Laserfiche WebLink
320 <br /> , August 17,1500 <br /> 13. The city considers the cumulative impacts of all existing <br /> 4 aivelopment plus the impact of proposed developments for which it <br /> has applications before it. That interpretation yms upheld by Judge <br /> ‘-L 4 "' Kershner in his Memorandum Decision issued on June 2, 151313. The <br /> ,. <br /> MY !:I 1= The City of Everett did consider cumulative impacts to the <br /> extent required by law. The interpretation of City Ordinance <br /> No. 134B-S7 as limiting consideration of "prior or other <br /> proposed developments"to those proposals for which the city <br /> has an application before it is a reasonable one. The city <br /> , has to draw the line an which future developments it will <br /> consider at some point, or else the analysts is reduced to <br /> speculation. This interpretation draws a clear line that <br /> :1, does not violate the intent of the ordinance. For all the <br /> foregoing reasons the city's derision not to require an <br /> E.I.S.on cumulative traffic impacts will be upheld. <br /> .1 . . 14.On August 3,150/3 a public hearing yms held before City Council <br /> ii hear the appeal of the Determination of Non-Significance. <br /> Testimony was presented by Mary Cunningham, Planning Department; <br /> Brad Cattle,Attorney for the Appellant; Greg Brant, Pacific nesign <br /> Associates, Jim Jones, Attorney for Or.Brust and Bruce Jones, City <br /> 14, i I. Attorney. <br /> t;,, 15. At the public hearing Brad Cattle stated that he felt there are <br /> -Three solutions: To remand the DNS to the Responsible Offical with <br /> direction that a OS be Issued and an environmental impact statement <br /> ;' .', V f be prepared on the traffic issue; to remand to the Responsible <br /> offical to review the situation and await the final outcome of Brost <br /> 10! vs.the City of Everett; or to amend some language in the DNS. He <br /> requested that the City Council revise the language in the note at <br /> M't <br /> I. h,' the bottom of page four of the Determination of Non-Significance to <br /> read as follows: <br /> NOTE. This final DNS may be withdrawn in the event of <br /> a I .ltI OPTE1 Icro'h4ncienillInliFrgFeFis(t1'=:','7u:Frega...iii: <br /> O <br /> it:1 t ! Determination of Non-Significance is predicated. Any <br /> decision made by the court in Brust v. city of Everett, et <br /> al.,Snohomish County Cause No.BB-2-01228-6 which identifies <br /> possible, significant, cumulative traffic impact at the <br /> intersection of 4150 and Colby resulting from known <br /> development in the vicinity of that intersection will be <br /> considered "significant new information"for the purposes of <br /> WAG 107-11-340(3) (a) (11)and will result in the withdrawal <br /> ;01'0 1 k of this final DNS and any permits which are predicated on the <br /> issuance of this final DNS. <br /> 3 ' I <br /> ./WhedrIO:=1,1,n::g(TinlZglrmaAtteX'.""' '"ted that Circle <br /> 17. Jim Jones, Attorney for Dr. Brost stated that it was their <br /> fleitRe7pentl:!Iff!=Y meer2YMIs!::ctislle_ngn'hemIg!telle that <br /> the Circle K proposal is different in that there are not any <br /> unmitigated impacts from the Circle X proposal and a DNS should be <br /> CI 1( issued. <br /> L . <br /> 'L,11' <br /> lit h: <br />. !1,0 'h.,:I, <br /> Ili <br />