Public hearings on all Type II, III and IV project permit applications and on all open record appeal hearings of Type I permit decisions shall be conducted in accordance with this chapter.
(Ord. 12-96; Ord. 29-12 § 1.01)
The director shall:
A.
Schedule an application for review and public hearing.
B.
Give notice.
C.
Prepare the staff report on the application, which shall be a single report stating all of the decisions made as of the date of the report, including recommendations on project permits in the consolidated permit process that do not require an open record predecision hearing. The report shall state any mitigation required or proposed under the development regulations or the city's authority under SEPA. If the threshold determination other than a determination of significance has not been issued previously by the city, the report shall include or append this determination. In the case of a Type II, Type III or Type IV permit application, the report shall include the results of a concurrency analysis that indicates whether the proposal will or will not result in a decrease of the level of service on any portion of the city's street system. This analysis may also list mitigation measures that, if implemented, would prevent a decline in the level of service. In the case of a Type I permit application, this report may be the approved permit.
D.
Prepare the notice of decision, if required by the hearing body, and/or mail a copy of the notice of decision to those required by this code to receive such notice of decision.
(Ord. 12-96; Ord. 02-00; Ord. 29-12 § 1.01)
The hearing body shall be subject to the code of ethics (RCW 42.23.070), prohibitions on conflict of interest (Chapter 42.23 RCW), open public meetings (Chapter 42.30 RCW), and appearance of fairness (Chapter 42.36 RCW) as the same now exist or may hereafter be amended; provided, that the appearance of fairness doctrine applies to quasi-judicial actions but not to legislative actions per RCW 42.36.010.
(Ord. 12-96; Ord. 29-12 § 1.01)
A.
No member of the hearing body may communicate, directly or indirectly, regarding any issue in a proceeding before him or her, other than to participate in communications necessary to procedural aspects of maintaining an orderly process, unless he or she provides notice and opportunity for all parties to participate; except as provided in this section:
B.
If, before serving as the hearing body in a quasi-judicial proceeding, any member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication of a type that could not properly be received while serving, the member of the hearing body, promptly after starting to serve, shall disclose the communication as described in subsection (C) of this section.
C.
If the hearing body receives an ex parte communication in violation of this section, he or she shall place on the record:
1.
All written communications received;
2.
All written responses to the communications;
3.
State the substance of all oral communications received, and all responses made;
4.
The identity of each person from whom the examiner received any ex parte communication.
The hearing body shall advise all parties that these matters have been placed on the record. Upon request made within 10 days after notice of the ex parte communication, any party desiring to rebut the communication shall be allowed to place a rebuttal statement on the record.
D.
The prohibitions on ex parte communications listed above apply specifically to quasi-judicial proceedings, not to legislative actions.
(Ord. 12-96; Ord. 29-12 § 1.01)
A.
A member of the hearing body who is disqualified shall be counted for purposes of forming a quorum. Any member who is disqualified may do so only by making full disclosure to the audience, abstaining from voting on the proposal, vacating the seat on the hearing body and physically leaving the hearing.
B.
If all members of the hearing body are disqualified, all members present after stating their reasons for disqualification shall be requalified and shall proceed to resolve the issues.
C.
Except for Type IV actions, a member absent during the presentation of evidence in a hearing may not participate in the deliberations or decision unless the member has reviewed the evidence received.
(Ord. 12-96; Ord. 29-12 § 1.01)
Except for Type IV actions, the burden of proof is on the proponent. The project permit application must be supported by proof that it conforms to the applicable elements of the city's development regulations, comprehensive plan and that any significant adverse environmental impacts have been adequately addressed.
(Ord. 12-96; Ord. 29-12 § 1.01)
The order of proceedings for a hearing will depend in part on the nature of the hearing. The following shall be supplemented by administrative procedures as appropriate:
C.
Matters officially noticed need not be established by evidence and may be considered by the hearing body in its determination. Parties requesting notice shall do so on the record. However, the hearing body may take notice of matters listed in subsection (B) of this section if stated for the record. Any matter given official notice may be rebutted.
D.
The hearing body may view the area in dispute with or without notification to the parties, but shall place the time, manner and circumstances of such view on the record.
E.
Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and opponents. The presiding officer may approve or deny a request from a person attending the hearing to ask a question. Unless the presiding officer specifies otherwise, if the request to ask a question is approved, the presiding officer will direct the question to the person submitting testimony.
F.
When the presiding officer has closed the public hearing portion of the hearing, the hearing body shall openly discuss the issue and may further question a person submitting information or the staff if opportunity for rebuttal is provided.
(Ord. 12-96; Ord. 29-12 § 1.01)
A.
Following the hearing procedure described in RMC § 19.60.070, the hearing body shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. If the hearing is an appeal, the hearing body shall affirm, reverse or remand the decision that is on appeal.
B.
The hearing body's written decision shall be issued within 10 days after the hearing on the project permit application. The notice of final decision shall be issued within 120 days after the city notifies the applicant that the application is complete.
C.
The city shall provide a notice of decision that also includes a statement of any threshold determination made under SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW) and the procedures for administrative appeal, if any.
D.
The notice of decision shall be provided to the applicant and to any person who, prior to the rendering of the decision, requested notice of the decision or submitted substantive comments on the application.
E.
For Type I permits, the notice of decision shall be provided to the applicant and to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of the exterior areas of the subject property.
F.
If the city is unable to issue its final decision on a project permit application within the time limits provided for in this section, it shall provide written notice of this fact to the project 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 decision.
(Ord. 12-96; Ord. 29-12 § 1.01)
A.
In determining the number of days that have elapsed after the local government has notified the applicant that the application is complete for purposes of calculating the time for issuance of the notice of final decision, the following periods shall be excluded:
1.
Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the city to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information, including any additional information requested by a city hearing or decision-making body. The period shall be calculated from the date the city notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the date the local government determines whether the additional information satisfies the request for information or 14 days after the date the information has been provided to the city;
2.
If the city determines that the information submitted by the applicant under subsection (A)(1) of this section is insufficient, it shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies and the procedures under subsection (A)(1) of this section shall apply as if a new request for studies had been made;
3.
Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being prepared following a determination of significance pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW, if the city ordinance has established time periods for completion of environmental impact statements, or if the local government and the applicant in writing agree to a time period for completion of an environmental impact statement;
4.
Any period for administrative appeals of project permits, if an open record appeal hearing or a closed record appeal, or both, are allowed. The time period for consideration and decision on appeals shall not exceed:
5.
Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the local government; and
a.
The time limits established in this title do not apply if a project permit application:
i.
Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation;
ii.
Requires approval of the siting of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200;
iv.
Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date at which the revised project application is determined to be complete.
(Ord. 12-96; Ord. 29-12 § 1.01)
No development application for a Type II or Type III permit shall be approved by the city of Richland unless the decision to approve the permit application is supported by the following findings and conclusions:
A.
The development application is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Richland Municipal Code.
B.
Impacts of the development have been appropriately identified and mitigated under Chapter 22.09 RMC.
C.
The development application is beneficial to the public health, safety and welfare and is in the public interest.
D.
The development does not lower the level of service of transportation facilities below the level of service D, as identified in the comprehensive plan; provided, that if a development application is projected to decrease the level of service lower than level of service D, the development may still be approved if improvements or strategies to raise the level of service above the minimum level of service are made concurrent with development. For the purposes of this section, "concurrent with development" means that required improvements or strategies are in place at the time of occupancy of the project, or a financial commitment is in place to complete the required improvements within six years of approval of the development.
E.
Any conditions attached to a project approval are as a direct result of the impacts of the development proposal and are reasonably needed to mitigate the impacts of the development proposal.
(Ord. 02-00; Ord. 29-12 § 1.01; Ord. 29-12(A) § 1.01)