2005/08/10 Council Agenda Packet

Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 2005 Page 5 Ms. Cunningham stated that when the City was originally reviewing the Shoreline Master Program, the City received comments from Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Ecology that said that there should be 200 to 300 foot buffers along the City's entire shoreline areas and she felt the City has come a long way since then with more specific analysis. Commissioner Ebert was still concerned over the 200 foot buffer requirement. Mr. Laschever stated that as Ms. Cunningham stated there were some discussions about 200— 300 foot buffers along most of the City's shoreline. He stated that the settlement agreement allows a property owner the mechanism to reduce buffers for expansion and development purposes. Commissioner Ebert asked Mr. Laschever if the document before Commission provides a mechanism to get to a reduced buffer based upon good science and restoration. Mr. Laschever responded yes and added economic viability. Commissioner Trautman asked Ms. Cunningham about on site and off site mitigation for buffers. Commissioner Ebert stated that he thought that buffers could be reduced based on mitigation elsewhere; however, that could not be accomplished without providing some buffer enhancements on the specific property. Ms. Cunningham stated that the buffer has to insure no net loss of function for the wetland that is adjacent, so off-site buffer mitigation is not allowed. She explained that if there was an interior wetland, the wetland could be filled and mitigated somewhere else in which case the buffer would be provided at the new wetland. Commissioner Olivers had heard that BNSF was a partner to the Commuter Rail proposal which was proposing to push the seawall out in some areas and double track some single track sections along the beach and was wondering if the language regarding restoration of a beach with a slope would preclude any track improvements. Ms. Cunningham stated that she was not aware of any current proposals in Everett. She added that at one point BNSF did propose some mitigation in Everett through some beach enhancement or bridging areas where streams flow out. The shoreline master program does provide for railroad expansion through a conditional use permit which allows Ecology to place conditions on the project. Mr. Laschever stated that there have not been any changes to the proposed amendments that affect that one way or the other and that during the settlement process, the parties actively explored that and tried to in a more generic way reflect that there are some things that can be done to restore function and value along that part of the shoreline without really elaborating or doing anything that would prescribe it or prohibit it. Public Hearing Vic Loehrer, an owner of Dagmar's Marina at 1871 Ross Avenue, stated that part of his property was in the shoreline designation aquatic conservancy. At the time the SMP was adopted, they didn't have any objections because they still had a 100 foot buffer; however, the new buffer will be 200 feet. He felt that the new buffer would add further constraints to his narrow piece of property and that essentially the 200 foot buffer would prevent them from expanding their facilities. He added that extending buffers from the River where there was an existing maintained dike appeared to go beyond what was necessary to protect the River's environment. He strongly objects to the 200 foot buffer. Peggy Toepel, 11110 3rd Place SE, Everett Shorelines Coalition, stated that the Coalition is party to the settlement agreement and fully supports the modifications and additions as detailed in the packet. They feel that the provisions will enhance Everett's constructive role in achieving a healthy future for Everett shorelines including the Snohomish River estuary and in turn a