Asphalt Facility

Nov 16, 2017

UPDATED THROUGH April 19, 2018

On March 14, 2018, the King County Water District #90 (KCWD 90) sent a letter to the King County Council expressing its concern and opposition to the siting of any industrial activities within its Wellhead Protection Area that could adversely affect water quality and ultimately cause the District to alter its source of supply for its customers at great cost.  On April 3, 2018, KCWD 90 approved Resolution No. 1041 expressing its position and strong opposition to the siting of the proposed Asphalt Facility and any other industrial use within its Wellhead Protection Area.  In response to GMVUAC’s request for public records, on April 18, 2018, Deb Gill, Executive Assistant/Outreach Coordinator for KCWD 90, provided the following public records to the GMVUAC in a single pdf file:

1. King County Water District No. 90 letter to Metropolitan King County Council with Figure 4 Zoning, Parcels of Concern, and Hazardous Sites
2. King County Water District No. 90 Resolution No. 1041-Opposing Asphalt Plant
3. Letter from Councilmember Reagan Dunn to King County DPER-Assistant Director for Permitting
4. King County Water District No. 90…2014 Wellhead Protection Plan taken from King County Water District No. 90…2015 Comprehensive Water System Plan

The KCWD 90 has given its express written consent to GMVUAC to publish the foregoing records on our website; they may be accessed and viewed here (4 mb pdf file):  KCWD #90_Public Records re Asphalt Facility

If you wish and with no particular endorsement thereof, we invite you to visit the area homeowners’ website at for information on how you can help this group in their efforts undertaken to oppose the use of this site for the construction and operation of a new Asphalt Facility.

The Washington Department of Ecology’s MTCA Cleanup site Document Repository for this property, called the ‘King County Shops’ site, may be accessed with available documents viewed and/or downloaded here: King County Shops – Document Repository .  The Ecology ‘King County Shops’ website page may be accessed here: King County Shops – Ecology Website

The fate of Ordinance 18611 and the future of the SR 169 site of the proposed Asphalt Facility is now in the hands of the King County Council.  IF YOU WISH TO DO SO, please contact the members of the KC Council and express to them your position regarding this proposal and the reasons for your position.  On March 8, 2018, the following email was sent to all Members of the King County Council as a concise summary of our position and its rationale:

“King County Council Members,

On February 28 the Greater Maple Valley Unincorporated Area Council (GMVUAC) submitted for your consideration a detailed point-by-point rebuttal of the subject 3-mo Cedar River Sites Industrial Moratorium (CRSIM) Study — part of the subject 6-mo Ordinance 18611. Below please find a brief synopsis for your convenience.

The construction of a new industrial use (i.e., a use other than continuation of a pre-existing use and that is not vested) such as a new asphalt facility on the old Sunset Materials’ Cedar River/SR 169 site is outright prohibited as a matter of fact and law by King County Comprehensive Plan Policy R-513: “. . . Other new industrial uses in the Rural Area shall be permitted only in Rural Towns and in the designated industrial area adjacent to the Rural Neighborhood Commercial Center of Preston” (emphasis added).

This key Policy and its mandate were never addressed by DPER in its CRSIM Study required under Council Ordinance 18611, and, if it had been, the one and only recommendation DPER and the King County Executive could make is that, regardless of the Industrial zoning of the SR 169 parcel, Lakeside Industries’ proposed construction and operation of a new industrial facility (e.g., an asphalt plant) on this site is prohibited. [See Concrete Nor’West v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 185 Wn. App. 745, 755-56, 342 P.3d 351; review denied, 183 Wn.2d 1009 (2015): ”Once a comprehensive plan is in place, the GMA gives effect to the plan’s provisions by requiring that “[e]ach county and city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall perform its activities … in conformity with its comprehensive plan.” RCW 36.70A.120. This provision thus turns the failure to conform to a comprehensive plan into a GMA violation that the Board may remedy.”].

We seek the King County Council’s rejection of the recommendations of the CRSIM Study and enforcement of the provisions of KCCP Policy R-513. We further recommend the Council refer to the Hearing Examiner the matter of rezoning the site back to its original RA-5 land use and zoning designations pursuant to the manner in which the Council has interpreted KCCP Policy R-515 as set forth in Council Ordinance 18611, § 1(J).

Should you have any questions about our detailed submittals on this subject or the synopsis herein, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We will discuss any of these matters with you at your convenience. Thank you for your time and consideration of these matters important to so many members of the Public.

Rhys Sterling, Chair, GMVUAC Environment Committee
Peter Rimbos, Chair, GMVUAC Growth Management Committee”

On February 28 the GMVUAC formally submitted its comments regarding the Cedar River Sites Industrial Moratorium Study that was prepared by KC DPER in response to the King County Council’s Moratorium imposed pursuant to Ordinance 18611.  GMVUAC Response to CRSIM Study_02 28 2018  Under UPDATES (below), we have posted additional historical information (also referenced in our comment letter) relating to the SR 169 property and its rezone from Rural to Industrial by the King County Council as part of its 2008 Comprehensive Plan update (compare with the 2004 Comp Plan as proposed to be amended by a special Docket Request #16 submitted in 2006, and the subsequent Area Zoning Study in March 2008 that recommended this rezone request was unnecessary, unsupported, and should be denied — nevertheless, the KC Council approved the rezone of this site to Industrial via Map Amendment #31 in the 2008 Comp Plan).

King County Executive has released the Area Zoning and Land Use Study required under Moratorium Ordinance 18611.  Read the Study and Transmittal Letter here:  Cedar River Sites Industrial Moratorium Study    Transmittal Letter

PLEASE NOTE: Asphalt Plant Discussion– Cedar River Council meeting, Tuesday Jan 23, 2018

The Cedar River Council will have a presentation and discussion on the proposed Asphalt Plant on the Maple Valley HWY at their monthly meeting this coming Tuesday at the Maplewood Greens Golf Course, 7:00 -9:00 pm. Representatives from Lakeside Industries and King County Dept. Permitting and Environmental Review will be making presentations. There will be a panel question and answer session after the presentation. Read the meeting agenda here (note that all calendar years should be 2018): Cedar River Council Meeting_January 23 2018. This is an important opportunity to ask questions and make your feelings known on the Asphalt Plant directly to King County representatives; not only potential impacts on the environment, including the Cedar River, but also the need to enforce the Comprehensive Plan requirements as to land use and rezoning of the site to RA-5.  Please see the GMVUAC’s detailed proposal review comments and correspondence below under UPDATES.  King County Council Member Reagan Dunn is the CRC Chair and needs to hear your voices and concerns.  The CRC posted a summary of the Q & A session with Lakeside Industries and the public attendees at its January 23 meeting; read the summary here: Cedar River Council-Q&A Summary-01 23 2018 


PLEASE TAKE NOTE THAT at its Monday, January 8, 2018, meeting the King County Council is holding a public hearing (Item #63) regarding and relating to its imposition of a six month moratorium on development projects adjoining the Cedar River south of Renton.  This moratorium affects the Lakeside Industries SR 169 Asphalt Plant.  For more information, visit our webpage at  On January 8, 2018, the GMVUAC submitted a written statement to the King County Council as its testimony in support of this six month moratorium.  GMVUAC Testimony re 6-Mo Moratorium


The GMVUAC has reviewed the proposal by Lakeside Industries (LI) for a grading permit (GRDE17-0069) to prepare its property located at 18825 SE Renton-Maple Valley Rd (SR 169 — site of the old Sunset Materials operation and the former King County Shops) for development as an asphalt facility. This facility currently is located in the City of Covington (within the Urban Growth Area) and LI plans to move it to the Rural Area in unincorporated King County. The GMVUAC sees this as placing urban-serving facilities in the Rural Area, primarily to take advantage of relatively cheaper land.


Information on this permit application can be found at this link: The King County Department of Permitting and Environmental Review (DPER) contact is Fereshteh Dehkordi, Senior Project Manager, 206-477-0375 or


Thousands of citizens in the vicinity of the site have protested and communicated with the King County Council their concerns. The GMVUAC, as part of its November 2017 monthly meeting, discussed this proposal along with others to an overflow crowd of nearly 100 concerned citizens.


This pressure led to the King County Council placing a 6-month Moratorium on the “acceptance of applications for development of rural industrial uses in close proximity to the Cedar River” (i.e., “within one quarter mile of the ordinary high water mark”). “No building permit, occupancy permit, public health approval or development permit or approval of any kind shall be accepted or issued for any of the purposes or activities prohibited by this section.”


Further, the King County Council instructed the King County Executive to conduct a 3-month Study of “the rural industrial uses permitted in close proximity to the Cedar River” and to evaluate “whether the land use designation and zoning for identified rural industrial land use parcels is still appropriate and consistent with applicable laws, regulations and adopted policies and adequately addresses the impacts and concerns” and to identify “development regulation or map changes, or both, that would address the impacts and concerns.”  The full King County Council Moratorium Ordinance No. 18611 can be found below in UPDATES.


The King County Council will hold a Public Hearing on this matter on January 8, 2018, at the King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, Room 1001. Concerned citizens are encouraged to testify and/or submit written comments to the King County Council at


Representatives from Lakeside Industries attended our December 4 monthly meeting and made a formal presentation of their asphalt plant plans and discussed this matter with the Council and members of the public in attendance.


The GMVUAC will be following this process and will post updates here.




Ecology – King County Shops Site – Cleanup Site Details

GRDE17-0069 Notice to extend deadline (docx)

GRDE17-0069 Notice to extend deadline for Public Comments (pdf)

Asphalt Facility Application and SEPA Comments – GMVUAC (12/5/2017)

Well Site Locations – Group B and Irrigation – Approx

King County Council – Moratorium Final Ordinance #18611 (11/13/2017)

King County Landmarks Commission – Design Review Committee Report (1/26/2016)

Certificate of Appropriateness #1527 – King County Landmarks Commission (1/29/2016)

King County Landmarks Commission – Designation of_Pacific Coast Coal Admin Bldg – 1993

Water District #90 – App M – 2014 Wellhead Protection Plan

Farallon Consulting – Release Notification Report to Wash Dept of Ecology (9/1/2016)

Notice for Moratorium Public Hearing

GMVUAC Testimony–6-Mo Moratorium

2004 KC Comprehensive Plan – Excerpts

2006 Docket Requests re Update to 2004 KCCP (DR #16)

2008 KCCP Area Zoning Studies re Goodnight Property

2008 KC Comprehensive Plan – Excerpts and Map Amendment (#31)