Laserfiche WebLink
207 'A,': <br /> June 9 1977 <br /> He then presented the historyfollowing- and findings: Y;;:,11 ryp4 <br /> . HISTORY <br /> 1 h. To' <br /> t.pevle 1 1)] an A i 1 Checkesta w submitted .,f'• <br /> subdivision. ble OFfi ial far Ve alena res,a 15]lot <br /> on or <br /> B. by Mr.abs April 0,177,a visit made to a property ',0 <br /> analyze information provided Environmental nCoordinator,to verify and �I <br /> provided he checklist. <br /> y <br /> C. On 2p 111 2 1977,a eCl1&CCeaevne of s iflcunc8 was issued <br /> by ate cr x vn p siblevo£ficval. , <br /> D. On April 25 and April 28,1977,visits were maen ddeto d 28he I';t <br /> Property by ompanrin9 <br /> Mr.John Ratchmatla,for Senior <br /> Engineer form the City o Everett, <br /> h p potential drainage impact.6.On may <br /> �.3 <br /> 97 1 1 betweenMr.La <br /> rry Av1 <br /> 1v <br /> s <br /> notice was <br /> S. <br /> ,M6 1 and Mr.Shockey. At meeting, <br /> deliveredHillis regarding thWIcnnthe <br /> Verbal notice was given by Mr. 1,1 1lahathewouldappeal the Declaration of Significance. <br /> jr1I; <br /> ry. FINDINGS 111 <br /> 1 I, <br /> , <br /> A. The proposed subdivision will discharge storm runoff into11 a 4 which <br /> YenpIs <br /> Merri <br /> ing <br /> .severe erosion, he Creek <br /> nhascausedadjacent ropertYowners to express concerns to the City nthe Past <br /> E. The proposed development tcause approximately 10vehicles per y oseeithe h3treet currently <br /> 9 StLeet and Upper Ridge Road. These roads are etlybpstendardgainresidents have expressed ninthe <br /> shetc f problems inhis area.over <br /> rona <br /> two <br /> 1aepmatele block thinp (76th snLower toadsparked considerable <br /> controversy because of potential imp thvodaurequestntiwithdrawn prior to a defdion, <br /> perty 111 <br /> D. The <br /> P lies <br /> teen t 14-1, <br /> I <br /> �f i he dwest. <br /> etopo f <br /> wnt of <br /> ese <br /> i1 ould have a entiallyadversimpact n the ..a'°residential area. Aon of this di1 have more than a moderate ewer,water,e school end other public C, <br /> He eg1 <br /> facilities. <br /> then gave the Following reasons why he felt an EIS should beqva <br /> 1 ent issues exist w rea- <br /> sonableprobability h significant could <br /> implementation.result from its proposal to rairy the If; <br /> 2. Sufficient precedence exists,in past decisions of both the <br /> 11 <br /> Ii <br />