City Council Members Say Encampment Can’t Go Forward Until Environmental Review is Complete; Mayor’s Office Calls Foul

Not necessary, the letter allows for the potential for the Council to consider now, without waiting for the land use code changes, the 2nd bill – the funding portion of the plan. If after having a conversation about the 2nd bill, the Council supports moving forward with the plan, the City can do so with a temporary use permit – a non-legislative, administrative action that doesn’t require an environmental review.

So, in other words, the Mayor’s office accuses the council of treating dissimilar things as dissimilar, agrees that they are bound by the law to not act until SEPA is complete, then hopes they will follow the Mayors impressive example of just talking about things.

Well McGinn sure has the bum vote rapped up for ’12.

Now if the homeless were ungulates Conlin would be first in line to take care of them.

Seattle is too expensive for homeless people.

You could have bought them homes by now anywhere else in the US.

and you’ve got the asshole wrap for a long time to come.

Indeed. This constant sniping and posing by the mayor’s office is the opposite of how government — any government — has to work. I stopped believing in McGinn’s progressive stances when I saw how little he cares to politic for them, which means to argue, compromise, form coalitions, and get the job done. He would rather go down in flames being right. Especially with all his born-again budget-thumping, he sounds a lot more like a Republican than a progressive.

Team McGinn response is just plain nonsense on this.

“Conlin said the two projects weren’t comparable. “[McGinn's encampment proposal] is land use legislation. It’s not equivalent. SEPA’s really specific set of regulations under the Growth Management Act, and we can’t take any action until SEPA review is completed,” Conlin said. In contrast, the tunnel does not require SEPA review; signing the legislation only affirms that “the agreements [with the state] are good.”

Huh? SEPA doesn’t apply to the tunnel project? Then why are feds, WSDOT and City doing an EIS together? Conlin’s statement needs unpacking.

So I assume that means you will be voting for Mr. President.

Thanks Lisalou, for the clarification about the homeless camp consideration procedure. I hope the Council will keep on this, and move forward with the temporary use permit.

Conlin’s statement about SEPA for the tunnel was wildly inaccurate.

For starters, SEPA is from 1971. It is not a subset of GMA, which happened in 1990.
Here’s a little history primer: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/handbk/hbch01.html

Second, FHWA and WSDOT and SDOT have spent millions on the EIS. They know that the tunnel is officially a “preferred alternative” until the FEIS and Record of Decision are done, and are bending over backwards to comply with (at least) the letter of the law.

Third, if the tunnel doesn’t have to comply with SEPA, why did Council insert the clever language in the agreements about their not being final until environmental review is complete?

Conlin should correct himself, because I can’t believe he really meant to say something so misleading and deceitful. Or perhaps the lawyers at WSDOT and FHWA should clarify the situation for him.

It must be really hard for him to assert the tunnel is a done deal, while at the same time saying no final decision has been reached and elected leaders fully intend to consider the results of environmental review — as required by City, State, and Federal law, ahem.

Under the Growth Management Act, the City is required to go through SEPA review before adopting land use legislation. Most other legislation does not require a SEPA determination. The tunnel is going through a NEPA/SEPA process as a project, we have not adopted any land use code legislation related to it. I’m sorry if my comment wasn’t clear, but this is a rather elementary legal issue, and as commenter Giffy noted, bringing the tunnel into it is simply an absurdity.

It may be true that “most other (non land use) legislation does not require a SEPA review” but that’s not the legal standard. SEPA applies to “proposals for legislation and other major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment.” RCW 43.21C.030(1)(c). The exemptions from that requirement in in the rules, “WAC 197-11-800 Categorical exemptions …(14)(c) The adoption of all budgets and agency requests for appropriation: Provided, That if such adoption includes a final agency decision to undertake a major action, that portion of the budget is not exempted by this subsection.”

The (non)use and abuse of the SEPA process has been a common practice by all branches of the Seattle city government (council, mayor, agencies).

Queen Anne “land-use” along Mercer will be essentially converted from residential to commercial as the result of widening and redirecting traffic from the current access to SR99 along the completely commercial corridor of Elliott and Western. Seattle is ruined with traffic everywhere else, so, Seattlers will get used to traffic ruining Queen Anne too. Is that Conlin’s excuse?

The Mercer Mess through Lake Union gets messier with more traffic redirected this way, plus more traffic between I-5 and Elliott. The DOTs don’t want the public to know just how much more traffic until it’s too late. They’re even implying the two projects (DBT & Mercer West) are unrelated. Conlin intends the public remain ignorant.

right, for some reason, the mayor wants everyone to act swiftly and without regard to legislation on issues he supports…which is only one or two anyway, homelessness and bikes — except his own office, which he only expects to grandstand and obstruct.

I miss Nichols.

Seek help.