Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> 1 <br /> 2 H. The EVR1 —City of Everett proposal is consistent with and advances the GPP, in • <br /> 3 .particular LU Policy 1.A.7,which provides that designated forest andcaiicultural <br /> 4 lands shall not be included within a UGA unless the designated lands are maintained <br /> as natural resource lands and a TDR/POR.program has been enacted by the city or <br /> 6 the county. The proposal site MI continue to be designated RCF,a natural resource <br /> 7 plan designation, and both the city and the county have adopted TDR programs <br /> 3 <br /> 9 I. Procedural requirements. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 1. This proposal is a Type 3 legislative actin pursuant to SCC 30.73.010. <br /> 12 <br /> 13 2. Slate Sltenvil a rrt alai Policy Act(SENA)(aqui ernents with respect to this non- <br /> 14 project action have been satisfied through the completion of a Draft EIS <br /> 15 issued on September 8 2014,and a Final EIS issued on June 3,2015. <br /> 14 <br /> 17 3. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(1), a notice of intent to adopt this ordinance <br /> i8 was Transmitted to the Washington State Depmtment of Commerce for <br /> 19 distribution to state agencies on December 17,2014. <br /> 20 • <br /> • 21 4. The public participation process used in the adoption of this ordinance has <br /> 22 complied with all applicable requirements of the(3 MA and the SCC. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 5. The Washington State Attorney General last issued an advisory <br /> 25 memorandum,as required by ROW 36.70A.370,in December of 2006 aniltied <br /> 26 ",Advisory Memorandum:Avoiding Unconstitutional Takings of Private <br /> 27 Property"to help local governments avoid the unconstitutional taking of <br /> 28 private property.The process outlined in the State Attorney. General's 2006 <br /> 29 advisory memorandum was used by Snohomish County€rt objectively <br /> 30 evaluating the amendments proposed by this ordnance. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 J. The ordinance is consistent with the record. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 1. to Inconsistencies bateen,the proposed amendments and the GMACP <br /> 35 elements or development regulations hayo been identified. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 2, The proposal complies with ail requirements ofthe GMA, including:the <br /> 38 requirement In RCW 36.70A.070 that a plan be an internally consisted <br /> 39 document the requirements in.RCW 36.70A.130(1)(d)that any amendment <br /> 40 to a comFehensive plan shall conform to the GMR and that any amendment <br /> 41 to development regulations shall implement the comprehensive plan; the <br /> 42 requirement in RCW 36.70A.130(2)that a county consider compbensive <br /> 43 plan amendments no more frequently than once per year;and the <br /> CRon I/NGS Nb.14-rat <br /> RELATING TOME GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT,ADOPING <br /> FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDM +1TS TO TH S SNQHOM H <br /> COUNTY GROWTH Li MANAGEMENT ACT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. <br /> AMENOtNG TI-IE ZONING MAP TO rOPLEM CHANGES TO <br /> TIS <br /> FUTUFM fANJ3 USE MAP.AND REVISING THE SOUTHWEST <br /> URBAN GROYdTRR MS%(EVR I—CITY OF EVERE i i)-4 <br /> Page 25 of 37 <br /> City Council Stafibeport Smith Island Municipal Annexation 8.10.2016 <br />