2013/01/09 Council Agenda Packet

Exhibit A to Ordinance No. Central Waterfront Redevelopment. Plan � Permitted uses are identified subject to the further requirement that uses in the shoreline jurisdiction be water -dependent, an incidental part of a water -dependent use, or water -oriented. Prohibited uses otherwise allowed in the M-2 zone are also identified. • The only obvious water -dependent uses that are prohibited are fish cleaning and processing, and coal exporUshippinig. Fish processing was identified in our report as a viable use, but would only occupy a portion of the site. • The prohibited uses that aren't water -dependent and might otherwise be acconnnodated are the kinds of "low compatibility" uses that are typically strongly regulated in an urban area. No viable uses identified in our report are included in the prohibited list. • A wide variety of manufacturing uses are permitted as well as business parks, and commercial uses serving other area businesses. The analysis of the Preferred Alternative also addressed the potential for on-site public access, impacts on the Port of Everett and to downtown, finding the following: Public Access: Public access within the shoreline jurisdiction is strongly encouraged on-site where such access is not in conflict with water -dependent uses, and required on-site for non water -dependent uses. The regulations provide flexibility in providing public access in the shoreline zone without compromising operations on-site. Impacts on Port of Everett and Downtown: Any new uses for the site would be incompatible with the Port if they interfered with Port operations. This is unlikely as the allowable uses and development regulations would provide for similar activities to what already occurs at the Port. As noted above, the public access requirements shouldn't compromise operations on the site itself and certainly wouldn't on adjacent properties. As noted in our report, benefits to Downtown are greatest with a high employment density on- site and attractive views and amenities for Downtown residents and workers. The vision for high quality water dependent and non water -dependent uses with a goal of 10 or more employees per acre should result in such benefits to Downtown. The economic analysis concludes: In summary, the preferred alternative recognizes the unique characteristics of the site, allows for viable uses, encourages high quality development, and will not limit productive use of properties in the area. Further, it should provide benefits for the Downtown without adversely affecting the Port. (See letter from Property Counselors dated October 8, 2012, in Appendix 7). 25 123