Resolution 4042 - Laserfiche WebLink

22. On August 24, 1994, Mr. Ron Hansen submitted a site plan and permit application to the Public Works Department for the development of the property directly to the north of the proposed Second Chance site as an overnight parking area for four (4) refrigeration trucks. This property was shown as undeveloped on Second Chance's site plan which was reviewed and approved by the Planning Department for the proposed Second Chance Juvenile Facility; 23. On October 4, 1994, a Public Works permit was issued to the property owner for grading activity to the north of the Second Chance site; 24. On October 5, 1994, grading activity was begun to the north of the Second Chance site by Mr. Hansen. This resulted in the alteration of a slope on the northern portion of the site. Grading activities did effect an embankment on the portion of the site proposed to be developed by Second Chance. Appellants allege these activities impact an environmentally sensitive slope and is an issue of appeal; 25. The appellants requested that the Responsible Official withdraw the MDNS because of this grading activity. The Responsible Official did not withdraw the MDNS as requested. A geotechnical report addressing slope stability is required by Condition#5 of the MDNS; 26. The City Council did hold a third public hearing on the SEPA appeal on November 23, 1994; and 27. The City Council reviewed the additional information regarding the potential impacts of the proposed facility (including responses to the questionnaires) and heard testimony from the appellants, applicants (including property owner) and the City Staff regarding the appeal. Responses to the questionnaires indicate a potential for unauthorized absences at similar facilities in other jurisdictions (facility questionnaires) and some drug use by residents of similar facilities (school district questionnaires). This information documents potential impacts on public safety that should be mitigated. WHEREAS THE CITY COUNCIL CONCLUDES THAT: 1. There was adequate information provided to the City Council concerning the impact of the proposed facility on public safety, public services, public schools, social services, neighborhoods, site contamination and other issues of appeal; 2. It has not been demonstrated that the Second Chance proposal will result in a probable significant adverse environmental impact; 3. The additional information provided to the City Council during the SEPA appeal identified the existence of a potential impact from unauthorized absences from a transitional care facility and 3