Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> • r) <br /> • <br /> 1 facility. The dike along the eaaern boundary of the site,adjaceetdo Union Slough, <br /> 2 previously was breached by the city to allow intertidal wetland restoration on the <br /> 3 south portion of the site. Including this municipal property in the UGAwould Mote <br /> 4 Everett to have all of its municipally-owned land hi this area within the pity of <br /> 5 Everest's boundaries,following annexation. Bringing the proposal site into the UGA <br /> 6 for eventual annexagon also would strearnitne permitting associated with fiutme <br /> 7 habitat restoration projects arid enable Everett to efficiently provide public services <br /> 8 to its property. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 D. The EVRI—City of Everett proposal is consistent with the GMA.,including <br /> 11 ROW 36.70A.060(4),which provides: Terest land and agricultural land located <br /> 12 within urban growth areas shall riot be designated by a county or city as forest land <br /> 13 or agricultural land of long term ecimmercial Significance-under ROW 3010A.170 <br /> 14 unless the city or county has enacted a program authorizing transfer or purchase of <br /> 15 devebpment rights." Both the City of Everett and Snohomish County have enacted <br /> 16 transfer of development rights(TEA)programs. The courrtya TCR regulations are <br /> 17 contained in chapter 30.35A SCC. <br /> • <br /> 1$ <br /> 19 E. The EVR1—City cif Everett proposal is subleot to GMA requirements far tJGAs <br /> 241 under RCW 3B.74A.110(8)as the proposal site IS located within the ion-year <br /> 21 floodplain of the Snohomish River, which has a mean annual flow that is greater <br /> 22 than 1;000 cubic feet per se:encl. KoWever,the proposal is exempt from the <br /> 23 prohibition of UGA expansions into a 1O0-yocr floodplain under <br /> 24 ROW 36.70A.11O(8)(b)(i®)(C)because: 11 the proposal sets owned by the City of <br /> 25 Everett; 2)the city plans under the GMA;3)the use of the proposal site will be <br /> 26 limited to wetland enhartcernant and restorat on;and 4)the use at the proposal site <br /> 27 Will not decrease flood storage, increase stormwater runoff,discharge pollutants to <br /> • <br /> 2a fresh or salt water during normal operations or floods, or increase hazards to <br /> 29 people and properly. <br /> 3b <br /> 31 F. The EVR1—City of Everett proposal is consistent with and advances the Puget <br /> 32 Sound Regional Cotjnoit(PSRC)Muiticoenty Planning Policies(.MPP),in particular <br /> 33 DP-29,whlob provides that the County protect and enhance significant open <br /> 34 spaces,natural resour ,and critical areas.. The proposal provides for continued <br /> 35 protection and future enhancement of the open space,floodplain,and critical areas <br /> 36 through the public ownership and continued RCF dation and A-10 zoning of the <br /> 37 site. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 G. 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 UGAs that do not include designated agdoultural 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 /> ORDINANCE NO.141&t <br /> RELATrNC3 TO THE GROWTH MJLANAGMENT ACr,ADO TrNG <br /> FUTURE LAND USE btAP AMtNDNIENF$To THE SNOliOMISH <br /> COUNTY GROWTH tulANAGEMENT ACT COMPREHENSIVE P . <br /> r, <br /> ,C ENDII G THE ZONING MAP TO IMPLEMENT Cr-RNGESTO <br /> THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP,AND REVISING THE SOUTHWEST <br /> URBAN GROWTH AREA(EVRI -(IVIOPEVEE1Ie E —3 <br /> • <br /> Page 24 of 37 <br /> City Council Staff Report Smith Island Municipal Annexation 8.10.2016 <br /> 31 <br />