Washington Administrative Code › Title 365 - Commerce, Department of (Community Development) › Chapter 365-197 - Project consistency › Section 365-197-030 - Integrated project review - GMA project consistency analysis and environmental review under SEPA

Current through Register Vol. 24-14, July 15, 2024
The GMA is a fundamental building block of regulatory reform.
						The GMA should serve as an integrating framework for other land use-related
						laws. (ESHB 1724, Section 1.)
Integration of permit review and environmental review is
						intended to eliminate duplication in processes and requirements. The
						legislature recognized that consistency analysis and determinations of whether
						environmental impacts have been adequately addressed involve many of the same
						studies and analyses. SEPA substantive authority should not be used to
						condition or deny a permit for those impacts adequately addressed by the
						applicable development regulations.
The primary role of environmental review under SEPA at the
						project level is to focus on those environmental impacts that have not been
						addressed by a GMA county's/city's development regulations and/or comprehensive
						plan adopted under
						chapter
						36.70A RCW, or other
						local, state, and federal laws and regulations. SEPA substantive authority
						should only be used when the impacts cannot be adequately addressed by existing
						laws. As consistency analysis involves the application of development
						regulations and/or the comprehensive plan to a specific project, it will also
						help answer the question of whether a project's environmental impacts have been
						adequately addressed by the regulations and/or plan policies.
During project review, a GMA county/city may determine that
						some or all of the environmental impacts of the project have been addressed by
						its development regulations, comprehensive plan, or other applicable local,
						state, or federal laws or rules (RCW  43.21C.240 and
						WAC 197-11-158). The GMA county/city
						may make this determination during the course of environmental review and
						preparation of a threshold determination (including initial consistency
						review), if the impacts have been adequately addressed in the applicable
						regulations, plan policies, or other laws. "Adequately addressed" is defined as
						having identified the impacts and avoided, otherwise mitigated, or designated
						as acceptable the impacts associated with certain levels of service, land use
						designations, development standards, or other land use planning decisions
						required or allowed under the GMA. Once a determination has been made that an
						impact has been adequately addressed, the jurisdiction may not require
						additional mitigation for that impact under its SEPA substantive
						authority.
Thus, through the project review process:
(1) If the applicable regulations require
					studies that adequately analyze all of the project's specific probable adverse
					environmental impacts, additional studies under SEPA will not be necessary on
					those impacts;
(2) If the
					applicable regulations require measures that adequately address such
					environmental impacts, additional measures would likewise not be required under
					SEPA; and
(3) If the applicable
					regulations do not adequately analyze or address a proposal's specific probable
					adverse environmental impacts, SEPA provides the authority and procedures for
					additional review. (Note to
					RCW
					 43.21C.240.)
Statutory Authority:
							RCW
							36.70B.040. 01-13-039, §
										365-197-030, filed 6/13/01,
							effective 7/14/01.