Review of an application and proposed development shall be governed by and be consistent with the fundamental land use planning policies and choices which have been made in adopted comprehensive plans and development regulations. The review process shall consider the type of land use permitted at the proposed site, the density and intensity of the proposed development, the infrastructure available and needed to serve the development, the character of the development and its consistency with development regulations. In the absence of applicable development regulations, the applicable development criteria in the comprehensive plan or sub-area plan adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW shall be determinative.
(Ord. 1088 § 2 (Exh. A), 1998; Ord. 1426 § 1 (Att. A), 2012; Ord. 1526 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 1705 § 1 (Att. A.2), 2024)
A. 
Following the issuance of a determination of completeness and a notice of application, an application shall be reviewed at one of four levels:
1. 
Limited administrative review;
2. 
Full administrative review;
3. 
Quasi-judicial review;
4. 
Legislative review.
B. 
If this title or the LMC provides that a proposed development is subject to a specific type of review, or a different review procedure is required by law, then the application for such development shall be processed and reviewed accordingly. If this title does not provide for a specific type of review, or if a different review procedure is not required by law, then the city shall determine the type of review to be used for the type and intensity of the proposed development.
C. 
Any public meeting or required open hearing may be combined by the city with any public meeting or open record hearing that may be held on the proposed development by another local, state, federal or other agency. Hearings shall be combined if requested by the applicant. However, joint hearings must be held within the city and within the time limits of this title and Chapter 36.70B RCW.
(Ord. 1088 § 2 (Exh. A), 1998; Ord. 1426 § 1 (Att. A), 2012; Ord. 1526 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 1705 § 1 (Att. A.2), 2024)
Limited administrative review shall be used when the proposed development is subject to clear and objective standards that require the exercise of professional judgment about technical issues and the proposed development is exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Permits reviewed through this process are not subject to the requirements of Chapter 21.07 LMC. The city may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application after the date the application is accepted as complete. The decision of the city is final unless an administrative appeal process is provided for in this or any other title within the LMC. This type of review includes but is not limited to the following:
A. 
Interpretation of codes and ordinances;
B. 
Single-family and other minor building permits;
C. 
Fence permits;
D. 
Boundary line adjustments;
E. 
Fill and grade permits;
F. 
Encroachment permits to work within a right-of-way;
G. 
Flood development permits;
H. 
Minor amendments or modifications to approved developments or permits which may affect the precise dimensions or location of buildings, accessory structures and driveways, but do not affect the overall project character, increase the number of lots, dwelling units or density, or decrease the quality or amount of open space;
I. 
Multifamily, commercial, industrial, and/or office building permits that have been subject to a public review process or for which environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits;
J. 
Applications subject to administrative approvals found within Chapters 14.08 and 14.10 LMC;
K. 
Group A home occupations; and
L. 
Site development permit intent and purpose. Site development permits are issued for work such as limited clearing, grading, landscaping, drainage, private streets and groundwork related to site preparation, where no building or structure is altered, moved or constructed, in association with an approved binding site plan, major subdivision, or short plat permitted activity.
1. 
Site development permits are not a prerequisite to permitting for footings and foundation permit, right-of-way permit, grade and excavation permit, master application and/or other higher level permits.
2. 
Site development permits will be subject to compliance with the zoning, building, and other applicable land use codes and regulations existing at the time of permit submittal.
3. 
As necessary, plans are required for site development permits.
4. 
Site development permits do not vest a future development to the codes at the time of site preparation.
(Ord. 1088 § 2 (Exh. A), 1998; Ord. 1158 § 2, 2001; Ord. 1162 § 1, 2001; Ord. 1165 § 1, 2001; Ord. 1426 § 1 (Att. A), 2012; Ord. 1467 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 1526 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 1705 § 1 (Att. A.2), 2024)
A. 
Full administrative review shall be used when the proposed development is subject to the objective and subjective standards that require the exercise of limited discretion about nontechnical issues and about which there may be limited public interest. The proposed development may or may not be subject to SEPA review. This type of review includes, but is not limited to, the following:
1. 
Short subdivisions;
2. 
Binding site plans;
3. 
Shoreline substantial development permits;
4. 
Group B home occupations; and
5. 
Multifamily, commercial, industrial, and/or office building permits that have not been subject to a public review process or for which environmental review has not been completed in connection with other project permits.
B. 
The review procedure under full administrative review shall be as follows:
1. 
If the proposed development is subject to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the threshold determination may be made concurrent with the public comment period required in the notice of application, pursuant to the provisions of WAC 197-11-355, "Optional DNS process," and Chapter 16.04 LMC.
2. 
The city may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application after the date the application is accepted as complete, and upon the completion of the public comment period and the comment period required by SEPA, if applicable. The decision of the city is final unless an administrative appeal process is provided for in this or any other title within the LMC. The city shall mail the notice of decision to the applicant and all parties of record. The decision shall include:
a. 
A statement of the applicable criteria and standards in the development codes and other applicable law;
b. 
A statement of the findings of the review authority, stating the application's compliance or noncompliance with each applicable criterion, and assurance of compliance with the applicable standards;
c. 
The decision to approve or deny the application and, if approved, conditions of approval necessary to ensure the proposed development will comply with all applicable laws;
d. 
A statement that the decision is final unless appealed as provided in Chapter 21.11 LMC, Appeals. The statement shall state the appeal closing date and describe how a party may appeal the decision, including applicable fees and the elements of notice of appeal;
e. 
A statement that the complete case file, including findings, conclusions and conditions of approval, if any, is available for inspection. The notice shall list the place, days and times when the case file is available for inspection and the name and telephone number of the city's representative to contact to arrange inspection.
(Ord. 1088 § 2 (Exh. A), 1988; Ord. 1162 § 2, 2001; Ord. 1426 § 1 (Att. A), 2012; Ord. 1467 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 1475 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 1705 § 1 (Att. A.2), 2024)
A. 
Quasi-judicial review shall be used when the development or use proposed under the application requires a public hearing before a hearing body. This type of review includes, but is not limited to, the following:
1. 
Administrative appeals, including those relating to Chapter 43.21C RCW;
2. 
Subdivisions;
3. 
Conditional use permits;
4. 
Planned developments;
5. 
Variances;
6. 
Shoreline permits issued pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW;
7. 
Applications submitted to the design review board for review and approval (Chapter 14.08 LMC – Design, and Chapter 14.10 LMC – Signs);
8. 
Rezones which are not of general applicability; and
9. 
Other similar development permit applications.
B. 
The review procedure under quasi-judicial review shall be as follows:
1. 
A quasi-judicial review process requires an open record public hearing before the appropriate hearing body which is generally the hearing examiner except for applications governed by Chapters 14.08 and 14.10 LMC, which is generally the design review board.
2. 
The public hearing shall be held after the completion of the public comment period and the comment period required by SEPA, if applicable. For sign applications, a hearing shall occur not later than 28 days after the date of determination of completeness.
3. 
At least 10 days before the date of a public hearing, the city shall issue public notice of the date, time, location and purpose of the hearing as follows:
a. 
Publication at least 10 days before the date of a public meeting or hearing in the official newspaper if one has been designated, or a newspaper of general circulation in the city, except for applications subject to Chapters 14.08 and 14.10 LMC;
b. 
Mailing at least 10 days before the date of a public meeting or hearing to all property owners as shown on the records of the county assessor within 350 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of the meeting or hearing, except for applications subject to Chapters 14.08 and 14.10 LMC;
c. 
Posting at least 10 days before the meeting or hearing in three different locations at City Hall.
4. 
At least seven days before the date of the public hearing, the city shall issue a written staff report, integrating the SEPA review and threshold determination (as applicable) and recommendation regarding the application(s), shall make available to the public a copy of the staff report for review and inspection, and shall mail a copy of the staff report and recommendation to the applicant or the applicant's designated representative. The city shall make available a copy of the staff report, subject to payment of a reasonable charge, to other parties who request it.
5. 
Public hearings shall be conducted in accordance with the rules of procedure adopted by the hearing body which shall conform with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine in Washington State. A public hearing shall be recorded. If, for any reason, the hearing cannot be completed on the date set in the public notice, it may be continued during the public hearing to a specified date, time and location, without further public notice required.
6. 
Within 10 working days after the date the public record closes, the hearing examiner or design review board, as applicable, shall issue a written decision regarding the application(s).
7. 
The hearing examiner or design review board, as applicable, may approve, approve with conditions or deny the application and shall mail the notice of its decision to the city, applicant, the applicant's designated representative, the property owner(s), and any other parties of record. The decision shall include:
a. 
A statement of the applicable criteria and standards in the development codes and other applicable law;
b. 
A statement of the findings of the review authority, a statement of the conclusions of the review authority stating the application's compliance or noncompliance with each applicable criterion, and assurance of compliance with applicable standards;
c. 
The decision to approve or deny the application and, if approved, conditions of approval necessary to ensure the proposed development will comply with all applicable laws;
d. 
A statement that the decision is final unless appealed as provided in Chapter 21.11 LMC, Appeals. The statement shall state the appeal closing date and describe how a party may appeal the decision, including applicable fees and the elements of a notice of appeal for decisions appealable to the hearing examiner;
e. 
A statement that the complete case file, including findings, conclusions and conditions of approval, if any, is available for inspection. The notice shall list the place, days and times when the case file is available for inspection and the name and telephone number of the city's representative to contact to arrange inspection.
(Ord. 1088 § 2 (Exh. A), 1998; Ord. 1426 § 1 (Att. A), 2012; Ord. 1705 § 1 (Att. A.2), 2024)
A. 
Legislative review shall be used when the proposed development involves the creation, implementation or amendment of city policy or law as it relates to the city's development codes and related comprehensive planning activities. Projects reviewed through this process are not subject to the requirements of Chapter 21.07 LMC. This type of review includes, but is not limited to, the following:
1. 
Comprehensive plan, sub-area plan, zoning and/or development code amendments and updates.
B. 
Legislative review shall be conducted as follows:
1. 
Legislative review generally requires at least one public hearing before the planning commission and one public meeting before the city council.
2. 
When an application by a private individual is part of the proposed legislative action, the application shall contain all information and material requirements, including the appropriate fee(s), required by the appropriate application form and any preapplication meeting.
3. 
At least 10 days before the date of the first planning commission hearing, the city shall issue public notice of the date, time, location and purpose of the hearing. The notice shall include notice of the SEPA threshold determination issued by the city.
4. 
At least seven days prior to the hearing, the city shall issue a written staff report, integrating the SEPA review and threshold determination and recommendation regarding the application(s), shall make available to the public a copy of the staff report for review and inspection, and shall mail a copy of the staff report and recommendation to the applicant or the applicant's designated representative, and planning commission members. The city shall make available a copy of the staff report, subject to a reasonable charge, to other persons who request it.
5. 
Following the public hearing and in accordance with Chapter 35A.63 RCW, the recommendation of the planning commission shall be forwarded to the city council. Upon receiving the recommendation from the planning commission, the city council shall set a public meeting to consider the proposal, at which the council may either accept or reject the recommendation.
6. 
The council must hold a public hearing to consider any changes to the recommendation of the planning commission. The council may approve, modify, deny or remand the proposal back to the planning commission for further review after such public hearing. The final decision of the council shall be adopted by ordinance.
7. 
The final decision of the council shall be in writing and include:
a. 
A statement of the applicable criteria, standards and other applicable law;
b. 
A statement of the findings of the city council, stating the application or project's compliance or noncompliance with each applicable criterion, and assurance of compliance with applicable standards;
c. 
The decision to approve or deny the application and, if approved, conditions of approval necessary to ensure the proposed development will comply with all applicable laws;
d. 
A statement that the decision is final unless appealed as provided in Chapter 21.11 LMC, Appeals. The appeal shall meet the requirements of the Growth Management Hearing Board process and procedures;
e. 
A statement that the complete case file, including findings, conclusions and conditions of approval, if any, is available for inspection. The notice shall list the place, days and times when the case file is available for inspection and the name and telephone number of the city's representative to contact to arrange inspection.
(Ord. 1088 § 2 (Exh. A), 1998; Ord. 1268 (Exh. D), 2005; Ord. 1426 § 1 (Att. A), 2012; Ord. 1705 § 1 (Att. A.2), 2024)
A. 
Unless otherwise specified, the time periods to issue a final decision for each type of complete project permit application or project type subject to this chapter shall not exceed the following time periods:
1. 
For project permits reviewed pursuant to a limited administrative review process, a final decision shall be issued within 65 days after the date of determination of completeness.
2. 
For project permits reviewed pursuant to a full administrative review process, a final decision shall be issued within 100 days after the date of determination of completeness.
3. 
For project permits reviewed pursuant to a quasi-judicial or judicial review process, a final decision shall be issued within 170 days of the determination of completeness.
B. 
The number of days an application is in review with the city shall be calculated from the day completeness is determined to the date a final decision is issued on the project application. The number of days shall be calculated by counting every calendar day and excluding the following time periods:
1. 
Any period between the day that the city has notified the applicant, in writing, that additional information is required to further process the application and the day when responsive information is resubmitted by the applicant.
2. 
Any period after an applicant informs the city, in writing, that they would like to temporarily suspend review of the project permit application until the time that the applicant notifies the city, in writing, that they would like to resume the application.
a. 
A request for temporary suspension shall not exceed 180 days.
3. 
Any period after an administrative appeal is filed until the administrative appeal is being considered.
4. 
Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared following a determination of significance pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW.
5. 
Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the city.
C. 
The time limit by which the city must issue a notice of final decision does not apply if an application:
1. 
Requires an amendment to a comprehensive plan or development regulation;
2. 
Requires the siting of an essential public facility, as provided in Chapter 36.70A RCW and as may be hereafter amended;
3. 
Is substantially revised by the applicant proposing a change in use that adds or removes commercial or residential elements from the original application that would make the application fail to meet the determination of procedural completeness for the new use.
D. 
If, at any time, an applicant informs the city, in writing, that the applicant would like to temporarily suspend the review of the project for more than 60 days, or if an applicant is not responsive for more than 60 consecutive days after the city has notified the applicant, in writing, that additional information is required to further process the application, an additional 30 days may be added to the time period to issue a final decision.
1. 
Any notice to the applicant that additional information is required to further process the application must include a notice that nonresponsiveness for 60 consecutive days may result in 30 days being added to the time for review.
2. 
"Nonresponsiveness" means that an applicant is not making demonstrable progress on providing additional requested information, or there is no ongoing communication from the applicant to the city on the applicant's ability or willingness to provide the additional information.
E. 
If the city is unable to issue its final decision within the time limits provided for in this section, it shall provide written notice of this fact to the applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of final decision.
F. 
In accordance with state law, the city is not liable for damages which may result from the failure to issue a timely notice of final decision, except as authorized by SB 5290.
(Ord. 1088 § 2 (Exh. A), 1998; Ord. 1426 § 1 (Att. A), 2012; Ord. 1705 § 1 (Att. A.2), 2024)