The purpose of this chapter is to provide City regulations implementing the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA).

This chapter is applicable to all City departments/divisions, commissions, boards, committees, and City Council.

The intent of this chapter is to govern compliance by all City departments/divisions, commissions, boards, committees, and City Council with the procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971.

This chapter is not intended to govern compliance by the City with respect to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In those situations in which the City is required by Federal law or regulations to perform some element of compliance with NEPA, such compliance will be governed by the applicable Federal statute and regulations and not by this chapter.

In instances in which the City is the lead agency, the responsible official as designated by subsections B, C, D and E of this section shall carry out such duties and functions assigned the City as a lead agency.

The responsible official for General Government shall be the department director for projects initiated by that department or processed by that department. However, a department director may designate an environmental officer to carry out the duties and responsibilities mandated by this chapter, except that all threshold determinations shall only be made with the express consent and approval of the director.

The responsible official for the Department of Public Utilities shall be the Director of Utilities or designee for projects initiated or processed by the Department of Public Utilities.

For proposals initiated jointly by several departments within General Government, designation of the responsible official shall be by common agreement among the directors of the involved departments. In the event such department directors are unable to agree on who shall be the responsible official for such matter, determination of the responsible official shall be made by the City Manager.

For proposals initiated jointly by General Government and Public Utilities, designation of the responsible official shall be by common agreement between the City Manager and the Director of Utilities.

City staff carrying out the SEPA procedures shall be different from the staff making the proposal. That is, the responsible official shall not be the staff person responsible for filling out and signing the environmental checklist.

The director of the department with appropriate expertise shall be responsible for preparation of written comments responding to a consultation request from another lead agency prior to a threshold determination, participation in scoping, and reviewing a DEIS.

The director shall be responsible for the City’s compliance with WAC 197-11-550 whenever such department is a consulted agency and is authorized to develop operating procedures that will ensure that responses to consultation requests are prepared in a timely fashion and include data from all appropriate departments of the City.

The SEPA PIC shall maintain a DNS register.

The SEPA PIC shall maintain an EIS register including for each proposal the location, a brief description of the nature of the proposal, the date first listed on the register, and a contact person or office from which further information may be obtained.

The documents are required to be maintained at the information center for seven years, and shall be available for public inspection, and copies thereof shall be provided upon request. The City may charge for copies in the manner provided by Chapter 42.56 RCW (Public Records Act) and for the cost of mailing.

The SEPA PIC shall be the contact listed on the Department of Ecology’s list of SEPA authorities. It shall receive and route consultation requests, information requests, checklists, threshold determinations, and all other SEPA materials to appropriate departments or divisions of the City.

The SEPA PIC shall maintain a listing of recommended Federal, State, regional, local and private agencies/organizations and their addresses for use by responsible officials of the City in making scoping requests and circulating draft EISs.

The SEPA PIC shall review all threshold determinations and final environmental impact statements submitted to the Information Center by departments of General Government and Tacoma Public Utilities and approve such determinations of nonsignificance as to form at the time of filing.

The SEPA PIC shall maintain a general mailing list for the threshold determination distribution.

The following location constitutes the SEPA public information center:

The SEPA process shall be integrated with City activities to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, avoid delays later in the process, and seek to resolve potential problems.

The responsible official shall prepare the threshold determination and environmental impact statement (EIS), if required, at the earliest possible point in the planning and decision making process, once the principal features of a proposal and its environmental impacts can be reasonably identified.

At the latest, the responsible official shall begin environmental review, if required, when the application for both SEPA and the underlying action is determined to be complete. The responsible official may initiate review earlier and may have informal conferences with applicants. A final threshold determination or Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) shall precede or accompany the staff report, if any, in a public hearing on an application.

When the environmental effects can be meaningfully evaluated on a proposal, the responsible official shall begin the preparation of EIS on private proposals at the conceptual stage rather than the final detailed design stage.

An overall decision to proceed with a course of action may involve a series of actions or decisions by one or more agencies. If several agencies have jurisdiction over a proposal, they should coordinate their SEPA processes wherever possible. The responsible official shall comply with lead agency determination requirements in WAC 197-11 and this chapter.

To meet the requirement to ensure that environmental values and amenities are given appropriate consideration along with economic and technical considerations, environmental documents and analyses shall be circulated and reviewed with other planning documents to the fullest extent possible.

For their own public proposals, lead agencies may extend the time limits prescribed in these rules.

The construction or location of any residential structure of twenty or fewer dwelling units. In the Urban Residential (UR) Districts, the construction or location of any residential structure of forty or fewer dwelling units, provided, developments of more than twenty units must demonstrate that soil testing per Department of Ecology and/or Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department requirements has been completed and appropriate mitigation is incorporated into the development;

The construction of a barn, loafing shed, farm equipment storage building, produce storage or packing structure, or similar agricultural structure, covering 30,000 square feet or less, and to be used only by the property owner or their agent in the conduct of farming the property. This exemption shall not apply to feed lots;

The construction of an office, school, commercial, recreational, service, or storage building with 12,000 square feet or less of gross floor area, and with associated parking facilities designed for no more than 40 automobiles;

The demolition of an office, school, commercial, recreational, service, or storage building with 12,000 square feet or less of gross floor area;

The construction of a parking lot designed for no more than 40 automobiles;

Any landfill or excavation of 500 cubic yards or less throughout the total lifetime of the fill or excavation; and any fill or excavation classified as a class I, II, or III forest practice under RCW 76.09.050 or regulations thereunder.

The construction of an individual battery charging station or an individual battery exchange station, that is otherwise categorically exempt shall continue to be categorically exempt even if part of a larger proposal that includes other battery charging stations, other battery exchange stations, or other related utility networks.

Those activities excluded from the definition of “action” in WAC 197-11-704, or categorically exempted by WAC 197-11-800, are exempt from the threshold determination. No exemption is allowed for the sole reason that actions are considered to be of a “ministerial” nature or of an environmentally regulatory or beneficial nature.

The applicability of the exemptions shall be determined by the responsible official.

The responsible official who is determining whether or not a proposal is exempt shall ascertain the total scope of the proposal and the governmental licenses, permits, or approvals required:

Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.140(2) Local Project Review, categorically exempt proposals shall be exempt from the procedural requirements for complete application and public notice under SEPA. {13.12.305(7)}

The Environmental checklist form shall be the same as that on file with the SEPA Public Information Center, titled “Environmental Checklist,” which is incorporated by reference in this chapter.

The checklist shall be filed no later than the time an application is filed for a permit, license, certificate, or other approval. {13.12.315(1)}

For private proposals, the responsible official shall require the applicant to complete the environmental checklist, providing assistance as necessary. For public proposals, the department initiating the proposal shall complete the environmental checklist for that proposal.

The items in the environmental checklist are not weighted. The mention of one or many adverse environmental impacts does not necessarily mean that the impacts are significant or that the impacts cannot be mitigated. Conversely, a probable significant adverse impact on the environment identified in the checklist may result in the need for an EIS.

Purpose. To support the air quality assessment of the Environmental Checklist by providing clear submittal requirements to applicants; ensuring submittal documentation is consistent with best practices; and providing for consistent review and application of assessment and mitigation strategies for air quality impacts.

Applicability. The following supplemental materials are required for industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution facilities that are required to prepare an environmental checklist under the provisions of 13.12.420.

Supplemental Environmental Checklist submittal requirements.

Based on the applicant’s assessment of compliance with these plans and regulations, and a review of EPA’s Air Toxics Screening Assessment (AirToxScreen), 2023 Tacoma Seattle Air Toxics Report, or other best available information to estimate health risks for air toxics, the City may condition projects to reduce pollutant generation and apply mitigation recommendations from these sources as well as the Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy, or other air quality mitigation plans and strategies as adopted by the Department of Ecology or Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.

Based on the review of the GHG inventory and reduction plan and the completed Tacoma Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist, the City may condition projects to mitigate significant impacts and to align with overall GHG reduction targets. Proposed GHG reductions and mitigation measures shall be based first on the Optional elements identified in the Tacoma Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist.

If the responsible official determines there will be no probable significant adverse environmental impacts from a proposal, the responsible official shall prepare and issue a determination of non-significance (DNS). If the City adopts another environmental document in support of a threshold determination as set forth in Part 6 of this chapter, the City shall issue a notice of adoption and/or combine the documents.

A DNS issued under the provisions of this section shall not become effective until the expiration of the appeal period. The filing of an appeal shall stay the effect of the DNS and no major action in regard to a proposal may be taken during the pendency of an appeal and until all action regarding the appeal is final. A decision to reverse the determination of the responsible official and uphold the appeal shall further stay any decision, proceedings, or actions in regard to the proposal.

When a DNS is issued for any of the proposals listed below, the requirements in this subsection shall be met. The requirements of this subsection do not apply to a DNS issued when the optional DNS process is used (Section 13.12.450).

The responsible official shall withdraw a DNS if:

The responsible official may issue a determination of nonsignificance based upon conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or upon changes to, or clarifications of, the proposal made by the applicant.

If an applicant requests early notice of whether a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) or a Determination of Significance (DS) is likely, the request must:

As much as possible, the responsible official should assist the applicant with identification of impacts to the extent necessary to formulate mitigation measures.

If the applicant submits a changed or clarified proposal, along with a revised environmental checklist, the responsible official will make a threshold determination based on the changed or clarified proposal:

Mitigation measures incorporated in the DNS or MDNS shall be deemed conditions of approval of the associated building, work order, land use, or other development permit or license, unless revised or changed by the decision maker, and shall be placed as conditions directly upon the permit decision. The conditions shall be incorporated into the permit and shall be enforced in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit. {13.12.350(7)}

If the tentative decision for an approval of a permit does not include mitigation measures that were incorporated in the SEPA determination for the proposal, the threshold determination should be evaluated to assure consistency with Section 13.12.430D of this chapter (withdrawal of DNS).

The responsible official’s written response under subsection (2) of this section shall not be construed as a determination of significance. In addition, preliminary discussions of clarifications or changes to a proposal, as opposed to a written request for early notice, shall not bind the responsible official to a mitigated DNS.

The responsible official may use the optional DNS process if they have determined that significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely, and a single integrated comment period is desired to obtain comments for the application and the likely threshold determination for the proposal. If this process is used, a second comment period will typically not be required when the DNS is issued.

If the optional DNS process is used, the following shall apply:

If the City indicates on the notice of application that a DNS is likely, an agency with jurisdiction may assume lead agency status during the comment period on the notice.

The responsible official shall consider timely comments on the notice and either:

If a DNS or mitigated DNS is issued under subsection (4)(a) of this section, the City shall send a copy of the DNS or mitigated DNS to the Department of Ecology, agencies with jurisdiction, those who commented, and anyone requesting a copy. A copy of the environmental checklist need not be re-circulated.

The responsible official shall narrow the scope of every EIS to the probable significant adverse impacts and reasonable alternatives, including mitigation measures. For example, if there are only two or three significant impacts or reasonable alternatives, the EIS shall be focused on those.

To ensure that every EIS is concise and addresses the significant environmental issues, the responsible official shall:

Meetings or scoping documents, including notices that the scope has been revised, may be used but are not required. The responsible official shall integrate the scoping process with the existing planning and decision making process in order to avoid duplication and delay.

The responsible official shall revise the scope of an EIS if substantial changes are made later in the proposal, or if significant new circumstances or information arise that bear on the proposal and its significant impacts.

DEISs shall be prepared according to the scope decided upon by the responsible official in the scoping process.

EIS preparation may begin during scoping.

Preparation of the EIS is the responsibility of the City, by or under the direction of its responsible official, as specified by Section 13.12.220 of this chapter. Regardless of who participates in the preparation of the EIS, it is the EIS of the responsible official. The responsible official, prior to distributing an EIS, shall be satisfied that it complies with these rules and the procedures of the City of Tacoma.

The responsible official may have an EIS prepared by City staff, an applicant or its agents, or by an outside consultant retained by either an applicant or the responsible official. The responsible official shall assure that the EIS is prepared in a professional manner and with appropriate interdisciplinary methodology. The responsible official shall direct the areas of research and examination to be undertaken as a result of the scoping process, as well as the organization of the resulting document.

If a person other than the responsible official is preparing the EIS, the responsible official or designee shall:

Any outside person, firm, or corporation assisting in the preparation of an EIS shall have expertise and experience in preparing environmental impact statements and shall be approved by the responsible official prior to participation in the EIS development process.

Field investigation or research by the applicant, reasonably related to determining the environmental impacts associated with the proposal, may be required, with the cost of such field investigation or research to be borne by the applicant.

A FEIS shall be issued by the responsible official and sent to the Department of Ecology (two copies), to all agencies with jurisdiction, to all agencies who commented on the DEIS, and to anyone requesting a copy of the FEIS. (Fees may be charged for the FEIS, see WAC 197-11-504)

The responsible official shall send the FEIS, or a notice that the FEIS is available, to anyone who commented on the DEIS or scoping notice and to those who received but did not comment on the DEIS. If the responsible official receives petitions from a specific group or organization, a notice or EIS may be sent to the group and not to each petitioner. Failure to notify any individual under this subsection shall not affect the legal validity of the City’s SEPA compliance.

The responsible official shall make additional copies available for review in their office and in the SEPA Public Information Center.

The date of issue is the date the FEIS, or notice of availability, is sent to the persons and agencies specified in the preceding subsections and the FEIS is publicly available. Copies sent to the Department of Ecology shall satisfy the statutory requirement of availability to the governor.

The City shall not act on a proposal for which an EIS has been required prior to 15 days after issuance of the FEIS. Further, filing of an appeal of the adequacy of a FEIS pursuant to Section 13.12.820 of this chapter shall stay the effect of such FEIS and no major action in regard to a proposal may be taken during the pendency of an appeal and until the appeal is finally disposed of by the Hearing Examiner. A decision that the FEIS is inadequate and upholding the appeal shall further stay any decision, proceedings, or actions in regard to the proposal.

The responsible official shall issue the FEIS within 60 days of the end of the comment period for the DEIS, unless the proposal is unusually large in scope, the environmental impact associated with the proposal is unusually complex, or extensive modifications are required to respond to public comments.

The form and content of the FEIS shall be as specified in WAC 197-11-400-460.

The Responsible Official may authorize preparation of a Planned Action for a specific type of development, other than for an essential public facility or facilities as defined in RCW 36.70A.200, or for a specific geographical area that is less extensive than the jurisdictional boundaries of the City. The Planned Action must have the significant impacts adequately addressed in an environmental impact statement prepared in conjunction with a comprehensive plan, a comprehensive plan amendment, a subarea plan or for the phased project.

Ordinance. A Planned Action must be designated by ordinance of the City Council. The adopting ordinance must describe the planned action projects and may establish a time period for completion of the planned action projects.

Project actions must be included in the designated ordinance and impacts addressed in an EIS prepared in conjunction with a comprehensive plan, amendment thereto, a subarea plan or a phased project.

Planned action project review. Projects developed within a planned action area shall be exempted from further environmental review. However, the project proponent shall describe the environmental mitigation to be provided by subsequent or implementing projects, and must include a checklist (not a SEPA Checklist, but as set forth in the planned action EIS) that is to be filed with the project application and used to verify that:

The adopting ordinance will state that if notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a planned action and that if notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit no special notice is required. The adopting ordinance may limit a planned action to a time period identified in the ordinance.

The City may adopt optional comprehensive plan elements and optional development regulations that apply within designated centers or for subareas within one-half mile of a major transit stop zoned for higher density housing consistent with RCW 43.21C.240.

Designation of areas. The centers must be designated by the Puget Sound Regional Council as a Regional Growth Center or a Manufacturing-Industrial Center or be an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is zoned to have an average minimum density of fifteen dwelling units or more per gross acre.

The City shall prepare a non-project (as defined in WAC 197-11-774) environmental impact statement.

Community meeting.

Appeal. Any person that has standing to appeal the adoption of the sub-area plan or the implementing regulations under RCW 36.70A.280 has standing to bring an appeal of the non-project EIS as set forth in this chapter.

Transfer of development rights. As an integral part of preparing a sub-area plan/non-project EIS the City shall consider establishing a transfer of development rights program in consultation with Pierce County, a program that conserves county-designated agricultural and forest land of long-term commercial significance. If the city decides not to establish a transfer of development rights program, the city must state in the record the reasons for not adopting the program. The city's decision not to establish a transfer of development rights program is not subject to appeal. Nothing in this sub-section may be used as a basis to challenge the sub-area plan.

Fees for environmental review. The City may recover its reasonable expenses of preparation of a non-project EIS prepared under this section through access to financial assistance under RCW 36.70A.490 or funding from private sources. In addition, the City is authorized to recover a portion of its reasonable expenses of preparation of such a non-project EIS by the assessment of reasonable and proportionate fees upon subsequent development that is consistent with the plan and development regulations adopted under this section as long as the development makes use of and benefits from the non-project EIS prepared by the City. Any assessment fees collected from subsequent development may be used to reimburse funding received from private sources. In order to collect such fees, the city must enact an ordinance that sets forth objective standards for determining how the fees to be imposed upon each development will be proportionate to the impacts of each development and to the benefits accruing to each development from the non-project EIS. Any disagreement about the reasonableness or amount of the fees imposed upon a development may not be the basis for delay in issuance of a project permit for that development. The fee assessed by the city may be paid with the written stipulation "paid under protest" and if the city provides for an administrative appeal of its decision on the project for which the fees are imposed, any dispute about the amount of the fees must be resolved in the same administrative appeal process.

Additional environmental review. If a proposed development is inconsistent with the subarea plan policies and development regulations, the City shall require additional environmental review in accordance with this chapter.

Effective dates.

Projects located within the following areas are subject to the Archaeological, cultural, and historic resources standards in TMC Chapter 13.13:

Purpose and applicability.

Definitions. For definitions, see Section 13.01.

Traffic impact assessments. Transportation information is required to be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department at the time of permit intake. If such information is not submitted, the Public Works Department may delay completing the application process until such time as the information is made available. After the application is accepted, permit review by Public Works Department staff may result in a request for additional information, which will be detailed in a correction notice. The type and extent of analysis required, which is outlined below, is based on the project size, as follows:

When notice is required, the responsible official must use reasonable methods to inform the public and other agencies that an environmental document is being prepared or is available and that public hearing(s), if any, will be held.

Notice requirements, DNS.

Notice requirements, EIS.

Documents which are required to be sent to the Department of Ecology will be published in the SEPA register, which will also constitute a form of public notice. However, publication in the SEPA register shall not, in itself, meet the notice requirements.

The director of the department with appropriate expertise shall be responsible for preparation of written comments responding to a consultation request from another lead agency prior to a threshold determination, participation in scoping, and reviewing a DEIS.

The director shall be responsible for the City’s compliance with WAC 197-11-550 whenever such department is a consulted agency and is authorized to develop operating procedures that will ensure that responses to consultation requests are prepared in a timely fashion and include data from all appropriate departments of the City.

Any action by the City of Tacoma on public or private proposals that is not exempt may be conditioned or denied under SEPA to mitigate the environmental impact subject to the following limitations:

The decision maker should judge whether possible mitigation measures are likely to protect or enhance environmental quality. The EIS should briefly indicate the intended environmental benefits of mitigation measures for significant impacts. An EIS is not required to analyze in detail the environmental impacts of mitigation measures, unless the mitigation measures:

The City has prepared the comprehensive plan, which contains agency SEPA policies and has further set them forth in this chapter for the information of the public and of other agencies. This document includes by reference the regulations, plans, or codes formally designated under this section and RCW 43.21C.060 as possible bases for conditioning or denying proposals. This document is available to the public in the SEPA PIC and shall be available to applicants prior to preparing a draft EIS.

All appeals under this chapter shall be conducted in accordance with RCW 43.21C.075 concerning appeals of Environmental Determinations. Except in the following cases, appeals on Environmental Determinations shall be heard at the same time as appeals on the underlying governmental action:

Appeal to the Hearing Examiner.

Appeals of non-land use, shoreline, and other actions.

Notice of action. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080, notice of any action taken by a governmental agency may be publicized by the applicant for, or proponent of, such action in the form as provided by Planning and Development Services and WAC 197-11-990.

The publication establishes a time period wherein any action to set aside, enjoin, review, or otherwise challenge any such governmental action on grounds of noncompliance with the provisions of SEPA must be commenced, or be barred. Any subsequent action of the City for which the regulations of the City permit use of the same detailed statement to be utilized and as long as there is not substantial change in the project between the time of the action and any such subsequent action, shall not be set aside, enjoined, reviewed, or thereafter challenged on grounds of noncompliance with RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c).

The City may, at its option, designate areas within its jurisdiction which are environmentally sensitive areas pursuant to WAC 197-11-908.

The South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District, as described in Section 13.06.070 of this title, is hereby designated a critical area, subject to the requirements set forth in this title.

Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, erosion hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, steep slopes, wetlands and streams, as described in Chapter 13.11 of this title, are hereby designated critical areas, subject to the requirements set forth in Chapter 13.11 of this title.

The scope of environmental review of actions within these areas shall be limited to: