affidavit, 57, for discussion of these technical matters . 21 . 1 See attached affidavit, 58 , for discussion of these technical matters. 23 ; 224 . See attached affidavit, ¶9, for discussion of these technical matters. 26 . The necessary factors for a meaningful comparison betweenlIthe ZooDoo program and Longacres ' proposed facility were presented in testimony before the Hearing Examiner. It was shown that the ZooDoo program was located in a residential area and no problem developed. See attached affidavit, 510 , for discussion of technical aspects of this matter. Conclusions : 1 . The proposed plan complies with all of the applicable criteria for a conditional use permit in Section 4-748 (C) of the Renton City Code . a. The facility complies with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Renton. Regarding the specific code sections cited by appellant, the facility complies with Sections 4-2313 and 4-2317 of the Renton City Code. See attached affidavit, 511 , for discussion of technical matters related to these sections. b. The facility satisfies the requirement that there shlall be a community need for the proposed use at the prloposed location. Since composting is a preferred method forr managing solid wastes under state law, RCW 70 . 95 . 010 (4) , the community need is met from the standpoint of state policy. * The facility will have a number of other positive RCW 70 .95 . 010 (4) provides: The following priorities in the management of solidwaste are necessary and should be followed in order of descending priority, as applicable : a) Waste reduction; b) Waste recycling; c) Energy recovery or incineration; and d) Landfill. Composting involves the first two of these priorities, waste reduction and waste recycling. Renton City Counc: -- January 11, 1988 Page 5 I effects on the local community, including reduction of traffic volumes, reduced impacts on the waste disposal infrastructure, production of a new raw material (topsoil) , creation of new jobs, and the potential to become an educational tool by demonstrating a working solid waste processing solution. The facility also serves the community byisupporting a business such as Longacres which has existed for more than 50 years and provides substantial employment and tax revenues for the community. In sum, this facility serves community needs because it enables a viable business toloperate in compliance with clearly enunciated state and local policy. Appellants refer to a recommendation by DOE to the City ofIRenton that a joint composting effort with Des Moines and Federal Way be explored. Presumably the City Zoning and Building Departments were aware of this recommendation and would have suggested pursuit of this option had they considered it to be viable. See also attached affidavit, 112, for discussion of satisfaction of community need from a technical standpoint. c. The Hearing Examiner correctly concluded that the facility would have no undue impacts on adjacent property. In, issuing the Conditional Use Permit, the Hearing Examiner placed certain conditions on the operation of this facility an'd provided assurances to nearby property owners that if the technical representations made by Longacres and its consultants were not met, the facility would be closed down. Owners of adjacent property who testified at the hearing expressed satisfaction with the facility under the conditions imposed. Longacres accepts all of those co,nditions because it is fully confident that this facility will operate in a way that imposes no adverse impacts upon Longacres ' neighbors . Longacres itself takes the major risk. It will be Longacres ' investment that will be lost if for any reason it cannot meet the conditions set forth in the permit. Longacres would have much to lose if, in fact, this facility were to throw off, for example, obnoxious odors . If such odors were emitted, the area that would be most exposed would include the stands where Longacres ' patrons sit outside to watch the horse races. This area is in the pathway where winds from the composting facility are most likely to blow. See Exhibit B to attached affidavit. Recreational customers of Longacres certainly would not tolerate a facility that intruded on their enjoyment of horse racing. Clearly, it is not in Longacres ° economic interest to operate a facility which would emit Renton City' Counc:, - January 1111 , 1988 _ Page 6 objectionable odors or have any other adverse effects on adjacent property. I Appellant repeats its representation to the Hearing Examiner that it lost a potential sale of property because ofIthis facility. There is no evidence in the record, ho'ever, to support this assertion. In its request for reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner, appellant attached a copy of the alleged purchase and sale agreement. At the time the agreement was made, the proposed purchaser must have known of the diversity of property uses in this area, including the existence of Longacres, the nearby petroleum tank farm, and other uses . Nothing in the agreement permits the purchaser to cancel the deal due to operations on other properties . Apparently, the proposed purchaser was voluntarily released from this agreement. In sum, since the agreement does not provide that the purchase and sale may be cancelled because of activity on other property such as composting, Longacres ' composting facility could not have caused the loss of this sale. Appellant has not shown that its circumstances are different than those of other neighboring property owners who concur in this permit. See attached affidavit, ¶13 , for technical discussion oflprevailing wind analysis. g. The record establishes that neighboring property will not be adversely affected by noise. See attached affidavit, ¶14 , for technical discussion of this matter. h. In the conditional use permit, the Hearing Examiner included specific landscaping requirements to bulffer the use from rights-of-way and neighboring property. These conditions enable the facility to satisfy this criterion for the conditional use permit. See attached affidavit, 115, for technical discussion of these matters. It is also interesting to note that appellant' s alleged agreement with Mr. Shulman proposed to minimize landscaping in their own development. Perhaps because landscaping would be so skimpy at their site they are particularly concerned with Longacres ' compliance. I 2 : Contrary to appellant' s assertion, it is not Longacres ' position, but appellant ' s, which is based on speculation. Appellant has presented no scientific or technical evidence to support its claims. It has not identified any authorities on which its assertions are based, nor has it presented any expert testimony. On the other hand, Longacres presented extensive testimony by the following experts on composting at the hearing: Renton City Counc:- ' January 11, 1988 Page 7 ! Jan Allen, a registered civil engineer specializing in environmental and microbiological design; Robert Rousculp, a design engineer; and Jeff Gage, who is responsible for the compostiing operations at Woodland Park Zoo. In addition, experienced technical staff of the Renton Building and Zoning Department and of the South King County Health Department testified. The testimony of staff and experts before the Hearing Examined constitutes substantial, reliable evidence of the potential impacts of the facility. 3 . As discussed in the introductory statements above, the conditions placed on the operation of the facility fully protect againstrspeculative impacts . See also attached affidavit, 116 , for discussion of technical matters related to monitoring. 4 . I Appellant' s comments about noise and odor impacts, and the installation of trees are addressed in the statements on Finding! 21 and Conclusions lc, lg, and lh above. The expert testimony demonstrates that Longacres plans to use state-of-the-art techniques . Moreover, Longacres has already operated a pilot facility for some time, which has provided a basis for feasibility testing. See also attached affidavit, 117 . 5 .! The main point of Conclusion No. 5 is that the Hearing Examiner has approved this facility only as an adjunct to the operation of Longacres. In other words, the facility may be used only folr the handling of waste generated by Longacres ' racing operation. In no case would the facility handle materials from sourcesl other than Longacres. 1 7 .! See attached affidavit, 118, for discussion of this technical matter. 8 . See statements regarding Conclusion No. 4 above. 9 . As is noted with regard to Conclusion 1 (c) above, it is Longacres, not other property owners, which bears the financial risk in operating this facility. 10 . Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that the facility will have no adverse impacts on the City and neighboring property owners . Moreover, the Hearing Examiner has provided ample protection by requiring annual review of the facility and by making it clear that the facility may be closed in therevent that unforeseeable adverse impacts occur. Renton Cty Counc:_ January 11, 1988 Page 8 11 . See statements regarding Conclusion No. 4 above. 12 .1 See statements regarding Conclusion No. 5 above. 13 .! See attached affidavit, 519, for discussion of technical matters related to odors. See also statements regarding Conclusion Nos. 1 (g) and 7 above. The Examiner correctly observed these wastes have been present at Longacres since its opening over fifty years ago. At issue is only how they may be best treated in the public interest. 141 Appellant' s comments as to safeguards are addressed in the statements regarding Conclusion No. 10 above. See also attached affidavit, 520 , for discussion of technical matters. Other: 1 . 1 All interested parties were given notice and an opportunity to be heard with respect to this application. The Council] may be interested in knowing that the notices of Longacres ' application were posted on the same poles as notices regarding permits for development of appellant' s property. Given this, appellant ' s argument that it was not given adequate notice of theihearing is untenable. Other property owners in the general area were represented at the hearing and made filings on this mater. 2 . Appellant has failed to cite any newly discovered additional evidence which was rejected by the Hearing Examiner. Moreover, in view of the arguments appellant has submitted to the Council, it is clear that there is no new evidence of adverse impacts that is materially and substantially different from the evidence already considered by the Hearing Examiner. 1 3 . Longacres did not receive notice of the alleged request to re-open this matter by Mr. Smith. In any event, appellant ' s attempt to file a second request could serve no conceivable purpose but to prolong and delay this matter. There is no reason why each partner in appellant' s business would need to file separate requests. After all, what could Mr. Smith know that Mr. Mastro did not? This request is typical of appellant' s behavior in these proceedings, another example of an abuse of the process, and ma in fact explain why appellant did not appear and participate in the proceedings when the matter was originally considered by the Hearing Examiner. Appellant does not seek to deal with the merits, but only to harass and delay a decision. Renton City Counc:- - , January 11 , 1988 Page 9 In summary, a fair and thorough hearing was conducted by the Hearing Examiner. The overwhelming evidence presented by staff and exPerts establishes that the facility satisfies the criteria for a conditional use permit and will have no adverse impacts. To address those speculative concerns which were expressed at the hearing,) the Hearing Examiner placed numerous conditions on the permit, assuring that the facility would have no adverse effect on other property owners. Furthermore, the Hearing Examiner made it clear that if Longacres is unable to maintain a quality operation, it will be required to cease composting. Given that the composting facility requires a considerable investment and that any adverse impacts of the facility would hinder Longacres ' ability to attract patrons, Longacres bears the greatest risk in establishing this facility. It would not seek permission for the facility if it did not have confidence, based on the analysis of experts , that the facility will be operated without adverse impacts. Longacres respectfully requests that the Council affirm the Hearing Examiner 's decision approving the conditional use permit, and reject the appellant' s request. Very truly yours, PRESTON, THORGRIMSON, ELL HOLMAN ter By ' Richard D. Ford 1 2 3 4 5 6 BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL 7 FILE NO. CU-064-87 8 9 AFFIDAVIT OF JAN ALLEN REGARDING LONGACRES RACE TRACK i0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 13 ss . COUNTY OF KING 14 I Jan W. Allen, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and 15 says as follows: 1 16 1 . My name is Jan W. Allen and I am a registered civil engineer, specializing in environmental and microbiological 17 design. I am the Director of Engineering of Sound Resource Management Group, Inc. in Seattle, Washington. I presented 18 testimony regarding the Longacres conditional use permit at the October 20 , 1987 public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The 19 following statements are responses to the technical matters raised by appellant, G&M Investments, in its specifications of 20 error. The information presented in this affidavit is similar to theltestimony I presented at the October 20 , 1987 hearing. 21 I 2 . For convenience, a cross-reference to appellant ' s 22 specifications of error is shown at the end of each of the following paragraphs. The cross-references are to the 23 appropriate page number and the number in the left-hand column of appellant ' s specifications of error. 24 13. A treatment system has been designed that reduces both 25 BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) and SS (Suspended Solids) levels using generally accepted industry practices. This treatment 26 system is capable of satisfying pretreatment standards that may be !applied by Metro. In addition, Mr. Rousculp provided AFFIDAVIT OF JAN ALLEN - 1 LAW OFFICES OF PRESTON,THORGRIMSON, ELLIS& HOLMAN 5400 COLUMBIA SEAFIRST CENTER 701 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104.7011 206)623-7580 1 testimony regarding what he considers a state-of-the-art system that is more than capable of alleviating any run-off related 2 adverse environmental impacts. (Page 1 , Finding of Fact No. 11 . ) 3 4. Appellant has incorrectly concluded that ammonia 4 reduction is somehow a function of the manure/straw ratio. Appellant may be referring to a Carbon/Nitrogen ratio which is 5 expected to occur in a near ideal ratio (30 :1) to produce rapid microbial growth. The microbial growth rate determines the time 6 duration for proper composting. A Carbon/Nitrogen ratio below 20 : 1 may result in more ammonia volatilization and more odor 7 generation. This is more typically a problem with high Nitrogen components such as sewage sludge. There is a convention in the industry that relates high Nitrogen mixes (low Carbon/Nitrogen ratios) to a more odoriferous compost process. The point 9 Longcres successfully made was that the mix is inherently benign in comparison to typical compost mixes such as sewage sludge and 10 sawd .st. The Longacres design mix is, in our opinion, near the ideal Carbon/Nitrogen ratio to produce a rapid microbial growth rate within the mix. The objective of process control is not11 " reduction of the amount of ammonia, " but rather the conservation 12 of Nitrogen in other forms by maintaining aerobic microbial growth. The Carbon/Nitrogen ratio and aerobic conditions are 13 both parameters that can control the amount of odoriferous gases such as ammonia from being generated. (Page 1, Finding of Fact 14 No. 14. ) 15 15 . It is not clear how appellant made its "rough calculations. " Based on Longacres pilot composting operations 16 over several months, studies of such operations, and our estimate of both the grinding and composting process performance, the 17 wastestream will be reduced approximately 82% by volume, and 55% by mass. When compared to the present disposal system or hauling 18 to some other remote site, the proposed compost facility offers the greatest reduction in truck traffic since volume and mass are 19 reduced within the Longacres confines. (Page 1, Finding of Fact No. 15) . 20 6. When the facility reaches full design capacity, 1.5 21 truck trips per week (incoming) would be required to import sand for blending. This assumes that Longacres cannot use track sand 22 as an amendment, which would, of course, cause no adverse impact on traffic volumes . As a hypothetical exercise, if all the 23 compost/sand produced in an average 7-day week when Longacres is operating were trucked off-site after blending, it would take 24 approximately 31 truck trips per week (outgoing) , in comparison to the present 140 truck trips per week. These estimates are 25 based on trucks with a capacity of 20 cubic yards. This may be considered the worst case for this proposed facility. (Page 1, 26 Finding of Fact No. 16 . ) AFFIDAVIT OF JAN ALLEN - 2 1 7. The article to which appellant refers (copy attached as Exhibit A) is a nationwide survey of facilities composting sewage2sludge. The quote was taken from a section in the article subtitled "Operational Challenges . " Every one of the 1783projectsinthearticleisidentifiedasaprojectdesigned for composting municipal sludge. There are important and significant 4 differences between sewage sludge projects and a manure/straw compost project such as the proposed Longacres facility. In 5 addition to the previous explanation which addresses the benign 6 nature of a manure/straw mix, there are differences in how moisture and odor control should be handled for the Longacres 7 facility. Typically, sewage sludge contains 80% to 96% water (by weight) when it is initially blended for composting. This high 8 moisture concentration makes the composting process more sensitive to even greater increases in moisture, and hence, it is 9 moreidifficult to maintain optimum moisture concentrations. In contrast, the Longacres mix is deficient in moisture 10 concentration which requires the addition of water to achieve maximum microbial growth. Therefore, using an in-vessel system 11 would, in our opinion, be counterproductive in that the enclosure serves no process purpose and removes any benefit of incidental 12 precipitation. In addition, there is virtual unanimous consensus among composting experts that regular mixing of the compost piles 13 and striving for aerobic conditions is the best strategy to prevent odor generation. Exterior windrowing affords a better 14 opportunity for both regular mixing and maximum aerobic conditions than in-vessel systems. (Page 2, Finding of Fact 15 No. '20 . ) 8 . There is considerable scientific evidence that aerobic16 proc,esses produce very little odor. That is the primary appeal of such processes . The primary by-products of aerobic processes17 are !Carbon Dioxide and water vapor. Odor generation is less a 18 function of area, and more a function of concentration. Dispersion (and thereby dilution) of a concentrated odor is what 19 causes a reduction in odors. Appellant has confused two different phenomena in this paragraph to arrive at what appears 20 to be apprehension about something it does not understand. We concur with Mr. Gage ' s letter to Longacres, dated October 4, 21 1987, that states: "If the moisture and aeration levels as described in the Basis of Design are maintained, no (significant) 22 anaerobic conditions will occur, thus no significant adverse odors will be generated by this facility. " (Page 2, Finding of 23 Fact No. 21 . ) 24 9 . Both the EPA and the State DOE have extensive data that show composting can provide an acceptable reduction and/or 25 control of pathogens and vectors . This data has resulted in WDOE 82-11 "Municipal and Domestic Sludge Utilization Guidelines. " 26 This regulation sets performance standards for sludge composting facilities to insure acceptable reduction of pathogens . Since AFFIDAVIT OF JAN ALLEN - 3 i 1 the Longacres manure/straw mix does not contain pathogens nor- mally found in the human digestive tract and in wastewater 2 sludge, the proposed facility has a design advantage that will provide a higher level of performance than typically experienced.3 In addition, the Seattle-King County Department of Health has 4 regul;atory powers to police and enforce measures to prevent the attraction of vectors to the process. (Page 3, Finding of Fact 5 No. 23/24. ) 10 . The ZooDoo program is technically more challenging in6theareasofodorconcentration, proximity to neighboring lands, and site limitations . While the volume of ZooDoo is lower than 7 the volume of the Longacres manure/straw mix, a critical fact is , as testimony at the hearing described, that the manure 8 concentration in the ZooDoo is higher than that at Longacres . Thus; the ZooDoo process presents a greater challenge with respect to odor control than does the Longacres process. The 10 ZooDoo facility is also much closer to residential areas than is the Longacres facility. Nevertheless, the performance and success of the ZooDoo program are readily apparent and have not11 adversely impacted nearby property. (Page 3 , Finding of Fact 12 No. 26) . 13 11 . The proposed design specifically eliminates the occurrence of stagnant water. Appellant also refers to Section 4-2317 of the city code, which addresses the operation of solid 14 waste fills. This reference is misleading and inappropriate 15 since the Longacres proposed facility is neither a disposal nor a fill project. No material or by-products will enter the solid 16 waste disposal system from this proposed facility. (Page 4, Conclusion No. la. ) r 17 i 12 . A major factor in developing and applying an 18 appropriate technology is which technology best serves the community. The community need for the type of composting 19 facility proposed by Longacres is demonstrated by the fact that virtually all of the local and regional planning agencies, 20 including those of Seattle, Bellevue, King County, and the State DOE; have encouraged this kind of technology for processing 21 waste. The technology proposed for the Longacres facility is the best available technology for the community and fully supports 22 established public policy. (Page 4, Conclusion No. lb) . 13 . Appellant claims as fact that he expects winds to23 prevail over his property 28% of the time. Appellant is 24 incorrect, as shown on Exhibit B. In fact, the exposure by winds ranges from less than 20 to as much as 7% (page 6 , conclusion 25 lc) . 14 . Several physical properties of sound must be considered26 when estimating what sound pressure levels will be encountered at any given location. These are: cumulative effects of -more than AFFIDAVIT OF JAN ALLEN - 4 1 one sound source, effect of distance on sound pressure levels, and directivity of sound sources. Cumulative effects are 2 typically small, in that two independent and equal sound sources do not double apparent noise but increase it only marginally 3 (approximately 3 dB for two diesel motors across several properties in this case) . With regard to distance, the average 4 sound pressure levels anticipated from a windrow machine, which are similar to a diesel tractor, are 70 dB and 47 dB at distances 5 of 100 feet and 1 , 000 feet respectively. The landscape buffer can also cause a substantial reduction of sound pressure levels 6 beyond the facility area. Longacres has not asked for a variance to existing noise ordinances. We do not believe sound pressure 7 levels will approach the maximum allowed under current law. 8 Page 6, Conclusion No. lg. ) 115. Appellant claims, as fact, that trees are virtually 9 useless as a noise and odor buffer. Appellant is incorrect and has provided no basis for its opinion. (Page 6 , Conclusion 10 No. lh. ) 11 116 . With regard to monitoring, it should be noted that the Seattle-King County Department of Health was present at the 12 public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit and took no exception to the proposed monitoring requirements. The Health 13 Department testified that it presently monitors various other 14 commercial/industrial facilities for nuisance odors . (Page 7, No. . ) 15 17 . As noted above in paragraph 5 , Longacres has, in fact, 16 operlated a pilot process for some time. (Page 8 , Conclusion No. 4 . ) 1 1.7 18 . Appellant's response is a presumption. It is not clear 18 how the response demonstrates an error in the Hearing Examiner ' s finding. At any given time, manure/straw mix is on the premises . 19 It is transported from the premises routinely but this does not mean instantaneously as generated. (Page 9 , Conclusion No. 7 . ) 20 19 . Appellant' s statement that they will "continuously" be 21 exposed to odors is based on two questionable premises . First, that the facility would produce objectionable odors . As 22 previously stated, it is unlikely that objectionable odors will occur. Second, it should be noted that downwind exposure to 23 appellant' s property is not continual. A copy of a diagram showing probabilistic wind directions is attached as Exhibit B. 24 This diagram shows that appellant ' s property would be in the path of winds from the Longacres facility between 20 and 70 of the 25 time. (Page 10 , Conclusion No. 13 . ) 20 . The only cause for "upset conditions" in a single 26 source process like the proposed facility would be negligence on 1 AFFIDAVIT OF JAN ALLEN - 5 1 the part of the facility operator. There is no technical reason to expect uncontrollable "upset conditions. " (Page 11 , 2 Conclusion No. 14 . ) 3 Dated this 11 day of Ja uary, 1988 . 4 5 1 4,4111 Ja W. Allen, PE 6 7 SIGNED AND AFFIRMED TO this //4 day of January, 1988 , by Jan W. Allen. 8 9 1214-1A4 NOTARY PUBLIC r,4 —j 10 SEAL Commision expires (/q/ 9 , 11 f 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 26 AFFIDAVIT OF JAN ALLEN - 6 ti • 1247 BIOCYCLE SURVEY Sewage Sludge Composting Maintains Momentum Aerated static pile facilities are greatest in number, with five more in-vessel projects going on-line in 1986. NORA GOLDSTEIN THE number of facilities composting providing us with information.necticut, for example, have been landfill- municipal sludge is rising gradually ing their sludge but are now evaluatingntheU.S.after a dramatic surge between Capital and O&M Costs composting. Killingly, one of the four,1983 and 1985. Results of! BioCycle's A rough estimate, based on the surveys has already had to stop landfilling, and is1986surveyshowatotalof178munici- returned, shows that more than$300 mil- hauling its sludge about 60 miles to an in- alities and counties that areieither oper- lion has or will be spent on building and cinerator. Norwich expects that it has sing or constructing plants,or that are in equipping sludge composting facilities. about three years of landfill life left,he bid, design, planning, or consider- (This number does not reflect all 178 fa- while the Town of Windham isn't sure non stages. The total number in 1985 cilities listed.) Of that amount, about when the ax will fall. The fourth town, was 173, with four facilities shut down. $120 million has or will be spent on in- New London, is currently incinerating itsn1983, the first year a nationwide sur- vessel systems, ranging in cost from$1.5 sludge at its own facility but is having ey was conducted, there were 90. million to $32 million. About $160 mil- trouble getting a compliance permit forTheaeratedstaticpilemethodcon- lion has or will be spent on aerated static one unit, and is experiencing odor prob-inues to lead the composting pack, with pile facilities, ranging in cost from lems overall. 13 operating facilities. Windrow corn- $15,000 to$80 million. About$22.5 mil- This fall, the four towns agreed to par- osting comes in second, with 21 operat- lion has or will be spent on aerated wind- ticipate in a one month demonstration rig facilities. Five more in-vessel systems row composting projects, ranging in cost project with International Processing Sys-vent into operation this year; bringing the from$20,000 to$20 million. And finally, tems,an in-vessel vendor in Connecticut. otal to eight. 1 about $3 million has or will be spent on The towns delivered more than 100 tons When it comes to facilities on the hori- windrow systems, ranging in cost from of wet sludge to the IPS facility. The on, however, in-vessel is the category almost nothing to $1.5 million. composted sludge will be tested by a Con- ader:There are 11 in-vessel projects un- The cost/ton to compost varies across necticut agricultural experiment station. ler construction, 11 in the planning, de- the board. The range for in-vessel sys- Ultimately, IPS would like to own and ign or bid stages, and 14 under consider- tems was $100 to $275/dry ton. The operate a regional composting facility that lion. Conversely, there are eight aerated range for aerated static pile systems was could service towns like the ones partici- iatic pile facilities under construction, 10 $20 to$50/wet ton. Windrow composting pacing in the pilot, charging a tipping fee the planning, design and bid stages, costs ranged from$8 to$40/wet ton, and that would be more cost-effective than the nd 5.5 under consideration. Windrow the aerated windrow costs quoted were fee at a regional incinerator. omposting operations comprise the third about $100/dry ton. irgest category, followed by aerated Odors and Costs iindrow composting. Choosing The Option Odor control, siting, and process con- e In last year's survey we found that trol are still the three primary reasonsSurveyMethodsgivenachoice, many communities prefer cited by municipalities for choosing theThe1986surveywasconductedbothtolandapplysludgeovercomposting. In in-vessel composting option over other y mail and telephone. Facilities respond- some states,however,development of ag- methods.On the other hand,communities ig to our mailed questionnaire(a total of ricultural land, regulations,and a demand with smaller quantities of sludge that 0) provided more detailed information for compost material can change the pic- can't justify the economics of an in-vessel n facility design,equipment,operational ture. Other communities use composting system are choosing windrow-type sys- roblems, markets for compost,and capi- as a back up to land application, particu- tems or the aerated static pile method,of-and operational costs. II lady during seasons when it is difficult to ten depending on the climate. For exam- In addition, BioCycle contacted state spread or inject the sludge. pie, there are a growing number of towns lodge management coordinators, con- Increasing pressure in many states to in New England building aerated static thing engineers. and vendors of corn- keep sludge out of landfills has also led pile facilities for very small volumes of osting equipment. We greatly appreciate communities to consider or shift to the sludge. To overcome the constraints e cooperation received!from everyone composting option. Four towns in Con- caused by the weather, some facilities are b ember/December 1986 EXHIBIT A 2/ A a enclosed in buildings or are under a she ;homa has a pilot aerated static pile proj- ' __ 'gall is still strong. The lower numbers ter of some kind. The windrow-type sys- ect. are attributed to two main factors: 1)The tems appear to be well-suited to more arid While the net number of municipalities slow decision making process combined climates, such as southern California and involved with composting in some way with slow movement through the various Florida. increased between 1985 and 1986, 17 stages of consideration,planning,design, listed last year are"off the list."The rea- bidding and construction; and 2) a "wait Operational Challenges sons vary. For example, the Orange and see" attitude by many public works Overall, most facilities are composting. County,California Sanitation District had officials and politicians. "Many munici- a dewatered or sandbed dried sludge. Belt trouble siting its aerated static pile facility palities are waiting to see what happens filter presses appear to be the most corn- and because of public opposition,decided with the systems that have just started op- mon type of dewatering system used.to landfill its sludge in the short term and crating before they commit to a system The most common operational problem dump it in the ocean in the long term. themselves." says one vendor. cited by composting facilities—in-vessel, Strafford, Connecticut shut down due to One other factor affecting the compost- static pile, and windrow—was odor con- odors(and is now incinerating its sludge), ing decision process is the slow down and trol. Two in-vessel operations reported as did Gloucester County, New Jersey cutback in federal construction grants fi- additional problems with materials han- (now having its sludge hauled to a land nancing. The Clean Water Act amend- dling and the moisture content of the application site in Delaware). Fall City, ments,which would make allocated mon- sludge and sawdust. Nebraska couldn't find an inexpensive ies available, were approved by both the In addition to odors, aerated static pile source for its bulking agent (sawdust)and House and Senate prior to adjournment in operations cited problems with moisture is now land applying its sludge. Winter October. As we went to press, the bill had control—particularly getting the compost Harbor, Maine has decided to use a not yet been signed by President Reagan. dry enough to screen. This problem is "reed-type" drying bed system, and Kit- in the final analysis. we expect the acute in regions with cold and rainy tery, Maine stopped composting because number of sewage sludge composting fa- weather. One facility that uses wood it was too expensive. Two munici- cilities to continue to rise. Advancements chips made from hybrid poplars has had palities—Long Branch, New Jersey and in the industry will be made as more data to shut down briefly because of a clogged Jackson, Mississippi—stopped consider- can be obtained from the experiences of pug mill mixer due to twigs, and the ing composting because of the lack of the eight operating in-vessel facilities, sludge cake being too wet. The plant is public financing. and as odor and moisture control prob- doing experiments to obtain a drier sludge lems are worked out at all composting op- cake. Slow But Steady erations. Landfill pressures, development Much of the research being done at Although the growth in the number of of agricultural land, and a general en- composting facilities revolves around municipalities and counties choosing dorsement of the beneficial reuse of sew- odor control. The 40 dry ton/day aerated composting has slowed down a bit— age sludge will also combine to make static pile facility in Montgomery compared with the jump between 1983 composting a favored management op- County, Maryland has developed a sue- and 1985—the momentum in the field tion. cessful odor control system after a great deal of experimentation. Upper Occo- quan, an aerated windrow operation in Virginia, tried using finished compost as Facilities Compostinganodorfilterover' the exhaust system. The plant had difficulty disposing that Municipal Sludge In TheU.S.compost,and switched to two stackea d 55- gallon drums filled with waste-activated carbon. (More detailed reports on these SLUDGE and other operatiotital challenges cited in STATE PUNT NAME STATUS TYPE VOLUME the surveys will a pear in upcoming is- r sues of BioCycle.) dry matey( unless noted) No problems were cited in the area of 1 Alabama compost marketing. Compost is sold or 1.Dothan City Operational(10(29186) In-Vessel(Tautman-Weiss) 6.75(Design) distributed in bulk or in bags, at the 2.Alaska wholesale and retail levels. Many cities 1.Juneau Design In-Vessel gateman-Weiss) 34 and counties utilize the material them- 3.Arizona selves for parks, highways, and landfill 1.Phoenix:23rd St.Plant Operational(by Western Windrow cover. Others work with compost market- Agncultural Products) ing and fertilizer companies. End users 4.Arkansas Prone include landscapers, nurseries, golf 5.California courses, and homeowners. 1.Chino Operational(by Garden ASP Mate) Gains and Losses 2.Falbrook Pilot Vermicomposting 1 3.Hayward Operational(by Mittona Windrow Three of the states reporting no facili- Brothers) ties last year now have some composting 4.Los Atisos:El Toro Operational A-SP 25 activity: Bennington, Vermont is in theWindrowLosAngelesCountyOperational 300 JWPCdesignstageforanin-vessel system; Ni-gY 6.North San Diego County Consideration Air drying whrindrow 52(max.size) cholsville, Kentucky has an aerated static composting pile facility in operation;and Tulsa,Okla- 7.Oakland:East Bay Mud Operational A-SP 60 22 BroCycle 4 SLUDGE STATE PLANT NAME I STATUS' TYPE VOLUME boraiperurmn,dar, OWA"Ps I runless nand) S.Oxnard Design In-Vessel wlwindrow curing 30 It - 9.San Fairfield) Diego I Planning windrow 25 i t m '. .- 10.Santa Barbara Planning In•Vessel 10 11.City of S.San Francisco Operational Windrow 10 12.Simi Valley sightD Air drying w/windrow 11 i iir'!"‘ \ • • •„ . !1 r I composting i'yI-g , • 6.Colorado 44 1.Denver Metro Operational Aerated windrow 73 r:; .t•%2.Ft.Collins 1 Bid stage Aerated windrow 6 4 • ', 3.Greeley I Consideration A-SP or aerated windrow 10 r''' S: , . 4.Longmont Pilqt A-SP 5.Wheatridge' 1 Operational Windrow 3/month 7.Connecticut 1.Bristol Construction A-SP 10 w 2.Greenwich 11 Operational A-SP 2500 cu. yd./yr. Y 3. Hartford 1 Planning In-Vessel(Paygro) 33 4.Killingly I Consideration(short term In•Vessel 2 1 pilot w/loll.Processing Systems:IPS) • 5.New London Consideration(short term In Vessel 5-6 plot w/PS) w6.Norwich 1 Consideration(short term In-Vessel 5 leora.. ,plot imps) 7.Windham Consideration(sfiort.term In-Vessel 1.7 pilot wIIPS)f:•Cif8.Delaware i 1.MiddletowNOdessa Construction In-Vessel 5 2.Seaford 1 Construction A-SP 6 3.Wilmington I Operational(Co-composting) In-Vessel(Fairtield) 70 9.Florida 1.froward Cty.Streets& Operational Windrow 7.93 Highway Div. , 2.Collier Cry. Consideration Windrow 3.Cooper City Unities Planning Windrow Y 4.Fort Lauderdale Construction In-Vessel(Purac) . 30 1L 5.Hillsborough Cty. Consideration In•Vessel 35 I4,. Utilities 0 6.Jacksonville:Buckman Operational A-SP 2 I' a Plant J i m 7.Kissimee:Martin Si Operational Vermicomposting f Plant I 8.Lee County 1 Consideration 16 9.Loxahatchee River Dist. Consideration 4 10.Manatee CIy.ISoutheast Consideration A-SP 2-3 11.Mandarin Ctyr Utilities Construction . Windrow 3 12.Margate 1 Planning 13.Meadowood Utilities Operational Windrow 5 14.Orange County Planning A-SP if--y. . ' 15.Orlando Consideration 1 - 16.Plant City. I A-SP 6 r' - I: 17.Reedy Creek Construction In•Vessel(Taulman-Weiss) 9 r•' :.- 18.Sarasota Construction In-Vessel(Purac) s=- _ ==_ 10.Georgia I 1.Plains 1 Consideration(Privatized A-SP 10(pilot) A, regional facility-Green 200(design) 1 's,.` ^- I. • Grow Industries) 4 , ' , •-I 2.Northeast Clayton Operational In-Vessel(Taulman) 1(operational) a County WPCP 3(design) 11.Hawaii r 1.Waimanab lWWTP Operational(Private Windrow a, Oahu) 1 arrangement re/nursery) Planned(1990) A-SP 5 P o' 12.Idaho None 1 13.Illinois None i c' 14.Indiana J'•pa. 1.Blucher Poole WWTP Operational Windrow&A-SP 2-3 Bloomington) 15.Iowa None 1 November/December 1986 1 23 I 4 L. r I SLUDGE STATE PLANT NAME S_-___ TYPE VOLUME 1-2• rill``* •shy++, .. ' --• .'.'y pow cry ion/my Y`7 Onion WW1 h .1 j • •• i 13''''' 16.Kansas IT rn1(1.Mission(Johnson Cty.) Pilot(Full-scale under Windrow 1 consideration) 16.18 r - 1 . 2.Topeka:Oakland WWTP Operational Windrow 1 3.Wichita:WPCP 01&02 Operational Windrow 10 1.'.;4;''''- ,..:r :{b,!•• ' ,y". rp. "e 17.Kentucky 0h 0+ '•1.West I ickam Creek Operational A-SP 4.5-5 WWTP(Nicholsville) 5 dayslwk.) 18.Louisiana None 35°11.-- 19.Maine r 1.Bangor Operational A-SP tyr-•. 2.Bar Harbor Operational ASP Fp 2000 U. s 3.Gardiner Operational A-SP 1.5 4.Kennebunkport Operational A-SP 1 t .5.Old Orchard Beach Operational A-SP 160.170 Cu. Saw) yd.lwk. I 6.Old lown(&Orono) Operational A-SP 350 cu. ydJmonOh 7.Portland Water Dist. Operational A-SP 16.2 8.Scarborough San.Dist. Operational ASP 30 cu.yd./wk. 1,1111_ .r. 9.South Portland Operational A-SP 5 T 1" •..,10.Yarmouth Operational A-SP 25•.5 t.20.Maryland 1 .. I ram 1.Aberdeen Design Aerated Windrow 1.4 2.Baluniore:Back River Construction In-Vessel(Paygro) 120.150 3.Cambridge Operationia! ASP 5 4.EYdon Operational Aerated Wmdraw 2 r. ' . , ' '"` ' r it. 5.Havre de Grace Construction Aerated Windrow 2-3 6.Montgomery Cry. Operational ASP 40 y!-'..+" • 7.Parkway WWTP(WSSC) Consideration • In-Vessel 3.2 B.Perryville Operational Aerated Windrow 2.5 nT i"'J' 21.Massachusetts k _r • * . 1 ••, , j 1.Amherst Design A-SP(Pilot) 6 0 2.Barre A-SP 5 ydsJweek P 3.Billerica Design A-SP 5 LQ,..„.4.Boston Consideration(Lag term) e 5.Bridgewater Planning Aerated Wudrow 3.5 e1` " .6.Concord Operational 7.Deer Island(MWRA) Pilot A'SP 3 i r2.0001 r •y '', i,!.8.Gloucester Planning A-SP Y 9.Haverhill Design A-SP 500 cu. t0.Leicester Construction A-SP @.20 4.,.. 11.Leominster Bid stage A-SP 6 12.Manslield Consuuction ASP 0300yr. 13.Marlboro Design A-SP 12 14.Nantucket Construction A-SP 15.Orleans Operational . A-SP 16.Pepperell Planning A-SP 17.Somerset Consideration A-SP y.'' 1r""'r `. i0...•.'.. '.+.r- 18.Soulnbrioge Consuucuon:(Start-up: ASP 18 Cu.ydiday tin.r . r l .• 1/87) 9t, 04'. ••• _. _. n.....- _ 19.Swariipscott Operational ASP 1.Nweek j 7lJl 20.Westborough Construction(Start-up: ASP 35 cu.ydiday r• 7 2/87) 1 21.Wilkamstown/Hoosac Operational A-SP 120 cu. T. ' DJ..: •...... -, 1,22.Michigan yd-iday ti r- +. 1.Battle Creek Consideration In Vessel or AS-P 24(if tug it .sue) s j....0- 2.Mackinac Island Operational Windrow vy 23.I+IirmeSolaVL 1.Pine River Operational Aerated Windrow 3-4/month e . F t+I , ."--`ate 24.Mississippi None TM • 25.Missouri None A- 26.Montana tt f 1.Missoula Operational ASP(EKO Systems)5+ I' 1t*4100.= 27.Nebraska 1.Beatrice Operational Windrow 01.5 24 BioCyck I i 1 STATE PLANT NAME iTATUS SLUDGE TYPE VOLUME AY di),Iowamr b - • , . . unless wino, 2.Grand Island Operational Windrow 7-103.money Operational Windrow/ 1.5-24.Omaha:Papilion Creek Construction(Retrofit-1987 Wmdrow 40 M i. WPCP Slut-Up) iL •;5.Omaha:U Windrow 3 V issotui River Pilot r 28.Nevada 1.Las Vegas Operational(Pnvate Windrow I 1;} , IIIIIIcontractor) r 4.. . ' 12.Clark County San. Pilot Aerated windrow 30 29.New Dona At lull scale) 1• ik 4 i 1'Hampshire II1.Claremont Operational(Start-up: A-SP 11/86) 2.Durham Operational A-SP 6 I i Ti3.Keene Operational A•Sp 8 tea.. • 4.Lebanon Operational A-SP ti "+---- 5.Littietan Pilot A-SP rt......, ,_^, r•••".416.Mernmack WWTP Operational A-SP 21 y- ".-` • '= . 7.Merrimack:Lagoon Operational(Seasonal) A-SP 158.Uutord Construction(Start-up: A-SP 2.5I12/86) 9.Plymouth Operational A-SP 5 30.New Jersey 1.Buena Borough MUA Operational A-SP 3.52.Burlington County Design In-Vessel(Co-Compostytg). 303.Camden County MUA Consideration In•Vessel 20-254.Cape May County MUA Operational In-Vessel(Purac) 12 tii 4* .-'_5.Manville Boro STP Operational A-SP 1.5 r _ .. 6.Middletown Township Operational A-SP 2.77.Pennsvdle Operational A-SP 8.flockaway Valley MUA Consideration(Long term) - hi-Vessel 5.5 to • .• ir '9.Sussex County MUA OperationalA-SP 7 Ifs Upper WaYull) 10.Wanaque Valley MUA Consideration In•Vessel11.Warren Coup MUACounty Consideration 1PequestRiver) ASP tt ,'...Z 'C.-- miT i`-,•` 31.New Mexico None 32.New York ca '~'u• 1.Alden Ope 2.Binghamton rational A-SP v, . v.r.` , _ • 1 Design In•Vessel(Tautman-Weiss) 15 N' Nr i.•3.Clinton County Operational In•Vessel(Fairliela) 25I(Ptattstturyt) Kn: ' 4.!Enarcott Operational In-Vessel(Taulman-Weiss) 2 •5.Gwloertand Operational A-SP 6.!Henumer County Consideration 7•i Schenectady Construction In-Vessel(American Bio•Tech) 8.Sylvan Beach Operational(Intermittent) A-SP 33.Norm I Carolina 1 I Charlotte . Design In-Vessel 2,Hickory,Newton, Bid stage In-Vessel 20Conover&Catawba I Counties 3.Morganton(Catawba Operational A-SP 24RiverPlant) 4.Valdese Operational A-SP 1 34.North Dakota None 35.Ohro 1•Akron Construction(Dry run: tit-Vessel(Paygro) 60 11/86)j i 2.Columbus Operational A-SP w/1n-Vessel drying 24 Z"` 3.tlarrtilton WWTP Construction Paygro) In•Vessel(Ashbralk•Sirtton• 17 emu F•M 'R4.Lake County Operational Aerated windrow 1 36.Oklahome lIt.Tulsa t t yn w Riot A-SP r 11.Newberg Construction In-Vessel(Ashbrook•Simoir 3.5 at 15% 4 •'' .. y) solids) t' "'• t••, ,,h_ ,. November/December 1946 u 9 S , STATE PLANT NAME STATUS SLUDGE TYPE VOLUME` Pi my lordly was road) 2.Portland Operational In-Vessel(Tauktgn•Wefss) 60SUMMARY: 38.Pennsylvania COMPOST FACILITIES 1.Hazleton Joint Sewer Design A-SP 11.4Auth. 2.Lancaster Construction In-Vessel(Taukrwn-Weiss) 303.Lancaster Operational(by MAN A-Se 20-40 cu.OPERATIONAL: Composting) 0 In-Vessel 8 4.Philadelphia Operational A-SP yd/day 52.5 5.Scranton Operational A-SP 9. 2AeratedStaticPile9.2Windrow20.5 6.Spartgettsbury Township Operational A-SP 6AeratedWindrow639.Rhode IslandVertedostutg1 3-5 1.Jamestown Operational Windrow2.West Warwick Operational A-SP 3NotSpecified1 cu.ydtyr. TOTAL OPERATIONAL: 89 40.South Carolina UNDER CONSTRUCTION: 1.East Richland County Operational In Vessel(Tallman-Weiss) 4 5 In-Vessel Grits Creek) Aerated Static Pile. 11 2.Greenville Consideration In-Vessel 35 W ndro rated 8 3.Hilton Head Consideration In-Vessel or ASP Aerated Windrow 2 4.Myrtle Beach Operational ASP 393 tons of1 TOTAL UNDER CONSTRUCTION: 41.South Dakota None C00S 42.Tennessee PLANNING, DESIGN, BID: 1.Bristol Bid stage In-Vessel 14.3In-Vessel I 11 2.Nashville:Central Operational A-SP 20(1987:40)Aerated Static Pile Treatment Plant Windrow 3 3.Nashville:Dry Creek Operational A-SP 5-6AeratedWindrow343.Texas Not Specified 1 1.Austin Pilot(6 ydfevery few days) Windrow 75-100TOTALPLANNING,OESiGN,BID: 28 2.El Paso:Haskell St. Operational Windrow Potential) Plant 18 PILOTS: 3.El Paso:Socorro Plant Operational Windrow 4.Fredrrcksbur 14In-Vessel 4 g Operational WindrowAlsocountedin"Consideration" 44.Utah Category) 1.Salt Lake City:Central Consideration In-Vessel 25-30AeratedStaticPile5ValleyPlantWindrow345.VermontAeratedWindrow1 Vermicomposting 1 1. 0 Design In-Vessel 2 TOTAL PILOTS: 46.Virginia 14 1.Fairfax Cty.&City of Operational • A-SP 65AlexandriaCONSIDERATION: 2.Hampton Roads San. Operational A-SP 12In-Vessel:14 Drst• 5 3.Henrico County Bid stage In-Vessel 17.5 Aerated Static Pile 5. 2 4.Moores Creek Operational A-SP 2.5AeratedWindrow5Charlottesville) 5.Upper Occoquan Operational Aerated Windrow 7•5 Not specified 5 47.WashingtonTOTALCONSIDERATION:27 1.Seattle Operational(by Groco,Inc.) ASP2.Seattle METRO Consideration 15 SURVEY TOTALS: 3.Miller Creek&SalmonIn-Vessel 45 Consideration 6-86.8Operational: 89 Creek(Southern KingUnderConstruction: 22 Cry.) Planning,Denn,Bid: 28 48.West Virginia NonePilots: 14(4 in Consideration) 49.WisconsinConsideration: Not Specdred: 27 1 Portal Construction In Vessel(Co-composting: 2.42 TOTAL: 178 2.Stevens PointSe(Co-composting)Univ.of Pilot oWisconsrn) 50.Wyoming None(Interest expressed in starting a pilot research project) 51.District of Columbia 1.Blue Plains Operational pn•Vessel wider A-SP 40 consideration) 52.Puerto Rico 1.Arecibo Design A•SP 15 26 oCycic amf Sou Q I O 2C Resource Management Group CoNIMPL Ac.EPJc,r' . 15v1 r 6-dlAir( Q[1/L i r1 DMA 5UM1 11 1ZY, hod uccu-rL& WII.WD RDSI:. y,c13_ PiI0 N\ ra CP 7 Sc.i ut. ZO.S/f3 1 ti k1 CZI S'C3.3 7,144 \ • Q e \...\04. .. 7, 2-7 t 1,°1`/. 1'f.D1'OStiDI 7,1'l° f•0 in kOMQG61114& i lL`(/LK f.0 il f 1.0 4 1.2 iT t;/ A i iil/' %Y ' wY r li/'a `fJ 0Y. 4. 20.5 I.HOUR AVERAGE SURFACE HINDS L a L s Vi 17 i ) ' 1 jF p 61DD PERCENTAGE FREOUENCr_OFOF-OCCURRENCE— 1,—f j•-7r r I VAC A r ! i Y r ,.1 y . J. ti. u+:ice' . ;alit 1 1> ice'<:r :.',:f .v J..z A•* Ai-- nna,lrnit. PUGET SLPC J Ifi Pa.LW1W C017F0. aGEMCI' rSoutne.nt.r, 40f MOorkr Park E, tukrlf.. M. —c==g1 `•, J u ALL M$ f..f n. n. v 1I ( I I /, `\ iV\1 t1..,// 1V/ Yl (I 1f I f Cl:1111 tigiU.ITV A I U M N (Cf l 11 t4 0 UA fl f Crd 7) Apr ROI , coe 4X IL k r = $00' CITY OF. RENTON LL FINANCE DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk December 31, 1987 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss COUNTY OF KING MARILYN J. PETERSEN, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 31st day of December, 1987, at the hour of 5:00 p.m., your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision filed by Wade R. Dann/Douglas W. Elston of the firm of Ulin, Dann, Elston and Lambe, representing G & M Investments, regarding Longacres Race Track Conditional Use Permit, File No. CU-064-87. Marilyn J. P r ens Deputy City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 31st day of December, 1987. 2gf_e_e_7r_e Notary Public in and for the tate of Washington, residing in 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2501 3J 5t X' IJLIN, DANN, ELSTON NO' 5168 deLAMBE, P.S.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW iOLUMBIA CENTER (206) 624-4848 19-2 1250 701 FIFTH AVENUE 1 December 29 i9 87 LTTLE, WASHINGTON 981041.7010 E City of Renton , 1 $ 75.00 Seventy-Five Dollars and no/100 DOLLARS FfIvE1A T11 3580IAA98124 1 0-/A___----- 11'00005 L68" I1: L 250000 241: 78956 I,V I CITY OF RENTON N° 2420-8 FINANCE DEPARTMENT a 9 19 4Z- RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 Hiiiv i/' ' A 5 RECEIVED OF i I Mil d D / ht//2('S G ME Mil EMI IIIIIIIIII TOTAL MI 00 Received by r'... WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING'EXAMINER' S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICATION NAME: FILE NO. CU-064-87 Conditional Use Permit DEC,2'9'1981i Longacres Racetrack Composting I TY CEP(s aF071 n The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from ` Defei s=i-on I or Recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated November 1 . IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE ( IF ANY) : G & M Investments Wade R. Dann/Douglas W. Elston Name: Benton Smith/Michael Mastro, partners Name:. Ulin, Dann, Elston & Lambe Address: 510 Rainier Ayenue.South- Address:4800 Col. Cntr. , 701 .- 5th Ave. ' Seattle.rIWashington. 98144 Seattle, Washington 98104-7010 Telephone No. (206) 323-5393 Telephone No. (206) 624-4848 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets if necessary) i Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDINGS OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted • in the Examiner's Report) No. Error: See attached. Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No. Error:. See attached. r I Correction: OTHER: I No. Error: See attached. , Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Alttach explanation, if desired) Reverse the Decision or Recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the Decision or Recommendation as follows: XX Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: To hear additional evidence and/or testimony regarding (1) the adequacy of the proposed design; (2) Other: proposed safeguards for protection of neighboring property owners I and the City; and (3) appropriate alternatives. Lit December 29, 1987 Appellant '''ep•eseitgfive 'Signature Date I 0 : 'le-se r- -r . Title IV, Chapter 30 of the Renton Municipal Code, and Sections 4-3016 and 4-3017, specifically (see reverse side of page) for specific appeal procedures. 4-3016:APPEAL: Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Curt, any interested party aggrieved by I Examiner's written decision or recomm( tion may submit a notice of appeal to L. City Clerk upon a form furnished by Mb City` Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's'written report. The notice of.appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with the Fee Schedule of the City A The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the 1 substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. 18) Within five (5)days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. C) Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. D) No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council may remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. E) The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. F) If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-3010(A) and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. G) If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-3010(B) or (C), and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application pursuant to Section 4-3010(B) or (C). H) In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-3017:COUNCIL ACTION: Any application requiring action by the City Council shall be evidenced by minute entry unless otherwise required by law. When taking any such final action, the Council shall make and enter findings of fact from the record and conclusions therefrom which support its action. Unless otherwise specified, the City Council shall be presumed to have adopted the Examiner's findings and conclusions. A) In the case of a change of the zone classification of property (rezone), the City Clerk shall place the ordinance on the Council's agenda for first reading. Final reading of the ordinance shall not occur until all conditions, restrictions or modifications which may have been required by the Council have been accomplished or provisions for compliance made to the satisfaction of the Legal Department. B) All other applications requiring Council action shall be placed on the Council's agenda for consideration. (Ord. 3454, 7-28-80) C) The action of the Council approving, modifying'or rejecting a decision of the Examiner, shall be final and conclusive, unless within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the action an aggrieved party or person obtains a writ of review from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, for purposesofreviewoftheactiontaken. (Ord. 3725, 5-9-83) 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Continued) FINDINGS OF FACT: No. 11 Error: There has been no showing that Metro would accept the excess run-off and/or leachate without additional treatment. The continuously recycled leachate material will become highly concentrated and will likely require such treatment. There has been no showing that the applicant would agree to provide or fund such treatment if required. The nature of the recycled leachate material itself and its potential creation of additional odor and/or health problems during its use on the site does not appear to have been addressed. Correction: Additional evidence and/or testimony is needed in order to address these shortcomings. No. 14 Error: The reduction of the amount of amonia due to the straw/waste ratio is unsupported by scientific data and is presented as a conclusion "according to the applicant. " There is no proof that the straw/waste ratio eliminates, or even significantly reduces, amonia Or any of the other unpleasant odors related to the composting process. Correction: Additional evidence and/or testimony is needed in order to address these shortcomings. No. 15 Error: There is no apparent basis for the finding that the volume of material is reduced by approximately 85% as a result of the composting process. Rough calculations, using the applicant's own numbers, suggest that the amount of reduction will be significantly less than claimed, perhaps as low as a one-third reduction in volume. This discrepancy would, of course, have a major bearing with respect to considerations of traffic reductions in connection with the proposed use. Correction: Additional evidence and/or testimony is needed in order to substantiate the amount of reduction in volume of material. No. 16 Error: There has been no showing that the truck trips Would be reduced substantially. See, No. 15 above. There may very well be some expected reduction in truck trips as the result of the proposed use, but the extent of reduction, if any, is unclear. The applicant presently is uncertain as to the ultimate use of the end product. It has not been demonstrated that the Longacres Racetrack facility has the capacity to utilize all of the product. The applicant would apparently like Page 1 to sell most or all of the product. This would, of course, require shipping the material off site. Depending on the nature of the market, this may involve smaller trucks than those which were previously utilized to haul the unprocessed material to Oregon. The result could be little, if any, reduction in truck trips. In addition, as the Hearing Examiner pointed out in Finding No. 27, the number of truck trips needed to import sand to the site in connection with the proposed use is presently unknown. In summary, the overall effect of the proposed use on the number of truck trips is completely unknown. Correction: Additional evidence and/or testimony is needed to clarify this issue. No. 19 Error: The finding that the sanitary sewer will be utilized for release of excess rains or other accumulations is erroneous for the reasons described in No. 11 above. Correction: Additional evidence and/or testimony is needed in order to address these shortcomings. No. 20 Error: Alternative designs utilizing relatively inexpensive, prefabricated buildings with simulated aerobic conditions have not been considered as a feasible and practical method of achieving the same result while minimizing the risks of adverse environmental effects. It is likely that such an alternative could be constructed at minimal additional Cost to the applicant and might even be more economical in the long run if the existing proposal proves to be inadequate. The reprint of the magazine article regarding composting cited by the applicant's expert as authority for the advantages of aerobic composting, when closely examined, is actually a litany of failures across the country and actually is more supportive of in-vessel composting. That article says, on page 22, that " [t]he most common operational problem cited by composting facilities--in-vessel, static pile, and windrow--was odor control. " (Emphasis added) . Correction: Additional evidence and/or testimony is needed in order to evaluate workable design alternatives. No. 21 Error: There is no basis for the finding that aerobic composting produces very little odor because of the exposure to the air, particularly in view of the quantities of material involved in the proposed plan. See, comments to No. 20 above. Page 2 Correction: Further evidence and/or testimony is needed to establish the fact that the proposed composting process involving a 2.7 acre site and the input of some 600 cubic yards of new waste material each day will produce very little odor by virtue of allowing the decay process to occur in the open air. No. 23/24 Error: There has been no showing that all pathogens, disease organisms, weed seeds, and insect eggs and larvae will be eliminated during the course of the proposed composting process. The evidence relied upon appears to ignore the fact that many of these organisms will likely be attracted to the compost site from outside sources and remain on the exterior surface of the compost material. The ability of the "Rototiller" mechanism to control these organisms does not appear to have been addressed. The finding that "the turning and high temperature supposedly minimizes insect activity" does not afford adequate assurance that these problems have been sufficiently addressed. The potential health ramifications of this issue are significant and provide further justification for consideration of an enclosed, aerobic process. Correction: Additional evidence and/or testimony is needed in order to ensure that all health problems potentially associated with the proposed use have been adequately addressed. No. 26 Error: The comparison of the applicant's proposed composting process to the "Zoo Doo" operation is totally unwarranted as an attempt to compare apples with oranges. The only similarity is the fact that both deal with the processing of animal waste material. It is not likely that a process which handles 150 cubic yards per month is more odoriferous than one which handles 600 Cubic yards per day (120 times as much) regardless of the concentration. None of the necessary factors for a meaningful comparison, such as location of the process On the property, proximity to neighboring lands, design if the composting equipment, etc. , were presented. Correction: Unless additional evidence and/or testimony can establish a meaningful basis of comparison, the "Zoo Doo" operation should not be accorded any relevance whatsoever with respect to the present application.. CONCLUSIONS: No. 1 Error: The proposed plan does not comply with any, let alone all, of the criteria found in Section 4-748(c) of the Renton City Code. Requirements d, e, f and i are not applicable to the proposed use. None of the remaining applicable requirements have been met: Page 3 r/ a. The proposal does not generally conform with the purpose and standards of the Comprehensive Plan and other zoning ordinances. Examples of sections of the Comprehensive Plan which do not appear to have been addressed include §§ 4-2313 and 2317. The first section prohibits the existence of stagnant or polluted water on any site. The proposed plan contemplates the pooling of leachate on the property and its re-use in the composting process. Section 4-2317 of the Comprehensive Plan requires the use of an appropriate cover, sterilization and chemical treatment of all animal waste to control odor and insect habitation and special treatment of hay and straw material, along with special requests and reports prior to their use in solid waste fills. The same section requires that leach water from solid waste fills must first be decontaminated before disposal into a sanitary sewer system. From the record, it appears that none of these requirements have been addressed in the Conditional Use Permit Application. Although these requirements are arguably applicable only to solid waste fills, they would appear to be of even greater concern when all of the solid waste material is stored out in the open because of the increased risk of. exposure. b. There is no general community need for the proposed use at the proposed location. The proposed manure and straw composting use fails to conform with Section 4-748(c)2 's mandate that " [t]here shall be a community need for the proposed use at the proposed location. " (Emphasis added. ) At most, the applicant merely demonstrated that the Longacres Racetrack had a need to find an alternative to trucking its manure and straw to an Oregon mushroom farm. The applicant certainly did not establish any community need for composting waste at this location. If the community has any need" to have racehorse track waste composted at all, it certainly does not have a need to have it done in an area slated for high quality office parks. The recommendation of Mr. Andy McMillen Department of Ecology) to Ms. Jeannette McKague City of Renton) in a letter dated July 21, 1987, to the effect that a joint composting effort with the Cities of Des Moines and Federal Way should be explored, has apparently not been followed up. While trucking the waste to another site for composting may be somewhat more expensive to Longacres, appropriately-zoned sites much closer Page 4 I than Salem, Oregon, are undoubtedly available. Composting the waste on such a site would prevent the M-P-zoned parcels in this area from being unfairly stigmatized with a land use that does not belong in this area. As to cost, if the waste could be hauled all the way to Salem for years economically, it certaiunly could be hauled to an appropriate site in this metro area economically. c. There will be undue impacts on adjacent property. While the proposed manure/straw composting operation has been tauted as "state-of-the-art" and may well make for an interesting experiment in waste recycling, the applicant failed to prove that t]he proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property: as required by Section 4- 748(c)3 as a prerequisite for a conditional use permit. The fact is that, as noted by the Examiner in his decision, "while the actual impacts [of the proposed use] may be minimal, the psychological impacts could be substantial. " Even with the proposed technology and conditions of approval, the proposal is still one of outdoor composting of horse manure and straw in an area designated for modern high quality office parks. In such an area as this, the certain diminution of value of neighboring properties that this use will cause is undue. A substantial market value decline in neighboring properties due to this proposal is certain because, as the Examiner noted in Conclusion 1 of his Report: "The first inclination of some, and probably even the second, would be that high quality development would be discouraged by the proposal. " This adverse impact is amply demonstrated by Alaska Distributors Company's abandonment of its development plans for a part of Appellant's property after learning of the Hearing Examiner 's Conditional Use Permit decision. Last summer, Alaska Distributors ("Alaska" ) entered into a conditional purchase and sale agreement with Appellant to purchase 13 acres of the property at a price of more than $1.6 million. Subsequently, Alaska invested about $100,000 to have architectural and engineering plans for an office/warehouse project on the 13 acres. Within a week of Alaska's November 5th discovery of the Longacres ' composting proposal, Alaska, upon investigating the proposal, notified Appellant Page 5 that, because of the proposed composting project, it had decised not to go forward with the purchase of the property. Alaska's pullout decision is positive proof that the idea of a neighboring open-air compost/manure processing operation does indeed discourage high quality development on nearby parcels. That Alaska was willing to do so even though it had already invested $100,000 on its own project's plans demonstrates that such discouragement is substantial and that the adverse effect of the composting proposal on the value of neighboring properties is also substantial. Further review of the applicant's prevailing wind analysis reveals that Appellant and some of the other neighboring property owners are justifiably concerned about potential odor problems. Smells are a transitory-type of problem. The fact that the winds may keep the odors off their property at times does not offer much comfort during those times when the general rule is being excepted. Furthermore, the applicant's own figures indicate that Appellant can expect the winds to create problems 28% of the time on approximately 100 days per year. It is highly unlikely that the City would ask its residents to go along with other problems, e.g. , power outages, at such a frequency. To ask them to accept a similar burden with respect to odor problems in order to assist the applicant in more economically disposing of its waste material is equally untenable. g. Noise may causean adverse effect on neighboring property. There has been no showing as to the amount of expected noise to be generated by applicant's "Rototiller"-like processing equipment. Applicant has not produced any models, drawings, specifications or examples of other similar equipment from which to form any opinion at all regarding the amount of noise that will be introduced to the neighborhood by the proposed use. More information is needed regarding the type of equipment, source of power, hours of operation, etc. It is likely that a gas or diesel-powered operation running continuously, at least during business hours, would constitute a serious distraction, if not a nuisance, to the other occupants of an otherwise campus-like office park environment. h. Landscaping will not be sufficient to buffer the use from rights-of-way and neighboring property Page 6 where appropriate. The Hearing Examiner, in several instances, has attributed buffering and/or filtering qualities to large evergreen trees which appear to be unwarranted. The fact of the matter is that while they may be somewhat effective as a visual screen, when it comes to filtering out noise and/or odor, these trees will be virtually useless. Correction: Additional evidence and/or testimony is needed to adequately evaluate workable design alternative that are practically and economically feasible and yet provide the necessary safeguards against adverse environmental impacts. No. 2 F Error: The conclusion that actual impacts may be minimal is unwarranted. The fact is that on the basis of the evidence presented to date, which is based almost entirely upon speculation, hypothication, and future experimentation and not upon scientific facts and/or models, the extent of actual impacts on neighboring properties is still unknown. As demonstrated by the loss of the sale of part of Appellant's property, the Hearing Examiner correctly concluded that the psychological impacts could be substantial. Whether an impact is physical or psychological is of little consequence. The bottom line is that neighboring property owners will be, and already are, adversely impacted by the approval of this Conditional Use Permit Application. For reasons explained in No. 3 below, the conditions imposed and factors included are insufficient to provide adequate safeguards against potential impacts to neighboring properties. Correction: Additional evidence and/or testimony is needed to adequately evaluate workable design alternative that are practically and economically feasible and yet provide the necessary safeguards against adverse environmental impacts. No. 3 Error: The limitations on duration, and current absence of surrounding development, and the requirement of a yearly review do not adequately protect neighboring property owners from the potential adverse impacts of the proposed use. The absence of present development actually places an undue burden on the property owners to monitor these effects which, in effect, will only become evident after development occurs. In some cases, that may not occur until after the expiration of the duration limits. The whole question of monitoring has been left virtually unanswered. There is no evidence that PSAPCA, or any other agency,g y, will be willing or able to provide odor monitoring as needed. The transitory nature of the odor impacts makes spot Page 7 I checking virtually useless. In order to monitor on a continual basis, some sort of monitoring equipment would shave to be developed and installed. The type of equipment and who is responsible for it have not yet been addressed. Correction: Additional evidence and/or testimony is needed to explore appropriate alternatives. No. 4 Error: The Hearing Examiner incorrectly found that consideration of the application to an otherwise seemingly incompatable use is warranted because of (1) Ithe state-of-the-art techniques, (2) setbacks and rights-of-way separations, and (3) the installation of large trees. As to the trees issue, see, No. 1 above. 1As for No. 2, the spatial distances involved have not been shown to be sufficient to protect against the expected noise and odor impacts. With respect to the first-listed item, while the proposed process appears at first blush to be state-of-the-art, it is actually only in the experimental stage. Conceptually, it appears to be workable. However, there is no evidence that it has I ever been attempted before and all of the conclusions I regarding lack of odor, noise and other impacts are merely educated guesses. It is not unusual for the proponent of such a new system to be required to I demonstrate its feasibility through the development of a 1 model or by showing similar applications in other locations. In the present case, the only thing that has I been offered is conjecture and speculation. The mere fact that something may be considered to be state-of- the-art does not necessarily make it satisfactory. It may just be an indication that the state-of-the-art in that area is not very advanced. Under the circumstances, the proposed process can be termed an interesting experiment, but does not yet rise to the level of state-of-the-art technique. If the experiment does not work, it will likely be described as a major mistake. 1 Correction: Additional evidence and/or testimony is needed to explore appropriate alternatives. No. 5 Error: The classificiation of the proposed use as an accessory use is erroneous. Section 4-748(c) (9) of the 1 Renton City Code states that accessory uses to conditional uses shall be considered to be separate uses and shall be subject to the provisions of the use 1 district in which they are located. In the present matter, the Hearing Examiner has found the proposed use to be an accessory use to Longacres Racetrack. However, i it should be noted that Longacres Racetrack is located in a B-1 zone and the proposed use in a M-P zone. In the B-1 zone, outdoor recreation or entertainment uses Page 8 r / are conditional uses. As such, their accessory uses arguably may be allowed by conditional use permit within that zone. But that does not automatically authorize the accessory use in a M-P zone. A review of § 4-730 reveals that outdoor recreation or entertainment uses are not permitted uses. Accordingly, the attempt to bootstrap this otherwise unauthorized use in the M-P zone by labelling it as an accessory use to Longacres Racetrack in a B-1 zone, must fail. Correction: The record should be amended to reflect that the proposed use is not a valid accessory use under rthe Code. No. 7 Error: The conclusion that "while composting would be new to the area, the storage of the same waste materials had occurred not far from the site for many years and the materials in raw form were transported through the area for many years, " overlooks the obvious. In the first place, the waste materials were not stored near the site for many years--they were transported to Oregon 1 at the rate of about 140 truckloads per week approximately 20 truckloads per day) . At that rate, 1 the material was obviously not being allowed to accumulate. Secondly, the materials were transported while still basically "fresh", i.e. , prior to the start of the decaying composting process, while the smell of the straw still predominated. Finally, the proposed use, unlike the prior use, contemplates the storage of all of the waste material in one 2.7 acre site piled six I feet high with compost material in various stages of decay. Not only does the proposal deal with decaying material, but also it involves approximately 30 times the quantity previously stored on the nearby site. Correction: This conclusion should be deleted entirely. No. 8 ! Error: See, comments regarding No. 4 above with respect to erroneous conclusions that the proposed use 1 represents state-of-the-art techniques and that evergreen trees can filter noise and odors. Correction: See, comments regarding No. 4 above. No. 9 Error: The proposed use involves the installation of an apparently expensive system. If it should prove to be unsatisfactory to neighboring property owners, any i request to shut down the operation and remove the system I would most likely be met with more than mild opposition. As a practical matter, it is likely that if it proves j unworkable, neighboring property owners will be faced j with the burden and expense of litigation in order to enforce this provision. In the meantime, it is the Page 9 neighboring property owners, who face devaluation of their property, and the City, which will see lower quality development occur in this area, who will unfairly bear the burden and risk of failure of this experiment. Correction: Additional evidence and/or testimony is needed in order to adequately evaluate workable design alternatives. No. 10 Error: The conclusion that yearly review will afford the necessary protection for the City and the neighboring property owners and that neighbors will assist by reporting problems is erroneous for the Treasons discussed in Nos. 3, 4 and 9 above. Correction: Additional evidence and/or testimony is needed in order to adequately evaluate workable design alternatives. No. 11 Error: The conclusion that the interior location of the site in combination with dense landscaping and rights- of-way setbacks will serve to buffer adjacent uses is erroneous for the reasons stated in No. 4 above. Correction: Additional evidence and/or testimony is needed in order to adequately evaluate workable design alternatives. No. 12 Error: See, comments to No. 5 above as to why the proposed use is not a valid accessory use. Correction: The record should be amended to reflect that the proposed use is not a valid accessory use under the Code. No. 13 Error: The conclusion that the operation should not generate any additional noise is erroneous for the reasons stated in No. 1(g) above. The conclusion that similar wastes have been present for many years at Longacres without complaint is erroneous for the reasons stated in No. 7 above. There has been no showing that the odor of the straw will predominate the straw/waste mixture during any more than the first several days of the composting process. While the smell of fresh straw is not objectionable, the odor of decayed straw and excrement may very well be. The fact that the finished product does not have an offensive odor is of little solace to the neighboring property owner who is continuously exposed to the objectionable odors generated during the decaying process. Page 10 Correction: Additional evidence and/or testimony is needed in order to adequately evaluate workable design alternatives. No. 14 Error: The conclusion that a yearly review is sufficient to safeguard against the generation of objectionable odors if the process is not handled properly is erroneous for the reasons described in No. 3 jabove. In addition, there is no indication that any provision for "upset conditions" (i.e. , emergency measures if something goes wrong) was considered in connection with the proposed use. Correction: Additional evidence and/or testimony is needed in order to adequately evaluate workable design alternatives. OTHER No. 1 Error: Appellant, as an adversely-effected neighboring property owner, was not given actual prior notice of the hearing on the subject Conditional Use Permit Application and, accordingly, was denied an opportunity to be heard and to adequately prepare a position with respect to the proposed use. Correction: The matter should be remanded to the I Hearing Examiner for a further hearing in order to provide a complete and thorough basis for a decision regarding the application for this Conditional Use Permit. No. 2 I Error: The Hearing Examiner improperly rejected Appellant's offer of newly-discovered additional evidence of actual adverse impact that was not I reasonably available at the time of the hearing. Correction: The matter should be remanded to the Hearing Examiner for a further hearing in order to I provide a complete and thorough basis for a decision regarding the application for this Conditional Use Permit. No. 3 Error: The Hearing Examiner improperly rejected the Request to Re-Open Matter filed by Mr. Benton Smith of Appellant during the pendency of the Request for I Reconsideration which was timely filed by Mr. Michael Mastro of Appellant. Since both are partners and co- owners of the same parcel of adversely-effected neighboring property, Mr. Smith's request should have been treated as a supplemental rather than an entirely new filing. Page 11 Correction: The matter should be remanded to the Hearing Examiner for a further hearing in order to provide a complete and thorough basis for a decision regarding the application for this Conditional Use Permit. I Page 12 II I. 0 - ! illAiliiiiIMITT, if s i f . i 1 CITY 'CLERK S OFFICE''ti: Cl.. COPIES TO: AIRPORT t7....; BUI.LDI;'NG/.TONING DEPARTMENT 1. C'ITY ATTORNEY i CITY. COUNCIL ENGINEERING • ' 1 GE, '-/IRTMENT HEARING ,,EXAMINER PARK. D'E:PARTMENT, PERS.ONNEL •DEPA.RTMENT•. P'.OL I CE 'DEPARTMENT ' •• I . POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT C.ODI£IER; INSURANCE CARRIER P,ETIT LONE R/APPL.ICANT RE: ORD CHRONICLE ;(PRESS) 4 1 i I OF RA,A o THE CITY OF R.ENTON' MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055aJ: , ail o P2 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 90 FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593O, Q17-e0 SEP'- M Q, December 15, 1987 David L. Halinen Attorney At Law Plaza Center Bldg., Suite 1000 10900 N.E. 8th Street Bellevue, Washington 98004 Re: Longacres Race Track Conditional Use Permit File No. CU-064-87 Dear Mr. Halinen: I have completed my review of your request for reconsideration in the above entitled matter and my response follows. After a complete review of the record, including the information you provided, as well as any responses I received, I have found no reason to modify the decision. The disclosure of the cancelled sale does not appear to be tied directly to the Longacres decision. At least the contract itself does not disclose any reasons to cancel the sale. Additionally, I believe that the decision contained sufficient safeguards including screening, buffering, continued monitoring, and with the ultimate remedy, complete loss of permit approval, to prevent the Longacres site from creating any lasting nuisance. If you have any additional questions please feel free to contact this office. This determination may be appealed to the City Council not later than 5:00 P.M. December 29, 1987 by filing the appropriate documents and paying the applicable fee at the City Clerk's Office. Sincerely, riji FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK/dk cc: Kenneth Alhadeff Bill Taylor Richard D. Ford LAW OFFICES OF PRESTON, THORGRIMSON, ELLIS & HOLMAN 5400 COLUMBIA SEAFIRST CENTER WASHINGTON,D.C. 701 FIFTH AVENUE ANCHORAGE 1735 NEW YORK AVE:,N.W.,SUITE 500 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104-7011 420 L STREET.SUITE 404 WASHINGTON,D.0 20006-4759 206)623-75B0 ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501-1937 202)628-1700 907)276-1969 TELEX 904059 WSH TELECOPY(907)276-1365 TELECOPY(202)331-1024 TELEX 4740035 TELECOPY (206)623-7022 SPOKANE PORTLAND SEAFIRST FINANCIAL CENTER 3200 U.S.BANCORP TOWER SUITE 1480 III S.W.FIFTH AVENUE SPOKANE,WASHINGTON 99201-0636 PORTLAND.OREGON 972 04-3 6 3 5 509)624-2100 503)228-3200 TELECOPY(509)456-0146 TELECOPY(503)248-9085 December 2, 1987 z. DEC , 31987 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner CITY O HEARING X'M 1 9 ONTheCityofRentonMINER Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Longacres Race Track Condition Use Permit File No. CU-064-87 Dear Mr. Examiner: This responds to your memorandum of November 23, 1987, with accompanying materials submitted by Mr. David L. Halinen. Mr. Halinen requests reconsideration on behalf of his client, Mr. Michael Mastro, of the conditional use permit granted to Longacres under File No. CU-064-87 . Contrary to Mr. Halinen' s representa- tion the permit application of Longacres does meet all conditions and criteria set forth in the Renton code. Each of the matters raised in Mr. Halinen' s request for reconsideration were raised in the public hearing and in the various filings presented to the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Halinen' s request for reconsideration is neither timely nor does it raise any new matters. Each of the matters raised were before the Hearing Examiner and fully con- sidered. Adverse witnesses appeared representing nearby property owners with concerns the same as those raised in this request for reconsideration. Community need was fully explored and justified including a showing that the composting facility would reduce traffic on nearby roadways and that composting complies with the legislative priorities in dealing with wastes. Longacres Race Track has been a fixture at its present location for more than half a century. It provides recreation, employment and tax revenues to Renton and the State. The justifications for composting are both environ- mental and economic . Composting is the most environmentally sound method of dealing with the disposal of these wastes. Mr. Fred J. Kaufman December 2, 1987 RDF44 Page 2 The Hearing Examiner received substantial testimony from recognized authority showing that a properly operated composting facility will have no adverse impact on adjacent property. Testimony was also presented that the small test composting facility has been operated at Longacres for more than a year. Out of an abundance of caution the Hearing Examiner has placed several conditions including ongoing environmental test measurements to assure that this facility will have no adverse impacts on adjacent property owners. Longacres accepts the investment risk in under- taking the composting program. If Longacres is unable to maintain a quality operation, then we will be required to stop composting. This fact alone should be enough to turn down this untimely and erroneous request. This property owner, like other adjacent property owners, can monitor the results of the composting, and see that there is full enforcement of the Examiner' s conditions. The request for reconsideration states that a substantial adverse impact has resulted from this decision. Attached is an affidavit of Mr. Alex Shulman. Mr. Shulman states in his affi- davit that he terminated a purchase agreement because of the impact of composting operations. It is surprising that approxi- mately six months after Mr. Shulman entered into the purchase agreement with Mr. Mastro' s group that he discovered that Longacres was approximately 1, 500 feet from the property he was proposing to purchase. It is also interesting that on the same light standards land use notices were posted by both Longacres' and the Mastro group. While there is a claim that the sale fell through various permit applications continue to be processed at Renton City Hall for the development of the Mastro properties. The Mastro property is adjacent to the Longacres stable area where approximately 1, 600 horses are housed during the peak of the racing season. Nothing in the Examiner' s ruling changes the proximity of Longacres to the Mastro' s property or the presence of manure at Longacres. The proposed Shulman purchase area is also immediately across Springbrook Creek on the east from a major oil tank farm. The tank farm is functional but not aesthetic . The diversity of uses in this area were readily apparent to all parties at, the time the deal was made. The cancellation appears to be by mutual consent since there is no provision for this cancellation in the agreement between the parties because Longacres may compost. Longacres strongly objects to the Mastro parties claim that this conditional use permit resulted in the loss of a property sale when on the record the deal could not be cancelled because of this permit. The Hearing Examiner should dismiss the request for recon- sideration and advise the Mastro parties that they may monitor the Mr. Fred J. Kaufman December 2, 1987 RDF44 Page 3 conditions placed on Longacres as a part of the conditional use permit. If the composting facility violates any of its conditions they or others may bring this information to the attention of Renton officials. The City, as appropriate, can act to assure the composting operation is in full compliance with environmental standards. Very truly yours, PRESTON, THORGRIMSON, ELL & OLMAN BY Richard D. Ford cc: Kenneth Alhadeff Bill Taylor David L. Halinen OF RA,A y o THE CITY OF RENTON c 4$ - z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 n BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 90 A43' FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 SEP, November 30, 1987 Wade R. Dann, Esquire ULIN, DANN, ELSTON & LAMBE 4800 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104-7010 Re: Longacres Racetrack CU-064-87 - Request for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Dann: I have reviewed your letter of November 23, 1987 and my response follows. While a separate request for reconsideration is pending, your request was not received in a timely manner. The fact that a separate request is pending does keep the record open and would entitled you to appeal the decision if that becomes necessary. You may request further reconsideration if you are not happy with the final decision of this office, but such request shall be solely limited to the matters raised in the initial reconsideration. Any appeal would be similarly limited. Regarding the three points raised in your letter - I will answer the last point first. Whether or not the conditional use criteria have been satisfied will probably be dealt with by the pending request. Your first objection is unfounded. The appropriate legal notices regarding the pending actions were both posted adjacent to the property and published in the City's chosen periodical as required by law. Finally, regarding your second point, I have answered that by simply finding that your request is untimely. Obviously the reconsideration period is not open ended. Reconsideration, based upon new evidence, is solely limited to information not reasonably available at the time of the hearing, but only when that new information is supplied in a timely fashion. Your request was not timely. Although as indicated, a separate request, the request of your client's partner, conveying the same or similar information was received in a timely fashion. That request is under consideration at this time. You will receive a copy of any further determinations of this office and should apprise yourself of the appropriate appeal periods and deadlines. If this office can be of further assistance please give us a call. Sincerely, FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK/dk cc: City Attorney City Clerk ULIN, DANN, ELSTON & LAMBE DALE R.ULIN A-PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION CRAIG D.MAGNUSSON WADE R.DANN Attorneys at Law FRANK MICHIELS DOUGLAS W. ELSTON 4800 COLUMBIA CENTER JEFFREY G.POOLE RICHARD L.LAMBE JOHN L.RADDER SHAWNA RYAN 701 FIFTH AVENUE ANDREW W.TORRANCE GARTH A.SCHLEMLEIN SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98 1 04-701 0 DEBORAH M.TUTAK MARGARET EASTON ARMS 206 •624-4848 ANNE-MARIE C.P.WELLER MARK S.BEAUFAIT TELEX: 320308 ULIN DANN SEA PAUL G.WINTER WILLIAM R. ZOBERST HENRY K.HAMILTON TELECOPIER: 206 • 628-8829 PHILIP E. HICKEY ALSO ADMITTED IN ALASKA November 23, 1987 EVVEDiecCeA4 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman p Office of the Hearing Examiner N,w 2 198-1 0`' City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South RENTON Renton, WA 98055 n HyF.ARING EXAMINER Re: Longacres Racetrack Conditional Use Permit File No. : CU-064-87 REQUEST TO RE-OPEN MATTER Dear Mr. Examiner: We represent Mr. Benton Smith who is co-owner with Michael Mastro of the 25-acre parcel of land referred to in the Request for Reconsideration filed by Mr. David L. Halinen on November 16, 1987. We hereby respectfully request that the record in the referenced matter be re-opened and that we be allowed to present further evidence in opposition to the referenced application. This request is based upon (1) the fact that neither Mr. Smith nor Mr. Mastro, as adversely-affected property owners, received prior notification of the hearing and, accordingly, were denied the opportunity to be heard, (2) the discovery of new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearing, and (3) the failure of the applicant to meet the applicable conditional use permit criteria under the Renton City Code. Needless to say, they feel that they should be afforded an opportunity to appear and voice their concerns regarding the proposed use of the applicant's property and, as indicated in the Request for Reconsideration, are already experiencing some of the drastic consequences of the decision to approve the conditional - use. It is our belief that the applicant has failed to meet the conditional use permit criteria as set forth in 4-748(c) . Two of the significant factors have already been addressed in Mr. Mastro's Request for Reconsideration, i.e. , community need and adverse affect on adjacent property, and will not be elaborated upon here except to incorporate that document by reference as if Mr. Fred J. Kaufman November 23, 1987 Page 2 fully set forth herein. It is our opinion that those factors alone support a denial of the application. The applicant has also failed to demonstrate that it has ever considered, let alone satisfactorily addressed, the first listed factor, i.e. , that the proposed use be generally compatible with the purpose and standards of the Comprehensive Plan and other zoning ordinances. Examples of sections of the Comprehensive Plan which do not appear to have been addressed include §S 4-2313 and 2317. The first section prohibits the existence of stagnant or polluted water on any site. The proposed plan contemplates the pooling of leachate on the property and its re-use in the composting process. Section 4-2317 of the Compreheisve Plan requires the use of an appropriate cover, sterilization and chemical treatment of all animal waste to control odor and insect habitation and special treatment of hay and straw material, along with special requests and reports prior to their use in solid waste fills. The same section requires that leach water from solid waste fills must first be decontaminated before disposal into a sanitary sewer system. From the record, it appears that none of these requirements have been addressed in the conditional use permit application. Although these requirements are arguably applicable only to solid waste fills, they would appear to be of even greater concern when all of the solid waste material is stored out in the open because of the increased risk of exposure. Another factor listed in § 4-748(c) (9) is that accessory uses to conditional uses shall be considered to be separate uses and shall be subject to the provisions of the use district in which they are located. In the present matter, the Hearing Examiner has found the proposed use to be an accessory use to Longacres Racetrack. However, it should be noted that Longacres Racetrack is located in a B-1 zone and the proposed use in a M-P zone. In the B-1 zone, outdoor recreation or entertainment uses are conditional uses. As such, their accessory uses arguably may be allowed by conditional use permit within that zone. But that does not automatically authorize the accessory use in a M-P zone. A review of § 4-730 reveals that outdoor recreation or entertainment uses are not permitted uses. Accordingly, the attempt to bootstrap this otherwise unauthorized use in the M-P zone by labelling it as an accessory use to Longacres Racetrack in a B-1 zone, must fail. In addition to the foregoing, we would appreciate the opportunity to prepare and present evidence to the Hearing Examiner regarding specific estimates of the potential effects of Mr. Fred J. Kaufman November 23, 1987 Page 3 odor-related air pollution to nearby property owners and the community as a whole, as well as design alternatives to the proposed composting process. Inasmuch as we only recently became aware of this application, this may require a time extension in order to permit adequate preparation. Be assured, however, that we are not interposing this request for purposes of attempting to delay this matter. For these reasons, we hereby request that the hearing on this matter be re-opened and that we be allowed to present our position and evidence. In that regard, we also request a copy of the transcript of the hearing (at our expense) and a reasonable time in which to prepare the presentation of our case. Please include the undersigned on the mailing list of interested persons who wish to be informed of any future hearings or decisions regarding this application. Thank you for your attention to this request. Very - my yours, i%ir /I grade R ;n r sq WRD:kao cc: Mr. Benton Smith Douglas W. Elston, Esq. OF R4, A y 0 THE CITY OF RENTONt. 'z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 90 O.FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 P0, 9gTFD SEP-%E MEMORANDUM November 23 , 1987 TO: ALL PARTIES OF RECORD FROM: FRED J. KAUFMAN, HEARING EXAMINER RE: CU-064-87 - Longacres Race Track I have received a request for reconsideration in the above entitled matter and believe that all parties of record should have a chance to review the request and provide timely input. Enclosed is a copy of the request and supporting documentation. The request and documentation appear to suggest that the proposal might have an adverse affect on neighboring properties. Since impact on neighboring properties is a critical element of the review criteria for a Conditional Use Permit, and one which substantially concerned this office, I believe the issue may require additional exploration. If at all possible, I hope to review the matter and any responses without having to resort to an additional public hearing. A determination on whether to reopen the hearing would be made after any additional information is submitted. Please review the information and provide a response if you so desire. Please respond not later than 5: 00 P.M. , Friday, December 4, 1987. Please direct all responses to this office at the above address. If this office can be of any further assistance please feel free to call. cc: All Parties of Staff o ff AFFIDAVIT OF ALEX SHULMAN NOV 2 31987 w CITY OF E TON Alex Shulman, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and says: 1) I am the Chairman of, the Board of Directors of Alaska Distributors, Co. , a Washington corporation ("Alaska") . 2) On May 8, 1987, Alaska entered into a Real Property Purchase and Sale Agreement (the "Agreement", a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A) to purchase an approximately 13-acre site on the north side of SW 27th Street west and adjacent to Springbrook Creek (the "Site") . In entering into the Agreement, Alaska intended to build a new office/warehouse facility on the Site the "Project") to replace its existing office/warehouse facility in Seattle. 3) The Site's location, the amenities of the surrounding area, and the tough zoning controls for Renton's Manufacturing Park (M- P) zoning classification (the classification that the site and surrounding properties are zoned) , made the Site a desirable place to build new headquarters' facilities for Alaska. 4)Alaska hired Lance Mueller and Associates, Architects Mueller") to serve as architect for the Project. Mueller prepared and filed with the City of Renton Building and Zoning Department applications for Site Plan Approval (SA-071-87) , a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM-012-87) , a Filling and Grading Special Permit (SP-095-87) , and a Building Permit Plan Check #5291) . (Although Building and Zoning Department staff requested the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application, they subsequently determined that the site was not in the Shoreline District and essentially have returned that application as unnecessary. ) 5) Professional fees (for architectural, engineering, soils testing, consulting, and legal services) and City application fees that Alaska has incurred to date with respect to the Project total approximately $100, 000. 6) On or about Wednesday November 4, 1987, Alaska first learned of the proposal by Longacres Racetrack to compost horse manure and straw on a site that is a short distance to the southwest of our proposed Project. I immediately secured a copy of the Renton Hearing Examiner's Report and Decision on the Longacres Racetrack proposal. 7) Even with the conditions that the Hearing Examiner attached to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for City of Renton File No. CU-064-87, after serious consideration we at Alaska decided that the proposed introduction of a manure and straw composting operation in such close vicinity to the Site makes it AFFIDAVIT OF ALEX SHULMAN PAGE 1 OF 2 unwise for us to proceed with the building of our Seattle-area headquarters facility at the Site. 8) Accordingly, on or about November 11th, I notified Mr. Michael Mastro, one of the Sellers, to inform him that Alaska would not close the purchase of the Site on account of the planned introduction of the composting facility into the area. DATED this 23th day of November, 1987. ALEX SHU STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 23rd day of November, 1987. 1‘ Y PUBLIC in and for th StateCr. +G rfit, A g3E, c„ shin ton residing at (AC v.6 yyyy i Ni.a 1 I L;;r> to i AFFIDAVIT OF ALEX SHULMAN PAGE 2 OF 2 EWE* NOV 231981 REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER As of this $ day of May, 1987 Michael R. Mastro, Joan K. Mastro, Benton G. Smith and Jennifer Smith, individually and as the partners in LONGPROP DEVELOPMENT, a Washington general partnership ("Seller" ) agree to sell to ALASKA DISTRIBUTORS CO. , a Washington corporation ( "Purchaser" ) and Purchaser agrees to purchase from Seller certain herein described real property the "Realty") for the purchase price (the "Price") and subject to the terms, conditions and agreements herein, all of which are conditions to the obligation of Purchaser hereunder: 1 . The Realty; Price. The Realty consists of the real property situated in King County, Washington and more particularly described in the Property Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Price is One Million Six Hundred Forty-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Eight Dollars ($1 , 649 ,448. 00) . 2. Title; Title Insurance. Seller shall convey to Purchaser good and marketable title to the Realty, free from encumbrances and defects of title other than installments of real property taxes (but not assessments) that are not delinquent and the Permitted Exceptions set forth in the Property Schedule hereto ("Acceptable Title") . Seller shall provide Purchaser an owner ' s full coverage policy of title insurance (the "Title Policy" ) from title insurance company (the "Title Company" ) acceptable to Purchaser, in a face amount equal to the Price, insuring such Acceptable Title in Purchaser. 3 . Closing. (a) The Closing Date shall be the date on which the last of the following events occurs: compliance with all Conditions to Closing (or compliance with all such Conditions which are not waived in writing by Purchaser) ; recording of Seller ' s statutory warranty deed conveying Acceptable Title to Purchaser; payment by Seller of all excises or imposts on the transaction, including real estate excise tax and revenue stamps; delivery to Purchaser of the Title Policy or of an irrevocable commitment therefor; and delivery of possession of the Realty to Purchaser. Unless Seller elects to close this transaction in escrow pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, Purchaser shall pay the Price to Seller on the first business day after the Closing Date. Payment shall be made at Purchaser ' s principal place of business in Seattle, Washington. A "business day" shall mean any day on which national banks in Seattle, r ` Washington are open to the public for the conduct of general commercial banking business . Real Property taxes payable in the year of closing shall be prorated between Seller and Purchaser as of the Closing Date. b) If, before the Closing Date, Seller so notifies Purchaser in writing, this transaction shall be closed in escrow at Seller ' s expense, with the Title Company as escrowee. In such event, Purchaser shall deposit the Price with the Title Company not later than the first business day after the Title Company advises Purchaser that the Title Company is prepared to close the transaction immediately and is irrevocably committed to issue to Purchaser the Title Policy upon receipt of the Price from Purchaser. 4. Conditions to Closing. The obligation of Purchaser to purchase the Realty and pay the Price is conditioned on Seller ' s complying with the conditions set forth in the Schedule of Conditions to Closing attached hereto as Exhibit B or causing such conditions to be complied with, all to Purchaser ' s satisfac- tion. Purchaser shall cooperate with Seller in attempting to have the conditions complied with. If all of the conditions shall not have-been--met or complied with by September 15 , 1987 , Purchaser at its election may rescind this agreement by giving Seller written notice of rescission before final compliance is effected. If all of the conditions shall not have been complied with by December 31 , 1987 for any reason other than the failure of Seller to use his best efforts to effect compliance, Seller may rescind this Agreement by giving Purchaser written notice of rescission before final compliance is effected. 5 . Seller ' s Warranty. Seller warrants that at no time have there been and that as of closing of this transaction there will be no deleterious or hazardous substances deposited on or situated in or upon the Realty which would adversely affect the use, disposition, marketability or value of the Realty or impose any liability upon an owner of the Realty or subject an owner to loss or damage. 6. Access; Possession . Seller hereby grants Purchaser and Purchaser ' s agents and representatives access to the Realty for any purposes relating to this Agreement and the Conditions to Closing. If this transaction is closed, Purchaser will be entitled to possession of the Realty on the Closing Date. 2- 7. Expenses . All expenses with respect to this transaction and closing shall be paid by Seller , including, without limitation, surveys, inspection or other activities for detecting the presence of deleterious or hazardous substances , title insurance premiums, filing and recording fees, excises and imposts with respect to this transaction and escrow fees and expenses. 8 . Joint and Several Obligations . Each of the persons named herein as Seller enters into this Agreement and is and will be liable hereon jointly and severally. 9 . General . Exhibits hereto are by this reference, incorporated herein as though set forth herein at length. This instrument with such exhibits constitutes the entire agreement of the parties. No claimed modification hereof or waiver of any rights or remedies shall be effective unless in writing and signed by the person against whom asserted. Words expressed in any gender include all genders and words in the singular or plural include all numbers unless the context otherwise requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agree- ment as of the day and year first hereinabove written. Benton G. Smith) Michael R. Mastro) Jennifer Smith)Joan K. Mastro) Individually and as Partners in Longprop Development, a Washington general partnership 1LASKA DISTRIBUTORS Gib. 144 19-(22--Sk (Ce1AA-04 -4A-- e_hatra . PROPERTY SCHEDULE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE REALTY . That certain real property situated in King County, State of Washington, consisting of the easterly 560 feet of each of the following Parcels, as depicted on the Site Plan attached to Exhibit B to the Agreement: PARCEL A: That portion of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 25, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Section 25; thence south 0°49' 10" west, along the east line of said Section 25 a distance of 180.01 feet to an intersection with a line parallel to and 180 feet southerly, measured at right angles to the north line of said Section 25; thence north 87°12 ' 59" west, parallel with said north line, 20.00 feet to an intersection with a line parallel to and 20 feet westerly, measured at right angles to the east line of said Section 25; thence south 0°49' 10" west along said parallel line 554.32 feet to the true point of beginning; thence north 88°24' 48" west a distance of 1027. 60 feet to a point; thence south 1°01' 19" west, 520.05 feet to a point; thence south 88°24' 48" east, 1,029. 43 feet to a point on a line parallel to and 20 feet westerly of, measured at right angles to the east line of said Section 25; thence north 0°49' 10" east, along said parallel line 520.05 feet to the true point of beginning. EXCEPT that portion conveyed to the City of Renton for road purposes by deed recorded under Recording Number 8401240272. PARCEL B: That portion of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 25, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Section 25; thence south 0°49' 10" west along the east line of said Section 25 a distance of 190.01 feet to an intersection with a line parallel to and 180 feet southerly, measured at right angles to the north line of said Section 25; thence north 87°12 ' 59" west, parallel with said north line, 20.00 feet to an intersection with a line parallel to and 20 feet westerly, measured at right angles to, the east line of said Section 25, said point being the true point of beginning; thence north 87°12 ' 59" west, parallel to and 180.00 feet southerly of the north line of said Section 25 a distance of 1026.07 feet; LEGAL DESCRIPTION, continued: thence south 1°01' 19" west, 575 . 53 feet to the northwest corner• ot. the above described Parcel A; thence south 88°24' 48" east, 1027. 60 feet to a point on a line 2Q.OU feet westerly, measured at right angles to the east line of Section 25; thence north 0°49' 10" east parallel to said east line 554. 14 feet:.tO ; the true point of beginning. PERMITTED EXCEPTIONS The Special Exception numbered 5 to the "Second Report, A.L.T.A. Commitment" for title insurance issued by Stewart Title Company of Washington, Inc. under its Order No. 42867 dated April 24 , 1987 at 8 : 00 a.m. d) The forty-foot portion of the Realty devoted to the greenbelt will be exempt from all property taxes and assess- ments for as long as the greenbelt remains , and there will be no retroactive levy of taxes following any termination of the greenbelt status. e) There will be no assessment or tax on the Realty for and no requirement of any contribution, whether as a condition to obtaining building or other permits , or otherwise, for traffic considerations or street, road or highway traffic handling, revision or management, other than taxes or assessments which may be levied on all properties similarly situated and without reference to the improvement or use of the Realty as reflected by the Site Plan. f) All other requirements, if any, relating to environmental and ecological matters , and removal or other proper disposition of deleterious or hazardous substances, if any, and protecting the Realty from encroachment or infiltration of such substances upon or into the Realty will be effected at Seller ' s expense before the Closing Date. g) All permits and approvals of public bodies, local , state or federal for improving the Realty in accordance with the Site Plan, including placement of fill on the Realty, will be issued and granted before the Closing Date. If the transaction is closed, architectural and engineering fees and expenses for construction of improvements shall be borne by Purchaser . If the transaction does not close for any reason other than the fault of Purchaser, Seller shall reimburse Purchaser for such fees and expenses. EXHIBIT B-Page 2 4-,J SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS TO CLOSING Attached to this Schedule is a drawing entitled "SITE PLAN - ALASKA DISTRIBUTORS" , bearing a date "May 5th 1987 . " It will be referred to herein as the "Site Plan. " Features appearing on the Site Plan are referred to in the conditions set forth below. The obligation of Purchaser to purchase the Realty is subject to all of the following conditions being met: a) Zoning and land use laws , regulations and rules permit the construction and use of improvements substantially as shown on the Site Plan, with free access to S.W. 27th Street for trucks and passenger vehicles . b) Set-back, landscaping and greenbelt requirements will not exceed the following: 1) A greenbelt forty feet (40 ' ) in width along . __ the east boundary of the Realty; 2) A building set-back of sixty feet (60 ' ) from the south boundary of the Realty, the set-back being measured from the exterior of the foundation of the Warehouse; 3) A building set-back of twenty feet (20 ' ) from the north, east and west boundaries of the Realty, the set-back being measured from the exterior of the founda- tion of the Warehouse; 4) Landscaping will not be required except (i) for a twenty-foot area along the south boundary of the Realty, with exemptions for the driveways shown on the sketch and for the east forty feet of that area; (ii) for a ten-foot area along the west boundary of the Realty; and iii) for five percent (5%) of the parking areas ; and 5) On the east side of the Realty, no landscaping will be required. c) There will be a waiver of any requirements to devote any portion of the Realty to wild life so long as the forty-foot greenbelt remains . EXHIBIT B-Page 1 1GMOMMIT1f1r• ro--•0214 a b z FUTURE ADDITION a b 1{gO1! O 13 SITE SYNOPSIS s euaDNG 201E tr 9Te AREA 3e4901 s kd syerook tr..e.tq OfAfE AREA(1w IV) 1.721 S OR10E AREA(2nd Er) 23.120 s DU4DINb MEAD(1••mmU I4L727117 s IEGl1RED PARIQ1t• i';.' MCC USE(1/2o41 not ma) 102 w b"' WAREHOUSE USE(1/is°a.r not v..)10 . 11.00 e1.0oeTOTALIEOUSID142 •• 1 TOTAL FRONDED 183 • at y Lu]°wa sidle JD PARKING —'Ot,al Rattan r• F•m•ntA r' '_ _ irnat•A w r•,.t n••n t a•o I 1 M1+•n.,$d m•rhmu•ate) D D 31600 1 1 1 300.00 MOO D O 6 i 01 Y 0 1 WAREHOUSE s.• C.) c2 Z o. 0 0 6 F_— 1 a of g3 /O ag E O 111J1 d1k1.1-tI1 1 Ido""fir ki 1 1 n PARgHO OTAW(nt 1tM) V - xi°Ulllllllolllllllllolllll(llloWl1ilo (1f 20e 14L LAi AFN0 160 aw.20 e N etr 23'oO'W SW 27th STREET R-90/.2711 L••114.17111'01' ED SITE PLAN — ALASKA DISTRIBUTORS 0 23 30 1000, o XI. GOODFELLOW.ARCHITECT k ENGINEER for ALASKA DISTRIBUTORS 1--LJ 11 y1 tl1010Ifit i OF R r o THE CITY OF RENTON U / : Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 z P.?BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER O• FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 0, 9q' eD SEP'0' MEMORANDUM DATE: November 17, 1987 TO: RON NELSON, DIRECTOR, BUILDING AND ZONING FROM: FRED J. KAUFMAN, HEARING EXAMINER SUBJECT: LONGACRES RACETRACK - CU-064-87 For your information, this office has received a request for reconsideration in the above matter and the Conditional Use request is not to be considered final at this time. We will keep you advised. OF R THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 0 4=1= BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 90 co. FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 9 rFD SEP1c_O November 17, 1987 David L. Halinen Attorney At Law Plaza Center Bldg. , Suite 1000 10900 N.E. 8th Street Bellevue, Washington 98004 Re: Request for Reconsideration Longacres Race Track Waste Composting Application CU-064-87 Dear Mr. Halinen: I have reviewed your request for reconsideration in the above entitled matter and must ask that you supplement your request if you wish me to entertain reconsideration. This office would like to review any supporting documentation regarding the land transaction you have mentioned, to determine the issue you have raised. Since the matter is pending, I would appreciate any additional information by no later than 5: 00 P.M. , Monday, November23 , 1987. If this office can be of any further assistance please feel free to call. Sincerely, FRED J. NUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK/dk nq, i" .0 November 16, 1987 0\1 16 AO Mr. Fred J. Kaufman 1( O% 0Am1eR Office of the Hearing Examiner err City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 SUBJECT: November 2, 1987 Conditional Use Permit Decision Regarding Longacres Race Track Waste Composting City of Renton File No. CU-064-87 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Dear Mr. Examiner: I represent Michael Mastro. Mr. Mastro is the owner of a 25-acre parcel of land that lies on the north side of S.W. 27th Street about 800 feet east of the site of the parcel upon which the subject Longacres' waste composting operation is proposed. As I have explained below, because the Longacres' proposal does not satisfy all of the City's zoning criteria for conditional use permits, and because the decision to approve the conditional use permit has already proven to be a serious blow to the value of my client's property, I respectfully request that you reconsider your decision and deny the Longacres' application. I. THE APPLICATION'S FAILURE TO MEET ALL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA MANDATES APPLICATION DENIAL. This permit applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to compost its "horse manure and straw mix" because, without a conditional permit, the site's M-P zoning prohibits the use. 1 To qualify for such a permit, a proposed use must, at a minimum, meet all of the several criteria set forth in Renton Code Section 4-748 (C) . Because this proposed use does not meet the criteria for (1) community need for the proposed use at the proposed location, and (2) substantial or undue adverse affects on adjacent property, the conditional use permit should be denied. A. No Showing Has Been Made of Community Need for the Proposed Use at the Proposed Location. The proposed manure and straw composting use fails to conform with Section 4-748 (C)2's mandate that " [t]here shall be a community need for the proposed use at the proposed location. " 1 "The purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow certain uses in districts from which they are normally prohibited by this chapter [on zoning] . . . . " RCC 4-748 (A) . I REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION November 16, 1987 Page 2 of 3 Emphasis added. ) At most, the applicant merely demonstrated that the Longacres Racetrack had a need to find an alternative to trucking its manure and straw to an Oregon mushroom farm. The applicant certainly did not establish any community need for composting waste at this location. If the community has any need" to have racehorse track waste composted at all, it certainly does not have a need to have it done in an area slated for high quality office parks. While trucking the waste to another site for composting may be somewhat more expensive to Longacres, appropriately-zoned sites much closer than Salem, Oregon are undoubtedly available. Composting the waste on such a site would prevent the M-P-zoned parcels in this area from being unfairly stigmatized with a land use that does not belong in this area. As to cost, if the waste could be hauled all the way to Salem for years economically, it certainly could be hauled to an appropriate site in this metro area economically. B. The Proposed Use Has Not Been Shown to Have Neither a Substantial Nor Undue Adverse Effect on Adjacent Property. While the proposed manure/straw composting operation may well be "state of the art" and may well make for an interesting experiment in waste recycling, the applicant failed to prove that t]he proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property" as required by Section 4-748 (C) 3 as a prerequisite for a conditional use permit. The fact is that, as noted by the Examiner, "while the actual impacts [of the proposed use] may be minimal, the psychological impacts could be substantial. i2 Even with the proposed technology and conditions of approval, the proposal is still one of outdoor composting of horse manure and straw in an area designated for modern high quality office parks. In such an area as this, the certain diminution of value3 of neighboring properties that this use will cause is undue. 2 Excerpt from Conclusion 1 of the Examiner's Report. 3 A substantial market value decline in neighboring properties due to this proposal is certain because, as the Examiner noted in Conclusion 1 of his Report: "The first inclination of some, and probably even the second, would be that high quality development would be discouraged by the proposal. " REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION November 16, 1987 Page 3 of 3 II.THE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT THAT THE DECISION ALREADY HAS HAD ON THE PENDING SALE OF MR. MASTRO'S NEARBY PARCEL MANDATES RECONSIDERATION AND DENIAL. A particularly telling event that has occurred since the November 2nd conditional use permit decision was rendered is Alaska Distributors Company's abandonment, on account of the decision, of its development plans for a part of my client's property. This last summer, Alaska Distributors ("Alaska") , had entered into a conditional purchase and sale agreement with Mr. Mastro to purchase 13 acres of the Mastro property at a price of more than 1.6 million. Subsequently, Alaska invested about $100, 000 to have architectural and engineering plans for an office/warehouse project on the 13 acres. Within a week of Alaska's November 5th discovery of the Longacres' composting proposal, Alaska, upon investigating the proposal, notified my client that, because of the proposed composting project, it had decided not to go forward and purchase the property. Alaska's pullout decision is positive proof that the idea of a neighboring compost/manure processing operation does indeed discourage high quality development on nearby parcels. That Alaska was willing to do so even though it had already invested 100,000 on its own project's plans demonstrates that such discouragement is substantial and that the adverse effect of the composting proposal on the value of neighboring properties is also substantial. In light of the above, I hereby request on Mr. Mastro's behalf that the Longacre' s Racetrack application for a conditional use permit to compost horse manure and straw at the subject parcel be denied. Respectfull submitted, 6-atii-e e David L. Haline DLH:j sm G, AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. County, of King DOTTY KLINGMAN being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the end day of November 1987 affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Alt, iad..,..r...r.,..rd.....t.) SUBSCRIBED ANDSWORN to before me this Nite..day of Af-tx- 44-(A, 1987. 42i)..a.cezrgyt -ifiz&fcr„.,.k../ Notary Publ `% and for the State of Washington, residing at f G o-,.// therein. Application, Petition, or Case #: CU-064-87 = LONGACRES RACETRACK The minutes contain a list of the parties of record.) November 2, 1987 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: LONGACRES RACETRACK File No.: CU-064-87 LOCATION: Located on Longacres Race Course property, S.W. of 27th Street and west of Oakesdale Ave. S.W. (if both streets were extended. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site approval for composting waste from race course. The facility includes a paved composting pad, 30 windrows, aerator turning areas and a pond to collect leachate and rainfall runoff before reuse or discharge. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Hearing Examiner Decision: Approved with conditions. BUILDING & ZONING The Building & Zoning Department Report was received DEPARTMENT REPORT:by the Examiner on October 13, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning Department Report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The hearing was opened on October 20, 1987 at 9:15 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #2 - Vicinity Map. Exhibit #3 - Site Plan Exhibit #4 - Drawing showing north portion of the site containing wetlands. Exhibit #5 - (a) Initial compost medium and (b) Finished compost both in containers. Exhibit #6 - Letter of 3/31/87 from Bill Taylor to ERC with design of the facility. Exhibit #7 - Letter from Jan P. Allen to Bill Taylor detailing concerns expressed by property owners. Exhibit #8 - Letter of October 4, 1987 from Jeff Gage to Bill Taylor. Exhibit #9 - Letter from Compost Design Services describing compost process. Exhibit #10 - Letter dated 10/19/97 to Zoning Administrator from attorney John Keegan. The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by the Zoning Administrator, Don Erickson. Mr. Erickson reviewed the report pointing out such information as the composting facility is to be I2 . LONGACRES RACETRACK CU-064-87 November 2, 1,987 Page 2 located on the racetrack site; there is approximately 600 cubic yards of compost produced per day during the race season which was being shipped to Oregon for disposal but which now the racetrack wishes to dispose of themselves. The compose material is on-site and will be placed on a 13,000 sq. yd. paved pad, 'there are 30 windrows of material, compost is turned by a machine and the finished product is sanitary. Erickson continued stating the fire department has requested a fire hydrant be placed near!the site; adequate utilities are available; a major metro sewer line is located adjacent to the site and should rain runoff need to be intercepted by a sewer as opposed to draining into the adjacent wetlands the metro sewer lines would be capable of accommodating this situation. He stated it is felt this proposal will not intrude into surrounding properties, there should be no impacts from noise with the Air Quality Control Dept. raising concerns about possible odors; Quality Control will monitor the site for odors and report to the City; landscaping will be completed around the edge of the site; height is not a concern; and it is felt the conditions imposed by the ERC and staff recommended conditions can be used,to ensure the application will be compatible with the surrounding area which includes the Glacier Park property. A review was given of the criteria to be considered when reviewing a conditional use request. Erickson stated the Department of Ecology had suggested the applicant consider off-site treatment of the material but the applicant felt it would not be economically feasible; it is felt the site is suited for this business,' there is a private access road on the site to be used to transport the material so City streets will not be used; and a discussion followed regarding leachates and runoff into the wetlands. ERC conditions were reiterated which includes the use of clay membrane to be used to prevent leachate from reaching underlying soils; surface water runoff be through a retention pond prior to release into the wetlands; odor control and surface water runoff be monitored and a report be presented to the ERC within 6 months of the beginning of the operation of the facility; and a one year period be approved initially. Testimony in support of this proposal was provided by: Ken Alhadeff Vice President Business Operations Longacres Racetrack P. O. Box 60 Renton, Wa. 98056 Mr. Alhadeff'presented his credentials and reviewed the history of the racetrack and its progress and contribution to the community through the years. Referring to the instant proposal he stated there are approximately 1600 horses at the track during the race season; for many years the waste material was stored on the property and moved from time to time; the material has now become a liability to their business and prompted the applicant to find another way to deal with the problem. After research they do not feel this proposal will in any way be detrimental to the surrounding community or the environment. He said they would like to begin on a trial basis and feels the process will produce a positive impact on their business stating if there are any environmental concerns they will be willing to discontinue the project. Testifying further in support was Bill Taylor, 2201 N. E. 27th, Renton, Wa. 98056. Mr. Taylor entered Exhibits 6,7, and 8 into the record and noted the subject property is part of a 19 acre parcel that was brought into the City from Tukwila as M-P property and not B-1 as was the remainder of the racetrack; the chosen site for the composting project is to be located on the M-P property due to its proximity to the barns, water and sewer lines; and after exploring the options available for disposal the proposed method was chosen as being the most feasible and practical. Mr. Taylor said locating this project on-site 'would eliminate approximately 140 truck trips per week. Mr. Robert Rousculp, Design Engineer, 6700 Old Guide Road, Lvnden, Wa. 98264 presented his credentials and 'proceeded to describe the technical design to be used in the composting procedure noting he did the physical plan for this procedure which included the design of the asphalt, spacing, economic utilization of the site and the minimizing of the costs. Mr. Jan Allen, 6022 35th Ave. N.W., Seattle, Wa. 98107, member of the Sound Resource Management Group, presented his credentials. He stated there will be 30 rows of material, one row will be turned each day with the entire process taking one month to complete; when asked if this procedure could be developed in a more urban rather than rural setting he referred to a case study involving the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle and stated this procedure can be completed in a more restrictive type of setting. He also referenced the same type of operation currently in the Kent and Woodinville areas. Continuing testimony in support of this proposal was presented by: Jeff Gage 9053 Dayton Avenue North Seattle, Wa. 98103 Credentials were presented and Mr. Gage reviewed the procedure to be used by the applicant and presented Exhibit #9 which describes the composting process, facilities used, odoriferous effects I LONGACRES RACETRACK CU-064-87 November 2, 1987 Page 3 referencing the process used by the Zoo. He stated he feels the applicant has designed this project with the elimination of odors in mind by using the windrow method which is the turning of the waste material outside in the natural air as opposed to inside a building. Mr. Gage presented Exhibit #5 and briefly discussed the carbon to nitro ratio's as pertains to possible gases stating the request should be for at least 2 years to give the applicant sufficient time to discover what this material can do and the most feasible way to handle the 600 cubic yards per day. Also testifying for the applicant was Richard Ford, Attorney for Longacres Racetrack, 5400 Columbia Seafirst Center, Seattle. Wa. 98104. Mr. Ford referred to the run-off from the compost and advised Longacres has agreed this facility would be connected to the Metro sewer; they do not operate during the rainy period (because the racetrack is closed); it is felt this type of operation is compatible with State and regional objectives in the handling of waste; stated there will be no odor problems, and feels the test of this facility for 2 years will prove the applicant is cognizant of the public, the environment, and would not be proposing this project if it was felt there would be any impact to its patrons or the community., Representing the South King County Health Department was Gary Criscione, 3001 N.E. 4th, Renton, Wa. 98056. Mr. Criscione represents the solid waste division of the Health Department and commented at this point, in time the applicant needs to obtain a permit from the Health Department for solid waste disposal, and questioned how the product will be used and whether or not it is to be sold. He said there will be a monthly on-site routine inspection to check for odors, outside discharges (accidental or intentional) and to be sure the facility meets their waste regulations. He referred to an asphalt membrane and leachate control aspect which has not as yet been resolved. Testifying as a representative of Glacier Park Company, owners of 300 acres of adjacent property, was John Keegan, attorney. 1501 - 4th Avenue, Seattle. Wa. 98101, who also referred to an August 4, 1987 letter outlining concerns and recommended conditions that should be placed on the proposal. He said they have reviewed the staff report, reviewed the conditions and recommended connection to the Metro sewer system!be a requirement; feels monitoring standards should be set up to monitor for odors and fully protect any leachate runoff toward Spring brook Creek or the P-1 Channel; feels agency monitoring throughout the trial period of 6 months should be made with written reports available; landscaping should be of a height and density to completely screen the composting facility from adjacent properties; during the 2 year period, if approved, there should be some language in the conditions to 'state the operation will cease if conditions are not favorable, with the City having the option of extending the use. Attorney Keegan feels the conditions are reasonable and stated his clients are pleased the applicant seems ready and willing to accept the conditions imposed by City staff. Kirk Johnson, Trammell Crow Company. 5601 6th Avenue South, Seattle, Wa. 98108 who stated his company owns buildings that are occupied by Boeing Company adjacent to the Glacier Park property testified attorney Keegan raised the same concerns as his company and reiterated they believe in the good neighbor policy, and feel the project should be monitored. Robert Rousculp, Design Engineer, described his design for the project, described the run-off and how it will be handled, assuring the Examiner the system is more than capable of alleviating run-off. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11:15 A.M. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1.The applicant, Longacres Race Course, Inc., filed a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a composting facility in the vicinity of Longacres. 2.The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3.The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance (DNS) for the subject proposal. 4.The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5.The subject site is located southwest of S.W. 27th Street and west of Oakesdale Avenue S.W., as those streets are extended. The site is one of the parcels of property which was recently exchanged with Tukwila and was incorporated into the City of Renton in January, 1987. 6.The subject site is zoned M-P (Manufacturing Park) a classification it received after annexation. The zoning was adopted in April, 1987. LONGACRES RACETRACK CU-064-87 November 2, 1'987 Page 4 7.The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of manufacturing park/multiple option uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the plan. 8.The proposed location is south of Longacres racetrack near the western edge of the City limits. The surrounding area is for the most part still undeveloped, with, again, the racetrack to the north, undeveloped parcels to the west and east, and a mix of undeveloped and industrial uses to the south. 9.The area is generally zoned for Manufacturing Park uses with an option for office park uses. A number of office uses, including some campus style office parks, have been or are being developed in the general vicinity, particularly east of the site. 10. Representatives of the owners of some of the neighboring property were present at the hearing. These representatives were not necessarily opposed to the proposed composting operation as long as it was well screened and totally contained on the subject site. They were concerned about not only the aesthetic impacts, that is the unsightliness, but also•the psychological impacts and particularly the olfactory impacts, that is, the smells which could be generated. 11. Wetlands and the proposed drainage channel for the Valley are located adjacent to the site. For this reason the site has been designed to contain run-off on the site. The water so accumulated would be recycled and be used to maintain the moisture content of the composting materials. Any;excess runoff would still be accumulated and the applicant has now agreed to release such runoff into the Metro sanitary sewer rather than releasing it to the surrounding environment. 12. The composting site is approximately 2.7 acres in area, a rectangle of 380 feet by 310 feet and is part of a 19 acre site. The site would be almost centrally located between the eventual Oakesdale right-of-way east of the site and the railroad lines west of the site. While alignments for both Oakesdale and the P-1 channel are not final, the site would be setback from Oakesdale approximately 600 feet. 13. The applicant operates Longacres Racetrack. During the season the operation houses approximately 1,600 horses, and as horses are wont to do, they do. Actually, the barn floors are lined[with a large amount of straw to absorb waste materials. The mixture of straw and waste totals approximately 600 cubic yards of material per day. Of this total approximately 95 percent is straw, the remaining 5 percent is waste matter, consisting of feces and urine. 14. The mix of straw to waste materials is an important aspect of the process since it determines the nature of byproducts which can cause odors. The mix in this case approaches an ideal mix according to the applicant, since it significantly limits the amount of ammonia, an odoriferous component, which could be generated. 15. At one time the material was stored at the track and trucked to a mushroom farm in Oregon. That distribution method no longer is utilized and as a practical matter, Longacres needed a method of disposing of the waste stream. The method chosen was to compost the material which results in a substantial reduction in the volume of material, a reduction of approximately 85 percent. 16. The truck trips necessary in the past, approximately 140 per week, would also be reduced substantially. Hauling of the material between the stable area and the site would be over an interior road. 17. The composting complex would be designed as a 310 foot by 380 foot rectangle. Thirty windrows, piles of material, 20 feet wide by 100 feet long by approximately 6 feet tall will be laid out in two tiers of 15 each. The facility will also be equipped with a hopper, cutter and grinder. The material is mechanically processed prior to composting to assure that the material is the correct size for composting by both cutting and then grinding. 18. The operation will occur on a saucer shaped asphalt surface, consisting to two separate layers of asphaltic material and two sealants. The saucer shape will prevent runoff from the site, while the sealed asphalt base will prevent material from percolating into the underlying soils and from there into the wetlands environment. 19. Leachate, water which has passed through the windrow piles, will be collected from a central area and reutilized to keep a constant moisture level. Composting is both art and science. A certain level of moisture is necessary to maintain the biological processes which accomplish the breakdown of the waste material into usable organic compost. This moisture will be provided by reapplying the leachate, if any, and additional water. The applicant, again, has agreed that rather than release any water from the site to the outside environment, in the event of excessive rains or other accumulations, the sanitary sewer will be utilized. The plans (Exhibit 3) show a drainage line to the wetlands - this should be deleted from the plans. LONGACRES RACETRACK CU-064-87 November 2, 1987 Page 5 20. Similarly, oxygen to sustain the process is necessary. This is supplied by turning the materials at•a,steady rate and by the exposure of the windrows to air. Closed buildings, even with turning, do not work as effectively for composting, which is why the proposal will take place on the open asphalt surface. The materials will be turned by a mechanical aerator, operating across the windrows, in a fashion similar to a rototiller. 21. The!oxygen component is important because aerobic composting, that is composting in the presence of a plentiful oxygen source, such as mixed in air, produces very little odor. It is when oxygen is limited and anaerobic (the absence of air or oxygen) composting or decomposition occurs that foul odors are generally generated. 22. While small composting operations usually require the movement of material from one pile to another to accomplish the necessary mixing and aeration, the 'rototiller' will permit each pile to progress from its raw state to finished state without redistribution of the materials. The process from start to finish takes approximately 28 days. At the end of the 28 or 30 days, the finished material will be removed and replaced by new raw waste material for processing. 23. Any pathogens, possible disease organisms, as well as weed seeds and insect eggs and larvae are killed by the internal temperatures, approximately 160 to 170 degrees Fahrenheit, generated by the natural composting process. At the beginning of the process the materials may contain any or a combination of the above 'pests' since it takes approximately 3 or 4 days for the temperatures to destroy them. 24. The moisture content minimizes both dust and fire danger. The turning also releases or prevents any accumulation of flammable gas (sewer gas) also minimizing fire danger. The turning and high temperature supposedly minimizes insect activity. 25. The applicant has not finalized any plans for the ultimate disposition of the finished product which can be used as a topsoil substitute, or soil additive. The Seattle Zoo, which runs a similar but smaller composting operation, does sell the compost as a commercial product called Zo;o Doo" and the applicant capitalizing on its slogan of Doo Dah, might sell it as "Doo Dah Doo!!!" 26. The applicant referenced the Zoo operation since that complex is located in a residential area of the City of Seattle. That operation apparently is more odoriferous while substantially smaller in scale. The Zoo handles approximately 150 cubic yards per month as opposed to this proposal which would process approximately 600 cubic yards per day. 27. The information does not discuss the amount of sand which will be introduced into the process and does not account for the truck trips necessary to import sand for the process. That information should be provided as it will diminish the value of the process in reducing truck traffic. The volume of sand necessary was not clearly explored, although it will constitute approximately 20 percent of the finished product. CONCLUSIONS 1.The applicant for a Conditional Use Permit must demonstrate that the use is in the public interest, will not impair the health, safety or welfare of the general public and is in compliance with the criteria found in Section 4-748(C) which provides in part that: a.The proposal generally conforms with the Comprehensive Plan; b. There is a general community need for the proposed use at the proposed location; c.There will be no undue impacts on adjacent property; d. The proposed use is compatible in scale with the adjacent residential uses, if any; e.Parking, unless otherwise permitted, will not occur in the required yards; f.Traffic and pedestrian circulation will be safe and adequate for the proposed project; g.Noise, light and glare will not cause an adverse affect on neighboring property; h.Landscaping shall be sufficient to buffer the use from rights-of-way and neighboring property where appropriate; and i.Adequate public services are available to serve the proposal. The requested conditional use appears justified, although certain conditions will be necessary to assure that it is, and remains, an acceptable use and neighbor. LONGACRES RACETRACK CU-064-87 November 2, 1987 Page 6 2.This is an awkward decision, for while the proposal is a progressive waste management project, it is (within an area designated for modern high quality office parks. These uses, composting and office development, do not appear very compatible. The area is far from rural and as was noted, while the actual impacts may be minimal, the psychological impacts could be substantial. Will the idea of a neighboring compost/manure processing operation encourage or discourage high(quality uses on adjacent parcels? The first inclination of some, and probably even the second, would be that high quality development would be discouraged by the proposal. Certain factors and conditions, conditions imposed by the ERC and this office, and factors included by the applicant and locational factors will hopefully integrate the proposal into the area. The City obviously would not want to approve the use of the site for the proposed purpose if as a result of approval it only encouraged low quality projects on adjoining property. 3.The limitations on duration specified by the ERC, and the current absence of surrounding development will give the operation an opportunity to show its neighborliness and allow adjacent property owners an opportunity to access the impacts of this use on their property, and potential uses. A yearly review, proposed below, shall insure that it remains that way. 4.It is some of the other aspects of the proposal which even allow positive consideration of such a proposal in this rapidly developing office environment. These factors are the state-of-the-art composting techniques which will be employed by the applicant, the setback from other properties and the intervening public rights-of-way and the large size of these rights-of-way which will separate the operation from neighboring uses, as well as the installation of a large number of large mature evergreen trees which will be required. 5.This office also wishes to clarify that the use is reviewed as an adjunct to the operation of the Longacres Track, is an accessory use, and that it should only be viewed in that light while the specific mechanism for approval is the conditional use permit process. The approval would be for an accessory use which is subordinate and incidental to the operation of the track but nonetheless reviewable under the Conditional Use provision. Therefore, the decision should not be read as supporting the independent establishment of such an operation outside the orbit of a racetrack or similar circumstances. It is not an endorsement of a conditional use permit as the mechanism to allow similar but independent uses. 6.Since the use will not be permitted to operate as a separate use in its own right but one intended to serve the adjoining track, the applicant will be prevented from importing any waste stream product, limiting the source of material to that solely generated at the track. 7.The Comprehensive Plan provides a number of policies which work both for and against the current proposal. Obviously the designation of the general area for high quality office park uses does not quite fit the image of the proposed composting operation. Manure, straw, a cesspool like water recycling system and the mechanical grinders and rototiller-like aerator probably present an image as far removed from a high quality office park as one can imagine. But thel use is compatible with at least one surrounding complex, the Longacres track, and while composting would be new to the area, the storage of the same waste materials had occurred not far fro im the site for many years and the materials in raw form were transported through the area for many years. 8.The plan also indicates that other industrial and service uses may be established if they can be made compatible. While it may seem that only magic can make the operation compatible, the state-off the-art methods and the planting of large numbers of trees should help screen the site. The intervening wetlands could hamper adequate and successful landscaping efforts but landscaping which will screen the site from taller buildings shall be required. Evergreen trees which can provide both a visual buffer and potentially filter noise and odors passing through the buffer shall be required. With the exception of the access road all other areas of the site shall be landscaped with trees planted in as close a pattern as practical. The trees shall be as mature as practical to accomplish a quick screening buffer. Basically the operation shall be as isolated from any neighboring property as is possible. The City is no longer an agricultural area and it shall not be allowed to appear as one, if at all possible, to passersby or occupants of adjacent office buildings. It is such users who might, in the future, overlook the site, - a site in this case not merely involved in simple agricultural pursuits but one which is composting manure. 9.There is very little doubt that all parties are very seriously concerned about the potential impacts of the proposal on adjacent property. Impacts are not confined to merely physical impacts such as odor and possibly insect infestations, but include aesthetic and psychological impacts which could adversely affect the value of adjacent property. If the value of adjacent property were to suffer, less than high caliber office uses could result. Therefore, the operation should be subject to periodic review even after the initial period required by the ERC. After all, if it is not unreasonable to require the cessation of the use after 2 years, it is not unreasonable to require closure at some future date, if it fails to maintain its good neighborliness. The expense and investment should be no greater after two years than it would be during the first two years. Such continuing scrutiny will keep the operation on its toes, as it LONGACRES RACETRACK CU-064-87 November 2, 1987 Page 7 were, assuring that practices do not deteriorate or become sloppy and that it remains a good neighbor. 1 10. The applicant's expert indicated that composting is as much art as science, and poor practices could lead to problems. The City has a stake in maintaining a healthy environment and that extends beyond disease control to both its aesthetic and economic health. Therefore the operation shall be subject to yearly review. If the City in its discretion determines the operation may be causing problems, such review shall occur as for the initial granting of the Conditional Use Permit and by the same procedures then prevailing for such review.• Under such review the City shall be entitled to impose additional conditions, including requiring the operation to be enclosed within a building, or deny the permit in its entirety. To assure that the City is aware of the situation during operation, neighbors should report any problems to theCitysothattheinformationwillbeavailableforreviewwhentheapplicantrenewsthepermit. 11. The location of the site, interior to both Oakesdale and the P-1 channel should also minimize to some extent the potential impact on adjacent properties. The combination of dense landscaping and these rights-of-way setbacks should buffer adjacent uses. 12. The use, accessory to Longacres, will be served by Longacres and there should be no problems with access, parking or pedestrian circulation. 13. The operation should not generate any noise, light or glare above that which already exists from the Longacres operations adjacent to the north. Odor is one of the main concerns surrounding any composting operation involving animal excrement. The record reflects that similar waste materials have been present at Longacres and in the general area for many years and have generated very few, if any, complaints. The large percentage of hay or straw generally should cause the straw's odor to predominate the mix. The finished product, if the sample was accurate, should smell more like soil or loam. 14. The decision cannot ignore disclosures in the record which indicate that objectionable odors can be generated if the process is not handled appropriately. If the moisture content is not maintained at acceptable levels, or turning and aeration are not accomplished, the composting can turn anaerobic and generate objectionable odors. Therefore the condition discussed above requiring yearly review, is to assure that the process is maintained in an acceptable manner. 15. This office is not convinced that process could not be accomplished at another location on Longacres property where the potential off-site impacts could be lessened. This was not explored at this hearing but it might have been possible to shift other operations which would have Ormitted this process to be carried out in an area more fully enclosed by the applicant's own property. This office would like to suggest, and not entirely facetiously either, that the applicant might just have set up this operation as a demonstration project in their infield area. While lawn and green space are nice, a practical demonstration of composting could have been most informative. If such an operation could have been located in the infield area it might have clearly demonstrated to the public that waste handling can be accomplished in reasonable fashion. In addition, this way, not only would the use not be located close to property owned by third persons, but the public could have been exposed to other aspects of the horse racing industry. People probably should be exposed more often than they are to the inside processes of industry and solid and sanitary waste handling, rather than sheltered from the less glamorous aspects of such procedures. Clearly the applicant's open display of composting methods in its infield would also demonstrate to the public a form of recycling - a practical lesson in this day and age where communities are seeking additional solutions to garbage and solid waste disposal. 16. Hopefully, I will be forgiven for this last flight of whimsy, for while it's a serious problem and one seriously considered and dealt with by the applicant, the infield proposal should further sensitize the applicant to the concerns of neighbors and the City regarding this project and its unappealing aspects. DECISION The Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicant shall comply fully with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2.The use shall be treated and approved as an accessory use to Longacres Racetrack and shall be completely terminated, discontinued and cease, if the principle use, Longacres Racetrack ceases operation. 3.No water of any kind which has come in contact with the site or any of the processes occurring on the site shall be permitted in any fashion to enter the environment other than through the Metro Sanitary Sewer System. All water or leachates shall be contained on-site or released into the sanitary sewer system. LONGACRES RACETRACK CU-064-87 November 2, 1987 Page 8 4.No waste stream products of any kind shall be imported to the site. All waste materials used in the composting process shall originate at the Longacres Racetrack. 5.Evergreen trees which can provide both a visual buffer and potentially filter noise and odors passing through the buffer shall be planted in the manner set forth below, and subject to the approval of the City's Landscape Architect. With the exception of the access road all other areas of the 19 acre site shall be landscaped with trees planted in as close a pattern as practical. The trees shall be as mature as practical to accomplish a quick screening buffer. The landscape architect shall construe this condition to reach its basic purpose: the operation shall be isolated from any neighboring property as fully and as quickly as possible. 6.The entire composting operation shall be subject to yearly review. If the City in its discretion determines the operation may be causing problems such review shall occur as for the initial granting of the Conditional Use Permit and by the same procedures then prevailing for such review. Under such review the City shall be entitled to impose additional conditions, including requiring the operation to be enclosed entirely within a building, or it may deny the permit in its entirety. 7.If any neighboring property owner has objections which they believe have not been properly addressed in these yearly reviews, they may request and shall be entitled to an administrative determination by the Building and Zoning Department and may appeal same according to the prevailing City procedures. 8.The plans (Exhibit 3) show a drainage line to the wetlands - this shall be corrected by deletion from the plans. ORDERED TiIS 2nd day of November, 1987. FRED J. K MAN HEARING AMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 2nd day of November, 1987 to the parties of record: Ken Alhadeff Vice President Business Operations Longacres Racetrack P. O. Box 60 Renton, Wa. 98056 Bill Taylor 2201 N.E. 27th Renton, Wa. 98056 Robert Rousculp Design Engineer 6700 Old Guide Road Lynden, Wa. 98264 Jan Allen 6022 35th Ave. N.W. Seattle, Wa. 98107 Jeff Gage 9053 Dayton Ave. North Seattle, Wa. 98103 Richard Ford, Attorney 5400 Columbia Seafirst Center Seattle, Wa. 98104 Gary Criscione 3001 N.E. 4th Renton, Wa. 98056 John Keegan, Attorney 1501 - 4th Avenue "`' A S L.6 Seattle, Wa. 98101 U LONGACRES RACETRACK CU-064-87 November 2, 1987 Page 9 Kirk Johnson Trammell Crow Company 5601 6th Avenue South Seattle, Wa. 98108 Donald A. Risan The Austin Company 800 Southwest 16th St. Renton, Wa. 98055 Randy Kyte Vyzis Company 3605 - 137th Ave. S.E., Suite 300 Bellevue, Wa. 98006 TRANSMITTED THIS 2nd day of November, 1987 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director Larry M. Springer, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. November 16. 1987. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. 7........"- ji3i8884Ity' It iy. .I ll- — IIIJjLam'• o0 1 T I I VI i P I i 14 CZn0. Si 13 I A, G I v No L 1-1 V v6tyAi. N j cram . c.trosztoo/ swr a I.,rt.- pSo'Ate Q I — _ f time.b I9 6. Z1 Z.cssfvsrs ate wretu+s.rf.! 1 V a A. I I 3.Etter /ocesohns od A•/ m.I 11. V I I f ( • d21.10 Q ehaax(orb 3.d. Z t FY 2Ys:+S/AccKt ooDfr4cB 1 dx ewyrr)mpvsed 6esc d fIIQvet+ms ar erNy ose i/oA dt/t il I e I nol ea fermtoi w;14 MI c0.4 D 4 COMPosTIN6 LI ial If I d v'4 a% Oift 1 i 3 m iv P QR.K/NG AREA 1 errs,: illuwcrY1 f (qv emG) ji O 100... 1 1 1 1.=1'L.... C:::Ds ' I ft 1 ' L-.."- -- 1-'-.....".-7...... S.L......- ' --,' 7......."/ 1 .\ _NET LANDS setce. 1 ry LONOAawsa RA011 COURtit i walla Composting F'wlool aww0. 1 14 1 r- rl—r- ---j=r- c. . 111•••••O. 41.4,4.. S ilia •Plan-Prothnlnae>rC__Le. Ay1y-l`_ n.sG .ya2 ...., • ...... P1tTU. 'f) E ~ . 7et•' I. .. Q6Fl— Rounoulp UngInaarin®LC-tP l•g_ L . r-.wa 1102 nee 110' • Ir irl 1'E,; iF:'•t;? }I',;ils;',.e y,r':. a,;; S+ 't%•:e.,,i, •'••. .s{'y't.-: .• ,'r L f., !rr. 4i 3 'k.4''•ir,G t'i:.f''•.1g q:l. .,••,,.,. v•'' ri, 4 I µ:`i.. y,. 'r l'r „,•ii F'SW+'i J t;!i',':,_. •2 ,l;.,•o.• t}, .:tj ,J;:*'; W.'•'••IL'•'<, i•. • y54ti ins, 7',r l i 1 a 1 I 1 4 r / a 1 Ct. 4 I•a 4 la of o I /rl N. i .O fl/ l C TAY LOT•oo!/No.00Y TAY t or 2 L/D• .. o ressom, I! i ti; ii j 1 V ... TAX LOY Q/ •. ft------ ..d it : _ ' lb 1 1 mom lJworno Ew r III n 1--1.--.--.--,._•,—.--—...... .. Np 11'l1• aqIi 4. 1 r rw ••. Co• b d 1 I11 ' v v 4-,,... J It-Iq III11 1 11—s ;l1 : r Ili IIEI1I ill ti RA 1°; A h irmys., e• 4 p 11Aa6 4 SACGO MIMI' M.QSatrnm III I 1 4 1 ll qir.H%ihwsNrioN(vs3rlf 6.47 1. •.7 r i 11l rppp xt3oR 1 Q - sour,/ PROPORry t/Me',_ 1- 1 • T i it 1 tiil ij 11 I• y If c . ; ' 0 1 1. i Ihiis ; a tl l I I' I: IiI!lliIisvelib1 ti % /8 • gt ikb I % • t 4,k ate. i 7 I. .0 11114 i 1 . 1 ‘1.bitoop,. lo ' 4Ia0 j a g o r•1 klb 1 f 11 • Z 01 u a,.Ivo y f r 4i . .. . , 0,;';, ",';i , r.,,L'•?t,•ti''';i-,•J2;,, ::° 1 ! a :"?1„l'.i ,: 4 : i rya, Aix i .,,,,,:"..-' i, 11 .....DC I NpiZTN I tuts ,•:`'i I-', GF r1 Ni;Y MEAD SR 09NATION SLAWNO. Aim t 0 Ic 1 1 r3i,.7.- .ti Na 4 , Z I I 1 w 11 t1 Atli __ .. I 1 LL IP if 3: ti n I , 7---.... I3JiJYnLWI OF .7 r1ENRY ME i 0F3 DONAT{t)N CLA{Kl ^{a' v I 1-----' Cic,.,,,,, . s P A ,.., ;: t' 1 Iiiii— t 1 I F Vw I 1 ZIP4;io y,, 7J 11 ' f r tSc. i:, t`.;;: h; 4* 1;k'a9.0.4``4x 20! '•11 K w`' .11 + .. 4> >:Z 'oils. r 41 I I r/, FUTURE RE ON , 1 ril 'UK`aa'`gLA—CI- ` . : IT-S aJ 1 ot. R r r C°1 1® BE EFFECTIVE S I i • LONG ACRES RACE COURSE, INC. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: CU-064-87 APPL I CANT LONG ACRES .RACE COURSE, INC TOTAL AREA 2.7 ACRES PR I NC I PAL ACCESS' S.W. 27th STREET E X I ST I NG;ZONING M-P (MANUFACTURING PARK) EXISTING USE VACANT PROPOSED USE COMPOSTING FACILITY FOR COMPOSTING WASTE FROM STRAW/MANURE. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN . COMMERCIAL COMMENTS APPROVAL. LOCATED SOUTH OF S.W. 27th STREET AND WEST OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. IF BOTH STREET WERE EXTENDED). 1. d.AND‘ USA` :d:EMENl' ` ' o f; 1 o • • • • 1e I 000 • o • o t o • Single Family Commercial , - .0 ••• o°o•••oeo°o ,•qq`••°• c o O o 0 0 0 • e o ` O © • • 1. 000 • om • oo • o:o • • ••. 0. 00 • 00000 . • 11100 . t 000.0000e O O O O O © O • Low Density1. - oo • 00000 ; Office / Office Paris e, o 0 0 0•o e000°o°.°0°0 0•°•i : Mu'iti—Family \\ o ao0000 © oo •• o • ' 0000 , 000 '_ A. I '© ' 00000000 •" ."e © o • 000 ,, 000 - oo • 000 ;.;'. o0000(0 O O • 0 O O O=ra0 •r • O O. 0 •%,., •Medium Density 0.c....0, o • ° t , o °•o o i o Mill0 000000, Public/Ouasi-Public t), 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O - AniiFamily0000000• o (' O O O ..°°.it O O • O b O r: 00.. i.• O®©01 . 0•••0 x0.00•0 0®9 •a.O O srar... ., i a i0.00.0, Light industrial I °::: :t• 0 q° ° " o 0%0 O g .tI r t . .. o0000 ,0000.' :.1tP_-.'4,..4 fit•:'-, 11. t••••T ir ` e Recreation o o © Heavy Ondustriai 0 0 0 , e t I s•1 kO ® ._ 8°0°°0°0 ° '10• • Sili i i i ' to 00000 00 1.:: Greenbelt Manufacturing Park i..: . 1 e JC ® 1 . 1 .w • J, 4: ,Multiple Option a;.•s', r{{= . :1::: to, i" itmo.. .... 41: 0°0°00oO°o 'line a 2 ll•\' e• C' ' At: ( _ j Y ltl i P set7G%IO mit .0o0°°000090° i• .OI esp e,i • tp ® 1'( ` t ...• . a1 o 0 0 0,0 Ifni o 6:r tip-•, 1.1 nos a O Q, no.,,, a. • q., yL;r__i_ a. in• 1!! ill t f g, t . ro W,. tn • Sic'•o' S I ti :' :: i: : ?::': t, ndtlY'' ,• 4i r. e;d..,,. r:n=wine c••L>} 1 •,•. r:.... rr. ,r,' , 4.: r?`t iiii l\cor it,' 1)1MD1712.11!"!n`{i P M i :i: i'i:f::: `:ir:5:i:::• :1uu uu r.'n : ;I" pp-,y • ar'r' so'• i}i?:i:i:y,' ,1..1 1 rS:i1 .s? k.•:..ki 4, I:z 0'4io.: ' pip, a n•..-• 1 tT 4St1I • ___- _lllJ1 f 0/1- , 1-- - \ tit t_ i i ?'k= t lr 1 Or 3Dr1"JfLi,[- •° O , - _ _____1 - _ _T_ 1 1 II i.„ 40.A, • / 11,.. 00•00. l , L --- ao90oo0• L' _ - - -- .u MI II. ° o°in:nil: 0• C"000000000 - -_ _= pp-}--• unu Mao :.tt eTi' i (';0. ___ 0000000000 •-, -IYIV U /!:ir• n N rr • I (! .0 --- i00000000000•r.•.,-- E l, a o r4.0000u°o°o°8.0. o°o°o'::o „ r J •1 • `.'a 0000000.0000°,•{•;_ S 1t •' t..,. c" ..6., ;y- o0000000000000• ____ 1 1 c'` ti '11 „'',4Ti:• R;. r'S''.s. . g000000000000000.c r 11 1 u.,4 1 n"• (St t-:th 0.. o°oo°o°o°o°o°oo°000°O•` __— S r r' I ,.,; I C'\\00000000 • A.=•r -;.......-. , r'' ..`: oo•, o°o°, — - —02=„., ,- ..«.•„µme^^ , r , u .e e,, t.,. Ecc s,i,.°mist,\slisioi ,-*,:i,,,,,!:::§,:,:,,i::::,i,i::,.:,,, i x • 1°' t{ rN ;\ _',V,r iMM44 1 3 i:• 't i;,..... i, 1: sessr 10.1...p.:...--, 1:Iromint:„,,...-__:_-:_:_z_4_._________ ___________ .....,,. till• L•i•a•` ••• -- - _-— - 7. el. r• d ` .-1 • L0o0 T IT .' ..,. •.......„,j _- ...;. I I/,.y, , uol, _e r, U° •'• r i • 0 u; ti" I•toll.• 141 . f 1.1 0 I , . : : .. : I ' ...:-::-.:-.-...-..:-- 7,-.:.' '.. -. '' uU 11UU•• I• OO I , 1 • : +•• u01).G1 ).•_ Vl0 • 1ImgII I-i.r'; 1 r : SIP/ -_ -_ O O tom it r1 '^..• 1 .•. ; eF --_). -- ii I);.VC;':' °lb/4MM ..7":17' '. 4.35ik 'r‘.6 . ..7:::'. .... ;0' eel i:::.:•i:.:fflii.ii.:i.i:..::i?.i h.,. . k1 0 r= __—__ --- -- ----__ 1•aou r: o0000000•b j'l •r o S. ._+..,.,'. •.. ,.N .-as.ui•• 000000000{ i,r" 1.,00000000• j •. I 1 f a_ ,j — r'' C=_= l / f^• _'•f'—_ _ ullwunul'• o00000° • 1 000000 • • y 1 vs t':'.. s'F tti 1, r u w i l •00000000•;` T1 .• t. c,a 10:Ook:i.00000000° ;: E:-.^...11,,,ti,..1:. I 00000• 1 00000000 K, p. . .0•..00., 1 \ ti , i L:{}: fe.Or; - '+•%i__• 'ram w t 1 w w: r/ BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 14, 1987 APPLICANT: Longacres Racetrack FILE NUMBRS:ECF-055-87, CU-064-87 LOCATION:Located on Longacres Race Course property, S.W. of 27th Street and West of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. (if both streets were extended) . A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Site Approval for composting waste from race course (straw/manure) . Facility includes a paved composting pad, 30 windrows, aerator turning areas and a pond to collect leachate and rainfall runoff before reuse or discharge. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Broadacres Inc. 2 . Applicant: Longacres Race Course, Inc. 3 . Existing Zoning: M-P, Manufacturing Park 4. Existing Zoning in the Area: G-1, General Use; B-1, business Use; and M-P, Manufacturing Park 5. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option 6. Size of Property: 2 . 7 Acres 7. Access: S.W. 27th St. 8 . Land Use: Undeveloped Property. 9 . Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Longacres Race Track East: Undeveloped Property South: Undeveloped Property and Industrial Use. West: Undeveloped Property C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action File Ordinance Date Annexation 4040 1-5-87 Changed Classification 4058 4-20-87 I BUILDING AND ZONING >ARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT 'I [EARING EXAMINER OCTOBER 14, 1987 PAGE 2 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities a. Water: A 12-inch water line is located to the east along Oakesdale Ave S.W. and to the northeast along S.W. 27th St within 600 feet of the site. b. Sewer: A Metro trunkline is located within approximately 400 feet to the east along Oakesdale Ave S.W. c. Storm Water Drainage: Storm water enters the Springbrook Creek drainage system. 2 . Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. 3 . Transit: N/A 4 . Schools:N/A a. Elementary Schools:N/A b. Middle Schools: N/A c. High Schools:N/A 5. Recreation: N/A E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-730, Manufacturing Park M-P. 2 . Section 4-738, Site Plan Review. F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1. Commercial Goal and Objectives, Policies Element, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, March 1986, pp 16-18. 2 . Green River Valley Policy Plan, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, March 1986, pp. 31-50. G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. L9gacres Racetrack, Inc. applied on July 3, 1987, for Site Plan Approval for composting waste from race course (straw/manure) with the proposed facility including a paved composting pad, 30 windows, aerator turning areas and a pond to collect leachate and rainfall runoff before reuse or discharge. 2 . Staff after reviewing this application determined that the proposed use was a conditional use under Section 4-730 (B) 3 .e. Conditional Uses in the M-P Zone) since the proposed activity was to be predominantly conducted out-of-doors rather than completely enclosed within a building. 3 . The Environmental' Review Committee considered this application on August 5, 1987, and issued a Determination of Non- significance - Mitigated with five mitigation measures (see attached) . The Committee reconsidered its DNS-Mitigated on September 23 , 1987, and modified Items #3, #4, and #5 (see . attached letter of September 24, 1987) . r/ BUILDING AND ZONING T--ARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT Ti EARING EXAMINER OCTOBER 14, 1987 PAGE 3 4 . Section 4.478 (C) lists eleven criteria that the Hearing Examiner is asked to consider along with all other relevant information in making a decision on a Conditional Use application. These include the following: a. Comprehensive Plan: • The proposed use shall be compatible with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City of Renton. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows this site as com- mercial with greenbelt further south. The site, as noted above was a part of the recent land exchange with the City of Tukwila that brought the subject site into the City on February 4, 1987. The Plan Compendium (March, 1986) under the "Commercial Areas Objective Policies" states that: "Commercial areas should be compatible with adjacent land uses" , and "Various uses within a commercial area should be compatible with each other", and under the policies for "Commercial Structure and Sites Objective" item 5 states: "Developments should be designed and maintained to avoid adverse impacts on adjacent properties. " Staff believe that the subject proposal could be made to be compatible with the surrounding M-P zoning if sufficient measures are taken to address the screening of the proposed facility and efforts to control odors prove successful. The Valley Plan element of the Plan Compendium states that: The area between S.W. 16th Street and S.W. 23rd Street and from Sr-167 to the P-1 Channel should be designated Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option - Office. The area is intended for high quality office and office park uses with significant setbacks and perimeter landscaping. Other industrial or service uses may be allowed if compatible in design and bulk standards to office/office park uses. " Clearly, these policies put the onus on the applicant to en- sure that what they are proposing is compatible with existing and likely development in the surrounding M-P Zone. In terms of compatibility with existing- or likely development in the M-P Zone, Staff again note that conflicts between the proposed composting use and nearby manufacturing could occur in terms of odor, and aesthetics. However, the mitigation measures imposed by the Environmental Review Committee, including that the application be approved initially for only a two year period to allow for monitoring and evaluation, should help ensure that the subject proposal will be compatible with its surroundings or cease and desist. b. Community Need: There shall be a community need for the proposed use at the proposed location. In the determination of community need the Hearing Examiner shall consider the following factors, among all other relevant information: 1. The proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. There is no indication that any similar use exists in the surrounding area. Currently, straw and manure from the stables at Longacres is trucked off site where it is used in the promulgation of edible mushrooms. B?JILDING AND ZONING 1 ARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT T1 FARING EXAMINER OCTOBER 114, 1987 PAGE 4 2 . That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. Functionally speaking the proposed site lends itself well to the composting operation (an estimated 600 cu. yds. per day) , since materials would not have to be hauled any great distances and the subject site is kept a respectful distance from the public viewing areas. Neighboring property owners have objected to the subject proposal noting that they do not believe the proposed use is compatible with the M-P zone which attempts to create a "campus-like office setting" . c. Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The following site requirements shall be required: 1. Lot Coverage: Lot coverage in residential districts (R- 1 and R-2) shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot coverage of the zone in which the• proposed use is to be located.Lot coverage in all other s.zones shall conform to the requirements of zone in which the proposed use is to be located. The subject proposal will not exceed 65 percent lot coverage. 2 . Yards: Yards shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Additions to the structure shall not be allowed in any required yard. The subject proposal will comply with all yard requirements of the M-P Zone which includes 20 feet from all non-street property lines and 60 feet from any street or highway property line. 3 . Height: Building and structure heights shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Spires, belltowers, public utility antennas or similar structures may exceed the height requirement upon approval of a variance. Building heights should be related to surrounding uses in order to allow optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures. Not Applicable. d. Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the residential scale and character of the neighborhood. Ord. 3599, 1-11-82) Not Applicable. e. Parking: Parking under the building structure should be encouraged. Lot coverage may be increased to as much as seventy five percent (75%) of the lot coverage requirement of the zone in which the proposed use is located if all parking is provided underground or within the structure. Ord. 3903, 4-22-85) Not Applicable. BUILDING AND ZONING ---'ARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT 'I FEARING EXAMINER OCTOBER 14i, 1987 PAGE 5 f. Traffic: Traffic and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the proposed use and surrounding area shall be reviewed for potential effects on, and to ensure safe movement in the surrounding area. Not Applicable. g. Noise,. Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts. shall be evaluated based on the location of the proposed use on the lot and the location of on-site parking areas, outdoor recreational areas and refuse storage areas. The subject proposal is not expected to result in noise or glare of any magnitude. Tractor like vehicles will turn the windows of composting materials, but this will not create a large amount of noise. Odor is more apt to be a problem and the Environmental Review Committee addressed this and required that odors be monitored, as a mitigation measure. h. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by buildings or paving. The Hearing Examiner may require additional landscaping to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. Glacier Park Company raised this issue in a letter of August 4, 1987, to the ERC noting the psychological effects of such a facility. The ERC was sympathetic to the adjacent property owners concerns but felt this issue could be better addressed as a site plan review or conditional use condition. Staff are recommending that the applicant be required to provide extensive perimeter landscaping to screen the subject operation if it is approved. Such landscaping should be sufficient to screen the operation from view of nearby office or similar uses and should be subject .to the approval of the City's landscape architect. i; Accessory Uses: Accessory uses to conditional uses such as day schools, auditoriums used for social and sport activities, health centers, convents, preschool facilities, convalescent homes and others of a similar nature shall be considered to be separate uses and shall be subject to the provisions of the use district in which they are located.. Not applicable. js Conversion: No existing building or structure shall be converted to a conditional use unless such building or structure complies, or is brought into compliance, with the provisions of this Chapter. Not applicable. k. Public Improvements: The proposed use and location shall be adequately served by and not impose an undue burden on any public improvements, facilities, utilities and services. Approval of. a conditional use permit may be conditional upon the provision and/or guarantee by the applicant of necessary public improvements, facilities, utilities and/or services. The subject operation is unlikely to impose an undue burden on any public improvements, facilities, utilities or services. If rainwater runoff is required to be intercepted and carried off by the sewer rather than draining into the adjacent wetland as suggested by the Department of Ecology the applicant has agreed to do this if discharge into the adjacent wetlands is found during the initial evaluation period to pose a problem) there does appear to be sufficient capacity to accommodate this in the Metro sewer trunkline off-site to the. north. This line is a large trunk. BUILDING AND ZONING D PTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO TARING EXAMINER OCTOBER 14, 1987 PAGE 6 H. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above analysis Staff are recommending that the conditional use request to allow a proposed composting facility for Longacres on a paved pad. of about 13, 000 sq. yds. in area be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the revised mitigation measures imposed by the Environmental Review Committee on September 23, 1987 be complied with by the applicant; 2 . That a perimeter landscape screen of mature landscape material tnat is found acceptable as to size, species, etc. by the City' s landscape architect be provided by the applicant prior to occupancy of the site; and, 3 . That in order to reduce any potential impacts on the adjacent wetlands and result in further delays in getting necessary discharge permits for same, the applicant be required to discharge all surface water runoff into the Metro sanitary sewer system. i - I.....NpR-TF1 I LIN ;e% • •- rl WRY MEAGER 00 "'ION -CLAIM NO. 4 is lio, 4e '44 L i 01II o I\I I I t 1elI), ks ID I WII ° a ) L9 I I W 111 :ill . my l'''i'litil, 4 i; '48',..p' ,',`14:t.i.N. I/f Iill t "I INS I OF alHENRtir ME •TNER 00NATk)/4 CLAIN NO 4., I 0 I 741 z 1 i,„,„ L,L,„, ....., T..t40,- 1- i 1 I f!. it:/kMw7a t t 3 i ,:r N Y rv' a, i- i +S,fY)` a}++ 55 r ': Wo `e3At. ) tir'.4Y;ygi:r F7 `: '.'*' i.> ' ,kiv asF $i .;'- ` ";xa u., 1. ,Ir?! 4' 1 CAI r FUTURE RE ) ON 1 '7/ 1 1 ri r) TUKWILA C T ' T--S 7 ill] TO BE EFFECTIVE 9 1 E) ! AvTJg, /,/ s`, 1 1 LONG ACRES RACE COURSE, INC. I CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: CU-064-87 1 I APPL I CANT ! LONG ACRES RACE COURSE, INC TOTAL 'AREA 2.7 ACRES PRINCIPAL ACCESS S.W. 27th STREET EXISTING;ZONING M-P (MANUFACTURING PARK) EXISTING USE VACANT PROPOSED USE COMPOSTING FACILITY FOR COMPOSTING WASTE FROM STRAW/MANURE. COMPREHENSII VE LAND USE PLAN . COMMERCIAL COMMENTS APPROVAL. I LOCATED SOUTH OF S.W. 27th STREET AND WEST OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. a I IF BOTH STREET WERE EXTENDED). 1 LANDj - ... US ?LGME • wlp•., o°o o oAo a 1..) e a o°o • 000 ` P• o 0 0 0 0 0 ' •• ` r 1 00000 •o• - • • -/ , s ' 1, 0 • 0000000 - 0 ',• 0 , 1 1 I . Single Family Commercial I o ® o o ® o o © o .• 0, 0 • 0 0 0 0 © 0 0 0 0 „ O O • 0 ° ° o 0 0 0 0 , 0 10 0 040. 00000000 •. 0 0o •- r. 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 • 00 EiniLow Density o . o ° ,1 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 ,' Office / Office Park I,® © a °•°m°®°m° °°°°°°e°o Family \\\ Ig!• 0 °4.o©©po®° o#o.• a oo•iirx 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :,' , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' o o o o o • ,.. Medium Density O°°°°° o © 0 0 e o 0 0 ', o 0 0000000• r p O p ar, a p O O O 1 O :., 0°0°0°0°4°0°• Public/Guas i—Pu ij uac i), 0, O O O o ..... •' : O O O O r.•,c3 Multi—Fame y 'o°°oo°o°o°o°. Jo' • © ® O •o•o o: *O O O ° b O ' 0.; ®000000 .00•e• , 0)00°©00000© ::•'...• r O r x< mot• aJ., tih 3 oa••o 0 0 0 0 \ \ ii • 0 0 0 0 0 High Density pO ®t , ` n ° ® ° 6 y,j ' Multi 000•0— Family Light Industrial Ooo° '• o O • .,:" ::: ` °'o° 0 9 Q000 111 q r I 0.0.0 rillli I ± Recreation a ., b 00000 Moo'A, 'pop0• r-4 11114 ll1. 63ecr eation O°O.O Illeavy Industrial 0°0°0° °00°/:I t NM l Jib, O O O o°o°o °o 4orwJf81!]!l@` w • h•Cp fw., gyp. ay • JOp° o0000° "y °."j rll t tlE .r,+ goo°0°0ou} : 15 0 I f is fi( , 0 0 0 0 0' fos ,Greenbelt yo0o0o000000 °op 1=;Si.Gi l :i r k'''•'.' Greenbelt ItS' ^M,}, •i,,, •.•r I,f4 .Manufacturing Park • y,,j,j,j 1/i;.r 1.... ultIple Option :,N.ate..• 4J 1aQ6r.. i 0000000° :,1.1.1, ..1+' .,'ePa , ^ , <••r I tJ'1'U00°000°O°Oi 1 IO 11. o.'• '' ,f A.. 1,J 1 Jt 1 0111 N.:.°0°00000000 •. 'lo oll•••110.. ' 1' , V),,,,09 +?' 1! rP J r. k. 186A ', iiii riiitil a`r o• ro 4r 2\` ' ° ,P o „Ct;NI.• 1;' R.e .:_.--•R, lo S1 i.. - r l'iK.o i :: >: <.^1. ',-0;?,fit i niG=,liin' .:rmu u, 1i ir,i `' J„ii.}'c t• ;st _ -_____= n•' Via. im•0. r.. e,. N, 44 t xy .i, 14:fr0a,„ 1kimii1ms.1ob,rk.. to4.t• e c. - :J°r• __= ` ' 1\Olt 4 ,. J' Fir ' 3 kk,)k, lo ,,/ f q.,1,, •••• jU M kik.,. •.;‘1 a./'tip y/}•M/'' 000 I,( I 000 j `l000000•_ 1(YI '000 00• rP.,r^{ _ 0000000 i O ire I,J0000000• n - ---- - - ---' 1 If o°orw, C$0, a c: a' ___ ,0000000°°° __==t El I..__._..r' ft.:;• ilk: n ----ila0000000000.o:•.,,____- --__ w' ff f7t:•f 0°000000°0°•,C. I I.` '• -'... iii L,.t,•u.,i.:ut' ' • J 000000000000••r --- n i.` 0000000000000•'{;;.-____ Ji'•"if',..M.: t00000000000000• .r. -__- .,r '-1.'f • ! fi. ' , L•. : fr ``'00000000000000o•,p, __-I4 r' J,r.r•n,. 'r:it'. r 0000000000a°oo .. t l' 000°00000°Oo0 .;1 :. f11 Y t i I J• Jr•-,•;,-'`,, 0000000.., o• - /-- v-_,,,,•..•.•" y k t c o 0 0 0 0:• • O o • - fpiO>t_ ,JQ r.,,;,,,.......^-*. CT?' 'S t•t'.•' o•• 00000•.0 i o i t•O -:Z'V v ...-•.•• V ,a+,.....^,w•-•• kiniolkh..,,,\.-19,,,, ti.::: P:11::::i:!,:iiiiiig:' < i',.;'., °.-- 71,--i=r111rn.•:j*.. :: i mow+= ___••"__ _ .7 ir iii..;.Tc..—.. 11 . ::•::: r. ;...:. ?I' t 7:.:--•:i4P7M0-----.:-:.--.:-::-:::- -:::.., IR. ° 0°. '', '. r•':,..150 O •• JuOu 000 1 • T t'•• ...•• u, ,t.. i,4uU)4• •J \`' ii A'. •• 1 ' Y• yeltie.cII— ODUCIS•. 4(.4UULOUD "lo I.I I I i S o '.''• ,.. J iliP/M0 I.• III t '' 5 : .• ••• te J• - 1. i. i• erne. V.e. • • q -----__ -- ri, Sys • y. 'O. q•°•J,,,:rvn 1M 1: ` ', °419^s.Ci Lr r( E! i. P 1 rf+ g' __ T ° f,.c__---- -- , cry' . r - iii .I Wi --------_ -- ):--+----------- _ ,r fin, *Will 1 6 I i'c. -_____-_--- - r• J':,;•. II Ill ms et iT1 i ll n OOOo• j. r I.nul.1 air 0000000: o r yun 1 y b s-< y M iro.1,..a•-00% 000 •.. 3 anur• t r ....:..•... a, .,+., i..•..,•' 000000000 o r,. 1 It f, , luu urt . o00000000^ a 1 1 1 u u n1) o0000000 I o00:000o i.V IT rr,, ;IF'C'I i '1' ! _1 r r r•ruil 0000000 r uu orP I 0000000 f - t e.% . ' ..- ' _u.rrrr 000000j J •,2' y/ T t - iu r o.l, 00000 ••x i Vim. _. 1 „ • YtiYc.y. fjii0Vr•^" - it . •p00000000pook ,.:,.-Or y Q t r„J W I 1 ' * Iii 1 a• 071, 14 . ti: ail w w' OugJemutOuf] d1 as p' .r .r ••• Kt • aJVusWII•••d•6 led Ou17SOdWOa 17d7S QT. rra of eanawro oI .I//97oVS a loogord BUpcodtuoo oamm 1 fcSN1Oo aova tummy 1 lard//o,/1np o/awns i...dt..ri/ _ar ff7Jd ssodr9 tur s otoo/y dtt, iv WSW _'H_- O • at!•7 wary, -•-d.— s --- - 4 gasp/caftr qv!atr7 eiv vatopwn i- `6----- - - ------rV 4 fi sY+ p.ty Japwy Faro vPwr `•t"a-'1-• 1 4 O 6iaaw9 Ave, Amway, - `I O y • .'/j 4 oJr oar ,.02 r..,tw.. a1ttrrnudda ' yJrl•S7o24tPAS 61 l 1 r. L..........."-------7741 DI may.* . a ' ( 1 ( l i k 0° y,401,2 Ar"ra raf Aral' .wo//aeo//ettga/ tl 1 (r i d . 4tra pose aaro'p'ol/ ay ow/odowa.0 6 ii R% il •l J ` I V Y x•1yo 40e44 FAO"dE..rAp,V oo p .rwon A-wicks r I I I 1 2 S. 1 S. ai - • . sv-f°'a'vh UNta••J aw oa• g ( 1 / 1 J•/i+aa/ar sf O w-' 4r/iior-eiroa rt• / i I t 3 l J ( 1 t iao$ra I/S•tAwa po we vaa•i P141'v 4'>OOe •2 0 i SI i - v c 1 1 o— tb yet!sneer&0+'/ :a9ro.ois.Pd'.1.8.."g7,: 7 y11 I1 i a o. a.s j; a 4 asaV IZ 1 It 1 r 1 , n J 11 ii ter tea ly - 1 1 Gr, •,)SWDBbM/A DNI.cisce roc. of II t3j Az,p=M7avias i 1 I y l II.i Y + 1: t giy _ III n, 1 ._ r rvo•1 awsi..•4i pn7 9 III If< I d4sawn,I. - NTy:i I I / Mt act>•.Irv.7 D a S zr til - _7S•7¢a%+r:t _ .. rtto , 407 06,M07 - Pd'Pa•d•06pa'r.L.OL6. aciarazr :saw? Si HLYON ZZ 1 N Si7Nd71IM 1 tAaaa J . ra s. I 1 I 1 NORTH li-w. n ,na.a..+ 1 I• 0"r",191:g. • s,..i E a aP I I b N I I i 1 tIt I J; y PA E 6 I p I •aes' fiilOG/A/P 43Q I I 1 IR pkvr Ilrx c' I :n.Ate Carle d MO 46•Id Ii‘ t 3 it I 2 Com'esee OT' Ooze.Iv • opdwaxen eeit/ 1 V t Q I I 3.Fellow /ocofions ol"P/ tj V I I dAa„o e eharnr{o.S..A. 1 I e7ri sf.Accoss'Rood Ave :„I 1U deco syxrinposcd hose"ty, c,t 1, r a not cooflrmed IAAS thS cVk 4 4C NI 4 COM001T//VG 0.' I' I Ia v o s dos 9w' hi b t4 0 m y I 2:22.4fel,ING b, : V iV14SINiTII I]MN JS - 1:::::11 RN. t I JZ M-- IIII L-. I e i scaRc i\ ,,,\ p,..._ s-,s,•-,,•..‘.........-:-...-—____.-. A.l-r- E- ff-_-" —L-A--M-—P—S._ t.L.p/brat 2 o i. ,or .rr -a•. u am 1 Is LON®ACRES tCACQ COU6tBt i I 1Nes10 :erno::no Pr000t „.,,,.,s0. R/ CNANNE _ s> .1.4 ftt. • . l nlnar1 a. oN * - C:IM-17IFUTU,QEj i+ • Pde L/L R.a. , .r«....• .. R IP Cdnolneeetn®Lc-t/R-Z fir--- w-- irr 1..4 Moo €I M ttsa 0 APPROVED . 0 ,ROVED WITH NDITIONS 0NOT APPROVED O .4P(.46CtUlLiiL.e '1,o-auLtA it,t. alott k &.c i. 0 li ate. r , ' / . , 4 , NCITYOFRECEVDRN AirtL--ritI;AitUotiff'' JUL 2 01987 O 1 DATE: I -t:1'i° ! 1 uSIGNATURE0ECTOROR / U ORIZED °EPRESENTIATIVE . REVISION 5/1982 1 I Form 182 vt y.a.,,r•ina r•si :.Fr:: ;,n1.l1'477.t • :_,S,---.t7....;;4P,,1„<4","1- i... A. ... --. 1:.- ,c,..n,.• e:,.. -lr - , •,...va,i•:n.:,_.::.•pia.:' REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION; 2010111U& MAPPROVED j fl APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED RECEVE art CF R N D JUL 2 21987 BUILDING I ZONING DEPT. I DATE: 7- 2...z-a7SIGNATUREOFDIRECRORAUTHORIZEDREPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 1^ .. .:r ,. k'' ..-. _ ..T:,_i'-+::. ,<:::GY S:'..`•c4tia`;.i't9 t'4=.'•.i iti.K:^:..'i:..:y.,.,f:<T3a-. t.^c"+.0 rrtir:r:"'::>i'.:i'<: _ _ __ _ -"9'L.' .._ .-.,..:..,._ qREVIEWINGDEPARTMENT/DIVISION; c.5D4 APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS r 0 NOT APPROVED DATE: 7:)--7 - '72 SIGNA IF. DIRECTOR OR 'AUTHOR,IZED..,REPRESENTATIVE APPROVED I 0 'ROVE• : ,,._ 4„..,..". . D WITH CONDITIONS' 0NOT APPROVED D R ppp Q era ®F RE E D E ' s E .. D 4 r , 1987 1 iv V PT. pi i6'ii'vG i d.vltiaid 17.7 1— 5)-r I DATE: .--3o75P7 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 P•'v*+, i ,f?, • rye l rn r 'nr!.+.,VT ;Mn w ,.i3_. 9Fq^•:u.'t '`iF X. `6 ;^;.7;; .!1r ,aw„ yJUl ! 'fC:' +t'f? ?w;7•s,l.+..::"'.` -,y_r2:r..-.,Crr+. .r REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: APPROVED E APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED , . T 7, 2a.40 Q-a -roecd 6 G/4"4 0.024ef aitYX as/f cry- 1442",40^.17, ..et, WI ab-o:.IA 44, ,itikA , 44cL 6 ..•, . ..z.Azer .- /so : 7-' 7 y,e- riteAi..;.....0 v 6/64e.i-.---, DATE; /4 /'r, I 5'11 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE _ REVISION 5/1082 Form 182 w. i.'S -.-.+ .-n "____^__ .iPC:.'.n l••_.`. w,tiP .lsa :iSt" •: I.... _ __ — _ _ REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: pz- ieverea 70v1/4.._ APPROVED El APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED C' f-e,' . ,A.... /4-z 52 , c hoe...".:. tre4kti4 iy he' p/evee OQoreide //%o ace. • b a- DATE; 12 CT(:NATI nC f1TD I•TAD AD AIITIJAOT7r11 Dcrine rIITATT\IC . • APPROVED 1:14' LOVED WITH CONDITION - NOT APPROVED PER nee Pen-.. 1261E1 26megT aF Fit* iha nunAPPROVAL SUBJECT TD I, r CEos it," . PcN LATE!OILERS AGREEMENT-WATER Ni, LATE COMERS A6REEt LENT-SEWt R tin 7 ' SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WATER YES 3zo5(459 ooO61.FT.X 0.04 = ' 3140.e° SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-SEWER A,/p _ . SPECIAL ASSESSMOn AREA CHARGE-WATER A/O ailSPECIALASSESStAINTjAREACHARGE-SEWER iE }:'`'" ';TV-7 4;,:`.` - APPROVED WATER PLAID W ' I APPROVED SEWER PLAN T -41 -r4 Olt' APPROVED FIRE N1DRAtDT LU 1 On tifio r DV FIRE DEPT atr , , 'i:,. DFIREFLC,J AHt'LYStS IC a ' DATE: ; 2 -.29. — 8' , SIGNATURE OF DIR CTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE . REVISION 5/1982 17..:•:rim°'S:i.-7•^" .,,7:,.r.yT'AP;:'^ChcriY.":{:iF:Mn_3.k+.F1 l YfA19 ^..8 t.a'hSR kr; +RfietiaF e.M'+.an r.:',s s:•.s'.:t x .0. Form 182 VIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: c :2.,-.) c.,,-e.A.../...e., ) DAPPROVED U APPROVED WITH CNDITIONS NOT APPROVED eetrr---- --. , X".7/0z/,7 a DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 8/1982 Form 182 e 6h ems - -,, - y-•r C^1 ^ REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: -77;:(2f < 6 1=Y' PPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ' 0NOT APPROVED 4 N. ho 7 3P 7 Pt. 04.0 1, A i e•- ,, , 0,1( g-- ---- Th. DATE: STGNATL.IRF flF n RFCTAR f114 AIITN(lRT7F11 RFPPP NTATTVP E 4) ) CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATED) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO. :EFC-055-87 APPLICATION NO(S) . : SA-064-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Site Approval for composting waste from race coursd (straw/manure) . . Facility includes a paved composting pad, 30 windows, aerator turning areas and a pond to collect leachate and rainfall runoff before reuse or discharge. PROPONENT: Longacres Racetrack LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located on Longacres Race Course Property, S.W. of 27th Street and West of Oakesdale• Avenue S.W. (If both streets were extended) . LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton, Building and Zoning Departments. I The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2) (c) . This decision was made after review of an expanded environmental checklist and preliminary site plan, on file with the lead agency. Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-2822 (D) Renton Municipal Code (see attached sheet) . These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340. The lead agency will not act on this proposal for fifteen (15) days from August 10, 1987. Any interested party may submit written comments which must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. , August 25, 1987, in order to be considered. A fourteen 14) day appeal period will commence following the finalization of the DNS. Responsible, Official: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 235-2500 DATE OF DECISION: August 5, 1987 EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10, 1987 Ronald G. Nelson Larry M. Springer Building and Zoning Director Policy Development Director I 4. I,,z,G„ Ric rd C. Houghton Public Works Director 4_ lr g ' 4) ) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT: Longacres Composting Facility ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-055-87 APPLICATION NO. : SA-064-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Site Approval for composting waste from race course (straw/manure) . Facility includes a paved composting pad, 30 windows, aerator turning areas and a pond to collect leachate and rainfall runoff before reuse or discharge. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located on Longacres Race Course Property, S.W. of 27th Street and West of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. (If both streets were extended) . CONDITIONS:, 1. That the asphalt's membrane be tested for porosity prior to its full application noting that if it is not fully impervious, a clay membrane will be used as an undercoating (with proper drainage barriers) to prevent leachate from reaching underlying soils; 2. That surface water runoff be run through a retention/settling pond prior to its release into adjacent wetlands; 3. That the applicant contract with the King County Health , Department to monitor air quality (including odor) and surface water runoff quality on a regular basis and report back to the Committee it's findings within six months after the facility is operational. 4. That this operation be approved for an initial one year period during which it will be evaluated. If conditions warrant, new mitigation measures such as draining all surface runoff into the sanitary sewer may be considered later. 5. That the applicant provide securities of a type acceptable to the City Attorney and of a sufficient amount to ensure removal of the facility if its initial permit is not extended. ' fi A410 O: CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director September 24, 1987 Mr. Bill Taylor Longacres Race Course P.O. Box 60 Renton, Washington 98057 RE: Longacres Composting Project, Files ECF-055-087, CU-064-87 This letter is to inform you that the Environmental Review Committee met on September 23, 1987, to reconsider its Threshold Determination of August 10, 1987, for your project. The Committee decided to modifythreeofthemitigationmeasurespreviouslyrequiredintheirearlier Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, for the development of a proposed manure and hay composting facility on property located south of the Longacres Race Track, (south of S.W. 27th Street and West of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. , if both streets were extended) . The mitigation measures to be modified include: 1. Item #3 pertaining to the applicant contracting with King County 1 Health Department to monitor air quality. This was changed to the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency with the County continuing to be the agency to be contracted with for monitoring water quality of those waters discharged into the adjacent wetlands. 2. Item #4 pertaining to the initial approval period was changed from an initial "one year period" to an initial "two year period". 3. Item #5 pertaining to the removal of the proposed facility, if the 1initialpermitwasnotextended, was modified to require the cessation of the use" if the initial permit was not extended. l If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at 235-2540. For Envi -*: yen al view Committee, air a pt CDonaldK. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:BG 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 1111/ DAVIS WRIGHT s=. JONES LAW OFFICES A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 2600 CENTURY SQUARE ' 150I FOURTH AVENUE ' SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-1688 206)622-3150 Jo» E. KEEGAN October 19, 1987 Mr. Donald K. Erickson Zoning Administrator City of Renton Building and Zoning Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Office of the Hearing Examiner City of Renton Building and Zoning Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Longacres Composting Facility, CU-064-87 Dear Messrs . Erickson and Kaufman: Thank you for providing a copy of the Building and Zoning Department ' s Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner for the above-referenced application. I would like to offer some further comments on behalf of my client, Glacier Park Company, who is the owner of adjacent property to the immediate east and south of the proposed facility. We applaud the intent of the preliminary report to put some meaningful conditions on the operation to minimize or eliminate the facility' s impact on nearby properties and to provide an opportunity to reevaluate the proposal once it is in operation. We believe, however, that the intent of the conditions should be spelled out more specifically to ensure their effectiveness . TELEX:328919 DWJ SEA ' TELECOPIER: (206) 628.7o4o ANCHORAGE, ALASKA ' BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON ' RICHLAND,WASHINGTON ' WASHINGTON, D.C. 41410 r Mr. Donald K. Erickson October 19, 1987 Page 2 We understand that the Staff ' s proposed conditions are a combination of the August 5 mitigated DNS, the September 24 letter to Bill Taylor and the conditions on page 6 of the preliminary report to the Examiner. We have consolidated the various recommended conditions and revised them in a manner we consider more effective at achieving what is intended. Our recommended conditions for the proposal are set forth below: e/ 1. That the asphalt ' s membrane be tested for porosity prior to its full application noting that if it is not fully impervious, a clay membrane will be used as an undercoating (with proper drainage barriers) to prevent leachate from reaching underlying soils . 2 . That in order to reduce any potential impacts on the adjacent wetlands and adjacent properties, the applicant be required to permanently discharge all surface water runoff into the Metro sanitary sewer system. CDThat the applicant at all times achieve a standard of 100% odor dissipation at the boundaries of its property. 4 . That the applicant contract with the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency to regularly monitor air quality (including odor) and that the King County Health Department monitor surface water runoff quality on a regular basis and. both agencies report back to the City' s Environmental Review Committee their written findings at least every six months once the facility is operational. The air monitoring stations shall include points directly south and directly east of the facility on the applicant ' s property boundary lines . 5 . That a perimeter landscape screen of mature landscape material found acceptable as to size, species, and location by the city' s landscape architect be installed by the applicant prior to occupancy of the site. Such landscaping shall be of a height and density to totally screen the composting facility from adjacent properties . 6 . That this operation be approved for an initial two year period during which it will be evaluated every six months to determine whether the permit should be Mr. Donald K. Erickson October 19, 1987 Page 3 extended beyond the initial period. Operation of the proposed facility will be required to cease at any time, even during the two year period, that conditions are not being met. At the end of the two year period, the City shall have the option of letting the permit expire, extending the permit or extending the permit with additional mitigation measures. Extension of the permit is dependent on the applicant demonstrating that the facility can be operated without material odor, water quality or visual impacts beyond the applicant ' s property boundaries. 7. That the applicant provide security of a type acceptable to the City Attorney and of a sufficient amount to ensure cessation of the use and cleanup of the facility if the initial permit is not extended. The conditions which we are recommending are very similar to those recommended by the City' s Environmental Review Committee. They will allow the project to go forward while providing mitigation of air quality (and odor) , water quality, and visual impacts . Please consider these comments in your further deliberations together with our August 4, 1987 letter to Mr. Ron Nelson. Also please include Glacier Park Company (c/o Mr. Robert V. Miulli, 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700, Seattle, Washington 98104) on the mailing list of interested persons who wish to be informed of any decisions regarding this application. Very truly yours, DAVIS WRIGHT & JONES John E. Keegan JEK:pjm 4094L cc: Mr. Robert V. Miulli Mr. William Taylor fi DAVIS WRIGHT & JONES LAW OFFICES A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 2600 CENTURY SQUARE ' 150I FOURTH AVENUE ' SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-1688 206) 622-3150 JOHN E. KEEGAN Ca eY O; RENT ON VLE September 8, 1987 S '- I 01087 BUILDING /.ZONING DEPT. Mr. Ron Nelson Chairman, Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Longacres Composting Facility 56'4=.8a Dear Mr. Nelson: My client, Glacier Park Company, has a continuing interest in following the above application. Could you please provide me with the following information: 1. A brief description of the current status of the application processing, including the date of any hearing; and 2 . A copy of all staff reports, comment letters and other documents contained in this file. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, DAVIS WRIGHT & JONES Joh . Keegan . 0 JEK:bjw cc: Robert V. Miulli 1533L TELEX:328919 DWJ SEA ' TELECOPIER: (206) 628-7040 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA ' BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON ' RICHLAND,WASHINGTON ' WASHINGTON,D.C. DAVIS WRIGHT & JONES LAW OFFICES A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 2600 CENTURY SQUARE ' 1501 FOURTH AVENUE ' SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-1688 206)622-3150 JOHN E. KEEGAN I `-_ 7 August 4, 1987 tr))CRR Mr. Ron Nelson Chairman, Environmental Review Committee City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Longacres Composting Facility/SA-064-87 Dear Mr. Nelson: This comment is made on behalf of Glacier Park Company. Please consider these comments in your deliberations on the above-referenced application. Glacier Park Company is the owner of property adjacent to the proposed Longacres composting facility. Glacier Park' s ownership includes both developed and undeveloped lands approximately 200 feet to the east and south of this proposed facility. Glacier Park has serious concerns about the effect of the proposed facility on its property. Mr. Bob Miulli of Glacier Park has recently expressed these concerns to Mr. Bill Taylor of Longacres . It is possible that with more information and strong mitigation measures being taken that some of these concerns can be reduced. Glacier Park' s principal concerns are described below. 1. Air Quality/Odor. This is a very large composting operation. Glacier Park is concerned that this operation cannot be undertaken without unavoidable adverse odor impacts occurring to Glacier Park and to other nearby properties . We understand that there is the risk with an operation of this kind that the process can become anaerobic and produce significant odors . The prevailing winds in summer, when we presume the facility will be most heavily used, will carry odors southward to the Glacier Park property. TELEX:328919 DWJ SEA . TELECOPIER: (206)628'7040 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA ' BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON ' RICHLAND, WASHINGTON ' WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Ron Nelson Page 2 There is apparently no other animal waste composting operation of this scale anywhere else in the Northwest which can be used for comparison. This process is probably analogous to Metro' s sludge disposal process which we understand has produced odor complaints by neighbors in the vicinity of their operation. We are interested in obtaining a copy of the odor analysis done for this proposed project. We also want to see the history of similar facilities at other locations near residential or commercial development. 2 . Land Use. We question whether composting of animal waste Is an appropriate use in the Manufacturing Park (M-P) zone. This kind of use will have a chilling effect on other uses within the zone, particularly service and office activities. The campus-type office park encouraged by Renton's policies will be particularly susceptible to the adverse impacts from such a use. The M-P zone contains limitations on outside storage which must be addressed here. Renton City Code Section 4-730. The Code may require a conditional use permit for such use, if it is allowed. The environmental performance standards for the M-P zone provide: No emissions of odorous gases and other odorous matter shall be permitted in quantities which are unreasonably offensive beyond the exterior property lines of the lot or site. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-730(C) (10) (c) . This proposed facility may also qualify as a "bulk storage facility" and subject it to the special requirements of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-734 . The intent of this section provides, as follows: The intent of the regulation of bulk storage facilities is to allow such facilities in a location and manner so they are compatible with adjacent properties and beneficial to the City and in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. It is further the Mr. Ron Nelson Page 3 intent to ensure that the safety, health, welfare, aesthetics and morals of the community are maintained at a high level. Due to the unique characteristics and problems inherent in making bulk storage facilities compatible with surrounding properties and environment, the City Council finds that special review of bulk storage facilities is required to ensure the intent of these regulations; and the City Council expressly finds that in the Green River Valley, City of Renton and surrounding areas, there has been a loss in air quality and that a potential exists for a continuing deterioration in this air quality due in part to the uniaue meteorological and topographic characteristics such as the channeling and holding of air masses by inversions and the surrounding hills . This degradation in air quality adversely affects the livability and desirability of the City and is injurious to the health and well-being of its citizens . Those uses classified as a recognized higher risk have higher standards applied to them including, but not limited to, landscaping, traffic and access and hazardous materials . These regulations are to supplement and be in addition to existing ordinances and Code provisions . RMC Section 4-734(A) (emphasis supplied) . Please provide us with information showing how the proposal complies with the provisions of the M-P zone. 3 . Visual Impact. This facility will be visible from the Glacier Park property. It will be of particular concern in of-ice buildings of one story or more which will look down on such facility. It is not clear what kind of landscaping, screening and berming has been proposed as part of this proposal. There are some standards for such landscaping and screening in the Renton Municipal Code, Sections 4-730(C) (6) and 4-734(E) . We question whether these standards would adequately mitigate the visual impacts of this proposal . Mr . Ron Nelson Page 4 4 . Drainage. Glacier Park is concerned about potential runoff into the P-1 Channel which, when built, will run through Glacier Park Company' s property. The plan is apparently to allow drainage to flow to the east into the wetlands area next to the P-i Channel. 5 . Alternatives . The City should consider other alternatives for this proposal, including off-site alternatives and on-site. Is this the least-impact alternative that accomplishes the applicant ' s objectives? 6 . Time Limits on Permit. We understand that Longacres is doing its best to propose a composting operation which will be compatible with the area. We appreciate their concern. Due to the nature of this proposal, however, and the risk that it will produce adverse impacts that are not anticipated by the applicant, we suggest that the City put a time limit on any permit approval which makes the permit subject to periodic renewal and reconsideration after a period of time, such as one year. This would give the City, the applicant and affected property owners a chance to review the proposal in the light of actual experience. Can you also inform us of what permit approvals will be required for this proposed use and the time period for such review by the City. Is this a permitted use in the M-P zone? Will a conditional use permit be required? Will a special bulk storage permit be required? What other City permits are necessary? Has the City determined whether a further environmental assessment or impact statement is required? Please include Glacier Park Company (c/o Mr. Robert V. Miulli, 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700, Seattle, WA 98104) on your mailing list of interested persons who wish to be informed of any decisions regarding this application. Glacier Park representatives are also willing to meet with the City and Longacres to discuss this proposal further in an- effort to resolve the problems presented. Mr. Ron Nelson Page 5 Thank you for your concern and consideration. Very truly yours, DAVIS WRIGHT & JONES Joh E. Lttn¢ JEK:bjw cc: Robert V. Miulli William Taylor 9306L r=y,s ANDREA BEATTY RINIKER N E' k„ (i,. Director 889 DY STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 • (206) 459-6000 July 21, 1987 i lJ O:_ 4(f {"';I, r i /% rIrpy Jeannette McKague City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Dear Ms. McKague: Per our conversation on July 20, I am providing in writing the comments of our staff regarding the Longacres composting project. The. potential for odor problems associated with a proposal like this is great. A different kind of composting procedure such as in-vessel composting may help alleviate potential odor problems. A NPDES permit from Ecology would be required for any discharge of runoff waters from the composting operation to surface waters. - It is unlikely that this permit would be granted if any feasible alternative existed. Other alternatives might include routing the runoff through a settling pond::prior to discharge or connecting with a sewer line. Lining the pond with asphalt provides adequate support but is not acceptable for controlling seepage. A clay lining or a synthetic membrane would be preferable. The possibility of arranging a cooperative composting operation with local governments in the area should be investigated. Des Moines and Federal Way have been looking into the composting issue and may be amenable to a cooperative venture. This might allow for using a different location which would help alleviate problems with odor and impacts to the wetland. I made a visit to the Longacres site with Bill Taylor in May and was impressed with the quality of the wetland adjacent to the proposed composting operation. It is providing habitat for a number of species including waterfowl and appears to store a significant amount of water for most of the year. Any proposed developments which might adversely impact the wetland should receive close scrutiny. If you have any questions or if I can be of any further assistance, please give me a call at 459-6774. S c ely, or Andy er Millan Wetlands Section CITY OF RENTON - a BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director October 14, 1987 Greg Bishop Seattle King County Health. 201 Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98104 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR LONGACRES RACE COURSE CU-064-87 Gentlemen: A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for October 20, .1987. The public hearing commences at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you before the hearing. Ifyou-have any questions, please call the Building and Zoning Department at 235-2550. Sincerely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:DB:ss 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 t$CITY OF RENTON LL BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director October 14, 1987 Mr. Bob Muilli Glacier Park Co. 1011 Western Ave. Suite 700 . Seattle, WA 98104 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR LONGACRES RACE COURSE CU-064-87 Gentlemen: A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for October 20, 1987. The public hearing commences at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. The applicant ofrepresentative(.$) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report•will be mailed to you before the hearing. If. you have any questions, please call the Building and Zoning Department at 235-2550. Sincerly, uf Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator ' BKE:DB:ss 200 Mill Avenue. South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 CITY OF RENTON LL BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director October 14, 1987 John E. Keegan Davis Wright & Jones 2600 Century Square 1501 4th Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR LONGACRES RACE COURSE CUJ-064-87 Gentlemen: A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner. has been scheduled for October 20, 1987. The public hearing commences at 9:00 a.m. - in the Council Chambers- on the second floor of City Hall. . The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at: a public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you before the hearing. If you haveany questions, please call the Building and Zoning Department at 235-2550. Sincerely,. 1 Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:DB:ss 200 Mill Avenue-South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 Ou o •eib52 CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director October 13, 1987 Longacres Race Course, Inc. P.O. Box 60 Renton, Wa. 98057 RE: PUBLIC HEARING Gentlemen: A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for October 20, 1987. The public hearing commences at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. .A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you before the hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Building and Zoning Department at 235-2550. Sincerely, C-)441.11(gL---Q, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:DB:plp 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 t$ Voa, CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director October 13, 1987 Bill Taylor P.O. Box 60 Renton, Wa. 98057 RE: PUBLIC HEARING Dear Mr. Taylor: A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for October 20, 1987. The public hearing commences at 9: 00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to, you before the hearing. If you. have any questions, please call the Building and Zoning Department at 235-2550. Sincerely, Dona d K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:DB:plp 200.Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 o• ' v • OF . RA, A. 4/. I. n''. vt : .. i'..t., *;:ilar.;;;1':'''':0 zr , , 4..;., 1.,,,:,.- . . 4-44 ,I'4'.;7: •r1Y:i-7 ''.. -"-ft,.:,4 ',' '":. .:4'''....' ',...i 4, t,e,A:P.: f';'''' 4 . •. ' . N, 4,.•,, .,.eI'.,.: ' i•• . '--,, . „ hi.v ,' 1,0 hl a,41.'.1 0-14".',.k..-i evall .x .1, g 7i " ...,;f..t. 4- m, -1 „'- W.4. Is tAr --?, , , , , i't;•-... r .{ l',...s. " ., ni.,.=4 le7.. • •‘k't 4 "4 We:$:0?:vy.t.!, iwt ,.i,,,py.f.T.4:4,,%;%,-,,'Allitt.I.:0;',.;.:4(.4/' 1VP"R 4,'''.' '"A..%IT.:. v-i4, .' P ' '',.-""4.''''AT.•` 4 47-6-13 SEP1°'° 0 City of nton Land Use Fie -Krine Examiner will hold a if 4,,,,• , IV.,;: 4::.t'!'• •. 04-t, 4" 6-, '' 1. $oi,05- .,'. ., .ta. -,-' , 4 ,,,,t. 4,,,,, G., • '• r••,.. ' <,.• , . , .1.qt '., ,,, a.,,, .7,.,„ -,,,A „,.. zoo, ,- ::_:.,,,,, ‘,,,..„,7...,., ,,tt i$ 4-,, ,-- L,'. l' f: ,i, ,.,,,, .!;',4 ' yr.;.'4:5,. ,•. .k.;i.: 1.i."' ''' , '. i si , P.;.'.''.,,,..,',,,,= 7,, IV ,:' ' ,6,::! I.,, 'ijr• ' '' )'''i n,mil- , n:) '.,:,,., :4.1 ,. ,.; . .•!' .---k - ...,... in CITY COUNCIL CHAMBES , CITY HALL ON OCTOBER 20, 1987 BEGINNING AT 9 :00 A.M 0 P.M. LONGACRES RACE COURSE INC. (COMPOSTING FACILITIES) ECF-055-87, CU-064-87 APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW FACILITY FOR COMPOSTING WASTE FROM THE STRAW/MANURE OF THE RACE COURSE . 1, .3 E NI E i.', L, R-.E3 fM AT Li re hil A NI 12/(CD n I SOUTH 1/4 OF LONGACRES RACE COURSE PROPERTY/ WEST OF OAKESDALE AVE . S .W. AND SOUTH OF S.W. 27TH STREET ( IF BOTH EXTENDED) . FOR FLIrtTHER Nk.IFORMIATOCIIN CALL Thy MTV OF RENThikg BUOLDONG & ZDNIONG DEPARTMENT 235-2550 ETHOS INVOYTOOF HOY TO Srg, EPRMOVED WITHAIUT PEQ0E-DrA fi:\- L,171THOA[Mz .'irliEC:DIN. HE/Dskl 102087 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON OCTOBER 20, 1987, AT 9: 00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: KHATIBI (KHATIBI SUNSET WAY 4-PLEX) Application to rezone . 22 acres from R-1 to R-3 to allow construction of a 4-plex. Property located at 905 Sunset Blvd. N.E. File Nos. : ECF-054-87, R-063-87. LONGACRES RACE COURSE INC. (COMPOSTING FACILITIES) Application for site plan approval to allow facility for composting waste from the straw/manure of the race course. Property located in the south 1/4 of Longacres Race Course property, west of Oakesdale Ave. S.W. and south of S.W. 27th Street (if both extended) . File Nos. : ECF-055-87, CU-064-87. HERNANDO CHAVES (POLLOS ESTATES) Application for preliminary plat approval of a 16 lot single family subdivision on 3 . 52 acres. Property located at 2116 Aberdeen Avenue N.E. at the northwest corner of the intersection of N.E. 20th Street and Aberdeen Avenue N.E. File Nos. : ECF-031-87, PP-035-87. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Building and Zoning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 20, 1987, AT 9 : 00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. P086_1C41'7-,04) OH--T /0-9-07 RENTC BUILDING & ZONING DEPAI _'MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW. SHEET ECF - 055 - 87 iu i ENTON APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-064-87 JUL 17 1987 POLICY PROPONENT : LONGACRES RACE, COURSE. INC_ np+ricl nanummr nen- PROJECT TITLE : LONGAC'RES COMPOSTING, FACTT"TTY BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: TTF. APPROVAL FOR FACILITY FOR. COMPOSTING WASTE FROM RACE COURSE (STRAW/MANURE) . RECYCLED MATERIAL TO BE USED FOR ENRICHING SOIL/WATER TO. BE RECIRCULATED FOR USE ON COMPOST, AFTER IT DRAINS INTO WETLAND AERATED POND. DETAILED DESCRIPTION ATTACHED. LOCATION :LOCATED IN THE SOUTH 1/4 OF LONGACRES RACE COURSE PROPERTY, WEST OF OAKESDALE AVE S.W. AND SOUTH OF S.W. 27th STREET (IF BOTH EXTENDED) TO: 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 0 ENGINEERING DIVISION Ei TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: DUTILITIES ENG, DIVISION 0 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 0 PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 0 BUILDING &ZONING DEPARTMENT 0 POLICE DEPARTMENT SPOLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 0 OTHERS : 4. COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING, PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M, ON JULY 81.. 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : jto_elii' -rtei EIAPPROVED OAPPROVED WITH NDITIONS NOT APPROVED C,Ait,Gritint-iLt AAkr L 1,074.7LtA I GtAltAtt ) it a .0(- CITY OF RENTON RCEVE JUL `' 01987 L .. _. A .1_:.._"DATE: .. . ,{_,: ;wit "I SIGNATURE 0- DIRECTOR OR ill ORIZED 4'EPRESENTIATIVE l' w REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 I RENTC-— BUILDING & ZONING DEPAI OIENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF — 055 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-064-81 PROPONENT: LONGACRES RACE COURSE, INC_ PROJECT TITLE: LONGACBES COMPOSTING FArTTJTY BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: ,STYE. APPROVAL FOR FACILITY FOR. COMPOSTING WASTE FROM RACE COURSE (STRAW/MANURE) . RECYCLED MATERIAL TO BE USED FOR ENRICHING SOIL/WATER TO. BE RECIRCULATED FOR USE ON COMPOST, AFTER IT DRAINS INTO WETLAND AERATED POND.. DETAILED DESCRIPTION ATTACHED. LOCATION : LOCATED IN THE SOUTH 1/4 OF LONGACRES RACECOURSE PROPERTY, WEST OF OAKESDALE AVE S.W. AND SOUTH OF' S.W. '27th STREET (IF BOTH EXTENDED) TO: 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT d,SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 0 ENGINEERING DIVISION 1=1 TRAFFIC ENG . DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION 0 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU OPARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT ISBUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT OPOLICE DEPARTMENT OPOLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Ej OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON JULY 31. 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : ZOA.)11/ & 02 APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS JJ NOT APPROVED CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED JUL 2 21987 BUILDING I ZONING DEPT. Aoy;c1__ DATE: 7- 22,-137SIGNATUREOFDIREC. R OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 FIENTr— BUILDING & ZONING DEPA .MENT a DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF — 055 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-064-87 PROPONENT: LONGACRES RACE COURSE. INC. PROJECT TITLE : LQNGA('RES—COMPOSTINC, FACTT,TTY BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: ,STTR APPROVAL FOR FACILITY FOR. COMPOSTING WASTE FROM RACECOURSE (STRAW/MANURE) . RECYCLED MATERIAL TO BE USED FOR ENRICHING SOIL/WATER TO BE RECIRCUTLATED FOR USE ON COMPOST, AFTER IT DRAINS INTO WETLAND AERATED POND. DETAILED DESCRIPTION ATTACHED. LOCATION :LOCATED IN THE SOUTH 1/4 OF LONGACRES RACE COURSE PROPERTY, WEST OF OAKESDALE AVE S.W. AND SOUTH OF S.W. •27th STREET '(IF BOTH EXTENDED) TO: 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG, DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION 0 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT El POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT EIOTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING, PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON JULY 31. 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : LSD 5PPROVED OAPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ONOT APPROVED DATE: 7— 7 -;P2 SIGNAT OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 RENT BUILDING & ZONING DEN 'MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 055 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) ; SA-064-87 PROPONENT: . LONGACRES RACE COURSE. INC. PROJECT TITLE: LONGACRES COMPOSTTNC; FACTT,TTV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: STTF. APPROVAL FOR 'FACILITY FOR. COMPOSTING WASTE FROM RACECOURSE (STRAW/MANURE) . RECYCLED MATERIAL TO BE USED FOR ENRICHING SOIL/WATER TO BE RECIRCULATED FOR USE ON COMPOST, AFTER IT DRAINS INTO WETLAND AERATED POND. DETAILED DESCRIPTION ATTACHED. LOCATION :LOCATED IN THE SOUTH 1/4 OF LONGACRES RACE COURSE PROPERTY, WEST OF OAKESDALE AVE S.W. AND SOUTH OF S.W. •27th STREET (IF BOTH EXTENDED) TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : jJUTILITIES ENG . DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU I El PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT El BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT OPOLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OOTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON JULY 31. 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : APPROVED El APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Ej NOT APPROVED A c"Y OF RE?' E 11 V LI D 4 135 0,1387 y¢ i DEPT. 11-23) DATE: —J — Z SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 RENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPA MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIS! N REVIEW SHEET ECF - 055 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-064-87 PROPONENT: LONGACRES RACE COURSE. INC_ PROJECT TITLE: LONGACRES COMPOSTIM FAr'TT,TTV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: STTF. APPROVAL FOR FACILITY FOR. COMPOSTING WASTE FROM RACECOURSE (STRAW/MANURE) . RECYCLED MATERIAL TO BE USED FOR ENRICHING SOIL/WATER TO BE RECIRCULATEDFORUSEONCOMPOST, AFTER IT DRAINS INTO WETLAND AERATED POND.. DETAILED DESCRIPTION ATTACHED. LOCATION :LOCATED IN THE SOUTH 1/4 OF LONGACRES RACE COURSE PROPERTY, WEST OF OAKESDALE AVE S.W. AND SOUTH OF S.W. 27th STREET (IF BOTH EXTENDED) TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : OUTILITIES ENG. DIVISION ELFIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 1:1 PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RER El POLICE DEPARTMENT R F -,I1 POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JUL 1987 OTHERS : BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON JULY 31. 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : APPROVED g APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS J NOT APPROVED 70-€2.." z C7 4 G ti .',e.ete".-eiy 20 c a-x csvc-- 7". a.zenez.e,,_/7.1/(4„. a /A-L. DATE: /:4,...4,/ /7', 1511 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 RENT1 BUILDING & ZONING DEPA MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 055 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-064-87 PROPONENT: LONGACRES RACE COURSE TNC_ PROJECT TITLE : LONGACRES COMPOGTTNP FACTT,TTY BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: ,$TTF. APPROVAL FOR FACILITY FOR. COMPOSTING WASTE FROM RACE COURSE (STRAW/MANURE) . RECYCLED MATERIAL TO BE USED FOR ENRICHING SOIL/WATER TO BE RECIRCULATED FOR USE ON COMPOST, AFTER IT DRAINS INTO WETLAND AERATED POND. DETAILED DESCRIPTION ATTACHED. LOCATION :LOCATED IN THE SOUTH 1/4 OF LONGACRES RACE COURSE PROPERTY, WEST OF OAKESDALE AVE S.W. AND SOUTH OF S.W. 27th STREET '(IF BOTH EXTENDED) TO: 1E] PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : fl ENGINEERING DIVISION El TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : EIUTILITIES ENG . DIVISION 0 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT El POLICE DEPARTMENT R POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON JULY 31. 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 40'46., 1X- OAPPROVED DOAPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS EINOT APPROVED he' p,Qofel Ualeydd c PG a ce. DATE: a4 22, /fa'? SIGNAT OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 RENT( : WILDING & ZONING DEPAI RENT DEVELOPMENT APPUUC. TO* • RE IEW SHEET ECF - 055 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-064-87 PROPONENT: LONGACRES RACE COURSE. INC. PROJECT TITLE : LONGACRES composm-rNr. FACTT.TTY BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: ,BYTE. APPROVAL FOR FACILITY FOR. COMPOSTING WASTE FROM RACECOURSE (STRAW/MANURE) . RECYCLED MATERIAL TO BE USED FOR ENRICHING SOIL/WATER TO BE RECIRCULATEDFORUSEONCOMPOST, AFTER IT DRAINS INTO WETLAND AERATED POND.. DETAILED DESCRIPTION ATTACHED. LOCATION : LOCATED IN THE SOUTH 1/4 OF LONGACRES RACE COURSE PROPERTY, WEST OF OAKESDALE AVE S.W. AND SOUTH OF S.W. '27th STREET '(IF BOTH EXTENDED) 7 TO: 17:1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : ENGINEERING DIVISION El TRAFFIC ENG, DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : MI UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 7] PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1 r ADQITIONINFOREQUIRED LIBUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT SQGARD F RIAPOT(EON 1 El POLICE DEPARTMENT ADDRESS ttroFnawroElPOLICYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENTRt [ 1 V - El OTHERS : JUL 3 0 1987 COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICA1 UN S O'U BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO, THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON JULY 31. 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Ur ,C._/Ty „ - /6/A/4,E,e/^/(4 OAPPROVED OAPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS fJ NOT APPROVED FM rice DEPT. ea2u112.Ew&IT oF Fly Nye UTILITY APPROVAL SUBJECT TO I NecQS 4)`E2 Pax/ ITE COMERS AGREEMENT-WATER 1,(p 1 LATE COMERS AGREEMENT-SEWER 1-0 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WATER Y; :5 52OX4,i0'=.434;0005Q.FT.X$0.D4 = vfl49,3IDA - SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-SEWER' AJO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREACGLRGE-WATER No 0-6 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE-SEWER A/0 OPPROVED WATER PLAN VAS APPROVED SEWER PLAN 1j APPROVED FIRE HYDRANT LAY' 7REIS BY FIRE DEFT ES ' , w-- , FIRE FL ':1 ANALYSIS No DATE:2 -29 — S`7 ' SIGNATURE OF DI CTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 I v... ._._...w. ..uw.nat+arrrc ns.+axa.+:.•5 ,'r. Olifent s r.•,rm-+.y....:rs,;Tw..7m.: WWI i ds:&b4!iL` T_,., r_.•::..s .>F,. k76i gOs8:61nsM4f"CvI 1 a;' pl v',,y, I R RENT•; BUILDING & ZONING DEPA MEN' DEVELOPMENT. APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF 055 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-064-87 PROPONENT: LONGACRES RACE COURSE. INC_ PROJECT TITLE : LONGAC'RES cOMPOsTTNf; FACTT,TTV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: STTF. APPROVAL FOR FACILITY FOR. COMPOSTING WASTE FROM RACECOURSE (STRAW/MANURE) . RECYCLED MATERIAL TO BE USED 7OR 'ENRICHING SOIL/WATER TO BE RECIRCULATED FOR USE ON COMPOST, AFTER IT DRAINS INTO WETLAND AERATED POND. DETAILED DESCRIPTION ATTACHED. LOCATION : LOCATED IN THE SOUTH 1/4 OF LONGACRES RACE COURSE PROPERTY, WEST OF OAKESDALE AVE S.W. AND SOUTH OF S.W. 27th STREET (IF BOTH EXTENDED) TO: 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : EZ1ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION El FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT El BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT 1 POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON DULY 31. 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : c.„—ex..„2.4. 7) APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS JNOT APPROVED r Pave.-1 %.-- o"-- — 4,7 DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 s'o, ,,;;, RENT BUILDING & ZONING ®EPA 'MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 055 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-064-87 PROPONENT : LONGACRES RACE COURSE, INC. PROJECT TITLE: LONGACRES COMPCISTTNC; FACTT.TTP BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: ,STTR. APPROVAL FOR FACILITY FOR. COMPOSTING WASTE FROM RACE COURSE (STRAW/MANURE) . RECYCLED MATERIAL TO BE USED FOR ENRICHING SOIL/WATER TO. BE RECIRCULATED FOR USE ON COMPOST, AFTER IT DRAINS INTO WETLAND AERATED POND, DETAILED DESCRIPTION ATTACHED. LOCATION:LOCATED IN THE SOUTH 1/4fOF LONGACRES RACE COURSE PROPERTY, WEST OF OAKESDALE AVE S.W. AND SOUTH OF S.W. 27th STREET (IF BOTH EXTENDED) TO: E PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 0 ENGINEERING DIVISION 3-TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION 0 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT El POLICE DEPARTMENT El POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE' BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON ,TULY 31. 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 7 1?' 12/‘OVED'APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED f.„ DATE:7/7/ SIGNATURE OF D RECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE i' REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 200 West Mercer Street, Room 205 Seattle, Washington 98119-3958 PUGET SOUND Telephone: (206) 344-7330 AIR POLLUTION Facsimile: (206) 340-4788 CONTROL AGENCY CITY OF RENTON/ October 1, 1987 Donald K. Erickson, AICP IF', C Isr E V Zoning Administrator City of Renton OCT 2 . 1987 Building and Zoning Department 200 Mill Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 BUILDING / ZONING DEPT. Dear Mr. Erickson: Evaluating Odors Thank you for your letter, dated September 22, 1987 . There is no existing technology relative to quantifying odor emissions or odors that are prevalent. It is this Agency's understanding that for the most part, throughout the United States that enforcement of odor emissions is through laws relating to nuisances. The odor scale used by Agency Inspectors is not a regulatory standard but instead is a shorthand method for recording the affects of adverse odor upon the Inspector. The odor rating scale, ranging from 0 to 4, is as follows: 0 --- No detectable odor 1 --- Odor barely detectable 2 --- Odor distinct and definite, any unpleasant characteris- tics recognizable 3 --- Odor strong enough to cause attempts at avoidance 4 --- Odor overpowering, intolerable for any appreciable time. We are enclosing a copy of a recent decision of the Pollution Control Hearings Board, State of Washington, dated September 22 , 1987 , that should help your understanding of the above. We are also enclosing a co of RCW 70.94_64 which we believe you should be aware of since this provision may preclude enforcement action for odors emanating from a composting facility at the Longacres Racetrack. We trust that the aforementioned information will be of assistance to SERVING: you. KING COUNTY 200 West Mercer St, Room 205 Seattle,98119-3958 Sincere ly('1 206)344-7330 KITSAP COUNTY Dial Operator for Toll Free Number Zenith 8385 f Bainbridge Island Residents Dial 344-7330 PIERCE COUNTY Arthur R. Dammkoehler 901 Tacoma Avenue South 213 Hess Building Air Pollution Control Officer Tacoma,98402-2101 206)593-2225 SNOHOMISH COUNTY pb1-800-552-3565 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Enclosure CHAIRMAN:Doug Sutherland,Mayor Tacoma VICE CHAIRMAN:Ray Aardal,Commissioner Kitsap County Bruce Agnew,Councilman Snohomish County Tim Hill,King County Executive Gene Lobe.Mayor Bremerton William E.Moore.Mayor Everett Charles Royer,Mayor Seattle Joe Stortini,Pierce County Executive Linda Tanz,Member at Large A.R.Dammkoehler,Air Pollution Control Officer Washington Clean Air Act 70.94.650 70.94.510 Policy to cooperate with federal govern- b) "Good agricultural practices" means economically ment. It is declared to be the policy of the state of feasible practices which are customary among or appro- Washington through the department of ecology to coop- priate to farms and ranches of a similar nature in the erate with the federal government in order to insure the local area. coordination of the provisions of the federal and state c) "Agricultural land" means at least five acres of clean air acts, and the department is authorized and di- land devoted primarily to the commercial production of rected to implement and enforce the provisions of this livestock or agricultural commodities. [1981 c 297 § 30.] chapter in carrying out this policy as follows: Legislative finding,intent-1981 c 297: "The legislature finds that 1) To accept and administer grants from the federal agricultural land is essential to providing citizens with food and fiber government for carrying out the provisions of this and to insuring aesthetic values through the preservation of open spaces in our state.The legislature further finds that government reg- chapter. ulations can cause agricultural land to be converted to nonagricultural 2) To take all action necessary to secure to the state uses. The legislature intends that agricultural activity consistent with the benefits of the federal clean air act. [1987 c 109 § good practices be protected from government over—regulation." [1981 c 297 § 29.] 49; 1969 ex.s. c 168 § 45.] Reviser's note: The above legislative finding and intent section ap- Purpose—Short title—construction—Rules— Severabil- parently applies to sections 30 and 31 of chapter 297, Laws of 1981, ity—Captions-1987 c 109: See notes following RCW which sections have been codified pursuant to legislative direction as 43.21B.001. RCW 70.94.640 and 90.48.450, respectively. Severability-1981 c 297:See note following RCW 15.36.110. 70.94.600 Reports of authorities to department of ecology—Contents. All authorities in the state shall 70.94.650 Burning permits for weed abatement, in- submit quarterly reports to the department of ecology struction or agriculture activities Issuance—Ac- detailing the current status of air pollution control regu- tivities exempted from requirement. Any person who lations in the authority and, by county, the progress proposes to set fires in the course of the following: made toward bringing all sources in the authority into 1) Weed abatement, compliance with authority standards. [1979 ex.s. c 30 § 2) Instruction in methods of fire fighting (except 14; 1969 ex.s. c 168 § 52.] forest fires), or 3) Disease prevention relating to agricultural activi- ties, shall, prior to carrying out the same, obtain a per- 70.94.640 Odors caused by agricultural activities mit from an air pollution control authority or the consistent with good agricultural practices exempt from department of ecology, as appropriate. Each such au- chapter. (1) Odors caused by agricultural activity con- thority and the department of ecology shall, by rule or sistent with good agricultural practices on agricultural ordinance, establish a permit system to carry out the land are exempt from the requirements of this chapter provisions of this section except as provided in RCW unless they have a substantial adverse effect on public 70.94.660. General criteria of state—wide applicability health. In determining whether agricultural activity is for ruling on such permits shall be established by the consistent with good agricultural practices, the depart department, by rule or regulation, after consultation ment of ecology or board of any authority shall consult with the various air pollution control authorities. Permits with a recognized third—party expert in the activity prior shall be issued under this section based on seasonal op- to issuing any notice of violation. erations or by individual operations, or both: Provided, 2) Any notice of violation issued under this chapter That all permits so issued shall be conditioned to insure pertaining to odors caused by agricultural activity shall that the public interest in air, water, and-land pollution include a statement as to why the activity is inconsistent and safety to life and property is fully considered. In with good agricultural practices, or a statement that the addition to any other requirements established by the department to protect air quality pursuant to other laws,odors have substantial adverse effect on public health. 3) In any appeal to the pollution control hearings applicants for permits must show that the setting of fires board or any judicial appeal, the agency issuing a final as requested is the most reasonable procedure to follow order pertaining to odors caused by agricultural activity in safeguarding life or property under all circumstances shall prove the activity is inconsistent with good agricul- or is otherwise reasonably necessary to successfully carry burn- tural practices or that the odors have a substantial ad- out the enterprise the applicant is engaged in. All ing permits will be designed to minimize air pollution verse impact on public health. insofar as practical. Nothing in this section shall relieve 4) If a person engaged in agricultural activity on a the applicant from obtaining permits, licenses or other . . contiguous piece of agricultural land sells or has sold a approvals required by any other law: Provided further, portion of that land for residential purposes, the exemp- That an application for a permit to set fires in the course tion of this section shall not apply. of agricultural burning for controlling diseases, insects, 5) As used in this section: and development of physiological conditions conducive to a) "Agricultural activity" means the growing, rais- increased crop yield, shall be granted within fourteen ing, or production of horticultural or viticultural crops, days from the date such application is filed: Provided, berries, poultry, livestock, grain, mint, hay, and dairy That nothing herein shall prevent a householder from products.setting fire in the course of burning leaves, clippings or 1987 Ed.)Title 70 RCW—p 147] A- viler G CITY OF RENTONTy BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director September 24, 1987 Mr. Bill Taylor Longacres Race Course P.O. Box 60 Renton, Washington 98057 RE: Longacres Composting Project, Files ECF-055-087, CU-064-87 This letter is to inform you that the Environmental Review Committee met on September 23, 1987, to reconsider its Threshold Determination of August 10, 1987, for your project. The Committee' decided to modify three of the mitigation measures previously required in their earlier Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, for the development of a proposed manure and hay composting facility on property located south of the Longacres Race Track, (south of S.W. 27th Street and West of oakesdale Avenue S.W. , if both streets were extended) . The mitigation measures to be modified include: 1. Item #3 pertaining to the applicant contracting with King County Health Department to monitor air quality. This was changed to the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency with the County continuing to be the agency to be contracted with for monitoring water quality of those waters discharged into the adjacent wetlands. 2 . Item #4 pertaining to the initial approval period was changed from an initial "one year period" to an initial "two year period". 3 . Item #5 pertaining to the removal of the proposed facility, if the initial permit was not extended, was modified to require the cessation of the use" if the initial permit was not extended. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at 235-2540. For L. - Envi •.* men al view Committee, d Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:BG 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 CI1 ° OF E r ON CEfll E r. l;vV 63 li 3. SEP Z1 87 a:. _ BUS D % /ZOMNO DEPT.iz— September 22, 1987 Mr. Donald K. Erickson Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South 1 Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Erickson: Persuant to our conversation today Longacres would like to assure the Environmental Review Committee that we will cooperate in every possible way to ensure that a composting facility here is safe and inoffensive. It is our desire to work with any neighboring property owners and to be sensitive to their concerns. If runoff occurs, we are confident that our treatment will result in a clean and safe discharge. If there is a problem, we would be willing to then extend a discharge pipe to the sanitary sewer. We will also take necessary and appropriate measures' to address and mitigate problems of any nature that may arise. Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, aig, ;714i Bill Taylor Director of : siness Development BT:db 1 tLongacres Race Course, Inc. P.O. Box 60, Renton, Washington 98057 (206) 226-3131 y L o c OF i 3TON BUILDINGLDING ZONING' DEPT. oQ, COMPOST PILOT PLANT SAMPLES In order to accurately present the materials involved in Longacres proposed Compost Facility actual samples of materials have been taken from a small scale composting test bin adjacent to the Longacres stable operations. The initial compost medium is primarily straw with approximately 5% manure. This medium is ground, blended, and moistened to pro- duce an optimum environment for aerobic decomposition to occur. Small amounts of organic Nitrogen have been added on an experi- mental basis to accelerate the establishment of an active microbial community in the compost medium. No microbes need to be added since the organisms involved are naturally present. The finished compost is an organic loam which has been measured to have satisfactory quantities of organic matter, Nitrogen, minerals, and a moisture retaining structure. This compost is then blended with sand to produce a workable and attractive landscaping soil. No toxic wastes or by-products are produced by this composting process which would require off-site disposal. Longacres Race Course, Inc. P.O. Box 60, Renton, Washington 98057 (206) 226-3131 V o ,. * CITY OF RENTON LL . ' 4, ammo _ :q. Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director September 22 , 1987 Arthur R. Dammkoeler, Air Pollution Control Officer Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 200 West Mercer Street, Suite 205 P.O. Box 9863, Seattle, WA 98109 Dear Mr. Dammkoeler: The City of Renton is in the process of reviewing a Conditional Use permit from Longacres Racetracic to allow a composting facility on their property. Neighboring land owners have expressed concern about potential odor and our Environmental Review Committee has recommended a trial period of at least one year during which odor would be monitored. Longacres has expressed concern about the criteria that would be used to evaluate odor and has requested that we supply quantitative standards by which it will be monitored. Betty Grimshaw of this Department has been in contact with several people on your staff who have explained that there are yet no adequate "quantitative" standards for measuring odor from such a composting project. We have been advised that your agency uses trained inspectors who evaluate the odor by physically smelling the air and rating the intensity on a four point scale. We would appreciate a letter from you for our files that would document the lack of quantitative methods for evaluating odor and explain the rating system used by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Thank you for your assistance. e Enviro7 to Re w Committee, 7) Donald K. Eri son, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:BG 1 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 CITY OF RENTON illl BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT I SFP 2 2 '8 7 t! 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 16C37 4 .•.Please avoid untimely delays in MYYTU MEERk g° i ° AailAITM mail delivery by correcting our r Ka Palk. address as indicated. x WIV7 KAgita'T.4165 EL rat Arthur R. Dammkoeler, Air Pollution Control Officer S LP 25 1987 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 200 West Mercer Street, Suite 205 P.O. Box 9863 PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION Seattle, WA 98109 CONTROL;AGENCY PUGET SOUND C(,, L AIR POLLUTION pUj;r ; CONTROL AGENCY SEP"s sr: T '" w i i f I GC 200 West Mercer Street, Room 205 0' ° 6 Seattle,Washington 98119-3958 Donald K. Erickson CITY OF RENTON City of Renton 1 C EE H V IE Building & Zoning Dept. 200 Mill Ave S. JEP 301987Renton, WA 98055 BUILDING /ZONING DEPT. 11,IHiiihil.id!isfiii: :ii:i 411••. i, •, s:-.°., 11 • Li 1 2 11 f( Lt fl I 1 )2. I d 6=J zLP:: )r;"'G / za 1NG DEPT. September 16, 1987 Mr. Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator City of Renton Building & Zoning Department 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Erickson: We have received your letter dated September 14, and agree to your request for extension on the comment period. In response to several of your comments in that letter, we offer ,the following information: 1. Enclosed please find a copy of our Engineer Robert Rousculp's letter dated September 8 clarifying run- off volumes from this proposed facility. We antici- pate the potential run-off to occur for only 42 days each year. 2. We acknowledge your decision to review this application as a conditional use -- however, we reserve the right to argue that this is an accessory use as requested in our previous letter. 3. We appreciate your consideration in extending the. evaluation period for this project to two years. 4.' Enclosed please find a copy of a letter of opinion dated September 2, 1987. from Jan Allen of Sound Resource Management Group. Mr. Allen is a consultant with experience in the design of composting systems and associated run-off control) measures. We understand your concern for odors and the potential for complaints from neighboring properties. Because this proposed facility is not a typical operation, we find it frustrating that it is characterized as a source of major odors, and wish to present any potential for odors in a 11!Longacres Race Course, Inc. P.O. Box 60, Renton, Washington 98057 (206) 226-3131 Mr. Donald K. Erickson, AICP City of Renton September 16, 1987 Page Two factual and realistic manner. We are researching existing operations that are comparable and hope to provide you with a better understanding of the composting process involved in this operation. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to call me at 226-3131. Sincerely, Bill Taylor Director of Business Development BT/ik Enclosures cc: Jan Allen SEP 9 1987 DESIGN Robert A. Rousculp, P.E. CONSTRUCTION Water Supply,Sewage Consulting Engineerineer Management Treatment Plants,Drainage Supervision Industrial,Municipal,Residential 6700 Old Guide Rd. Lynden, Washington 98264 Inspection,Surveying 206) 398-1153 8 September 1987 Bill Taylor Longacres Race Course s fi P.O. Box 60 i Renton, Wa. 98057 Dear Bill: Persuant to your 2 September request to look at my res- ponse to the Renton Environmental Checklist item 3a6) I have back-checked my calculations and determined that a more acc- urate wording would be the following: Collected, aerated and settled rainfall runoff from the pad will be discharged to the wetlands through a 6" pipe for about 21 days at the start-up and 21 days at the close-down of the season. During these periods the average discharge of treated rainfall runoff will be approximately 4500 gallons per day. During the remainder of the 42 week composting season no discharge is normally anticipated.g Back-up calculations will be forwarded you under separate cover. Sincerely, 12b/p2,t5( R. A. Rousculp V Sound Resource Management Group 1220 Ledroit Court SW, Seattle,Washington 98136 Engineering—Jan W.Allen,P.E.,206/784-9070 Communications—Russell Beebe,206/932-3404 Program Plannrx/—Craig H. Benton,206/935-5088 Economic Anayvs—Jeffery Morris,Ph.D.,206/592-2328 Education—Carl Woestendiek, 206/632-0189 September 2, 1987 7 I" t Mr. Bill Taylor Director of Business Development is L.J Longacres Race Course 7 • 1 .P.O. Box 60 im L Renton, WA 98057 RE: LONGACRES COMPOSTING FACILITY / SA-064-87 Dear Mr. Taylor, Per your request we have reviewed your proposed composting facility de- sign and subsequent comments made by Glacier Park Company to determine if any expressed concerns are reasonable and relevant to your proposed facility. The following response is structured in a format to follow those concerns enumerated by Mr. John Keegan, Attorney for Glacier Park Com- pany, in his letter of August 4, 1987. 1. This facility is average in size. We reviewed the Biocycle Magazine annual survey of sludge composting facilities to corelate the number and size of facilities comparable to your proposed operation. Although your operation would be greatly simplified due to the innocuous nature of your compost medium, such a comparison shows the physical state- of-the-art in material handling equipment. We estimate your facility would operate at a rate of 33 dry tons per day. This can be compared to 14 other windrow operations on a national basis, having a capacity of more than 5 dry tons per day. Of these 14 facilities the size ranged from 6 to 300 dry tons per day. The average size was 43 dry tons per day. Therefore, your proposed facility is smaller than average on this comparative basis. Glacier Park Company has understood that significant odors can result from anaerobic conditions. For a more typical facility composting sludge materials there is a risk of significant odors if the operation is improperly operated. However, for your proposed facility, which composts a medium of over 90% straw the potential for similar odors is not likely. Any potential odors developed in an anaerobic straw/ manure medium are of a less offensive quality than those developed in a municipal sludge or other highly putrescible material. Even under fully anaerobic conditions it is not likely you could produce an odor with similar characteristics to that of raw of digesting municipal sludge. RECYCLED PAPER Page 2 Mr. Bill Taylor September 2, 1987 Your proposed facility involves an aerobic process. As such its primary by-products are water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is not the same as an anaerobic process which produces methane, carbon dioxide, am- monia, hydrogen sulfide, and various mercaptans as by-products. Through the incentive to maintain a successful operation we believe you will be motivated to insure optimum management of the windrows to preclude the generation of even the most insignificant odor. This facility would not produce any odors that are not presently associated with your normal stable and boarding operations. The prevailing winds are from the south rather than the north as stated by Glacier Park Company. The attached wind rose is taken from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, 1981 Air Quality Data. A diagram showing prevailing wind direction from your proposed facility has been drawn from this data. The statistical variation from year to year is relatively small. This data demonstrates the pro- bability of positioning the Glacier Park Properties downwind of your facility. The aggregate probability of any portion of the two pro- perties being in a downwind condition is approximately 28%. Any one building would have a probability of downwind exposure of less than 10%. The temptation to compare your proposed process to Metro's sludge disposal process should be resisted. As mentioned above, the similar- ities of composting sludge and a straw/manure medium stop at the functional level. The qualitative difference between the two mediums is substantial. Furthermore, any complaints from Metro's neighbors would probably involve the grit removal or sludge thickening operations rather than composting. Metro's sludge disposal process has had nothing to do with composting in the past. Therefore we do not see any analogous process or odor characteristics. It is our understanding Metro uses an anaerobic digestion process; then thickens, dewaters, and transports dry sludge off-site for disposal. Your aerobic process should be associated with odors such as humus and peat. I As we have discussed there are certain similarities to your process and both, the Woodland Park Zoo Zoodoo compost operation, and Pacific Topsoil's Manure composting operation. With regard to an odor anal- ysis one could approximate dispersion characteristics of a representative odor based on a probablistic approach. This mathematical modeling however, falls short when attempting to qualify specific odor charac- I teristics at any given location. We recommend emphasizing a clear distinction between your process and the Renton Treatment Plant processes before turning to modeling as a predictor. RECYCLED PAPER Page 3 Mr. Bill Taylor September 2, 1987 2. After review of the Land Use Code we believe you are clearly,an accessory use in the M-P Zone. Paragraph 4-730(B)2.b permits the outside storage of materials, products, or containers, subject to the limitiations and screening provisions of Paragraph 4-730(C)7. These limitations involve visually screening the operation from adjacent prop- erties (which you have proposed) and limiting storage area to 50% of the buildable site area (which you have proposed). Glacier Park Company should be informed that your primary compost material is straw (over 90%), not animal waste. As mentioned above, the likelihood of any odors being carried to the Glacier Park Company properties is anticipated to be small. However, in any case an effort should be made to address their predisposition against this facility which is made clear in their letter. The tone of the letter suggests a perceived liability to their development plans based on innaccurate information. In our opinion you can comply with the Environmental Performance Standards if your neighbors demonstrate a reasonable objectivity to this facility. The suggestion that this facility be identified as a bulk storage facility appears to be extreme. Paragraph 4-702(B)3 defines bulk storage as principally a collection, distribution, or storage use rather than a processing use such as your proposed facility. This facility would in fact, offer an improvement in air quality when compared to your alternatives of off-site trucking at 140 trips per week (status quo) and on-site incineration. Composting is a naturally occuring biological process and thereby has inherent environmentally sensitive qualities. 3. We do not see where this facility will be visible from the Glacier Park Company properties. Longacres has traditionally invested more in landscaping than the municipal code requires. We recommend you distinguish yourself in this regard, and if need be assure Glacier Park Company that you intend to develop this project in a sensitive manner. We presume visual screening is not a constraint you would resist. 4. Your design has considered anticipated drainage to the adjacent wet- lands in a rational and responsible manner. By aerating prior to dis- charging any runoff, and not increasing the volume of runoff you have demonstrated a willingness to comply with accepted stormwater management practices. Your aeration system will cause nutients and suspended material to be retained on-site using a practical and ef- ficient conditioning process. In addition, the capacity of the adjacent wetlands to further reduce nutient levels in the runoff is substantial. The attached article on this phenomenon may be helpful in considering the wetlands as a second step in your drainage design. RFC Y(IL )PiPE Page 4 Mr. Bill Taylor September 2, 1987 5. Apparently Glacier Park Company is not aware that you have, in fact, considered other alternatives to the proposed compost facility. It is our understanding this facility does represent the least-impact and least-cost alternative. By its nature composting demands less of the environment in the areas of energy, noise, traffic, pollution discharge, and level of development. In summary, we believe your design has anticipated potential adverse im- pacts and has provided appropriate mitigation measures. Your proposed facility demonstrates a sensitive and responsible approach to design that should assure interested parties that composting is appropriate and manage- able for this application. The composting process is frequently misunder- stood, partly because of our cultural aversion to re-processing wastes, and a lack of knowledge regarding the difference between aerobic and anaerobic biological processes. You cannot produce a successful product unless you maintain an aerobic process. This aerobic operation will insure a substantially less offensive odor than Glacier Park Company anticipates. Also attached is a General Description of Operating Variables within the composting process which was prepared by Concept Kinetics Corporation for a similar windrow facility. Although the medium was landscape waste the description is relevant in that it discusses the compost mechanism in understandable terms. Please advise if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, SQUND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GROUP Jan W. Allen, P.E. Principal Attachments RE-CYCI El) Resource Management Group 1)Alk 40i2Ck tiLL'i tioUnt0 kit f?LLU llo?.i I CoNli V.DL bLEtJcY . Ic12>i Ni ILA' 1 Irlt Air( QUALiT,, DA1A 5uM,AA12Y. 6oU114Cthl-rE . v1iisLD RDSf. s.e p V. 77\ s.a a/,, / 7 We. l,1% I3 5. ', .27 sr. Lo MYGy11 N[r 1 1 0 L Kc.e 1,2 a i. fRCiLI'C',./r4reedf1. 2,0% ii ,,1 7_,__----:':"- Arr. lfr4 t 4" 4/ 1 .I,Dsi. t. r7.1 a V L.V i a giql 10 HOUR RVERR,E SURFACE NINp$n O / ` / OD“ PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE r4 r //// t! lrti Y rr '/•!1e f A f.n.s..cols ' Et AIR POLlU1f07+ COM•ga Gf rCY SO tncenter, 401 An00.er v.rr E. IW 411 a. •e —c_a-_Fl \ i ALL , ,, A 6 iR. A ill HI G \,7 (1) N << tr.. t'TR,k_V A I LA Kli CI ill ll if4 13 1 !U r i> d 0 N AF('IROA, ALALE r = 30a' 0 I Capacity of natural wetlands S to remove nutrients t from wastewater Dale S. Nichols 4 a S D Wastewater, even after secondary treatment, is a ma- atoms exposed at the edges of the clay particles." "Kuo jor source of nutrients that can cause eutrophication of and Lotsel" proposed a similar mechanism for phos- lakes and streams and deterioration of water quality. phate adsorption by calcite, in which the phosphate ions Conventional advanced wastewater treatment typically replace adsorbed water molecules, bicarbonate ions,and ir requires large capital investments and consumes large hydroxyl ions. N amounts of energy. Therefore, interest is increasing in the use of natural wetlands as a simple and energy of An abundance of data exists that can be usedficientmeansofremovingnutrientsfromwastewater. Wastewater effluent has been applied to many types of to synthesize models of the relationship of ri natural wetlands from Florida to Canada's Northwest wastewater application rates and nutrient Territories.'-9 In all of these studies, some nitrogen and removals by wetlands. phosphorus was removed from the wastewater as it 1 flowed through the wetland. However, a more quanti- In addition to chemical adsorption by ligand ex- tative assessment is needed of the capacities and limi- change, Ryden et a1.15 presented evidence for a more tations of wetlands to removal nutrients. The purpose physical type of adsorption that becomes operational as of this paper is to review the mechanisms by which wet- the chemical adsorption sites approach saturation atle. c4 lands remove wastewater nutrients and to synthesize higher equilibrium concentrations of phosphate in so- from data in the literature a model of the relations be- lution. Using several soils with a wide range of properties i. tween wastewater nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) considered important in P adsorption, Ryden et a/.1S y. application rates and efficiency of N and P removal by determined that chemical adsorption dominated at equi- 4r12 wetlands.librium solution concentrations of phosphate-P up to about 1 mg/L, although some physical adsorption oc- PHOSPHORUS DYNAMICS curred at solution concentrations as low as 0.1 to 0.2 h' mg/L.Above 1 mg/L physical adsorption predominated. a_ Numerous wastewater slow-rate land application Physically adsorbed phosphate is not held as tightly by studies on upland areas have shown that wastewater P the soil as is chemically adsorbed P; it can easily be does not move far in the soil but is retained near the desorbed with water.19-20 surface. It is well known that soluble inorganic phos- The chemical and physical adsorption of phosphate phate is readily immobilized in soils by adsorption and onto the surface of soil minerals is a rapid process. In precipitation reactions with aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), laboratory adsorption studies in which phosphate so- calcium (Ca), and clay minerals. Reactions with Ca oc- lutions are thoroughly mixed with soil samples, much cur mainly under alkaline conditions, while reactions of the adsorption occurs within the first few minutes. with Al and Fe predominate in acid to neutral soils. In addition to this initial fast reaction, slower reactions I Phosphate ions are thought to be chemically adsorbed continue to remove phosphate from solution for periods onto the surfaces of hydrous oxides of Fe and Al by of from several days to several months.'5•21-2" This ligand exchange, that is the displacement of water mol- slower phosphate fixation has been attributed to the shift ecules and hydroxyl groups coordinated with the Fe and of physically adsorbed P to chemically adsorbed forms, c'' Al atoms and the coordination of oxygen atoms in the the diffusion of phosphate adsorbed on the surface of phosphate ions with the Fe and Al.'" Adsorption of structurally porous oxides of Fe and Al to positions in- ft phosphate by silicate clay minerals apparently occurs in side the matrix, and the precipitation of crystalline Fe, a similar manner, with phosphate bonding to the Al Al, and Ca phosphates. The importance of adsorptionti!: May 1983 495 Nichols compared to precipitation in the fixation of phosphate However, because the ratio of C/P wastewater is low by soils has received much attention in the literature. compared to that of peat,continued applications would It has recently been suggested that precipitation occurs soon satisfy microbial P requirements. Therefore, im- only in the presence of higher concentrations of phos- mobilization by microorganisms is not likely to play a phase.'' 31 Actually, adsorption might be considered to significant role in the long-term fixation of P by peats,be just a special case of precipitation." but may be important initially. The capacity of soils to remove P from wastewater t is often estimated in the laboratory by equilibrating soil NITROGEN DYNAMICSsampleswithsolutionscontaininginorganicphosphate in concentrations typically found in wastewater ef- The N cycle in wetlands is extremely complex. Ni-fuents. However, the results of long-term applications trogen exists in a multitude of organic forms, as inor-of P from wastewater or fertilizer frequently show that ganic NFI.:, NO2, NO3, and as gaseous NH3, N2, and soils can fix many times more P than estimated by short- N oxides, and is converted from one form to another term laboratory adsorption studies.''-'` Ellis36 and by a variety of biochemical and chemical processes.S3 Sawhney and Hill34 reported that soils that apparently Denitrification is an obvious mechanism for remov- had been saturated with adsorbed phosphate regained ing N from wastewater in wetlands. Denitrification oc- their adsorption capacity after 2 to 3 months, probably curs under anaerobic conditions. When oxygen is lack- because of occlusion and precipitation of adsorbed phos- ing, facultative anaerobic bacteria use NO3 in place of fphate. free 02 as the terminal exogenous H acceptor in respi- Adsorption-precipitation by soils is not necessarily a ration. Organic carbon compounds serve as H donors. permanent sink for wastewater P; it is at least partially In this process NO3 is first converted to NO2, then to r. reversible. A reduction in the phosphate concentration gaseous N2O and N2. In closed systems in which N20 in the solution in contact with the soil, by plant uptake is not lost to the atmosphere, N2O is readily converted a or by flushing or dilution with low phosphate water,will to N3.34-36 Except for the terminal enzymes,the electron release some P into solution. A soil functions to some transport system is the same under anaerobic and aero- extent as a "phosphate huller" in regulating the con- hic conditions." Many facultative anaerobic bacteria— i centration of phosphate in solution.47 3" Soils that ad- primarily those in the genera Pseudomonas, Achromo- sorb P the least readily typically release P the most easily. Meter. Bacillus, and Micrococcus—are capable of this f Compared to the voluminous literature that exists on reaction." the fixation of P by mineral soils, little is known about Denitrification occurs much more slowly under acid the fixation of P by organic soils. However, the available conditions than at neutral or alkaline pH." At pH of information indicates that the mechanisms are the same, less than 6,the further reduction of N2O to N2 is strongly and that P fixation by an organic soil is related to the inhibited.S9 Below pH 5,chemical rather than biochem- soil's ash, Fe, Al, and Ca content. 4° 47 The organic ma- ical reactions can convert N to gaseous forms. At low terial itself apparently has almost no capacity to fix P. pH, NO2- is unstable and will react with amino acids, Organic soils low in Al, Fe, and Ca have very low P ammonia,and urea to form N2 gas.Soil organic matter, fixing capacities. In assessing the suitability of various or some component of it, seems to increase NO; insta- soils for on-land disposal of wastewater effluents,Schnei- bility."The disappearance of N from acid organic soils der and Erickson4" and Childs et al.49 compared the P may result as much from the chemical breakdown of retention capacity of some organic soils to that of a range NO2 as from microbial denitrification.Chen et al.60 sug-of mineral soils and rated the organic soils very low.The gested that the loss of NO; added to an acid lake sed- long-term P retention of wastewater P by organic soils iment (pH 4.9) may have been caused by microbial re- needs further study. duction of NO3 to NO; followed by chemical conver- Organic soils are typically low in P and consequently sion to gaseous N. have a high C/P ratio. Microbial immobilization has In studies in which NO3' was mixed into lake sedi- been suggested as a mechanism for wastewater P reten- ments or wetland soils that were then maintained under lion by pears with high ratio of C to P.SO Microbial im- anaerobic conditions, as much as 90% of the added mobilization of P has been found to occur when crop NO3 disappeared within a few days.This was either from residue containing less than 0.2% P is added to soils' denitrification alone61 or denitrification plus some mi- KailaS2 feels that because much of the organic matter crohial immobilization.60.62 Under more natural con- in peat is resistant to decomposition, immobilization of ditions, the rate of NO3 diffusion to the anaerobic por- Irf:', added P may not occur in peats with a P content of tion of the sediment or soil is often limiting.Nitrification more than 0.1%. The P content of peats is commonly of NH,; to NO3 takes place in the oxygenated surface less than 0.1%and 0.05% is not unusual. Consequently, layer of the soil or in the overlying water.The NO; then microbial immobilization of P is likely to occur in re- diffuses through the aerobic layer to the anaerobic por- sponse to the initial applications of wastewater to peats. tion of the soil where it is denitrified. The rate of t 496 Journal WPCF, Volume 55, Number 5 Process Research ceived wastewater for many years the loading rates and N and P removal efficiencies shown are recent mea- NI 1 f surements rather than long-term averages. The nutrient loadings shown include contributions from runoff and precipitation as well as from wastewater. Contributions W .. •' 1.1 a from groundwater or N-fixation were not measured in i •N.I any of these wetlands. 1 The effects of I'loading rates and the number of years I of application on the capacity of these wetlands to re-I ••" N move P can he seen in Figure I. The points through I which the curve is drawn represent wetlands to which wastewater (or, in one case, fertilizer) has been applied ib NO,IAral.1 for from 3 to 69 years. At low loading rates, wetlands Il., Ihave the capacity to remove much of the P applied,and 1.."..It.O1.•KN0 to continue to do so for many years. However, as the loading rate is increased the efficiency of P removal de- 4.LOADING.Gn..1' dines rapidly. Figure I indicates that at a loading rate of 1.5 g P/m2•y, about 68%7% or 1.0 g/m2•y would he Figure 2—Reduction in P removal capacity of two wetlands removed from the wastewater. If the loading rate quad- with time. rupled to 6 g/m-•y P removal would increase only 2.8 times to 2.8 g/m2•y. A 10-fold increase in P loading pected. with 90 to 95% retention at low loading rates of to 15 g/m2•y increases P removal only 4.5 times to 2 to 5 g of wastewater P/m2•y and up to 70% retention 4.5 g/m2•y. at loadings as high as 10 to 15 g/m2•y. This efficiency I. The amount of P retained by wetlands under natural will not be maintained, however. Figure 2 shows clearly conditions (no wastewater applied) are low. Estimates how the P retention capacities of Wetlands 2 and 3 de- 4.from the literature indicate that P accumulation in un- creased from year to year with continued application of L disturbed organic soils is about 0.1 to 0.2 g/m2-y. Re- wastewater or fertilizer P. tention of P by the wetlands shown in Figure 1 is I to It is not known how long a wetland can continue to 2 orders of magnitude higher than natural accumulation remove P from wastewater. It is known that if sufficient rates in peat. Adsorption and precipitation reactions in P is added, the P adsorption capacity of a soil can be the soil seem to be the major mechanisms of wastewater saturated. For example, the bottom sediments of Lake f. P retention by wetlands. Although adding wastewater Wingra, a eutrophic Wisconsin lake that receives much nutrients to a wetland will probably increase vegetative P from urban runoff, are saturated with P.39 In a study t? production, the rate at which plant remains accumulate of wastewater stabilization ponds in Michigan, King'23 as peat is not likely to be increased enough for this pro- reported that in new ponds considerable P is removed cess to constitute a significant mechanism of P retention because of adsorption by the bottom soil.However,after 4. except at very low wastewater loading rates. In fact, the 2 or 3 years' use, at loading rates of roughly 100 g P/ 1• additional nutrients,especially N, may increase the rate m2•y, the pond bottom soils become saturated and P x: of plant material decomposition and actually decrease removal is greatly reduced. the peat accumulation rate.' In addition to becoming saturated and losing the ca- The points for Wetlands I. 2, and 3 lying above the pacify to retain any more P, a wetland soil can release curve (Figure I) indicate that for the first I or 2 years some of the P that it has previously absorbed if'the P of application a higher P retention efficiency can be ex- concentration in the water in contact with the soil is reduced. Since 1919, the city of Dundas, Ontario, has discharged secondary wastewater effluent into an 800N m-long canal that empties into a 20-ha wetland (Table 1 I, Wetland Number 9). Present day discharge is about 1 f All I 6800 m3/d (1.8 mgd). Data collected in the summer of 1975 showed that the concentration of P in the effluent increased by 17% as it flowed from the treatment plant 2 I 10 1 I to the wetland because of the release of P from the P- 1 t NMI rich sediments that had accumulated over the years in rt the canal (Table 2, unpublished data, A. W. McLarty, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Stoney Creek, 0 LOADING.O."•• Ontario). Passage through the wetland then reduced the t.,Figure 1—Removal of P from wastewater by several wetlands. P content of the wastewater by 35%, the wetland still r ' May 1983 499 6, ' t; ' isi Process Research tNW diffusion or a lack of oxygen for nitrification can fixation rates of blue-green algae associated with wet also limit denitrification.6J-6s Sphagnum and Drepandocladus mosses in Swedish wet- i, The rate of denitrification is related to the availability lands are reported to range from 0.5 to 9.4 g/m2•y." e of organic matter that can furnish energy for growth of The N contribution to a whole wetland would depend i the denitrifying bacteria and serve as an H donor for the on the percent coverage of such moss communities. denitrification process." In mineral soils denitrification Reddy and Patrick'" measured N-fixation rates of from 4.4 is usually limited by available carbon and in laboratory 0.17 to 0.23 g/m2•month in flooded soils used for pro- 3•'., studies glucose or some other organic carbon source ducing rice. Flett et al." found fixation by blue-green I. must often be added to the soil to maximize denitrifi- algae in Canadian lakes to range from 0.014 to 0.13 g rf cation rates. In organic wetland soils,however,sufficient N/m2•y but estimated that fixation of up to 0.5 g f'• organic matter is available so that rapid rates of deni- N/m2•y could occur undetected in the lake sediments.ft: 8 A trification are typically obtained without adding a sup- Nitrogen fixation rates of from 0.029 to 151 mg N/m2• it plementary carbon source. 6''66-68 d by epiphytes associated with submerged macrophytes e, It has been generally agreed that denitrification rate have been estimated, supplying from almost none to all is independent of nitrate concentration over a fairly wide of the plants' N requirements."0 Lipschultz et al.80 sug- range.".", 6v In a study of 15 soils from 13 different states gested that the amount of N supplied by fixation de- from Oregon to Louisiana, Reddy et al.64 found that pended on the other sources of N to the plant com- when available carbon was not limiting, denitrification munities,with lower fixation rates occurring where other proceeded by a zero-order reaction, the rate of denitri- N sources were high. Likewise, Flett et al." expressed fication remaining constant as nitrate concentration in the opinion that fixation is greatest in Canadian lakes the soil declined. When the soils were overlain by a layer in which the ratio of N to P inputs was 10 or less and i of water containing nitrate, however, the diffusion of N was insufficient compared to P for algae growth. The nitrate from the water to the soil became the limiting application to a wetland of secondary wastewater ef- factor as the nitrate originally present in the soil was fluent, which typically has a N to P ratio of less than depleted,and the overall denitrification process assumed 10, may stimulate N fixation,depending on the amount first-order kinetics; that is the rate of denitrification be- of wastewater applied and other nutrient sources. came dependent on the nitrate concentration. First-or- r der kinetics also described the denitrification process VEGETATION DYNAMICS when organic carbon was limiting. According to Reddy et al.64 nitrate diffusion may account for the first-order The wetland vegetation serves a number of important t= denitrification kinetics in flooded soils reported by re- functions in purifying wastewater. The initial mecha- searchers such as Bowman and Focht,'° Stanford et nism for removing some of the nutrient load is by fil- al.."•'2 and Kohl el al." However,in a recent laboratory tering and settling of inorganic and organic particulate k.P' study in which soil and water slurries were continuously matter and the nutrients associated with it as the waste- stirred and diffusion should not have been a factor,Fire- water spreads out and passes slowly through the wetland stone et al.70 reported a 35 to 65% increase in the rate community.The vegetation also seems to provide a sub- of denitrification at a NO3-N concentration of 2 mg/L strate for the attachment of decomposer microorgan- it A compared to 0.5 mg/L, and a 47 to 58% increase at a isms,"' " behaving somewhat like a trickling filter in NO,-N concentration of 20 mg/L compared to 2 mg/L. breaking down dissolved organic material. Denitrification proceeds slowly at 2°C and increases For emergent wetland vegetation, the soil rather with temperature to a maximum of from 60° to than the water is the major source of nutrient$.S4 65°C."•7° Stanford el al." observed an approximate Klopatek"-" calculated a nutrient budget for a stand doubling of the denitrification rate for each 10°C in- of Scirp s fluviatilis in a Wisconsin marsh and found crease (Q,,, = about 2) between about, I I° and 35°C. that about 17.5 g/m2 of N and 3.8 g/m2 of P per year Below about 11°C denitrification decreased rapidly, were translocated from the wetland soil to the plant with a 10-fold decrease between 10° and 5°C. Reddy shoots. At the end of the growing season about 12% of wi' et al." measured a Q,,,of 2.1 between 8° and 18°C and this N and P was transferred to the below-ground por- a Q,,, of 1.5 between 18° and 28°C. tions of the plants and stored over winter, 42% of the K Algae and bacteria in wetland water and soil and as- N and 58%of the P was leached into the water, and the sociated with wetland plants can fix atmospheric N into remainder was found in the dead plant material. Prentki available forms. This process, in effect the direct op- el col." reported a similar budget for P in a Wisconsin it: posite of denitrification,could severely reduce the waste- cattail marsh. Even if a substantial part of the dead plant water N removal capacity of a wetland if significant tissue is incorporated into the soil,the net effect of rooted I` amounts of N were fixed. Just how much N is fixed in emergent vegetation is to transfer nutrients from the soil x' wetlands,however,is hard to say.Estimates of N fixation to the water. However, nonrooted plants such as algae, 4:5t,?,, in various aquatic environments differ greatly.Nitrogen- duckweed,and sphagnum obtain nutrients directly from Y° May 1983 497 Nichols the water, and the incorporation of their detritus into retained 83% of the P input from storm sewers during f the soil is a net transfer of nutrients from the water to the summer,but only 1%in the fall and 8% in the spring 1 the soil. for an annual retention of only 10%.106 Very' found IRootedsubmergedplantsarecapableofobtainingNandPretentionbyaMinnesotablackspruce-sphag-their nutrients by root uptake from the soil as well as num bog to be highest in the early spring, the peakbyfoliaruptakefromthewater.MM'9t McRoy and Bars- growth period of sphagnum, and lowest in the fall anddate" found that phosphate was absorbed more rapidly early winter. In a Massachusetts marsh receiving sec- by the leaves of marine eelgrass (Zo.siera marina) than ondary wastewater effluent, N and P were assimilatedbytheroots, in the laboratory. But they felt that the soil fastest early in the growing season, and much slower in 3 of is probably the principal source of P under natural con- late summer and fall;a net release of N and P occurred 3 1, ditions and that the relative concentrations of P in the in the winter.° In a study of small artificial marshes to I 1' water and soil determine the major site of uptake. which wastewater effluent was applied, almost all of the 5Denny'in a study of several different species,suggested P that accumulated in the marshes during the growing 1 eI that the major adsorption site in some species may season was lost during the fall.3I' change depending on the nutrient levels in the soil Even this temporary storage of wastewater N and PIIandwater. Nichols and Keeney" found that the N re- by wetland vegetation may benefit downstream water quirements of Myriophyllum spicalum can be met quality. Bec ausey these nutrients are tied up during thebyrootuptakealone. However, when about 0.1 mg/L growing season and released during the nongrowing sea-1- of NI-;-N were present in the water, foliar uptake sup- son,and because part of this N and P is converted from plied more N to the plants than did the root uptake. available to nonavailable forms, the eutrophication po-i. O. Many rooted submerged plants may convert from root tential of wastewater may be lessened by its interaction uptake to foliar uptake when wastewater applications with wetland vegetation. i increase the N and P content of the water. Others may The only actual long-term nutrient sink associated 1 not. Bole and Allan" working with Mt'rinp/v//rrm .spi with wetland plant growth is the process of organic soil I. carwn, reported almost exclusive P uptake from the soil, development through the accumulation of partially de-even when the water contained up to 0.5 mg/L of PO°- composed vegetation. However, only a small portion ofP. As with emergent wetland vegetation, large amounts the total vegetative production is accumulated. Rates of of nutrients are released to the water from submergedg peat accumulation in wetlands in Canada, Ireland, andIplantswhentheydie.9S-47 Finland range from about 10 to 100 g dry matter/Nitrate, present in the wastewater or produced by m2•y. 1U8-110 Hemond"' estimates net peak accumula- nitrification of wastewater NH;, may not be efficiently tion in Thoreau's Bog in Massachusetts to be 18011assimilatedbywetlandplants. Rice, cranberries, and g/m2•y. Bramryd112 states that in warm, highlygY pro-blueberries—plants that grow in waterlogged soils in ductive areas, peat accumulation can amount to 1.5 to I' which NI-;-N levels are normally high and NOT-N al- 2.0 mm/y, which is about 300 to 400 g/m2•y. Ranges41 1. most nonexistent—use NH;-N much more efficiently of from 1.0 to 2.6% N and from 0.05 to 0.12% P in than NO;-N.9M-1°" In fact, low bush blueberries and organic soils are t 1"j,g ypical.Thus the rates at which cranberries do not produce nitrate reductase and cannot N and P are accumulated in the peat seem to range use NOi-N. Foliar uptake of NI- when both forms between 0.10 and 4.7 g N/m2•y and between 0.005 and iL:-N of N are present in the water"; little NOi-N uptake 0.22 g P/m2•yin moderate to cold climates and possiblyoccursuntilNH;-N is decreased to less than 30 mg/L. up to 10.0 g.N/m2 and 0.50 P m2 highly1111g / •Yin warm,Ferguson and Bollard reported similar results for Spi- productive areas. For Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia,rode/a oligorrhiza. Schlesinger1'estimated accumulation in the peat at 3.8UndernaturalunharvestedconditionsthegrowthofgN/m2•y and 0.15 g P/m2•y. A, wetland vegetation represents only a minimal annual Ai nutrient sink. Nutrient retention bywetlands is generallygY REMOVAL OF NUTRIENTS the greatest during periods of active vegetation growth FROM WASTEWATER BYandislowduringthenongrowingseason. Release from NATURAL WETLANDSdeadvegetationoftenresultsinanetexportofnutrients from wetlands at certain times of the year. The death Table I lists several natural wetlands receiving appli-of wetland vegetation is typically followed by the rapid cations of secondary wastewater effluent (and one to 1r release to the water of 35 to 75% of the plant tissue P which chemical fertilizer was applied) for periods of and somewhat smaller but still substantial amounts of from I to 69 years,their hydraulic and N and P loadings, N MS.M7,1°2-'" Lee 0 al."" concluded that much of the P and the percentages of the N and P loadings removed assimilated by two Wisconsin cattail marshes during the by the wetlands. For Wetlands 2 and 3, loading rates a growing season is flushed out during the fall and spring. and removal efficiencies for each of 5 and 3 years, re-Cattail marshes adjacent to Lake Wingra, Wisconsin, spectively, are shown. For those wetlands that have re- 498 Journal WPCF, Volume 55, Number 5 Nichols It- Table 1-Removal of N and P from wastewater' applied to natural wetlands. ss 70 Hydraulic Nutrient e lieloadingNutrientloadingremovalk. Years goil Types of wastewater Waste-Total Total Total Total Refer- wetland Location Size ,applied water Other P N P N once 14. t ?nharm/y g/m2.y 1C 1)Shrub sedge i len Michigan 1" 1' 70' 1.7'1.9'" 95' 96'" 5 le 2)Forest shrub Michigan 18 2 1' 36 8" -0.9'15''' 91" 75"" 117 i len 2' 74.1' 205' 2.6'6.51" 88' 80'" 118 t' I 3" 65.2" 183" 1.7"9.3"" 72" 80""119 k, >laa 4" 55.7" 116" 1.8"6.2"' 64" 77""120 0 : ae,5" 57.3" 97" 1.7"9.3"" 65" 75"" 6 arC 3)Blanket bog Ireland 1 i 5.0 7 4" 96 82" 121 2 1 13.1 15.4" 72 87" 121 q3I8.1 10.3" 43 68" 121 4)Hardwood swamp Florida 204 20 10.2 83 0.9 87 2 1 4 5)Cattail marsh Wisconsin 156 55 23.4 558 15.2 32 3 91C 6)Cattail marsh Massachusetts 19 4 69 684 159 7.1 53 6 47 31 4 r 7)Cattail Massachusetts 2 4 69 5526 63 6 428 20 1 4 8)Deepwater marsh Ontario 162 55 231 5569 11.6 78 6 58' 41' 7 iy al Glycena all 9) Ontario 20 55 1870 77 404 24'38' 7 S : tpmarsh r > Secondary effluent. Area affected by study, entire wetland is 710 ha.r', mg May-September. Inorganic N only, organic N not measured. August-October. ai: March-November. rSi April-November. June-November. I Chemical fertilizers,not wastewater applied. v'1,.LL p•Wastewater applied year-round but percent removal measured during the growing season only.Percent removed would likely have been much less 14 if calculated on a year-round basis. per' having some P removal capacity. Between 1975 and dredged and fresh soil exposed. Measurements taken in y;2les1979, the Dundas wastewater treatment plant was up- the summer of 1979 showed that flow through the canal s ties graded and the amount of Pin the effluent was reduced decreased the P content of the wastewater by 49%. But by about 85%. At the same time, the effluent canal was the situation in the wetland was reversed and the P con- i fam lzF''``V''•' Table 2-Wastewater P uptake and release by wetland soils, Dundas, Ontario.' rZ : Concentration of P Total loading of Percent change in P in wastewater wastewater P, loading from previous Nas mg/L)kg/d) sampling station 1 t' r.i• 1975 1979 1975 1979 1975 1979 Wastewater treatment plant effluent 4.16 0.82 44 9 6.7 4',j, Alter passage through canal 4.87 0.41 52.7 3.4 17% 49% j !.•tilt After passage through wetland 3.18 0.68 34.5 5.6 35/ 65% Unpublished data, A. W. McLarty, Ontario Ministry of the Environment,Stoney Creek, Ontario. rc li,.` 500 Journal WPCF, Volume 55, Number 5 7 Process Research y• tent of the wastewater increased 65%as it passed through 1 the wetland. Apparently P was now being released from NCI: 1•14,11•A.rn ° the P-enriched wetland soil to the relatively P-poor W r III:" 1••1I• water. t; The capacity of a particular wetland to remove P from t ,. u-Y'"„ wastewater should depend to a large degree on those i' " properties that determine the P adsorption capacity of i . ""' a;:`" the soil,(Fe,Al,and Ca content and the relative amounts of organic and inorganic materials). Insufficient data 1M1 were available for the wetlands discussed here to further M NI Ai w-,1:- explore this phenomenon. Points 8 and 9, Figure I, representing wetland areas Figure 3—Removal of N from wastewater by severalwetlands.1: that have received wastewater for 55 years, are located well above the curve and seem to indicate that these rate of 54 g/m2.y, and Wetland 7 (Table 1) removed I. t+ wetlands have unusually high P removal efficiencies rel- onlyy a small percentage when loaded at the very high ative to their loading rates. However, although waste- rate of 428 g/m2•y. Yet, in the laboratory under con- water was applied to these two wetlands throughout the stant anaerobic conditions,and with continuous stirring year, P removal efficiency was only measured during the so that diffusion was not a factor, soils from these same growing season when the vegetation was actively taking wetlands denitrified more than 90% of added NO,-N at up nutrients. The year-round P removal efficiencies for N concentrations as high as typically found in waste- these areas would probably be much lower. water effluent!' The N removal pattern of wetlands(Figure 3) is sim- Hydrologic conditions in a wetland can also affect the ilar to that for P with high removal efficiency, >70%, removal of wastewater N and P. Higher N and P loading at low loading rates, <10 g N/m2•y,and rapidly declin- rates are generally accompanied by higher hydraulic ing efficiency as loading rates increase.The loading rates loadings(Table I),so that retention times in the wetland and removal efficiencies for Wetlands I, 2, and 3 were are reduced and less time is allowed for N and P removal calculated on the basis of inorganic N forms only; or- reactions to occur. At very high loading rates, nutrient ganic N was not reported. Vetry"" found that 85% of removal may be limited primarily to the sedimentation 2 the N leaving a black spruce-sphagnum wetland was in of particulate forms. For the wetlands in Table I, suf- organic forms. Similar results for another wetland were ficient data are not available to separate the effects of reported by Crisp.124. The N removal efficiencies of hydraulic loading rates and nutrient loading rates. Wet- 4 Wetlands 1,2,and 3 would probably be somewhat lower land morphology is also important. As the depth of if calculated on the basis of total N. As with P (Figure water in a wetland increases, the chance for reactions 1) Points 8 and 9 show the higher N removal efficiency between wastewater nutrients and the wetland soil de- that occurs during the growing season. creases. On the other hand, a deep-water wetland will4: Even though the natural rate of N accumulation in have a longer retention time than a shallow-water wet- peat is about 20 times that of Pr, P. peat formation does land, given the same hydraulic loading. not seem to be a significant wastewater N sink except The foregoing discussion is based on the relatively few4. at low loading rates. The major mechanism for remov- data available, taken from widely scattered wetlands ing N from wastewater applied to wetlands seems to be under a wide range of conditions. In spite of these short- denitrification. Unlike P removal, no reduction in N comings, some patterns and trends are evident, and removal efficiency occurs at a given loading rate with some estimates can be made of the capacity of wetlands continued application of wastewaster. Results from wet- to remove nutrients from wastewater. Vollenweider'2' f. lands to which wastewater have been applied for only estimated the average per capita loading of N and P a year or two all seem to plot along the same curve from wastewater and wastewater effluents to he about Figure 3).As long as the supply of NO,-N is maintained, 2.2 g P/d and 10.8 g N/d. These values were used to denitrification should continue at the same rate, unless convert P and N loading rates(Table I) to numbers of the vast supply of organic carbon available in a typical people to estimate the P and N removal that might be wetland soil becomes exhausted. expected if the wastewater produced by various numbers The rapidly declining N removal efficiency with in- of people was applied to I ha of wetland (Figure 4). creasing loading rates seen in Figure 3 may he because According to these estimates, about I ha of wetland is of limits on the rate of denitrification, nitrification, ox- needed for every 60 people for 50% N and P removal ygen availability,or NH; or NO3 diffusion.Some of this and approximately 1 ha is needed for every 20 people decrease may also be caused by N-fixation induced by for 75% removal. Of course, the relation between nu- i wastewater P. Wetland 6(Table I)achieved only a 31% trient removal and loading rate will differ from one site N reduction, averaged over the whole year,at a loading to another according to local conditions. Phosphorus t 4A. May 1983 501 i.• Nichols ACKNOWLEDGMENTS r \ , Credits.This paper was published,in part,in the Pro- 1 ceedings,Sixth International Peat Congress,August 17— 23, 1980, Duluth, Minn. W. A. Fisher Co., Eveleth, 4 Minn., 1981. A3 .4uthor.Dale S. Nichols is a research soil scientist with the USDA, Forest Service, North Central Forest Exper- r invent Station, Grand Rapids, Minn. i " . ale tio " Correspondence should be addressed to Dale S. Nich- a..•1......», ols, USDA, Forest Service, North Central Forest Ex- periment Station, 1831 Highway 169 E, Grand Rapids,Figure 4—Estimated N and P removal by wetland areas from MN 55744. wastewater generated by various numbers of people(assuming 2.2 g wastewater P and 10.8 g wastewater N produced per per- REFERENCES son per day). I. Ewel, K. C., and Odum, H. T., "Cypress Swamps for Nutrient Removal and Wastewater Recycling." In "Ad- adsorption depends on the chemical and physical prop- vances in Water and Wastewater Treatment: Biological erties of the soil, denitrification is affected by tempera- Nutrient Removal." W. P. Wanielista and W. W. Eck- ture and pH, and wetland hydrology influences the in- enfelder,Jr.(Eds.),Ann Arbor Sci.Publ.Inc., 181(1978). teraction between soil and wastewater. Also, the N and 2. Ethyl, F. L., er al.. "Removal of nutrients from treated P content of individual wastewater flows will differ from municipal wastewater by wetland vegetation."J. Water the average values suggested by Vollenweider.r'` In gen- Puller. ('unrrol Fed.. 49, 789 (1977). eral, however, it seems that wetland application can be 3. Spangler, F. L., ea al., "Phosphorus Accumulation-Dis- an efficient method of removing N and P from waste- charge Cycles in Marshes." Water Rcsour.Bull., 13, 1191 1977). water if large wetland areas are available and populations 4. Yonika, D., and Lowry, D., "Feasibility Study of Wett.are low. land Disposal of Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent." f= Res. Proj. 78-04. Final Rep. to the Mass. Water Re- f;' CONCLUSIONS sources Commission, Div. Water Pollut. Control. West- borough, Mass. (1979). Application of treated wastewater to wetlands is gain- 5. Tilton, D. L., and Kadlec, R. H., "The Utilization of a ing attention as a simple and energy-efficient method Fresh-Water Wetland for Nutrient Removal from Sec- of nutrient removal. Wetlands retain wastewaster P by ondarily Treated Waste Water Effluent." J. Environ. adsorption and precipitation reactions with Al, Fe, and Qua. 8, 328 (1979). Ca in the soil. Adsorption/precipitation is not a limitless 6. Kadlec, R. H.. "Monitoring Report on the Bellaire sink. With continued application, the capacity of wet- Wastewater Treatment Facility, 1980, Utilization Rep. land soils to retain P declines as the soils become sat- No.5."Wetlands Ecosystem Research Group,Coll.Eng., urated. Adsorption is at least Univ. Mich.. Ann Arbor, Mich. (1981).rp partially reversible. Some I7. Semkin, R.G.,et al.. "A Water Quality Study of CootesPthatisadsorbedfromthewaterathighconcentrations can be released to the water when P levels are lower. Paradise." Ontario Ministry of the Environment, West Wastewater N is removed by denitrificalion in the wet- Central Region, Toronto, Ontario(1976). 8. Mudroch,A., and Capobianco,J. A.."Effects of treated landsoil. Denitrification is dependent on a supply of effluent on a natural marsh." J. Water /'ulhu. Control available organic carbon. In typical wetlands with large Fed.. 51, 2243 (1979). amounts of organic matter in the soil, N removal does 9. Ilartland-Rowe,R.,and Wright,P.B.,"EflctsofSewage not seem to decline with time, in contrast to P removal. Effluent on a Swampland Stream." Verh. Internat. I'er- Wetland vegetation can absorb large quantities of N and e•in. Limoul.. 19, 1575 (1975). P during the growing season. but much of it is released 10. Hingston, F. J., el al., "Anion Adsorption by Goethite to the water when the plants die. The removal of waste- and Gibbsite. I. The Role of the Proton in Determining water N and P by wetlands is most efficient at low N Adsorption Envelopes."J. Soil Sc•i., 23, 177 (1972). I. Breeuwsma, A.. and Lyklema, J., "Physical and Chem-and P loading rates. Removal efficiency of both N and P falls off rapidly as loadings are increased. On the av- real Adsorption of Ions in the Electrical Double Layer on Hematite (-Fe,03)." J. Coll. lnrerfii e .Sri.. 43, 437 erage. perhaps I ha of wetland is required to remove 1973). 50`;• of the N and P from the wastewater produced by 12. Rajan, S. S. S., "Adsorption of Divalent Phosphate on 60 people. Much larger wetland areas are required for Hydrous Aluminum Oxide." Nature, 253. 434 (1975). higher removal efficiency. Application to natural wet- 13. Rajan, S. S. S., and Fox, R. L., "Phosphate Adsorption lands can be an elective method of wastewater nutrient By Soils. II. Reactions in Tropical Acid Soils."Soil Set. removal if wetland is abundant and populations are low. Soc. elm. Prix•., 39, 846(1975). r• 502 Journal WPCF, Volume 55, Number 5 eK - Process Research 14. Parfitt, R. I...c•t al.. "The Mechanism of Phosphate Fix- 82 Years of Phosphate Fertilization."J. linvirnn. Qual., ation By Iron Oxides."Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 39, 837 2, 237 (1973). 1975). 33. Bouwer, H., and Chaney, R. L., "Land Treatment of 15. Ryden.J.C.,cat al.."The Mechanism of Phosphate Sorp- Wastewater."Advances in Agronomy, 26, 133 (1974). Lion By Soils and Hydrous Ferric Oxide Gel." J. Soil 34. Sawhney, B. L., and Hill, D. E., "Phosphate Sorption Sci.. 28, 72 (1977). Characteristics of Soils Treated with Domestic Waste 16. Taylor, R. W.. and Ellis. B. G.,"A Mechanism of Phos- Water."J. Environ. Qual.. 4, 342 (1975). phate Adsorption on Soil and Anion Exchange Resin 35. Adriano, D.C.,ei al.. "Effect of Long-Term Disposal by Surfaces." Soil.S'e•i. Soc. Am. J.. 42, 432 (1978). Spray Irrigation of Processing Wastes on Some Chemical 17. Muljadi, D., c•t al.. "The Mechanism of Phosphate Ad- Properties of the Soil and Subsurface Water."J. Environ. sorption by Kaolinite, Gihhsitc, and Pscudoboehmite." Qual., 4, 242 (1975). J. Soil Sei., 17, 212 (1966).36. Ellis, B. G., "The Soil as a Chemical Filter." In "Recy- i 18. Kuo, S., and Lotse, E. G., "Kinetics of Phosphate Ad- cling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge Through i sorption by Calcium Carbonate and Ca-Kaolinite."Soil Forest and Cropland." W. E. Sopper and L. T. Kardos i- Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.. 36, 725 (1972). Eds.), Penn. State Univ. Press., 46(1973). t- 19. Ryden. J. C., and Syers, J. K., "Origin of the Labile 37. Syers, J. K. et al., "Phosphate Chemistry in Lake Sedi- 4. Phosphate Pool in Soils." Soil Sc•i., 123, 353 (1977). ments."J. Environ. Qual. 2, 1 (1973). is 20. Ryden,J.C..and Syers,J. K.."Desorption and Isotopic 38. Harter, R. D.,"Adsorption of Phosphorus by Lake Sed- Exchange Relationships of Phosphate Sorbed by Soils iments."Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.. 32, 514 (1968). and Hydrous Ferric Oxide Gel." J. Soil. Sri., 28, 596 39. Williams, J. D. H.. ci al.. "Adsorption and Desorption 1977). of inorganic Phosphorus by Lake Sediments in a 0.1 M t 21. Kuo. S.. and Lotsc, E. G., "Kinetics of Phosphate Ad- NaCI System." Environ. Sc•i. Technol., 4, 517 (1970). r sorption and Desorption by Hematite and Gibhsite."Soil 40. McCool, M. M.,"Peat and Muck Soils, Fixation of Fer- Sci.. 116, 400(1973). tilizers." Mich. Quart. Bull.. 3, 126 (1921). 22. Chen,Y. R.,et al.."Kinetic Study of Phosphate Reaction 41. Doughty, J. L., "The Fixation of Phosphate by a Peat g. with Aluminum Oxide and Kaolinite." Environ. ,Sci. Soil. Soil Sci., 29, 23 (1930). Tech.. 4, 327 (1973).42. Wild,A.,"Retention of Phosphorus by Soil,A Review." 23. Barrow, N. J., and Shaw, T. C., "The Slow Reactions J. Soil. Sci., 1, 221 (1950). Between Soil and Anions; 2. Effect of Time and Tem- 43. Larsen,J. E.,et al.. "Studies on the Leaching of Applied s, perature on the Decrease in Phosphate Concentration in Labeled Phosphorus in Organic Soils."Soil Sc•i.Soc.Am. the Soil Solution." Soil Sci., 119, 167 (1975). Proc., 22, 558 (1958). 24. Barrow, N. J., and Shaw, T. C., "The Slow Reactions 44. Kaila, A., "Retention of Phosphate by Peat Samples." Between Soil and Anions; 3. The Effects of Time and J. Sci. Agr. Soc. Finland, 31, 215 (1959). Temperature on the Decrease in Isotopically Exchange- 45. Wondrausch, J., "Phosphorus Sorption in Mucky-Peat t able Phosphate." Soil Sci., 119, 190(1975). Soils." Polish J. Soil Sci., II, 97 (1969). f 25. Munns, D. N., and Fox, R. L., "The Slow Reaction 46. Fox,R.L.,and Kamprath,E.J.,"Adsorption and Leach- t1; Which Continues After Phosphate Adsorption: Kinetics ing of P in Acid Organic Soils and High Organic Matter and Equilibrium in Some Tropical Soils."Soil Sci. Soc. Sand."Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 35, 154 (1971). Amer. J., 40,46 (1976). 47. Miller, M. H., "Contribution of Nitrogen and Phospho- 26. Ryden,J.C.,et al.."Time-Dependent Sorption of Phos- rus to Surface Drainage Water from Intensively Cropped phate by Soils and Hydrous Ferric Oxides."J. Soil Sci., Mineral and Organic Soils in Ontario."J.Environ.Qual.,f 28, 585 (1977). 8, 42 (1979). 27. Sawhney, B. L., "Predicting Phosphate Movement 48. Schneider, I. F., and Erickson, A. E., "Soil Limitations Through Soil Columns."J. Environ. Qual..6,86(1977). for Disposal of Municipal Waste Waters." Michigan t28. Van Riemsdijk, W. H., cat al., "Phosphates in Soils State University, Agricultural Experiment Station Res. Rep. 195, East Lansing, Mich. (1972).Treated with Sewage Water: III. Kinetic Studies on the Reaction of Phosphate with Aluminum Compounds." 49. Childs,C. W.,et al., "Infiltration through Soil as a Ter- 3' J. Environ. Qual.. 6, 26 (1977). tiary Treatment of Sewage Effluent." New Zealand J. 1 • Sci., 20,433 (1977). 4,, 29. Robarge, W. P..and Corey, R. B.,"Adsorption of Phos- 4 phates by 1-lydroxy-Aluminum Species on a Cation Ex- 50. Brown, J. L., and Farnham, R. S., "Use of Peat for change Resin." Soil Sc,. Soc. Am. J., 43, 481 (1979). Wastewater Filtration, Principles and Methods." Proc. 5t h Internat. Peat Congress, Poznan, Poland, 1, 349 i. 30. Kuo,S.,and Mikkelson, D.S.,"Effect of Magnesium on 1976) Phosphate Adsorption by Calcium Carbonate."Soil Sci., 51. Fuller,W. H.,et al.. "Some Factors Influencing the Uti- 27, 65 (1979). lization of Phosphorus from Crop Residues." Soil Sci. 31. Stumm.W.,and Morgan.J.J.,"Aquatic Chemistry,An Soc. Am. Proc., 20, 218 (1956). Introduction Emphasizing Chemical Equilibria in Nat- 52. Kaila,A.,"Phosphorus in Virgin Peat Soils."J.Sci. Agr. h ural Waters." Wiley-Interscience,John Wiley and Sons, Soc. Finland, 28, 142 (1956). New York, N.Y., 524 (1970). 53. Keeney,D. R.,"The Nitrogen Cycle in Sediment-Water I• , 32. Kao, C. W., and Blanchar, R. W:, "Distribution and Systems."J. Environ. Qual.. 2, 15 (1973). 3 Chemistry of Phosphorous in an Albaqualf Soil Soil After 54. Nicholas, D. J. D., "The Metabolism of Inorganic Ni- t 503 -May 1983 Nichols trogcn and its Compounds in Micro-Organisms." Bird. Products of Dcnitrification in Soil." Soil Sri. Soc. Am. Rev., 38, 530 (1963). I. 43, 1 140(1979). 55. Broadbent, F. E.,and Clark, F. E.. "Dcnitrification." In 75. Nommik,H.,"Investigations on Denitrification in Soil." Soil Nitrogen." W. V. Bartholomew and F. E. Clark 1eta A,gr. Sc•and.. 6, 1 195 (1956). Eds.),Agronomy, 10, 344 (1965). 76. Bremner,J. M., and Shaw, K., "Denitrification in Soil. 56. Campbell, N.E. R.,and Lees, II.,"The Nitrogen Cycle." II. Factors Affecting Denitrification."J. :l.ric•. Sri., 51, In "Soil Biochemistry." A. D. McLaren and G. N. Pc- 40 (1958). terson (Eds.), Marcel Dekker, N. Y., 194 (1967).77. Bazsilier, K.. c•i al.. "Nitrogen Fixation in Wet Minero- 57. Bandurski, R. S., "Biological Reduction of Sulfate and trophic Moss Communities of a Suhartic Mire." Oiko.%, Nitrate." In "Plant Biochemistry." J. Bonner and J. E. 31, 236 (1978). Varner(Eds.), Academic Press, N. Y., 467 (1965). 78. Reddy.K.R.and Patrick,W. I I.•Jr.,"Nitrogen Fixation 58. Alexander, M.. "Introduction to Soil Microbiology." in flooded Soil."Soil Sei.. 128, 80(1979). John Wiley and Sons, New York. N. Y., (1961). 79. Flett, R. J., et al.. "Nitrogen Fixation in Canadian Pre- 59. Wijler. J., and Delwiche, C. C., "Investigations on the cambrian Shield Lakes." Can. J. Fish. :Igcaa. Sei.. 37, Denitrifying Process in Soil." Plant Soil. 5, 155 (1954). 494 (1980). 60. Chen, R. L., ct al.. "Denitrification and Nitrate Reduc- 80. Lipschultz,F.,et al.."Nitrogen Fixation Associated with Lion in Wisconsin Lake Sediments."J. Environ. Qual., Four Species of Submerges Angiosperms in the Central 1, 158 (1972). Chesapeake Bay." F-.ttuar. Coast. Alan. Sri.. 9, 813 61. Bartlett, M. S., et al.. "Denitrification in Freshwater 1979). Wetland Soil."J. iinviron. Qual.. 8, 460(1979). 81. de Jong,J., "Purification of Wastewater with the Aid of 62. Chen, R. L., e7 al., "Gas Production in Sediments of Rush or Reed Ponds." In "Biological Control of Water Lake Mendota, Wisconsin." J. Environ. Qual.. I, 155 Pollution."J. Tourhier and R. W. Pierson (lids.), Univ. 1972). Penn. Press, Philadelphia, 123 (1976). 63. Patrick, W. H.Jr.,and Reddy, K. R., "Nitrification-De- 82. Spangler,F.,cat at,"Experimental Use of Emergent Veg- nitrification Reactions in Flooded Soils and Water Bot- elation for the Biological Treatment of Municiple Waste- toms: Dependence on Oxygen Supply and Ammonium water in Wisconsin." In "Biological Control of Water Diffusion."J. Environ. Qual.. 5, 469 (1976). Pollution." J. Tourhier and R. W. Pierson, Jr. (Eds.), 64. Reddy. K. R., et al.. "The Role of Nitrate Diffusion in Univ. Penn. Press, 161 (1976). Determining the Order and Rate of Denitrilication in 83. Toth, L., "Reeds Control Eutrophication of BaltonFloodedSoils: I. Experimental Results." Soil Sri. Soc. in. J.. 42, 268 (1978). Lake." J. Internat. Assoc. Water Pollal. Rev.. 6, 1533 65. Phillips, R. E., et al.. "The Role of Nitrate Diffusion in 1972). Determining the Order and Rate of Denitrification in 84. Sculthorpe, C. D., "The Biology of Aquatic Vascular Flooded Soils: II. Theoretical Analysis and Interpreta- Plants."St. Martin's Press, New York, N. Y. (1967). lion." Soil Sc•i. Soc. Am. J.. 42, 272 (1968). 85. Klopatek, J. M., "The Role of Emergent Macrophytes 66. Reddy, K. R., et al.. "Nitrate Reduction in an Organic in Mineral Cycling in a Freshwater Marsh."In "Mineral Soil-Water System."J. Environ. Qual., 9, 283 (1980). Cycling in Southeastern Ecosystems." F. G. Howell, 67. Terry. R. E.,and Tate, R. L., Ill, "Effect of Flooding on J.B.Gentry,and M.H.Smith(Eds.),ERDA Symposium Microbial Activities in Organic Soils: Nitrogen Trans- Series(CONF-740513), 357 (1975). formations." Soil Sri., 129, 88 (1980). 86. Klopatek,J.M.,"Nutrient Dynamics of Freshwater Riv- 68. Terry, R. E., and Tate, R. L. Ill, "Denitrification as a erine Marshes and the Role of Emergent Macrophytes." Pathway for Nitrate Removal from Organic Soil." .Soil In"Freshwater Wetlands,Ecological Processes and Man- i Sci., 129, 162 (1980). agement Potential." R. E.Good,et al. (Eds.), Academic 69. Patrick, W. H., Jr., "Nitrate Reduction Rates in a Sub- Press, New York, N. Y., 195 (1978). merged Soil as Affected by Redox Potential." Trans. 7th 87. Prentki,R.T.,et al.,"Nutrient Movements in Lakeshore Int. ConAr. .Soil See.. Madison, Wis., 2, 494 (1960). Marshes." In "Freshwater Wetlands, Ecological Pro- 70. Bowman, R. A., and Focht, D. D., "The Influence of cesses and Management Potential." R. E. Good, el al. Glucose and Nitrate Concentrations upon Denitritica- Eds.), Academic Press, N. Y., 169 (1978). Lion Rates in Sandy Soils." Soil Biol. Bioehem., 6, 297 88. Demarte, J. A., "Studies on Adsorption and Translo- 1974). cation of Phosphorus-32, Iron-59, and Calcium-45 by 71. Stanford, G., ct al., "Denitrilication Rates in Relation Alyriophylhun exalbescens Fernald."Ph.D.thesis, Univ. to Total and Extractable Soil Carbon."Soil.SCi.SOC..Iuc. of Pittsburgh(1969). Proc., 39, 284 (1975). 89. McRoy,C. P., and Barsdate, R.J.,"Phosphate Adsorp- 72. Stanford,G., et al.. "Effect of Temperature on Denitri- tion in Eelgrass." l.imnul. Oceanogr., 15, 6 (1970). lication Rate in Soils."Soil Sei. Soc. Ain. Proc.. 39, 867 90. Bristow,J. M.,and Whitcombe,M.,"The Role of Roots 1975). in the Nutrition of Aquatic Vascular Plants."AM.J. Bet.. 73. Kohl, D. H.,et al.. "Dcnitrification Kinetics in Soil Sys- 58, 8 (1971). tems: The Significance of Good Fits of Data to Mathe- 91. Schults, D. W., and Malueg, K. W., "Uptake of Ra- matical Forms. Soil Sc•i. Soc. Am. J.. 40, 249 (1976).diophosphorus by Rooted Aquatic Plants." Proc. Third 74. Firestone, M. K., et al., "The Influence of Nitrate, Ni- National Symposium on Radioecology.Oak Ridge Tenn., trite, and Oxygen on the Composition of the Gaseous May 10-12, 1971, 417 (1971). 504 Journal WPCF, Volume 55, Number 5 Process Research 92. Denny, P., "Sites of Nutrient Absorption in Aquatic u/ Peat and Peatlands, Hyytiala, Finland, Sept. 17-21, Macrophytes."J. Ecol.. 60, 819 (1972). 282 (1979). 93. Nichols, D. S., and Keeney, D. R., "Nitrogen Nutrition 11 I. Hemond, H. F., "Biogeochemistry of Thoreau's Bog, of .tl triopht'llum .spic'aium: Uptake and Translocation Concord,Massachusetts."Ecol.Monogr.,50,507(1980). of "N by Shoots and Roots." Freshwater Biol., 6, 145 112. Bramryd,T., "The Conservation of Peatlands as Global 1976). Carbon Accumulators." Proc. Internal. Peal Soc. Symp. 94. Bole,J.B.,and Allan,J.R.,"Uptake of Phosphorus from on Classification of Peat and Peatlands, Hyytiala, Fin- Sediment by Aquatic Plants, ,%1t'riophv/lum spicanun land, Sept. 17-21, 297 (1979). and Il t'drilla vertic•illata." Water Res., 12, 353 (1978).113. Stanek,W.,"Classification of Muskeg."In"Muskeg and 95. Simsiman, G. V., et al.. "Chemical Control of Aquatic the Northern Environment in Canada." N. W. Radforth Weeds and its Effect on the Nutrient and Redox Status and C.O. Brawner(Eds.),Univ.Toronto Press,Toronto, of Water and Sediment." Proc•. l5th C'onf Great Lakes Canada, 31 (1973). Res.. 166 (1972). 114. Richardson, C. J.,et al.. "Nutrient Dynamics of North- 96. Nichols, D. S.,and Keeney, D. R.,"Nitrogen and Phos- ern Wetland Ecosystems." In "Freshwater Wetlands, phorus Release from Decaying Water Milfoil." Hydro- Ecological Processes and Management Potential." R. E. biologic'. 42, 509 (1973).Good, et al. (Eds.), Academic Press, New York, N. Y., 97. Barko, J. W., and Smart, R. M., "Mobilization of Sed- 217 (1978). x iment Phosphorus by Submersed Freshwater Macro- 115. Westman, C. J., "Climate Dependent Variation in the phytes." Freshwater Biol.. 10, 229 (1980). Nutrient Content of the Surface Peat Layer From Sedge 98. Scarsbrook, C. E., "Nitrogen Availability." In "Soil Ni- Pine Swamps."Proc. of the Internat. Peat Soc.Syrup. on trogen." W. V. Bartholomew and F. E. Clark (Eds.) Classification of Peat and Peatlands, Hyytiala, Finland, Agronomy, 10, 481 (1965). Sept. 17-21, 160(1979). 99. Townsend, L. R.,and Blatt,C. R.,"Lowbush Blueberry: 116. Schlesinger, W. H., "Community Structure, Dynamics Evidence for the Absence of a Nitrate Reducing System," and Nutrient Cycling in the Okefenokee Cypress Swamp- Plant Soil, 25, 456 (1966). Forest." Ecol. Monogr., 48, 43 (1978). 100. Greidanus, T'., el al., "Essentiality of Ammonium for 117. Kadlec, R. H., and Tilton, D. L., "Monitoring Report Cranberry Nutrition." J. Am. Soc. Ilan. Sci., 97, 272 on the Bellaire Wastewater Treatment Facility, 1976-77, 1972). Utilization Rep. No. 1." Wetland Ecosystem Research 101. Ferguson. A. R., and Bollard, E. G., "Nitrogen Metab- Group. Coll. Eng., Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor, Mich. olism of Spirode/a oligorrhiza. I. Utilization of Ammo- 1977). nium, Nitrate, and Nitrite." Planta. 88, 344 (1969). 118. Kadlec, R. H.and Tilton, D. L.,"Monitoring Report on 102. Boyd,C.E.,"Losses of Nutrients During Decomposition the Bellaire Wastewater Treatment Facility, 1977, Uti- of Tip/ia late/iilia." Arch. ll'druhio/., 66, 511 (1970). lization Rep. No. 2." Wetland Ecosystem Research 4- 103. Mason, C. F., and Bryant, R.J., "Production, Nutrient Group, Coll. Eng., Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor, Mich. Content and Decomposition of Phraginit s commun,s 1978). w- Trin,and Tip/ia angustifiilia L."J. Ecol.,63,71 (1975). 119. Kadlec, R. H., "Monitoring Report on the Bellaire 1. 104. Davis, C. B., and van der Valk, A. G., "Litter Decom- Wastewater Treatment Facility, 1978, Utilization Rep. t: position in Prairie Glacial Marshes." In "Freshwater No.3."Wetlands Ecosystem Research Group,Coll.Eng.,i'', Wetlands, Ecological Processes and Management Poten- Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor, Mich., (1979). 4.•tial." R. E. Good, et al. (Eds.), Academic Press, New 120. Kadlec, R. H., "Monitoring Report on the Bellaire York, N. Y., 99 (1978). Wastewater Treatment Facility, 1979, Utilization Rep. 105. Lee,G. F.,et al.."Eticcts of Marshes on Water Quality." No.4."Wetlands Ecosystem Research Grou Coll.En In"Coupling of Land and Water Systems."A. D. Hasler Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor, Mich. (1980). p, g Ed.), Springer-Verlag, New York, N. Y., 105 (1975). 121. Burke, W., "Fertilizer and Other Chemical Losses in r,C.'i 106. Loucks, O., et al., "Studies of the Lake Wingra Wa- Drainage Water from a Blanket Bog."Irish J.Agric.Res.. tershcd: an Interim Report." Center for Biotic Systems, 14, 163 (1975). 1 Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wis- 122. Coulson, J. C. and Butterfield, J., "An Investigation of consin, Madison, Rep. 78 (1977). the Biotic Factors Determining the Rates of Plant De- 107. Verry, E. S., "Plant Nutrient Retention in Natural Bogs composition on Blanket Bog."J. Ecol., 66, 631 (1978). and Implications for Sewage Application." Paper pre- 123. King, D. L., "The Role of Ponds in Land Treatment of sented at Conference Freshwater Wetlands and Sanitary Wastewater."In"State of Knowledge in Land Treatment g. Wastewater Disposal, Higgins Lake, Michigan (July of Wastewaters." U. S. Army Corps Eng., Cold Region i 1979). Res.Eng.Lab.,Hanover,New Hampshire,2, 151 (1978). 108. Reader, R. J., and Stewart, J. M., "The Relationship 124. Crisp, D.T'.,"Input and Output of Minerals for an Area Between Net Primary Production and Accumulation for of Pennine Moorland: the Importance of Precipitation, v':' a Peatland In Southeastern Manitoba." Ecology, 53, Drainage, Peat Erosion,and Animals."J.Appl. Leo/., 3, 1024 (1972). 327 (1966). t 109. Pakarinen, P.. "Bogs as Peat-Producing Ecosystems." 125. Vollenweider, R. A., "Scientific Fundamentals of the 3.°'.1;' Internat. Peal Soc. Bull.. 7, 51 (1975).Eutrophication of Lakes and Flowing Waters, With Par- 7),- 110. Tolonen, K., "Peat as a Renewable Resource: Long- ticular Reference to Nitrogen and Phosphorus as Factors a„•• itsk,, Term Accumulation Rates in Northeuropean Mires." in Eutrophication." Organization for Economic Coop- 1 4,,;? Proc. of the Internat. Peat Soc. Symµon Classification eration and Development, Paris, Fr. (1968). May 1983 505 CONCEPT 4 KINETICS DRAFT YARD WASTE COMPOSTING DESIGN CRITERIA GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF OPERATING VARIABLES PATHOGEN DESTRUCTION Using WDOE 82-11 "Municipal and Domestic Sludge Utilization Guide- lines", as a guide; the windrow shall reach an internal temperature of 55°C (131°F) for 15 days with turning occuring every 3 days. VOLATILE SOLIDS REDUCTION Composting involves a process called "stabilization" where aerobic thermophilic decomposition causes organic material to be transforR- ed to CO2 , H20, and small amounts of organic Nitrogen. This pro- cess is carefully controlled to proceed just far enough to produce a soil that will not naturally ferment and produce odors when aera- tion stops. Over stabilization will cause Nitrogen to be lost to the atmosphere. MOISTURE CONDITIONING Stabilization is measured by the degree of volatile solids reduction through decomposition. The volatile solids reduction rate is determined by moisture availability to remove heat through evaporation. Bacterial communities release considerable heat through the process of consuming these volatile solids. Moisture must be available for evaporation to remove excess heat or the communities will slow down their metabolisms to reduce their heat production. Therefore maintaining the optimum moisture propor- tion insures that stabilization occurs as rapidly as possible. AERATION Volatile solids reduction rate is also determined by availability of oxygen to allow bacterium and fungi to respire and to prevent anaerobic bacterial communities from developing which typically produces odors and causes Nitrogen to be lost to the atmosphere in the form of ammonia. Aeration also plays some role is removing heat and moisture from the windrow. 44 A CURING PROCESS CHARACTERISTICS The curing process is considered "mesophylic" due to the lower operating temperature. This is where the raw materials produced in the high temperature windrow process are transformed into a more beneficial and valuable product. This process is also carried out by bacterial and fungal communities but of a different group than those producing the initial stabilization. This group transforms "mobile" products of the windrowing process into more immobile" forms resulting is a more stable and fertile soil. An example is the transformation of ammonia Nitrogen into nitrate Nitrogen which is the form used for plant growth. This curing process also allows lignin and cellulose decomposition to occur more completely. Nitrogen is actually "fixed" or extracted from the atmosphere through bacterium and fungi respiration thereby in- creasing the fertility of the soil product further. This is a latent process so little quantitative measure or control is re- quired or useful. PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM lt4fERNAL M 1Ait,t21k!(i 2's COI 1 E;Q1;D Ave_ AZo'rtnohAS b 0110KI A L,I kkln'(dIct WI NIPRDA15 Ar vb, U R 11`1 C-rz2) 110E4 TIER*reLlL t1rSoFw(i- N / 10—HoF 4 'of IIVL+1IMf.;Li 2.dAIS AA,I1ML % S`-f 6A,/5 l i ymeo l y+i c ceilublyi;c t19O (Tr MIx ISr,C.Y LL5 v l ol D J MIx Ai-(ix-,hq RODLJL,i O w A 'tell/7 dcv pp e,. 'J S;{y 1 e'' '1 D5 uync4•lvi 1e5 J vc 'b S fll/y jGIAL-501AX Lo55id I AL SOL105 (c0% Ib'1 kt, SoLitiS (r0% 1 Of 50,I DS !oO/;t VDLA11t.E 56ud5 437, V 1'e(CAl. WodarbY1 C rff 15'wc2A n5F x Lc' +4 y ' r `• 0,1:; : &OD-4oc' LGNLr114 i. qr f,iv igt. To'r A L 12 W i N 0 Q)v44 rym'1^'Cl -_"`mac '. _1____- @ 2-10 -1604hicl CARBON:NITROGEN RATIO Volatile solids reduction rate is also determined by the relative availability of Carbon and Nitrogen. These elements are most bene- ficial to the bacterial and fungal communities when there are approximately 30 units of Carbon for each unit of Nitrogen. This produces the most balanced mixture for rapid stabilization. Too much Carbon results in low heat production and slower stabilization. Too much Nitrogen results in high heat production and loss of Nitro- gen to the atmosphere. OPERATING MODES There are three operating modes for the composting process in The Clean Acres Project: WATER ONLY (using aerated recycle water as inoculum) WATER + 10% RECYCLED COMPOST PRODUCT WATER + 10% RECYCLE + NITROGEN (organic or chemical) The three modes are listed in their order of simplicity and would also be the order of preference provided the composting process operating variables are adjusted properly. The second and third operating modes introduce more control through the adjustment of each ingredient. WINDROW CHARACTERICTICS 50% Tree trimmings and brush 30% Grass clippings 20% Leaves Urea added for Nitrogen balancing Composite total solids = 65% Composite biodegradable volatile solids = 43% Composite C:N ratio = 30:1 Composite heat of combustion = 8,250 BTU/lb Initial windrow moisture content = 55% Windrow average solids retention time = 42 days Windrow process daily water demand = 28,000 gallons Windrow final moisture content = 40% Windrow final C:N ratio = 15:1 Windrow final internal termperature = 90°F Initial mass flow = 80 tons/day (260 yd3/day) Final mass flow = 51 tons/day (155 yd3/day) NOTE: ALL CHARACTERISTICS ARE GIVEN FOR FULL OPERATING CAPACITY. enclosed in buildings or are under a shel- homa has a pilot aerated static pile proj- overall is still strong. The lower numbersterofsomekind. The windrow-type sys- ect. are two main1) The tems appear to be well-suited to more arid While the net number of municipalities slowttrdeccisi ntomaking process o combined climates, such as southern California and involved with composting in some way with slow movement through the variousFlorida. increased between 1985 and 1986, 17 stages of consideration, planning, design,listed last year are "off the list." The rea- bidding and construction; and 2) a "wait Operational Challenges sons vary. For example, the Orange and see" attitude by many publicOverall, most facilities are composting County, California Sanitation District had officials and politicians. "Many c- a dewatered or sandbed dried sludge. Belt trouble siting its aerated static pile facility palities are waiting to see what happensfilterpressesappeartobethemostcorn- and because of public o psition,decided withmontypeofdewateringsystemused.to landfill its sludge in heshort term and ratingeb fo emsthey commit to that have justtarsystop- em The most common operational problem dump it in the ocean in the long term. themselves." says one vendor.cited by composting facilities—in-vessel, Strafford, Connecticut shut down due to One other factor affecting the compost-static pile, and windrow—was odor con- odors(and is now incinerating its sludge), ing decision process is the slow down andtrol. Two in-vessel operations reported as did Gloucester County, New Jersey cutback in federal construction grants fi-additional problems with materials han- (now having its sludge hauled to a land mincing. The Clean Water Act amend-dling and the moisture content of the application site in Delaware). Fall City, ments, which would make allocated mon-sludge and sawdust. Nebraska couldn't find an inexpensive ies available, were approved by both theInadditiontoodors, aerated static pile source for its bulking agent (sawdust)and House and Senate prior to adjournment inoperationscitedproblemswithmoistureisnowlandapplyingitssludge. Winter October. As we went to press, the bill hadcontrol—particularly getting the compost Harbor, Maine has decided to use a not yet been signed by President Reagan.dry enough to screen. This problem is "reed-type" drying bed system, and Kit- In the final analysis, we expect theacuteinregionswithcoldandrainytery, Maine stopped composting because . number of sewage sludge composting fa-weather. One facility that uses wood it was too expensive. Two munici- cilities to continue to rise. Advancementschipsmadefromhybridpoplarshashadpalities—Long Branch, New Jersey and in the industry will be made as more datatoshutdownbrieflybecauseofacloggedJackson, Mississippi—stopped consider- can be obtained from the experiences ofpugmillmixerduetotwigs, and the ing composting because of the lack of the eight operating in-vessel facilities,sludge cake being too wet. The plant is public financing.and as odor and moisture control prob-doing experiments to obtain a drier sludge cake. lems are worked out at all composting opSlowButSteadyerations. Landfill pressures, developmentMuchoftheresearchbeingdoneatAlthoughthegrowthinthenumberofofagriculturalland, and a general en-composting facilities revolves around municipalities and counties choosing dorsement of the beneficial reuse of sew-odor control. The 40 dry ton/day aerated composting has slowed down a bit— age sludge will also combine to makestaticpilefacilityinMontgomerycomparedwiththejumpbetween1983compostingafavoredmanagementop-County, Maryland has developed a suc- and 1985—the momentum in the field tion.cessful odor control system after a great II deal of experimentation. Upper Occo- quan, an aerated windrow operation in Virginia, tried using finished compost as Facilities Compostinganodorfilterovertheexhaustsystem. The plant had difficulty disposing of that compost, and switched to two stacked 55- Municipal Sludge In The U.S.gallon drums filled with waste-activated carbon. (More detailed reports on these and other operational challenges cited in the surveys will appear in upcoming is- STATE PLANT NAME SLUDGE STATUS TYPE VOLUMEsuesofRioCycle.) per pry rpMday unless noted)No problems were cited in the area of compost marketing. Compost is sold or Alabama distrihuted in bulk or in bags, at the 1.Dothan City Operational(10/29/86) In Vessel(Taulman•Weiss) 6.75(Design) wholesale and retail levels. Many cities 2.Alaska 1.and counties utilize the material them- Juneau Design In-Vessel(Taulman-Weiss) 3-4 selves for parks, highways, and landfill 3.Arizona 1.Phoenix:23rd St.Plant Operational(by Western Windrowcover. Others work with compost market- ing and fertilizer companies. End users 4.Arkansas None Agricultural Products) include landscapers, nurseries, golf 5.California courses, and homeowners. 1.Chino Operational(by Garden A-SP Mate) Gains and Losses 2.Fallbrook Pilot VermicompostingThreeofthestatesreportingnofacili 3.Hayward Operational(by Miltona Windrow ties last year now have some composting Brothers) activity: Bennington, Vermont is in the 5.Los Angora El Toro Operational A-SP Wind 5.Los Angeles County Operational Windrow 300designstageforanin-vessel system; Ni- JWPCP 6.North San Diego County Consideration Air drying w/windrow 52(max size) ---:-.1.cholsville, Kentucky has an aerated static pile facility in operation;and Tulsa,Okla 1 Oa compostingkland: East Bay Mud Operational A-SP 60 22 RIoC-'c le o ate•_ - SLUDGE 401`,r ',e!' STATE PLANT NAME STATUS TYPE VOLUME per dry tonlday unless noted) , 8.Oxnard Design In-Vessel wiwindrow curing 30 - Fairfield) 1.411,,,i_!?(b la . ' ' 9 San Diego PlanningWindrow 25 • i 10.Santa Barbara Planning In-Vessel 10 T "` 11.City of S.San Francisco Operational Windrow 10 J ` - 1' , 12.Simi Valley Design Air drying w/windrow 11 f •=_ composting s;3''- 6.Colorado7'" 1.Denver Metro Operational Aerated windrow 73 s. 2.Ft.Collins Bid stage Aerated windrow 6 & r tf 3.Greeley Consideration A-SP or aerated windrow 10 - 1 4.Longmont Pilot A-SP r Y ? 5.Wheatridge Operational Windrow 3/month kb • • 4.. t• ' 7.Connecticut t 1.Bristol Construction A-SP 10 t -. . i 2.Greenwich Operational A-SP 2500 cu. i yd./yr s y • • :. :i ; _ 3. Hartford Planning In-Vessel(Paygro) 33 ter*'-.J. .. 4.Killingly Consideration(short term In-Vessel 2 pilot w/Intl.Processing Systems:IPS) 5.New London Consideration(short term In-Vessel 5-6 pilot w/IPS) 6.Norwich Consideration(short term In-Vessel 5 pilot w/IPS) dry' 1111/ 7.Windham Consideration(short term In-Vessel 1.7 z pilot w/IPS) 8.Delaware 1.Middletown/Odessa Construction In-Vessel 5 2.Seaford Construction A-SP 6 3.Wilmington Operational(Co-composting) In-Vessel(Fairfield) 70 9.Florida 1.Broward My.Streets& Operational Windrow 7.93 < Highway Div. t 2.Collier Cty. Consideration Windrow 3.Cooper City Utilities Planning Windrow 4,-1[ 4.Fort Lauderdale Construction In-Vessel(Purac) 30 5.Hillsborough Cty. Consideration In-Vessel 35 1'. F/ 7 4NIUtilitiesdl46d 6 Jacksonville:Buckman Operational A-SP 2 f•V -die."f Plant t 7.Kissimee Martin St. Operational Vermicomposting wari!1l1:inn • tIvir.`::;:aw' Plant 8.Lee County Consideration 16 9.Loxahatchee River Dist. Consideration 4 10.Manatee Cry.Southeast Consideration ASP 2-3 11.Mandarin Cty. Utilities Construction Windrow 3 12.Margate Planning 13.Meadowood Utilities Operational Windrow 5 y' 14.Orange County Planning A-SP W - N„r-•.. ' ..- -' 15.Orlando Consideration 16.Plant City A-SP 6 17.Reedy Creek Construction In-Vessel(Taulman-Weiss) 9 18.Sarasota Construction In-Vessel(Purac) v - 10.Georgia i, ;,,. 1.Plains Consideration(Privatized A-SP 10(pilot) 7,r' regional facility-Green 200(design) r,'lI. i ` z• Grow Industries) 2.Northeast Clayton Operational In-Vessel(Taulman) 1 (operational) f - 1 r `- 4:'; County WPCP 3(design) t -d A'O Pt s Nt 11.Hawaii f``;" 1.Waimanalo WWTP Operational(Private Windrow f ' I ., Oahu) arrangement w/nursery) 1 ' 1 Planned(1990) A-SP 5 12.Idaho None N al pm:a 13.Illinois None V 401, 14.Indiana 1.Blucher Poole WWTP Operational Windrow&A-SP 2-3 Bloomington) V •" 1 15.Iowa None 1 November/December 1986 23 S 11 STATE SLUDGE1 4 v(-,+ ',a Q1 PLANT NAME STATUS TYPE VOLUME1- G S. rili a,dry rr-oar 4.•. funks noted' 16.Kansas r 1 i 1.Mission(Johnson Cry.) Ftilot(Fun-scale under Windrow Consideration) 16.18 e 2.Topeka:Oakland WWTP Operational Windrow 3.Wichita:WPCP#1 &#2 Operational Windrow 10 17.Kentucky 1.West Hickam Creek Operational A-SP 4.5-5WWTP(Nicholsville) IS dayslwk 1suoilliiillOWNPAbiliMil. 18.Louisiana None 19.Maine 1-+4.• -: y 1.Bangor Operational A-SP y 3500 Cu 2.Bar Harbor OperationalrA-SP @v2000 cue 3.Gardiner 5d/Yr,i. . Operational A-SP 154.Kennebunkport Operational A-SP @ 10•• s • 5.Old Orchard Beach Operational A-SP i ' 160170cu. a` 1 16 Saco) yd./wk.6.Old Town(6 Orono) Operational A-SP 350 cu. 7.Portland Water Dist. Operational A-SP yd./month rTill8.Scarborough San.Dist. Operational 10.2 A-SP 30 Cue yd./M.414Pit -- ' -t7 1 9.South Portland Operational A-SP 510.Yarmouth A-SP 25-.5 Operational y 20.Maryland i - 1.Aberdeen Design Aerated Windrow 1.42.Baltimore:Back River Construction In-Vessel(Paygro) 120-150i3.Cambridge Operational A-SP4.Elkton Operational 5 s y Aerated Windrow 25.Havre de Grace Construction Aerated Windrow 2-36.Montgomery Cty. Operational A-SP 401 7.Parkway WWTP(1NSSC) ConsiderationF-`+ In-Vessel 3.2 k 6011' in` l8.Perryville Operational Aerated Windrow 2,5 4y_'4_ , s i ` - 21.Massachusetts Design. 1.Amherst g A-SP(Pilot) 62.Barre A-SP 3.BillerBillerica Design ASP 5 yds./week 56.+m_ 4.Boston Consideration(Long term) r"'• 5.Bridgewater Planning Aerated WindrowIL. fit1. a.--,6.Concord Operational 3 5 7.Deer Island(MWRA) Pilot A-SP 3 g r w 8.Gloucester Planning A-SP 2.000/ riii * -9.Haverhill Design A-SP 500 cu j ;`'i F 10.Leicester Construction A-SP y2/wk. 11.Leominster Bid stage A-SP 6d.20 12.Mansfield Construction 6 13.Marlboro A-SP @3001yr.Design A-SP 1214.Nantucket Constriction A-SP15.Orleans Operational A-SP ti 16.Pepperell Planning A-SP 14• 17.Somerset J 18 Southbridge Consideration A-SP l ..a' b . . Fes.. Y 9 Constriction:(Start-up: A-SP 1187 18 Cu. yd./day i- a-a- a---"" 19.Swampscott Operational A-SP 1 4/week20.Westborough Construction(Start-up: A-SP v 2/87) 35 cu. yd./day l,, ,, 21.Williamstown/Hoosac Operational A-SP 120 cue i -: _ r., "• ._' 22 Michigan yd/dayJ1.Battle Creek Consideration 24(if full1FInVesselorAS-P r- a-.: scale)R:_ 2.Mackinac Island Operational Windrowam23Minnesota y` Ji 1.Rine River Operational Aerated Windrow 3-4/month a. •- } • • 24.Mississippi None 25.Missouri Noneiiist. - I!x'_y- q' 26.Montana rv. {`i,- 1.Missoula Operational A-SP(EKO Systems)5+27.Nebraska 1. Beatnce Operational Windrow B'1 5 24 BinCcrlr SLUDGE STATE PLANT NAME STATUS TYPE VOLUME per dry ton/day III - unless noted) 2.Grand Island Operational Windrow 7-10• 3.Kearney Operational Windrow 1.5-2 4.Omaha:Papillion Creek Construction(Retrofit-1987 Windrow 40. G 171.111..,• WPCP Start-Up) 5.Omaha:Missouri River Pilot Windrow a II. *le: 28.Nevada f.'' i 1.Las Vegas Operational(Private Windrow 4.1: -'"•',:''`=t contractor) l 7' ti.-- r 2.Clark County San. Pilot Aerated windrow 30 District At full scale) 29.New f ' .F Hampshire it t 1.Claremont Operational(Start-up: A-SP 6.4 A ,i Ait '4:..„-- toil2.Durham Operational A-SP 6 is-, :, - 3.Keene Operational A-SP 8 4.Lebanon Operational A-SP 1 i _ 5.Littleton Pilot A-SP 6.Merrimack WWTP Operational A-SP 21 Q-A.- • ' ' 7.Merrimack:Lagoon Operational(Seasonal) A-SP 15 8:Milford Construction(Start-up: A-SP 2.5 12/86) 9.Plymouth Operational A-SP 5 30.New Jersey 1.Buena Borough MUA Operational A-SP 3.5 2.Burlington.County Design In-Vessel(Co-Composting) 30 3.Camden County MUA Consideration In-Vessel 20-25 il. aw.• dt9 ----,-sr - • 4.Cape May County MUA Operational In-Vessel(Purac) 12 5.Manville Boro STP Operational A-SP 1.5 R'",m.. i ' 6.Middletown Township Operational A-SP 2.7 7.Pennsville Operational A-SP 8.Rockaway Valley MUA Consideration(Long term) In-Vessel 5.5 j• _-1 y9.Sussex County MUA Operational A-SP 7 Upper Walkill) 10.Wanaque Valley MUA Consideration In-Vessel N. -"•` a 11.Warren County MUA Consideration A-SP 1 Pequest River) r ` tea 31.New Mexico None 3P w- s 32.New York C. :-`'"s-.-- 1 1.Alden Operational A-SP 2.Binghamton Design In-Vessel(Taulman-Weiss) 15 3.Clinton County Operational In-Vessel(Fairfield) 25 t..ie:+,, Plattsburgh) xg, 4.Endicott Operational In Vessel(Taulman-Weiss) 2 L . - ,• a'6 i', 5.Guilderland Operational A-SP 6.Herkimer County Consideration 7.Schenectady Construction In-Vessel(American 8io-Tech) 8.Sylvan Beach Operational(Intermittent) A-SP 33.North Carolina 1.Charlotte Design In-Vessel 2.Hickory, Newton, Bid stage In-Vessel 20 Conover&Catawba Counties 3.Morganton(Catawba Operational A-SP 24 River Plant) 4.Valdese Operational A-SP 1 34.North Dakota None 35.Ohio 1.Akron Construction(Dry run: In-Vessel(Paygro) 60 L 4: 11/86)r.,.4i'.,it2.Columbus Operational A-SP wfln-Vessel drying 24 S '`( Paygro)7'0 ! 1 3.Hamilton WWTP Construction In-Vessel(Ashbrook-Simon- 17 Hartley) A.-.tlri-_...3} 4.Lake County Operational Aerated windrow 7 4.1111' yq 36.Oklahoma lail1.Tulsa Pilot A-SP 37.Ore ong a ''''+• .: :. 1.Newberg Construction In-Vessel(Ashbrook-Simon- 3.5(at 15% '•:• ".fir""' •:...r• -z-i v Hartley) solids) November/December 1986 25 f iii - •iiiii ANDREA BEATTY RINIKER ai_,, " m N_ = i Director yl 1889'1 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 • (206) 459-6000 L'i" 0:: GLEN ON September 14, 1987 ti Li I- S 11)1.277f4` '9 Mr. Donald Erickson BUILD}G / ZOMNG DEPT City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Erickson: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance for the proposed composting facility for Longacres Racetrack. We also appreciate the time extension to allow us to review additional information on the project . We support the concept of recycling, however, there are some significant concerns regarding the impacts to the adjacent wetlands from the operation of this facility. Primary con- cerns are impacts from discharge of waters into the wetlands. The information provided does not clearly indicate what the quantity or quality will be of the discharged waters . Due to the potential for high BOD and TSS levels in the discharge, we recommend it be discharged into the sanitary sewer line just off-site. If this is not possible, more detailed infor- mation should be provided on the quantity and quality of the waters to be discharged. A solid waste handling permit will be needed in compliance with WAC 173-304-600 and WAC 173-304-405 through 490 . A na- tional pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit from the Department of Ecology will also be required for dis- charge to state waters or wetland. A plan for maintenance of the wetland will be required if the wetland is to be used for additional BOD or TSS reductions in pond effluent . It would be helpful to have calculations on the BOD and TSS loading to the wetland. The checklist did not contain sufficient information to de- termine whether: 1 . There will be adequate temperature control of stabi- lization windrow for pathogen destruction (60° C to 70° C for 24-hour minimum) . 46B03 Letter to Mr. Erickson September 14, 1987 Page 2 2. Aeration is sufficient to maintain aerobic condi- tions in the windrows . 3 . There will be seeding the compost with sludge to im- prove efficiency of the process . If you have any questions , please call Mr. Andy McMillan of the Shorelands Division at (206) 459-6774, or Mr. Bob Newman of the Northwest Regional Office at (206) 867-7000. Sincerely, Barbara J. Ritchie Environmental Review Section BJR: cc: Andy McMillan Marlene Wylie, NWRO 4 WO . CITY OF RENTON mu. °' BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director September 14 , 1987 Mr. Bill Taylor Longacres Race Course P.O. Box 60 Renton, Washington 98057 RE: Longacres Composting Project, Files ECF-055-087, CU-064-87 Dear: Mr. Taylor This letter is to inform you that the Environmental Review Committee has reconsidered the environmental impact mitigation measures of your request for the development of a manure and hay composting facility on property located south of Longacres Race Track, (south of S.W. 27th Street and West of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. , if both streets were extended) . The application is being processed as a conditional use application, pursuant to Section 4-730, B.3 .3 . of the Renton Building Regulations. The Committee on August 26, 1987, decided that comments in your letter of the same date as well as other comments raised by the Department of Ecology and other interested parties require that the Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, with conditions, dated August 10, 1987, be re-evaluated. Since substantial additional information is likely to be required, an extension of the normal review time frame will be needed before the determination on this project can be finalized. We are asking that Longacres voluntarily agree to an extension of this comment period until September 28, 1987, so that we can obtain and evaluate this additional information. As was previously discussed with you, we will need clarification on the amount of runoff to be discharged into the adjacent wetland. DOE is currently reviewing your environmental checklist along with the technical data about the proposal and has promised us a quick response. We would also like a list of similar facilities, if such information is available, so that we can notify these jurisdictions to see if odors are a major problem. In specific response to comments in your letter of August 26, 1987, the ERC has concurred with Staff: 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 s Mr. Bill Taylor Longacres Compostrg Project September. 14, 1987 Page 2 1. That the Longacres Composting Project was incorrectly accepted as a Site Approval application, and should have been processed as a conditional use. This has been corrected and a copy of our memo to the file is attached for your information. 2 . We are looking into your request that the project be give an evaluation period of two years and we expect to have a decision after additional information has been received and evaluated. 3 . We are looking into the issue of quantitative evaluation criteria for permit renewal and have been advised by both King County Health and the Puget Sound Air Quality Agency that there are no completely reliable quantitative methods for monitoring odors. Both agencies have trained field inspectors who physically monitor odor by sniffing the air and rating odor by intensity and physical reaction to it. In response to your request for information from our files regarding comments from agencies and concerned parties, our attorney has advised us that our files are not to be made public until after a decision has been reached by the Hearing Examiner. I would be happy to discuss comments with you, however, as they come to our attention. Thank you for your continued patience and cooperation. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call our office at 235-2540 and ask for myself or Betty Grimshaw. 7 Enviro en al eview Committee. 4 e Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE/BG. Oil • 0 ENvit .4 f• 1 , i' 0 :E L Ti} 11 a i APPLICATION NO. ECF-055-87 & SA-064-87 APPLICANT LONGACRES RACE COURSE INC. (COMPOSTING FACILITIES) PROPOSED ACTION APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A FACILITY FOR COMPOSTING WASTE FROM THE STRAW/MANURE OF THE RACE COURSE, GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS SEOFYKSDLIENUSSWNDSHNFC R2CSREEP(OEWETOAEAEAVE .S.W. A OUTOS.W. 7THTTIFBOTH EXTENDED) . POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE E.R.C.) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL EdILL NOT BE REQUIRED. THE CITY OF RENTON WILL NOT ACT ON THIS PROPOSAL FOR 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE BELOW. COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 P.M., __s pTEMBER T h, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION. 4) ) CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATED) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO. : EFC-055-87 APPLICATION NO(S) . : SA-064-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Site Approval for composting waste from race course (straw/manure) . Facility includes a paved composting pad, 30 windows, aerator turning areas and a pond to collect leachate and rainfall runoff before reuse or discharge. PROPONENT: Longacres Racetrack LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located on Longacres Race Course Property, S.W. of 27th Street and West of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. (If both streets were extended) . LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton, Building and Zoning Departments. The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43 .21C. 030 (2) (c) . This decision was made after review of an expanded environmental checklist and preliminary site plan, on file with the lead agency. Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-2822 (D) Renton Municipal Code (see attached sheet) . These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340. The lead agency will not act on this proposal for fifteen (15) days from August 10, 1987. Any interested party may submit written comments which must be submitted • by 5: 00 p.m. , August 25, 1987, in order to be considered. A fourteen 14) day appeal period will commence following the finalization of the DNS. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 235-2500 DATE OF DECISION: August 5, 1987 EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10, 1987 Ronald G. Nelson Larry M. Springer Building and Zoning Director Policy Development Director Ric14, rd C. Houghton 166_Public Works Director V 4) ) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT: Longacres Composting Facility ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-055-87 APPLICATION NO. : SA-064-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Site Approval for composting waste from race course (straw/manure) . Facility includes a paved composting pad, 30 windows, aerator turning areas and a pond to collect leachate and rainfall runoff before reuse or discharge. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located on Longacres Race Course Property, S.W. of 27th Street and West of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. (If both streets were extended) . CONDITIONS: 1. That the asphalt°s membrane be tested for porosity prior to its full application noting that if it is not fully impervious, a clay membrane will be used as an undercoating (with proper drainage barriers) to prevent leachate from reaching underlying soils; 2 . That surface water runoff be run through a retention/settling pond prior to its release into adjacent wetlands; 3 . That the applicant contract with the King County Health Department to monitor air quality (including odor) and surface water runoff quality on a regular basis and report back to the Committee it's findings within six months after the facility is operational. 4 . That this operation be approved for an initial one year period during which it will be evaluated. If conditions warrant, new mitigation measures such as draining all surface runoff into the sanitary sewer may be considered later. 5. That the applicant provide securities of a type acceptable to the City Attorney and of a sufficient amount to ensure removal of the facility if its initial permit is not extended. I.11IfIjIiit11IIjII y..-_ f.._....._..._...._...__._..._._.._... r' L.' rD Cri, e4, T757L/ firy -- ryf_ ii 41,--- 7- W-'- . 724 /-- 1yf11 7 --- 27- 2----- ir- -- L-‘ yfik- 42- 7rt- liffr it-1 7- 4240 r) ii 17- x- vrr7- AI 77: L- tr, --., 7'-' Cii-- 7k / 0. 7,-. . 44.;_ 0/_____ _ ol, li11II 1 9 2 !, Pap- 4 it 7y _ fi 7 /-__ A. it-i . i, 5, - 31 , 1111 ffir y 1 __.______._. 11 11 l If11 i IIIT-11 ffv-- s-, 7,,-- 41- 4- 0- - 124: 0 FL rtm 9 . 4 it ,-- zp i?- 3.. - CIL - r-- 111j1I.i_ r i OF R4,A BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT c RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR 0 gawp 9 co MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 • 235-2540 AO9 TFD SEPjE P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM DATE: August 28, 1987 TO: File FROM: Betty Grimshaw, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Longacres Composting Project, ECF-055-87 ECF-055-87, Longacres Composting Project was originally published as SA-064-87. Zoning Administrator Don Erickson concurred with Glacier Park's letter of August 4, 1987, that the subject proposal should not be processed as a permitted use with Site Plan Review in the M-P zone (4-730 B, 1,g. "Recycling collection centers, provided that they are located outside of any required setback or landscaping area. " Ord. 3936, 9-16-85) . Rather it was determined that the composting project more correctly should be processed as a Conditional Use under (4-730 B, 3,e: "Any permitted use whose activities including manufacturing and storage are predominantly conducted out of doors rather than completely within a building. ") Since the Environmental Review Procedure is for the same use, i.e. , it is the same whether called Site Approval or Conditional Use, it was decided that the published ERC comment period under SA-064-87 could be published as CU-064-87 for the Final Determination and the project proceed to a Public Hearing as CU-064-87, maintaining it's original ECF number, ECF-055-87. BG:cb:dskl CU06487 CITY OF RENTON V-1 ro 1C1,- AUG 2 6 I BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. Mr. Donald K. Erickson August 26, 1987 Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: Comment Period of Longacres Composting Project Dear Mr. Erickson: Through our discussions with you and our own in-house project planning we would like to summarize certain concerns or problems which should be recorded as comments in your environmental review process. 1. We request our application be reviewed as an accessory use in the MP Zone. Our primary activity involves the handling and storage of materials. All aspects of this proposed activity could be adequately screened and protected from neighboring properties. 2. We feel an initial one year period stated in condition number 4 is not long enough to adequately evaluate this operation. After starting up we would need a minimum of one year to operate a full sequence of seasonal variations. We request that this initial period be set at two years. 3. We request that your evaluation criteria for permit renewal be fully defined in quantitative terms to assure fairness and objectivity in reviewing the initial performance of this project. We believe it will be advantageous for all parties in negotiating a renewal and developing a successful ongoing operation. We believe this proposed project has benefits for the City of Renton as well as the neighboring community. In addition to reducing traffic volumes and a dependency on the solid waste disposal infrastructure we would be helping to provide a recycling ethic in the community. S'ncerely, Bill Taylor Director of Business Development Longacres Race Course, Inc. P.O. Box 60, Renton, Washington 98057 (206) 226-3131 fif , CITY OF RENTON Ae---___:----7. _ IC E I] V ED BUILDING / ZONING DEPT. August 25, 1987 Environmental Review Committee Attention: Donald K. Erickson City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Erickson: I am in receipt of your correspondence dated August 11, 1987, concern- ing Longacres' Site Approval Request for a composting facility. We are in the process of studying the conditions that you listed to see if the project will remain viable. Our consultants should be finished with the analysis prior to a public hearing. It would be wet/ most beneficial, if during that analysis we could factor the actual criteria and standards under which air and water uaq lity are measured and the criteria you would likely use in determining whether or not to extend the initial permit. Sincerely, 15i() 7 Bill Taylor Director of Business Development BT:db 4 47 Longacres Race Course, Inc. P.O. Box 60, Renton, Washington 98057 (206) 226-3131 NotEnvDet/Dskl Pub83187 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has finalized a revised Determination of NON-SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. The City has completed a commenting process pursuant to WAC 197-11-502 (2) . Condition #4 was modified. LONGACRES RACE COURSE INC. (COMPOSTING FACILITIES) Application for site plan approval to allow facility for composting waste from the straw/manure of the race course. Property located in the south 1/4 of Longacres Race Course property, west of Oakesdale Ave. S.W. and south of S.W. 27th Street (if both extended) . File Nos. : ECF-055-87, SA-064-87. Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2540. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner by September 14, 1987. Published: August 31; 1987 DAVIS WRIGHT & JONES LAW OFFICES A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 2600 CENTURY SQUARE ' 150I FOURTH AVENUE ' SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-1688 206)622-3150 JOHN E. KEEGAN f3 9 I Fes, August 4, 1987 f, ,li 4 - Mr. Ron Nelson Chairman, Environmental Review Committee City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Longacres Composting Facility/SA-064-87 Dear Mr. Nelson: This comment is made on behalf of Glacier Park Company. Please consider these comments in your deliberations on the above-referenced application. Glacier Park Company is the owner of property adjacent to the proposed Longacres composting facility. Glacier Park' s ownership includes both developed and undeveloped lands approximately 200 feet to the east and south of this proposed facility. Glacier Park has serious concerns about the effect of the proposed facility on its property. Mr. Bob Miulli of Glacier Park has recently expressed these concerns to Mr. Bill Taylor of Longacres . It is possible that with more information and strong mitigation measures being taken that some of these concerns can be reduced. Glacier Park' s principal concerns are described below. 1. Air Ouality/Odor. This is a very large composting operation. Glacier Park is concerned that this operation cannot be undertaken without unavoidable adverse odor impacts occurring to Glacier Park and to other nearby properties . We understand that there is the risk with an operation of this kind that the process can become anaerobic and produce significant odors . The prevailing winds in summer, when we presume the facility will be most heavily used, will carry odors southward to the Glacier Park property. TELEX:328919 DWJ SEA ' TELECOPIER: (206) 628.7040 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA ' BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON ' RICHLAND, WASHINGTON ' WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Ron Nelson Page 2 There is apparently no other animal waste composting operation of this scale anywhere else in the Northwest which can be used for comparison. This process is probably analogous to Metro' s sludge disposal process which we understand has produced odor complaints by neighbors in the vicinity of their operation. We_are_interestedTin obtaining a copy of the odor analysis done-fo-r--this- proposed _project. -We also want to see the history of similar facilities at other locations near residential or commercial development. 2 . Land Use. We question whether composting of animal waste is an appropriate use in the Manufacturing Park (M-P) zone. This kind of use will have a chilling effect on other uses within the zone, particularly service and office activities . The campus-type office park encouraged by Renton' s policies will be particularly susceptible to the adverse impacts from such a use. The M-P zone contains limitations on outside storage which must be addressed here. Renton City Code Section 4-730 . The Code may require a conditional use permit for such use, if it is allowed. The environmental performance standards for the, M-P zone provide: No emissions of odorous gases and other odorous matter shall be permitted in quantities which are unreasonably offensive beyond the exterior property lines of the lot or site. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-730(C) (10) (c) . This proposed facility may also qualify as a "bulk storage facility" and subject it to the special requirements of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-734 . The intent of this section provides as follows: The intent of the regulation of bulk storage facilities is to allow such facilities in a location and manner so they are compatible with adjacent properties and beneficial to the City and in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. It is further the Mr. Ron Nelson Page 3 intent to ensure that the safety, health, welfare, aesthetics and morals of the community are maintained at a high level . Due to the unique characteristics and problems inherent in making bulk storage facilities compatible with surrounding properties and environment, the City Council finds that special review of bulk storage facilities is required to ensure the intent of these regulations; and the City Council expressly finds that in the Green River Valley, City of Renton and surrounding areas, there has been a loss in air quality and that a potential exists for a continuing deterioration in this air quality due in part to the unique meteorological and topographic characteristics such as the channeling and holding of air masses by inversions and the surrounding hills . This degradation in air quality adversely affects the livability and desirability of the City and is injurious to the health and well-being of its citizens . Those uses classified as a recognized higher risk have higher standards applied to them including, but not limited to, landscaping, traffic and access and hazardous materials. These regulations are to supplement and be in addition to existing ordinances and Code provisions . RMC Section 4-734(A) (emphasis supplied) . Please provide us with information showing how the proposal complies with the provisions of the M-P zone. 3 . Visual Impact. This facility will be visible from the Glacier Park property. It will be of particular concern in office buildings of one story or more which will look down on such facility. It is not clear what kind of landscaping, screening and berming has been proposed as part of this proposal . There are some standards for such landscaping and screening in the Renton Municipal Code, Sections 4-730(C) (6) and 4-734(E) . We question whether these standards would adequately mitigate the visual impacts of this proposal . Mr. Ron Nelson Page 4 4 . Drainage. Glacier Park is concerned about potential runoff into the P-1 Channel which, when built, will run through Glacier Park Company' s property. The plan is apparently to allow drainage to flow to the east into the wetlands area next to the P-1 Channel . 5 . Alternatives. The City should consider other alternatives for this proposal, including off-site alternatives and on-site. Is this the least-impact alternative that accomplishes the applicant ' s objectives? 6 . Time Limits on Permit. We understand that Longacres is doing its best to propose a composting operation which will be compatible with the area. We appreciate their concern. Due to the nature of this proposal, however, and the risk that it will produce adverse impacts that are not anticipated by the applicant, we suggest that the City put a time limit on any permit approval which makes the permit subject to periodic renewal and reconsideration after a period of time, such as one year. This would give the City, the applicant and affected property owners a chance to review the proposal in the light of actual experience. Can you also inform us of what permit approvals will be required for this proposed use and the time period for such review by the City. Is this a permitted use in the M-P zone? Will a conditional use permit be required? Will a special bulk storage permit be required? What other City permits are necessary? Has the City determined whether a further environmental assessment or impact statement is required? Please include Glacier Park Company (c/o Mr. Robert V. Miulli, 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700, Seattle, WA 98104) on your mailing list of interested persons who wish to be informed of any decisions regarding this application. Glacier Park representatives are also willing to meet with the City and Longacres to discuss this proposal further in an effort to resolve the problems presented. Mr. Ron Nelson Page 5 Thank you for your concern and consideration. Very truly yours, DAVIS WRIGHT & JONES Joh E. Keegan 9 JEK:bjw cc: Robert V. Miulli William Taylor 9306L ti 'n CITY OF RENTON LL BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director August 21, 1987 Washington State Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia, WA 98504 Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith are copies of the Final Determination of Non-Significances and Environmental Checklist for the following Projects: E & H Properties R-016-87 ECF-013-87 E & H Properties SA-055-87 ECF-050-87 Craftsman Homes R-039-87, PP-040-87, V-041-87 ECF-036-87 Hernando Chaves PP-035-87 ECF-031-87 RaMac, Inc. SA-054-87 ECF-049-87 City of Renton ECF-063-87 Longacres Racetrack SA-064-87 ECF-055-87 St. Matthews Lutheran Church CU-066-87 ECF-065-87 City of Renton SA-056-87, SP-057-87 ECF-052-87 Iff you have any questions please call 235-2540. incer tti Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator Enclosures DE:DB:ss 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 si CITY OF RENTON LL BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director August 21, 1987 Mr. Gerald W. Marbett Building & Land Development Division 450 King County Administration Bldg. Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Marbett: Transmitted herewith are copies of the Final Determination of Non-Significances and Environmental Checklist for the following Project: E & H Properties R-016-87 ECF-013-87 E & H Properties SA-055-87 ECF-050-87 Craftsman Homes R-039-87, PP-040-87, V-041-87 ECF-036-87 Hernando Chaves PP-035-87 ECF-031-87 RaMac, Inc. SA-054-87 ECF-049-87 City of Renton ECF-063-87 XLongacres Racetrack SA-064-87 ECF -055-87 St. Matthews Lutheran Church CU-066-87 ECF-065-87 City of Renton SA-056-87 ECF-052-87 If you have any questions, please call 235-2540. ncere Do Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator Eclosures DE:DB:ss 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 0,, fib T' T CITY OF R,EfNTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director August 11, 1987 Mr. Bill Taylor Longacres Race Course P.O. Box 60 Renton, Washington 98057 RE: Longacres Composting Project, Files ECF-055-087, SA-064-87 Dear: Mr. Taylor This letter is to inform you that the Environmental Review Committee completed their review of the environmental impacts of your Site Approval request for the composting facility on property located south of Longacres Race Track, (south of S.W. 27th Street and West of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. ,if both streets were extended) . The Committee on August 5, 1987 decided that your project may be issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated with the following conditions: 1. That the asphalt's membrane be tested for porosity prior to its full application noting that if it is not fully impervious, a clay membrane will be used as an undercoating (with proper drainage barriers) to prevent leachate from reaching underlying soils; 2. That surface water runoff be run through a retention/settling pond prior to its release into adjacent wetlands; 3 . That the applicant contract with the King County Health Department to monitor air quality (including odor) and surface water runoff quality on a regular basis and report back to the Committee it's findings within six months after the facility is operational. 4 . That this operation .be approved for an initial one year period during which it will be evaluated.If conditions warrant, new mitigation measures such as draining all surface runoff into the sanitary sewer may be considered later. 5. That the applicant provide securities of a type acceptable to the City Attorney and of a sufficient amount to ensure removal of the facility if its initial permit is not extended. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 Mt. Bill Taylor Longacres Composting Project August 11, 1987 Page 2 Note to Applicant: The applicant must obtain a NPDES permit from the Department of Ecology and arrange for testing reports to be forwarded to the ERC Committee. Because the Environmental Review Committee imposed specific mitigation measures rather than issue a Determination of Significance, there is a required fifteen (15) day comment period during which comments are solicited from various agencies, jurisdictions or individuals who may have an interest in the Committee's decision. The comment period will end August 25, 1987. Following the end of the comment period, the City will finalize it's Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Following the finalization of the Determination, there is a required 14 day appeal period. Appeals are made to the City's Hearing Examiner. In addition, by the end of the comment period, we should be able to establish a tentative public hearing date before the Hearing Examiner for your Site Approval. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call our office at 235-2540 and ask for myself or Betty Grimshaw. or e vi menL,eview Committee. Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE/drb t DAVIS WRIGHT & JONES LAW OFFICES A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 2600 CENTURY SQUARE ' 150I FOURTH AVENUE • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9810I-1688 206)622-3150 JOHN E. KEEGAN i L_ -2 f rL: August 4, 1987 41F37 L Mr. Ron Nelson Chairman, Environmental Review Committee City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Longacres Composting Facility/SA-064-87 Dear Mr. Nelson: This comment is made on behalf of Glacier Park Company. Please consider these comments in your deliberations on the above-referenced application. Glacier Park Company is the owner of property adjacent to the proposed Longacres composting facility. Glacier Park' s ownership includes both developed and undeveloped lands approximately 200 feet to the east and south of this- proposed facility. Glacier Park has serious concerns about the effect of the proposed facility on its property. Mr. Bob Miulli of Glacier Park has recently expressed these concerns to Mr. Bill Taylor of Longacres. It is possible that with more information and strong mitigation measures being taken that some of these concerns can be reduced. Glacier Park' s principal concerns are described below. 1. Air Ouality/Odor. This is a very large composting operation. Glacier Park is concerned that this operation cannot be undertaken without unavoidable adverse odor impacts occurringto Glacier Park and to other nearbyy properties. We understand that there is the risk with an operation of this kind that the process can become anaerobic and produce significant odors . The prevailing winds in summer, when we presume the facility will be most heavily used, will carry odors southward to the Glacier Park property. TELEX:328919 DWJ SEA • TELECOPIER: (206) 628,7040 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA ' BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON • RICHLAND,WASHINGTON ' WASHINGTON,D.C. 4, Mr. Ron Nelson Page 2 There is apparently no other animal waste composting operation of this scale anywhere else in the Northwest which can be used for comparison. This process is probably analogous to Metro ' s sludge disposal process which we understand has produced odor complaints by neighbors in the vicinity of their operation. We are interested in obtaining a copy of the odor analysis done for this proposed project. We also want to see the history of similar facilities at other locations near residential or commercial development. 2. Land Use. We question whether composting of animal waste is an appropriate use in the Manufacturing Park (M-P) zone. This kind of use will have a chilling effect on other uses within the zone, particularly service and office activities . The campus-type office park encouraged by Renton' s policies will be particularly susceptible to the adverse impacts from such a use. The M-P zone contains limitations on outside storage which must be addressed here. Renton City Code Section 4-730. The Code may require a conditional use permit for such use, if it is allowed. The environmental performance standards for the M-P zone provide: No emissions of odorous gases and other odorous matter shall be permitted in quantities which are unreasonably offensive beyond the exterior property lines of the lot or site. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-730(C.) (10) (c) . This proposed facility may also qualify as a "bulk storage facility" and subject it to the special requirements of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-734 . The intent of this section provides as follows : The intent of the regulation of bulk storage facilities is to allow such facilities in a location and manner so they are compatible with adjacent properties and beneficial to the City and in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. It is further the Mr. Ron Nelson Page 3 intent to ensure that the safety, health, welfare, aesthetics and morals of the community are maintained at a high level. Due to the unique characteristics and problems inherent in making bulk storage facilities compatible with surrounding properties and environment, the City Council finds that special review of bulk storage facilities is required to ensure the intent of these regulations; and the City Council expressly finds that in the Green River Valley, City of Renton and surrounding areas, there has been a loss in air quality and that a potential exists for a continuing deterioration in this air quality due in part to the unique meteorological and topographic characteristics such as the channeling and holding of air masses by inversions and the surrounding hills . This degradation in air quality adversely affects the livability and desirability of the City and is injurious to the health and well-being of its citizens. Those uses classified as a recognized higher risk have higher standards applied to them including, but not limited to, landscaping, traffic, and access and hazardous materials. These regulations are to supplement and be in addition to existing ordinances and Code provisions. RMC Section 4-734(A) (emphasis supplied) . Please provide us with information showing how the proposal complies with the provisions of the M-P zone. 3 . Visual Impact. This facility will be visible from the Glacier Park property. It will be of particular concern in office buildings of one story or more which will look down on such facility. It is not clear what kind of landscaping, screening and berming has been proposed as part of this proposal . There are some standards for such landscaping and screening in the Renton Municipal Code, Sections 4-730(C) (6) and 4-734(E) . We question whether these standards would adequately mitigate the visual impacts of this proposal. Mr. Ron Nelson Page 4 4 . Drainage. Glacier Park is concerned about potential runoff into the P-1 Channel which, when built, will run through Glacier Park Company' s property. The plan is apparently to allow drainage to flow to the east into the wetlands area next to the P-1 Channel. 5. Alternatives . The City should consider other alternatives for this proposal, including off-site alternatives and on-site. Is this the least-impact alternative that accomplishes the applicant ' s objectives? 6. Time Limits on Permit. We understand that Longacres is doing its best to propose a composting operation which will be compatible with the area. We appreciate their concern. Due to the nature of this proposal, however, and the risk that it will produce adverse impacts that are not anticipated by the applicant, we suggest that the City put a time limit on any permit approval which makes the permit subject to periodic renewal and reconsideration after a period of time, such as one year. This would give the City, the applicant and affected property owners a chance to review the proposal in the light of actual experience. Can you also inform us of what permit approvals will be required for this proposed use and the time period for such review by the City. Is this a permitted use in the M-P zone? Will a conditional use permit be required? Will a special bulk storage permit be required? What other City permits are necessary? Has the City determined whether a further environmental assessment or impact statement is required? Please include Glacier Park Company (c/o Mr. Robert V. Miulli, 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700, Seattle, WA 98104) on your mailing list of interested persons who wish to be informed of any decisions regarding this application. Glacier Park representatives are also willing to meet with the City and Longacres to discuss this proposal further in an effort to resolve the problems presented. Mr. Ron Nelson Page 5 Thank you for your concern and consideration. Very truly yours, DAVIS WRIGHT & JONES K/s2e.,nsJoh, E. Keegan JEK:bjw cc: Robert V. Miulli William Taylor 9306L t._ a sTAreo ococi—g7 u iiGiif I I + i31kANDREABEATTYRINIKERmN11' .r,,+•‘F Director Nt 1889 ao' STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV-11 o Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 o (206) 459-6000 July 21, 1987 I I'1i!- I. if ma Jeannette McKague City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Dear Ms. McKague: Per our conversation on July 20, I am providing in writing the comments of our staff regarding the Longacres composting project. The potential for odor problems associated with a proposal like this is great. A different kind of composting procedure such as in-vessel composting may help alleviate potential odor problems. A NPDES permit from Ecology would be required for any discharge of runoff waters from the composting operation to surface waters. It is unlikely that this permit would be granted if any feasible alternative existed. Other alternatives might include routing the runoff through a settling pond prior to discharge or connecting with a sewer line. Lining the pond with asphalt provides adequate support but is not acceptable for controlling seepage. A clay lining or a synthetic membrane would be preferable. The possibility of arranging a cooperative composting operation with local governments in the area should be investigated. Des Moines and Federal Way have been looking into the composting issue and may be amenable to a cooperative venture. This might allow for using a different location which would help alleviate problems with odor and impacts to the wetland. I made a visit to the Longacres site with Bill Taylor in May and was impressed with the quality of the wetland adjacent to the proposed composting operation. It is providing habitat for a number of species including waterfowl and 0etri t appears to store a significant amount of water for most of the year. Any proposed developments which might adversely impact the wetland should receive close scrutiny. If you have any questions or if I can be of any further assistance, please give me a call at 459-6774. S . c- ely, Or I neilAiL____* Andy " Milian Wetlands Section v b Public Notice • Public Notice: .• NOTICE OF August25,:1987, will:not be considered.A ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION fourteen (44) day:appeal period will corn ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE mence following the finalization of DNS. RENTON,WASHINGTON The mitigation measures imposed.by the The Environmental Review Committee City of Renton's Environmental Review, ERC) has issued a Determination of NON- Committee are available at the Building and, SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED for the follow- Zoning Department,. Municipal Building, ing project(s) under the authority of the Renton,Washington.Phone:235-2540. haveAFFIDAVITs.F PUB. Renton Municipala mitigation Code. The process Applicant( pursu- Augusts) Published10198in7..Rthe2453Valley Daily News J completed ant to WAC 197-11-350. E&H PROPERTIES(PARK PLAZA) • • being first duly s Application for site plan approval to allow udf3 y 3 q i , the construction of a seven stolt office he/she is the Cifiet *rerk of the building having approximately. 181,277 square feet and for the construction of a four story parking garage having approxi- 1Au$ F ' NE' TSP mately-1,000 parking spaces. The office E ]L j V building is located on the west side of Park Ave. North,approximately 350.feet north of Daily News Journal, Daily Record Chronic'- North 6th Street and the garage is on the east side.of Park Avenue North approxi- Daily newspapers published six(6) times a w mately 350 feet•north of North 6th Street.j File Nos:ECF-050-87,SA-055-87. are legal newspapers and are now and hay LONGACRES RACE' COURSE INC.' months prior to the date of publication referrc ' (COMPOSTING FACILITIES) . in the English language continually as daily Application for site plan approval to allowfacilityforcompostingwastefromthe, County, Washington. Valley Newspapers ha' , straw/manure of the race course. Property newspapers by order of the Superior Court of, located in the south 1/4 of Longacres Rce Course Property, west of Oakesdale•Ave.King County. S.W. and south of S.W.27th Street•(if both - extended). File Nos:ECF-055-87,'SA-064,i The notice in the exact form attached was t 87' P E&H PROPERTIES(GARDEN PLAZA) Journal_ Daily Record Chronicle Di Application for site plan approval to con-I struct a seven-story office building oil not in supplement form) which was reg 245,850 sq.ft.with 991 parking spaces in al subscribers during the below stated peril three-story parking structure and 336.park-' ing spaces in an off-site four-story parking, Public ., ,,t1CC structure. Property located between Park Ave. N: and Garden Ave. N. and between onNorth 5th Street and North 6th Street. File tiuUuit` 10 19u7 I Nos.ECF-01387,SA-017-87. This decision will be finalized in 15-days. Written comments received after 5:00 p.m., The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing put ncauorns-une sum of $ Jno n7 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2.4 tt-flay of Ave, 19 87 NotarydP6blic for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, a King County, Washington.h \ 11' VN#87 Revised 10/84 i• I_ fl 1:100i p ZONING DrPT. y i r,, A. • ;fi' l Gay ,, YR yr Vh t K.y. .' ri f f yti f l y'1 , v• i 1 i ny lr y, • iF .. c x a N. ti '1' r t yi r c ly `'• : t r 4F' •''K i`,1 1 i. dha x ,e+ , h, M1. ,, x ire ^ y;, r * .... , r;l: s: l r ! ll't 0: . p 4y lv y4I. Fi4f, i; F. S y i 1 1•St .j Yyr .S `7?+ x i, ., }yM1 '{ .n'y t yi•W':' a t k y : ; v 1# . 3. APPLICATION NO. ECF-055-37, • SA-06L1-37 APPLICANT LONGACRES RACE COURSE INC. (COMPOSTING FACILITIES) PROPOSED ACTION APPLICATION FOR.SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW FACILITY FOR COMPOSTING WASTE FROM THE ST.RAW/WNURE OF THE RACE COURSE. GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS PROPERTY .LOCATED IN THE SOUTH 1/44 OF LONGACRES RACE COURSE PROPERTY, WEST OF OAKESDALE AVE.. S.W. AND SOUTH OF S.W. 27TH STREET (IF BOTH EXTENDED) ' POSTE*i Te NOTIFY ONTERESTED PERSONS • OF AN ENVORONME ', T,A L ACTI1 No THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE E.R.C.) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION II DOES OES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL ILL NOT BE REQUIRED. THE CITY OF RENTON WILL NOT ACT ON THIS PROPOSAL FOR 1.5 DAYS FROM THE DATE BEL . COMMENTS MUST• BE RECEIVED BY AUGUST 25, 1 3/ AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 P.M., • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION. ' Staff Report/Dsk ERC BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT AUGUST 5, 1987 A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: Longacres Race Course Inc. PROJECT:Longacres Composting Facility ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-055-87 APPLICATION No(s) : SA-064-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Site Approval for composting waste from race course (straw/manure) . Facility includes a paved composting pad, 30 windrows, aerator turning areas and a pond to collect leachate and rainfall runoff before reuse or discharge. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located on Longacres Race Course Property, S.W. of 27th Street and West of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. (If both streets were extended) . B. ISSUES: 1. Whether there is a potential odor problem from this type of composting? Discussion Applicant says that there is no serious odor problem, but Andy McMillan of DOE suggests that the potential for odor problems is "great" and suggests a different kind of composting procedure such as in-vessel composting. 2 . Whether discharge of runoff from the composting could have a detrimental impact on wetlands? Discussion: DOE has stated that a Pollution Discharge Permit permit from Ecology would be required if any discharge of runoff waters from the composting into surface waters is to occur. DOE has suggested other alternatives such as routing the runoff through a settling pond prior to discharge or connecting with a sewer line. 3 . Whether the asphalt pad is an acceptable base for the composting operation? BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MMITTEE STAFF REPORT LONGACRES RACE COURSE, INC AUGUST 5, 1987 PAGE 2 Discussion: DOE has suggested that there should be a clay lining or a synthetic membrane to control seepage. C. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to develop a 117,800 sq. ft. straw/manure composting facility at the south end of the forty acres racetrack south of the horse stables. A mixture of straw and manure would be laid out in linear windrows where an aerobic bacteria would eat the material reducing it over a 25 to 28 day period into a soils-like potting mix. This mix would be either used on the premises or possibly sold if a market develops for it. According to the applicant, the process, is nearly ordorless and environmentally clean, since no air pollution, etc. results. There would be some leachate with driving heavy rain spells and could be released into a nearby wetland. According to the applicants, this leachate would be biologically clean before it would be released into the adjacent wetland. Generally, the applicants do not expect there to be much run-off off the site since the operation itself is very moisture consuming, generating a great deal of heat (up to 150 dences) and requiring daily irrigation to keep the material wet. What water does run off would be collected in a catchment area and recycled back on the windows according to their representative, Mr. Bill Taylor During a heavy rainstorm there could be runoff flowing directly into the adjacent wetland or the leachate could possible soak through the asphalt paving directly into ground. DOE has recommended a clay sealant or membrane to help prevent percolation of the leachate into the ground and having the - surface runoff flow into the sanitary sewer. The proposed use is permitted under the M-P zone as a conditional use "whose activities including manufacturing and storage, are predominantly conducted out-of-doors rather than completely enclosed within a building". (Section 4-730. 3 .e. ) Outside storage areas must be screened from all adjacent properties with view obscurring fences at least six (6' ) feet high. Under the environmental performance standards for odorous gases Section 4-730.10.c. ) , "no emissions of odorous gases and other odorous matter shall be permitted in quantities which are unreasonably offensive beyond the exterior property lines of the lot or site" (emphasis added) . BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NIMITTEE STAFF REPORT LONGACRES RACE COURSE, INC AUGUST 5, 1987 PAGE 3 Staff believe that because of the experimental nature of this project, we should only be approving it for a year or two so that we can more fully evaluate its impacts. D. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the ERC issue a Determination of Non-Significance for this project subject to the applicant complying with the following mitigation conditions: 1. That the asphalt's membrane be tested for porosity prior to its full application noting that if it is not fully impervious, a clay membrane will be used as an undercoating (with proper drainage barriers) to prevent leachate from reaching underlying soils; 2. That surface water runoff be run through a retention/setting pond prior to its release into adjacent wetlands; 3. That the applicant contract with the King . County Health Department to monitor air quality (including odor) and surface water runoff quality on a regular basis and report back to the Committee it's findings within six months after the facility is . operational. 4. That this operation be approved for an initial one year period during which it will be evaluated. If conditions warrant, new mitigation measures such as draining all surface runoff into the sanitary sewer may be considered later. 5. That the applicant provide securities of a sufficient amount to ensure removal of the facility if its initial permit is not extended. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS: Various City departments have reviewed and commented upon the project. These comments are as follows: Police Department: The following comment was made: No traffic impacts. Fire Prevention Bureau: Probable minor impacts noted for Public Services with no further comment. Design Engineering: Probable major impacts noted for water and probable minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements. The following comments were made: 1. Effluent from process should be disposed of in the sanitary sewer system or receive Ecology approval on waste water disposal. BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UITTEE STAFF REPORT LONGACRES RACE COURSE, INC AUGUST 5, 1987 PAGE 4 2. Verify that asphalt paving is an appropriate base, chemically, for the proposed process. Traffic Engineering: Probable major impacts noted for water with minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements. The following comment was made: No noted traffic type problems. Utility Engineering: Probable minor impact noted for Utilities with no further comment. Parks and Recreation: Probable minor impacts noted for Aesthetics and Recreation. The following comments were made: No recreation or park impacts. Project could include landscape buffering in relation to the proposed Oakesdale project Building Division: Probable minor impacts noted for earth, housing and aesthetics. The following comment was made: King County Health should preview this. Zoning Division: Probable minor impacts noted for all environmental elements with the following comment: Will wastewater be adequately treated before entering into the wetlands in the S.E. corner of the site? Policy Development: More information requested for Earth, Water, Energy and Natural Resources, Environmental Health, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics and Recreation. Probable minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements. The following comments were made: 1. This department has specific concerns regarding the applicants assumption that the P-i channel will be constructed as currently proposed, which will drain the adjacent wetland. Perhaps the applicant should describe this operation under the assumption that the channel will not be built as currently proposed. 2. The department is concerned about the relationships between water flow from the compost pad/the wetland/and the recirculation system. This department supports the invitation of the applicant to an ERC meeting in order to explain the proposal in greater detail. 3. This department is also concerned about the eventual water quality of the adjacent wetland. 4. If this project is permitted, significant landscaping should be required to buffer the use from surrounding properties, and primarily the Springbrook Channel to the east. 5. How will this impact the possible creation of a trails system along Springbrook. J IVLT ANDS i w.c.O+a6 e 011 NORTH. O',Tccffs DagD y9t V PUMP f.e/t" l Derr i00'rB'NPPLP J srvueryQE t iLenr .1'f- :.'' 378' Ta S.Edye a' Pgved.Pd. )'• Ca•-/Pa57 O'/,S LI,L II,'a I I - QCryaer, I t bd v c d : 11S.W. 2 j r..S/)._.....-.• 1j1 A¢En O I III 9.. st 2e4 2-r.v/Ne , I'' 4 q ii o r3ewvEas 14, II m II P.oR}vAaS P•i I I B,4rfe C3U'n III T 111-ilk 30'x 376 TANK r Ns..,III ( III W tl Q II 4 I V bi l i V ' w9rev terec Ea/zo' v I N Z WIII V F Ii so 'co.tlPas}r/N6 win/oeows(.f 5rioo'r6)) 22 /: I•I1 I. 41 4 i Io ll Notes• I 1 ' ! t.i ZISIIitA canoes/m Pad.9/a'XJdO; a%ss !/soda/f Porsmemi In _ s.aoto q41 m q - 11 y 2. ood/ yned can/a,e//cooper//aachoR via! f 7171 it. ^.aerolien-set//i At-"owe Alref cam ar/ 1 yo a 7nnvm moRr/uro canker/-GS.t. Q v Q Q 1 I J. Meer-yP 1w/ar r5wi d an/y a y d"r pe"ioat,.,0 e .. t I 1 0 = I e%aniny(dd ofo/Hoye), OI I ( I t F o 1 4 Diornoye/,ere tc /eon," used oo/y !"wry NI V I ? l I N I. I roinfo//prer//ore oral +er c/e. y(ftv 'o ,Hoye) h I Q [ j - 4 r . 4 I E n 2 I a Il 1 IIF Ir f 4 l leg °r~aa tJ 2o' r nc j9 SYNBaGS• NN l P8, R rasimore Can/oyes R 20'too: 1 ao-H.a I1 Pee"•ec'ar"aN I II rim Can/aurs g noi/er Gr '/i9 l a in 1 L,« o a- Neale" and Aeroeor Nel.a/s l a p /9.5 Or tit s__ Ree,re../o/ian G/o%e L' !f/o E'!•e; r.f p d/y Lin 3r0' I/9.J • g DM7n Gi.O- O e— Q.G. C/cc/",e Porter L,rae V Al— Dea/n s'e Amp//ovse Smp K• 62.0Ss aesn e_ Ptrn,//oure Sump 'o OutF,//P,4•41 h S LOti7®ACRES RACE COURSE Waste oompostytg Proleot p.,h,,,_n,• Rrrgovra on MAN* er LAX20 DATE:8EVISe0:gasvcar eo SCALE+ - r Composting Pad-Preliminary a Af M ae..W6 Na: Rousoulp Engineering I LC-2P R,2 Ewer A.•..•...• ..w... ....,w.l.u• .•.........a - I L aB,932.o . I I ry 52.337.353} riq I J2 INO.eTH illeeS_ P.P.Bfaln Waw...vI t Ice eiILLOALaenrTh 111 ill 3714- 8 -1 6 N I LINf Avc i3 1 A 1 I I VItftiv :.a, I yIPA PEAGIii lm I q I N07E5' v C NORTH y I I I IkIV//C/N/®Y M/9P y I I /. This mk pion s davn an o p3e%- Q yro.nmek/e compesr%p rpaeed 1 I I I For Frye Cone by Hcyb G.Gnbrlm- IFFlzsoc. h/9T6. o V I I 2. Confours ore opProxrina,Y h m o/ I I I not 4e/d chrcA t. 1 v 3. Pofure /aeo4ibns of P-/ IAJ vl I Cmrn4ye charter' o SW. IQ: rzly I I.I I 1 27 co,s/. rgeeerr rPoad have :4 1 deer, scree/r,'osec'based to70IIr.Pan correnf/y aKs./a die dolra,k I I/Ir-----: not conFj med a i/h the cifj Q, r_Q I n I I I/ LIC14 I I'v'W prr COMPOST/NGtil In ADI - —__— I IS y1P4RK/NGI, V m A PEy 1 0 I 4 SAN/TA Y It I 1 x I SG WE IhI qP/ .coC. it bill lii 1 m- 1::=1....=rr 5 SN _ I 1 I ti L I WET LANDS1 it Scate 1t/L.v //.oS do ,so —Zia 1 LONOACRES RACE COURSE 1 1 I e Waste Composting Project Rfn,rn,Mf II( . 00 VI p=/_CyA NN_ sroeta/aR,vH u v 1.-1S14a Plan-Preliminary I( fUTUPE) OUTLET v __ r .. ( e6[IL _ R IP Engineering LC w- 1PR-2 irk 2O6 398 1153 • NotEnvirDet/Dskl Pub81087 I NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTED RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a .Determination of NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED for the following project(s) under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. The Applicant(s) have completed a mitigation process pursuant to WAC 197-11-350. E & H PROPERTIES (PARK PLAZA) Application for site plan approval to allow the construction of a seven story office building having approximately 181,277 square feet and for the construction of a four story parking garage having approximately 1, 000 parking spaces. The office building is located on the west side of Park Ave. North, approximately 350 feet north of. Northl6th Street and the garage is on the east side of Park Avenue North approximately 350 feet north of North 6th Street. File Nos: ECF-050-87, SA-055-87 r_LONGACRES1RACE COURSE INC. (COMPOSTING FACILITIES) Application for site plan approval to allow facility for composting waste from the straw/manure of the race course. Property located in the south 1/4 of Longacres Race Course property, west of Oakesdale Ave. S.W. and south of S.W. 27th Street (if both extended) . File Nos. ECF-055-87, SA-064-87 E & H PROPERTIES (GARDEN PLAZA) Application for site plan approval to construct a seven-story office building of 245,850 sq. ft. with 991 parking spaces in a three-story parking structure and 336 parking spaces in an off-site four-story parking structure. Property located between Park Ave. N. and Garden Ave. N. and between North 5th Street and North 6th Street. File Nos. ECF-013-87, SA-017-87 This decision will be finalized in 15 days. Written comments received after 5:00 p.m. , August 25, 1987, will not be considered. A fourteen (14) day appeal period will commence following the finalization of DNS. The mitigation measures imposed by the CityofRenton',s Environmental Review Committee are available at the Building and Zoning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington: Phone: 235-2540. Published: lI August 10, 1987 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Phhc DATE CIRCULATED: July 17, 'Y987 COMMENTS DUE: July 31, 1987 EFC - 055 _ 87 J d rttNT®N APPLICATION NO(S). : SA-064-87 JUL 17 1987 PROPONENT,: Longacres Race Course, Inc. POUcv PROJECT TITLE: Longacres Composting Facility ingvF'n°""Fo'T ", BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Site Approval for facility for composting waste from race course (straw/manure). Recycled material to be used for enriching soil/ d aerated pond. Detailed description attached. LOCATION: Located in the South 1/4 of Lonqacres Race course property. , west of Oakesdale Av S.M. and South of S.W. 27th. Street (If both Extended) SITE AREA: 2.7 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 117,800 sq.ft. IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION I IMPACT . IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth. 2) Air 3) Water 'I ) 1 ? 4) Plants 5) Animals V 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health V I 8) Land and Shoreline Use V 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics V I 11) Light and Glare I V 12) Recreation 5 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services V 16) Utilities COMMENTS: k.ew4., ' I 1. . j i09. 1 0.1ntik-oe, 4.,1/42teAw* cit.eAzAda.,Le_ -+A.4...1...- n-e.Pt- 1AL- 2) 7tA 4- A-°— l o.e- L, c— QAt.A.-.0-- G(...=.&nt...e.,,,A4- IAA. A-Ati/ 1:t---. A-ta-k-t--#1") '1-11=—'d c' We have reviewed this 4'lication with particular attention o those areas have expertise in and - e identified areas of probable impa ,p' areas where additional information is needed t roperly assess this p c 1 T OF 6itENTON 1,Airii,6 ! ., /c_ l _ 1 I Ili Signature of director or Auth " ed Represe' tative Dat- ILDI:ZONING DEFTForm .4 zye..ovui ept..ek..&.(4 et.AAA__ 4A_40._.0.A. AA- ec-e4.0 R.AA-tt*A.4-.Lt 1.(72teA et.eyrt.t71- e,LiturAevot-alt _ii=z1A.c:V- L4A+4.tA 4A-4L-t- pAnovt,tuA, ) pAAArl,L. tirtpCrO C.4%--oLA‘,tkg 714 ALLOf=ea, ItnA) AA)ALL 1614 At.t.0 AAtIPA•Ct CA.rYN 1/ T1-1 ea-Ant75 2-tOAAAltr.A7-11_— ? 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 7..cy1 DATE CIRCULATED: July 17, 198 COMMENTS DUE: July 31, 1987 EFC - 055 _ 87 APPLICATION NO(S). : SA-064-87 PROPONENT: Longacres Race Course, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Longacres Composting Facility BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Site Approval for facility for composting waste from race course (straw/manure). Recycled material to be used for enriching soil/ d aerated pond. Detailed description attached. LOCATION: Located in the South 1/4 of Longacres Race course property. , west of Oakesdale Av S.W. and South of S.W. 27th. Street (If both. Extended) SITE AREA:'1 2.7 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): " ? S g--Ft.- IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth ' 2) Air 3) Water 4f 4) Plants, 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and-SI/we-Line Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics Z 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities x COMMENTS: i L01 LL t A SICLURe t.peresuart,ef anteston R.P K. OF Ths sire ? CITY OF RENTON RECEOVE c JUL 2 21987 BUILDING /ZONING DEPT. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 7-Z2- 57 Signature of Dir or Authorized Representative Date Form 4 J I 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: JY,fl j1 DATE CIRCULATED: July 17, 1987 COMMENTS DUE:kiuly 31, 1987 EFC - 055 _ 87 APPLICATIION NO(S). : SA-064-87 PROPONENT: Longacres Race Course, Inc. EJ!!LI 1; 7, 1981 PROJECT TITLE: ongacres Composting Facility it„^ A A /n' BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Site Approval for facility for composting waste from race course (straw/manure) . Recycled material to be used for enriching soil/ d aerated pond. Detailed description attached. LOCATION: Located in the South 1/4 of Lonqacres Race course property. , west of 0akesdale AN S.W. and South of S.W. 27th. Street (If both• Extended) SITE AREA: 2.7 acres BUILDING AREA' (gross): 117,800 sq.ft. IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants' 5) Animals 6) Energyland Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: i i it I CITY OF RE 1TO RECE %/ ED JUL `' 01987 BUILDING I ZONING DEPT. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 2 6,1 1 /767 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Da Form 4 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: R rkS DATE CIRCULATED: July 17, 1987 COMMENTS DUE: July 31, 1987 EFC - 055 _ 87 APPLICATION NO(S). : SA-064-87 PROPONENT: Longacres Race Course, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Longacres Composting Facility BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Site Approval for facility for composting waste from race course (straw/manure). Recycled material to be used for enriching soil/ water to be recirculated for use on compost,after ft drains into wetland aerated pond. Detailed description attached. LOCATION: Located in the South 1/4 of .Longacres Race course property. , west of Oakesdale Av S.W. and .South of S.W. 27th Street (If both' Extended) SITE AREA:, 2.7 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 117,800 sq.ft. IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth ' 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants' 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources j 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthet'ics x 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation Vx 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: I eG/C'dtLIOff. o/"- ,44t. / e c/7- n-aM,44/d 7,1<•416/e /441fare-Ce,e-op- fa ie "Paf cC ©d l 2.i/e We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 7 ( a 9-a Si." re Director or Authorized Representative Date Form 4 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: IM(v DATE CIRCULATED: July 7, 1987 0 COMMENTS DUE: July 31, 1987 EFC - 055' _ 87 r APPLICATION! NO(S).: SA-064-87 PROPONENT: I Longacres Race Course, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Longacres Composting Facility BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Site Approval for facility for composting waste from race course (straw/manure). Recycled material to be used for enriching soil/ water to be recirculated for use on comrost,after it drains into wetland aerated pond. Detailed description attached. LOCATION: Located in the South 1/4 of Longacres Race course property. , west of Oakesdale Ay S.W. and South of S.W. 27th Street (If both' Extended) SITE AREA: , 2.7 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 117,800 sq.ft. 1 IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 3) - Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing: lio____ 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: k4., 6 e./..; 11,4,f--II 5/,,6. (A L.-rD PEEu/ w " s We have review this application with particular attention to those areas we have expert'/ie ' and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional inf9 mation is nee d to properly assess this proposal. Signet c ot Director or Authorized Representative Date Form .4 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: -1173 r_, DATE CIRCULATED: July 17, 1987 COMMENTS DUE' i Y3 (JrM ON EFC - 055, _ 87 APPLICATION' NO(S). : SA-064-87 I J 1L29.1987 J PROPONENT: Longacres Race Course, Inc. PROJECT TITLE• Longacres L,Composting Facility i BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Site Approval for facility for composting waste from race course (straw/manure). Recycled material to be used for enriching soil/ d aerated pond. Detailed description attached. LOCATION: Located in the South 1/4 of Longacres Race course property. , west of 0akesdale Av S.W. and South of S.W. 27th. Street (If both Extended) SITE AREA: , 2.7 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 117,800 sq.ft. IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air U 3) Water i 4 4) Plants v 5) Animals' 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health G 8) Land and Shoreline Use L- `- 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics v 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation G/ 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: ' No; Rio-/ed 7,7-a 44 i"? f6 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. PON 7/ a2/ 7 Signature of Director or ' uthorized Representative Date Form 4 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: eha i Peru-v y Oil DATE CIRCULATED: July 11- 1987 0 COMMENTS DMICE1 EFC - 055 _ 87 APPLICATION NO(S).: SA-064-87 JUL291997LIth PROPONENT: Longacres Race Course, Inc. PROJECT TITLE:Composting Y rc-^~ Longacres Com ostin Facility J'`", / '":', u.€ i, BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Site Approval for facility for composting waste from race course (straw/manure). Recycled material to be used for enriching soil/ d aerated pond. Detailed description attached. LOCATION: Located in the South 1/4 of Longacres Race course property_, west of Oakesdale Av S.W., and South of S.W. 27th. Street (If both' Extended) SITE AREA: 2.7 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 117,800 sq.ft. IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 4, L, , 3) Water 4) Plants i 5) Animals, L/ 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing ) 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: i) v Le_ Re.4140* b POI 4.1 etW W041.° it41d646 . ic*-12 4°. 9 i e, c1 c.,ff V We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informat'on is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature Director or ut rized Representative Date Form 4 I A 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: l .-H\(- DATE CIRCULATED: July 17, 1987 COMMENTS DUE: July 31, 1987 EFC - 055 _ 87 APPLICATION NO(S).: SA-064-87 PROPONENT: Longacres Race Course, Inc. i PROJECT TITLE: Longacres Composting Facility BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Site Approval for facility for composting waste from race course (straw/manure) . Recycled material to be used for enriching soil/ water to be recirculated for use on compost,after it drains into , wetland aerated pond. Detailed description attached. LOCATION: Located in the South 1/4 of .LongacresiRace course property_, west of Oakesdale Av S.W. and South of S.W. 27th. Street (If both Extended) SITE AREA: , 2.7 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 117,800 sq.ft. IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IP1PACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 1 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals' 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing ' 1 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities I COMMENTS: emir OF RE 1TO f7ECEIIVEDFL JUL 3 0 1987 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. 7 '4".-t' 1 We have review-d his application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in an, -ve identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional i 'o J', ' • j needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature o' Director or Authorized Representative Date , i Form 4 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 14ce, DATE CIRCULATED: July 17, 1987 COMMENTS DUE: July 31, 1987 EFC - 055, _ 87 APPLICATION NO(S).: SA-064-87 PROPONENT: Longacres Race Course, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Longacres Composting Facility • BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Site Approval for facility for composting waste from race course (straw/manure). Recycled material to be used for enriching soil/ d aerated pond. Detailed description attached. LOCATION: Located in the South 1/4 of .Longacres Racecourse property. , west of 0akesdale Av S.W. and South of S.W. 27th. Street (If both Extended) SITE AREA: : 2.7 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 117,800 sq.ft. IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use ' 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: A90 7 c- / V 2 S. 2cle Elowt U - 19a5.100.'3 I zooe 9E0: We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 5;77 7 ignature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Form 4 41 CERTIFICATION OF NOTIFICATION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS/SITE PLAN FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY* * * PROJECT TITLE: COMPOSTING FACILITY FOR LONG AGES RACE TRACK APPLICANT:LONGACRES RACE COURSE, INC. APPLICATION NUMBER: SITE PLAN APPROVAL. : SA-0(04-5 7 The following is a list of adjacent property owners and their addresses. A notification of the pending site plan application shall be sent to these individuals as prescribed by Renton City _.------ Code, Chapter ,7 Section 38 of Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 relating to site plan approval. ASSESSOR'S NAME ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER Burlington Northern, _Inc._ 810 3rd Ave. LOT: 25-23-04-9004 Glacier .Pakr 'Co: • A Tax Department 208 Central Seattle, WA 98104 Burlington Northern RR 2100 First Interstate Center LOT:25-23-04-9082 999 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Burlington Northern, Inc 810 3rd Ave. LOT: 25-23-04-9022 Tx. Dpt. 208 Ctrl Seattle, WA 98104 041-14% IP° a 4 di ASSESSOR'S NAME ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER ASSESSOR'S NAME ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER CERTIFICATION rey certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property owners and their addresses were taken from the records of the King County Assessor as prescribed by law. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me. a Notary Public, in a for the e of Washington residing at the f da o 719 on Os E , 7-A4 SIGNED: ;" CERTIFICATION OF MAILING I. 1 i -J i F. l.I JD . hereby certify that notices of the public meeting on the subject site plan approval were mailed on 6OL12Z- 10187 , to each listed adjacent property owner as prescribed by law. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me. a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing at. iR6k TOE on the ? day of 3 U C_y, I q3). r. _ • i. \Ssio,y,,`Q SIGNED: sue° q y m 7,!/BLiC* 61 O * FORM 206 s,. rr.• a 0 CITY OF RENTON . USA ,NA BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 0 22 ii,--„'„,-,,,,,-iicm," cy-,-- ,.:=•-•-•,-.,--- -= - 200 Mill Avenue South-Renton, Washington 98055 171 E:=7 n r• .,,> i-,,-, i( :'I d ci d 1... .f-:., 1 , ' • f' I i j U t,„fiLof p.,,!„,.., ,...,,,,,., . .,, _. OtiLijiN .,I ./ if.10.!ifvp, nry-rr 7,--• Burlington Northern, Inc. 810 3rd Ave. T-ax Dept. 208 Central . . Seattle, WA 98104 3ELIVERABLE ---,.. f:: -NIL.; 4ADDRESSEE) ` c Id cl coRP- 41 TO WRITER 0thatthfulHluididluld1'4'3' 4... - 7 si.=-...._........d 0 CITY OF RENTON el TNALBUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT r:::,. ,::,.. V t*r-;CRVIIIIIVOT200MillAvenueSouth -Renton, Washington 98055 i, L. 11 b P51q r,;F:!,•, - Burlington Northern, Inc. c '. Glacier Park Co. 810 3rd Ave. Tax Department 208 Central Seattle, WA 98104 irllOsT ph Epitii VprsAsBELDE -----.- '.,.- AARE I0 FORAULIID - 7'-' .. :4„Id 0).i ,IETURN 10 %MIER P'.:-i !,,-: ilihdidifiliiiiimItiliiiiii 1 T t L,z L -F--055 5-1 p 4 Tg O. e9.6 STA ANDREA BEATTY RINIKER x Director cNI 1889 03* STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 • (206) 459`-6000` 1 _r \\Yt-, _ :'\ July 21, 1987 1_ ' ' 4 11 `) Li IA j='y Ell*,] . ZO',1tP'C, L,;t:.. as Jeannette McKague City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Ren on WA 98055 Dear Ms. McKague: Per our conversation on July 20, I am providing.'-in writing the comments of our staff regarding the Longacres composting project. The potential for odor problems associated with a proposal like this is great. A different kind of composting procedure such as in-vessel composting may help alleviate pot ntial odor problems. A NPDES permit from Ecology would be required for any discharge of runoff waters from the composting operation to surface waters. It is unlikely that this permit would be granted if any feasible alternative existed. Other alternatives might include routing the runoff through a settling pond prior to discharge or connecting with a sewer line. Lining the pond with asphalt provides adequate support but is not acceptable for controlling seepage. A clay lining or a synthetic membrane would be preferable. The possibility of arranging a cooperative composting operation with local governments in the area should be investigated. Des, Moines and Federal Way have been looking into the. composting issue and may be amenable to a cooperative venture. This might allow for using a different location which would help alleviate problems with odor and impacts to the wetland. I made a visit to the Longacres site with Bill Taylor in May and was impressed with the quality of the wetland adjacent to the proposed composting operation. It is providing habitat for a number of species including waterfowl and 3 appears to store a significant amount of water for most of the year. Any proposed developments which might adversely impact the wetland should receive close scrutiny. If you have any questions or if I can be of any further assistance, please give me a call at 459-6774 . S ' c-/ ely, Or Andy 4Millan Wetlands Section 1 P I- I __ NIDRTH UN !'-] .F P-IENR1 MEANDER DO TION -CLAIM NO. 4io I 1 U I I d'] g z I s eL: Y Iu I z _Tsai __ s' tK [') = a n I I S* r['] U B 1 I II 11 27,.______.„7:---\_ z:s 1 E'l 0 III / \4 1 1 I 0;VI 1. s,:::.._ A,/-_-:.: c' '- - - ' '.'' '• '-_"''''4_4711 - - j I CAI Ir T r,, W b)U T q,, uN5 I ' I OF . : I r-2 NRY ME C ER DONATION CLAIF, NO A.. 1 F 1 I € EA, i•,.,,, i e 1i++ aEil LOCAL J 1 x- ' \.\, i 1 1 RI De4__.,..,, ,_ _1,, __ ...„ i t _ __ 4 --- -- - --- , - -- - -- - - 1 t,. I DI f l A IlI `?: A•'C Sh6".NW,ys.','7h 7;I . J r._,:<Z ° i :. w ; i. i. ;. fit,.. I'.y..TM .,4 a'? a {.die :. ..5-. ' a;.w .. .`ft:' .r CJ-.' s,' ir . ..1:.'" _.. 1 I I n FUTURE RE' "TON 1' a ifs UK C/i ILA CtT . + TS ,‘ N!ill) !; TO EE EFFECTIVE i, 1 ' / I t,'-ii UARIf 4, 19 y _____I_J 1 _ Lt) LONG ACRES RACE COURSE, INC. SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-064-87 i APPLICANT LONG ACRES RACE COURSE, INC TOTAL AREA 2.7 ACRES e PRINCIPAL ACCESS S.W. 27th STREET EXISTING ZONING M-P (MANUFACTURING PARK) EXISTING USE VACANT PROPOSED USE COMPOSTING FACILITY FOR COMPOSTING WASTE FROM STRAW/MANURE. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMMERCIAL COMMENTS THE SUBJECT PROJECT WILL REQUIRE AN ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL. LOCATED SOUTH OF S.W. 27th STREET AND WEST OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. IF BOTH STREET WERE EXTENDED) . e At s 6VLT {7NO5 re u+.c.Ot/ri 4- ` -_ S NORTH. . St O'ACCEIs ROAD 1 GRASS AREA V R. l RA[iGe'!B'NOPPIA PCMPaiZr f[L/p J r378'Ta.-J-.-d9e a/—Pore 'Rd —1I - COMPese rCaa Yae / 0"./ t k,,/ 'fcl rao2) Q • III eca es rD /Ne -- Isz +-st) Aafe NE y III I alawN4M III P•P¢r. a Ar I I I agff[es 1 III CN.4 i I I 34'X 376 7ANA' , -• I k . 111 T-0 --_ - ill Q III i ill R W V`\ M. III t. I I . u ti0I I I wAreR Lcrc2 Ca/70'I a I1 30 •COMPOST/N61 a/fN.Aea S(a/o0'+G)) _ - '1I_ i1 k Jai S. 1 r ot Q il C i' 0 ry, O Y 11 1 s•a0/o II 0 L ""Conpaa/o Pad J/O'x3,50; Cfasr a!!ip/aH Povemen4 l ° o J. f i y 2.' Doge Ai-d Hoed••a Can/am o//Campes//eochafe ono! I 1 77 1 lima.rf I oerol/in-se//Aiy Aif ream o% or."ce ipar/v O I I i ..A..e uvm meu/vro Ca++Ef f-GSA 1 Q 2 I I I 3 McAr-vo..n/e. rep aid an/y daNnp d.y Peioa4fo+av.. k I Q J Z • II . 3 t t e 1 I • c%anif Oda'oFoinoye, a k ' l t t V ii 4 Dasmoyeline pia stfeetossa'.4nxt used onJ. fP/berry v 1 2 , 1 ° i, .; roin>fo//fre '7o 8 ono' 4. e%arvny(tnaa'drbinoye) V e /. Q Q I G°1 Q i re I N J1 r2 l7..- 1. 1 r e•e.a J', r1IPG +ze j SYMBaLS- LI`•, I err a ApfroX/mOT* Con}evrs At 20'00' Po' 0 ita Alikh„ Nee..e•c ArroN I i1.`_ _ Canfours 4.e r 6,-*din9 y•1•s Holder anal Aeroler MAIO& 19.5 a. J/:S y:^ •Ysesrou/or''on 4/o1er LA%+e:N/o+br J'Pp//-Lvie I` o e_ (/.G.,e/eeMse Power Gibe v y_ OM/0 rls Pam/Neese Stomp k - G2Ass AREA e— R/mP House Sump,'0 our•ea//Pro f. h LONOACRES RACE COURSE Waste oompo.tlnp Proloot ,.,,,,,,,,•, reaovro era aPAWN ,PA..& 20 SCALES/"•I0' eY M7E+ PEWseo For'e1 SCA'LS+ r Composting Pad-Preliminary 7.... L.,0...,-; I. \ la !I de •o n• a4wWa Na! R Ip En®Inaorin0 I•LC-2P R,Z I \i i08,9J2.ONti 5R337.953 4 1 IIINORTH z ili•Swear a".... i GaLPT.N C J lo rvi LINa AVi l9 n 1 I - I I V r.V..0 r at. I I I f tIr......"--,I IP.9RK/NG i I AREA I f'Iilvppw NOSES IvNear___C W I { I I I.TAis Shp/an adrown en 4 pho%- 0.1 lI V/C/N/7Y MAP Qj N yiom ne/rie camyes.le pryored Vide I I I 6,-/be owner6j.Hyh G.Gab'r i t p J I j•Assoc.h/976.I u q- I - k I -- - I 2.ConAwns ore opProXimole f I h j 0 I I I MI'Ie,,'cfirctc ' I 11 Q v I 3.Fv{vre /oeofrons m/' P-/ IU. VI IL, I dcoonoye chanrx/o.,o'Saetiq, N I 27i ti sf. gccerr Rand hnae :1I deco s perY,nposed basrd 1poIuponcorren/y awi/g6/edn/t ll\/ 4 1 Q Iv ttl not conFjc, eo/ 4//, the ci, o a Iz I L r woW I I 8ACOMP03T/NG ti o I a k 3soaxWO to IW I - ---- I i 1 6 44 o Ie y l PARK/NG 1 m AREy IIpSnN/TA y AP/ .cac. A T_T____I. yI ...- . L. .... . . _ . . - I Th.......__________________----1 0.,__,Th...„„iv, ,::I1 r 1 ti WET LANDS 0 _ xl Scare W[.w/ias 2/ o as too MD N '' LONOACRES RACE COURSE t I Waste Composting Proleot a.m.n,a. 1- I I w.. c:/'•/00• .... o.co... a........ lW,:/A.R.1\ Site Plasn-Preliminary P/ CHq NN_E OUTLETPRAM, p a__-- u zs a w..wo... FUTU,eE) OUTLET etrea.-=IP Engineering LC-1P R-2 c......... w / e„ w..,..r.t..0 200 890 1158 • it:, I:4> CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director July 17, 1987 Mr. Bill Taylor Longacres Race Course P.O. Box 60 Renton, Washington 98057 RE: Longacres Composting Project, Files ECF-055-087, SA-064-87 Dear Mr. Taylor: The Building and Zoning Department has formally accepted your environmental checklist application for the above referenced project. Your application has been routed and tentatively scheduled for the Environmental Review Committee on August 12, 1987, to consider your environmental checklist. If you have any questions regarding the scheduling ofyour project, please contact Betty Grimshaw of this office at 235- 2540. Sincerely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:BG 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 4. OP RENTON FILE NO(S): .rer-Os's-37 OCD• t" 5?ii-4641-k•7 , •L..LDING & ZONING DEPART..... NTacm 1 N cc MASTERm APPLICATION NOTE TO APPLICANT: Since this is a comprehensive application form, only those items related to your specific type of application(s) are to be completed. I Please print or type. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) ll I APPLICANT 1 I TYPE•OF APPLICATION 1 i NAME 1 FEES Longacres Race Course, Inc. I ADDRESS REZONE*(FROM TO I SPECIAL PERMIT* P.O. Box 60 3CITYZIP TBPORARY PERMIT* Renton, Washington 98057 CJ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT* lail- SITE PLAN APPROVAL 77,-•?.7)63TELEPHONE 226-3131 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GRADE AND FILL No. of Cubic Yards: El E* CONTACT PERSON VARIANC From Section: NAME Justification Required S-E-C' t---r/N .`1 1 Bill Taylor ADDRESS SUBDIVISIONS: P.O. Box 60 0 SHORT PLAT CITY ZIP Ell ' TENTATIVE PLAT Renton, Washington 98057 1] PRELIMINARY, PLAT TELEPHONE 1 FINAL PLAT 226-3131 ET Z3-1 1:::3 WAIVER Justification Required) OWNER NO. OF LOTS: NAME PLAT NAME: Broadacres, Inc ADDRESS • PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: P.O. Box 60 i. , 1:=1 PRELIMINARY CITY ZIP El FINAL Renton, Washington 98057 TELEPHONE P.U.D. NAME: 226-3131 Residential Industrial, Commercial I Mixed I LOCATIONS.I MOBILE HOME PARKS: PROPERTY ADDRESS 1621 S.W. 16th TENTATIVE EXISTING USE PRESENT ZONING PRELIMINARY t=3 FINAL Race Track MP • PROPOSED USE I PARK NAME: Composite Facility NUMBER OF SPACES: I ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE to°C) 1 SQ, FT. ' ACRES AREA:* 117,800 2,i'i7 ACAke.-- • Mi8lpf ,, 54,2J-. -TOTAL FEES I STAFF USE ONLY -- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING DATE TAMP f ..J R.. 3 r; .1-,vir? ,4.----, Li L., o . -,', 0 Y;! ' Ir; ' ,• ?. lifil e ii 1.`11•Piii-,1 11 L. I APPLICATION RECEIVED BY: ,, z; „......2.) 4:;LArv;0( APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: r--, f- Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet). II Iilli ! I . II . l : : I . ! II I I •--i LOT BLOCK COOS- SEC.T TWP. R.G.- 252304 L2104LESS OF LNl 23T04 RNG FR PT ON E LW 255. 38 FT S OF HENRY MEADER OC f/ 46 TAP ON ELY MGN OF N P R/W IN GL 11 LO 289. 12 FT SLY OF SO DC AS MEAS AFFIDAVIT i, Lee/ being• duly sworn, declare that I am authorized representativ o act for the property owner, owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SUBSC313ED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 19 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGT N, RESIDING . . AT d/1.4-~E, ame of Notary Public)Signa re of O. ncr)— lJ// Ste_ l4t9 6 a Address) Address) e&-Af;2;6( Gifu) State) (Zin) • r era• C.: r, r -.,p,t a JUL 8 '8r- I0 keg°, o City of Renton July 8, 1987 Environmental Review Committee 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Committee Members: For a number of years, the bedding material from our 1400 stables has been transported to a mushroom farm in Salem, Oregon. The material is processed and becomes the growing medium for the common grocery store variety of mushroom. This particular farm was the sixth lar- gest in the United States and produced 18 million pounds of mush- rooms a year. A mushroom farm typically has two choices for a grow- ing medium; one is to buy baled straw, mix bone meal and various chemicals to obtain the proper nutrient balance for mushroom growth; the other is to buy or obtain stable bedding which requires less chemical additions. It is essentially a matter of choice. Some mushroom farms use only straw, some use only stable bedding, and some use a combination. The farm in Salem required 26,000 tons of growing medium a year. They historically used 16,000 tons from Longacres, 2,000 tons from Portland Meadows, and the balance in baled straw. On January 16, King Mushroom in Salem, was served with a bank fore- closure. The lender has been in the process of attemping to sell this farm and two others since the foreclosure. It is likely that one or more of the facilities will simply be sold off as raw land. Regardless of the outcome, the Salem facility may never again be in a position to receive all of our material since drastic production cutbacks will possibly be required to maintain a presence in the market so that supply does not exceed demand. Longacres Race Course must, therefore, develop a disposal alternative. The options available are few. The viable options are even less. It is neither economically feasible or realistic to assume that we can dispose of nearly 150,000 cubic yards of material at a landfill site. No single mushroom farm is large enough to use all of our material and, in its existing form, it has very limited use as a soil amend- ment. The two options that we focused our attention on were incineration and on-site composting. We have chosen to pursue composting, a system that incorporates the two highest priorities of the State of Washing- ton; waste reduction and recycling. Over the past two years, we have conducted extensive research and testing to establish a formula and method of operation that would achieve our objective of rapid waste Longacres Race Course, Inc. P.O. Box 60, Renton, Washington 98057 (206) 226-3131 Environmental Review Committee July 8, 1987 Page 2 reduction while, at the same time, be ecologically sound. Composting our material reduces its volume by approximately 80% and produces an inert, rich, organic soil extender. We accelerate nature's recycling program from the normal 18 month cycle to under one month. r' An on-site resolution to this problem will mean the reduction of the equivalent of 140 truck trips per week and in a small way, ease the ttraffic problem that currently exists in the Valley. The proposed system of composting reduced to the most understandable basics, consists of picking the material up from the barn area, haul- ing it to a central location on our property where it's ground to reduce its volume and increase the surface area for microbial activity. It is soaked with water to achieve approximately a 65% moisture level, laid in windrows and turned and areated on a three-day cycle until stabilized (which is approximately 28 days) . The material can then be used as a topsoil substitute, soil additive, or turf-top dressing. Some possible concerns, as I anticipate them, are: (a) odor, (b) run- off, (c) pests, (d) fire, and (e) dust. a) Odor - The stable bedding, when ground, has a not unpleasant odor of moist straw. Composting can occur in aerobic or anaerobic conditions. This material, when composted in aerobic condtions, produces no unpleasant odor. The system maintains aerobic conditions through correct particle size, moisture content, and most importantly, aeration. Aeration is achieved through turning the material. b) Runoff - The composting will occur on an asphalt pad, sloped to collect moisture. Any collected liquid will be treated in a holding area. As a practical matter, the moisture coming off the pad will be put back on the windrows since the heat generated by composting uses up large quantities of water. c) Pests - The windrows are turned when internal temperatures of 160° to 170° are achieved. The revolving flail drum in the turner is designed to transfer the material at the edge to the center. This process exposes all the material to high temperatures and kills all weed seed, repels insects, and kills their eggs or larvae. d) Fire - In the past, large piles of stable bedding have raised some concern over the possibility of fire. Large piles tend to dry out in the center wile experiencing a buildup of combustible gas and high temperatures; the result is combustion. In windrow composting, the material is maintained at approximately 65% moisture level, the piles are never over eight feet tall and the turning process keeps the pile aerated. e) Dust - The straw has a relatively high moisture content after it's removed from the stable area and, when it's ground, moisture is added. So, during the entire process, the material is never dry enough to produce dust. Environmental Review Committee July 8, 1987 Page 3 The problem of disposal of this stable material is of critical importance to the continued operation of Longacres Race Course. Since the type of operation that we are suggesting is new and is not supported by volumes of published data, I would ask the Environmental Review Committee to allow me the opportunity to spend some time describing, in greater detail than is possible through a written memorandum, just what this process is and how it will benefit Longacres, the City of Renton, and its environment. Respectfully submitted, 7/Z/ Bill Taylo Director of Business Development BT:db cr.: ,,Y, .1 r....t:b-n yN 7 t dt Li A COMPOSTING SYSTEM FOR LONGACRES RACE COURSE' ' tfit. 8 198r A L' BASIS OF DESIGN U '_Dli'!G/ZONING OFF The purpose of this project is to provide Longacres Race Course with a means of economically disposing of its straw-manure by-broduct in an ecologically sound manner. Longacres produces 600 cubic yards of loose straw-manure waste each day of the racing season. Until recently, a mushroom farm took this material as a growth medium. The equivalent of 140 truck trips were generated per week. The racing season may be said to begin with the first of the 1400 horses arrive at the track in early February. Within six weeks, the rate of production of waste has reached maximum where it continues until about the 32nd week. It then, gradually, reduces to about 1800 cy per week by the 37th week, for a total of 131,094 cy (1986 figure) for the 37-week season. Alternative disposal locations are being explored, but the shifting from one mushroom farm to another, or to a land spreading operation where open land is available, will not reduce the environmentally unsound trucking operation. Race Course waste is a potentially valuable asset. Longacres` recognized this several years ago and in 1985 began collecting data and performing experiments in composting this waste product. The results of these tests and data, obtained from others working in this field, indicated composting of this product could be speeded up to a 28- day cycle using windrowing and aerating (mixing) equipment. That this could be accomplished without unpleasant odors or producing a dangerous flammable) mass became clear during testing. Recent laboratory tests of the one-year old exposed compost indicate that an aerobic activity has been minimized by this method of composting (NH at 425) . This engineer was recently called into the project to formulate a system for performing windrow composting in the most ecologically sound and economical manner, optimizing the use of the space and equipment avail- able at the site. The requirements for the design were to meet or ex- ceed all City of Renton, County and State criteria, and to assure that the long-term operation would not conflict with air, ground, and water pollution standards. After studying the voluminous material collected by Mr. Taylor of Long- acres, this engineer believes that the goals of the project are viable: and can be met at a reasonable cost. The system consists basically of a means of collecting the straw-manure waste, transporting it to a central site, chopping it thoroughly to re- duce volume, and increase its mass to a consistency that will optimize its aerobic reduction by microbial activity. The material is moved to r' an area where it can be placed in closely spaced windrows to begin its 28-day reduction cycle. Windrow aerating equipment, currently used in industrial and municipal applications for sludge composting, will be pro- cured to turn, aerate, and moisten the windrows approximately every three days. Temperatures in the biomass will reach 160°F. to 180°F. for suffi- cient time to kill all weed seeds, insects and larvae. Aerobic action will be maintained by the cyclic aeration and moistening of the windrows. The resulting composting action will reduce the volume of the material approximately 55% and produce a material that may be used as a top dress- ing for lawns and gardens. The loose strat-manure mix produced by the Longacres barns weighs approxi- mately 220# per cubic yard, before grinding. The 25-ton per hour hammermill grinder produces a mix that is approximately one-third the volume of the loose mix. After composting, the volume produced per day has been further reduced about 55%, resulting in a product black-grey in color and weighing between 25 and 30 pounds per cubic foot. The ratio of volumes produced per day during peak operations are 600 cy (loose) to 210 cy (ground) to 94 cy (composted) per day. The paved composting pad will provide space for 30 windrows, 16' wide, 100' long and 6' high, spaced 4' apart with 20' wide aerator turning areas at each end: Additional space will be provided for collecting and grinding equipment; a pump and blower, parking for six operator vehicles, and a pond area to collect leachate and rainfall runoff treatment before reuse or discharge. Moisture content is critical to optimizing aerobic composting. While experimental work indicated 60% to 70% to be ideal, the use of mechanical windrow aerating equipment may alter the amount of water required to main- tain peak biological activity. This design will provide up to 1% per day makeup water for this purpose. It is proposed to provide water tanks on the mechanical aerators with spray nozzles to wet the mix during the pass- over. Six vertical standpipes, located between the East turn around area and the pond, will be used to load the tanks. Sufficient water will be carried to wet four windrows at a time. Water will also be provided at the discharge of the grinders to moisten the shredded material, as required. Water used for maintaining optimum compost moisture content will be reused after treatment in the pond. The pond is located to one side of the com- posting area and will receive all leachate and rainfall runoff. Fine bubble aerators will be spaced along the length of the pond on 38' centers to produce 8 to 16 cfm air per 1000 cubic foot of pond volume. Movement of the aerated water will be controlled by recirculation of the pond volume at the rate of 70 gpm. If pumped contnuously, this will move the water through the aeration portion of the pond at the constant rate of seven minutes per foot. In 33 hours, the recirculated water will receive 1/3 million cf of air which is expected to transfer in excess of 1# of oxygen per unit per hour to the water. Biological reduction (BOD) of approximately 98% per pass through the pond is expected. Suspended solids should be reduced proportionally. From the aeration unit, the water will pass through a perforated baffle wall into a 34 ft. long settling. tank where suspended solids will settle to the bottom and be periodically removed by hand scrapers and placed in the fresh compost windrows for biological reduction. The velocity through the settling portion of the pond will be 0.15 ft. per minute, allowing 3.78 hr. of setting time, before passing through a second perforated baffle into the pump wet well, overflow, drainage area of the pond. One pump will be provided to recirculate and provide makeup water to the windrow aerator tanks (via the standpipes) . The pump will produce 70 gpm at 12 ft. of head. It is expected that this pump will operate full time until field study has established the optimum recirculation rate and air dosage and intermittently thereafter (by timer) approximately eight hours 2. per day. During and after rainfall, the pump will operate full time for a minimum of 60 hours. A surface overflow pipe, or "Marigold," will remove excess volume in the tank due to rainfall runoff. This device will limit the water depth in the pond to 3' at all times. Since the pad perimeter will be at one elevation, all rainfall that does not evaporate or is absorbed by the windrows, will flow into the pond. For example: a quarter inch rain will provide about 11,000 gallons to the pond. Discounting overflow and assuming. a full (3') pond water depth, this will raise the pond level less than one-tenth of a foot. Since the pond will provide approximately 3000 gal}ons per day "makeup" water. to the compost windrows, pond draw down (between rain storms) will average 1/3 to .1/2 inch per day. Makeup water frgm the City will be provided by a float controlled pipe (with free board set six inches above pad perimeter elevation) , which activates only when pond draw down is six inches (2.5 ft. pond water depth) , it is likely t at during the dry summer months, no water will drain. However, whenever rainfall exceeds 1 inch in 14 days, some drainage will take place. During months where rainfall exceeds two inches, all in excess of one inch per 14 days will drain to the wetlands. A 2" asphalt "speed-bump" will be placed in the turn around area next to the pond diagonally, to direct all rainfall less than 1/4 inch per hour to the South end of the pond and largely prevent runoff from bypassing aeration treatment. A small five gpm pump will also be. required to provide water to the grinder and for hand-held hoses (wash down, etc.) A gravity drain in the bottom of the pad will provide water to the pump house wet well, and be valved to drain the pond during cleanup operations. It will also be connected to the "Marigold" to provide pond overflow drainage. Makeup water will be required from the city lines only during dry weather months. It is calculated that this will occur only during July and August when approximately 900 gallons per day and 150 gallons per day will ' be needed, respectively. This water will be provided through a 3" dia line. It will flow to a float controlled standpipe in the North end of the pond - and be actuated when the water level in the pond reaches 2.5' depth - and will close when the 3.0' depth is reached. This system will be drained during the winter months. Aerationhwill be provided by blowers located in the pump. Blowers will be 4 HP units providing 15 cubic feet per minute of air per square foot of aerator face. There will be 10 aerators, each 6" wide by 4' long. Total aii flow will be 300 cubic ft. of air per minute. Power will be required at the pad for pumps, lighting, and aeration. Total hourly power requirement will not exceed 6 KW. Several pieces of equipment will be required for economic operation of the composting system. On hand are several modified forklift trucks capable of loading two to three cubic yards of straw-manure per minute. They are to be used in the system. 3. Twelve-ton dump trucks are currently used to transport the straw-manure. to the grinders. These are to be replaced by a tractor-pulled, 50 cubic yard trailer, with tipside unloading capability. Similar trailers are in use on' large farm operations and readily procurable. Time study indi- cates one' 50 cy trailer is optimal. One man will be responsible to operate forklift and drive the trailer. Twelve loads per five-hour day will be required. The 50 cy trailer will dump into a new metal hopper with a capacity of 120 cy. Hopper dimensions: will be 8'x8'x50' . It will be provided with chain-driien floorboards which will move the load toward cutter blades at the end of the hopper. The cutter blades, mounted on 3-6" diameter cylinders1, will chop the straw and an auger will move the resultant material onto a conveyor that will lift it into the top of the grinder. The hopper and conveyor will be diesel-driven with power takeoff and require a' 75 HP engine. Such equipment is readily available on the used market. The grinder will reduce the size of the material to optimum size for composting. The discharge from the grinder will be periodically checked for moisture. Upon need, water will be sprayed upon the ground material and it will be moved by frontend loader or forklift to the windrow where it will ble formed into 16' wide x 6' high rows. One windrow will be formed each working day. The procurement of a windrow aerator is necessary for the success of the composting operation. Its function is to mix the contents of the wind- rows so that all parts of the mass receive equal benefit of moisture, air, nitrogen land heat. This is done to each windrow once every three days, on the average. Water is added at the mixing, as required. As the composting cycle progresses, the piles will shrink in size, about 55% over128 days. Upon completion of the cycle, the stabilized compost is moved !by forklift and dump truck to be sperad over the grassed sur- faces oCthe Race Course. There is sufficient grassed area on the Race Course property to absorb a two-year supply of compost, spread in a 2" thick layer. As the compost will be absorbed into soil and vegetation, in one year the process may be repeated. 67'ot-sag..; Robert A. Rousculp P.E. 4. hwtpno)kn ' b:t:p op '1)-0u4- 'koa )9 V)'gnb r4vp la-aM awRi4 0 E = 09 x 1"/ S'S rop i sdzr1 dLcI- N) ". "!44 4!ntf 1„`t V0)) 010 Z( ® "l I'm 17•1 : V ' J4.- cJ'-1-1- r21L. 4p014-5 and D 'a! 'n,Ai/ 4poda) ,nddo.11 C, L-E 9 = 2 x---zs 1 >= t ?a .-Dtv.fo4-S Twr-xzam kly II) 221£) 'Xpf°{- s•i = s'9- 9% . s•z% =s'z x sZ - pg+-4 -rtoJo.S ttpp CAA4Aa.Jt v'ap 44n 441/ '1} ' I ) ti"1 "2. = 0)9 s d. L rn 1 W S $ d i m 1 Lu otpvta-4171a M 1 I 1 0 1 sZ a52 1,4orde, Row 4t41ti4m tiw( 179•Z ,c 155. o b 2 f5»,Q s a 7 s ob I 03 11 try. Sz .,4 y `mac}c-r in of Sti48/ : 1S = ata;/o $ o jrs4,1, v/ov lrav s'v4 5.2X 1 7da d en; uo,orr l'o - 4#.., ,r' 40/..„5.-p, n arr 0170.41 '9 WV 1, aSt /d/a? I# PafbJncNn,)0 Pk? aa!h /9.Lof5 :72S t. I/ t • S'Li _ %37/ ^ St •c '''i 5 'Z 1) Po v"o o7t iv d 0•2 P1 g'2g .,fi f ty SI x S'S t niolsi ,;7;`^''P'w'J ta „Z 1 f»7o- ) • Pt-ter 99 - %e052 vo,11v, 0. v on b t : 5'2 : I 000z 1)5•Z£ = S S'2,Z t I f . Si 4- '''' 4"'/°%" 04. 29t7 - it01 Z x Lx o09 : Iwa>>r,:.0 . n,op1a:im Aron) vacb M M sz 9 ia?WSW vv / rwo S/f 'ro p'- ",e 41101401 cm} sk i" »a.11-b l a. h. atnsSy o'X7T..0-14 SA Luwto7 Ill VT40110. Lir r nu sul i(J4j a 4'Yf 3'}3e 1 Wm ovlA .4.014 Tiar temp o A,A.t,ol4)2j «-rtnenj Ji". F1/svto} ZI e U1 o_}. b•%Z fVic.O Z Z M7 101 ' # l J r11 / 0. boI - opV 7f 4ob2 " 00% Trv.r`sta. 41.2b.") Lit *' 7:11)0017 6 sn p19 1f q 2 1 lar0o 1 ,`q, hv /s' 17 0 b2 7Opcj ;`2vyp2o1 9+1,p ntb1 442 raPtnRrd a Win 14n0117P nputJ!o•vpovK t.1. 1Ka rvo Soit.,am j vo bill mapi b1 pop( T. a0ru}bp a 'p21 Ndw z1 of paads a3ba/n.Ut ' r'1 n} a..... 1 pnbq- mnP1 7otivi ada'J I ( ( -Eb S/d'trtL-/1'a"Jh!} 4-}171 paFbol h, ! G' o.I. •Z -{•1.o v dbj S}1.9 xJOA 1 spc, tla,r7 r nott M1 Z `sA.p •xa a,n sinott z/ 1 S in ?foci 4JOdW o, of '"f/ aJnNvW 7 ro2.14.5 )009 vrlJa+t.J (4615oA b 11%44/ afd oa97n21. I aEnDZ1 L6b7 72•1VW ct lr.aa9D,/ 6444sod mop r.nol9 aDtrd Sal/M.6uo1 JIYLbs$# _ £ x Lx L£ Jr/ T tivVn7+1rl V A?pi 5•Sx .9 xz 1 Z 9 Lz 1 't1 5-z 9 'b Z -4— o-r 1.7/ }tom .1ti oZvl LI 5•bl S•L zl o% 1,,b9 1 'o1 oi. P447rg.0,e 340 havir nrn4. pqb I 5•41 S'L 01 0S a a ' mit- %ii 06R 11 Cs? 5 2.g op 021 bZ 5-"El 5.1 9 o£ Np / sc?'i+ L 2 095 8 z 511 5'd 110117 oz 6w,S 1l1yr,p f ti p0) 7 co ivp 1 prowll..is •pp5 17, S.2 JJo Ira72b.4.2. rtrzts 'vn im i !°o- "'"a,L pro hlsvv.l prp b.1 n.„tN/P,s Japbo1 Z Luis() oc)•E *, =°"1]5•S x 9 11V /+T*) n bl 4 1tac7- roni 3 f°vi pip Nno "^°», roq faT'ovjpN73 aq 0.-1. 51 ((yw.)) Imp `'`9(T) g tl'S w7n'4t(4 o Sl 4a1in,p+ {,QS prop / ti) 0 0 z OS?DOE OS£oob s 051 oo$ OSS no,osc r r a r I a r I I 1 - O or wo t#10 VO/401, v' A+;rbd0, o i A2'9) 0 i 7 I 4- of ?} 7 a1 DJ Pa Vs 1 no,Jbt/L .1 0). A}r.bav, T.0 1 0 I m • 0 I O 09 I 7• wnwt7}.e0 ri 3'drJ4- ZI = 00% t W'?b}: e00$ %01rfl 6 52b bo{, 2 .1 17 S•51 ozb zA L Q oZ 8701 8bob• 1 bl 51i la or ?A M L n 1Z 09 ri a'009) 781111. , 21 S'L2 lap R :4 07"d2 oZ OS cos zzol-1 pi s'12 07s , ?h own*L h 91 of, L'L 05 SB£S•1 1.1 cnf.oK s'bl as wut 2.4 ova+,L T"7ni Z I or fool wog.' kr 0cu :tl i JY o.tg v1 1 '.0 1 P4 cl u() n t 1.,kJ). (7hr)5 z) awl"ID P4"9) Pr+5 4' 0J nit.ii . 2 4.2.7 ,Ja bvtt4so a ? XJroD 7 t7 s"J7 b (2. m 0 14'^s^O Lc T ine e? a 1 Len.q acres Beet (,ourte Co1,k ,.)-1„1 Prlec{• 13 Am/AL 19I7 R.eutever 3. 1.1‘34- -to Krause M' Co.. Krav:e 131'q et8-7533 =,; 9 9 Auaile1 ti -' pi, L5 lo.der- 12 3 eq. do; to ¢,61/e t+ do+a s i l a?.t lJ a/ test. o4 hopper (Le;Tx sei- 4.r wi414 awndA. z-4.5'co., - t_= t 8' Coattir9.4? b1tt- x,us1• be dem, be.&nt pi d-a( i11 L0141Acres 71A101- (Ortug Una+e4ia( fo loe -1-es)-ed +o ''arm - Loadrl Av.:10464 +a 9.5' kf C0c. est,r,ct.+-es re4u,e4+ecl .rw +uodels 8 h•p Pe"s, 1/arou: s1 ed , weedy_ 14 /btc c.h )1r7 R.43cdp etc! Size S t„d s ci2.11-eto. '3O1da1 S1-na,e.- Us1„9 KV Wti,dro<{,, CoulPoil-pl' ,(1G' wide. t4' wkeel (vo1n) I L i-' Yo-tct.t.4 4 (G'x4' M. wt14c,ow = 42 G.0 /LF cutucLnow. 16' COo co-• Z10 t.y(cioefed) x Z7 : 5G70 c _ 70 LF w91.15 Mclt0 ) a S6 eat day_ Upload - G-tttider Area,. 80, Ito ,d 4s s'me go," ,'>'wr/er (dvorr h9 -tbae) Teo c+as Tr a'l l er t 10' 7.S x 7 5'x a 4' to v_ : so v_ox Aped) 8' Myrep Ulome. / Lo0or rl I )Trot/eta 6'Awaveor oI 1,0..... ( 3O'oi' 60 9 30 73X 8 x 30' - G G.joy, Grinders opoe)- Ya/arneZ /o46/-1' (6ueeiee /) 1 2a 7.Sx8XGO' r 133,3bE , T _ _ _ 1 I 63.7 5rora e i4r- Cox,,/, b ZS,r1), /4ir (riiti 21) r o l /1 (A,/no/roiu !G.wiy lin,w / 1 CevIasr Ge cc`ore/ /n hopper) a l z0 L„rtl e'dbw/711 wi.1o/e^ow :Z t " of el c.f 92 i L 4"./ers l f 5/B ey .1'1-orve 40,1 et /Sew.//r lnr4 y 17"uyn1 I iarovod 2e'x is 3 oo' Must be rt1'ere0/ in balt an pa,e edf' f 4' asp/ /o4cQd /hoHoroyt LJfto he e/` 3"/& c ce G o vAlp.,r 4-sa'x Z 7 : d o 9 Z sF IS 3' ep Q'hr4 c23a/ SQdy ,'.2o(* eco-Y,orh.ea/ 093.5sp,Co-ri><^ip vra 7`/en o.e' all lac d 1'/ora e/>ira 6' 5"'L7 e/e/re.nrh r o,L' At o! y j.lark.in 7 2ejo/ tar• 4' cars Mh. /9reas Xeep'.I = SF oar20'x 4 = 646 .S Za SOX G8 = i 5440 Trailer - t//oppee C32' x a3 3t -t r rws_ 92 x 30x 20 55 Z o 0 3o cu/m,/"..; 9 2 x 4 '' 2 7 3 G a..rd. i s Ie Po ii o/Area - "or s ><o 1,47 c a r'' Z u, 1afn 20 xZ x 3 o 4 iz /G c0 tarn arbv.,rs Dyer Cirri-1 pra vc c/ awe ct, _ 3 o x 372 1 G 0 Fmc Pond 0 Le / ff 4 4,- pgrf ace eszi T)err q rov,: 5GXS'G 3 / 3 .6 SiLorale Pazect,,y Ar.1rg74 el. -47/'4tc/2- 2o'x2'0' 32x40 = 6 8 0 Pact&me, Farzhi ,(rile/, l(iu40 s-fa, o`" er74)v, 10 x /o = 1 20 e eyulo, f/vw /cx Q a/a /*egs Z° ,e /0 0H9 9creJ cease Co r:G ea*l'oaze 2, ljelyref Si/L/a,-z- 17 l2ouscuAP I. Cow 9 yr c t cr 9 10'stjo.a Acader 58 C 3D4r I7G ,'i ,? Obi-- ' pay s-. r'.Sfo e. t"4",t)Sri I 9 Chowders ,Sg -Q —_ A Gdateovet,.s ,5 X 20 74 4 = .304 : 27 968 Turrt 4-.v.,el z 0 S 7 9 z n -20 I , 90 k 4 ea i- access 27 968 ce 7 wive:404rs 9L N - y_i._- i '¢ =•,may, So ohd 3D x.p Ct`> ! /$1z40 3z T r Qratistdt 3exQxZoJGz z" l2 ! G o to iI u,,w1s. q z 97,8 1 8 gzx3da) 3azx364 = // b, o769s,.• 97, 888s x 1.ers_ `°pith — ..- 1 Were o 0 /, .Z 9 olayr .S oaateOnd t t ea I 337579Ssf 04: cr.,/ ICo ti ;yc.,e4gh/o„ 8 o' JZoad a- 8, l Q I-- - N- 3G 2 X•Z 74 = 9`l. /88 s ('/!, o z/sy) O l° 1 ii, e 3 0 oda..t JAol a TNrb I z4se T"33od4.26 SF da. 5. ek ( l I S eel o' y N w,ud. u dPO I?ee-o vi r>.e`ia! 41 vs7L e p 'C,9M, b g2x3o41iLvei 'lo4 q P OP. fiaaGe— I 4 Y 92. ' i 91_ to fo it z7 ' 1 Tel. Coe,. totkh get oor•e Rt toy e,r - S}erlwq Cole- n n 7 I-' pplZIUt1R0de.,3 O'l (.t tv.dro,w Cnw.•S+er tS +'/l14-Nn o•Y MaGI"lw$ - 0s& u,Ltel CAA—. re.ue. e I- D1uusSed 6ade..1 & C a. wol-ef ko ... - '•-• w,-.,.Taao>, 9 e'ti.gas* wlntle_ w.ix,1 - Av,swcf ,: iv. 1s Satll~la -- Size o+• fain. Pr•l,ally ills,'to 3000 - b4)+-kcl ceN ered! Seed opeA4+,r' = 0 in 4 r - l we, wl;ele aena-r111 aes1..1 iu,KciA,w Ilse - la..'elt- - I6,c 7' 1.4. wv,gle aC repot w,ll aeeerf * . J o e,' -CGt o 1 fc n v l+ lo e dope to e4e re S Pr,AD Cal So I: Tel Cat, u..-Vt, Krause NCI Co: ETesf o PP PP Y'9 7141f moy ekwov,ate s.Lea .•0 G-+,1,1.,44,1 S12.e 041 4-railcr Socy o . - yes ltiotper al* 30' 4 80'- eeltt Terceira . Co tti - Sacy +rql ler lG ,000 4 l.t.INclwSt- Qa.41r'"t ItS'a 'kePP°'' add t9000= 36' l.lo!pet will, 1uwd;e(el eJg- 3.s" fi 401000 'rp lxor;!tlal QUAlt to) I wfa ee.1x.c F.T.o . ** ZS, 000 N IAV IL -t. IG,aoo L14L} I,adds+. 0,eale7TrrAct0 .. old Tr tick_ •t/t.'1e..e - 7S-PS HAD — ettioy +.l,J +er 3507 +a S000 -ir ew, fu lise4 Z o Marck 97 PAZ IDvl 4e.t.a ('o-,.p,ottuYlq Pr ,t teear s. Tel rov, - Joe Morrell. Ae,,ati.-.. Egw4 - r Fate SLUG_ 0- 4'x 4" 7e4 - I'0 0 v.'Fle+e except '`F n. b to w , {b watet ptip,rrr to e4 20,000 j L lac!. Z Blowers 4 Kw each.) l s}a.,a - TelecoA Irrly4+cr. /Uoz2.1es — Io 'et ISo'+ radius curve- u c 35o5Fh (ux`f at 31o'Z(t0d ibelaan 150/1bd Nozze_ Corn- /l1°z .L. F7So-° ea. Pomp * 213S,°2eq Z Y40 (40I-P) Cornell , Far{-16.,.4 ,Orc. Cewczij.i 116+c : Very costly w.t+lwd 04 Veil att Kq - 144uf 141 wat'€4 LLJ* letrer cost € opet- cost too: Study 04. ?o vtd - Use Skip slope o4- 0.20 ihth nolrwl rood e4w?. cc' ar7Lnali- r,t,d W/o +rovI,.( -- Care o' s) s+ew. - . Radu.cp s,a4 Pow urh, p,,d +0 tnlc,.aa . . I/ Irea+mot e ue cr oat. aela1(>'1 . I e t 011 um-Fer Viral - Q u lbt-7 e, P c .0 I quc S wilt toe Do kV: 1ti14kt uP wa+-er dtt,L„,1 Ault , ,tuy ,Craw, ut•Y Ilse. Tor wel- (an d) enu+,u . do+c.Papa Cr_PA) It17 £NVC4fel Alar.or+ eotetplel' . burn-ut.slva50 u%t}1A adciwake at. i'll ate racessar,y be44_ rrctre. a re-use. (4 L,r) ppProv,{ Lo44't- k - re„t.evett.lt Le.e4-wae6i Reran-os. sc sed w, perm.at7 s /144/er , below Z..l ' cler , +6 hold bacr- 4tn allow 4lows 41taV are_ rt.an i-urbfletlt 104;4lc _ Alms,. Pla-1-'as ,,,, Cr Ciite slo cd blett,S ictyin ok. -Ploor raud- Ae.V'ai-Z.o "Cv11 vr-c 444-en. ra,1Lj - flab 1 4 h r-t-i-e'w (-homer actua+ecl) 014l y w kt.14 a}c p e4 t M eir-J cL¢i-ef i l vet Yu eels41'1 - saw. pv w.e r -- Reurctjcce,c - S+ekd7 rrurc. d.eS,red lout n.a+ rlcl all i-L. dial rate lvsi.,. - CA.v. log Slower.33 cam = ZqG pw Puw,p .+o fell consrosi- aervt-°r {antis 144,11„-Y 1'o oovr,blwed -ls $4v'e vrvwy - 3000 1.00-er 3 sq '.l, - fey sou 1.0/1o44 — Z-1L+•t +. lae,a - w/o sPrlla9e - 3 to Iprvt 4 y 7S 9 P,, •c- use = 3"p+pe Red 4cr recite. Petri t h p loci 4 b 70 g pw. also - ah a cc ep+able. rake Ouer 4'low -o draw. — S epara+r *row. rcctrc. I,1t but US l tvte - b7 v.ic Halve- Lt S1n1.fn be Co" to IAA..4k IADA. y ro.is.t w/o }/o°It11 cows p of r IAeck LJeuJ .behueeh L.0 l__ o,...d Le/e+ lay..a.l Ctn. p, ' )Ow hwx Zo IN 411 .III d,104-E re Ct/C . W44er ;4 dial. rpe.J VpJVlA. tl ./eel 1 1 ckAhH.el tt- •o ehd o4' pohcl- 61,17 IC ra,>, tS l re44-en -I•l.a..-% Y4"/64r: - Go o J d.caLiii. 20 Ma.. 14177 RAR. Lw.ps ct.(/2A 126C-1: C6uA.6-2, k PaltIV1 4 VLell.;li, Recap_ -4, Air• ( l Lv b g&Ge B . Da34 raw. EPA 3-h.sclti( Leg Axs 3 Ix . Bod LoAdu7 7 j l - 4s 3 o 13oD 35 33 82. A {2¢m40.ed 71 8Z C 0 D I 8 114 34-3 Of Relv.ev-e d 0(a 47 SuspoJtlids 39 36 IS3 Le*,- 74 74 Arc.44ded a p Cl? , O.bSc44A/ oo 3 u. }+ 0;8 Ok{yAA Tir»r,t kn 0.7 -F-a 1.4 '/!-P hr. blowers - swr l lHp/hr. Aix U.ed to 0.27 i-a 1..o3 SC.gM A000 Ci:/ Ovr ci2o1 v i- C . l z c4+, 8 cCw, e(imott. 8 +)».ac n4,ao-r,>o! zoo0o4t3 1000 43 Exprcred redu.c* tv>va wt4L. -Iku loan 1.4,,,5 _ goy - 4S%CoP 8Sla Su.op Solids qS %t Se4-t-jtry -iF°...-)‹. soli cLz Slwuia be t+.)v-1 i4-,l— (L .xL SolApe.Y` •- o co»..N-1- rles ) 3lo w e, 7a-i-q = W It rt-vAt y Co. , Sea414A_W c 3 s,aur,,,, 4 lj-e r }r, (.!owes ;r, . puw•p gawat R.tvvtred 4,. SaCe-hi oC erwcw.eu-r - lvel. we?! - ctry w211 tiip-e — c-,..si'dc..‘ puv+-.p +YJ4s 4?rs-4-1 Puwtp.t Rid - 6-ectrc - 7541k - 70 9 p' - 15 fo 20' hf4 d . 1 reiJ - na siv...c(by- Gz'i-n GCJai-0,10 9 r n,y 4 ti i Muse -d.e Lt./v.-' lJoL .Le. .Pvw,p'3509p i !3 toe 14..2g4 Doti* use! +° c0trly1 1.e Z pumps 131owtr- 9 I-P -Ai-Cert. recomvr-e...ba s-1 ,.a1o7 - (l cL,-t bur i-E-ccv -R„,.o i:nttztll.) P.h.P u.ouAR Co,A.+r.14 - S+o.r}etrs - +i v 1er,J — lU1.4? be at•lc +e ele,t,"ra-V' we-k. uuell — Rducc pwy..pbew.P .117e b7 Ca g 4,1 u•w. p...,..? to p o.•Ld d.e p+1„ ! EMU -1)i4VIS Pit- 3+ VA 4S ti.9 100 7. S' .tad p— 70 ' .4, Goya e A4' or. t..3 FA4S 12.5 17. S' M t S8°(° n er. A ,++.Tvr12. Pvwlp Co. C. 4-10 Curve A 7 ;.VA e4C. 14'@ 7O9p14. l 1 6 o Rph 0•3 w L ry QGres 124Ct Couq/4g C,ow.?•ittx.rl Prefect LA ,4eur $7 I Rtca? 7 P4a Sl2IA,' - U)re. ii z.w".c -tb e4.te W c b [Speed v.p) 18' Caa+.tA. QC.ck rh Cn.4 ate.l h 2. or 4d1 20 CP0 is loe1ow c r,v.der.j )*' Vat 100' c- tutadyow Lexfl, - u.1kc c( of 11/ NE FleYvo cci•e O.to`ve) 12d. SurrovHd_ 1. T1n(.4 Ic-n"eo tpact 4-er port<w c - F p C Lti c.t eA t e d l+•rc.,c - t J ruin at d Provide space 4 . a'rae +e h.oura-e - pro-t-wc- -- ex.\Not) eau.IFyne -k -wi+ow Aer,6,.‘ pG cl w<<w dxo w S - E 4,u.'a i4'/-o w -1- 4' w ti 7 f++a Cw L.+21) J r,G e - 20/ Wa+c.r Inaz2& ASScAnw l°!o 1oSS i.,,. dal ottr ea,ire Pad — AS SwV.4 Z20*cut o4 bate Stvt,w Gv SO%to t t O eciq+er )c(a00 = GG o O e7c1,„y 41/`21n 01-0LA4.d Straw CZ 1O cY(' , 46,0oo L.4,4 3 :4 l G eA,A8 Co-...p.sted S+-a+l (et4cyld ) ka,a 7o2, / y - c j k - 1 e t" = L' +o 30 t` bay 9 e 1 - 7 0 2. = 2 G tt tm.Go rrec+ 27 fit4tvc. 22o22wt (.o ZS°!. 14.ow`t 33, 00012/dayV e4 z(Jr,ay) 33 e o o = ) 3 it w.oin't'. Salo 94.v z7 SO +1,t4.4 Sfg{ 0+Al wA-3101-- 30 days St,tp17 3,0oo x 3o (Z5°l ti.-.w'-) = q 46,000 wa -2 Reclutt..- -4.14.1.4..1 Cwko-,`t' @ 2f'!e lc.oLot = G ?Sx z7= 18Z4/ey_ g Qvu.48C Fred @a S o°l° ti a:° 11 Q tz/ c. 2 o Z /c.l o k pa u,d a 31 4*/c7 Pa ZOt- 14 .15zeyx30L1ayo Z 4S60 6 1 20Zw..w1 = 921 , 1Z0" wa-G. a SO °/a - R c.e,„zri ,zt ti '-•0.^-e .h Vol ei d¢.d 4-o rrw34 +o (e S °/o - dt z Liao = -S .4 S 1 , `1 7,4 t G r,r4:zp o I 1 Ol 2 1 1 2 0 Z 7G 336I 37000 `°` waTi Add Z. 7 G 3 c6 ' watt., 7.47 L o•4-d-e4 d,u,Q to 17.E a* <, Gv a e 1 °!e /d uy t 1 •1 7 a`6 ,c ,o t v 1 t, QJ' f" /( e o 3 at/d c., 7. 1(03 = 53.4 le,L0/ , drove /dal -30 P a i-o w i c x,. t- i rt_ = 4 (4,t v,Iva v+-°S 3.4 x 4 =CZ t 5 v i24) p- tu 6 S+J rt.Y-1 vet.„ w+ +o (,S °4 cn.t5r411) 37,aoo 1333 9 .14/w4,...4,,,0,., o Gl1tn.a"r1. lv.t. * p o a Gci.c f. LA/,A"d.-v v., 4 t 1,--Lo - J_do 41,;..° 3 0 o 3 x 4 = 1 .o o C-ck", Ire AA d do d ry..w.dt — s 0•-. 7 to p b,.% — ex t 7 °.,e d a L e ative is Ga(+ly cpray vv.4.gL,-1- - 350gpY+. L.- q- a ed 12 0.c.e Co U4..z o-,,.,p v-41-''' prbd.,4' Re. Co f 8 r Ra.wt.ca l l - wa4-e.t - P„-`.l 3 7 s 3' Yok x Sec* = 66 C c/L F vol. j P o>nd - s 17 s r,.e Vol e 3' h = 15 z,204 cod. 124,,N.a t .;v,... e.9,-1-tee pad — 3 8 o%31 O = 1 17, goo c•C / it" Y'0,,h C1 e4.0 6 rtia -evg e Jx-447 . p po,000rkie. 1" Rai;..! 4 .73, 3 30 rad `i p 17G-C) ye '' 4 I = I ',332. 94,. (z4S4cc) wZ.0.,, ,- /d at .s..'t at 3 o o 0 c&.a.(4 0 o c4 ,) _ 12.2.S o c4/ +bxeY,d, R2vvtC4Il o -Rwxctt'/tho. .r tij+n Pao FLow +0 cue la,,,a,o ?w/o Co 1d21-A69n }ni J 4 H 2.44 2 3 S G 1 c 4 14t4 1 I 000 icl„1 -! 1. a"1 7 G 7 I c/A. S do0 g J -I o. " • l 7..67 1 C y rd oo cc i.0 4 i 18.g a 4 0 f cL r wai-. 1 d 7 00 o CV.. 124#. ('° "p i,w s P'Pv 1 z o T el ev MO . Cow..?It tj..c ski 1.c c L . Ko' 'fi.N. - wu .c6 Z.0 Cloc.L!d Le P014.11 k*. 3_7./ So4to +.S - 6o.Sx. Z X 34S = 4174.Sc lz.'' Re,,',‘ 1 De,dy 4".....,„ d.o w,,, @ •3o0 0 9)d o = q 0 I c4 IA.a-c. SOX 44 = 1-1 Znvrrr_ e2.'3 1d _ , . 02 ( b. 3o /da zz d4-741 ys- LZioO. 8 3 G • . 2 2 day ' ' Jwty UAL Xv-.r. Atv,4,11 4" 9 d o.,},o 4r y,,. c.t`N = z ,o o o % J get;a ; sal)pt7 vats-e Se4- F-' AC-h_4,0:G? ccutper.,t e Lev= (7.s'atp+0 Claw 4o u.crt Low. o do c>,ir. cww.p1C0rtt t y l-1 L 3' Ia., 6" f(Le 16.s et-cv P.c,twat,; ?it 4.d Z_6,. 4 Ajo... q +d li - 4.3, '4 IS.g,..t.4.0 L Pe+.a t G.91 Leti. t v'ie' 3' 2 1°. b° 11.6 61ev 1.' 12.4 — 1.3' s = j1a0 0e93 Q =Z9oo4p»7 S = 4_3 = .0 3 0-7 Q = sic" 9 Pw, 140 1 1T2,oeD ,. 4 '/3 1....0 I T m-c 'I'o di A.,.. 400111s. I 'S4-o1,rr el 2 17 X 7.l? 2...4 krfSre1'a1,, 1,00.4-en. Lo«dw.9 40 I.v,Kdn.ow Ae,.w{'4... S i 0 Q li-i t eiICI' C'rG N I 1 T.--,r i 3"P,p 4 3oo,dalZ, : it L tr,po d tr\c_ “ rrat.* 170t lvt OF R.4,V ECF: z City of Renton a r GOMM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1TE0 sEP 0-'1%e Q Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43,21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before.making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for allproposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose. of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply. to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Use of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals: (Please Type or Print Legibly) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs). the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Longacres Race Course Waste Composting Project 2.Name of applicant: Longacres Race Course, Inc. 3.Address and phone number of applicant and contact.person: Mr. Bill Taylor P. 0. Box 60 Renton, WA 98057 206) 226-3131 4.Date checklist prepared: March 19, 1987 5.Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): As soon as approved. Project can be completed in six (6) months. f. '( 1' !;, tt-„. r'af at 8 pia J, -` 7. Do you have any plans Tor future additions, expansions, or rurther activity related to or connected with this proposal? if yes, explain. No B. List any 'environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A research paper is planned by the Manager of the Longacres Composting study conducted in 1986. He was employed by Mr. Taylor for this purpose. 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 10. List any tgovernmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. I do not believe other approvals are required. 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. The project is designed to compost 600 cy per day of race course waste !(straw-manure mix) using an accellerated com- posting cycle. The composted material will be spread upon approx. 150 acres of race course land to enrich the soil. Composting will be done on paved pad about 13,000 sy in area, completely draining to an aerated pond which will recirculate the water for reuse on the compost. Mechanized windrow composting technique will be used after material is shredded to reduce ` volume. , A detailed description of the system and equipment used is attached. 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 topography 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 applications related to this checklist. In the center of the South 1/4 of race course property. See attached site plan. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other ' b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate'percent slope)? 1% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, caly, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Clay-loam d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No 2 - e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. 1 Site will be graded to conform to dwg #2, no fill will be required for the project. Excess soil will be spread, graded around pad. f.I 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)? 13,000 sy of asphalt pad, less than 1% of race course property. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts.to the earth, if any: None required 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and I when the project is completed? If any, generally describe' and give approximate quantities if known. Soil type produces some dust when equipment passes over it when dry. Climate in area reduces hazard as rainfall is fairly uniformly distributed throughout the year. Equipment emissions during constructions will be minimal. Diesel engines will be employed on the grinder and the hopper, appx. 5 hrs/day. b.Are there any off-site sources of emission? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None required 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. Small wetlands area 100 feet east of site will probably be drained by drainage channel. P-1 when constructed. This area is about 500-300 feet in size and will be used as a catchment for treated water from this project during rain storms. 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. Edge of composting pad is about 110 feet from shore of wetlands area. 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. None 3 - 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximately quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Flood plain is not known, but elevation of pad will be 18.5 feet, while the water level of the wetlands is about 11.6 feet. 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. Collected, aerated and settled rainfall runoff from pad will be discharged to the wetlands through a 6" pipe. During 42-week composting season, an average of about 4500 gallons per day will be discharged. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and appaoximately quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, 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. None 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. Pad will drain to a paved pond, aerated, settled and discharged to the wetlands (near future site of P.1 drainage channel) . This will occur only during rainfalls exceeding 1/4" per day. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. Only treated discharge will leave pad. Volume of pad will be contained since perimeter will be at elev. 18.5 feet and all other pavement will be at lower elevation. Capacity of pad to hold runoff exceeds 18 inches of rainfall, if fully flooded. Waste itself is only compost (straw-manure) leachate. 4 - s----- 0 Pil"‘j 61) jt J—cfsli" tiu--e-P--4L d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: See previous answers.) 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: o deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other o evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other o Shrubs grass o crop or grain o Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other o water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other o other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Grass c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Reseeding all disturbed soil. S. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: DuBirds: Hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other ti--, kg_:(500 feet _away). Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other . Mice Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other None b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not observed, Canadian geese remain year round. S - d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric power will be required to operate pumps and aerators. Diesel fuel will be required to power hopper, tractors, grinder, and compost aerator. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No 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: This project will eliminate truck trips between Renton and Salem, Oregon. 7. 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. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Basic pad design will prevent health hazards. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None 6 - 2) What types and levals of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Operation of shredder, compost aerator, and .tractors1will be daily, 7 days per week during 37-week season. Noise levels not measured but site location's isolation preclude problems. Personnel operate this equipment without need for ear protection, except for grinder, which may require sound and dust protection devices. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts. if any: None. Grinder, hopper noise levels will not be a problem beyond the immediate proximity of the equipment. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Area is not currently used. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so. describe. - No, it's grassland. c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N/A e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Manufacturing Park f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Manufacturing Park 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. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 3-4 men working 5 hours/day, 7 days/week, 37 weeks/year j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? It will eliminate the need to transport the material off-site, approximately 140 semi-truck trips per week. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Same number of personnel will be employed regardless of the system used. 7 - 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None required 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? 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. All constructed material will be at ground level, with the exception of the pump and blower building and a garage for the compost aerator, sheet metal) . b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 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 8 - 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None b. Would the proposed project displace any 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 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed 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: None 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Site access is through S.W. 16th & 27th Street and Longacres Way. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximately distance to the nearest transit stop? No (3/4 mile away) c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Six - Parking in shredder area will be available for personnel on paved area. None will be eliminated. 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 9 - 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. On site traffic only - 12; trips/day raw waste to shredder, 20 trips/day compost to spread on fields during all times of 8 hour workday. (See 14g) g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: No off-site traffic. f cont'd) Project would eliminate the equivalent of 140 truck trips a week on local roads. 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. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Site: defined as Longacres Race Course, has all utilities 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. Power line_ extension. 3" $ water supply=line for wetting compost. 6" drain'line to_-wetlands. C. SIGNATURE 1, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. • Wwcz#Proponent: Name Printed: Robert A. Rousculp, P.P. 10 - 176 11-8-84 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. 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 implemented. 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 sutstances; or production of. noise? Water runoff aerated from paved pad. Air - insignificant, composting requires an aerobic process. Toxic - none. Hazard - none. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Pond will contain sufficient water for fire protection, if necessary. Total 'volume of pond is 150,000 gallons. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? No effect. Treated runoff to wetlands area should have a B.O.D. of • less than 45; whereas wetlands water B.O.D. is probably 50. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: None required. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? None apart from power and fuel required to operate equipment. Project will result in a soil enriching product. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None required. 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? No effect. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: None other than described in project. 11 - 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No effect. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: None 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No effect 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. No conflict SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. 1/7- 6-6"Proponent:e, Name Printed: Robert A. Rousculp, P.E. 12 - CERTIFICATION OF NOTIFICATION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS/SITE PLAN FOR OFFICIAL•USE ONLY* * * PROJECT TITLE: APPLICANT: APPLICATION NUMBER: The following is a list of adjacent property owners and their addresses. A notification of the pending site plan application shall be sent to these individuals as prescribed by Renton Code, Chapter 7 Section 38 of Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 relating to site plan approval. ASSESSOR'S NAME ADDRESS. PARCEL NUMBER 49V PLEASE SEE ATTACHED CERTIFICATION Iy6104t/S v /91//lirg y certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property owners and their addresses were taken from the records of the King County Assessor as prescribed by law. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me. a nYgPubliac, ohea of Washington t on the da o l W/p.9.V4-4,C46-5- 7- C__, SIGNED: r ( G' CERTIFICATION OF MAILING f I, hereby certify that notices of the public meeting on the subject site plan approval were mailed on to each listed adjacent property owner as prescribed by law. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me. a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing at on the day of SIGNED: i k ; f 7 gtEdi' a it LI)) 7 n'.]:!.. G/ ONiNG DE PT, FORM 208 RPCI 252304908202 CAN:00000 SUP:OOOOOOO S/M: -000000 STATUS:ACTIVE BURLINCTON NORTHERN RR PROP471036 BE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 LESS E 20 FT FOR 2100 FIRST INTERSTATE CENTER 07/01/87 DRAINAGE CANAL LESS POR LY WITHIN 999 THIRD AVENUE FOLC BAAP 20 FT N 8 *1254^20 FT SEATTLE NA 98104 S OF NE CDR SD NE 1/4 TH LOTt25-23-04 BLOCK19082 LAST 'LECAL N 88-24-48 N 1029^43 FT M/L ' IS 12 TAP 300 FT E OF N LN CL 9 TH RY OY ST SC NC LEVY OM-LV LAND IMPS BILLED PAID P A 88 T 2110 272,900 00 OO 87 T 2110 272,900 3,05^76 1 ,742488 H TOTAL TAX DUE: 1 ,783,76 YR FF/ACRE DIST BENACRE BENEFIT ST BILL ST PAID FF BILL FF PAID RECEIPT DATE 88 1 6.96 21 .92 00 00 7580528 05047 87 1 6^96 21 ^92 81 ^77 40^89 AS36 ADDITIONAL DATA P/N RPCI 252304902205 CAN100000 SUP!0000000 S/M! -000000 STATUSQCTIVE BURLINCTON NORTHERN INC 1279 N P R/N OVER E 1/2 OF N 1/2 D 07/01/87 810 3RD AVE TX DPT 208 CTRL SEATTLE NA 98104 LOTM-23-04 BLOCM9022 LAST LEGAL IS 1 RY OY ST SC NC LEVY OM-LV LAND IMPS BILLED PAID P A 88 O 2340 675,700 869100 OO OO 87 O 2340- 675000 86000 OO OO H TOTAL TAX DUM 26.67 YR FF/ACRE DIST BENACRE BENEFIT ST BILL ST PAID FF BILL FF PAID RECEIPT DATE Be 1 10^ 14 14^30 00 00 7580487 05047 87 1 10^ 14 14^30 5034 26^67 AS36 ADDITIONAL DATA P/N J PCI 252304900407 CAN300000 SUPWO0000 S/Ml -000000 STATUSMCTIVE URLINCTON NORTHERN INC C1279 S 5450 FT OF SW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 LACIER PARK CO 07/01/87 AS MEAS ALC N LN TCN S 545.6 10 3RD AVE TAX DEPT 208 CENTRAL FT OF SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 AS MEAS EATTLE NA 98104 ALC E LN LY ELY OF N P RR R/N OT:25-23-04 BLOCKt9OO4 LAST LEGAL IS 4 Y OY STSC NC LEVY OM-LV LAND IMPS BILLED PAID P A 8 T 2110 566,600 OO OO 7 T 2340 566,600 6,649^20 3,32060 H TOTAL TAX DUE: 3006,07 R FF/ACRE DIST BENACRE BENEFIT ST BILL ST PAID FF BILL FF PAID RECEIPT DATE 8 1 23^ 12 43.68 00 400 7580532 05047 7 1 23^ 12 43^68 162^94 81 ^47 AS36 ADDITIONAL DATA P/N 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: DATE CIRCULATED: July 17, 1987 COMMENTS DUE: July 31, 1987 EFC - 055 _ 87 APPLICATION NO(S). : SA-064-87 PROPONENT: Longacres Race Course, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Longacres Composting Facility BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Site Approval for facility for composting waste from race course (straw/manure) . Recycled material to be used for enriching soil/ d aerated pond. Detailed description attached. LOCATION: Located in the South 1/4 of Longacres Race course property.,_, west of Oakesdaie Av S.W. and South of S.W. 27th Street (If both Extended) SITE AREA: 2.7 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 117,800 sq.ft. IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Form d BEN' 1 BUILDING & ZONING DEP TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET EC F - 055 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-064-87 PROPONENT : LONGACRES RACE COURSE. INC. PROJECT TITLE : LONGACRES COMPOSTTNC FACTT.TTv BRIEF, DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: STTF APPROVAL FOR FACILITY FOR COMPOSTING WASTE FROM RACE COURSE (STRAW/MANURE) . RECYCLED MATERIAL TO BE USED FOR ENRICHING SOIL/WATER TO BE RECIRCULATED FOR USE ON COMPOST, AFTER IT DRAINS INTO WETLAND AERATED POND. DETAILED DESCRIPTION ATTACHED. LOCATION :LOCATED IN THE SOUTH 1/4 OF LONGACRES RACE COURSE PROPERTY, WEST OF OAKESDALE AVE S.W. AND SOUTH OF S.W. 27th STREET (IF BOTH EXTENDED) TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG . DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION 0 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 0 POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON JULY 31. 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : APPROVED I ( APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 0 NOT APPROVED DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182