Laserfiche WebLink
E SRETT <br /> AN ORDINANCE 1910-92 <br /> AN ORDINANCE extending the interim traffic mitigation <br /> policy and providing an exemption for the core <br /> area by amending Ordinance No. 1670-89 and 1833- <br /> 91. <br /> WHEREAS, the City Council finds that on December 27, 1989, the <br /> City Council passed Ordinance No. 1670-89 establishing an interim <br /> traffic mitigation policy for the City of Everett; and <br /> WHEREAS, the City Council finds that Ordinance No. 1670-89 has <br /> been amended to extend the interim traffic mitigation policy <br /> until December 31, 1992 ; and <br /> WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City continues working <br /> towards the development of a permanent traffic mitigation <br /> ordinance and, in light of the mandates of the Growth Management <br /> Act, additional time is needed; and <br /> WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the interim traffic <br /> mitigation policy should be extended to provide for this <br /> additional time; and <br /> WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City's central business <br /> district (core area) is in a state of transition due to the <br /> downtown's redevelopment and the existence of numerous potential <br /> transportation system improvements including park and ride lots <br /> and different forms of surface modal improvements; and <br /> WHEREAS, the City Council finds that until such time as the <br /> requisite planning takes place and decisions are made concerning <br /> comprehensive transportation system improvements for the core <br /> area, it is difficult to impose traffic mitigation for the core <br /> area; and <br /> WHEREAS, the City Council finds that transportation system <br /> impacts are more acceptable in the core area due to the level of <br /> activity established by the Comprehensive Plan and permitted by <br /> the Zoning Code; and <br /> WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the core area is unique in <br /> that it is currently developed and any further development <br /> activity would constitute redevelopment which would not <br /> necessarily result in an increase in the number of vehicle trips; <br /> and <br /> WHEREAS, the City Council finds that on an interim basis <br /> mitigation should not be required for development occurring <br /> within the City's core area; <br />