Resolution 4305 - Laserfiche WebLink

- HEARINGS EXAMINER FINDINGS AND DECISION SNOHOMISH COUNTY SEPA APPEAL NO. 1-95 Page 11 CONCLUSIONS 1 . The City of Everett (City) is amending its 1990 Solid Waste Management Plan which directs the City's programs for waste reduction, recycling, collection and disposal. In the amended plan two alternatives for Everett's waste management are proposed: (1) negotiation of a satisfactory agreement with Snohomish County (County) to continue to provide solid waste management services for waste generators located within the City limits; or, (2) failing to enter into the agreement mentioned above, the City initiates full, independent operation of its comprehensive solid waste utilities. (Doughty Testimony; Exhibit 1, Staff Report; Exhibit 6, Amendment to City of Everett Solid Waste Management Plan; Finding of Fact No. 1) 2. The City was designated as the lead agency for the review of environmental impacts of the nonproject proposal. On November 9, 1995, the City issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), a Notice of Adoption of several environmental documents, and an Addendum to the Draft and Final EIS for the City's 1990 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. At the time of the issuance of the DNS the County and the U.S. Corps of Engineers submitted comments. Subsequent to filing of comments, a revised DNS, and a revised addendum, were issued on December 4, 1995. On December 15, 1995 the Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Division (County) filed a SEPA appeal of the City's revised DNS and revised addendum. (Exhibit 1, Staff Report; Doughty Testimony; Exhibit 2 Snohomish County's Appeal of the City's Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment; Finding of Fact No. 3) 3. The City may use environmental documents that have previously been prepared in order to evaluate proposed actions. Although the City's 1995 plan may differ from the County's 1989 plan, the City used the environmental documents of the 1989 plan. An agency may use environmental documents that have previously been prepared in order to evaluate proposed actions. (WAC197-11-600(2); Finding of Fact No. 3) 4. The events identified in Finding of Fact No. 24 are either: 1) issues of litigation in the civil suit between the parties [24(b), 24(c), 24(h), and 24(m)] that are not an environmental issue but policy challenges; or, 2) marginal impacts that collectively do not constitute a significant impact [24(a), 24(d), 24(e), 24(f), and 24(g)]. There has been no data or evidence presented to prove that the marginal impacts collectively constitute significant impacts, or separate significant impacts. (Ullock vs. Bremerton, 17 Wn App 573) 5. A supplemental EIS is required if: (a) substantial changes to the original plan are likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts; or (b) new information indicating the plan's probable significant adverse environmental impact does exist. The County have failed to prove that the events identified in Finding of Fact #24 are likely to have a significant impact or that the I pact from these events are probable. (WAC 197- 11-600(3)(b)(i) and (ii)]