Laserfiche WebLink
li 234 <br /> June 21,197B <br /> 11 The following are the unanimous.conclusions and-recommendations of the com- <br /> mittee: <br /> 1' (1) Els wasadequate,ana,in aiular contained suffi- <br /> cient <br /> The draft <br /> pertaining housing; <br /> (3) The"final""Eisrnr o subsulation of the tantial changes i <br /> n the <br /> proposal or contain significant new <br /> Th <br /> erefore, <br /> recirculation of " EIS was not necessarY;and <br /> (4) Reasonable <br /> intended to mitigateimpact on housing a ut f the Boa proposal were adequately addresed <br /> . <br /> setheabove conclusions unanimously adopted b the Committee, <br /> is the recommendation o e Environmental Review C mmttee t Everett <br /> City that the appeals of the <br /> ynhomish C cnTUnit <br /> blnCouncil o Snohomish-C d the King one <br /> denied and the <br /> actions of the Responsible Official be approv <br /> Jan Bianchi a Evergreen rvices,representingnohesish co <br /> f the Cie 1 of ohomishC ntandBthe Seattle <br /> Tenants Union,said theConcerncof appellants w that the <br /> issb ng undertaken without a expeectedsim- <br /> pact on low income housing whichis3 vee hortage.ty <br /> She said thethrust o the a that the planning to <br /> address the" which i beim is <br /> n not years <br /> • from 'whesuch <br /> problem <br /> le will be9h less as happened in the last e - <br /> on That uc planning mus be a now is snot only dictated by e sense <br /> of s responsibility to our community,but he 1 requires i <br /> a declaration.of'significance the Everett required Boeing to deal <br /> withtheexpansion on low i mefhousing. She said, <br /> dr E to llyffailed to discuss this issue. While the final EISedoethe <br /> 1 containvi me attempts.consultant,nc alysis,the public has not had an opportunity <br /> tonsitont with regard a low income housing <br /> issue simulta- <br /> neously wothetheP armcOmment ing Director's finalisation ofecause tho material sthe impact statement. <br /> lShe said theappellant's appeal wolves fourpal is as follows: <br /> (1) The failure "Planning D correctlycirculate• the draftr8 o effective jurisdictions i Seattle and north <br /> Kin(2) The gfailure ofthePlanning Department t "parent that g- <br /> the effective jurisdictions a became e <br />• to <br /> new information had b developed. <br /> (3)(3) inadequacyoftheBIS as se it describes the impact of <br /> Tthe h eansion on lowd mod people. ' <br /> • <br /> (4) The inadequacy of mitigation measuresproposed the and <br /> the failure o the-Building Officialtocondition theng <br /> permit on effective mitigating measures. building <br /> Councilman Michelson asked what <br /> percentae of low income peep.there <br /> were <br /> nSnhest County end actually what wasconsidered low inns],and Ms.Bianchi repliedtt4perft in Snohomish were.considered lowincome Ph 2ro614,000 d Peaents. <br /> • <br /> Councilman A =oft <br /> asked if there was federal law <br /> t compelled free <br /> enterprise to provide their employees w they expanded <br /> their businesses,and ms.Bianchi said she knew o no1' etteaeaeopu <br /> be tat gscarenbfbthetprobl2s, and <br /> :City Attorrey,said theappellant ha Planning <br /> Department had failed to correctly circulate he drafttEIStto effectie <br /> jurisdictions <br /> Seattle e North Kbe e HequotedWAC 191-10-4E0 <br /> which adverseenvironmental effects aidentified Cinnthe draft/Els may occur,if <br />