Resolution 4305 - Laserfiche WebLink

HEARINGS EXAMINER FINDINGS AND DECISION SNOHOMISH COUNTY SEPA APPEAL NO. 1-95 Page 10 30. The City submitted that an environmental impact is not significant unless there is reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on the environmental quality. According to the City, the County's arguments and contentions are based on "unsubstantiated fears," which are not sufficient to document a significant adverse environmental impact. (Doughty Testimony) 31. The City submitted that all of the impacts that are related to funding or economics or budgets that have been identified by the County are based on speculation. If the City opts to operate an independent system and not participate in the County's waste program, it is the County's decisionmakers' responsibility to respond with rate increases or decreases, or remain the same. According to the City, these issues are speculative and not the responsibility of the City. (Exhibit 1, Staff Report; Doughty Testimony) 32. The City submitted that dumping of yard debris on public or private property is illegal in the City as well as in the County and outdoor burning is not permitted by the Puget Air Sound Pollution Control Agency. Burning of household or commercial garbage is illegal throughout the entire Puget Sound region including the County. According to the City, the County cannot impose additional regulatory remedies, including mandatory collection and increased penalties for dumping or illegal burning, to offset reduction in operating revenue caused by the removal of the City from the County plan. (Doughty Testimony) 33. The City submitted that the County's comprehensive solid waste management plan was prepared with an environmental impact statement that evaluated several alternative solid waste management plans for the County. The County, in preparing its plan, had scenarios that included and excluded Everett in different alternatives studied by the County. In the alternative proposals that excluded Everett, the County opted not to do the studies at that time because of the increased effort, money and documentation that was needed. This, according to the City, should now not work to the County's favor and to the City's detriment. The County, if it felt concerns were remaining, had an opportunity for study in 1989 and failed to do so. (Doughty Testimony) 34. The City submitted that the SEPA focus is on environmental impacts, not economic, policy or socio-economic impacts. The environmental regulation takes note of economic considerations and how they are dealt with but they are not the guiding principles. (Doughty Testimony) 35. The City submitted that requiring the City to provide additional environmental impact statements on the impact to the County without the City's participation in its management plan would be duplicative and require evaluation that has already been completed in the County's own review. (Doughty Testimony; Exhibit 1, Staff Report)