HomeMy WebLinkAboutReportRECFWEDBLACKRIVERQUARRYKingCountyFileNo.L89G318022-r7ANALYSISOFVISUALIMPACTSjiuJ.LcBy:BarghausenConsultingEngineers,Inc.H.BruceMcCrory,LandscapeArchitectMarch22,2000JobNo.6759ThisreportsetsforthananalysisofvisualimpactsassociatedwithproposedsiteactivitiesandusesplannedduringthenextfiveyearsontheportionoftheBlackRiverQuarrypropertylyingeastofEmpireEstates’westboundaryasdisclosedonBarghausenConsultingEngineers’March20,2000SupplementalSitePlanfortheBlackRiverQuarry.ThisreportisintendedtohepartoftheresponsetoCondition3oftheKingCountyHearingExaminer’sSeptember3,2000ReportandDecisiononAppealofPeriodicReviewDecisionforStoneway’sBlackRiverQuarry,whichrequiresthePermitteetosubmitaSupplementalSitePlanandaTechnicalReportbasedonthatSitePlanthatanalyzesoff-siteimpactsPROPOSEDSITEACTIVITIESANDUSESAsnotedontheproposedSupplementalSitePlan,proposedusesfortheportionoftheStonewaysitelyingimmediatelysouthoftheEmpireEstatesApartmentsparcelareasfollows:1.Quarrying.clearing,andgrubbingofvegetation(exceptthiu50feetofthenorthboundaryand20feetoftheeastboundary),sitegradingandassociateddrainagecontrols;2.Stockpilingofrawmaterialandprocessedmaterials,suchasrock,nibbleconcrete,wood,glass,andmetalinconjunctionwithquarryingandrecyclingoperations;3.Sitedustcontrolandwashdown:and4.Temporaryirrigationof50-footbufferforreforestationplantings.EXISTINGCODEDEVELOPMENTSTANDARDSPortionsofKCCChapter21A.22(DevelopmentStandards—MineralExtraction)applytotheStonewaysite.However,inviewofthefactthattheBlackRiverQuarryisanon-conforminguse,KCC21A.22.060(Sitedesignstandards)doesnotapplyand,therefore,subsectionFthereof(whichprovidesforno“clearing,gradingorexcavation..
.within20feetofanypropertyline...“doesnotapply.EXISTINGCONDITIONSAsubstantialexistingnativeandindigenousgreenbeltbufferofdeciduousandevergreenvegetationseparatesthetwoproperties.ThenorthernboundarofthesubjectportionoftheStoncwavpropertyhasa50-foot-widebuffer,voluntarilyestablishedbythequarryownersinconjunctionwiththe1991gradingplanforthesite.An
additional20-footwideunimprovedright-of-way(South137thStreet)liesimmediatelynorthoftheStonewayboundaryandsouthoftheEmpireEstatesboundary.Anadditionalgreenbeltextendsnorthwardintoportionsoftheabuttingapartmentproperty,andiscontrolledbythatproperty.In1996,Stonewayclearedaportionofthe50-footbuffer.Restorationplantingsubsequentlyoccurred,andwassupplementedbyNovember1,1999pursuanttoSectionAofCondition2oftheExaminer’sDecision.Inthepast,workassociatedwiththeapartmentsclearedaportionofthenortherlyandwesterlysideofthegreenbelt.AerialmappingindicatesthelimitsoftheseencroachmentsandisshownontheSupplementalSitePlan.Maintainingandprotectingthisscreenisthemostimportantobjectiveforpreservingavisualscreenbetweentheproperties.VISUALCONSTRAINTSVisualimpactsofthequarryoperationstotheEmpireEstatesApartmentsbecameanissuewhenStonewaysiteclearingprogressedintotheareaduesouthoftheapartments.Priorcoverincludeddeciduousandconiferwoodland.SincetheapartmentsaresituatedwelluphilloftheStonewayproperty,theirprominenceaffordspotentialviewlinestonearlythesouthedgeoftheStonewaypropertybelow.TheconceptofVisualAmenitiesissubjective,relativetotime,placeandfunctionofindividualuses,andisinfluencedbyindividualperceptions.Rapidchangeinaccustomedviewsisdisconcertingtomanypeople.Ause,suchasquarrying,presentsaperceivedimageofconstantconstructionactivity.Iunderstandthatwhenthecurrently-proposeduseshavebeencompleted,thesitewillberedevelopedconsistentwithapplicablelanduseregulations.Theabove-notedmaterialstockpilesandquarrysurfacegradeswillcontinuetobevisiblefromvariouselevationswithintheadjoiningapartmentcomplextoadegreethroughouttheyearand,generally,moresointhelatefallandwintermonthswhendeciduousvegetationcoverisgone.DuetotheextremehillsidelocationoftheapartmentsabovetheStonewaysite,onlyexistingtreesbetweentheapartmentsandtheStonewaysitewillprovideavisualscreenofanysubstanceduringthefive-yearperiod.TheSupplementalSitePlanincludesarepresentativecrosssection(C-C),whichillustratesthis.The8-foot-highwoodfencetohelocatedonthenorthpropertylineoftheStoncwayproperty,contiguouswiththeapartmentproperty,willprovideanaestheticamenitybutwillnotprovideanysignificantscreening.50-FOOTBUFFERThespecificationfora50-ft)otsetbackfromthenorthboundaryofthequarrywasshownontheapprovedGradingPlanof1991.Asnotedabove,thestandardsofKCC21A.22.060lista20-footsetbackforquarrying.Nocoderequirementforthe50-footbutferappearstoexist.Thebuffer’sstatusseemstohaveevolvedovertime.Presently,the“buffer”andexistingvegetationserveavisualandphysicalseparationrole.Whenclearingoperationsencroachedintothebufferin1996,itssignificancewasrecognizedandReforestationPlanswereimplementedin1997,andaugmentedwithlargeplantstockinthespringof1999.Additionalaugmentation,asdirectedbytheHearingExaminer,wascompletedinthefallof1999.ThereforestationwasaddressedintheDecisionofSeptember3,1999.AspartoftheSupplementalSitePlan,a“fixed”irrigationsupplyconsistingofatankandgravityfeeddriplinetonewplantingswillbeinstalled.Waterwillheteucked-inbytheexistingsitewatertrucktothetank.Thiswillassureabetter,moreconsistentirrigationscheduleforthenewplantings.‘Theirrigationregimenwillheprovidedfortwosummers.
Theirrigationprogramneedstoinc]udedeepinfrequentwatering.Thisencouragesdeeperrooting.Italsominimizestransitiontrauma.Coniferstypicallygodormantduringthedroughtsummermonths.Irrigationwillactuallyencouragegrowth.Therestorationplantingshaveexperiencedvaryingcyclesofseasons.Theolderplantingswilllikelysurvivenow,aftertwoorthreesummers.Thelargeplanngsinstalledinthespringof1999havesurvivedonedroughtseason,hutwillbenefitfromsupplementalirrigation.Theyoungestandsmallestplantingsinstalledthislastfallwillbenefitfromasummerseasonofirrigationwithadditionalgrowth,butwateringasecondsummermaynotbenefitacclimation.Withseveralstagesofacclimationpresent,theSupplementalSitePlanrecommendationsaremadeasthebestapparentcompromiseavailable.STRATEGIESThequarryshouldcompletethephysicalinstallationrequirementsotthePeriodicReviewDecisionofSeptember3,1999.further,impactmitigationstrategiesincludemaintenanceoftherequiredinstallations.TheSupplementalSitePlanincludesthewaterscheduleforapproximately130plantedtrees.
September3,1999OFFICEOFTHEHEARiNGEXAMINERKINGCOUNTY,WASHINGTON850UnionBankofCaliforniaBuilding900FourthAvenueSeattle,Washington98164Telephone(206)296-4660Facsimile(206)296-1654REPORTANDDECISIONONAPPEALOFPERIODICREVIEWDECISION.SUBJECT:DepartmentofDevelopmentandEnvironmentalServicesFileNo.L89G3180BLACKRWERQUARRYAppealofPeriodicReviewDecisionLocation:6900SouthBeaconHillCoalMineRoadPermittee:StonewayRockandRecycling,Representedby:DavidHalinen.Esq.10500NE8th#1900,Beflevue,WA98004Telephone(425)454-8272;Facsimile(425)646-3467Appellant:PreferredFinancialCorporation,Representedby:BrianE.Lawler,Esq.999ThirdAvenue#4750Seattle,WA98104Telephone(206)682-0191;Facsimile(206)682-3584KingCounty:DepartmentofDevelopmentandEnvironmentalServices,Representedby:CherylD.CarisonFredWhiteSeniorDeputyProsecutingAttorneyLandUseServicesDivision516ThirdAvenue,5thFloor900OakesdaleAvenueSWSeattle,WA98104Renton,WA98055Telephone(206)296-9015Telephone(206)296-6783facsimile(206)296-0191Facsimile(206)296-7051SUMMARYOFDECISION:Department’sPreliminaryRecommendation:DenytheappealDepartment’sfinalRecommendation:DenytheappealExaminer’sDecision:Grantinpart,denyinpart
BLACKRWERQUARRY-L89G31$OPage-2PRELIMINARYMATTERS:NoticeofappealreceivedbyExaminer:July30,1998StatementofappealreceivedbyExaminer:July30,1998EXAMINERPROCEEDINGS:Pre-HearingConference:September9,andOctober3,1998Motions:December7,199$HearingOpened:March11,15,April27,29,andMay28,1999HearingClosed:May28,1999Participantsatthepublichearingandtheexhibitsofferedandenteredarelistedintheattachedminutes.AverbatimrecordingofthehearingisavailableintheofficeoftheKingCountyHearingExaminer.ISSUES/TOPICSADDRESSED:•Airpollutiondust•ComprehensivePlanpolicyapplication•Geotechnicalslopestability•Landscapingbuffers•Noise•Non-conforminguse•Periodicreviewofminingoperationsconditionsbaseduponenvironmentalimpactsstandardofreview•SEPAcategoricalexemptions•VisualimpactsSUMMARY:ThePreferredFinancialappealoftheDDESperiodicreviewdecisionisgrantedinpartanddeniedinpart.Newconditionsonsiteoperationsareimposedtoprovidefurthermonitoringandimpactmitigation.FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&DECISION:Havingreviewedtherecordinthismatter,theExaminernowmakesandentersthefollowing:
BLACKRIVERQUARRY-L$9C3180Page-3FINDINGS:A.PROCEDURALBACKGROUNDTheBlackRiverQuarryisa32-acresiteoriginallycomprisingawoodedbluffoverlookingtheBlackRiver.Ithasbeenthelocationofahardrockextractiveoperationsince1949.ThesitehasbeenoperatingunderauthorityofKingCountygradingpermitsince1971andunderwentaSEPAreviewin1977.Atsomepointthestorageandprocessingofrecycledmaterials,primarilyconcreteandotherdemolitionrubble,wasaddedtotheminingoperation.Theperiodicreviewreportsuggeststhatthesecombinedoperationswereinexistencein1977whentheSEPAreviewwasdone,althoughnothinginthechecidistspecificallysupportsthisconclusion.Probablytheoriginalrecyclingoperationoccurredonthewesternthirdoftheproperty,nowoperatedbyRentonConcreteRecyclersandwhichwassplitofffromthesiteundercurrentreviewin1988.Concreterecyclingontheportionoftheoriginalsiteunderpresentreviewwithinthisproceedingappearstohavebeenintroducedafler198$whenitcameundertheownershipofStoneway.Althoughtherockquarrycontinuestooperateathistoriclevels,therecyclingbusinesshasbecomethepredominantsiteactivity,withthequantityofrecycledmaterialhandledonanannualbasisdescribedbyStonewayrepresentativesasexceedingtherockproducttotalbyafactorofatleast10.2.TheperiodicreviewprocessconductedbytheDepartmentofDevelopmentandEnvironmentalServicesunderauthorityofKCCChapter21A.22waslimitedtotherockquarryoperationsandexcludedreviewoftheconcreterecyclingactivity.Evenso,thetwoactivitiesinvolvetheuseofthesameequipmentandareintermingledtosuchadegreethatseparationofthetwoforregulatorypurposesisnotpossible.Stafftestimonywasthatthesiteisregulatedandmonitoredinitsentiretyforalladverseimpactsexcepthoursofoperation.ItistheviewofbothDDESandthePerniitteethatthehoursofoperationimposedontherockquarrybythegradingpermitdonotapplytotherecyclingactivities,whichareonlylimitedbythenighttimenoisestandardscontainedintheKingCountyNoiseOrdinance.Forpurposesofreviewpursuanttothisappeal,wewillalsoconsiderrecyclingimpactstobeinseparablycommingledwiththosefromminingoperationsexceptwhereseparationisdemonstrablyfeasibleandsuchreviewisconsistentwithapplicableregulations.3.SincetheadoptionofTitle21Ain1995,theBlackRiverQuarrysitehasbeenspLitintotwoseparatezones.ThesouthernhalfofthesiteiszonedIndustrialwhilethenortherncarriesanOfficezoningdesignation.Fromapracticalstandpoint,however,theconflictbetweenthetwodissimilarzoningdesignationshasbeenresolvedbytheadoptionofaspecialdistrictoverlay(SO-060)thatspecifiesasinglesetofusesforboththeIndustrialandOffice-zonedproperties.PropertiesdirectlynorthofthesiteboundaryarezonedR-24uptoMartinLutherKingJr.Way.NorthofMartinLutherKingJr.WayisanolderresidentialneighborhoodzonedR-$-P.PropertiestothesouthandwestoftheStonewaysite,includingsince1997theRentonRecyclersproperty,allliewithintheCityofRenton.4.Reviewingtheaerialphotographswithintherecord,itisclearthatinthelasttenyearssiteoperationshaveexpandedaggressivelytowardthenortheast.ThishasrequiredremovalofthematureforestedvegetationwhichhistoricallylaybetweentheactivequarryoperationsandEmpireEstates,a240—unitapartmentcomplexthatoverlookstheeasternhalfofthenorthernsite
I-BLACKRIVERQUARRY-L89G3180Page-4boundary.EmpireEstates,constructedin1970,foryearswasabletoco-existpeacefullywiththequanyduetotheinterveningwoodedbuffer.AsthatbufferhasdiminishedandStoneway’soperationsmovednortheasterly,siteimpactsonEmpireEstateshaveincreasedashasthelevelofconflictbetweenthetwodissimilaruses.TheinstantappealoftheDDESJuly15,1998,periodicreviewreportanddecisionistheproductofthatconflict.TheinevitabilityofsuchconflictwasaptlysummarizedwithintheclosingbriefsubmittedonbehalfofDDESbytheProsecutingAttorney’sOffice:“Inlargemeasure,EmpireEstates’complaintwiththeBlackRiverQuarryoperationsisthattheyareexpandingandapproachingtheperimetersofthequarrysiteand,consequently,comingevernearertheapartmentcomplexsite.However,itisinescapablethatthenatureofanextractiveoperationsuchasthatconductedbyStonewayattheBlackRiverQuarryisthatitwillnotremainstaticovertheyears.Quarryoperationsnecessarilymigrateoverthesiteastheavailablerawmaterialsareextracted.Suchinherentnaturalprogressionisapparenthere.And,notsurprisingly,astheactivequarryoperationsgetclosertotheapartmentcomplex,anyimpactsassociatedwiththeextractiveoperationsarelikelytobemoreapparent.”5.TheperiodicreviewdecisionissuedbyDDESonJuly15,1998,isadetailed,thoughtful,andgenerallythoroughdocumentencompassing17pagesoftext,plusnineattachments.ItimposestwonewconditionsonthePermittee,requiringafugitivedustsuppressionplanandboundaryfencingandsignagealongthenorthernpropertyline.Inaddition,itrevisesgradingpermitcondition0091toclarifytherelationshipbetweenthehoursofoperationandtheNoiseOrdinance.6.Evenso,theDDESperiodicreporthasbeenvigorouslycriticizedbyAppellantPreferredFinancialCorporation,owneroftheEmpireEstatesapartmentcomplex.AfteranextensiveprehearingmotionprocesstheissuestobeconsidereddenovoonappealweredefinedwithinaprehearingorderissuedDecember11,1998.Theappealissuesincludethenoiseandvisualimpactsofquanyoperations,thegenerationofdustatthesiteperimeter,whetherlandslidehazardareasexistonthesite,andtheadequacyoftheDDESmonitoringandmitigationconditionsinthecontextofthesite’slocationandregulatoryhistory.AlargequantityofevidencewasreceivedonthesufficiencyoftheDDESinspectionandmonitoringactivity,whichincludedconsiderationoftheentireCountyregulatoryprocessregardingthequarryandnotjustthespecificsubstantiveimpactsatissue.7.Duetothegeneralityofthereviewstandardsprovidedfortheperiodicreviewprocess,andinlightofthefactthattheBlackRiverQuarrywasthefirstperiodicreviewdecisionissuedbyDDES,theprehearingprocessforthisappealfeaturedmotionsandcross-motionsfromeverydirectionandinvolvingalmosteverypotentialjurisdictionalissue.Italsoresultedinalengthyappealprocessrequiringwaiverofapplicableproceduraltimelimits.Afewprehearingmattersdeservefurthermention.FirstistheAppellant’scontentionthattheperiodicreviewprocessisamajoractionaffectingtheenvironmentrequiringissuanceofathresholddetenninationunderSEPA.ThiscontentionwasstrenuouslyopposedbybothDDESandthePermittee,withadditionaloppositionsubmittedwithinanamicusbrieffiledbytheattorneysforCadman,Inc.,andLakesideIndustries.
BLACKRIVERQUARRY-L89G3180Page-58.TheDDESdecisiontreatedtheperiodicreviewprocessasbeingcategoricallyexemptfromSEPAreviewbutdidnotmakeanexplicitrulingtosucheffect.TheprehearingorderheldthattheperiodicreviewprocedureonitsfacemeetsthecategoricalexemptionstandardsstatedatWAC197-11-800(13)and(14),andaccordinglytheDDEStreatmentoftheprocessascategoricallyexemptwasnotsubjecttofurtherreviewwithinthisappeal.AfindingofcategoricalexemptionforthisprocedureisconsistentwiththeintentstatedatComprehensivePlanPolicyRL-410,whichprovidesthatthe“periodicreviewisintendedtobeapartofKingCounty’songoingenforcementandinspectionsofmineralresourcesites,andnottobeapartoftheCounty’spermittingprocess.”9.Itisimportanttoemphasize,however,thataconclusionthattheperiodicreviewprocessiscategoricallyexemptunderSEPAdoesnotnecessarilyimplywithrespecttoanygradingpermitrenewalthattheSEPAreviewperformedin1977remainsadequatetodisclosethecurrentenviromnentalimpactsoftheproject.Inthisregard,wenotethattheenvironmentalchecklistprovidedasAttachment8totheperiodicreviewdecisionisadocumentoflimitedscopeandcontentthatmaybeofquestionablevalueinevaluatingcurrentoperations.Forexample,whilethechecklistidentifiesa30-acresite,itnustberememberedthatthepresentRentonRecyclers’propertywasatthattimepartofthecomplex.thusmakingthetotalacreagethenpotentiallysubjt.toSEPAreviewsomewhereinthevicinityof52acres.Moreover,VThtheterecyclinrationssuchoperationsreceivednosignificantdisclosureandreviewwithintheSEPAchecklist.Andhadsuchreviewoccurred,itmostlikelywouldhaverelatedsolelytotheRentonConcreteRecyclers’parcelswestoftheexistingStonewaysite.Otherlimitationsapparentonthefaceofthe1977SEPAchecklistincludeaprojected1983operationscompletiondate,alackofvisualimpactsanalysis,nospecificationofonsiteequipmentbeyondtrucks,andastatementunderlinedbystaffthat“nonewgroundwillbeopenedup”.Inviewoftheselimitations,itseemsunlikelythattheimpactscurrentlyexperiencedbyEmpireEstatesApartmentsweredisclosedoranalyzedinanymeaningfulwaywithinthe1977checklistreview.10.AsecondmatteridentifiedwithintheprehearingprocessdeservingofmentionrelatestothelegalstatusoftherockminingandconcreterecyclingoperationsasnonconformingusespermittedneitherwithintheindustrialnorOfficezoningdesignations.ThroughpersistentargumentStonewayseemstohaveconvincedDDESstaffthatitsnonconformingoperationsaretobeviewedassomeformofprivilegedlanduse.Infact,theexactoppositeistrue.UnderWashingtonlawnonconformingusesareregardedascontrarytopublicpolicyandtheircontinuedexistenceismerelytolerated.ThismeansthatwhiletheCountypursuanttoitspolicepowermaynotdirectlyextinguishanonconforminguse,itmayregulateittowhateverextentnecessarytolimitandmitigateitsimpacts.TheissuewithrespecttoStoneway’snonconformingoperationsisnotthattheCountylackspowertoregulatethem,butthattherecyclingactivities(assumingtheywerelegallypermittedunderthezoningineffectatthetimeoftheirestablishment)seemtohavefallenbetweenthecrackswithintheCounty’sordinanceframeworksuchthattherearenospecificregulationsgoverningtheirconduct.Thisisanoversightthatneedscorrection,andDDESshouldreconmiendtotheCountyCouncilenactmentofanappropriateregulationdealingwithconcreterecyclingfacilities.
BLACKRIVERQUARRY-L$9G31$OPage-611.TheregulatorybasisforperiodicreviewofmineralsiteswasestablishedbytheCountyCouncilin1994withinComprehensivePlanPolicyRL-410.Theperiodicreviewprocessdescribedthereinspecificallyencompasseslegalnonconformingusesandhasasitspurpose“toprovideopportunitiesforpublicreviewandcommentonthemineralresourcefacility’sfulfillmentofstateandcountyregulationsandimplementationofindustry-standardBestManagementPractices,andforKingCountytomodify,addorremoveconditionstoaddressnewcircumstancesand/orunanticipatedproject-generatedimpacts”.AsstatedwithinPolicyRL-410,theperiodicreviewprocessisnottoberegardedasanopportunitytorevisittheappropriatenessofthemineralresourcelanduseorasasubstitutefornormalpermitreviewofanyproposedexpansionofsiteoperations.ThesubstantiveareasinwhichimpositionofconditionsmitigatingadverseimpactsresultingfromminingoperationsareconsideredespeciallyimportantarelistedatComprehensivePlanPolicyRL-411.Includedareairquality,sensitiveareas,noise,vibration,lightandglare,traffic,andvisualimpacts.12.TheperiodicreviewprocessdescribedinPolicyRL-410isimplementedatKCC21A.22.050basedonafive-yearreviewcycle.AsstatedatKCC21A.22.050.B.2,theDDESdirectorshallusetheperiodicreviewprocess“todeterminethatthesiteisoperatingconsistentwiththemostcurrentstandardsandtoestablishotherconditionsasnecessarytomitigateidentifiableenvironmentalimpacts”.Thepurposeofperiodicreviewofextractiveandprocessingoperations“toinsurecompliancewiththemostcurrentoperatingstandards”isalsoaffirmedatKCC21A.22.010.D,andKCC21A.22.040statesthegeneralprinciplethatnonconformingextractiveoperationsshallbebroughtintoconformancewiththeoperatingstandardsofKCC21A.22.070“totheextentdeterminedfeasiblebytheCounty”.ThislatterprovisionprovidestheCountywiththeflexibilitynecessarytoaccountfortheuniqueaspectsofnonconformingoperationsbutdoesnotlimittheCounty’sregulatoryauthority.Inotherwords,bystatingthatnonconformingextractiveoperationsshouldbebroughtintocompliancewithKCC21A.22.070operatingstandards,section.040doesnotseektolimittheCounty’sregulatoryauthorityovernonconformingactivitiesbutmerelyemphasizesthatcompliancewithoperatingstandardsmeritsparticularattention.B.SENSITIVEAREAS13.TurningtothespecificissuesraisedbythePreferredfinancialCorporationappeal,attheonsetStonewaymovedtodismissfromtheappealissuesbasedonthequarry’sallegedviolationoftheKingCountySensitiveAreasOrdinanceonthegroundsthatKCCChapter21A.22doesnotrequirenonconformingoperationstomeetsensitiveareasstandards.Consistentwiththediscussionprovidedabove,theprehearingorderrejectedthisargument,rulingthatthelanguagewithinComprehensivePlanPolicyRL-410settingoutinbroadtermsthepurposesoftheperiodicreviewprocessissufficientlyinclusivetoincorporatetheKingCountySensitiveAreasOrdinance,eventhoughsuchregulatorymechanismmaynothavebeenspecificallycalledoutwithinKCCChapter21A.22.14.ThisprehearingrulingpreservedwithintheappealtheAppellant’sissuewithrespecttotheexistenceoflandslidehazardareasonthesite.Asitturnsout,however,thequestionofthe
BLACKRIVERQUARRY-L$9G3180Page-7stabilityoftherock-facedsteepslopescreatedbythePermittee’sextractiveoperationsisnotaseriousconcern.SlopestabilityissueswerereviewedrecentlybySubTerra,Inc.inFebruary1999and,alongtherockfacewestoftheEmpireEstatesApartments,byGolderAssociates,the.in1989.BothreportsconcludedthatthesteeprockfacesonthenorthernhalfoftheBlackRiverQuarrysitewerestable,althoughSublerranotedtheunrelatedexistenceofsubsidenceupslopeontheEmpireEstatespropertyduetotheapparentuseofunstablefillbeneathitslowerparkingareas.TheslopestabilityfindingsofSubTerraandGolderhavealsobeenreviewedbyDDESgeologistLarryWest,whoagreeswiththeirconclusions.NoaffirmativeevidenceofslopeinstabilityhasbeenpresentedbytheAppellant.C.VISUALIMPACTS15.Itisbeyondargumentthatsince1990thevisualimpactsofStoneway’soperationsattheBlackRiverQuarryontheEmpireEstatesApartmentshavedramaticallyincreased.Beforeabout1995,miningoperationshadnotexpandedintotheeastemmostportionofthepropertyadjacenttotheapartmentcomplex,andformanyyearstheviewfromtheapartmentbuildingsontheslopeabovetheStonewaysitewasofabroadexpanseofrelativelymaturemixeddeciduousandconiferforest.AsshownintheExhibit10aerialphotograph,eveninSeptember1995afterthequarryoperationshadinitiallyexpandedintotheeasternpartofthesite,belowtheapartmentbuildingsawidthofsome150to200feetofforestedvegetationwasstillbeingretainedadjacenttoStoneway’snorthernboundary.The1991gradingplanpursuanttowhichsitealterationswereauthorizedshowsaminimum50-footsetbackbetweenthenorthernpropertylineandthebeginningoftheslopecuts,indicatesatypicalclearinglimitat70feet,andstatesthatthelimitsofclearingandareasofvegetationpreservationareasdescribedontheplanandtobeflaggedandobserved.16.Amajoralterationoftheremainingforestedbufferalongthenorthernpropertyboundaryoccurredinthesummerof1996whenaStonewayequipmentoperatorbulldozedmuchofthevegetationwithinthe50-footsetbackareashownonthe1991gradingplan.Whilesomematurevegetationremains,theneteffectofthe1996treeremovalwastoopenuptheviewfromtheEmpireEstatesApartmentsdownintothefloorofthepit.AsdescribedbyanumberofEmpireEstatesresidents,theirpreviousviewofmaturetreeshasbeenreplacedbyslashanddebrispiles,stockpilesofquarryproducts,trucksandearthmovingequipment,andlargeexpansesofdenudedandoftenmuddylandscape.17.ThetestimonyofStoneway’srepresentativeswasthatvegetationremovalwithinthe50-footsetbackalongthenorthernsitepropertylinewasanunfortunatemistakecausedbytheincorrectplacementofsomesurveymarkers.TheresponseofDDESstaffhasbeentorequirereplantingofthe50-footbufferpursuanttoarevegetationplan.Areplantingofthebufferslopewithamixtureofdeciduousandevergreentreeshasinfactoccurred,buttheeffortthusfarhasbeenlessthansuccessful.Restoringthebufferareapresentssomechallenges.Itisrelevantlysteepwithfullsunexposure,andStoneway’scapacityforirrigatingthenewplantingshasbeenlimitedtotheuseofawatertruckonsiteprimarilyfordustsuppression.StonewayhasapproachedEmpireEstateswithaproposaltoobtainawaterhookupfromthem,butthisoverturehasbeenrebuffedbyPreferredFinancial.
BLACKRIVERQUARRY-L89G3180Page-818.TheupshotofallthisisthatthetreesplantedbyStonewayin1997havenotfaredwell.Manyhavedied,someconifershavebeenpilfered,andthetreesthatremainarenotthriving.Stonewayproposestoprovideanaugmentedbufferplanting,hasstipulatedtoatwo-yearirrigationprogram,andhasincludedsomelargerspecimensinitsrevisedrevegetationplanasrequestedbyEmpireEstates.ButasStoneway’slandscapearchitecthaspointedout,largerplantingsarelesslikelytosurvivethansmallerones,soevenwiththebestofintentionstheprospectsforultimatesuccessremainuncertain.19.DuetotheupsiopelocationoftheEmpireEstatesApartmentcomplex,thenewbufferplantingsontheStonewaysitedonotyetproduceanyvisualimpactmitigationbenefitsandcannotbeexpectedtodosoforanothertentofifteenyears.TheJuly15,1998,DDESperiodicreviewdecisiondiscussesthebufferencroachmentandrevegetationissuesaslandusemattersbutfailstospecificallyidentifiythevisualimpactsofquarryoperationsontheEmpireEstatesApartments.D.DUST20.ThecontrolofdustgeneratedbytheBlackRiverQuarryoperationsappearstohavebeenaconsistenttopicofregulatoryconcernsinceStonewaytookoverthesitein1988.UntilrecentlythisissuehadlargelybeendialoguebetweenStonewayandthePugetSoundAirPollutionControlAgency(“PSAPCA”),whichovertimehasissuedtoStonewayavarietyofnoticesandcitationslargelyfocusedondustgeneratedbythecrusher,screenerandconveyerbelts.Althoughitappearsthattheprocessingequipmenthasnowbeenoutfittedwithwaterspraybars,thereareindicationsthatthedustsuppressionequipmentisnotalwaysfunctional.PSAPCAhassomeverystringentenforcementrequirementsthatarebackedupbyamenuofheftyfines,soasightingofaPSAPCAinspectorintheneighborhoodalwaysgeneratesexcitementamongtheStonewayemployees.Evenso,thePSAPCAinspectionsappeartooccurrelativelyinfrequently,afactthatsuggeststhatPSAPCAenforcementaloneisnotsufficienttoguaranteeadequatedustsuppressiononaregularbasis.21.TheEmpireEstatesresidentswhotestifiedattlepublichearingonthisappealweregenerallyunanimousintheiropinionthatsummerdustpjloblemshavesubstantiallyworsenedsinceabout1995.Thissuggeststhatatthepresent’tirnethemajordustsuppressionissueontheStonewaysiterelatestotrucksandloaderstravelingalongthehaulroutewhichnowapproacheseverclosertotheEmpireEstatescomplex.Althoughperfectionhasyettobeattained,thereisreasontobelievethatStonewayisdoingabetterjobofdealingwiththedustgeneratedbyitsvehicleoperations.SinceJuly1998awatertruckhasbeenpermanentlylocatedattheBlackRiverQuarrysite.Thisrepresentsasubstantialimprovementoverpriorconditions,wherethewatertruckhadtobecalledinfromanoffsitelocationtoaddressaconditionwhichinmanycaseshadalreadyreachedanunsatisfactorylevel.Stoneway’slogsdemonstratethatduringthedryseasonwiththeadditionofanonsitetruckitisabletostartsitewateringoperationsintheearlymorningandcontinuethemthroughintotheafternoon.Performedonaregularbasis,thispracticeconstitutesanupgradeoverprioroperations.22.Theregulationofairqualityiscomplicatedbythefactthatthepreciseidentificationofgenerationsourcesmaybeproblematic.Becausethesameequipmentisusedforboth
/BLACKRIVERQUARRY-L89G3180Page-9operations,DDESproperlydoesnotattempttodistinguishbetweendustgeneratedbythehardrockminingprocessandthatassociatedwithrecyclingoperations.Inaddition,itisobviousthatRentonRecyclersadjacenttotheStonewaysitetothewestalsogeneratessignificantquantitiesofdust.Forreasonswhichareunexplained,RentonRecyclershasbeenallowedtooperateitscrushingequipmentwithoutwaterspraybarsfordustsuppression,andaseriesofpicturestakenbytheDDESstaffinAugust1998demonstratedthatthereareoccasionswhenRentonRecyclersisemittingasubstantialdustplumeandStonewayisnot.Duetotheprevailingwindpatterns,thereisnodoubtthatdustplumesfromtheRentonRecyclers’sitecanreachEmpireEstatesApartments.Nonetheless,thecorrespondencebetweenincreasedcomplaintsofdustreceivedatEmpireEstatesandtheeastwardexpansionofStonewayoperationsindicatesinageneralwaythatthemuchcloserStonewayoperationshavealsobeenamajorsourceofemissions.E.NOISE23.ThetenantsoftheEmpireEstatesApartmentsalsotestifiedthatsince1995theyhaveexperiencedasignificantincreaseinthenoiseexperiencedfromStoneway’soperations.Thisincludesreportsofdrillingsoundspriortoblasting,blastingvibrations,equipmentbackupbeepers,enginesounds,andthevariousbangingnoisesassociatedwithloadinganddumpingrockandconcretematerials.Hereagain,thedifferencesbetweenthehardrockminingoperationandtheconcreterecyclingactivitycomeintoplaybecausetheCountygradingpermitregulatesthehoursofoperationastotheformerbutnotthelatter.AlthoughofnoconsequencewithrespecttositecompliancewiththeCountyNoiseOrdinance,thefactthatStoneway’snighttimenoisegenerationisprimarilyassociatedwithrecyclingoperationsplacessuchactivitiestecimicallybeyondthescopeofdirectassessmentwithinaperiodicreviewproceeding.24.TheappealhasalsogeneratedcontroversyoverthequestionofwhichmaximumpermissiblesoundlevelunderKCC12.88.020shouldbeappliedtothissite.WherearesidentialreceivingpropertysuchastheEmpireEstatesApartmentsisinvolved,themaximumpermissiblesoundlevelis60dBAifthezoningdistrictofthesoundsourceisdesignatedindustrial,butisreducedto57dBAwherethesoundsourcedistrictiscommercial.BecausethenorthernmostportionoftheStonewaypropertyfallswithinanOfficezone,theAppellanthascontendedthatnoiseemanatingfromthisportionofthepropertyshouldbeconsideredacommercialsoundsourcesubjecttothe57dBAupperlimit.ThePermitteeandDDES,ontheotherhand,contendthattheentiresiteshouldbeconsideredindustrialandthereforesubjecttothe60UBAlimit.25.BasedontheprovisionsoftheSO-060zoningspecialdistrictoverlay,weagreewithstaffthattheindustrialsoundsourcecriteriashouldbeapplied.EventhoughtheunderlyingzoningisforOfficeuseonthenorthernportionoftheStonewaysite,theoverlayconditionprovidesthat“permittedusesshallincludeallusespermittedintheRB,0andIzones,assetforthinKCC21A.08,regardlessoftheclassificationusedastheunderlyingzoneonaparticularparcelofland”.Thisprovisionlegitimizesthecreationofanindustriallevelofimpactandwarrantstheuseofthemorepermissiveindustrialsoundsourcedesignation.ThisdesignationisalsosupportedbypracticalconsiderationstotheextentthatitwouldbedifficulttosuccessfullyseparateoutsitenoisesgeneratedontheOffice-zonedportionofthesitefromthoseoriginatingontheIndustrial-zonedportion.
BLACKRIVERQUARRY-L$9G3180Page-1026.ThissoundsourcedesignationquestionisofmorethanacademicinterestbecausethetestsdonebyboththeAppellantandthePermitteeindicatetheexistenceofsite-generatednoiselevelsthatfrequentlyexceedpermissiblelevelsifthesiteisdesignatedacommercialgeneratorbutarewithinacceptablelimitsiftheindustrialsourcedesignationisused.Evenso,allofthestudiessubmittedhavetheirvariousflawsandlimitations,andassiteactivitiesmoveclosertotheEmpireEstatesboundary,impactlevelsthatwereacceptableuponanearliermeasurementoccasioninthefuturemaybefoundtoexceedapplicablestandards.27.Definitiveresolutionofnoiseproblemscannotbeattainedonthisrecord.first,botliblasting/vibrationsandthewarningsoundscreatedbyequipmentbackupbeepersarespecificallyexemptedfromNoiseOrdinancecontrol.Second,asnoted,allthenoisestudieshavecertainlimitationsthatunderminetheirusefulness.Ms.Parks’studiestendtobesomewhatimpressionistic,involvingshortmeasurements,inadequatetreatmentofambientnoisefactors,andinsufficientdatatosupportanyfirmconclusionsastowhethertheNoiseOrdinance’shourlyexceedenceshavebeenviolated.Ms.Parks’studiesareprimarilyusefulinhighlightingthatthePermittee’sstudieshaveneglectedtoanalyzetheeffectsofpre-blastdrillingandthatsucheventsmayexceedNoiseOrdinancelimits.Mr.Lilly’sstudies,ontheotherhand,arebasedonmorerealistictimemeasurementsanddealinamoresystematicwaywitheliminationofambientfactors,buthisanalysisofthespecificeffectsofStonewayoperationsisflawedbyalackofpersonalknowledgeofpreciselywhatsiteactivitieswerebeingmeasuredatanypointintime.28.TheproblemsattendanttoisolatingStoneway’snoisegenerationimpactsfromtheambientenvironmentareofcriticalimportancebecausethisisclearlyarathernoisylocale.InadditiontotheobviousfactorofRentonRecycling’soperationsnextdoor,thisareaisimpactedbyfreewaynoisesfromInterstates5and405,aircraftflyovertoandfromSeaTacandBoeingField,andrailwaysoundsfromatrackthatloopsaroundthesouthernboundaryoftheStonewayproperty.Moreover,Mr.LillyandMs.Parkhaveeachreportedatleastoneoccasionofincongruous(jJJ3ambientmeasurements,suggestingthatatmosphericconditionsoperatetobothincreaseand‘decreaseambientsoundlevelsundercertainconditions.Thesefactorscombinetomakerepresentativesoundmeasurementsdifficulttoachieve.29.AlthoughDDESappearstobeattentivetothenoiseimpactissue,theCountyatthispointhaslittlecapacityforindependentnoisemonitoring.TheHealthDepartment’snoisemonitoringprogramhasbeenphasedout,andwhileDDESinspectorshavereceivedrudimentaryinstructioninhowsoundmeterswork,noneseemscurrentlypreparedtoundertakearegulatorynoisemonitoringresponsibility.WhileStoneway’sstipulationthatitwillnotconductblastingactivityeastofthesoutheasterncornerofBuildingCwithinEmpireEstateswillcertainlylimitthelocationsanddurationoffuturedrillingnoiseimpacts,itnonethelessremainslikelythattheeastwardexpansionoftheStonewayoperationwillcontinuetogenerateincreasesinnoiseimpactlevels.IntheabsenceofCountymonitoringcapability,someformofprogramforregularPennittee-sponsorednoisemeasurementneedstobeimplemented.30.Finally,afewlooseendswithrespecttothenoiseissueneedtobeaddressed.First,thepresenceorabsenceof50-foottreebufferdoesnotappeartobeamajorfactorinsoundattenuation,althoughtheabilitytodirectlyobservesiteoperationsmayincreasetheawarenessofnoiseimpactsresultingtherefrom.Second,theEnvironmentalProtectionAgency’sRegionXnoise
BLACKRIVERQUARRY-L89G31$OPage-11guidelineshavenoimmediaterelevanceforthisproceedinginasmuchastheCountyNoiseOrdinancedoesnotincorporatethem.TheRegionXguidelinesmayhavesomeusefulnesswithinthecontextofaCountySEPAreviewbecausetheyprovideawidelyacceptedstandardforevaluatingthesignificanceofanincreaseinnoiseimpacts.F.MONITORINGAJDENFORCEMENT31.OneoftheprincipalcriticismsleveledatDDESstaffbythAppellantwithinthisproceeding(aswellasinearliercorrespondence)isthatstaffhasbeeiloandevenreluctant,initsresponsetoStoneway’sfailuretocomplywithoperatingregqiion.Arelatedallegationisthatitsbothinadequateinscopeandunsupportedbymeaningfulsanctions.Whilestaffhastakenumbrageatthischaracterization,therecanbenoquestionthatitsregulatorystanceismorereactivethanaggressivelypro-active.ThefewoccasionsonwhichDDEShastakenafirmenforcementpositionvis-a-visStonewayhaveoccurredasaconsequenceofratheregregiousbehavior.th1996afterthePermitteebulldozedtheforestedbufferadjacenttoitsnoihempropertyITñe,DDESrequiredarevegetationplan.Thenin1997,afterEmpireEstatesApartmentshadbeenbombardedwithflyrock,DDESsuspendedblastingoperationsontheStonewaysiteandwassurprisedtodiscoverthatinprioryearsStonewayhadnotbeensystematicallycompelledtocomplywithregulatoryrequirementsforblasting.InfairnessitmustbesaidthatinresponsetotheflyrockincidentStoneway’sblastingproceduresandthemonitoringthereofhavegreatlyimproved,althoughacertainamountofsquabblingcontinuesoverwhetherStoneway’spre-blastingnoticesareissuedtoallEmpireEstates’residentsinatimelymanner.32.Nonetheless,thebasicpointremainsthattheDDESregulatoryprocessislargelycrisis-driven.ButinviewofDDESstaffinglevelsandworkload,areactiveregulatoryschemeisprobablyinevitable.Oneoftheinterestingfeaturesofgovernmentinthe‘90sisthatwhileregulatorycomplexityhasincreased,fundingtoadequatelyenforcenewregulationshasnotkeptpace.Insuchcircumstances,theappearanceofthorougimessconveyedbytheformalregulatoryschemeissubvertedbythelackofadequatestaffing.Whentherearetoofewhandstodothework,minorviolationstendtobedismissed,andonlytheflagranteventsregularlyreceiveseriousattention.33.GiventheresourcesatDDES’disposal,andrecognizingthatunderthebestofcircumstancessurfaceminingisanactivitywhereacertainlevelofadverseimpactswillbeunavoidable,wefindthattheDDESregulatoryactivityisgenerallyresponsivetomajorproblemsandhasdemonstratedoverthelongtermacapabilitytoadapttonewcircumstances.TheperiodicreviewdecisionissuedJuly15,1998,imposesnewconditionstofillsomeofthegapsintheregulatoryschemeandrecognizestheneedtobetterdocumenttheinspectionprocess.DuetotheproximityoftheStonewaysitetotheDDESoffices,frequentdrive-bysurveillancebyDepartmentinspectorsrequireslittlemorethanaslightrotationofthehead,andwhensupplementedbyoccasionalunannouncedformalinspections,probablyprovidessufficientinformationoveralltosupporttheregulatoryprocess.Aselaboratedbelow,whatseemstobelackingwithintheprocessprimarilyisaconsistencyofregulatoryeffortandadequateinstitutionalmechanismsforanticipatingnewimpactsbeforetheydegenerateintoseriousproblems.
BLACKRIVERQUARRY-L89G31$OPage-12CONCLUSIONS:BecauseBlackRiverQuarryrepresentsthefirstperiodicreviewconductedbyDDESofamineralextractionoperation,considerablecontroversyhascenteredontheappropriatescopeforreviewingtheDepartment’sdecisiononappealandthestandardsapplicablethereto.Inthisrespect,thefewrelevantprovisionsofKCCTitle21Adonotprovideagreatdealinthewayofdetailedguidance,forcingtheanalysistorelyinsubstantialdegreeongeneralproceduralprinciples.2.KCCChapter21A.42outlinestheproceduresgoverningreviewofpermitsandproposalsbytheDDESDirector.Ofspecificimportance,KCC21A.42.080.Aprovidesthat“periodicreviewsofextractiveoperationsshallbebasedonthecriteriaoutlinedinKCC21A.22.050.B”,andKCC21A.42.090AspecifiesthatadecisionoftheDDESDirectorshallbefinalunlesstheApplicantoranaggrievedpartyappealstotheHearingExaminerpursuanttoKCCChapter20.24.Asnotedearlier,theprincipalreviewstandardprovidedatKCC21A.22.050.B.2isthattheperiodicreviewprocessshalldeterminewhether“thesiteisoperatingconsistentwiththemostcurrentstandardsandtoestablishotherconditionsasnecessarytomitigateidentifiableenvironmentalimpacts”.3.PeriodicreviewofextractiveoperationsislistedatKCC20.20.020asaType2landusedecisionappealabletotheHearingExaminer.Consistenttherewith,KCC20.24.0$0.AprovidesforHearingExaminerreviewofaType2landusedecisionbasedonthereceiptandconsiderationofavailableinformationatanopenrecordpublichearing.KCC20.24.080.3confersupontheExaminerbroadauthoritytoimposesuchconditionsasmaybenecessarytoachievecompatibilitywithawidearrayofapplicablestateandcountylaws,regulationsandpolicies.4.Basedonthisproceduralframework,theinstantperiodicreviewappealincludedadenovoopenrecordhearingfocusedonimplementingthereviewstandardstatedatKCC21A.22.050.B.2.BecauseKCC21A.22.050implementsComprehensivePlanPoliciesRL-410and411,itisappropriatetofleshoutthesparsetermsoftheordinanceprovisionwithconceptsderivedfromthepolicyframeworkoftheComprehensivePlan.Implementingthisanalysis,itisourconclusionthatthepurposeoftheperiodicreviewappealisprimarilytoexaminetheadequacyoftheregulatorymechanismsemployedbyDDESasappliedtothespecificsiteunderreviewanditsextractiveoperations.5.AreviewoftheadequacyoftheDDESregulatoryprocesscanbebrokendownintothefollowingcomponentquestions:A.Arethecurrentandfutureadverseenvironmentalimpactsgeneratedbysiteoperationsbeingsatisfactorilymitigated?B.ArecurrentstandardsandBestManagementPracticesbeingemployed?C.IstheDDESregulatoryprocessappropriatelydesignedtoachievetheapplicablepolicymandatedresults?
BLACKRIVERQUARRY-L89G3180Page-13Ifanappellantsustainsaburdenofprooftodemonstratebyapreponderanceoftheevidencethattheanswertoanyoftheforegoingquestionsis‘no”,thenitistheappropriatefunctionoftheperiodicreviewappealdecisiontoimposecorrectiveconditions.TheemphasisofthesecorrectiveconditionswillgenerallybeontheDDESregulatoryprocess,withtheimpositionofspecificsubstantiveoutcomesoccurringonlyunderunusualcircumstances.6.Theabove-statedformulationoftheappealstandardofreviewislessformallylegalisticthanthoseproposedbytheattorneysforthePermitteeandDDES.Itis,however,consistentwiththeintentoftheperiodicreviewprocedure,whichexplicitlyrecognizesthatextractiveminingoperationsareadynamicprocessextendedoverdecades.Inthiscontext,boththecharacterandthelocationoftheextractiveactivitymaychangeovertime,aswellastheregulatoryframeworkapplicabletosuchactivities,thetechnologiesforperformingtheonsiteworkandmitigatingitsimpacts,andthenatureandintensityofsurroundinglanduses.Withinsuchcontextthelegislativeintentistoprovideamechanismforassuringthattheregulatoryframeworkiscapableofadaptingtochangedconditions;implementationofthislegislativeintentrequiresaperiodicreviewprocessfocusedmoreonthelong-termsufficiencyoftheregulatoryschemethanonthefactualdetailsthatmaycharacterizeanyparticularlimitedtimeframe.7.AssumingthattheessentialpracticalpurposeoftheperiodicreviewprocessistoassesstheabilityoftheDDESregulatorymechanismtomanagesiteimpactswithinthenextfive-yeartimeframe,arecenthistoryofpermitviolationsorinstancesofnoncompliancewithregulatorystandardsmaybeindicativeofregulatoryinadequacybutnotnecessarilyconclusive.Theultimatequestionisalwaysdirectedtowardthefuture.Thismeansthatweoughtneitherdwellundulyonpastviolationsthathavebeensatisfactorilyremediednorberenderedcomplacentbyarecordofhistoricregulatorycompliancewhentheprobabilityofneworincreasedimpactsisontheimmediatehorizon.8.WhiletheforegoinganalysisisnotgenerallyatoddswiththepositionsoutlinedbytheattorneysforDDESandthePermittee,theemphasisdiffers.TheprincipalpointofactualdisagreementisanunwillingnesstoreadHearingExaminerRuleXI.D.9asrequiringtherejectionofthenormalpreponderanceoftheevidencestandardofproofinfavorofasubstantialweightformulizationimplyingaclearlyerroneousstandard.Althoughitsstructuremaybesomewhatmisleading,wedonotregardthefoursubparagraphswithinRuleXI.D.9asparallelalternatives.Rather,subparagraphAstatesthegeneralrule,whichisthat“unlessotherwiseprovidedbylaworordinance,thestandardofproofisapreponderanceoftheevidence”,whilesubparagraphsBandCdescribeexampleswhenanotherstandardis“otherwiseprovided”.SubparagraphD,ontheotherhand,isentirelypermissiveandnotintendedtoautomaticallytriggertheprovisostatedinsubparagraphA.Itformallyrecognizesthepossibilitythatundersomecircumstancestheexpertiseofanadministrativeagencymaybedeservingofspecialdeference.InviewofthebroadrangeofimpactscreatedbyextractiveoperationsandDDESstaffsadmittedlackofdetailedtechnicaltrainingandmonitoringexperienceinmanycriticalimpactareas,astandardofreviewbasedonablanketdeferencetoDDESexpertiseisnotrationallywarranted.9.TurningtotheDDESperiodicreviewdecisionitself,wehavepreviouslyobservedthatitisathoroughandwell-crafteddocumentwhichseriouslyundertakestoidentifyoutstandingissues
BLACKRWERQUARRY-L89G31$OPage-14withrespecttotheStonewayoperationsandtoimposecorrectivemitigationswherenecessary.Evenso,somecriticismsofthedocumentareinorder.Onthemostgenerallevel,themajorshortcomingoftheperiodicreviewdecisionisitslackofa‘bigpicture”perspective.Inthelasttenyearsquarryoperationshaveexpandedtothenortheastintoapreviouslyforestedareawhichliesadjacenttoaconflictingresidentiallanduse.WhiletheDepartmenthasattemptedtorespondtotheindividualbrushfiresthatthisexpansionhasgenerated,onegetsnosensethatanybroadandinclusiveanalysisofthisexpansionanditseffectshasbeenattempted.TheDDESregulatoryprocessappearstoberesolutelyincrementalinitsapproach.WhatishappeningontheStonewaysitethisweekislargelyanalyzedinrelationtowhathappenedtherelastweek,andsotheemphasisisnecessarilyonminutiaeandnotonthemajoralterationsthatonlyemergewhenchangeoveraperiodofyearsisconsidered.10.WhatseemstobeneededatthispointintimeisanoverallplanfromthePermitteedetailingitsproposedactivitieswithinthenortheasternarmofitsoperationsoverthenextfiveyears,followedbyaneffortbyDDEStoquantifyand,wherenecessary,mitigatetheresultantimpacts.Basedsolelyonthe1977documents,wewouldbepreparedtoconcludethatthisanalysisshouldalsorequireasupplementalchecklistunderSEPAauthority,butwehesitatetodrawthisconclusionintheabsenceofacompleterecorddescribingwhethermorerecentSEPAdocumentsexist.WearesatisfiedthattheperiodicreviewprocessitselfisnotapermittingactivitytriggeringSEPAreview,butsomewhatmystifiedbystatementswithintheperiodicreviewdecisionimplyingthattheratherscantyandlimited1977checklistadequatelydisclosesandanalyzesallenvironmentalimpactsattributabletoStoneway’srecentlyexpandedonsiteactivities.thanyevent,anewconditionwillbeimposedrequiringasystematicanalysisofnortheasternquarryoperationspriortoissuanceofthenextgradingpermit,includinganopportunitytorevisitthequestionofpriorSEPAreviewadequacy.11.TurningtothediscreteimpactsgeneratedbyStoneway’soperations,perhapsthemostseriousomissionwithintheperiodicreviewreportistheabsenceofanymeaningfuldiscussionofthevisualimpactsofquarryoperationsontheEmpireEstatesApartments.Somerecognitionoftheseissuesisimplicitbothintheconcernforreplacementofthebuffervegetationremovedalongthenorthernsiteboundaryandintherequirementfornorthernboundaryfencing.Butitisdifficulttoknowhowtomeasuretheeffectivenessofmitigationsunlesssomeanalysisoftherelevantimpactsismade.Onamorespecificlevel,thefuturesuccessofbufferrevegetationwillcontinuetobeatriskunlessarealisticwateringplanisdevised.Withoutapipedwatersourceonthesite,itisnotclearthatduringthedryseasonasinglewatertruckcansimultaneouslysprinklethesitehaulroutestoholddowndustandprovideirrigationtothenewtreeplantings.Also,wesupporttherequirementforfencingalongthesite’snorthernboundaryadjacenttoEmpireEstatesbutbelievethatthissectionofthefenceshouldbeeightfeettallandofsolidwoodenconstructioninordertoatleastpartiallyattenuatenoiseandvisualimpacts.Theconditionshavebeenmodifiedtoincludetheserequirements.12.Withrespecttonoiseimpacts,assiteoperationsmovefurthereasttheriskofNoiseOrdinancestandardsbeingexceededinevitablyincreases.notwithstandingthatpriornoisestudiesmayindicatethatsuchstandardshavehistoricallybeenmet.SoundmeasurementattheStonewaysiteisaparticularchallengeduetothedifficultyofseparatingoutambientnoiseandtheapparentexistenceofatmosphericvariables.Inaddition,thePennittee’sstudieshavenottakeninto
BLACKRIVERQUARRY-L8903180Page-15accountnoiseimpactsfromdrillingactivities.TheseproblemsarecompoundedbythefactthatDDESdoesnothaveavailabletoitstaffpersonnelwithsoundmonitoringexperienceandexpertise.Someformofregularandinclusivenoisemonitoringprogramneedstobeimplemented,andaconditiontosucheffecthasbeendevised.13.Dustsuppressionisasimpleproblemtechnicallybutonewhichrequiresgreatconsistencyofeffort.Theperiodicreviewreport’srequirementthatthePermitteeprovidesadustsuppressionplaniscommendable.ItisclearthatPSAPCAremainstheregulatoryheavyweightinthisrealm,butthatduetoproximityDDESinspectorshaveagreateropportunitytoactuallyobservesiteconditionsonaregularbasis.ThedevelopmentofaworkingrelationshipwithPSAPCAthatwouldallowDDESstafftoinitiatePSAPCAinspectionsundercircumstancesofobserveddustemissionwouldseemtohavethepotentialformaximizingregulatoryefficiencyandoughttobeconsidered.DECISION:TheperiodicreviewappealofPreferredfinancialCorporationisGRANTEDinpartandDENTEDinpart.ContinuedextractiveoperationsattheBlackRiverQuarrysiteunderauthorityofKingCountygradingpermitshallbeconductedpursuanttothefollowingadditionalconditions:A.Exceptasmodifiedherein,theonerevisedandtwonewconditionssetforthwithintheDDESJuly15,1998,periodicreviewreportanddecisionforinclusionwithinthecurrentgradingpermitshallbeimplemented.B.Thenewconditionrequiringnorthpropertylinefencingstatedatpage14oftheperiodicreviewreportanddecisionismodifiedtoreadasfollows:“InconformancewithKCC16.82.100.1andJ,perniitteeshallmaintainafencealongthenorthpropertyline.Thefenceshallbenolessthanfivefeets-heightandthefencematerialshallhavenohorizontalopeninglargerthantwoinches;providedthat,theportionofthefencelyingalongtheboundarywithEmpireEstatesApartmentsshallbeatleasteightfeettallandconstructedofsolidwoodofsufficientthicknesstoprovidesoundattenuation.”2.TheexistinggradingpermitissuedtoPermitteeshallbemodifiedtoincludethefollowingadditionalconditions:A.PriortoApril1,2000,thePerrnitteeshallsubmitawateringplanfortherevegetatedarealyingadjacenttothenorthernsiteboundary.TheplanshallconformgenerallytotherequirementsofKCC21A.16.300,etseq.andidentifythesourceandquantitiesofwaterrequired,frequencyofirrigation,and,ifdependentuponthewatertruckusedfordustsuppression,demonstratethefeasibilityofsuchjointusewithoutjeopardizingtheeffectivenessofeitheractivity.ThedurationofPermitte&sobligationforwateringnewplantingsshallbedeterminedbasedonspeciestypeandthecharacteristicsofthelocation,butinnoeventshallbelessthantwogrowingseasons.
BLACKRIVERQUARRY-L$9G3180Page-16NotlaterthanNovember1,1999,StonewayshallplantthebalanceofthetreescalledforontherevisedbufferrevegetationplandatedMay27,1999,acopyofwhichwasenteredintothisperiodicreviewdecisionappealrecordasExhibitNo.117.B.ThePennitteeshallimplementasitenoisemonitoringplan,asapprovedbyDDES.ThemonitoringplanshallincludemeasurementofnoisegeneratedbydayandnighttimesiteoperationsatregularintervalsfortimeperiodssufficienttoproducerepresentativesamplesanddemonstratecompliancewithNoiseOrdinancestandards.Themonitoringplanshallalsoincludemeasurementofpre-blastdrillingactivity,andnoblastingwithin150feetoftheEmpireEstatesboundaryshallbepermitteduntildrillingnoiseimpactshavebeenstudiedandquantified,andanyrequirednoisemitigationmeasuresimplemented.C.NoblastshallbedetonatedatanypointontheStonewaysitelyingeasterlyoftheeastermuostpointofEmpireEstatesBuildingC,assuchbuildingisdepictedonthe“improvementlocationsurvey”mapoftheEmpireEstatespropertyenteredintothisperiodicreviewdecisionappealrecordasExhibitNo.13.3.Priortogradingpermitrenewal,thePermitteeshallsubmitasupplementalsiteplanfortheportionofthesitelyingeastofthewesternboundaryoftheElshovingQxistingcontoursandproposedalterationsandusesforthefive-yearperiodbegiimingJanuaryI,QDQ.Theplanshalldescribeallproposedsiteactivitiesandusesforthisportionofthe—property.Basedonthesiteplan,thePermitteeshallsubmitatechnicalreportanalyzingthefullrangeofoffsiteimpactsattributabletoitsoperationsduringthefive-yearstudyperiod,including,butnotlimitedto,visual,noise,blastingandairqualityimpacts.Foreachimpactanalyzed,thetechnicalreportshalldiiThiiflhielofcoi[làèfTfoperationswithapplicableregulatorystandardsanddiscussstrategiesforfurtherimpactmitigation.Inperformingitsgradingpermitrenewalreview,DDESshallconsiderthematerialsubmittedwithinthecontextofexistingenvironmentaldocumentsand,basedonananalysisofthesufficiencyofinformationprovided,determinewhetherasupplementalenvironmentalchecklistandthresholddeterminationarerequired.ORDEREDthis3rddayofSeptember,1999.StaffordL.Smith,DeputyKingCountyHearingExaminerTRANSMITTTEDthis3rddayofSeptember,1999,tothefollowingpartiesandinterestedpersons:Gary&IdaBakerGailDykkestenDavidL.HalinenChrisBreedsHarryEllisPatriciaHallwedelRogerDouglassEmpireEstatesApartmentsDickHarrington
MichaelKadlecekMichaelKrallmanBrianLawlerRichardLevingsBruceMcCroryloanaParkDavidPierceKarenSkoldStonewayRock&RecyclingAlanWallaceCherylCarisonSusanClarkeDougDobkinsKenGrubbsCraigHislopCurtHomerGordonThomsonLanyWestFredWhiteManuelaWinterNOTICEOFRIGHTTOAPPEALTheactionoftheHearingExamineronthismattershallbefinalandconclusiveunlessaproceedingforreviewpursuanttotheLandUsePetitionActisconmencedbyfilingalandusepetitionintheSuperiorCourtforKingCountyandservingallnecessarypartieswithintwenty-one(21)daysoftheissuanceofthisdecision.MINUTESOFTHEMARCH11AND15,APRIL27AND29,ANDMAY2$,1999,PUBLICFEARINGONBLACKRIVERQUARRYPERIODiCREVIEWREPORTANDDECISIONAPPEALDDESFILENO.L89G3180.StaffordLSmithwastheHearingExaminerinthismatter.ParticipatingatthehearingwereFredWhite,CherylCarlson,KenGrubbs,DougDobkins,CurtHomer,andLarryWest,representingtheCounty;BrianLaw]er,DavidHalinen,AlanWallace,BruceMcCrory,IdaBaker,GaryBaker,KarenSkold,loanaPark,JerryLilly,ChrisBreeds,MichaelKrallman,DennisKadlecek,DickHarrington,JerryMillar,GeorgeBennettandGailDykkesten.ThefollowingexhibitswereofferedandenteredintothehearingrecordMarch11,1999:ExhibitNo.1ExhibitNo.2ExhibitNo.3ExhibitNo.4ExhibitNo.5ExhibitNo.6ExhibitNo.7ExhibitNo.$ExhibitNo.9ExhibitNo.10ExhibitNo.11ExhibitNo.12ExhibitNo.13ExhibitNo.14ExhibitNo.15ExhibitNo.16PeriodicReviewReportoftheDecision-dateoftransmittal:July15,199$February20,199$NoticeofPeriodicReviewLetterofappealJanuary10,1991GradingandTESCplan(revised6/12/91)January31,1997BufferRe-vegetationPlanApril211997RevisedBufferRe-vegetationPlanGradingpermitwithconditions;dateofexpiration:March23,1999GISzoningmapAerialphotoofquarrysiteandapartmentcomplexdated7/10/90Aerialphotoofquarrysiteandapartmentcomplexdated9/22/95Aerialphotoofquarrysiteandapartmentcomplexdated9/9/97Assessor’smapsImprovementLocationSurveyofEmpireEstatesdated7/17/89(BUDProjectNo.FHANo.127-10515)Aerialmapofquarry(labeledas“Exhibit1”bycourtreporter)Aerialmapofquarry(labeledas“Exhibit2”bycourtreporter)Aerialmapofquarry(labeledas“Exhibit3”bycourtreporter)
BLACKRIVERQUARRY-L$9G31$OPage-1$ExhibitNo.17ExhibitNo.18ExhibitNo.19ExhibitNo.20ExhibitNo.21ExhibitNo.22ExhibitNo.23ExhibitNo.24ExhibitNo.25ExhibitNo.26ExhibitNo.27ExhibitNo.2$ExhibitNo.29ExhibitNo.30SubTerra,Inc.landslidehazardreport,dated2/5/99Finalreportonblast-monitoringprogramforStonewayCorporation/BlackRiverQuarrydatedAugust14,1998,preparedbySubTerra,Inc.LetterdatedJune15,1989,fromGolderAssociates,Inc.,tofirstCityDevelopmentCorporationregardingValleyViewApartmentprojectbuildingsetbacksfromthesouthpropertyboundaryResumeofDr.ChrisBreedsCopyofe-mailtransmittedAugust5,1998,fromGailDykkesten’stoKenGrubbs,RandySandinandMarkCareyMemorandumdatedJune15,1998,fromDennisKadlecektoKarenregardingStonewayConcreteNoticeandOrderdatedAugust5,1996,issuedtoStonewayRock&RecyclingLetterdatedAugust8,1996,fromDavidHalinentoKennethDinsmore(DDES)LetterdatedAugust1,1997,fromRandySandin(DDES)toGaryMerlino(StonewayConcrete)LetterdatedOctober13,1997,fromRandySandin(DDES)toDickHarrington(StonewayRockandRecycling)LetterdatedNovember10,1997,fromDickHarrington(Stoneway)toRandySandin(DDES)LetterdatedJanuary20,1998,fromRandySandin(DDES)toDickHarrington(Stoneway)DDESCorrectionNotice,datedSeptember22,1998LetterdatedJanuary15,1999,fromDouglasDobkins(DDES)toGaryMerlinoThefollowingexhibitswereofferedandenteredintothehearingrecordMarch15,1999:ExhibitNo.31ExhibitNo.32ExhibitNo.33ExhibitNo.34ExhibitNo.35ExhibitNo.36ExhibitNo.37ExhibitNo.38ExhibitNo.39ExhibitNo.40ExhibitNo.41ExhibitNo.42ExhibitNo.43ExhibitNo.44ExhibitNo.45ExhibitNo.46ExhibitNo.47DeclarationofLeslieSinclairdatedMarch11,1999LetterfromvacatingEmpireEstatestenantdatedJuly1,1998KarenSkold’s12/6notes(3pages)(7/23)MessageforKarenSkold(fromanofficeemployee)KarenSkold’snotes,dated7/17/97KarenSkold’snotes(12/19)KarenSkold’snotificationthatshetelephonesKenGrubbs(7/9/96)KarenSkold’snotes,dated7/16/96KarenSkold’snotes,dated8/8/96KarenSkold’snotes,dated8/28/96and8/29/96KarenSkold’snotes,dated3/4/97FaxtransmittedJune25,1997,fromMcCallumRockDrilling,Inc.toEmpireEstates,Attn:KarenFaxtransmittedJuly3,1997,fromMcCallumRockDrilling,Inc.toEmpireEstates,Attn:KarenMessagenotestoKarenSkold,dated7/7/97LetterdatedNovember12,1997,fromKarenSkoldtoD.Merlino(Stoneway)KarenSkold’snotes,dated7/29/96LetterdatedAugust23,1998,fromBRCAcousticstoBrianLawlerreSoundLevelMeasurementsatEmpireEstates
BLACKRIVERQUARRY-L89G3180Page-19ExhibitNo.48LetterdatedOctober13,1998,fromBRCAcousticstoBrianLawlerreAdditionalSoundLevelMeasurementsatEmpireEstatesExhibitNo.49ResumeofJerryG.LillyExhibitNo.50faxtransmissioncoversheet,withattachments,datedAugust29,1996,fromJerryG.LillytoDickHarrington(Stoneway)ExhibitNo.51LetterdatedSeptember26,1996,fromJerryG.LillytoStonewayRock&Recycling(Attn:DickHarrington)reEnviromnentalNoiseMeasurementsExhibitNo.52Faxtransmissioncoversheet,withattachments,datedNovember30,1996,fromJerryG.LillytoDickHarrington(Stoneway)ExhibitNo.53LetterdatedSeptember20,1997,fromJerryG.LillytoStonewayRock&Recycling(Attn:DickHarrington)reEnvironmentalNoiseMeasurementsPreliminaryAnalysisExhibitNo.54figure1.AmbientNoiseMeasurementsatPosition1(includesallnoisesources)-attachmenttoJGLAcoustics,Inc.’sSeptember20,1997,letterExhibitNo.55figure1A.Pre-testAmbientNoiseatPosition1(enlargementofattachmenttoJGLAcoustics,Inc.’sSeptember20,1997,letter)ExhibitNo.56figure1-3QuarryNoiseatPositionI(enlargementofattachmenttoJGLAcoustics,Inc.’sSeptember20,1997,letter)ExhibitNo.57figure1C.QuarryNoiseatPositionI(back-upbeepersdeletedfromdata)(enlargementofattachmenttoJGLAcoustics,Inc.’sSeptember20,1997,letter)ExhibitNo.5$LetterdatedMay21,1998,fromJerryG.LillytoFredWhitefromLillyExhibitNo.59LetterdatedAugust1,1998,fromJerryG.LillytoStonewayRock&Recycling(Attn:DickHarrington)ExhibitNo.60LetterdatedFebmaiy5,1999,fromJerryG.LillytoDavidHalinenreLetterReportsfromBruckRichardsChaudiere,Inc.ExhibitNo.61fig.8-2SummaryofAnnoyancedatafrom12surveyswithdatashowingcloseagreement(chartentitled“ClusteringSurveys’)ThefollowingexhibitswereofferedandenteredintothehearingrecordApril27,1999:ExhibitNo.62LetterdatedMarch16,1999,fromBrianLawlertoExaminer,DavidHalinen,andCherylCarlsonwithattachedEPARegion10NoiseProgram(NoiseGuidelinesforEnvironmentalImpactStatements)ExhibitNo.63IntroductiontotheSensitiveAreasMapFolioExhibitNo.64Aerialphotographwithattachedacetatemarkedinseveralcolorsillustrating1997recyclingprocessExhibitNo.65LetterdatedSeptember24,1997,fromDonaldMerlino(Stoneway)toEmpireEstates(Attn:KarenSkold)ExhibitNo.66LetterdatedOctober2,1997,fromDavidHalinentoDDES(Attn:RandySandin)ExhibitNo.67LetterdatedOctober13,1997,fromRandySandin(DDES)toDickHarringtonExhibitNo.68LetterdatedMarch10,199$,fromDavidHalinentoDDES(Attn:RandySandin)withenclosedexamplesofvariousnoticeformsExhibitNo.69Annotatedassessor’mapshowingsiteandareawithin1/2mile-preparedbyBarghausenEngineeringinMarch1998ExhibitNo.70Descriptiveindexoffilecontainingdataincluding19987-dayand24-hournoticestoEmpireEstatesExhibitNo.71folderwithdatasupportingExhibitNo.70
‘IBLACKRIVERQUARRY-L89G3180Page-20ExhibitNo.72SupplementalbufferrevegetationplanExhibitNo.73KingCountyDevelopmentConditionQueryResults;Post-ConversionCondition:SO-060(effectiveAugust18,1997)ExhibitNo.74StatementdescribingoperationsonBlackQuarryletterheadreferencingGradingFlie#1112-34(3-15-77handwrittenontop)ExhibitNo.75DepartmentofBuildingConditionsforGradingPermit#1112datedMarch24,1971ExhibitNo.76StonewayConcreteOperationandMaintenancePlanforContaminantControlEquipment(submittedtoPSAPCA)ExhibitNo.77InspectionlogkeptbyStonewayforemanEllis(entriesfromJanuary1996throughDecember1996)ExhibitNo.78NoticeofViolation(verypoorqualityexhibit)ExhibitNo.79LetterdatedJune4,1990,fromRichardGribbon(PSAPCA)toDickHarrington(Stoneway)reNoticeofViolation#26877andCorrectiveActionExhibitNo.80LetterdatedJune19,1990,fromRichardHarrington(Stoneway)toRichardGribbon(PSAPCA)ExhibitNo.81PSAPCANoticeofViolationdatedAugust14,1990ExhibitNo.82LetterdatedSeptember7,1990,fromRichardHarrington(Stoneway)toRichardGribbon(PSAPCA)advisingPSAPCAofcorrectiveactionstakenExhibitNo.83PSAPCANoticeandOrderofCivilPenaltyissuedOctober24,1990ExhibitNo.84LetterdatedNovember2,1990,fromWeBrown(Stoneway)toAnitaFrankel(PSAPCA)requestingremissionandlormitigationofpenaltyleviedExhibitNo.85CopyoffaxcoversheetmessagedatedDecember11,1990,fromWeBrown(PSAPCA)toStonewayConcreteExhibitNo.$6ConsentOrderandAssuranceofDiscontinuancepreparedbyPSAPCAExhibitNo.87LetterdatedDecember5,1990,fromWeBrown(Stoneway)toAnitaFrankel(PSAPCA)reimpositionof2-yearprobationExhibitNo.8$ProposedformofConsentOrdersubmittedbyStonewayExhibitNo.$9ExecutedConsentOrderandAssuranceofDiscontinuance(January7,1991)ExhibitNo.90LetterdatedJanuary8,1991,fromRonaldBusby(PSAPCA)toDonMerlino(Stoneway)concludingNoticeandOrderofCivilPenalty#7296matterExhibitNo.91NoticeofViolationNo.27854andCorrectiveActiondatedJuly25,1991,issuedbyPSAPCAExhibitNo.92PSAPCAComplianceStatusReportdatedJune13,1996ExhibitNo.93LetterdatedJune1$,1996,fromRichardHarrington(Stoneway)toRichardGribbon(PSAPCA)ExhibitNo.94LetterdatedAugust29,1996,fromRichardPogers(PSAPCA)toMcCallumDrillingandStonewayRock&RecyclingExhibitNo.95LetterdatedSeptember4,1996,fromRichardMcCallumtoPSAPCA(Attn:RichardPogers)ExhibitNo.96LetterdatedSeptember10,1996,fromRichardHarrington(Stoneway)toRichardPogers(PSAPCA)ExhibitNo.97LetterdatedDecember10,1996,fromNealShulman(PSAPCA)toStonewayRock&Recycling(Attn:RichardHarrington)reDispositionofNoticeofViolationNo.35359ExhibitNo.98PSAPCAComplianceStatusReportdatedOctober8,1996ExhibitNo.99Sheetwith$photographsofsitetakenbyCharlesHarringtonNovember6,1996,March5,1997,andOctober8,1997
BLACKRIVERQUARRY-L89G3180Page-21ExhibitNo.lOOLetterdatedfebruary3,1999,fromDouglasDobkins(DDES,SiteDevelopmentSpecialist)toGaryMerlino(Stoneway)ExhibitNo.lOlAPSAPCApublicationwithexcerptsfromRegulationIandAgencyPolicyonfugitiveDustControlsThefollowingexhibitswereofferedandenteredintothehearingrecordApril29,1999:ExhibitNo.l02ProjectcommentsbyDougDobkinsdatedMarch16,1999,forBlackRiverQuarryExhibitNo.103SheetwithfourphotographstakenAugust24,1998,byDougDobldnsfromweighthouseofprocessingequipmentonRentonProcessingpropertyExhibitNo.104PhotographtakenAugust24,199$,byDougDobkinslookingnorthfromweighthouse(Stonewayproperty)ExhibitNo.105PhotographtakenbyDougDobkinsAugust24,1998,fromStonewayparkinglotlookingtowardRentonProcessingpropertyExhibitNo.lO6Close-upphotographofRentonProcessingequipmenttakenbyDougDobkinsAugust24,1998ExhibitNo.107BlackRiverQuarryGradingPermitRenewalApplicationInformationsubmittedbyMr.LawlerExhibitNo.108KarenSkoldJuly10,1997,notesExhibitNo.109KenGmbbsDecember18,1995,inspectionnotesforBlackRiverQuarryExhibitNo.110KenGrubbsDecember20,1995,inspectionnotesforBlackRiverQuarry’(‘numberreserved)ExhibitNo.IllPacketofinspectionnotesforperiodofDecember1989tofebruary1998obtainedfromCountyfilesExhibitNo.1l2DeclarationofShellyZelirnerdatedApril23,1999ExhibitNO.113DeclarationofLloydR.PetersondatedApril27,1999ThefollowingexhibitswereofferedandenteredintothehearingrecordMay28,1998:ExhibitNo.114ResumeofBruceMcCroryExhibitNo.115LetterdatedJanuary30,1997,fromBruceMcCrorytoKenGrubbs(KC)ExhibitNo.116LetterdatedApril22,1997,fromBruceMcCrory(Barghausen)toKenGrubbs(DDES)ExhibitNo.117UpdatedrevegetationplanExhibitNo.118StonewayRock&Recycling’sstipulatedSupplementalKingCountyGradingPermitsConditionsforStonewayportionoftheBlackRiverQuartyJune28,1998ExhibitNo.1J9Setofinspectionlogentriesform1989-1992ExhibitNo.120KenGrubbsinspectionnotesDecember18,1995,andDecember20,1995ExhibitNo.121Inspectionlognotesfromfebruary13,1998,andFebruary17,1998,byManuelaWintersExhibitNo.122InspectionnotesdatedMarch19,199$ExhibitNo.123BlackRiverQuarryPeriodicReviewL89G3180(FredWhite)ExhibitNo.124Packetofcorrespondence(3/96-8/98)betweenEmpireEstates/CountyExhibitNo.125DeclarationofFarleyKesslerExhibitNo.126LetterdatedNovember21,1990fromCurtHomer(Seattle-KingCountyHealthDept.)
BLACKRIVERQUARRY-L$9G3180Page-22toRoyRichards(Towne,Richard&Chaiudiere)SLS:dazMisc’L$9JL$9G3180rpt
.
2b{O3iiOOOlS 1&81133
.::
CITYbF RENTON CITY OF RENTON APPROVAL:RECORDING NO.I VOL /PAGE•:•:•DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS
.•:/LUA—O3—124-LA CIW OF RENTON PLANNING/$UILDING/
•:‘•
•••:;:•:;PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT EXAM:NED AND AEPRADED DAIS IL DAD DF1tWL__.2Dat
_____________________________________________________________
•:‘
•
,:LXflJNLD M APFNDNDD DS j DNA AD M4!kk 75 04 -.:•.•:LND—30—0273 —---ASSSSO!.SCALE.t mcii =DAD Ft.LJJLtIEI I I I
•-41eu <&Ui i.&V9 IMIe4ttMAfl tL0L44t j4,wt A AD ADD DAD ADO 5 A
DECLArAi o OF Lit LINE I[55tJ .lEN’CS DLI U AS..)D PORTION OF
SRSCULLC DDh9I ImIc bI s h by()C AE s 1/2 S13 T 23 N R 4 E WV
..:I.SOl’I’S hAl ‘1 P the qwner Al lie DDdS sIJSecI Q the lot tIDeI:..OdJASImDDID Dh IDrth herein,çb)mAkes hA ADDDAS lot lice
cdjAslment54b lhoSilAndS os.telIâilh .heicie ocd{c)impAses STATE OF WASHINGTOR )SR 900 L L C LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTIplhpllesmtpbTtbodsbsT)AlLot ogoplco or 5Jr IA I-lAth II cm I COUNTYOrKING )S 1/2 513 T 23 N R 4E WM
SR TOO LID A I Sl I Ily that I ho w bch sohslcct r Ac cc lh I 0154SF
limited liAbility CAmpIlDy •::•AFPhlhS !N 15e peSsii:AhsCnrroArod helArF.4oe cod AekAcNledqedDIShs5redho‘et J’QhthSTOtdthth ws04Go4MdOd114010(tAll d{el lh flStb&londAckrswhdsed 4remityTIASINA.l:3/o/d S/h/To.its men,5i S°lrjslee.fil Cd.RY .1 AND SlY.SA:4,l MER4JJG FAMILY ThLOT
4:;Li._
NC I /4/0 A//oL Is C055 4 qcoooew ol N 50
L r çy 44 hSW ml d I hh1tvt cpa y to hrtA-t
Ry__.:ArdyAIun1ory Ftt ol suchdlmTéS lióhilily coman t&lhe AS9:.
C I I S I 1 p p co rr to ccl 41 INtAWADI DETERMINATION
T 4 d iNC-N-CA—————ON THE OASIS OF THE NFPALSrNTATI0NS IIEREOT SUNMIHED THE CITY
Rh j)fflXT.RSCee’Jh.&.LShO...-.ii ....-CF RENPOS AOMINISPPATOA OF THE 5EPAHTMETIS OF PLANNING/NUILDINS/DionDe MDII1SA.TrAslee -...——...fl_.h-..FYRLIC WDAES SOLOS lAS APPNOATD THIS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ND,,A OH 0 LOA—03—124 LEA ONSEN TIlE PROAIAIONS OF CHAP ER 7 OF TITLE 4
Ny D Id J d J P M I —I my PabI c .i.a.e..°s OF TIlE NESTS I MUNICIPAL CODE
EmlyT IN lO//dN/T/ND tnmembe A&1_o;.5 F
My
App I ml E p nh)T tü A M
SI A M I T I STATE OF WA5HINDTON )11,sA ATIIINISTNATOT OF PLANNITD/NTIISISC/I SELL AUNES DEPT DATE
)ns.---s -.0
.0 •‘-;•COUNTY OF KING )--.0 .0 -..0Ay-.0:.....•0
-
II 31 I Sit I llylhtlko ho slslole.5eden IPTSkALN TPATA
AMERLINDsIh p Aowh ppeareabl emead
ckowldNdlhlh gaedth TAm to Aethstated NADDLLC A H 5A Inddl bltycausp p heebpdeola SthathewonaAthor:aed to enecute the irntrAment and ocknoAledaed 0 Tract Aa denoted An his EsI Lion Ad1Asl.meal to he o frail br open0ii‘I an a tranlee at DONALD u,AND JUAN P MERLINU FAMILY 9TTLO ood peeserAal:Ap:TI naIAD AeTetatAn nob1ecl to.
ACENOALFDCEMENTS TRUST ND 1 U/A/u 8/N/TO In In capn Ip 05 a member oTSRNDDLLCWaslnqloolmtedlcbllyampoyIbethe ()A m II th Clf IN toatlwngacl TDI02DIn0TSTATEOFWASHINGTON)I and ol lay not oT a oh Imled labI ly mp y I r lb wd I T ol I A A A ço croNy notTA—snAth d md An e d and.4 On.S .asen ond purposes mentioned in the instrumenT ecFony pAritEa oT •FrAcl A IwsiestatlAl:An.use,maintenance,IApAA.COUNEFDEKIND )
U’a 7TttcA_2co%ad No slot I I go dappT Aacenth eta ed
I ttylhtlkg ha tTnatoryed C tbutC r F (b)A mdda nh II IhebenttolLollAlth LotMENLINOintheperLdfr-who aTpeared belore me and asbhoated:)nd .z1%_b —
---.-------Line AdjAnlment oIIobTns.lhe:.anner(t)At Lot I aod their heirs.naccoanarn,
Thlhe N dlh Tmmet N lId hat hA-TI WOnp4 penooal Des Ttesdd to 10 tp oIl dl p1lbndtthntml4blbAeA500IosA42+1NbJ...........NaTnryPbC _-s 201 ted gee ly Oh—I thd Innalth lucoTA atolITGANSMANDUUIINWMIAERLINCFAIILYTNUTTAt—ol I Osdsh NT°WI mabaANSWSu INAule d(DRNDD)
ND 1 U/A/D 8/N/NT Is p lyon a membe ot N 850 Le17 ed III n m to and A ntrucl dl hen aed do ptiLLCAhTtImldlbllycompoptbNIteeMyAppImntFWdpprtosthIddthanstpblanddlatryttuchlmldlbltympylIAsendppmldthelmISTATEDFIIAyT.TTCT).A.Sb1 It tht I m ADam tadthat nemddonaNe005nment
Tn I gwthpT In osmnl(NDPE)nhebympndupon
CUONTYOFEI 5 T lAt psN teeolloondl thuttt I
Doled -—F ::t:..-..-.neIer end erosion,maintenAnce ol slope stabilty,and ainual ond aaral
acL7VL Zbite—__s..—.nptso,1.
——EKJb
ii bun —ha
ea ea b
a°LIt MICNAL j tb NT h N 0 We gett
I I
w lb the NDPE at
U lj,tholhengedlh notml 50bIIcdIblh P tla P ntlnpemsanutltsClyubN a ThnNobpPabIauthdtoIIhIlNbrmeIdcAbleANa°t as p oh b I oh II be e I cnable bp Ihe C ly at Rentoa Eecept as05-lot TDONALDJ ANDJOANP MErLyIUFAIIILYIEUT r ddt oh e the ee(s)oIT tAmp Tot p
ND lU/A/DO/N/ND I p Ipu mmbe ISI1TOU eLhTll m u dmT th NIIonelh IpudedAweerIIyAppnlmeIEpres°LEE W Agt ImId I blty mp 5 1 b th bha5lAT Ann Lu)my slai Iaodcapng wlb I
O14’.and uoluntory nut ol ouch I m:lnd liobililp cdiHpcnp..PULINe •1 .5’
ACENDWLEAGMENIS(Id IrIm)an dp pssm I d Ihe out ml
Oil 1N _2tCj.
N I ry PubI5pJ —
‘
_
,JLLAL.5HEArTrnIEp
F r\000u5oena5 us 55 \TOTTILA1A0 eM/lw-Al/Do C SAd be
RECOROER S CERTIFICATE 2cO4D3\Y30IS LANO SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE 1 218 .SR 900 L L C
FILED EON RECORD THIS (1 DAY OF Mar a04 THIS LUT LINE ADJUSTMENT CORRECTLY N ES N S KENT NA 98032
DJTh /
-LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
AT LoS PM IN NODE ....OF lie9 AT pADEI33AT sueKealulnn lb CUNFURMhNCE WITH THE NEQUI0EMENTD 0 -.j )425)2S1—b222
-‘‘
.:‘
DE THE ApFn008IATE S ATE AND CTI NE?STA ATE AND -4—rn I47SI251 878T FAX -n
_______________________________________________________
THE NEOMEDT DF NATCIIAS EN CSNSULTING CnDINECnD,INC.URDINANCC IN DEC 1 OF 2 3 A ..,DIes.es NATE -...JOT NU --
IjIiililailpj“4.Iliar!!z!hhl
D—3C—O273 N
CUR /4 CflR
/3-23-46 /3 27-4C W E
.‘
.V -/(C or RrUT0O
--
-.
9 ——
—
)t0 C,
I
0400
9 643ocr ‘‘--‘‘
.‘..
..‘--
‘.
=200
/00
3
CLU200Ol2R’2’L
,
603 L%46
-.0 I\-.
.,4 0600905 401CR flS (9)MC R6 .....08 .‘‘‘4 ,‘
—YoR 16 =,,A -C “
,‘
S
LOT I tc5)
960 I 1437131 SF
.,
.‘5(2626±00915)
..‘
4..-’—-.39L0,6
.
-
607 U’CC[E”
-—-——--
-1,/4
--
.460 660C
——
—
—60260’
————-‘
-“
208O.
,.-....-....-
06 20
‘,.51 k0 :‘
03 ‘
56
-...
.,1
4 ———-.-
,,
—.,9 —4
.
03
..——
.
,2 N .‘9
yc0 4290
5i82903203
975 -
(57 99455554036RR4R 037 “.
I0I4455flj lOt 2
.
S
Cl 10041 12±303 617Cr ...
.
4±5Cl51064102951161103
.
...1 .
‘‘
CR 71003 l7I4i4’1 .:
tO 270’109800 40445 ‘I’1Z4’’
....
4’...
-
-
--‘
-s0 931 ----
-
__j/’CR
323 C 2±93 713NOTE.COlt
C:
‘
40,lll%EUI l854 (ROTATION ANGLE GG0o’TN’RIGHT)
....
.(_.......
18215 72)’RN •,.‘1 SR 900 ..
,KENT,WA
Ut GOUT))
‘-“LOT LINE ADJUS1MENT
t425)22
-‘(425)251-6782 FAX LUA-03124 ,
CC 6NtE 600 27328 OWN 03 ,306 NO
2±2±T04418t9±SC2±E5 Cl5tC PCW 1222-O3 $
CURD OS SCALE 2 SHEET
647099 02—95 06 OJS 1”200’3 ‘O 3
KCDDESPERI’HT/FILE#NAMEADuRESS
-
---S.Z.
II/iI---S/I//
PROPOSEDTOPOGf?APHYiii;.3EYH/5/r“8”BLACKRiVERQOARRYlN..__z—-zIPECLAMAT/ONPLANS/3/I/’S/,AS5UC////LS/,,‘?EXISTINGtOPOGRAPHY(/970)ropoDATABYWALKTj’/SOCIATs,5’CAL“/00’PHorr30/1T/11070PROPERTYLINESBELILVEDTOBEACCURATEBUTNOTGUARANWRFAtMINEPERMIT/O24‘TEL0.////
10P0PATAYWAiKEF?ASSOCIATES3CAI1/00PHOTOOATE11/070EXISTINGTOPOGRAPHY(/970)fl__o_LuUUS