|
��wnt\�.ti���
<br /> ?:Jy,'
<br /> s~
<br /> j �
<br />�::�
<br /> 4,�..�D.x
<br /> - Department of Transportation (WSDOT) with regard to intersection design and
<br />' f�;;°' merge lane cunfigurations. WSDOT determined that the present SR 529 ramp
<br />�;,��;a location could not be reconfigured, but recommended striping and signage to
<br />��`_. mitigate the Empacts. The Applicant also consulted with the Burlington Northern
<br />;:f�_ '' Railroad for provision of safery lights and cross arms at the adjacent railroad
<br />��a'4 ', crossing off SR 529. (exhibit 7 Supplemental SPUApplication pages 6 & 7)
<br />� :,,. .
<br />�*;;;,b 15. Pursuant to the City's Traffic M�tigation Ordinance (#2425-99), the Applicant is
<br />_& required to pay $27,000.00 in traffic mitigation fees. The impacts have been
<br /> identified to the Applicant, and the Applicant has indicated the impacts do exist
<br />''� �; and the mitigation, as imposed, is reasonable. (exhibit 1a staffreport page 7;
<br /> Wolken testimony)
<br />�.y'� .
<br /> � 16. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the Ci,y of Everett was
<br /> dzsignated as the review agency for the projects along Smith Is!and, including
<br />�� � the inst�nt proposal and subject property. The :.ity reviewed the environmental
<br /> f�-'
<br /> � ;�' impacts of the proposed development and issued an MDNS on August 29, 2005.
<br /> The MDNS contained two conditions: grading/filling on-site and payment of
<br />;���,.,; $27,000.00 in mitigation fees. In addition to these noted conditions, the MDNS
<br /> '• contained 35 paragraphs identified as "Information for Developer' that setforth
<br /> ' , development practices required by state and local laws. These requirements
<br /> � pertain to Design and Construction Standards, sewer and water systems,
<br /> ;� permits, fire protection, parking, hazardous products, building setbacks, and
<br />-•�.,.,.�; landscaping. (exhibit 8 MDNS pages 2-6)
<br /> .s�,-
<br /> ' � 17. On September 12, 2005, the Intemational Union of Operating Engineers
<br /> (I.U.O.E) Local 302, filed a timely appeal of the MDNS. The appe2l related to
<br /> adverse impacts on traffic, public access to shorelines, wetlands, view impacts,
<br /> and height impacts. (exhibit 1b supplemenial staff report; exhibit 8 MDNS;
<br /> exhibit 10 SEPA Appeal)
<br /> 18. Pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the Everett Hearinq Examiner, a pre-
<br /> hearing conference on the permits and the SEPA appeal was held on October 6,
<br /> 2005. Subsequent to the pre-hearing conference, the Applicant through its
<br /> � attorney, William T. Lynn, moved to disrniss the appeal on the grounds that the
<br /> Appellant did not have standiny to chailenge the issuance of the MDNS. The
<br />� � Applicant asserted that although the AppellanYs alleged impacts are w•ithin the
<br /> zone of interest protected by SEPA, the Appellant tailed to "demonstrate
<br />, sufficient evidentiary facts to indicate that at least one of the union's members
<br /> would suffer an injury in fact as a result of the City's issuance of the MDNS".
<br />, ' (exhibit 14 Applicant's Motion to Dismiss page 2J Although the Appeliant failed to
<br /> appear at the October 6, 2005 pre-hearing conference, they submitted a
<br /> response to the ApplicanYs Motion to Dismiss. The response dated October 14,
<br /> 2005 incorporated a Motion to Dismiss the AppellanYs claims pertaining to the
<br /> wetlands, view and height impacts, and public shcreline access. In addition, the
<br /> Responee included affidavits from Union members to support the AppellanYs
<br /> 10
<br />
|