Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppealPost-rraxNote7671[oats10IPtnPint234OFFICEOFTHEHEARINGEXAMINERKINGCOUNTY,WASHINGTON567)INREAPPEALOPWEBLACKRIVER)DDESFileNo.L8903120SQUARRYPERIODICREVIEW)DECISION)KINGCOUNTY’SREPLYTO•)APPELLANT’SRESPONSETOKING)COUNTY’SPRE-HEARINGMOTIONTO)DISMISSAPPELLANT’SASSIGNMENT)OFERRORRESEPAREVIEW)12)1314)15KingCountysubmitsthisreplytoPreferredFinancialCorporation’s,J/b/aEmpireEstates16Aparunents(“EmpireEstates”),Response’toKingCounty’spie-hearingmotiontodismiss11appellant’sassignmentoferrorreSEPAreviewasfollows.IS1920‘Appellant’sresponsivebriefcontainsnumerousfactualassertionswhollyunsupportedbyany21evidemiaryauthorityorcitation.Assuch1Appellant’srelianceonIJM]lv.EngerCjn4r_,Cp.,15Wu.App.511,550P.2d692(1976)ismisplaced.flfflinvolvedmotionstodismisswhich22challengedthesufficiencyofevidencepresentedbyplaintiffatthat.Here,incontrast,noevidencehasbeensubmittedbyEmpireEstateswhosefactualassertions,intheabsenceofany23evidenfiarysupport,amounttomererhetoric.2425KINGCOUNTY’SREPLYTOAPPELLANT’SRESPONSETOKINGCOUNTY’SPRE-HEARINGMOTIONTODISMISSAPPELLANT’Savn.rnvmxoNASSIGNMENTOFERRORRESEPAREVIEW-1£550KingCotflyCcathuu&cStale,Wahlngton98104-2312(206)296-9015FAX(206)296.0191 ITheperiodicreviewundertakenbyDDESinthismatterwascategoricallyexenptfrom2SEPArequirements.Sincecategoricallyexemptactionsdonotrequireenvironmentalreview,EmpireEstates’assignmentoferrorpertainingtoSEPAfindsnosupportineitherthestatuteitselfortheSEPAmiesandappellant’sAssignmentofErrorNo.Ishouldbedismissed.56Additionally,AssignmentofErrorNo.1isnotappropriatelybeforetheExaminerwhosejurisdictiontoreviewSEPAissuesislimitedtotheconsideringproceduralappealsofthresholdSdeterminationsortheadequacyofafinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement(flS’•)neitherofwhichisinvolvedinthiscase.IntheabsenceofeitherstatutoryorCode-basedauthorityto10reviewEmpireEstates’SEPAissue,theassignmentoferrorpeflainingtoSEPAmustbeIidismissed.12A.TbeyedodlcRevlewotØeBIacçRiverOuarryIsExemptfrom13SEPAEcvIewandEplreEstes’$EPACJaimSho4tbe14isContrarytoEmpireEstates’contentions.SEPAreviewwasnotrequiredeitherbythe16smiuteoritsinterpretiveroles,orbycountyregulatoryrequirements.Rather,theperiodicreviewoftheBlackRiverQuarry(“BRQ”)wasconductedconsistentlywiththeSEPAstatuteandrolesandwithcountypolicyaddressingthepossibleenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwithexwactiveVI20miningoperations.Appellant’scitationofeasesespousingSEPA’spolicyunderpinningsappearstobeirrelevantatbestandobflscatoryatworst.SEPA’sunderlyingpolicyobjectivesarenot22challenged;rather,theDepartmentmerelymaintainsthatundertbsclearmandateoftheanxtt23MruleRnrgmiiIiate4toi4ewrcti,$gpArevicwistreauiredberg.2425KINGCOUNTY’SREPLYTOAPPELLANT’SRESPONSETOJUNGCOUNTY’SPRE-HEARINGNormMalengMOTIONTODISMISSAPPELLANT’SCML,DIVISIONASSIGNMENTOPERRORRESEPAREVIEW-2E550KthjCowtyCouflhOflaScoiNt,WashEzjon91104-2312(206)296-9015PAX(20)296-0191 SEPArequirementsforenvironmentalreviewarenottriggeredbyallgovernmentalaction.2SEPAreviewistriggeredby“proposalsforlegislationandothermajoractionshavingaprobablesignificant,adverseenvfromnentalimpact.”RCW43.21C.031(emphasisadded).Theperiodicreviewprocess,whichwillnotresultintheissuanceofanyadditionalpermitsorlicenses,butS6whichmayresultinfurtherconditioningofalreadyapprovedminingpractices,isnotthetypeof7activitythatwouldconstituteamajoractionormeetthestatutorypredicateforSEPAreview.SInstead,theperiodicreviewprocessisaninspectionactivityexpresslyexemptedfromSEPAreview.WAC19741-800(13).ActionswhicharecategoricallyexemptfromSEPAreviewarejustthat:exempt.Assuch,SEPAreviewwasnotundenthnherebecauseitwasnotrequiredundertheexpressauthorityofthestatuteandtheSEPAndes.1213EmpireEstatesarguesinitsresponseforjustthetypeofcase-by-case,“asapplied”reviewofcategoricalexemptionsexplicitlyrejectedbytheWashingtonSupremeCourtinDioxisin/Organocblprinc.Centerv.PollutionControlfleariug&Board,131Wn2d345,932P2d1586(1997).UndertheauthorityofDioxinJOruanocfflprinç,acategoricallyexemptactionisnot17subjecttofurtherreviewtodeterminewhethertheactioninfactmayhaveapotentiallysignificantIsadverseimpactontheenvironmentandthusbesubjecttoSEPAreview,Infact,thestatutory192alanguageemphasizedsovehementlybyappellantinsupportofitsargumentistheverylanguagethatwasatissueinthejojdn/Organochlorinecase;namely,thatcategoricalexemptionsare“a22typeofaction,specifiedinthesemica,whichdoesnotsignificantlyaffecttheenvirownent,”23WAC197-11-720.‘flDioxi&Ornnoch1Qqçcourtdeclinedtointerpretthatlanguageso102425KINGCOUNTY’SREPLYTOAPPEllANT’SRESPONSETOKINGCOUNTY’SPRE-HEARINGNormMatengMOTIONTODISMISSAPPELLANT’SASSIGNMENTOPERRORRESEPAREViEW.35550KIngCawuyConitboweSeatti:,W&ilngthn95104-2312(206)296-9015FAX(206)296-0L91 Iallowactionsotherwisecategoricallyexempttobechallengedonthegroundsthattheywouldinfactsignificantlyaffecttheenvironment.131Wn2d345.EmpireEstates’demandthatthe3Examinerundertakethetypeofpiecemealchallengeofactionsotherwiseexemptedunderanenumeratedcategoricalexemptionislegallyinsupportableandshouldberejected.6EmpireEstatesalsoarguesthatSEPA’senforcementandinspectionexemptiondoesnotapplytotheperiodicreviewprocessbecause“[n]olicenseshallbeconsideredexemptbyvirtue8ofthissubsection.”WAC197-11-800(13).Theargumentismisplaced.TheperiodicreviewofexwactiveminingoperationsundertheauthorityofKCC21A.22M50isnotintendedtoterminate10intheissuanceofalicensetoengageinortocontinuetoengageinsuchoperations.Moreover,ILtotheextentthatEmpireEstateschallengestheCounty’sadoptionofapolicyinitsComprehen1213sivePlanwhichexpresslyprovidesthattheperiodicreviewprocessis“intendedtoheapanof14KingCounty’songoingenforcementandinspectionsofmineralresourcesites,andnottobeapartisoftheCounty’spermittingprocess,”suchachallengeisinappropriateinthecontextofthiscase16andshouldhavebeenbroughtattheLimetheCountywasconsideringanddeliberatingthe17adoptionoftheComprehensivePlan.EmpireEstatesitselfacknowledgesthattheperiodicreview15process“involvesthereviewofaminingsite’sactivitiesforcompliancewithcurrentstandards1920andthepossibleimpositionofconditionstothegradingpermittomitigateidentifiable21environmentalimpacts.”ResponseBriefat8.SIncethetypeofadditionalconditionswhichmay22beimposedwouldbethosedesignedtomitigateenvhtnmefllimpacts,Itcannotbesaidthatthe23processisamajorgovernmentalactionwhichmayhavepotentialsignificantadverseimpacton2425KINGCOUNTY’SREPLYTOAPPELLANT’SRESPONSETOKINGCOUNTY’SPRPAIEARINGNormMalengMOTIONTODISMISSAPPELLANT’SASSIGNMENTOPERRORRESEPAREVIEW-4CountyCoudhouscSeaut,Wnhiogtc95104-2312(206)296-9015FAX(206)296-0191 1theenvironment.Assuch,theprocessdoesnotevenmeetthethresholdrequirementsfor2triggeringSEPAapplication-RCW43.ZLC.031.3Eveniftheperiodicreviewprocessinfactresultedintheissuanceofalicense,whichis4notthecase,therenewalofaregulatorylicense,suchasagradingpermitformIningoperations,S6isalsocategoricallyexemptfrontSEPAreview,solongastherehasbeennomaterialchangeinthescopeofoperations.WAC197-31-800(14).Here,anextensiveenvironmentalreviewwas&conductedbytheDepartmentinconjunctionwiththeissuanceofkgperiodicreviewdecision.Decision.p.15at¶3.ThereviewconfirmedthatextractiveoperationsattheBRQbadnotsignificantlychangedinscopesincetheunderlyinggradingpermitwasissuedandsincethe11thresholddeterminationoftheoperationswasmadein1977.flWAC197-11-800(14)1213specificallydirectsthattherenewalorreissuanceofalicenseregulatinganypresentactivityis14categoricallyexemptfromSEPAsolongasnomaterialchangesareinvolved.Thus,whileSEPAureviewmaybeappropriateinsomecircumstances,intheabsenceofasignificantchangeinthe16scopeoftheBlackRiverQuarry’soperations,SEPAreviewwasnotrequiredInthisinstance.Inanefforttoavoidtheapplicationofthecategoricalexemptions,EmpireEstatesmakesthepeculiarsuggestionthatsomelicensesare“true”businessandregulatorylicenseswhileothers1920arenot.Fromthispremise,EmpireEstatesdrawstheequallycuriousconclusionthat“alicensetomovetonsofearthwiththepotentialenvimmnentalconsequencesofdoingso,isnota22‘businessorregulatory’license.TMResponseBriefat8.Insupportofthissingularargument,23EmpireEstatesonceagainreliesonthe“asapplied”theoryofcategoricalexemptionssoclearly2425KINGCOUNTY’SREPLYTOAPPELLANT’SRESPONSETOJUNGCOUNTY’SPRE-HEARINGMOTIONTODISMISSAPPELLANT’Scwurnisit7ASSIGNMENTOPERRORRESEPAREVIEW-5KhigCountyCowthouscSale,W’.Nngfr’t95104-2312(206)296-9015FAX(206)2964191 1rejectedintheDioxin/Organocbiorthccase.131Wii2d345.ThisargumentalsoreflectsEmpire2Estate?continuingmisapprehensionoftheendproductoftheperiodicreviewprocess;namely,3thattheprocesswillresultintherenewaloftheunderlyinggradingpermit--itwillnot,Theperiodicreviewprocesswillnot,andisnotintendedto,resultintherenewalofthegrading6permit.Theappellant’smisconceptionsandmisunderstandingsaboutwhattheperiodicreview2processisabout,fuelsitsoppositionam!underscoresthefallaciesinherentinitsarguments.Theprocessisnotdesignedorintendedtoyieldalicenseorlicenserenewal.Moreover,thatthelbunderlyingminingoperationsmayhavepotentiallysignificantadverseenvironmentalimpactsasiinotatissueforpurposesofdeterminingSEPAapplicability;rather,theprpperSEPAquestionis1213whethertheactionoftheagency,assumingitisnotcategoticaliyexempt,willhavepotentialsignificantadverseenvirotanentalimpacts.EmpireEstatesconfusesUtunderlyingmining15operationswiththeDepartment’sCode-authorizedperiodicreviewofthoseoperations.Itisthis16confusionwhichisreflectedintheappellant’sstatementthat,“ftJoallowsuchanexemptionwouldallowthisactivity[i.e.,theminingoperations],whichhasobviouspotentialforadverse18environmentalconsequencestocontinueindefinitelywithoutenvironmentalreview,”Response1920Briefat9(emphasisadded).Theperiodicreviewprocessitself,evenifitwerenotsoclearly21exempt&omSEPAasanenforcementandinspectionactivity,isnotanactivitywbichhasthe22potentialforadverseenvironmentalconsequencesasappellantmistakenlysuggests.232425KINGCOUNTY’SREPLYTOAPPELLANT’SRESPONSETOKINGCOUNTY’SPRE-1JEARINGMOTIONTODISMISSAPPELLANT’Sivi’DTviONASSIGNMENTOPERRORRBSEPAREVIEW-65550KthCounty(owlhmntSeattle.Washbgton95104-2312(‘206)296401SFAX(206)296-0191 Notably,eventhoughtheperiodicreviewprocessisitselfexemptfromSEPAreview,it2jaccuratetosuggest,asappellantdoes,thattheBRQoperationshavebeenallowedtoescape3anyenvironmentaloversight.ContrarytoEmpireEstates’allegations,theDepartment’speriodic4reviewprocesssubjectedtheBRQtoextensiveenvironmentalscwfinyAdditionally,thereview56processItselfwasanythingbut“subjective”and“adhoc”withrespecttoitsconsiderationof7environmentalimpacts.Infact,theDepartmentconsideredeachofthespecificenvironmentalSconsiderationsenumeratedinRL411,includingairquality,environmentallysensitiveandcriticalareai,noiselevels,vibrationandsoon.WhileSEPAreviewwasnotrequired,suchfactorswereconsideredbythebepartmentinthecourseofitsextensiveinspectionoftheBRQoperationUduringthecourseoftheperiodicreview.1213Finally,theperiodicreviewprocessisnotasegmentofaproposalwithinthemeaningofWAC197-i1-305(1)(h)Ø).Appellantagainmistakenlyassertsthata“licenserenewaFisatissue15here;itisnot.ThecasesrelieduponbyAppellanttotheeffectthatrenewalsarenotinandof16themselvesexemptfromSEPAarethereforeinapposite.217B.7heRearingtzmingr’gSEPAReviewAutho4yBpji’byState18YawandtbtftoybipnsçftheCo419TheExaminerhasnojurisdictiontoreviewadeterminationthattheperiodicreview20processiscategoricallyexempt.EmpireEstates’relianceona“generalpo11cyvunderlying21211isworthnotingthatAppellant’saccusationsthattheDepartmentissanetloningsomesortof“progressivedegradation”Ignoresboththefactsofthesubjectoperationandticverynature23ofextractivemineraloperations.2425ICINGCOUNTY’SREPLYTOAPPELLANT’SRESPONSETOJUNGCOUNTY’SPRE-HEARINGNornbleugMOTIONTODISMISSAPPELLANT’SCIVILDIVISIONASSIGNMENTOFERRORRESEPAREVIEW-7tCountyCeflxseSnEfir.W%hin5*on98104-2312(206)296-9U1VAX(206)296-0L91 11jyjjjij.sntjvereviewisinappositeUtthefactofexpressjurisdictionallimitationsonthescopeof2theExaminer’sreview.TheExaminer’sauthoritytoreviewSEPAdeterminationsislimitedtothatauthorizedbytheKingCountyCode.TheCodeprovidesthattheExaminerhasauthoritytoreviewprocedural56appealsofthresholddeterminationsortheadequacyofafinalEIS,neitherofwhichisinvolved-yInthiscase.TheCodedoesnotauthorizetheExaminertoconsideranappealofadecision8classifyinganactionascategoricallyexemptfromSEPAreview.Assuch,theExaminershoulddeclinetoconsiderEmpireEstates’assignmentoferrorregardingSEPAreview.TheCodeslimitationontheExaminer’sauthoritytoconsiderproceduralSEPAappeals11isconsistentwiththeprovisionsoftheSEPAivieslimitingthescopeofadministrativeappeaLs.12UndertheSEPAivies“[algenciesmaynotallowadministrativeappealsofdeterminationsconcerningwhether...aproposaliscategoricallyexempt.”Settle,TheWa2lungtonState15EnvironmentalPolicyAct;ALegaladPolicyAn1yis(Issue9,1997)at241--241-O.‘Moreover,an“interestedpartydisappointedwiththeexemptiondeterminationhasnoadministrativeappealandmustseekredressincourt”Iiat76RCW43.21CM75(I);WAC197-11-680(3)(a)(ü)and(iii);WAC197-11-68O(4)(a)Similarly,andèontrarytoEmpireEstates’1920suggestion,theDIoxIn/Oçganoehlorlnecaseclearlyindicatesthat,exceptinanarrowexception2122232425KINGCOUNTY’SREPLYTOAPPELLANT’SRESPONSETOKINGCOUNTY’SPRE-HEARINGNormMIengMOTIONTODISMISSAPPELLANT’Scivii.DIVISIONASSiGNMENTOPERRORRESEPAREViEW8£550KhicowityCowthouseSeat.Wnhlopm91104-2312(206)296’9015FAX(206)2964191 notapplicableher&,reviewoftheappropriatenessoftheapplicationofacategoricalexemption2isforthecourts.131Wn.2d345.NeitherSEPAnortheSEPARulesprovideforanadminisin3fiveappealofcategoricalexemptions.Achallengetoacategoricalexemptionmustgodirectly4tocourt.RCW43.Z1C.075(3)56EmpireEstates’relianceonKjiqnsç.Groupv.ClarkCounty,83Wu.App.133,920R2d1207(1996)ismisplaced.Kiewitdoesnotaltertheconclusionthatadetermination8concerningtheapplicationofacategoricalexemptionisnotsubjecttoadministrativeappeal.KiewitconcludedthatWAC197-ilk680(3)(a)(iii)wouldprecludeappealInanadministrative0agency,butnottoalocallegislativebody.Moreover,thej(iewitcourtbasedthisconclusionontheprovisionsofWAC197-11-680(2)whichallowsforappealtoalocallegislativebodyof“any1213decisionbyalocalnon-electedofficialconditioningordenyingaproposalunderauthorityofSEPt”SuchcircumstancesarenotpresenthereandKiewit.therefore,doesnotaftertheisjurisdictionalrestrictionsonExaminerreviewmandatedbothbytheSEPAriflesandtheCode.16Appellant’sclaimthattheDepartmentfailedtoundertakeathresholddeterminationissimplyincorrect.TheDepanmemissuedathresholddeterminationofnunsignificancein1977is19203InDjpjçin/OranocfflorineCenterv.Department.ofEcoloav,119Wn.2d76!,837P,2d100721(1992),theSupremeCourtheldthatthedoctrinesofexhaustionofadministrativeremediesandprimaryjurisdictionprecludedsuperiorcourtreviewoftheDOE’sdeterminationthatapplications22forcertainNationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem(NDPES)permitswerecategoricallyexemptuntilaftertheissuebadbeenappealedtothePollutionControlHearingsBoard(PCHB).23byDOEunderacategoricalexemption).2425KINGCOUNTY’SREPLYTOAPPELLANT’SRESPONSETOKINGCOONfl’SPRE-HEARINGMOTIONTODISMISSAPPELLANT’SCIVILDIVISIONASSIGNMENTOPERRORRESEPAREVIEW9£550KlnCoucnyCotwthoacaSeattle,WashIngton98104-2312(2%)296-9015F4X(2%)296.0191 IwhenthefirstSEPAevaluationwasconducted.Noadditionalthresholddetenninationwas2requiredforundertakingtheperiodicreviewprocess.3Fortheforegomgreasons,DDESaskstheExaminertoaffirmtheDepartment’sdecision4thatnoadditionalSEPAreviewwasrequiredunderthecircumstancesofthiscaseaMdismiss5EmpireEstates’AssignmentofErrorNo.IpertainingtoSEPAreview.7DAThDthis-dayofDecember,1998.RespectThllysubmitted,910NORMMALENGKingCountyProsecutingAttorney11.12By:__ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __CHERYLD.CAR1SON,WSBA#1984413SeniorDeputyProsecutingAttorney14AttorneysforKingCounty151617Is19202122232625KINGCOUNTY’SREPLYTOAPPELLANT’SRESPONSETOICINGCOUNTY’SPRE-HEARINGMOTIONTODISMISSAPPELLANT’ScivicOMSIONASSIGNMENTOFERRORRESEPAREVIEW-10E5SOXInCouaCmnlhouseScathe,Wnshlngwn98104-2312(206)2%-colsMx(ZC6)296-0191 0O2/018fO02$1/30/9816:59206296095511/30/98MON13:31LAX206682338412345PROSECL7FOROFFJCLawler&Burroughs,PCIsWOQpLAwtga&BURROUGHS,P.C4SFWflThAfl3tfl$9nOMtNJ1aant.wAstecowtaTaflp9P,.ws2O4)6fl4%l6OPPICSOFTHEHEARINGEXAMiNER7KINGCOUNTY,WASHINGTONB9DDE$FileNo.LS9QS183INREAPPEALOFBLACKRIVERP1EIElUEDFINANCIAL11QUARRYPERIODICREVIEWDECISIONCORP.’SRESPONSETOKINGILCOUNTY’S,STONEWAYROCK12ANDRECYCLING’SANDAMICUSCURIAE’S13PREHEARINGMOTIONS14———-- -15INTRODUCUON16PreferredFinancialCorporationd/b/aEmpireEstatesApartments.(“Empire17Estates”)herebyrespondstuKingCounty’s(the“CountyTM),StonewayRockand18Recycling’s(“Stoneway”)andAmicusCuriae’iPzeheañngMotionsasfollows:19FAgsStonewayRockandRecyclingoperatesaquarryandrecyclingfacilityonthe21propertyknownasBlackRiverQuarry(“theQuarry”).TheQuarrypropertyiszoned22IndustrialandOffice.Neitherzoneallowstheoperationofamlneraiextnctionor24processingfacility.TheQuarryisthereforeanonconformingextractiveoperationThe2526PREFERREDFINANCIALCORP.’SRESPONSETOICINGCOUNTYANDSTONEWAYROCKANDRECYCliNG’SPREHEARINGMOTIONTODISMISS- 11/30/0817:0002062960955FR0SCUTOROFFIC11/3D/SRMON13:51FAX2066S23SLawler&BurrdughsPCO031Quarryconsistsofapproximately32acesofopenmine,situatedbetweenresidentialpropertyandsensitiveareasalongtheDuwtmlshanRivers.TheactivItiescarriedoutonthepropertyIncludextenslvblasting.earthmovement,androckcnishing.Largemacbandothervehiclesenterandleavethesiteto6dumporhaulawaymaterials.TheumpireEstatesapartmentsarelocatedonresldentiliyzonedropextydirectlynorthoftheQuany.empireEstateshascbvelymonitortheQuarry’s9activitiesforthepastseveralyears,sincetheQuany’sactiviftsignificantiImpatheabilityoftheEmpireEstate’sresidentstoenjoytheirhomes.Apartmentresidentshave-12notedan(incrasedlevelcifctivItynrecentyearswithitsattendantincreasein13blasting,noiseanddustTheactualnUningofthesitehasalsoexpandedraniahcafly,14particrlyadjacenttotheapartments.15Nodetailedanalysisofthepotentialadverseenvironmentalimpactsofthissite1617haseverbeendone.Adeterminationofnonsignificance(“DNSjwasIssuedbytheCountyin1977basedupontheenvironmentalchecklistsubmittedatthattime.19Decisionat10.Thegradingpermithasbeencontinuouslyrenewedsincethattime.20Sincetheissuanceoftheoriginalpermit,KingCountyhasneverprovidedaformal21opportfltyforpublicinputuntilthecreationofthepetiodicreviewprocess.Afterreceivingnumerouscomplaintsandunderthreatofliftgafion,King23CountyDepartmentofDevelopmentandEnvironmentalServices(“DOBSIinitiateda2526LAWOflEOPIAWLERk&mRoUcas,P.CPREFERREDFINANCIALCORP.’SRESPONSETOAbaKINGCOUNTYANDSTONEWAYROCKANDRECYCLING’SPREKEARINGMOTIONTOPescs6fl.SflADISMISS- 004/018IjQ04periodicreviewoftheBlackRiverQuarry’soperatingpermitinearly1998.OnJuLy15,1998,DOESissuedaPeriodicReviewReportandDecision(“Decision”)pertainingtoagradingpermitissuedtoStonewayRockandRecyclingfortheBlackRiverQuarry.TheDirectorconsciouslychosenottoperformanySEPAanalysisincomingtohisdecision.Instead,theDirectorassertedthattheperiodicreviewprocessinvolvesmerelyalicenserenewalthatiscategoricallyexempt.TheDecisionalsoindicatesthattherehasbeennochangeinthescopeofworksincetheDeclarationofNon-significanceissuedin1977.Decisionatpage15.Intheirmotions,therespondentsalsotakethepositionthatperiodicreviewisanenforcementorinspectionactivityexemptfromSEPA.ISSUES1.WhetherDDSerredbynotundertakingaSEPAanalysisaspartofitsperiodicreviewprocess.\Ntlsj•va2.WhetherthehearingexaminerhasjurisdictiontoreviewtheDecisionforcompliancewithSEPA.Nit:kx—)&.ctwi+a.)WhethernonconformingextractWeoperationsareexemptfromapplicationoftheEnvironmentallySensitiveAreaReguLations.4.WhethertheDirectorisauthorizedtorequireperiodicnoisestudiestoensurecompliancewiththeCountynoiseordinances./At%fl)J.,cj11/30/9617:010208296095511)30/95MON13:51FAX206662584PROSECUTOROFFICLSwler&Burroughs,PC1234S678910111213141518.192021.2223242526PREFERREDfiNANCIALCORP.’SRESPONSETOKINGCOUNTYANDSTONEWAYROCKANDRECYCLING’SPREHEARINGMOTION:TODISMISS-sLAWQVEE0?LAwLz&BImROUGH$,P.C4?TintNFVI5TAThc’fltS99ThIWAflWU*SEAmS.WASRINOTC*4wQ067M24191Pnma(2067652-*M il/aO/9517:012o62960955PROSECUTOROFFIC005/01811/30,981ON13:32FAX2066820584Lawler&Burroughs.PCIDa5I3MENTANDLEC4LAIffHQRIfl3ThestandardfurreviewingmotionstodismisswassatedinHullii.EngerConstr.Ca,15Wn.App..511,513,550Plc!692(1976):5Suchmotionsadmitthetruthofappellant’sevidenceandaUinferencesreasonablydrawntherefromandrequiretheevidencetobeinterpreted6moststronglyagainstthemovingparty.Noelementofdiscretionisinvolved.Themotioncanbegrantedonlywhenthecourtcansay,asamaileroflaw,thereIsnosubstantialevidencetosupporttheclaim.Davisv.EarlyConstr.Ca.,63Wn.2d252,386P.2d958(1963).9A.TheDirectofaFailuretoApplySEFAIsDirectlyConfraxytoSEPAPolicyand10StateandCountyAuthority.Theperiodicreviewprocessisdesignedtoensurethattheminingsiteista“operatingconsistentwiththemostcurrentstandardsandtoestablishotherconditions13necessarytomitigateidentifiableenvironmentalimpacts.“[EmphasEsadde&JtCC14ZlA2Z.050(B)(i)-Asaresultoftheperiodicreviewprocess,theDirectorisentitledto15thfytheconditionsoftheunderlyinggradingpermit.1617TheKingCountyComprehensivePlanrecognizesthatminingactivitieshaveisconsiderableimpactsupontheenvironmentandpotentialconflictswithadjacentland19uses.Mitigationmeasuresareneededtoaddressthoseimpacts.Miningpracticesuseavarietyofheavy‘equipmentnd,bytheirnature,involvemoredisturbancetothelandscapeandenvironmentthanother21resource-basedindustries+Miningopâafions,therefore,mustbecarefullymanagedtoprotectenvironmentalquality.Conflictsbetweenminingandadjacentlandusescanbeminimizedbyusingdistanceorearthbarriersto23reduceoff-sitenoiseandbyoperatingequipmentandtruckstoensure24safety,reducenoiselevelsandmaintainenvironmentalquality.as26ESWOfltOFLAWLa&RUBROUGflS,P.C.PREPERREDFNANQALCORP.’SRESPONSETOKINGCOUNTYANDSTONEWAYROCKANDRECYCLING’SPREkthARNGMO’UONTOra1azaD1SMISS-4- 1113019$17:02e2062960955PROSECUTOROFFICFMooeIois11/3O/8MON13:52FaX20668235Lawler&Burroughs,PCO06I2RL-4UConditionsandmitigationsforsignificantadverseSenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwithminingoperationsshouldberequired,especiallyinthefollowingareas:4Mrquality;b.Environmentallysensitiveandfflffcaiareas.sixthassurfaceawlgroundwaterqualityandquantity,wetlands,fishedesandwildlifehabitats;aNoiselevels;7iVibrafion;aLightandglare;Bf.Vehicularaccessat”1safety;9g.Visualimpacts;ii.Culturalandhistoricfeaturesandresources;10i.Sitesecuñty;andj.Othersusilqaetospecificsitesandproposals.12.DespitetheclearmandatetoreviewenvironmentalImpacts,theCountyandthe13Quarryareapparentlyunwillingtoutilizethepsexpresslydesiiedtoaccomplish14suchenvironmentalreview.InsteadDOastakenasubjective,adhocapproachto.16identifying,analyzingandMitigatingenvironmentalimpacts.17“SEPArequirestheintegrationofenvironmentalfactorsintothenormal18governmentaLdeclsion-makLngprocesses,sothatthe‘presentlyunquant-ified19environmentalamenitiesandvalueswillbegivenappropriateconsiderationin2021decisionmakingalonswitheconomicandtechnicalconsiderations.”LastiakeCommunityCouncilv.RoanokeAssoc.,82Wn.24475,492,513P.2436(1973).SEPAdonnotdemandanyparticularsubstantiveresultingovernmentaldecisionmaking.24Stempelv.DeptWaterResources,82Wn.2d109,118,508P.24166(1973).2526lAWOff?WLAWLER&&mZoUGHs,P.C.PREFERREDHNANCIALCORP.’SRESPONSETOKINGCOUNTYAND.STONEWAYROCKANDfl4flhIWAS4GT4vsloiRECYCLING’SPREHEABINGMOTIONTOpacsonDISMISS- OO7/O1814100711/30/981703t2062960955PROSECUTOROFFIC11/30/98itoN13:32FAX2066823584Lswler&Burroughs,PC1“Brieflystated,theproceduralprovisionsofSEPAconstituteanenvironmental2fulldisclosurelaw.Theact’sprocedurespromotethepolicyoffullyinformeddecisionmakingbygovernmentbodieswhenundertaking“majoractionssignificantlyaffecting5thequalityoftheenviromnent”NorwayHillii.KingCountyCouncil,87Wn.2d267,6272,552P.2d674(1976).ThefactthattheDirectormayhaveextensivelyconsideredthematterandimposedconditionsdesignedtoprotecttheenvironmentdoesnotobviatetheneedforSEPAreview.Norwayat279.SeealsoMarcov.AirQualityCoalition,92910Wrt2d685,712,601P2d501(1979)(Courtunwillingtoadopt“functionalequivalency”equatingPSAPCA’sreviewwithSEPAreview.)12B.NoCategoricalExemptionsApply.13WhendeterniiningwhetheranactionmustundergoSEPAreview,the14responsibleofficial’sfirstdutyistodeterminewhethertheproposedaction(ailswithinthecategoricalexemptions.WAC197-11-305.11acategoricalexemptiondoesnotapply,17thentheagencymustmakeathresholddeterminationofenvironmentalsignificance.WAC197-11-310.Bydefinition,categoricalexemptionsare“atypeofaction,specifiedin19theserules,whichiloesnot.signjflcantlyjfiectjheenviropent”[Emphasisadded.]20WAC19741-720.RespondentshavetakenthepositionthattheDirectordidnotneed21toundertakeaSEPAanalysisbecausetheactioniscategoricallyexempteitherasa22businessorregulatorylicense,WAC197-11-800(14),oranenforcementormspecdon2324activity,WAC197-11-197(13).tnJçrjcjtherexempHonap$j2526jAWQ?PZflOFIAWLfl&UURROUGHS,P.CPREFERREDFINANCIALCORP.’SRESE’ONSETO‘°KINGCOUNflANDSTONEWAYROCKANDRECYCLING’SPREHEALUNCMOTION.TOF*cmanOQSJSfl4DISMISS-6- 11/30/981704t2062960955PROSECIVWROFFIC.008/01811’30’98NON1a53FAX20865235*4Lawler&Burroughs.PC1WAC197-11-800(13)statesasfollows:(13)Enforcementandinspections.Thefollowingenforcementandinspectionactivitiesshallbeexempt:(a)MIacdozis,includthgadministrativeordersandpenalties,undertakentoenforceastatute,regulation,ordinance,resolutionorpriG:decision.Nolicenseshallbeconsideredexemptbyvirtueofthissubsection;norshalltheadoptionofanyordinance,regulationorresolutionbe6consideredexemptbyvirtueofthissubsection.(b)Allinspectionsconductedbyanagencyofeitherprivateorpublicpropertyforshypurpose.[Emphasisadded.]B9WAC19741-800(14)statesasfollows:1011(14)BusinessandotherregulatonjlicensaThefollowingbusinessandotherregulatorylicenseareexemptU13(1)Therenewalorissuanceofalicenseregulatinganypresentactivityor14structuresolongasnomaterialchangesare.involved.[Emphasisaddedj15TheinitialgradingpermitwhichallowstheQuarry’soperationIsrenewedToannuallybytherenewalofalicense.Bytheverytermsoftheenforcementand17inspectionexemption,licensesarenotexemptunderthisprovisioaByvirtueoftheircommonusage,enforcementandinspectionactivitiesarethoseactionsundertakento19ensurecompliancewithanexistingpermitandtheconditionsthereoforcompliance2021withexistingregulatlàns.TheenforcementexemptionexpresslyIndicatesthatit-relatestoexistingregulationsorpriordecisions,notaspartofacurrentdecIsion-making23process.242526LAwLui&BURROUGHS,P.CPREFERREDFINANCIALCORP.’SRESPONSETOKINGCOUNTYANDSTONEWAYROCKANDRECYCLING’SPREHEARINGMOTIONtODISMiSS-z 11/30/9817:04e2062960955PROSECUTOROFFICI1O09/018jLflU/98MON13:53FAX2066523354Lawler&Burroughs,PC1Theactivityunderconsiderationhereinvolvesmorethanenforcementand2Inspection,evenifthecQrnprehensiveplanfriestocategorizeitassuch,RL41O.Itinvolvesthereviewofaminingsite’saàfivitiesforcompliancewithcurrentstandardsandthepossibleimpositionofadditionalconditionstothegradingpermittomifigate6identifiableenvironmentalimpacts.EtC21A22,050.TheperiodicreviewprocessinvolvesacuzraitdiscredonazydecisionbytheDirectortopossiblymodifytheminingsite’slicenseorpermitrequirements.10-Therespondents’othercategoricalexemptionargumentisthatthisprocessfallsun-decthebusinessandregulatorylicenseexemptionforrenewals.Notalllicensesare12createdequal.NotallLicensesarebusinessandregulatory.Noonewouldarguethat13theannualrenewalofaWashingtonstatelicensetopracticelawisnotsubjecttoSEPA,14orthatthelocaltavern’srenewalofitsliquororrestaurantlicenseisnotsubjectto15SEPA.Thesearetruebusinessandregulatorylicenses,whichdonotsignificantlyaffect1617theenvironment.However,alicensetomovetonsofearthwiththepotential18environmentalconsequencesofdoingso,isnota“businessorregilatory”license.The19verydefinitionofcategoricalexemption,whicharelimitedtothoseactivitieswhichdo20notsignificantlyaffecttheenvironment,RCW43,21C110(1)(a),supportstheposition21thatthegradingpermitaMitsrenewaldonotfallwithinthebusinessorregulatorylicenseexemption.Toallowsuchanexemptionwouldallowthisactivity,whichhas23242526Lt.WoesorLAWIa&BURROUGHS,P.CPREFIIRREDFINANCIALCORP.’SRESPONSETOIKINGCOUNflANDSTONEWAYROCKANDSLW$SIS1GTtflitI4RECYCLING’SPREHEARThIGMOTION.TOFa1pt)6fl4kDISMISS-8. 11/30/98t7;05e2062960955PROSECUTOROPPICIO10/QTh11/30,98MON13:53FAX2066523384Lawler&Durrougns.PC1obviouspotentialforadverseenvironmentalconsequencestocontinueindefinitelywithoutenvironmentalreview.34Thebusinessorregulatorylicenseexceptionalsoonlyapplieswhen“nomaterial5changesareinvolved.”Aswillbeshownatthehearing,thechangestotheaeration6ofthissitehavebeensignificant.BlastinghasgottencloserandcitheEmpireEstatesproperty.’Long-standingbuffers,contathinsignificanttreeswere4estroyed.TherockcrushingoperationhasrecentlyrelocatedtotheareaclosesttotheEmpire910Estatesapartmentcomplex.Tenants’complaintsovernoiseanddusthasincreased11dramatically.Thesechangesarematerialandshouldbeanalyzed.Theyalsoraisea12disputedissueofmaterialfactwhichprecludesresolutionofthisIssueasamatterof13law.14Finally,evenifoneormoreexkmptionapplies,itwouldnotbecategorically15exemptunderWAC19741-305(lXb)(i)whichprovidesthataproposalthatfallswithin1617anyoftheexemptionsshallbeexemptcc?ptasfollows:18‘)TheproposalIsasegmentofaproposalthatincludes:(1)aseriesofactions,physicallyorfunctionallyrelatedtocachother,some19ofwhicharecategoricallyexemptandsomeofwhicharenot;20ThelicenserenewalatIssueispartofaseriesofactions,whichstartedwiththe21discretionarygrantingofagradingpermit,whichisclearlynotanexemptaction.2223‘TheQuarryisrequiredtosuhuut,dsmjcreportstoDDEShliow1allblasts.Asfaraswektw,DUES24haditMithzeportsduringlbreview,sincefewwetepnntwhenthefilewasrevitwedandstthsqstrequestsforthedoeumattshavenotyieldedtheprodutlonofthosenprnts.26LAW0IC0$ILAwLER4BuRROUGHS,PC.PREFERREDFINANOALCOREd’SRESPONSETO050VAThOflflICINGCOUNflANDSTONEWAYROCKANDRECYCLING’SPREHEARINGMOTIONTOTs4D6J6S24514DtSMISS-9- 011/018IIoit11/30/9817:06t2062960955PROSECUTOROPTIC11/30/98MON13:54FAX2066823384Lewler&Burroughs,PC1lu-anitaBayValleyCommunityMsàc.v,Kirkland,9Wn.App.59,71,510P.2d1140(1973).ThisseriesofrenewalshasallowedthisnonconformingactivitytogoforwardwithoutsignificantSEPAanalysisfordecades.5RenewalsarenotinandofthemselvesexemptfromSEPA.InEastlake6CummunityCouncilv.RoanokeMsoc.,82Wn2d475,492,513P.2d36(19Th)thecourtrejectedtheprojectdevelàpe?sargumentthattherenewalwasjustaminorstepintheprocessandshouldnotbesubjecttoSEF’A.9[UtisnoanswertotheapplicationofSEPAtoclaimtherenewalofa10buildingpermitisamodestexerciseInalongprocessGovernmental11actioninapprovingaLong-termprojectmayoccuratvariousintenralsduringthelifeoftheprojectwithvariousdegreesofsignificance.Itisunquestionablethatnumerous,modestandcommongovernmentalactionsmaybeasdamasingtotheenvironmentasasingle,vigorous13andcriticalaction.14SEPAreviewisparticularlyappropriateintheInstantcase.Theperiodicreview15processisthefirstformalopporatnitythepublichashadtocommentonthisongoing1617activityfordecades.TheDirector,byfashioninghisownenvironmentalreviewprocess,hasprecludedbroad-ranginginputfroththepublicandotheragencies.19Thefacttherenewalofanunderlyinglicensedoesnotobviatethenecessityof20environmentalreviewwasalsoaffirmedinMarcoaAirQualityCoalition,92Wn.2d21.685,601P.2dSal(1979).Marcotriedtoarguethattherantingofasecondvariance22fromairqualitystandardswasnotamajoractionsignificantlyaffectingtheenvironmentrequiringSEPA,sincethevariancewouldsimplymaintainthestatus2526lAWCffKFSOPLAWLERkEUn0UGHS,P.CPREFERREDFINANCIALCORP.’SRESPONSETOICINGCOUNTYANDSTONEWAYROCKANDRECYCLING’SPREHARNGMOTIONToIACM)CtSO636V-35S4DiSMISS- 11/30/9817:06Q2062960953PROSECUTOROFFICLOZ/0t611)30/98LIONj3:54FAX2066&23584Lawler&BurroughsPCItJUZ1quo.Id.at705.ThecourtnotedthatMarco’sargumentobscuredthefadthatthestatsquowasthecontinuedviolationoftheairqualitystandards.Id.at706.4TheamicaearguethattheloomingspecterofSEPAreviewwoulddeter5operatorsfromvoluntarilyinvestinginmitigationmeasures.Amicacat5-6.Whileit6isdoubtfulthatthereisasignificantamountof“voluntary”mitigationgoingon,thisargumentobscuresthefactthatthereisadulytomitigateenvironmentalimpacts.TheSCountymustrequiremitigationifItIsnototherwiseforthcomingfrUndertheamicae’s910analysisquarry’activitieswouldneverbesubjecttoSEFAreviewaftertheinitialpermit,eventhoughtheremightbeinstances,suchasthepresentcase,where12environmentalimpactshaveneverbeentrulyexamined.13Furthermore,aspreviouslynotedSEPAreviewdoesnotnecessarilyequalETS14preparationoranyothersubstantiveresult,SEPAonlymandatesthattheIssuesbe15carefullyexaminedbeforetheissuanceofapermit.includingarenewalIntheinstant1617case,thepreparationofanES,ifrequired,wouldbethefirstsignificantlookatthisadverseenvironmentalimpacts.InFiveyears,anotherE5orasupplemental19EISmayormaynotbenecessarydependinguponthecircumstances.20TheBlackRiverQuanyisanonconformingemactiveoperation.Thereisa21historyofenvironmentalproblemswiththissiteincludingblastingviolations,waterqualityproblems,traffic,mudtracking.andbufferremoval.Sanctioningthe5tatusquo23willnotprotedtheenvironment.Refusingtoevenexaminetheissues,willnot242526TAWofflcfforLAWLER&BURROUGHS,P.CPREFERREDFINANCIALCORP.’SRESPONSETO‘°KINGCOUNTYANDSTONEWAYROCKANDgaATrtS,WA5tt1Gni%3nIRECYCLING’SPREFLEAPJNGMOTIONTODISMiSS- 11/30/9817:07Ozos2960955PROSECUTOROFFICfj013/0181i/U/9SMOic13:54FAt2066823584Lewler&Burroughs.PCIO131protecttheenvironment.Indeed,theDOESapproachistosanctionthevery“progressivedegradation:thatSEPAwasintendedtoprevent.CTheHearingExaminerHasaDutytoEnsureSEPACompliance.sItisthedutyoftheHearingExaminerto“maketheapplicationorappeal6compatiblewiththeenvironmentandcarryoutapplicablestatelawsandregulations,‘includingchapter43.Z1CRCW[SEPAJ”[Emphasisadded.jKCC2024.080.ThegoalsandpoliciesofSEPAare“supplementarytothosesetforthinext3tingauthorizationsof9allbranchesofgovernmentofthisstate,includingstateagencies,municipalandpublic11corporations,andcounties.Anygovernmentalactionmaybeconditionedordenied12pursuanttothischapter”.RCW4321C.06O.13ODEShasIntproperlyappliedaSEPAcategoricalexemptiontothisprocess.14NeitherDiaxinCtr.v.BoiseCascadeCorporation.,131Wa2d345,932P.2d158(1997),noranyotherstatuteorordinancepreventtheHearingExaminerfromreviewingthis1617improperdetermination,andtheconsequentialimpropernegativethresholdisdetermination.19lflDioxin,thecourtheldthatindividual“actions”,whichareproperly20categorizedasexemptunderavalidregulationarenotreviewableunderSEPA.21However,thecourtalsoheldthatthecourt5may“decidewhetheraspecificproposedactionactuallyifiswithintheparticularcategoricalexemption.”Id.at365,23242526‘swarcovLAwJ.ca&BURROuGHs,P.CPIZBEERREDFINANQALCOBflRESPONSETOKINGCOUNTYANDSTONEWAYROCKANDse*tW*cctt1MRECYCLING’SPREHEARNGMOIIONTOlnawDISMISS-12- 14j014/0181gwL4il/3D/VS17:08e2062960955PROSRCUTOROFFIC11/30/93MON13:55FAX2066823584Lewler&Eurrouhs,PC1Asdiscussedabove6thisparticularactiondoesnotfailwIthinthecateguricalexemptionsetforthIntheDecisionoranyofthecategoricalexemptionslaterproposedbyrespondentsintheJrbriefs.Thisactionwasnot“properly”categorized.Assuchitissubjecttoreview-6Theamicae’spositionthatreviewofwhethertheactionwasproperlycategorized‘belongsonlytothecourtsisnotsupportedbyDioxin,whichdoesnotaddresstheissue.8Thatpositionwouldbecontrarytothegeneralpolicyunderlyingadministrativereview910andtheexhaustionofadministrativeremedies,whichistogive4ecislon-makingbodiestheopportunitytocorrecttheirmistakesattheearliestopportunitywithout12judicialinterference.ThosereasonswerestatedinKSLWofWellsv.Renton,67Wa.13App587,591,736P.2d664(1986).14Theexhaustiondoctrinealso(1)ensuresagainstprematureinterruption15oFtheadministrativeprocess;(2)aUowstheagencytodevelopthenecessaryfactualbackgrounduponwhichtobaseadecIsion;(3)provides16foramoreefficientprocess;and(4)protectstheadministrativeagency’sautonomybyallowingittocorrectItsownerrors,thusensuringthat17Individualsarenatencouragedtoignoreitsproceduresbyresortingtothecourts.MeKartv.UnitedStates,395U.S.185,23L.Ed.2d194,89S.Ct.1657(1969).19Theamicae’spositionIsalsocontrarytothemandateofKCC20,24.080.ifthis2021issuehadnotbeenraisedhereandwasbroughtforthefirstlimeaspanofajudicialreview,youcanbeassuredthatrespondentswouldbearguingthatEmpireEstateshad23failedtoexhaustitsadministrativeremediesandshouldhavebràughttheissuetothe24HeatingExaminer.2526LAwLW&BURROUGHS,P.CPREFERREDFLNANCL4LCORP.’SRESPONSETOKINGCOUNTYANDSTONEWAYROCKANDRECYCLING’SPREHBARINCMOTIONTOPa*GO6)S6r35$4DISMISS-13- 11/30/9817:09e206296099pRosuclvmROFFICIO1/O1&11/30/98XON1355FAX2C6824Lawier&Burroughs.PCt0151WAC197-11-680(3)alsodoesnotprecludethehearingexamine?sreviewofthisdetermination,InKiewitConsft.Groupv.ClarkCounty,83WitApp.133.142,920P.2d1207(1996)thecourtheldthatWAC197-11480(3)appliedonlytoappealswithinadministrativeagencies.Thecurrentactionisnotanappealwithinanadministrative6agtcy.TheDirector’sfailureoundertakeithresholddeterminationamountstoanegativethresholddetermination,subjecttoreview.InMarco,supra.thecourt9examinedPSAPCA’adecisiontograntavariancewithoutrequiringpreparationofanSISTherethecourtstated:12ThePCHBcorrectlyconcludedthatPSAPCA’sdecisiontograntavariancethroughresolution359constituted,ineffect,adetermination13thatthegrantingofavariancewithoutanBISwasconsistentwiththepublic’srighttoahealthfulenvironmentandwiththepoliciesofSEPA.-14Thisamountedtoa“negativethresholddetermination”thatan£15was15notmandatedbyRCW43.21C.030.16Thecourtwentontoapplytheclearlyerroneousstandardofreviewtotheagcncys17“negativethresholddetermination”.18TheEnvironmentallySensifiveAreasRegulations11nApplytoNonconforming19ExtractiveOperations.2021TheQuarry’swishfulargumentthattheQuarryIsimmunefromtheapplication22oftheEnvironnientallySensitiveAreas(“ESA”)ordipance,KCCZ1A.24,failstotake23intoaccounttheCounty’sdutyandpolicytomaketheenvironmentapriority.KCC2421A24.02Omakesthatdearandstatesasfollows:2526t-j.wOrrtOFLAWLER&BURROUGHSP.CPREFERREDFINANCIALCORP.’SRESPONSETO’KINGCOUNTYANDSTONEWAYRCCKANDSBSW4RECYCLING’SPREHBARINGMOTIONTOPctADISMISS-14- 11/30/9817;09t2082960955PROSECUTOROFFICIO16/O1811/30/38MON13t55FAX2066833554trier&BUrroU5tS.PC0i6I21L2t020Applicability.A.Theprovisionsofthischiptershallapply2toalllandusesinKingCountyandallpersonswithinthecountyshallflcomplywiththerequirementsofthischapter.3B.KingCountyshallnotapproveanypermitorotherwiseissue4anyauthorizationtoalterthecomliticaofanylaniwaterorvegetaflnnortoconstructoralteranystnzctureorImprovementwithoutfirst5assuringcompliancewiththerequirementsofthischapter.C.Approvalofadevelopmentproposaipursuanttothe6provisionsofthischapterdonnotdischargetheobligationofthe7applicanttocomplywiththeprovisionsofthischapter.WhenanyprovisionofanyotherchapteroftheKingCountyCodeconflictswiththischapterorwhentheprovisionsofthischapterareinconflict1thatprovisionwhichprovidesmoreprotectionto9environmentallysensitiveareasshallapplyunlessspecificallyprovidedotherwiseinthischapterorunlesssuchprovisionconflictswithfederalorstatelawsorregulations.11B.’TheprovisionsofthischaptershallapplytoallforestpracticesoverwhichthecountyhasjurisdictionpursuanttoRCW76.09and12WAC222.[Emphasisadded.]13TheESAprovidesconsiderablymoreprotectionforsensitiveareasthandoesL)Ccrflc)(.22,040.TheCodedoesnotprovideanyjedficexcepddntotheESAfor15nonconformingextrartiveoperations.KingCountyComprehensivePlanPolicyRb1617411(b)specificallydirectstheprotectionofsensitiveareasthroughmitigation.The18DirectorshouldhaveappliedtheESAinthisprocess.19Furthermore,EtC21A.22.0?0incorporatcatheESAbyreference.KCC21A2107020requiresquarriestocomplywithKCC16.82,whIchIstheclearingandgtadingcode.21KCC16.82J50(A)(i)specificallydirectsthattheESAapplies.KCC16.82.010,the“Purpose”s&tlonoftheclearingandgradingcodeindicatesthatoneofItsintentionsis2324“[pJrotectingsensitiveareasfromadverseclearingandgradingactivities.EtC2526LAWOPPOPLAWLER&BURROUGHS,P.C.PREFERREDfiNANCIALCORP.’SRESPONSETOKINGCOUNTYANDSTONEWAYROCKANDRECYCLING’SPRERBARINCMOJIONTOtbcsctaota4DISMISS-is 11/30/0817:10e2os2060955PROSECUTOROFFIC017/0ISl1/30fl8MON13:56FAX2066823554Lawler&Burroughs.PCU17116.SZM1O(A)(4).Anotheristo“minimizetheadverseimpactsassociatedwithquarryingandmining.KCC16.82.O10(A)(6)4TheQuarry’sargumentisnotthatitspropertyfsnotwithinanESA,butthatESA5regulationsdonotapplyasamatteroflawtonon-conformingexfrachveoperations.6EmpireEstatesallegesthatalloraportionoftheQuarrypropertyIswithinanESAforlandslidehazards.SeeKingCountySensitiveAreasMapfolio,LandslideHazardArea,Spage4.Thisisafactualissue,whichforpurposesofamotiontodiemiss,mustbepresumedatrue.fV’-aEARequirementforRegularNoiseStudiesIsNotPerScUnreasonable.12TheoperatingstandardsofKCCZ1A.21070requireextractiveoperationsnotto13exceednoiselevelsspecifiedbytheCode.ApparentlytheQuarrywouldlikeeveryone14tojustaseumethattheycomplywiththoselevels.EmpireEstateswillpresentevidence15atthehearingthattheQuarryexceedsthosenoiselevelsandhoursofoperation.The1617pasthaveproventhattheDirector’sgeneraldirectivethatthequarrycomplywiththenoisecodesIsinsufficient.TheQuarry’shistoryofcompliancewithpermitconditions19wouldbeajoke,iftheconsequencesofitsnoncompliancewerenotsoseriousThe20Directorisallowedto“establishconditionsasnecessarytomitigateidentifiable21environmentalimpacts”uponthegradingpermit.TheDecisionnotesthathoursofoperation,whichdirectlyimpactnoiselevels,werenotaddressedbytheoriginalSEPA2324checklIst.Decision,p.10.TakingnoisestudiesbnaregularbasiswouldbesuchaZ526LsWLERScBURROUGHS,P.CPREFERREDFfl’JANCIALCORP.’SRESPONSETOKINGCOUNCANDSTONEWAYKOCKANDSAfltL,WA3taCON‘tOlRECYCUNC’SPREHEARINGMOTIONTODISMISS.io 11/3019817:11t206295095511/30198MON13S6FAX2066823584I23456789101i121314151617181923212223242526PROSECUTORUFFICLawler&Burroughs,PC018/O18LUlOcondition,muchlikerequiringwaterqualitytestingorseismkreports.Othersped&mitigationmeasuresmaybeappropriate,indudiñgbuffersorberms.TheQuarrypresentsnoauthorityforitspremisethattheremustbea“mandate”requiñngtheDirectortoimposespecificmitigationmeasuresorconditionsinorderfortheDirector’sfailuretorequiresuchmeasuiestobeanerror.Tndeed,theQuarry’spositionstudiouslyavoidstheCounty’smandatetomitigateunderComprehensivePlanPolicyRL-411.CONCLUSIONForthereasonsstatedabove,themotionsoftheCounty,StonewayRockandRecyclingandtheainicaeshouldbedenied.DAThO:November30,1998.LAWLER&BURROUGHS,P.C.AttorneysforAppellantPrefénedFinancialCorp.DflanE.LaLerWSBANo.8149L#womcnoL4WLER&BuuaoUGHS.PCPREFERREDFINANCIALCORP’SRESPONSETOKINGCOUNTYANDSTONEWAYROCKANDRECYCLING’SPREHEARINGMOTIONTOpeseC.$14DISMISS-17- flec-04-9S04:17PLawOfficescn.c,ccn£-HAUNENLAWEYICES,P.S.AProfessionalSen’keCo,pomtion—._ ._ :Udlevuefls&Seafint&illding10500N.E.8th,Suite1900BelLevue,Washington98004(425)454-8272Fax(425)46-3467DATE:December4,1998TIME:4:15p.smPacificlimeTO:FredWhite,SiteDevelopmentServicesSectionCOMPANY:KingCountyDepartmentofDevelopmentand&svirownemaiServicesLandUseServicesDivisionFROM:DavWL.ilailnenFAXPlUMBER:(20.5)2%-7055CiThRentonHEWSSENt’CopyofmylettertotheHeating&wnlneralongwithacopyofStonewayRock&RecdingsReptyMenwrwsdumTOTALNUMBEROFPAGESiNCLUDINGTHISPAGE:11PagesSPECiAL1NYTRUCPONS/COMMEWTS:FYiTheinfonnwioncontainedInthisfacshnifrcommunicationisprivilegedand/orconfidentialinfi’nnationintendedonly/ortheas-coftheindividualorenthynamedaboie.fiskereaderofthisroverpageisnottheintendedrtdptflat.youareherebynotfldthatanydissnninaiion,dinributlonorcopyingofthiscommunicationorthednfomwtioncontainedInthiscommunicationLcstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthisconwaunicatloninpltcizrebtuntdkv4not(yusbytelephoneandmansthisfaaimiksousa!theaPowraddra;viasheU.S.Foam!SenktThakyot&0±p