Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.240

Project review under the growth management act

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) If the requirements of subsection (2) of this section are satisfied, a county, city, or town reviewing a project action shall determine that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures in the county, city, or town's development regulations and comprehensive plans adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws and rules provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project action to which the requirements apply. Rules adopted by the department according to RCW 43.21C.110 regarding project specific impacts that may not have been adequately addressed apply to any determination made under this section. In these situations, in which all adverse environmental impacts will be mitigated below the level of significance as a result of mitigation measures included by changing, clarifying, or conditioning of the proposed action and/or regulatory requirements of development regulations adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW or other local, state, or federal laws, a determination of nonsignificance or a mitigated determination of nonsignificance is the proper threshold determination.
(2) A county, city, or town shall make the determination provided for in subsection (1) of this section if:
(a) In the course of project review, including any required environmental analysis, the local government considers the specific probable adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action and determines that these specific impacts are adequately addressed by the development regulations or other applicable requirements of the comprehensive plan, subarea plan element of the comprehensive plan, or other local, state, or federal rules or laws; and
(b) The local government bases or conditions its approval on compliance with these requirements or mitigation measures.
(3) If a county, city, or town's comprehensive plans, subarea plans, and development regulations adequately address a project's probable specific adverse environmental impacts, as determined under subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the county, city, or town shall not impose additional mitigation under this chapter during project review. Project review shall be integrated with environmental analysis under this chapter.
(4) A comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulation shall be considered to adequately address an impact if the county, city, or town, through the planning and environmental review process under chapter 36.70A RCW and this chapter, has identified the specific adverse environmental impacts and:
(a) The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; or
(b) The legislative body of the county, city, or town 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.
(5) In deciding 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 county, city, or town shall consult orally or in writing with that agency and may expressly defer to that agency. In making this deferral, the county, city, or town shall base or condition its project approval on compliance with these other existing rules or laws.
(6) Nothing in this section limits the authority of an agency in its review or mitigation of a project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental analyses and requirements under other laws, as provided by this chapter.
(7) This section shall apply only to a county, city, or town planning under RCW 36.70A.040.
[ 2003 c 298 s 2; 1995 c 347 s 202.]

Notes:

Severability2003 c 298: See note following RCW 43.21C.229.
FindingsIntent1995 c 347 s 202: "(1) The legislature finds in adopting RCW 43.21C.240 that:
(a) Comprehensive plans and development regulations adopted by counties, cities, and towns under chapter 36.70A RCW and environmental laws and rules adopted by the state and federal government have addressed a wide range of environmental subjects and impacts. These plans, regulations, rules, and laws often provide environmental analysis and mitigation measures for project actions without the need for an environmental impact statement or further project mitigation.
(b) Existing plans, regulations, rules, or laws provide environmental analysis and measures that avoid or otherwise mitigate the probable specific adverse environmental impacts of proposed projects should be integrated with, and should not be duplicated by, environmental review under chapter 43.21C RCW.
(c) Proposed projects should continue to receive environmental review, which should be conducted in a manner that is integrated with and does not duplicate other requirements. Project-level environmental review should be used to: (i) Review and document consistency with comprehensive plans and development regulations; (ii) 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 (iii) ensure accountability by local government to applicants and the public for requiring and implementing mitigation measures.
(d) When a project permit application is filed, an agency should analyze the proposal's environmental impacts, as required by applicable regulations and the environmental review process required by this chapter, in one project review process. The project review process should include land use, environmental, public, and governmental review, as provided by the applicable regulations and the rules adopted under this chapter, so that documents prepared under different requirements can be reviewed together by the public and other agencies. This project review will provide an agency with the information necessary to make a decision on the proposed project.
(e) Through this project review process: (i) If the applicable regulations require studies that adequately analyze all of the project's specific probable adverse environmental impacts, additional studies under this chapter will not be necessary on those impacts; (ii) if the applicable regulations require measures that adequately address such environmental impacts, additional measures would likewise not be required under this chapter; and (iii) if the applicable regulations do not adequately analyze or address a proposal's specific probable adverse environmental impacts, this chapter provides the authority and procedures for additional review.
(2) The legislature intends that a primary role of environmental review under chapter 43.21C RCW is to focus on the gaps and overlaps that may exist in applicable laws and requirements related to a proposed action. The review of project actions conducted by counties, cities, and towns planning under RCW 36.70A.040 should integrate environmental review with project review. Chapter 43.21C RCW should not be used as a substitute for other land use planning and environmental requirements." [ 1995 c 347 s 201.]
FindingSeverabilityPart headings and table of contents not law1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 2001–2018 · leading case: Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2013) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 43.21C.240(1); see also RCW 43.21C.240(2); WAC 197-11-158.”
Moss v. City of Bellingham (2001) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 43.21C.240, as implemented by WAC 197-11-158, substantially streamlines the threshold determination process for cities and counties planning under the GMA by authorizing the SERA official to rely on existing plans, laws and regulations in meeting SERA requirements: (1) In…”
Moss v. City of Bellingham (2001) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 43.21C.240, as implemented by WAC 197-11-158, substantially streamlines the threshold determination process for cities and counties planning under the GMA by authorizing the *709 SEPA official to rely on existing plans, laws and regulations in meeting SEPA requirements: (1)…”
King County v. King County Hearing Examiner (2006) washctapp · cites it 9× “dant because of Wastewater’s development agreement with Snohomish County ¶29 Last, Wastewater argues that its development agreement, wherein Snohomish County determined that potential environmental impacts will be analyzed and mitigated under its local development regulations…”
Boehm v. City of Vancouver (2002) washctapp “provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project" if it considers the " specific probable adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action and determines that these specific impacts are adequately addressed by the…”
Heritage Baptist Church v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management (2018) washctapp “A "county, city, or town reviewing a project action" may determine that the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action are addressed sufficiently under SEPA by its existing development regulations, comprehensive plan, or other applicable rules.”
East County Reclamation Co. v. Bjornsen (2005) washctapp “The statute provides that a county may issue a determination of nonsignificance or mitigated determination of nonsignificance where other regulatory requirements or local, state, or federal laws will mitigate an identified adverse environmental impact.”
East County Reclamation Co. v. Bjornsen (2005) washctapp “After oral argument, East’s counsel filed a statement of additional authorities citing RCW 43.21C.240. This statute addresses project review under the Growth Management Act, chapter 36.”
King County v. King County Hearing Examiner (2006) washctapp · cites it 9× “nt because of Wastewater's Development Agreement with Snohomish County ¶ 29 Last, Wastewater argues that its development agreement, wherein Snohomish County determined that potential environmental impacts will be analyzed and mitigated under its local development regulations and…”
Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board (2013) washctapp · cites it 2× “Additionally, while a county may forego SEPA analysis if its comprehensive plan and development regulations "provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project action," this exception does not apply to amendment 07 -CPA-05…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.240(1) — 6 cases
Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2013) washctapp “RCW 43.21C.240(1); see also RCW 43.21C.240(2); WAC 197-11-158.”
Boehm v. City of Vancouver (2002) washctapp “provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project" if it considers the " specific probable adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action and determines that these specific impacts are adequately addressed by the…”
King County v. King County Hearing Examiner (2006) washctapp “dant because of Wastewater’s development agreement with Snohomish County ¶29 Last, Wastewater argues that its development agreement, wherein Snohomish County determined that potential environmental impacts will be analyzed and mitigated under its local development regulations…”
Heritage Baptist Church v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management (2018) washctapp “A "county, city, or town reviewing a project action" may determine that the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action are addressed sufficiently under SEPA by its existing development regulations, comprehensive plan, or other applicable rules.”
Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board (2013) washctapp “Additionally, while a county may forego SEPA analysis if its comprehensive plan and development regulations "provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project action," this exception does not apply to amendment 07 -CPA-05…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.240(2) — 2 cases
Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2013) washctapp “RCW 43.21C.240(1); see also RCW 43.21C.240(2); WAC 197-11-158.”
Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board (2013) washctapp “Additionally, while a county may forego SEPA analysis if its comprehensive plan and development regulations "provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project action," this exception does not apply to amendment 07 -CPA-05…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.240(2)(a) — 2 cases
King County v. King County Hearing Examiner (2006) washctapp “dant because of Wastewater’s development agreement with Snohomish County ¶29 Last, Wastewater argues that its development agreement, wherein Snohomish County determined that potential environmental impacts will be analyzed and mitigated under its local development regulations…”
King County v. King County Hearing Examiner (2006) washctapp “nt because of Wastewater's Development Agreement with Snohomish County ¶ 29 Last, Wastewater argues that its development agreement, wherein Snohomish County determined that potential environmental impacts will be analyzed and mitigated under its local development regulations and…”
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.