Laserfiche WebLink
255 <br /> July 11,1990 <br /> • <br /> Staff recommended that the Council affirm the mitigated <br /> determination of <br /> da n-significance and deny the appeal. Mr. Wood <br /> Mat the Citr's SEPT ordinance. "the determination <br /> appealed from shall be regarded as prima facie correct and the <br /> burden of establishing the contrary shall be upon the appealing <br /> party." He stated this languageis consistent with State statute. <br /> Ned Johnston of 3411 Oakes, appellants <br /> ted he is a attorney <br /> t <br /> representing S amkeepers. He Said the appellants would present <br /> , <br /> the issues o appeal with the first speaker being B King of <br /> StreamkeepersBed Johnston, attorney;Dan Douglass,hortaoulturist; <br /> P1 Bettenmeir; Patricia Johnston, and ammation ollfrome. <br /> Mr.Johnston introduced a.Brief of Appellants which had been sent to <br /> the Council. <br /> Brandon King of 2406 Hillside Lane, Streamkeepers, reviewed the <br /> Streamkeepers program and said that Pigeon Creek No. 1 has not been <br /> adequately protected. He asked that an Environmental Impact II <br /> Statement be required. <br /> Ned Johnston summarized the 13 issues of the appeal requesting that <br /> more information be requiredon this project due to its <br /> environmentally sensitive <br /> site. Mr.. Johnston submitted Exl'bits 1 <br /> through 9,various photos of the site,for Council's review. <br /> Dan Douglas, Horticulturist, 11907 Meyers 00, Snohomish, explained '1' <br /> I ; <br /> potential slope problems and expressed his concern in regards to the 1 <br /> landscape guidelines and the design o4 the buffer areas. <br /> Al Bettenmeir, 4715 Blank Forest Lane, commented on the trafficI� <br /> patterns of the neighborhood and the area. He felt that the traffic '�, <br /> impacts have not been adequately addressed in regards to congestion <br /> and safety. <br /> Patricia Johnston, 411 Oakes, expressed h i ws o the IA <br /> significant impact the subdivision would h the asa a and <br /> supports <br /> t therequirement of an EIS for the project. eIAS <br /> Al L g on,-000 47th Street, pointed out the problems due to storm <br /> runa44 tl undeigrountl steams Ln the arae. kl <br /> Don Hale, 500 47th Street, summarized the appeal and the specific 1 <br /> Impacts that have not been adequately addressed in the Mitigated <br /> Determination of Non Significance on this project. He recommended "'i <br /> that information be require ,1 <br /> Brad <br /> Brad C tt 430 Oakes, Attorney for the Applicant, stat that 111','City staff are the"resident experts on the review <br /> and prearation <br /> OBS. <br /> 44 <br /> o4 a mitigated ON Mr. Cattle introduced a copyof the Planning <br /> Department ledgerfor required EIS, Exhibit No. 10. An EIS has , <br /> never been written nine ine lot subdivision. r. Cattle reviewed <br /> each to the 13 mitigated r quireeentrements and <br /> explained how each <br /> addressed specific concerns or impacts. <br /> Mr. Cattle stated that the Construction Management Plan would <br /> Provide the standards to insure performance and compliance with the <br /> requirements. He reviewed the SEPA process and said that sufficient <br /> data has been provided to make a determination. He felt'that an EIS <br /> ie not appropriate in this case. Kr. Cattle then reviewed the <br /> various points provided in the Appellant's Brief. I <br /> {I <br /> ' <br />