Section 703:  Development Impacts and SEPA / Growth Management 

Section 703:  Development Impacts and SEPA / Growth Management 

SEPA Requirements and Process

The Washington State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.120, and the SEPA rules, WAC 197-11-904, require all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals.  The act also requires that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. 

A portion of WAC 197-11-960 comprises an environmental checklist which must be answered as completely as possible.  The checklist assists agencies to determine whether or not a proposed school facility will require the preparation of an environmental impact statement.  This form does not supersede or void application forms required under any other federal or state statute or local ordinance. 

The district may ascertain if it is the appropriate lead agency having jurisdiction over the proposed facility (action) and may decide if a project is exempt from SEPA requirements.  If a district determines it does not have exempt status, it may have its architect/engineer or consultant complete the environmental checklist.  The lead agency must consider the checklist information and ascertain whether or not the action will have a significant effect upon the quality of the environment. 

If a threshold determination by the lead agency declares the proposal to be non-significant and there are no appeals, the district may proceed with the project.  A copy of the Determination of Nonsignificance – or, Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance – and a copy of the completed environmental checklist must be transmitted to the Environmental Review section, Department of Ecology, for permanent recording of the determination.  

If a determination of significance is issued by the lead agency, a draft EIS and a scoping form must be prepared, reviewed by all appropriate authorities and published. 

The district’s compliance with the requirements of Chapter 197-11 WAC must be certified to OSPI. 

Occasionally, public hearings must be conducted on the EIS, and a final EIS with public comments would be required.  Guidelines for preparation and review of the EIS are available from the Environmental Review section, Department of Ecology. 

Growth Management Act 

The Growth Management Act (GMA) has significant importance to districts in the counties which are planning under the act.  Districts will obtain maximum benefit from the GMA by actively participating in the planning process with the city or county planning authority. 

Growth management planning may benefit districts by providing information and location of planned growth in the community, guidance in locating school sites, and perhaps financial assistance for new school construction in the form of impact fees.  Disadvantages of growth management planning are that districts may find themselves restricted in locating new schools and in obtaining necessary zoning approvals. 

The GMA requires cities and counties to designate urban growth areas (UGAs) as limits of services such as water, sewer, and streets.  Locating school facilities within the UGAs may be limited either directly through land use regulations or indirectly through restrictions on utilities.  School facilities outside UGAs, that require water and/or sewer service, may need extraordinary measures such as service lines dedicated solely to (and paid for by) the district.  School facilities not listed in the capital facilities element of the local comprehensive plan may not be approved. 

At least two of these elements, land use and the capital facilities plan, are critical to school districts. The GMA requires comprehensive plans to include:

  • A land use element designating the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land for public facilities, which includes schools. A capital facilities plan element consisting of:
    • An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations of facilities and their present level of service.
    • A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities based on their proposed level of service.
    • The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities.
    • At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and will clearly identify sources of public money for such purposes.
    • A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. 

If a district is considering a site near, on, or outside its Urban Growth Area, it should consult with city and county planning agencies and with its land use attorney. 

Local jurisdictions are authorized to impose impact fees for school facilities.  The ability of a local jurisdiction to assess impact fees for school districts are dependent upon the adoption of a capital facilities plan element and an enabling ordinance.