Wash. Rev. Code » Title 43 · Chapter 43.21C
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.033 (2026)

Threshold determination to be made within ninety days after application is complete

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the responsible official shall make a threshold determination on a completed application within ninety days after the application and supporting documentation are complete. The applicant may request an additional thirty days for the threshold determination. The governmental entity responsible for making the threshold determination shall by rule, resolution, or ordinance adopt standards, consistent with rules adopted by the department to implement this chapter, for determining when an application and supporting documentation are complete.
(2) This section shall not apply to a city, town, or county that:
(a) By ordinance adopted prior to April 1, 1992, has adopted procedures to integrate permit and land use decisions with the requirements of this chapter; or
(b) Is planning under RCW 36.70A.040 and is subject to the requirements of *RCW 36.70B.090.
[ 1995 c 347 s 422; 1992 c 208 s 1.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: RCW 36.70B.090 expired June 30, 2000, pursuant to 1998 c 286 s 8.
Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
Effective date—1992 c 208 s 1: "Section 1 of this act shall take effect September 1, 1992." [ 1992 c 208 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Leavitt v. Jefferson Cnty., 875 P.2d 681 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Leavitt v. Jefferson Cnty., 875 P.2d 681 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “RCW 43.21C.033; WAC 197-11-100, -310, -315, -330.”
Bellevue Farm Owners Ass'n v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 997 P.2d 380 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 43.21C.033; WAC 197-11-310, 330. The lead agency uses an environmental checklist to review the project's "proposed activities, alternatives, and impacts .”
Bellevue Farm Owners Ass'n v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 100 Wash. App. 341 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 43.21C.033; WAC 197-11-310, -330. The lead agency uses an environmental checklist to review the project’s “proposed activities, alternatives, and impacts .”
City Of Puyallup, V Pierce Cnty.,et Al, 438 P.3d 174 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “51501-6-II “significant” if there is “a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality.”
Thomas Madsen, V. Washington State Dept. Of Fish & Wildlife, 561 P.3d 1216 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 43.21C.033(1) 11 No. 58232-5-II permits or charge fees “for fish habitat enhancement projects that meet the criteria of subsection (1) of this section and that are reviewed and approved according to the provisions of this section.”
King Cnty. v. Friends of Sammamish Valley (Wash. 2024). “RCW 43.21C.033(1); WAC 197-11-310(1). Under SEPA, the definition of “action” covers just about everything, and within that category are project and nonproject document.”
Ctr. For Sustainable Econ., Resps V. Wa State Dept Of Nat. Resources, Apps (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “” RCW 43.21C.033; WAC 197-11-310. A “significant” impact is one where “reasonable likelihood” exists that the proposal will have “more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality.”
Ctr. For Sustainable Econ., Resps V. Wa State Dept Of Nat. Resources, Apps (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “” RCW 43.21C.033; WAC 197-11-310. A “significant” impact is one where “reasonable likelihood” exists that the proposal will have “more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.033(1) — 3 cases
City Of Puyallup, V Pierce Cnty.,et Al, 438 P.3d 174 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “51501-6-II “significant” if there is “a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality.”
Thomas Madsen, V. Washington State Dept. Of Fish & Wildlife, 561 P.3d 1216 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 43.21C.033(1) 11 No. 58232-5-II permits or charge fees “for fish habitat enhancement projects that meet the criteria of subsection (1) of this section and that are reviewed and approved according to the provisions of this section.”
King Cnty. v. Friends of Sammamish Valley (Wash. 2024). “RCW 43.21C.033(1); WAC 197-11-310(1). Under SEPA, the definition of “action” covers just about everything, and within that category are project and nonproject document.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.