Laserfiche WebLink
5. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City Council is <br /> responsible for hearing and deciding appeals of SEPA Threshold <br /> Determination and Appeals of conditions imposed in the Mitigated <br /> Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) which were placed <br /> through the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA by a <br /> non-elected official (the Planning and Community Development <br /> Director) . <br /> And finds that the Washington Administrative Code (197-11-680) <br /> provides that agencies, such as the City, may establish <br /> procedures for appeal . The City's SEPA Ordinance, Section VIIC, <br /> describes those procedures which provide for appeal of a SEPA <br /> Threshold Determination to City Council. Thus, the City of <br /> Everett provides rights of appeal to any aggrieved person. <br /> 6 . WHEREAS, the City Council finds that RCW 43 . 21C.075 ( 3) (d) - the <br /> State statute related to SEPA appeals - requires the City to give <br /> substantial weight to procedural determination made by the <br /> Responsible Official . <br /> 7. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there are four alternatives <br /> of action to respond to a SEPA Appeal : <br /> 1. Affirm Revised Mitigated Determination of <br /> Non-Significance; <br /> 2. Remand project to staff to generate specific additional <br /> information; <br /> 3 . Recommend preparation of an Environmental Impact <br /> Statement (EIS) ; or <br /> 4. Make additional findings and based on those findings, <br /> further revise the Revised Mitigated Determination of <br /> Non-Significance. <br /> 8. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that on October 16 , 1991, City <br /> Council, following review of the Staff Report and supporting <br /> exhibits, consideration of the testimony, and after due <br /> deliberation of the issues, Council makes its decision in <br /> accordance with the provisions of this resolution. <br /> NOW, THEREFORE, THE EVERETP CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES TO ADOPT THE <br /> FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: <br /> SPECIFIC ISSUES APPEALED <br /> TSSHR: ACRF.EMRNT FOR ADDTTTONAT. PARKTNG SPACES TMADF.QIIATF._ PT.ArF..S <br /> PRESSURES ON REMAINING EXISTING SPACES <br /> (RE: SEPA Mitigation Measure Number Five) <br /> The Appellant stated that the form of mitigation for providing 10 <br /> additional parking spaces by way of an agreement at a near-by parking <br /> facility was inadequate because the use of such existing parking <br /> spaces would put "additional pressure on the remaining existing <br /> 3 <br /> clbyffcr <br />