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

, 7. The lead agency must make its threshold determination "based upon information II reasonably sufficient to evaluate the envirormentai impact of a proposal". (WAC � 197-11-335) I 8. Clear error is the standard of review applicable to substantive decisions made pursuant to SEPA. (Couqar Mounfain Associates vs. Kinq Countv, 111 Wn.2d 742, 747 (1988)] The determination by the governmental agency is clearly erroneous only if the reviewing tribunal is left with "the definite and firm conviction that a mistake nas been committed. Couaar Mountain Associates vs. Kinq Countv, 111 Wn.2nd 747 In deciding this appeai, the Everett Hearing Examiner must accord the City's SEPA determination "substantial weighY'. (RCW 43.21.C.090) 9. The Everett Hearing Examiner may consider environmental information presented after issuance of the threshold determination in deciding the appeal. The purposes of SEPA are accomplished if the environmental impacts of the development are mitigated below the threshold of significance, even if the mitigation is not identified in the SEPA document. (Moss vs. Citv of Bellinqham, 109 Wn.App. 25) 10. The burden of proof in on the Appellant to show that the proposal would have a probable, significant adverse environmental impact. (Boehm vs. Citv of Vancouver, 111 Wn.App. 711 (2002)] 11. As determined by the Everett Hearing Examiner in his Order denying ApplicanYs Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing (exhibit 18), the Appellant satisfied the two-part test for standing as articulated by Washington courts. (finding 19) 12. The City based its threshold determination on information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposal. It reviewed the Environmental Checklist submitted by the Applicant and other inf�rmation on file with the City. (finding 16) 13. The analysis of the record and testimony revealed that the Applicant would be required to provide mitigation for probable, significant adverse environmental impacts that would reduce such impacts below the threshold of significance. Although the Appellant provided alternatives to mitigate traffic impacts, the City determined that the payment of$27,000.00 for tra�c impacts would adequately provide mitigation for the probable adverse impacts on traffic generated by the proposal. Impact fees are authorized under SEPA (RCW 43.21.C.060) as mitigation for impacts. (�nding 16) 14. The alternatives proposed by the Appellant relate to projects other than the project before the City. The City does not have jurisdiction to make the improvements on the Washington State Department of Transportation roadway, inr,luding SR-529. (�ndings 14, 17, 20 & 21) 16