Something has been bothering me for some time regarding the City's issuance of a comp plan SEIS, but I did not have the time to research this until this past weekend.

According to the Washington Administrative Code, the City's handling of the EIS process for its Comp Plan update is impaired and needs to be corrected.

The City's issuance of a SEIS -- Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement -- the only purpose for which was to recommend inclusion of the City's watershed in its UGA, was contrary to the SEPA process.

The city had already issued a final EIS on the comprehensive plan when Mr. Cisar issued his Supplemental EIS. What he should have issued was a draft SEIS -- rather than a Supplemental EIS.

Confusing things further, Mr. Cisar did not respond to the comments received on his SEIS. Even worse, neither the public nor agencies of government have been given an opportunity to review or comment on the city's responses to comments received. Yet during the March Comp Plan hearings, Mr. Beckwith stated he was "working on the responses" to Cisar's SEIS. They have yet to be seen.

Yet the Council immediately directed staff to accept Mr. Cisar's alternative over the PC's recommendation, without following proper process.

(1) Mr. Cisar needs to amend the title of his SEIS to a draft SEIS, legally noticing all affected parties and agencies.

(2) Mr. Cisar and/or Mr. Beckwith need to issue a formal response on the comments received on Mr. Cisar's SEIS (newly named the "draft SEIS").

(3) Ideally, a public hearing should be held to review and receive input on the city's responses made on that document.

(4) A Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, or FSEIS, should be published.

Thank you.