Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> 1 facility. The dike along the eaSterri boundary of the site,adjacentto Union Slough, <br /> ry previously was breached by the city to allow intertidal wetland restoration on the <br /> 3 south portion of the sae. Including this municipal property in the UGA would allow <br /> 4 Everett to have all of its municipally-owned land in this area within the City of <br /> Everett's boundaries,following annexation, Bringing the proposal site into the UGA <br /> 6 for eventual ennet'wn also would streamline permitting associated with future <br /> 7 habitat restoration projects and enable Everett to efficiency provide public services <br /> 8 to its property. • <br /> 9 <br /> 10 U. The EVRI-City of Everett proposal is consistent with the GMA, including • <br /> 11 ROW 30.70A.06O(4), which provides: 'Forest land and agricultural land located <br /> 12 within urban growth arms shall not be designated by a county or city as forest land <br /> 13 or agricultural land of long-term commercial signfficence under RCW 36,70A,17O <br /> 14 unless the city or county has enacted a program authorizing transfer or purchase of <br /> 1 dsvetopment right ." Both the City of Everett and Snohomish County have enacted <br /> 16 transfer of development rights(TI R)programs. The c ounty's•TE R regulations are <br /> 17 contained In chapter 2€1.31 SCC. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 E. The EVR1 -City of Everett proposal is subject to GIM requirements for tJGAs <br /> 20 under ROW 36.7OA.11(($)as the proposal site is located within the 100-year <br /> 21 floodplain of the Snohomish River, which has a mean annual flow that is greater <br /> than 1,040 cubic feet per second. However,the proposal is exempt from the <br /> 23 prohibition of UGA expansions irlto a 100-year f oodplain under <br /> 24 RCW 36.70A.11 O(6)(b)Q)(C)because: 1)the proposal siteis owned by the City of <br /> 25 Everett: 2)the city plans under the OMA;3)the use of the proposal site will be <br /> 26 limited to wetland enhancement and restoration;and 4)the Use of the proposal site <br /> 27 win not decrease flood storage, increase stormweter runoff,discharge pollutants to <br /> 28 fresh or salt waters during normal operations or floods, or increase!wards to <br /> 29 people and prop <br /> 3n <br /> 31 F. The EVR1-City of Everett proposal is consistent with and advances the Puget <br /> 32 Sound Regional Council(PSRC)Multicotinty Planning Petioles(MPP),in part .€lar <br /> 33 DP-29,which provides that the County protect and enhance significant open <br /> 34 epees,natural resources,and critical areas_ The proposal provides for continued <br /> 35 protection and future enhancement of the open space,iloodplain,and critical areas <br /> 36 through the public ownership and continued RCF designation and A-10 zoning of the <br /> 37 site. • <br /> 38 <br /> 39 a The EVR1 -City of Everett proposal is consistent with and advances the <br /> 40 Countywide Planning Policies(CPP),in particular DP-1(f),which provides that the <br /> 41 County shall maintain I JGAs that do not include designated agricultural or forest land <br /> 42 unless the city or county has enacted a program authorizing transfer or purchase of <br /> 43 development rights, Both the city and county have adopted TOR programs. <br /> ORO1NANCE NO.14-1Si <br /> RELATING TV THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT,ADOPTING <br /> FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDt T$T-Ma SNOT OMISH <br /> COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT COMPREHENSIVE PIAN. <br /> AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES TO <br /> THE FUTURE LANO USE MAF,MD REVISING THE QST <br /> URBAN GROWTH AREA(EVR1 CITY OF EVERErr)-3 <br /> Page 24 of 37 <br /> City Council Staff Report Smith Island Municipal Annexation 8.10.2016 <br /> 29 <br />