All right, I would like to call to order the city council study session of August 19th, 2025.

Clerk, will you please call the role?

Councilmember Bushnell.

Present.

Deputy Mayor Daniels.

Here.

Councilmember Diaz.

Councilmember Hines.

Absent.

Councilmember Rumba.

Councilmember Sidalgay, absent.

Councilmember Scott.

Absent Councilmember Walker.

Here.

Mayor Woodards.

Absent the study session material sent yet 11.

Thank you.

Our first agenda item today is the South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District Code update.

Public hearing debrief.

Debrief.

That was a mobile.

For that, I would like to call on the Planning and Development Services Senior Planner, Maryam Moinian to begin the presentation.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mary Amwinion.

I am a senior planner with Planning and Development Services Department.

And I'm here today with Scott Hallenberg with Tacoma Water.

Esther Boumier with Tacoma Pierce County Health Department.

And Dana Dana DeLeon with Environmental Services.

She's somewhere in the room.

And we are here to provide a presentation on the South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District Code update.

Oh, it's not working.

I can't change the slides.

Oh, there you go.

The purpose of uh today's meeting is to debrief the public comments you've you've heard during the public hearing last week, um, as well as those you've received in writing.

Uh, we'll also identify potential amendments for your consideration.

Uh today's discussion will cover uh a brief background on the CGPD, uh summary of the public input and key themes from uh testimony, uh responses to questions uh raised during um last week's study session, uh potential edits to the draft code, and finally uh next steps.

Um CGPD is an overlay zone established in 1988 to protect the South Tacoma aquifer from contamination.

The code applies to commercial and industrial uses and sets standards for hazardous substance storage, some weather infiltration, uh, smooth prevention and enforcement.

Lead agencies involved in the CGBD code update are Tacoma Pierce County Health Department, Tacoma Water Environmental Services, and Planning and Development Services.

Uh to inform the public about the hearing, about 25,000 notices were sent to property owners and residents within the CGPD boundary.

Uh in addition, citywide notifications were shared through social media, the city's website, local newspaper, city press release, and TV Tacoma.

Uh notifications were also sent directly to key partners and um stakeholders.

Uh we received uh a total of 21 comments, seven written and 14 in person.

The main takeaways were uh strong support for strengthening groundwater protections, um, concerns that the proposed amendments may not go far enough to protect the aquifer, uh, and concerns that restricting certain uses could impact um local jobs.

Um this slide uh you can see some of uh the issues raised by the public.

Uh I will cover the first section on um high impact use standards, and then my colleagues will speak to the other topics as they um they relate to their areas of um expertise.

In regards to high impact use standards, uh one of the major themes we heard was to expand a list of prohibited uses to include other uses such as fertilizers and and pesticides.

Um we also heard concerns about how these changes may affect uh existing businesses and local jobs.

Um, as I mentioned before, uh businesses that are already legally established will be allowed to continue operating under the city's non-conforming use provisions.

Um that means they retain the right to continue operations, conduct routine maintenance, and even make uh limited expansions as long as their activities don't contaminate groundwater or violate um health or environmental regulations.

However, proposals for significant expansion or change of use may trigger additional review or mitigation requirements to ensure that the proposed changes do not increase risk to the aquifer.

Another concern raised was that prohibiting certain uses could threaten Tacoma's green economy and local jobs to address that.

Instead of imposing a blanket prohibition across all industrial zones, the proposed code uses a more targeted approach.

Restrictions are tied to the time of travel zones and the vulnerability of the aquifer.

This way, industrial areas can continue functioning while the most vulnerable areas receive stronger protections.

So the goal here is to balance protecting the drinking water while also supporting the city's economy.

So two comments that we got on storm stormwater and oh, sorry, thank you very much.

So we got two comments based on stormwater infiltration and then the impervious surface standards.

And the concerns with the stormwater infiltration were to treat all hard surfaces as pollution generating, unclear on water quality standards for infiltrated stormwater, and that there was thought to be an ambiguity regarding when stormwater infiltration must be treated.

And to answer all of these, we are following Washington State Ecology's guidelines on exactly what is pollution generating and what is not, and that is in a Tacoma Municipal Code 1208, and also in our stormwater management stormwater management manual that has strict design requirements for stormwater infiltration.

And the unclear water quality standards for infiltrated stormwater.

This part is not codified in the um in what we're recommending today, but what it is is uh these water quality standards are part of our MPDS stormwater permit, not only from surface water and stormwater discharges, but also groundwater quality and how we implement those water quality standards will be in a memorandum of understanding about how we apply all the regulations and carry out the protection of the groundwater within the groundwater protection district.

And then as far as ambiguity regarding stormwater infiltration must be treated, um there are clear guidelines within the MPBS permit and their stormwater manual about what uh stormwater infiltration designs must be and how to treat treat the water as such.

And as far as set impervious surface limitations across all zones and then concerns about the impact of bridge industrial development, we did um have our consultant look at impervious surface limitations across all zones and what other municipalities have done.

And what they came back with in their HDR came back with their memo is that if we actually apply the stormwater standards as they are right now in from the stormwater permit and requiring infiltration from LID practices, that it is better at infiltrating water and recharging groundwater than if we put in impervious surface limitations.

So by following the requirements that we have right now, we will have more recharge than if we imposed impervious surface limitations.

And did you want to address the concerns with the bridge development?

Okay.

So and concerns about the impact of bridge development.

Um we did not uh go into the bridge industrial project that was um taken care of through permitting processes that were already in place.

And um, so any any of the comments and uh for the bridge industrial process were already addressed previously, and they're also in the um comments that we sent um addressed in the comment response to comments that we sent to you and also what we presented to the planning commission.

But as far as any projects that move forward, all of these projects are handled the same way.

They do go through ecology ecology approved stormwater management manual for infiltration and any retreatment and flow control that's required on the sites.

So it's handled no differently than what we would handle any other project within the city.

And within the groundwater protection district.

Thank you, Daniel.

I also wanted to add that in addition to what we currently have, like in uh Tacoma Municipal Code, uh Chapter 12 for basically LIDs.

We also um the code is uh proposing to add maximum lot coverage uh for industrial zones.

So that's something that like uh uh the new code is proposing um in addition to um landscaping, increasing landscaping standards for industrial zones and Tacoma Mall Regional Growth Center, which is essentially limiting the impervious service.

Um I would like to uh hand it off to Esther now to cover the enforcement section.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh so one of the comments that we got was from the Department of Health, and it was to align the waiver process with land use variances.

Currently, it's a different process that goes up through looks like the Board of Health, and so that doesn't really align with how this code is written as it's a Tecoma Municipal code.

So we're kind of based on Department of Health's recommendation, we're modifying that procedure to align with other procedures.

And the last one is water quality.

Okay.

Um concerns about the water quality as far as monitoring and the impact of that is within the South Dakota ground up protection district, it is well protection area.

The well heads themselves, we have 100 foot exclusion areas, and this is um code that is required that nothing can happen within that 100 foot, and then as was discussed before, the time of travels as far as what can get into the source water right there.

In addition to that, we do have a monitoring program of we have what's called monitoring wells scattered throughout the district in there.

And what we do is at least twice a year, we go through 10 to 12 of those locations and we do monitor, and we think of those monitoring wells as a as an early warning system.

And we do that monitoring, we're looking uh bacteriological like coliform, we're looking at general water chemistry parameters, pH conductivity, uh things like that, as well as inorganic volatile organic, total organic carbons.

Um, and like so we're constantly monitoring those a couple times a year at different depths throughout that aquifer level.

So we do have an idea if something were to be approaching our drinking water sources and then have time to mitigate if necessary.

Um fortunately, we haven't had to do that short of our 1212As, I'm sure everyone's aware of from the time oil contamination back in the I believe early 80s.

Um then in addition to that, we have with uh contract with the Tacoma Pierce County Health Department where they do inspections on sites, uh, provide quarterly reports to us as to contaminants, work with the businesses and that in there too to make sure that their business practices are not leading to anything that could potentially inadvertently contaminate the the district or the ground groundwater in that area.

Thank you.

Um so during last week's uh study session, counseling raised uh a few questions, a key few key questions basically.

One was about the number of uh businesses that could be affected by the code changes.

Um to get a sense of potential impacts, we reviewed the business licenses.

Uh these numbers are estimate and depend on how the licenses were categorized, but um they give a general picture for um machine shops and uh metal fabrication.

Um there is about 11 in the CGPD and uh three within the one-year uh time of travel zone.

Uh the proposed code prohibits this use only in the one-year um zone, but allows it in the rest of the SGPD.

For vehicle services and repair, um we counted about um a hundred in the SCGPD, uh 20 in the one-year time of travel zone.

Um the proposed code prohibits DC use in the one-year zone, but allows it uh in the rest of the CGPD.

Um in regards to underground storage tanks, um, about 22 in the CGPD, that's what we counted.

Um, and five in the one-year time of travel zone.

Um, the proposed code prohibits this use in the entire SCGPD.

Um this shows that the draft code uses um a tier protection approach, uh the most uh vulnerable areas, which is a time of travel zone, the one-year time of travel zone shown here in this map with orange lines, um, have the strongest restrictions.

Why less sensitive areas, including the 10-year time of travel zone and the remaining of the CGPD have more flexibility.

This approach helps uh protect groundwater without restricting uses uh across the entire district.

Um another question was about how parcels that are partially within a time of travel zone would be treated.

The proposed code applies restrictions along the zone line.

Um the portion within the one-year zone follows one year time of travel zone restrictions, and the portion of the parcel within the 10-year time of travel zone would follow the 10-year time of travel zone restrictions.

Um in other words, the most sensitive areas of the parcel have more restrictions.

Uh, and development of certain high impact users can still happen in uh the less vulnerable parts of the parcel.

Um the last question on this uh slide is what uh what uh support exists for remediating contaminated sites in the CGPD, which uh my colleagues here will help um answer.

Uh as well as the South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District, the health department also implements um environmental health code chapter four, which is underground storage tanks.

So any underground storage tanks within this STGPD area or within larger Pierce County, if they have underground storage tanks, they want to replace them or they're found leaking, we require them to do that cleanup.

Um, and so we work pretty collaborative with them, they have a permit with us, um, and we work toward cleanup of those properties.

Obviously, cleanup of the property can look very different for each location.

Um, and so but that is one of the um it's not necessarily financial support, which I think maybe the question was might have been around that, but we do provide technical assistance support at the very least to these um locations that do have contamination from underground storage tanks, and we actively work with them to clean up.

Um, I do know in a several years ago, um, time after COVID seems kind of um, but I can't remember exactly when, but we worked very collaboratively across the programs with South Tacoma as well as the UST program to clean up at a gas station site on 38th in Pine.

So it is, you know, we have precedent of us working very collaborative to clean up these sites and work toward closure.

Um, so that is one of the levels of support that we do provide to them.

Have you had anything else?

And then if there's other uh properties that they find that they have um like on-site soil contamination and they report it to the city, then we would automatically refer them to the Department of Ecology.

They're the ones that have the regulations for site cleanup under the Model Toxic Control Act.

We um and we work uh very closely with the ecology, especially on sites that we're concerned of.

Uh we're working right now with Department of Ecology on some, we call it MATCA cleanup sites around the AFOS waterway, so we're well aware of the programs in environment that um are established to help clean up, and there's two methods for cleanup.

One is you get on a list and for under MATCA and they evaluate the site and to see how dirty it is and how and how soon they want to clean it up.

And you can either do a voluntary um cleanup, and Department of Ecology will help you with that process, and then or if it's uh very concerning to the health and welfare of citizens, then um Department of Ecology can do an order for you to do the cleanup.

So that is regulated under Washington State Department of Ecology, but we do help out once in a while with technical technical support.

Thank you.

Um based on uh the public comments uh you've received um staff uh is recommending a few adjustments to the draft uh SCGPD code.

Uh first we propose adding uh language that allows existing underground storage tanks to be replaced, provided that they meet current standards for new tanks.

Um second, uh we recommend removing the waiver provision and instead referencing the standard uh warriance process that we have in the uh Tacoma Money Small Code.

Um third, uh we want to clarify how split parcels are treated.

Um restrictions would follow the zone line with the one-year and ten-year standards applied to each portion of the parcel.

And uh finally, we suggest some minor um code cleanups to improve clarity and consistency.

Uh for example, um updating terminology to use on-site switch system instead of septic tank uh to be consistent with the Pierce County Environmental International Code terminology.

Um so to move these uh amendments uh forward, um a council um sponsor is needed.

Um, and the council member can work with staff to draft the language to be introduced for the first uh reading of the ordinance.

Um here is uh the next steps.

Uh the first reading of um ordinance is tentatively um scheduled for um August 26th, uh followed by the final reading on September 9.

And as a reminder, the moratorium is set to expire on September 20th.

Um this concludes our presentation, and we are happy to answer um any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

That was a quick wrap up.

Um just to clarify the super quick, the first reading um when you said that a council member would need to put something together, was that for um to amend what is already put together, or is that for the entire ordinance?

Um thank you for that question.

So that would be basically for these um staff uh suggested edits to add the clarification.

Okay, okay, perfect, thank you.

Okay, I'll start with my colleagues here.

Uh council member Walker.

Thank you.

This is really helpful and um really quick question comment.

Um really appreciate all the um responses to our questions and clarifications, and definitely um answered um I think what I asked last time, but it spurred another question.

Um so on the underground storage tanks and the cleanup, and I actually did see that there is like a brown field uh training this week that some folks are going to.

So there's still money, so that's great.

Um I think what I it's really great that we have all these tools, but I already in just like all the different answers, there's multiple different agencies, and I'm just wondering, and this is not a uh amendment to the code or anything, it's just again maybe something food for thought for my colleagues and I as we think about just the need for a business support or navigator to navigate all those differentcies and find all those opportunities.

Maybe it's a one-pager, I don't know, maybe that already exists.

It sounds like I mean it feels like it's all in your head.

Like if they find you, they'll be good.

But I'm just uh wanting to make it as easy as possible for again for people to do the right thing, get access to the money, those kind of things.

So um you definitely all answered my question, but I'm thinking sort of the practical on the ground.

Once we get this all passed and ready to go, how are we gonna make it um as easy as possible?

Things to clean up.

And and in the previous version, there's already like the um PDS permitting has a tip sheets um that they can go to.

And they do have um, if you're in the South Tacoma groundwater protection district, when you come to the first time you come to permitting, they let you know that and walk you through what that means.

So again, um we can add update the tip sheets and and that can be handed out when they get a business license or when they um go in for permitting.

Thank you.

And just that little piece of like this is the point at which people get that information.

I think that's maybe what I was looking for.

So if when they come in for the permit, our permit team is ready to give them that list or that tip sheet or the navigation that they need.

So thank you.

That's that's super helpful.

Appreciate it.

Councilmember Bushnell.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Uh, thank you all so much for being here and the presentation.

Um we're coming here on the last legs of the whole process, so just appreciate all the work engagement from you guys as well as everybody else on the community, all the different partners.

There's a lot of uh folks that have got a lot of great um ideas and thoughts around the protecting our groundwater.

Um of the questions I have, I'm trying to think of this as like what what is the real world impact?

So I'm kind of thinking in my mind what a what a case study of a very specific type of business that's operating in the area.

So based on um based on the current uh if if we were to ratify these rules, um I I think about like a gas station, for example, they use underground storage tanks.

Would this prohibit any new additional gas stations in this area?

Um and then so just that's my first question.

Okay.

Yes, so the new regulations would prohibit any um new gas station.

Okay.

Um and then but if uh I as uh you had said earlier, if there's uh maintenance or operational issue with the underground storage tank, uh uh like a gas for a gas station, that can be permitted and fixed or changed.

Um and then but if uh I as uh you had said earlier, if there is uh maintenance or operational issue with the underground storage tank, uh uh like a gas for a gas station, that can be permitted and fixed or changed, so it's kind of or upgraded so that way it's the best um most uh safe is uh so just understand that correctly as well.

Um so can you can you sorry can you Yeah, so if if uh if an underground storage tank is damaged and leaking, obviously they're required to clean it up, um, but they would also be allowed to fix it and upgrade it, for example.

Yes, so for for existing um for example like gas stations, um if there is a uh like leaking in the tank, they they can replace it.

And that's why we are suggesting to add that um clarification to the code specifically for underground storage tanks that they can be replaced, uh, but they have to meet the um standards of a new tank.

So they have to basically upgrade.

Um and um yes, and then uh one thing I wanted to clarify, like uh for um uh the your first question.

Um I wanted to mention that like if the gas station is um using above ground storage tanks, um there are some flexibility for that uh because um the new code is uh proposing to prohibit underground storage tanks uh in the entire STGPD, but above ground storage tanks um are permitted in 10-year time of travel zone and the remaining of SCGPD.

So it would be only prohibited in the one year time of travel zone.

So it depends on like what kind of uh tank they use.

Okay, thank you for that.

Um I sometimes I I've I've heard that some um above ground storage tanks are uh could actually be I've I've heard some folks say that that above ground storage tanks are actually more dangerous than underground storage tanks because they could uh be uh vandalized or uh a vehicle could crash into it, you know, any of the number of those things.

Um is there any validity to that?

Do we know?

Like it which which is safer, an underground storage tank or an above-ground storage tank.

Because yeah, I can try to answer that.

Um I would say you have gives and takes pros and cons for both of them.

Obviously, with an underground storage tank, you can't see the tank, and so it's a lot more difficult to visually inspect it, so you have to rely on the system to function properly.

So there's a lot of checks and balances, which is why we do inspections, why ecology does inspections.

Um, but yeah, to your point, something underground is probably not gonna be able to easily vandalized.

Um, because I mean that is a that is a concern, right?

Depending on what it is.

Um yeah, earthquakes and potentially to spill over, right?

Like so some of those things I know they do a lot to protect it.

Um I don't have straight answer, like yes or no, but I think there's pros and cons definitely to both of them.

Sometimes they also make above ground storage tanks based on if it's a product, sometimes they won't double wall it.

We do require that in the STGPD, but that's not necessarily required everywhere.

Got it.

Um so um underground storage tanks now are constructed, they are double walled, above ground storage tanks in the S G JPD are also double walled.

Um most of the above-ground storage tanks we see are in smaller quantities.

I would say around 500 gallons.

So I would say that would be safer than a 20,000 gallon underneath this underground.

So again, it's kind of the pros and cons of each I guess each container type, and then obviously the quantity of it.

Got it.

And then they're just to clarify, they're also well never mind.

I'm thinking I'm thinking about the one year and the 10-year uh zones as well.

Um of the other questions I had is on the um other uses, so beyond just underground storage tanks.

The uh if there is a business that's operating like a car crushing facility or metal recycling facility, um I I know during the moratorium we allowed for upgrades for environmental reasons.

Is that still gonna be the case going forward?

Um and what who determines what those upgrades are environed that are environmentally friendly, for example.

Uh, for example, if um if uh they wanted to if someone wanted to upgrade their facility to allow for uh rail as opposed to trucks, because we know that rail uh over the rail pollutes less uh diesel particulate than than trucks do.

Um would that be an allowable expansion?

Thank you.

That's a great question.

So the provisions we have currently under the non-conforming use, um, they are very generous.

And uh when it comes to expansion, um especially when there are like environmental concerns, um there are like uh detailed like basically um requirements that we have, like what they need to do um in order to um basically expand the business and non-conforming use um technically.

Um and um I I don't have the code front of me, but uh if you are um interested to um know more details about what we already have in the non-conforming use, um I can defend the poor white that um at the next meeting.

All right.

Thank you for that.

Um that's all the questions I have for now.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Okay, Councilmember Rumba.

Um thank you, Deputy Mayor, and um I'm just thank you so much for all this information.

I really appreciate this.

And I just want to recognize that it says that we had like 21 comments, and I just and then written comments and in-person speakers.

I just want to say that the public has been really involved in this, and they would say, we've been giving public comment all the time.

So I just want to recognize that I know the public has been really involved and cares a lot about this issue, and that many on the council have been responding to people for months about this.

And so I just wanted to put that out there.

It's not really a small target group, it's a larger group of people who've been involved.

And I want to thank all the staff that's been involved in this.

Um I just had a couple questions.

One of them is it's one of the things I've heard from community is that it seems unclear who has um who has final say on some of the decisions that are made in the zone based on in this area, and you know, I would always say, Oh, the plan the planning department has final say on a zoning on a permit, but it's like there seems to be they're confused about would it be the health department that has final say?

Who has final jurisdiction over some of the decisions?

And it and that's a question I had about what we put together, and that just may be the way things are worded, they're not as like defined as they could be.

Um, but I also know that as a city and as someone who was a city planner, you want a little bit of flexibility, but I think that this is an area where we're talking about trying to keep the groundwater clean, they want more like who has the last say on things.

That just is something that I've heard from community, and I don't know if that's possible.

Um is there what what what do you what do you have to say?

Is there anything or is that just like how it's gonna be?

Um yeah, so one of the things that we are working on is um Dana had mentioned she's kind of leading that effort is the memorandum of understanding.

So um I too have heard this from community, and I did speak to some community earlier we earlier this week and said she said it very similar to you, so I'm thinking that wonder if we talked to the same person.

Yeah, I think you might have.

Um so um I too.

I think that's one of the things that we're hoping to figure out and work more collaboratively together, and I think that's one of the things that we were excited that this was coming up, is so it really did give us another opportunity to really lay out all of the pieces and figure out how we can all plug and play and figure out what our role is.

And I think that's one of the biggest difficulties of this code is you see how many of us are up here, there's so many of us involved, and it's difficult to always make sure you know your right hand is talking to your left hand, and so with the MOU, which again, which is outside of the code, because to your point, it's nice to have some of that flexibility of how you actually implement a code versus like all of it written very strongly into the code.

And so that is what we're hoping to do with the MOU is figure out.

I think infiltration is one of our biggest places to work out enforcement, is another place to work out.

Um general knowledge about the district is another place we need to work out collectively.

Um the difficulty I think with the code is that it has so many different audiences depending on who you are, whether you're development or whether you're a roll-up door auto repair facility, very different audiences and very different uses for the code.

And so having to kind of cater to the different audiences also makes it difficult when you have a code that's very structured, and so that's where the MOU will help, and then we all have guidance documents that try to play talk into the aspects that you know to what council member walker was saying of like how do we create something that's easy for businesses to understand, and that's where hopefully through this memorandum of understanding between agencies, we kind of very very much delineate our roles and then figure out how we will better collaborate, figure out those gaps, and then hopefully there won't be things that get through, or it'll be won't be pointing in the other direction, and we'll be like, nope, that's your decision, that's your decision.

We've all collectively agreed, and then yeah, thank you so much for that answer.

That's helpful.

Um, did you do want to say anything?

Or no?

No, I think she covered everything.

So another question is on baseline for a lot of these businesses.

Are we planning to do anything where we go out and do as soon as this becomes code, try to get inspections done quickly to see, like, especially in the one year area, um, where where that business is as far as if there is any contamination, is that something that we might be looking at?

You want to say something first, Anna?

Or well, I would just want to say that um these businesses have not been operating in a vacuum all along.

Um there are if they're under um the MPDS regulations and there's certain types of businesses, we do annually inspect them under our source control group.

And so these businesses are inspected under stormwater and wastewater.

So if they've been, you know, if contamination has been observed, then they we have in sent um letters of compliance to them, please clean up this or clean up good housekeeping things.

So I think these sites are well documented on um where things are happening and what's going on out there, and then the health department also regulates a different part of it too.

Yeah, so um the a lot of the businesses affected in the area are under a South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District um permit, and we go out biannually by every other year, I'll use that word, every other year to um inspect, um, or we go more frequently if there's compliance issues.

Um so since this reg revision process has been started, which is about four years, we have been still going through all of our inspection processes during that time.

Um if we document any issues, we then follow up to make sure that we resolve them.

Um I think one of our biggest our first push will actually be um kind of notifying those that are in the one year time of travel.

I think now that it's getting closer, we'll work on documentation documenting that in our databases and then making sure we're getting that information out to businesses.

And then we're gonna make a big push to bring in more new businesses.

I think with the reg revision changing, it's been difficult.

Do we bring in new businesses that could they be exempted?

Could they be prohibited?

So we've kind of pushed a pause on that.

Not that we're not, if we see issues, we're not been addressing those as we've gone through, but we're gonna make a big push there because I know there's businesses that are currently in the STGP that should be regulated that aren't.

Um but I it was kind of rocking a hard place of do we bring in and then push out or whatever it is.

So um we've kind of pushed pause on that.

But yeah, we have a we're working as a group to kind of make sure that we're getting out there more, and that's kind of one of the MOUs is like how do we build more staff capacity to work in this area because clearly it's been identified that it's a big it's they want our presence there.

So last time when staff was here, they said it was complaint, part of this was complaint-based.

Like if there was a complaint, then there would be someone who went out.

But if they don't, if that doesn't happen, then it happens yearly for a step for the city, and then you're out there every other year, is what you're saying.

Yes.

Um we're out there every other year, but I have staff weekly in the area.

So if there's so some yes, complaints are how it gets to us.

There's a multitude of ways that a business can actually come into the STGPD, they can find it themselves, which is more rare.

Um, another city agency brings it to us.

Um we see it when we're out there, um, downloads from tax and licensing, the environmental services group, be like, hey, there's a new business here.

We thought maybe you should know, fire department also.

Um so that's with the MOU, I think we'll also shore up some of those to ensure that you know the businesses that do come in, they're getting into our program sooner and maybe not having a gap in that time.

Um but yeah, I think there's still a number of pieces to work out, but all of the gaps that you've identified are gaps that we too have identified, and we realize that they need to be.

I appreciate that.

Yeah, I just have to expect that.

I just have two more questions.

If I could know how many MECA sites there are right now, currently in the South Tacoma groundwater protection district, that would be great to know.

And I know that in the Tide Flats sub-area plan, there's over 200 of them, so it's not unusual to have these.

And then the second thing is I just I think we should have some limit on what size an uh an um above ground tank can be.

Is there some state law that says that above ground tank can be that has to be smaller than this or bigger than I mean, I think there should be a limit on that.

So and I don't know, I'm just I don't know what that would look like, but it just seems like that could be an issue depending on.

I mean, I can understand why we have above ground tanks, but I don't think I mean I want some limit because I don't want some huge thing.

There are some limits on above ground tanks based on the products that they're holding.

Okay, and but I don't have it in front of me.

Okay, so there is some limitations.

Okay, great.

It would be great if that was in the code though, if we had that actually like or based on whatever the state code says, or I'm sure.

Do we have that in the code already?

It is not in the code, but um it is I know like for propane can only be so big.

Yeah, and um there's a lot of fire, there's a lot of fire codes.

Okay, so I don't think that we would want to repeat them in our code.

Can we refer to it though?

Is that what we do?

Or I'm not writing your code, I'm just asking questions really.

Yeah, so um uh as as Dano mentioned, like they have uh several codes that basically uh comes um into playing when when a development happens, and uh um we already have some standards as as Dano mentioned in other um parts of the code and regulations and fire code.

Um so um if you think we should uh repeat that information, we can definitely do it, but uh we already have those regulations in um other uh parts of the code and the fire code and such.

Okay, okay, and then just one more thing.

Um you made a um reference to um being able to if they if we found something what was heading towards one of the wells that we could do something to mediate for that.

What are we gonna do to mediate for PFAS that we think might be heading towards the well?

So PFAS, we were currently working very closely with the Department of Health.

Oh my god, I've been on several meetings of the Department of Hill trying to work out what um it because you know it is in our sources, it is in some of our sources in the South Dacoma field there.

Um the actual true source where it's coming from is not well defined yet.

We have ideas where a lot of it could be coming from, but not well defined.

Um PFAS is everywhere on our clothing, on our marketing.

So defining where that's coming from our dental class, yeah, some of the everywhere, yes, everywhere.

Okay.

Um, but what we are looking at is how do we operate our sources knowing that we do have PFAS in it?

And of course, some of our sources we have taken offline um over the years since 2018, we really first saw it.

Um, as far as how to mitigate it getting in, I don't have a good answer for that.

Um mitigating how we're gonna operate our sources is something we are very clearly working on right now.

Thank you so much.

All right, thank you, Councilmember uh Rambah.

It's like it's my question now.

All right.

Uh Debbie Mayor had to step away.

Uh so my question, thank you.

And I was watching this online before I walked down, so I appreciate all the comments about things that I had brought up last time.

I think my uh question would be enforcement component, right?

So the Southcomer Groundwater Protection District's been there since 1988.

Have we ever forced somebody out of the South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District in the last 35 years, 37 years?

We've not forced anybody out.

What we have done is um issued civil penalties, so in several of thousands of dollars in each order to get to compliance.

Um actually, so I maybe I misspoke because um I do remember that there was a business that was operating illegally, so they weren't actually permitted.

So technically the STGPD didn't kick them out, it was a multi-aging.

I don't know if you remember Dana the stripping business, like the paint stripping business.

Um so really, if there is something of that nature, it is very multi-agency and we're working together because likely if they have an issue with us, then in this case, this back this old old case, they didn't have a business license, they didn't have they had chemicals that they weren't appropriately mitigated for fire department.

So typically if it's bad enough, we all collectively get together and we'll work collaboratively to make sure that they're not longer operating.

And and we work through our existing code enforcement, and so we have not only here but citywide, we have gone to uh code enforcement to the and to penalties, and even one case I know of that somebody did go to jail, and we've also referred those to um federal uh requirements.

There was one milk spill that was done throughout Tacoma, and uh so we caught them and worked with the federal government.

So we do have um all of the codes and regulation and code enforcement to go after anybody we think that is egregious.

So if somebody's operating outside of so there's a clear set of what can and can't be done.

Somebody's operating outside of that, we have code enforcement tools by which to find them and remove them from the process.

If people are operating within the standards we've set, there's a process by which enforcement looks like mitigation first, prevention, remediation, and then they continue to operate as long as they're operating within the current code.

Yeah, um, for our source control people, our first line of defense on this is education.

Yep.

So we educate first and then we work with them, and then if needed, then it goes to quote enforcement.

It's oh and I would say from the that's some from our we do the inspections, we find violations, we work with them to resolve them.

Um I would say that there are some enforcement pieces that could be improved, and I think the MOU will help with some of those.

I'm not gonna say that every enforcement process works perfectly every time, and so I think there is some room for improvement there, um, but I'm hopeful that we can address some of those pieces.

I think our biggest problem is actually non-payment of STGPD permits, which is a difficult, you know, we need to implement a program, but having people pay for that has been a little bit more difficult enforcement-wise.

All right.

No, I I think that was my one of my main questions.

The other the other question I had was around um, and we've already talked about where we're gonna be sweeping other additional folks into this conversation, into this regulatory scheme.

And I would say scheme and like regulatory construct there.

I shouldn't say scheme.

Regulatory construct because of the well heads, so and we've been clearly communicated to this folks that before they didn't need a South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District permit, and now they're gonna need one because they're operating within the distance.

That has been clearly communicated to all those folks that would be impacted, or have we determined the scope by which people are gonna be impacted by that yet?

There is not there wouldn't be any so right now we probably have people that are in the district that aren't permitted, but none of the uses that they're doing wouldn't have already been regulated.

Okay.

Um so yes, it was just more of us finding the time to actually go out and get them and bring them into the program, which just takes some controlling sometimes.

It's because it's not free.

Okay.

I mean, I think the only piece that I would I would bring forward, and this was something that we talked about at IPS whenever we had this conversation uh with the initial kind of moratorium conversation was the idea of allowing people to do work that would make things better, right?

And that that's and it seems like that's gonna be part of this conversation.

That was one of our concerns was if there was a new technology or something that would improve the current status that we didn't want to preclude that from happening or stop that work from happening.

So I think that's something that's really important for me as we look at some of these conversations and we think about some of these businesses that may or may not be changing business models to try to hit other goals that we have for our city that there's flexibility within there for them to be able to do so.

So I do appreciate that.

Those are all my questions, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you.

Uh when I walked in, I thought I heard you say that someone did jail time about over a milk spill, and I just wanted to clarify if that I heard that correctly.

No, it was they were uh they were going around and uh getting rid of milk waste.

Oh milk is a pollutant, yeah.

So in the for a bio biolog and so and it affects dissolve oxygen.

So yeah, so somebody did go to jail for that because they were just dumping it out milk, yeah.

Um thank you for clarifying that.

Um I did have one more question, and I apologize if it's already been asked, uh, but Councilmember Bushnell kind of brought up something that jogged my curiosity around if we so someone has a tank, um an underground tank, and they want they are closing their business but want to open business or sell their visits to someone to do the same business, and their business is already grandfathered in.

Does the next business that comes there to do business?

Are they allowed to operate the same tank or uh replace or do the or does their license not are they not permitted to do business there?

So that would be not the change of use, it would be change of ownership.

So they can continue operating.

So the new business owner would basically um continue the operation with the same parameters, so they could also change their um tank if they needed to and do all of the same things that the previous owner could.

Yes, yes, just they just can't get a bigger tank.

Yeah, that so the uh these regulations apply to the use, not the owner.

Okay.

So if the business is already established, they can continue operating, even if there's a change of ownership.

Okay.

Okay, that makes sense.

Um, and then I just kind of a weird one-off question.

Is if we know if we have enough gas stations to serve the area currently.

And I don't know what that looks like, so I don't know what the number of gas stations is necessary for um a distance um in the city, but if that's some if that's a question that we are, or if that's something that we looked into before kind of limiting this.

Yeah, if you haven't looked into that to see like how many gas stations we need for this area, but that's something that like uh we can um do some research on and get back to you at the next meeting.

Okay, perfect.

I think um I think it makes sense to monitor in whichever way that we need to, but I think it also makes I think we should know if we are creating an equity issue or a distance, some kind of distance issue uh for the future.

Um, so that way we can make um you know, add in variance options or whatever for whatever is necessary moving forward.

Okay.

Uh oh, Councilmember Bushnell.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Just one more quick at the apple.

Yeah, correct the apple.

Thank you.

Um Councilmember Hines brought up some good points that I kind of brought me back around to the underground storage tanks again.

Um have we had any instances of um operating like under current operations like leaks or hazardous uh for the since the uh groundwater protection district has been uh implemented.

Um I I don't know if you guys have that answer off the top of your head, but I'm just curious.

I obviously like I I know that uh when businesses go out of business and they're not removing the storage tanks that and they fall into disrepair that could happen.

But is there any like instances of a currently operating and properly maintained tanks ever actually um uh leaking or having concerns or violations and things of that nature?

Um, so there are so underground storage tanks have a life, so typically they like to remove them before they leak occasionally that doesn't happen.

I think I brought up an example of like 38th and Pacific, there's a gas station there that did leak, and so we worked collaboratively with STGPD.

We wouldn't allow them to be permitted as that until they clean began steps to do cleanup and replacement of that tank.

Um so yes, there are some that have leaked.

Um there's also contamination from other aspects, so like dry cleaners, which I think is now prohibited, correct.

Um so there are other sources of contamination, but anything that um any time that a tank is suspected of leaking, um underground storage tanks are pretty highly regulated, not but just by us.

City of Tacoma looks at them for stormwater aspects, and then Department of Ecology has a registry of all underground storage tanks and they do inspections and all of that it's monitored as well.

But if something does leak, they move pretty quickly to stop that and go to replacement.

Um, and we're along for that ride on that replacement.

Great, thank you.

Um I appreciate that everybody's on top of that when that happens.

Uh it's really important.

Um all right, uh, thank you so much.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

You got it.

Okay, well, with no other hands.

I want to just thank you all for uh coming and being super concise and informative.

Okay.

Well, with that, we will head on to our other items of interest.

And our second agenda item today is a I'm good.

Okay.

And so this is mine.

Um, and it's really it's on the back page here.

Um, so in November we only have one plan meeting.

Um, one plan meeting for study session in council due to the holidays and the council and NLC travel, which will be on the 19th.

Um, and what this resolution does will simply add additional meetings for our November schedule for November 12th, which is a Wednesday, um, so that we'll have an additional study session and additional council meeting for the month.

Um do we have any questions?

It's for some reason it's struck out.

I don't know what's going on with that.

Yeah, so this is an advising.

It is an addition.

Um I can answer that.

So this is the cancelled meetings, and it's taking it's revising it so that it's not uncancelled.

Yeah.

Oh, it's a track changes from the original resolution.

Got it.

So basically, we're gonna remove the strikeout.

Right.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you for the clarification.

No, we're striking it out from the canceled meetings.

Because this is the list of cancellations.

It is no longer canceled.

So we're oh gotcha, gotcha.

Okay.

Thank you for the clarification.

Perfect.

Oh, wait a second, Councilmember Romba.

Oh, thank you, Deputy Mayor.

I'm just curious why we're not meeting on I know it's election day, but why aren't we having a meeting on November 4th?

So it's election day.

Because it's election day.

Huh?

Because it's election day.

Okay.

Is there any discussion on that?

Because it just seems like we don't have enough meetings in November.

But so we're adding the 12th.

Okay.

I get that.

Okay.

I just can't remember.

Uh no, I think that was my question.

So we're gonna meet the day after Veterans Day, but we're not meeting on election day.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Um there any other items to share.

Okay.

Um agenda item number three.

I'm gonna pass it to the acting city manager.

Alison Griffith's a big in the presentation if you have one.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

There are three ceremonials on tonight's agenda.

One recognizing the 50th anniversary of Special Olympics Washington.

One recognizing back from the eighties, which I believe was the Mayor's Cup race team, and one recognizing presentation of Jobs Two Five Three.

Um, there are no modifications to tonight's agenda.

There is one opportunity for public comment this evening.

That's under regular public comment regarding motions, resolutions, and ordinances on tonight's agenda.

Please make sure you let me know if there's any questions related to tonight's agenda so that staff can be prepared to respond accordingly.

And for your review attached to the study session agenda was the city manager's weekly report to council.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you.

Um, RCW four two uh point three zero one zero one I I and I I to discuss potential litigation not to exceed fifteen minutes.

Second.

All right, all those in favor to convene to an executive session signify by saying I.

All those opposed signify by saying nay.

All right, the emotion is declared adopted.

We will now convene to an executive session.

Executive session not to exceed thirty minutes.

Oh, yeah, sorry.

Fifteen minutes.