2004/05/05 Council Agenda Packet

Findings & Conclusions 2/25/04 Page3of5 Ecology sent written comments received to the City on December 2°a. On or about December 24th, the City submitted to Ecology its responses to issues raised during the state comment period. Ecology's own responses to issues raised during the comment period are available as part of the SMP amendment process record. Consistency with Chapter 90.58 RCW and "applicable guidelines": On August 27, 2001, the Shorelines Hearings Board(SHB) entered a decision invalidating sections of WAC 173-26, Ecology's guidelines for developing local shoreline master programs under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Because of the SHB's decision and the fact that the submittal occurred before the effective date of the newly adopted guidelines (Jan. 17, 2004), review of this amendment is based on the policies and provisions found in RCW 90.58, including,but not limited to: ` yy 1 • RCW 90.58.020—SMA policiesAte • RCW 90.58.030—definitions and cone t • RCW 90.58.090—"optimum implementati i el ed to shorelines of statewide significance • RCW 90.58.100—use of all *liable fable information,and elements of a SMP • RCW 90.58.900 - liberal construction in terms of implementing the SMA RCW 90.58.020 prioritizes uses within shorelines of statewide significance, first of which is to recognize and protect statewide interest over local interest. This section also recognizes development in the shorelines:that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state. The City believes that the amendment, along with the other regulatory changes, will result in both economic growth and public access beneficial to the state as part of a major, port fatty complex r� Consistency with SEPA Requirements: The City prepared a SEPA checklist and issued a notice of Mitigated Detenination of Non-Significance for the proposed SMP amendments, rezone and Comprehens .?lan. The SEPA determination was published in the The Herald of Everett on March 18, 2003:''''A Revised Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was issued on July 10, 2003. Ecology did not comment on the SEPA notices. Summary of Issues Raised During The Public Review Process: The combined SMP amendment, comprehensive plan amendment and zoning changes process was contentious. However, most if not all of the comments were in regards to the redevelopment plan and not the shoreline amendment itself. In addition, the redevelopment plan includes large areas outside shoreline jurisdiction. Many of the comments, submitted as part of the amendment, support the redevelopment plan due to the possible addition of jobs and public access. However, several letters expressed concerns that included water quality, increased vessel traffic, noise, views impacts, and loss of land for water-dependent and water-related use and development. It