|
Sit
<br /> 1.$ , c,'•, 1
<br /> v August 17,1988
<br /> 4
<br /> BID CALL
<br /> Bids to b7orebcieleve7Ingf 21:017,rs'ort.:2:1!1;;"1;g?"t' LID 725.
<br /> ,p: CIRCLE 14 FINDINGS
<br /> .1,
<br /> "the
<br /> i l'' 1 gt:Vggag:nr=gi=leartrfgdSg=f88°flas'hf011PoPwl"
<br /> FINDINGS
<br /> ,
<br /> 1. On April 15, 1988, the city reoeived an application from Orel
<br /> Brant,Pacific Design Assoc.,4039 21st Ave.W,Suite 102,Seattle,
<br /> 11' WA 98199 for a SEPA environmental review to construct a gas station
<br /> hi• i and convenience store for Circle K. The site is located et the
<br /> northeast corner of 41st St. and Colby Avenue. The site is zoned
<br /> B-2,which permits the propoeed uee.
<br /> 2. After review of en environmental checklist and public comments,
<br /> ,i, ' ) i-Finel Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)was issued on June
<br /> r,'IM I, 15,1988.
<br /> , ,
<br /> 3. An appeal of the DNS was submitted by Bradford N. Cattle, 3305
<br /> likes Ave.,P.O.Box 5397,Everett,WA 98206 for Weaver Development
<br /> Co., Inc. on June 23, 1988. The issue appealed is the oumulative
<br /> traffic impacts on the intersection of alst St.and Colby Ave.
<br /> ',I ' 4. City Council has four alternative actions it can take in
<br /> Fsponse to the appeal. Council can affirm the Determination of
<br /> ',It''l t.' Non-Significance, remand the project to staff to generate specific
<br /> additional information, recommend preparation of an Environmental
<br /> '1 l' ,, Impact Statement (EIS), or make additional findings and based on
<br /> those findings,revise the Determination of Non-significance.
<br /> In I 1,2 2 5. RCP 43.219.075(3)(0)-the state statute related to SEP*aPPeele
<br /> squires Inc city to give substantial weight to procedural
<br /> nli 11 determinations made by the Responsible Official. The Appeal
<br /> hi I,11,'' Procedures section of the city,s SEPA Ordinance No.1348-87,Section
<br /> ,pr,l'41. VIIC states in part, .The determination appealed from shall be
<br /> regarded as prima facie correct and the burden of establishing the
<br /> v; II contrary shall be upon the appealing party.. This language is
<br /> consistent ate with the ststatute mentioned above.
<br /> 6. On Feb. 24, 1988, city Council held a public hearing on appeal
<br /> ';' ZT a SEPA Determination of Non-significance for a proposed shopping
<br /> center at the northwest corner of alst St. and Colby Ave. That
<br /> development was proposed by Bill 088089 0?Weaver Development Co.,
<br /> Inc. The appeal was by Dr. William P. Brust. City Council upheld
<br /> Ikr, 1 1 the Determination of Non-Significance that was issued for the
<br /> proposal.
<br /> le I 7. Dr. Brust then appealed the issuance of the Determination of
<br /> gin-Significance to the Snohomish County Superior Court (Cause NO.
<br /> 88-2-01228-6-Srust v. City of Everett,et al) One of the issues
<br /> I'l appealed to the court was the analysis of cumulative traffic
<br /> 1, I
<br /> '11'4 I Pi i
<br /> i
<br />
|