Works In Progress - July 2003 - SEPA Violations in Conference Center Planning

I presented the following information to the Olympia City Council on June 12. It was written in response to a telephone communication from Conference Center project manager and City of Olympia Senior Planner Steve Friddle who stated, "An EIS has not been done for the Conference Center," and that all pertinent information was on the project's website. On the website at this writing there is no reference to any environmental review for this project.

Arts & Conference Center Project website:

http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us/generalgov/accenter

The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires an environmental review to be conducted and full disclosure of all potential impacts of a given project before the commitment of public funds or resources. In the absence of an environmental review including an Environmental Checklist and Environmental Determination, and subsequent Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS), the City of Olympia cannot proceed with this project.

SEPA requires environmental review process to be "integrated with agency activities at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values" SEPA requires, "The lead agency shall prepare its threshold determination and environmental impact statement (EIS), if required, at the earliest possible point in the planning and decision-making process, when the principal features of a proposal and its environmental impacts can be reasonably identified."

Further, full public disclosure of environmental review information is required under SEPA.

"To meet the requirement to insure that environmental values and amenities are given appropriate consideration along with economic and technical considerations, environmental documents and analyses shall be circulated and reviewed with other planning documents to the fullest extent possible."

However, the online announcement for the June 10 Public Hearing indicated the hearing would take place for public input limited to three elements of the Convention Center planning process, "capital financing, operating and maintenance costs, and facility design," not the project total project. Information about environmental considerations was excluded and the public was asked to provide comment in the exclusion of this critical information..

During the City Council meeting June17 in response to my statement and a request by Council member Matthew Green for information on SEPA requirements, the City Attorney stated [in contrast to the prior public notifications] that this decision is only a property acquisition for which the previously conducted Nonproject Review was sufficient. SEPA defines two categories of actions for which environmental reviews are necessary: Project actions and Nonproject actions. Project actions involve a decision on a specific project, e.g., a specific construction project. Nonproject actions involve decisions on policies, plans or programs, e.g., comprehensive land use or zoning.

The City Attorney stated that once plans are finalized they would do a SEPA Project Review in order to obtain building permits. This is inconsistent with SEPA requirements. Purchase of land for a specific project, namely the Conference Center, constitutes a Project action. SEPA is required during the initial stages of any project, "at the earliest point." SEPA states, "agencies should adopt procedures for environmental review and for preparation of EIS on private proposals at the conceptual stage rather than the final detailed design stage." SEPA regulations must be adhered to before "irretrievable and irrevocable" commitment of public funds or resources to a project, or any commitment to a project whatsoever.

Apparent Public Announcement of Prior Project Approval

I included in my letter to City Council on June 12 my observation concerning the Arts and Conference Center Review Schedule, dated April 21, which was at that time linked to the Conference Center web page at http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us/generalgov/accenter/pdf/Schedule5-1.pdf This Review Schedule indicates "Approval" for MOU on May 6 and "Approval" for all remaining elements of the Conference Center on June 24.

It appears that the City Council has via the online posted calendar, notified the public that the project was approved before the calendar was posted on 21 April 2003, prior to any environmental review, the collection and presentation to the public of all relevant information, or a public hearing.

For the City Council to make a formal decision approving this project, after public notification of the City's prior "approval" of this project, appears to be an unlawful and unconstitutional ex post facto justification for prior agency action. Hence, it appears that a formal Council vote on this matter would be in violation of Washington State and Federal Law, specifically: The United States Constitution: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." [Article I, Section 9, Clause 3] and the Washington State Constitution: "The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land." [Article I, Section 2] "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts shall ever be passed." [Article I, Section 23].

I downloaded the review schedule cited above through the link on the Conference Center website at 3:25pm June 11. On June 12, at 5pm I submitted a letter to City Council containing the above information. At 8:30pm that evening, I noticed the link had been removed, the review schedule was no longer available to the public through the project's website. The above link, however, remains active.