2005/08/10 Council Agenda Packet

Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Laschever stated that much of what is in the settlement affects the Smith and North Spencer Island areas and the Marshland areas. In terms of the overall shoreline, there is much of it that remains basically as originally adopted. Areas of Settlement The Central Puget Sound Growth Hearings Board ruled that the designations of Smith and North Spencer were not sufficiently protective under their reading of the Shoreline Management Act. In working with Washington Environmental Council and Everett Shorelines Coalition, Smith and Spencer Islands will remain the same with an urban mixed used industrial designation. There are provisions with regard to restoration and buffer protection and mitigation for the wetlands and river habitat but the designation remains the same. The marshlands were the other area that the City was asked to go back and review. The resolution to that issue is to do a subarea plan that looks at the restoration opportunities for the marshland. It has been identified as one of the best opportunities for significant salmon habitat restoration. While that subarea plan is being prepared there is an interim designation which allows the existing uses to continue and those are primarily agriculture and infrastructure type uses. The subarea plan will allow the City to look at the area in more detail in the development of higher priority areas for restoration. _4- There were many areas where by agreement with the parties, that were determined that no changes were necessary to the current SMP and those are in the areas that are highly degraded and constrained by infrastructure such as BNSF railroad lines. 4. The Simpson site settlement included an agreement that was made earlier between the City and the Tulalip Tribes which laid out an approach to the wetland areas. 4. Changes are based on the work the City did on SEWIP where there was a lot of inventory work and scoring of the wetland resources. The wetlands with the highest ranking required a 200 foot buffer (rather than the current 100 feet) with an opportunity to reduce or increase buffers based on a biological evaluation. . There have been some minor changes to the uses that can occur in buffers primarily which focused on the standards for stormwater facilities. The idea is to reduce the footprint of stormwater facilities within buffer areas. -4- Requires greater protection in areas designated aquatic conservancy. 4- Mitigation was an issue regarding how much replacement wetland has to be provided when there is a wetland impact. There are no changes in the ratios, but a condition was added that addresses the timing of mitigation. This is important because there could be a loss of function and value during the period of time between when development occurs and mitigation is completed. The SMP already required that mitigation for impacts to tidal areas be completed in advance or concurrently. The new condition also requires that the mitigation for impacts to non-tidal wetlands that are outside the development footprint be done in advance or concurrently with development. Ms. Cunningham added that the requirement mainly affects City owned properties around the waste water treatment plant and a City owned property by Ferry Baker Island that is designated conservancy but the City may want to provide some public access improvements that may impact wetlands. Commissioner Ebert asked if there were any exceptions to the publicly owned properties. Ms. Cunningham referred to the next slide which showed the development footprint within the estuary to explain that those would be areas that would not be impacted.