Chapter 11.10


11.10.001    Determination of consistency.

11.10.002    Initial SEPA analysis.

11.10.003    Categorically exempt actions and project review.

11.10.004    Determination of consistency for development proposed on the campus of the University of Washington Bothell and Cascadia College.

11.10.001 Determination of consistency.

A.    Purpose. When the city receives a project permit application, consistency between the proposed project and the applicable development regulations and comprehensive plan shall be determined through the process in this chapter.

B.    Consistency. During project permit application review, the city shall first determine whether the items listed in this subsection are defined in the city’s development regulations applicable to the proposed project. In the absence of applicable development regulations, the city shall determine whether the items listed in this subsection are defined in the city’s adopted comprehensive plan. The applicable regulations or plans shall be determinative of the following:

1.    The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed under certain circumstances, if the criteria for their approval have been satisfied;

2.    The level of development, such as units per acre, density of residential development, or other measures of density;

3.    Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities identified in the comprehensive plan, if the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as required by Chapter 36.70A RCW; and

4.    Character of the development, such as, but not limited to, density and/or intensity of the proposed development, dimensional standards, building height, bulk and scale, architectural features, site design and layout requirements, landscaping, preservation of open space, critical area regulations, and other city development standards.

C.    Additional Information. Should it be determined during project permit application consistency review that additional information is necessary to complete project permit application consistency review, the city may request the applicant to supply additional information or studies.

1.    The notice of decision issue date of 120 days after determination of completeness shall be suspended from the date the city notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the date the city determines whether the additional information satisfies the request for information or 14 calendar days after the date the information has been provided to the city as set forth in BMC 11.12.008(B)(1).

2.    An applicant shall have 90 calendar days from the date of the city’s request to submit the additional information or studies; except that for applications determined to be complete between June 1, 2008, and December 31, 2010, applicants shall have one year from the date of the city’s request to submit the additional information or studies.

3.    If the applicant either refuses in writing to submit the required information or does not submit the required information within 90 calendar days, or within one year for qualifying applications under subsection (C)(2) of this section, the community development director shall issue a decision, according to the Type I procedure in BMC 11.04.003, that the application has lapsed for failure to meet the time requirement.

4.    Within 14 calendar days after an applicant has submitted the requested additional information, the city shall make a determination that the additional information or studies are sufficient to commence consistency review.

5.    Should the city fail to make the determination that the additional information is sufficient within the time limitations outlined above, the additional information will be deemed sufficient and the consistency review will recommence. (Ord. 2252 § 1, 2018; Ord. 2029 § 1 (Exh. B), 2009; Ord. 1815 § 1, 2000; Ord. 1691 § 1, 1997; Ord. 1628 § 1, 1996).

11.10.002 Initial SEPA analysis.

A.    The city shall also review the project permit application under the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”), Chapter 43.21C RCW, the SEPA Rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC, and the city environmental policy ordinance, Chapter 14.02 BMC, and shall:

1.    Determine whether the applicable regulations require studies that adequately analyze all of the project permit application’s specific probable adverse environmental impacts (see subsection D of this section for how this determination is made);

2.    Determine if the applicable regulations require measures that adequately address such environmental impacts;

3.    Determine whether additional studies are required and/or whether the project permit application should be conditioned with additional mitigation measures; and

4.    Provide for 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.

B.    In review of a project permit application, the community development director may determine that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection and mitigation measures in the applicable development regulations, comprehensive plan and/or other applicable local, state or federal laws do provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the application.

C.    If the city’s comprehensive plans, subarea plans and development regulations adequately address a project’s specific adverse environmental impacts, as determined under subsections A and B of this section, the city may choose not to impose additional mitigation under SEPA during project review.

D.    A comprehensive plan, development regulation or other applicable local, state or federal law permits adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of an application when:

1.    The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; or

2.    The city 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.

E.    In its decision as to whether a specific adverse environmental impact has been addressed by an existing rule or law of another agency with jurisdiction and with environmental expertise with regard to a specific environmental impact, the city shall consult orally or in writing with that agency and may expressly defer to that agency. Any oral consultation shall be documented in the project permit file. In making this deferral, the city shall base or condition its project approval on compliance with these other existing rules or laws.

F.    Nothing in this section limits the authority of the city in its review or mitigation of a project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental analyses and requirements under other laws, as provided by Chapter 43.21C RCW.

G.    The city shall also review the application under Chapter 14.02 BMC, the city’s environmental policy ordinance. (Ord. 1815 § 1, 2000; Ord. 1691 § 1, 1997; Ord. 1628 § 1, 1996).

11.10.003 Categorically exempt actions and project review.

A.    Categorically Exempt. Actions categorically exempt under RCW 43.21C.110(1)(a) do not require environmental review or the preparation of an environmental impact statement. An action that is categorically exempt under the rules adopted by the Department of Ecology (Chapter 197-11 WAC) shall not be conditioned or denied under SEPA.

B.    During project review, the city shall not reexamine alternatives to or hear appeals on the items identified in BMC 11.10.001(B)(1), (2) and (3), except for issues of code interpretation.

C.    Project review shall be used to identify specific project design and conditions relating to the character of development, such as, but not limited to, the details of site plans, curb cuts, drainage, the payment of impact fees, or other measures to mitigate a proposal’s probable adverse environmental impacts. (Ord. 1815 § 1, 2000; Ord. 1768 § 8, 1999; Ord. 1691 § 1, 1997; Ord. 1628 § 1, 1996).

11.10.004 Determination of consistency for development proposed on the campus of the University of Washington Bothell and Cascadia College.

A.    Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a determination of consistency for a project proposed within the campus district by the University of Washington Bothell or Cascadia College shall be made under this section instead of under BMC 11.10.001. Temporary academic uses that do not involve development of a permanent structure are permitted without the need for a consistency determination.

B.    The university or college shall submit a pre-application that conceptually:

1.    Explains how the proposed development expresses or implements the planning and design principles in Section 4 of the 2017 Campus Master Plan;

2.    Identifies the intended academic use(s) of the proposed development;

3.    Includes a site plan and plan views;

4.    Includes renderings that demonstrate the architectural features of the proposed development;

5.    Explains how the proposed development complies with the district regulations in BMC 12.64.108:

a.    Calculates the gross square feet of proposed development and, if the project includes demolition, calculates net new gross square feet; calculates how much of the total capacity allowed by the 2017 Campus Master Plan will remain undeveloped after approval of the proposed development;

b.    Demonstrates compliance with height limits, setbacks and any applicable size limitation;

c.    Identifies and describes any required landscape buffer;

d.    Describes additional landscaping; identifies the number of additional student full-time equivalents (student FTEs) who will come to the campus as a result of the proposed development; and

e.    Identifies the number of additional beds to be created by any development that includes student housing, and calculates the effect of this student housing on transportation and parking.

C.    Within 15 days after the university or college has completed a preapplication conference with the city for a project proposed within development area A or C, the university or college shall mail notice of its intent to the owners of record and occupants, if any, of properties that are within 500 feet of the relevant development area. The mailed notice shall describe in general terms the nature and location of the project, the proposed schedule for development of the project, and information on where to view the pre-application packet.

D.    The university or college shall submit a permit application that includes refinement of all the elements in subsection B of this section, addresses the city pre-application comments and provides further detail as described below:

1.    Describes the university’s or college’s review and conclusions as SEPA lead agency, and provides any additional SEPA documents prepared pursuant to WAC 197-11-600;

2.    Identifies any mitigation set forth in Section 6 of the 2017 Campus Master Plan that will be included with the proposed development;

3.    Further explains how the proposed development complies with the district regulations in BMC 12.64.108;

4.    Explains compliance with other applicable provisions of the campus district regulations, including lighting, signage, and control of odors from cooking areas;

5.    Explains how the proposed development is consistent with the transportation management plan, or how this plan will be amended to address the proposed development; and

6.    Identifies other city approvals that are required and will be applied for, including any building permit or other construction permit; concurrency encumbrance letter; public area use permit; storm drainage side sewer.

E.    The director shall determine whether a proposed development is consistent with the 2017 Campus Master Plan by determining:

1.    Whether the application includes the information required in subsection B of this section;

2.    Whether the application is consistent with the district regulations in BMC 12.64.108; and

3.    Whether additional mitigation is appropriate under the city’s substantive SEPA authority, BMC 14.02.230, or is required to ensure consistency with other applicable city regulations. The director may require such additional mitigation as a condition of the consistency determination.

F.    The director may not approve development that is inconsistent with the 2017 Campus Master Plan. The director may approve a minor amendment to the 2017 Campus Master Plan in response to a specific development proposal. A minor amendment is one that:

1.    Accommodates reasonable academic use of the campus as defined in BMC 12.64.201(F);

2.    Creates environmental impacts that are within the range of impacts analyzed in the final environmental impact statement for the 2017 Campus Master Plan, and which will be mitigated as provided therein;

3.    Does not entail amendment of height limits or setback or buffer requirements in development areas A and C, or height increases of more than one story on the rest of the campus;

4.    Does not allow dormitory housing in development area C; and

5.    Does not move more than 10 percent of the net new gross square feet allowed in one development area to another development area, and does not increase the total gross feet allowed by the 2017 Campus Master Plan.

    Any other amendment is a major amendment of the 2017 Campus Master Plan that requires approval by the city council, university board of regents, and college board of trustees before it may become effective.

G.    The director’s consistency determination under subsection E of this section, and any decision regarding a minor amendment under subsection F of this section, are Type II land use actions that may be appealed pursuant to BMC 11.14.005.

H.    Demolition within the campus district is not subject to a consistency determination and a demolition permit may be applied for and issued in advance of a consistency determination for new campus development. Demolition of buildings within the campus district that are on the city’s historic register or historic inventory shall be subject to the regulations in Chapter 22.28 BMC, as these regulations exist on the date this section is adopted by the city, which regulations are set forth in the Appendix to the 2017 Campus Master Plan. An historic resources addendum or similar document prepared by the campus that identifies the historic qualities of the building and demonstrates that alternatives to demolition have been considered in accordance with Chapter 22.28 BMC may be submitted to fulfill the requirements of BMC 22.28.060. The site of any demolition shall be maintained in a safe condition and free of debris. (Ord. 2237 § 1, 2017).