1701 121ST ST SE 2016-01-01 MF Import

�� ��x C H YH� r H � K O H� Ox0 'i) H 'C V1 H �io� Hl7 OH ��S n� a r �� �-+ H g �' Ol7N �� H O fn � � w � Allen Cu[ri�zr Shorelin�_ Na;:s�: .cc;_ e�;�e,:t -�i�� Page -7- 17. S�,cti-�n 19.19G� �a) 5(:_) o[ th�� vee.,tt t�tu�icipal Ccd„ r�yuires that all prcpos�d subs[antial dev�lonment� locateci within Sh�reline Flan and Master Progcams and in R-3A zoned area� have public acce�s provided i� compliance with the City's Cpen Space, Park anc Recreation Plan, and the City Shoreline Master Program. The City of Everett's ParR and Recreation Plan spe�'.fically identifies the subjec[ croperty as part of a linkage system around Silvnr Lake and part of th< parks system of the City of Everett. It is this ordinance that the Citv of Everett cites as it� authority Eor lineal access to the shoreline of Silver L�ke on the subject propert.�. i3. �i';,e Applicant submitted that the reauirement for the :f, foot public watecfront access would be detrimenta: tc the project and contrary ro the policies and regulations ot the Snohomish County Shoreline �ta=_ter Plan. To support his contention, the Apolicant su�mitted that Si:ver Lake is not a shoreline of statewide sianificance ard thus the Apolicar�t is not r=auired to provide Eor t.".? Fublic a shoreiine access along the waterfro�t. According to the Applicant, the only access that i= cequired is a public access to the watec. (Currier testimony) 19. The Applicant submitted that the City's r�auested condition of an eight foot wide Fathway is a Eicure that has been re��ised on two diEEerent occa=ions. The Applicant contends that it is appacent that ehe numerous changes oE the width of the pathway is an indication that there are no regular.ions or ocdinances governing the installaticn of the pathway Eor either its width or construction. (Exhibit 20) :0. 'che City submitted that RCW 90.5&.020 allows non-water �iependent uses which allow for Fublic enjoyment of the �i�oreline. According to the City, the proposed development is a non-•rater dependent use. A limited �ccess to the water, as croposed by the AFolicant, :�euld rr• lnadequate public access a:id would not permit public �njoyment of the shoreline To =upport its contention, tt;e City cited numerous cases tfat the State Shoreline ttearings Board has decide3 in which nen-watr_r depr_ncer.« u�es must provide adea�ate puhli� acc^��. (�rvir.�� �.s[imcry, Cit.i Attorne; r�e�urar.durr;