Resolution 3528 - Laserfiche WebLink

• Interlocal agreements must be developed prior to disbursement of funds to other jurisdictions. Additional project details and/or more detailed definition of the flexibility with which the jurisdiction mitigates impacts, must necessarily become part of these agreements. Conclusions: • The amount of project detail provided in the Decision Document and the record is sufficient to identify the type and scale of mitigation that is required. • Additional studies, including environmental review, for many of the projects is a necessary next phase in the mitigation process and should not affect the issuance of permits. • Additional project detail will become part of interlocal agreements and will address the flexibility issue with regard to how the mitigation is actually carried out and the details involved in that action. • Mitigation requirements set forth in the "Mitigation Program and Improvements" section of the Decision Document are related to impacts generated by the Boeing (Master Development Plan) Expansion as identified in the EIS and (together with TDM requirements) provide sufficient mitigation of identified impacts. • The record does not include data or analysis to support Appellant's allegation. Decision: Deny the appeal and affirm the "Mitigation Program and Improvements" as set forth in the Decision Document Section VI.C, pp. 37-42. SECTION 18: CONCURRENCY Findings: • The definition and application of the "concurrency" concept is in the development stage in this state. • While the County has partially defined concurrency, the City of Everett and other local jurisdictions have not. • State legislative mandates regarding the concurrency issue are in the process of being developed at the local level and do not yet exist in City regulations. 30