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

ynH �r� � p � S C H 9HN r H � ''Z y � H K n H� � M � V1 H Z H Oy� ��g G�• oC t"yZ yy g�y ��tn HOy i111ttf7 �... : 1�': $IIOCEll:l� ., ..... . . Page -21- The rev: t]1Ef1CULC ._2C:luL. ��, ,_;�C 1' `L.c�,__u;,., �nu � 1�:.�._fl�., c,_ .,,.._ �1-. and the Applicant. The major issue was whethec the Applicant is required to provide a lineal shoreline access on thc property that adjoins Silver Lake. In its arugment to reauir: a lineal access, the City did not base its authority on th� Shoceline Dtanagement Act of 1971, the Everett Shoreline Master Program or the Snohomish County Master Proaram. The so L auchocity for the City of Everett to reauic=_ the Applicant t provide lineal access was Ordinance 19.19G5(a)6(b) whir. r�yuires public access to shorelines for propertie= that ar zoned R-3A in the Citv of Ev?rett. The City had to cely c,. this ordinance because the City has not amended its Shoreline blaster Program to include the subject proFertf which was annexed into the City after the Everett Master rroaram had been adooted. Thus the City did not cely upon the designation of the subject propecty as siynificant waters that requir� shoreline access to the public. Instead 'they relied upon their ;cning Code. The Applicant, on the other hand, not only opposed the shoreline lineal access but implieZ that the City did not have the authority to require other conditions of th= shoreline permit. In nearly all of the responses of the Applicant to the conditions proposed by the City, it was stated that the Applicant ��ould develop the property subject to the standards as set forr.h in the Zoning Codes .f the Cit� of Everett or the State of Washington. By this acgumen[, he did not recognize, or appeared not to recognize, RCW 90.58.140(2) which states tr,at no substantial development shall be uncerraken on shocelines oE tt.e State of washinaton without Eirst obtaining a permit from the government entity ha�ainy administrative jurisdiction under this chapter. This statute a:.lows local governments authority to establish a pcogram in which conditions of approval for the purpose of pretecting =hocelines of th� State of Washinaton may be established. In the present case the City of Everett was exercising its authority. (-� Tt�e Applicant's reluctance appeacs somewhat a�arrant�d by th? ��I City's inattention to the shoceline managert�ent process and in particular the shocelines oE Silver Lake. It appears that th� City is lax in not upaating and amending it� 8hoceline Master .� Program to include all lands that have been annex?d into the �.��I City of Everett. The City should be basina its authority on the Master Program and not having to resort to Che zonica laws and other authority in order to enfoece conditions Eoc tl-:e c.rotection of ti�e shorelines within the City of Everett. It is iiichly recommeneded that the City cevi�w it= ShorelinF Ma::ter � rogram immediately and amend it tc inc1��,:� �11 :ar,,:s th.�t '�a•:e r�aen annex�d intn th� City of E�:erst .