On August 8th, Director of Planning Jeff Thomas signed a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) on the proposal of Ambling University Development to build a 576 bed dormitory facility in the Puget Neighborhood. The meaning of the DNS, for all intents and purposes, is that the development is not likely to have a significant impact on the environment according to the Planning Director. You can read the DNS here. The issuance of the DNS begins a 14 day period during which comments will again be accepted on this "threshold determination." The comment period closes on August 23rd.
Residents, who live near the proposed development, are baffled by the DNS given the number of letters written to the city during the first round of public commentary. Very specific issues were brought forward by citizens regarding environmental problems that were not addressed by the developer or that were glossed over in "developer-speak." To further obfuscate the issue, the DNS was issued with no staff comments so that those who might want to object to the DNS have no idea how to respond given the lack of tranparency.
Wendy Harris, one of my fellow writers here at NWCitizen, had this to say to the Planning Department as her comment on the SEPA DNS:
"Why has the city issued a threshold determination on 8.8.13 for a major development project, for which there was significant public input and comment, without publicly releasing a staff report? A staff report contains the basis for the SEPA threshold determination, and reveals the information that staff considered, and accepted or rejected, in making the SEPA determination. It establishes that the city's determination was not arbitrary, but was based on valid evidence and proper analysis of legal standards.
This situation violates the public's due process rights. Without a staff report to review, the public is without information regarding the city's analysis and whether or not all relevant information, including the public's testimony, has been considered. It is without information to determine whether the city has correctly interpreted state and local law in reaching its determination. Therefore, it is without a proper basis to guide its comments and response to the threshold determination.
The public is unable to respond to the SEPA determination without a staff report, but the city has already begun running the 14 day SEPA comment period. The public already feels it was disregarded by the Planning Department. So a mistake like this, suggesting disregard for the public process, increases public distrust in the integrity of our local government." Wendy further called for the city to rescind the SEPA determnation and restart the process after the publication of the staff report.
Subsequently, I called Kathy Bell of the Planning Department who told me the staff report requirement was that it be submitted at least by the Wednesday before the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, now tentatively scheduled for September 11th. Yet, Jeff Thomas, the Director of Planning, indicated at the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission (MNAC) on Jul 17th that the staff report and the SEPA determination would be made available at the same time (mid-August). With 35-45 Puget and Samish residents present at the MNAC meeting, a sight seldom seen at MNAC, the residents understood that there would be some concurrency with the two reports. It sounded like the reasonable thing to do...but reason has little to do, it appears, with the Type III process.
Now the public is confronted with an unsupported, unexplained SEPA determination that makes no sense. The SEPA comment period will not see the publication of a staff report. Even when the staff report is issued, it will be, at best, a week to ten days prior to the September 11th hearing before Hearing Examiner Sturwold, hardly time for the neighborhoods (that is, people who have lives, jobs, children and commitments) to read, analyse and respond. Meanwhile, the applicants who are not as constrained with the same timeline, have staff resources and money to do their own reading, study, analysis and rebuttal all day long.
This system is contrived to favor the business interests and to minimize (all while claiming openness of process) the ability of the public to respond. This is a shameful situation. The City Council must act to reform the planning/permitting process and it ought to step in to bring sanity into the University Ridge project.
Comments by Readers
Tip Johnson
Aug 17, 2013It might be instructive to review the history of SEPA determinations. My perception for both the City and County has been a gradual but continuous trend toward lenience. I’m guessing we’d find that actions found significant in the ‘80s are receiving DNSs today.
It probably varies slightly according to administration and directorship, and possibly according to economic climate, but overall less and less meaningful environmental review.
This might be partly driven by so much of it being somewhat repetitive and similar actions having already been analyzed, partly because of more developed procedures and programs like better wetland classification and offsite mitigation, etc.
But mostly, I’d bet the main engine would be cost and inconvenience. Even though developers supposedly pay for the studies, it takes lots of staff time to review them. The studies open lots of opportunity for arguments that can become litigious, creating a contentious environment bureaucrats avoid.
Watching the Port’s fraudulent manipulation of the waterfront review as ‘lead SEPA agent’ really showed that leaving Foxes to manage the henhouse will is not conducive to achieving good public policy outcomes.
We need better oversight of SEPA process from early application through determination and review. It is a matter for discussion whether this should be citizen advisory review, reinvolvment of neighborhood associations in community planning or a legislative initiative requiring independent professional oversight. But the fact that it really isn’t working very well seems fairly well established.