2102 ROSS AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

consider geological, hydrological, and biological studies to determine impact of the proposal. The Applicant submitted a biological assessment (exhibit 5) that concluded that the project would net adversely impact any endangered species. The City did not dispute the findings of the biological assessment. (exhibit 1, staff report; exhibit 5, assessment; Jimerson testimony) 17. The Applicant submitted a Critical Areas Report/Habitat Management Plan. (exhibit 4) In the plan, the conclusions were that the project with mitigation would result in the maintenance of 14 environmental indicators and the improvement of eight other indicators. (Indicators are plants and animals that are used to determine the feasibility of development in an area. Based on the conclusions of the plan, it was concluded that only one indicator would initially be degraded, but would be benefited when the buffer plantings mature. The City did not dispute the findings of the Critical Areas Report/Habitat Management Plan. (exhibit 4, plan) 18. As part of the Shoreline Permit review, developments must include mitigation for any impacts to water quality. This includes compliance with City storm water regulations that are consistent with the storm water regulations of the State of Washington. Water quality monitoring during construction and operation would be required pursuant to conditions of this Shoreline Permit. (see conditions 12, 14-22, and 33) (exhibit 1, staff report) 19. Neither the federal government nor the state government has mandated any environmental cleanup for the site. There would be cleanup, however, of concrete debris that has been placed on the site over the years. The concrete debris would be removed on all areas below the OHWM and would be removed from the site. (McClean testimony: Jimerson testimony; exhibit 1, staff report) 20. The City submitted that a buffer restoration plan is required for the proposed project. Such a plan was presented. The conclusions are that dense planting of native vegetation would occur. These plantings would have no impact on views but would "soften" the appearance of the industrial activities for individuals viewing from the Snohomish River. The plan calls for control of invasive species in order to protect the restoration plantings. The City did not dispute the findings of the buffer restoration plan. (exhibit 1, staff report; exhibit 3, narrative; Jirerson testimony) 21. The ESMP establishes 200-foot buffers for those areas adjacent to designated Aquatic Conservancy areas. As part of any development, a function assessment is completed to demonstrate that the buffers will experience no net loss of wetland or stream functions. If there is a loss of said functions, a wider buffer could be required to protect the wetlands and the stream ecological functions. Buffers can also be reduced in instances where there has been prior legal alteration of the buffer and when the Applicant has completed an approved function assessment and prepared a habitat plan that includes discussion of the [c]