Environmental Coalition of Pierce County blog post.
In both the city of Tacoma and Pierce County, planning departments use a Determination of Nonsignificance to avoid enforcing environmental rules and Growth Management policies. Neighborhoods then must use the court system at great costs.
Both Tacoma and the county neighbors had the support of their local Land Use Advisory Commission (LUAC) or Planning commission, which vetoed large commercial projects which were an environmental Justice issue. It was then up to he community to raise thousands of dollars to have environmental rules enforced.
Three recent local zoning appeals since 2018 demonstrate how poorly Pierce County Planning protects the environment. Lately the leadership to appeal these Conditional Use Permit appeals come from local neighborhood activism, rather than from countywide groups like Tahoma Audubon or Sierra Club which challenged zoning determinations in the past.
Reasons for the decline include the cost of an appeal and the need for local experience with the state Environmental Policy Act, which is necessary to appeal local planning policies and zoning laws.
In South Tacoma, a mega-warehouse was proposed to be built on an EPA Superfund site, which also sits on a significant aquifer. This aquifer provides a backup drinking water supply for Tacoma.
“In particularly challenging years, we use the South Tacoma Wellfield to supplement our water supplies. This enables us to reserve adequate storage for augmenting natural stream flows and maintaining healthy fish habitats,” according to the Tacoma Public Utilities website.
Instead of completing an environmental impact analysis, the City of Tacoma’s planning department used a Determination of Nonsignificance. The city asserted that increased truck traffic could be mitigated without studying neither the public health of the surrounding community nor impacts on groundwater recharge.
This was an environmental injustice. The city did not analyze the impact that such a large commercial development would have on the surrounding community with many people of color, or who are retired people with income below the poverty level.
A request for an Environmental Impact Statement was ignored by the city. Then, the city’s Hearing Examiner was not interested in the findings from the neighbors, and their appeal was rejected. The City of Tacoma Planning Department ignored the Growth Management Plan Policy that limits development in what the city calls “Underserved Communities”.
If an Environmental Impact Statement had been conducted to analyze the situation, the problems with the aquifer and Superfund site would have been studied, and the Health Department would have provided statistics of the declining health for poor people and early deaths of retired residents living near the proposed project.
When an environmental impact study is done, an appeal in court by environmental groups is less costly. Often, the Growth Management Hearing Board can make a determination without causing legal costs to soar.
A proposal by Mor Furniture company to build a Retail Store in a neighborhood that was across the street from a public school. The store would need a change in zoning and approval from the Planning Commission to build on a neighborhood street that was also a dead end.
The 11 neighbors protested, the commission denied the zoning change and the planning department overruled the commission. The zoning was changed, but the furniture company found a building site that was not controversial.
In the case of the proposal to build a Tiny Home Village near Spanaway Marsh and Audubon Springs, Pierce County also issued a Determination of Nonsignificance, ignoring the zoning requirements for wetland buffers, and allowing over 280 units to be built on 30 acres. An environmental impact analysis should have been conducted.
After over $140,000 in legal fees were paid to go to the Growth Management Hearing Board and the Pierce County Hearing Examiner, the neighborhood group still faces more legal fees to appear before other courts before arriving at the State Court Of Appeals. At a minimum, the additional cost of going to the Appeals Court will be another $50,000.
Fortunately, the high cost of an appeal did not stop neighbors who live around Burley Lagoon. When Pierce County published a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the largest geoduck farm in the county, the Friends of Burley Lagoon made their appeal with minimal attorney involvement.
The geoduck farm would impact the protected Pacific Salmon by eliminating eelgrass habitat. In turn, whales that visit the site are not protected either. The shellfish company used their boat to disturb seals and sea lions during feeding. All of these species are protected by the National Marine Mammal Act, and Pierce County did nothing in response.
What’s more, Pierce County planning staff ignored a 2019 Federal Court Decision that required a Cumulative Impact Analysis for the entire South Puget Sound before granting a permit. Staff insisted this large geoduck farm would only have minor impacts.
Friends of Burley Lagoon the neighbors decided to appeal to Shoreline Hearing Board Pro Se — without an attorney. If they win this appeal, they’ll need funding for attorney for next appeal to the County Superior Court at $40,000 then they’ll need at least $20,000 to appear before the State Court of Appeals.
This year, a new Environmental Coalition was formed by activists who were previously active in Audubon and Sierra Club. Some testified at hearings and wrote comment letters. Volunteers in the Environmental Coalition have no legal staff and limited fundraising capability, but we work hand-in-hand with a variety of organizations to meet their objectives.
So what can be done to reduce these high court costs in Pierce County?
- Win the appeals. Sounds easy, but it really means hard work at fundraising, finding environmental sympathy in the community.
- Ask attorneys to set a ceiling for appeal costs. Once the cost is estimated, attorneys may finish the job on a pro bono basis, if asked. When court costs for initial hearings are over $100,000, some attorneys are willing to share in the cost of justice.
- Apply for grants. The Center for Biological Diversity funded protection for Audubon Springs and stopped the Cross Base Highway two decades ago. Their contact information is online.
- Change county policy for environmental review. With a newly elected County Executive in office, he could set a size limit for new projects that would require environmental review for large projects. The planning department can then require an environmental impact statement or a Cumulative Impact Analysis. This environmental review will create an opportunity for the county staff and environmental groups to work together and address the environmental concerns that are fought over in court.
We have good environmental laws, and Pierce County Code, it is just the last 8 years when the Determination of Nonsignificance was used repetitively to avoid the State Environmental Protection Act.
For example when a golf course resort for 600 people was proposed to be built in a volcanic hazard area, the the permit applicant should have been told to put the shopping center and convention center on higher ground. Instead, $80,000 later, before a state appeals court, the judge told the county to move the buildings out of the volcanic hazard area.
- Determination of Nonsignificance.
It’s time for the county council to change the way DNS is used to avoid the environmental review required by SEPA. County Code can be changed to give the local planning advisory boards the authority to deny a DNS and overrule the Planning staff. These advisory boards would require the new applicant to review the environmental problems that are identified in SEPA and write an Environmental Impact Statement.
We have good state environmental laws to protect wildlife habitat, wetlands, rivers and streams. We just need to use them.
Read the rest of the story at the Environmental Coalition of Pierce County website.
