Resolution 3528 - Laserfiche WebLink

• Appellants' proposed mitigation measures are without supporting data, analysis or documentation in the record and therefore fail to meet the test of WAC 197-11-660(1)(b) related to specific impacts clearly identified in an environmental document. • Appellants' proposed mitigation measures fail to meet the test of WAC 197-11-660(1)(c), whether the measures are reasonable and capable of being accomplished. It is not reasonable to mitigate that which is neither an impact nor identified as an impact in the EIS, and which is not related to the proposal. Nor, for that matter, is it reasonable to expect that the applicant, although the largest employer in the region, should shoulder a share of all the problems of the region which is disproportionate to the identified impacts, or should be treated differently than other applicants in terms of the laws and regulations. • Appellants have failed to offer any factual basis, data or analysis to the record to support the extensive mitigation requested in their appeals. • Appellants' proposed measures fail to meet the test of WAC 197-11-660(1)(d) limiting the impacts being mitigated to the extent attributable to the adverse impacts of the project. There is no data or analysis in the record which support such suggested mitigation. The EIS indicates there are other market factors, in addition to Boeing, some impact housing affordability. • Appellants' have provided no factual or analytical basis for the record to support the assertion that the Boeing expansion will require a doubling of the County's assisted housing stock. Furthermore, the information offered is inaccurate. The Impact Area is misidentified to include only Snohomish County when, in fact, the Impact Area includes Snohomish County and parts of King, Kitsap, Island and Skagit counties. • The EIS establishes that some households attracted to the area will be in need of assistance, and that many factors will influence the ability of the marketplace to address housing demand and housing need. • Appellants have failed to meet the requirements of SEPA, specifically WAC 197-11-660. Mitigation such as that recommended by appellants would be contrary to law and cannot be imposed. • Appellants have failed to provide data or analysis, and the record does not contain, support for the position that such mitigation is reasonable under SEPA. Even if such data was available, mitigation could only address these issues to the extent the City policies will allow--within the Everett City limits. • The Decision Document contains voluntary mitigation measures for housing; as a result, the limitations as to jurisdictional boundaries contained in the City's SEPA ordinance do not apply to the voluntary measures. 60