Loading...
Petso_sepaappealstormwatercodeAppeal of SEPA DNS relating to stormwater code By: Lora Petso 10616 237' Place S.W. Edmonds, WA 98020 vote ep tso a,aol.com 206-542-7464 Standing to Appeal: I have standing to appeal under ECDC 20.06.020 due to submission of written comments 10/28/2021. Grounds and Facts upon which the appeal is based: I appreciate the response provided by the City yesterday, and hope that discussions will continue. The short timeline, however, requires that I get this appeal filed now. 1) Failed process For the initial DNS, the City failed to notify all necessary parties, and also represented to the public that SEPA had been completed. Apparently, this was not true, since the checklist that ultimately surfaced was dated the day after the first hearing. That DNS was pulled. A new DNS was issued, but the opportunity to comment on the re -issued DNS occurred after the City Council had concluded hearings on the underlying proposal, and some Councilmembers and staff had already decided to push to adopt the proposal as is. This fails under GMA (ongoing and continuous public participation), and it fails under SEPA (notice and comments at the earliest opportunity in the process). SEPA after a decision has been taken is not valid. The DNS is invalid due to a failure to provide for comment early in the process. Evidence of the botched process is readily available from City records and press accounts, and I will submit evidence and legal citations for the hearing. 2) Failure to evaluate environmental impacts of proposed code change The DNS is clearly erroneous because it fails to evaluate (or even mention) the significant adverse environmental impact of changing the code to allow untreated stormwater from pollution generating pervious surfaces to be discharged to groundwater in circumstances where such discharge is prohibited under the existing code. ECDC 18.30.060(6)(d). (This change is a bit subtle, inserting the word "hard" into the code, so that only discharge from pollution generating "hard surfaces" are regulated, when the existing code also includes discharge from pollution generating pervious surfaces.) Under SEPA, the City is required to evaluate the negative and cumulative effects of this proposal. What pollution generating pervious surfaces is the City seeking to allow to discharge to groundwater? How many will there be, how large will they be, where in the City will they be located, which water bodies will be impacted, and how much environmental damage will they do? An EIS is required. Evidence and additional legal citations will be provided at the hearing. 3) Failure to mention or protect Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA's) in and near the City. The DNS did not even mention the two WHPA's, one in the City, and one nearby. The City is required to evaluate all environmental impacts of its proposal, including the impacts on WHPA's. Evidence and additional legal citations will be provided at the hearing. 4) The proposal conflicts with state and federal laws, including WAC 173-200- 030(2) which protects groundwater from degradation. The DNS response to supplemental item 7 is clearly erroneous. Item 7: "Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment." The City response is that the proposed amendments are "designed" to be consistent with other applicable laws. However, the proposal is not consistent with other laws. Both the current stormwater code, and the new proposal, fail to protect existing beneficial uses of groundwater and fail to protect exiting groundwater quality, in violation of WAC 173-200-030(2), which protects groundwater from degradation. Related laws violated include RCW 90.48, WAC 173-218, and 40 CFR 144.12. Also, as noted in comment 3, above, the City is also in violation of GMA and other laws due to failing to identify and protect WHPA's in and near the City. The City is required to protect groundwater from degradation, WAC 173-200- 030(2), and even the State has admitted that doing the minimum set out in its stormwater manual is insufficient to meet that standard. Evidence and additional legal citations will be provided at the hearing. 5) The DNS is clearly erroneous for failing to identify and address the impact of groundwater flooding, particularly in those areas already subject to flooding. The November 3 memorandum from Zachary Richardson seems to admit that the City may protect areas from impacts from stormwater infiltration. And we seem to agree that my area is not included in the protections. As a result, an EIS is required to evaluate the impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposal on areas already subject to flooding, including mine. Evidence and additional legal citations will be provided at the hearing. Relief sought: I am seeking invalidation of the DNS, and an EIS, including consideration of alternatives, due to the significant adverse environmental impacts of the City's proposal. I, Lora Petso, have read this appeal and I believe the contents of this appeal to be true.