Chapter 18.10 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION*

The City adopts the ordinance codified in this chapter under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.120 and the SEPA rules, WAC 197-11-904. This chapter contains the City’s SEPA procedures and policies. The SEPA rules contained in Chapter 197-11 WAC must be used in conjunction with this chapter. (Ord. 2108 § 10.1.1, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 2, 1984).

18.10.015 Codes adopted by reference.

Unless otherwise specifically stated therein, all codes which are adopted or referenced in this chapter shall be as such codes now exist or are hereinafter amended. (Ord. 2185 § 1, 1998).

18.10.020 Definitions – Adoption by reference.

The City adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference, as supplemented in this chapter:

WAC

197-11-700 Definitions.

197-11-702 Act.

197-11-704 Action.

197-11-706 Addendum.

197-11-708 Adoption.

197-11-710 Affected tribe.

197-11-712 Affecting.

197-11-714 Agency.

197-11-716 Applicant.

197-11-718 Built environment.

197-11-720 Categorical appeal.

197-11-721 Closed record appeal.

197-11-722 Consolidated appeal.

197-11-724 Consulted agency.

197-11-726 Cost-benefit analysis.

197-11-728 County/city.

197-11-730 Decision-maker.

197-11-732 Department.

197-11-734 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS).

197-11-736 Determination of significance (DS).

197-11-738 EIS.

197-11-740 Environment.

197-11-742 Environmental checklist.

197-11-744 Environmental document.

197-11-746 Environmental review.

197-11-748 Environmentally sensitive area.

197-11-750 Expanded scoping.

197-11-752 Impacts.

197-11-754 Incorporation by reference.

197-11-756 Lands covered by water.

197-11-758 Lead agency.

197-11-760 License.

197-11-762 Local agency.

197-11-764 Major action.

197-11-766 Mitigated DNS.

197-11-768 Mitigation.

197-11-770 Natural environment.

197-11-772 NEPA.

197-11-774 Nonproject.

197-11-775 Open record hearing.

197-11-776 Phased review.

197-11-778 Preparation.

197-11-780 Private project.

197-11-782 Probable.

197-11-784 Proposal.

197-11-786 Reasonable alternative.

197-11-788 Responsible official.

197-11-790 SEPA.

197-11-792 Scope.

197-11-793 Scoping.

197-11-794 Significant.

197-11-796 State agency.

197-11-797 Threshold determination.

197-11-799 Underlying governmental action.

(Ord. 2185 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2108 § 10.1.2, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 28, 1984).

18.10.030 Additional definitions.

In addition to those definitions contained within WAC 197-11-700 through 197-11-799, when used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings, unless the content indicates otherwise:

Department: Any division, subdivision, or organizational unit of the City established by ordinance, rule, or order.

SEPA rules: Chapter 197-11 WAC adopted by the Department of Ecology.

Early notice: The City’s response to an applicant stating whether it considers issuance of the determination of significance likely for the applicant’s proposal. (Ord. 2108 § 10.1.3, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 4, 1984).

18.10.040 WAC sections adopted by reference.

The City adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference:

WAC

197-11-040 Definitions.

197-11-050 Lead agency.

197-11-055 Timing of the SEPA process.

197-11-060 Content of environmental review.

197-11-070 Limitations on actions during SEPA process.

197-11-080 Incomplete or unavailable information.

197-11-090 Supporting documents.

197-11-100 Information required of applicants.

197-11-158 GMA project review – Reliance on existing plans, laws, and regulations.

197-11-164 Planned actions – Definition and criteria.

197-11-168 Ordinances or resolutions designating planned actions – Procedures for adoption.

197-11-172 Planned actions – Project review.

197-11-210 SEPA/GMA integration.

197-11-220 SEPA/GMA definitions.

197-11-225 Purpose, policy applicability and definitions.

197-11-228 Overall integration procedures.

197-11-230 Timing of an integrated GMA/SEPA process.

197-11-232 Integration procedures for preliminary planning, environmental analysis and expanded scoping.

197-11-235 Integrating documents.

197-11-259 Determination of nonsignificance for MTCA remedial action.

(Ord. 2185 § 3, 1998; Ord. 2108 § 10.1.4, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 3, 1984).

18.10.050 Designation of responsible official.

A. For those proposals for which the City is a lead agency, the responsible official shall be the Planning Director/Manager or such other person as the Mayor may designate in writing.

B. For all proposals for which the City is a lead agency, the responsible official shall make the threshold determination, supervise scoping and preparation of any required EIS, and perform any other functions assigned to the lead agency or responsible official by those sections of the SEPA rules that have been adopted by reference. (Ord. 2108 § 10.1.5, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 5, 1984).

18.10.060 Lead agency determination and responsibilities.

A. The responsible official or the department receiving an application for or initiating a proposal that involves a nonexempt action shall determine the lead agency for that proposal under WAC 197-11-050 and WAC 197-11-922 through 197-11-940, unless the lead agency has been previously determined or the department is aware that another department or agency is in the process of determining the lead agency.

B. When the City is not the lead agency for a proposal, all departments of the City shall use and consider as appropriate either the DNS or the final EIS of the lead agency in making decisions on the proposal. No City department shall prepare or require preparation of a DNS or EIS in addition to that prepared by the lead agency unless the City determines a supplemental environmental review is necessary under WAC 197-11-600.

C. If the City, or any of its departments, receives a lead agency determination made by another agency that appears inconsistent with the criteria of WAC 197-11-922 through 197-11-940, it may object to the determination. Any objection must be made to the agency originally making the determination, and must be resolved within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the determination, or the City must petition the Department of Ecology for a lead agency determination under WAC 197-11-946 within the fourteen (14) day time period. Any such petition on behalf of the City may be initiated by the responsible official or any department.

D. The responsible official is authorized to make agreements as to lead agency status or shared lead agency’s duties for a proposal under WAC 197-11-942 and 197-11-944.

E. The responsible official shall require sufficient information from the applicant to identify other agencies with jurisdiction. (Ord. 2185 § 4, 1998; Ord. 2108 § 10.1.6, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 6, 1984).

18.10.070 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations – Adoption by reference.

The City adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference, as supplemented in this chapter:

WAC

197-11-300 Purpose of this part.

197-11-305 Categorical exemptions.

197-11-310 Threshold determination required.

197-11-315 Environmental checklist.

197-11-330 Threshold determination process.

197-11-335 Additional information.

197-11-340 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS).

197-11-350 Mitigated DNS.

197-11-355 Optional DNS process.

197-11-360 Determination of significance (DS)/initiation of scoping.

197-11-390 Effect of threshold determination.

(Ord. 2185 § 5, 1998; Ord. 2108 § 10.1.7, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 7, 1984).

18.10.080 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations – Time estimates.

The time estimates contained in this section apply when the City processes licenses for all private projects and governmental proposals, for which the City is acting as lead agency for purposes of this chapter.

A. Categorical Exemptions: The City will normally identify whether an action is categorically exempt within seven (7) days of receiving a completed application. The Planning Director/Manager shall certify when an application is complete based on review of the environmental checklist. If additional information is required to supplement the checklist, the application shall not be certified complete until the required information is received by the Planning Director/Manager.

B. Threshold Determinations: It is the policy of the City to make a threshold determination on a completed application within ninety (90) days after the application and supporting documentation are complete.

C. Complete Application: A complete application for a threshold determination consists of the following information:

1. The proposed action:

a. A description of the proposed action,

b. Site information, including site plans, vicinity maps, and other information required for a land use certification or other Development/Land Use Permit application;

2. The environmental checklist;

3. Additional information/environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-335). The environmental checklist covers sixteen (16) subjects. If after review of the environmental checklist it is determined that there is insufficient information to make a threshold determination, additional information will be required using any one (1) or more of the following:

a. The applicant will provide more information on subjects in the checklist,

b. The City makes its own further study,

c. The City will consult with other agencies, requesting information on the proposal’s potential impacts which lie within other agencies’ jurisdiction or expertise.

D. Certification of Completeness: The Planning Director/Manager shall certify when an application is complete based on review of the environmental checklist. If additional information is required to supplement the checklist, the application shall not be certified until the required information is received by the Planning Director/Manager. Under state law and City policy, an applicant’s proposal must receive a determination of significance or nonsignificance within the ninety (90) day period, subject to the following:

1. The applicant may request an additional thirty (30) days for the threshold determination.

2. It is the policy of the City that adequate information must be provided before a decision can be made. The City will not accept, nor commence processing, environmental checklists which are not deemed complete.

3. The City will normally complete threshold determinations on actions where the applicant recommends in writing than an EIS be prepared, because of the probable significant adverse environmental impacts described in the application, within fifteen (15) working days of receiving a completed application.

4. The responsible official will normally respond to a request for early notice within ten (10) working days. The threshold determination will normally be made within fifteen (15) working days of receipt of the changed or clarified proposal, environmental checklist and/or permit application. (Ord. 2108 § 10.1.8, 1996; Ord. 1954 § 1, 1992; Ord. 1633 § 8, 1984).

18.10.090 Integration with permit and land use decision.

Under state law, the procedure for review of Project Permits shall be combined with the environmental review process, both procedural and substantive. The process under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and this chapter shall integrate the following procedures, insofar as possible, with any applicable process for decision-making on permit and land use applications:

A. Staff review of the application under City codes and regulations and the environmental review and determination thereon;

B. The staff report on the application, and the report or documentation concerning environmental review;

C. Hearings and other public processes, including required public notices, required by City code or regulation, and hearings and other public processes, including public notices, required or conducted under SEPA. This section shall include appeals, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code;

D. Such other review processes as the Planning Director/Manager shall determine. (Ord. 2108 § 10.1.9, 1996; Ord. 1954 § 2, 1992).

18.10.100 Categorical exemptions – Adoption by reference.

The City adopts the following rules for categorical exemption of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference, as supplemented in this chapter:

WAC

197-11-800 Categorical exemptions.

197-11-880 Emergencies.

197-11-890 Petitioning DOE to change exemptions.

(Ord. 2108 § 10.1.10, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 9, 1984).

18.10.110 Categorical exemptions – Flexible thresholds.

A. The City establishes the following exempt levels for minor new construction based on local conditions:

1. For residential dwelling units in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(i), up to four (4) dwelling units;

2. For agricultural structures in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(ii), up to ten thousand (10,000) square feet;

3. For office, school, commercial, recreational service, or storage buildings in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(iii), up to four thousand (4,000) square feet, and up to twenty (20) parking spaces;

4. For parking lots in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(iv), up to twenty (20) parking spaces;

5. For landfills and excavations in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v), up to one hundred (100) cubic yards.

B. The responsible official shall send copies of all adopted flexible thresholds to the Department of Ecology, Headquarters Office, Olympia, Washington. (Ord. 2108 § 10.1.11, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 10, 1984).

18.10.120 Categorical exemptions – Determination.

A. When the City receives an application for a license or, in the case of governmental proposals, a department initiates a proposal, the responsible official shall determine whether the license and/or the proposal is exempt. The determination that a proposal is exempt shall be final and not subject to administrative review. If a proposal is exempt, none of the procedural requirements of this chapter shall apply to the proposal. The City shall not require completion of an environmental checklist for an exempt proposal.

B. In determining whether or not a proposal is exempt, the responsible official shall make certain the proposal is properly defined and shall identify the governmental license required. If a proposal includes exempt and nonexempt actions, the responsible official shall determine the lead agency, even if the license application that triggers the consideration is exempt.

C. Existing Documents May Provide Sufficient Environmental Protection:

1. The City shall review the Project Permit application to determine whether existing documents may provide sufficient environmental protection and shall:

a. Determine whether the applicable regulations require studies that adequately analyze all of the Project Permit application’s specific probable adverse environmental impacts;

b. Determine if the applicable regulations require measures that adequately address such environmental impacts;

c. Determine whether additional studies are required and/or whether the Project Permit application should be conditioned with additional mitigation measures;

d. Provide prompt and coordinated review by government agencies and the public on compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including mitigation for specific project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the plan or development regulation level;

e. Review and document consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code development regulations.

2. In its review of a Project Permit application, the City may determine, pursuant to the criteria of RCW 43.21C.240(1) and (2), the requirements for environmental analysis, protection and mitigation measures in the applicable development regulations, comprehensive plan and/or in other applicable local, state or federal laws provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the application.

3. If the City’s Comprehensive Plans, subarea plans, and development regulations adequately address a project’s probable specific adverse environmental impacts, as determined under subsection (C)(1) of this section, or RCW 43.21C.240(1) and (2), the City shall not impose additional mitigation under SEPA during project review.

4. A comprehensive plan, development regulation or other applicable local, state or federal law provides adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of an application when:

a. The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; or

b. The City has designated as acceptable certain levels of service, land use designations, development standards or other land use planning required or allowed by Chapter 36.70A RCW.

5. In its decision whether a specific adverse environmental impact has been addressed by an existing rule or law of another agency with jurisdiction with environmental expertise with regard to a specific environmental impact, the City shall consult orally or in writing with that agency and may expressly defer to that agency. In making this deferral, the City shall base or condition its project approval on compliance with these other existing rules or laws.

6. Nothing in this section limits the authority of the City in its review or mitigation of a project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental analyses and requirements under other laws, as provided in Chapter 43.21C RCW.

D. Planned Actions:

1. A planned action does not require a threshold determination or the preparation of an environmental impact statement under SEPA, but is subject to environmental review and mitigation under SEPA.

2. A “planned action” means one (1) or more types of project action that:

a. Are designated planned actions by an ordinance or resolution adopted by the City;

b. Have had the significant impacts adequately addressed in an environmental impact statement prepared in conjunction with:

(1) A comprehensive plan or subarea plan adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW, or

(2) A fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development or a phased project;

c. Are subsequent or implementing projects for the proposals listed in subsection (D)(2)(b) of this section;

d. Are located within an urban growth area, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030;

e. Are not essential public facilities, as defined in RCW 36.70A.200; and

f. Are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW.

3. Limitations on Planned Actions: The City shall limit planned actions to certain types of development or to specific geographical areas that are less extensive than the jurisdictional boundaries of the City, and may limit a planned action to a time period identified in the environmental impact statement or the adoption of this Code.

E. If a proposal includes both exempt and nonexempt actions, the City may authorize exempt actions prior to compliance with the procedural requirements of this chapter, except that:

1. The City shall not give authorization for:

a. Any nonexempt action,

b. Any action that would have an adverse environmental impact, or

c. Any action that would limit the choice of reasonable alternatives;

2. The City may withhold approval of an exempt action that would lead to modification of the physical environment, when such modification would serve no purpose if the nonexempt actions were not approved; and

3. The City may withhold approval of exempt actions that would lead to substantial financial expenditures by a private applicant when the expenditures would serve no purpose if the nonexempt actions were not approved.

F. Periodic Review: The periodic review of mineral resource operations pursuant to Chapter 18.05 IMC is categorically exempt as an ongoing enforcement and inspection activity; provided, that there are no material changes in the scope of work occurring at the mineral resource site. WAC 197-11-800(13). Material changes in the scope of work will be reviewed in accordance with IMC Table 18.06.130 and may require environmental review. (Ord. 2233 § 16, 1999; Ord. 2108 § 10.1.12, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 11, 1984).

18.10.130 Threshold determination – Review at conceptual stage.

A. If the City’s only action on a proposal is a decision on a Building Permit or other licenses that require detailed project plans and specifications, the applicant may request in writing that the City conduct environmental review prior to submission of the detailed plans and specifications.

B. In addition to the environmental documents, an applicant shall submit the following information for early environmental review:

1. The material required for a Site Development Permit or other Project Permit application submittal;

2. Other information as the responsible official may determine;

3. If the only action is a decision on a permit for excavation, clearing and/or grading of land, the plans and specifications required by the City for a Clearing and Grading Permit shall be submitted for early environmental review. (Ord. 2108 § 10.1.13, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 12, 1984).

18.10.140 Threshold determination – Environmental checklist.

A. Filing Environmental Checklist: A completed environmental checklist shall be filed at the same time as an application for a permit, license, certificate, or other approval not exempted by this chapter. The checklist shall be in the form of WAC 197-11-960 with such additions that may be required by the responsible official in accordance with WAC 197-11-906(4).

B. Environmental Checklist Not Needed: A checklist is not needed if the City and the applicant agree an EIS is required, SEPA compliance has been completed, or SEPA compliance has been initiated by another agency.

C. Environmental Checklist to Determine Lead Agency: The City shall use the environmental checklist to determine the lead agency and, if the City is the lead agency, for determining the responsible official and for making the threshold determination.

D. Completing Environmental Checklist: For private proposals, the applicant is required to complete the environmental checklist as required in WAC 197-11-315(2). The City may provide assistance as necessary. For City proposals the department initiating the proposal shall complete the environmental checklist for that proposal.

E. City to Complete Environmental Checklist: The City may decide to complete all or part of the environmental checklist for a private proposal under WAC 197-11-315(2), if either of the following occurs:

1. The City has technical information on a question or questions that is unavailable to the private applicant; or

2. The applicant has provided inaccurate information on previous proposals or on proposals currently under consideration. (Ord. 2108 § 10.1.14, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 13, 1984).

18.10.145 Optional DNS process.

A. If the responsible official has a reasonable basis for determining that significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely, the responsible official may elect to use the single integrated comment period set forth in this section. If this process is used, a second comment period will typically not be required when the DNS is issued.

B. If the optional process set forth in this section is used, the responsible official shall:

1. State on the first page of the notice of application that is expects to issue a DNS for the proposal, and that:

a. The optional DNS process is being used;

b. This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal;

c. The proposal may include mitigation measures under applicable codes, and the project review process may incorporate or require mitigation measures regardless of whether an EIS is prepared;

d. A copy of the subsequent threshold determination for the specific proposal may be obtained upon request (in addition, the City may maintain a general mailing list for threshold determination distribution);

2. List in the notice of application the conditions being considered to mitigate environmental impacts, if a mitigated DNS is expected;

3. Comply with the requirements for a notice of application and public notice in RCW 36.70B.110; and

4. Send the notice of application and environmental checklist to:

a. Agencies with jurisdiction, the Department of Ecology, affected tribes, and each local agency or political subdivision whose public services would be changed as a result of implementation of the proposal; and

b. Anyone requesting a copy of the environmental checklist for the specific proposal (in addition, the City may maintain a general mailing list for checklist distribution).

C. If the responsible official indicates on the notice of application that a DNS is likely, an agency with jurisdiction may assume lead agency status during the comment period on the notice of application in accordance with IMC 18.10.060, WAC 197-11-940 and 197-11-948.

D. The responsible official shall consider timely comments on the notice of application and either:

1. Issue a DNS or mitigated DNS with no comment period using the procedures in subsection E of this section;

2. Issue a DNS or mitigated DNS with a comment period using the procedures in subsection E of this section, if the responsible official determines a comment period is necessary;

3. Issue a DS; or

4. Require additional information or studies prior to making a threshold determination.

E. If a DNS or mitigated DNS is issued under subsection (D)(1) or (2) of this section, the responsible official shall send a copy of the DNS or mitigated DNS to the Department of Ecology, agencies with jurisdiction, those who commented, and anyone requesting a copy. A copy of the environmental checklist need not be recirculated. (Ord. 2185 § 6, 1998).

18.10.150 Threshold determination – Mitigated DNS.

A. The responsible official may issue a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) based on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official, or on changes to, or clarifications of, the proposal made by the applicant.

B. An applicant may request in writing early notice of whether a DS is likely. The request must:

1. Follow submission of a permit application and environmental checklist for a nonexempt proposal for which the City is lead agency; and

2. Precede the City’s actual threshold determination for the proposal.

C. The responsible official’s response to the request for early notice shall:

1. State whether the City currently considers issuance of a DS likely and, if so, indicate the general or specific areas of concern that are leading the City to consider a DS; and

2. State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal to mitigate the indicated impacts, and may revise the environmental checklist and/or permit application as necessary to reflect the changes or clarifications.

D. When an applicant submits a changed or clarified proposal, along with a revised environmental checklist, the City shall base its threshold determination on a changed or clarified proposal.

1. If the City indicated specific mitigation measures in its response to the request for early notice, and the applicant changed or clarified the proposal to include those specific mitigation measures, the City shall issue and circulate a determination of nonsignificance if the City determines that no additional information or mitigation measures are required.

2. If the City indicated areas of concern, but did not indicate specific mitigation measures that would allow it to issue a DNS, the City shall make the threshold determination, issuing a DNS or DS as appropriate.

3. The applicant’s proposed mitigation measures, clarifications, changes, or conditions must be in writing and must be specific.

4. Mitigation measures which justify issuance of a mitigated DNS may be incorporated in the DNS by reference to agency staff reports, studies, or other documents.

E. Comment Period: The City shall not act upon a proposal for which a mitigated DNS has been issued for fourteen (14) days after the date of issuance.

F. Mitigation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS shall be deemed conditions of approval of the licensing decision and may be enforced in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit, or enforced in any matter specifically prescribed by the City. Failure to comply with the designated mitigation measures shall be grounds for suspension and/or revocation of any license issued.

G. If the City’s tentative decision on a permit or approval does not include mitigation measures that were incorporated in a mitigated DNS for the proposal, the City should evaluate the threshold determination to assure consistency with WAC 197-11-340(3)(a) relating to the withdrawal of a DNS.

H. The City’s response under subsection B of this section shall not be construed as a determination of significance. In addition, preliminary discussion of clarification or changes to a proposal, as opposed to a written request for early notice, shall not bind the City to consider the clarifications or changes in its threshold determination. (Ord. 2185 § 7, 1998; Ord. 2108 § 10.1.15, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 14, 1984).

18.10.160 Environmental impact statement (EIS) – Adoption by reference.

The City adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference, as supplemented by this chapter:

WAC

197-11-400 Purpose of EIS.

197-11-402 General requirements.

197-11-405 EIS types.

197-11-406 EIS timing.

197-11-408 Scoping.

197-11-410 Expanded scoping.

197-11-420 EIS preparation.

197-11-425 Style and size.

197-11-430 Format.

197-11-435 Cover letter or memo.

197-11-440 EIS contents.

197-11-442 Contents of EIS on nonproject proposals.

197-11-443 EIS contents when prior nonproject EIS.

197-11-444 Elements of the environment.

197-11-448 Relationship of EIS to other considerations.

197-11-450 Cost-benefit analysis.

197-11-455 Issuance of DEIS.

197-11-460 Issuance of FEIS.

(Ord. 2108 § 10.1.16, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 15, 1984).

18.10.170 EIS – Preparation.

A. Preparation of draft and final EISs and SEISs (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement) shall be under the direction of the responsible official. Before the City issues an EIS, the responsible official shall be satisfied that it complies with this chapter and Chapter 197-11 WAC.

B. The draft and final EIS or SEIS shall be prepared at the City’s option by the City staff, the applicant, or by a consultant approved by the City. If the responsible official requires an EIS for a proposal and determines that someone other than the City will prepare the EIS, the responsible official shall notify the applicant immediately after completion of the threshold determination. The responsible official shall also notify the applicant of the City’s procedure for EIS preparation, including approval of the draft and final EIS prior to distribution.

C. The City may require an applicant to provide information the City does not possess, including specific investigations; however, the applicant is not required to supply information that is not required under this chapter, or that is being requested from another agency; provided, however, this does not apply to information the City may request under another ordinance or statute.

D. Subject to delays caused by the applicant’s failure to provide information requested by the City and other delays beyond the City’s control, an EIS will be completed within one (1) year of the date of the declaration of significance unless the City and the applicant agree in writing to a different estimated time period for completion of the EIS. (Ord. 2164 § 14, 1997; Ord. 2108 § 10.1.17, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 16, 1984).

18.10.180 EIS – Additional elements.

The following additional elements are part of the environment for the purpose of EIS content, but do not add to the criteria for threshold determination or perform any other function or purpose under this chapter:

A. Economy;

B. Social policy analysis;

C. Cost-benefit analysis;

D. Such other elements as may be required by the responsible official. (Ord. 2108 § 10.1.18, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 17, 1984).

18.10.190 EIS – Commenting – Adoption by reference.

The City adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference, as supplemented in this chapter:

WAC

197-11-500 Purpose of this part.

197-11-502 Inviting comment.

197-11-504 Availability and cost of environmental documents.

197-11-508 SEPA register.

197-11-535 Public hearings and meetings.

197-11-545 Effect of no comment.

197-11-550 Specificity of comments.

197-11-560 FEIS response to comments.

197-11-570 Consulted agency costs to assist lead agency.

(Ord. 2108 § 10.1.19, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 18, 1984).

18.10.200 Public notice.

A. Whenever the City issues a threshold determination, or EIS requiring public notice, the City shall give public notice of the determination or the availability of the environmental documents and whether any public hearing will be held as follows:

1. If public notice is required, the notice shall state whether a DS or DNS has been issued and when comments are due, or that the EIS is available;

2. If no public notice is required, the City shall give notice by:

a. Publishing notice in the Issaquah Press and/or Bellevue Journal American newspapers,

b. Any other means of notice deemed appropriate by the responsible official, based on the type of proposal involved.

B. Whenever the City issues a DS, the City shall state the scoping procedure for the proposal in the DS as required in WAC 197-11-408.

C. The City shall require an applicant to compensate the City for the costs of compliance with the public notice requirements as determined by the City for the applicant’s proposal. (Ord. 2108 § 10.1.20, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 19, 1984).

18.10.210 Designation of official to perform consulted agency responsibilities.

A. The responsible official shall be responsible for preparation of written comments for the City in response to a consultation request prior to a threshold determination, participation in scoping, and reviewing a draft EIS.

B. The responsible official shall be responsible for the City’s compliance with WAC 197-11-550 whenever the City is a consulted agency, and is authorized to develop operating procedures that will ensure that responses to consultation requests are prepared in a timely fashion and include data from all appropriate departments of the City. (Ord. 2108 § 10.1.21, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 20, 1984).

18.10.220 Using existing environmental documents – Adoption by reference.

The City adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference:

WAC

197-11-600 When to use existing environmental documents.

197-11-610 Use of NEPA documents.

197-11-620 Supplemental environmental impact statements.

197-11-625 Addenda – Procedures.

197-11-630 Adoption – Procedures.

197-11-635 Incorporation by reference – Procedures.

197-11-640 Combining documents.

(Ord. 2108 § 10.1.22, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 21, 1984).

18.10.230 SEPA decisions – Adoption by reference.

The City adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference:

WAC

197-11-650 Purpose of this part.

197-11-655 Implementation.

197-11-660 Substantive authority and mitigation.

197-11-680 Appeals.

197-11-700 Definitions.

(Ord. 2108 § 10.1.23, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 22, 1984).

18.10.240 SEPA decisions.

For nonexempt proposals, the DNS or final EIS for the proposal shall accompany the Administration’s recommendation to any appropriate advisory body such as the Development Commission, or Planning Policy Commission. (Ord. 2108 § 10.1.24, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 23, 1984).

18.10.250 SEPA decisions – Substantive authority.

A. The City may attach conditions to a license or approval for a proposal so long as:

1. Such conditions are necessary to mitigate specific adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental document prepared pursuant to this chapter; and

2. Such conditions are in writing; and

3. Such conditions are reasonable and capable of being accomplished; and

4. The City has considered whether other local, state, or federal mitigation measures applied to the proposal are sufficient to mitigate the identified impacts; and

5. Such conditions are based on one (1) or more policies in SEPA Policies (IMC 18.10.260) and cited in the permit, approval, license, or other decision document.

B. The City may deny a permit or approval for a proposal on the basis of SEPA so long as:

1. A finding is made that approving the proposal would result in probable significant adverse environmental impacts that are identified in a final EIS or final supplemental EIS; and

2. A finding is made that the mitigation measures are insufficient to mitigate the identified impact; and

3. The denial is based on one (1) or more policies identified in SEPA Policies (IMC 18.10.260) and identified in writing in the decision document. (Ord. 2108 § 10.1.25, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 24, 1984).

18.10.260 SEPA – Policies.

A. The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those in the existing authorization of the City.

B. The City adopts by reference the policies in the following City codes, ordinances, resolutions, and plans as now exist and as may hereafter be amended:

Chapter 8.06 IMC, Uniform Litter Control Code.

Chapter 8.16 IMC, Mine Shafts, Tunnels and Vaults.

Chapter 9.22 IMC, Noise.

IMC Title 12, Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places.

IMC Title 13, Public Services.

IMC Title 16, Buildings and Construction.

Resolution 80-14, Construction Work Hours, 9-2-80.

Issaquah Traffic Circulation and Planning Study, 9-2-82.

Resolution 88-8, Transportation Functional Classification Plan, 8-18-88.

Road Adequacy Standards, Technical Memo #3, 4-3-89.

Issaquah Parks and Recreation Plan, 5-2-83.

Resolution 84-07, Issaquah 2000, 7-16-84.

Ordinance 1624, Issaquah Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan, 7-16-84.

Issaquah Fire Department Master Plan, 6-17-85.

Human Services Policy Statement, 9-15-86.

Resolution 87-01, Recreation Service Area, 2-2-87.

Resolution 87-9, Annexation Boundary – Bellevue/Issaquah, 7-7-87.

Comprehensive Water System Plan.

Comprehensive Sewer Plan.

King County Surface Water Design Manual.

Issaquah Creek Basin and Nonpoint Action Plan, 1996.

Resolution 88-9, Downtown Building Design Guidelines, 9-19-88.

Policy on Mix of Single-Multifamily Housing, 12-19-88.

Ordinance 1815, Mobile Home Relocation, 3-2-89.

Chapter 90.58 RCW, Shoreline Management Act of 1971.

Resolution 90-13, Shoreline Master Program, 6-4-90.

Resolution 92-12, Policy Statements from 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, 6-1-92.

Resolution 92-25, Issaquah Wildlife and Recreation Trails Plan, 11-18-92.

Ordinance 1983, Land Use Development Design Standards, 6-9-93.

Ordinance 2061, Comprehensive Plan and Parks Plan, 4-18-95, as amended.

Ordinance 2108, Land Use Code, 4-15-96, as amended.

Rate Study for Mitigation Fees for General Government Buildings, 6-5-08.

Rate Study for Mitigation Fees for Law Enforcement Facilities, 6-5-08.

Rate Study for Impact Fees for Fire Protection Facilities in Eastside Fire & Rescue, Washington, 4-11-06.

Rate Study for Impact Fees for Parks and Recreational Facilities, 6-5-08.

(Ord. 2524 § 3, 2008; Ord. 2523 § 6, 2008; Ord. 2301 § 3, 2001; Ord. 2230 § 2, 1999; Ord. 2108 § 10.1.26, 1996; Ord. 2031 § 4, 1994; Ord. 2016 § 1, 1994; Ord. 2003 § 1, 1993; Ord. 1983 § 3, 1993; Ord. 1957 § 1, 1992; Ord. 1940 § 1, 1992; Ord. 1930 § 1, 1992; Ord. 1904 § 2, 1991; Ord. 1893 § 1, 1991; Ord. 1886 § 40, 1991; Ord. 1817 § 1, 1989; Ord. 1633 § 25, 1984).

18.10.270 Appeals.

Refer to IMC 18.04.250 to 18.04.260 regarding appeals. (Ord. 2301 § 5, 2001; Ord. 2108 § 10.1.27, 1996; Ord. 1633, 1984).

18.10.280 Notice/statute of limitations.

A. The City, applicant for, or proponent of an action may publish a Notice of Decision pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080 for any action.

B. The form of the notice shall be substantially in the form provided in WAC 197-11-990. The notice shall be published by the City Clerk, applicant, or proponent pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080. (Ord. 2108 § 10.1.28, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 27, 1984).

18.10.290 Compliance with SEPA – Adoption by reference.

The City adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference, as supplemented in this chapter:

WAC

197-11-900 Purpose of this part.

197-11-902 Agency SEPA policies.

197-11-916 Application to ongoing actions.

197-11-920 Agencies with environmental expertise.

197-11-922 Lead agency rules.

197-11-924 Determining the lead agency.

197-11-926 Lead agency for government proposals.

197-11-928 Lead agency for public and private proposals.

197-11-930 Lead agency for private projects with one agency with jurisdiction.

197-11-932 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from more than one agency, when one of the agencies is a county/city.

197-11-934 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from a local agency, not a county/city, and one (1) or more state agencies.

197-11-936 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from more than one state agency.

197-11-938 Lead agencies for specific proposals.

197-11-940 Transfer of lead agency status to a state agency.

197-11-942 Agreements on lead agency status.

197-11-944 Agreements on division of lead agency duties.

197-11-946 DOE resolution of lead agency disputes.

197-11-948 Assumption of lead agency status.

(Ord. 2108 § 10.1.29, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 29, 1984).

18.10.300 Environmentally critical areas.

A. The best available maps, special studies, and other information provided with the application and/or provided in accordance with the critical areas ordinance, Shoreline Master Program and other regulations shall designate the location of environmentally critical areas within the City. For each environmentally critical area, the exemptions within WAC 197-11-800 that are inapplicable for that area are WAC 197-11-800(1), (2)(b), (2)(c), (2)(d), (2)(e), (2)(f), (2)(g), (2)(h), (6)(a), (14)(c), (24)(a) through (g), (25)(d), (25)(f), (25)(h), and (25)(i). Unidentified exemptions shall continue to apply within environmentally critical areas of the City.

B. The responsible official shall designate additional environmentally critical areas under the standards of WAC 197-11-908, and shall file maps designating such areas, together with the exemptions from the list in WAC 197-11-908 that are inapplicable in such areas, with the Washington State Department of Ecology, Headquarters Office, Olympia, Washington. The environmentally critical area designation shall have full force and effect of law as of the date of filing.

C. The City shall treat proposals located wholly or partially within an environmentally critical area no differently than other proposals under this chapter, making a threshold determination for all such proposals. The City shall not automatically require an EIS for a proposal merely because it is proposed for location in an environmentally critical area.

D. Certain exemptions do not apply on lands covered by water, and this remains true regardless of whether or not lands covered by water are mapped. (Ord. 2501 § 22, 2007; Ord. 2108 § 10.1.30, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 30, 1984).

18.10.310 Fees.

The City shall require the following fees for its activities in accordance with the provisions of this chapter:

A. Threshold Determination: For every environmental checklist the City will review when it is lead agency, the City shall collect a fee of $150.00 from the proponent of the proposal prior to undertaking a basic threshold determination. The time periods provided by this chapter for making a threshold determination shall not begin to run until payment of fees. When the City assists the applicant or completes the environmental checklist at the applicant’s request or under IMC 18.10.140 (Threshold Determination – Environmental Checklist), or when the environmental review of the proposal is complex, the fee for making a threshold determination shall be $350.00. For any complex review requiring staff time in excess of ten (10) hours, the City shall charge an hourly rate of $60.00 for the additional time.

B. Environmental Impact Statement:

1. When the City is the lead agency for a proposal requiring an EIS and the responsible official determines that the EIS shall be prepared by employees of the City, the City may charge and collect a reasonable fee from any applicant to cover costs incurred, including overhead, by the City in preparing the EIS. The responsible official shall advise the applicant of the projected costs for the EIS prior to actual preparation.

2. The responsible official may determine that the City will contract directly with a consultant for preparation of an EIS, or a portion of the EIS, for activities initiated by some persons or entity other than the City, and may bill such costs and expenses directly to the applicant. Such consultants shall be selected by the City.

3. The applicant shall pay the projected amount to the City prior to commencing work. The City will refund the excess, if any, at the completion of the EIS. If the City’s costs exceed the projected costs, the applicant shall immediately pay the excess. If a proposal is modified so that an EIS is no longer required, the responsible official shall refund any fees collected under subsection (B)(1) or (2) of this section which remain after incurred costs, including overhead, are paid.

4. For all proposals in which the City is the lead agency and the responsible official determines that an EIS is required, the applicant shall be charged $500.00 or a fee equal to five (5) percent of the costs of the draft and the final environmental impact statements, whichever is greater, to cover the City’s administrative costs of supervision and preparation. For the purpose of this section, cost of an environmental impact statement shall include the cost of preparation and publication, including printing, collating, binding, and circulation of the preliminary and final EIS. Applicants may be required to post bond or otherwise insure payment of such costs. In the event the actual cost of the draft and final EIS exceeds the estimated cost of the EIS agreed upon by the City and the applicant, such excess shall be paid to the City by the applicant prior to final action by the City.

C. The City may collect a reasonable fee from an applicant to cover the costs of meeting the public notice requirements of this chapter relating to the applicant’s proposal.

D. The City may charge any person for copies of any document prepared under this chapter, and for mailing the document in a manner provided by Chapter 42.17 RCW. (Ord. 2108 § 10.1.31, 1996; Ord. 1856 § 1, 1990; Ord. 1633 § 31, 1984).

18.10.320 Forms – Adoption by reference.

The City adopts the following forms and sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference:

WAC

197-11-960 Environmental checklist.

197-11-965 Adoption notice.

197-11-970 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS).

197-11-980 Determination of significance and scoping notice (DS).

197-11-985 Notice of assumption of lead agency status.

197-11-990 Notice of action.

(Ord. 2108 § 10.1.32, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 32, 1984).

18.10.330 WACs on file.

The City Clerk shall maintain on file for public use and examination three (3) copies of the Washington Administrative Code sections referred to in this chapter. (Ord. 2108 § 10.1.33, 1996; Ord. 1633 § 33, 1984).

Critical Areas Regulations

18.10.340 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to identify environmentally critical areas and to supplement the development requirements contained in the various use classifications in the Issaquah Municipal Code by providing for additional controls without violating any citizen’s constitutional rights. (Ord. 2108 § 10.2.1, 1996).

18.10.350 Intent.

It is the intent of the City to balance the community vision which includes:

A. Environmental protection and preservation;

B. Diversified economic growth which has been planned and which is compatible with the vision of the community; and

C. Overall improvement of the quality of life for the residents of Issaquah.

The City shall implement this vision through directing appropriate development to areas of the City in which the development will have the least adverse impact to the environment. High impact land use shall be located in areas that will have the least detrimental adverse effect to environmentally critical areas. In areas that development may have a substantial risk to potentially, adversely impact environmentally critical areas, only low impact land use shall be permitted. (Ord. 2301 § 3, 2001; Ord. 2233 § 17, 1999; Ord. 2108 § 10.2.2, 1996).

18.10.360 Environmentally critical areas.

Coal mines, streams, wetlands, steep slopes, protective buffers, watersheds, aquifer recharge areas, as well as areas subject to erosion, flooding, landslides, and seismic hazards, constitute environmentally critical areas that are of special concern to the City. The standards and mechanisms established in this chapter are intended to protect these environmentally critical areas in Issaquah. By regulating development and alterations to critical areas, this chapter seeks to:

A. Protect members of the public and public resources and facilities from injury, loss of life, property damage or financial losses due to flooding, erosion, landslides and seismic events, soil subsidence and steep slope failures;

B. Protect unique, fragile and valuable elements of the environment including wildlife and its habitat;

C. Mitigate unavoidable impacts to environmentally critical areas by regulating alterations in and adjacent to critical areas;

D. Prevent cumulative adverse environmental impacts to water availability, water quality, wetlands and streams;

E. Minimize erosion potential;

F. Avoid alteration to wetland hydrology that causes either short- or long-term changes in native vegetational composition, soils characteristics, nutrient cycling or water chemistry;

G. Protect the public trust as to navigable waters and aquatic resources;

H. Meet the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and maintain Issaquah as an eligible community for federal flood insurance benefits;

I. Alert members of the public including, but not limited to, appraisers, owners, potential buyers or lessees to the development limitations of critical areas;

J. Provide City officials with sufficient information to protect critical areas;

K. Implement the policies of the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, the Issaquah Municipal Code, the City of Issaquah Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Master Program; and

L. Educate the public about the long-term care of critical areas. (Ord. 2500 § 5, 2007; Ord. 2301 § 3, 2001; Ord. 2108 § 10.2.3, 1996).

18.10.370 Applicability.

A. The regulations and standards of the Issaquah Municipal Code and the Land Use Code pertaining to the several use classifications shall be subject to the general provisions, requirements, and conditions contained in this chapter. When any provision of any chapter of the Issaquah Municipal Code, Shoreline Master Program or the Land Use Code conflicts with this chapter, that provision which provides more protection to the critical areas shall apply unless specifically provided otherwise in this chapter. The provisions of this Code shall prevail over any inconsistent ordinance that has not been reviewed for compliance with the City’s GMA Comprehensive Plan. Streams and wetlands classified under the City of Issaquah Shoreline Master Program shall be governed by the rules and regulations pertaining to setbacks and buffer requirements under that ordinance only when a critical area study documents that the smaller buffer required through the Shoreline Master Program would not cause significant impacts to the stream or wetlands. Development for which the City of Issaquah Shoreline Master Program is applicable will still be governed by and need to conform to regulations, other than buffer and setback requirements, as set forth in this Code, including: flood storage capacity; flood-proofing measures, etc.

B. The provisions of this Code shall be held to be the minimum requirements in their interpretation in order to serve the purposes of this chapter.

C. The City, prior to fulfilling the requirements of this chapter, shall not grant any approval or permission to alter the condition of any land, water or vegetation, or to construct or alter any structure or improvement including, but not limited to, the following: Commercial or Residential Building Permits or other land use actions; Right-of-Way Construction Permits; Grading and Clearing permits; Right-of-Way Permits; Shoreline Conditional Use Permits; shoreline environmental redesignations; Shoreline Substantial Development Permits; shoreline variances; short subdivisions; subdivisions; utility and other use permits; variances; zone reclassifications; or any subsequently adopted permits or required approvals not expressly exempted by this chapter.

D. The City shall perform a critical areas review for any permit or approval requested for a development proposal on a site which includes or is adjacent to one (1) or more critical areas, unless otherwise provided in this chapter. The critical area review requires, at a minimum, that the following review process occur, as part of all development applications:

1. The City shall review the information submitted by the applicant to:

a. Confirm the nature and type of the critical areas and evaluate the critical areas study;

b. Determine whether the development proposal is consistent with this chapter;

c. Determine whether any proposed alterations to critical areas are necessary;

d. Determine if the mitigation and monitoring plans and bonding measures proposed by the applicant are sufficient to protect the public health, safety and welfare consistent with the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of this chapter;

e. Determine if the proposed action warrants a biological assessment based on the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

2. The applicant shall submit an affidavit which:

a. Declares that the applicant has no knowledge that critical areas on the proposed development site have been illegally altered; or

b. Shall list all known alterations to the critical area.

3. The applicant shall demonstrate that any development proposal submitted conforms to the purposes, standards and protection mechanisms of this chapter.

4. The development proposal shall, if required, contain a critical areas study in accordance with IMC 18.10.400.

E. The City may approve, approve with conditions, or deny any development proposal in order to comply with the requirements and carry out the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of this chapter.

F. It shall be the responsibility of the Director to implement the policies and objectives of this Code.

G. All decisions in regards to this chapter shall be made through the appropriate land use permitting process or as noted in this chapter. In the event that the proposal, as it relates to this chapter, does not require any other related or unrelated permits or approvals and this chapter does not specify a review process, it shall be reviewed by the City through the Level 1 Review process.

H. The Director is authorized to adopt written procedures and establish administrative rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Code.

I. The Director shall maintain and make available to the public all available information applicable to any critical area and its buffer.

J. The Director shall on an annual basis establish a list of qualified professional scientists and technical experts to assist in the implementation of the provisions of this Code.

K. Approval of a development proposal pursuant to the provisions of this chapter does not discharge the obligation of the applicant to comply with the provisions of this chapter.

L. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all forest practices over which the City has jurisdiction pursuant to Chapter 76.09 RCW, WAC Title 222, and any Memorandum of Understanding between the Washington Department of Natural Resources and the City. In addition, this chapter shall apply to all property which has been cleared and/or graded without an approved forest practice application and which is subsequently proposed for development. (Ord. 2301 § 3, 2001; Ord. 2108 § 10.2.4, 1996).

18.10.380 Agency resource maps.

A. The approximate location and estimated extent of critical areas in the City are displayed on the Issaquah Natural Resources and Critical Areas Map Folios, the National Wetlands Inventory, the Issaquah Shoreline Environment Designation Maps and any other pertinent maps the City utilizes as resource material. These maps are to be used as a guide to the general location and extent of critical areas.

B. It is presumed that critical areas not shown on these maps may exist in the City. These critical areas not currently mapped are protected under all the provisions of this Code.

C. In the event that any of the critical area designations shown on the maps conflict with the criteria set forth in this chapter, the criteria shall control.

D. Any areas which are requesting to be annexed to the City shall be required to perform a critical areas inventory as a requirement of annexation. (Ord. 2108 § 10.2.5, 1996).

18.10.390 Definitions.

Adjacent: For the purpose of critical areas, within one hundred (100) feet of a critical area, or more, as decided by the Director, if development of the property may impact the critical area.

Alteration: Any human-induced action which adversely impacts the existing condition of a critical area. Alterations include, but are not limited to, grading; filling; dredging; draining; channeling; cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants (excluding treated storm water); grazing domestic animals; paving (including construction and application of gravel); modifying for surface water management purposes; or any other human activity that adversely impacts the existing vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat. Alteration does not include walking, passive recreation, fishing or other similar activities.

Applicant: Any person or business entity which applies for a development proposal, permit or approval subject to review under this chapter.

Appropriate land use permitting process: The permitting process (Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, Building Permit, Grading Permit, etc.) in which the proposed project is proceeding through for approval. For instance, if a proposed project requires a Level 3 Review for approval, prior to the Building Permit stage, then the Level 3 process would be considered the “appropriate land use permitting process.”

Aquifer: A body of soil or rock that contains sufficient saturated material to conduct groundwater and yield usable quantities of groundwater to springs and/or wells.

Aquifer recharge area: Areas that are determined to have a recharging effect on aquifers used as a source for potable water, and are vulnerable to contamination from recharge.

Base flood: A flood having a one (1) percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. It is also referred to as the “one hundred (100) year flood.” The base flood is determined as defined by the latest FEMA FIRM maps. In areas where the Flood Insurance Study includes detailed base flood calculations, those calculations may be used until projections of future flows are completed and approved by the City.

Base flood elevation: The water surface elevation of the base flood. It shall be referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929.

Best management practices: The physical, structural, and/or managerial practices that use the best available technologies or techniques, either separately or in combination, to prevent or reduce the degradation of any critical area or natural resources. For example, these conservation practices or systems of practices and management measures would:

A. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste, toxins, and sediment; and

B. Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater flow, circulation patterns, and to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of critical areas.

Biofiltration swale: A shallow drainage conveyance with relatively gentle side slopes, generally with flow depths less than one (1) foot which are designed to reduce pollutant concentrations in water by filtering the polluted water through biological materials.

Biological assessment (Endangered Species Act): An analysis of a proposed action by a qualified professional in order to determine if the action will result in a “take” of a threatened or endangered species, as listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Biologist: A person who has earned a degree in biological sciences from an accredited college or university, or a person who has equivalent educational training and has experience as a practicing biologist.

Building setback area: The area between the critical area buffer and the building setback line. This area is provided to ensure that the building and associated construction activities do not result in significant adverse impacts to the adjacent critical area, and to provide physical and/or visual separation between the development and the critical area.

Building setback line: A line which establishes a definite point beyond which the foundation of a structure shall not extend.

Canopy: The highest layer of vegetation within a forest community.

Clearing: The destruction or removal of vegetation from a site by physical, mechanical, chemical, or other means. This does not mean landscape maintenance or pruning consistent with accepted horticultural practices which does not impair the health or survival of the trees.

Coal mine hazard areas: Those areas of the City directly underlain by or affected by abandoned coal mine working such as adits, tunnels, drifts or air shafts.

Compensatory mitigation: Replacing project-induced losses or impacts.

Compensatory storage: New, excavated storage volume equivalent to any flood storage capacity which has been or would be eliminated by filling or grading within the floodplain. Equivalent shall mean that the storage removed shall be replaced by equal volume between corresponding one (1) foot contour intervals that are hydraulically connected to the floodway through their entire depth.

Conservation easement: An easement dedicated to the City to restrict the use of environmentally sensitive property in order to protect, preserve, maintain, improve, restore, and otherwise conserve the property in perpetuity.

Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs): Areas that are determined to have a critical recharging effect on aquifers used as a source for potable water, and are vulnerable to contamination from recharge.

Critical area buffer: A designated area adjoining to and a part of a steep slope or landslide hazard area which protects slope stability, attenuation of surface water flows and landslide hazards reasonably necessary to minimize risk, or a designated area adjacent to and a part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem. Critical area buffers are essential to maintenance and protection of the critical area. Buffer areas protect critical areas from degradation in various ways, including the following: stabilizing slopes and preventing erosion; filtering suspended solids, nutrients and harmful toxic substances; moderating the impacts of storm water runoff; moderating microclimate; supporting and protecting plant and animal species and biotic communities associated with the critical area; and reducing disturbances to the resources to the critical area typically caused by the activities of humans and domestic animals.

Critical areas: Any of those areas of King County and the City which are subject to natural hazards or those land features which support unique, fragile, or valuable natural resources including fish, wildlife and other organisms and their habitat and such resources which, in their natural state, carry, hold or purify water. Critical areas include the following landform features: erosion hazard areas, flood hazard areas, coal mine hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, seismic hazard areas, steep slope areas, streams, wetlands, and aquifer recharge areas. Critical area buffers are integral to the health of the critical area and therefore for functional purposes are considered a part of the critical area. However, unless indicated otherwise, measurements from critical areas are made from the outside edge of the protected landform feature (e.g., wetland, stream, etc.) and not from the outside edge of the buffer.

Critical Areas Mitigation Fund: The special fund created for the purpose of creating, restoring or purchasing critical areas, including wetlands and/or wetland buffers. All funds received from civil penalties resulting from violations of this Code are deposited into the fund, and administered by the City Director of Finance.

Critical areas review: The evaluation performed by the City as part of its review of an application for a permit or approval to ensure that impacts to critical areas have been addressed where appropriate.

Critical areas study: A study prepared by a qualified professional on any of the following elements of a critical area: existing conditions, potential impacts and mitigation measures. The study is typically prepared in conjunction with a development proposal.

Critical areas tract: A separate tract that is created to protect the critical area and its buffer, whose ownership is assured, as provided in IMC 18.10.460.

Critical drainage area: An area which has been formally determined by the Public Works Department to require more restrictive regulation than City-wide standards afford, in order to mitigate severe flooding, drainage, erosion or sedimentation problems, which have resulted or will result from the cumulative impacts of development and urbanization.

Critical facilities: Those facilities necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare which are defined under the occupancy categories of Essential Facilities, Hazardous Facilities and Special Occupancy Structures in the Uniform Building Code as adopted. These facilities include but are not limited to schools, hospitals, police stations, fire departments and other emergency response facilities, and nursing homes. Critical facilities also include hazardous material storage or production-sites.

Deleterious substances: Include, but are not limited to, chemical and microbial substances that are not classified as hazardous materials per this chapter, whether the substances are in usable or waste condition, that have the potential to pose a significant groundwater hazard, or for which monitoring requirements or treatment-based standards are enforced under Chapter 246-290 WAC.

Density credits: A system/formula used to transfer a portion of the allowed development density for critical areas onto another area of the proposal site/property.

Developable site area: Developable site area is the gross site area minus deductions for critical areas and associated buffers as required by this chapter.

Development activity: Any activity which would require a Land Use Permit or approval from the City or any other local, state or federal jurisdiction. Development activity includes, but is not limited to: clearing or grading activity, building or constructing activity, dredging or filling, etc.

Development Commission: Refers to the City Development Commission.

Development, high impact: See High impact land use.

Development, low impact: See Low impact land use.

Development proposal site: The legal boundaries of the parcel or parcels of land for which an applicant has applied for authority from the City to carry out a development proposal.

Director: The Director of the Planning Department of the City or his/her designees unless otherwise noted. In the absence of a Director, the Planning Manager shall assume the responsibilities of the Director as set forth in this Code.

Ditch: A long, narrow human-built excavation that conveys storm water, agricultural runoff or irrigation water that is not identified as a classified or unclassified stream in the Issaquah Creek Final Basin and Nonpoint Action Plan (1996). Also see definition of “streams.”

Economic Growth: Residential, commercial and industrial development which provides housing, jobs, services and other community needs. It also includes community facilities and utilities such as parks, trails, and sewer, water and transportation systems.

Emergent wetland: A regulated wetland with at least thirty (30) percent of the surface area covered by erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation as the uppermost vegetative strata.

Enhancement: Actions performed to increase the functions and values of a stream, wetland or other areas.

Erosion: The process in which soil particles are mobilized and transported by natural agents such as wind, rain splash, frost action or stream flow.

Erosion hazard areas: Those areas of King County and the City containing soils which, according to the USDA Soil Conservation Service, the 1973 King County Soils Survey and any subsequent revisions or additions thereto, may experience severe to very severe erosion hazard. This group of soils includes, but are not limited to, the following when they occur on slopes of fifteen (15) percent or greater: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD), Alderwood-Kitsap (Akf), Beausite gravelly sandy loam (BeD and BeF), Kitsap silt loam (Kpd), Oval gravelly sand loam (OvD and OvF), Ragnar fine sandy loam (RaD), Ragnar-Indianola Association (RdE), and any occurrence of River Wash (Rh).

Essential habitat: Habitat necessary for the survival of federally listed threatened, endangered and sensitive species and state-listed priority species.

Excavation: The mechanical removal of earth.

Existing and ongoing agriculture: Those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84.34.020(2) and those activities involved in the production of crops or livestock, for example, the operation and maintenance of farm and stock ponds or drainage ditches; operation and maintenance of ditches; irrigation systems including irrigation laterals, canals, or irrigation drainage ditches, changes between agricultural activities; and normal maintenance, repair, or operation of existing serviceable structures, facilities, or improved areas.

Activities which bring a nonagricultural area into agricultural use are not part of an ongoing operation. An operation ceases to be ongoing when the area on which it is conducted is converted to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle for more than two (2) years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils conservation program, or unless the activity is maintenance of irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, or drainage ditches related to an existing and ongoing agricultural activity. Forest practices are not included in this definition.

Exotic: Any plant or animal that is not native to the Puget Sound region.

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Fill/Fill material: A deposit of material placed by human or mechanical means.

Flood hazard areas: Those areas of the City subject to inundation by the base flood. These include, but are not limited to, streams, lakes, wetlands, closed depressions, floodways and floodplains. A flood hazard area consists of the following components which shall be determined by the City after obtaining, reviewing and utilizing base flood elevation and available floodway data:

A. Floodplain means the total area subject to inundation by the base flood. The floodplain includes both rapidly flowing water and standing water.

B. Floodway means the channel of the stream and that portion of the adjoining floodplain which is necessary to contain and discharge the base flood flow without increasing the base flood elevation more than one (1) foot. The floodway is determined by the latest FEMA FIRM map.

Flood insurance rate map (FIRM): The official map on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated flood hazard areas.

Flood protection elevation: An elevation that is one (1) foot above the highest base flood elevation, as defined by FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and the Issaquah Creek Basin and Nonpoint Action Plan, whichever is greater.

Floodproofing: Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate the potential of flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents (from IMC 16.36.030, Flood Hazard Ordinance).

Forested wetland: A regulated wetland with at least thirty (30) percent of the surface area covered by woody vegetation greater than twenty (20) feet in height.

Geologist: A practicing, geologist licensed as a professional geologist with the State of Washington.

Geotechnical engineer: A practicing, geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a professional civil engineer with the State of Washington who has at least four (4) years of professional employment as a geotechnical engineer.

Grading: An act which changes or alters the predevelopment conditions of the site surface.

Grazed wet meadows: Emergent wetlands, typically having up to six (6) inches of standing water during the wet season and dominated under normal conditions by meadow emergents such as reed canary grass, spike rushes, bulrushes, sedges, and rushes. During the growing season, the soil is often saturated but not covered with water. Grazed wet meadows frequently have been or are being used for livestock activities.

Hazardous materials: Any material, either singularly or in combination, that is a physical or health hazard, whether the materials are in usable or waste condition; and any material that may degrade surface water or groundwater quality when improperly stored, handled, treated, used, produced, recycled, disposed of, or otherwise mismanaged. Hazardous materials shall also include: all materials defined as or designated by rule as a dangerous waste or extremely hazardous waste under Chapter 70.105 RCW and Chapter 173-303 WAC; hazardous materials shall also include petroleum or petroleum products that are in liquid phase at ambient temperatures, including any waste oils or sludges.

Heron rookery: A nesting area for a colony of heron or egrets which is generally located in a grove of tall trees.

High impact land use: A land use which would require substantial environmental mitigation in order to alleviate adverse impacts to the environment or the community’s health, safety or welfare. Substantial mitigation would be determined through the SEPA process.

Hydric soil: A soil that is saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. The presence of hydric soil shall be determined following the methods described in the currently followed federal manual for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands.

Hydrophytic vegetation: Macrophytic plant life growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. The presence of hydrophytic vegetation shall be determined following the methods described in the “1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.”

In-class compensation: The provision of the same class wetlands, as determined based on sensitivity to disturbance, rarity, irreplaceability and the function of the disturbed wetland.

In-kind compensation: To replace wetlands with substitute wetlands whose characteristics (vegetative class, function and value) closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a regulated activity. It does not mean replacement “in-class.”

Landslide: The movement of a mass of loosened rocks or earth down a hillside or slope, and includes snow avalanches.

Landslide hazard areas: Those areas of the City subject to a severe risk of landslide. A geotechnical report is required for all relevant projects to determine steepness of slope, permeability of soils, occurrence of springs, and groundwater level. The study shall be performed by a licensed geotechnical engineer. Landslide hazard areas include the following areas:

A. Slopes greater than forty (40) percent.

B. Any area with a combination of:

1. Slopes of greater than fifteen (15) percent;

2. Impermeable soils (typically silt and clay) frequently interbedded with granular soils (predominantly sand and gravel); and

3. Springs or ground water seepage.

C. Any area which has shown movement during the Holocene epoch (from ten thousand (10,000) years ago to present) or which is underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch.

D. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion, or undercutting by wave action.

E. Any area which shows evidence of, or is at risk from, snow avalanches.

F. Any area located on an alluvial fan, presently subject to or potentially subject to, inundation by debris flows or deposition of stream-transported sediments.

Light equipment: Construction equipment including, but not limited to, chain saws, wheelbarrows, post-hole diggers and all hand-held tools.

Low impact land use: Land use which would not require substantial environmental mitigation in order to alleviate adverse impacts to the environment or the community’s health, safety or welfare. Substantial mitigation would be determined through the SEPA process.

Lowest floor: The lowest enclosed area, including the basement, of a structure. An area used solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement area is not considered a building’s lowest floor; provided, that any such enclosed area meets all of the structural requirements of the flood hazard protection and alteration standards.

Maintenance: A procedure intended to assist with the long-term health of critical areas. Aside from the maintenance period relating to a restoration or creation project, activities may include removal of weeds, litter control, etc., not the performance of complex restoration efforts. Maintenance allows for the critical areas to evolve as a natural part of the environment.

Master planned developments: A comprehensive site plan intended to guide the development of a specific parcel of land, including necessary utilities, locations of land uses, and density provisions.

Mitigation: The use of any or all of the following actions that are listed in descending order of preference:

A. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking the action or parts of the action;

B. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce the impact;

C. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected critical area;

D. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation or maintenance operations during the life of the development proposal;

E. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing or providing substitute critical areas and environments; or

F. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures including any combination of the measures listed in subsections A through E of this section; and/or, possibly paying penalties as prescribed in IMC 18.10.860, Criminal penalties, if a violation exists.

Mitigation banking: A system for providing compensatory mitigation in advance of authorized impacts of development in which credits are generated through restoration, creation, and/or enhancement of the critical area, for example, the restoration, creation, and/or enhancement of wetlands, and in exceptional circumstances, preservation of adjacent wetlands, wetland buffers, and/or other aquatic resources; provided, that no net loss of wetlands occurs.

Mitigation plan: A plan conducted by a qualified professional describing the design and/or implementation of any or all of the actions listed in the definition of “mitigation” in this section.

Mitigation project: Actions necessary to replace project-induced critical areas and buffer losses, including land acquisition, planning, construction plans, monitoring and contingency action.

Monitoring: Evaluating the impacts of development on the biological, hydrological and geological elements of such systems and assessing the performance of required mitigation measures through the collection and analysis of data by various methods for the purposes of understanding and documenting changes in natural ecosystems and features, and includes gathering baseline data.

Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE): An easement granted to the City or other nonprofit entity for the protection of native vegetation within a critical area or critical area buffer.

Native vegetation: Vegetation comprised of plant species which are indigenous to the Puget Sound region and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. Native vegetation does not include noxious weeds.

Nonnative invasive vegetation: Vegetation, plant species and cultivars that are not indigenous to the Puget Sound region in the vicinity of the City of Issaquah and which establish and propagate with such vigor as to outcompete native vegetation and result in the degradation of the natural environment. Nonnative invasive vegetation includes noxious weeds (defined below) such as but not limited to Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, R. procerus), Evergreen blackberry (R. lacinatus), Ivy (Hedera spp.), Holly (Ilex spp.), and Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum).

Normal rainfall: That rainfall which is at or near the mean of t