By Joe Scordino
October 28th 2024
Edmonds City Council Members and Mayor;
The DEIS and the process leading to the development of the DEIS do not conform with State SEPA requirements.
The DEIS does not provide the necessary background information (i.e., AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT), Alternatives, and IMPACT ANALYSES on Edmonds watersheds, the functions of critical areas, tree canopy, impervious surfaces, groundwater, salmon impacts, Puget Sound health, stormwater infrastructure, sewer infrastructure and capacity, hazardous substances in stormwater, climtae change, and other attributes of the Edmonds environment that would adversely affect or be adversely affected by increased housing in different landscapes in Edmonds. The cumulative effects including effects of increased housing in adjacent cities that are within our watersheds or share use of our infrastructure also are not addressed.
Without such description of the affected environment and impact analysis of differing levels of housing increases for each proposed Center and Hub (and alternative locations for housing increase), this DEIS also DOES NOT serve the lawful purpose [WAC 197-11-400] to “inform decision makers and the public of reasonable alternatives, including mitigation measures, that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance environmental quality.”
The following SEPA requirements in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) should have been met in the development of the DEIS.
1) WAC 197-11-440 EIS Contents.
WAC 197-11-440(5)(b) – Reasonable alternatives shall include actions that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal’s objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation.
This WAC requires the DEIS include alternatives such as more housing allocated to the Highway 99 subarea since further increased housing in that area may have significantly lower environmental cost than the hubs/centers at Perrinville, Seaview, Deer Creek, Five Corners and possibly other locations.
2) WAC 197-11-400 Purpose of EIS.
WAC 197-11-400(2) An EIS shall provide impartial discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform decision makers and the public of reasonable alternatives, including mitigation measures, that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance environmental quality.
WAC 197-11-400(3) Environmental impact statements shall be concise, clear, and to the point, and shall be supported by the necessary environmental analysis.
This DEIS is woefully INADEQUATE in environmental ANALYSIS and measures to minimize adverse impacts of increased housing.
3) WAC 197-11-070 Limitations on actions during SEPA process.
WAC 197-11-070(1)(a) Have an adverse environmental impact
WAC 197-11-070(1) (b) Limit the choice of reasonable alternatives
An example is the Council’s adoption of final provisions for ADUs and DADUs during the process of developing growth alternatives for the DEIS clearly affected and LIMITED the consideration of adverse environmental impacts in this DEIS on housing density distribution. The ‘green incentives’ being currently considered by Council “outside the DEIS” is another example of avoiding consideration of adverse effects within the larger context of increasing housing density.
4) WAC 197-11-080 Incomplete or unavailable information.
WAC 197-11-080(1) If information on significant adverse impacts essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives is not known, and the costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, agencies shall obtain and include the information in their environmental documents.
WAC 197-11-080(3)(b) If information relevant to adverse impacts is important to the decision and the means to obtain it are speculative or not known; Then the agency shall weigh the need for the action with the severity of possible adverse impacts which would occur if the agency were to decide to proceed in the face of uncertainty. If the agency proceeds, it shall generally indicate in the appropriate environmental documents its worst case analysis and the likelihood of occurrence, to the extent this information can reasonably be developed.
The Edmonds Environmental Council recognizes that budget constraints and the looming Dec. 31, 2024 deadline are the driving factors in the City Council likely accepting an inadequate environmental impact assessment that does not conform with State law requirements. But, is this “uninformed” approach really how Edmonds wants to plan for the next 20 years via the Comprehensive Plan Update?