Resolution 4305 - Laserfiche WebLink

HEARINGS EXAMINER FINDINGS AND DECISION SNOHOMISH COUNTY SEPA APPEAL NO. 1-95 Page 7 21. The County submitted that the City's reliance in 1995 on environmental information from the County's 1989 plan was in error. According to the County, the 1989 plan was drafted and the environmental review was made for the implementation and start up of the Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The issues at the time of formation of the 1989 plan were not the same as those issues that existed in 1995. SEPA requires consideration of environmental impacts and effects based on the proposal for the 1995 plan. To base the review on the 1989 plan was in error. (Kelley-Clarke Testimony) 22. According to the County a major circumstance that the City did not consider for the 1995 Plan is that the City did not adopt and implement its preferred alternative as set forth the 1990 City plan. The preferred alternative involved minimum land filling with emphasis on promoting reduction and recycling, incinerating materials remaining after recycling, and, land filling the ash and other wastes not suitable for incineration. Instead the City committed itself to disposing its solid wastes through the County solid waste system. The County argued that this action by the City created a circumstance that must be considered in the 1995 review of any amendment to the City's 1990 plan. (Kelley-Clarke Testimony; Exhibit 12, page iii-iv; Exhibit 12, pages 1-2; Exhibit 25) 23. A changed circumstance, according to the County, is the existence and configuration of the County's solid waste system that has evolved since 1990. The County submitted that this system, not analyzed in any of the City's earlier environmental documents, includes a regional integrated solid waste handling and disposal system designed to protect the public health by reasonably and efficiently managing all solid wastes generated by the one half million residents of the County and the participating nineteen cities and towns, including Everett. According to the County this system was developed at a time of crisis when the local land fill capacity was exhausted and the possibility of developing new land fills was not considered. (Exhibit 25) 24. A representative of the County testified that a number of significant events have occurred since the adoption of the County solid waste management plan in 1989 that impact the County's plan and necessitate further environmental study of the environmental review of the City's 1995 amendment and plan. According to the County, these significant events are: (a) Cancellation of a transfer station proposal at the junction of SR 9 and SR 2 because of traffic conditions (1989). It was the County's intent to build a transfer station to serve the central part of the County. This plan was canceled and more emphasis was placed on finding a replacement for the Everett station. (b) Signing of interlocal agreements (1990). The County submitted it signed interlocal agreements with most of the cities and towns in the County to assure twenty year dedication of their waste streams to the County system. These agreements were the basis of the County's planning on solid waste.