July 28th 2pm speak against a bill that could cancel the Orca Appeal

CB121215 would ban pre-adoption appeals - like the Orca Appeal - for large land use actions such as the Comp Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Feb 2025: the Orca Appeal asked Seattle to accurately assess the impacts of increasing clearcutting and impervious surfaces on water quality and endangered orcas and the salmon they need. 

The Seattle Times Editorial Board wrote “No matter that council staff determined there were only 28 such environmental appeals to the hearing examiner in the last 10 years. The average appeal time for dismissed cases was 69 days. This is not gumming up the system. Casting folks who care about Seattle’s environment as a small band of selfish zealots is a hallmark of the administration in the other Washington — relentlessly seeking to undermine both science and citizens’ rights.”

We can do better than the other Washington.

On a Soundside episode with Eddie Lin, Libby Denkman asks if CB121215 is only for future appeals. His answer: "it's a little bit unclear. We are still figuring out what would happen with the current appeals, whether those would proceed or not, and we'll have a more firm answer on that before Tuesday." Hear the Orca Appeal response on Soundside.

• This bill should only be passed with amendment B to streamline (prioritize and shorten appeals to 90 days) or vote no.  Amendment B or reject CB121215.
• This bill should require a Racial Equity Toolkit (RET).
• Eddie says this could stop the Orca Appeal, but that should not be possible while pending in King County Superior Court following the WA Court of Appeals remand.
• CM Lin says he'll meet with anyone to prevent hearing examiner appeals - lets see the results of CM Lin's proposed new public meeting and public comment plan before banning public environmental appeals. (He won’t meet with us)
• Why doesn’t council post public pro/con counts online like King County elections in real time for transparency? By observer count, 75% were against CB121215 at the last public meeting.

 
Environmental appeals to King County Superior Court and Growth Management Hearing Board (GMHB) must prove damage to fish habitat unlike the hearing examiner appeals which allow a broader scope of environmental challenges. 

Regarding the Lake Washington study Eddie mentions: this reductionist study focused on phosphorous and clarity, not the range of contaminants like PFAS, PDBE, 6PPD, PCB,  CECs, turbidity, temperature, or the bacterial counts that frequently close beaches to swimming. Temperature is listed as a contaminant for salmon in scientific studies and is one of the qualifying factors on Ecology’s 303D list for “impaired waters.” These contaminants have been found to cause harm to aquatic life. Phosphorus typically comes from fertilizer and can drop when yards are converted to impervious surfaces; people don’t usually fertilize their roofs or driveways but this is not an accurate representation of overall water quality.

If humans had a 50%+ infant mortality rate like the SRKW, things would change fast. 

We’re so excited to hear Eddie's proposal that he and maybe Council would be considering resolving environmental mistakes made by the city through public comment. 

We would’ve been happy to resolve the errors in the EIS through the 10 months of public meetings and comment that we participated in. Regional experts were ignored. 18 months later and multiple councilmembers still think the 2,859 page EIS is 1,000 pages long. FEIS: 1,307 Appendices: 1,552. Reading the document? Priceless.

How to Prevent Delays

• Do a quality EIS 
• Address public comments that identify dangerous mistakes (for free) immediately, especially when from scientists in relevant fields.
• Move appeals quickly without added delays. City’s unjust dismissal added 16 months.
   

There would’ve been no Orca Appeal if the EIS didn't have mistakes like:

• ‘contaminants are almost immediately diluted to harmless levels upon reaching receiving waters.’
• Endangered species are not present or possible to recover
• Missing or inaccurate baseline information and calculations showing damage to water
• Impervious surface maps from 1985
• Doubling the units without analysis (Comp Plan FEIS)

We wish the Comp Plan Preferred Alternative didn’t:

• cause the second highest vehicle miles traveled of all the options in the comprehensive plan
• put the most development near water resources in drainage capacity constrained areas - where the most trees are
• say the stormwater code would increase peak flow control measures when the stormwater code decreased protections. (Comp Plan FEIS)
   

WA Court of Appeals Judges Burke and Mann asked specifically how will city council have the best information in front of them if appeals are eliminated and pointed out inaccuracies in the city's claims that the state legislature had eliminated all appeals. 

Seattle still meets monthly with developers privately and not with environmental groups.

Speak out for everyone’s rights to protect July 28th, 2pm, Seattle City Council

CB121215 should only pass with amendment B and possibly A or be rejected.