Should council have listened?
Yakima Herald-Republic
More 'Local'
- CWU teacher education programs in good standing
- Third suspect arrested in fatal shooting of Las Vegas officer
- Red Cross urges sending holiday cards to service members
- Selah schools superintendent gets state honor
- Mexican growers' coalition donates apples to food bank
- Two pedestrians hit by vehicles in separate incidents
- Struggle in pickup with officer may draw assault charge
A judge questioned Friday why the Moxee City Council didn't listen to hearing tapes or read a transcript before deciding to deny a controversial plant that turns waste tires into usable products.
Superior Court Judge James Gavin didn't rule on a request to overturn the council's January decision and issue a permit for the plant, promising instead to try to have a decision by Oct. 17.
He did, however, appear troubled that the council action didn't include evidence submitted during two hearings before a land-use official. Only one council member listened to the tapes, according to declarations filed in the case.
The City Council, on a 4-1 vote on Jan. 31, said a Tacoma firm, Organic Energy Conversion Co., failed to provide enough information on the plant's potential impacts.
But Gavin, at the end of Friday's more than five-hour hearing on the firm's appeal, wondered whether council members might have had their questions answered with the help of the tapes.
"What I'm trying to figure out: Is the law such that they should have listened?" Gavin said from the bench. "Is there information that relates to noise they didn't realize was there or storm water runoff?"
City Attorney Bob Noe told Gavin the council had the full record, including the land-use official's recommendation, before making the decision.
Jamie Carmody, a Yakima attorney representing the firm, argued that the failure to listen is evidence that the council made its decision based on public opposition.
"They have no evidence to base a denial on if they don't listen to it. How do you make judgments? How do you support it? It doesn't make sense."
Carmody argued the firm did everything asked of it by the city, including posting a $600,000 bond, as a sign the company was serious about operating a plant that met all requirements.
"This project was denied without a tangible piece of evidence. I find nothing that is an unmitigated impact. We still live in a country where property rights mean something," he said.
The firm applied in 2007 to build the $25 million, one-of-a-kind plant in an existing storage warehouse at 8100 Postma Road.
The technology, known as pyrolysis, extracts low-grade diesel, steel and carbon black by heating shredded tires in an enclosed chamber up to 600 degrees Fahrenheit. The process, while technically feasible, has been dogged by a lack of markets for the byproducts.
Organic Energy Conversion, a joint American-Australian venture, promised it had the markets and could employ 60 people working around the clock to process the tires.
The tires would arrive tightly baled and would be shredded before processing.
A plant of this type isn't listed in the city zoning code and City Supervisor Byron Adams said the most stringent level of review was necessary, one that included the public hearing before Hearing Examiner Phil Lamb.
Lamb conducted two hearings on the proposal.
Noe argued the lack of a listed use meant Adams' decision to proceed with the review was only an interim step. The final decision on whether the project complied with the city's comprehensive plan lay with the City Council, he said.
* David Lester can be reached at 577-7674 or dlester@yakimaherald.com.
And then we remember the tire shredding plant adjacent to the Toppenish sugar beat factory that went upside down and left about a million tires for the county to clean up at taxpayer expense, if memory serves me right. Tread carefully on this one, please.
Report Violation
Posting Guidelines - Updated Aug. 21 2009
Readers are encouraged to use these forums to discuss issues affecting the
Yakima Valley. Debate the ideas presented in stories and other comments, but
refrain from personal attacks and offensive remarks aimed at others; e.g.,
you may call an idea idiotic, but don't say the person is an idiot. The
Herald-Republic reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason.
Examples include material that is obscene, encourages illegal activity or
stereotypes based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and
other factors. Continued violation of these guidelines can lead to
suspension or revocation of your ability to post comments. If you believe a
comment is inappropriate, you can bring it to our attention by clicking the
"report violation" link by each comment. Guidelines revised Aug. 21, 2009.
Registered User?

RSS
E-mail
Print
Comments