2102 ROSS AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

13. Prior to the issuance of building permit, the Applicant is required to submit an elevation certificate that establishes the existing site elevation prior to construction and the finished floor elevation at completion of construction. The first floor elevation must be a minimum of two feet above th3 base of the flood elevation. (exhibit 1, staff report) 14. With Shoreline Permits, an element of review is the provision of public access and the extent allowed by law for such access. Because the proposed project is an industrial use and the surrounding uses are also of industrial nature, public access to the shoreline is limited. The subject property is narrow with much of the parcel being below the OHWM in the Aquatic Conservancy designated area. This physical feature, along with the proposed heavy industrial use, does not encourage public access along the entire shoreline. Originally, the City recommended that shoreline access be provided along the east end of the subject property with a pathway extending to a point approximately 30 feet from the Snohomish River. (exhibit 1, staff report) However, at the public hearing after testimony of the Applicant, the Applicant's representatives, and representatives of the public, the City agreed that the proposed pathway on the eastern edge of the subject property would be problematic for the operation of the industrial use. It would potentially impose safety hazards to the public using the path, especially if the public did not stop at the end of the path and continued to walk down to the river. Sensitive areas would be disrupted. Further, if the pedestrians on the path wandered onto the industrial property and operations, their physical safety would be impaired. Because of this testimony, the City recommended that no direct public access was required and instead, the Applicant should pay into a fund in lieu of providing direct public access. (Jimerson testimony; Brooks testimony; McClean testimony; exhibit 1, staff report) Public comments support the City's revised approach. (Toepel testimony; McGafferty testimony) 15. In lieu of providing public access to the shoreline via a trail on the eastern boundary of the site, the City recommended that the Applicant provide a 2% contribution of the value of the proposed project for pedestrian improvements in the area. In the City of Everett, roads and railroads along public shoreline areas must provide for safe pedestrian and bicycle circulation through the shoreline. The only road to service the subject property is Ross Avenue, a narrow street that carries industrial traffic. Ross Avenue does not accommodate pedestrian traffic because there is no separation from the industrial vehicle travel lanes. The City is planning to install pedestrian improvements on the north side of the roadway, and the Applicant's 20o contribution would be used as part of these improvements. (exhibit 1, staff report; Jimerson testimony) 16. As part of the Shoreline Permit review, the Applicant must provide, and the City must review, the best available science when, identifying, evaluating, and mitigating any impacts from the proposed development. The City is required to 5