A. 
The purpose of this chapter is to establish supplemental standards for the protection of critical areas and their associated buffers within the shoreline jurisdiction consistent with the goals and policies of the SMA.
B. 
The provisions of this chapter do not extend beyond the shoreline jurisdiction limits specified in this Master Program and the SMA.
C. 
By identifying and regulating development and alterations to critical areas and buffers within the shoreline jurisdiction it is the intent of this chapter to:
1. 
Protect the public from injury, loss of life, property damage or financial losses due to flooding, erosion, landslide, seismic events, or soils subsidence;
2. 
Protect unique, fragile, and valuable elements of the environment;
3. 
Reduce cumulative adverse environmental impacts to water quality, wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources; fish and wildlife habitat; landslide hazards; and other geologically unstable features and protect the functions and values of critical areas from overall net loss;
4. 
Ensure the long-term protection of ground and surface water quality;
5. 
Alert members of the public, including appraisers, assessors, owners, potential buyers, or lessees, to the development limitations of critical areas and their required buffers;
6. 
Serve as a basis for exercise of the City’s substantive authority under SEPA, and the City’s environmental procedures (Chapter 20.30 SMC, Subchapter 8);
7. 
To comply with the requirements of the SMA and its implementing regulations;
8. 
Establish standards and procedures that are intended to protect critical areas and their associated buffers within the shoreline jurisdiction while accommodating the rights of property owners to use their property in a reasonable manner; and
9. 
Provide for the management of critical areas and buffers within the shoreline jurisdiction so as not to result in a net loss of ecological functions and to restore degraded ecosystems.
D. 
This chapter is to be administered with flexibility and attention to site-specific characteristics.
E. 
For the purpose of this chapter, critical areas and buffers shall have the same meanings as set forth in Chapter 20.20 SMC and RCW 36.70A.030(5), as amended from time to time.
F. 
For the purpose of this chapter, when referring to “functions and values” or “functions,” it is the critical area’s functions and values in relationship to the shoreline ecological functions.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019)
A. 
Unless explicitly exempted, the provisions of this chapter shall apply to all land uses, development activity, and all structures and facilities within critical areas and buffers located within the City’s shoreline jurisdiction, whether or not a permit or authorization is required, and shall apply to every person or entity that owns, leases, or administers land within the City’s shoreline jurisdiction.
B. 
No person or entity shall alter a critical area or buffer in the shoreline jurisdiction except in compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
C. 
The City shall not approve any permit or otherwise issue any authorization to alter the condition of any land, water, or vegetation or to construct or alter any structure or improvement in the shoreline jurisdiction without first assuring compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
D. 
Approval of a permit or 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.
E. 
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to any forest practices over which the City has jurisdiction pursuant to Chapter 76.09 RCW and WAC Title 222, as amended from time to time.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019)
A. 
These critical area regulations shall apply as an overlay in addition to use and development regulations established by the City consistent with the SMA and this Master Program. In the event of any conflict between these regulations and any other regulations of the City, the regulations that provide greater protection to the critical areas shall apply.
B. 
Areas characterized by particular critical areas may also be subject to other regulations established by this chapter due to the overlap or multiple functions of some critical areas. In the event of any conflict between regulations for particular critical areas in this chapter, the regulations that provide greater protection to critical areas shall apply.
C. 
These critical areas regulations shall apply concurrently with review conducted under SEPA, as necessary and locally adopted. Any conditions required pursuant to this chapter shall be included in the SEPA review and threshold determination.
D. 
Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not constitute compliance with other Federal, State, and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required (for example, shoreline substantial development permits, Hydraulic Permit Act (HPA) permits, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, USACE Section 404 permits, or National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits). The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in this chapter.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019)
A. 
The approximate location and extent of identified critical areas within the City’s planning area are shown on the critical areas maps adopted as part of this chapter, including but not limited to the maps identified in SMC §§ 20.240.222, 20.240.272, and 20.240.322. These maps shall be used for informational purposes as a general guide only for the assistance of property owners and other interested parties. Boundaries and locations indicated on the maps are generalized. Critical areas and their buffers may occur within the shoreline jurisdiction that have not previously been mapped. A site inspection by staff or an applicant’s critical area worksheet may also indicate the presence of a critical area.
B. 
Based on an indicated critical area in subsection A of this section, the actual presence or absence of, and delineation and classification of, critical areas shall be identified in the field by a qualified professional, and confirmed by the City, according to the procedures, definitions and criteria established by SMC § 20.240.080(D)(1) and (2). In the event of any conflict between the critical area location or designation shown on the City’s maps and the criteria or standards of this chapter, the criteria and standards of this chapter shall prevail.
C. 
The critical areas maps shall be periodically updated by the City and shall reflect any permit activity, results of special studies and reports reviewed and approved by the City, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment Element, and Department-identified errors and corrections.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019)
A. 
Critical Area Report. Activities allowed under this section shall have been reviewed and permitted or approved by the City and any other agency with jurisdiction, but do not require submittal of a separate critical area report, unless such submittal was required previously for the underlying permit. The Director may apply conditions to the underlying permit or approval to ensure that the allowed activity is consistent with the provisions of this chapter to protect critical areas.
B. 
Best Management Practices. All allowed activities shall be conducted using the best management practices that result in the least amount of impact to the critical areas. Best management practices shall be used for tree and vegetation protection, construction management, erosion and sedimentation control, water quality protection, and regulation of chemical applications. The City shall require the use of best management practices to ensure that the activity does not result in degradation to the critical area. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party’s expense.
C. 
Allowed Activities. The following activities are allowed:
1. 
Modifications to Existing Structures within Critical Areas. Structural modification of, addition to, maintenance, repair, or replacement of legally nonconforming structures consistent with SMC § 20.220.150, which do not meet the building setback or buffer requirements for wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, or geologic hazard areas if the modification, addition, replacement, or related activity does not increase the existing building footprint of the structure or area of hardscape lying within the critical area or buffer. Within landslide hazard areas, additions that add height to a nonconforming structure may only be allowed with review of a critical area report demonstrating that no increased risk of the hazard will occur. If such modification, alteration, repair, or replacement requires temporary or construction related encroachment into a critical area or a critical area buffer to perform the work, then encroachment may be allowed subject to restoration of the area of encroachment to a same or better condition.
2. 
Demolition. Demolition of structures located within critical areas or their buffers, excluding demolition of structures necessary to support or stabilize landslide hazard areas, and subject to approval of a stormwater pollution prevention plan consistent with the adopted stormwater manual and clearing limits that will adequately protect the critical area.
3. 
Permit Requests Subsequent to Previous Critical Area Review. A permit or approval sought as part of a development proposal for which multiple permits are required is exempt from the provisions of this chapter, except for the notice to title provisions, as applicable if:
a. 
The City has previously reviewed all critical areas on the site; and
b. 
There is no material change in the development proposal since the prior review; and
c. 
There is no new information available that may alter previous critical area review of the site or a particular critical area; and
d. 
The permit or approval under which the prior review was conducted has not expired or, if no expiration date, no more than five years have lapsed since the issuance of that permit or approval; and
e. 
The prior permit or approval, including any conditions, has been complied with.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019)
A. 
A preapplication meeting, pursuant to SMC § 20.30.080, is encouraged but not required prior to submitting an application for development or use of land that may impact critical areas or buffers within the shoreline jurisdiction.
B. 
A determination may be provided through the preapplication meeting regarding whether critical area reports are required, and if so what level of detail and what elements may be necessary for the proposed project. An applicant may submit a critical area delineation and classification study prior to the City determining that a full critical area report is required.
This determination does not preclude the Director from requiring additional critical area report information during the review of the project. After a site visit and review of available information for the preapplication meeting, the Director may determine:
1. 
No Critical Areas Present. If the Director’s analysis indicates that the project area is not within or adjacent to a critical area or buffer and that the proposed activity is unlikely to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions provided by the critical area or buffer, then the Director shall determine that the critical area review is complete and note in the preapplication meeting summary letter the reasons that no further review is required.
2. 
Critical Areas Present, but No Impact. If the Director determines that there are critical areas within or adjacent to the project area, but that the best available science shows that the proposed activity is unlikely to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions provided by the critical area or buffer, the Director may waive the requirement for a critical area report. A waiver may be granted if there is substantial evidence that all of the following requirements will be met:
a. 
There will be no alteration of the critical area or buffer;
b. 
The development proposal will not impact the critical area in a manner contrary to the purpose, intent, and requirements of this chapter, this Master Program, and the SMA; and
c. 
The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
A summary of this analysis and the findings shall be included in the preapplication meeting summary letter and any staff report or decision on the underlying permit.
3. 
Critical Areas May Be Affected by Proposal. If the Director determines that a critical area(s) or buffer(s) may be affected by the proposal, then the Director shall notify the applicant that a critical area report(s) shall be submitted prior to further review of the project, and indicate each of the critical area types that should be addressed in the report. Additionally, the Director may indicate the sections or report types that shall be included in the critical report(s) consistent with SMC § 20.240.080.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019; Ord. 1027 § 1 (Exh. A), 2025)
In general, critical areas and buffers shall be maintained in their existing state including undisturbed, native vegetation to maintain the functions, values, resources, and public health and safety for which the critical areas and buffers are protected or allowed as the current, developed, legally established condition such as graded areas, structures, pavement, gardens, and lawns. Alteration of critical areas, including their established buffers, may only be permitted subject to the criteria and standards in this chapter, and compliance with any Federal and/or State permits required. Unless otherwise provided in this chapter, if alteration of the critical area is unavoidable, all adverse impacts to or from critical areas and buffers resulting from a development proposal or alteration shall be mitigated using the best available science in accordance with an approved critical areas report, so as to result in no overall net loss of shoreline ecological function provided by the critical area and no increased risk of hazards. Alterations that exceed the allowances of or that do not meet the approval criteria of this chapter can only be authorized through a shoreline variance consistent with SMC § 20.220.040.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019)
Mitigation shall ensure that each permitted development or use will not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline as provided by the critical area or buffer and prevent risk from a hazard posed by a critical area. Mitigation shall not be implemented until after the Director has provided approval of a critical areas report that includes a mitigation plan.
A. 
Mitigation Sequencing. This section applies to mitigation required with all critical areas reviews, approvals, and enforcement pursuant to this chapter. This section is supplemented with specific measures under subchapters for particular critical areas. Mitigation for specific development proposals may include a combination of the measures below and shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of this section. Before impacting any critical areas or buffers, an applicant shall demonstrate that the following actions have been taken in the following sequential order of preference:
1. 
Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of actions;
2. 
Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts;
3. 
Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment or by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through natural, engineering, or other methods;
4. 
Reducing or eliminating the impact over time through preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action;
5. 
Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or
6. 
Monitoring, measuring, and reporting the impact to the Director and taking appropriate corrective measures.
B. 
Applicants shall first demonstrate an inability to avoid or reduce impacts before the use of actions to mitigate potential impacts will be allowed. No activity or use shall be allowed that results in a net loss of the shoreline ecological functions provided by the critical areas or buffers or has a significant adverse impact on other shoreline functions fostered by the policies of this Master Program and the SMA.
C. 
Type, Location, and Timing of Mitigation. Unless it is demonstrated that a higher level of ecological functioning or greater reduction of hazard risk would result from an alternative approach or as otherwise allowed in this chapter, mitigation for adverse impacts shall be based on best available science, with preferential consideration given to measures that replace the impacted functions directly and in immediate vicinity of the impact and prior to the activities that will disturb the critical area. Mitigation measures that cannot be implemented prior to the critical area impacts shall be completed immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the action or development. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora.
1. 
The Director may authorize a one-time temporary delay in completing construction or installation of the mitigation when the applicant provides a written explanation from a qualified professional as to the rationale for the delay. An appropriate rationale would include identification of the environmental conditions that could produce a high probability of failure or significant construction difficulties (e.g., project delay lapses past a fisheries window, or installing plants should be delayed until the dormant season to ensure greater survival of installed materials). The delay shall not create or perpetuate hazardous conditions or environmental damage or degradation, and the delay shall not be injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. The request for the temporary delay shall include a written justification that documents the environmental constraints that preclude implementation of the compensatory mitigation plan. The justification shall be verified and approved by the City.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019)
The City may grant relief from Master Program development standards and use regulations resulting from shoreline restoration projects consistent with criteria and procedures in WAC 173-27-215. Shoreline restoration projects, defined as projects designed to restore impaired ecological functions of a shoreline, shall be reviewed and permitted or approved by the City and any other agency with jurisdiction consistent with criteria established in WAC 173-27-215 and RCW 90.58.580, as amended from time to time.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019)
A. 
Protect Shoreline Ecological Functions Provided by Critical Areas with Special Consideration to Anadromous Fish. Critical area reports and decisions to alter critical areas or buffers shall rely on the best available science to protect the shoreline ecological functions provided by the critical areas and shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish, such as salmon and bull trout, and their habitat, where applicable.
B. 
Best Available Science to Be Consistent with Criteria. The best available science is that scientific information, obtained through a valid scientific process, that is applicable to the critical area prepared by local, State, or Federal natural resource agencies, a qualified scientific professional, or team of qualified scientific professionals that is consistent with criteria established in Chapter 365-195 WAC and RCW 36.70A.172, as amended from time to time.
C. 
Characteristics of a Valid Scientific Process. In the context of critical areas protection, a valid scientific process is one that produces reliable information useful in understanding the consequences of a local government’s regulatory decisions, and in developing critical areas policies and development regulations that will be effective in protecting the shoreline ecological functions provided by the critical areas. To determine whether information received during the permit review process is reliable scientific information, the Director shall determine whether the source of the information displays the characteristics of a valid scientific process. Such characteristics are as follows:
1. 
Peer Review. The information has been critically reviewed by other persons who are qualified scientific experts in that scientific discipline. The proponents of the information have addressed the criticism of the peer reviewers. Publication in a referenced scientific journal usually indicates that the information has been appropriately peer reviewed;
2. 
Methods. The methods used to obtain the information are clearly stated and reproducible. The methods are standardized in the pertinent scientific discipline or, if not, the methods have been appropriately peer reviewed to ensure their reliability and validity;
3. 
Logical Conclusions and Reasonable Inferences. The conclusions presented are based on reasonable assumptions supported by other studies and consistent with the general theory underlying the assumptions. The conclusions are logically and reasonably derived from the assumptions and supported by the data presented. Any gaps in information and inconsistencies with other pertinent scientific information are adequately explained;
4. 
Quantitative Analysis. The data have been analyzed using appropriate statistical or quantitative methods;
5. 
Context. The information is placed in proper context. The assumptions, analytical techniques, data, and conclusions are appropriately framed with respect to the prevailing body of pertinent scientific knowledge; and
6. 
References. The assumptions, analytical techniques, and conclusions are well-referenced with citations to relevant, credible literature, and other pertinent existing information.
D. 
Nonscientific Information. Nonscientific information, such as anecdotal observations, nonexpert opinion, and hearsay, may supplement scientific information, but it is not an adequate substitute for valid and available scientific information.
E. 
Absence of Valid Scientific Information. Where there is an absence of valid scientific information or incomplete scientific information relating to a critical area, leading to uncertainty about the risk to shoreline ecological function provided by the critical area, for permitting an alteration of or impact to the critical area, the Director shall:
1. 
Take a “precautionary or a no-risk approach,” which strictly limits development and land use activities until the uncertainty is sufficiently resolved; and
2. 
Require application of an effective adaptive management program that relies on scientific methods to evaluate how well regulatory and nonregulatory actions protect the critical area. An adaptive management program is a formal and deliberate scientific approach to taking action and obtaining information in the face of uncertainty. An adaptive management program shall:
a. 
Address funding for the research component of the adaptive management program;
b. 
Change course based on the results and interpretation of new information that resolves uncertainties; and
c. 
Commit to the appropriate time frame and scale necessary to reliably evaluate regulatory and nonregulatory actions affecting protection of critical areas and anadromous fisheries.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019)
To promote consistent application of the standards and requirements of this chapter, critical areas within the City’s shoreline jurisdiction shall be rated or classified according to their characteristics, function and value, and/or their sensitivity to disturbance. Classification of critical areas shall be determined by the City using the following tools:
A. 
Application of the criteria contained in these regulations;
B. 
Consideration of the critical area reports submitted by qualified professionals in connection with applications subject to these regulations; and
C. 
Review of maps adopted pursuant to this chapter.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019)
A. 
Report Required. If uses, activities, or developments are proposed within, adjacent to, or are likely to impact critical areas or their buffers, an applicant shall provide site-specific information and analysis in the form of critical area report(s) as required in this chapter. Critical area reports are required in order to identify the presence, extent, and classification/rating of potential critical areas, as well as to analyze, assess, and mitigate the potential adverse impact to or risk from critical areas for a development project. Critical area reports shall use standards for best available science in SMC § 20.240.060. Critical area reports for two or more types of critical areas shall meet the report requirements for each type of critical area. The expense of preparing the critical area report(s) shall be borne by the applicant. This provision is not intended to expand or limit an applicant’s other obligations under WAC 197-11-100, as amended from time to time.
B. 
Preparation by Qualified Professional. Critical area report(s) shall be prepared by qualified professional(s) as defined in SMC § 20.20.042, with the required training and experience specific to the type(s) of critical area(s) present consistent with the requirements of SMC §§ 20.240.240, 20.240.290, and 20.240.340. Proof of licensing, credentials, and resume of the qualified professional(s) preparing the report shall be submitted for review by the City to determine if the minimum qualifications are met.
C. 
Third Party Review of Critical Area Reports. Review of required critical area reports by a qualified professional under contract with or employed by the City will be required by the Director at the applicant’s expense in any of the following circumstances:
1. 
The project requires a shoreline variance application or a shoreline conditional use permit; or
2. 
Third party review is specifically required by the provisions of this chapter for the critical area(s) or critical area buffer(s) potentially being impacted; or
3. 
When the Director determines such services are necessary to demonstrate compliance with the standards and guidelines of this chapter.
D. 
Critical Area Report Types or Sections. Critical area reports may be met in stages through multiple reports or combined in one report. A critical area report shall include one or more of the following sections or report types unless exempted by the Director based on the extent of the potential critical area impacts. The scope and location of the proposed project will determine which report(s) alone or combined are sufficient to meet the critical area report requirements for the impacted critical area type(s). The typical sequence of required sections or reports that will fulfill the requirements of this section includes:
1. 
Reconnaissance. The existence, general location, and type of critical areas in the vicinity of a project site (off site within 300 feet for wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and off site within 200 feet for geologic hazards, shorelines, floodplains, and aquifer recharge areas) of a project site (if allowed by the adjoining property owners). Determination of whether the project will adversely impact or be at risk from the potential critical areas based on maximum potential buffers and possible application of SMC §§ 20.240.224(B), 20.240.280(D)(6) or 20.240.330(G)(10) should be addressed;
2. 
Delineation. The extent, boundaries, rating or classification, and applicable standard buffers of critical areas where the project area could potentially impact the critical area or its buffer including an assessment of the characteristics of or functions and values of the critical area and buffers identified;
3. 
Analysis. The proposal and impact assessment report documenting the potential project impacts to the critical area and buffers including a discussion of the efforts taken to avoid, minimize, and reduce potential impacts to those areas;
4. 
Mitigation. The measures that prevent or compensate for the potential impacts of the project designed to meet the requirements of this chapter, in SMC § 20.240.082, Mitigation plan requirements, and the standards for the specific critical areas impacted. Mitigation includes, but is not limited to, adjustments to required buffer sizes, best practices to minimize impacts, and critical area or buffer enhancement, restoration, or preservation plans. Mitigation plans include habitat management plans, revegetation, or replanting plans, and restoration plans;
5. 
Maintenance and Monitoring. The report should include goals of the mitigation proposed, performance standards for success, monitoring methods and reporting schedule, maintenance methods and schedule, and contingency actions. Maintenance and monitoring plans shall be consistent with the mitigation performance standards and requirements of this chapter, including SMC §§ 20.240.250, 20.240.300, and 20.240.350.
E. 
Minimum Report Contents. At a minimum, critical area reports shall contain the following:
1. 
The name and contact information of the applicant;
2. 
Adequate information to determine compliance with the requirements of the critical area regulations, this chapter, including critical area report, impact and hazard assessment, and mitigation requirements specific to each critical area type, as indicated in the corresponding sections of this chapter;
3. 
The dates, names, and qualifications of the qualified professional(s) preparing the report and documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site;
4. 
A description of the proposal, proposal location including address and parcel number(s), and a vicinity map for the project;
5. 
Identification of the development permit(s) requested and all other local, State, and/or Federal critical area-related permits required for the project;
6. 
A copy of the site plan for the development proposal including:
a. 
A map to standard engineering scale depicting critical areas, buffers, the development proposal, and any areas to be altered. In addition to plan size site plans, a legible, reduced (eight and one-half inches by 11 inches) copy will be required if noticing is required for the project; and
b. 
A scaled depiction and description of the proposed stormwater pollution prevention plan, consistent with the adopted stormwater manual, for the development and consideration of impacts to critical areas due to drainage alterations;
7. 
Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water bodies, shorelines, and buffers within the vicinity of the proposed project area (off site within 300 feet for wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and off site within 200 feet for geologic hazards, shorelines, floodplains, and aquifer recharge areas);
8. 
A statement specifying the accuracy of the report and all assumptions made and relied upon;
9. 
A description of the methodologies used to conduct the critical areas investigation, including references;
10. 
An assessment of the probable impacts to the critical areas resulting from the proposed development of the site based upon identified findings;
11. 
A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to SMC § 20.240.053, Mitigation requirements, to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas; and
12. 
Plans for mitigation required to offset any critical areas impacts, in accordance with SMC § 20.240.082, Mitigation plan requirements, and the corresponding mitigation performance standards sections of this chapter, including a discussion of the applicable development standards and cost estimates for determination of financial guarantee requirements.
F. 
Existing Reports. Unless otherwise provided, a critical areas report may incorporate, be supplemented by, or composed of any reports or studies required by other laws and regulations or previously prepared for and applicable to the development proposal site, as approved by the Director. At the discretion of the Director, reports previously compiled or submitted as part of a proposal for development may be used as a critical areas report to the extent that the requirements of this section and the report requirements for each specific critical area type are met. Critical areas reports shall be considered valid for five years; after such date the City shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary. Supplemental critical area report(s) may be required to provide information and analysis to address changes to the project scope and potential impacts to or changes to applicable regulations that have been made subsequent to existing, valid critical area reports.
G. 
Modifications to Report Requirements.
1. 
Limitations to Study Area. The Director may limit the required geographic area of the critical areas report as appropriate if:
a. 
The applicant, with assistance from the City, cannot obtain permission to access properties adjacent to the project area; or
b. 
The proposed activity will affect only a limited part of the subject site.
2. 
Modifications to Required Contents. The applicant may consult with the Director prior to or during preparation of the critical areas report to obtain approval of modifications to the required contents of the report where, in the judgment of a qualified professional, more or less information is required to adequately address the potential critical area impacts and required mitigation. In some cases, such as when it is determined that no geologic hazard area is present, a full report may not be necessary to determine compliance with the critical area regulations, this chapter, and in those cases a letter or reconnaissance only report may be required.
3. 
Additional Information Requirements. The Director may require additional information to be included in the critical areas report when determined to be necessary to the review of the proposed activity in accordance with this chapter. Additional information that may be required includes, but is not limited to:
a. 
Historical data, including original and subsequent mapping, aerial photographs, data compilations and summaries, and available reports and records relating to the site or past operations at the site;
b. 
Grading and drainage plans; and
c. 
Information specific to the type, location, and nature of the critical area.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019)
When mitigation is required, the applicant shall submit for approval by the City a mitigation plan as part of the critical area report. Mitigation plans shall meet the minimum requirements of SMC § 20.240.080 and the applicable mitigation performance standards and requirements for the impacted type(s) of critical area(s) and buffer(s), including but not limited to SMC §§ 20.240.250, 20.240.300, and 20.240.350. When the mitigation plan is submitted separately from other types or sections of the required critical area report(s), the mitigation plan shall meet the minimum content requirements of SMC § 20.240.080(E) by inclusion or reference to other existing report(s). The mitigation plan shall include, at a minimum:
A. 
Environmental Goals and Objectives. The mitigation plan shall include a written report identifying environmental goals and objectives of the mitigation proposed and including:
1. 
A description of the anticipated impacts to the critical areas, the mitigating actions proposed, and the purposes of the compensation measures, including the site selection criteria; identification of compensation goals; identification of shoreline ecological functions; and dates for beginning and completion of site compensation construction activities. The goals and objectives shall be related to the shoreline ecological functions provided by the impacted critical area; and
2. 
A review of the best available science supporting the proposed mitigation and a description of the report author’s experience to date in restoring or creating the type of critical area proposed.
B. 
Performance Standards. The mitigation plan shall include measurable specific criteria for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the mitigation project have been successfully attained at the end of the required monitoring period and whether or not the requirements of this chapter, this Master Program, and the SMA have been met.
C. 
Detailed Construction Plans. The mitigation plan shall include written specifications and descriptions of the mitigation proposed, such as:
1. 
The proposed construction sequence, timing, and duration;
2. 
Site plans showing grading and excavation details with minimum two-foot contour intervals;
3. 
Erosion and sediment control features;
4. 
A planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing, and density; and
5. 
Measures to protect and maintain plants until established.
These written specifications shall be accompanied by detailed site diagrams, scaled cross-sectional drawings, topographic maps showing slope percentage and final grade elevations, and any other drawings appropriate to show construction techniques or anticipated final outcome.
D. 
Monitoring Program and Contingency Plan.
1. 
A monitoring program shall be included in the mitigation plan and implemented by the applicant to determine the success of the mitigation project and any necessary corrective actions. This program shall determine if the original goals and objectives of the mitigation plan are being met.
2. 
A contingency plan shall be established for indemnity in the event that the mitigation project is inadequate or fails. Contingency plans include identification of potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken if monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being met. Corrective measures will be required by the City when the qualified professional indicates, in a monitoring report, that the contingency actions are needed to ensure project success by the end of the monitoring period. A performance and maintenance bond, or other acceptable financial guarantee, is required to ensure the applicant’s compliance with the terms of the mitigation agreement consistent with SMC § 20.240.120, Financial guarantee requirements.
3. 
Monitoring programs prepared to comply with this section shall include, at a minimum, the following requirements:
a. 
Best available scientific procedures shall be used to establish the success or failure of the mitigation project. A protocol outlining the schedule for site monitoring (for example, monitoring shall occur in years zero [as-built], one, three, and five after site construction), and how the monitoring data will be evaluated to determine if the performance standards are being met.
b. 
For vegetation determinations, permanent sampling points shall be established.
c. 
Vegetative success shall, at a minimum, equal 80 percent survival of planted trees and shrubs and 80 percent cover of desirable understory or emergent plant species at the end of the required monitoring period. Alternative standards for vegetative success, including (but not limited to) minimum survival standards following the first growing season, may be required after consideration of recommendations provided in a critical area report or as otherwise required by the provisions of this chapter.
d. 
A monitoring report shall be submitted as needed to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the mitigation project. Monitoring reports on the current status of the mitigation project shall be submitted, consistent with subsection E of this section, to the City on the schedule identified in the monitoring plan, but not less than every other year. The reports are to be prepared by a qualified professional and reviewed by the City, or a qualified professional retained by the City, and should include monitoring information on wildlife, vegetation, water quality, water flow, stormwater storage and conveyance, and existing or potential degradation, as applicable.
e. 
Monitoring programs shall be established for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for less than a minimum of five years without approval from the Director.
f. 
If necessary, failures in the mitigation project shall be corrected.
g. 
Dead or undesirable vegetation shall be replaced with appropriate plantings.
h. 
Damage caused by erosion, settling, or other geomorphological processes shall be repaired.
i. 
The mitigation project shall be redesigned (if necessary) and the new design shall be implemented and monitored, as in subsection (D)(3)(d) of this section.
j. 
Correction procedures shall be approved by a qualified professional and the City.
k. 
If the mitigation goals are not obtained within the initial monitoring period, the applicant remains responsible for restoration of the impacted shoreline ecological functions provided by the critical areas or hazard risk reduction until the mitigation goals agreed to in the mitigation plan are achieved.
E. 
Monitoring Reports. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the City consistent with the approved monitoring plan.
1. 
The as-built report, required prior to final inspection, shall, at a minimum, include documentation of the following to establish the baseline for monitoring:
a. 
Departures from the original approved plans;
b. 
Construction supervision provided by the qualified professional;
c. 
Approved project goals and performance standards;
d. 
Baseline data for monitoring per the approved monitoring methods;
e. 
Photos from established photo points; and
f. 
A site plan showing final mitigation as constructed or installed, monitoring points, and photo points.
2. 
Subsequent monitoring reports shall, at a minimum, include:
a. 
Monitoring visit observations, documentation, and analysis of monitoring data collected;
b. 
Photos from photo points;
c. 
Determination whether performance standards are being met; and
d. 
Maintenance and/or contingency action recommendations to ensure success of the project at the end of the monitoring period.
3. 
The applicant shall be responsible for the cost (at the current hourly rate) of review of monitoring reports and site inspections during the monitoring period, which are completed by the City or a qualified professional under contract with or employed by the City.
F. 
Cost Estimates. The mitigation plan shall include cost estimates that will be used by the City to calculate the amounts of financial guarantees, if necessary, to ensure that the mitigation plan is fully implemented. Financial guarantees ensuring fulfillment of the mitigation project, monitoring program, and any contingency measures shall be posted in accordance with SMC § 20.240.120, Financial guarantee requirements.
G. 
Approved Mitigation Projects – Signature. On completion of construction, an as-built report for any approved mitigation project shall be prepared and signed off by the applicant’s qualified professional and approved by the City. Signature of the qualified professional on the required as-built report and approval by the City will indicate that the construction has been completed as planned.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019)
Pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers that have been identified by State or Federal agencies as harmful to humans, wildlife, or fish shall not be used in City-owned properties containing critical areas or their buffers within the shoreline jurisdiction except as allowed by the Director for the following circumstances:
A. 
When the Director determines that an emergency situation exists where there is a serious threat to public safety, health, or the environment, and that an otherwise prohibited application shall be used as a last resort.
B. 
Compost or fertilizer may be used for native plant revegetation projects in any location.
C. 
Limited pesticide and herbicide use may be applied pursuant to the King County Noxious Weed Control Board best management practices, specific to the species needing control, when that is determined to be the best method of control for the location. Federal, State, and local regulations of pesticides and water quality shall be followed, including requirements for pesticide applicator licensing from the Washington State Department of Agriculture.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019)
The establishment of buffer areas shall be required for all development proposals and activities in or adjacent to critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction. In all cases the standard buffer shall apply unless the Director determines that additional buffer width is necessary or reduced buffer is sufficient to protect the shoreline ecological functions consistent with the provisions of this chapter, this Master Program, the SMA, and the recommendations of a qualified professional. The purpose of the buffer shall be to protect the integrity, function, value, and resources of the subject critical area for shoreline ecological function, and/or to protect life, property, and resources from risks associated with development on unstable or critical lands. The buffer shall consist of an undisturbed area of native vegetation. Buffers shall be protected during construction by placement of a temporary barricade if determined necessary by the City, on-site notice for construction crews of the presence of the critical area, and implementation of appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls. Restrictive covenants or conservation easements may be required to preserve and protect buffer areas.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019)
A critical area notice to title is required, as a condition of permit issuance or project approval, when a permit or development application is submitted for development on any property containing a critical area or buffer within the shoreline jurisdiction. The purpose is to inform subsequent purchasers of real property of the existence of critical areas. The notice to title applicable to the property shall be approved by the Director and City Attorney for compliance with this provision and be filed by the property owner, at their expense, with the King County Recorder’s Office. This requirement can be met through recording of a notice to title prepared by the City, establishment of a critical area tract, or recording of native growth protection area easement consistent with the following provisions:
A. 
Notice to Title. A notice to title is required when a permit is required for development on any property containing a critical area or buffer within the shoreline jurisdiction. The notice shall state that critical areas or buffers have been identified on the property within the shoreline jurisdiction and that limitations on actions in or affecting the critical area or buffer may exist. The notice shall run with the land. The title holder will have the right to challenge this notice and to have it extinguished if the critical area designation no longer applies. However, the titleholder shall be responsible for completing a critical area report, subject to approval by the Director, before the notice on title can be extinguished.
B. 
Critical Area Tract. Subdivisions, short subdivisions, and binding site plans shall establish a separate critical areas tract as a permanent protective measure for wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, and landslide hazard areas and their buffers located within the shoreline jurisdiction. The plat or binding site plan for the project shall clearly depict the critical areas tract, and shall include all of the subject critical area, any required buffer, and any additional lands included voluntarily by the developer. Restrictions to development within the critical area tract shall be clearly noted on the plat or plan. Restrictions shall be consistent with the SMA, this Master Program, and this chapter for the entire critical area tract. Should the critical area tract include several types of critical areas, the developer may establish separate critical areas tracts.
C. 
Native Growth Protection Area. Native growth protection area (NGPA) easements shall be required on a property where no subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan is proposed or required. Unless otherwise required in this chapter, NGPA easements shall be recorded on title for all affected parcels prior to approval of a development agreement, issuance of a master development plan permit, or issuance of a site development or building permit, when two or more dwelling units and/or nonresidential developments are proposed on one parcel, to delineate and protect those contiguous wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation, and landslide hazard critical areas and their buffers located within the shoreline jurisdiction. The easement to be recorded shall clearly depict the critical area and the limits of the NGPA easement and shall include all of the subject critical area(s) and any required buffer(s). Restrictions to development within the NGPA easement shall be clearly noted in the easement and shall include the following:
1. 
That native vegetation will be preserved for the purpose of preventing harm to property and the environment, including, but not limited to, controlling surface water runoff and erosion; limiting chemical applications of hazardous substances (pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers); maintaining slope stability; buffering; and protecting plants, fish, and animal habitat; and
2. 
The right of the City to enforce the terms of the restriction.
D. 
Proof of Notice. The applicant shall submit proof that the notice has been recorded on title before the City approves any development permit, including master development plan permits, for the property or, in the case of subdivisions, short subdivisions, binding site plans, or development agreements, at or before recording.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019)
A. 
All critical areas tracts, easements, and dedications, or as recommended by a qualified professional, shall be clearly marked on the site using permanent markings, placed at least every 50 feet, which include the following text:
City of Shoreline Designated Critical Area. Activities, including clearing and grading, removal of vegetation, pruning, cutting of trees or shrubs, planting of nonnative species, and other alterations may be prohibited. Help protect and care for this area. Please contact the City of Shoreline with questions or concerns.
B. 
It is the responsibility of the landowner to maintain in perpetuity and replace if necessary all permanent field markings.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019)
Bonds and other financial guarantees, and associated performance agreements or maintenance/defect/monitoring agreements, shall be required for projects with required mitigation or restoration of impacts to critical areas or critical area buffers consistent with the following:
A. 
A performance agreement and bond, or other acceptable financial guarantee, are required from the applicant when mitigation required pursuant to a development proposal is not completed prior to final permit approval, such as final plat approval or final building inspection. The amount of the performance bond(s) shall equal 125 percent of the cost of the mitigation project (after City mobilization is calculated).
B. 
A performance agreement and bond, or other acceptable financial guarantee, are required from the applicant when restoration is required for remediation of a critical area violation. The amount of the performance bond(s) shall equal 125 percent of the cost of the mitigation project (after City mobilization is calculated).
C. 
A maintenance/defect/monitoring agreement and bond, or other acceptable financial guarantee, are required to ensure the applicant’s compliance with the conditions of the approved mitigation plan pursuant to a development proposal or restoration plan for remediation of a violation. The amount of the maintenance bond(s) shall equal 25 percent of the cost of the mitigation project (after City mobilization is calculated) in addition to the cost for monitoring for a minimum of five years. The monitoring portion of the financial guarantee may be reduced in proportion to work successfully completed over the period of the bond. The bonding period shall coincide with the monitoring period.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019)
A. 
When a critical area or its buffer located within the shoreline jurisdiction has been altered in violation of this chapter, all ongoing development work shall stop and the critical area shall be restored. The City shall have the authority to issue a stop work order to cease all development, and order restoration measures at the owner’s or other responsible party’s expense to remediate the impacts of the violation of the provisions of this chapter.
B. 
Requirement for Restoration Plan. All development shall remain stopped until a restoration plan is prepared by the responsible party and an approved permit is issued by the City. Such a plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional using the best available science and shall describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described in subsection C of this section. The Director may, at the responsible party’s expense, seek expert advice, including but not limited to third party review by a qualified professional under contract with or employed by the City, in determining if the plan meets the minimum performance standards for restoration. Submittal, review, and approval of required restoration plans for remediation of violations of this chapter, SMP Critical Areas Regulations, shall be completed through a site development permit application process.
C. 
Minimum Performance Standards for Restoration.
1. 
For alterations to aquifer recharge areas, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration; provided, that if the violator can demonstrate that greater shoreline ecological functions provided through the functions and values provided by these critical areas can be obtained, these standards may be modified:
a. 
The previolation function and values of the affected critical areas and buffers shall be restored, including water quality and habitat functions;
b. 
The critical area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically, or previolation, found on the site in species types, sizes, and densities. The previolation functions and values should be replicated at the location of the alteration; and
c. 
Information demonstrating compliance with the requirements in SMC § 20.240.082, Mitigation plan requirements, and the applicable mitigation sections for the affected type(s) of critical area(s) and their buffer(s) shall be submitted to the Director with a complete site development permit application.
2. 
For alterations to flood hazard and geologic hazard areas, the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a critical area; provided, that if the violator can demonstrate that greater safety can be obtained, these standards may be modified:
a. 
The hazard shall be reduced to a level equal to, or less than, the previolation hazard;
b. 
Any risk of personal injury resulting from the alteration shall be eliminated or minimized; and
c. 
The hazard area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation sufficient to minimize the hazard and restore the functions and values.
D. 
Site Investigation. The Director is authorized to take such actions as are necessary to enforce this chapter. The Director shall present proper credentials and obtain permission before entering onto private property.
E. 
Penalties. Any responsible party violating any of the provisions of this chapter may be subject to any applicable penalties per SMC § 20.30.770, WAC 173-27-240, and RCW 90.58.200 and 90.58.210, as amended from time to time.
(Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. B), 2019)