The city shall require a concurrency review to determine that public facilities will be available at the time of development for all development within the city limits and urban growth area. The concurrency review shall be provided as follows:

(1)

Residential uses. As a part of all city permit review for single-family and multifamily residences upon existing lots the city shall review the available capacity of the city's facilities. Administrative payments, when adopted by the city council, shall be due with the collection of the city building application fee.

(2)

Commercial uses. In designated commercial zones or home occupation applications as a part of all city permit review the commercial uses upon existing lots the city shall review the available capacity of the city's facilities. Administrative payments, when adopted by the city council, shall be due with the issuance of the city building application fee.

(3)

Administrative fee. An administrative fee shall be required at the time of application for all other applications as noted in subsection (4) of this section. The administrative fee shall be in an amount as established by the city council from time to time.

(4)

All other applications. Except as noted above all development requests for industrial uses, conditional uses, major land partitions and subdivisions the applicant shall provide for the review as provided in the following sections.

(Ord. No. 99-01, § 1, 2-17-1999)

In the review of industrial uses, subdivisions and conditional use proposals the city shall require submittal of an engineering analysis of the impact of the proposed development on the city's adopted level of services as set forth in appendix B. The engineering analysis, by a professional engineer (PE) licensed in the state, shall show the calculation of all city capital facility capacities and levels of services before and after the proposed development. The analysis will be at the applicant's expense.

(Ord. No. 99-01, § 2, 2-17-1999)

Mitigation shall be required in the following instances:

(1)

State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Where the capacity analysis of the application for development indicates a higher proportion of the use of the available capacity (i.e., proposed use/available capacity) than anticipated in the city comprehensive plan/EIS, (i.e., planned use/planned capacity) the applicant shall propose environmental mitigation measures as part of its environmental check list.

(2)

Level of service (LOS). Where the capacity analysis and level of services review of the application for development indicates that the level of services will drop below the city's established standard the applicant shall propose mitigation measures that will achieve and maintain the city's standard for level of service. When required, if no mitigation is proposed the application must be denied as per RCW 36.70A.020.

(3)

Mitigation payments. Where mitigation proposed involves significant capital improvements the signed agreement for city services on city forms shall be included with the application with an agreed upon schedule of improvements or payments to the city for improvements to begin upon final approval of the development and to be complete upon occupancy or within six years by approval of the city council. Obtained funds for improvements not made by the city within 12 years may be returned upon request.

(Ord. No. 99-01, § 3, 2-17-1999)

The city clerk-treasurer shall provide the applicant with a copy of this chapter prior to the required pre-application conference. The city shall review the application, environmental checklist and proposed mitigation and engineering analysis according to established city development standards and within required time lines shall submit comments to the decision maker as determined by the development regulations for consideration in required public hearings, if any. For complex applications as determined by the city, the city engineer may be requested to review the analysis and provide comment within the required time line at the applicant's expense.

(Ord. No. 99-01, § 4, 2-17-1999)

As an integral part of the review for the development, the applicable decision maker on the underlying permit shall review the application, engineering analysis, SEPA environmental checklist/mitigation and level of services (LOS) mitigation proposed along with the public works comments. The concurrency review shall be part of the record of approval or denial and approved mitigation shall be required and included in the conditions for any development approval and shall be kept on file in the offices of the city clerk.

(Ord. No. 99-01, § 5, 2-17-1999)

The applicable decision maker may waive the concurrency review on its own motion if it provides a finding for the record of its determination that adequate public facilities will be available for the proposed development at the time of development occupancy.

(Ord. No. 99-01, § 6, 2-17-1999)

The city council shall review the concurrency management system annually as a part of its evaluation of the city comprehensive plan and planning needs review.

(Ord. No. 99-01, § 7, 2-17-1999)