3210 36TH PL NE 2018-01-02 MF Import

claims of impact from the proposed project. (exhibit 16 Appellant's Response to Motion to Dismiss pages 1 & 2) The Appellant asserted that both their initiai Memorandum (exhibit 10 SEPA appeal) and the affidavits from the union members support the claim of "impacts to its members, injury in fact from these impacts, and a remedy for the impacUinjury". (exhibit 16 Appellant's Response to Motion to Dismiss) The Applicant submitted a reply to the Appellant's Response on October 14, 2005. (exhibit 17 Applicant's Response) 19. On October 17, 2005 the Hearing Examiner issued an Order Denying ApplicanYs Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing. (exhi6it 18) The Hearing Examiner concluded that: (1) any person aggrieved by a SEPA determination may obtain judicial review (RCW 43.21.C.075(4)J; (2) the ierm "person aggrieved" has been interpreted to include anyone with standing to sue under existing laws Anderson vs. Pierce Countv. 86 Wn.App. 290; (3) an organization has standing to bring an action on behalf of its members if at least one of ils members suffers, or will suffer, an injury Suquamish Indian Tribe vs. Kitsap Countv, 92 Wn.App. 816; and (4) standing to challEnge a SEPA will be found if the interest that the party is seeking to protect is within the zone of interest to be protected and regulated by SEPA, and the party alleges an error in fact Anderson vs. Pierce Countv, 86 Wn.App. 290, page 299. To show an injury in fact, a party must properly plead an immediate, concrete, and specific harm. Suqua�r�ish Indian Tribe vs. Kit� Count 92 Wn.App. 816, page 829. No standing is conferred to a party alleging a conjectural or hypothetical injury Trepanier vs. Citv of Everett, 64 Wn.App. 380, page 383. The Appellant submitted Memorandum, written testimony, and affidavits from its members alleging injury due to tne increase of tra�c and travei time� because of anticipated truck and vehicular tra�c generated by the proposal. Testimony and affidavits have sufficiently set forth specific facts that demonstrate a potential injury in fact. (exhibit 11 SEPA Memorandum, commen's on tha MDNS pages 1&2; exhibit 16 Appellant's Response to Motion to Dismiss pages 2, 4 & 7; exhibit 18 Hearing Examiner Order Denying Motion to Dismiss; exhibit 23) 20. In its appeal, the Appellant asserted that its members reside, work, seek recreation, and travel in the general vicinity of the proposed development and are impacted by the potential degradation of tra�fic and travei times that they argue would occur and be exacerbated by the proposed facility. The Appellant stated that the "MDNS fails to differentiate between vehicle types (slower moving, large, heavy truck, and small passenger vehicles) and consider and condition for these � greater impacts on SR 529". (exhibit 11 SEPA Memorandum page 1) The Appellant argued that the "SEPA analysis must consider the differing impacts of types of vehicles to accurately assess the environmental impacts and apply appropriate conditions and mitigations". (exhibit 11 SEPA A4emorandum page 2) The Appellant further asserted thafi the MDNS failed to cunsider cumulative impacts arguing that lane congestion and closure in the area would impact not only to SR 529, but Highway 2 and Interstate 5, as well. The Appellant submitted several mitigation measures to alleviate these impacts, including additional lanes, 11