HomeMy WebLinkAboutord2017-005WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2017 - 41
CLEARANCES
Initial
Date
Date Received in Council fffice
*ends Date
Assigned to:
Originator
Weimer
1/4/2017
�j E � V E D
1/10/2017
Introduction
Planning &
"
1/24/2017
Division Head:
FEB 01 2017
Public Hearing
Dept. Head: '
2/7/2017
Council
WHATCOM (COUNTY
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 ? )Fes ( ) NO
SEPA review completed? (
) Yes ( ) NO
Requested Date:
SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public
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
y
a
a
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, c
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:
INTRODUCTION DATE
ORDINANCE NO. 2017 -005
Weimer
1/10/2017
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.
ADOPTED this 7th day of February _ , 2017.
L,ina 13rpyvri Davis,
Clerk of.the Cqurtc #la'
AP VED AS TO FQ "
Civil Deputy Prosecutor
WHATCOM COUNTY C UNCIL
WRATCOMA YjAMASHINGTON
B y u an
Co n I Chair
WHATCO OUNTY E CUTIVE
WH M OUNTY, ASHINGTON
Jack Lou Counft.�ec ive
( Approved ( ) Denied
Date Signed: %
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 preparation 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 Responsible Official, if the following requirements are met:
(a) the proposal is one for which the Responsible Official has issued a
Determination of Significance or an early notice of the likelihood 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 applied 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.
(2) 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 (1) 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 pursuant 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 seq.
(4) SEPA Compliance. Any denial under this section does not constitute a separate
action requiring a new threshold determination.
Page 3 of 3