17.114.120 Exception – Public agency and utility.
(1) If the application of this chapter or Chapters 17.115 through 17.135 SMC would prohibit a development proposal by a public agency or public utility, the agency or utility may apply for an exception pursuant to this section.
(2) Exception Request and Review Process. An application for a public agency and utility exception shall be made to the city planning department and shall include a critical area identification form; critical area report, including mitigation plan, if necessary; and any other related project documents, such as permit applications to other agencies, special studies, and environmental documents prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW). The planning director shall prepare a recommendation to the hearing examiner based on review of the submitted information, a site inspection, and the proposal’s ability to comply with the public agency and utility exception review criteria in subsection (4) of this section.
(3) Hearing Examiner Review. The hearing examiner shall review the application and planning director’s recommendation, and conduct a public hearing pursuant to the provisions of SMC 17.80.230(2)(c). Within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act the application shall be processed as a shoreline conditional use subject to Ecology concurrence. The hearing examiner shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request based on the proposal’s ability to comply with all of the public agency and utility exception criteria in subsection (4) of this section.
(4) Public Agency and Utility Review Criteria. The criteria for review and approval of public agency and utility exceptions are as follows:
(a) There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on the critical areas;
(b) The application of this chapter or Chapters 17.115 through 17.135 SMC would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide utility services to the public;
(c) The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site;
(d) The proposal attempts to protect and mitigate impacts to the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and
(e) The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
(5) Burden of Proof. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support of the application and to provide sufficient information on which any decision has to be made on the application. (Ord. 1419 § 12, 2016; Ord. 1373 § 20, 2014; Ord. 1164 § 4, 2004).