Laserfiche WebLink
1 faclli%y. The dike along the eastern boundary of The Sits'', ad}ac+snt to E.tn€ort SIQUgh, <br />previously was Breached by the city to allow inter`ddal wetland restoration on the <br />3 south portion of the site. including 'this municipal proprt'y in the UGA would al€otiv <br />4 Everett to have all of its municipally -owned land in this area within the City of <br />S Everett`s. boundaries, following annexation. Bringing the proposal site into the UGA <br />6 For eventual annexation also would streamline permitting associated with future <br />7 habitat restoration projects and enable Everett to a;fideantly provide public services <br />8 to its property. <br />9 <br />leo D. The EVR`i — City of Everett proposal is consistent with the GMA, including <br />11 RGW 36.70A.O60(4), which provides: "Forest land and agricultural land ionated <br />12 within urban grovAh areas shall not be designated by a county or city as forest land <br />13 or agricuftural land of long -terra commercial significance under RGr1f 3610A.170 <br />14 unless the city or county has enacted a program authorizing transfer or purchase of <br />i5 deveropment rights,N Sotf-ttl 0 City of Everett and Snohomish County have enacted <br />1C transfer of development rights (TbR) programs. The county's TDR regulations are <br />17 contained in chapter 30,35A SM <br />1� • <br />19 E. The EVRI -- City of Everett proposal is subject to GMA requirements for UGAs <br />20 under RCC 36.70A.1 10(8) as the proposal site is located within the 100 -year <br />21 floodplain of the Snohomish River, which has a mean annual flow that is greater <br />22 than 1,000 cublofeet: per second. However, the proposal is exempt from the <br />23 prohibition of UGA expansions into a 100 -year floodplain ander <br />24 RUN 36.7OAA10(8)(b)(€ii)(C) because: 1) the proposal site s Mulled by the City of <br />25 Everett, 2) the city plans under the GMA; 3) the use of the proposal site will be <br />2 limited to wetland enhancement and restoration; and 4) the use of the proposal site <br />27 :vi1l not decrease f" storage, increase stormwater runoff, discharge pollutants to <br />29 fresh or salt waters during normal operations or floods, or increase hazards to <br />29 psopre and property. <br />3� <br />31 P. The EVR'I — City of Everett proposal is consistent with and advances the Puget <br />32 Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Multicounty planning Policies (MPP), in Particular <br />33 D€'- 29, which provides that the County protect and enhance significant open <br />34 spaces, natural resources, and critical areas. The proposal provides for continued <br />33 protection and future enhancement of the open space, floodplain, and critical areas <br />36 through the public ownership and continued RCP designation and A-10 zoning of the <br />37 site. <br />18 <br />39 G. The EVR1 -- City of Everett proposal is consistert with and advances th 1 <br />40 Countywide Pl,arining Policies (CPP), i:i pv?rticul r DPA (f), -„Oich provNes that the <br />41 Gount'1 slipII mainta ti UGAs that cla ;lot irrc€ude designated g0,c-.ultural or fora: t latus <br />unless ti GILyf or county has enacted a progrart auther'.zin3 transfer or purchase of <br />`3 de4elcptii nt rights. Both the 6y and county have adopted TDI; prcgr runt. <br />CRGIN'ANG_:iO- 14-131 <br />r �4TiNG T4 THE CR0A`v r:T [d=:1 10VA�:IRi AC .41D0 TING <br />FUTURE LAND USE fv1,k' P r.K-JE �U _NT -S TO Te l k.F C'Eit }:i153 E <br />t (_ �idlIt` GRCYe��i lvi COMPF�EHE IVE F . IN!, <br />JM=1401Ih;G TV ZbWi( f_3 MAR TO [16PLFIMENT CIIIAT.1€” _S TO <br />THE FU -11 -IRE U,40 ? E t»AP, AND REWISitdG THE 80LI T HWEG i <br />U%rKFA;,J i'Cj't i H R.EA iEDlR -- C -Mf CF EVERE Mi - 3 <br />67 <br />