Chapter 14.04 PROJECT CONSISTENCY/TIME LIMITS

Chapter 14.04
PROJECT CONSISTENCY/TIME LIMITS

Sections:

14.04.030 Categorically exempt and planned actions.

14.04.010 Determination of consistency.

A. Purpose. When the city receives a project permit application, consistency between the proposed project and the applicable regulations and comprehensive plan should be determined through the process in this chapter and the city’s environmental policy ordinance.

B. Consistency. During project permit application review, the city shall determine whether the items listed in this subsection are defined in the development regulations applicable to the proposed project. In the absence of applicable development regulations, the city shall determine whether the items listed in this subsection are defined in the city’s adopted comprehensive plan. This determination of consistency shall include the following:

1. The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed under certain circumstances, if the criteria for their approval have been satisfied; and

2. The level of development, such as units per acre, density of residential development in urban growth areas, or other measures of density; and

3. Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities identified in the comprehensive plan, if the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as required by Chapter 36.70A RCW; and

4. Character of the development, such as development standards. (RCW 36.70B.030, 36.70B.040.)

(Ord. O96-004, Added, 04/16/1996)

14.04.020 Initial SEPA analysis.

A. The city shall also review the project permit application under the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, the SEPA Rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC, and the city’s environmental policy ordinance, TMC Chapter 16.04, and shall:

1. Determine whether the applicable regulations require studies that adequately analyze all of the project permit application’s specific probable adverse environmental impacts;

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

3. Determine whether additional studies are required and/or whether the project permit application should be considered with additional mitigation measures;

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

B. In its review of a project permit application, the city may determine that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection and mitigation measures in the applicable development regulations, comprehensive plan and/or in other applicable local, state or federal laws provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the application.

C. If the city bases or conditions its approval of the project permit application on compliance with the requirements or mitigation measures described in subsection A of this section, the city shall not impose additional mitigation under SEPA during project review.

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

1. The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; and

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

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

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

(Ord. O96-004, Added, 04/16/1996)

14.04.030 Categorically exempt and planned actions.

A. Categorically Exempt. Actions categorically exempt under RCW 43.21C.110(1)(a) do not require environmental review or the preparation of an environmental impact statement. An action that is categorically exempt under the rules adopted by the Department of Ecology (Chapter 197-11 WAC) may not be conditioned or denied under SEPA. (RCW 43.21C.031.)

B. Planned Actions.

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

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

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

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

i. A comprehensive plan or subarea plan adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW; or

ii. A fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development or a phased project;

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

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

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

f. Are consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW. (RCW 43.21C.031.)

C. Limitation on Planned Actions. The city shall limit planned actions to certain types of development or to specific geographical areas that are less extensive than the jurisdictional boundaries of the city, and may limit a planned action to a time period identified in the environmental impact statement or in the ordinance or resolution designating the planned action under RCW 36.70A.040. (RCW 43.21C.031.)

D. Limitations on SEPA Review. During project review, the city shall not reexamine alternatives to or hear appeals on the items identified in TMC 14.04.010(B), except for issues of code interpretation. Project review shall be used to identify specific project design and conditions relating to the character of development, such as the details of site plans, curb cuts, drainage swales, the payment of impact fees, or other measures to mitigate a proposal’s probable adverse environmental impacts. (RCW 36.70B.030(3).)

(Ord. O96-004, Added, 04/16/1996)

14.04.040 Determining time limits.

A. Except as otherwise provided in subsection B of this section and TMC 14.02.050, the director shall issue his/her notice of final decision on a project permit application within one hundred twenty days, or sooner if possible, after notifying the applicant that the application is complete, as provided in TMC 14.02.090(A). In determining the number of days that have elapsed after the director has established that the application is complete, the following periods shall be excluded:

1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. The period shall be calculated from the date the director notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the date the director determines whether the additional information satisfies the request for information or fourteen days after the date the information has been provided. A project permit application shall expire if an applicant does not respond to a request for additional information within 180 calendar days;

2. If the director determines that the information submitted by the applicant under subsection (A)(1) of this section is insufficient, he/she shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies and the procedures under subsection (A)(1) of this section shall apply as if a new request for studies had been made;

3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being prepared following a determination of significance pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW;

4. Any period for administrative appeals of project permits, if an open record appeal hearing or a closed record appeal, or both, are allowed. The time period for considering and deciding shall not exceed: (a) ninety days for an open record appeal hearing; and (b) sixty days for a closed record appeal. The parties to an appeal may agree to extend these time periods; and

5. Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the director.

B. The time limits established by subsection A of this section do not apply if a project permit application:

1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation;

2. Requires approval of a new fully contained community as provided in RCW 36.70A.350, a master planned resort as provided in RCW 36.70A.360, or the siting of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or

3. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date at which the revised project application is determined to be complete. An application is substantially revised if proposed changes would have affected decisions in the approval process.

C. If the director is unable to issue its final decision within the time limits provided for in this section, he/she shall provide written notice of this fact to the project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of final decision.

(Ord. O2017-022, Amended, 12/05/2017; Ord. O96-004, Added, 04/16/1996)