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

��',`' - :� -; acceleration and deceleration lanes, off-ramp speeds, and reconfigurations. The Appellant also noted that concurrency required by the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.78) requires the City to either adopt policies and/or regulations "that provide reasonable assurances, but not absolute guarantees, that the locally defined public facilities and services necessary for future growth are adequate to serve that new growth, either at the time of occupancy and use or within an appropriately timed phasir.g of growth" (exhibit 11 SEPA Memorandum page 3; exhibit 22 Written Testimony of Ms. Herman) 21. In support of its standing argument and the other arguments relating to the SEPA appeal, the Appellant submitted four affidavits from members. The affidavits stated that injuries would be caused from increased congestion on an already strained corridor and thereby resulting in loss of time to members. These impacts would be caused by the deciine in the Level of Service (L05) for traffic on SR-529 in the Smith Island vicinity. The reduced LUS would be created by the proposal, and especially by the additional large number of heavy trucks using the road. (exhibit 16 Appellant's Response to ApplicanYs Motion to Dismiss; Affidavit of Members; Testimony of Ms. Herman) 22. Pursuant to EMC 19.34, the proposed facility must provide adequate off-street parking and off-street loading berths. The Applicant proposed 20 parking spaces to accommodate trucks, employees, and guests. Additional open space would be available for overflow parking. A ready-mix apparatus loads a truck in ,_ , approximately four minutes which averages to approximately 14 trucks per hour and 110 loads per day. The proposed parking would prevent the q�euing of EY�;!'` trucks greater than two deep. The design of the facility, as submitted by the ;?a"; ' Applicant, would ensure on-site circulation of vehicles entering and exiting the ';='..i:� proposed facility with little, or any, disruption to parking. (exhibit 1 staff report page 7; exhibit 7 Supplemental SPU application page 6; /ngalsbe testimony; Wolken testimony) 23. The proposed facility would include stormwater treatment ponds and a process water recycling system. The Applicant submitted that stormwater and process water would be handied in accordance and consistent with the Sand and Gravel General Permit and the State Waste Discharge Permit. These permits allow pH limits for discharges (ground and surface water) and limit turbidity, total suspended and dissolved solids, and temperature impacts. A representative of the Applicant submitted that the stormwater system would be designed to satisfy, or exceed, the standards of the permits and the City of Everett Stormwater Manual. (exhibif 1 staff report page 1; exhibit 8 MDNS page 4; Wofken testimony) 24. Both the process water and stormwater systems may be reused in batch plant operations. The City provided four optior,s for the stormwater treatment: an i� in�ltration basin, a wetpond, a constr;;�tad wetland, or an SMI StormFilter. (exhibit 1 staff report page 1; exhibit 8 MDNS page 4) 12