Public Comments Received Planning Commission Public Hearing March 3, 2021

Tideflats and Industrial Land Use

Proposed Amendments to Title 13 Land Use Regulatory Code and Title 19 Shoreline Master Program

Part 1. List of Commenters (“Table of Contents”)

Part 2. Oral Testimony (Received at the Public Hearing on March 3, 2021)

Part 3. Written Comments (Received during the Comment Period through March 8, 2021)

Anna Petersen, Chair Jeff McInnis, Vice-Chair Carolyn Edmonds Ryan Givens David Horne Christopher Karnes City of Tacoma Brett Santhuff Andrew Strobel Planning Commission Alyssa Torrez

Lists of Commenters

A. List of Commenters (Oral Testimony) – (Listed in order of testimony)

No. Name Affiliation Page 1. Andrew Troske Facility Manager, US Oil & Refining Co. 5 2. Samuel Rodabough 5 3. Lexi Brewer Chair, Sustainable Tacoma Commission 6 4. Bryan Flint Chair, Tacoma Public Utilities Board 6 5. Lester Pogue 7 6. Stacy Oaks 7 7. Ken Zirinsky 7 8. Heidi Stephens 8 9. Anna Doty Washington Environmental Council; Washington Conservation Voters 8 10. Marquis Mason Climate Justice Community Organizer, Citizens for a Healthy Bay; 9 Protect Tacoma Tideflats Coalition 11. Charlene Matheson 10 12. Michael Flynn Past President, Washington Association of Realtors and Tacoma-Pierce 10 County Realtors 13. Jessie Gamble Government Affairs Director, Master Builders Association of Pierce County 11 14. Eric Johnson Executive Director, Port of Tacoma 11 15. Maddie Smith Earth Ministry/Washington Interfaith Power and Light 12 16. Kyle Jolibois 12 17. Ingrid Archibald SAFE Cities team at Stand.earth 13 18. Cathy Carruthers 13 19. Victoria Leistman Sierra Club 13 20. Josef Barlow-Farrar 14 21. Jennifer Keating Member, Puyallup Tribe of Indians; 14 Member, Citizens for a Healthy Bay board 22. Kathryn Barlow 15 23. John Carlton 15 24. Melissa Malott Executive Director, Citizens for a Healthy Bay 16 25. Verna Lilly 16 26. Nikie Walters 17 27. Barbara Church 17 28. Deanna Keller 17 29. Frank Boykin Director, Manufacturing Industrial Council for the South Sound and the 18 Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber 30. Ric Berkholtz Volunteer, Sierra Club Washington Chapter 18 31. Yvonne McCarty Chair, Northeast Tacoma Neighborhood Council 18 32. Stephanie Hillman Campaign Rep, Sierra Club; 19 Co-lead, Power Past Fracked Gas Coalition 33. Chrissy Cooley Member, Tacoma Public Utilities Board. 19 34. John Gustafson Environmental Health and Safety Manager, US Oil & Refining Co. 20

The City of Tacoma does not discriminate on the basis of disability in any of its programs, activities, or services. To request this information in an alternative format or to request a reasonable accommodation, please contact the Planning and Development Services Department at (253) 591-5056 (voice) or (253) 591-5820 (TTY). Planning Commission ❚ 747 Market Street, Room 345 ❚ Tacoma, WA 98402 (253) 591-5682 ❚ www.CityofTacoma.org/Planning Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 2 of 252 B. List of Commenters (Written Comments) – (Listed in alphabetical order by last names)

No. Name Affiliation Page 1. Virginia Alvord 21 2. K. Anderson 23 3. Ingrid Archibald SAFE Cities 25 4. Brian Amundsen Barnkow 27 5. Marian Berejikian 29 6. Jim Bernthal 31 7. Carolyn Blasdel 33 8. David Bluhm 35 9. Lexi Brewer (letter #1) Sustainable Tacoma Commission 36 10. Lexi Brewer (letter #2) Sustainable Tacoma Commission 40 11. Lark Brown 45 12. Dennis Cline 47 13. Carol Colleran 49 14. Sue Comis Sound Transit 51 15. Geoff Corso 52 16. Venus Dergan 53 17. Felicity Devlin 69 18. Anna Doty Washington Environmental Council 71 19. Therese Dowd 73 20. Shammai Durrette 75 21. Thomas Ebenhoh New Tacoma Neighborhood Council 76 22. Department of Ecology 77 23. Colleen Faye 80 24. Judy Ferguson 82 25. Bryan Flint Tacoma Public Utilities Board 84 26. Jim Gregg 87 27. Eddie Griffiths 88 28. Erin Gubelman 89 29. Randy Heiberg (e-mail #1) 91 30. Randy Heiberg (e-mail #2) 92 31. Randy Heiberg (e-mail #3) 94 32. Brett Johnson and Dorothy Walker Sierra Club 102 33. Brett Johnson 103 34. Eric Johnson Port of Tacoma 105 35. Holli Johnson Western States Petroleum Association 135 36. David Kipnis 144 37. Floyd Knodel 145 38. Robb Krehbiel 147

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 3 of 252 No. Name Affiliation Page 39. Anne Kroeker and Richard Leeds 149 40. Russ and Janette Ladley 150 41. Melissa Malott and Erin Dilworth Citizens for a Healthy Bay 153 42. Bruce Martin WestRock 158 43. Roger Martin 165 44. Julie Martinson 157 45. Ian McCluskey 169 46. Nakanee McCord 170 47. Don Moody and Teresa Patton CBRE, Inc. 172 48. Kristofer Nystrom 176 49. Ranell Nystrom 178 50. Kierra Phifer Puget LNG and Puget Sound Energy 180 51. Karen Pischel 191 52. Jeanne Poirier 192 53. Samuel Rodabough Law Office of Samuel A. Rodabough, PLLC 193 54. Joanna Schoettler (e-mail #1) 199 55. Joanna Schoettler (e-mail #2) 201 56. Diana Schooling 202 57. Ray Schuler 204 58. Josef Sellers 205 59. Vladimir Shakov 207 60. Sandy Spears 209 61. Heidi Stephens 210 62. South Tacoma Neighborhood Council South Tacoma Neighborhood Council 227 63. Jacob Sweeting 228 64. Sheri Tonn 229 65. Andrew Troske US Oil & Refining Co. 231 66. Jordan Van Voast 242 67. Daniel Villa 244 68. Jerry Webster 246 69. Pete Weymiller Citizens Climate Lobby and Friends of Pierce County 248 70. Lucinda and Donald Wingard 250 71. Chris Wooten 251

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 4 of 252

Oral Testimony Received at Planning Commission Public Hearing March 3, 2021, 5:30 p.m.

1. Andrew Troske – I am the Facility Manager at U.S. Oil [and Refining] (USO&R). We sincerely understand that our community wants neither expansion of production nor increased marine or rail transportation of petroleum products. As you consider how Tacoma can manage its growth, I believe together we can shape a future that meets community environmental goals. We want to be part of the solution, but the current proposal leaves us unable to do so. Tacoma is an energy island, what USO&R produces is used locally, all of which would have to be replaced by product transported via truck, marine, or rail traffic. If refinery operations were to stop, the current proposal leans heavily on a restrictive conditional use permit (CUP). They will chill innovation and limit transition to renewable fuels. USO&R is a community refinery; as such, it is less complex, has a smaller capacity and can adjust to local needs. We know the citizens of this community will demand cleaner fuels but without the certainty to respond quickly, a small refinery like ours will lose out to imported solutions that are not invested in this place. We have the expertise and the infrastructure. Together these attributes provide a unique opportunity to define refinery the Tacoma way. It is our collective interest to finalize the growth plan such that regional priorities are met. We will still maintain local jobs and supply needs. CUPs for maintenance, safety, environmental and renewable fuels development do not give the regulatory clarity and certainty needed to garner investment and transform our shared vision into a resource that benefits this community. Our written comments will detail our feedback on the proposal based on this context.

2. Samuel Rodabough – I am a Land Use attorney representing the Heiberg family who since the 1950s have owned an 8-acre residential parcel located at 5324 12th Street NE. The property will be adversely affected by the proposed regulations. Of the various aspects of these proposed regulations, section 2.C. regarding alleged residential encroachment has received little attention. Instead, the spotlight has been grabbed by vocal individuals and interest groups with strong opinions regarding the expansion of industrial uses, fossil fuels, and carbon emissions. As such, it has been challenging for my clients’ concerns to be heard above the din of this vocal lobby. To that end, my clients genuinely appreciate recent efforts by Mr. Atkinson to discuss potential options to limit the impact of these proposed regulations on my clients’ property. The Heiberg property is located at the southeast corner of the proposed district, pressed up against the City's eastern border and the BPA's high-voltage lines. The northeastern portion is relatively flat and the remainder is forested and drops precipitously to the Tideflats on the south and to a gulch that extends almost a half mile inland on the west. The property is currently zoned R-2 with the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, but the City is proposing to downzone the property to R-1 or just one home per acre; again from a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet to a minimum lot size of one acre. First, my clients would like to see the residential encroachment issue removed from the current proposal and considered in conjunction with the subsequent review of the subarea plan. Alternatively, the geographic scope of the overlay district and its regulations warrant some fine-tuning. Obviously, my clients would be in favor of a removal of their property from the overlay. It makes sense, as they have no access to Marine View Drive, they take access through the unincorporated County to the East and through Fife, and so their property does not have the same usage conflicts as others. They would also support the allowance of clustered development. Imposing a one-acre minimum lot size

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 5 of 252

is one thing but a lot yield allowance based on one-acre lot size would be far more attractive. It would allow the owners to cluster development far away from the bluff and as far away from the industry as their site would allow. Finally, the regulations should differentiate between the residential properties at the toe of the bluff that have direct access to Marine View and those at the top that don't and don't present usage conflicts. My clients remain willing to work with the City on drafting language to implement any of these refinements.

3. Lexi Brewer – I currently chair the Sustainable Tacoma Commission. We have a letter that is heading your way, which should be by later today signaling our general support of the non-interim regulations as drafted, but we do have a few recommendations for changes to the regulations that we think would both clarify and strengthen them. In section B, we feel that the definition of open space currently referenced seems to include non-heavy use and passive use open space in the prohibited uses, and things such as pocket parks or pockets of open space for biodiversity might be currently prohibited. We think this language should be clarified again to prohibit only those heavy intensity uses. We also strongly support section C, the regulations as drafted. It is important to the health and safety of both Tacoma residents and our environment to minimize residential encroachment on industrial areas and to minimize the impact of development on steep slopes and biodiversity corridors. In section D, we strongly support the regulations as drafted with the following recommendations looking at the definition of renewable fuels. We think it would make sense to also include adopting a regional standard as well as the State standard, should one come into effect between now and the end of the subarea planning process. We also think the language in the proposed amendments to the Tacoma Municipal Code CUPs should be clarified. It is currently not entirely clear to the casual reader what is allowed and what is not. We also believe that all fossil fuel facilities including those under that one-million gallon threshold should be subject to conditional user permitting. Lastly, we strongly encourage throughout this process for the Planning staff to recruit or develop the skillset to thoroughly vet permit application information that will be put forward through this process, including technical information such as greenhouse gas emissions modeling or mitigation for allowable uses. If those skills are not already present within the Planning department, it would be good to use this time to cultivate them. We also had some questions as to enforcement. We think staff should establish a process such as regular reporting requirements to proactively review activities and enforce regulations beyond the common approach, which is complaint-based. Complaint-based enforcement tends to be ineffective and puts the burden on community members to review.

4. Bryan Flint – I am the chair of Tacoma Public Utilities (TPU). We sent a letter earlier this week, and I want to give some context to that letter and then read some selections. Several years ago, when we ended the conversation about the methanol plant as a community, it was very clear what we did not want in our Port industrial area. But what was missing was a dialogue about what we want and I think this process and the following process around the subarea plan creates that opportunity to talk about how we create a sustainable economy in the Port. So reading from the letter, we believe the regulations put forth will transition us to a sustainable economy and give reliable guidelines that will allow our customers in the Tideflats to thrive. TPU recognizes the economic benefit of regulations that support renewable fuel production – for example, green hydrogen storage and transportation within the Tideflats and the City's industrial zone. Therefore, we support a number of the amendments, which are listed in the letter. Tacoma Power is playing a strategic role in decarbonizing our future. That can be done by supporting the development of a nascent industry

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 6 of 252

cluster and putting Tacoma-Pierce County at the leading edge of a carbon-free fuel production within the nation. And in one of these things we have had discussions with electrofuels manufacturers using our clean electricity from hydro power to create electrofuels. So these amendments will go a long way to making this goal attainable.

5. Lester Pogue – I am a father, brother, son, and lover of Mother Earth. I support all those that have been repetitive or we will be repetitive tonight. My commentary is addressing topics one through four displayed earlier this evening with an emphasis on topic number four. Strengthen interim regulations to not allow current existing or future further expansion of fossil fuels industry down at the Port. I recommend that this Planning Commission support our efforts in requiring that all the governmental agencies involved in the Tideflats subarea planning project finance an accumulative air quality study by an independent and reputable company, and be transparent to the public about the data received regarding the existing toxicity levels that are harmful to our humanity and our relatives in the air, the land, and the Salish Sea. Use that information to guide future expansion of industry at the port and surrounding industrial areas. These actions can guide the Department of Ecology to establish rules that guide everyone involved in making these critical decisions leading to outcomes that are more environmentally, economically and socially just for the people of Tacoma- Pierce County and the state of Washington. The Planning Commission has an opportunity to change the direction of continued reliance on industry that is detrimental to our natural environment and move toward a future that improves the health of our future generations. I hope that you take this opportunity to influence the City and the Port to steer us towards more environmentally friendly practices and with all of the industry that is currently there and the plans for future expansion like the Northwest Seaport Alliance. Please use this opportunity to hear us and help us to be heard; we have been speaking on this for years. You have a chance to make some heavy decisions right now to keep the non-interim regulations in effect.

6. Stacy Oaks – I urge you to recommend the strongest regulations possible. To expand or not to expand, that is the question. Do we expand fossil fuel storage and distribution? Do we green-light the continuation of business as usual of toxic emissions as usual? Further violations of the estuary as usual? To be or not to be a City that holds people, communities, and life as sacred and centered in decision-making? To be or not to be a City that looks past abuse, extraction, exploitation, and blood stains on our bills believing that all money and all jobs are good and scrutiny and regulation are bad? Are we so stuck in the past that we cannot imagine business as anything other than the toxic industries serving up cancer, asthma, birth defects as their contribution to our community? Are we a City that invites every industry to the table but leaves no seat for doctors and health assessments? To be or not to be a City that lies and makes a fool and a sacrifice of our youth agreeing to declare climate emergency yet pretending we don't know that our addiction to fossil fuels is the bullet train speeding us to extinction? Do we cling to our infamy, the Tacoma Aroma, the Northwest Detention Center, two dozen superfund sites, water you cannot drink or swim in, whether you are a salmon or a human? Or do we begin the process of reconciling that past? So City of Destiny, what are you destined to become? Tomorrow's history is happening today, and your decisions as the Planning Commission are shaping it. Please hold the people in the communities as central in your decisions.

7. Ken Zirinsky – I am a retired physician and I just want to first acknowledge that we are talking about the land of the Puyallup Tribe. Then I would like to comment and express my opinion that the

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 7 of 252

interim regulations should be strengthened as much as possible. I would like to talk a little bit in detail about the implications of the fossil fuel, fracked gas in particular, for the health of our community here in Tacoma. There are direct pollution effects from fracked natural gas. The toxins that are associated with the natural gas include methanol. The natural gas can cause blindness, seizures, kidney failure, and birth defects. Benzene is also a byproduct in the natural gas, and that can cause leukemia. Formaldehyde is another by-product that can cause cancer of nasal passages and lung cancer. Toluene is another by-product that can cause birth defects. Therefore, I am hoping that the interim regulations will be strengthened in ways that will clearly prohibit any new additional capacity. I understand that the Seaport Sound expansion is enabling a 15% both storage expansion and I am hoping that these expansions can be eliminated as much as possible with the interim regulations.

8. Heidi Stephens – I am a resident of South Tacoma. South Tacoma should not have been so casually included in these non-interim regulations since it is not the same as the Port. Our residents were essentially unaware of these proposals until only a short time ago. The South Tacoma neighborhood already has some of the worst air pollution and early mortality rates and should not have more heavy industry in the middle of our City where we have residential, recreational, and school districts, and especially not directly over our protected groundwater aquifer which affects the drinking water supply of much more than just South Tacoma. Water will be the most critically important element of the future and we must protect this precious resource. Other cities take great effort to keep lands above their aquifers clear of potential hazards. It is insane that these regulations are instead prohibiting non-polluting businesses contrary to our City's Comprehensive Plan, the Environmental and Climate Justice Action Plan. Climate change will not just bring sea level rise along the shoreline; it may also affect groundwater up to a mile inland pushing up into contaminated soil resulting in even more toxins in our drinking water and air. If we are serious about these City-declared environmental approaches, all land above and near the aquifer eventually need to be rezoned away from heavy industry and immediately prohibit any further auto crushing from anywhere within the City limits, but especially from above the aquifer. This would not limit industry in South Tacoma; it would actually be allowing for more of the right kind. I will be submitting written comments explaining how rezoning can be done while promoting eco-industrial parks and economic green zones, which are very successful in other cities in which South Tacoma would be a perfect prospect for, along with all the federal incentives that come with that, which Tacoma is currently missing out on. The Planning department has stated there just are not the resources to give South Tacoma its own review later, so that means this is our time to correct these oversights. This is our chance to make South Tacoma a green business district of the future.

9. Anna Doty – I am speaking on behalf of Washington Environmental Council and also Washington Conservation Voters tonight. I want to share our strong support for the proposed code amendments, which finally take seriously in addressing the environmental health and safety risks created by the expansion of existing fossil fuel facilities in Tacoma. This proposed code is a substantial improvement on the current code and the interim regulations. Specifically, I want to name our support for the recommendations and intent of the code to prohibit all new fossil fuel and petrochemical facilities, to prohibit new infrastructure that would increase storage or transloading capacity at existing facilities, and also to require additional oversight via CUPs for maintenance and modification activities at existing facilities, as well as the strengthened conditional use criteria that accompany the conditional use requirements throughout the code. These amendments are

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 8 of 252

necessary because Tacoma cannot meet its on climate and environmental protection goals while continuing to allow unchecked expansion nor can Washington meet our state goals without this local action. We have seen over the last few years that the current code, the interim regulation, and the Port’s commitment to not pursue fossil fuels on their own Port-owned properties are all together still insufficient to prevent ongoing expansions and increased throughput from existing facilities on the Tideflats, which we know have the very same impact as new facilities. As far as the renewable fuels components in the code, we are supportive of the Commission's current approach and believe that the CUP requirement for new renewable fuel facilities is both appropriate and necessary. First, they ensure that any proposal would meet environmental standards that we need in order to achieve our science-based climate goals that they are truly clean fuels, and to protect our community from the potential adverse impacts from these facilities. Renewable fuels are likely to play a key role in our transition to a clean energy economy, but they can also pose many of the same health and safety risks as other high-risk facilities. We believe there are some areas of the code that could be strengthened and clarified, and will be submitting some written comments later this week to address those specifically related to facility expansions and change of use, as well as the threshold for some of those things. We believe the Commission is on the right track to finally address this really pressing environmental and health challenge. We really appreciate all the work that you and staff have put in and all the community input you've taken into consideration in this process, which really includes years of public testimony on these issues. These improvements are really long time coming. I urge you to approve these amendments and send your recommendations on to the City Council.

10. Marquis Mason – I am the Climate Justice Community Organizer with Citizens for a Healthy Bay. I am giving comment on behalf of the Protect Tacoma Tideflats Coalition in support of the non- interim regulations. Advocates had to play whack-a-mole for years in Tacoma to shed light on the dangerous fossil fuel projects and increase the risk of having polluting industries in the heart of an urban area like Tacoma. We amend the Tideflats regulations so we can focus on mobilizing around a positive vision – how we make this economy-wide transition to NetZero before we face climate ruin. We support the amended ordinance that includes blanket prohibitions on mining, quarrying, smelting, coal storage, and export. Alongside the prohibition of aggressive expansions for major fossil fuels facilities, it is the first step in creating a low-carbon future. As I'm sure many people agree, the expansion of polluting industries is at odds with the 2015 Environmental Action Plan and the 2019 Climate Emergency Declaration. Before we support the requirement for existing high-risk facilities to undergo a conditional use permitting process, for too long these facilities have been able to grow on the Tideflats with little oversight and no real analysis of the impacts to air, water, earth, wildlife, or people. Although the proposed amendments as written are pretty good, we would like to raise concerns of the following areas of the code. Tacoma should not allow the future conversion of renewable fuel facilities to fossil fuel facilities. Even with a CUP requirement, that conversion should not be eligible. Such a conversion would pose to the very same health and safety environmental risks, as would a new or expanded facility. The next is a threshold for major fossil fuel facility should be lowered to encompass all six existing fossil fuel storage, refining, and processing facilities in the Tideflats, which includes specific functional fluids that appears to be roughly about 80,000 gallons short of the classification. Lastly, conditional use criteria for highways facility should specifically require an analysis of human health impacts. We know that the people who live near these industrial areas face far worse health outcomes than their neighbors. We have to make sure that is not happening anymore. Members of the Coalition will be sending in more detailed comments for your consideration.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 9 of 252

11. Charlene Matheson – I live in Northeast Tacoma overlooking the Port of Tacoma. I appreciate the consideration of non-interim regulations of industrial development on our Port. I moved to Northeast neighborhood over six years ago from less than two miles away where I lived for 40 years in the Dash Point community. I was shocked at the difference in air quality only two miles away from where I had lived before. I quickly became aware of chemical hazards from Port activities. I am a Puyallup Tribal member; I grew up in Fife – at the time, a small farming community. I watched Fife get turned into an industrial traffic gridlocked dirty air sprawl. I am determined to live my life on my tribal lands. I decided to locate my family up the hill to Dash Point and then move to Northeast Tacoma. In my first year of living above the Port, I made toxic air reports regularly to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. I quickly learned that what is considered acceptable limits for air pollution and particles has a very low bar established for my neighborhood. In the last six months, we have had three Hazmat chemical exposure incidents. That made me sick. I was concerned about this and sought information to as whether I should evacuate. I learned about each of the incidents that residents and employees on the Port of Tacoma were evacuated, that residents of Browns Point community were advised to either evacuate or shelter-in-place and keep their doors and windows closed. Northeast Tacoma neighborhood was not notified. The reports indicated that drones were sampling specific areas of the impacted communities and determined that the air was within acceptable standards, which as I mentioned are very low for this neighborhood. In the incident in late 2020 in which the propane on the shipping cargo freight that came in exploded. I became so sick that I, while attending a conference on Zoom, had to inform the attendees that I needed to leave the meeting and evacuate my home. I took my pets away from my home while I searched for information. I was very afraid I was sick and uncertain who all was impacted by this. I am very pleased that the City is considering regulating Port industry. I would like to see the regulations refined. I thank you for your consideration and I support the acceptance after refinement of the proposed amendments. I want to speak to the residential encroachment and somebody earlier mentioned nuisance activities of residents on the Port, I think that the regulations that require one acre and single-family homes contributes to affordable housing crisis and encourages the expansion of wealthy landowners taking over this land. In summary, I support. I appreciate that Tacoma is considering this. I hope that you are taking into residential consideration. Most residents do not have the ability to interpret the postcard notifications that we receive or the yellow signs that are posted on properties when Land Use activities are happening. And I hope that we are able to get more lay term language about your consideration of these regulations.

12. Michael Flynn – I am a past President of the Washington Association of Realtors and Tacoma-Pierce County Realtors. We work hard to come up with housing. As our presenter from Ecology pointed out the Growth Management Act confers an obligation to accommodate growth – not manage it, accommodate it. That is what the Act says. What I would like to do is address Section 3 in tonight's agenda about this proposal and talk just briefly about a way in which is internally contradictory. By reducing the housing capacity of the area in question and taking it out to one house per acre minimum land area requirement, what we create is a greatly reduced ability to accommodate growth. The problems that will be solved that were identified by the Commission in its preliminary work would be the impacts of noise, light, and odor from industrial activities. Likewise, noise complaints from residents about Port activities. An element of the proposals is that the overlay district would require a notice on title for any new residential unit construction identifying the proximity to established industrial area. That is actually a good idea and has been used well in the

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 10 of 252

past. Whidbey Island, Naval Air Station, Paine Field, SeaTac – they have implemented these kinds of notices. Those sorts of notices to title also occur relating to farming operations. So the solution to reducing or at least addressing the complaints about Port activities lies within the proposal to put the notice on title. Therefore, reducing the amount of housing construction does not increase that benefit, but it reduces the City's ability to accommodate growth. It is materially important when the City of Tacoma goes to Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and participates in grant competition for road funding. I spent eight years on PSRC. Pierce County and its jurisdictions, Tacoma in particular, has done a great job of going after those funds but PSRC looks very closely at accommodating growth and taking a step that materially reduces housing capacity when the solution to the identified problem could be met with the notice to title seems unnecessary. I ask that the Commission really consider that because I think we can get the growth accommodation and manage the understanding of what is happening for the new residents.

13. Jessie Gamble – I am the Government Affairs Director for the Master Builders Association of Pierce County, representing 750 member companies and from there 10,000 employees. I know that the Tacoma Planning Commission and City are balancing a lot of goals with ordinances and we urge the Planning Commissioners to consider the implications of the housing element – topic number three – possibly get a bit more creative. I know someone earlier talked about refinement options to that. Earlier tonight, VISION 2050 had a presentation and Tacoma is expected to take on over a hundred thousand new residents by 2050. Having a large swath of the City go to one unit per acre is absolutely contrary to those goals. I understand that the Planning Commission and the City have time to get creative about these solutions and to balance a lot of the interest that the City is pursuing at once. We urge the Planning Commission and the City to balance a way to take on that density without slowly removing that goal in bite-sized pieces like this ordinance here.

14. Eric Johnson – I am the Executive Director of the Port of Tacoma here tonight to provide comments on the proposed new regulations for the City. We have provided a lot of comments to you a few hours ago – a cover letter that was about two pages long, a staff technical comments that are about three pages long, and a 12-page legal commentary. I would encourage you to look those over. We also are including again for the record the comments that we provided to you in January when you had your original briefing on the subject where we gave you a significant in-depth comments including a red line of the City's development regulations. I am here to tell you that the staff has not been the slightest bit receptive to the comments that we provided you in January. Matter of fact, they did not listen to any of it. This does not feel like a very collaborative or inclusive process to us. The reason that matters is because both the GMA and the Shoreline Management Act are clear that there needs to be a collaborative and inclusive process with a local Port with an adopted Comprehensive Plan. We do not feel that that has been done yet. You are missing opportunities to use some of the tools that you have at your disposal to account for a thriving Port. The South Tacoma MIC has been adopted by the City and we have asked for a similar overlay in the Tacoma Tideflats and the City is not doing that. These regulations do not provide that. Even though that MIC has been recognized by the PSRC and the South Tacoma one has not. We are frankly at a loss to understand why that simple request is not being accommodated. Also, we appreciate and support the buffer that's been put on the Northeast Tacoma side of the Port, but you're missing opportunities to put enhanced buffers on the south side and on the east side. Those are our basic comments. I will give you some overarching comments related to economic development generally. First of all, the new hearing and notification requirements that you implemented here for about a

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 11 of 252

half of a mile are relatively confusing and relatively burdensome. They are not things that are particularly friendly to businesses. The same thing goes for CUPs. There is a heavy reliance on CUPs from this set of regulations and those mean unpredictability for businesses. CUPs are useful sometimes but you have got too many of them in here. Businesses who want to invest do not know what it is that they are going to have to do. Planning staff might like CUPs, but I will tell you that most economic development professionals do not. I will tell you that the Port of Tacoma has a proud record of cleaning up environmental contamination in the Tidelats, creating fish habitat and wetlands and cleaning up storm water runoff. I would encourage you to continue to partner with us as we both promote our environment and create family wage jobs for people.

15. Maddie Smith – I am with Earth Ministry/Washington Interfaith Power and Light. We are an organization of faith communities working together for environmental and climate justice. I am here tonight with a lot of hope and excitement about the draft non-interim regulations. I am really grateful to the staff for drafting up strong regulations, and for the Commissioners and staff for all of your work in this process, and for listening to the community as we've asked over and over for protection from fossil fuels and polluting industries in Tacoma. I truly feel that together we are on the cusp of something meaningful and powerful. I really want to ask that these regulations not be weakened. In your final recommendations to the City Council, I ask that you include the portions of the current draft code that prevent major expansions of existing fossil fuel facilities. Please also maintain the CUP requirements as well. Expanding polluting industries does not align with my values as a person of faith and we are hearing tonight that it doesn't align with the values of a lot of other folks in the community. These permits are also important to ensure that the Puyallup Tribe whose lands we are all discussing today is adequately consulted. Please amend the draft to make sure that any CUPs granted to existing fossil fuel facilities and other facilities designated as high-impact require minimization of any adverse human health effects. And this protection should include not only residential and commercial areas, but also safeguard those who work on the Tideflats and who are incarcerated at the Northwest Detention Center. As a person of faith, I am called to ensure that all of our neighbors are healthy and not disproportionately affected by polluting industries. Please recommend the strongest possible regulations that you can to the City Council.

16. Kyle Jolibois – First of all, I like to recognize whose land we are on. We are on the Puyallup Nation's land and I lay my head on it every day. I was born on the Hilltop, adopted by Chippewa’s, grew up in South Tacoma. I am a South Tacoma kid, and we hear USO&R talking about being the Tacoma Way. In 2011, the medical cannabis community was fighting the City on cannabis, where to put their storage. They did not want to put them within a thousand feet of anything. And now you want to put a bomb within two miles of my place. In 2015, Christopher Brannon, the Sonic guy, introduced me to a group; we were fighting methanol. The City snuck it in, just as they did the liquefied natural gas. My point is we have been fighting this for six years. A lot of this is your job; this is my life. I smell what comes through my windows from the Port. And all that building going on in my neighborhood in the Stadium neighborhood, all the massive construction is going to be gone if that Port goes. So we need to strengthen to the highest degree the regulations on growth of any fossil fuel production past or present and hold those accountable, because this is not a job I live, this is the life I live. We could talk about Ruston Point, that was a superfund site and now they sell them for hundreds of thousands of dollars a unit. Tacoma is gritty, it is going to stay gritty, but it is not gritty by the oil standards. One thing the Port has never talked about is hemp. Hemp could do so much wonders where the Port is – something to think about.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 12 of 252

17. Ingrid Archibald – I occupy the unceded land of the Duwamish people in Seattle and work at an organization called Stand.earth where I organized with communities across Washington who are standing against fossil fuel expansion. I want to say that the SAFE Cities team at Stand.earth just want to echo the voices of the Tacoma community and the Puyallup Tribe who are calling to the strongest possible protections from fossil fuels in the Tacoma Tideflats. We support the suggestions put forward by Citizens for a Healthy Bay and we hope to see these improvements adopted in the final code, to make the code as stringent as it possibly can be. I urge you to take the bold leadership that we urgently need to protect Tacoma communities right now and to ensure the well-being of future generations across the region.

18. Cathy Carruthers – I am an energy economist and I want to speak on topic four. I am in support of limiting the fossil fuels in the Tideflats. It is bad for an economy to depend on a declining industry. As it declines, jobs, income, ability to pay for cleanups, etc. will decline as well. Why would I expect the fossil fuel industry to decline? Number one, the decline is already beginning. Exxon is a long- term giant of the industry and it has experienced sufficient problems that it has been dropped from the Dow Jones Industrial Average last year. They had $22 billion in losses in just one year. BP and Shell on the other hand are diversifying into renewables. BlackRock, one of the world's largest investor organizations, is demanding sustainability from the industries in its portfolio. Number two, green energy is rapidly becoming cheaper than fossil fuel. Solar is cheaper than natural gas and electricity generation. Battery technology has dropped 89% in cost since 2010. All car companies now have or are developing an EV. The writing is on the wall for the fossil fuel industry. Growing it here does not make sense. Please do not make our economy dependent on it.

19. Victoria Leistman – I am an organizer with the Sierra Club. I am commenting in solidarity with the Protect Tacoma Tideflats Coalition. As was done at the beginning of the meeting, I want to acknowledge that Tacoma in the area of discussion this evening are Puyallup ancestral lands. Prior to the deeply polluting and unhealthy area, that we know the Tideflats to be today, this place was once a teeming estuary. I was present at the 2017 Hearing with the Planning Commission and I have testified at every renewal I think since then. As exhausting as the past renewals every six months have been all these years, I'm happy to say that I'm holding on to renewed hope that the Planning department staff and Commission have been doing good work to develop stronger recommendations to the City Council. The draft code the Planning Commission has developed is a critical improvement and I would like to communicate my strong support for this purpose for that. But I also urge the Commission to address shortcomings that will be submitted in writing by the Coalition to ensure that these recommendations fully achieve the intended protections from high- risk facilities. So that will include strengthening specifically the definition of what is defined as a major fossil fuel facility, and especially in the case where any mitigation requirements are proposed that those should address full life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, not solely facility emissions and also be conducted only in full collaboration with communities most impacted by these facilities. It should not be like a wind farm 10,000 miles away. It has to be investing in communities that are impacted in Tacoma, of which there are many. I am also excited to see the Department of Ecology here tonight as I believe the City of Tacoma has done an incredibly inadequate job of evaluation of fossil fuel projects in the City, specifically in the case of Puget Sound Energy’s liquefied natural gas facility. These non-interim regulations are an important opportunity to get Tacoma prepared for

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 13 of 252

changes that will hopefully be coming statewide down the line in further scrutinizing dangerous fossil fuel projects. I also want to remind the Commission that what's happening in the Port of Tacoma is environmental racism, and to recommend anything less than the strongest proposal in your power is to remain complicit and perpetuating in that racism. To quote a colleague of mine, Hop Hopkins, he said, “you can't have climate change without sacrifice zones, you can't have sacrifice zones without disposable people, and you can't have disposable people without racism.” The Tacoma Tideflats and the communities around it are sadly these sacrifice zones right now, unless you all continue the work that you have been doing to make this proposal have the sharpest teeth that it possibly can. And I believe that you will. With some amendments, this proposal can interrupt the systemic poisoning of black and brown communities and provide long needed protections in Tacoma. Let's ensure community health and safety, protect our climate, and uphold the City's own environmental goals that they are saying they have with the Climate Emergency Declaration with action.

20. Josef Barlow-Farrar – I am born and raised lifelong Tacoma resident and a Precinct committee officer in Legislative District 29, Precinct 601. I am here because I believe fossil fuels can no longer be allowed to expand in our City. I believe I have come to this conclusion through sound logic based on verifiable evidence. According to the most recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we have less than seven years to reach NetZero carbon emissions. If we fail in this, the only opportunity we will ever have to reverse climate change will be lost. Global heating will continue and accelerate under its own momentum aided by a variety of positive feedback loops. Extreme weather events will increase in frequency and scope. And the sixth mass extinction on Earth will become unavoidable. We must each do our part. Considering the facts and the reality that exposed, halting all fossil fuel expansion airport is not only the right thing to do, it is the least we could do. So, please take action to safeguard our health, our habitat, our air, our water, and our future by recommending a ban on any and all expansion of the fossil fuel industry in the Port.

21. Jennifer Keating – I am a member of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians and a Citizens for a Healthy Bay board member. But most important, I'm a mother concerned for the health and well-being of my children. It is no secret that the Puyallup Tribe of Indians whose ancestral homelands and current reservation are located in Tacoma and the Tideflats are a salmon people. Our ancestors came from our salmon brothers and sisters. Our people, therefore, has been protectors of the salmon and stewards of the environment – a role that is made more difficult with every year that passes, every fossil fuel expansion allowed to happen, with every permit blindly approved without consideration of cumulative impact, and every legal policy loophole allowed to exist. As we fight to protect our treaty fishing rights and ensure a future for our children by putting millions of dollars and countless hours in mitigation efforts, legal fees, and salmon habitat restoration, our City of Tacoma neighbor has continued to allow fossil fuel industry targeting Tacoma at the cost of our health and safety. Examples of this include interest in a new oil transloading facility and a chemical plant interested in converting to store bolt fossil fuels. By preventing these dangerous proposals, the current interim regulations are working for new facilities. However, these same kind of projects could easily be proposed and approved as expansions of existing facilities with no additional oversight or protections. This inconsistency is dangerous and leaves Tacoma, Puyallup Tribal members, treaty fishing rights, and the survival of traditional Puyallup livelihood at risk. At the end of the day, if Tacoma’s waters become too polluted to sustain marine life, or when the air becomes too dirty to breathe, those Tacomans who can afford it have the option to move. They can put their children in schools well beyond any blast zone. They can move to a less urban area with clean air and water.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 14 of 252

They can send their children to the best doctors to treat their cancers, disease and other ailments caused by environmental hazards. They have choices. Puyallup tribal members do not have the same choices. Our reservation boundaries will not move. We cannot pick up the remains of our ancestors, our historic village sites, our cultural resources and relocate them. Our fishermen whose ancestors fought fiercely to protect the future of our fishing rights will no longer be able to provide for their families in a traditional way. Many of our social services provided to our most vulnerable populations are dependent on being Pierce County residents living on reservation. For these reasons, I respectfully request our partners at the City of Tacoma, the same partners that joined the Puyallup Tribe to declare a climate emergency just one year ago, partner with us now and help protect our tribal members and the future of our cultural sites, fishing sites, and ancestral homelands, and the very future of our Tribe. To protect the health and safety of Tacoma, the interim regulations must be extended to prohibit expansions and conversions of existing facilities. The future of the Puyallup people depend on it.

22. Kathryn Barlow – I am here to say that we must stop fossil fuel expansion in our Tideflats and include the existing facilities in that. Talking about the land here, I grew up here. And growing up, I was not able to play in the dirt outside as a kid, which I feel every kid should be able to do. I was not able to do that because of the arsenic levels that came from Point Ruston. We are currently not supposed to swim in our Port because it can make us sick. Without a doubt, the fossil fuel companies in the Port put my future and the future of my family at risk. There is without a doubt that they are contributing to our climate emergency. In 2019, our City declared a climate emergency. You have a unique opportunity with your recommendations to help us do that and help us to keep to our environmental goals as a City. There is a slogan that you may have seen for Tacoma that says, “You’ll like Tacoma.” A City that ignores the health of its citizens for profit is not one that anybody will like. I've heard a lot of people talk about family wage jobs and the amount of jobs is miniscule and the job that they're talking about are construction jobs, which are temporary. So it's really what is most important and I believe that the future of our kids, our area, and our climate are more important than a few family wage jobs.

23. John Carlton – I am a resident of Tacoma. I want to also acknowledge not only the ancestral land of the Puyallup Tribe, but also the reservation of the Puyallup Tribe. I think that we really need to connect with what they see as sustainable and what they have as a vision of the future of their Tideflats. I think, first and foremost, that is the withdrawal of fossil fuel industries from the Port as much as possible – not only for the Puyallup Tribe, but also for the residents of the City of Tacoma, and the surrounding communities as well as the whole planet now. I think that's great that Planning department proposed that major fossil fuel facilities would be prohibited as new ones as well as existing facilities would be prohibited from improvements or expansion. One of the problems I see with that though is the word “major.” It seems to me like there are a number of other facilities in the Port that are producing as a whole a significant, if not even more, amount. I watched the Planning Commission's presentation a week or two ago where the Planning department brought in the research people who had done a study of the fossil fuel industry in the Port, and they focused only on the major fossil fuel industries. It was disappointing to me because I know there's a number of other companies down in the Port that are doing large amounts of fossil fuel for distribution mainly, but they weren't included in the study. I think that just because they were under a certain amount of production a year doesn't seem to me like they shouldn't have been included because sometimes a number of smaller facilities add up to be more than what the larger facilities are. I think that the prohibition of expansion of fossil fuel facilities should not be just for the major

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 15 of 252

companies but also for the smaller companies as well. If they produce or distribute fossil fuels, they should not be allowed to expand anymore. We cannot allow for loopholes in this stuff. I want you to look into that, what other companies down there were not being included because they weren't a part of the major fossil fuel facility category. If you need any help finding them, I can help you out.

24. Melissa Malott – I am the Executive Director of Citizens for a Healthy Bay. On behalf of Citizens for a Healthy Bay, I am speaking tonight in support of the non-interim regulations to limit the expansion of high-risk industries, especially fossil fuel industries. I want to first of all thank you for this process. It has been inclusive and appropriately deliberative. I want you to imagine right now that it's 2035 and Tacoma Tideflats is a thriving area. Imagine we have laid the groundwork for the innovative clean industry that is helping our City survive and thrive. And out of Tacoma has come some of the key technology that is helping the world address climate change. Imagine Tacoma is the place where our community engages and interacts with our shorelines and people take their kids for a shoreline walk to see salmon fry went safely through eelgrass on their way to the ocean. Think of our kids watching those salmon return and that they know these salmon are returning home to complete the cycle of life. Imagine that, what would that mean for us for our children and for our community? To get to that future, Tacoma has some work to do right now. We have some of the worst pollution- caused public health problems in the state. While Seattle is the green port, it gets green projects and meets clean air goals; Tacoma seems to be the business-friendly Port. Clean air goals fall to the wayside here. State and federal regulations do not cut it, we're targeted for fossil fuel projects and on and on. The Port fights many change with delay, obfuscation, and obstruction. They get confused between the subarea plan policy and code update we are discussing today. They warned that changes will chill development, but they offer no alternative except to let them keep doing what they are doing. We know that we can do better, that we can have a healthy and thriving community. We know that Tacoma can be part of developing new clean industry and technologies. We know the shipping industry of launching massive efforts to innovate clean emissions-free solution. Think about how you would feel knowing that the state would be investing in clean energy innovation center for airplanes and conjunction with the JBLM, Boeing, and UW Tacoma. We just have so much potential. That Tacoma would be home to the development of technology to create seagrass beds that improve the health of our waters for salmon and creatures. We have so much potential to not only be a local leader but a global leader. We strongly supports these proposed code changes generally. We have a couple of proposed changes to fill some gaps in it, gaps that we think would undermine the spirit and intent of it, but we're going to be submitting that in writing.

25. Verna Lilly – I am a long-term resident of Tacoma. I heard the Commission mentioned one of its priorities tonight is to be consistent with State’s shoreline plans. I acknowledge the value of consistent planning and I want to offer these priorities that I feel also have an important value. One is we need to acknowledge and deal with indigenous peoples, in particular the Puyallup Tribe, as sovereign nations to whom we have legal obligations. We must honor those obligations if we want to be respected as people who are trustworthy. Is that something we want people to say about us? Second, we live in an area that has multiple natural hazards. Part of how we cope with earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, and wildfires is by ignoring the threat; we just look the other way and go on with our lives. The Port of Tacoma has real hazards – health hazards and environmental hazards. Ignoring them is just as bad as ignoring earthquake fault lines, which happens to be in that area too, and volcano lahar zones. The environmental hazards that are in the Port of Tacoma do not stop at the edges of the Port. If you live in the Tacoma area, these hazards affect you, too, and your children

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 16 of 252

and your families and the people that you care about. The decisions that the City of Tacoma makes right now have long-range impacts. We need to prioritize our obligations to our indigenous neighbors and to our future generations.

26. Nikie Walters – I would like to acknowledge that I live here in Tacoma on the Puyallup Tribe’s ancestral homelands. I am a board member of the Sustainable Tacoma Commission. I am an elected Precinct Committee Officer in the 29th Legislative District. I also serve as Secretary of the Native American Caucus of Pierce County. Tonight, I am speaking for myself as a resident in Tacoma. I support everybody who in the community that spoke up tonight and also cannot be here because there is a vast amount of people in and out of the Tacoma community that want to see the interim regulations be strengthened as much as possible. I just want to say to strengthen the regulations, to encourage the City Council to strengthen the regulations. Let's start opening up business to more responsible and moral business practices. I support everybody and all the organizations that have spoken up tonight. I have supported them and in their work over the years, and I am going to keep doing so.

27. Barbara Church – I am a resident of Northeast Tacoma. I am an elder in this community. I was here when the smelter was here and remember the taste of sulfur in my mouth. When I would breathe in this pollution from the smelter, I was really happy when it was torn down. I was at the waterfront with my granddaughter and her girlfriend this weekend and my granddaughter asked me, “What was it like when you were young?” I told her we used to go fishing out in the bay and I could fish cod and I could fish salmon and we could go swimming there. But now we don't do that because the salmon runs are dying and there isn't the fish there. It is not the same. They were saying how much they wish that it would be there for when they get older and they have kids. It is just so important that we do what we can to maintain this Earth and all of the creatures. I think for me, one of the things that concerns me a lot is living in Northeast Tacoma. Last week there were a couple of ships on fire – the smell of ammonia. My husband is older and he has trouble smelling but he could go outside and he could smell the toxin from the burning ship, one of them was burning for a couple hours. Some of it was a refrigerant and I know that they are using refrigerant for the liquefied natural gas facility that is coming up. What I want to say is that a lot of the projects in the Port of Tacoma create a safety hazard for me and my family. When we go through and drive through the Port of Tacoma to come home, my granddaughter tells me to roll up the window because it just stinks. And we are breathing it in. I am starting to get an asthma and so it does affect my health and I want you to be sure to emphasize the health and safety of any of the projects there in the Port of Tacoma.

28. Deanna Keller – I am not speaking as a Port of Tacoma Commissioner. I am speaking as a former business owner on 3510 South Pine Street and owning commercial properties there as well as 3502 and 3520 as well as the two properties behind that. So I received a note card about tonight's meeting to be able to talk about that as a business owner. I think it is important to understand we want to make sure that our community is healthy and supported. I totally agree with that and support that but also people need to have jobs. If we get rid of all the jobs, all the lands that support jobs, people have to drive somewhere. It is going to create situations where they need to pay for fossil fuels to get there and so on and so forth. The conditional land use permits is like when my daughters would ask me something that I knew I did not want to say “yes” to, I would say “well maybe.” That is what a conditional land use is; it's like – a “well maybe.” And that doesn't allow for

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 17 of 252

any certainty for business. If you want to, we can certainly put up signs and just say Tacoma is not open for business, we do not want jobs, we want you to go somewhere else. I am being a little bit excessive in saying that but as a business owner, I felt that so strongly. As a business owner in Tacoma and after 38 years of paying taxes and giving people jobs, I can tell you that it has not been easy as a business owner, but I want to make sure that Tacoma is open for business. I want to make sure it's clean. All good property owners and business owners understand what it means to be good stewards of the environment; if they don't, they go out of business. I mean, it is pretty simple.

29. Frank Boykin – I am the Director for the Manufacturing Industrial Council for the South Sound and the Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber representing more than 1,500 businesses in Pierce County. Whether it is the non-interim regulations or the Tideflats public engagement efforts for the subarea planning process, short-sighted land use restrictions would do permanent damage to our local economy far beyond our current COVID-19 crisis. A common sense and balanced approach to land use regulations for the Tideflats non-interim regulations is essential and is what we continue to seek for the long-term economic wellness of our community. This begins with permanently protecting Tacoma's industrial lands and industrial development as a place for jobs that support our community. This is good for our City and our region. Proposed new notice and hearing requirements regarding industrial lands are not protected in a clear or straightforward manner. They are confusing, burdensome, and in some ways counterproductive. For example, renewal fuel facilities, which should be encouraged as a greener pathway are only allowed with a CUP. Further with this new notice, they must undergo an onerous review. This misstep continues as there is a very heavy reliance on CUPs, which creates great uncertainty for the business community challenging further investment considerations for the long-term and inhibiting innovative speed to market opportunity for local companies in the short term. The definition of chemical manufacturing remains subjective and is currently another missed opportunity to enable smarter greener economic pathways. Short- sighted land use restrictions would do permanent damage to our local economy far beyond our current crisis. A common sense approach to land use regulations for the Tideflats non-interim regulations is essential for the long-term economic wellness of our community and is fundamental to evolving to the greener, healthier economic pathways.

30. Ric Berkholtz – I am a Seattle resident living on the Duwamish land and also a volunteer with the Sierra Club Washington Chapter. Tonight, I am commenting on matters that concern the plans of the Puyallup Nation. The Port of Tacoma has been a sacrifice zone and an environmental injustice zone for too long. New fossil fuel facilities, petrochemical manufacturing coal storage and power plants will mean locking the Tideflats into a future that is 10 times as dire, dangerous, and unjust as it is now. I am not a Tribal member, I do not speak for the tribe, but I know that the Puyallup Nation’s people have inherent rights to the salmon and to the shellfish from the bay. These fossil fuel projects are all treaty violations and quite frankly human rights violations for that matter. These regulations must be strengthened. Otherwise, an infamous legacy of broken promises, destruction, and constant pollution will endure.

31. Yvonne McCarty – I am the chair of the Northeast Tacoma Neighborhood Council. I spoke to you all a few weeks ago, so I was not planning on speaking tonight. But after I heard some of my fellow community members speak so strongly, I felt like I needed to come back on here tonight and just reiterate what I told you a few weeks ago. The list of high-impact, high-risk uses that are outlined in

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 18 of 252

the interim regulations should be upheld, should be strengthened by limiting the extension of existing facilities, which I think you have done. So I thank you. There still is a missing use that should be on there, which is the metal recycling use. I will continue to appeal to you and to the Council to add that on, because I can personally testify the high impact and high risk of living next to a metal recycling plant. I've never shared this in a public forum but I've had a number of my family members including my own parents, my stepmom, my aunt just recently, my grandmother all died of cancer and they all lived in Northeast Tacoma. They had that in common. Today, I found out that a close relative was diagnosed with lymphoma. She is in her 20s, and she has lived here all her life right above this Tideflats. It is far past time to do something to clean up the toxic mess that is down there. We need a better, stronger future of Tacoma. They say what we are asking for puts jobs at risk. That is a false dilemma. You can have jobs and you can have clean air, land, and healthy people. They are not mutually exclusive. I support a win-win future for the City of Tacoma and the Tideflats that brings in innovative green and healthy industries – things that do not put my family and the families around me and my children and their children at risk into the future. So please strengthen these things. Make sure it goes forward. Do not relent on taking the right step forward.

32. Stephanie Hillman – I am a campaign rep at the Sierra Club and I also co-lead the Power Past Fracked Gas Coalition. I first want to thank you all for all the hard work that has gone into this. I know it has been a long process and I am grateful for that and as well for the opportunity to speak this evening. I have heard a lot of powerful testimony before me regarding the health and pollution impacts of what already exists in the Tideflats in the risks of any increase polluting facilities. So at the risk of repeating what has already been said, I will keep it short but I do feel the need to emphasize that it's really critical that Tacoma get this right. I was encouraged to see that proposed amendments are very strong and replace a ban on all new and expanding fossil fuel facilities because that is essential as we have witnessed in the last couple of years. However, there are shortcomings that have been expressed; and I support the voices that came before me, especially those of Puyallup tribal members and Tacoma community members as well as my colleagues calling for better conditional use criteria centering human health and environmental justice impacts, as well as the strengthening of course of any prohibitions of any increased capacity. I trust that you will send the strongest code forward to the Council.

33. Chrissy Cooley – First, I just want to thank all of you for being here as part of this incredibly inclusive process. I have admired how much effort both the City Council and the Planning Commission have put into this effort to collaborate with many stakeholders involved. I am a member of TPU board. This morning, I spent the day virtually on the Hill as part of our Public Power Association's Policy Makers Council, representing TPU asking primarily our Congressional Representatives as well as our fantastic Senators to support our economic development strategies around clean and green energy. Tacoma has an abundant clean hydropower source that can be used to incentivize innovation in the Port; especially we're putting in place policies and specific brain structures to support this. And we think that the regulations like the ones being proposed will work in tandem with those policies to bring about the innovation we need in Tacoma. I want to give a special thanks to our economic development staff for working to review the regulations so carefully. We support the intent of the CUP as the letter says. Tacoma Power is playing a strategic role in decarbonizing our future, which can be done by supporting the development of a nascent industry cluster and putting Tacoma-Pierce County as the leading edge of carbon free fuel production in the nation. These amendments go a long way to making that goal attainable. And again, we outlined our support of that specific

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 19 of 252

amendments in our letter and I'll just close by saying I support these regulations for all that it can do for our economy, but I especially support it for the health of my children and the people who are going to inherit our Earth.

34. John Gustafson –As the Environmental Health and Safety Manager for USO&R, I believe there is a shared vision for the future of the Port of Tacoma. I'm excited for the role that USO&R has and will play in achieving that vision, but I am troubled that the proposed amendments to the land use regulations will stifle development and hinder reaching our shared goals for a vibrant low-carbon future. First, I am working at USO&R because I believe that USO&R is well positioned to take a key role in Tacoma’s future growth and development while meeting community environmental goals. Recognizing that there will be continuing need for petroleum-based products for equitable economic opportunity, USO&R is one of the few remaining small refiners and large part due to the unique value USO&R has and will continue bringing the region. Second, I am excited by USO&R’s commitment to a transition to a lower carbon future with renewable fuels. This excitement is built on a legacy of USO&R making environmental improvements well ahead of regulations. In the past seven years, we have implemented projects reducing greenhouse gas emissions from our facility and our products, taking a hundred and forty five thousand cars off the road. Clear, consistent, specific regulations facilitated our ability to make these improvements. Third, I am troubled that the draft amendments to the Tacoma Land Use regulations will hinder our shared goal for the future. Application of subjective conditional use permitting as the basis for Land Use regulatory decisions will stifle and not stimulate needed development and ultimately the transition to a low-carbon renewable future. I am especially concerned that the subjective criteria of conditional use will limit USO&R’s ability to continue to improve safety and reduce our environmental footprint. Subjective conditional use permitting will hinder investment to make that future a reality. I believe in a future where we share common goals for the environment and economic vitality of the region, where businesses such as USO&R proactively improve safety and reduce environmental impacts and the regulations incite development by being clear, consistent and predictable.

--- (Public Hearing closed at 7:37 p.m.) ---

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 20 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Virginia Alvord Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 7:55 PM To: Planning Subject: Strong Non-interim Regulations Are Vital For Climate Prosperity

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

The current draft code is a strong proposal, and I would like to communicate my support for the Planning Commission’s recommendation to ban all new and expanded major fossil fuel facilities, petrochemical manufacturing, coal storage and power plants, and smelting within the City of Tacoma’s jurisdiction.

These code amendments provide long-needed protections in Tacoma, which has been continuously targeted by new and expanding fossil fuel facilities that are wholly incompatible with ensuring community health and safety, protecting our climate, and upholding the City’s own environmental protection goals and Climate Emergency Declaration.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

• Prohibition of new major fossil fuel facilities, petrochemical manufacturing, coal storage and power plants, and smelting within the City of Tacoma • Prohibition of new driveways, private rail sidings, docks, piers, wharves and floats, and storage tanks at existing fossil fuel facilities, as well as any modifications that would increase the capacity of these facilities • Prohibition of new refining or processing equipment at existing facilities • Conditional use permit requirements for replacement or modification of existing tanks, and replacement or modification of transshipment equipment • Conditional use permit requirements for new Renewable Fuel Refineries or Renewable Fuel

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 21 of 252 Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

I also urge the Commission to address the following shortcomings in the code: • Conversion from Renewable to Fossil Fuel Facility: Tacoma should not permit the conversion of existing or future permitted Renewable Fuel Facilities to fossil fuel facilities, even with a conditional use permit requirement. Such a conversion would pose the very same health, safety, and environmental risks as would a new or expanded facility and is inconsistent with the City’s stated policy goals. • Replacement or modification of storage tanks: Replacement or modifications of any storage tank should prohibit a capacity increase, while the conditional use requirement for replacing storage tanks should only allow for option to replace existing storage capacity • Conditional use criteria: Expanded conditional use criteria for high impact facilities should specifically require minimization of adverse human health impacts associated with project proposals and also address unreasonable adverse impacts to “large concentrations of people” beyond nearby residential and commercial areas, including impacts to incarcerated populations and workers within in Tacoma’s industrial areas • Definition of “Major Fossil Fuel Facility”: The volumetric threshold for a “major fossil fuel facility” should be lowered to encompass all six existing fossil fuel storage, refinement, and processing facilities, including Pacific Functional Fluids which appears to fall roughly 80,000 gallons short of the classification • Mitigation requirements for projects should address full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, not solely facility emissions

Please address these shortcomings and then approve the amendment to send these recommendations for critical protections to Tacoma City Council. Thank you for consideration and work to protect Tacoma from new and expanded fossil fuels.

Sincerely, Virginia Alvord

Virginia Alvord [email protected] 3940 Blossom Dr NE Tacoma, Washington 98422-2326

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 22 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: K Anderson Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 6:32 PM To: Planning Subject: Climate Prosperity and a Healthier Puget Sound Region

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 23 of 252 Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

Sincerely, K

K Anderson [email protected] P. O. Box 1934 Milton , Washington 98354

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 24 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Ingrid Archibald Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 5:55 PM To: Planning Subject: Comment: Non-Interim Regulations

Dear Commissioners,

On behalf of the SAFE Cities team at Stand.earth, I want to support the calls from the Tacoma community and the Puyallup Tribe urging for a permanent prohibition on all new fossil fuel and petrochemical facilities in the Tacoma Tideflats.

We support many aspects of the current code and call on the Commission to address the following shortcomings in the code, as outlined by our partners at Citizens for a Healthy Bay:

 Conversion from Renewable to Fossil Fuel Facility: Tacoma should not permit the conversion of existing or future permitted Renewable Fuel Facilities to fossil fuel facilities, even with a conditional use permit requirement. Such a conversion would pose the very same health, safety, and environmental risks as would a new or expanded facility and is inconsistent with the City’s stated policy goals.  Replacement or modification of storage tanks: Replacement or modifications of any storage tank should prohibit a capacity increase, while the conditional use requirement for replacing storage tanks should only allow for replacing with existing storage capacity  Conditional use criteria: Expanded conditional use criteria for high impact facilities should specifically require minimization of adverse human health impacts associated with project proposals and also address unreasonable adverse impacts to “large concentrations of people” beyond nearby residential and commercial areas, including impacts to incarcerated populations and workers within in Tacoma’s industrial areas  Definition of “Major Fossil Fuel Facility”: The volumetric threshold for a “major fossil fuel facility” should be lowered to encompass all six existing fossil fuel storage, refinement, and processing facilities, including Pacific Functional Fluids which appears to fall roughly 80,000 gallons short of the classification  Mitigation requirements for projects should address full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, not solely facility emissions

These strong, permanent protections are going to pave the way for a safer Tacoma today and a healthier, more equitable and just future for all of us.

We support the Commission taking bold, necessary action and we appreciate your leadership.

Sincerely, Ingrid Archibald ______Ingrid Archibald | she/they SAFE Cities Field Organizer O: 415.863.4563, ext 415

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 25 of 252 I live and work on unceded ancestral lands of the Duwamish people – the first people of Seattle, WA. If you also occupy Duwamish land, I encourage you to consider paying Real Rent.

Stand is an advocacy organization that brings people together to demand that corporations and governments put people and the environment first.

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 26 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Brian Amundsen Barnkow Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 3:26 PM To: Planning Subject: Please Ban Further Fossil Fuel Development on the Tide Flats

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 27 of 252 Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

Sincerely,

Brian Amundsen Barnkow

Brian Amundsen Barnkow [email protected] 7401 East G Street Tacoma, Washington 98404

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 28 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Marian Berejikian Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 9:33 PM To: Planning Subject: Strong Non-interim Regulations Are Vital For Climate Prosperity

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 29 of 252 Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

Sincerely,

Marian Berejikian [email protected] 8205 90TH ST CT NW Gig Harbor, Washington 98332

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 30 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Jim Bernthal Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 4:58 PM To: Planning Subject: My Comment for the Public Hearing on new regulations for the Tideflats (March 3, 2021)

Dear Tacoma Planning Commissioners,

Thank you to the Planning Department Staff and to the Commission for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into greater alignment with City policy and community values.

The draft code the Planning Commission has developed is a strong proposal, and I would most like to communicate my strong support for the Planning Commission’s recommendation to ban all new and expanded major fossil fuel facilities, petrochemical manufacturing, coal storage and power plants, and smelting within the City of Tacoma.

These amendments will provide long‐needed protections in Tacoma, which has been continuously targeted by new and expanding fossil fuel facilities that are completely incompatible with ensuring community health and safety, protecting our climate, and upholding the City’s own environmental protection goals and Climate Emergency Declaration.

Specific recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

However, I also urge the Commission to address the following shortcomings in the code:  Conversion from Renewable to Fossil Fuel Facility: Tacoma should not permit the conversion of existing or future permitted Renewable Fuel Facilities to fossil fuel facilities, even with a conditional use permit requirement. Such a conversion would pose the very same health, safety, and environmental risks as would a new or expanded facility and is inconsistent with the City’s stated policy goals.  Conditional use criteria: Expanded conditional use criteria for high impact facilities should specifically require minimization of adverse human health impacts associated with project proposals and also 1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 31 of 252 address unreasonable adverse impacts to “large concentrations of people” beyond nearby residential and commercial areas, including impacts to incarcerated populations and workers within in Tacoma’s industrial areas  Definition of “Major Fossil Fuel Facility”: The volumetric threshold for a “major fossil fuel facility” should be lowered to encompass all six existing fossil fuel storage, refinement, and processing facilities, including Pacific Functional Fluids which appears to fall roughly 80,000 gallons short of the classification  Mitigation requirements for projects should address full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, not solely facility emissions

Thank you for consideration and work to protect Tacoma from new and expanded fossil fuels.

Sincerely,

Jim Bernthal [email protected]

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 32 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Carolyn Blasdel Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 10:59 PM To: Planning Subject: Strong Non-interim Regulations Are Vital For Tacoma

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

I live on Dock Street by the Thea Foss Waterway, at the edge of the Tideflats. Building new fossil fuel storage tanks and processing facilities is dangerous in such a densely populated area as well as damaging to our climate. Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 33 of 252 • Conditional use permit requirements for new Renewable Fuel Refineries or Renewable Fuel Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

Sincerely,

Carolyn Blasdel [email protected] 1515 Dock St Unit 319 Tacoma, Washington 98402-3255

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 34 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: David Bluhm Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2021 3:19 PM To: Planning Cc: Woodards, Victoria; Atkinson, Stephen Subject: Tideflats Interim Regulations Hearing

Dear Planning Commission,

Please find the courage to advise and compel the City Council to restrict and shut down any expansions on the tideflats for all industries that contribute in any way to climate change and global warming; concurrently propose and unanimously pass amendments that will move all toxic and noxious emitting industries inland; while committing to fully supporting the restoration of the Puyallup River estuary to 75% of what it once was, leaving 25% of that original estuary to continued use for efficient, safe and environmentally responsible port loading, unloading and shipping operations.

That is all the right, righteous and ethical thing to do. It will begin to compensate for all of the committees, commissions and councils' before you whose willful ignorance has allowed this mess of business and industry to get to this point as we near the likely and unavoidable oblivion and extinction of human beings due to our reckless and unrelenting pursuit of constant, always unsustainable economic growth which has come at the great expense of the health of the people and our shared "nest"/lands, waters and air.

Doing all of that can and will lead to your leaving a legacy of leadership that you can truly be proud of, as well as the much more likely possibility for a healthy and livable future for future generations.

Respectfully,

David Bluhm

David D. Bluhm 253-566-2498 text ok

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 35 of 252

City of Tacoma Office of Sustainability

February 2, 2021

TO: Infrastructure, Planning, and Sustainability Committee

RE: Non-Interim Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations Recommendations

Dear Council Members of the Infrastructure, Planning, and Sustainability Committee,

The Sustainable Tacoma Commission is writing with recommendations and considerations for the drafting of non-interim Tideflats regulations, a process coordinated at this stage through Tacoma’s Planning Commission.

We call on the City to take urgent action to preserve the possibility of a low-carbon future for our community, which is next to impossible if we allow fossil fuel investments to expand.

In this letter, we wish to primarily communicate our concern about fossil fuel industries in Tacoma’s tideflats because of our focus on mitigating the worst consequences of climate change driven by continued greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Our specific recommendations and considerations follow in the body of this letter.

The purpose of the Sustainable Tacoma Commission is to advise the City Council about climate and other sustainability topics, and hold the City accountable for the implementation of policies that protect and enhance Tacoma’s natural resources for current and future generations, such as Tacoma’s 2015 Environmental Action Plan. We value environmental justice and recognize that achieving equitable outcomes requires challenging and uncomfortable community conversations. We thank the Planning Commission for welcoming community input on non-interim Tideflats Regulations that will remain in place until the completion of the Subarea plan.

Our understanding of the intent of the non-interim regulations is to preserve the full range of regulatory possibilities for the Tideflats Subarea Plan. The Sustainable Tacoma Commission has affirmed many times that we want to see a carbon neutral future for our city; there is no way to meet that if we lock in additional investments in fossil fuels. To achieve this future, regulations need to be more stringent in order to protect Tacoma from development that is against the public interest and existing City policies while we draft the Subarea Plan.

This is clearly a topic that is important to the broader community in Tacoma, and we have seen ongoing strong community advocacy from a large range of coalitions that share our understanding of the intent of the regulations, and what is needed to preserve that intent. We want to emphasize – it is specific subsets of uses, not business and industry in general that we feel is contrary to the City of Tacoma’s established environmental goals. We believe there is a vibrant short- and long-term economic future in Tacoma’s port that is not dependent on fossil fuels, and shifting focus at this time to adding green jobs will leave Tacoma poised to be an early adopter that will benefit from the global transition away from fossil fuels.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 36 of 252 Science and Policy Context

The science on climate change is now well established. The 2018 UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report details the projected impacts of global warming for 1.5°C and 2°C above pre- industrial average temperature.1 Reaching either of these thresholds will have devastating impacts on populations around the world, due to increases in summer temperatures, drought, flooding from sea level rise, and catastrophic storms. In response to these catastrophic impacts, the global target for signatories of the 2015 Paris Agreement is to limit warming to 1.5° C (2.7° F).2 The same report found that we must achieve a 45% reduction from 2010 levels by 2030, and a 100% reduction by 2050 to reach this target, meaning have a little less than 10 years to make meaningful reductions in emissions to avoid exceeding a 1.5° future.

The City of Tacoma has committed to climate action through a number of different plans and policies, beginning with the initial 2008 Climate Action Plan.3 Climate goals are included in the City’s Comprehensive Plan (the One Tacoma Plan), and the 2015 Environmental Action Plan (EAP), which outlines 67 actions over a 5-year period to respond to environmental challenges and climate change, and set a target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.4 5 Unfortunately, according to the latest update to the City’s greenhouse gas inventory, we did not meet that target.6

Most recently, we’ve gotten a strong statement with the December 2019 Climate Emergency Resolution, where the City of Tacoma recognized the direct threat of climate change on our community and that it requires immediate actions to minimize harm, and constitutes a public emergency.7 Additionally, Mayor Woodards signed on to the “Climate Mayors” pledge, committing our city to meet the 2015 Paris agreement target after the United States’ exit.8

Currently, the City is in the middle of its Climate Action Planning effort, to create a plan to update and replace the 2015 EAP, and which will be more focused on climate action than the EAP.9 The Sustainable Tacoma Commission feels that this is a strong case for preventing new fossil fuel uses

1 2018 IPCC Summary for Policymakers: https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special- report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by- governments/#:~:text=The%20report%20was%20prepared%20under,all%20three%20IPCC%20working%20groups. &text=As%20part%20of%20the%20decision,global%20greenhouse%20gas%20emission%20pathways. 2 UNFCC overview of the Paris Agreement: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris- agreement 3 City of Tacoma 2008 Climate Action Plan: https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_departments/environmentalservices/office_of_environmental_policy_a nd_sustainability/climate/environmental_action_plan/2008_climate_action_plan 4 Environment and Watershed Health element, Policy EN-1.26: https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_departments/environmentalservices/office_of_environmental_policy_a nd_sustainability/climate/environmental_action_plan/2008_climate_action_plan 5 2015 Environmental Action Plan: https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_departments/environmentalservices/office_of_environmental_policy_a nd_sustainability/climate/environmental_action_plan 6 As part of the 2020-21 Climate Action Planning effort, the City of Tacoma worked with consultants to establish a baseline of our greenhouse gas emissions, and update previous inventories with that methodology. This report has been shared internally and with the Sustainable Tacoma commission. Contact: Kristi Lynett ([email protected]) 7 Climate Emergency Resolution: https://www.cityoftacoma.org/in_the_news/city_council_approves_climate_emergency_resolution#:~:text=The%20Ta coma%20City%20Council%20passed,a%20climate%20emergency%20in%20Tacoma. 8 Climate Mayors Member Cities: https://climatemayors.org/member-cities/ 9 2020-21 Climate Action Planning Overview: https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_departments/environmentalservices/office_of_environmental_policy_a nd_sustainability/climate/2020-21_climate_action_planning

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 37 of 252 and expansion of existing fossil fuel uses, so that we don’t come out of this process with a Climate Plan that says one thing, and a reality that is incompatible with the plan.

Lastly, we want to point out that while we expect Tacoma to be good global citizens, and contribute to mitigating climate impacts for the global community, we will also feel the negative impacts of climate change here. According to the City’s 2016 Climate Resilience Study, warming is expected in all seasons, and Tacoma is expected to see more intense heat waves, landslides, and more intense precipitation events.10 Sea level rise in Tacoma will most impact the tideflats areas, and is projected to increase up to 19 inches by 2050, and 56 inches by 2100 – with 24 inches of sea level rise, 100-year flood events will become annual events.11 Extreme heat and inland flooding will directly impact (and are already impacting) Tacoma residents, and hit BIPOC frontline communities the hardest, which are already subjected to systemic inequalities.

Recommendations

Setting the stage for a successful, accountable, and transparent Subarea Planning process begins with preserving the widest array of futures for consideration. Then we can begin the process of supporting and expanding the economic engine that the Port is, while centering environmental justice in the planning.

To do this, we recommend that the non-interim recommendations:

1. Continue the moratorium on new fossil fuel and heavy industrial uses, and be updated to halt the expansion of existing fossil fuel or heavy industrial uses. We support NO expansion of fossil fuel capacity in Tacoma and through the Port of Tacoma, whether from new uses or expansion of existing uses. The current Interim Regulations allow for expansion of existing heavy industry, and we have seen some existing uses (that would not be permitted if new uses) expand during this interim period. This expansion is in conflict with the City’s environmental goals, and with the spirit of the original Interim regulations.

2. Adopt the staff recommendations brought forward in the January 20, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, which include: • Prohibit new mining and quarrying citywide • Prohibit smelting citywide • Prohibit coal facilities citywide • Prohibit petrochemical, fertilizer, and explosives manufacturing citywide, with conditional permitting at the Port.12

3. Prohibit the export of fossil fuel products from Tacoma and through Tacoma’s port. The inherent danger of exporting fossil fuels to our water and land environments along with our desire to not promote fossil fuel use anywhere, makes this an important step for the City.

10 2016 Tacoma Climate Change Resilience Study Full Report: https://cms.cityoftacoma.org/Sustainability/Climate_Resilience_Study_Final_2016.pdf 11 These figures from the Climate Change Resilience Study; the WA Coastal Network provides a more refined tool that gives sea level rise projections along with probabilities. Under a high emissions scenario at 2100, there is a 50% likelihood of seeing 30 inches of sea level rise, and a 5% likelihood of seeing 48 inches. https://wacoastalnetwork.com/chrn/research/slr-visualization/ 12 https://www.cityoftacoma.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/cms/Planning/Planning%20Commission/PC%20Prese ntations%202021/Presentations%20(01-20-21).pdf

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 38 of 252 4. In considering permitting alternative fuels, adopt a definition of low carbon fuels based on carbon intensity. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has relevant information for this definition, and other states, such as California, have a low carbon fuel standard that also includes sample definitions.

5. Keep equity at the forefront in decision making. The port and the industrial sector of the city serve the entire city and impact the entire city. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility, Puyallup Tribal lands, and vulnerable populations are all represented on or near the port and the South Tacoma industrial area. They suffer disproportionately from air pollution as is made clear by the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department health disparities maps, and are more likely to suffer the impacts of both natural and human-made disasters to their homes, land, and water.

6. Continue to support the Subarea Planning process through adequate allocation of staff time. We still have concerns about the staff capacity added to this process, and wrote a letter to this effect in 2018. We urge the city to continue to evaluate how they dedicate staff time to the project, and when possible, to increase staff resources to ensure that stakeholders and the community at large have timely, responsive, and accessible information throughout the process.

Thank you for doing this very challenging work.

Sincerely,

Lexi Brewer Chair, Sustainable Tacoma Commission

CC: City of Tacoma Office of Environmental Policy and Sustainability Michael P. Slevin III, Environmental Service Department Director Elizabeth Pauli, City Manager Tadd Wille, Deputy City Manager Jennifer Kammerzell, Public Works Lihuang Wung, Planning and Development Services

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 39 of 252

City of Tacoma Office of Sustainability

March 3, 2021

TO: Infrastructure, Planning, and Sustainability Committee RE: Non-Interim Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations Recommendations

Dear Council Members of the Infrastructure, Planning, and Sustainability Committee,

The Sustainable Tacoma Commission is writing a second letter with recommendations and considerations for the drafting of non-interim Tideflats regulations, a process coordinated at this stage through Tacoma’s Planning Commission. As you know, the purpose of the Sustainable Tacoma Commission is to advise City Council and staff on sustainability initiatives, bringing community accountability to implementation of the City’s vision for sustainability1, 2016 Environmental Action Plan2, and other sustainability policies.

The Sustainable Tacoma Commission wishes to express support, with minor amendments, for the proposed draft non-interim Tideflats regulations. We call on the City to take urgent action to preserve the possibility of a low-carbon future for our community, which is next to impossible if we allow fossil fuel investments to expand. The current draft of the non-interim regulations largely does this, and our specific recommendations for minor changes follow.

Speaking to the importance of strong non-Interim regulations, our understanding of the intent of the previous Interim regulations was to preserve the full range of regulatory possibilities for the subarea plan. The Sustainable Tacoma Commission has affirmed many times that we want to see a net-zero future for our city; there is no way to meet that if we lock in additional investments in fossil fuels. To achieve this future, regulations need to be stringent in order to protect Tacoma from development that is against the public interest and existing City policies while we draft the Subarea Plan.

1https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_departments/environmentalservices/office_of_environmental_policy_and_sustainabil ity 2https://cms.cityoftacoma.org/Sustainability/Tacoma_EAP.pdf

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 40 of 252 feel is contrary to the City of Tacoma’s established environmental and economic goals. We believe there is a vibrant short- and long-term economic future in Tacoma’s port that is not dependent on fossil fuels, and shifting focus at this time to adding green industries and jobs will position Tacoma to benefit as an early adopter of the global transition away from fossil fuels. Indeed, based on international, national, state, and local policies, we know for a fact that the success of the economy will be increasingly tied to the well-being of our environment in coming years. The prosperity of our community and recovery of our planet are co-dependent now more than ever. Tacoma should act now to seize the competitive advantage and other benefits based in fostering low- and zero-carbon technologies, practices, and industries. We believe Tacoma can become a national and internal model in the shift away from fossil fuels.

Recommendations Setting the stage for a successful, accountable, and transparent Subarea Planning process begins with protecting against fossil fuel industry development now in this non-interim regulations planning process. Following this process, we can begin to redesign and renew the tideflats economic engine with environmental justice at the center of Tideflats Subarea Planning.

We strongly support the non-Interim regulations as drafted, with the following recommendations:

1. In Section A, we support the regulations as drafted. The expanded notification to include occupants, not just property owners, is a meaningful step towards including the most impacted members of our community. 2. In Section B, we support the regulations as drafted with the following suggestion: a. The definition of open space currently referenced in the draft interim regulations seems to include non-heavy use and passive-use open space, such as pocket parks. The language should be clarified to prohibit only heavy-intensity uses. We suggest this language be updated to make it more clear that low-intensity open space is allowable. 3. In Section C, we support the regulations as drafted. It is important to the health and safety of both Tacoma residents and our environment to minimize residential encroachment on industrial areas, and to minimize the impact of development on steep slopes and biodiversity corridors. 4. In Section D, we strongly support the regulations as drafted, with the following recommendations and considerations for Subsection VI: a. In the definition of “Renewable Fuels,” which will adopt any future state fuel standard, we suggest the language should also include a regional fuel standard, should one be adopted before the Tideflats Subarea Planning Process is complete. b. In “Proposed Amendments to TMC 13.05.010 Conditional Use Permits and Title 19 Chapter 2.1.7.f Shoreline Conditional Use Permits,” item 10 should be

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 41 of 252 periodically reviewed to be consistent with future City of Tacoma emissions targets and policy, for example, any new targets that result from the update to the Environmental Action Plan. c. The current code amendments to TMC 13.05.010 Conditional Use Permits should be reviewed for clarity of intent; in its current form, it is unclear that section TMC 13.05.010 describes Conditional Use Permits allowable under TMC 13.06.080 Special Use Criteria. We are concerned that a reader would come to the conclusion that New Major Fossil Fuel Facilities are allowed based on the current wording. d. All fossil fuel facilities, including those under the 1,000,000 gallon threshold, should be subject to conditional use permitting. e. We strongly encourage Planning staff to recruit or develop the skill set to thoroughly vet permit application information put forward, including technical information such as GHG emissions modeling or mitigation for allowable uses, if these skills are not already present within the Planning Department. f. Staff should establish processes, such as regular reporting requirements, to proactively review activities and enforce regulations beyond the common approach to enforce regulations on the basis of reported complaints. Complaint- based enforcement tends to be ineffective. In addition, complaint-based reporting requires organizations and community members to bear the burden of environmental protection that should be the purview of the City. Staff should implement fines sufficient to discouraging unpermitted behavior/activities.

Science and Policy Context In support of our recommendations, we wish to highlight the most relevant up-to-date climate science and related City policies.

The science on climate change is now well established. The 2018 UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report3 details the projected impacts of global warming for 1.5°C and 2°C above pre-industrial average temperature. Reaching either of these thresholds will have devastating impacts on populations around the world, due to increases in summer temperatures, drought, flooding from sea level rise, and catastrophic storms. In response to these catastrophic impacts, the global target for signatories of the 2015 Paris Agreement is to limit warming to 1.5° C (2.7° F).4 The same report found that we must achieve a 45% reduction from 2010 levels by 2030, and a 100% reduction by 2050 to reach this target, meaning have a little less than 10 years to make meaningful reductions in emissions to avoid exceeding a 1.5° future.

3 2018 IPCC Summary for Policymakers: https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on- global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by- governments/#:~:text=The%20report%20was%20prepared%20under,all%20three%20IPCC%20working%20groups.&text=As%20p art%20of%20the%20decision,global%20greenhouse%20gas%20emission%20pathways. 4 UNFCC overview of the Paris Agreement: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 42 of 252 The City of Tacoma has committed to climate action through a number of different plans and policies, beginning with the initial 2008 Climate Action Plan.5 Climate goals are included in the City’s Comprehensive Plan (the One Tacoma Plan)6, and the 2015 Environmental Action Plan (EAP)7, which outlines 67 actions over a 5-year period to respond to environmental challenges and climate change, and set a target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. Unfortunately, according to the latest update to the City’s Greenhouse gas inventory8, we did not meet that target.

Most recently, we’ve gotten a strong statement with the December 2019 Climate Emergency Resolution,9 where the City of Tacoma recognized the direct threat of climate change on our community and that it requires immediate actions to minimize harm, and constitutes a public emergency. Additionally, Mayor Woodards signed on to the “Climate Mayors” pledge,10 committing our city to meet the 2015 Paris agreement target after the United States’ exit. Currently, the City is in the middle of its Climate Action Planning effort11, to create a plan to update and replace the 2015 EAP, and which will be more focused on climate action than the EAP. The Sustainable Tacoma Commission feels that this is a strong case for preventing new fossil fuel uses and expansion of existing fossil fuel uses, so that we do not come out of this process with a Climate Plan that sets policies and commits to one climate-safe future, and a reality and course to the future that are incompatible with the Plan.

Lastly, we want to point out that while we expect Tacoma to be good global citizens, and contribute to mitigating climate impacts for the global community, we will also feel the negative impacts of climate change here. According to the City’s 2016 Climate Resilience Study,12 warming is expected in all seasons, and Tacoma is expected to see more intense heat waves, landslides, and more intense precipitation events. Sea level rise in Tacoma will most impact the tideflats areas, and is projected to increase up to 19 inches by 2050, and 56 inches by 210013 -- with 24 inches of sea level rise, 100-year flood events will become annual events. Extreme heat

5 City of Tacoma 2008 Climate Action Plan: https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_departments/environmentalservices/office_of_environmental_policy_and_sustainabilit y/climate/environmental_action_plan/2008_climate_action_plan 6 Environment and Watershed Health element, Policy EN-1.26: https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_departments/environmentalservices/office_of_environmental_policy_and_sustainabilit y/climate/environmental_action_plan/2008_climate_action_plan 7 2015 Environmental Action Plan: https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_departments/environmentalservices/office_of_environmental_policy_and_sustainabilit y/climate/environmental_action_plan 8 As part of the 2020-21 Climate Action Planning effort, the City of Tacoma worked with consultants to establish a baseline of our greenhouse gas emissions, and update previous inventories with that methodology. This report has been shared internally and with the Sustainable Tacoma commission. Contact: Kristi Lynett ([email protected]) 9 Climate Emergency Resolution: https://www.cityoftacoma.org/in_the_news/city_council_approves_climate_emergency_resolution#:~:text=The%20Tacoma%20City %20Council%20passed,a%20climate%20emergency%20in%20Tacoma. 10 Climate Mayors Member Cities: https://climatemayors.org/member-cities/ 11 2020-21 Climate Action Planning Overview: https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_departments/environmentalservices/office_of_environmental_policy_and_sustainabilit y/climate/2020-21_climate_action_planning 12 2016 Tacoma Climate Change Resilience Study Full Report: https://cms.cityoftacoma.org/Sustainability/Climate_Resilience_Study_Final_2016.pdf 13 These figures from the Climate Change Resilience Study; the WA Coastal Network provides a more refined tool that gives sea level rise projections along with probabilities. Under a high emissions scenario at 2100, there is a 50% likelihood of seeing 30 inches of sea level rise, and a 5% likelihood of seeing 48 inches. https://wacoastalnetwork.com/chrn/research/slr-visualization/

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 43 of 252 and inland flooding will directly impact (and are already impacting) Tacoma residents, and hit BIPOC frontline communities the hardest, which are already subjected to systemic inequalities.

Thank you for your work on this issue.

Sincerely,

Lexi Brewer Chair, Sustainable Tacoma Commission

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 44 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 10:39 AM To: Planning Subject: Strong Non-interim Regulations Are Vital For Climate Prosperity

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 45 of 252 Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

Sincerely, [email protected] 1443 Edwards Avenue Fircrest, Washington 98466

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 46 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: dennis cline Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 5:44 PM To: Planning Subject: Strong Non-interim Regulations Are Vital For Climate Prosperity

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 47 of 252 Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

Sincerely, Dennis Cline dennis cline [email protected] 6302 ray nash dr nw gig harbor, Washington 98335

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 48 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Carol Colleran Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 9:36 PM To: Planning Subject: Strong Non-interim Regulations Are Vital For Climate Prosperity

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 49 of 252 Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

Sincerely,

Carol Colleran [email protected] 10603 83rd Ave SW Lakewood , Washington 98498

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 50 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Comis, Sue Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 11:07 AM To: Planning Cc: Boudet, Brian; Bates, Tim; Neilson, Austin; Austin, Andrew; Tacoma Dome Link Extension; Comis, Sue Subject: Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Amendments

Dear Mr. Atkinson (Steve),

Sound Transit would like to submit the following comment on the amendments:

The proposed Tideflats and Industrial Land Use amendments will directly affect permitted uses surrounding the future Portland Avenue light rail station (part of the Tacoma Dome Link Extension), principally by limiting non- industrial development. Because light rail investments in Tacoma and throughout the region represent significant opportunities for enhanced access to jobs and housing, Sound Transit encourages further consideration of appropriate uses and development intensities in the vicinity of the Portland Avenue station area. Such study can provide an opportunity for stakeholders to evaluate ways of preserving the essential functions of the Port of Tacoma MIC while creating a vital destination and place around the light rail station.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sue Comis, AICP, PMP Transit Development Manager Tacoma Dome Link Extension Sound Transit 206-398-5143 (office) 253-306-2814 (cell)

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 51 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Corso . Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 12:11 AM To: Planning Cc: Thoms, Robert; McCarthy, Conor; Hunter, Lillian; Walker, Kristina Subject: Proposed Amendments to Tidewater Regulations

Dear Tacoma Planning Commissioners, It is my understanding that the fossil fuel industry is planning to expand their facilities on the tideflats. Please take this opportunity to communicate that - instead of expanding their facilities - the industry should be closing-down their facilities and cleaning-up their polluted properties. The expansion plans fail to take into account our reality. As you are likely aware, due to climate change and rising sea levels, climate scientists are concerned that the risk of flooding on the tideflats will increase rapidly - perhaps within the next decade. The City of Fife was recently in the news because climate scientists predict that the lower-lying areas will soon flood regularly and the rest of the city will flood regularly in a few decades. Further, as you are also likely aware, geologists are predicting the Juan De Fuca Plate will eventually collapse under the North American Plate. While it's impossible to predict earthquakes and their magnitude, geologists are predicting that some parts of the Pacific Northwest could drop in elevation - perhaps as much as 300' - when the Juan de Fuca Plate collapses. Clearly, if the tideflats were to drop only 10' in elevation, the fossil fuel industry's facilities would be flooded and polluting Commencement Bay. Finally, again, as you are likely already aware, earthquakes are sometimes followed by tsunamis. Clearly, even a small tsunami could inundate the tideflats, damage the industry's facilities and carry the industry's pollution into the bay. Given the levels of pollutants found in the flesh and fat of the Southern Resident Orca, the Salish Sea is too polluted already. Please send a clear message to the fossil fuel industry that it is time to start closing-down their facilities and cleaning-up their property. Thank you. Sincerely, Geoff Corso 701 N J St. Tacoma Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 52 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Venus Dergan Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 6:03 PM To: Planning Cc: STNC Board; Woodards, Victoria; Beale, Chris; Blocker, Keith; Hunter, Lillian; Walker, Kristina; Hines, John; McCarthy, Conor; Ushka, Catherine; Thoms, Robert; Ryan Mello; Greg Tanbara; Jeremy Jennings Subject: Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations comments Attachments: Environmental Covenant Language South Tacoma Field.pdf; Environmental Covenants South Tacoma Field OU.pdf; Interim Tideflats Regulations STNC Letter (1).docx

Planning Commission,

For your information below is an email I received along with Mr. Atkinson from Mr. Jennings of the EPA regarding the M-2 zoned land in the South Tacoma MIC considered for Industrial Land Use Regulations by the City of Tacoma.

I have also cc'd the South Tacoma Neighborhood Council, Mayor/Tacoma City Council, TPCHD, and Pierce County Councilmember Mello regarding the environmental covenant / restrictions.

I have also attached the recent letter to the Planning Commission and to leaders regarding the Industrial Land Use Regulations from the South Tacoma Neighborhood Council.

Please reach out with any questions. Please add this email into public comments.

Regards,

Venus Dergan, Resident and Board Member South Tacoma Neighborhood Council

----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jennings, Jeremy To: [email protected] Cc: Venus Dergan Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021, 03:56:44 PM PST Subject: Tideflats Interim Regulations

Stephen,

Earlier today I received a call from Ms. Venus Dergan of the South Tacoma Neighborhood Council notifying me that the City of Tacoma was reviewing land use regulations for the

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 53 of 252 Tideflats, Port and other properties zoned as M-2, including those at the South Tacoma Manufacturing and Industrial Center.

As you are likely aware, some of the M-2 zoned land at the South Tacoma MIC is co-located with the South Tacoma Field Operable Unit of the Commencement Bay – South Tacoma Channel Superfund Site. Activities in these areas must not impair the integrity of the remedial actions implemented and be consistent with all applicable Superfund restrictions. However, nothing prohibits the City from adopting regulations that are more restrictive than those prohibitions.

While the remedial actions at the Superfund site have been implemented, most of the soils were remediated to levels safe for industrial/commercial uses, not residential users. As such, Environmental Covenants have been attached to property deeds in this area. The covenants require, among other things, that there be no residential use except as approved by EPA and that EPA be contacted prior to any excavation of the soils. For your information, I have attached a copy of the covenant and a map showing the area addressed.

In my cursory review of the information posted on the Tideflats Interim Regulations website, I have not identified any specific concerns relative to the Superfund Site. Thus, this email serves as a reminder and provides information that may be applicable in future discussions.

If you have any questions regarding this email, please feel free to contact me,

Jeremy Jennings

EPA Remedial Project Manager

1200 6th Ave. Suite 155; 12-D12-1

Seattle,WA 98101

206-553-2724

[email protected] 2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 54 of 252 Appendix A

Recorded Environmental Protection Restrictive Covenant and Access Easements

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 55 of 252 ) 97021.30298 5NL00~3 58NL oo5Z... . AFfER RECORDING ·Book 1301 pg 2..118-68 PLEASE RETURN TO: 2...-13-q, P1e.rc.e: Co John C. Bjorkman Preston Gates &. Ellis LLP 5000 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND ACCESS EASEMENT

Grantor: BN Leasing Corp. Grantee: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. . Legal Description: Exhibit A: All of Lots 1, 4 through 12, inclusive, and 18 through 25, inclusive, of Burlington Northern Tacoma Industrial Center No. 1 according to the official plat thereof recorded in Book 57 of Plats at Pages 35, 36 and 37, City of Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington. Exhibit B: Sections 13 and° 14, Township 20 North, Range 2 East W.M., South Tacoma. Pierce County, Washington; Additional legal .is on page 1 of Exhibit A and page 1 of Exhibit B, attached hereto.

Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Acct. Nos.

02-20-13~ 1-010 278301-003-1 278301-019-0 374000-018-1 02-20-13-1-011 278301-004-0 278301-020-0 521500-095-0 02-20-13-1-013 278301-005-0 278301-021-0 573500-001-0 02-20-13-1-117 278301-006-0 278301-022-0 573 500-003-0 02-20-13-4-004 278301-007-1 278301-023-0 573500-005-0 02-20-13-4-011 278301-008-1 278301 -024-0 573500-007-0 02-20-I 3-4-024 278301-009-0 278301-025-1 573500-011-0 · 02-20-13-4-800 278301-010-0 278301-026-0 S73500-012-0 02-20-24-1-001 278301-011-0 278301-025-2 573500-013-0 02-20-24-1-012 278301-012-0 3 74000-008-6 573500-014-0 278301-001-0 278301-018-0 374000-014-0

This Environmental Protection Restrictive Covenant and Access Easement ("Easement") is made this .lb. day of fe.br'(..)f!r't_ , 199L by and between BN Leasing Corp. ("Grantor") and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. ("Grantee'1).

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 56 of 252 WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of real property located in Pierce County, Washington and legally described in EXHIBIT A hereto (the "Property");

WHEREAS, Grantee is the owner of real property located in Pierce County, Washington and legally described in EXHIBIT B hereto that is adjacent, or in the vicinity of, the Property.

WHEREAS the Property is part of the South Tacoma Field Operable Unit of the Commencement Bay South Tacoma Channel Superfund Site ("STF" or "Site") which the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") placed on the National Priorities List, 40 C.F.R. Part 300, Appendix B, as published in the Federal Register on September 8, 1983, 48 Fed. Reg. 40685;

WHEREAS, in a Consent Decree by and between the United States of America and Burlington Northern Railroad Co., BN Leasing Corporation, Amsted Industries Incorporated, Pioneer Builders Supply, Inc., South Tacoma L.L.C., Atlas Foundry & Machine Company, a Division of TIC United Corp., and the City of Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities, Light Division, dated January 10, 1997, the parties agreed to conduct a Remedial Action, as defined in the Consent Decree, but as used herein to include also Operation and Maintenance as defined in the Consent Decree (herein together "Remedial Action"), that is·generally described as follows :

Excavation and solidification of heavily contaminated soils; excavation and incineration or off-site disposal of certain soils contaminated with PCBs; excavation, consolidation, and on site capping of certain moderately contaminated soils; ground water monitoring in selected areas; installation of additional ground water monitoring wells in selected areas and monitoring of ground water; and, if necessary, implementation of air sparging and in situ vapor extraction of ground water; and operations and maintenance.

WHEREAS the Grantor has agreed: (a) to grant a permanent right of access over the Property to the Grantee for the purpose of implementing, facilitating, and monitoring the scope of the Remedial Action; and (b) to impose on the Property use restrictions as . covenants that the parties intend to run with the land and to be binding upon the Grantor and its successors, transferees, and assigns for the benefit of the Grantee and its successors, transferees, and assigns for the purpose of implementing, facilitating, and monitoring the scope of the Remedial Action.

-2- J:\JCB\#HOMEVCB015.DOC

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 57 of 252 WHEREAS Grantor intends to cooperate fuUy with Grantee and EPA in the implementation of all response actions at the Site.

NOW, therefore:

1. Purpose: It is the purpose of this Easement to give the Grantee the right to implement and/or monitor the Remedial Action to assure that the Property will be used only for purposes which are compatible with the Remedial Action and to ensure that the Property will not be used in a manner that will cause a failure of the Remedial Action.

2. Grant of Restrictive Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions: Grantor. on behalf of itself: its successors and assigns, in consideration of execution- of a Consent Decree, executed consistent with this Easement, and in consideration of receipt of a reciprocal Environmental Protection Restrictive Covenant and Access Easement, hereby covenants that the use of the Property is restricted as follows:

a. Unless approved by EPA. the Property shall not be used for residential purposes.

b. Unless approved by EPA. no action shall be taken or suffered which may (i) expose contaminated soil to the environment; or (ii) disturb the integrity or effectiveness of any surface cap on the Property where the disturbance causes the release or threatened release to the environment of hazardous substances in excess of Site cleanup standards regardless of whether such cap was established as a requirement of the ROD.

c. Unless approved by EPA. groundwater from the restricted use area of the Pioneer Builders Supply Property, as determined during Remedial Design, shall not be used as a drinking water source until groundwater cleanup levels are achieved as defined in Table 9-4 of the ROD.

d. At least 30 days prior to any conveyance of a title interest in the Property, the owner of the Property shall give written notice of the Consent Decree to · the grantee and written notice to EPA of the proposed conveyance, including the name and address of the grantee, and the date on which notice of the Consent Decree was given to the grantee.

The Parties intend these restrictive covenants, conditions, and restrictions to run with the land and to be binding upon the Grantor and its successors, transferees, and assigns for the benefit of the Grantee and its successors, transferees, and assigns. ·

3. Environmental Protection Access Easement: Grant or on behalf of itself and its successors, transferees, and assigns hereby conveys and quit claims to the Grantee and its

-3- J:~EIJC8015.DOC 97ml'IO

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 58 of 252 ------

successors, transferees, and assigns a non-exclusive, perpetual easement to enter the property ~t reasonable times and in a reasonable manner. The purposes of such access are:

a. Implementing the Remedial Action as defined in the Consent Decree;

b. Verifying any data or information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the Consent Decree;

c. Verifying that no action is being taken on the 'Property in violation of the terms of this Easement; and

d. Monitoring the Remedial Action and conducting investigations related to the Remedial Action including, without limitation, sampling of air, water, sediments, soils, and specifically, without limitation, obtaining split or duplicate samples.

4. Reserved Rights of Granter: Granter hereby reserves unto itself, its successors, transferees, and assigns, all rights and privileges in and to the use of the Property which are not incompatible with the exercise of the rights granted herein.

S. No Public Access and Use: No right of access or use by the general public to any portion of the Property is intended by the parties or is conveyed by this Easement.

6. Enforcement: The Grantee and its successors, transferees, and assigns shall be entitled· to enforce the terms of this Easement by resort to specific performance or legal process. All remedies· available hereunder shall be in addition to any and all other remedies at law or in equity. Enforcement of the terms of this instrument shall be at the discretion of the. Grantee, and any forbearance, delay or omission to exercise its rights under this instrument shall not be deemed to be a waiver by the Grantee of such term or any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, or of any of the rights of the Grantee under this Easement.

7. Third Party Beneficiacy:: The Grantor on behalf of itself and its successors, transferees, and assigns and the Grantee on behalf of itself and its successors, transferees, and assigns hereby agree that the EPA shall be a third party beneficiary of the benefits and rights conveyed to the Grantee in this Easement. ·

8. Waiver of Certain Defenses: Grantor on behalf of itself and its successors, transferees, and assigns hereby waives any defense of !aches, estoppel, or prescription.

9. Covenants: Grantor hereby covenants to and with the Grantee and its assigns, that the Gr~tor has a good and lawful right and power to make this Easement.

-4- J:'.JCSl#HOME\JCB015.00C ' ;11021,0

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 59 of 252 10. Notices: Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that either party desires or is required to give the other under this Easement shall be in writing and shall either be served personally or sent by first class mail, po~age prepaid, addressed as follows:

To Granter: To Grantee: BN LEASING CORP. BURLINGTON NORTiffiRN SANTA FE c/o Bruce A. Sheppard RAILWAY CO. Manager of Environmental Projects c/o Bruce A Sheppard Burlington Northern and Santa Fe.Railway Manager of Environmental Projects 999 Third Ave.• Suite 2000 Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway ·seattle, WA 98104-1105 999 Third Ave.• Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-1105

11. Controlling Law: The interpretation and performance of this Easement shall be governed by the laws of the United States or if there is no applicable federal law, by the . law of the State of Washington.

12. Liberal Construction: Any general rule of construction to the contrary notwithstanding, this Easement shall be liberally construed in favor of the grant to effect the purposes of this Easement and the policy and purpose of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 960t" et gq. If any provision of this Easement is found to be ambiguous, an interpretation consistent with the purpose of this Easement that would render the provision valid shall be favored over any interpretation that would render it invalid.

13. Severability: If any provision of this Easement, or the application of it to any person or circumstance, is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this Easement, or the application of such provisions to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is found to be invalid, as the case may be, shall not be affected thereby.

14. Entire Agreement: This Easement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to rights and restrictions created hereby, arid supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, or agreements relating thereto, all of which are merged herein:

15. No Forfeiture: Nothing contained herein will result in a forfeiture or reversion of Grantor's title in any respect.

16. Joint Obligation: If there are two or more parties identified as Grantor herein, the obligations imposed by this Easement upon them shall be joint and several.

17. Successors: The Grantor and Grantee intend that the covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of this Easement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit

-5- J:\JCBIIIHOME\JC8015, DOC Q711l2/10

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 60 of 252 of, the parties hereto and their respective personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns and shall continue as a servitude running in perpetuity with the Property. The term "Grantor", wherever used herein, and any pronouns used in place thereof, shall include the persons and/or entities named at the beginning of this document, identified as "Grantor" and their personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns. The term "Grantee,., wherever used herein, and any pronouns used in place thereof, shall include the persons and/or entities named at the beginning of this docume_nt, identified as "Grantee" and their personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns. The rights of the Grantee and Grantor under this Easement are freely assignable, subject to the ~otice provisions hereof

18. Captions: The captions in this Easement have been inserted solely for convenience of reference and are not a part of this Easement and shall have no effect upon construction or interpretation.

19. Counter.parts: The parties may execute this Easement in two or more counterparts, which shall, in the aggregate, be signed by both parties; each counterpart shall be deemed an original Easement as against any party who has signed it. In the event of any disparity between the counterparts produced, the recorded counterpart shall be controlling..

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Granter has caused this Easement to be signed in its name.

Executed this IZ day of February, 1997. .

BN LEASING CORP.

By:A~ Its: ~ Director Real Estate

STATE OF lcXA~ ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ~/tA.kN -r )

On this J 2.+h day of (~.brµ.a.r'-4 • 19!r, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of 7i.)cq s • duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared 7).P. Sd"1eid.u- , known to be the tin,.c..+o,Rw ~lzl.k.. of BN Leasing Corp., the corporation that executed the foregoing Agreement, and acknowledged the said Agreement to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for_ the

-6- J:~E'JCB015.DOC 97102110

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 61 of 252 uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they are authorized to execute said Agreement.

WITNESS MY HAND and official seal hereto affixed the day and year written above.

PATRICIA ZBICHORSKI NotaryNl,Uc Notary Public fo;~State of nxA-s STATE OF TEXAS residing at Gr t War ti, e.!'>l lllyCclllln. Elp. 07/17/V9 My appointment expires 7 - /7 .J:J'I Print Name ~+c i, 1a, z.blOit)rsKi

This Agreement is accepted this __ day of ______, 19_.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY Co.

By: A~ Its:_'_-'=D:;..::i:.::re,.=c~toll&;rL.JRueloiiJa~l....1.E..;i,S-1.1fa:1-1t.c:e:...-____

. -7- J:UC8\IIHOl,IE\JC8015.00C 9711)2/10

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 62 of 252 Emibl&A

AU of Lots 1, 4 through 12, inclusive, and 18 through 25, inclusive, ofBurlington Northern Tacoma Industrial Center No. I according to the official plat thereof recorded in Book 57 of Plats at Pages JS. 36 and 37, City ofTacoma, Pierce Cowity, Wasrungton .

. '

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 63 of 252 Emiblt B

Legal Description for Burlington Northern Railroad Company's Right of Way Sections 13 and 14, Township 20 North, Range 2 East W.M, South Taco~ Pierce County, W~

. All ofBurlington Northern Railroad Company's 200.0 foot wide right of way, being 100.0 feet wide on each side of said Railroad Company', hereinafter described Main Track centc:rline, as originally located and constructed upon, over and across the EI/2NE1/4 and the NE1/4SE1/4 of Section 13, Township 20 North, Range 2 East Willamette Meridian, Pierce County, Washington, bounded on the Northeast by the East line of said' Section 13 and bounded on the South by the South line of said NE1/4SE1/4; also,

An additional 14.0 foot wide strip ofland abutting the herein.above described 200.0 foot wi~ right of way on the Westerly side, lying between two lines drawn parallel and concentric with and distant, respectively, 100.0 feet and 114.0 feet Westerly from the hereinafter described Main Track centerline, bounded on the Northeast by a line drawn parallel with and distant 30.0 feet West of the East line of said Section 13 and bounded on the South by the South line of said NE l/4SE 1/4; also,

All of said Railroad Company's 66.0 foot wide right of way, being 33.0 feet wide on each side of said Railroad Company's hereinafter described Main Track centerline, as originally located and constructed upon, over and across the SEJ/4SEJ/4 of said Section 13, and the Nl/2NE1/4NE1/4 of Section 24, all in Township 20 North, Range 2 East Willamette Meridian, Pierce County, Washington, bounded on the North by the North line of said SE1/4SEI/4 of Section 13, and bounded on the South by the South line of said NI/2NEI/4NE1/4 of said Section 24; also,

All that portion of said Railroad Company's 100.0 foot wide right of way, being 50.0 feet wide on each side of said Railroad Company's hereinafter described Main Track centerline, as originally located and constructed upon, over and across the S1/2NE1/4NEJ/4, the SE1/4NE1/4 and the Nl/2Nl/2NE1/4SE1/4 of said Section 24, Township20 North, Range 2 East, bounded on the North by the North line of said Sl/2NEl/4NEl/4, and bounded on the South by the Easterly extension of the South line of Lot 1 of Burlington Northern Tacoma Industrial Center No. 1, acc:ording to the official plat thereof recorded in Book S7 of Plats at Pages 35, 36, and 37, City of Ta.coma, Pierce County, Washington.

· M.ain Track Centerline Description j Commencing at the Southeast comer of said Section 24; thence Westerly along the South line of said Section 24 a distance of 334.0 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the M.ain Track centerline to be described; thence Northwesterly, deflecting 86° 12' to the right. a distance of7,188.7 feet to a point of curve; thence along a 02° Clll'Ve concave to the Southeast having a central angle of 48° S8' to the East line of said Section 13 and there terminating.

Parcel 2 - 151

Those portions of Blocks I and 2, Clement's 2nd Addition to the City of Tacoma, and the El/2 of Section 13 and the Nl/2NE!/4 of Section 24, T20N, R2E, W.M., Pierce County, Washington, described as follows, to-wit

Beginning at the Northeast comer of Lot 12 of the Burlington Northern Railroad Company Tacoma Industrial Center No. I, accon:ling to the plat recorded in Book 57 of Plats, Pages 35, 36 and 37; thence S87°59'37"W a distance of287.0 feet; thence S02°00'23"E a distance of 137.77 feet; thence S87°59'37"W a distance of338.0 feet; thence - l -

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 64 of 252 N02"00'23"W along the extension of the West line ofLot-13, said Burlington Northern Railroad Company Tacoma lndustrial,Center No. I, to the point of intersection with the North line of the Griffin Wheel Company right-of-way, BS now located; thence Westerly along said North line to the point of interseciion with the East right-of-way line of Madison Street, BS now located and constructed; thence Northerly along said East right-of-way line and extension thereof to the point of intersection with a line drawn concentric with and distant 50.0 feet Southeasterly of, as measured radially to, Union Pacific Railroad Company's (formerly Oregon and Washington Railroad Company's) hereinafter described Main Track centerline; thence Northeasterly along said concentric line to the point of interseciion with a line drawn parallel with and distant 1016.47 feet Southerly of, as measured at right angles to, the North line of the NEl/4 of said Section 13; thence Easterly along said parallel line to the point of intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 30.0 feet Westerly of, as measured at right angles to, the East line of said NE 1/4 of Section 13; thence Southerly along said parallel line to the point of intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 114.0 feet Northwesterly of, as measured radially to, Bmlington Northern Railroad Company's (formerly Northern Pacific Railway Company's) hereinafter described Main Track centerline; thence Southerly parallel with said Bmlington Northern Railroad Company's Main Track centerline to the point of intersection with the North line of the SE1/4SE1/4 of said Section 13; thence Easterly along said North line of the SEl/4SE1/4 to the point of intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 24.0 feet Westerly of, as measured at right angles to, said Main Track centerline; thence Southerly parallel with . said Main Track centerline to the Point of Beginning..

Oregon and Washington Railroad Company Main Track Centerline Description

Commencing at the Southwest comer of the SE I/4NE 1/4 of said Section 13; thence Westerly a distance of 405.9 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the Main Track centerline to be described; thence Northerly, deflecting 89°S0'44" to the right, a distance of 106.0 feet toa point of cmvature; thence along a 02°30' curve concave to the Southeast (delta= 50°59') to the point of intersection with a tine drawn parallel with and distant 1016.47 feet Southerly of, as measured at right angles to, the North line of the NEI/4 of said Section 13 and there terminating.

Burlington Northern Railroad Company Main Track Centerline Description

Commencing at the Southeast comer of said Section 24; thence Westerly along the South line of said Section 24 a distance of334.0 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the Main Track centerline to be described; thence Northwesterly, deflecting 86°12' to the right,·a distance of7188.7 feet toa point of tangency; thence along a 02° curve t.011cave to the Southeast (delta= 48°58') to the point of intersection with the East line of said Section 13 and there terminating.

Parcel 2 - 151-A . That portion of the Wl/2NEl/4 of Section 24, T20W, 2RE, W.M., City of Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington described as follows, to-wit ·

Beginning at the Northwest comer of the J. Neisson Donation Land Claim in said Section 24; thence Southerly along the West line of said Donation Land Claim a distance of 1315.0 feet, more or less, to the Northwest comer of Hun.rs Prairie Addition to said City ofTacoma. IICCOrding to the plat rec:otded in Book 2 of Plats, Page 90; thence Easterly along the North line of said Hunt's Prairie Addition to the point of intersection with the West right-of way line of Madison Street, according to the recorded plat thereof, thence Northerly along said West right-of-way line to the point of intersection with the North line of said J. Neisson Donation Land Claim; thence Westerly along said North line a distance of 525.0 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning.

r Parcel 2 - 151-B

Lots land 2 in Block I; Lots I and 2 in Block 2; Lots I through 4, inclusive, in Block 3; Lots 1 through 5, inclusive, in Block 4; Lots l through 24, inclusive, in Blocks 5 through 8. inclusive; all in the Mechanics Home Addition to Tacoma, Washington, according to the plat r=rded in Book 6 of Plats, Page 40, in the City of Tacoma, Pierce Cowtty, Washington; also,

That portion of vacated S. 42nd Street, according to the recorded plat thereof, abutting said Block 4; also,

~ 2 -

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 65 of 252 ......

Those portions of vacated Monroe Street, according to the reeonled plat thereof, said S. 42nd Street and alleyways abutting said Blocks S through 8, inclusive. Pan:et 2 - 1s1-e

All that portion of the Sl/2NW1/4SEI/4 of Section 13, T20N, R2E, W.M, Pierce County, Washington. lying between Madison Street and Manitou Street, as now located and oon.structed. Pan:el2- 1s1-D

All those portions ofTracts 20 through 25, inclusive, Excelsior Park Tracts, City ofTacoma, Pierce County, · Washington, lying Easterly of the East right-of-way line ofManitou Street, as now located and constructed, and Westerly of the West right-of-way line of Madison Street, as now located and constructed.

Parcel 2 - 151-E

All those portions ofTracts 17, 18 and 19, Excelsior Park Tracts, City ofTacoma, Pierce County, Washington, lying Westerly of the West right-of-way line of Madison Street, as now located and constructed, and Easterly of the following ~bed line:

Beginning at a point on the North line of said Tract 19 distant 708.24 feet Westerly of the Northeast comer thereof; thence Southerly along a straight line to a point on the North line of said Tract 18 distant 707.24 feet Westerly of the Northeast comer thereof, thence Southerly along a straight line to a point on the North line of said Tract 17 distant 706.2S feet Westerly of the Northeast comer thereof, thence Southerly along a straight line to a point on the South line of said Tract 17 distant 10S.26 feet Westerly of the Southeast comer thereof and there terminating.

EXCEPTING TIIEREFROM., that portion West of the extension Northerly of the West line of the aforementioned J. Neisson Donation Land Claim.

- 3 -

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 66 of 252

PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL COVENANTS, SOUTH TACOMA FIELD OPERABLE UNIT, COMMENCEMENT BAY - SOUTH TACOMA CHANNEL SUPERFUND SITE

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 67 of 252

1/27/2 021 Mayor Victoria Woodards City Council of Tacoma 747 Market Street Tacoma, WA 98402

Mayor Woodards and the Tacoma City Council,

The South Tacoma Neighborhood Council is once again communicating our urgent request regarding the need for rezoning of land above and near the South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District. We had sent a similar letter on September 10, 2019 but received no action, much less even a reply.

Only recently, we learned the Planning Commission has now been tasked to “fast track” non-interim regulations which were primarily written for the Port of Tacoma tide-flats, yet those are also being applied to South Tacoma even though South Tacoma is vastly different than the heavy industrial port.

South Tacoma is a vibrant community made up of both historic homes and newer multi-family housing, recreational fields, school and business districts. South Tacoma's protected groundwater aquifer serves as a significant source of the city's drinking water, supplying up to forty percent of Tacoma's water demand. South Tacoma's history of railroad industry no longer reflects present day, and the M2 industrial zoning from 1953 is inappropriate and should have been recognized as outdated long ago.

Ironically, the ST-M/IC proposes to restrict precisely the kind of non-industrial businesses we would like to welcome to South Tacoma, which CoT recognized as obviously incompatible with heavy industry. For example, the proposed regulations acknowledge that an assisted-living facility should not be near an M2 zone, while at the same time the city's "Home in Tacoma" project is proposing high-density housing in South Tacoma near the very areas the non- interim regulations are trying to retain as solely heavy industry.

South Tacoma needs to be removed from the Tide-flat Non-Interim Regulations, and the industrial zoning must be reviewed and changed. It is no longer acceptable to assume that South Tacoma may someday later get a closer look' as was suggested by the city staffer in a recent Planning Commission meeting. Now is the time to take the obvious action and give South Tacoma proper designation instead of allowing for continued high pollution levels contributing to the unbalanced early mortality rates occurring here (per TPCHD).

We envision a new approach, such as a “Green Zone” which could be realistically obtainable with progressive- minded enticements and rezoning to support economically and environmentally sustainable businesses, while preventing additional health hazards and prohibiting further threat or contamination to the aquifer.

We of the South Tacoma Neighborhood Council are once again formally requesting that this issue no longer go unnoticed, un-responded to and un-acted upon. We look forward to working with the city in determining the best new approach for South Tacoma; either as a separate interim-or-non-interim regulation specific to this area, or an amendment to the comprehensive plan for corrected rezoning, and/or your welcomed solutions to create a better future for South Tacoma which will also be for the betterment of our entire city.

Respectfully, South Tacoma Neighborhood Council

CC: Tacoma City Council, Tacoma Planning Commission, Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, Pierce County Council, All Tacoma Neighborhood Councils, Rep. Melanie Morgan, Rep. Steve Kirby, Sen. Steve Conway

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 68 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Felicity Devlin Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 2:02 PM To: Wung, Lihuang Subject: “non-interim” Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations

Dear Planning Commissioners,

I applaud the City's Planning Department and Planning Commission for developing a draft code for the Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations that reflects our community's environmental values and our desire to take meaningful action to combat climate change and move our economy onto a more sustainable basis.

To this end, I support the proposed amendments to ban all new and expanded major fossil fuel facilities, petrochemical manufacturing, coal storage and power plants, and smelting within the City of Tacoma. And I urge the Planning Commission to send the following recommendations to City Council for consideration:

The overall amendments are strong. However, the Washington Environmental Council has identified a list of shortcomings that should be addressed in order to achieve the intended oversight and protections from high risk facilities. I therefore urge the Commission to address the following:

 Conversion from Renewable to Fossil Fuel Facility: Tacoma should not permit the conversion of existing or future permitted Renewable Fuel Facilities to fossil fuel facilities, and should ensure the code does not allow for the permitting of a new renewable fuel facility which could then execute a backdoor conversion to fossil fuels via a conditional use permit. Such a conversion would pose the very same health, safety, and environmental risks as would a new or expanded facility and is inconsistent with the City’s stated policy goals.  Expansions of petrochemical facilities: The code amendments should address modifications at existing petrochemical facilities with a similar approach as it does major fossil fuel facilities--with conditional use permits for the replacement and modification of equipment and a prohibition on capacity expansions.  Replacement or modification of storage tanks: The code should clarify that replacement or modifications of any storage tank prohibits a capacity increase. A conditional use requirement for replacing storage tanks should only allow for the option to replace existing storage capacity.

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 69 of 252  Conditional use criteria: Expanded conditional use criteria for high impact facilities should specifically require minimization of adverse human health impacts associated with project proposals and also address unreasonable adverse impacts to “large concentrations of people” beyond nearby residential and commercial areas, including impacts to incarcerated populations and workers within Tacoma’s industrial areas.  Definition of “Major Fossil Fuel Facility”: The volumetric threshold for a “major fossil fuel facility” should be lowered to encompass all six existing fossil fuel storage, refinement, and processing facilities, including Pacific Functional Fluids which appears to fall roughly 80,000 gallons short of the classification.  Mitigation requirements for projects should address full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, not solely facility emissions

I hope you will address these shortcomings and approve and send these recommendations for critical protections to Tacoma City Council. Thank you for your work to protect Tacoma from the risks of new and expanded fossil fuels.

Sincerely, Felicity Devlin 2417 N Washington St Tacoma, WA 98406

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 70 of 252

March 8, 2021

City of Tacoma Planning Commission 747 Market Street, Room 345 Tacoma, Washington 98402 [email protected]

Subject: WEC Comments on Non-Interim Industrial Land Use Regulations

Dear Chair Petersen and Planning Commissioners,

Thank you to the Planning Department staff and to the Planning Commission for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into greater alignment with City policies and community values.

The draft code under consideration is a substantial and critical improvement to existing code, and we strongly support the proposed amendments to prohibit all new and expanded major fossil fuel facilities, petrochemical manufacturing, coal storage and power plants, and smelting within the City of Tacoma.

These amendments will provide long-needed protections in Tacoma, which has been continuously targeted by new and expanding fossil fuel facilities that are completely incompatible with ensuring community health and safety, protecting our climate, and upholding the City’s own environmental protection goals and Climate Emergency Declaration.

Specific amendments we urge the Planning Commission to maintain and recommend to City Council are:

 Prohibition of new major fossil fuel facilities, petrochemical manufacturing, coal storage and power plants, and smelting within the City of Tacoma  Prohibition of new driveways, private rail sidings, docks, piers, wharves and floats, and storage tanks at existing fossil fuel facilities, as well as any modifications that would increase the capacity of these facilities  Prohibition of new refining or processing equipment at existing facilities  Conditional use permit requirements for replacement or modification of existing tanks, and replacement or modification of transshipment equipment  Conditional use permit requirements for new Renewable Fuel Refineries or Renewable Fuel Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility. While we support the available permitting pathway for new Renewable Fuel Facilities, a conditional use permit requirement is necessary and appropriate to ensure these facilities meet minimum environmental standards and do not create other adverse impacts on community health and safety.  Expanded notification requirements, especially the inclusion of renters/occupants as well as taxpayers  Preference for local mitigation and annual reporting requirements of project applicants

The overall amendments are strong. However, we also urge the Planning Commission to address the following shortcomings to ensure they fully achieve the intended oversight and protections from high risk facilities:

 Prohibit conversion from Renewable to Fossil Fuel Facility: Tacoma should not permit the conversion of existing or future permitted Renewable Fuel Facilities to fossil fuel facilities, and should ensure the code does not allow for the permitting of a new renewable fuel facility which could then execute a backdoor

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 71 of 252 conversion to fossil fuels via a conditional use permit. Such a conversion would pose the very same health, safety, and environmental risks as would a new or expanded facility and is inconsistent with the City’s stated policy goals.  Limit and increase oversight on expansions of petrochemical facilities: The code amendments should address modifications at existing petrochemical facilities with a similar approach as it does major fossil fuel facilities--with conditional use permits for the replacement and modification of equipment and a prohibition on capacity expansions. The code should more clearly define permit thresholds that would trigger a new conditional use permit, rather than simply revising an existing conditional use permit.  Prohibit capacity expansions during storage tank replacement: The code should clarify that replacement or modification of any existing storage tank prohibits a capacity increase. A conditional use permit for replacing storage tanks should only allow for the option to replace existing storage capacity.  Strengthen conditional use criteria: Expanded conditional use criteria included throughout the amendments for high impact facilities should specifically require minimization of adverse human health impacts associated with project proposals and also address unreasonable adverse impacts to “large concentrations of people” beyond nearby residential and commercial areas, including impacts to incarcerated populations and workers within Tacoma’s industrial areas.  Definition of “Major Fossil Fuel Facility”: The volumetric threshold for a “major fossil fuel facility” should be lowered to encompass all six existing fossil fuel storage, refinement, and processing facilities, including Pacific Functional Fluids which appears to fall roughly 80,000 gallons short of the classification.  Strengthen mitigation requirements: Mitigation requirements for projects should address full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, not solely facility emissions.

We urge the Planning Commission to address these shortcomings and approve and send these recommendations for critical protections on to Tacoma City Council. Thank you for consideration and work to protect Tacoma from the risks of new and expanded fossil fuels.

Sincerely,

Anna Doty Fossil Fuel Campaign Manager Washington Environmental Council

Courtesy copy via e-mail:

Mayor Victoria Woodards, City of Tacoma John Hines, Tacoma Councilmember Council - Position 1 Robert Thoms, Tacoma Councilmember - Position 2 Keith Blocker, Deputy Mayor, Tacoma Councilmember - Position 3 Catherine Ushka, Tacoma Councilmember - Position 4 Chris Beale, Tacoma Councilmember - Position 5 Lillian Hunter, Tacoma Councilmember - Position 6 Conor McCarthy, Tacoma Councilmember - Position 7 Kristina Walker, Tacoma Councilmember - Position 8 Stephen Atkinson, Tacoma Principal Planner

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 72 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Therese Dowd Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 10:49 AM To: Planning Subject: Strong Non-interim Regulations Are Vital For Climate Prosperity

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

I am forwarding this letter to ask your full support of the recommendations below. The recent fire st the Tacoma Port is a major alarm that signals need for strong action now to protect our beautiful city and the Puget Sound. Let us focus instead on projects that add to our city's vibrancy.

Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

The current draft code is a strong proposal, and I heartily support the Planning Commission’s recommendation to ban all new and expanded major fossil fuel facilities, petrochemical manufacturing, coal storage and power plants, and smelting within the City of Tacoma’s jurisdiction.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 73 of 252 • Conditional use permit requirements for replacement or modification of existing tanks, and replacement or modification of transshipment equipment • Conditional use permit requirements for new Renewable Fuel Refineries or Renewable Fuel Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

Please address these issues and then approve the amendment to send these recommendations for critical protections to Tacoma City Council. Thank you for consideration and work to protect Tacoma from new and expanded fossil fuels.

Sincerely,

Therese Dowd [email protected] 1870 N. Skyline Dr Tacoma, Washington 98406

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 74 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: shammai Durrette Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:20 PM To: Planning Subject: Comment

Tideflats and industral land use requlations! I want make shore i walk to the bus stops and the store. Put signs up with hours on it.

Other issues around pacific ave and lincoln side lot of homeless tents i want to know what do about this issues! They also hanging around the stores too They by hospital by yakima too tents up hilltop too

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 75 of 252 February 16, 2021

City of Tacoma Attn: Planning Commission 747 Market St. #345 Tacoma WA 98402

Dear Planning Commission:

The New Tacoma Neighborhood Council appreciated the opportunity to participate in the listening session and providing input on recommendations for a Non-Interim Ordinance to replace the Tideflats Interim Regulations. As requested, we are following up in writing with our feedback. Decisions moving forward have significant impact as the New Tacoma footprint includes the Port, Downtown core, parts of Stadium, Dome District, and Hilltop.

Primary concerns / interest rests with the shoreline S-series zoning districts due to our footprint; however, decisions made impact all of Tacoma and we share the most direct impacts with our South Tacoma and Northeast Community Councils. It is important for us to mitigate risk and associated safety concerns of high-risk developments, environmental concerns with industry that add significant emissions/impact to air quality, and businesses that could significantly impact keeping Commencement Bay and our waterway - clean. A significant amount of funding and time in making it a priority to restore the bay and the “Tacoma aroma” from years past. Additionally, expanding the notification process early of high risk/high impact expansion and new business planning is critical to give adequate time for community to provide input. This affords their understanding of what is being proposed to be expanded/built within the zoning districts

It is important to continue a path forward for recreational and community developments such as, but not limited to, Melanie Dressel and the Waterway Park, a vision for a Petrich Maritime Center on the east side of the Thea Foss Waterway across from Downtown Tacoma, multi-family residential/retail along Dock Street, and other sustainable industries that will grow the business of the Port of Tacoma with other zoning districts. This is in addition to mitigating the risk without having adequate public notification/involvement before moving forward with high risk/high danger and non-sustainable or environmentally sound developments that would only set back Tacoma.

As others mentioned, we also share the concern over development/encroachment and its impact to sustaining the growth of a healthy Port business in which Tacoma is one of the key coastline Ports. That was echoed in one of the guest speakers comparing to what has happened at another west coast port in San Francisco, which appears to have had significant impact due to encroachment.

Finally, as the Sub Area Plan moves forward, what impact would decisions made on making the regulations permanent have on that planning process or is the intent that both happen simultaneously.

Thank you –

Thomas Ebenhoh Vice Chair, New Tacoma Neighborhood Council [email protected] cc: Principal Planner, Stephen Atkinson Staff Liaison/Senior Planner, Lihuang Wung

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 76 of 252 Staff Note: Included here for the record is a public hearing notice Wung, Lihuang distributed by the Department of Ecology, not a written comment.

From: Joblonski, Donna Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 4:10 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Van De Vanter, Jamie (PARKS); Lentes, Gwendolen A (DFW); [email protected]; [email protected]; Doenges, Rich (ECY) Cc: Planning; Van Zwalenburg, Kim (ECY) Subject: City of Tacoma Shoreline Master Program Amendment

The City of Tacoma (City) and Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) are seeking comments on proposed amendments to the Tacoma Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The City has prepared draft amendments addressing the following topics: 1) permit notification; 2) conversion of industrial lands; 3) residential encroachment on industrial lands; and, 4) siting criteria and development standards for potentially high risk/high impact industrial uses. The City has elected to use the optional joint review process to combine the local and Ecology comment periods, as allowed under WAC 173-26-104. No additional comment period will occur during the state review process. Comments provided to the City will be reviewed by both the City and Ecology; duplicates are not necessary.

Comments may be submitted by email to: [email protected]

Or by mail to:

Planning Services 747 Market St., Rm 345 Tacoma, WA 98402

Comments are due by March 8 2021, at 5:00 p.m. Comments can also be made during the Public Hearing noted below.

Joint Public Hearing to be held remotely with the Planning Commission via Zoom on March 3, 2021, at 5:30 p.m.

Hearing information will be posted on the City’s project page at: www.cityoftacoma.org/tideflatsinterim

Documents available for review at the City’s Tideflats Interim Regulations webpage:  Web: https://www.cityoftacoma.org/cms/one.aspx?pageId=132616

At the conclusion of the comment period, the City will prepare a response to comments and determine whether changes are needed. Public comments and City responses will be shared with Ecology. After local adoption, the SMP amendment will be formally submitted to Ecology for final decision per WAC 173-26-104 and WAC 173-26-110. Ecology will review amendments for consistency

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 77 of 252 with state laws and rules and decide whether to approve the program as adopted or recommend changes.

If you have questions for Ecology, contact Kim Van Zwalenburg, Senior Shoreline Planner, at (360) 742-2074.

ADA accommodation: 360-407-6831 Relay Service: 711 TTY: 877-833-6341

Donna Joblonski Administrative Assistant Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program Department of Ecology │ Southwest Regional Office Ph. 360-407-7058 │ [email protected]

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 78 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: COLLEEN Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 11:47 AM To: Planning Subject: RE: PS re: Tideflats and Industrial Land Use

Lihuang,

Yes, that is fine.

I have lived In my home for three years, and I have to admit that the noise from all that metal work and the trains seems to have escalated.

In the past, I resorted to keeping my bedroom window closed at night to muffle the noise so I can sleep. Lately, the noise has been waking me up in the middle of the night so as of last week, I had to move out of the master bedroom and into the guest bedroom on the other side of my home. It's very sad as I love seeing the lights of the port when I go to bed and the beautiful green trees when I wake in the morning. Now I only have window shades to look at when I go to bed and wake as the guest bedroom is on the street side of my home.

Several weeks ago I did file a noise complaint with the city, but I have not heard back from anyone.

Sadly, I have been contemplating selling my home which I love because of the around the clock noise from all the activity below. During the daytime and waking hours I am perfectly fine with the noise. After 10 pm, it's a starts to be a real problem for anyone who wants to sleep.

Thank you so much for your time and concern regarding this problem.

Sincerely,

Colleen Faye

Sent from Xfinity Connect Application

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐

From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: 2021‐03‐01 11:17:08 AM Subject: RE: PS re: Tideflats and Industrial Land Use

Colleen,

While Steve is responding to you, I wanted to ask if you’d like to have your comments (this e‐mail thread) included in the Planning Commission’s public hearing record. Although you just wanted to have some questions answered, your questions bring up some valid concerns that the Commission should probably be made aware of. Please let me know. Thank you.

LIHUANG WUNG Senior Planner City of Tacoma – Planning & Development Services (PDS) (253) 591‐5682 1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 79 of 252

PDS Customer Survey (Please take the survey to help us improve our customer service.)

From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 6:23 PM To: Planning Subject: PS re: Tideflats and Industrial Land Use

Hi Steve,

I have one more question I should have asked you.

I live in NE Tacoma, on the hill just above the Port of Tacoma/Tideflats area and near all that metal and what appears to be the pulp mill. Oftentimes, I hear all this loud crashing sound of metal and I’m wondering what that is? Is that metal being loaded into trains, metal fabrication or just metal being dumped or moved? It happens around the clock and I would love to know exactly what that is.

Thanks in advance!

Best Regards,

Colleen Faye

From: Planning Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 10:16 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Tideflats and Industrial Land Use

Hi Colleen,

In general, the proposal would limit the types of industrial activities allowed throughout the City. For example, mining and quarrying, smelting, coal facilities, chemical manufacturing, and oil and petroleum refining and processing would be prohibited or limited. Based on an environmental review of the proposal, the changes would likely not affect any existing activities that are causing noise or light impacts, but would reduce the potential impacts of future development activity. The areas primarily affected are the Port of Tacoma/Tideflats area and the South Tacoma industrial area (Nalley Valley) though there are pockets of areas around the City that are currently zoned for industrial uses.

Kindest regards,

Steve Atkinson Planning and Development Services

From: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 9:47 AM To: Planning Subject: Tideflats and Industrial Land Use

Hello!

I received your notice of public hearing and would like a simple answer if possible.

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 80 of 252 The notice I received talks about what areas and activities may be affected. – Are we talking about increased noise and activity in those areas? I tried to check this out online and didn’t actually find the answer to my question which is why I am writing.

Thanks in advance,

Colleen Faye

3 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 81 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Judy Ferguson Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 7:47 PM To: Planning Subject: Comments - Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations

Planning Commissioners -

I am a 32 year resident of Browns Point and prior to that lived in NE Tacoma for 6 years. For many of those years I commuted into Tacoma across the Hylebos bridge or, when the bridge was up, via Marine View Drive past Tacoma Boat, which was still in operation. The zoning district in the Tideflats has undergone many changes over the years and I appreciate the opportunity to submit my thoughts on the proposed amendments.

In reading and reviewing the documents, I would ask that you also consider the followings:

1. Public Notification - - Although I live in Browns Point and not NE Tacoma, my home and family are affected by commercial activities in the Port of Tacoma and along Marine View Drive. 2500 feet is only .47 mile and my home is located slightly farther away than that. Depending on the weather and winds, noxious aromas come our way and onto my doorstep. I have contacted Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) a number of times to report caustic odors outside - - Stericycle-Tacoma in 2018 was certainly very smellable, as was the recent Trident trawler fire. As we learned this summer with the wildfire smoke and an inversion layer, potentially harmful emissions may not always quickly dissipate, but can stay in the area for days. I would request that Browns Point residents be included in Tideflats mailings as we, too, have a vested interest in how our daily lives are affected by Tideflats' commercial activities, whether it's airborne particulates, traffic issues, noise pollution or human safety concerns.

2. Marine View Drive and NE Tacoma slopes - - The stability of the NE Tacoma/Marine View Drive slope has always been a concern and we have always appreciated the prompt response of both WSDOT and Tacoma Public Works to close off the road and begin the cleanup of slide debris. Those of us that regularly drive along the slope pay great attention to rockfall along the road's shoulder as a precursor of what might be coming. As the City and Port both actively recruit new businesses to the Tideflats, consideration must be given to the quality of life residential occupants on the Marine View Drive slopes will have. Certainly the Hylebos siting of the LNG facility that has the potential to experience an explosive BLEVE is not a good match with either the proximate 'live aboard' Marina community or the residents whose homes are on Browns Point Boulevard at the top of the hill. The 'urban' uniqueness of the Tideflats and Port requires an equally 'unique' consideration of how commercial business and residential living can co-exist. Certain businesses may not be good neighbors in this type of setting and unregulated residential growth may be harmful to the integrity of the slope. I would urge the Planning Commission to continue to weigh how to approach these fractious differences - - Is residential encroaching on Industrial OR is Industrial encroaching on residential? Once residential construction was allowed, then Industrial/commercial practices must be adjusted to accommodate the health and safety of residential neighbors. Is it an easy task to find the 'sweet spot' where industrial and residential can co-exist? No, but it's imperative that that's a goal to strive for. I would also note that I am always concerned when I drive along Marine View Drive and see citizens with their families and pets recreating on the 'beach' when the tide is out. Do they not know how toxic the water is? Do they serve the fish they're catching to their family and friends? I fear that those new to the community or visiting for the day see sparkling water and make assumptions that it's a great place to play. Signage conveying the risk would be a good thing.

3. Major fossil fuel production facilities - - While I applaud the recommendation to ban all new and expanded major fossil fuel facilities, etc., I don't believe that existing facilities should be given a pass! I shared my concern with the City last week on the expansion of the Seaport Alliance facility. I urge the Commission to ensure that modifications at existing facilities are given conditional use permits and that capacity expansions are prohibited. The SeaPort Alliance expansion reminded me of a home buyer that purchases with the intent to remodel, but then decide to do a teardown and rebuild. The homebuyer doesn't get to rebuild or remodel, for that matter, under 'grandfathered' codes. They are subject to all the new codes and permit requirements currently on the books, which must be reviewed and signed off on. I would expect Industry to have even stricter oversight. The Methanol and LNG plants have brought to the surface many concerns that large industries bring with them. For a small Port like Tacoma's, how many businesses dealing with fossil fuels can be accommodated when human health and public safety are considered? Who is keeping track of what chemicals or hazardous substances each individual business is using, storing, discarding, etc? What entity is keeping tabs on the cumulative amount of fossil fuels or hazardous chemicals in our Port in relation to what the City's Fire 1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 82 of 252 Department can handle? This is information that needs to be tabulated by a group independent of the Port's commercial clients or Chamber of Commerce. We all know the risk of an earthquake or explosion. The Port has had a number of very close calls in the last few years that have provided food for thought as those incidences resulted in major gridlock that left Port employees with no quick escape route. The daytime coal train derailment was a mess - - can you imagine how that might have gone had there been a fire or explosion? The mantra that the Port provides living wage jobs isn't that lucrative if one's life is at risk should an large incident at the Port occur. I understand and appreciate the distinction between the City's Tideflats businesses and those of the Port of Tacoma. However, the distinction can become moot when they are often close neighbors and certainly when there is an incident.

Thank you for your consideration of my thoughts and concerns.

Judy Ferguson 7219 East Side Dr NE Tacoma 98422

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 83 of 252

March 2, 2021

Transmitted to: [email protected] with copy to staff liaison, Lihuang Wung [email protected]

Re: Non-Interim Tideflats Regulations

Dear Planning Commissioners:

As Chair of the Tacoma Public Utilities Board (PUB), I support the deeper review and modification of interim Tideflats regulations to ensure opportunities for economic development so that new environmentally friendly businesses and green jobs can thrive in our local economy. The PUB has adopted policies and strategic plans to ensure that TPU is committed to being good stewards of the region’s natural resources, and is a leader in the preservation, protection, and restoration of those resources while maintaining its excellent delivery of services and supporting the growth of our local economy. Bold action is needed to protect our rare industrial lands, and dedicate them to industries that will bolster our economy without contributing emissions to the climate crisis. We believe the regulations put forth will transition us to a sustainable economy and give reliable guidelines that will allow our customers in the tideflats to thrive.

In November 2020, the PUB and the Tacoma City Council approved a Tacoma Power pilot tariff rate focused on promoting the development of “electrofuel” production which consists of renewable, non-carbon fuels aimed at decarbonizing transportation and energy generation and storage. This tariff reflects TPU’s commitment to a clean, green and sustainable future. The PUB has joined the Tacoma City Council in supporting Council Resolution 40509, which declares a climate emergency in Tacoma, and prioritizes strategies and actions for improving environmental quality. In addition, the PUB has approved a number of strategic directives, three of which address environmental leadership, decarbonization and economic development.

After review of the proposed regulatory changes, I offer my support and comments on two areas of particular interest to TPU:

1. Renewable Fuels TPU recognizes the economic benefit of regulations that support renewable fuel production e.g. green hydrogen, storage and transportation within the tideflats and the City’s industrial zones, and therefore support the intent of the following proposed amendments:

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 84 of 252

a. TMC 13.01 Definitions and Title 19 Shoreline Master Program Chapter 10 in which the definition and description of Renewable Fuels, Renewable Fuel Production Facilities and Renewable Fuel Storage and Distribution Facilities are codified; b. TMC 13.05.010 Conditional Use Permits and Title 19 Chapter 2.1.7.f Shoreline Conditional Use Permits for renewable fuel facilities allowing them to locate and operate within the City’s PMI and heavy industrial zones; and c. TMC 13.06.080 Special Use Standards and Title 19 Shoreline Master Program Chapter 7 that allow for new renewable fuel production facilities and for the expansion of capacity at fossil fuel production facilities should that expansion be for the production of renewable fuels. Without these amendments, the development of a clean, carbon-free fuel economy here in Tacoma would not be possible. Removing the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for production facilities of known renewable fuels, as defined in the proposed amendments, will provide additional levels of certainty in the permitting process and incentivize their development. The strategic application of Conditional Use Permits, specifically for innovative conceptual fuels and for those unknown to us at this time, creates a necessary safeguard to instill confidence in the rate-payers that we serve the cleanest, safest, products possible.

Tacoma Power is playing a strategic role in decarbonizing our future. That can be done by supporting the development of a nascent industry cluster and putting Tacoma-Pierce County at the leading edge of carbon-free fuel production in the nation with, what is likely, the first electrofuels rate in the nation. These amendments go a long way to making this goal attainable.

2. Chemical Manufacturing I support the proposed amendments effectively removing the blanket ban on chemical manufacturing while identifying prohibited activities within this group. This clarification regarding chemical manufacturing processes will create economic activity that will have a lasting impact on the area’s economy. Manufacturing supports trade related activities that generate inflows of money into the community; diversifies our economy; provides employment opportunities for all educational attainment and socio-economic levels, and future proofs the city’s workforce. In addition, manufacturing provides jobs with living wages that are critical to Tacoma’s sustainability and resiliency.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 85 of 252

In summary, I support the direction in which the proposed Non-Interim Tideflats Regulations are developing. I recognize that Commission Members and staff have an immense task before you in a constrained timeline. I appreciate the effort being expended into making these critical revisions. I offer support and assistance in achieving a sustainable economy that ensures equity and environmental stewardship are at the forefront of all we hope to achieve.

Sincerely,

Bryan Flint, Chair Tacoma Public Utility Board

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 86 of 252 Wung, Lihuang From: Jim Barb Gregg Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 8:48 AM To: Planning Subject: Tideflats

Additionally we have PSE energy for our power and they deceive the customers with their monopoly and profits but I am not proud of that.

Wung, Lihuang From: Jim Barb Gregg Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 8:44 AM To: Planning Subject: Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations

Too many "liberties" have already been taken with the industrial zoning in the tide flat area. Dependence on fossil fuels has come to a breaking point where priorities have to shift to clean energy. Our health, transportation,resources and moral obligation to the Earth and Creations of the environment should have presidence over the path that has been able to expand. I live in Renton but what's happened at the Tacoma waterfront and tide flats is a wake up call for us all.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 87 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Eddie Griffiths Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 4:29 PM To: Planning Subject: Public comment RE: Tacoma Tideflats

It requires far more than idle comments about "concern" about global warming or "shame" about never honoring tribal treaties at the Port of Tacoma--it requires resolve & legal boundaries to reverse & mitigate the clear & present existing hazardous waste pit which defines the former estuary of the Puyallup tribe. It is not simply a tribal issue but one which adversely impacts the downtown core, commuters on I-5, & yes, even my wife's family members residing in Puyallup. Any existing loopholes permitting toxic runoff or emissions must be addressed at this juncture. All unpermitted new construction of PSE tank farm is out of the question if the community is to have a liveable future. Only a Green New Deal has the potential to offer us that. I requestfully submit that all Council Members commit to this healthful choice.

Eddie Griffiths Member of 350 Seattle

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 88 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: erin gubelman Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2021 6:37 PM To: Planning Subject: Public Hearing on Tideflats Comment

Dear Tacoma Planning Commissioners,

I'm a mom and and an educator and your work is especially pivotal to our children and generations to come. I'm also a former conservation biologist and I know how hard it is to get all stakeholders together to agree. Thank you to all of you in the Planning Department and to the Commission for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into greater alignment with City policy and community values.

My comments are that the draft code the Planning Commission has developed is a strong proposal, and I would like to pass along my strong support for the Planning Commission’s recommendation to ban all new and expanded major fossil fuel facilities, petrochemical manufacturing, coal storage and power plants, and smelting within the City of Tacoma.

Specific recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

However, I also urge the Commission to address the following shortcomings in the code:  Conversion from Renewable to Fossil Fuel Facility: Tacoma should not permit the conversion of existing or future permitted Renewable Fuel Facilities to fossil fuel facilities, even with a conditional use permit requirement. Such a conversion would pose the very same health, safety, and environmental risks as would a new or expanded facility and is inconsistent with the City’s stated policy goals.  Conditional use criteria: Expanded conditional use criteria for high impact facilities should specifically require minimization of adverse human health impacts associated with project proposals and also address unreasonable adverse impacts to “large concentrations of people” beyond nearby residential and commercial areas, including impacts to incarcerated populations and workers within in Tacoma’s industrial areas  Definition of “Major Fossil Fuel Facility”: The volumetric threshold for a “major fossil fuel facility” should be lowered to encompass all six existing fossil fuel storage, refinement, and processing facilities, including Pacific Functional Fluids which appears to fall roughly 80,000 gallons short of the classification  Mitigation requirements for projects should address full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, not solely facility emissions

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 89 of 252 Thank you for consideration and work to protect Tacoma from new and expanded fossil fuels. Only through your dedication can we preserve our waterways and prevent further acidification of our seas.

Sincerely, Erin E. Gubelman

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 90 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Randy Heiberg Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 4:08 PM To: Atkinson, Stephen; Wung, Lihuang Cc: Larry Heiberg; Chris Heiberg Subject: Public Comment Meeting Scheduled for March 3rd

Dear Mr Atkinson and the Tacoma Planning Committee:

The current draft document recently submitted for public review contains a multitude of changes and information. The amount of information was overwhelming.

With Covid 19 concerns, the reliance on virtual meetings only, with limiting public input during the process over the last year to only written comments, the ability for public participation has been significantly compromised. This is evidenced by the number of questions raised by the public at the public Q & A Information Meeting held last evening. Due to the limited amount of time, several questions were left unanswered.

The Chapter 2, Part C, "Residential Encroachment" issue has unique complexities that are significantly different to that of the short and long term development of fossil fuel industries in the Tideflats area.

It is extremely important that adequate time and opportunity be provided for all public testimony. It is also important that questions that have already been written and submitted have the opportunity to be answered.

I am specifically requesting multiple forums be scheduled.

I appreciate your consideration in this matter.

Respectfully,

Randy P. Heiberg, P.E. Heiberg Properties, LLC BA Heiberg Trust

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 91 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Fritzel, Anne (COM) Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 9:02 AM To: Planning Subject: ATTENTION: Lihuang Wung

Hi Lihuang,

I am sharing a call from the public about the tideflats and residential encroachment. This seems like a really difficult issue to deal with. Mr. Heiberg and I talked about protecting the economy (also happens in agriculture) basic zoning and separation of uses for public health and safety, shorelines and protecting Puget Sound, steep slopes, and how the Home in Tacoma project can offer other places for increased residential development.

Hope you are well, Anne

From: Fritzel, Anne (COM) Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 8:57 AM To: '[email protected]' Cc: Roberge, Steve (COM) Subject: RE: City of Tacoma Amendment Draft Report for Public Comment

Hello Mr. Heiberg,

I am following up our phone conversation with my contact information. I would be happy to talk through the basic concepts of land use planning and answer more questions.

Of course, the person to talk to would be Tacoma staff that are working on this proposal. I suggest you start with Lihuang Wung, Senior Planner (253) 591‐5682, but the best way to reach him is by sending an email to [email protected].

Anne Aurelia Fritzel, AICP | SENIOR PLANNER Growth Management Services | Washington State Department of Commerce 1011 Plum Street SE, Olympia, WA 98504‐2525 Cell: 360.259.5216 | Email: [email protected] www.commerce.wa.gov/serving‐communities/growth‐management/ Subscribe for monthly e‐mail updates from Growth Management Services.

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Subscribe

Email communications with state employees are public records and may be subject to disclosure, pursuant to Ch. 42.56 RCW.

From: Randy Heiberg < > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:48 PM To: Andersen, Dave (COM) Subject: City of Tacoma Amendment Draft Report for Public Comment

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 92 of 252 External Email

Dave;

My name is Randy Heiberg and I left you a voicemail today but I often have trouble talking into a recorder. If you could forward my question to an appropriate person for the answer, I would really appreciate it.

I am a property owner of 8 acres in the NE Tacoma area. We have development processes underway to develop the property into a 20 home plat.

We are in the urban growth area of the City of Tacoma.

The City of Tacoma is planning on reducing our existing residential density from a minimum lot size of 5000 square ft. to a density of 1 residence per acre. This will be very damaging to us and I believe it violates the concentrated urban growth goals of the GMA.

Can you forward a name and contact person to me who might be able to answer this question if the City can do this?

Thank you.

Randy P. Heiberg, P.E. 253-380-9699

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 93 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Randy Heiberg Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 4:17 PM To: Atkinson, Stephen; Wung, Lihuang; Chris Heiberg; Larry Heiberg Subject: Tideflats Overlay - Loss of Post Covid Economic Recovery Opportunity Attachments: LSC_HousingPlan_2020_for_web.pdf

Dear Mr. Atikinson and the Planning Committee:

At the March 3rd public meeting, I heard testimony from Ms. Jessica Gamble of the Master Builders Association. She spoke about not lowering the housing densities in the bluff area.

The MBA has completed significant research in the area of residential construction and it's impact on the local economy. The NHBA (National Home Builders Association) has published the following data:

The estimated one-year local impacts of building 100 single-family homes in Pierce County include $28.0 million in local income, $3.5 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments, and 380 local jobs. ( entire text is attached)

Considering the limited amount of remaining area along the Hylebos and Marine View Drive that is untapped for industrial use, has the planning committee performed any economic analysis to see if by promoting industrial growth over that of residential growth, that this would actually shoot the economic recovery effort in the foot?

The current proposed plan shows areas capable of supporting many multiples of 100 single family homes.

With economic recovery and residential housing needs of the city, along with the goals of Mayor Woodard, I urge the committee to maintain current residential densities in the bluff areas of NE Tacoma, and not reduce it to one house per acre.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Randy P. Heiberg The Heiberg Family 253-380-9699

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 94 of 252 10-POINT PLAN FOR HOUSING ATTAINABILITY IN PIERCE COUNTY

2020 MBA GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS INITIATIVES

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 95 of 252 MBA Pierce recognizes that HOME BUILDING: Pierce County is experiencing INVESTING IN THE COMMUNITY a significant affordable housing The National Home Building Association has crisis, which is why we believe provided MBA Pierce with a “Local Impact of Home in a bold legislative agenda Building in Pierce County, Washington” report. This that creates attainable housing report analyzes the effect of homebuilding on the solutions. local economy, including new income and jobs for residents, and new revenue for local governments. Scott Walker Our Association’s 10-point 2020 MBA Pierce action plan promotes measures President According to the report, “The estimated one-year offered by our Legislative local impacts of building 100 single-family homes in Strategy Committee (LSC) to Pierce County include $28.0 million in local income, address the crisis the region is $3.5 million in taxes and other revenue for local facing. The plan contains a governments, and 380 local jobs. These are local diverse set of solutions that impacts, representing income and jobs for residents encourage increasing the of Pierce County, and taxes (and other sources of housing supply, pursuing process revenue, including permit fees) for all local improvements, and advocating jurisdictions within the county. They are also one- for sound legislation year impacts that include both the direct and recommended by industry indirect impact of the construction activity itself, experts. and the impact of local residents who earn money from the construction activity spending part of it In the year ahead, MBA Pierce within the local area. Evan Mann will be advocating for these 2020 LSC Chair changes. We invite you to join More can be read from this report on our us in helping to advance website at www.mbapierce.com. housing attainability solutions.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 96 of 252 ACHIEVING HOUSING ATTAINABILITY 5. Support over-the-counter IN PIERCE COUNTY permit options in more jurisdictions around Pierce 1. Include an “Industry Impact” on the Fiscal Note County. within each jurisdiction’s proposed legislation to highlight the impact to the legislation has to the cost of building a 6. Work with Water home. Purveyors to establish consistency in practices 2. Encourage gross density calculation measures to be and fee rates throughout considered and adopted so that developers may build the network of companies. more housing on developable land. 7. Encourage wetland mitigation as well as nexus and rough proportionality through the voluntary committees we participate in throughout the jurisdictions.

8. Promote upzoning and small lot code changes in the Urban Growth Area. 3. Establish a Universal Base Plan Program in major County jurisdictions so that developers can expect 9. Scrutinize tree coverage uniformity and predictability. codes and proposals in jurisdictions. 4. Institute administrative approval of final platsin jurisdictions throughout Pierce County to provide timeline 10. Resist fire sprinkler and efficiencies for builders and jurisdictional staff. fire impact fee ordinances.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 97 of 252 REPRESENTING BUILDERS THROUGHOUT PIERCE COUNTY

Committees / Roundtables We Participate On: • Pierce County Transportation Advisory Commission • Pierce County’s Red Tape Reduction Task Force • Tacoma Permit Advisory Task Force • Puyallup Permit Partnership • Edgewood Quarterly Roundtable • Watershed Restoration and Enhancement HOME • Committees for WRIAs 10 & 12 BUILDING Our Development Officials’ Forum: The Development Officials’ Forum, held on a quarterly BUS TOUR basis, is an opportunity for MBA members and building officials from jurisdictions throughout Pierce County to meet in person and discuss issues that affect residential construction in a friendly atmosphere. Each quarter, a new jurisdiction hosts the meeting where all participating municipalities share significant process ELECTED OFFICIALS IN changes, staffing updates, or permit backlog statuses. PIERCE COUNTY:

Interested in starting a Roundtable meeting with MBA Join MBAPC on a guided journey through the home Pierce members to discuss housing legislation? Want building process: from planning to purchase to join our quarterly Development Officials’ Forum on June 4, 2020. meetings? To find out how, contact Jessie Gamble at [email protected] or 253.254.0083. For more information, contact Jessie Gamble at [email protected] or 253.254.0083.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 98 of 252 STRATEGIES FOR INCREASING STRATEGIES FOR INCREASING EFFICIENCY IN THE EFFICIENCY IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (CONT.)

Category Specific Strategies Category Specific Strategies

Streamlining • Overhaul the permitting approval process Creating • Annual report including statistics such as and • One-stop permit system accountability average approval time consolidating • Increase coordination between • Online permit progress tracking the review permitting agencies • Customer satisfaction surveys process • Standardize interpretation of laws of building • Tie employee advancement/promotions to code across large geographical areas performance record • Change or update zoning to reduce need • Limits on review times for components of the for individual variances land development permitting process • Combine public hearings to consolidate community input process Making the • Comprehensive checklist of requirements process more paired with staff help Increasing • Maintain the appropriate staffing levels user-friendly • Create ‘development assistance department’ Capacity • Hire specialized staff • Assist with quality of applications • Establish a reliable mechanism for funding • Improve communication between building services government staff and developers with regular meetings

Creating a • Expedited review for desirable housing process for proposals State-level • Create state-level regional planning expedited • Expedited review based on pre-approval strategies commissions/authorities to provide planning review • Expedited review for an extra fee and regulatory assistance to local government agencies • Pass state legislation to improve the land development process Implementing • Online permitting, online submission of • Provide resources to towns and cities online building plans, and real-time inspection

permitting progress updates

Source: “Development Process Efficiency: Cutting through the Red Tape”, ABT Associates, 2015. Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 99 of 252 ATTAINABLE HOUSING ADVOCACY

MBA Pierce’s Government Affairs Program is an active participant in the policy and regulatory processes in Pierce County. Under the Legislative Strategy Committee’s direction, the government affairs staff works to promote the following resolutions of MBA Pierce:

• Removing regulatory and financial barriers to building attainable housing

• Promoting smart growth

• Advocating for government transparency in how permit and impact fees are calculated MORE INFORMATION • Working with local jurisdictions to ensure high levels of services and timely issuance For more information on the Master of permits Builders Association of Pierce County, visit www.mbapierce.com • Pursuing all items in the 10-point plan and other initiatives the Committee seeks to pursue

Want to help the MBA influence legislation around Pierce County? Join the Legislative Strategy Committee by contacting the Government Affairs Director, Jessie Gamble, at [email protected].

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 100 of 252 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 101 of 252

March 8, 2021

Tacoma Planning Commission City of Tacoma – Planning & Development Services 747 Market Street, Room 345, Tacoma, WA 98402

Re: Non-Interim Tideflats Regulations

Please accept our comments on the new “Non-Interim” Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations developed and recommended by the Planning Commission. We are appreciative of the draft’s reflecting our shared vision for a safe and healthy community.

Since 2017, we have advocated for the development and renewal of strong interim regulations for the Tacoma Tideflats every six months as required to maintain land use regulations during the sub-area planning process. Unfortunately, while these temporary protections prevent the construction of new fossil fuel projects, they do not prevent the expansion of existing fossil fuel facilities and require continued renewal.

We are excited that the city is moving towards a permanent status for these regulations in the sub-area planning process. Please ensure the strongest possible “non-interim” regulations which include the prevention of new fossil fuel facilities and prevent the expansion of existing facilities.

Sincerely,

Brett Johnson, Co-chair Sierra Club Tatoosh Group of Pierce County

Dorothy Walker, Co-chair Sierra Club Tatoosh Group of Pierce County

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 102 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Brett Johnson Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 3:46 PM To: Planning Subject: Strong Non-interim Regulations Are Vital For Climate Prosperity

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 103 of 252 Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

Sincerely,

Brett Johnson [email protected] 4609 N 13th St Tacoma, Washington 98406

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 104 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Mason, Evette Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:46 PM To: Planning Subject: FW: Planning Commission Comment Letter for March 3 Public Hearing from the Port of Tacoma Attachments: Port of Tacoma comments on Proposed Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations.pdf

For the record, attached are the comments from the Port of Tacoma. See below for previous dissemination to Planning Commission members as well as City staff. Thank you, Evette

Best Regards,

Evette Mason Government Affairs Manager NWSA and the Port of Tacoma (253) 383‐9435 [email protected]

Learn more about the Port of Tacoma’s Strategic Plan and provide your input at www.portoftacoma.com/openhouse.

From: Mason, Evette Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 12:47 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Woodards, Victoria ; Hines, John ; Thoms, Robert ; Keith Blocker ([email protected]) ; Ushka, Catherine ; Chris Beale ; Lillian Hunter ([email protected]) ; Connor McCarthy ([email protected]) ; Walker, Kristina ([email protected]) ; Bruce Dammeier ; [email protected]; Mayor Kim Roscoe ([email protected]) ; [email protected]; McCarthy, John ; Meyer, Don ; Ang, Kristin ; Keller, Deanna ; Marzano, Dick ; Bill.Sterud@PuyallupTribe‐nsn.gov; Annette.Bryan@puyalluptribe‐ nsn.gov; Johnson, Eric ; Wolfe, John ; Jordan, Jason ; Sean Eagan ([email protected]) ; Mason, Evette ; Wilson, Deirdre ; Heather Burgess ; [email protected]; Huffman, Peter ; Atkinson, Stephen ; jmcinnis@Huitt‐Zollars.com; Josh Brown ([email protected]) ; Dan Grimm ([email protected]) ; [email protected] Subject: Planning Commission Comment Letter for March 3 Public Hearing from the Port of Tacoma

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 105 of 252 Good Afternoon Chair Petersen and City of Tacoma Planning Commissioners,

Please accept the attached written comments on behalf of the Port of Tacoma about land use regulations in the Port of Tacoma Manufacturing Industrial Center and Industrial Zoning Districts City-wide to address: Public notification requirements for permits and land use amendments; Conversion of industrial lands to non-industrial uses; Encroachment of residential developments on industrial lands; and Siting of potentially high risk/high impact heavy industrial uses. The attached file contains four separate documents:

 Letter from Port of Tacoma Executive Director Eric Johnson;  Staff technical review and comment memorandum;  Port legal counsel review and comment letter; and  January 11, 2021 document to the Planning Commission with the Port’s TMC suggested edits.

Mr. Johnson plans to address the Planning Commission this evening, and he and Port staff are available to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you for your consideration.

Evette Mason Government Affairs Manager NWSA and the Port of Tacoma (253) 383-9435 [email protected]

All e-mail communications with the Port of Tacoma are subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act and should be presumed to be public.

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 106 of 252

March 3, 2021

Sent via post mail and e-mail

City of Tacoma Planning Commission 747 Market Street, Room 345 Tacoma, Washington 98402 [email protected]

Subject: Non-Interim Industrial Land Use Regulations Initiated by City Ordinance 28696

Dear Chair Petersen and Planning Commissioners: Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment on these important regulatory changes the City is contemplating. We understand the City is undertaking this code amendment process on a compressed timeline separate from the Tideflats Subarea Plan process. Thank you for considering our comments of January 11, 2021. Because the Public Review Document does not reflect much of the content and spirit of our January comments, I will attempt to summarize our overarching concerns and comments. 1. A fully functioning and successful industrial area is vital to support our container port. The Tideflats needs to have flexible zoning that allows for a mix of industrial uses absent confusing and restrictive permitting, such as conditional use permits. 2. Public feedback from the community during our strategic planning process this past year has indicated that the number one priority is JOBS. Jobs that pay well and are accessible to people without a college degree are especially valued. Imposing use limitations and complicated permitting requirements on manufacturing jobs will result in fewer jobs in Tacoma. 3. The City adopted the Container Port element in 2014 but has yet to implement those policies in the development regulations. Specifically, the code fails to recognize the Port MIC and does not address encroachment on the edges or limits on non-industrial uses. These issues sound familiar because they are the root of the interim regulations. The Port’s January comments help improve consistency with the comprehensive plan, with such ideas as adopting similar protections for the Port MIC that have been granted to the regionally unrecognized South Tacoma MIC. We feel this is a small ask. 4. We understand you are compelled to address fossil fuels and appreciate the recognition of a new definition for renewable fuels. We urge you to reconsider any restrictions to existing businesses that would limit their ability to provide or transition to cleaner/greener fuels and practices, such as requiring conditional use permits. Please also note that the exemption referred to by city staff at public meetings for vessel fueling and transmission of military fuels is unclear in the proposal. The Port is very concerned that while the city desires to offer a great place to live, work, and play, the consequences of the proposed amendments released for public review will result in quite the opposite. The proposed amendments are confusing, lead to unnecessary complexity in the City code, and are inconsistent with the intent of the One Tacoma Container Port Element.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 107 of 252 We continue to urge the Planning Commission and City Council to extend the timeline for review of these regulations. The issues and industries involved represent a complicated network of businesses and jobs that support our regional economy. A rushed deliberative process could have significant negative consequences for a business or resident. The Port of Tacoma is a countywide organization formed, and continues to operate, with the purpose of job creation, environmental stewardship, and promoting economic vitality. The Port shares the City’s desire to make Tacoma a great place to live, work, and play. We endeavor to meet this purpose in parallel with the protection of natural resources and spreading economic impact and opportunity throughout the region. To continue this endeavor, it is imperative that our maritime, manufacturing, and industrial lands are protected from encroachment and incompatible uses, and that a broad spectrum of industrial uses are allowed in the Tideflats. Attached, please find a staff technical memo and a legal analysis letter about the Public Review Document for the March 3, 2021 public hearing that we hope will provide further clarity regarding our concerns. The Port believes a collaborative approach by the City would be to embrace the intent and spirit of our comments. We stand ready to discuss or provide clarity and would be happy to meet with you if there are any questions. Should you or your staff have any questions, feel free to contact me directly or contact the Port of Tacoma Government Affairs Manager, Evette Mason, at 253/383-9435 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Eric Johnson Port of Tacoma Executive Director

Attachments: − Staff technical review comment memorandum − Port legal counsel review comment letter − January 11, 2021 Port TMC proposed edits

Courtesy copy via e-mail: Andrew Strobel, District 1 - Planning Commissioner Carolyn Edmonds, District 2 - Planning Commissioner Brett Santhuff, District 3 - Planning Commissioner Alyssa Torrez, District 4 - Planning Commissioner David Horne, District 5 - Planning Commissioner Jeff McInnis, Development Community - Planning Commission Vice Chair Christopher Karnes, Public Transportation - Planning Commissioner Ryan Givens, Architecture, Historic Preservation - Planning Commissioner Mayor Victoria Woodards, City of Tacoma John Hines, Tacoma Councilmember Council - Position 1 Robert Thoms, Tacoma Councilmember - Position 2 Keith Blocker, Tacoma Councilmember - Position 3

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 108 of 252 Catherine Ushka, Tacoma Councilmember - Position 4 Chris Beale, Tacoma Councilmember - Position 5 Lillian Hunter, Tacoma Councilmember - Position 6 Conor McCarthy, Tacoma Councilmember - Position 7 Kristina Walker, Tacoma Councilmember - Position 8 Bruce Dammeier, Pierce County Executive Ryan Mello, Pierce County Councilmember Mayor Kim Roscoe, City of Fife Lisa McClellan, Fife Councilmember – Position 6 John McCarthy, Port of Tacoma Commissioner Don Meyer, Port of Tacoma Commissioner Chairman Bill Sterud, Puyallup Tribe of Indians Annette Bryan, Puyallup Tribe of Indians Tribal Councilmember John Wolfe, Northwest Seaport Alliance Chief Executive Officer Jason Jordan, Northwest Seaport Alliance Environmental and Planning Director Sean Eagan, Port of Tacoma Government Affairs Director Evette Mason, Port of Tacoma Government Affairs Manager Deirdre Wilson, Northwest Seaport Alliance Senior Planning Manager Heather Burgess, Port of Tacoma Legal Counsel Elizabeth Pauli, Tacoma City Manager Peter Huffman, Tacoma Planning and Development Services Director Stephen Atkinson, Tacoma Principal Planner Josh Brown, Puget Sound Regional Council Executive Director

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 109 of 252 March 3, 2021

Memorandum

To: City of Tacoma Planning Commission

From: Port of Tacoma technical staff

Subject: Comments on Planning Commission Public Review Document Non-Interim Industrial Land Use Regulations Initiated by City Ord. 28696

Summary of technical concerns with the Public Review Document. A legal counsel detailed analysis and suggested revisions is provided as a separate attachment.

1. Please revisit the Port’s January 11, 2021 detailed suggested TMC edits (attached for reference) intended to help the City implement the existing polices of the Container Port Element. 2. Clarity and brevity in writing takes time. The Public Review Document (PRD) is 203 pages and is neither clear nor brief. The document fails to include a mark-up of the code thereby creating a confusing and impossible-to-follow proposal. Additional time may be needed to write clear and appropriate amendments to TMC Title 13, the Land Use Regulatory Code and Title 19, the Shoreline Master Program. 3. The PRD include amendments using the interim regulations as a baseline, which were assembled in haste without proper vetting. This is a flawed foundation for an amendment package. Please look at the City’s existing Container Port element as a guide for updates to the zoning code use table – as shown in the Port’s January 11th comments. 4. The City’s comprehensive plan Container Port Element identifies the Port of Tacoma Manufacturing Industrial Center (Port MIC) and provides detailed policies. Unfortunately, the Port MIC is not recognized in the City’s development regulations. The PRD pick and choose items from the Container Port Element but fail to recognize the overall spirit and intent of the Container Port Element. It is concerning that the PRD suggests a new district for the hillside, but does not include a district for the Port MIC. 5. The Port’s January 11th proposal includes use allowances and limits for the Port MIC zones like those adopted in 2008 for the South Tacoma MIC. The documents ignore this suggested approach. Importantly, this contradicts the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) who recognizes the Port MIC, but does not recognize the South Tacoma MIC. 6. The PRD amendments change public notice and application requirements in a manner inconsistent with state law and use multiple undefined terms (such as “occupant” and “resident”). It is unclear as drafted precisely how many people living in an apartment building within a notice boundary will receive individual postage paid notices. At a recent public meeting City staff mentioned an increase in notice from 33 addresses to 7,000 with the proposed new language. This is burdensome to business and seems to ignore the City’s own efforts to offer information to the public via online permit dashboards, interactive maps, and the ability to subscribe to land use public notices.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 110 of 252 7. The PRD amendments add requirements for a community meeting(s) without clarifying whether this is in addition to already required meetings under the code, or a new meeting. It is also unclear who will decide if such a meeting is required. Adding complexity and ambiguity to the permitting process is inconsistent with our economic development goals. 8. The PRD amendments add conditional use permits as a requirement for many uses, including all chemical manufacturing, and, in some instances adds new review criteria – in addition to existing conditional use permit review criteria. The additional permit review time and uncertainty of the conditional use permit process and associated conditions will result in businesses choosing to look elsewhere to site industrial uses. This result would be inconsistent with both Port and City economic development goals. 9. The PRD impose substantial additional requirements on legally existing fossil fuel facilities beyond current non-conforming use limitations and permitting requirements found in City codes. These additional requirements may have unintended consequences while such facilities remain necessary and indeed essential to support industry, business, military bases and residents in the City, the Port, and greater region. And, while City staff have mentioned an exemption for vessel fueling and military fuels, it is unclear if the proposed amendments would implement that exemption. 10. The PRD impose a conditional use permit for development of renewable fuel facilities which appear to be inconsistent with City and Port goals for carbon and greenhouse gas reduction and which fail to incentive the shift to cleaner fuels. 11. The PRD addresses some non-industrial uses in the Port MIC based on the subset chosen for the interim regulations, rather than the comprehensive approach that the Port offered. This subjective approach is inconsistent with the Container Port Element policies. 12. The PRD proposes a new district for the land on the hillside above Marine View Drive to limit residential density and encroachment and suggests reducing the area. Creating this new district adds a layer of complexity to the code. In addition, this approach fails to address transitions and buffers on the other sides of the Port MIC as required by the GMA and the Container Port Element. 13. The PRD amendments identify M-1 and M-2 as “Buffer Areas”. Uses in M-1 and M-2 zoned areas are not appropriate buffer areas and could cause conflict between adjacent residential and even some commercials use. Further, this conflicts with the City policy. Buffer areas must extend outward from the Port MIC to preserve the industrial zoned lands. 14. The PRD includes a Preliminary Determination of Environmental Non-significance for new permanent land use regulations in the port of Tacoma Manufacturing Industrial Center and Industrial Zoning Districts City-wide to address: Public notification requirements for permits and land use amendments; Conversion of industrial lands to non-industrial uses; Encroachment of residential developments on industrial lands; and Siting of potentially high risk/high impact heavy industrial uses. It is unclear what the city means by ‘permanent’. The TMC offers annual opportunities to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning code (see TMC 13.02.070). The issuance of the DNS appears to contradict the City’s commitment to the Tideflats Subarea Plan project which includes review of land use and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 111 of 252 March 3, 2021

TRANSMITTED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL [email protected]

Planning Commission City of Tacoma 747 Market Street, Room 345 Tacoma, Washington 98402

Re: March 3, 2021 Public Hearing Port of Tacoma - Legal Analysis and Suggested Revisions to Proposed Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulation Amendments

Dear Chair Petersen and Members of the Planning Commission:

This firm represents the Port of Tacoma (“Port”). This letter provides the Port’s legal analysis of and suggested revisions to the public review draft of the City’s proposed Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulation Amendments.

My comments are organized to follow the Staff Report and Exhibits by topic as published on the Planning Commission website for the public hearing.

Comments on Staff Report and Exhibits Section A. Permit and Land Use Notifications

TMC 13.05.070, Proposed Amendments to Notice Process

• RCW 36.70B.110 sets out requirements for a “Notice of Application” under the Growth Management Act (“GMA”) for purposes of integrated project and State Environmental Policy Act review for GMA jurisdictions. The statute sets minimum required elements and legal consequences of issuance of a Notice of Application. The proposed amendments change the term “Notice of Application” as found in state law to the generic term “public notice,” without cross-reference or additional definition tying it back to RCW 36.70B.110. This term should either not be changed as proposed or should be cross-referenced with the term “Notice of Application” for consistency and to avoid confusion to applicants and the public. I also note that proposed TMC 13.05.070.F includes both terms “Content of Public Notice and Notice of Application” but then describes only “Public Notice” contents. • Proposed TMC 13.05.070.C.3 imposes an additional requirement for notice to “residents” as well as owners; however, the term is not defined. Who qualifies as a “resident”? A legal tenant, guest, or other occupant? What resource will permit applicants be given to identify “residents” ? For property owner notice, the code requires the use of Assessor

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 112 of 252 information to determine owners or taxpayers of record within the requisite notification distance. It is unclear if the proposed additional notice requirement to residents can be addressed simply by including a notice to the overall structure or building. • The Port has the same concerns as to proposed amendments to TMC 13.05.070.D (Process II Applications) and E (Decisions Requiring a Public Hearing) which have same notice amendments as Process I applications. • Proposed TMC 13.05.070.F. adds a provision to the “Public Notice” advising that a “public meeting” may be required by any party entitled to notice. A “public meeting” is defined in TMC 13.01.050.P to include another comment opportunity. The proposed amendment does not clarify whether this additional “public meeting” can be requested in addition to other required public comment periods or public hearings. In addition, there appears to be no process for setting the “public meeting” under this provision or description of its parameters.

Proposed Amendments to TMC 13.05.070.I. – New Section – Expanded Notification for “Heavy Industrial Uses”.

• The proposed amendments triggering this notice refer to “designated projects” but do not cross-reference the code provision where the designation is made. Specifically, it appears that section TMC 13.05.070(I)(1) interim regulations cross referencing the definition of “heavy industrial projects” was removed. This reference should be updated or replaced in order to identify “designated projects..

• The Port proposes the following revised language for section TMC 13.05.070(I)(1) as it appears in the public review draft, and deleting section TMC 13.05.070(I)(2):

1. In addition to any required public notice required pursuant to TMC 13.05.070.C-E, notice for designated heavy industrial projects shall be mailed via First Class Mail to the SEPA consulted agency contact for all adjacent jurisdictions (Cities of Federal Way, Fife, Fircrest, Lakewood, and University Place, and Pierce County). For designated heavy industrial projects which constitute a “substantial action” as defined in the “Agreement Between the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Local Governments, in Pierce County, the State of Washington, the United States of America, and Certain Private Property Owners,” dated August 27, 1988 (or as hereafter amended), the Puyallup Indian Tribe shall also receive notice. Any of the above groups may be notified by electronic means instead of, or in addition to, first-class mail, upon written notification to the Department that electronic transmittal is the preferred method.

The Port’s proposed changes to TMC 13.05.070(I)(1) accomplish the following:

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 113 of 252 • Combine new sections 1 and 2 into a single section consistent with the rest of TMC 13.05.070 instead of bifurcating into mail and email. • Eliminate duplicate references to all parties who receive notice per the earlier provisions in the City’s existing code of all types of decisions (applicant, property owner, neighborhood councils pursuant to TMC. 1.45 and business districts pursuant to TMC 1.47, qualified neighborhood or community organizations, and the Tribe subject to the Agreement). • Change optional electronic means language to be the same as prior section of the proposed amendments. • Revises reference to the Puyallup Tribe to incorporate the same Agreement references as prior sections of the City’s existing code, and add “as later amended.”

Notification Distance – 13.05.070.I.3

The proposed amendments provide that the notification distance for a project within the Port of Tacoma Manufacturing/Industrial Center (M/IC) will be 2,500 feet from the boundaries “of that center;” however, how is “that center” measured? To avoid confusion in this and other areas, the Port recommends that the City adopt M/IC as an Overlay District and measure from the edge or from the project distance.

Community Meeting – 13.05.070.I.4

• This new section requires the City to hold a “community meeting.” Unlike “public meeting,” this is not a defined term in the code. The section does not state who is entitled to notice of this “community meeting,” nor does it address how it aligns with the proposed amendment to TMC 13.05.070.F which allows any party entitled to notice to request a “public meeting.” There should be no “public meeting” request option where this mandatory “community meeting” is being required. The specific requirements for the notice of the meeting and its scope should also be better defined. • The term “Complete Application” should not be capitalized in this section as it is not a defined term, and it should be qualified as “made pursuant to this title.” Other sections in Title 13 do not capitalize the term and use that qualifier.

Additional Notification – 13.05.070.I.6

Who at the City is responsible to determine what is “necessary” or “appropriate” for the project type, and what standards will be applied to make that determination?

Proposed Amendments to TMC 13.05.070.J Notice for Public Hearings

New section TMC 13.05.070.J(3) should be deleted. First, it duplicates portions of section 2. In addition, it references mailing notices to “occupants,” which is also undefined, but appears to be different from, and broader than, the term “residents” discussed above. Finally, this section does not specify the measurement boundary of the

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 114 of 252 2,500 feet in the same way as the Notification Distance provision 13.05.070.I.3 amendments do.

In addition, all references in this section to notices to be given to the Tribe should incorporate the following language from the City’s existing codes to ensure consistency with the Land Claims Settlement:

For actions or projects which constitute a “substantial action” as defined in the “Agreement Between the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Local Governments, in Pierce County, the State of Washington, the United States of America, and Certain Private Property Owners,” dated August 27, 1988 (or as hereafter amended), the Puyallup Indian Tribe shall also receive notice [of the public hearing].

Comments on Staff Report and Exhibits Section B. Conversion of Industrial Lands

Staff Report, Section 3 - Area of Applicability – General Comment – the Port recommends that the M/IC be adopted as an overlay district as part of this process so that references are consistent with the South Tacoma M/IC.

TMC 13.05.010.A Conditional Use Permits

The Port proposes the following revision to new section TMC 13.05.010.A.26(a) ()(Non- Industrial Uses in the Port of Tacoma M/IC) to ensure consistency with the Land Claims Settlement.

a. In addition to the general conditional use criteria in TMC 13.05.010.A, non- industrial conditional uses in the Port of Tacoma Manufacturing and Industrial Center shall meet the following criteria. In considering conditional use permit applications, the City will consult with the Port of Tacoma to determine potential off-site impacts on port/industrial facilities and operations, and to identify appropriate mitigation measures. For conditional use permits which constitute a “substantial action” as defined in the “Agreement Between the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Local Governments, in Pierce County, the State of Washington, the United States of America, and Certain Private Property Owners,” dated August 27, 1988 (or as hereafter amended), the City shall also consult with the Puyallup Indian Tribe.

In addition, the Port notes that the term “consult” is not defined in the City’s land use code and can have technical legal meaning depending on context. If the City is going to impose a consultation requirement with the Port or Tribe outside of the Land Claims Settlement process, there needs to be a defined method to do so. As a practical matter, the Port notes that this additional notice seems unnecessary given that the Port and the Tribe will receive notice of specific applications as well as the underlying planning processes authorizing uses that would be allowed with a CUP.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 115 of 252

With respect to the additional CUP criteria identified in this section, as drafted, the Port is concerned that they are so ill-defined and subjective as to be potentially unconstitutional and unenforceable as applied to a specific project, particularly as to design standards. See Anderson v. City of Issaquah, 70 Wash. App. 64, 81, 851 P.2d 744, 754 (1993).

Comments on Staff Report and Exhibits - Section C. Residential Encroachment

The GMA calls for the use of “buffers and transition zones between incompatible uses” as one approach to develop the port container element. RCW 36.70A.085(6)(c). The Container Port Element of the One Tacoma Plan includes the following:

Goal CP-2: Establish an Industrial/Commercial Buffer Area around the Core Area that will protect the continued viability of the Core Area while providing for a compatible Industrial/Commercial Buffer to development in the larger surrounding area.

This Goal is to be implemented by a variety of implementing policies designed to avoid encroachment and incompatibility using a series of tools, including but not limited to the establishment of buffers.

The Container Port element, in turn, defines the “Core Area” as follows:

The proposed amendments include the creation of an Overlay District (the “Port of Tacoma Transition Overlay Zone”) in order “to limit residential encroachment on the

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 116 of 252 Port of Tacoma Manufacturing and Industrial Center.” However, as proposed, the Overlay District includes only select portions of the NE Tacoma hillside. Other areas adjacent to the Container Port Core can and do contain potentially incompatible land uses, particularly in and around the Foss Waterway and Tacoma Dome Districts; however, the proposed amendments do not address or consider buffers to be applied to those areas. The Port believes the City should consider additional areas for inclusion to ensure consistency with the Container Port Element.

New Section – TMC 13.06.070.G. Port of Tacoma Transition Overlay Zone

General comment: the new section alternates between “overlay zone” and “overlay district” with inconsistent use of capital letters. References should be to a single term, presumably “Overlay Zone” throughout.

3.b. Minimum lot size. The minimum lot size is 1 acre for new development in this zone, and only single-family residential is allowed. It seems possible an unintended consequence of this larger lot size in combination with the multi-family prohibition would be to create larger, higher value residential R-1 properties inside the buffer area immediately adjacent to the industrial uses. The notice on title provisions may protect against nuisance claims, but it is not clear that a larger lot size necessarily addresses residential encroachment on the Port as a regulatory matter. In traditional zoning models, one generally sees a range of intensity used to transition between zoning districts. R-1 is generally the least intense land use, where Port industrial is one of the most intense.

3.c. Location. This new section provides that:

“Residential development shall be located the greatest distance from the boundaries of the Port of Tacoma Manufacturing and Industrial Center as is feasible.”

It is unclear what this means. What determines feasibility? Is this intended to be a setback requirement applied to individual lots, subdivisions, or both? How will that be reconciled with other design or development standards in the City’s codes?

3.d. Design. This new section provides that:

“ Residential development shall be designed to minimize disruptions to Port/industrial operations, including minimizing clearing and grading, driveways, and vegetation removal.”

It is unclear how these requirements will minimize disruption to Port/industrial operations. New subdivisions should be required to incorporate specific additional perimeter screening/landscaping and noise mitigation measures, including barriers, and building elements, to minimize impacts of new residential development on Port operations.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 117 of 252 3.f. Notice on Title. The Port recommends revising this section to the following for clarity:

As a condition of subdivision approval or residential building permit issuance for properties within the Overlay Zone, the Applicant shall record a notice on title which attests that (1) the property is located within the Port of Tacoma Manufacturing and Industrial Center Overlay Zone, (2) Port of Tacoma industrial activities, including container terminal facilities, are operating and will continue to operate and may expand in the future. The Notice on Title shall include the specific distance of the property from the closest boundary of the Port of Tacoma Manufacturing and Industrial Center.

Comments on Staff Report and Exhibits Section D – Siting of Heavy Industrial Uses

Mining and Quarrying (TMC 13.06.050.E). This section prohibits all new mining and quarrying uses in all districts throughout the City, not just the Tideflats; the primary policy justification in the staff findings appears to be that the City’s population growth and need for housing growth trumps GMA provisions that would otherwise require the City to designate and protect resource lands. The Port does not oppose this specific change; however, of concern, it appears that the same policy argument could be used in the future to support elimination of other non-residential uses, including industrial and Port uses, within the City over time as population and housing demand increases.

Coal Storage and Export (TMC 13.01 and 13.06 and corresponding SMP). This section prohibits “coal facilities” generally defined as bulk coal storage and power plants in all districts. The Port Commission has already enacted a ban on developing new bulk fossil fuel export facilities on Port-owned properties; the Port notes that this proposed amendment is consistent with this adopted Port policy.

Chemical Manufacturing (TMC 13.01 and corresponding SMP). This new section creates various use categories for different types of “chemical manufacturing” and imposes corresponding restrictions and development standards.

*New* Section 13.05.010.A.23 imposes specific CUP standards for “Chemical Manufacturing, Processing, and Wholesale Distribution.” As a general matter, the Port does not support imposing a CUP requirement for these uses. However, if the City chooses to adopt this new requirement, the Port proposes the following revisions to this section:

Section A.23.1 should be deleted in its entirety.

Section A.23.2 should be revised to read as follows:

2. The Applicant shall submit a management plan. The City will determine the level of detail to be disclosed in the plan based on the probable impacts

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 118 of 252 and/or the scale of the effects. Discussion of materials handling and storage, odor control, transportation, spill prevention, and other factors may be required.

Section A.23.3 should be revised to read as follows:

3. The City may impose conditions of approval limiting the nature of the materials produced and/or the scale of manufacturing operations in order to minimize the degree and severity of risks to public health and safety.

Section A.23.4 should be deleted in its entirety.

Section A.23.5 should be revised to read as follows:

5. The property on which the proposed facility is to be located must not expose large concentrations of people, particularly in residential and commercial areas, to unreasonable adverse impacts.

Section A.23.6 should be revised to read as follows:

6. The property on which the proposed facility is to be located, and the use can be appropriately mitigated, to avoid any adverse impacts on receipt of federal funding for affordable housing and community development in adjacent residential and mixed-use areas located within City limits. The City will consider the current methodology for Acceptable Separation Distances as published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in determining appropriate separation distances and on-site mitigation measures for this purpose.

Section A.23.7 should be deleted in its entirety.

The Port proposes the above revisions to new Section 13.05.010.A.23 for the following reasons:

• Section A.23.1 should be deleted as the Hearing Examiner is charged with reviewing the CUP and adjudicating SEPA appeals in a quasi-judicial capacity; the Hearing Examiner does not, and indeed legally cannot, compile information related to applications on behalf of the City or the Applicant when acting in that capacity. If the City requires specific information regarding a proposal to review potential impacts, then it should list the elements and criteria specifically so that the Applicant can provide them, or otherwise require additional information during SEPA review. • With respect to notice, any consultation with the Puyallup Tribe should be consistent with the Land Claims Settlement as noted in previous comments. The Port notes that it appears that the Tribe will receive notice of a CUP for such facilities under prior amendments to the Land Claims Settlement with or without the addition of this code section.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 119 of 252 • Section A.23.4 should be deleted, as it appears to require prospective cleanup bonding for post-use remediation; it is difficult to see how a bond could be obtained for a use of unknown duration, and the provision assumes or presumes abandonment and/or reclamation of the site which is not required. • Section A.23.7 should be deleted as duplicate provisions of adopted critical area codes, shoreline management act, shoreline master program, and various federal law. • Section A.23.8 should be revised to remove impacts specifically addressed via SEPA review. In addition, the Port notes that the City is not charged with and indeed lacks jurisdiction to enforce tribal fishing rights under applicable treaties; that provision should be deleted.

Amended Section TMC 13.06.060.

This section is listed under Chemical Manufacturing, Processing, and Wholesale Distribution (which has its own definition in the preceding new sections), but then includes a different definition for the use within the PMI District. It is unclear to the Port why a different definition is being applied for the PMI, and to be accessible to the user, the City’s land use code definitions should not incorporate or rely upon the City’s Fire Code licensure for hazardous materials without further citation or reference.

“High Impact”/”High Risk” Use Regulations

Amended Section TMC 13.05.010 (and corresponding SMP provisions).

This section adds a new land use category called “high impact use,” creates an entirely new definition for that use, and then sets out amendments authorizing “high impact use” with a conditional use permit in some districts and outright in others, including (it appears) the PMI (see proposed amendment to TMC 13.06.060.E. As a threshold matter, the new definition of “high impact use” is not only novel as a land use regulatory matter, but also practically unworkable, as it incorporates definitions taken from the international UN Hazard Classification System. The staff report offers no explanation as to why this frame of reference was selected as opposed to other standards, measures, or definitions.

The section also proposes new and additional standards for the newly defined “High Impact Uses” in addition to the City’s CUP criteria where a CUP is required. These standards duplicate several of those found in *New* Section 13.05.010.A.23 for Chemical Manufacturing discussed above, and so the same proposed revisions should be made as proposed above, for the same reasons.

As a practical matter, it is unclear from the public review draft of the proposed amendments where the new “High Impact Uses” are permitted outright or with a CUP. The narrative section should incorporate updates to the corresponding uses in the City’s zoning code and SUP to make it clear for the user.

Finally, the proposed draft identifies yet another novel land classification, “High Risk

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 120 of 252 Uses,” which are conditional uses in the previously listed zoning districts. While this may align with the terminology previously used in the interim regulations, I find no definition of “High Risk Uses” in the review draft, and so it is unclear if a “High Risk Use” is now a “High Impact Use” or a separate category and where the same would be permitted.

Oil and Liquified Fossil Fuel

The proposed code amendments addressing this issue create expansive and cumbersome definitions for various types of fuel facilities (fossil fuel and renewable alike) and then imposes additional CUP review criteria for “Major Fossil Fuel Facilities” and “Renewable Fuel Facilities.”

The City’s approach to this issue and all facets of the corresponding proposed amendments appear to the Port to be overly complex, burdensome, and restrictive. As noted above, the Port Commission has already acted to ban development of new bulk fossil fuel export facilities on Port-owned properties. If the City chooses as a policy matter to prevent future development of fossil fuel facilities on a broader basis, the Port believes a simpler and more logical approach would be to simply prohibit the development of new fossil fuel facilities (which can be far more simply defined) and allow existing facilities to continue as non-conforming uses pursuant to the City’s existing non-conforming use restrictions, without additional layers of regulation or subjective review criteria. This approach creates certainty and predictability for current and future investment in the City while also achieving the City’s policy goals with respect to fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas reduction. The Port is also concerned that there are not clearly defined exemptions to the new regulations for existing facilities in the Tideflats which fuel vessels and serve Joint Base Lewis-McChord.

The Port’s January 11, 2021 letter to the Planning Commission proposed that the City take the above approach with respect to new and existing fossil fuel facilities, while also carving out an allowance for the development of renewable fuel facilities. The City’s proposed amendments would appear to allow such facilities only with a CUP, and with new and onerous review criteria, including independent obligations to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions separate and apart from any state or federal regulatory framework. The Port believes these criteria and obligations will deter, rather than encourage, investment in and development of renewable fuel facilities necessary to achieve our collective emissions reduction goals.

Other General Amendments for Internal Consistency

The proposed amendment package also includes a series of amendments to TMC 13.06.060 (Industrial Districts) described as proposed for internal consistency.

The Port offers the following revision to Section B.3 :

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 121 of 252 TMC 13.06.060.B.3. Create a variety of industrial settings matching scale and intensity of use to location.

The term “context-sensitive” as used in the draft of this provision is subjective and undefined and adds no value to the purpose statement of the zoning code.

Finally, the proposed revisions to the use table do not change the reference in TMC 13.06.060.C.3 from what it is now and makes all unclassified industrial uses subject to a CUP. The Port believes industrial uses should generally be permitted outright in the PMI and not subject to CUP requirements.

State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) (RCW 43.21C) Compliance

The City issued a Determination of Non-significance for the permanent regulations on February 19, 2021, shortly after release of the public review draft, and nearly two weeks prior to Planning Commission’s scheduled March 3, 2021 public hearing. In the ordinary course, the Port would have expected a SEPA determination to be issued after the Planning Commission process had concluded and a recommendation with proposed regulations had been sent to the City Council. As currently timed, the City’s SEPA process appears to assume a final result coming out of the Planning Commission which has not yet occurred. The Port also notes again for the record its concern regarding the City’s separation of the Tideflats development regulations from the corresponding Tideflats Subarea Planning process, for which a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the above comments. I look forward to working cooperatively with Port and City staff moving forwards.

Yours very truly,

Heather L. Burgess General Legal Counsel Port of Tacoma

HLB/dlg

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 122 of 252 Port of Tacoma - Proposed Amendments for the Non-interim Industrial Regulations January 11, 2021

Chapter 13.01 Definitions 13.01.060 Zoning Definitions. “Renewable fuel”. Renewable fuel is fuel produced from renewable resources. Examples of renewable fuels include but are not limited to biofuels (e.g. vegetable oil used as fuel, ethanol, methanol from clean energy and carbon dioxide or biomass, renewable diesel and biodiesel) and hydrogen fuel (when produced with renewable processes). Renewable fuels can include fuels that are synthesized from renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, and includes all fuel pathways approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Renewable Fuels Standard Program as well as renewable energy resources defined in state law.

Chapter 13.04 Platting and Subdivisions 13.04.030 Policy. A. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City of Tacoma to consider the subdivision of land and the subsequent development of the subdivision as subject to the control of the City of Tacoma pursuant to the City’s land use codes for the orderly, planned, efficient, and economical development of the community. B. Land to be subdivided shall be of such character that it can be used safely for building purposes without danger to health or peril from fire, flood, or other menace, and land shall not be subdivided until adequate public facilities and improvements exist or proper provision has been made for drainage, water, sewerage, and capital improvements such as schools, parks, recreation facilities, and active transportation facilities. While planning public facilities and improvements for proposed subdivisions of land, consideration shall be given to adopted City policies relating to sustainability, smart growth, urban forestry, complete streets, connectivity, and green infrastructure practices. C. It is intended that these regulations shall supplement and facilitate the enforcement of the provisions, standards and policies contained in building and housing codes, zoning ordinances, the City of Tacoma’s Comprehensive Plan and applicable ordinances, manuals, design specifications, plans and guidelines, and elements thereof. D. Per Ordinance No. 28470, on an interim basis, new New residential platting and subdivision of land is prohibited along Marine View Drive and the adjacent slopes, as identified in the following map.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 123 of 252

Chapter 13.06 Zoning 13.06.020 J. Interim Residential Development Restrictions. 1. Per ordinance No. 28470, on an interim basis, Allall new residential development within the area identified in TMC 13.04.030.D is limited to one residential unit per legal lot as existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance. 2. As a condition of residential development, developers shall record a notice on title prior to initial sale which attests that the property is within proximity of an S-10, M-1, M-2, or PMI district in which industrial activities including but not limited to metal recycling, chemical storage and manufacturing, and container terminal facilities, and trains are operating and will continue to operate and expand in the future. The distance of the unit from the nearest industrial zoning district shall be recorded.

13.06.060 Industrial Districts. B. Purpose. 3. PMI Port Maritime & Industrial District. PMI Port Maritime & Industrial District. This district is intended to allow a broad spectrum of industrial uses to support maritime, manufacturing, and industrial lands all industrial uses and uses that are not permitted in other districts, barring uses that are prohibited by City Charter. The Port of Tacoma facilities, facilities that support the Port’s operations, and other public and private maritime and industrial activities make up a majority of the uses in this district. This area is characterized by proximity to deepwater berthing; sufficient backup land between the berths and public right-of-ways; 24-hour operations to accommodate regional and international shipping and distribution schedules; raw materials processing and manufacturing; uses which rely on the deep water berthing to transport raw materials for processing or manufacture, or transport of finished products; and freight mobility infrastructure, with the entire area served by road and rail corridors designed for large, heavy truck and rail loads.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 124 of 252 E. District use restrictions. 3. Use table abbreviations.

P = Permitted use in this district. CU = Conditional use in this district. Requires conditional use permit consistent with the criteria and procedures of Section 13.05.010 A. TU = Temporary Uses allowed in this district subject to specified provisions and consistent with the criteria and procedures of Section 13.06.080 P. N = Prohibited use in this district. MIC = Manufacturing Industrial Center. Refer to One Tacoma, the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Container Port Element for a map of the Port of Tacoma MIC boundaries. For definitions of terms in the District use table, see Section 13.01.060 Zoning Definitions.

4. District use table.

Uses M-1 M-2 PMI Additional Regulations1 Adult family home P/N* N N In M-1 districts, permitted only within residential or institutional buildings in existence on December 31, 2008, the effective date of adoption of this provision, or when located within a mixed-use building where a minimum of 1/3 of the building is devoted to industrial or commercial use. *Not permitted within the Port of Tacoma MIC or the South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. See Section 13.06.080 N. Adult retail and P~ P~ PN Subject to development standards contained in entertainment Section 13.06.080 B. ~Within the Port of Tacoma MIC, limited to 15,000 square feet in M-1 and 10,000 square feet in M-2 of floor area per development site.

Agricultural uses CU CU/N* CU/N* Such uses shall not be located on a parcel of land containing less than 20,000 square feet of area. *Per Ordinance No. 28470, on an interim basis, such uses are not permitted within the Port of Tacoma M/IC. See 13.06.060 I. 1 M-1 M-2 PMI Additional Regulations AirportU CU CU/N* CU/N* *Per Ordinance No. 28470, on an interim basis, such uses are not permitted within the Port of Tacoma M/IC. See 13.06.060 I. Ambulance services P P* P* *Public services only allowed in the Port of Tacoma MIC. Animal sales and service P PN N

Assembly facility P P/CU* N *Within the Port of Tacoma MIC, a conditional use permit is required for facilities over 10,000 square feet.

Brewpub P P/CU* P/CU* *Within the Port of Tacoma MIC, a conditional use permit is required for facilities over 10,000 square feet. Building material and P P P services Business support services P P P

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 125 of 252 Carnival P/TU* N N *Temporary use only within the Port of Tacoma MIC and South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. Cemetery/internment N N N New facilities are not permitted. Enlargement of services facilities in existence prior to the effective date of this provision (May 27, 1975) may be approved in any zoning district subject to a conditional use permit. See Section 13.06.640. Commercial parking P P PN* *Temporary use only within the Port of Tacoma facility MIC. Commercial recreation P/CU* P/CU*~ N *Within the Port of Tacoma MIC and the South and entertainment Tacoma M/IC Overlay District, a conditional use permit is required for facilities over 10,000 square feet of floor area in the M-2 district and over 15,000 square feet in the M-1 district. ~Per Ordinance No. 28470, on an interim basis, within the Port of Tacoma M/IC, a conditional use permit is required for facilities over 10,000 square feet of floor area in the M-2 district and over 15,000 square feet in the M-1 district. Communication facility P PN PN Confidential shelter CUP/ N N See Section 13.06.080 N. N* *Not permitted within the South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District or the Port of Tacoma MIC. Continuing care P/N* N N In M-1 districts, permitted only within residential or retirement community institutional buildings in existence on December 31, 2008, the effective date of adoption of this provision, or when located within a mixed-use building where a minimum of 1/3 of the building is devoted to industrial or commercial use. *Not permitted within the Port of Tacoma or South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. See Section 13.06.080 N. Correctional facility N CUN CUN Modifications or expansions to existing facilities that increase the inmate capacity shall be processed as a major modification (see Section 13.05.130). A pre-application community meeting is also required. This CU is only available in the M- 1 zones in place as of 1/1/2018. The notification distance for a project within the M-1 zone will be 2,500 feet from the boundaries of that zone.

Uses M-1 M-2 PMI Additional Regulations1 Craft Production P/CU* P/CU* P/CU* *Within the Port of Tacoma MIC, a conditional use permit is required for each business over 15,000 square feet in M-1 and over 10,000 square feet in PMI and M-2 of floor area. Cultural institution P/CU* P/CU*/N~ N *Conditional use within the Port of Tacoma MIC and South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District, unless an accessory use. ~Per Ordinance No. 28470, on an interim basis, such uses are not permitted within the Port of Tacoma M/IC. See 13.06.060.I.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 126 of 252 Day care, family P/N* N N *Not permitted within the South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District or Port of Tacoma MIC. Day care center P* P* N Subject to development standards contained in Section 13.06.080 E. *Allowed in the Port of Tacoma MIC as an accessory use only. Detention facility* CU N N Modifications or expansions to existing facilities that increase the inmate/detainee capacity shall be processed as a major modification (see Section 13.05.130). A pre- application community meeting is also required (see Section 13.05.010.A.16. This CU is only available in the M-1 zones in place as of January 1, 2018. The notification distance for a project within the M-1 zone will be 2,500 feet from the boundaries of that zone. Detoxification center CUN CUN N Drive-through with any P P P Subject to the requirements of TMC 13.06.090 A. permitted use Dwelling, single-family P/N*~ N*~ N*~ In M-1 districts, single-, two- and three-family and detached townhouse dwellings are prohibited, except for residential uses in existence on December 31, 2008, the effective date of adoption of this provision. In M-1 districts, new multi-family residential dwellings are permitted only within a mixed-use building where a minimum of 1/3 of the building is devoted to industrial or commercial use. *In all districts, quarters for caretakers and watchpersons are permitted as is temporary worker housing to support uses located in these districts. ~Not permitted within the South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District or Port of Tacoma MIC except for quarters for caretakers and watchpersons and temporary worker housing, as noted above. Dwelling, two-family P/N*~ N*~ N*~ ~Per Ordinance No. 28470, on an interim basis, such uses are not permitted within the Port of Dwelling, three-family P/N*~ N*~ N*~ Tacoma M/IC except for quarters for caretakers and Dwelling, multiple- P/N*~ N*~ N*~ watchpersons and temporary worker housing to family support uses located in these districts. See Dwelling, townhouse P/N*~ N*~ N*~ 13.06.060 I..

Dwelling, accessory P*/N~ N N *Subject to additional requirements contained (ADU) in 13.06.080 A. ~Not permitted within the Port of Tacoma MIC or South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. Eating and drinking P*/CU~ P*/CU~ P*/CU~ *Limited to 7,000 square feet of floor area, per business, in the JBLM Airport Compatibility Overlay District. ~Within the Port of Tacoma MIC, a conditional use permit is required for each business over 15,000 square feet in M-1 and over 10,000 square feet in PMI and M-2 unless an accessory use.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 127 of 252 Emergency and P/N* N N In M-1 districts, permitted only within residential or transitional housing institutional buildings in existence on December 31, 2008 the effective date of adoption of this provision, or when located within a mixed-use building where a minimum of 1/3 of the building is devoted to industrial or commercial use. *Not permitted within the Port of Tacoma MIC or South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. See Section 13.06.080 N. 1 Uses M-1 M-2 PMI Additional Regulations Extended care facility P/N* N N In M-1 districts, permitted only within residential or institutional buildings in existence on December 31, 2008, the effective date of adoption of this provision, or when located within a mixed-use building where a minimum of 1/3 of the building is devoted to industrial or commercial use. *Not permitted within the Port of Tacoma MIC or South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. See Section 13.06.080 N. Foster home P/N* N N In M-1 districts, permitted only within residential or institutional buildings in existence on December 31, 2008, the effective date of adoption of this provision, or when located within a mixed-use building where a minimum of 1/3 of the building is devoted to industrial or commercial use. *Not permitted within the Port of Tacoma MIC or South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. Fuel production and P* P* P* *New fuel production and facilities are limited to facilities renewable fuels only as defined in TMC 13.01.060. Existing fuel facilities may be adapted or modified for renewable fuels. Fueling station P P P Funeral home NP PN N Golf course P/N* P/N*~ N *Not permitted within the South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. ~Per Ordinance No. 28470, on an interim basis, such uses are not permitted within the Port of Tacoma M/IC. See 13.06.060.I. Group housing P/N* N N In M-1 districts, permitted only within residential or institutional buildings in existence on December 31, 2008, the effective date of adoption of this provision, or when located within a mixed-use building where a minimum of 1/3 of the building is devoted to industrial or commercial use. *Not permitted within the Port of Tacoma MIC or South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. Heliport CU CU P*/CU *Permitted on port marine terminals. Home occupation P P P Subject to additional requirements contained in Section 13.06.080 F.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 128 of 252 Hospital P/CU* P/N~ N *Conditional use within the South Tacoma M/IC ~ Overlay District. ~Not permitted within the Port of Tacoma MIC or South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. ~Per Ordinance No. 28470, on an interim basis, such uses are not permitted within the Port of Tacoma M/IC. See 13.06.060 I. Hotel/motel P/N* N N *Not permitted within the Port of Tacoma MIC or South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. Industry, heavy NCU P P Animal slaughter, fat rendering, acid manufacture, smelters, and blast furnaces allowed in the PMI District only. *See section 13.06.080.G Interim Industrial Use Restrictions for interim regulations. Industry, light P P P 1 Uses M-1 M-2 PMI Additional Regulations Intermediate care facility P/N* N N In M-1 districts, permitted only within residential or institutional buildings in existence on December 31, 2008, the effective date of adoption of this provision, or when located within a mixed-use building where a minimum of 1/3 of the building is devoted to industrial or commercial use. *Not permitted within the Port of Tacoma MIC or South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. See Section 13.06.080 N. Juvenile community P/N* P/N*~ P/N~ See Section 13.06.080 H. for resident limits facility and additional regulations. *Not permitted within the Port of Tacoma MIC or South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. ~Per Ordinance No. 28470, on an interim basis, such uses are not permitted within the Port of Tacoma M/IC. See 13.06.060 I. Live/Work P N N Projects incorporating live/work in new construction shall contain no more than 20 live/work units. Subject to additional requirements contained in Section 13.06.080 I. Marijuana processor, P P P See additional requirements contained in Section producer, and researcher 13.06.080 J. Marijuana retailer P~ P~ N ~Within the Port of Tacoma MIC and South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District, and within the M-2 District of the Port of Tacoma M/IC on an interim basis per Ordinance No. 28470 (See 13.06.060 I.), limited to 10,000 square feet of floor area per development site in the M-2 district and 15,000 square feet in the M-1 district. See additional requirements contained in Section 13.06.080 J. Microbrewery/winery P* P* P* *Retail and on-site consumption areas limited to 10,000 square feet of floor area per development site in the Port of Tacoma MIC.

Mobile home/trailer court N N N Nursery PN PN N

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 129 of 252 Office P* P* P/CU~ *Within the South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District, unless accessory use, limited to 10,000 square feet of floor area per development site in the M-2 district and 15,000 square feet in the M-1 district. *Limited to 7,000 square feet of floor area, per business, in the JBLM Airport Compatibility Overlay District. ~Conditional Use Permit is required for office space greater than 10,000 square feet of floor area per development site, unless use is accessory. Parks, recreation and P* P /N* P /N* Subject to the requirements of Section open space 13.06.560.D13.06.080 L. *Limited to water access, non-motorized trails, and passive use public or quasi-public open space lands for their conservation and other open space benefits within the Port of Tacoma MIC. Per Ordinance No. 28470, on an interim basis, High Intensity/Destination facilities (see 13.06.560) are not permitted in the Port of Tacoma M/IC. See 13.06.060 I. Passenger terminal P P P Personal services P* P* P* *Within the Port of Tacoma MIC limited to 15,000 square feet in M-1 and 10,000 square feet in PMI and M-2 of floor area per development site.

Port, terminal, and NP NP P*/N~ *Preferred use. industrial; water- ~See section 13.06.080.G Interim Industrial Use dependent or water- Restrictions for interim regulations. related (as defined in Chapter 13.10) 1 Uses M-1 M-2 PMI Additional Regulations Public safety and public P P P service facilities Religious assembly P P* P* *Use allowed in Port of Tacoma MIC only when serving maritime vessel crew. Repair services P P P Research and P P NP* *In PMI a conditional use permit is required for development industry businesses over 15,000 square feet, unless accessory. Residential care facility P/N* N N In M-1 districts, permitted only within residential or for youth institutional buildings in existence on December 31, 2008, the effective date of adoption of this provision, or when located within a mixed-use building where a minimum of 1/3 of the building is devoted to industrial or commercial use. *Not permitted within the Port of Tacoma MIC or South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. See Section 13.06.080 N. Residential chemical P/N* N N See Section 13.06.080 N. dependency treatment *Not permitted within the Port of Tacoma facility MIC or South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 130 of 252 Retail P~ P~ P* *Limited to 7,000 square feet of floor area, per development site, in the PMI District and JBLM Airport Compatibility Overlay District. ~Within the Port of Tacoma MIC and South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District, and within the M-2 District of the Port of Tacoma M/IC on an interim basis per Ordinance No. 28470 (see 13.06.400.G.), unless an accessory use, limited to 10,000 square feet of floor area per development site in the M-2 district and 15,000 square feet in the M-1 district. Outside of the South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District and Port of Tacoma M/IC, limited to 65,000 square feet per use, unless approved with a conditional use Retirement home P/N* N N In M-1 districts , permitted only within residential or institutional buildings in existence on December 31, 2008, the effective date of adoption of this provision, or when located within a mixed-use building where a minimum of 1/3 of the building is devoted to industrial or commercial use. *Not permitted within the Port of Tacoma MIC and South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. School, public or private P/N* P/N*~ P/N*~ *General K through 12 education not permitted in the PMI Port of Tacoma MIC District or in the South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. ~Per Ordinance No. 28470, on an interim basis, General K through 12 education is not permitted within the Port of Tacoma M/IC. See 13.06.060 I. Seasonal sales TU TU TU Subject to development standards contained in Section 13.06.080 P. Self-storage P P PN See specific requirements in Section 13.06.090 J.

Short-term rental N N N

Uses M-1 M-2 PMI Additional Regulations1 Staffed residential home P/N* N N In M-1 districts, permitted only within residential or institutional buildings in existence on December 31, 2008, the effective date of adoption of this provision, or when located within a mixed-use building where a minimum of 1/3 of the building is devoted to industrial or commercial use. *Not permitted within the Port of Tacoma MIC or South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. See Section 13.06.080 N. Student housing P/N* N N In M-1 districts, permitted only within residential or institutional buildings in existence on December 31, 2008, the effective date of adoption of this provision, or when located within a mixed-use building where a minimum of 1/3 of the building is devoted to industrial or commercial use. *Not permitted within the Port of Tacoma MIC or South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. Surface mining CU CU CU

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 131 of 252 Temporary uses P P P Subject to development standards contained in Section 13.06.080 P. Theater P/N* N N *Not permitted within the Port of Tacoma MIC or South Tacoma M/IC Overlay District. Transportation/freight P P P terminal Urban Horticulture P P PN Utilities P P P Vehicle rental and sales P P PN* Subject to development standards contained in Section 13.06.51013.06.080 S. *Transport and sale of vehicles arriving via port terminal is permitted. Vehicle service and P P PN* Subject to development standards contained in repair Section 13.06.080 S. *Service of vehicles arriving via port terminal is permitted.

Vehicle service and P P P Subject to development standards contained in repair, industrial Section 13.06.080 S. Vehicle storage P P PN* Subject to development standards contained in Section 13.06.080 S. *Storage of vehicles arriving via port terminal is permitted.

Warehouse/storage P P P Storage and treatment facilities for hazardous wastes are subject to the state locational standards adopted pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 70.105 RCW and the provisions of any groundwater protection ordinance of the City of Tacoma, as applicable. Wholesale or distribution P P P Wireless communication P/ CU P/ CU P/ CU Wireless communication facilities are subject to facility Section 13.06.080 Q.

Work/Live P N N Projects incorporating work/live in new construction shall contain no more than 20 work/live units. Subject to additional requirements contained in Section 13.06.080 I. 1 Uses M-1 M-2 PMI Additional Regulations Work release center CU/N* CU/N* P/N* Subject to development standards contained in Section 13.06.080 R. *Per Ordinance No. 28470, on an interim basis, such uses are nNot permitted within the Port of Tacoma M/IC. See 13.06.060 I. Uses not prohibited by N N N City Charter and not prohibited herein Footnotes: 1. For historic structures and sites, certain uses that are otherwise prohibited may be allowed, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. 2. Within the JBLM Airport Compatibility Overlay District, the land use and development standards of this section are modified as specified in TMC 13.06.070.F, which shall prevail in the case of any conflict.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 132 of 252 13.06.060 I. Interim Special Use Restrictions for Non-industrial Uses in the Port of Tacoma M/IC. 1. Per Ordinance No. 28470, on an interim basis, the intent of these special use restrictions is to place a pause on new nonindustrial uses within the M-2 Heavy Industrial and PMI Port Maritime Industrial Zoning Districts of the Port of Tacoma M/IC until such time as the Tideflats subarea plan is complete.

13.06.080 Special Use Standards G. Interim Industrial Use Restrictions. 1. Applicability. These special use restrictions apply to the following primary uses in all zoning districts: a. Coal terminals or bulk storage facilities; b. Oil, or other liquefied or gaseous fossil fuel terminals, bulk storage, manufacturing, production, processing or refining of oil or other liquefied or gaseous fossil fuels; c. Chemical manufacturing; d. Mining and quarrying; e. Smelters. 2. Purpose. Per Ordinance No. 28470, on an interim basis, the purpose of this section is to pause the establishment of certain new industrial uses until such time as the Tideflats Subarea Plan is complete. 3. Use standards. a. New uses. The establishment of new uses are prohibited on an interim basis. b. Existing uses. Legally permitted uses, as defined below, at the time of adoption of this code are allowed. c. Definitions. For the purpose of applying these special use restrictions, applicable North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes and descriptions are cited and shall be interpreted broadly in accordance with the intent of the interim regulations. (1) Coal terminals and bulk storage facilities. The bulk storage or wholesale distribution of coal and coal products or transfer of coal products via shipping terminal. (2) Oil or other liquefied or gaseous fossil fuel terminals, bulk storage, manufacturing, production, processing or refining. (a) Petroleum bulk stations and terminals. This industry comprises establishments with bulk liquid storage facilities primarily engaged in the merchant wholesale distribution of crude petroleum and petroleum products. NAICS Code 424710. (b) Petroleum refineries. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in refining crude petroleum into refined petroleum. Petroleum refining involves one or more of the following activities: (1) fractionation; (2) straight distillation of crude oil; and (3) cracking. NAICS Code 324110. (c) Natural gas liquid extraction. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in the recovery of liquid hydrocarbons from oil and gas field gases. Establishments primarily engaged in sulfur recovery from natural gas are included in this industry. NAICS Code 211112. (d) Bulk storage, production, and wholesale distribution of natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, and liquefied petroleum gas. (3) Chemical manufacturing. The Chemical Manufacturing subsector is based on the transformation of organic and inorganic raw materials by a chemical process and the formulation of products. This subsector distinguishes the production of basic chemicals that comprise the first industry group from the production of intermediate and end products produced by further processing of basic chemicals that make up the remaining industry groups. For the purposes of these special use restrictions, this definition will apply to all industries classified as subcategories of NAICS Code 325 Chemical Manufacturing. (4) Mining and quarrying. This use category includes all industry sectors identified under NAICS Code 21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction. The Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction sector comprises establishments that extract naturally occurring mineral solids, such as coal and ores; liquid minerals, such as crude petroleum; and gases, such as natural gas. The term mining is used in the broad sense to include quarrying, well operations, beneficiating (e.g., crushing, screening, washing, and flotation), and other preparation customarily performed at the mine site, or as a part of mining activity. (5) Smelters. (a) Primary Smelting and Refining of Copper. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in (1) smelting copper ore and/or (2) the primary refining of copper by electrolytic methods or other processes. Establishments in this industry make primary copper and copper-based alloys, such as brass and bronze, from ore or concentrates. NAICS

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 133 of 252 Code 331411. (b) Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum Production. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in one or more of the following: (1) refining alumina (i.e., aluminum oxide) generally from bauxite; (2) making aluminum from alumina; and/or (3) making aluminum from alumina and rolling, drawing, extruding, or casting the aluminum they make into primary forms. Establishments in this industry may make primary aluminum or aluminum-based alloys from alumina. NAICS Code 331313. (c) Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in (1) smelting ores into nonferrous metals and/or (2) the primary refining of nonferrous metals (except aluminum) by electrolytic methods or other processes. NAICS Code 331410. (6) Terminal. A “terminal” is a point of interchange between land and water carriers, such as a pier, wharf, or group of such, equipped with facilities for care and handling of cargo and/or passengers.

H. Juvenile community facilities 4. Use standards. a. Maximum number of residents. No juvenile community facility shall house more than eight residents in the R-1, R-2, R-2SRD, HMR-SRD, NRX, R-3, R-4-L, and C-1 Districts. No juvenile community facility shall house more than 16 residents in the R-4, R-5, URX, RCX, NCX, CCX, UCX, CIX, C-2, M-1, and M-2, and PMI Districts.

R. Work release centers. 3. Use restrictions a. Maximum number of residents. No work release center shall house more than 30 persons, excluding resident staff, in the UCX District; no more than 25 persons, excluding resident staff, in the CIX District; 25 persons, excluding resident staff, in the M-1, and M-2 Districts; and 75 persons, excluding resident staff, in the PMI District.

S. Vehicle service and repair; and vehicle service and repair, industrial. d. In PMI District: Outdoor storage of inoperable vehicles, auto parts, and tires is permitted when associated with a permitted use.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 134 of 252

Holli Johnson NW External Affairs

March 8, 2021

City of Tacoma Planning Commission Via Email 747 Market St. Room 345 Tacoma, WA 98402

RE: Proposed Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations

Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:

I am writing on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association ("WSPA") to offer comments on the City of Tacoma's proposed amendments to land use regulations that apply to fossil and renewable fuel facilities in the M-2 Heavy Industrial and Port of Tacoma Manufacturing and Industrial Center Districts ("Proposed Amendments"). WSPA is concurrently submitting a letter to the Planning and Development Services Department regarding the Preliminary Determination of Environmental Nonsignificance issued for the Proposed Amendments, which is incorporated by reference into this letter.

WSPA is a non-profit trade association representing companies that explore for, produce, refine, transport, and market petroleum and petroleum products in five western states, including Washington. WSPA members have operated in Tacoma for decades. WSPA members that operate in Tacoma provide key energy and emergency infrastructure, which contributes to Tacoma serving as a regional hub for energy production and distribution. The presence of WSPA members' facilities has many positive impacts on the economy, the community, and provides sustaining family-wage jobs.

The Proposed Amendments prohibit any new fossil fuel facilities, new equipment, and capacity expansions of existing fossil fuel facilities in the districts where heavy industrial uses are intended to be sited. Additionally, the Proposed Amendments impose onerous discretionary permitting requirements on new renewable facilities within the City and most projects at existing fossil fuel facilities. The Proposed Amendments, therefore, would directly impact WSPA members that operate refineries in the City and are vital to the local, regional, and national economies.

As a preliminary matter, this process is moving too rapidly for stakeholders to meaningfully evaluate the Proposed Amendments. Many of WSPA's objections to the Proposed Amendments could likely be resolved if the City engaged with us and other stakeholders to address the City's concerns. There is a way to reduce greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions without crippling an industry that has long supported Tacoma, but the Proposed Amendments are not it.

The City's decision to accelerate the adoption of the Proposed Amendments is curious when the same topics addressed by the Proposed Amendments will also be addressed in the pending

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 135 of 252 Tideflats Subarea Plan. Rather than rush through devastating code amendments now, the better approach for the City, stakeholders, and community is to evaluate changes to zoning policy in the careful deliberative process called for in the development of the Subarea Plan.

Substantively, the Proposed Amendments would be a public policy failure because they create significant adverse impacts on energy, transportation, safety, and the economy without achieving their most basic objectives, including the intent to reduce overall GHG emissions. Moreover, the Proposed Amendments would make existing facilities operate less safely and less efficiently. Furthermore, the Proposed Amendments would violate multiple provisions of the federal and Washington State Constitutions.

Because of the many policy and legal flaws described in this letter, WSPA urges the Planning Commission to recommend denial of the Proposed Amendments. Alternatively, if the Commission intends to recommend their approval, it should not do so before taking the time the Planning Commission needs to vet the Proposed Amendments, understand these critical errors, and develop revisions—with stakeholder input—that will address and resolve them.

A. The Proposed Amendments Will Have Significant Adverse Impacts and Will Fail to Achieve Their Most Basic Purported Objectives.

The Proposed Amendments create more harm than good. They will inflict significant impacts on the regulated entities with ripple effects throughout the economy while simultaneously failing to meet one of their fundamental articulated environmental objectives: the reduction of GHG emissions from fossil and renewable fuels. Additionally, the Proposed Amendments will slow and hinder the transition to lower-emission fuels and prevent infrastructure upgrades that increase efficiency, cleaner transportation of fuel, and worker safety. Accordingly, the Planning Commission should recommend denial.

1. The Proposed Amendments will create significant adverse impacts.

The Proposed Amendments restrict operational flexibility and create strong disincentives and impediments to improvements at the regulated facilities through a combination of a new discretionary permit process with onerous criteria that are practically impossible to achieve and an outright ban on capacity expansions and new equipment. For those projects that are allowed, the Proposed Amendments create an immense regulatory barrier—in the form of regulatory uncertainty, increased permitting delays, and increased costs—that may discourage investment and improvements in the facilities in the City. Put simply, the time and cost involved in obtaining necessary permits is a significant regulatory burden that will block projects that benefit the environment, economy, and worker safety.

First, the Proposed Amendments effectively freeze operations in time, which makes ongoing operations less safe, less efficient, and less viable prospectively. The Proposed Amendments outright ban new refining or processing equipment and facilities even if those equipment or facilities would be safer, more efficient, and reduce GHG emissions. The Proposed Amendments also prohibit capacity expansions even if those capacity expansions have no impact on throughput.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 136 of 252 This puts the facilities operating in Tacoma at a competitive disadvantage to facilities in other jurisdictions that can implement the latest industry developments.

Second, for those projects that are allowed, virtually all of them would require a conditional use permit ("CUP"). A CUP is a discretionary permit, which means that the City evaluates any CUP applications against subjective criteria for approval. In addition to being subjective, the Proposed Amendments' criteria to obtain a CUP is unrealistic to the point of being impossible. By way of example, requiring applicants to demonstrate "[t]here is no reasonable alternative to meet the public need for the proposed use or activity" requires the applicant to establish a kind of uniqueness that virtually no project could achieve.

Other criteria impose significant burdens that are not commensurate with the purported impact they seek to mitigate. For example, if an applicant sought to replace a single tank that was at the end of its useful life with a state-of-the-art tank that would contribute to a more efficient and safer refinement process, that applicant would need to prepare a facility-wide analysis on how to decommission the facility site and describe how it would be rehabilitated after the site is terminated or abandoned. Further, that applicant would need to develop a plan for how the facility would achieve an 80 percent reduction in GHG emission by 2050—all to replace a single tank.

The new CUP requirement criteria, therefore, create significant uncertainty in the outcome of otherwise standard permit applications and increase costs of permitting and create delay. Because the regulated facilities will have to weigh that uncertainty against the significant cost of pursuing the application and the delays in pursuing projects, the onerous process with an uncertain outcome creates a disincentive for improvements.

The uncertainty and accompanying disincentive created by these new criteria extends to virtually all improvements at WSPA members' existing facilities. While the Proposed Amendments purport to exempt a small set of improvements from the CUP requirement, including repairs, safety upgrades, and modifications, that exemption does not provide relief from the burdens these new processes create. The exemption ignores the fact that most safety and environmentally beneficial improvements occur in the context of a larger infrastructure project, which are banned under the Proposed Amendments.

Accordingly, the City is increasingly at risk of jeopardizing any re-investment in these facilities. That, in turn, jeopardizes their viability because these businesses require re-investment and continued flexibility to add improvements. Without that ability—which the Proposed Amendments expressly seek to eliminate—the facilities cannot respond to market demands for different products (including cleaner fuels), changing fuel standards and environmental regulations, and for continued and improved safety, efficiency, and environmental protection. The City's restrictions would also interfere with the facilities' ability to modify production on a short- term basis to respond to unanticipated regional or national market supply shortages. Moreover, economic impacts imposed on these facilities are experienced throughout the economy. These facilities contribute to the reliable supply of transportation fuels and other products essential to our modern and evolving economy. The Proposed Amendments will not only jeopardize jobs in the City, but, if enacted as currently written, will jeopardize public services that rely on the tax

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 137 of 252 revenues the facilities generate, and jobs in industries that rely on the transportation fuels they produce.

2. The Proposed Amendments will fail to deliver the intended benefits of reducing GHG emissions.

While the Proposed Amendments will inflict these devastating impacts on the local, state and regional economy, on public services, and availability of energy resources, they simultaneously fail to achieve some of their most basic objectives. Most notably, they will not achieve a reduction of GHGs. Fundamentally, the Proposed Amendments suffer from an incorrect understanding of GHGs and their impact. The City looks exclusively within its jurisdiction in seeking to reduce GHG emissions from only some of the entities that emit GHGs. However, unlike many impacts where location is relevant to the extent of a project impact and the effectiveness of mitigation, the impacts of GHGs and climate change are experienced at a global scale.1 In other words, the location of the GHG emission is not relevant to the extent of the overall impact or even where the impact occurs.

Moreover, the Proposed Amendments would not limit the demand for the products the regulated entities produce and transport. Assuming a static demand, any reduction in production at facilities within the City that is achieved through the Proposed Amendments would be replaced by production at other facilities that would provide the products to meet the public's static demand. The same tradeoff would apply to the shipment of finished products that are currently transported to and from terminals within the City. The production and transport at facilities outside of the City, to meet the continued demand and shortfall from the regulated entities in the City, would continue to emit GHGs and create the impacts the City assumes the Proposed Amendments resolve. Those GHG emissions from facilities at other locations would continue to have a global-scale impact.

The Proposed Amendments at the local level would not and cannot deliver the benefit the City seeks to achieve precisely because the Proposed Amendments do nothing to limit demand or mitigate the replacement production from other facilities. Moreover, by requiring a CUP for new renewable fuel facilities or equipment and prohibiting new fossil fuel equipment, the Proposed Amendments will hinder the transition to lower-emission fuels and prevent infrastructure upgrades that increase efficiency, cleaner transportation of fuel, and worker safety.

Thus, in light of the significant impacts that they will create and their inherent failure to achieve the environmental benefit they seek to achieve, the City should refrain from adopting the Proposed Amendments.

B. The Proposed Amendments Are Unconstitutional.

1 See IPCC, 2014: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, 0., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, 1. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann , J. Savolainen , S. Schlomer , C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 138 of 252 In addition to their policy failings, the Proposed Amendments also suffer from multiple legal flaws of a constitutional magnitude. While we have not had time to fully evaluate the Proposed Amendments, we summarize the legal flaws we are aware of below. Each of these flaws independently gives the Planning Commission ample justification to reject the Proposed Amendments.

1. The Proposed Amendments violate constitutional requirements of nexus and rough proportionality in violation of the Takings Clause and the State equivalent.

The Proposed Amendments violate the Fifth Amendment of the federal constitution and Article 1, section 16 of the Washington State Constitution ("State Constitution"). The CUP criteria impose mitigation requirements that do not meet the constitutional requirements of nexus and rough proportionality, which prohibit mitigation that is not related to the impact of the project ("nexus") and mitigation that is not commensurate with the extent of the impact ("rough proportionality").2 These two safeguards protect against regulatory overreach.

The Proposed Amendments do not comply with these basic constitutional principles because they require the City to impose mitigation that exceeds the impact of any proposal under review. For example, the CUP criteria require facility-wide plans to rehabilitate the applicant's facility when it is completed, terminated, or abandoned and the need to meet significant GHG reductions facility-wide regardless of the scale or substance of the project on review. Modifying a transportation facility that serves trucks through expanding a driveway by one foot would require the applicant to submit a plan as to what would happen to the entire facility when it ultimately shut down. The vast disparity between the scale of a project and the mitigation required from the City constitutes a taking under the federal and State Constitutions. Applying the Proposed Amendment's CUP criteria to projects invites litigation on these grounds, and the Proposed Amendments are also vulnerable to a regulatory, facial challenge under Washington takings jurisprudence.

2. The Proposed Amendments violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and State Constitutions.

The Proposed Amendments likewise fail to pass constitutional muster under the Equal Protection Clause. 3 Under the Fourteenth Amendment, "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws,"4 which requires that all similarly situated persons be treated alike. Corporate entities, such as the WSPA members in Tacoma, are treated as "persons" under the Constitution and entitled to its protections. While the Proposed Amendments regulate mining, smelting, and coal, the Proposed Amendments acutely target the transportation fuel industry, despite its similarities to other heavy industrial uses in the City that are not the subject of these Proposed Amendments. For purposes of land use classification and for determining the scope

2 Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 837, 107 S. Ct. 3141, 97 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1987); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 395, 114 S. Ct. 2309, 129 L. Ed. 2d 304 (1994). 3 Const. Amend. XIV; Wash. Const. art. I § 12. The Proposed Amendments violate both the federal and Washington State Equal Protection Clauses and the analysis is the same. 4 Const. Amend. XIV.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 139 of 252 of appropriate regulatory review, fossil fuel and renewable fuel facilities are similar to other permitted heavy industrial facilities. However, the Proposed Amendments impose their prohibitions and new CUP restrictions on fossil fuel and renewable fuel facilities, but not on other heavy industrial facilities with similar profiles. By virtue of this difference in regulatory approach, the Proposed Amendments have classified fossil fuel and renewable fuel facilities as distinct from other heavy industrial facilities and impose different burdens on those facilities, notwithstanding their similar classification and general characteristics. Because, there is no rational basis to distinguish fossil fuel and renewable fuel facilities from any other heavy industry for these regulatory purposes, the Proposed Amendments run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause.

3. The Proposed Amendments impermissibly infringe on interstate commerce.

The Proposed Amendments unlawfully impact and discriminate against interstate commerce, and therefore violate the dormant Commerce Clause. The dormant Commerce Clause is a restraint that prohibits state and local governments from interfering with the interstate flow of commerce. The purpose of the dormant Commerce Clause is to prevent state and local governments from protectionist regulations, such as regulations that try to protect a state (or in this case, a local jurisdiction), from interstate products or activities that the local jurisdiction disfavors.

Courts evaluate regulations under the dormant Commerce Clause in two distinct ways: (1) courts determine whether the law has a discriminatory purpose or effect; or, (2) if there is no discrimination, and there are merely incidental effects on interstate commerce, courts determine whether the burdens imposed on commerce are clearly excessive in relation to the purported benefits (the "Pike balancing test"). The Proposed Amendments violate both tests.

First, the Proposed Amendments violate the dormant Commerce Clause because they have both a discriminatory purpose and effect. The apparent purpose of the Proposed Amendments is to eliminate the continued viability of energy production in Tacoma. The practical and intended effect of the Proposed Amendments is to block the construction or expansion of any fossil fuel or renewable fuel facility, and therefore block the flow of fossil fuels and renewable fuels into other markets.

Second, the Proposed Amendments violate the dormant Commerce Clause by failing the Pike balancing test. The Pike balancing test requires a detailed fact-specific evaluation of the regulation to determine whether the burden imposed on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the purported benefits. In determining whether the regulation's burdens outweigh its benefits, courts look to see if the interest could be promoted with a lesser impact on interstate commerce.5 Here, the City's interest is already promoted through existing regulations, most notably the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"). SEPA is a robust regulatory tool, and there is no indication that the City cannot adequately mitigate environmental impacts caused by a project through its SEPA authority.

Furthermore, the local benefit is minimal and in some cases detrimental. If the Proposed Amendments were enacted, the impacts from GHG emissions the regulations seek to address

5 Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142, 90 S. Ct. 844, 25 L. Ed. 2d 174 (1970).

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 140 of 252 would still occur elsewhere as the demand for fuel products would not decrease, as explained above. Moreover, there would still be the threat to the environment, human-health, and safety from other heavy industries, as explained above. Other heavy industrial facilities that are outright permitted uses and are not subject to the same prohibitions and CUP review would continue to emit GHGs. Additionally, the Proposed Amendments would result in the loss of potential new jobs and would impose significant economic impacts on existing facilities that would jeopardize their viability and the economy, more generally. The disincentive to re-invest in existing facilities will result in older infrastructure being used longer, which has the opposite effect of the desired environment, health, and safety goals purportedly advanced by the Proposed Amendments.

Additionally, when examining whether the burdens outweigh the benefits under the Pike balancing test, Courts also consider the consequences to interstate commerce that might occur if every local government adopted the same restrictions. Under this analysis, the Proposed Amendments would have grave consequences. Specifically, severe economic burdens could be placed on the entire nation and its reliance on transportation fuels generally should every local jurisdiction ban new fossil fuel facilities or restrict improvements to existing facilities.6 In this case, if every local government in Washington State or along the West Coast were to enact similar ordinances to the Proposed Amendments, then the interstate market for fossil fuels and renewable fuels would be severely hampered. Furthermore, because fossil fuels and renewable fuels play a vital role in the U.S. economy, the impacts on interstate commerce would be felt beyond just the fossil fuel and renewable fuel markets.7 The benefits of banning new fossil fuel facilities or expanding existing fossil fuel and renewable fuels facilities are clearly outweighed by the detriment these types of bans would pose on interstate commerce.

The City's efforts to impose restrictions on a specific disfavored industry are strikingly similar to other efforts to restrict unwanted commerce that were found to violate the dormant Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court has held that an attempt to prohibit unwanted commerce violates the dormant Commerce Clause and the Pike balancing test when a city "overtly moved to slow or freeze the flow of commerce for protectionist reasons," and therefore imposed an undue burden on interstate commerce.8 A state or local government is not permitted to isolate itself from a problem that is common to other jurisdictions by "erecting a barrier against the movement of interstate trade."9 Similarly, here, the City is imposing on out-of-state commercial interests the full burden of protecting the City's local interests by prohibiting new facilities and by severely restricting existing facilities. This is precisely the type of protectionism that the dormant Commerce Clause forbids.

4. The Proposed Amendments violate substantive due process.

6 Furthermore, were every local jurisdiction to ban transportation fuel facilities, GHG emissions resulting from fossil fuel production would still occur elsewhere in the world as the demand for transportation fuels would not decrease. 7 See United States Energy Information Administration, Fossil Fuels have made up at least 80% of the US .fuel mix since 1900, available at https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=21912. 8 City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 627-28, 98 S.Ct. 2531, 57 L.Ed.2d 475 (1978). 9 Id. at 628.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 141 of 252 The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution contains a substantive requirement, which protects individuals from arbitrary government conduct. 10 The government violates substantive due process rights when it arbitrarily deprives a person of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest and that deprivation lacks any reasonable justification.11 Here, the Proposed Amendments deprive energy companies of several constitutionally protected interests.

First, the Proposed Amendments deprive fossil fuel and renewable fuel facilities of a liberty and property interest in the goodwill of their business by limiting the expansion of existing facilities. Several companies have spent years building up their businesses in Tacoma and have become an integral part in our country's economy and its fuel distribution infrastructure. Furthermore, these companies have employed City residents. These companies have a variety of customers that depend on their products in order to run their own businesses. By limiting the ability for the companies to maintain the goodwill of their business, the Proposed Amendments infringe upon the companies' protected property interest.

Second, the limits on the expansion of existing facilities infringes on fossil fuel and renewable fuel companies' right to devote their land to a legitimate use. Substantive due process prevents governments from abusing their police power to impose restrictions that are unnecessary and unreasonable upon the use of private property or the pursuit of useful activities. The existing fossil and renewable fuel facilities are a legitimate use and the activities that fossil and renewable fuel facilities engage in—producing, refining, and distribution of fossil and renewable fuels—are essential activities to the customers and businesses that rely on transportation fuels. By imposing impossible obligations on expansion or modification of these facilities, the City is depriving companies of a constitutionally protected interest.

The deprivation of these constitutionally protected property interests is the result of arbitrary and irrational conduct. As discussed above, there is no rational basis for singling out fossil and renewable fuel facilities for concerns that are shared amongst all heavy industrial facilities. Moreover, the Proposed Amendments are so vague, ambiguous and subjective, that they will result in arbitrary application to the detriment of these property interests and therefore violate substantive due process and are void for vagueness.

For the same reasons, the Proposed Amendments violate the State Constitution's protection of substantive due process because it is nearly identical to the federal analysis.12 In addition, under the analysis for due process under the State Constitution, courts also consider whether the government's action is unduly oppressive to the landowner.13 Accordingly, even if the regulation is rational, it will still be struck down if it is overly burdensome on the landowner.14 The Proposed Amendments fail this additional analysis under the State Constitution. Existing fossil and renewable fuel facilities will be subject to onerous new permitting requirements and will lose a large percentage of their value if they are not able to expand to keep up with market

10 Const. Amend. XIV; Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) ("The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government."). 11 Action Apartment Ass'n, Inc . v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 509 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 2007). 12 Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wn.2d 320, 330, 787 P.2d 907 (1990). 13 Id. 14 Id.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 142 of 252 requirements. Unlike the interim regulations that the City has passed, the Proposed Amendments are permanent, and it is not feasible for these facilities to alter present or planned future uses given the large investments made in the existing infrastructure. As such, the Proposed Amendments are overly burdensome and violate substantive due process protections under the State Constitution.

C. Conclusion

Because of the numerous legal and policy flaws, WSPA requests that the Planning Commission recommend the denial of the Proposed Amendments. At the very least, we ask that this process slow down so we can provide our input to the City and assist in adoption of regulations that protect stakeholder interests and align with the public's goals.

Sincerely,

cc: Jodie Muller, WSPA Jessica Spiegel, WSPA

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 143 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: David Kipnis Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 5:52 PM To: Planning Subject: Tideflats non interim regulations

I am grateful for the opportunity to comment in support of the draft code the Planning Commission has developed. I strongly support the proposal to ban all new and expanded major fossil fuel facilities, petrochemical manufacturing, coal storage and power plants, and smelting within the City of Tacoma.

The suggested amendments will provide long‐needed protections in Tacoma, which has been continuously targeted by new and expanding fossil fuel facilities. Further the amendments uphold the City’s own environmental protection goals and Climate Emergency Declaration.

Thank you for consideration and work to protect Tacoma from new and expanded fossil fuels.

Sincerely,

David Kipnis.

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 144 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Floyd Knodel Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 12:02 PM To: Planning Subject: Strong Non-interim Regulations Are Vital For Climate Prosperity

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

While the current draft code is a strong proposal, and I would like to communicate my support for the Planning Commission’s recommendation to ban all new and expanded major fossil fuel facilities, petrochemical manufacturing, coal storage and power plants, and smelting within the City of Tacoma’s jurisdiction.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 145 of 252 Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

Sincerely,

Floyd R. Knodel

Floyd Knodel [email protected] 15713 25th ave e Tacoma, Washington 98445

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 146 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Robb Krehbiel Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 2:29 PM To: Planning Subject: Strong Non-interim Regulations Are Vital For Climate Prosperity

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 147 of 252 Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

Sincerely,

Robb Krehbiel [email protected] 7521, East E Street Tacoma, Washington 98404

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 148 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Anne Kroeker Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 4:38 PM To: Planning Cc: Richard Leeds Subject: Support for Ban on New and Existing Fossil Fuel and Polluting Industry in the Tacoma Tideflats

Dear City of Tacoma Planning Commissioners and Staff,

As you consider changing the current Interim Tideflats development regulations to Non‐Interim ones, please add our support for the current Planning Commission draft, which recommends banning existing, along with new, major fossil fuel facilities and polluting industries, and which would include petrochemical manufacturing, coal storage, power plants, and smelting.

Of immediate concern is the air pollution caused by these industries, now proven to be carcinogenic and fatally toxic beyond previous knowledge, and which harms the resident communities in the immediate vicinity the most, such as the Puyallup tribal members and the detainees at the Northwest Detention Center. During weather inversions, everyone within miles is also subject to breathing the bad air.

While updating Tacoma's Tideflats Interim regulations and code amendments will provide improved health protection from reduced emissions for Tacoma and all its surrounding communities, the proposed reductions in fossil fuel facilities are equally important to achieving Washington State's goals for reducing carbon and greenhouse gas emissions (45% by 2030 and 70% by 2040). Further, all of the Puget Sound coastal communities along the path of volatile LNG shipments are at risk, allowed under the current Draft.

Overall, the Tacoma Planning Commission Draft proposing new Tideflats development restrictions for polluting businesses will create a healthier environment and a more sustainable economy for our region. The "red zone" of the Asarco plume has made everyone in our region keenly aware of the fact that what happens in Tacoma, does not necessarily stay within the City limits, and is around for a long time.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments and for your work in leading this process to protect Tacoma from new and expanded fossil fuel growth.

Sincerely, Anne Kroeker and Richard Leeds Des Moines, WA

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 149 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 9:25 AM To: Wung, Lihuang Cc: 'Russ Ladley'; [email protected] Subject: Non-Interim Industrial Land Use Regulations Initiated by City Ordinance 28696

Dear Chair Petersen and Planning Commissioners:

As a 21 year resident of NE Tacoma and daily commuter through the Tideflats, I consider myself reasonably well versed in the day to day events associated with the Port of Tacoma area. I know the Port is vital economic engine in the region and provides for thousands of jobs which we all benefit from. I also know that there is a fine balance that must be constantly adjusted to accommodate both a welcoming business climate and the quality‐of‐life Washingtonians expect.

It’s an indisputable fact that Tacoma’s industrial history has taken a heavy toll on our natural resources. The nature of the industries that operate today and the legacy of yesteryear businesses are responsible for the environmental conditions that exist today including some of the most confounding superfund sites in the country. The diminishment of our fish and shellfish resources that once thrived in Commencement Bay are directly attributable to past industrial practices when operators were either oblivious to their actions or unconcerned with the impacts. Despite the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent trying to cleanup Commencement Bay and it’s waterways, contaminants remain widespread.

My neighbors and I are readily reminded of a Southwest wind direction which carry the Port’s industrial fragrance. We reluctantly accept this irritation as a fact of life in NE Tacoma. Just driving past the Sound Refining terminal on SR‐509 can impart a sense of nausea. Similarly, the acrid smoke coming from the General Metals Recycling facility on a hot summer day can be overwhelming.

We’re about to add a major new air polluter to the Tacoma bouquet when the LNG facility activates next month. Although it’s unlikely to contribute any noticeable odor, process and flare gasses will contribute significantly more GHG (50,000 tons annually) as well as potent carcinogens in the form of refrigerants, natural gas contaminants and byproducts of hydrocarbon combustion including formaldehyde and many others. This facility has not been given the complete upstream and downs stream life cycle affects analysis or been assigned commensurate mitigation requirements.

Not to pick on select industries but the greater Port area needs to account for the cumulative impacts of hundreds of distinct emissions that are generated from within. Having two different state agencies (DOE and PSCAA) account for emissions in different ways and regulate different industries is not constructive toward accounting for cumulative impacts of all emission sources, their impacts to human health and overall changes to air quality.

Traffic is horrendous along the I‐5 corridor particularly along the Port of Tacoma exits. Because of this, people don’t want to commute long distances and would much rather live close to their place of employment. This is why it’s imperative that we require the myriad of industries here to incorporate the latest emission controls, stack scrubbers, discharge filters and recovery technologies available. Because such technologies and associated apparatus are always changing and improving it’s vital that the regulatory arena keep pace to ensure the latest and most protective systems are in place.

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 150 of 252 More people than ever before live in Tacoma and surrounding cities. This is why it’s critical to seek a balance between thriving industry and the livability of surrounding communities that provide the workforce for these industries. The argument that good jobs are the sole consideration driving industrial process allowance should not preclude a safe environment to live and work. Remember that clean technologies also employ workers and provide high paying jobs.

As you are aware, the proposed residential encroachment district in NE Tacoma is comprised mostly of steep hillsides that currently serve an important buffer function for both noise and spatial separation. I would feel much better if this area was simply excluded from development altogether and placed into conservancy. Slope stability issues alone offer a convincing case for this as does the frequency of slope failures and erosion following intense rain events. Besides, the limited greenspace we have remaining is increasingly important in carbon sequestration.

In closing I wish to convey my support for the recommendations below and urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration the restrictions below:

• Prohibition of new major fossil fuel facilities, petrochemical manufacturing, coal storage and power plants, and smelting within the City of Tacoma

• Prohibition of new modifications that would increase the capacity of these facilities

• Prohibition of new refining or processing equipment at existing facilities

• Conditional use permit requirements for replacement or modification of existing tanks, and replacement or modification of transshipment equipment

• Conditional use permit requirements for new Renewable Fuel Refineries or Renewable Fuel 2 Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility I also urge the Commission to address the following shortcomings in the code:

• Conversion from Renewable to Fossil Fuel Facility: Tacoma should not permit the conversion of existing or future permitted Renewable Fuel Facilities to fossil fuel facilities, even with a conditional use permit requirement. Such a conversion would pose the very same health, safety, and environmental risks as would a new or expanded facility and is inconsistent with the City’s stated policy goals.

• Replacement or modification of storage tanks: Replacement or modifications of any storage tank should prohibit a capacity increase, while the conditional use requirement for replacing storage tanks should only allow for option to replace existing storage capacity

• Conditional use criteria: Expanded conditional use criteria for high impact facilities should specifically require minimization of adverse human health impacts associated with project proposals and also address unreasonable adverse impacts to “large concentrations of people” beyond nearby residential and commercial areas, including impacts to incarcerated populations and workers within in Tacoma’s industrial areas

• Definition of “Major Fossil Fuel Facility”: The volumetric threshold for a “major fossil fuel facility” should be lowered to encompass all six existing fossil fuel storage, refinement, and processing facilities. • Mitigation requirements for projects should address full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, not solely facility emissions

Sincerely, 2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 151 of 252 Russ and Janette Ladley

3618 43 AVE CT NE

Tacoma WA 98422

3 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 152 of 252

March 8, 2021 535 Dock Street Suite 213 Tacoma City Planning Commission

Tacoma, WA 98402 747 Market Street Phone (253) 383-2429 Council Chambers Tacoma, WA 98402 [email protected] Submitted electronically to [email protected] www.healthybay.org RE: Non-Interim Regulations for the Tideflats and South Tacoma Industrial Zone

Dear Planning Commission,

Executive Director Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the development of permanent regulations for the Tideflats and industrial areas of South and Central Tacoma. Melissa Malott Citizens for a Healthy Bay (CHB) is a 30-year-old organization whose mission is to represent and engage people in the cleanup, restoration, and protection of Commencement Bay, its surrounding waters and natural habitat. We are a 501(c)3 nonprofit providing practical,

solutions-based environmental leadership in south Puget Sound. We work side-by-side Board of Directors with residents, businesses, and government to prevent and mitigate pollution and to make Desiree Wilkins Finch our community healthier and more vibrant.

Barry Goldstein We submit this letter as a supplement to our January 13 and March 3 testimony, and our Anders Ibsen December 2, 2020, February 3, and January 20, 2021 letters to Planning Commission.

Jennifer Keating First, we would like to say ‘thank you’ to the City of Tacoma’s Planning Department staff Melissa Nordquist and members of the Planning Commission. This process has proven to be thorough, Anne Taufen deliberate, collaborative, and responsive to the needs and requests of all facets of our Sheri Tonn community. While we still feel there are weaknesses in the draft amendments – which we will address below – we have been pleased with the process overall. Alan Varsik

Raeshawna Ware Section A. Permit and Land Use Notifications

We strongly support the proposed code revision to extend notice of application to all residents within the defined area, rather than solely property owners/taxpayers in order to A tax-exempt notify all those impacted by living in proximity to project proposals. We agree that this is a 501(c)(3) Washington significant change needed to address equity disparities in the City, as those who are nonprofit corporation considered “occupants” or “renters” will face the same exact impacts as those who hold “taxpayer” status, and may often be comprised of more low-income populations and people of color.

We did however find some of the amended language confusing, as it was not immediately clear what a resident or “qualified” community group needed to do in order to receive notices, especially electronic notices. We firmly believe that access to information is the first step to an informed community that can effectively advocate for the policies and change they want to see in their City. And when more people, especially those that reflect the diversity of our City as a whole, have this access to information, our policy outcomes

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 153 of 252

will be more equitable and effective in protecting every segment of our community, not just the select few. With that in mind, being notified of permitting activity should be an easily accessible process, and easy to understand, for everyone in our community, not just those that have the time and resources to read and comprehend City code.

Section B. Conversion of Industrial Lands

We generally support the draft amendments to limit and/or prohibit non-industrial uses in the established industrial zones within the Tideflats and South Tacoma, but one point of clarification is needed: as the draft code is written, if a property owner wanted to conserve some of their property for a pocket park or smaller conservation easement, would this be prohibited? While we understand the Tideflats MIC area should not, and effectively cannot, be returned to its natural state, we do believe that small pocket parks and restoration sites should not be prohibited, and the existing restoration sites should be allowed to expand. This is essential for the recovery and protection of many species that call Commencement Bay ‘home.’

The Tideflats are still a functioning estuary to the Puyallup River. Commencement Bay and the Puyallup River watershed contain fish and marine mammal species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as well as designated critical habitat and Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. These areas also provide juvenile and adult habitat for salmonids and their prey resources. In addition to being federally protected, these species and habitats are culturally important to the Puyallup, Nisqually, Squaxin Island, and Muckleshoot Tribes, and other Coast Salish peoples.

The Olympic View Restoration Area sits at the head of the Foss-Middle Waterway peninsula is a Natural Resource Damage Assessment restoration site that includes an extensive area of eelgrass habitat. Surf smelt spawn have been documented at this site by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and are a critically important food source for salmon and marine mammals and birds.

The Puyallup River watershed supports many salmonid populations including federally-protected Chinook, Coho, chum, and pink salmon and steelhead trout and bull trout. Sockeye salmon are occasionally observed. All of these salmonid species including the listed species are found in the Puyallup River estuary and nearshore areas of Commencement Bay. The Puyallup River estuary and the nearshore areas of Commencement Bay also support several species of resident fish and their prey resources. Multiple restoration projects have been completed within the Puyallup River estuary and nearshore areas, and need to be maintained and protected from disturbance. Both surf smelt and sand lance spawn has been documented by WDFW on either side of the Puyallup River mouth.

Section C. Residential Encroachment While we support the prohibition of new multifamily dwelling units, including duplex, triplex, cottage housing, and fourplex, we recommend adding single family dwelling units to the list of prohibited uses in the overlay district – effectively making all developable land in the Port of Tacoma Transition Overlay Zone part of the buffer zone. We recognize this would cause undue hardship on property owners in this area, as their property values will decrease significantly. With that in mind, we also strongly urge the City of Tacoma, perhaps in collaboration with the Port of Tacoma, to begin purchasing these parcels and placing them into permanent conservation easements.

Residential communities along and upland of Marine View Drive have been in longstanding conflict with Port industries due to noise, odor and traffic issues associated with common Port activities. Beyond the obvious public safety impacts these residents face, any further development in this area would only further exacerbate the strife between Northeast Tacoma residents and Port industry, and will result in increasing noise, odor, and traffic complaints to the City. Further, this steep, forested bluff is a significant biodiversity corridor for federally protected species, and is also a geologic hazard area. Adding new development of any kind to this area jeopardizes public safety and environmental health.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 154 of 252 Section D. Siting and Expansion of High Risk/High Impact Heavy Industrial Uses

Mining and Quarrying We support the proposed prohibition of all new mining and quarrying within the City of Tacoma, as well as the proposed development standards and conditions for existing mines and quarries that seek modification or expansion.

Smelting We strongly support the proposed prohibition of all new smelting within the City of Tacoma.

Coal Storage and Export We strongly support the proposed prohibition of all new coal storage and export facilities, as well as coal power plants, within the City of Tacoma. However, we recommend changing the term “export” to “shipment” or “transshipment,” depending on the use. Transshipment of bulk fossil fuels as cargo through Tacoma to other U.S. states or territories (e.g., Bakken crude oil shipped to Hawaii from the Tacoma) may not constitute “export,” but nonetheless poses foreseeable adverse impacts. The non-interim regulations should refer to the on-site use.

Chemical Manufacturing In general, we support the proposed prohibition of all new petrochemical manufacturing, explosives manufacturing, and fertilizer manufacturing within the City of Tacoma. However, a distinction needs to be made on how different types of fertilizers will be treated. While it may be appropriate to prohibit fertilizers containing industrially produced nitrogen, sulfate, and phosphates due to their hazardous properties, fertilizers made of naturally occurring biosolids, such as TAGRO, should not be bound to the same restrictions.

Further, we support the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for new chemical manufacturing, production and processing, wholesaling, and petrochemical manufacturing, particularly Condition #6 which requires proof of no impact to nearby affordable housing projects. We recommend adding the following language to the proposed conditions on Chemical Manufacturing, Production and Processing, Wholesaling, and Petrochemical Manufacturing, and High Impact Uses (as well as any uses requiring a CUP under Section D); “Consideration of adverse impacts on people adjacent to the lot should extend beyond residential and commercial areas and, in particular, should consider proximity to large concentrations of people within industrial zones including at prison facilities and worker-dense businesses on the Tideflats and in the South Tacoma industrial area.”

Lastly, it is not clear how existing chemical manufacturing facilities as named in this subsection are being regulated. The non-interim regulations serve to protect Tacoma and the surrounding areas from high-risk industry. Should an existing chemical manufacturing facility wish to expand its capacity, this may in some cases present the same exact threat as a new chemical manufacturing facility. While we do not have a specific recommendation at this time on what the elements of this regulation could be, we strongly recommend Planning Commission and Planning Staff develop draft language on how existing chemical manufacturing will be regulated.

Oil and Liquefied Fossil Fuels We strongly support the proposed prohibition on new major fossil fuel facilities. However, we strongly recommend eliminating the threshold that distinguishes between major and minor fossil fuel facilities. Whether it is one new “major” fossil fuel facility or a collection of “minor” fossil fuel facilities – we are still burdened with the same risks to our public safety, our health, and our environment, as outlined in the Staff Findings.

We are concerned that some of the wording in this subsection will be interpreted differently by different parties, and recommend drafting definitions for the following: • Marine fueling facility • Transshipment facility • Transportation facility

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 155 of 252 We support the use of CUPs for replacement or modification of existing storage tanks, but recommend that following change: • Replacement of any storage tank in excess of 1428 barrels (60,000 gallons, the SEPA threshold), provided that the new tank has equal or lesser storage capacity than the tank it is replacing. o Without this language, we could see existing major fossil fuel storage facilities significantly expand their storage capacity, which presents significant human health and safety risks. We support the list of Prohibited Improvements to existing fossil fuel facilities, but recommend the following changes: • New driveways, private rail sidings, docks, piers, wharves and floats, and/or storage tanks. • Site or facility improvements that would increase the capacity of a driveway, private rail siding, dock, pier, wharf, storage tank and/or float. o What is the definition of “capacity” in this instance? Number of trucks in a driveway? Number of vessels at a pier? Volume of product being transferred over a pier? This definition is needed in order for permit writers, the regulated entity, and the public to fully comprehend the intent of the code.

We DO NOT support a pathway via a CUP requirement for a permitted Renewable Fuel Refinery or Transshipment Facility to convert to a fossil fuel facility. Conversion from a Renewable Fuel facility to a fossil fuel facility has the same exact impacts as building a new or expanding an existing fossil fuel facility. This should be expressly prohibited in the non-interim regulations.

We also support the requirement of a CUP for the development of new renewable fuel projects (including the conversion of an existing fossil fuel facility to a renewables facility), and for the expansion of existing fossil fuel facilities. CUPs are an excellent tool for the City to use to use its discretion on the types of development we allow in our city. Many industries are already required to get a CUP for their development, including: • Special Needs Housing (TMC 13.05.010.A.5) • Two- and Three-family and Townhouse dwellings in R-2SRD and HMR-SRD (TMC 13.05.010.A.6) • Two-family development on corner lots in R-2 (TMC 13.05.010.A.7.a) • Multi-family development up to six units in R-3 (TMC 13.05.010.A.7.b) • Uses in Historic Structures (TMC 13.05.010.A.8) • Duplex, Triplex and Townhouse Development in NRX Districts (TMC 13.05.010.A.10) • Large Scale Retail

These industries have proven that the CUP process is not a barrier to development nor a threat to jobs, as we continuously see their growth across the City. The CUP simply allows the City to take ownership over this growth while placing conditions on said growth to match the vision for the City and the needs of its residents.

We would like to see the following language added to the list of conditions for these uses; “The lot is located, and the use can be appropriately mitigated, to avoid any adverse impacts on HUD funding for affordable housing and community development in adjacent residential and mixed-use areas. The City will consider the methodology for Acceptable Separation Distances as published by the Department of Housing and Urban in determining appropriate separation distances and on-site mitigation measures.”

Further, we recommend the following change in the Greenhouse Gas mitigation requirement; “Mitigation for local and lifecycle greenhouse gas impacts calculated consistent with the definition of facility emissions in TMC 13.01.060.” The Department of Ecology is currently developing a rule on calculating lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, and the City of Tacoma should follow suit in order to fully meet our obligations to reduce our emissions.

We also recommend adding a requirement to conduct a Human Health Impacts Analysis for any development of new renewable fuels project or for the expansions of an existing fossil fuel facility. This protocol has already been developed and approved by the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department in their Health in All Policies initiative.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 156 of 252 Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Planning Commission’s development of non-interim regulations in the Tideflats and industrial areas of South Tacoma. If we can clarify any of our concerns or recommendations, please do not hesitate to reach out. We are eager to see the proposed code move forward to City Council.

Sincerely,

Melissa Malott Erin Dilworth Executive Director Policy & Technical Program Manager [email protected] [email protected]

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 157 of 252 Staff Note: The "FINAL Public Review Book 2.03.2021" (or "Public Review Draft") attached to and referenced in Mr. Martin's e-mail is NOT included here due to its size, but can be accessed Wung, Lihuang at www.cityoftacoma.org/tideflatsinterim (and click on "Public Review Document - Complete").

From: Bruce Martin Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 3:57 PM To: Planning Cc: Woodards, Victoria; Blocker, Keith; Ushka, Catherine; Hunter, Lillian; Walker, Kristina; Hines, John; Beale, Chris; Thoms, Robert; McCarthy, Conor; City Manager; FRANK BOYKIN; John Brandt; Bruce Martin; Wayne Wooster Subject: WestRock Tacoma comment on Tideflats Land Use Regulation Attachments: WestRock Interim Land Use Regulation comment 10-3-19.pdf; FINAL Public Review Book 2.03.2021.pdf

Importance: High

Subject: Non‐Interim Industrial Land Use Regulations Initiated by City Ordinance 28696

Dear Chair Petersen and Planning Commissioners,

WestRock Tacoma is commenting today on the proposed amendments to Land Use Regulatory Code as presented in the Tacoma Planning Department’s Public Review Document, and during the Public Hearing on the proposed amendments held this past Wednesday March 3rd.

We understand that the code amendment process is on a compressed timeline initiated by City Ordinance 28696, separate from the Tide flats Subarea Plan process which has received support from WestRock in past comments to the City and the Planning Commission. Please see attached WestRock comments from 2019, and email below from December 2020 restating our position.

Based our experience thus far WestRock is disappointed in the direction and process employed by the City Planning Department and Planning Commission in its presentation of the proposed amendments. While many are thanking the Department for its work on the amendments, quite frankly we expect more from our City staff and leaders. What is presented as an opportunity for public input does not provide WestRock any certainty of proposed regulation on which to provide substantive comment.

As presented in the Public Review Draft, WestRock finds it impossible to assess the legal significance and effect of many elements and newly defined terms in the proposed amendments to Land Use Regulatory Code that will impact our business. The Public Review Document at 203 pages is neither clear nor brief. As a fundamental failure in process, the Public Review Document does not include a mark‐up of the affected Land Use Code, thereby creating a confusing and impossible‐to‐follow proposal. Several new definitions offered in the proposed amendments contain no clear regulatory intent or connection with either proposed or existing code. For these reasons alone, WestRock finds it impossible to ascertain with any certainty the application of Land Use Code that would apply to WestRock and our continued business operations in the Port MIC.

Further, without a complete draft of proposed changes in code there is nothing on which the City should have been able to create its Determination of Non‐significance in compliance with SEPA requirements. This clear failure in the application of the SEPA process is not one that the City would (or should) allow for any land use interest, so should not be allowed for City process in amending its Land Use Code either.

WestRock urges that whatever additional time is need must be taken to provide clear and appropriate amendments to TMC Title 13, the Land Use Regulatory Code and Title 19, the Shoreline Master Program. Anything less should be understood as an unacceptable public process as it applies to WestRock’s continued business interests in Tacoma.

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 158 of 252 However, what WestRock Tacoma can ascertain from the proposed changes to Land Use Code is very concerning to our business for a host of other reasons. If enacted as generally described, we anticipate negative consequence to our business planning that could materially impact the assessment of WestRock’s continued interest in capital investment for its manufacturing facility in Tacoma.

Proposed Elements require a Pause

Just as the Interim Regulations were employed as a Pause to potential industrial land uses moving forward ahead of the Sub Area Plan, the current Public Review Document needs a Pause in order to consider its considerable and foreseeable initiation of unintended consequences that will negatively impact existing business in Tacoma.

The Public Review Document amendments propose change to public notice and application requirements in a manner inconsistent with state law, and appear to newly apply multiple undefined terms. It is unclear precisely how an affected business would comply with such requirements. As a broad concept, the proposed changes are clearly an unreasonable burden to business and seem to ignore the City’s own existing efforts to offer information to the public via online permit dashboards, interactive maps, and the ability to subscribe to land use public notices.

As an example, the proposed amendments add requirements for community meeting(s) if requested by any party receiving notice of an application. This would apply to any single party of the thousands of individuals proposed to receive public notice for any land use action, which in current code already include all Neighborhood Councils and Business Districts, as well as the Community Council and SEPA contacts for all adjacent jurisdictions (Federal Way, Fife, Fircrest, Lakewood, Pierce County, and University Place) and all other typically‐notified parties including the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. This proposed amendment is also without clarifying whether the called‐for meeting is in addition to the already required meetings under the code, or a new meeting. Adding such complexity and ambiguity to the permitting notification process affecting business requests for permitted use of their own land is inconsistent with economic development goals, and an entirely unnecessary expansion of public process.

Proposed amendments also provide that the notification distance for a project within the Port of Tacoma Manufacturing/Industrial Center (M/IC) will be 2,500 feet from the boundaries “of that center;” however, it is unclear how “that center” is to be measured. To avoid confusion in this and other areas, WestRock recommends that the City adopt an enhanced notification distance of 2500 ft from the proposed project site.

The proposed amendments go further to add conditional use permits as a requirement for many uses, and in some instances add new review criteria – in addition to the existing conditional use permit review criteria. The additional permit review time and uncertainty that is inherent in broad use of conditional use permit process and associated conditions would be perceived as an assault on already burdened businesses. Such a result would be inconsistent with both Port and City economic development goals. Taking this action will almost certainly result in many businesses choosing to look elsewhere to site their industrial uses; uses that otherwise should be cited in land designated and suited for the purpose, such as the Port MIC.

And while the Public Review Document proposes a new district for the land on the hillside above Marine View Drive to limit residential density and encroachment, the approach fails to address transitions and buffers on the other sides of the Port MIC as required by the GMA and the Container Port Element. Further, the proposed amendments identify M‐1 and M‐2 as “Buffer Areas”. M‐1 and M‐2 zoned areas are not appropriate buffer areas and could cause conflict between adjacent residential and even some commercials use. Further, this conflicts with the City policy. Buffer areas should extend outward from the Port MIC to preserve the industrial zoned lands, not inward.

These are but a few of the reasons why WestRock believes a Pause on the rush to amend Tide flats land use regulation is warranted in order to develop a more complete and better, balanced set of rules to guide Tacoma’s industrial manufacturers.

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 159 of 252 To accomplish this goal we urge the Planning Commission and City Council to direct the Planning Department to provide a fully developed proposal, with proposed amendments to Land Use Code presented for public comment in the context of fully drafted code to considered for approval. Again, whatever time is needed to provide a complete draft for public review and comment should be extended for review of these critically important and impactful regulations.

WestRock Tacoma is prepared to discuss or provide additional input, and would be happy to meet with you to answer questions. Should you or your staff have any questions, feel free to contact me directly.

Bruce Martin Energy Resource Manager

801 E. Portland Ave. | Tacoma, WA 98421 T 253.596.0183 | M 253.307.2072 [email protected] | www.westrock.com Integrity  Respect  Accountability  Excellence

From: Bruce Martin Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2020 3:36 PM To: Planning Cc: Victoria Woodards ([email protected]) ; [email protected]; Catherine Ushka ([email protected]) ; [email protected]; [email protected]; John Hines ([email protected]) ; Chris Beale ([email protected]) ; [email protected]; Conor McCarthy ([email protected]) ; Elizabeth Pauli ([email protected]) ; Frank Boykin ([email protected]) ; John Brandt Subject: WestRock comment on Tideflats Land Use Regulation; Scoping Hearing Importance: High

Tacoma Planning Commissioners,

Please see email below, and attached letter from WestRock sent to City Council in October last year, pre‐COVID‐19 pandemic.

While our letter to City Council last year addressed then‐proposed changes to Interim Regulation in anticipation of a Sub Area Planning process, our position regarding the need for certainty of process has not changed.

Our Tacoma business has been fortunate to continuously provide benefit to the community throughout the pandemic as an essential employer and manufacturer of essential products. As such, we remain a critical hub in the functioning local and regional circular economy. Yet local challenges to our business remain and continue as outlined in our letter from a year ago.

WestRock wholeheartedly endorses the tenet of the South Sound Manufacturing Industrial Council (MIC), that actions taken by the City in land use planning for the tideflats manufacturing industrial sector need to be done thoroughly and

3 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 160 of 252 correctly, once. We are committed to the process outlined by the City in developing a set of land use regulations for the tideflats, but cannot endorse a second round of “negotiation” of those same land use regulations in a drawn‐out Sub area planning process.

For the reasons stated by the MIC, and our previous letter to City Council, please consider authorization of the interim regulations as they exist today, and amend the Sub Area Plan to exclude the land use issues taken up today as settled through the City’s current planning process.

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce Martin Energy Resource Manager

801 E. Portland Ave. | Tacoma, WA 98421 T 253.596.0183 | M 253.307.2072 [email protected] | www.westrock.com Integrity  Respect  Accountability  Excellence

From: Bruce Martin Sent: Friday, October 04, 2019 3:40 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Elizabeth Pauli ([email protected]) Cc: John Brandt Subject: WestRock comment on Reauthorization of Tideflats Interim Land Use Regulation

Mayor Woodards, Council Members, and Tacoma City Manager Pauli,

Please see the attached comment from WestRock Tacoma regarding the current reauthorization of the Tideflats Interim Land Use Regulation being considered by Council.

Sent on behalf of the WestRock Tacoma Mill for Mill Manager John Brandt

Bruce Martin Energy Resource Manager

801 E. Portland Ave. | Tacoma, WA 98421 T 253.596.0183 | M 253.307.2072 [email protected] | www.westrock.com Integrity  Respect  Accountability  Excellence

4 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 161 of 252

This electronic message contains information from WestRock Company (www.westrock.com) or its subsidiaries, which may be confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. The information is intended to be disclosed to and used by only the named recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, then your review, use, disclosure, printing, copying, or distribution of this message or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify WestRock immediately at [email protected], and delete the message from your system. For information about WestRock's privacy practices, including how WestRock collects, processes, transfers, and stores Personally Identifiable Information shared with us, please visit WestRock Privacy Policy. Unless previously authorized in writing, this message does not constitute an offer, acceptance, or agreement of any kind. Sender is not liable for damage, errors or omissions related to or caused by transmission of this message. (c) WestRock Company.

5 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 162 of 252 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 163 of 252 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 164 of 252 Re: Joint Public Hearing with Ecology – Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations

To Tacoma Planning Commission and Washington State Department of Ecology,

Thank you for the excellent process you have provided for the community to make comments. I think your Commission has been doing a good job of listening to the public regarding concerns.

I want to address a key concern I have had for quite a while. I have a bachelors degree in biology and oceanography, largely because I fell in love with the sea when my family used to drive from what is now Silicon Valley to visit my grandparents who lived in Pacific Grove. We spent many days at Point Lobos looking in tidepools and watching the seals and sea lions, the sea birds, otters in the kelp, and the magic of the waves. I went to a high school with a pool and found I couldn’t swim well. I sank. So when I was 16, I took a summer class in my high school’s pool and was certified in scuba. Then, after taking up monthly diving in Monterey Bay, my interest expanded so much, I decided I wanted to study that in college. Later, I was certified as an assistant instructor in scuba. My Air Force career allowed me to dive all over the Pacific.

My daughter took my lead and was certified at every level at the youngest age allowed, up to and including Advanced Open Water. She too has been diving around the world. She always wanted to study oceanography, but she was offered a Harvard scholarship she couldn’t refuse, only if she signed up for a degree in Business. That eventually got her two degrees, including an MBA. Later, she was actively recruited by Oxford, where she is on COVID recess for working on her PhD in Environmental Business studying rising sea levels and infrastructure. When I heard about the LNG facility, I found there were issues that puzzled me. I asked if her team at Oxford had anything on this area, and her team sent me a gold mine. It was a 2018 article in the San Jose Mercury News that referred to the effects on shoreline landfill in the San Francisco Bay and how that landfill was responding to rising sea levels. It clearly showed that landfill was sinking at the same time that sea level was rising. They produced some interactive graphics that clearly showed that sinking landfill would cause flooding of construction there much faster than construction built on non‐landfill.

Then, I asked the opinion of a member of our church whom I knew taught geology as a professor at Pacific Lutheran University. He led me to some other documents that showed the danger and folly of building anything on top of shoreline landfill, but especially on the Tacoma Tideflats, which sit on land most likely to liquefy in an earthquake and also sat directly atop 1500‐2000 feet of that substrate until it reached bedrock—and all that atop the earthquake fault directly under the Tideflats that is quite likely to cause that weak soil to liquefy one of these days. Anything sitting on top of, or inside that soil is just like it would be sitting inside quicksand if there is a significant earthquake. Pretending that frameworks buried anywhere above bedrock is secure is like thinking that COVID would disappear in a month.

The article and university report on shoreline landfill and rising sea levels also mentioned the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake that exposed the sort of damage that was done when some of San Francisco’s shoreline landfill was exposed to a strong earthquake—from an earthquake centered over 60 miles away. It wasn’t just the buildings that broke up, but many pipes in the ground to distribute natural gas buried in the landfill, and also critical water pipes needed to supply water to put out the fires that resulted in fatalities. To think that it is OK to construct a tank and all its supply piping and connectors, full of potentially explosive contents on top of landfill on top of 1500 to 2000 feet of a weak substrate

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 165 of 252 that is likely to liquefy in a significant earthquake and to have all of that directly on top of an earthquake fault (not 60 miles away) is absolutely insane. Who ever allowed this to happen?

You need to do something to severely regulate, and hopefully cancel, any operation of facilities that contain hazardous contents in this Tacoma Tideflats situation. If people want to build there, build something on something solid, not landfill, and something that is productive, like hydroponic gardens, museums, desalination facilities, solar farms—not hazardous‐chemical tanks and pipes filled with those chemicals.

Here are some references in case you haven’t seen them yet. They will show a UC‐Berkeley / ASU study on what happens to shoreline landfill in the presence of rising sea levels, the location of soil substrates along the Puget Sound and which are most likely to be a problem, how deeply that substrate goes before you get to stable bedrock, and where earthquake faults are under the Puget Sound. Don’t fall into the traps of thinking COVID‐19 is no worse than the flu, that the 737MAX was a good design and safe to fly, and that Deepwater Horizon (and Chernobyl and Fukushima Dai‐ichi and…) had safety hazards completely covered. Look at the real facts, the real science. The facts were available before, and they are still available. Here are some facts.

UC‐Berkeley/ASU report on rising sea levels and landfill (Recommend interactive color charts to see effect of landfill): https://news.berkeley.edu/2018/03/07/sinking‐land‐will‐exacerbate‐flooding‐from‐sea‐level‐rise‐in‐ bay‐area/

Soil liquefaction probability in Tideflats area: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3023/fs2010‐3023.pdf (See p. 3):

Depth of Puget Sound substrate prone to liquefaction in an earthquake and in which supporting structures are effectively meaningless (measured in meters): https://pubs.usgs.gov/mf/2265/plate‐1.pdf

Location of Puget Sound earthquake faults near Tacoma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Fault#/media/File:Tacoma_fault_zone.png

Thank you,

Roger T Martin, Lt Col, USAF (Ret)

University Place (mailing address)

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 166 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Julie Martinson Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:53 PM To: Planning Subject: Comment Submission: for Public Hearing on Tideflats Non-Interim Regulations

Dear Tacoma Planning Commissioners,

As I will not be able to attend this hearing in person, I am submitting written comments now. Thank you to the Planning Department Staff and to the Commission for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into greater alignment with City policy and community values.

Specific recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

However, I also urge the Commission to address the following shortcomings in the code:  Conversion from Renewable to Fossil Fuel Facility: Tacoma should not permit the conversion of existing or future permitted Renewable Fuel Facilities to fossil fuel facilities, even with a conditional use permit requirement. Such a conversion would pose the very same health, safety, and environmental risks as would a new or expanded facility and is inconsistent with the City’s stated policy goals.  Conditional use criteria: Expanded conditional use criteria for high impact facilities should specifically require minimization of adverse human health impacts associated with project proposals and also address unreasonable adverse impacts to “large concentrations of people” beyond nearby residential and commercial areas, including impacts to incarcerated populations and workers within in Tacoma’s industrial areas  Definition of “Major Fossil Fuel Facility”: The volumetric threshold for a “major fossil fuel facility” should be lowered to encompass all six existing fossil fuel storage, refinement, and processing facilities, including Pacific Functional Fluids which appears to fall roughly 80,000 gallons short of the classification  Mitigation requirements for projects should address full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, not solely facility emissions

Thank you for consideration and work to protect Tacoma from new and expanded fossil fuels.

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 167 of 252

Sincerely,

Julie Martinson 2303 6th St; Everett, WA 98201‐1114

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 168 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Ian McCluskey Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:19 PM To: Planning Subject: Bulk oil terminal

Dear commissioners and fellow humans, I'll keep this short and sweet. Most of the wildlife in the Salish Sea or Puget Sound has declined 50-70% in just the last couple decades. The animals we all loved growing up are almost gone. Therefore, the recommendation to ban all new and expanded fossil fuel projects is righteous and overdue.

However, the loopholes in the draft are unacceptable.

What conditional use could possibly justify putting workers and natural resources at risk of explosions, spills and other common disasters?

Why does the draft define "major" fossil fuel facilities with a threshold just above the size of the existing fossil fuel storage facilities? Looks like a clear example of protecting corporate interests over the community. When the next spill or explosion happens, this would attract a lot of attention.

Finally, look at the writing on the wall in terms of mitigation. Infrastructure projects in WA must account for full lifecycle emissions responsibility. Just because a fossil fuel storage tank doesn't emit CO2, does not mean it is not partially responsible, and it must be accounted for.

Ian

IAN MCCLUSKEY ‐ NABCEP PV INSTALLATION PROFESSIONAL

(206) 790‐2586

Linkedin | twitter

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 169 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Nakanee McCord Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 3:16 PM To: Planning Subject: Strong Non-interim Regulations Are Vital For Climate Prosperity

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 170 of 252 Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

Sincerely,

Nakanee McCord [email protected] 9237 S G St. Tacoma, Washington 98444

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 171 of 252

March 8, 2021

City of Tacoma Attn: Stephen Atkinson Delivery via email to [email protected]

RE: Parcel 032136-1040 5335 12th Street NE and Parcel 042131-2077 5505 12th Street NE, Tacoma, WA

Dear Stephen:

My partner, Don Moody, and I represent the owners of the above referenced properties. We currently have the properties listed for sale.

In review of the Tideflats Interim Regulations, the subject parcels are highly impacted from a selling or building perspective due to the current moratorium placed on them.

In our opinion, the subject parcels should not be included in the Tideflats Interim Regulations for the following reasons:

1. The property is surrounded by residential properties on north, east and south sides of the property including two new home plats adjoining the subject property on the east side of parcel 042121-2077/5505 12th Street NE.

2. A large portion of the subject property (042121-2077/5505 12th Street NE) is encumbered on the westerly side of the property by Bonneville transmission lines (see attached map) that are 375 feet in width which in our opinion creates a natural buffer. In addition to the Bonneville lines there is a 20 foot water line easement and an additional 160 feet of the south portion parcel 0323136-1040 which equates to an overall buffer of approximately 555 feet. The majority of the buildable area is located east of this potential buffer.

3. There are trees along the ridgeline of Parcel 032136-1040 5335 12th Street NE that also creates a natural buffer. This parcel is approximately 160 feet wide and provides access to 18th Street NE. In our opinion, the north portion of the parcel appears to not be affected by topography and appears to be buildable. Other portions of this parcel may have grade in excess of 40%.

4. At the present time the owners are unable to develop the property due to the Tideflats Interim Regulations and are paying real estate taxes on property they cannot develop. These restrictions have been in place for the past 3 years with no end in sight. The

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 172 of 252 owners of this property would respectfully like to come to an agreement with the City of Tacoma for zoning compatible to the surrounding area.

5. The subject parcels are one of the only residential parcels included in the Tideflats Interim Regulations that is buildable without running into extreme topography, making these parcels very similar to other plats in the area.

6. It was mentioned on February 25, 2021 at the informational meeting that the potential release from the moratorium for some residential properties may have a requirement for 1 dwelling unit per acre even if zoning is more dense or some of the residential properties may achieve a higher density than 1 dwelling unit per acre but still less than existing zoning. It is the owner’s desire to achieve density as close to the zoning as possible.

Because of the reasons outlined above, on behalf of the owners, we would like the city to consider removing these parcels from the Tideflats Interim Regulations.

Upon review, please feel free to contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,

Don Moody Teresa Patton CBRE, Inc. CBRE, Inc. 206-919-0556 206-963-1000 [email protected] [email protected]

Cc: Jerry Benien Pavel Iasan

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 173 of 252 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 174 of 252 SEWER MANHOLE RIM: 387.66 19TH ST NE INV.: 378.52

390'

NORTH LINE OF SECTION 31-21-4

225.0' 100'

FROM C/L WATER 400' EAST TOWER 150' ESM'T TACOMA

20.0' WTR ESM'T 375.0' BEYOND PWR

395.0' 395' OVERALL EASEMENT AREAS APPROX. USEABLE

380' AREA: 476,105 SF 385' (10.93 ACRES)

58TH AVE NE

390'

12TH ST NE

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 175 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Kristofer Nystrom Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2021 7:38 PM To: Planning Subject: Strong Non-interim Regulations Are Vital For Climate Prosperity

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 176 of 252 Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

Sincerely,

Kristofer Nystrom [email protected] 1409 North 6th Street Tacoma, Washington 98403

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 177 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Ranell Nystrom Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2021 7:37 PM To: Planning Subject: Strong Non-interim Regulations Are Vital For Climate Prosperity

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 178 of 252 Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

Sincerely,

Ranell Nystrom [email protected] 1409 North 6th Street Tacoma, Washington 98403

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 179 of 252

March 8, 2021

City of Tacoma Attn: Planning Commission 747 Market Street, Room 345 Tacoma, WA 98402

RE: Non-Interim Tacoma Tideflats Development Regulations

Honorable Chair and Commissioners:

We write on behalf of Puget LNG (“PLNG”) and Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (“PSE”) regarding the Tacoma Planning Commission’s (“Commission”) proposed non-interim development regulations for the industrially zoned Tideflats area of the City of Tacoma (“City” or “Tacoma”). We have significant concerns about how these regulations would hamper our ability to reduce regional greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions and air pollution through operation of our Tacoma LNG facility located in the Tideflats area.

Tacoma LNG is a liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility at the Port of Tacoma, Washington owned by PLNG and PSE. When completed, the Tacoma LNG facility will provide peak-shaving services to PSE’s natural gas customers, and provide LNG as fuel to transportation customers, particularly in the marine market.1

PSE is Washington State’s oldest and largest privately-owned and publicly regulated electric and natural gas utility. Today, PSE delivers safe, reliable and affordable energy to approximately 1.1 million electric customers and 840,000 natural gas customers across ten counties in western and central Washington and is regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. In Pierce County, including Tacoma, PSE serves 126,836 electric customers and 164,510 total natural gas customers. PSE’s customers include residential, commercial, and industrial customers of all sizes. We strive to be our customers’ clean energy partner of choice and we continually work with them to develop innovative ways to serve their energy needs and their environmental goals.

Earlier this year, Puget Sound Energy set an aspirational goal to be a Beyond Net Zero Carbon company by 2045: PSE will target reducing its own carbon emissions to net zero and go beyond

1 PLNG was formed in 2016 as a sister company to PSE and has the sole purpose of owning, developing and financing the portion of the facility dedicated exclusively to LNG transportation customer sales.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 180 of 252 by helping other sectors to enable carbon reduction across the state of Washington. Our goal is to reduce emissions from PSE electric and gas operations and electric supply to net zero by 2030. By 2045, PSE will have a 100% carbon-free electric supply. We also strive to reach net zero carbon emissions for natural gas sales by 2045—customer use in homes and businesses—with an interim target of a 30% emissions reduction by 2030. Our goal is to partner with customers and industry to identify programs and products that cost-effectively reduce carbon across sectors and across our region and state. Examples include transportation through the support of lower carbon fuels, upstream methane emission reduction, and Renewable Natural Gas (“RNG”) projects. As currently written, the Non-Interim regulations would prohibit PSE from using existing infrastructure in the Port of Tacoma to help reach this beyond net zero carbon goal.

Transportation accounts for more than 40 percent of our state’s GHG emissions. Every day, ships at the Port of Tacoma burn high emission fuels, creating significant GHG emissions, polluting our air and putting local workers and residents at risk of dangerous lung illnesses. Washington law has definitively established that the use of LNG to advance reductions in the current rates of vehicle and vessel GHG emissions is in the public interest.2 As you know, PSE and PLNG constructed a Liquefied Natural Gas Facility in the Port of Tacoma. The LNG Facility will serve dual purposes, acting as a peak shaver for PSE’s natural gas customers in Pierce County and for PLNG, serving transportation customers. By switching vehicles and vessels to LNG fuel, we can reduce more than 85% of harmful particulates currently produced by ships. When replacing conventional fuels, such as diesel, LNG reduces GHG emissions by at least 14%, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by more than 98%, harmful particulate matter by more than 85%, and nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions by nearly 85%. Replacing distillate marine bunker fuel with LNG achieves even higher reductions including a 14 to 21% reduction in GHGs according to peer reviewed international studies such as one completed by Sphera (previously Thinkstep) in 2020 entitled “Life Cycle GHG Emission Study on the Use of LNG as Marine Fuel”.3

According to the Notice of Construction issued by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, “As demonstrated by the range of potential impacts from the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives based on an LNG capacity of 250,000 to 500,000 gallons per day, the greater the replacement of other petroleum-based fuels with LNG, the greater the overall reductions in GHG Emissions.” While current final permits for the LNG facility authorize production of 250,000 gallons per day of LNG, the City of Tacoma’s Final EIS found no significant environmental impacts would occur if up to 500,000 gallons per day of LNG was produced at the Tacoma LNG facility and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency’s Final Supplemental EIS, using very conservative assumptions, concluded that use of LNG as a transportation fuel would reduce GHG emissions and that reductions in GHGs would be larger with increased production and use of LNG in ships. While some additional permitting would likely be needed, the ability to increase throughput of the Tacoma LNG Facility as demand for cleaner transportation fuels grows would provide much needed reductions in GHG emissions by transportation customers. The Commission’s proposed rules would prohibit achieving these reductions in GHG emissions. As applied, PLNG would be denied the ability to increase throughput to serve more

2 RCW 80.20.280. 3 https://sphera.com/research/life-cycle-ghg-emission-study-on-the-use-of-lng-as-marine-fuel/ (last accessed March 8, 2021).

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 181 of 252 maritime customers through its existing facility, which is contrary to the City of Tacoma’s own Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”)4 published for the LNG facility in 2015.

In December 2019, the Tacoma City Council passed a Climate Emergency (Resolution No. 40509).5 In that climate resolution, the City directs the City Manager to “Establish the feasibility, cost, timeline, performance targets, scope, strategy for implementation, and specific actions for reaching greenhouse gas (“GHG”) reduction goals, which also addresses the City’s transportation infrastructure…. The community goals include an 80 percent GHG reduction by 2050”. The Commission’s Non-Interim regulations as currently written would be a major impediment to the City’s ability to reach those GHG emissions reduction goals unintentionally and are inconsistent with the Growth Management Act.

PSE opposes proposed “Chapter 7: *New* Subsection: Major Fossil Fuel Facilities and Renewable Fuel Facilities” that would be added to the Tacoma Municipal Code as well as the “Proposed Amendments to TMC 13.05.010 Conditional Use Permits and Title 19 Chapter 2.1.7.f Shoreline Conditional Use Permits”, as contained in the public review document entitled Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Proposed Amendments to Title 13 Land Use Regulatory Code And Title 19 Shoreline Master Program6 prepared for the Tacoma Planning Commission’s March 3, 2021 public hearing (“Proposed Amendments” herein). Instead, in recognition of the quality of the existing Tacoma Municipal Code (“TMC”) and the competency of the City’s Department Directors and staff to administer the code appropriately to protect the public, the environment and natural resources, and in addition to the discussion herein, it is PSE’s position that the Tacoma Planning Commission should recommend and the Tacoma City Council should adopt, as final, the interim provisions already in effect in Tacoma under Amended Ordinance No. 28470 and extended by Ordinance Nos. 28542, 28583, 28619, 28671 and 28696 (“Interim Provisions”).

Passage of those elements identified above in the Proposed Amendments is ill-advised for numerous reasons, including: (1) they regulate a subject that is already appropriately regulated by other agencies with proper expertise, experience and legal authority over the subject matter; (2) the City of Tacoma’s existing regulations are adequately written and applied to protect the City’s interest; (3) adoption of the ordinance, while well-intentioned, will harm the public interest in a healthy environment, economy and public institutions; (4) they would prevent the reduction of GHGs from ocean-going vessels that could be fueled with lower GHG-emitting LNG fuels; and (5) they are impermissibly inconsistent with the state’s Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A. These reasons are addressed further below.

1. Adequacy of Existing Federal and State Laws and Regulations and their Implementing and Enforcement Agencies

The subject of fuel facilities, including both renewable and fossil fuels, is adequately and robustly addressed by expansive federal and state laws and regulations. These regulations are

4 https://cms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/pse/Reissued%20Final%20Tacoma%20LNG%20EIS%20(11-9-15).pdf 5 http://cityoftacoma.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=32ca7ec4-9d75-4685-bf50-7936bae05ed4.pdf 4https://cms.cityoftacoma.org/Planning/Tideflats/Permanent%20Regulations/FINAL%20Public%20Review%20Book %202.03.2021.pdf (last viewed March 3, 2021).

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 182 of 252 both implemented and enforced by numerous agencies with deep specialized experience in the subject matter of concern to those agencies. These professionals include expert archaeologists, ornithologists, biologists, epidemiologists, scientists and engineers whose sole purpose at their respective agencies is to ensure that proposed facilities including clean, renewable and fossil fuels facilities are subject to rigorous scrutiny under applicable environmental laws including the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§4321-4370h, the State Environmental Quality Act, RCW 43.21C, and regulated adopted in accordance therewith. In addition to environmental review there are a myriad of other stringent environmental requirements for construction and operation approval of such facilities, including, but not limited to all applicable and relevant water quality, air quality, waste management, safety, emergency response and habitat and species protection related permits and authorizations. Only after appropriate environmental review is complete that these permits and authorizations are issued to allow construction, and then with appropriate oversight eventually operations. Many of these agencies then have continued broad enforcement authority over facility owners’ and operators’ ongoing compliance for the life such facilities. Beyond agency enforcement all permits issued and matters of alleged non- conformance are subject to further scrutiny by both judicial and special subject-matter administrative courts that in Washington include the Shoreline Hearings Board, the Pollution Controls Hearings Board, as well as, state and federal courts. These permitting and enforcement agencies, which consist of a cast of literally thousands, include, but are not limited to, the following:

Federal:

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  U.S. Coast Guard  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  National Marine Fisheries Service  U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

State:  Washington Department of Ecology  Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife  Washington Department of Archaeological and Historical Preservation  Washington Department of Labor and Industries  Washington Utilities and Transportation  Various regional Clean Air Authorities created under state law  Energy Facility Site Evaluation Commission

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 183 of 252 The laws and regulations that federal agencies apply and enforce include the national Clean Air Act7, Clean Water Act8, Endangered Species Act9, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act10, Marine Mammal Protection Act,11 the Magnuson Amendment12, Fishery Conservation and Management Act13, Historic Preservation Act14, Rivers and Harbors Act15, National Gas Act16, Coastal Zone Management Act17, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation Act, and Liability Act18, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act19 and the National Historic Preservation Act20.

The laws and regulations the state agencies apply and enforce include the state Clean Air Act21, Shoreline Management Act22, Water Pollution Control Act 23, State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”)24, Construction Projects In State Waters Act (Washington Hydraulic Code)25, Indian Graves and Records Act26, Washington Growth Management Act27, Local Project Review Act28, Energy Facility Site Locations Act29, Model Toxic Controls Act30 and myriad other environmental, natural resource and land use acts and codes adopted to protect fish species, fish work windows, shellfish, in-water, near-shore, wetland and terrestrial habitats, at-risk species and critical areas. These state obligations are in addition to responsibilities delegated to state agencies to implement and enforce federal laws. Neither of the above lists of agencies or laws and regulations is exhaustive: many more exist to protect our environment, natural resources and public safety and well-being.

Compliance with these regulations is significantly enforced, and the oversight exercised by these agencies is necessarily complex. The provisions advanced in the Proposed Amendments to which PSE objects above add yet another layer of regulation that is duplicative of the foregoing. Nothing in the City’s staff report suggests that these many laws, regulations, and agencies are

7 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq. (1970) 8 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972) 9 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. (1973) 10 16 U.S.C. 668-668d (1940) 11 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361 et seq. (1972) 12 33 U.S. Code § 476) (1977) 13 16 U.S.C. 1801 - 1891(d)) (1976) 14 54 U.S.C. §§ 300101-307108 (1966) 15 33 U.S.C. §403 (1899) 16 15 U.S.C. §§ 717-717w (1940) 17 16 U.S.C. §§1451-1465 (1972) 18 42 U.S.C. §§9601-9675 (1980) 19 42 U.S.C. §§6901-6992k (1976) 20 54 U.S.C. §§ 300101-307108 (1976) 21 Chapter 70A.15 RCW (1967) 22 Chapter 90.58 RCW (1971) 23 Chapter 70A.15 RCW (1973) 24 Chapter 43.21C RCW (1971) 25 Chapter 77.55 RCW (1943) 26 Chapter 27.44 RCW (1989) 27 Chapter 36.70A RCW (1990) 28 Chapter 36.70B RCW (1995) 29 Chapter 80.50 RCW (1970) 30 Chapter 70A.305 RCW (1989)

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 184 of 252 inadequate for the protection of our citizens, resources, and environment. What the City’s ordinance would accomplish is the attempted duplication of existing laws at extraordinary yet unnecessary cost to the City. We firmly encourage that the Planning Commission reject the enumerated provisions of the Proposed Amendments above and the attendant additional financial burdens it will place on limited City resources.

2. Adequacy of City of Tacoma’s Existing Regulations and Their Application

The City of Tacoma has a robust municipal code that further regulates activities affecting land, water, air and shorelines within its municipal boundaries in order to implement the city’s vision for all its residents and businesses. The city’s staff are specifically trained and experienced with applying these ordinances. Through its Land Use Regulatory Code, TMC Ch. 13, which includes both Critical Areas protection provisions and its adopted and Ecology-approved Shoreline Master Program, the City has established additional, stringent requirements for the safe development and operation of energy and fuel facilities such as those proposed for further regulation by the Proposed Amendments. Under already existing city code, such facilities in the Tideflats may only be developed, operated, and expanded after undergoing environmental review required by both SEPA and the city’s Environmental Code at TMC 13.12. That review involves outreach to Tribes, departments within the city including but not limited to fire, police and public works, external agencies with jurisdiction over the proposal (see 1. above) and the public, including landowners in the vicinity, known interested stakeholder groups and the public at large. This engagement commences early, when a proposal with potential adverse environmental impacts is brought to the City for review. Input about what the city should focus on during environmental review (“scoping” in SEPA parlance) is sought from all those stakeholders identified in the preceding sentence.

When an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) is required by the City in response to scoping input, public review and input are again solicited on the draft EIS. This additional input is evaluated, and appropriate modifications are made to any Final EIS (“FEIS”) published by the City. The City often uses third-party consultants with specialized expertise to assist in the SEPA analysis and discussion of a proposal’s impacts when that expertise is not housed among city staff. The EIS itself recommends measures to eliminate, reduce or mitigate identified significant impacts (beyond the proponent’s required compliance with all applicable federal and state (see (1) above), as well as regional and city-adopted, laws and regulations.

This environmental review informs decision-makers about the consequences of a decision to approve the project. Armed with this information, only then does the City commence review of the permit application itself for compliance with the TMC. Public notice and input are again solicited when required or appropriate. Meetings with Tribes to discuss their interests are undertaken separately to focus on their special and unique concerns. All this information educates and informs the city’s permit decision-maker before issuing a permit. This is true in the case of the Tacoma LNG facility in the Tideflats today and would be true for any future new facilities or expansions of existing facilities.

Furthermore, those who are aggrieved by a Tacoma decision to approve a permit may seek reconsideration from the City, redress in the state’s administrative environmental hearings

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 185 of 252 boards, and appeal any decision to both the state’s trial courts and Court of Appeals. This is all in addition to similar environmental NEPA, permitting, administrative and judicial review for decisions on federal permits and similar levels of review and appeal for state-issued permits.

The City’s staff has successfully performed these responsibilities for years, and their decisions have been repeatedly upheld by administrative environmental hearings boards and the judicial courts of the state of Washington. Their reviews and permit actions have resulted in ensuring that projects across Tacoma, including but certainly not limited to those proposed in the Tideflats, have had impacts that are eliminated, reduced or mitigated to the fullest extent feasible, even in amounts greater than the impacts themselves. In the process, they have enabled the creation of jobs and provided significant benefits to the economic strength of the economy and agencies dependent on a healthy tax base to maintain services. Between the numerous federal, state and regional permits required for any given project as described in (1) above and the City’s skilled review of projects and application of its ordinances, we believe the perceived fears that the Proposed Amendments are intended to protect again are already fully and adequately provided for and that the prohibitions in the Proposed Amendments are unnecessary to advance the policies and achieve the goals articulated in the staff report.

3. The Ordinance will result in Unintended Harmful Consequences

As the Planning Commission knows, PSE owns the Tacoma LNG facility on the Blair-Hylebos Peninsula within the Port of Tacoma. As discussed above, the passage of the Proposed Amendments identified by PSE above would prevent any future expansion of the facility’s capacity to liquefy natural gas. This includes renewable natural gas, which PSE is now acquiring from the Klickitat Public Utilities District and other future clean renewable fuels, such as hydrogen or synthetic natural gas. The following information is submitted to ensure the Planning Commission members have all the correct facts regarding gas in Tacoma, including the Tacoma LNG facility.

Reliability and Affordability

As the natural gas service provider for the area, Washington statutes and regulations enforced by the WUTC require PSE to meet customer’s demand for natural gas at any given time. Beginning in 2015, biannual resource planning studies indicated that the demand for natural gas on the coldest days of the year (peak demand days) in the Tacoma-Pierce County area would soon exceed the supply that can be delivered to PSE by the Williams Northwest Pipeline. As the Tacoma staff report regarding the Proposed Amendments notes, the City of Tacoma is expected to accommodate significant population and employment growth of 127,000 new residents and 97,000 new jobs by 2040. As a regulated utility responsible for reliability and affordability, PSE must plan and prepare to meet any growth in demand well in advance of its predicted occurrence in the least cost manner. PSE determined that the most cost-effective way of meeting its resource needs for the greater Tacoma area and elsewhere was the combination of the Tacoma LNG facility and other system improvements. Tacoma LNG is projected to help meet PSE’s customer natural gas needs by providing a natural gas storage and peak shaving capability that will allow PSE to meet customer growth and demand without an expansion of the existing gas supply transmission system (from well fields in northern British Columbia to the Tacoma area) for at

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 186 of 252 least 10 years. This provides much needed planning time to assess how to further reduce system GHG emissions and whether PSE can meet customer needs beyond the next 10 years through options other than pipeline expansion and with greater use of renewable fuels.

Cleaner Fuels for Transportation

In addition to storage and peak shaving for customer reliability, the Tacoma LNG facility also provides a cleaner fuel option for transportation. In fact, the only commercially mature and broadly available vessel fuel that exists today that reduces GHGs and meets the MARPOL international emission standards is natural gas, the same natural gas that is used in homes to cook and heat. When natural gas is cooled sufficiently, it becomes a liquid (i.e., LNG) and large amounts of it can be stored until warmed back into its gaseous state for use. LNG as a vessel fuel reduces criteria pollutant and GHG emissions compared to the fuels commercially available today, such as bunker fuel and diesel. No fuel other than LNG exists today in volumes sufficient to serve the long-distance shipping industry, including ships that must meet the MARPOL requirements today, nor are there any that are forecast to become available in the foreseeable future. Waiting until the perfect solution is developed is not an option as a matter of science or law – action must to be taken now. Therefore, in response to the global effort to reduce air pollution and GHGs, vessel owners world-wide are beginning to order new ships configured to run on LNG and are also modifying existing ship engines for dual-fuel capacity. This dual fuel capability is an important method to “future proof” ships to allow lower carbon fuels that are not yet economically viable and commercially available to be developed and used in these ships in the future to further reduce GHG emissions. This is consistent with Washington law at RCW 80.20.280(1), which concludes that “well-developed and convenient refueling systems are imperative if compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas are to be widely used by the public.”

An early innovator in the effort by ocean-going ship owners for compliance with International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulations and for future proofing ships to reduce air and climate emissions was Port of Tacoma-based Totem Ocean Trailer Express (“TOTE”).31 TOTE owns two vessels that make two weekly round-trip journeys hugging the coastline to transport nearly one-third of all goods, supplies and commodities to Alaska. The ships are based on the Blair Waterway. In response to EPA’s intended enforcement of MARPOL regulations and, in fact, a desire to go well beyond them in environmental performance, TOTE made the decision to modify these two vessels to engines that can run on cleaner-burning, GHG reducing MARPOL- compliant LNG. Needing a reliable fuel supply for these vessels, TOTE twice issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) targeted at entities with access to large tracts of property very close to TOTE’s facility on the Blair-Hylebos Peninsula that could provide this reliable supply of LNG. TOTE received bids both times from several proponents.

Notably, at present, ships that call on the Port of Tacoma can fuel up, but only with dirty-burning fuel associated with the hazards identified on page 2 above. These fuels are loaded into barges and then barged out to vessels moored in Commencement Bay for direct off-loading into the ships’ fuel tanks while at anchor. The environmental harms from spills of diesel and marine gas

31 IMO assigns efficiency standards to maritime vessels to reduce GHGs and include fuel efficiency associated with shipping-----see Section 4 for more on IMO regulations.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 187 of 252 oil on Puget Sound, its water quality, fisheries, birds, marine mammals, and habitats, as well as the communities that rely on them, are well-documented. In contrast, any hypothetical spills of natural gas including in its liquid form, i.e., LNG, do not present the same risks. Instead, any natural gas inadvertently spilled evaporates instantly and dissipates in the atmosphere. To the extent additional future vessels fueled by the cleaner-burning LNG were to operate in the Puget Sound, this facility could also be expanded to provide LNG for those ships’ operations. This would result not only in vessels that use a cleaner fuel calling on the Port of Tacoma, but it would also reduce the risk of environmental harms that are present today from spills of diesel and marine gas oil.

PSE was selected by TOTE both times in the RFP process. The facility PSE proposed underwent full environmental review through an EIS under SEPA. Public input on the scope of the EIS was sought from individuals, organizations, agencies, and Tribes. The City’s EIS developed an entire section on public safety and Tacoma specifically engaged an independent engineering firm to fully examine the facility design’s compliance with federal standards intended to ensure that the public’s health and safety is in no way impacted by an event at the facility. The EIS rigorously evaluated the proposal’s impacts on both the built and natural environment and contained dozens of mitigation measures that either eliminated impacts entirely or reduced them to levels that are less than significant. After the EIS was complete, PSE obtained necessary permits from all agencies with jurisdiction over the facility, including a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (“SSDP”) from Tacoma and a 401 Water Quality Certification (“401 WQC”) from Ecology. Legal challenges to the SSDP and 401 WQC’s and asserted unaddressed potential environmental impacts were considered and denied by the state’s environmental hearings boards and the permits upheld. During the SSDP appeal, the footprint of the facility was even reduced. The permit decisions by each agency have also been upheld by Washington’s judicial courts. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, which focuses its expertise solely on air quality issues, did a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement analyzing the GHG emissions from the entire lifecycle of natural gas to be processed at the facility before issuing its own permit decision. It is that review which confirmed, as anticipated by RCW 80.20.280 that the use of LNG as a replacement for current vessel fuel would result in fewer GHGs and the greater the use of LNG, the greater the benefit in GHG reductions through reducing use of distillate petroleum bunker fuels.

Turning to the Proposed Amendments, their prohibition on increasing throughput of the Tacoma LNG facility will result in more air pollution from ships and release of amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere that could have been avoided were a market to emerge with more ships able to obtain LNG here. In addition to the risks to the atmosphere and attendant climate change effects, Commencement Bay will remain more vulnerable to potentially devastating spills of diesel as it is barged out to vessels and then loaded onto the floating ships. Ships that do not use cleaner- burning LNG will continue to come to Tacoma to refuel, while ships that operate on LNG will go elsewhere. Instead of being the visionary city on the West Coast with the only existing LNG marine fuel facility, Tacoma and its environs will remain subject to the consequences of burning dirtier fuel. In short, Tacoma will lose the potential for significant environmental benefits that redound from the use of LNG in the shipping industry, which will continue to operate and call on the Port.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 188 of 252 The Proposed Amendments not only inhibit future innovative modifications and expansion that could allow the facility to process natural gas more efficiently. They also inhibit facility modification and expansion to handle other fuels, even renewable and other, cleaner fuels of the future. Indeed, the Proposed Amendments permanently lock Tacoma and the Port into a future consisting of primarily dirty-burning fuels, and would prevent the Port from becoming a destination for more modern vessels built to run on lower carbon fuel.

In addition to foregoing the opportunity to reduce environmental risks, many jobs that a facility expansion could have brought to Tacoma were it ever expanded would necessarily go elsewhere. The City would never capture any new tax revenues, and no new funding for roads, police, fire or schools would be generated here – those funds, too, would go elsewhere, even as vessels would continue to come here to obtain and burn dirtier fuel. While the intent of the Planning Commission and the advocates of the Proposed Amendments posit otherwise, the City of Tacoma and its residents, environment and natural resources do not benefit from a prohibition intended to push away projects that will improve the environment. The interim regulations do allow for this, and as responsible stewards we urge the Planning Commission to retain the existing interim regulations permanently.

4. Prevent GHGs reductions from ocean-going vessels that could otherwise be fueled with lower GHG-emitting fuels.

The IMO, under international treaties, establishes binding air pollution and greenhouse gas standards for international shipping and assigns a mandatory Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) to reduce GHG emissions from shipping. The IMO has set a target of reducing GHGs by 50% by 2050 and has also required existing ships to meet an EEDI to reduce GHGs and increase fuel efficiency of shipping. LNG fuel is currently the only commercially viable fuel which reduces air pollution to meet the IMO fuel standards while also reducing GHGs. While other pathways such as distillate fuels and use of seawater scrubbers can meet the IMO air pollution requirement, those pathways increase lifecycle GHG emissions from ships. As written, the proposed development regulations would prevent expansion of the current Tacoma LNG to include a second natural gas liquefaction train and increase service capacity from its current 250,000 gallons per day. Such expansion would require additional permitting but would allow more ocean-going ships to be fueled with LNG, leading to greater air quality benefits and GHG reductions. As the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency concluded, each additional vessel being fueled with LNG would decrease GHG emissions by a greater amount than from the current permitted capacity. This would not require additional storage at the site. In addition, as outlined above, many new vessel orders are being made with dual fuel capability to provide lower air pollution and better GHG performance now from LNG, but to also “future proof” ships to allow other, lower carbon fuels to be provided without modifications to the vessels. This could include blending of RNG, syngas, hydrogen or even lower carbon liquid fuels such as renewable diesel fuels, ammonia or other future blends. Preventing any expansion of the current LNG facility would mean that near term, GHG reductions achievable today from use of LNG in additional marine vessels would be precluded, as well as, any further reductions based on even cleaner fuels likely to be available in the future. That would mean it is highly likely that ships calling on Tacoma would continue to be those that create higher levels of air pollution and GHGs rather

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 189 of 252 than those that are on a path to reduce emissions now. This adverse consequence can and should be avoided.

5. Inconsistency with the Growth Management Act

It is undisputed that RCW 36.70A.040(3)(d) requires cities located in counties with populations of 50,000 or more to adopt comprehensive plans and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plans themselves. Further, any amendment of or revision to development regulations must be consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. RCW 36.70A.130(1)(d). Here, Tacoma is in effect proposing to adopt a de facto development moratorium in the guise of a “Non-Interim” development regulation ordinance that will deny property owners the ability to submit an application for an otherwise permissible use or activity under the governing zoning code (i.e., expansion of processing and storage capacity at existing facilities). The city may only avoid the moratorium procedural requirements of RCW 36.70A.390 by adopting permanent regulations consistent with the comprehensive plan, which the city has not done and will not do for several years to come. However difficult it is to listen to the public every six months in order to extend the moratorium, it is the right of the public to appear in opposition to and in support of the moratorium and it is the duty of the appointed planning commission and elected city council members to provide that public process so long as the subarea work is complete and permanent development regulations can be put in place.

Tacoma cannot evade the requirements of a moratorium under RCW 36.70A.390 by adopting these permanent, final development regulations that are patently inconsistent with Tacoma’s adopted comprehensive plan and no adopted subarea provisions that are consistent therewith.

PSE looks forward to continued opportunities to engage with the City’s planning process as work proceeds on the Tideflats Subarea Plan. We trust that the planning commission will seek and obtain accurate facts and legal input regarding the appropriate process required by law for this exercise.

Yours truly,

Puget Sound Energy, Inc. cc: Tacoma City Council

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 190 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: JERALD R PISCHEL Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 4:18 PM To: Planning Subject: Tideflats and Industrial Land Use

I would like to stress the importance of keeping a wide buffer zone between industrial and residential areas in the Tideflats. The lack of a sufficient buffer is what caused so many problems with the residents in Pointe Woodworth complaining about noise from the Port.

Karen Pischel 5801 Frances Ave NE Tacoma, WA 98422 253-927-0656

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 191 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Jeanne Poirier Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 10:02 AM To: Planning Subject: For March 3rd hearing

While not able to attend the virtual meeting, I appreciate the work you’ve done and want to support it! As a former resident of Tacoma I want to speak to your work.

The draft code developed is a great proposal! Banning all NEW and expansions of major fossil fuel facilities is the way we need to go for a future. Including petrochemical manufacturing, coal storage, power plants and smelting within Tacoma city limits provide long needed protections.

Thank you again for your work to ensure health and safety of the community, protecting our climate and supporting the Climate Emergency Declaration.

Good luck!!

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 192 of 252

SAMUEL A. RODABOUGH ATTORNEY AT LAW 15405 SE 37TH ST., STE. 100 LAW OFFICE OF BELLEVUE, WA 98006 SAMUEL A. RODABOUGH PLLC (425) 395-4621

March 5, 2021

Via E-mail

Planning Commission City of Tacoma 747 Market St., Room 345 Tacoma, WA 98402 [email protected]

Re: Heiberg family comment on proposed Port of Tacoma Transition Overlay District, Parcel No. 0321361036

Dear Commissioners:

This firm represents five generations of the Heiberg family—who have for over 70 years owned an 8.33-acre, residentially zoned parcel located at 5324 12th Street NE—and we are writing concerning the Port of Tacoma Transition Overlay District proposed for hundreds of residential lots in Northeast Tacoma.

As an initial matter, we would like to thank the Commission for the opportunity to speak at the public meeting this past Wednesday. We would also like to thank Stephen Atkinson for meeting with us and our clients over the past week. The process of amending the City’s Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations is clearly a significant undertaking and we appreciate Mr. Atkinson’s generosity during what must be a very busy time.

As explained in greater detail below, we urge the City to take three actions here concerning the proposed Overlay:

(1) The City should bifurcate the Overlay from the other Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations issues, and continue consideration of the Overlay to a later time—whether in conjunction with the work currently being done on the City’s Tideflats Subarea Plan or some other time. While we appreciate the City’s efforts to this point, it seems plain that consideration of the Overlay is being overshadowed by the other complex, highly charged issues currently pending before the Commission. But given the impacts that the Overlay will have on hundreds of property owners, it deserves more robust consideration after the City has finalized the other Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations issues.

(2) The City should remove the Heiberg property and its immediate vicinity from the proposed Overlay. This area enjoys significant natural buffering from the industrial areas below, does not contribute to the conflicts between residential and industrial traffic on Marine View Drive, and

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 193 of 252 Planning Commission, City of Tacoma March 5, 2021 Page 2 of 6

borders the BPA high-voltage lines that are already under consideration for removal from the Overlay.

(3) The City should fine tune the development regulations proposed for the Overlay. The proposed one-acre minimum lot size is a particularly (and unnecessarily) blunt, harsh tool that contravenes the City’s duties under the Growth Management Act, threatens unconstitutional takings of property without just compensation, and may serve to erode the natural buffers that currently separate residential and industrial uses in Northeast Tacoma.

Background. The Overlay District is part of the proposed amendments to the City’s Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations. The bulk of these amendments deal with expanded notification requirements for heavy industrial permits and land use amendments, retention of industrial lands in the Port of Tacoma, and the siting of potential high-impact or high-risk heavy industrial uses.

The Overlay District is related, but somewhat tangential, to this effort. It seeks to ensure that a clear buffer is maintained between the industrial uses of the Tideflats, and the residential areas on the bluff above in Northeast Tacoma. It does this through the imposition of a series of development regulations along the entirety of the Northeast Tacoma bluff, from the city border near Browns Point to the city border near Fife. The regulations include a minimum lot size of one acre, restrictions on the siting of development within any particular parcel, limitations on clearing and grading, and a requirement that a notice be recorded on title attesting that parcels within the Overlay are proximate to the industrial area.

The Heiberg property is located at the far-southeast corner of the proposed district, pressed up against the City’s eastern border and the BPA’s high-voltage lines. The northeastern portion of the property is relatively flat and currently developed with a single-family residence; most of the rest is wooded and drops precipitously to the Tideflats on the south, and to a gulch that extends almost a half-mile inland on the west.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 194 of 252 Planning Commission, City of Tacoma March 5, 2021 Page 3 of 6

In the top left image above, the general vicinity of the Heiberg property is depicted, with their parcel outlined in blue; in the top right image, the wooded bluff edge of the Heiberg property is depicted above the Manke Lumber facility along Marine View Drive below. The remaining two photos above depict the wooded bluff edge from the upper portion of the Heiberg property with the Tideflats in the distance below. The image below shows the proposed geographic scope of the Overlay District.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 195 of 252 Planning Commission, City of Tacoma March 5, 2021 Page 4 of 6

The City should bifurcate the Overlay from the other pending issues. As noted above, we appreciate the amount of work that has gone into this process. At this same time, it seems plain that consideration of the Overlay is being overshadowed by the other issues currently pending before the Commission. To offer just two examples, first, the public meeting this past Wednesday was utterly dominated by discussion of fossil fuels and other industrial lands issues. Second, less than ten percent of the 200-page public review document prepared for Wednesday’s meeting deals with the Overlay, with the vast bulk of the document devoted to the various industrial lands issues.

The Overlay warrants more attention than this, and the affected property owners deserve better. To facilitate this, City should bifurcate the Overlay from the other pending issues, and continue consideration of the Overlay to a later time. One possibility is to integrate this into the ongoing work currently being done on the City’s Tideflats Subarea Plan or some other time. Or it could be docketed separately. Either way, given the enormous toll that the Overlay stands to exact on property values, property owners deserve more robust consideration of the Overlay after the City has finalized the other Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations issues.

The Heiberg property and its immediate vicinity should be removed from the Overlay. Whether now or later, the Heiberg property and its immediate vicinity—specifically, those parcels located east of the gulch along the Heibergs’ western boundary—should be removed from the Overlay District altogether. The buildable area of these parcels is over three hundred feet above the adjoining industrial parcels below, and have maintained the tree canopy along the

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 196 of 252 Planning Commission, City of Tacoma March 5, 2021 Page 5 of 6

bluff edge—just like the parcels in the area currently under consideration for removal from the Overlay. So long as slopes and their accompanying trees are maintained, there will be a robust physical buffer between residential and industrial uses in this area.

Beyond this, unlike the vast majority of the parcels within the proposed Overlay, the Heiberg property has no easy access to, and places no burden on, Marine View Drive. Marine View Drive is, of course, the main thoroughfare to and from the bulk of residential Northeast Tacoma, as well as a major industrial route serving the northeast side of the Hylebos. The potential conflicts between residential and industrial traffic are manifest. The Heibergs, by contrast, take access through the unincorporated County to the east, and then south through Fife to I-5.

The City should revise the proposed Overlay development regulations. Alternatively, there are number of ways in which the City can, and should, fine tune the Overlay to avoid the one- acre lot size minimum, while still achieving its goal of hardening the buffer between industrial uses and residential areas, as well as maintaining urban density levels consistent with the Growth Management Act and avoiding unconstitutional takings of property.

First, the City shouldn’t give short shrift to the potential effectiveness of the proposed title notice requirement in undercutting residential complaints concerning industrial activity. This requirement echoes the “right-to-farm” notice requirement in Skagit County. See Skagit County Code 14.38.030. There, sales of parcels within one mile of designated agricultural lands require notice that various activities may occur in the area that may not be compatible with residential uses or that may cause discomfort to area residents. Id. With a similar notice in place here, and a century-long history of industrial activity on the Tideflats, it will be difficult for new buyers in Northeast Tacoma to credibly complaint about future industrial activity.

Similarly, the City shouldn’t discount the potential effectiveness of the proposed limits on clearing, grading, and vegetation removal. Working in tandem with the City’s current steep slopes and other critical areas regulations, and the proposed development setback requirement, these regulations would maximize the most effective buffer at the City’s disposal: the imposing, tree-lined bluff that runs the length of Marine View Drive.

The City should also consider clustering allowances to further protect the slope. An actual one- acre minimum lot size is one thing; a lot-yield allowance based on such a lot size is another. With such an allowance, property owners will cluster development in a way that maximizes the buffer from the industrial uses below. Without such an allowance, property owners will be incentivized to find every way possible to maximize the entirety of their lots, thereby eating into the very buffers that the City is trying to maintain.

Finally, the City should consider different limitations on properties located at the foot of the bluff with direct access to Marine View Drive, and those at the top without such access. In terms of physical buffering, there is a material difference between developments that start at the toe of the bluff and work their way up, and those located at the top of the bluff. The former potentially end up face-to-face with industrial uses across the street, without the benefit of—and even eating

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 197 of 252 Planning Commission, City of Tacoma March 5, 2021 Page 6 of 6

away at—the physical buffer provided by the bluff; the latter maintain and take advantage of that buffer.

We are happy to work with the City on drafting language to implement any of these potential refinements. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

LAW OFFICE OF SAMUEL A. RODABOUGH PLLC

Samuel A. Rodabough [email protected]

Brian D. Amsbary, of counsel [email protected]

cc: Stephen Atkinson, Principal Planner, [email protected]

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 198 of 252 From: Joanna Schoettler - Engaged Protector Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 5:12 PM To: Planning Subject: Tacoma was cleaning up its Act with air pollution. Let's make it great again with no pollution from fossil fuels in the air, land or sea! No new and/or expanded fossil fuels.

Dear Tacoma Planning Commissioners, Thank you to the Planning Department Staff and to the Commission for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into greater alignment with City policy and community values.

Specific recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 199 of 252  Definition of “Major Fossil Fuel Facility”: The volumetric threshold for a “major fossil fuel facility” should be lowered to encompass all six existing fossil fuel storage, refinement, and processing facilities, including Pacific Functional Fluids which appears to fall roughly 80,000 gallons short of the classification  Mitigation requirements for projects should address full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, not solely facility emissions

Thank you for consideration and work to protect Tacoma from new and expanded fossil fuels.

Sincerely,

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 200 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Joanna Schoettler - Engaged Protector Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:04 PM To: Planning Subject: Re: No new and expanded fossil fuels. No consent from Puyallup Tribal Nation

Joanne L Schoettler 7060 Lincoln Park Way SW, #203 Seattle WA 98136

Schoettlers are connected to the Family of the Stewart's ( Stewart Middle School) Case Family, (one of the original colonislists to contribute to the founding of the Puyallup Fair), Joseph W Schoettler, & Elmore Schoettler, who died in a lumber/train accident in Pierce County.

I've visited Tacoma throughout my life. My grandfather, William L Schoettler worked for the Great Northern and my father William D Schoettler worked for the Northern Pacific. And, Schoettler WA Dir of the Dept of Fisheries who sued the Makah Indian Tribe, was instrumental in securing Treaty Rights and the necessity for conservation to protect the indigenous way of life with fishing, in particular. It basically was instrumental in creating the Fishing Wars that led to the Boldt Decision.

After all of that. I have a strong stand for protecting the Tteaties, conserving the waters for sustainable fishing and living plus looking out to future generations in protecting the waters and land in the Salish Sea.

As elected officials that should be your basis as well. If our environment is not happy and protected then we are doomed, the marine life is doomed and the community is doomed.

No more unsustainable fossil fuel projects. They are a waste of time, resources and energy. Think electrical, solar and wind power. Fossil fuels are old fossils. Keep them in the ground where they belong.

Joanna Schoettler

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021, 5:16 PM Joanna Schoettler - Engaged Protector wrote: We need to honor the Medicine Creek Treaty. This expansion is on Puyallup territory. The white colonists have not consulted or have Tribal consent.

You have to abide by the treaties. It's the law!

No new fossil fuel projects that endanger the water.

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 201 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Diana Schooling Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 2:41 PM To: Planning Subject: Fossil Fuels and Tacoma Tideflats, comment for the City Council

Osiyo! (Hello, in Cherokee)

I am having asthma issues today, so I am commenting via this method.

During my Master’s degree in Indigenous People’s Law, we covered most Natural Resources as part of the course requirements. This included Water Rights.

It did not include any petroleum or mining, so I petition for, and was granted, registration in the College of Oil & Gas, for Introduction to Petroleum & Geoscience.

They were teaching us which rocks might have orange‐sized pockets of oil or gas, that they could crush for extraction.

We are **that** low on O&G. They told us that there was approximately 5 years of O&G left.

That was Spring 2018.

Spending money on a facility that won’t be ready before we are out of O&G is both fiscally and morally irresponsible. It holds out false hope of family wage jobs that won’t ever come to fruition, and irritates constituents.

And the bottom line is that this facility violates the Puyallup Nation’s Winters Water Rights, as secured in the Medicine Creek Treaty.

Both the Puyallup Nation and AG Ferguson have already filed a lawsuit to stop the PSE LNG facility, in Federal Court. The Dept of the Interior is required by law, via the Trust Responsibility, to join as a plaintiff to ensure this facility is stopped.

Surely there are more valid and fiscally responsible projects the City of Tacoma has, to get behind? There is a ton of money to be made in the Renewable Energy sector . . . just like the ground‐floor people in coffee, like Starbucks, have become multi‐millionaires, this is the time to get into Renewable Energy. Those who come along later won’t make a drop in the bucket, comparatively.

I urge the Tacoma City Council to save their money, save their money from the impending lawsuit . . . remember that the Stevens’ Treaties have **always** been upheld in court . . . and cease and desist from this disastrous line of thinking.

Vote NO on expanding any fossil fuel industry and their permits in Tacoma. Honestly? You may as well just set fire to the money, otherwise.

Wado (thank you),

Diana Schooling Diversity Specialist

Candidate: Certificate in Neurolinguistics, SPSU, March 2021 Certified: Trauma‐Informed Practices, Oct 2020

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 202 of 252 Certified: Equitable Leadership (Intentional Access & Opportunity), Nov 2020 Certified: Digital Reading & Literacy, Nov 2020 Certified: Teaching Online, UNSW, June 2020

NIEA, WSIEA, NW Prof Educators, Int’l TESOL, AAE, ASCD, Honor Society, and the American Bar Association (Civil Rights & Education Committees)

Recipient: High Impact Internship Award, Spring 2020

M. TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages), Arizona State University, College of Liberal Arts; with Distinction

M.L.S.‐Indigenous People’s Law, University of Oklahoma College of Law; Magna cum Laude

Board Member: Consultants for Indian Progress, a community‐focused 501(c)(3). Ended June 30th, 2020.

Cell: 360‐451‐7417

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/diana‐schooling‐m‐legal‐studies‐m‐tesol‐95b8565a/

This email communication, covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§ 2510‐2521, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or copyrighted. If you have received this e‐mail in error, please delete it from your system and alert the sender. If you are the intended recipient, your rights to use, copy, or distribute this e‐ mail and its attachments, in whole or in part, may be prohibited or restricted by law or by the terms of a confidentiality agreement. Please contact the sender of this e‐mail for further information. Thank you.

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 203 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Ray Schuler Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 9:19 AM To: Planning Subject: Tideflats "interim" regulations

Greetings:

My comments are simple.

Interim, is supposed to be temporary. This temporary ordinance is about 4 years old. Let’s quit kicking the can down the road and make a decision.

The name of this (Tideflats) is also misleading and obscures its overall impact.

If planning is going to finally decide whether this should be permanent, great.

If not, then let’s rename it. How about citywidepermanentnotificationrequirements?

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Raymond C. Schuler, SIOR, CCIM Senior Vice President-Shareholder President, Tacoma #8 Rotary 2014-2015 KIDDER MATHEWS 1201 Pacific Ave., Suite 1400, Tacoma, WA 98402 T 253.383.6000 l F 253.383.4820 l C 253.691.6900 [email protected] l kiddermathews.com ...... download vcard l view profile

The Industrial Facility Solution TM

Why Hire an SIOR

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 204 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 6:06 PM To: Planning Subject: Strong Non-interim Regulations Are Vital For Climate Prosperity

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 205 of 252 Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

Sincerely,

[email protected] 4103 s orchard st Tacoma, Washington 98409

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 206 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Vladimir Shakov Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 11:07 AM To: Planning Subject: Strong Non-interim Regulations Are Vital For Climate Prosperity

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 207 of 252 Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

Sincerely, Vladimir Shakov

Vladimir Shakov [email protected] 507 Le-Lou-Wa Place NE BROWNS POINT, Washington 98422

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 208 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Sandy Spears Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 3:34 PM To: Planning Subject: Stop expanding fossil fuel operations

As soon as I heard about climate change 20 years ago, I sold my suburban and got the most fuel Efficient car on market. Drive electric now. Solar on last house. Vegetarian. Plant natives as carbon sinks. Don’t use gas lawn mowers because font have grass anymore. Drastically reduced our trash hauled to Landfills via trucks. I’m trying and I need you all to do all you can so our children wil not live on a chaotic climate planet. Thank you Sandy Sent from my iPhone

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 209 of 252

SOUTH TACOMA GROUNDWATER PROTECTION DISTRICT (and aquifer recharge areas) proposal for ECO-INDUSTRIAL PARKS AND ECONOMIC GREEN ZONES

Written comments to the Planning Commission for the March 2021, Public Hearing

Regarding the currently proposed: Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations

Please recommend that these three prohibited items be added to the proposed non-interim plan:

1) No Metal Recycling/Metal Shredding/Auto-Crushing (as well as no expansions of current facilities) anywhere within city-limits but especially within the South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District (STGPD) and aquifer recharge areas.

2) No new above-nor-below ground hazardous substance tanks or storage within the STGPD and aquifer recharge areas.

3) No new heavy industrial/manufacturing within the STGPD and aquifer recharge areas (for promotion of proposed STGPD Economic Green Zone).

1 | MAR 2021 Public Hearing / Tideflats and Industrial Land Use - HG Stephens

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 210 of 252 BACKGROUND:

Before it was known as South Tacoma, indigenous people had named the area after elk hunted here. Early settlers brought dairy farms in the 1870s, but by 1881 a substantial amount of the land was owned by Northern Pacific Railroad. In 1891 land was purchased for the first elementary school using the area’s name of “Edison” in hopes of an electrical laboratory and a brighter future, moving away from coal dust, wood and oil smoke of those days. That same year, though, saw the opening of railroad shops instead, which eventually grew to be the largest rail operation in the west and began a legacy of pollution in the area.

By 1895 the name Edison was replaced with “South Tacoma” when annexed into the City of Tacoma, and between 1892 and 1980 industrial activities at the “South Tacoma Field” resulted in the release of toxic chemicals into the soil and groundwater creating contaminated superfund sites. Over the next decades, heavy industrial zoning here seemed to be accepted as simply the norm by the city leaders; however, the spirit of Edison persists, and the residents of South Tacoma continue to encourage our city to consider new possibilities, moving away from allowing heavy polluting industry in the middle of our urban area and above city drinking water which affects more than just South Tacoma.

South Tacoma seems to have been an after-thought in these Tideflats Non-Interim Regulation preparations – only recently in this process does it seem to have been realized that a large area of South Tacoma was still zoned heavy industrial, and only even more recently were the residents of South Tacoma made aware of its inclusion in the Port of Tacoma plan. Not only is South Tacoma vastly different than the industrial tideflats, but these regulations as currently proposed are not in line with the Comprehensive Plan, Urban Tree Canopy, Tacoma Environmental Act or Climate Justice Action Plan, and certainly not the vision of an Economic Green Zone which is the necessary future.

It could be that South Tacoma is routinely overlooked since it is hard to believe that heavy industry/manufacturing is occurring in this urban surrounded by residential, recreational and school districts, as well as above a protected groundwater aquifer and water recharge areas. Unfortunately, this caustic positioning hasn’t been without damage. Plastics, petrochemical, heavy metals and other toxins have resulted in much of this once-healthy land becoming hazardous waste sites.

However, within the last decade and with the help of the EPA, steps have been taken and some areas have been contained. Still, the contaminated soil above the groundwater aquifer continues to be constant concern, as well as air quality and early mortality rates in South Tacoma being the worst in Pierce County and even the nation. (Tacoma- Pierce County Health Department / Tacoma Environmental Act, siting our city as one of only 32 areas in the US below standard air quality.)

Although Tacoma had begun moving in a better direction, the recent allowance of new heavy polluting businesses in South Tacoma is a terrible step backwards. We must regain a better direction: any heavy industrial businesses currently in the South Tacoma Manufacturing Industrial Center (ST-M/IC) must have better monitoring - and – we also must remove the possibility of new polluting businesses or expansions in this area, going forward.

Instead, not only does the current non-interim proposal not limit heavy-polluting industry in South Tacoma, it actually restricts the kind of non-polluting businesses we’d like to welcome here. Putting economy over health is archaic thinking, and is also a very real form of discrimination by keeping one area of the city’s lowest income residents continually subjected to higher pollution levels and lower quality of life and mortality age of this area. Significant multi-family in-fill being planned will increase the population of South Tacoma, yet the protections being put into place are for the benefit of heavy industry when it should be instead protecting residents and incentivizing eco- business practices.

As our residents had 100 years ago, we still believe South Tacoma is worthy of singular review and deserves more than just mirroring regulations which were meant primarily for the industrial port. In following on the steps to stabilize damaged land and to retain that precarious balance above the aquifer, this is our chance to create a better future for South Tacoma with progressive green industry incentives and ensuring the STGPD and aquifer recharge areas have enhanced protections going forward, which will be a benefit to all of Tacoma.

2 | MAR 2021 Public Hearing / Tideflats and Industrial Land Use - HG Stephens

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 211 of 252

1) Prohibit Metal Recycling/Metal Shredding/Auto-Crushing

In 2019, Tacoma allowed a metal recycling/auto-crushing facility to build directly above our aquifer, not far from an outdoor recreational center. Auto-crushing requires the draining/storage/disposal of the very liquids on the Tacoma- Pierce County Health Department’s list of prohibited contaminants:

Prevent infiltration and contamination Infiltration within the STGPD. Pollution occurs when water picks up contaminants along the ground surface. Polluted water can reach the drinking water aquifer. Some common contaminants include: • Auto fluids. • Sediment. • Metals. • Soaps and degreasers. https://www.tpchd.org/healthy-places/waste-management/business-pollution- prevention/south-tacoma-groundwater-protection-district

In addition to concern of liquids and heavy metals (contaminating soil, storm water run-off and groundwater), auto- crushing methods add to noise and especially air pollution though microplastics and glass dust. Broken auto glass and plastic are often found along the roads and surrounding areas of such sites. When left to weather and degrade in UV light, these plastic and glass fragments area also being runover, creating smaller and smaller and more dangerous shards and microparticles. These microparticles become another environmental concern, as eventually smaller and smaller particles enter the air and groundwater, are ingested by people and wildlife, plus inhaled after becoming airborne during auto-crushing (which is now understood as a serious health hazard but only beginning to be researched regarding the damage caused to lungs, especially in children).

Articles regarding microplastics in air to be inhaled, and may also enter water to be ingested:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/science/what-are-microplastics.html https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/microplastics-pollution-falls-from-air-even- mountains/ https://time.com/5601359/microplastics-in-food-air/ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/14/microplastics-found-at-profuse-levels-in-snow-from- arctic-to-alps-contamination https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/microplastic-air-pollution-real/596119/

This obviously serious health risks (of tiny glass dust/shards produced during the auto-crushing from both glass and fiberglass, now being idenified in lungs and bloodstreams) are still being studied.

The new South Tacoma facility had reported that their planned method of dust control is to continually hose-down / spray water which will surely result in more uncontrolled water run-off and contamination, and create more of an opportunity to pollute soil above and seep into the ground above the aquifer and aquifer recharge zones (where there is high permeability, resulting in rapid infiltration to the groundwater where this facility was allowed to locate directly above) – or – create toxic stormwater runoff into our streams and bay.

Other countries have instead turned to dismantling techniques which better separate recycling and control hazardous liquids. It should be no longer acceptable to simply attempt to reduce and/or later clean-up costly spills and leaks of toxic substances from outdated methods; such potential hazards should be prohibited from within the STGPD and aquifer recharge areas all together.

3 | MAR 2021 Public Hearing / Tideflats and Industrial Land Use - HG Stephens

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 212 of 252

Supporting sources:

Danger in air near metal recyclers - HoustonChronicle.com Dec 29, 2012 - A single Houston recycler, Texas Port Recycling in the Manchester ... and dangerous source of air pollution: metal recyclers and car crushers, ... latter a risk 600 times higher than what is acceptable to federal health scientists. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Danger-in-air-near-metalrecyclers- 4154951.php

Crushing Cars Is a Loud, Smelly Business That's Terrible for Air ... Oct 17, 2018 - Crushing Cars Is a Loud, Smelly Business That's Terrible for Air Quality .... attorney at NRDC who works on air quality and community issues, says even if General Iron ... It's hard, sharp, and potentially a public health concern. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/crushing-cars-loud-smelly-business-thats-terrible-air-quality

REMOVING MERCURY SWITCHES FROM VEHICLES Methylmercury is a persistent, toxic contaminant that bioaccumulates in the tissues of fish. Relatively low Concentrations of mercury in fish pose serious health risks to people and wildlife that consume them. Anthropogenic mercury emissions enter water bodies, either directly or through deposition from the air and, through biological processes, transform into methylmercury, which enters the aquatic food chain. … mercury can be released into the air, soil and water during crushing… http://www.4cleanair.org/ECOS_QC_Mercury_LR.pdf

Other cities have recognized the need for significant regulations and oversight of existing facilities or have had the foresight to completely prohibit them.

American Planning Association https://www.planning.org/pas/reports/report201.htm

A number of local governments have completely excluded wrecking and processing yards from their jurisdictions. Interest in this approach is bound to be stimulated by Oregon City v. Hartke,9 the recent case in which the Supreme Court of Oregon upheld such an exclusion. The court decided that the city was entitled to make a distinction between wrecking yards and other uses that were claimed to have similar characteristics. The city commission may have felt that the operation of an automobile wrecking yard would produce more noise, smoke or fumes and would be more unsightly than the permitted uses. The court further concluded that the city could exclude a business solely on the ground that it was "offensive to aesthetic sensibilities." The prevention of unsightliness by wholly precluding a particular use within the city may inhibit the economic growth of the city or frustrate the desire of someone who wishes to make the proscribed use, but the inhabitants of the city have the right to forego the economic gain and the person whose business plans are frustrated is not entitled to have his interest weighed more heavily than the predominant interest of others in the community. In an effort to cope with the health hazards of wrecking and processing yards, New Haven, Connecticut, has included the following regulation in the zoning ordinance: All materials shall be stored in such a manner as to prevent the breeding or harboring of rats, insects, or other vermin. Where necessary, this shall be accomplished by enclosures in containers, raising of materials above ground, separation of types of material preventing the collection of stagnant water, extermination procedures, or other means.

4 | MAR 2021 Public Hearing / Tideflats and Industrial Land Use - HG Stephens

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 213 of 252

This was the best outlook of what would be going into the soil even after filtering / treatment:

From a 2019 presentation to the city created by Huitt-Zollars, indicating that water “treatment” is nowhere near 100% (some as ineffective as leaving more than half the toxins still in the “treated” water which would then be put into a swale to contaminate the ground directly above our drinking water before entering a “perforated pipe”). This is counter-productive to “protecting” our aquifer.

Such contaminants build-up over time, so (since 100% “treatment” results seem unobtainable) any business allowed to operate directly above our aquifer should have zero run-off/containments. Tacoma has had a history of failing to follow protective covenants (neglecting to include EPA involvement), and spot-monitoring only discovers issues after-the-fact. So the best solution would be to prohibit hazardous manufacturing at all in the STGPD and aquifer recharge areas, going forward.

5 | MAR 2021 Public Hearing / Tideflats and Industrial Land Use - HG Stephens

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 214 of 252

Regarding metal shredding, although not currently done in South Tacoma (as far as I know) Tacoma has experienced its own history of fires and contamination where shredding is allowed. This practice presents an additional level of hazard, and metal shredding must never be allowed within the STGPD or aquifer recharge areas, preferably prohibited from anywhere new within city limits.

A recent and tragic example, demonstrating the toxicity of such sites, is this story of a WA State Trooper who investigated wrecking yards / scrap processors and hulk haulers during her career.

Washington state trooper’s death was caused by toxic chemicals, officials say https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-state-troopers-death-linked-to-toxic-on-the-job- exposure/

Feb. 15, 2021 at 6:26 am Updated Feb. 16, 2021 at 7:13 pm By The Associated Press

OLYMPIA — A Washington state trooper’s 2018 death has been reclassified as occurring in the line of duty after an investigation determined the cause of her fatal cancer was exposure to toxic chemicals during an illegal auto-wrecking investigation.

Trooper S. Renee Padgett was 50 when she died on Sept. 4, 2018, after a long battle with cancer, according to a Washington State Patrol (WSP) news release.

6 | MAR 2021 Public Hearing / Tideflats and Industrial Land Use - HG Stephens

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 215 of 252 Instead of having to manage more superfund sites within the STGPD, we should do everything we can to no longer create them, by only allowing practices within STGPD and aquifer recharge areas which pose zero possibility of soil contamination.

Suggested updates to the Tacoma Municipal Code, regarding prohibited uses in the South Tacoma Groundwater protection district.

D. South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District. 5. Prohibited uses. a. The following “high-impact” uses of land shall hereafter be prohibited from locating within the boundaries of the South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District. Exceptions will be considered by Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the TPCHD, only upon conclusive demonstration that the high-impact use will result in no greater threat to the groundwater resource than that posed by a compliant nonprohibited use. (1) Chemical manufacture and reprocessing. (2) Creosote/asphalt manufacture or treatment. (3) Electroplating activities. (4) Manufacture of Class 1A or 1B flammable liquids as defined in the Fire Code. (5) Petroleum and petroleum products refinery, including reprocessing. (6) Wood products preserving. (7) Hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. (“Designated Facility” per Ecology’s Chapter 173-303 WAC et seq.). (8) Metal Recycling / Metal Shredding / Auto Crushing b. The Director of Planning and Development Services, or his or her designee, shall consult the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) Manual for assistance in reviewing and making use interpretations pursuant to this subsection. c. The above high impact uses should be periodically revised, updated, and amended, as appropriate, by Planning and Development Services or its successor agency in consultation with the TPCHD in order to take into account other potential high impact uses or improvements in technology, pollution control, and management. d. Permanent or temporary storage of hazardous substances on sites with pervious surfaces, the disposal of hazardous substances, and the disposal of solid waste is prohibited, unless such discharge or disposal is specifically in accordance with a valid discharge permit, is approved for discharge into the City’s municipal wastewater system pursuant to Chapter 12.08 of the Tacoma Municipal Code as may be amended from time to time or is conducted in compliance with the requirements of a solid waste handling permit issued by the TPCHD.

In addition to the #8 added (in red), we need to confirm no expansion to existing businesses of any of items listed.

Regarding the yellow highlighted areas, please note that although these prohibitions are to be “periodically” reviewed for revision, they do not seem to have been for decades.

Strike-out area: Zero allowance for storage of hazardous substances, and zero tolerance and consequences for contamination should be the requirement going forward.

As one speaker put it during previous public comments, it’s time for Tacoma to “think ahead” – this is no longer the 1950s when the heavy industrial zoning codes were put into place, and when industrialization and economy preempted everything, even personal health.

We now know better and have this chance to remove even the remote possibilities of potentially polluting contaminants anywhere near our protected groundwater aquifer and recharge areas.

7 | MAR 2021 Public Hearing / Tideflats and Industrial Land Use - HG Stephens

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 216 of 252

2) No new above-nor-below ground hazardous substance tanks or storage within the South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District (STGPD).

The commission has already been supplied information on this topic via multiple submissions from other residents / organizations to reduce pollution, environmental/health hazards and costly clean-up; so, this section will illustrate further the STGPD and aquifer-recharge areas which require better protections, and to fit into our “Economic Zone” proposals. https://cms.cityoftacoma.org/Planning/Shoreline/Maps/10_Aquifer.pdf

8 | MAR 2021 Public Hearing / Tideflats and Industrial Land Use - HG Stephens

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 217 of 252

Satellite view of same area, to show developed land versus undeveloped, and the few open-space green areas left for our care and consideration:

9 | MAR 2021 Public Hearing / Tideflats and Industrial Land Use - HG Stephens

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 218 of 252 Closer view of the groundwater protection district. Note very little undeveloped land left (not counting the Tacoma Landfill) within the STGPD, yet much is currently specifically zoned as ST-M/IC instead of more proactively protective.

10 | MAR 2021 Public Hearing / Tideflats and Industrial Land Use - HG Stephens

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 219 of 252 Current Planning Department’s proposed Non-Interim Land Use:

Side by side comparison of those images, illustrating the heavy industry zoning directly over the aquifer and the remaining undeveloped land we still have a chance to change direction for future environmental improvement:

11 | MAR 2021 Public Hearing / Tideflats and Industrial Land Use - HG Stephens

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 220 of 252

Water will be the most critically important element of the future, and we must protect this essential resource.

It’s not enough to hope that the contaminants above the aquifer will never reach the ground water. Although the city seems to be preparing for sea-level rise along the shoreline, in addition we must acknowledge that climate change can also affect groundwater up to a mile inland, pushing into the contaminated soil above resulting in even more toxins in our water and air. Despite the remedial action taken, we cannot assume contamination may always be safely “contained” in the soil above the aquifer (expecting that infiltration will neither go so deep, nor that groundwater could ever reach that high).

The change to preclude heavy industry in the STPGD and promote more tree canopy cover would help protect the aquifer as well as provide better air quality and possible green space for the many 3-4 story multi-family apartment buildings (currently permitted and in the process of development) within the Tacoma Mall Subarea region (directly to the east of the ST-M/IC), as well as becoming more in-line with the Tacoma Environmental Act, Climate Justice Action Plan and Urban Tree Canopy programs.

Failure to acknowledge and begin addressing this issue now may well result in a situation such as is currently occurring in Flint, MI where former elected officials are being charged for their poorly thought-through choices, neglect to act and for the resulting harm to residents.

Michigan plans to charge ex-Gov. Snyder in Flint water probe

FILE - In this March 21, 2016, file photo, the Flint Water Plant water tower is seen in Flint, Mich. Former Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, Nick Lyon, former director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, and other ex-officials have been told they're being charged after a new investigation of the Flint water scandal, which devastated the majority Black city with lead- contaminated ...

apnews.com / https://apnews.com/article/flint-lead-water-crisis-gov-rick-snyder- 801ba227340f0ac2e10e37a06a82f08d

South Tacoma already has some of the highest air pollution levels and mortality rates, yet appears intended for even more heavy industry and high-density in-fill housing. Inviting only heavy industry to ST-M/IC would bring more noise, air pollution, large vehicle congestion and possible water contamination -- all of which would be detrimental to the health and quality-of-life for current and future residents.

Quote from Sept. 14, 2019, TNT: Clousing pointed out that the South End has a history of health disparities compared to other parts of Tacoma. A Washington State Department of Health map shows high levels of diesel emissions and other health risks in the South End compared to northern areas of Tacoma. https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article234895557.html

Eventually, for all open undeveloped land directly above the groundwater aquifer, efforts should be taken to best allow for natural saturation through uncontaminated and native plant filtering ground layers, instead of redirecting precious fresh water away, down greywater pipes and storm drains either to wastewater or polluting the ocean.

It’s time South Tacoma received adequate acknowledgement for improvements. South Tacoma is a community, not the industrial port; so inviting more heavy industry within such close proximity is a community health issue which could easily become a crisis which we must take steps now to avoid.

12 | MAR 2021 Public Hearing / Tideflats and Industrial Land Use - HG Stephens

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 221 of 252

3) Prohibit further heavy industry in STGPD to promote Eco-Industrial Parks / Economic Green-Zones

Ideally the city should be actively working to obtain all remaining undeveloped land within the STGPD and aquifer recharge areas to preserve as green space, for the future protection of our water supply. Second to that, we should be implementing incentives for the owners/occupants to that extent as much as possible.

The concept of an Economic Green Zone is to attract not only businesses which have no chance of a spills/leaks and other harmful polluting which could contaminate our air, ground or water in any way, but to also entice businesses which manufacture products and/or provide services for the betterment of our more environmentally sustainable future.

We propose rezoning all land above/within STGPD and aquifer recharge areas to no greater than light industry (which must still comply with all requirements of the environmental covenant). Any current heavy industry/manufacturing could be grandfathered-in but with the agreement of no future expansion. All other locations would be henceforth held to light industry/commercial/recreational and/or designated undeveloped green zones, also with no expansion of current heavy industry allowed.

For the remaining heavy industrial businesses in the ST-M/IC currently operating, we must 1) be more vigilant about monitoring these businesses, and 2) prohibit any new expansion of heavy industry/manufacturing in this area, going forward.

Also, this Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations proposal (which limits development like townhome and residential facilities) conflicts with the "Home in Tacoma Project" (pushing to "infill" South Tacoma) and it is an unfair form of discrimination against the city’s lower-income demographic to limit businesses within the ST-M/IC as only heavy industry while pressing for high-density "affordable" housing within one of the city's already-most-polluted areas.

Many of the proposed restricted businesses/facilities are the very ones we would actually like to see promoted to come to South Tacoma, not be restricted. Restrictions should instead be for reducing heavy industry farther away from our homes, schools and recreational areas, and especially away from the protected groundwater aquifer areas.

This wouldn't be limiting industry, it would actually be allowing for more of the right kind. For example, currently Pierce County is one of the only counties which doesn't have a horse arena which is a multi-million dollar industry these proposed regulations would prohibit, while promoting polluting industry instead.

Another example of an up-coming/booming business is industrial hemp, which is not only becoming the future replacement of hardwood but it also improves the land it is cultivated on.

Hemp is the New Oak: America’s First Hemp “Wood” Factory is Being Built https://returntonow.net/2019/04/14/americas-first-hemp-wood-factory-is-being-built/ “HempWood” is 20 percent harder than oak, and grows 100 times as fast. It’s a sustainable alternative for hardwood furniture, flooring and more… HempWood will be used to make blocks, boards, flooring, cutting boards and skateboards, all at prices far cheaper than oak, the company said.

Hemp is a non-psychoactive crop which would be beneficial to have planted anywhere there is contaminated soil (which is truly most of Tacoma, due to the Arsarco smelter contamination) with the condition of no pesticides/herbicides use allowed.

An example of hemp plants used to clean-up toxic areas is in Chernobyl, through the plant’s process of “phytoremediation” by penetrating deep into the soil and absorbing both harmful chemicals and rich nutrients. The hemp plant stores the toxins in its stalks and stems but the flowers remain clean. Recent studies have shown that when low-THC plants are used to remove toxic heavy metals from the soil, the stress on the plant drives up CBD content with no measurable boost in THC, thus produced a high demand CBD.

13 | MAR 2021 Public Hearing / Tideflats and Industrial Land Use - HG Stephens

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 222 of 252 Full study here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6715179/

Hemp plants naturally purify soil by pulling man-made pollutants and heavy metal toxins into the stalk, which can then be turned into bio-fuel or textile fiber or many other uses. The flowers, however, are free of toxins and THC, so can produce high quality CBD products.

14 | MAR 2021 Public Hearing / Tideflats and Industrial Land Use - HG Stephens

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 223 of 252

PROPOSAL:

The Edison Eco-Industrial Center and Economic Green Zone

Goal: to attract non-polluting businesses – and -- entice the type of businesses with services or manufactured products for the betterment of our more environmentally sustainable future.

Eco-industrial park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-industrial_park

An eco-industrial park (EIP) is an industrial park in which businesses cooperate with each other and with the local community in an attempt to reduce waste and pollution, efficiently share resources (such as information, materials, water, energy, infrastructure, and natural resources), and help achieve sustainable development, with the intention of increasing economic gains and improving environmental equality.

An example of multiple plans to assist municipalities with the development and implementation:

Green Zones https://www.cbecal.org/issues/green-zones/

Picture a Green Zone as a community transformed–from a highly polluted, economically depressed neighborhood into a vibrant area with green business practices, a healthier environment and a stronger economic future… the Green Zone concept is an affirmative approach to reduce and prevent pollution—one that looks at the overall environmental and economic health of a community.

The definition of a Green Zone varies from community to community, but there is a common concept: A Green Zone designation provides a local framework to protect the environmental and economic health of a community heavily affected by local pollution. A Green Zone’s boundaries could be defined by those of a particular area within a city where residents live with heavy concentrations of pollution.

In a Green Zone, you’ll find: • Land use policies that prevent new pollution projects from locating in these communities • Support for businesses in the Green Zone that want to “green up” operations • Greening these communities by creating more parks, community gardens and urban farms, and developing green businesses and jobs.

The Environmental Protection Agency endorsed the Green Zone concept at a forum at the White House in December 2010. The EPA expressed support for the Green Zone model to protect environmental and economic health, one that represents a new direction for the environmental justice movement.

This opens the door to more effective work in creating Green Zones in communities around the country to protect the environmental and economic health of low-income residents and communities of color.

15 | MAR 2021 Public Hearing / Tideflats and Industrial Land Use - HG Stephens

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 224 of 252 Green Economic Zones as a Catalyst for Regional Sustainable Development https://www.vivideconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Green-Economic-Zone_8bRZ.pdf

Green industrial clusters focus Economic Zone (EZ) activity on the production of green technologies and products necessary for a transition to green growth. The availability of green technologies, which promote efficient use of natural resources and emit fewer greenhouse gas, are instrumental in achieving the green transition. EZs which cluster green industries therefore contribute to both national and international green objectives. Green industrial clusters also provide spillovers to the wider economy, supporting the success of eco-industrial parks and low carbon zones. Examples of successful green clusters include Himin Solar Valley, China’s largest geographic zone for the solar industry, and Atlantis Greentech SEZ, designated in South Africa for the manufacture of green technologies and provision of green services.

The Sustainable Development Code https://sustainablecitycode.org/brief/create-green-zones-2/

Offers best practices for community development. Help for all local governments to build more resilient, environmentally conscious, economically secure, and socially equitable communities.

Planning Toolbox: Green Development Codes/Ordinances https://www.chescoplanning.org/MuniCorner/Tools/GreenCodes.cfm

Green land development ordinances provide the following advantages:

• Energy Conservation: The use of green development practices and techniques can reduce the long-term use of energy. • Financial Benefits: Houses (as well as non-residential structures) built in developments using green design principles can require less energy to heat and cool, thus allowing financial resources to be directed towards other appropriate areas. • Encourages Market Acceptance: Developments using green technology can stimulate more such developments and can help increase their market acceptance. • Lowers Pollution: Sustainable land developments can reduce air pollution and improve indoor air quality. • Environmental Protection: Green developments can help protect sensitive environmental areas through their preservation and by removing pollutants. • Safety: Green developments stress the safety of their residents, including roadway and environmental safety.

Green Infrastructure Toolkit https://www.georgetownclimate.org/adaptation/toolkits/green-infrastructure-toolkit/incentive-based-tools.html

Financial and Development Incentive-Based Tools

While mandates are the most certain method to change behavior, both financial and development incentives for green infrastructure can be important tools as well. Both types of incentives can stand alone or can accompany mandates; unlike mandates, incentives can influence stormwater management practices on property that is not otherwise subject to zoning or building code requirements (i.e., existing development not planned for renovation). They therefore can be a critical tool for highly-developed municipalities to spur change on private property.

Sustainable: Green zones offer energy-efficiency incentives https://finance-commerce.com/2019/04/sustainable-green-zones-offer-energy-efficiency-incentives/

Just one example of green zone incentives effectively and successfully put into practice.

16 | MAR 2021 Public Hearing / Tideflats and Industrial Land Use - HG Stephens

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 225 of 252

Besides clean/green incentives, there must be strict penalties for non-compliance such as is part of this Vermont final ruling for salvage yards regarding minimum/maximum material removal and immediate cessation of operation:

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/documents/SalvageYardRuleFinalAdopted-09-01-2015.pdf Finding of harm; threat of harm. If the Secretary determines that immediate suspension or revocation of a salvage yard permit is necessary to prevent actual substantial harm or an imminent and substantial threat of harm to the public health, public safety, or the environment under subdivision (e)(3)(F)of this section, the suspension or revocation shall become effective upon the receipt of the Secretary’s notice under subdivision (e)(4) of this section. The suspension or revocation shall be effective until any requested hearing has been completed and a final decision issued by the Secretary._

Since the city continues offering incentives for developers to build multi-family housing in South Tacoma, we should also be creating incentives to bring clean, eco-minded businesses where people can walk and bike to an eco- industrial park from the many housing in-fill projects currently being built in the Mall Subarea multi-family blocks.

Similar to the idea for builders to select from a “palette” for exemptions/exceptions, the same concept could be applied to a different “green palette” for any business/development within the STGPD and aquifer recharge zones. For example: Businesses within the STGPD and aquifer recharge areas could opt to create a natural basin (incorporating innovative stormwater management via natural basins which do more than just collect water, but also better infiltrate it and manage from run-off) in exchange for various provisions of the Eco-Industry Economic Green Zone benefits. This kind of natural land covering is also economical in the long run, since it is self-maintaining (no mowing) made of native plants and trees, as well as benefitting nearby residents and the drinking water quality. Such improvements will also open additional federal incentive options for the city to take advantage of.

Conclusion:

It is time to give South Tacoma the consideration it has always deserved but has not yet been receiving -- especially since the city is pushing for dense in-fill housing in South Tacoma right up to the border of the industrial zone, and especially since our climate is reaching a state-of-no-return if we don’t start making better choices now.

This our time to correct these oversights. Please include the three points, presented here, in your recommendations to the City Council to be added to the proposed industrial land use regulations. This is our very realistic chance to begin turning South Tacoma into a green business district of the future!

Submitted by: Heidi Stephens, Resident of South Tacoma

17 | MAR 2021 Public Hearing / Tideflats and Industrial Land Use - HG Stephens

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 226 of 252

1/27/2021

Mayor Victoria Woodards City Council of Tacoma 747 Market Street Tacoma, WA 98402

Mayor Woodards and the Tacoma City Council,

Respectfully, South Tacoma Neighborhood Council

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 227 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Jacob Sweeting Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 2:00 PM To: Planning Subject: Comments for March 17th planning commission meeting

Hello,

I realize that these comments are being provided after the March 3rd deadline. However, I request that the comments be entered into the record as difficulties related to the COVID pandemic prevented the comments from being submitted prior to the deadline:

Comments from: Jacob Sweeting 1933 63rd street se, auburn wa 98002

I would like to convey my support for the proposed code amendment to TMC 13.06.070 (Overlay Districts) with the removal of the area from 33rd Street NE to the City Limits from the Port of Tacoma Overlay District. The land within that area should be allowed to develop in accordance with current zoning, critical areas, and shoreline requirements without additional constraints. These areas are of sufficient distance from the existing and future industrial uses in the Tideflats area to avoid adverse impacts between the residential and industrial uses.

Thank you, Jacob Sweeting

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 228 of 252 7311 East Side Drive NE Tacoma, WA 98422 March 8, 2021 [email protected] City of Tacoma Planning Commission 747 Market Street, Rom 345 Tacoma, WA 98402

Subject: Non-Interim Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Regulations

Dear Chair Petersen and Planning Commission Members: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these important regulatory updates and improvements. The Tacoma Planning Commission has the opportunity to make a recommendation to the Tacoma City Council to adopt Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Amendments that will assure an economically successful and environmentally sound future for the Tideflats and Port. I appreciate the very thorough evaluation process done by the Planning Commission, supported by the work done by city staff in evaluating the current regulations and proposing improvements. As you finalize the recommendations to the City Council, I am optimistic that you will adopt the staff recommendations while improving upon them by utilizing the written public comments submitted at the hearing and in writing. The next step, then, will be for adoption by the City Council.

The Interim Regulations were first put in place in 2017, and have been renewed by the City Council as required by code. Sadly, they focus on stopping new facilities from going into operation but have had limited effect on the expansion of existing facilities. The proposed amendments will affect not only new facilities, but existing ones. If these regulations had been in effect in 2017, the process for expansion of fossil fuel facilities would have been open to adequate public comment. In particular, the requirement for a conditional use permit allows for changes when they meet the needs of the community, but does not give cart blanche to the existing facilities.

Clearly, an increase in available jobs in the Tideflats is very important to the entire Pierce County Community. These can be “clean” as well as jobs that provide a living wage. The kind of dirty jobs provided by the petroleum industry are a thing of the past, and need to be replaced by clean industry resulting from improved shipping and clean technologies. We won’t attract these clean technologies with refinery and oil terminal expansion. Tacoma does not want to be the last holdout to take dirty jobs, leaving the clean jobs to space in the Port of Seattle. These regulations are also good for the Port of Tacoma, in preventing more encroachment of non-compatible uses to the Tideflats, either on Port property, or on adjacent lands with other owners. At the same time, it is poor public policy to allow the expansion of incompatible non-industrial activities into the Core Area.

There are some needed improvements in the draft amendments:

1. An anti-backsliding provision for renewable fuel facilities. If improvements are made that allow for processing, storage and delivery of renewable fuels, those facilities must not be converted back to fossil fuel facilities.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 229 of 252 2. An anti-expansion provision where any tank replacements cannot be a larger size than the existing tanks. 3. Any mitigation should require a full life-cycle analysis for greenhouse gas emissions. 4. Environmental evaluations, including those for conditional use permits, should evaluate the risk to human health and the environment. This should include the Hylebos Waterway, Blair Waterway and Puyallup River, all of which should be suitable habitat for fish and a healthy ecosystem. As the Puyallup tribe works to make the Hylebos Creek watershed a healthy rearing habitat for salmonoid species, the Hylebos Waterway cannot continue to serve as a barrier between Puget Sound and the watershed.

This proposal changes the lot size for residential development from 5000 square ft to one acre. The requirement for one acre lots within the area of applicability to prevent residential encroachment is inappropriate. Given the noise and light complaints from existing homes, there should be no residential encroachment onto properties not already developed. If there is a compelling reason for residential construction on previously undeveloped land, there should be a requirement for analysis of environmental and industrial concerns for the property, and a conditional use permit process developed that allow building permit issuance only if supported by public comment.

The time for approving the permanent change to the existing regulations is now. The City and community have learned from the interim regulations which have been in place for over four years, and it is time to make permanent changes for the future of our Tideflats and Industrial areas.

I look forward to draft regulations coming in front of the Tacoma City Council.

Sincerely yours,

Sheri Tonn, PhD

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 230 of 252 March 8, 2021

Tacoma Planning Commission 747 Market St Ste 345 Tacoma, WA 98402

Via Email: [email protected]

RE: Public Review Document concerning the Tideflats and Industrial Land Use Amendments to the Land Use Regulatory Code and Shoreline Master Program

Dear Members of the Planning Commission:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written feedback on your robust draft recommendations. U.S. Oil & Refining Co. (U.S. Oil) is a key supplier of refined products to Tacoma and the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Oil continues to strengthen our legacy that began in the Puget Sound region in 1952.

We meet the needs of our community by developing refined products in a safe, environmentally responsible and affordable way. As a small refiner, we are an agile, entrepreneurial company that is uniquely positioned to meet local community product needs. We are different because this region is different. The community where we live, and the people who are employees and partners, recognize the imperative of protecting and maintaining local waterways and habitat. These priorities are embedded in our values and actions.

U.S. Oil sincerely understands that our community does not support either the expansion of production of petroleum-based transportation fuels nor increased marine or rail transport of petroleum products. As the Planning Commission develops recommendations to the City Council for how Tacoma can manage its growth, it is critical that we work together to shape a future that meets community environmental goals alongside the continued need for liquid fuels and other refined products in the context of equitable economic opportunity. We remain committed to filling an essential role as our region transitions to the next generation of transportation fuels. We have drawn up plans, we have made the initial investments, and we have already built some of the infrastructure that is needed. Together, these attributes provide a unique opportunity to define Refining – the Tacoma way.

As engaged members of the community with a significant role in ensuring that Tacoma continues to foster economic vitality while at the same achieving long-term environmental goals, we provided testimony during the March 3rd hearing. We are also submitting these detailed comments into the record for your consideration. Our comments revolve around these main themes: • This ‘non-interim’ regulation process is moving too fast for meaningful input and good decision- making given the broad extent of the proposed amendments; • The proposal as written would prevent and discourage safety upgrades, which typically occur when infrastructure is updated; • The proposal would also prevent and discourage proactive environmental upgrades; • The proposal as written would prevent and discourage transitions to cleaner fuels; and

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 231 of 252 • Much of the proposed language is vague and subjective, would make implementation difficult, and would invite interpretative battles.

As active participants in the City’s engagement on these important issues, we remain concerned that our neighbors and Tacoma will suffer if only a few uses such as movement of containers are allowed without conditional use permitting in the Port. The existing assets are valuable to the needs of the community and are key elements of the local and regional economic engine. Investment in the Port needs well defined, stable, and predictable regulations in order to continue to develop and materialize the wide range of benefits that can reach a broad range of stakeholders. What remains unclear to us is the long- term vision of how the Port will continue to contribute economically to our community looking 20 years out into the future.

Additionally, we would urge the Planning Commission to take a pragmatic approach that looks at overall industry GHG emissions and ensure that the policies our community pursues is aligned with our goal. Climate change is a global issue, and local land use regulations are a blunt instrument in achieving the societal reductions. We cannot speak on behalf of the rest of the industry, but U.S. Oil is fully committed to finding a solution that focuses on bringing a more balanced distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. U.S. Oil supports establishing a price on carbon, preferably a federal upstream carbon tax. A carbon tax can help drive other systemic changes to help wean society off carbon such as reducing waste, increasing efficiencies, speeding technological innovation and shifting energy production.

Finally, we would like to draw your attention to other similar activities that can inform the work being undertaken in our city. For example, Whatcom County has pulled together a broad stakeholder group and has developed a proposal for land use which is comparable to the stated goals the Tacoma Planning Commission is articulating.

With this vision in mind, we offer the following comments on your draft:

TMC 13.01 Definitions Renewable fuels definition (p.99) is inconsistent with overall market goals and targets. Recommendation: Renewable fuels definition should be aligned with the federal Renewable Fuels Standard at 40 CFR Parts 79 and 80. The State of Washington and Puget Sound Clean Air Agency may adopt additional regulation in this area. Any misalignment from the federal Renewable Fuels Standard would prevent or hinder the local transition to cleaner fuels.

TMC13.05.010: This section on pages 99-100 sets out eleven additional conditional use permit criteria for Major Fossil Fuel Facilities and Renewable Fuel Facilities. These are all highly subjective and discretionary and could effectively prohibit any use with little analysis and reasoning. In addition, industrial uses that cause similar impacts would not be subject to these criteria. Recommendation: Eliminate. Current conditional use permit criteria and compliance with SEPA provide adequate review and opportunity for mitigation of impacts. Specific comments on these sections are as follows:

TMC 13.05.10 (page 100)

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 232 of 252 Section 1: Definition of “demonstrated significant local, state or national need” is subjective and overly restrictive. If a product is not needed by consumers, manufacturers would discontinue its production. Recommendation: Delete requirement.

Section 2: Definition of ‘reasonable alternative’ is subjective and does not recognize the full lifecycle benefits of local manufacturing. Further, it is unlikely to be met because the ability to build anywhere else can be used as a reason why it should not be built locally. Recommendation: Delete requirement.

Section 3: Definition of “No likely long-term significant adverse impacts” is subjective. These impacts are already evaluated in other regulatory requirements such as under SEPA. Recommendation: Delete requirement.

Sections 4, 5: Use of the word “all” is subjective; it is not clear how this would be implemented. Recommendation: Revise section to require project consideration of social, economic and environmental impacts such as would be evaluated in the already required SEPA analysis.

Section 6: It is not clear how this requirement would be implemented. Recommendation: Delete requirement.

Section 7: Not clear how this criterion could be met at any location within PMI given proximity of NE Tacoma and Downtown. Recommendation: Delete requirement.

Section 8: The requirements included in bullets 8 and 9 of the amendments for Major Fossil Fuel Facilities and Renewable Fuel Facilities are redundant with existing oil spill regulations as well as MTCA which provides cleanup standards and funding for site cleanup. Facilities must have in place a Facility Oil Spill Response Plan to provide for the containment and cleanup of potential oil spills from U.S. Oil & Refining Co and McChord Pipeline Co. into waters of the state as well as for the protection of fisheries, wildlife, other natural resources, as well as public and private property. This plan has been developed to comply with oil spill response plan regulations promulgated by four key agency stakeholders. Any changes to this plan are submitted to all four of these agency stakeholders for their review/approval: • WA Dept. of Ecology – WAC 173-182 • EPA – 40 CFR Part 112 • U.S. Coast Guard – 33 CFR Part 154 • DOT PHMSA – 49 CFR Part 194 It is also important to note that U.S. Oil partners with these agency stakeholders by conducting annual tabletop and equipment deployment drills to ensure the readiness of our response resources. In sum, the current regulatory programs cover spills and that other programs are not necessary. Recommendation: Delete requirement.

Section 9: Based on the breadth of the current language, bonding amounts are not workable and duplicative of other financial insurance programs that are undertaken both by U.S. Oil and broader industry. We attach a WSPA state and federal regulatory technical memorandum that details the

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 233 of 252 programs that not only cover risk management and spills, but also the financial insurance programs funded by industry. Recommendation: Delete requirement.

TMC 13.06.080: Section 3(b)1 (Page 100) Requirement that the activity does ‘not demonstrably increase capacity’ is subjective and overly broad. Recommendation: Capacity for non-emissive uses should be exempted, the approach undertaken in Whatcom County would be more effective in achieving the policy goal: “changes in maximum transshipment capacity and/or the maximum atmospheric crude distillation capacity occurring as a result of the proposed expansion, as applicable;” Limiting environmental improvements to only those that are required by regulation will slow down improvements ahead of regulatory requirements. For example, USOR has invested in upgrades to decrease production of low sulfur fuels, and instead increased its production of asphalt which is a non- emissive petroleum product. This was done well in advance of fuel standards that reduced the sulfur content in fuels. Recommendation: Amend to include projects that improve environmental performance of facility; delete and see above.

Section 3(b)2: (Page 101) Conditional use permitting for maintenance and repair, replacement or other modification of any transshipment or transportation facility will have the effect of limiting ability to maintain rail and dock facilities in a timely manner. This would cause degradation in safety if normal maintenance – and emergency repairs – are fettered. Recommendation: All maintenance and repair should be included under activities allowed under permitted use. Delete provision.

Section 3(b)3: (Page 101) Prohibited improvements has the unintended consequence of limiting maintenance, safety as well as the transition to renewables and non-emissive products. Renewable fuels activities should be legally permitted use; requiring conditional permitting will slow the development of alternative fuels. Recommendation: Delete provision.

Section 4: (Page 101) Subjecting renewable fuel facilities to conditional use permits will inhibit the rapid transition to alternative fuels. Recommendation: Delete requirement. Renewable fuel facilities should be a permitted use.

Section 5 (a): (Page 101) Requirement for local GHG emissions reductions is overly restrictive. Climate change is a global issue and the reduction of GHG emissions in any geography will support the policy goal of reducing GHG emissions. This amendment will simply shift emissions to jurisdictions where local laws provide for predictability in facility upgrades and maintenance. Similarly, by restricting the supply of fossil fuel products locally without reducing demand, production could occur in jurisdictions with less rigorous environmental laws and thereby increase GHG emissions globally.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 234 of 252 Recommendation: Delete requirement.

Section 5 (b): Requirement for retroactive data collection and other data regarding business operations is overly restrictive as the methodologies have yet to be developed and the analytics to capture that data collection may or may not be in place. In practice, this requirement would mean that no project could be submitted for consideration for the next 5 years because it is infeasible to conduct retroactive data collection. Additionally, there is a significant amount of business confidential information (BCI) that would be required under this proposal – disclosure of which could be interpreted as anticompetitive and in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Recommendation: Retroactive data reporting should be based on existing regulatory requirements and future regulatory required data collection will need to be developed for consistent implementation. BCI data should be carefully considered considering other legal requirements.

TMC 13.06.060.E.4 (p.115) The wholesale movement of major industries from permitted to conditional use has effectively blocked investment into the port area. This is overreaching and a more appropriate balance between permitted use and conditional use should be applied to balance community interests and needs with existing infrastructure and assets. Recommendation: Add additional permitted uses to the table and create a quantitative limit of expansions above which conditional use permits would be required.

TMC 13.1.(3): Definition of petrochemical manufacturing is overly broad and conflates different industries in the context of the planning commission proposal. For example, Petroleum refining is distinct from petrochemical manufacturing, as is asphalt production, blending for lubricating oil, biofuels blending, biodiesel production. Recommendation: Include more narrow references to refining: • NAICS 324110; Manufacturing asphalt paving, roofing, and saturated materials from refined petroleum--are classified in Industry 32412, Asphalt Paving, Roofing, and Saturated Materials Manufacturing; • Blending or compounding refined petroleum to make lubricating oils and greases and/or re- refining used petroleum lubricating oils--are classified in U.S. Industry 324191, Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing; • Blending purchased biodiesel fuels and purchased refined petroleum--are classified in U.S. Industry 324199, All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing; • Converting nonpetroleum materials into biodiesel fuels--are classified in U.S. Industry 325199, All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing; • Manufacturing synthetic lubricating oils and greases--are classified in U.S. Industry 325998, All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing; • Manufacturing acyclic and cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (i.e., petrochemicals) from refined petroleum or liquid hydrocarbons--are classified in Industry 325110, Petrochemical Manufacturing.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 235 of 252 Thank you for your consideration of our comments and we look forward to additional technical discussions with the Planning Commission.

Sincerely,

Andrew Troske Refinery General Manager cc: cc: Elizabeth Pauli, City Manager ([email protected])

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 236 of 252

This Technical Memorandum provides summary of the established, multi-faceted regulatory framework on state and federal levels to address the safe, reliable operation of oil refining and transport facilities. Specifically, the regulatory programs for the oil industry are a set of tiered yet integrated policy and regulatory elements:

➢ Risk Management ➢ Prevention and Preparedness ➢ Incident Response ➢ Financial Assurance

These key tiered elements are highlighted below:

Element 1 - Risk Management

Processing and storage of hazardous materials (including by definition crude oil and many refined products) is covered under two significant state and federal facility risk management programs designed to ensure both worker and community protection: Federal Risk Management Plans regulations and the State Process Safety Management regulations.

Washington State Department of Labor and Industry (L&I) requires each refinery to have in place a program pursuant to the Process Safety Management (PSM) regulations which provides for a comprehensive program with 14 specified management system elements including elements as: Process Hazards Analysis (PHA), Mechanical Integrity (MI), Management of Change (MOC) Emergency Planning and Response (EPR). This state PSM program compliments and is compliance with the federal Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) under their PSM program. Updating the Washington State PSM Regulations have historically been a joint collaborative effort among the agency, the refineries and labor with the goal of continuous improvement. The PSM Regulations are currently undergoing a significant revision process with all key stakeholders engaged.

U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) requires facilities that handle certain listed hazardous substances, including oil refineries, to have evaluated their safety precautions for using the hazardous materials and to prepare a Risk Management Plan (RMP) which implements Section 112(r) of the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments. This plan requires the facility to examine many of the same management system elements that DOSH and the federal OSHA under their PSM programs. The EPA regulations also require that basic information be shared with local emergency planning officials. The RMP plan must be revised and resubmitted to USEPA every five years. The RMP regulations are broken into three tiered programs with requirements based on the threat posed to the community and environment.

References: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-10/documents/toc_final.pdf https://www.lni.wa.gov/safety-health/safety-topics/industry/refineries-psm

Element 2 - Prevention and Preparedness

Refineries, Tankers, and Pipelines

Pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act, the USEPA is responsible for the implementation of the oil pollution prevention regulations which set forth comprehensive facility requirements for prevention, preparedness and response to oil discharges, including developing and implementing Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan requirements to contain and prevent discharges from reaching navigable waters and adjoining shorelines.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 237 of 252

The subsequent Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90) further defined USEPA’s ability to prevent and respond to catastrophic oil spills. In addition, OPA 90 also required oil storage facilities to prepare Facility Response Plans and the U.S. Coast Guard to do the same for oil tankers. In addition to facility oil spill emergency plans, other facility responsibilities include performing spill response drills, mitigating all spills and discharges and specific required employee training. Facility activities regulated under OPA 90 also include storing or handling petroleum, transferring oil by using motor vehicles or rolling stocks and supporting marine vessel activities using fuels.

The Federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is the federal safety authority for the transportation of hazardous materials (hazmat) in conjunction with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). PHMSA develops and enforces regulations for the safe, reliable and environmentally sound operation of the U.S. pipeline transportation system and shipments of hazardous materials by land, sea, and air. A PHMSA proposal led to the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, which provides a number of mandatory pipeline safety measures and authority to enforce oil spill response plans required of pipeline operators under the OPA 90.

The Washington State Department of Ecology has comparable prevention and preparedness requirements for oil facilities as established in the following State of Washington Spill Contingency Plan Regulations: Facility oil handling standards, Chapter 173-180 WAC and Oil spill contingency plan, Chapter 173-182 WAC.

Rail

In 2019, PHMSA issued a final regulation that requires railroads to develop and submit Comprehensive Oil Spill Response Plans for route segments traveled by High Hazard Flammable Trains (HHFTs). The regulation applies to HHFTs that are transporting petroleum oil in a block of 20 or more loaded tank cars and trains that have a total of 35 loaded petroleum oil tank cars. The regulation revises the oil spill response plan requirements currently in place to require railroads to establish geographic response zones along various rail routes and ensure that both personnel and equipment are staged and prepared to respond in the event of an accident.

As with oil facilities, the Washington State Department of Ecology has comparable prevention and preparedness requirements for rail as established in the following Spill Contingency Plan Regulations: Oil spill contingency plan — rail, Chapter 173-186 WAC.

References: http://oilspilltaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/SalishSeaSharedWatersForum-jurisdictionsBooklet- 2019web.pdf https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Guidance-for-oil-industry#facilities https://www.epa.gov/oil-spills-prevention-and-preparedness- regulations#:~:text=The%20SPCC%20rule%20helps%20facilities,or%20threat%20of%20a%20discharge

Element 3 - Incident Response

Under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR Parts 9 and 300), USEPA has direct responsibilities associated with emergency response. USEPA On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) are responsible for coordinating or directing Federal, state or local emergency response actions, as necessary, to protect people and the environment. CSB investigators will coordinate their actions and release of information with the USEPA OSC while emergency response activities are being performed.

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 238 of 252

Pursuant to the State of Washington Spill Contingency Plan Rule, owners and operators of onshore facilities, offshore facilities, and covered vessels required under WAC 173-182-280 - Spill Management Teams to document information on the personnel (including contract personnel as applicable) who will be available to manage an oil spill response. Spill Management Teams (SMTs) are representatives and assigned personnel trained to integrate into an incident command system or unified command system and manage an oil spill. Spill Management Teams may be made up of oil spill contingency plan holder personnel and/or contracted personnel that are directly responsible to a contingency plan holder.

An update to Chapter 173-182 Washington Administrative Code (WAC), the State of Washington Oil Spill Contingency Plan Rule became effective on January 18, 2020. Under the updated rule, a process for the review and approval of SMTs was established. Internal company spill management teams are approved through the contingency plan approval process. Contract SMTs are approved through the application process. SMTs must be approved by the state in order to be cited in oil spill contingency plans.

Federal and State regulations also require that all oil-handling facilities and vessels have a response plan in place and the preparedness, readiness and capabilities to respond effectively to an oil spill incident. Instead of developing their own internal capabilities, many companies opt for contracting with an Oil Spill Removal Organization (OSRO) to meet these requirements

The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) investigates chemical incidents to determine the conditions and circumstances that have led to an incident and to identify the cause or causes so that similar incidents might be prevented. The CSB is modeled on the structure, activities, and authorities of the National Transportation Safety Board which investigates transportation-related incidents.

References: https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Plans-policies/Contingency-planning-for-oil-industry https://www.csb.gov/about-the-csb/mission/

Element 4 - Financial Assurance

State of Washington Financial Responsibility Requirements

Financial assurance is proof or demonstration that a responsible party is able to pay for the costs and damages of a spill up to a specific amount. Typically, financial responsibility is evidenced by an insurance policy or Pollution and Indemnity (P&I) club documents, but also may involve surety bonds, guarantees, letters of credit, or qualification for self-insurance. Washington Financial Responsibility Requirements provide for financial responsibility, vessel certificates of financial responsibility for vessels, cleanup, third party and natural resource damages recovery in addition to state expenses.

There are separate financial assurance requirements in Washington for vessels, facilities and rail transportation established by state law:

• Evidence of Financial Responsibility for Onshore or Offshore Facilities

Pursuant to RCW 88.40.025, an onshore or offshore facility shall demonstrate financial responsibility in an amount determined by the Washington State Department of Ecology as necessary to compensate the state and affected counties and cities for damages that might occur during a reasonable worst case spill of oil from that facility into the navigable waters of the state.

Washington State Department of Ecology consider such matters as the amount of oil that could be spilled into the navigable waters from the facility, the cost of cleaning up the spilled oil, the frequency of operations

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 239 of 252 at the facility, the damages that could result from the spill and the commercial availability and affordability of financial responsibility.

• Evidence of Financial Responsibility for Vessels

Pursuant to RCW 88.40.020, the following evidence of financial responsibility must he provided:

o For tank vessels and large barges of equal or greater than 300 gross tons: $1 billion. o For tank vessels of less than 300 gross tons: Based on cargo quantity but no less than federal requirement. o For small tank barges of 300-or-less gross tons or a self-propelled tank vessel less than 130 feet in overall length: $2 million or $3,00 per barrel of total capacity of persistent oil or $1,500 per barrel of total capacity of non-persistent oil; whichever is greater. o For small tank barges of 300-or-less gross tons carrying on-persistent oil: $1,500 per barrel of total capacity.

• Evidence of Financial Responsibility for Rail

Pursuant to RCW81.04.560, the Utilities and Transportation Commission must require a railroad company that transports crude oil in Washington to submit information to the commission the ability to pay damages in the event of a spill or accident in the State of Washington. The information must include a statement of ability to pay for damages resulting from a reasonable worst case spill of oil.

Additional State of Washington Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Funding

• Oil Spill Response Account (OSRA): Account receives funding from a 1 cent per barrel tax on crude oil and petroleum products imported into the State of Washington until the $9 million cap is reached. Collection begins again when the account drops to $8 million. OSRA funds are to be used for costs for responding to spills or imminent threats of spills of crude oil or petroleum products to surface waters and costs of Ecology’s use of an Emergency Response Towing Vessel (ERTV).

• Oil Spill Prevention Account (OSPA): Account receives funding from an ongoing 4 cent per barrel tax on crude oil and petroleum products imported into State of Washington. OSPA funds may only be used for administrative costs related to oil and hazardous substance response, vessel oil spill prevention and response, and water pollution control per Chapter 90.48 RCW and RCW 90.56.510.

• Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA): This act is State of Washington’s environmental cleanup law, authorizing a broad range of work to clean up, properly manage and prevent releases of hazardous substances across the state. MTCA is funded by a tax on hazardous substances (HST), including petroleum products. As of 2021 the HST tax rate will increase to $1.13 per barrel (42 gallons) of liquid petroleum products, including gasoline and 0.7% of the wholesale value ($7 per $1,000) for other taxable hazardous substances.

Federal Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Funding

• The Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90): This Act established the Oil Liability Trust Fund financed by a tax on oil (9 cents per barrel) to clean up spills when the responsible party is incapable of doing so.

• The Oil Liability Trust Fund (OLTF): This Fund was created by Congress in 1986. When OPA 90 was put in place in 1990, it authorized the fund to pay for clean-up and removal costs following a qualified oil spill as well as certain claims for damages.

• Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act of 2015 (FAST Act): This Act authorized $305 billion over fiscal years 2016 through 2020 for the Federal Department of Transportation’s rail, highway,

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 240 of 252 motor vehicle safety, public transportation, motor carrier safety, hazardous materials safety, research, technology and statistics programs. The FAST Act required the Secretary of Transportation to evaluate the necessary and appropriate level and structure of insurance and other liability coverage instruments against the full liability potential for damages arising from an accident or incident involving a train transporting hazardous materials.

References: https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Financial-responsibility-for-oil-spills https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Dangerous-waste-guidance/Dispose- recycle-or-treat/Financial-assurance http://oilspilltaskforce.org/docs/project_reports/COFR_Matrix_II.pdf

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 241 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Jordan Van Voast Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 2:03 PM To: Planning Subject: Cancel all new fossil fuel infrastructure within the City of Seattle

Written Comment Send to: [email protected]

Specific recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

However, I also urge the Commission to address the following shortcomings in the code:  Conversion from Renewable to Fossil Fuel Facility: Tacoma should not permit the conversion of existing or future permitted Renewable Fuel Facilities to fossil fuel facilities, even with a conditional use permit requirement. Such a conversion would pose the very same health, safety, and environmental risks as would a new or expanded facility and is inconsistent with the City’s stated policy goals.  Conditional use criteria: Expanded conditional use criteria for high impact facilities should specifically require minimization of adverse human health impacts associated with project proposals and also address unreasonable adverse impacts to “large concentrations of people” beyond nearby residential and commercial areas, including impacts to incarcerated populations and workers within in Tacoma’s industrial areas  Definition of “Major Fossil Fuel Facility”: The volumetric threshold for a “major fossil fuel facility” should be lowered to encompass all six existing fossil fuel storage, refinement, and processing facilities, including Pacific Functional Fluids which appears to fall roughly 80,000 gallons short of the classification  Mitigation requirements for projects should address full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, not solely facility emissions

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 242 of 252 Thank you for consideration and work to protect Tacoma from new and expanded fossil fuels.

Sincerely,

Jordan Van Voast

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE -- This email is intended only for the person(s) named in the message header. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is confidential, privileged and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender of the error and delete the message. Thank you.

Every single act of kindness makes all the difference in the world.

Jordan Van Voast, Licensed Acupuncturist social entrepreneur, dreamer, he/him CommuniChi Acupuncture Clinic 2109 31st Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98144 206.860.5009 www.communichi.org https://www.facebook.com/CommuniChi CommuniChi on You Tube

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 243 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Daniel Villa Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 11:57 AM To: Planning Subject: Strong Non-interim Regulations Are Vital For Climate Prosperity

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 244 of 252 Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

Sincerely,

Daniel Villa [email protected] 1217 S 9th St Tacoma, Washington 98405

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 245 of 252 p Jerry &Donny Vye.b~st~r ~~ ~'~~~'~'~~ ~ N 4705 Hyada Blvc~'N~ l3rod~r yLS,~-~'e~r?Z`' ~s ~ Tacoma, WA 984~2~-688 m W6BL USA ~'S3/~~ j'' f3 ~ D

C~~r~~~ ~ ~~~~?~ o~ (~'c~~ ~ ,~'~°~~ C~ T ~ may.

C~'LZ~ %'~ ~'Et~ F! ZZ i ~!s %z9' C'G ~,~

~ .~ y ~.- a i3~~ C ~ ~~-~1/~ ~l~ ~~1 Z ~C~ Gi~ C~~

c3~t~t~l~ ,~ ~ ~t~ _._ c~~1/C~F~~ T~,~s ~~~ T~~ e~~S;;~~ c~t~ly~

Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public~~ U'er-~ Comments p. 246 of 252

252 of 247 p. Comments Public -- Regulations Industrial / Tideflats

wa ,9-~21~

'~s?~?~,j ~.l 0~1 ~ ~~ti~~

A ,~ ~ a~;

~~ ~~~~ ~~~ .ys~~> .~~ 1>ry .~~.s?~v~ ~-roc/.../~~/~

L!a'y.~~-- 5'/ _.2~/ ~,3~ -~ ►cam /?~`~.P-~ ~~~~7 ~z~a-r,~,~~ ~~.~L~~~ ~~f~~~

~ ~ ~~~~ ('~a~~ ~ ~1 D h~1.r~ Wung, Lihuang

From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 12:26 PM To: Planning Subject: Testimony for the 3-4 Public Hearing on Tideflats Non-Interim Regulations

Dear Tacoma Planning Commissioners,

I urge you to follow the advice of the Planning Commission, adhere to the Medicine Creek Treaty and several federal acts, and provide environmental justice by prohibiting the expansion or the construction of any fossil fuel facility.

I am a white-privileged boomer.

I was raised in “Caucasian silo”, nearly isolated from every ethnicity almost my entire life. Moving from Orange County, CA in 1970 and then from Federal Way, WA in 1982 I missed great opportunities for exposure to several different ethnic cultures. And now I live in a city known for its high percentage of white retirees and, as the 2nd fastest growing city in Washington, in a region that is seeing 166 new residents each day, there appears no end in sight for the “boomer- rush” to Gig Harbor.

I have had very few obstacles in pursuing my cravings for excessiveness. Even behavior that expressed the wildness of my youth that included “engagements” with law enforcement and security personnel did not disrupt my path to achieving the goals I had set. This was also an easier path than most because I had a stable and supportive family.

So, I’m not here to share about the burdens I have experienced because of climate and the color of my skin. There are few to none. I am part of the very small percentage of the global population that has contributed to climate change and has disproportionately benefited from this and from being white.

It was in my journey after earning my Biology Degree and Teaching Certificate that I became “woke” to the incredible values practiced in different cultures. This began with 1st hand experience living and working with Native Alaskans. In the 80s I began to share evidence of climate change with my science students.

Almost ten years ago I began gaining knowledge of local tribal cultures, starting with earning a Masters Degree in Environmental Policy. I have listened to the stories from Puyallups and others that describe why the natural resources are so critical to their culture, and to their survival. And other stories about “settlers” destroying or stealing these resources that were promised to them in a treaty, in exchange for taking their land. And stories of their court victories to protect salmon and other resources guaranteed to them in the Medicine Creek Treaty, as well as in federal laws protecting endangered species and clean air and water.

Up until about 140 years ago indigenous people had been successful stewards of Puget Sound’s natural resources, because they had to for survival of their culture and in many cases their people. 130 years ago they were promised these resources on their own sovereign land in exchange for the land they had protected and relied on for over 13,000 years.

Indigenous people and other people of color and the poor are the most vulnerable to the impacts caused by burning fossil fuels. From my privileged view of Mt. Rainier, I see the smog congesting in these communities. And I am seeing more frequent fire smoke concentrating in the I-5 corridor and against the Cascades, trapping minority and poor communities in the most concentrated areas of pollution. Climate change is not only predicted to increase lightning strikes that will start more start forest fires it is creating more fuel for forest fires by increasing infestation by parasites that kill trees. An example is how global warming has allowed the Mountain Boring Beatle to now reproduce twice in one year.

Our temperate forests are some of the best at capturing carbon. So decreasing our forests will generate even more greenhouse gases.

With my privilege I live in an area less concentrated with pollution. And I can afford expensive air filters to protect me from the airborne toxins generated by burning fossil fuels and our forests. And I can afford health care to treat any ailments I might contract due to these air pollutants.

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 248 of 252 But this isn’t just about environmental injustice. Just over two years ago our national security and intelligence agencies reported that climate change was America’s greatest security threat. But the warning is now more dire as authorized global experts on climate change are warning that its impacts are predicted to occur sooner than earlier forecasted.

Climate change is a global battle, and it is your responsibility and my responsibility to “think globally and act locally” for our future generations, especially those most vulnerable. As we rebuild our energy infrastructure it should be obvious that expanding obsolete and harmful fossil fuels is the absolute wrong direction we need to go.

Please support the Planning Commission’s recommendation to ban all new and expanded major fossil fuel facilities, petrochemical manufacturing, coal storage and power plants, and smelting within the City of Tacoma.

Sincerely, Pete Weymiller Citizens Climate Lobby and Friends of Pierce County

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 249 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Lucinda and Donald Wingard Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 1:09 PM To: Planning Subject: Strong Non-interim Regulations Are Vital For Climate Prosperity

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

As near neighbors of the city of Tacoma, we urge you to place the full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, not solely facility emissions as part of your calculations for harm to human health and our environment. Businesses reliant on continuing and expanding use of fossil fuels are not businesses for the 21st century.

We thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into real alignment with community values and the city’s aspirations.

Please address the current planning shortcomings and then approve the amendment to send these recommendations for critical protections to Tacoma City Council. Thank you for consideration and work to protect Tacoma from new and expanded fossil fuels.

Sincerely,

Lucinda and Donald Wingard [email protected] 3604 121st St. Ct. NW Gig Harbor, Washington 98332

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 250 of 252 Wung, Lihuang

From: Chris Wooten Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 11:06 AM To: Planning Subject: Strong Non-interim Regulations Are Vital For Climate Prosperity

Tacoma Planning,

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for leading this process to develop recommendations to the City Council that bring Tacoma’s code into a more realistic alignment with community values and the city’s stated aspirations.

The current draft code is a strong proposal, and I strongly support the Planning Commission’s recommendation to ban all new and expanded major fossil fuel facilities, petrochemical manufacturing, coal storage and power plants, and smelting within the City of Tacoma’s jurisdiction.

The recommendations I urge the Planning Commission to maintain and send to City Council for consideration are:

• Prohibit new major fossil fuel facilities, petrochemical manufacturing, coal storage and power plants, and smelting within the City of Tacoma • Prohibit new driveways, private rail sidings, docks, piers, wharves and floats, and storage tanks at existing fossil fuel facilities, as well as any modifications that would increase the capacity of these facilities • Prohibit new refining or processing equipment at existing facilities • Establish conditional use permit requirements for replacement or modification of existing tanks, and replacement or modification of transshipment equipment • Establish conditional use permit requirements for new Renewable Fuel Refineries or

1 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 251 of 252 Renewable Fuel Transshipment Facilities or the conversion of any existing Major Fossil Fuel Facility to a Renewable Fuel Production Facility

Sincerely, Chris Wooten [email protected]

Chris Wooten [email protected] 507 Le-Lou-Wa Place NE BROWNS POINT, Washington 98422

2 Tideflats / Industrial Regulations -- Public Comments p. 252 of 252