Resolution 3528 - Laserfiche WebLink

• The Decision Document requires transportation mitigation consistent with existing SEPA policies and mitigation is sufficient to address identified transportation impacts. • The record does not support Appellant's allegations that "concurrency" beyond that imposed by the Decision Document is a mandatory element of the mitigation measures. Decision: Deny the appeal and affirm the Decision with regard to concurrent implementation of the transportation mitigation measures. SECTION 19: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION Findings • Timely implementation of the mitigation projects will require immediate initiation of negotiations and interlocal agreements. Such agreements are not required by SEPA prior to the issuance of permits. • The Decision Document describes the procedure for preparing interlocal agreements prior to release of mitigation funds to other jurisdictions (see Decision Document, Section VI.B. Payment Provisions for Other Jurisdictions, pg 36). • Details of interlocal agreements will vary among jurisdictions and cannot be provided prior to having detailed discussions with each jurisdiction. • The Decision Document requires "each jurisdiction with mitigation projects" to agree to apply any mitigation funds received to the appropriate mitigation improvement identified in the Decision Document (see Decision Document pg 36). Conclusions: • Interlocal agreements will be prepared between Everett and each of the other jurisdictions receiving mitigation funds. • Interlocal agreements need not be prepared prior to issuance of permits but must be completed before funds are released to jurisdictions. • Details of the interlocal agreements will follow the requirements of the Decision Document and may vary among jurisdictions to reflect unique local circum-stances. 32