Laserfiche WebLink
25. No public se�ver is on-site. The Applicant proposes to construct either a septic <br /> system or holding tanks similar to those currently being utilized at the <br /> neighboring compost tacility. Any sewer service method opted by the Applicant <br /> must be approved by the Snohomish County Health District prior to the City <br /> issuing any permits. (exhibit 1 staff report pages 6, 7, 11; exhibit 7 Supplemental <br /> SPLI application) <br />;..�:*: ' 26. Po`abie wate� is avai(able on-site via a two incn waterline. Enhancement to the <br /> y`'�';;, water,ine may be necessary in order to achieve adequate water pressure to <br />` ` satisfy fire fiow requiremen!s. The City is currently increasing the size of the <br />; �� waterline to 12 inches which would provide adequate water flow. If its waterline <br /> ,��;4, is not increased, the Applicant proposed impounding stormwater and/or <br />�� �T ' processiny water as a volume sufficient to meet flow needs. The Applicant must <br /> satisfy ail water standards, as well as water pressure _�tandards. (exhibit 1 staff <br /> report page 7, exhibit 7 Supplemental SPU application page 3; Ingalsbe <br />' ���; ' tesNmony; Wolken testimony) <br />.,. <br />� <br />, ;�, A` 27. Smith fsland is a designated shoreline of the State of Washington that requires a <br />�'" " Bioiogical Assessment of the potential impacts of the proposal on chinook <br />� �3 ; ; saimon and/or bull trout. The two species of fish have been listed as <br />;u '� s "threatened" pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Endangered Species Act, <br />;,- '�' 16 USC 1531 et seq). The Applicant retained GeoEngineers Inc. of Seattle <br /> Washington to prepare the Biological Assessment. The assessment determined <br /> that the project site �oes not support any aquatic or riparian habitat that can be <br />.. ` accessed or utilized by the protected species and that there would be no direct <br /> �' impact to chinook salmon or bull trout or their habitat. The Biological <br />�F�4' <br />�" Assessment did note that potential indirect impacts to adjacent aquatic habitats <br />' may result from the stormwater and w��tewater discharged from the site. <br />'' y Treatment and ero�ion control measures would be required to prevent sediment I <br />' '�-, release. (exhibit 3 Biological Assessment) <br />'�, <br /> i. ",�t�,; <br /> � { 28. Pursuant to EMC 19.37.070, the Applicant retained GeoEngineers Inc. to prepare <br /> a Wetland Delineation Report on the subject property. Field delineation identified <br /> + two palustrine emergent wetlands on-site and ^Iso identified that the site is <br /> bordered by an unnamed slew to the s�uth. Wetland #1, along the eastern <br /> perimeter of the site, is approximately 0.25 acres in size. Wetland �2, along the <br /> southeastern perimeter of the of the siYe, is approximately 0.50 acres in size. <br /> Both of these wetlands are characterized as Category IV V��etlands and require a <br /> 25-foot buffer. For the rest of the site, only directional signage is proposed. <br /> (EMC 19.37.090(8)(4); EMC 19.37.100(A)(4); e�xhibit 1 staffreport; exhibit 4 <br /> Wetland Delineation) <br /> 29. The unnamed slew, a natural feature, is isolated frorn tidal inflow by a tide gate. <br /> The slew is classified as a Category II stream requiring a 50-root buffer. The <br /> Wetland Delineation Report concluded that construction anc; operation of tne <br /> 13 <br /> � <br />