If the application of this chapter would prohibit a development proposal by a public agency, the agency may apply for an exception pursuant to this section:
A. The public agency shall provide project documents such information as needed for the code official to issue a decision, including, but not limited to, permit applications to other agencies, critical area studies, SEPA documents, and other materials.
B. The code official may approve alterations to critical areas, buffers and critical area setbacks by an agency or utility when those alterations are not otherwise able to meet all of the standards in this chapter, and when the criteria in subsections (B)(1) through (B)(5) of this section are demonstrated to be met.
2. There is no other reasonable alternative to the activity or proposed development with less impact on the critical area. In determining what is a reasonable alternative to a proposed development, alteration or activity, the code official may consider the purpose, effectiveness, engineering feasibility, commercial availability of technology, best management practices, safety and cost of the alternative action or proposal. Reasonable alternatives are those that are capable of being carried out, taking into consideration the overall project purposes, needs, and objectives;
3. The activity or development proposal is designed to avoid or minimize and mitigate the impact on critical areas and associated buffers consistent with the avoidance and mitigation sequencing requirements in MICC 19.07.100, Mitigation sequencing;
4. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; and
5. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. (Ord. 19C-05 § 1 (Exh. A), 2019.)