1983/11/02 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

.- . November 2,1983 ''lt 8.te ' 2. The proposed action does not include the simultaneous Planning Commission and City Council adopi on of a comprehensive plan and ''I. ''. the establishment of City zoning. i 11 '1. 3' 'e::'Ireg',1aMtkIlter:ara:'::a8:1'.;:rcPri:Ilt:Zaieq2est:d T7',",!'t:s. , 4. The Responsible Official reviewed the request for a.full EIS but l issued a Final Declaration of Non-Significance. The determinations ' made by the Responsible Official in the Final Declaration of Non 0 Significance are supported by substantial evidence. 5. The pro7ect at hand involves annexAtion. It is not part of any larger project nor is It dependent upon later projects for its '8 I viability. ''1,1, ' 6. The Everett Nearing Examiner has declinod to accept jurisdiction of this appeal and had directed the parties to appeal to the :A Everett City Council. CONCLUSIONS ' "8 8.8 . Rased upon the testimony received at the public hearing,the briefs and arguments of counsel,and the facts detailed above,the following 1. Such assumption does not constitute a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment under 43.2C.030 and,as ,qf 1, such,no EIS is required. 2. An EIS is not required where the"action"amounts to a mere I 11 ', , changing of boundaries with no impact on physical environment. l'I'll,'4,,t,, a' r;:ctl:tt:act::::1e2:aor:ns:co''tlt:Ita:v:I:rale2"ta"a 'L.'III."'l'i 4. While an action might possibly lead to later actions which do have I 8.''i 8 '8 such significant environment effeciu that an impact statement is I '...It, warranted,when such later actions are speculative and unattached to the action currently analyzed,it is improper to consider them e e as part of Ne current project. ..l''4.8 t.. a- neStIVI::u::afs::t1t/i.;Z:e'O ::t:MpZiffsllb::x"gt::T::"aPPr"ch Where an agency has made a determination as to the requirement or absence of requirement of adequacy of an environmental.review, that agency determination is entitled to substantial weight. 7. IIII.Evale,i;::t.City Council has jurisidction to hear and determine 114')IWi' DECISION ,..eiR . 1 Using the above Pindinqe and Conclusions as the basis of tIte Decision, the City Council of the City of Everett hereby determines that the 4'-'.:11 l' ' appeal of the Sukilteo Water and Sewer District regarding the City Of l'‘.1,l'ir' 8 Everett's DeolarNion of Non-Significance is denied,and the Declaration of Non-Significance Is upheld. -' 'I Roll was called with all Councilmen voting yes. 4' Notion Carried ret,