Resolution 4305 - Laserfiche WebLink

HEARINGS EXAMINER FINDINGS AND DECISION SNOHOMISH COUNTY SEPA APPEAL NO. 1-95 Page 9 (m) The signing of an amendment to the waste export contract, extending the RDC commitment through the year 2013 (1995). (Exhibit 25, page C) 25. The County representative stated that with the adoption of the 1995 Plan, and the exclusion of Everett from the system, Snohomish County, and the other eighteen cities and towns who are dependent upon the existing system, will be left with a system that is not designed to function without Everett's participation. This, according to the County, will result in significant environmental impacts to the County and other cities that necessitate further environmental review. The County contended that the City's environmental review had no provisions for the disposal of solid waste generated within the City in the event of an emergency. This, according to the County, creates significant adverse impacts that have not been addressed nor mitigated in any SEPA documentation. (Kelley-Clark Testimony; Exhibit 25, Letter from Steve Goldstein) 26. The County submitted that in an emergency it would have access to the land fill that would accept waste until rail service was restored or until the emergency conditions had ceased to exist. The City plan, however, does not address what type of backup the City would propose nor does it address the use of the County site for emergency purposes. (Kelley-Clark Testimony) THE CITY'S ARGUMENT In response to the County's arguments the City presented support for the adoption of the 1990 material, the addendum to the draft and final EIS for Everett's 1990 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and the issuance of the Determination of Non-Significance. 27. The City contended that the County, as the appealing party, failed to identify specific adverse impacts. According to the City, all of the County's arguments are speculative and not based on scientific data. This, according to the City, is not grounds for further SEPA review because Snohomish County, an agency with expertise, has the burden of being specific in its identification of impacts and desired mitigation measures. (Exhibit 1, Staff Report; Doughty Testimony) 28. The City argued that the County has sole access to its internal financial information and policy options that would result in loss of revenues. This material, not available to the City, is not required for an environmental analysis. (Exhibit 1, Staff Report; Doughty Testimony) 29. The City representative submitted that the City will operate a comprehensive waste reduction program that will reduce the burden upon the County while providing adequate service to the Everett waste generators. Any impacts to other communities are speculative at best. The impacts to other cities, because the City of Everett is not participating, is not an environmental factor that must be considered. (Doughty Testimony)