The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutord2017-005strikeWHA TCOM CO UNTY CO UNCIL A GENDA BILL NO. 201741 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator. Weimer 1/4/2017 U ll E C E � V E D 1/10/2017 Introduction Planning & 1/24/2017 Division Head: FEB 01 2017 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Public Hearing De t. Head: 2/7/2017 Council Prosecutor: Purchasing /Bud et: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Ord for Procedures to Process Development Permit Apps and to Promote Fina ,lity ATTACHMENTS: SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMAR Y STA TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public li hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. !, Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Ordinance providing local procedures to process development permit applications efficiently and to promote finality of decisions COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION.• 1/24/2017: Discussed 1/10/2017: Amended and Introduced 6 -0, Sidhu absent 1/24/2017: Held in Council 2/7/2017: Amended and approved 6 -1, Brenner opposed, Ordinance 2017 -005 Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Ord. 2017 -005 Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us /council. PROPOSED BY: Weimer INTRODUCTION DATE: 1/10/2017 ORDINANCE NO. 2017 -005 PROVIDING LOCAL PROCEDURES TO PROCESS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS EFFICIENTLY AND TO PROMOTE FINALITY OF DECISIONS WHEREAS, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW Chapter 43.17 and WAC Chapter 197 -11, authorize local agencies to enact and implement local agency procedures to carry out the requirements of SEPA; and WHEREAS, WAC 197- 11- 030(2)(b) requires that agencies implementing SEPA, including Whatcom County, find ways to make the SEPA process more useful to decision makers and the public, and reduce paperwork and the accumulation of extraneous data; and WHEREAS, projects involving an environmental impact statement (EIS) under SEPA require the County to prepare the EIS and conduct integral public processes, including the maintenance of public records and response to inquiries and comments from the applicant, agencies, tribes and the public until a final decision is made on the underlying application; and WHEREAS, this type of extended application review process generates high transaction and personnel costs to county government which cannot be recaptured, despite the fact that applicants pay for outside consultants to prepare an EIS; and WHEREAS, there are circumstances during the permit review process where it is possible for the County to determine, prior to completion of the EIS, that a project has been denied by other local, state, or federal agencies, on grounds independent of SEPA and therefore are not dependent on completion of the County's EIS; and WHEREAS, the county code presently does not have an explicit process for denial of these projects already disapproved by other agencies, which are in the midst of a County SEPA EIS process; and WHEREAS, allowing applications for projects with unfinished SEPA EIS processes to remain in the County permit review system without a clear and defined ending point is a significant financial burden on the taxpayers and county government, does not promote finality of land use decisions, and creates significant uncertainty in the permitting process for the applicant, other agencies, tribes, and the general public; and WHEREAS, the burden on the public health, safety, and welfare is great when projects remain unresolved in the County permit review system but have been denied by other agencies and therefore will not proceed, based on grounds unrelated to completion of the County's SEPA EIS; and WHEREAS, a number of other local governments around the state, including Snohomish County and Island County, have similar provisions in code; and WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council finds that it is in the best interest of the citizens of Whatcom County and the general public health, safety and welfare to provide for finality of decisions and a clear and meaningful ending point for projects languishing in the permitting process; Page 1 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the Whatcom County Council adopts the above "WHEREAS" recitals as findings of fact in support of this action. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this amendment is categorically exempt from the procedural requirements of SEPA under WAC 197 -11 -800 (19) (c). BE IT FINALLY ORDAINED that Whatcom County Code Chapter 16.08 is hereby amended to add Section 16.08.157, Denial without environmental impact statement (EIS), as outlined in Exhibit A to this ordinance. ,ltlylllililr; ADOP -f�D fihis 7th day of C`,0 kP4 D,ana $rowti, §.uis, Cork of..ffw SyV64l.- APP P VED•A,S�TaO F ,""*l """" February ., 2017. WHATCOM COUNTY C UNCIL Vn[Y, ASHINGTON a WHATCO OUNTY E CUTIVE WHATCOM MUNTY .,WASHINGTON Civil Deputy Prosecutor Jack Louvis, County- _ExecuN!ve (X Approved ( ) Denied Date Signed: 2,0 J Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT A (LOCAL PROCEDURES TO PROCESS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS) WCC 16.08.157 Denial without environmental impact_ statement (EIS). (1) When there. are grounds independent of SEPA that merit denial of a proposal that is undergoing re aration of a SEPA environmental impact statement EIS whether ongoing or postponed by the applicant, the County shall deny the application(s) related to the proposal, following_ receipt of a recommendation of denial from the Res onsible Official if the followin requirements are met: (a) the prol2osai is one for which the Responsible Official has issued a Determination of Significance or an early notice of the likeiihood_of a Determination of Significance, as defined In WCC 16.08.175; and (b) continued preparation or completion of the EIS is no longer justified because either: (i) the applicant has al2plied for a rezone for which there is a direct conflict with an express limitation adopted in a county_ plan`Policy or regulation, which conflict could not be mitigated through measures identified in an EIS; or ( ii) prior to completion of the EIS, the applicant has received a denial of a necessary permit or other authorization by another federal, state or local agency with jurisdiction on .grounds independent of SEPA without which the project cannot go forward. ( Any denial or recommendation of denial shall be supported by express written findings or conclusions in conformance with subsection (1). (3) Procedure. The following is applicable to any project proposal for which an EIS has been required. a When the Responsible Official determines that the requirements of subsection (I) are met,, within 30 days he or she shall issue a recommendation of denial and set a hearing before the hearing examiner pursuant to WCC Chapter 20.92. The recommendation shall provide proposed written findings and conclusions to the hearing examiner demonstrating how the provisions of subsection (1) are met. b The examiner shall hold an open record hearing pursuant to WCC Chapter 20.92 and issue a decision, with findings and conclusions, on whether an order of denial should be entered puwsuant to this section. (c) The decision of the hearing examiner shall be a final decision appealable to the County Council pursuant to WCC 20.92.600 et se g. (4) SEPA Compliance. Any denial under this section does not constitute a separate action requiring a new threshold_ determination. Page 3 of 3