Laserfiche WebLink
1 facility. The dike along the eastern boundary of ate site,adjacent to Union Slough, <br /> 2 prevlonsly was breached by ttie city to allow irktertidel wetland restoration on the <br /> 1 s.Guth portion Of the sue. Including this municipal property in the UGAwould eilow <br /> 4 . Everett to have all of its municipally-owned land in this area within the City of <br /> 3 Everett's boundaries,following annexation. Bringing the proposal site into the UGA <br /> 6 for eventual anntion also would stredi Ale permitting associated with Mule <br /> 7 habitat restoration projects end enable Everett to efrolenily provide public services <br /> 8 to its property. it <br /> 9 I <br /> 10 D. 'Me EVR1-City of Everett proposal is consistent with the GMA,including <br /> 11 ROW 36.70A.060(4),which provldes Tema land and agricultural land located <br /> 12 within urban growth areas shall not ha designated by a county Or city as forest land <br /> 13 or acslcultural land of long-tenn commercial significance Under RCW 36.70A.170 <br /> 14 unless the city or county has enacted a program authorizing transfer or purchase of <br /> 15 development lights.' Bath the City of Everett and Snohomish County have enacted <br /> 16 transfer of development rights(TDR)programs. The county's:TEM regulations are <br /> 17 contained in chapter 30215A SCC. <br /> 18 • , <br /> 19 E. The EVR1-City of Everett proposal is subject to GMA requirements far LIGAs <br /> 20 • under ROW W.-MA.110(8)as the proposal site is located within the 1011-year <br /> 21 flea of the Snohomish River,which has a mean arinual flow thet is greater . <br /> 22 than 1 SO cubic feet per second. However,the proposal is exempt from the <br /> 23 prohibition of UGA expansions into a 100-year floodplain under <br /> 24 ROW 36.70A.110(8)(b)(ii)(C)because: 1)the proposal sliels 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 enhancement and restoration;and 4)the Use of the proposal site <br /> 27 will not decrease flood storage, increase stormwateer mot discharge pollutants to <br /> 23 fresh or salt waters during normal operations or floods,or increase hazards to <br /> 23 people and properly. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 F. The EVR1-City of Everett proposal is consistent with and advances the Puget <br /> 32 Sound Regional Council(PS-RC)Muticounty Planning Policies(PAPP),in pardodar <br /> 33 DP-20,Mich provfdes that the County protect end enhance significant open <br /> 34 spaces,natural re.sources,and critical areas.. The proposal provides for continued <br /> 35 protectlon and future enhancement of the open space,tioodpiain,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. G. The ISVRI -City of Everett proposal is consistent with and advances the <br /> 41) Countywide Planning Policies(CPP),in particular DP-1(l). which provides that the <br /> . 41 County shall maintain U0As that do not Include designated agic.ultual 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 /> ORDIW/ate NO.14134 <br /> RaATING TOME GROWTH MANAGOENT ACT,AMA/TING <br /> • FUTURE LAND USEMAPIVENDIgNTSTOThT SNOHOMISH - <br /> COUNTY GROWIli MAMSEMENt ACT COMMEHENSIVE NAN, <br /> ANSNONG THE ZONING MAI TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES TO <br /> • <br /> ma PURRS LAND use MAP,AND REVISING THE SOUTHWEST <br /> URBAN GROWTH AREA(gm-am Off EVERETI)..3 <br /> • <br /> • <br /> • <br /> Page 24 of 37 <br /> City Council Staff Report Smith Island Municipal Annexation 8.10.2016 <br /> 43 <br />