Laserfiche WebLink
Feruary 9 , 1987 <br /> Mr. Jerry Ervine WHTLINIO <br /> Planning Department FEB 9 1987 <br /> City of Everett, Wa. CITY OF LVi,1:ETT <br /> Re: File No. SMA #9-86 SEPA No . 118-86 Planning Dept. <br /> Proponent: Everett Development Co . <br /> Dear Mr. Ervine, <br /> Have there been " significant changes in the proposal, disclosure <br /> of new significant information, or misrepresentation by the applicant"? <br /> Please see enclosure which shows the parcel under discussion (Legal <br /> Notice states SMA No. 982 whereas Project Review material from your <br /> office states the File No. as SMA #9-86. ) to be a possible site for <br /> the proposed garbage incinerator. If a garbage incinerator is to be <br /> placed on the Everett Development land on Smith Island the previously <br /> presented Environmental Checklist information must be replaced with <br /> a more complete and updated version. More precisely, 1 , 7, 8, 9, 10, <br /> and 11 , commencing of the first page of the checklist. Regarding 2 . iLIH, <br /> emissions must be a considered factor if an incinerator is constructed. <br /> Offsite sources of emissions or odors may not effect the proposal but <br /> the cumulative impact of Weyerhauser, the City lagoon, plus an incinerator <br /> would certainly need to be taken into consideration regarding air quality <br /> Under the treading 3. WATER would it not be correct to say that <br /> the site if bordered on the north by Union Slough? Regarding 2 ) . Does <br /> the answer provided mean that there will be 200 ft. left undisturbed <br /> between the site and the sloughs normal high water mark? If so barging <br /> of garbage would not be possible ( though this may be irrelevent) . <br /> My understanding is that the Department of Natural Resources has <br /> statutory responsibility for management of state-owned aquatic lands . <br /> Does the applicant have verification available from DNR that this approx- <br /> imately 66 acre site "does not have wetlands"? There should be docu- <br /> mented evidence presented by the applicant. <br /> Under C. Water Runoff; 2 ) Surface waters would be exposed to fly- <br /> ash (with incinerator placement) . <br /> IN sequence, d. Are "procedures common to the a)4rea" sufficient? <br /> 5 . ANIMALS. a. A Biological Analysis of the area would most <br /> certainly result in more bird and animal life reported on or near the <br /> site. The whole general area is important to migrating birds and many <br /> s.--- <br />