|
|
Title 14
DEVELOPMENT REVIEWChapters:
14.10 General Provisions
14.20 Preapplication Review
14.30 Project Permit Processing
14.40 Appeals of Project Permit Decisions
Chapter 14.10
GENERAL PROVISIONSSections:
14.10.010 Purpose and intent.
14.10.020 Scope.
14.10.030 Definitions.
14.10.040 Administration and interpretation.
14.10.050 Foundation of project review.
14.10.060 Determination of consistency.
14.10.070 SEPA and project permit review to be combined and integrated.
14.10.080 Relation of development regulations and mitigations of project impacts under SEPA.
14.10.085 Relation of development regulations and comprehensive plan.
14.10.090 Conflict or inconsistency with other provisions of municipal code.
14.10.010 Purpose and intent.
A. It is the purpose of this title to provide for combining the environmental review process, both procedural and substantive, with review of project permit applications; to provide for no more than one open record hearing and one closed record appeal in review of project permit applications; and to provide for establishment of a development review process which complies with the applicable requirements for local permit processing contained in the Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, Chapter 36.70B RCW.
B. This title is intended to establish procedures for the efficient and uniform processing of project permit applications under existing codes, ordinances, regulations and policies. It is not intended to create any new or additional substantive requirements, except as specifically provided herein. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.10.020 Scope.
A. The provisions of this title shall apply to all project permit applications filed on or after the effective date hereof under the substantive provisions of other titles of this code, except as specifically provided by subsections (B), (C) and (D) of this section.
B. Landmark designations, street vacations and any permits relating to the use of public areas or facilities shall be exempt from the provisions of this title, except the requirements of SMC 14.10.070, integration of SEPA and project permit review, and SMC 14.40.020, limitation of hearings and appeals.
C. Applications for approval of mixed use final plans present special circumstances that warrant a different review process as provided in Chapter 17.30 SMC, and shall be exempt from the requirements of this title, except the requirements of SMC 14.10.070, integration of SEPA and project permit review, and SMC 14.40.020, limitation of hearings and appeals.
D. Lot line or boundary adjustments, building permits, sign permits not requiring design review, or other similar administrative permits, which are either categorically exempt from environmental review under Chapter 43.21C RCW or for which environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits, shall be exempt from the requirements of SMC 14.30.060, notice of application, SMC 14.30.130, optional consolidated permit processing, and SMC 14.30.110, relating to giving notice of the decision to the public and other agencies. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.10.030 Definitions.
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this title.
A. “Closed record appeal” means an administrative appeal on the record, with no or limited new evidence or information allowed to be submitted and only oral argument allowed, to either the hearing examiner or the city council, following an open record hearing on a project permit application.
B. “Comprehensive plan” means the Snoqualmie Vicinity Comprehensive Plan, as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended, including any other plans incorporated therein by reference or by operation of law.
C. “Director” means the director of community development.
D. “Open record appeal hearing” means a hearing conducted by the city council to receive testimony and the submission of exhibits and information for the purpose of reviewing a decision of city staff for which no open record hearing is required before the planning commission or hearing examiner.
E. “Predecision open record hearing” means a hearing conducted by the hearing examiner or the planning commission to create the city’s record through testimony on oath or affirmation and submission of evidence and information, other than those proceedings falling within the definition of “public meeting” in subsection (G) of this section. If an open record hearing is held prior to the city’s decision on a project permit application, it shall be known as a “predecision open record hearing.” If an open record hearing is held after the city’s decision on a project permit application, it shall be known as an “open record appeal hearing.”
F. “Project permit application” means any land use or environmental permit, license or approval required from the city for a project action, including but not limited to building permits, subdivisions, binding site improvement plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, flood improvement permits, design review, sensitive areas review, drainage review and site specific rezones authorized by the comprehensive plan, but excluding adoption or amendment of the comprehensive plan, subarea plans, annexation implementation plans.
G. “Public meeting” means an informal meeting, workshop or other public gathering to obtain comments from the public or other agencies on a proposed project permit prior to the city’s decision. Public meetings may include but are not limited to design review and scoping meeting on a draft environmental impact statement. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.10.040 Administration and interpretation.
A. The provisions of this title shall be administered by the director.
B. Any person may request an interpretation of the meaning or application of a development regulation, and the director, with the advice of the city attorney as deemed appropriate, shall issue a written administrative interpretation within 30 days. Such request for a code interpretation shall be as concise as possible, and refer to the specific language in the code for which an interpretation is sought.
C. The director shall maintain a file of all such interpretations, which shall be available to the public for inspection and copying, and which may be relied upon until specifically superseded by a subsequent interpretation, or overruled by a decision on appeal to city council.
D. Any such interpretation may be appealed to the city council, which shall hear and determine the matter as expeditiously as possible. Such appeal shall be allowed as an interlocutory appeal not subject to the limitation on hearings and appeals applicable to project permit applications.
E. The director shall prepare a user assistance guide, which shall be available for distribution to the public at the offices of the community development director, containing a concise summary of this title, identifying the category of project permits under other titles of this code, and presenting in summary or tabular form the requirements and procedures applicable to such project permit applications or categories of project permit applications. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.10.050 Foundation of project review.
A. Fundamental land use planning choices made in the comprehensive plan and development regulations shall serve as the foundation for project review. Project review shall not be used for comprehensive planning purposes. Proposed projects shall be reviewed for consistency, conformity and compliance with applicable development regulations, or in the absence of applicable development regulations the comprehensive plan, and for project specific environmental impacts and mitigations.
B. During project review, the city shall not re-examine alternatives to or hear appeals from fundamental land use planning choices made in the comprehensive plan or adopted development regulations, except for issues of comprehensive plan or code interpretation. If during project review deficiencies are identified in the comprehensive plan or in development regulations, project review shall continue, and identified deficiencies shall be docketed for consideration on at least an annual basis, consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.70A.130.
C. The city may determine that the requirements of environmental review and mitigation in development regulations or other applicable laws provide adequate mitigation for some or all of a proposed project’s specifically identified probable adverse impacts.
D. Nothing in this title shall be construed to limit the city’s authority to approve, condition or deny a project as provided in the city’s development regulations or under policies identified in Chapter 19.04 SMC, SEPA Procedures and Polices, as the possible basis for substantive authority under RCW 43.21C.060, the State Environmental Policy Act. Project review shall be used to identify specific project design, and conditions relating to the character of development, such as details of site plans, curb cuts, drainage facilities, transportation demand management, payment of impact fees, when authorized by law, and other measures to mitigate a proposal’s probable adverse environmental impacts, if applicable. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.10.060 Determination of consistency.
A. In reviewing and acting upon any project permit application, the reviewer and the designated decision maker shall determine whether the following items are defined in development regulations applicable to the proposed project or, in the absence of development regulations, in the comprehensive plan:
1. The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses which may be allowed under certain circumstances, including planned unit developments and conditional uses, if criteria for their approval are satisfied;
2. The density of residential development;
3. The conditions and limitations under which commercial, industrial, utility and open space development may be permitted; and
4. The availability and adequacy of public facilities identified in the comprehensive plan, if the plan or development regulations provide for funding of such facilities.
B. If the items set forth in subsection (A) are defined in development regulations applicable to the proposed project, or in the absence of development regulations, in the comprehensive plan, then such definitions shall be determinative, and the project permit application shall thereafter be reviewed and decided based upon its consistency therewith.
C. In review of and action upon any project permit application, the designated reviewer and decision maker shall determine the proposed project’s consistency with development regulations, and in the absence of development regulations, the comprehensive plan, by consideration of the matters set forth in subsection (A) of this section, together with the character of the development, such as development standards.
D. Nothing in this section shall preclude the city from requesting more specific information or posing related questions with respect to any of the subjects addressed by items addressed by this section. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.10.070 SEPA and project permit review to be combined and integrated.
A. Environmental review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW and city SEPA Procedures and Policies, Chapter 19.04 SMC, shall be combined and integrated with the processing of project permit applications in all cases in which the project permit application is not categorically exempt from SEPA or for which environmental review has not already been accomplished.
B. Environmental impacts of a proposed project shall be analyzed in one project review process, which shall include land use, environmental, public and governmental review, as established in this title. If applicable development regulations require studies which adequately analyze a proposed project’s specific probable adverse environmental impacts, additional studies shall not be required under SEPA.
C. Project level environmental review shall be used to review and document consistency with the comprehensive plan and development regulations; to 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; and to ensure accountability by the city to applicants and the public for requiring and implementing mitigation measures. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.10.080 Relation of development regulations and mitigations of project impacts under SEPA.
A development regulation or requirement of the comprehensive plan shall be considered to adequately address an impact if the city, through planning, review and adoption of the comprehensive plan and development regulations under the Growth Management Act, has identified the specific adverse environmental impacts and either the impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated, or the development regulations or comprehensive plan have designated certain levels of impacts as acceptable. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.10.085 Relation of development regulations and comprehensive plan.
In applying the provisions of this title, development regulations adopted subsequent to the adoption of the comprehensive plan to fulfill the requirements of the Growth Management Act shall be presumed to be consistent with and to implement the comprehensive plan, and shall control for purposes of this chapter. Development regulations adopted prior to the adoption of the comprehensive plan not intended to fulfill the requirements of the Growth Management Act shall not be afforded such a presumption, and in the event such a regulation is found to be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the provisions of the comprehensive plan shall control for purposes of this title. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.10.090 Conflict or inconsistency with other provisions of municipal code.
In the event any other provision of this code shall conflict or are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this title, the provisions of this title shall prevail, notwithstanding such conflict or inconsistency; provided, the remainder of such other provision shall be given full force and effect as to those parts thereof which are not in conflict or inconsistent with the provisions of this title. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
Chapter 14.20
PREAPPLICATION REVIEWSections:
14.20.010 Scope.
14.20.020 Preapplication review required.
14.20.030 Procedures for preapplication review.
14.20.040 Staff meeting.
14.20.050 Costs incurred by the city.
14.20.060 Hourly rates for city staff processing of project permit applications.
14.20.070 Communication of requirements to applicant.
14.20.010 Scope.
This chapter applies to all annexation and land development proposals, including but not limited to proposals which will require building, grading, clearing, filling or other permits, short plat and subdivision approval, binding site improvement plan approval, mixed use approval, shoreline master development permits, and all business licenses involving the change of use of a building. Such proposals are collectively referred to in this chapter as “land development proposals,” which term is intended to be construed broadly and to include all permits or approvals of like nature which are required at or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section; provided, applications relating to the construction, reconstruction or remodeling of a single-family residence shall be categorically exempt for this chapter, unless located in or adjacent to a sensitive area under Chapter 19.12 SMC, and the director may, in his or her discretion, exempt certain individual permit applications from the requirements of this chapter if the director finds that no other approvals or permits are required as a condition of issuance of the permit which is sought. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.20.020 Preapplication review required.
No application for a nonexempt land development proposal shall be accepted for filing by the city until the applicant has complied with the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.20.030 Procedures for preapplication review.
All proposals for land development subject to this chapter shall be directed initially to the director. Proponents are encouraged to commence the preapplication review process as soon as the proposal is sufficiently mature to enable the city to identify the permits and approvals which will or may be required for the proposal. The director shall make an initial determination as to whether the land development proposal may be exempted, and if so, may authorize the filing of an application without preapplication review. The director shall consult with department heads within a reasonable time, normally within one week of receipt, to determine what departmental review is required, shall distribute copies of the application to the department heads and shall schedule a staff meeting within a reasonable time, normally within 20 days, to receive the input of the department heads in order to identify the approvals, permits and other processes which will be required for the land development proposal. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.20.040 Staff meeting.
A. City staff, including the building official, planning director, director of public safety, city engineer, city attorney, all as deemed necessary by the director, shall attend staff meetings as scheduled by the director, adequately prepared to discuss the application to the land development proposal under consideration of codes, ordinances, regulations and policies administered by that department, including any recommendation for referral for plan review to the International Conference of Building Officials, if appropriate for a complex proposal. The director shall preside at such meeting and shall make a list of the approvals and permits required for the land development proposal as identified by the department heads. This process shall be completed to the extent possible at the staff meeting, but may be subject to the necessity of additional research and investigation before a final determination can be made.
B. Upon initiation of any preapplication review process for proposed construction within the city, and as a part of the preapplication review process, the director of public safety or his designee shall determine the fire flow requirement for the building or group of buildings for which any building permit may be sought, in accordance with the standards set forth in the Uniform Fire Code, as published by the Western Conference of Fire Chiefs and the International Conference of Building Officials.
C. Assurance of adequate fire flow as determined by the director of public safety or his designee shall be identified as a requirement for any project permit approval, and no building permit shall be issued until such fire flow as determined to be required is actually available to the building site. The provision of such additional water supply as shall be required to meet the fire flow requirements shall be at the sole expense of the owner or applicant. (Ord. 859 § 2, 2000; Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.20.050 Costs incurred by the city.
As part of the preapplication review, the director shall estimate the amount of all costs anticipated to be incurred by the city associated with processing the proposal, including engineering, inspection, legal and administrative costs, and staff time. The proponent shall initially deposit with the city at the time of filing any project permit application a sum as determined by the director to be equivalent to estimated city costs to process the land development proposal, from which city costs shall be deducted, and when such sum is exhausted, additional deposits in an amount equal to the estimated further city costs may be required as a condition of continued processing of the project permit application; provided, the city council may authorize the mayor to enter contracts for alternative payment arrangements for city processing costs for phased land development proposals or those for which processing is anticipated to exceed 120 days. This section is intended to supplement the fee schedules of any and all other city ordinances and resolutions to add thereto the obligation of the proponent to pay, in addition to scheduled fees, actual city costs incurred in processing the land development proposal. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.20.060 Hourly rates for city staff processing of project permit applications.
Hourly rates for city staff time for processing project permit applications shall be as from time to time set by resolution by the city council. Outside contracted consultants, if any, shall be charged at the rates charged to the city. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.20.070 Communication of requirements to applicant.
The director, or his or her designee, shall prepare a letter to the applicant stating the determinations made in the preapplication review process and informing the applicant of the initial deposit required. A copy such letter shall be provided to all department heads. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
Chapter 14.30
PROJECT PERMIT PROCESSINGSections:
14.30.010 Applicant to define project action and elect project permit processing method.
14.30.020 Categories of permits.
14.30.030 Requisites for a complete project permit application.
14.30.040 Technical review.
14.30.050 Determination of completeness of application.
14.30.060 Notice of application.
14.30.070 Combined hearings.
14.30.080 Manner of combining and integrating SEPA and project permit review.
14.30.090 Relation of development regulations and comprehensive plan to SEPA.
14.30.100 Single report.
14.30.110 Notice of decision.
14.30.120 Time limitation for issuance of notice of decision.
14.30.130 Optional consolidated permit processing.
14.30.140 Diligent pursuit of project permit applications – Required.
14.30.010 Applicant to define project action and elect project permit processing method.
The applicant may at the time of request for commencing preapplication procedures, and shall not later than the time of filing a project permit application, define the project action for which project permit applications are being submitted, and shall elect whether the project permit applications shall be processed separately or under the optional consolidated permit review process set forth in SMC 14.30.130. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.30.020 Categories of permits.
A. The categories of permits shall be as follows:
1. Category I constitutes those permits which are categorically exempt from environmental review, or for which SEPA has already been done, do not require any public comment period or an open record predecision hearing, and for which the staff decision is final unless appealed;
2. Category II constitutes those permits which require a threshold environmental determination, but do not require a predecision open record hearing, and for which the staff decision is final unless appealed;
3. Category III constitutes those permits which require a predecision open record hearing, but do not provide for a closed record appeal (i.e., recommendation by planning commission or hearing examiner and decision by city council); and
4. Category IV constitutes those permits which require an open record predecision hearing, and provide for a closed record appeal hearing (i.e., decision by planning commission or hearing examiner and appeal to city council).
B. The initial decision maker, appeal body and other requirements applicable to each category of permit shall be as follows:
Preapplication Process
Determination of Completeness
Notice of Application and Comment Period
Predecision Open Record Hearing
Decision
Distribution of Notice of Decision
Appeal To/ Open - Closed Record
Cat I
Yes, unless exempt
Yes
No
No
S
No
HE/Open
Cat II
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
S
Yes
HE/Open
Cat III
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes/PC or HE
CC
Yes
SC
Cat IV
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes/PC or HE
HE or PC
Yes
CC/Closed
(Ord. 960 § 2, 2004).
14.30.030 Requisites for a complete project permit application.
The materials required to be submitted for a particular project permit application to be deemed complete are set forth in other titles of this code. In addition to such materials, no project permit application shall be deemed complete, unless:
A. The applicant has (i) completed any required preapplication review process, (ii) made the initial deposit for processing costs in the amount required by the city; and (iii) acknowledged in writing that the initial deposit is based upon an estimate only; that additional deposits for processing costs may be required; that the applicant will be obligated to pay the city’s actual processing costs according to established rates, as a condition of continued processing of the application; and that all periods of time during which project permit processing is suspended due to the applicant’s failure to make required deposits or pay processing costs shall be excluded from the time limitations otherwise applicable to permit processing under this title;
B. The applicant has furnished a site plan to such scale as prescribed by the director, and containing sufficient detail as the director may require in order to determine the proposed project’s compliance with applicable development regulations, unless this requirement is waived in writing by the director. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.30.040 Technical review.
A. The director shall appoint a technical review committee, consisting of representatives of city departments, as the director may deem appropriate, including but not limited to community development, fire, public works, legal and administration, to assist in the review of project permit applications.
B. The technical review committee, or subcommittees thereof, shall be responsible for giving advice to the director or other staff member responsible for the decision or staff recommendation on a project permit application with respect to the following:
1. Determination of the category or categories of the project permit application or applications under SMC 14.30.020, and determination of the applicable procedures therefor under this title, including any special procedures required for notice, hearing, decision and appeal of the component project permits in an optional consolidated permit process;
2. Determination of the completeness of the application, and identification of other required information, if any, in order for the application to be deemed complete;
3. Preliminary determination of consistency of the project permit application with adopted development regulations and, in the absence of a development regulation, with the comprehensive plan; and
4. Determination of whether development regulations and, in the absence of a development regulation, the comprehensive plan, adequately address the environmental impacts of the project permit application, so that a mitigated determination of nonsignificance conditioned upon compliance with such development regulations will constitute compliance with SEPA.
C. The technical review committee shall provide all input to the director to assist in fulfilling the requirement of SMC 14.30.080 for a single report on a project permit application. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.30.050 Determination of completeness of application.
A. Within 28 days after receiving a project permit application, the director shall mail or provide in person a written determination to the applicant, stating either (i) that the application is complete, or (ii) that the application is incomplete and what is necessary to make the application complete. The determination shall also include, if feasible, a statement of the preliminary determination of the project permit application’s consistency with development regulations and preliminary identification of the development regulations compliance with which may be determined to constitute compliance with SEPA.
B. A project permit application may be deemed complete for purposes of this section when it meets the submission requirements of other titles of this code and the additional requirements of SMC 14.30.030 and it is sufficient for continued processing, even though additional information may be required or project modifications may be undertaken subsequently.
C. A determination of completeness under this section shall not preclude the city from requesting additional information or studies either at the time of the notice of completeness or subsequently if new information is required or subsequent changes in the proposed project occur.
D. A project permit application shall be deemed complete if the director does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the application is incomplete under subsection (A) of this section.
E. Within 14 days after the applicant has submitted any additional information identified by the director as being necessary for a complete application, the director shall notify the applicant whether the application has been made complete or what additional information is necessary. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.30.060 Notice of application.
A. Unless a project permit application is exempt from the requirements of this section under SMC 14.10.020, within 14 days after the determination of completeness of a project permit application, made pursuant to SMC 14.30.040, the director shall cause a notice of application to be prepared, containing the following information:
1. The date of the project permit application, the date of the determination of completeness of the project permit application, and the date of the notice of application;
2. A description of the proposed project action and a list of the project permits included in the application, and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested;
3. The identification of other permits not included in the application, to the extent known by the director;
4. The proposed threshold determination, identification of any existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed project and the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed;
5. A statement of the public comment period, which shall be not less than 14 nor more than 30 days following the date of notice of application, and statements of the right of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, request a copy of the decision once made, and any appeal rights;
6. The date, time and place, and type of hearing, if applicable and scheduled at the date of notice of the application; and
7. A statement of the preliminary determination, if one has been made at the time of notice, of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation and of consistency with the comprehensive plan and development regulations.
B. If the SEPA official has made a determination of significance, the notice of application shall be combined with the determination of significance and scoping notice, unless the determination of significance has been issued prior to the notice of application.
C. The director shall give the notice of application to the public and to agencies with jurisdiction, as follows:
1. The director shall require the applicant to post the property for site-specific proposals, and to provide evidence of such posting;
2. A notice shall be published in the city’s designated legal newspaper, stating at least the project location, description, type of permit or permits required, comment period dates, and the location where the complete application may be reviewed;
3. A copy of the notice of application shall be mailed to all agencies with jurisdiction known to the director;
4. A copy of the notice of application shall be mailed to all persons who have filed a written request for notice;
5. A copy of the notice of application shall be mailed to nearby property owners when any project permit included in the project action requires notice to property owners within any specified distance pursuant to any other provision of this code; and
6. A copy of the notice of action may be mailed to public or private groups which the director knows have an interest in the particular proposal or the type of proposal being considered.
D. The city shall maintain on file certificates of mailing when mailing is required, which certificates shall include a statement under penalty of perjury of the laws of the state of Washington that on the specified date copy of the notice was placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the persons whose names and addresses are contained in the certificate or on an attachment thereto. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.30.070 Combined hearings.
The city may combine any public meeting or required open record predecision hearing on a project permit application with any hearing that may be held by another local, state, regional, federal or other agency; provided the hearing is held within the corporate limits of the city. Such hearings shall be combined if requested by an applicant; provided the joint hearing can be held within the time periods required by this title. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.30.080 Manner of combining and integrating SEPA and project permit review.
SEPA and the review of project permit applications shall be combined and integrated in the following manner:
A. For all land development proposals subject to the preapplication review process, the SEPA official and other staff shall discuss at the staff meeting the application of SEPA to the land development proposal, and, to the extent possible, shall attempt to ensure that studies or additional information required to be performed or paid for by the applicant for both SEPA compliance and for project review are identified as early as possible and are designed, to the maximum extent possible, to be satisfied without duplicative requirements for additional information or studies.
B. The SEPA official shall be a member of the technical review committee for project permit applications subject to technical review pursuant to this title, and the technical review committee shall likewise attempt to ensure that studies or additional information required to be performed or paid for by the applicant for both SEPA compliance and for project review are identified during technical review and are designed, to the maximum extent possible, to be satisfied without duplicative requirements for additional information or studies.
C. Documents prepared in the project review process under the requirements of both SEPA and specific development regulations shall be prepared so that they can be reviewed together by the public and other agencies.
D. In determining recommended conditions of project permit approval, the SEPA official and the technical review committee, or the city official responsible for permit approval for project permits not subject to technical review, shall confer and shall coordinate conditions of project approval so that conditions required in mitigated determinations of nonsignificance or identified in environmental impact statements are combined and integrated with conditions imposed pursuant to other conditions authorized to be imposed under other provisions of this code for project permits.
E. For any project permit application subject to the requirement for a notice of application pursuant to SMC 14.30.060, except for a determination of significance, the SEPA official shall not issue his final threshold determination, nor shall city staff issue a decision or recommendation, until the expiration of the public comment period specified in the notice of application.
F. If an open record predecision hearing is required for a project permit application, and the threshold determination requires public notice under Chapter 43.21C RCW, the SEPA official shall issue the threshold determination, and give the required notice thereof, at least 15 days prior to the open record predecision hearing. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.30.090 Relation of development regulations and comprehensive plan to SEPA.
A. Environmental impacts shall be considered in processing of project permit applications, and the specific probable adverse environmental impacts shall be identified. If the SEPA official determines that such specific impacts are adequately addressed by development regulations or applicable requirements in the comprehensive plan, such determination shall be documented in a mitigated determination of nonsignificance, and the project permit approval shall be conditioned upon compliance with such development regulations or requirement of the comprehensive plan, which shall constitute compliance with SEPA. If such a determination is made, and the project approval is so conditioned, additional mitigation shall not be imposed under SEPA.
B. In deciding whether a specific adverse environmental impact has been addressed by an existing development regulation, plan requirement or rule or law of another agency with jurisdiction with expertise with respect to a specific environmental impact, the city shall consult with such agency orally or in writing and may expressly defer to that agency. In making such deferral, the city shall expressly condition project approval on compliance with such other existing development regulations, plans, rules or laws. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.30.100 Single report.
For all project permit applications and optional consolidated project permit processes, there shall be no more than one report, as follows:
A. The report shall state all decisions made as of the date of the report on all project permits included in a consolidated project process that do not require an open record hearing.
B. The report shall include all recommendations on project permits that require an open record hearing.
C. The report shall state any mitigation required or proposed under development regulations or SEPA.
D. If a threshold determination other than a determination of significance has been issued, the report shall include or append the determination.
E. Any person commenting upon or otherwise responding to a notice of application shall be mailed a copy of the report; provided, that failure to provide a copy shall not affect the validity of the decision on the project permit.
F. The report may constitute the permit, if it includes all information required by this section and any other information required for a permit under other titles of this code.
G. Nothing in this section shall preclude city staff from revising the report from time to time to reflect public input at an open record hearing or to reflect new or changed information relevant to the project permit decision. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.30.110 Notice of decision.
A. When a decision has been made on a project permit application, the director shall prepare a notice of decision, which shall include the following information:
1. The decision on the project permit application;
2. Any threshold determination made under Chapter 43.21C RCW;
3. The procedure for administrative appeal of the decision, if any.
B. The notice of decision may be a copy of the report or decision on the project permit application, if such report or decision contains the information required by subsection (A).
C. The notice of decision shall be provided to the applicant, and to any person, who prior to the rendering of the decision requested notice of the decision or submitted substantive comments on the application.
D. The director shall also provide for public notice of the decision to be published, and posted for site-specific decisions. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.30.120 Time limitation for issuance of notice of decision.
A. Except as provided in subsection (B), the notice of decision shall be issued within 120 days after the applicant has been notified that the application is complete; provided the following time 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. This period shall be calculated from the date of notification to the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the date of determination whether the additional information satisfied the request for information or 14 days after the date the applicant submitted the information. If the information submitted is determined to be insufficient, the applicant shall again be notified of the deficiencies, and the procedures for determination of completeness shall apply as if a new request for information or studies had been made;
2. Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being prepared, if the city has by ordinance or resolution established time periods for the completion of environmental impact statements, or if the city and the applicant have agreed in writing to a time period for completion of the environmental impact statement;
3. Any period for an open or closed record appeal, not exceeding 60 days, unless all parties to the appeal agree to extend the time period; and
4. Any extension of the 120-day time period mutually agreed between the city and the applicant.
B. The time limits of subsection (A) do not apply if a project permit application:
1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation;
2. Requires siting of an essential public facility; or
3. The application 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.
C. If a notice of decision cannot be issued within the time limit provided in subsection (A), the applicant shall be provided a written notice of this fact, which 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. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.30.130 Optional consolidated permit processing.
If the applicant elects the optional consolidated permit review process, the following provisions shall apply in addition to the other provisions of this title, and shall control over any other provision:
A. There shall be a single application review and approval process for two or more project permits relating to the proposed action, which shall include all of the project permits requested relating to all or part of the project action.
B. The director shall designate a permit coordinator for the project.
C. The determination of completeness, notice of application and notice of decision shall include all project permits being reviewed under the optional consolidated permit review process.
D. Optional consolidated permit review is subject to the procedures applicable to the different categories of permits set forth in SMC 14.30.040; provided:
1. All required open record hearings for any of the project permits shall be consolidated into a single open record predecision hearing;
2. The single open record predecision hearing shall be combined with any open record appeal hearings on other permits not requiring a predecision open record hearing; and
3. There shall be a single closed record appeal, if a closed appeal is provided for two or more permits.
E. The consolidated predecision open record hearing shall be held before the planning commission for all project permit applications included in an optional consolidated project permit process if the predecision open record hearing for any individual project permit is required to be before the planning commission.
F. Nothing in this section shall preclude city staff from making the Category I and Category II project permit decisions committed to their authority by other provisions of this code, or otherwise convert the category of any project permit to a different category, but such decisions shall be included in the single report under SMC 14.30.100, and any open record appeal hearings from such decisions shall be in accordance with subsection (D) of this section. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.30.140 Diligent pursuit of project permit applications – Required.
A. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to diligently pursue project permit applications. If the applicant does not diligently pursue a project permit, the application shall be deemed abandoned and a new application shall be required. For purposes of this chapter, “diligent pursuit” shall mean compliance with the provisions of subsections (B) and (C) of this section.
B. When the preparation of environmental documents is required or when additional information, documentation or studies are requested by the city, the planning official shall establish a reasonable time period during which action should be completed and shall communicate such determination in writing to the applicant. If the action has not been completed within such time period, the planning official shall notify the applicant in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by ordinary mail that the application shall be deemed abandoned within 20 days if such action is not completed.
C. In all cases, if there has been no communication from the applicant or action upon an application for a period of 120 days, the application shall be deemed abandoned, and the planning official shall notify the applicant thereof by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by ordinary mail, provided such time limit shall not apply in the event the delay is due to the city’s failure to diligently process an application submitted to it or to render a decision within applicable time limits.
D. The planning official may extend the time periods established in subsections (B) and (C) of this section upon a showing of good cause; provided, that the request for extension is made prior to expiration of such time period.
E. The hearing examiner may upon application made within 14 days after the date of mailing of any notice that an application has been deemed abandoned reinstate such application upon a showing that the failure to diligently pursue the application was due to circumstances beyond the applicant’s control, but not including financial inability, and that in fairness the application should be reinstated. The hearing examiner may impose conditions upon such reinstatement of an application, and shall require the payment of all city costs incurred in consideration of the request for reinstatement. (Ord. 893 § 1, 2001).
Chapter 14.40
APPEALS OF PROJECT PERMIT DECISIONSSections:
14.40.010 Time limit for appeals.
14.40.020 Limitation on hearings and appeals.
14.40.030 Procedure for appeal.
14.40.010 Time limit for appeals.
A. Notwithstanding any provision of this code to the contrary, all appeals to city council of Category I, II and IV project permit decisions shall be filed with 14 days after the notice of decision or other notice that the decision has been made and is appealable; provided:
1. The period for appeal shall be extended for an additional seven days if public consent is allowed on a determination of nonsignificance issued as a part of the appealable project permit decision; and
2. The date from which the 14-day appeal period shall run for any city staff decision made prior to the date of the single report shall be the issuance date of the single report containing a statement that the decision has been made and is appealable.
B. The notice of appeal shall set forth the factual and legal basis for appeal.
C. Notwithstanding any provision of this code to the contrary, all appeals of land use decisions to Superior Court shall be filed within 21 days after the decision is issued, as provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.40.020 Limitation on hearings and appeals.
Notwithstanding any provision of this code to the contrary, with respect to any project permit application or optional consolidated project permit process, there shall be no more than one open record hearing and one closed record appeal. In the optional consolidated permit process, any open record appeal of a Category I or II project permit decision shall be combined with the any closed record appeals of a Category IV project permit decision, and the longest applicable time limit shall apply. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
14.40.030 Procedure for appeal.
A. Appeals of Category I and Category II project permit decisions shall be open record appeals, heard by the city council de novo. Such appeals shall be heard and determined within 90 days after filing of the notice of appeal.
B. Appeals of Category IV project permit decisions shall be closed record appeals, and shall be heard and determined within 60 days after filing of the notice of appeal. Such appeals shall be heard on the basis of the record before the hearing examiner or planning commission; provided, additional oral testimony or exhibits may be received by stipulation or if required in the discretion of city council to clarify or supplement such record. The city council shall affirm the decision and findings of the hearing examiner or planning commission unless the city council shall find such finding and decision to be clearly erroneous.
C. The time limitations set forth in subsections (A) and (B) may be extended by agreement of all parties to the appeal.
D. Appeals of Category III project permit decisions to Superior Court shall be as provided by Chapter 36.70C RCW. (Ord. 768 § 2, 1996).
|
Code Publishing Company Code Publishing's website Voice: (206) 527-6831 Fax: (206) 527-8411 E-mail Code Publishing |
|
|