Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />4t <br />42 <br />43 <br />H. The EVR1 — City of Everett proposal is consistent with and advances the GPP, in <br />particular LU Policy 1.A.7, which provides that designated forest and agricultural <br />lands shall not be included within a UGA unless the designated lands are maintained <br />as natural resource lands and a TDR/PDR program has been enacted by the city or <br />the county. The proposal site will continue to be designated RCF, a natural resource <br />plan designation, and both the city and the county have adopted TDR programs. <br />1. Procedural requirements. <br />1. This proposal is a Type 3 legislative action pursuant to SCC 30.73.010. <br />2. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements with respect to this non - <br />project action have been satisfied through the completion of a Draft EIS <br />issued on September 8, 2014, and a f=inal EIS issued on ,lune 3, 2015. <br />3. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(1), a notice of intent to adopt this ordinance <br />was transmitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce for <br />distribution to state agencies on December 17, 2014. <br />4. The public participation process used in the adoption of this ordinance has <br />complied with all applicable requirements of the GMA and the SCG. <br />5. The Washington State Attorney General last issued an advisory <br />memorandum, as required by RCW 36.70A.370, in December of 2006 entitled <br />"Advisory Memorandum: Avoiding Unconstitutional Takings of Private <br />Property" to help local governments avoid the unconstitutional taking of <br />private property. The process outlined in the State Attorney General's 2006 <br />advisory memorandum was used by Snohomish County in objectively <br />evaluating the amendments proposed by this ordinance. <br />J. The ordinance is consistent with the record. <br />1. No inconsistencies between the proposed amendments and the GMACP <br />elements or development regulations have been identified. <br />2. The proposal complies with all requirements of the GMA, including: the <br />requirement in RCW 36.70A.070 that a pian be an internally consistent <br />document; the requirements in. RCW 36.70A.130(1)(d) that any amendment <br />to a comprehensive plan shall conform to the GMA and that any amendment <br />to development regulations shall implement the comprehensive plan; the <br />requirement in RCW 36.70A.130(2) that a county consider comprehensive <br />plan amendments no more frequently than once per year; and the <br />ORDINANCE NO. 14-131 <br />RELATING TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT, ADOPTING <br />FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS TO THE SNOHOMISH <br />COUNTY GROVITH MANAGEMENT ACT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, <br />AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES TO <br />THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND REVISING THE SOUTHWEST <br />URBAN: GROWTH AREA (EVR1 - CI TY CF EVERETT) - 4 <br />16 <br />