It is interesting to us that we can find so many unaddressed problems with this SEPA Environmental CheckList. It behoves the DPER to regard this submittal as grossly insufficient, especially the mitigation proposed for next-door neighbors. When they moved there they did not anticipate the significant degradation in livability that will occur with this project. Their expectations would have been that the CUP and county codes would be enforced and continue to protect their health and property values, neither of which will happen if this project is permitted.
We all know if those homes along 148th were million dollar homes or they had a high priced lawyer, the proposed permit would be toast. So we will see if there is equivalent county treatment with this permit SEPA.
It seems to us that Pacific Raceways has delayed the process on this development proposal for years, and in our view has continually used it to generate political advantage, cash, or a negotiation position without ever getting to the point either of divulging the extent of or submitting to evaluation of the actual proposal in total as the law requires. This approach has had its advantages for Pacific Raceways in the form of a piecemeal permit for the Kart Track, where the permit terms were not met. In particular the promised last piecemeal permit that the county would issue, where a new track/drag strip and improvements supposedly part of the larger project were permitted but the only point was to make millions off gravel extraction, and the project that was permitted was dropped as soon as the gravel was turned to cash.
It appears the current proposal is from the same play book. It seeks to push the bounds of what Pacific Raceways can get away with this time (as in previous times) without being subject to a full environmental review, by pushing a project that stays away from the areas that are in serious contention, but still pushes the limits of what they should be allowed to get away with. This allows Pacific Raceways to “win” by avoiding an EIS (again), and getting a much less restrictive Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance and getting the county to give in, and give more than they should. If you recall there have been previous “conditions” or mitigations that have been agreed to under past permits where the conditions were never met. It appears there is substantial reason to believe this is more of the same.
For Pacific Raceways the current move is all to the good. If they get the MDNS and project permit/approval they are looking for they win, and get mega-bucks from gravel and expanded industrial use on their property, while not committing to anything, thus having maximum flexibility for any direction or next step they want. They also would get to set the precedent of getting greatly expanded on-site drain field sewage disposal, which has serious ramifications for the future expanded project. So if the DPER turns them down, or says do an EIS anyhow they can then turn to the Council and say they need the Council to given them more flexibility under the terms of the ordinance and special process they were gifted by the Council. Either way Pacific Raceways is not at this point putting anything substantial on the table that creates risk. Like the fact that they agreed to a conservation easement in return for a rezone that appears to have been in bad faith, as it is clear they never intended to honor the commitment they made.
Jason has said a lot about consultants hired, studies to be done and so on. Much of that sounded fairly positive but leaves us concerned about being in the position yet again of giving Pacific Raceways what they want now in return for their word the community will get what they are promised later. Only later there will be another entirely new list of what Pacific Raceways needs in order for the community to get what it wants.
We don’t say this from a position of paranoia, but rather just taking a stark look at each move that has been made from 2000 forward, including permits, zoning changes, appeals and ordinance changes through King County Council. We don’t see one of these permits or processes where what we were told we were getting is what we got, and we think it flies in the face of reason to assume on faith that for some inexplicable reason that this time it will be different.
Should you have any questions, feel free to contact Don Huling, 253-887-8721 or email dwhuling@comcast.net
Sincerely,
Jeff Guddat, SCAR Chairman; John Cooper, Vice Chairman; Don Huling; Sandy Gaither; Karen Meador; Linda Worden; Larry Worden, Board Members