Resolution 4305 - Laserfiche WebLink

HEARINGS EXAMINER FINDINGS AND DECISION SNOHOMISH COUNTY SEPA APPEAL NO 1-95 Page 13 Policy Analysis, Sec. 14(a)(i) at p. 158. WAC 197-11-600(3)(b)(i) and (iii); SEAPC vs. Cammack ll Orchards, 49 Wn App 609). 12. The County failed to provide financial information to the City with regard to impacts, if any, that will accrue from the City's withdrawal from the County management plan. Without this information the City can only provide a generalized DNS response appropriate to the scope of the nonproject proposal and to the level for the planning of the proposal. [WAC 197-11-442(2)] 13. The County's contention that illegal burning and dumping will occur as a result of the City's withdrawal from the County management plan is not based on fact, but is speculative. Even though illegal burning and dumping are prohibited by law, the County presumes that the law will be broken. To require the City to provide environmental information on speculative illegal activity is not required. (Finding of Fact No. 32) 14. The range of alternatives considered in an EIS must be sufficient to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives, with and without Everett's participation in 1989, • provided adequate environmental review for a reasoned choice. With little significant changes since 1989 the environmental review remains adequate. SEPA does not require that every remote and speculative alternative to an action be included in the EIS. The adequacy of an EIS and threshold decision must be adjudged with application of the rule of reason. (SWAP vs. Okinagan County, 66 Wn App 439) 15. Discussion of alternatives in an environmental review need not be exhaustive if the impact statement presents sufficient information for a reasoned choice of alternatives. The 1989 review provided discussion of alternatives for a reasoned choice. No significant changes have occurred to necessitate further environmental impact statements. (Finding of Fact Nos. 4-15; Toandos Peninsula Association vs. Jefferson County, 32 Wn App 43) DECISION Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and the review of the record by the Hearings Examiner, it is hereby ORDERED that the Appeal of Snohomish County of the City of Everett's issuance of a Determination of Non-significance for an amendment to the 1990 Solid Waste Management Plan of the City of Everett is DENIED. The reason for the denial is set forth in the Conclusions. Done and dated this 29th day of May, 1996. G,rK9✓ 4A's IA04.40404421 (,.lmes M. Driscoll 'Hearings Examiner for the City of Everett