Updated Through November 7, 2018
Lakeside Industries Inc. (“LI”) – SR 169 Site – Proposed Asphalt Facility
Location: 18825 SE Renton-Maple Valley Road, Renton, WA 98058
According to KC DPER Permit Status Records, LI submitted a Building Permit application on October 2, 2018, that was assigned File No. COMM18-0014. Project Description: INSTALLATION OF HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANT EQUIPMENT WITH PERMANENT STRUCTURES; EQUIPMENT INCLUDES AGGREGATE SORTING, DRYING AND MIXING EQUIPMENT, AIR EMISSIONS CONTROL EQUIPMENT, STORAGE SILOS, AND PETROLEUM STORAGE TANKS. BUILDINGS INCLUDE SILO FOUNDATIONS, CONCRETE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE, COVERED AGGREGATE STORAGE BINS, FACILITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE, SOUND WALLS AND BELOW GRADE STORMWATER DETENTION VAULT.
For current KC DPER File No. COMM18-0014 status, please click on the following link (select “Status” in the “Record Info” dropdown menu): LI Commercial Building Permit .
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
On November 6, 2018, Lakeside Industries submitted an application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (DPER File No. SHOR18-0032) for the following project description: INSTALLATION OF HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANT EQUIPMENT WITH PERMANENT STRUCTURES; EQUIPMENT INCLUDES AGGREGATE SORTING, DRYING AND MIXING EQUIPMENT, AIR EMISSIONS CONTROL EQUIPMENT, STORAGE SILOS, AND PETROLEUM STORAGE TANKS. BUILDINGS INCLUDE SILO FOUNDATIONS, CONCRETE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE, COVERED AGGREGATE STORAGE BINS, FACILITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE, SOUND WALLS AND BELOW GRADE STORMWATER DETENTION VAULT.
For current KC DPER File No. SHOR18-0032 status, please click on the following link (select “Status” in the “Record Info” dropdown menu): LI Shoreline Substantial Development Permit .
The City of Renton weighed in by letter sent to DPER dated June 4, 2018, opposing the construction and operation of a new asphalt facility at the SR 169 site based on traffic and environmental concerns. Read the City’s letter here: City of Renton_06 04 2018 .
On April 20, 2018, King County opened a Code Enforcement case against Lakeside Industries for an alleged violation of certain County Ordinances at its SR 169 property — the site of its proposed construction and operation of a new Asphalt Facility:
Record ENFR18-0321: Code Enforcement Case
Record Status: Violation Found
ON-GOING FILLING (BRINGING IN PILES OF MATERIALS – CONCRETE CHUNKS; MULCH; ETC….) OVER THE PAST SIX (6) MONTHS WITHOUT THE REQUIRED APPROVALS, PERMITS AND/OR INSPECTIONS; OPERATING AS A PROCESSING PLANT – CRUSHING CONCRETE FROM OFFSITE SOURCES – CONCERNED THAT THE MATERIALS HAVEN’T BEEN CHECKED FOR ASBESTOS AND LEAD CONTAMINATION) (GRDE17-0069 – NOT APPROVED AS OF 4/26/18)
King5 TV News report published May 9, 2018, may be viewed here: King5 TV — Protests Continue Over Maple Valley Asphalt Plant (please observe all copyright protection; presented here for single viewing only as a public service and not for any commercial purpose). For the purpose of GMVUAC providing a link to this story for public access and any possible copyright issues that might arise therefrom, author Alison Morrow, Environmental Reporter (K5 and KONG, a TEGNA Company), in an email dated May 10, 2018 (11:24 AM), expressly noted that “posting the link is absolutely fine and we encourage people to share it.”
KCC DROPS ANY CONSIDERATION OF 6-MONTH EXTENSION TO MORATORIUM: Background — On May 4, 2018, KCC Member Reagan Dunn introduced legislation that would extend the 6-month Moratorium imposed pursuant to Ordinance #18611 by another 6 months. This proposed legislative extension is File No. 2018-0248 and may be viewed here: Moratorium Extension_Legislation Text-7 . The current Moratorium Ordinance #18611 is due to expire on May 13, 2018; so unless immediately enacted as emergency legislation (see Section 5), there could be a significant gap in coverage of the prohibition on new permit applications in the affected area along SR 169 and the Cedar River. At the present time, the KCC’s May 7, 2018, meeting agenda identifies this proposed legislative extension as Item #20, and states only that such is the First Reading and that the bill will be referred to the Planning, Rural Service, and Environment Committee (PRSE Committee). If such intended action occurs, the PRSE Committee does not appear to meet again until Tuesday, May 15, 2018; the next KCC meeting thereafter would not occur until Monday, May 21, 2018 — 8 days after Ordinance #18611 automatically expires. In order to comply with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.390, a six month extension to a moratorium first requires a public hearing and findings of fact to support such an extension. A similar situation appears to have occurred at the KCC’s November 13, 2017, meeting at which the emergency legislation was introduced, a public hearing held, and Ordinance #18611 was passed and enacted all in the same meeting. Interested residents and entities should, if they deem it to be appropriate, contact all KCC Members and urge them to do on Monday, May 7, 2018, what they did on Monday, November 13, 2017, and enact the 6-month extension to Moratorium Ordinance #18611. — UPDATE — From all accounts, public input to many, if not all, of the KCC Members was very high throughout the morning of May 7, 2018. Nevertheless, at its Monday, May 7th meeting, KCC Member Reagan Dunn dropped the proposed 6-month extension legislation from consideration by the full Council without any on-the-record discussion or vote. KCC Member Dunn’s office explained this decision in the following manner in an email sent to the CMVUAC’s Vice Chair posted at 4:49 PM on May 7, 2018:
“Reagan did not have the votes needed to pass the moratorium. We knew we were short votes last week and after working the members today including on the dais during the meeting. We did not have the support we needed to pass the moratorium. As for next steps. We are working through those and will let you know. Thank you so much for all your efforts so far on this issue.”
The GMVUAC will endeavor to keep abreast of further events in this matter and publish relevant information here as such becomes available.
By letter dated May 4, 2018, the Washington Chapter of the Sierra Club submitted a letter to the KCC “expressing its major concerns regarding the proposed move of an Asphalt Facility to a site along SR 169 across from the Cedar River.” The Sierra Club’s letter is reproduced here with its express permission: Lakeside asphalt facility-Sierra Club Ltr .
Answering a query that is posed from time to time as to how many I-zoned parcels are located in unincorporated King County, both inside and outside of the Urban Growth Area Boundary, King County’s DPER produced a definitive report regarding this subject in 2015 as part of the KC Council’s Moratorium Ordinance # 17893 (1 year moratorium on development of isolated industrial parcels). The DPER found that there were 29 I-zoned parcels in unincorporated King County, of which only 1 met the restrictive definition of ‘isolated’. In any event, the DPER report depicts all I-zoned property and the results of its study — you may view this report here: Isolated Industrial Parcels in Unincorporated King County – March 6, 2015 .
On April 30, 2018, by and through their legal counsel, Bricklin and Newman LLP, the Citizens to Stop SR 169 Asphalt Plant submitted to the KC Council their letter in opposition to the proposed Asphalt Facility and to the expiration of the 6-month Moratorium. With the express written permission of this citizens’ group, you may read their letter here: 2018 04 30 Citizen Group’s Letter to KCC .
By letter dated April 17, 2018, the Cedar River Council (CRC) requested that the KC Executive and certain KC Council Members consider and respond to issues raised by public attendees at prior CRC meetings regarding and relating to the proposed SR 169 Asphalt Facility. On April 25, 2018, the CRC’s Coordinator Nathan Brown III emailed GMVUAC the following copy of this correspondence for posting on our website; the CRC’s letter may be viewed here: CRC Letter to KC 4-24-18 .
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 www.noasphalt.com 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 . By email dated May 10, 2018, in response to an inquiry regarding the status of the cleanup project, Ecology’s Donna Musa, Initial Investigation/Site Hazard Assessment Coordinator, Northwest Regional Office, gave the following summary:
“I have recently updated Ecology’s webpage for the King County Shops cleanup site. It has information on the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup process. I’ve also attached a focus sheet on MTCA that is more detailed. MTCA Process Focus
The King County Shops site has been listed on Ecology’s Confirmed & Suspected Contaminated Sites (CSCS) List as a site known to be contaminated (in both soil and groundwater) since 1998 with the status of “cleanup started”. This means that some type of remedial action has been conducted. In this case it was a tank removal and interim cleanup action conducted prior to February 1998.
All sites listed on the CSCS List are required by MTCA to follow the cleanup process, although there is no deadline in the regulation. Ecology’s Northwest Region has over 2,200 cleanup sites that are either awaiting cleanup (no cleanup actions done) or cleanup started status, and are not under Ecology oversight. King County Shops is one of those sites.
It is very common (and acceptable) for site owners to conduct cleanup activities independent of Ecology oversight. Once the cleanup is completed, and if the owner/operator wishes to receive a No Further Action (NFA) Opinion, they may apply to Ecology’s Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) or *PLIA’s PTAP and request an NFA. If an NFA Opinion is not desired, there is no obligation to enter the VCP or PTAP. Farallon’s discussion of the VCP in their 2016 Notification Letter is simply to inform Ecology of their plans. Because we have not received an application to the VCP for this site, it is likely that either the cleanup is not completed yet or they have changed their plans to request an opinion through VCP.
At this point, it appears that the MTCA process is being followed.”
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 http://gmvuac.org/moratorium-public-hearing. 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: http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/permitting-environmental-review/info/SpecialInterest.aspx. The King County Department of Permitting and Environmental Review (DPER) contact is Fereshteh Dehkordi, Senior Project Manager, 206-477-0375 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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 held 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 email@example.com
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)