2102 ROSS AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

buffer enhancements. The buffer enhancements in such a situation must improve the function of performance of the buffer and the associated critical area. However, buffers cannot be reduced 100 feet except through other reviews. (Jimerson testimony; exhibit 1, staff report; exhibit 4, plan) 22. As previously noted, in December, 2007, the Applicant submitted a Critical Areas Report/Habitat Management Plan and mitigation plan that were routed to state and federal agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Washington Department of Ecology, and the Tulalip Tribes. The only comment on the plan and study that the City received was from the Army Corps of Engineers who indicated that the Applicant may be required to secure a permit for future in -water work. No other agencies responded. (Jimerson testimony; exhibit 1, staff report) 23. The proposed buffer restoration of the site would include dense planting of trees and shrubs that would be waterward of the buildings. The buffer would shield the river from noise and light generated from the activities on -site. Construction staging arcac would be iicated outside environmentally sensitive areas and buffers. The areas that are restricted have been identified in the ESMP. (exhibit 1, staff report) 24. Monitoring would be required to ensure that the performance standards as defined in the project are consistent with the standards of the ESMP and the Washington State Shoreline Act. The City has the option of requiring a five-year set aside for monetary coverage for costs of monitoring, maintenance, and other contingencies. Included in the set aside could be 500% of the cost of planting. The City indicated that the Applicant's biologist must submit a letter to the City upon installation of the buffer enhancements and that monitoring reports must be submitted at the end of year's one, three, and five, following installation. The City may release the set aside sooner than five years if the enhancement is determined to be successful. (exhibit 1, staff report; Jimerson testimony) 25. Any and all handling and storage of fuel, chemicals, oil, or other substances with potential spillage into the Snohomish River must have operational procedures to prevent and handle these spills. In addition, physical structures which would contain these spills shall be provided. The City has recommended that this be a condition of the proposal. (exhibit 1, staff report) 26. Allowed parking in a shoreline jurisdiction area must have a connection to the proposed shoreline use. Parking as a primary use or parking that does not compliment the shoreline use is specifically prohibited. The parking, as proposed for the instant project, would include approximately 79 parking spaces. None of these spaces would be lined or specifically called out. The parking would be for the employees at the proposed facility. The proposed parking is depicted on the site plan. No parking would occur in the Aquatic Conservancy designated area; it would be located in the uplands. The City submitted that there is sufficient 7