Chapter 16.06 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ACT IMPLEMENTATION

The city, recognizing that each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment, declares to the fullest extent possible the city will utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to ensure the integrated use of the natural, physical and social sciences to:

A. Ensure the use of concise, high quality environmental documents and information in making decisions;

B. Integrate the SEPA process with other laws and decisions;

C. Encourage actions that preserve and enhance environmental quality, consistent with other essential considerations of state policy. (Ord. 426 § 1, 1989)

16.06.020 Requirements generally.

A. See RCW 43.21C.020, 43.21C.030(1), 43.21C.060, 43.21C.075 and 43.21C.080.

B. Relevant environmental documents, comments and responses shall accompany proposals through existing agency review processes, as determined by agency practice and procedure, so that agency officials use them in making decisions.

C. When a decisionmaker considers a final decision on a proposal:

1. The alternative in the relevant environmental documents shall be considered.

2. The range of alternative courses of action considered by decisionmakers shall be within the range of alternatives discussed in the relevant environmental documents. However, the mitigation measures adopted need not be identical to those discussed in the environmental document.

3. If information about alternatives is contained in another decision document which accompanies the relevant environmental documents to the decisionmaker, agencies are encouraged to make that information available to the public before the decision is made. (Ord. 426 § 2, 1989)

16.06.030 Substantive authority and mitigation.

A. Any governmental actions on public or private proposals that are not exempt may be conditioned or denied under SEPA to mitigate the environmental impact subject to the following limitations:

1. Mitigation measures or denials shall be based on policies, plans, rules or regulations formally designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority and in effect when the DNS or DEIS is issued.

2. Mitigation measures shall be related to specific, adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental document on the proposal and shall be stated in writing by the decisionmaker. The decisionmaker shall cite the city’s SEPA policy that is the basis of any condition or denial under this chapter (for proposals of applicants). After its decision, each agency shall make available to the public a document that states the decision. The document shall state the mitigation measures, if any, that will be implemented as part of the decision, including any monitoring of environmental impacts. Such a document may be the license itself, or may be combined with other agency documents, or may reference relevant portions of environmental documents.

3. Mitigation measures shall be capable of being accomplished.

4. Responsibility for implementing mitigation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of its proposal. Voluntary additional mitigation may occur.

5. Before requiring mitigation measures, agencies shall consider whether local, state or federal requirements and enforcement would mitigate an identified significant impact, but shall not be bound by such other rules, regulations, and enactments, exclusively, as a means of mitigation.

6. To deny a proposal under SEPA, an agency must find that:

a. The proposal would be likely to result in significant adverse environmental impacts identified in environmental documents prepared pursuant to SEPA; and

b. Mitigation measures are insufficient to mitigate identified impacts.

B. Decisionmakers should judge whether possible mitigation measures are likely to protect or enhance environmental quality. EISs should briefly indicate the intended environmental benefits of mitigation measures for significant impacts. EISs are not required to analyze in detail the environmental impacts of mitigation measures, unless the mitigation measures:

1. Represent substantial changes in the proposal so that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts, or involve significant new information indicating, or on, a proposal’s probable significant adverse environmental impacts; and

2. Will not be analyzed in a subsequent environmental document prior to their implementation.

C. The city clerk shall distribute this chapter so that the city’s SEPA policies will be known by applicants and members of the public. This document (and any documents referenced in it) shall be readily available to the public and shall be available to applicants prior to preparing a draft EIS.

D. Required mitigation measures or denials under this section shall be additional grounds for or issues in appeals of decisions otherwise provided by city ordinance; provided, that for proposals involving more than one action, such issue may be raised only with regard to the first decision which weighed the environmental impacts of the proposal, or the first decision of each phase if phased review is employed. (Ord. 426 § 3, 1989)

16.06.040 SEPA policies – Overview.

A. Purpose of the SEPA Policies.

1. It is the city’s policy to protect the environment and provide for reasonable property development while enhancing the predictability of land use regulation. In order to provide predictability, it is the city’s intent to incorporate environmental concerns into its codes and development regulations to the maximum extent possible. However, comprehensive land use controls and other regulations cannot always anticipate or effectively mitigate all adverse environmental impacts.

2. The policies set forth in those SEPA rules, along with all other identified SEPA policy documents, shall serve as the basis for exercising substantive SEPA authority. Based on these policies, a decisionmaker may condition a proposal to reduce or eliminate its environmental impacts. The decisionmaker may deny a proposed project if reasonable mitigating measures are insufficient to mitigate significant, adverse impacts identified in the environmental impact statement.

B. Relationship to Other City Policies. Nothing in these SEPA policies shall diminish the independent effect and authority of other environmentally related policies adopted by the city. Such city policies shall be considered together with these SEPA policies to guide discretionary land use decisions such as conditional uses and legislative actions such as rezones, adoption of area plans and siting of city facilities. Such adopted city policies may serve as the basis for exercising substantive SEPA authority with respect to a project only to the extent that they are explicitly referenced herein. (Ord. 426 § 4, 1989)

16.06.050 Cumulative effects policy.

A. Policy Background.

1. A project or action which by itself does not create undue impacts on the environment may create undue impacts when combined with the cumulative effects of prior or simultaneous developments; further, it may directly induce other developments, due to a causal relationship, which will adversely affect the environment.

2. An individual project may have an adverse impact on the environment or public facilities and services which, though acceptable in isolation, could not be sustained given the probable development of subsequent projects with similar impacts.

B. Policies.

1. The analysis of cumulative effects shall include, where necessary, a reasonable assessment of:

a. The present and planned capacity of such public facilities as sewers, storm drains, solid waste disposal, parks, schools, streets, utilities, and parking areas to serve the area affected by the proposal;

b. The present and planned public services such as transit, health, police and fire protection and social services to serve the area affected by the proposal;

c. The capacity of natural systems, such as air, water, light, and land, to absorb the direct and reasonably anticipated indirect impacts of the proposal;

d. The demand upon facilities, services and natural systems of present, simultaneous and known future development in the area of the project or action.

2. Subject to the Policies for Specific Elements of the Environment. An action or project may be conditioned or denied to lessen or eliminate its cumulative effects on the environment:

a. When considered together with prior, simultaneous or induced future development; or

b. When taking into account known future development under established zoning, it is determined that a project will use more than its share of present and planned facilities, services and natural systems.

C. Unless otherwise specified in the policies for specific elements of the environment, if the scope of substantive SEPA authority is limited with respect to a particular element of the environment, the authority to mitigate that impact in the context of cumulative effects is similarly limited. (Ord. 426 § 5, 1989)

16.06.060 Air quality.

A. Policy Background.

1. Air pollution can be damaging to human health, plants and animals, visibility, aesthetics and overall quality of life.

2. Lake Forest Park’s air quality is affected by particulates from industries, power plants, and all solid fuel burning devices, the burning of toxics or wastes, and other emissions including odor impacts.

3. Federal auto emission controls, the state inspection/maintenance program, and public transportation improvements are the primary means of mitigating air quality impacts from motor vehicles.

4. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency is responsible for monitoring air quality in the Seattle area, setting standards and regulating development to achieve regional air quality goals. Lake Forest Park may, on its own, in appropriate circumstances declare its own air quality exceedance episodes.

5. Federal, state and regional regulations and programs cannot always anticipate or adequately mitigate adverse air quality impacts.

B. Policies.

l. It is the city’s policy to minimize or prevent adverse air quality impacts.

2. For any project proposal which has a substantial adverse effect on air quality, the decisionmaker shall, in consultation with appropriate agencies with expertise, assess the probable effect of the impact and the need for mitigating measures. Any “nonattainment areas” identified by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency in Lake Forest Park shall be given special consideration.

3. If the decisionmaker makes a written finding that the applicable federal, state and/or regional regulations did not anticipate or are inadequate to address the particular impact(s) of the project, the decisionmaker may condition or deny the proposal to mitigate its adverse impacts.

4. Mitigating measures may include but are not limited to:

a. The use of alternative technologies, including toxic air control technologies;

b. Controlling dust sources with paving, landscaping, or other means;

c. Berming, buffering and screening;

d. Landscaping and/or retention of existing vegetation;

e. A reduction in size or scope of the project or operation; and

f. Limitation on devices which produce contaminants, including elimination of solid fuel burning devices. (Ord. 426 § 6(1), 1989)

16.06.070 Construction impact.

A. Policy Background.

1. For many projects, the construction process itself creates temporary adverse impacts on the site and the surrounding area.

2. Lake Forest Park codes do not necessarily adequately address all construction impacts, such as those relating to pedestrian flow and safety due to sidewalk and street closures, excessive mud and dust, noise, drainage and increased truck traffic.

B. Policies.

1. It is the city’s policy to minimize or prevent temporary adverse impacts associated with construction activities.

2. The decisionmaker may require, as part of the environmental review of a project, an assessment of noise, drainage, pedestrian circulation and transportation, and mud and dust impacts likely to result from the construction phase.

3. Based on such assessments, the decisionmaker may condition or deny a project to mitigate adverse impacts of the construction process.

4. Noise. Mitigating measures to address adverse noise impacts during construction include, but are not limited to:

a. Limiting the hours of construction;

b. Specifying the time and duration of loud noise;

c. Specifying a preferred type of construction equipment; and

d. Requiring sound buffering and barriers.

5. Drainage. Mitigating measures to address adverse drainage impacts during construction may include, but are not limited to:

a. Sedimentation traps and filters;

b. Sedimentation tanks or ponds;

c. Oil separators;

d. Retention facilities;

e. Maintenance programs;

f. Performance bonds; and

g. Limitation on the duration of any given flow.

6. Pedestrian Circulation. Mitigating measures to address adverse impacts relating to pedestrian circulation during construction may include, but are not limited to:

a. A construction phase transportation plan which addresses ingress and egress of construction equipment and construction worker vehicles at the project site;

b. Traffic control and street maintenance in the vicinity of the construction site;

c. Rerouting of public vehicular and pedestrian circulation in the vicinity of the construction site. (Ord. 426 § 6(2), 1989)

16.06.080 Drainage.

A. Policy Background.

1. Property development and redevelopment often creates increased volumes and rates of stormwater runoff, which may cause property damage, safety hazards, nuisance problems and water quality degradation.

2. Pollution, mechanical damage, excessive flows, and other conditions in drainage basins will increase the rate of downcutting and/or the degree of turbidity, siltation, and other forms of pollution in streams, creeks and lakes. They may also reduce low flows or low water levels to a level which endangers aquatic and benthic life within these streams, creeks and lakes.

3. The aesthetic quality of the water and watercourses, as well as the suitability of waters for contact recreation and wildlife habitat, may be destroyed.

B. Policies.

1. It is the city’s policy to protect streams, lakes, drainage basins and property from adverse drainage impacts.

2. The decisionmaker may condition or deny projects to mitigate adverse drainage impacts; provided, that the following may specifically be conditioned or denied:

a. Projects located in environmentally sensitive areas and areas tributary to them;

b. Projects located in areas where downstream drainage facilities are known to be inadequate; and

c. Projects draining into streams identified by the State Department of Fisheries or Wildlife as bearing anadromous fish.

3. The following procedures shall apply in addition to Chapter 16.24 LFPMC, Drainage Plans:

a. On- and off-site control of stormwater, in conjunction with property development and redevelopment, shall be required throughout the city except where separate storm drain systems have sufficient capacity to carry existing and anticipated increases.

b. The gross composite coefficient of runoff, after development, will not exceed the following values for the zoning listed:

Zoning Cc

R-6000 – R-7200 .55

R-9600 – R-10000 .45

R-15000 .35

R-20000 .35

All zoning will require special evaluation. All sensitive areas will require further evaluation before approval.

c. A drainage control plan shall accompany or be included with the application and/or request for any city action on a proposed project.

d. Approval of the most suitable method of drainage control shall be made by the city official or authorizing agency on a case-by-case basis.

4. To mitigate adverse impacts associated with the projects identified in Policy 2, projects may be required to provide drainage control measures. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to:

a. Reducing the size or scope of the project;

b. Requiring landscaping and/or retention of existing vegetation;

c. Requiring additional drainage control or drainage improvements either on- or off-site including limitations on the flow to mitigate all impacts up to a 100-year flood of 24-hour duration; and

d. Soil stabilization measures;

e. Covenants running with the land giving the city an independent right to recover expenses for remedying deficient drainage systems. (Ord. 499 § 4, 1992; Ord. 426 § 6(3), 1989)

16.06.090 Earth.

A. Policy Background.

1. Property development and redevelopment sometimes contributes to landslides, accelerated soil creep, settlement and subsidence, and abnormal erosion. They may also be subject to seismic hazards such as strong ground motion and liquefaction.

2. Drainage impacts, which are closely related to earth movement hazards, are addressed separately in LFPMC 16.06.080 of these policies.

B. Policies.

1. It is the city’s policy to protect life and property from loss or damage by landslides, strong ground motion and soil liquefaction, accelerated soil creep, settlement and subsidence, abnormal erosion, and other hazards related to earth movement and instability.

2. The decisionmaker may condition or deny projects to mitigate impacts related to earth movement or earth instability; provided, that in addition to projects which meet one or more of the threshold criteria set forth in the overview policy, projects located in environmentally sensitive areas and areas tributary to them may be conditioned or denied.

3. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to:

a. Reducing the size or scope of the operation or project;

b. Limiting the duration of the project or the hours of operation;

c. Requiring landscaping, the retention of existing vegetation or revegetation of the site;

d. Requiring additional drainage control measures or drainage facilities; and

e. Requiring water quality and erosion controls on-site or off-site to control earth movement. (Ord. 426 § 6(4), 1989)

16.06.100 Energy.

A. Policy Background.

1. It is the city’s intent to regulate the design of buildings for adequate thermal resistance and low air leakage. It requires the design and selection of mechanical, electrical, water, heating and illumination systems which will enable the efficient use of energy.

B. Policies.

1. It is the city’s policy to promote energy conservation and the most efficient possible use and production of energy.

2. All major projects shall be required to analyze and disclose their energy impacts by fuel type and end-use.

3. For projects with significant adverse energy impacts which involve activities not covered by current codes, the decisionmaker may require that the environmental review include a reasonable assessment of alternatives and mitigating measures.

4. The decisionmaker may condition or deny projects with significant adverse impacts relating to the use of the electrical energy in order to mitigate their adverse impacts to the city’s electric utility system. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to conservation measures such as the use of alternative technologies.

5. In applying these policies to the rehabilitation of structures with historical significance, the decisionmaker shall be flexible in the application of energy conservation measures which may be in conflict with historical preservation goals and shall attempt to achieve a balance in meeting these competing objectives. (Ord. 426 § 6(5), 1989)

16.06.110 Environmental health.

A. Policy Background.

1. The use, discharge, disposal, emission or application of toxic or hazardous materials, may pose hazards to human health and to plants, animals and ecological systems. Hazardous materials include such things as pesticides, herbicides, and electromagnetic transmissions.

2. Federal, state and regional regulations are the primary means of mitigating risks associated with hazardous and toxic materials.

3. Federal, state and regional regulations cannot always anticipate or eliminate adverse impacts from hazardous materials and transmissions. Public knowledge regarding such hazardous materials and transmissions may develop more quickly than regulations can react and be implemented.

B. Policies.

1. It is the city’s policy to minimize or prevent adverse impacts resulting from toxic or hazardous materials and transmissions.

2. For all proposed projects involving the use, treatment, transport, storage, disposal, emission, or application of toxic or hazardous chemicals, materials, wastes or transmissions, the decisionmaker shall, in consultation with appropriate agencies with expertise, assess the extent of potential adverse impacts and the need for mitigation.

3. If the decisionmaker makes a written finding that applicable federal, state and regional laws and regulations did not anticipate or do not adequately address the adverse impacts of a proposed project, the project may be conditioned or denied to mitigate its adverse impacts. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to:

a. Use of an alternative technology;

b. Reduction in the size or scope of a project or operation;

c. Limits on the time and/or duration of operation; and

d. Alternative routes of transportation. (Ord. 426 § 6(6), 1989)

16.06.120 Height, bulk and scale.

A. Policy Background.

1. The city’s adopted land use policies are intended to provide for smooth transition between commercial and residential areas, to preserve the character of individual city neighborhoods, and to reinforce natural topography.

2. Whenever new land use policies are adopted, adverse impacts may result when height, bulk and scale permitted by previously adopted zoning conflicts with the new land use policies.

B. Policies.

1. It is the city’s policy that the height, bulk and scale of development projects should be reasonably compatible with the general character of developments anticipated by the adopted land use policies listed in subsection (A)(1) of this section for the area in which they are located, and to provide for a reasonable transition between areas of less intensive zoning and more intensive zoning.

2. The decisionmaker may condition or deny a project to mitigate the adverse impacts of substantially incompatible height, bulk and scale. Mitigating measures may include but are not limited to:

a. Limiting the height of the development;

b. Modifying the bulk of the development;

c. Modifying the development’s facade including but not limited to color and finish material;

d. Reducing the number or size of accessory structures or relocating accessory structures including, but not limited to, towers, railings and antennae;

e. Repositioning the development on the site; and

f. Modifying or requiring setbacks, screening, landscaping or other techniques to offset the appearance of incompatible height, bulk and scale. (Ord. 426 § 6(7), 1989)

16.06.130 Land use.

A. Policy Background.

1. The adopted land use code cannot identify or anticipate all possible uses and all potential land use impacts.

2. When land use policy changes are adopted, adverse land use impacts may result when a proposed project includes uses which may be consistent with the applicable zoning requirements but are in conflict with the new land use policies.

3. Adverse cumulative land use impacts may result when a particular use or uses permitted under the zoning code occur in an area to such extent that they foreclose opportunities for higher priority, preferred uses called for in the city’s land use policies.

B. Policies.

1. It is the city’s policy to ensure that proposed uses in development projects are reasonably compatible with surrounding uses and are consistent with any applicable, adopted city land use policies for the area in which the project is located.

2. The decisionmaker may condition or deny any project to mitigate adverse land use impacts associated with a proposed project and achieve consistency with the applicable city land use policies. (Ord. 426 § 6(8), 1989)

16.06.140 Light and glare.

A. Policy Background. Development projects sometimes include lighting and/or reflective surface materials which can adversely affect motorists, pedestrians and the surrounding area. Such adverse impacts may be mitigated by alternative lighting techniques and surface materials.

B. Policies.

1. It is the city’s policy to minimize or prevent hazards and other adverse impacts created by light and glare.

2. If a proposed project may create adverse impacts due to light and glare, the decisionmaker shall assess the impacts and the need for mitigation.

3. The decisionmaker may condition or deny a proposed project to mitigate its adverse impacts due to light and glare.

4. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to:

a. Limiting the reflective qualities of surface materials that can be used in the development;

b. Limiting the area and intensity of illumination;

c. Limiting the location or angle of illumination;

d. Limiting the hours of illumination; and

e. Providing landscaping. (Ord. 426 § 6(9), 1989)

16.06.150 Noise.

A. Policy Background.

1. Noise may be injurious to the public health, safety and welfare. It may have adverse impacts on commerce; the use, value, and enjoyment of property; sleep and repose; and the physiological and psychological well-being of those who live and work in Lake Forest Park.

2. Some noise impacts are not addressed by the city ordinance, such as the continual or repetitive noise of a project’s operation.

B. Policies.

1. It is the city’s policy to minimize or prevent adverse noise impacts resulting from new development or uses.

2. The decisionmaker may require, as part of the environmental review of a project, an assessment of noise impacts likely to result from the project.

3. Based in part on such assessments, and in consultation with appropriate agencies with expertise, the decisionmaker shall assess the extent of adverse impacts and the need for mitigation.

4. The decisionmaker may condition or deny a proposal to mitigate its adverse noise impacts.

5. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to:

a. Use of an alternative technology;

b. Reduction in the size or scope of a project or operation;

c. Limits on the time and/or duration of operation; and

d. Requiring buffering, landscaping, or other techniques to reduce noise impacts off-site. (Ord. 426 § 6 (10), 1989)

16.06.160 Parking.

A. Policy Background.

1. Increased parking demand associated with development projects may adversely affect the availability of parking in an area.

2. In some neighborhoods, due to inadequate off-street parking, streets are unable to absorb any additional parking spillover. These policies recognize that the cost of providing additional parking may have an adverse effect on the affordability of housing, however, limits on parking may be imposed as a mitigation measure.

B. Policies.

1. It is the city’s policy to minimize or prevent adverse parking impacts associated with development projects.

2. The decisionmaker may condition a project to mitigate the effects of development in an area on parking. (Ord. 426 § 6(11), 1989)

16.06.170 Plants and animals.

A. Policy Background.

1. Many species of birds, mammals, fish and other classes of animals and plants living in the urban environments are of aesthetic, educational, ecological and in some cases economic value.

2. Local wildlife populations are threatened by habitat loss through destruction and fragmentation of living and breeding areas and travelways, and by the reduction of habitat diversity.

B. Policies.

1. It is the city’s policy to minimize or prevent the loss of wildlife habitat and other vegetation which have substantial aesthetic, educational, ecological and/or economic value. A high priority shall be given to the preservation and protection of special habitat types. Special habitat types include, but are not limited to, wetlands and associated areas (such as upland nesting areas), and spawning, feeding, or nesting sites. A high priority shall also be given to meeting the needs of state and federal threatened, endangered and sensitive species of both plants and animals.

2. For projects which are proposed within an identified plant or wildlife habitat or travelway, the decisionmaker shall assess the extent of adverse impacts and the need for mitigation.

3. When the decisionmaker finds that a proposed project would reduce or damage rare, uncommon, unique or exceptional plant or wildlife habitat, wildlife travelways, or habitat diversity for species (plants or animals) of substantial aesthetic, educational, ecological or economic value, the decisionmaker may condition or deny the project to mitigate its adverse impacts.

4. Mitigating measures may include but are not limited to:

a. Relocation of the project on the site;

b. Reducing the size or scale of the project;

c. Preservation of specific on-site habitats, such as trees or vegetated areas;

d. Limitations on the use allowed on the site;

e. Limitations on times of operation during periods significant to the affected species (i.e., spawning season, etc.); and

f. Landscaping and/or retention of existing vegetation. (Ord. 426 § 6(12), 1989)

16.06.180 Landscaping.

A. Policy Intent. Recognizing that certain developments, although consistent with zoning, may require separation from adjacent uses or modification if they are to exist in harmony with the surrounding area, the city official or authorizing agency may require foliage and greenery to promote the aesthetic and natural qualities of Lake Forest Park. Also, recognizing that vegetation can sometimes mitigate adverse environmental impacts, the city official or authorizing agency may require landscaping to reduce stormwater runoff, erosion and aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding area.

B. Policies.

1. Landscaping may be required when it can provide a buffer between incompatible land uses or zones such as between parking areas and pedestrian ways.

2. Landscaping may be required when it can reduce the potential for erosion or excessive stormwater runoff.

3. Landscaping may be required for new development to reduce the site coverage by impervious surfaces and to add to the beauty of the city.

4. Where structures prevent on-site landscaping, street trees may be required as a substitute.

5. Preference shall be given for species compatible to surrounding flora and wildlife.

6. The city official may require existing vegetation to be retained.

7. Maintenance of landscaped areas and replacement of dying or dead plants shall be the responsibility of the property owner. (Ord. 426 § 6(13), 1989)

16.06.190 Public services and facilities.

A. Policy Background. A single development, though otherwise consistent with zoning regulations, may create excessive demands upon existing public services and facilities. “Public services and facilities” in this context includes facilities such as sewers, stormdrains, solid waste disposal facilities, parks, schools, and streets and services such as transit, solid waste collection, public health services, and police and fire protection, provided by either a public agency or private entity.

B. Policies.

1. It is the city’s policy to minimize or prevent adverse impacts to existing public services and facilities.

2. The decisionmaker may require, as part of the environmental review of a project, a reasonable assessment of the present and planned condition and capacity of public services and facilities to serve the area affected by the proposal.

3. Based upon such analyses, a project which would result in adverse impacts on existing public services and facilities may be conditioned or denied to lessen its demand for services and facilities, or required to improve or add services and/or facilities for the public. (Ord. 426 § 6 (14), 1989)

16.06.200 Public view protection.

A. Policy Background.

1. Lake Forest Park has a magnificent natural setting of greenery, mountains and water; visual amenities and opportunities are an integral part of the city’s environmental quality.

2. The city has developed particular sites for the public’s enjoyment of views of mountains, water and skyline.

3. Obstruction of public views may occur when a proposed structure is located in close proximity to the street property line, when development occurs on lots situated at the foot of a street that terminates or changes direction because of a shift in the street grid pattern, or when development along a street creates a continuous wall separating the street from the view.

4. Adopted land use codes attempt to protect private views through height and bulk controls and other zoning regulations but it is impractical to protect private views through project-specific review.

B. Policies.

1. It is the city’s policy to protect public views of significant natural and human-made features: the Olympic and Cascade Mountains, and major bodies of water.

2. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to:

a. Requiring a change in the height of the development;

b. Requiring a change in the bulk of the development;

c. Requiring a redesign of the profile of the development;

d. Requiring on-site view corridors or requiring enhancements to off-site view corridors;

e. Relocating the project on the site;

f. Requiring a reduction or rearrangement of walls, fences, or plant material; and

g. Requiring a reduction or rearrangement of accessory structures including, but not limited to towers, railings and antennae. (Ord. 426 § 6(15), 1989)

16.06.210 Shadows on open spaces.

A. Policy Background.

1. Access to sunlight, especially in Puget Sound’s climate, is an amenity of public open spaces.

2. It is possible to design and locate structures to minimize the extent to which they block light from public open spaces.

3. The city’s land use code attempts to protect private property from undue shadow impacts through height, bulk and setback controls, but it is impractical to protect private properties from shadows through project-specific review.

B. Policies.

1. It is the city’s policy to minimize or prevent light blockage and the creation of shadows on open spaces most used by the public. Areas to be protected are as follows:

a. Publicly owned parks;

b. Public school yards;

c. Private schools which allow public use of school yards during nonschool hours.

2. The decisionmaker shall assess the extent of adverse impacts and the need for mitigation. The analysis of sunlight blockage and shadow impacts shall include an assessment of the extent of shadows, including times of the year, hours of the day, anticipated seasonal use of open spaces, availability of other open spaces in the area, and the number of people affected.

3. When the decisionmaker finds that a proposed project would substantially block sunlight from open spaces listed in subsection (B)(1) of this subsection at a time when the public most frequently uses that space, the decisionmaker may condition or deny the project to mitigate the adverse impacts of sunlight blockage.

4. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to:

a. Limiting the height of the development;

b. Limiting the bulk of development;

c. Redesigning the profile of the development;

d. Limiting or rearranging walks, fences or plant material;

e. Limiting or rearranging accessory structures, i.e., towers, railing, antennae; and

f. Relocating the project on the site. (Ord. 426 § 6(16), 1989)

16.06.220 Traffic and transportation.

A. Policy Background.

1. Excessive traffic can adversely affect the stability, safety and character of Lake Forest Park’s communities.

2. Substantial traffic volumes associated with major projects may adversely impact surrounding areas.

3. Individual projects may create adverse impacts on transportation facilities which service such projects. Such impacts may result in a need for turn channelization, right-of-way dedication, street widening or other improvements including traffic signalization.

B. Policies.

1. It is the city’s policy to minimize or prevent adverse traffic impacts which would undermine the stability, safety and/or character of a neighborhood or surrounding areas.

2. In determining the necessary traffic and transportation impact mitigation, the decisionmaker shall examine the expected peak traffic and circulation pattern of the proposed project weighed against such factors as the availability of public transit; existing vehicular and pedestrian traffic conditions; accident history; the trend in local area development; parking characteristics of the immediate area; the use of the street and the availability of goods, services and recreation within reasonable walking distance; population and employment forecasts for future background traffic levels.

3. Mitigating measures which may be applied to projects may include, but are not limited to:

a. Changes in access;

b. Changes in the location, number and size of curb cuts and driveways;

c. Provision of transit incentives including transit pass subsidies;

d. Bicycle parking;

e. Signage;

f. Improvements to pedestrian and vehicular traffic operations including signalization, turn channelization, right-of-way dedication, street widening, or other improvements proportionate to the impacts of the project;

g. Transportation management plants;

h. For all traffic related safety issues, require that any unsafe roadway or identified unsafe condition be completely mitigated, as a condition of approval;

i. Monetary payment sufficient to offset identified present and future impacts. (Ord. 426 § 6(17), 1989)

16.06.230 Water quality.

A. Policy Background.

1. Lake Forest Park’s water quality is adversely affected primarily by the dumping of pollutants and drainage-related sewage overflows into any lakes, streams, creeks, and other systems draining into Puget Sound.

2. Lake Forest Park’s water quality is also adversely affected by storm drainage runoff; nonpoint source discharges from streets, parking lots and other impervious surfaces; construction site runoff; and sewage.

3. Federal, state and regional water quality regulations and programs cannot always anticipate or eliminate adverse impacts to water quality.

B. Policies.

1. It is the city’s policy to minimize or prevent adverse water quality impacts.

2. For any project proposal which poses a potential threat to water quality in Lake Forest Park, the decisionmaker shall assess the probable effect of the impact and the need for mitigating measures. The assessment shall be completed in consultation with appropriate agencies with expertise.

3. If the decisionmaker makes a written finding that the applicable federal, state and regional regulations did not anticipate or are inadequate to address the particular impact(s) of the project, the decisionmaker may condition or deny the project to mitigate its adverse impacts.

4. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to:

a. Use of an alternative technology;

b. Reduction in the size or scope of the project or operation;

c. Landscaping; and

d. Limits on the time and duration of the project or operation. (Ord. 426 § 6(18), 1989)

16.06.240 Fees.

The following fees shall be required for actions by the city in accordance with the provisions of this code:

A. Environmental Checklist. The city shall establish a fee for review of an environmental checklist performed by the city, when the city is the lead agency and the proponent is other than the city. This fee shall be collected prior to undertaking a threshold determination.

B. Environmental Impact Statements.

1. For all noncity initiated proposals when the city is the lead agency and the environmental coordinator determines that an EIS is required, the proponent shall be charged a fee equal to the administrative costs of supervision and preparation of the draft and final EISs.

2. The amount of the fee shall be based on a fee schedule of actual costs for services and materials, plus reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses borne by the city in complying with the provisions of this code and the SEPA rules.

3. The proponent shall make an initial payment to the city in an amount equal to the projected cost estimated by the environmental coordinator, but not less than as established periodically by city council resolution. At the time of issuance of the final EIS, or if the proposal is modified so an EIS is no longer needed, the proponent shall pay any costs in excess of the initial payment, or if costs are less than the initial payment, the city shall refund any excess to the proponent.

4. For private proposals, the cost of retaining consultants for assistance in EIS preparation shall be borne by the proponent whether the consultant is retained directly by the proponent, by the city or through a third party contract involving the city and the proponent.

5. For city proposals, the cost of any required consultants shall be borne by the initiating department or departments.

6. No fees shall be charged for any staff review time related to hearings in contested cases.

7. No fees shall be charged and allowed which provide for overtime or extra compensation to staff charged with reviewing a proposal.

C. Consultant Agency Fees. No fees shall be collected by the city for performing its duty as a consultant agency.

D. Document Fees. The city may charge any person for copies of any documents prepared pursuant to the requirements of this code and for mailing thereof, in a manner provided by Chapter 42.17 RCW; provided, that no charge shall be levied for circulation of documents as required by this code to other agencies. (Ord. 787 § 1, 1999; Ord. 426 § 7, 1989)

16.06.250 Applications for environmental determinations.

A. Applications for environmental determinations after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall be deemed to require both a land use determination and permit review where said application involves any decision under the city’s zoning code, comprehensive plan, sensitive areas ordinance, or similar enactment.

B. For any environmental determination required but not included in subsection A of this section, the application shall not be deemed complete until such time as a final description of the proposed action has been submitted; all specific site plan information has been received, including site plan vicinity maps properly verified and certified; and any other planning information required under the city’s zoning code, comprehensive plan, environmental review ordinance, sensitive areas ordinance, or similar planning enactment potentially affecting the merits of the application has been filed. The city’s responsible official shall, subject to departmental review procedures, have authority to determine completeness of an application. (Ord. 515 §§ 1, 2, 1992)