Article X State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Implementation

SEPA Rules – Adoption by Reference. The county hereby adopts by reference the SEPA rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC. The SEPA rules must be used in conjunction with this article. This article contains uniform usage and definitions of terms under SEPA and the SEPA rules.

The county adopts by reference the definitions in WAC 197-11-700 et seq., as supplemented by Chapter 18.10 JCC.

(Ord. 11-24 (Att. A))

§ 18.40.710 Purpose.

The purpose of this article is to adopt regulations that implement SEPA, consistent with the SEPA rules. This is accomplished by ensuring that:

Environmental values are considered in making land use and agency decisions, and reasonable alternatives and conditions are identified and implemented to mitigate (as provided in this article) the adverse environmental impacts of proposed actions on the environment;

Adequate and timely environmental information is gathered and provided to decision-makers, and procedural delay and duplication is avoided; and

§ 18.40.720 Responsible official – Decision-making authority.

Opportunity for public involvement is included in the decision-making process.

(Ord. 8-06 § 1; Ord. 11-24 (Att. A))

The responsible official shall be the administrator.

For those proposals for which the county is the lead agency, the responsible official is vested with authority to and shall make the threshold determination, determine an exemption (if any), supervise scoping and preparation of any required environmental impact statement (EIS), administer the SEPA rules and this article, and perform any other functions assigned to the "lead agency" or "responsible official" by the SEPA rules.

The responsible official shall be responsible for the written comments of the county in response to a consultation request:

Prior to issuance of a threshold determination;

For participation in scoping; or

For review of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).

§ 18.40.730 Lead agency determination and responsibilities.

The department of community development (DCD) shall maintain all documents required by Chapter 40.14 RCW (Preservation and Destruction of Public Records) and make them available in accordance with Chapter 42.56 RCW (Public Records Act).

(Ord. 8-06 § 1; Ord. 11-24 (Att. A))

The county department receiving application for or initiating a proposal that includes a non-exempt action shall determine the lead agency for the proposal under WAC 197-11-050 and WAC 197-11-922 through 197-11-940, unless lead agency has been previously established.

When the county is lead agency, the responsible official shall supervise compliance with threshold determination requirements. If an EIS is required, that official shall supervise preparation of the EIS.

When the county is not lead agency, the county shall use and consider the determination of nonsignificance (DNS), mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MDNS), or final environmental impact statement (FEIS) of the lead agency in making decisions on the proposal. Unless required under WAC 197-11-600 no DNS or EIS in addition to that issued by the lead agency shall be prepared. The county may, however, conduct supplemental environmental review under WAC 197-11-600.

If the county receives a lead agency determination that appears inconsistent with criteria contained in WAC 197-11-922 through 197-11-940, it may object to the determination. Objection must be made to the agency that made the determination and must be resolved within 15 calendar days of receipt of the determination, or the county must petition the Department of Ecology for lead agency determination under WAC 197-11-946 within the 15-calendar-day period. The responsible official may initiate any such petition on behalf of the county.

§ 18.40.740 Initiation of SEPA review – Limitations on actions during review.

Any county department making lead agency determination for a private proposal shall require sufficient information to identify all other agencies with jurisdiction over the proposal.

(Ord. 8-06 § 1; Ord. 11-24 (Att. A))

Initiation of Review. The county's SEPA process begins when a permit application is submitted to the county, or when the county proposes to take an official action as defined in WAC 197-11-704.

§ 18.40.750 Categorically exempt actions – Use of existing documents and analyses.

Limitations on Actions during SEPA Process. Until the responsible official issues a final DNS or FEIS and the SEPA appeal period has lapsed, the county shall not take any project action (issuing permits, approvals, etc.) on a nonexempt project, or take any nonproject action (decisions on policies, plans, programs, etc.), that would have an adverse environmental impact or would limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.

(Ord. 8-06 § 1; Ord. 11-24 (Att. A))

Categorically Exempt Levels.

Except with the adoption of flexible threshold limits as set forth in subsections (1)(b) through (e) of this section, Jefferson County adopts and incorporates by reference the categorical exemption levels set forth in WAC 197-11-800.

Pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1)(c)(v), the maximum exempt level for any landfill or excavation activity in Jefferson County shall be 500 cubic yards.

Pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1)(c)(ii), the maximum exempt level for 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, and to be used only by the property owner or his or her agent in the conduct of farming the property. This exemption shall not apply to feed lots.

Pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1)(c)(iii), the maximum exempt level for the construction of an office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage building with 12,000 square feet of gross floor area, and with associated parking facilities designed for up to 40 automobiles.

Pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1)(c)(iv), the construction of a parking lot designed for 40 automobiles shall be exempt.

Categorically Exempt Actions. Actions categorically exempt under subsection (1) of this section do not require review under this article or the preparation of an environmental impact statement, and may not be conditioned or denied under SEPA, except as provided in WAC 197-11-305 and subsection (3) of this section.

Use of Exemptions.

The responsible official shall determine the applicability of a categorical exemption. The determination by the responsible official that a proposal is exempt from SEPA is final. None of the procedural requirements of this article (except as provided in WAC 197-11-305 and this subsection) apply to an exempt proposal.

If a proposal includes exempt and non-exempt actions, the responsible official shall determine the lead agency pursuant to WAC 197-11-050.

If a proposal includes exempt and non-exempt actions, the county may authorize exempt actions prior to compliance with procedural requirements of this article, except as provided in subsections (3)(d) through (3)(g) of this section.

Consistent with WAC 197-11-070, 197-11-305 and 197-11-800, the county may not authorize the use of exemptions for:

Actions that are not exempt;

Any action that would have a probable significant adverse environmental impact;

A series of exempt actions that are physically or functionally related which together would result in a probable significant adverse environmental impact for the overall project; or

(iv)

Any action that would limit choice of alternatives.

The county may withhold approval of an exempt action that would lead to modification of the physical environment when such modification would serve no purpose if nonexempt action(s) were not approved (see WAC 197-11-305(1)(b)(i)).

(f)

The county may withhold approval of exempt actions that would lead to substantial financial expenditures by a private applicant when the expenditures would serve no purpose if the non-exempt action(s) were not approved.

(g)

Actions identified as categorically exempt from SEPA under WAC 197-11-800 shall remain exempt under SEPA even when located in one or more of the environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) classified, designated and mapped under Article VI-D of Chapter 18.15 JCC. However, the categorical exemptions listed in WAC 197-11-800 shall not apply when undertaken wholly or partly on lands covered by water, regardless of whether or not such lands are mapped as ESAs. Proposals in areas subject to this subsection (3)(g) shall require environmental review and a threshold determination, and may be conditioned or denied under this article (see WAC 197-11-756, 197-11-800, and 197-11-908).

Use of Existing Documents and Analyses. Procedures for the use, adoption, or incorporation of existing documents and analyses are provided in WAC 197-11-600, 197-11-610, 197-11-630, and 197-11-635.

Planned Actions.

The county may, as part of its planning processes, elect to perform or have performed for it in advance of any development proposal, the environmental review and analysis for certain actions and their probable impacts. These "planned actions" must be so designated by ordinance or resolution adopted by the county after the analysis of the actions and their impacts has been completed.

Planned actions must be located in an urban growth area, a master planned resort (MPR), or a fully contained community, and meet the additional requirements contained in RCW 43.21C.031(2).

The analysis must be sufficient to identify and analyze all probable significant impacts and most nonsignificant impacts of the actions, and to identify (and, optionally, provide) to a great extent the mitigation necessary (i.e., the significant impacts must be "adequately addressed" in an environmental impact statement).

As a result of the analysis in subsections (5)(a) and (5)(c) of this section, a development proposal being prepared under a planned action does not require a threshold determination or the preparation of an environmental impact statement, but is subject to a full environmental review of its impacts and full requirements for mitigation as identified and specified by the review for the planned action in subsection (5)(c) of this section.

§ 18.40.760 Analysis of nonexempt project and nonproject actions.

If the environmental review identifies additional impacts not addressed by the planned action, a checklist and threshold determination shall be required.

(Ord. 8-06 § 1; Ord. 14-18 § 4 (Exh. B); Ord. 11-24 (Att. A))

The procedures and requirements in this article apply equally to project and nonproject actions.

Submittal of Environmental Checklist.

A completed environmental checklist shall be submitted with any application for a permit or approval not specifically exempted as per JCC § 18.40.750(1). However, a checklist is not required if the county and applicant agree that an EIS is required, if SEPA compliance has been completed, or if SEPA compliance has been initiated by another agency. The county shall use the checklist to determine lead agency and to make the threshold determination if the county is lead agency.

Applicants for private proposals shall complete the checklist, and the county shall provide assistance as appropriate. For county proposals, the department initiating the proposal shall complete the checklist.

Review of Project Impacts. The responsible official shall review the checklist, other information about a project, and the applicable regulations to review the environmental impacts of the project and make a threshold determination. In making this review the responsible official may determine:

All of the project's probable significant adverse environmental impacts have been adequately identified and analyzed. If not, additional studies and analyses may be required;

Some or all of the probable significant adverse environmental impacts have been adequately addressed and mitigated in this UDC and other development regulations adopted by Jefferson County, the Comprehensive Plan, or in other applicable local, state, or federal laws and rules by:

Avoiding or otherwise mitigating the impacts; or

The county has designated as acceptable certain levels of service, land use designations, development standards, or other land use planning required or allowed by the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW).

Where probable significant adverse environmental impacts have not been adequately mitigated, the responsible official may condition the project with additional mitigation measures or deny the permit;

To determine if the probable significant adverse environmental impacts have been addressed by an existing rule or law of another agency with jurisdiction, the county shall consult orally or in writing with that agency and may expressly defer to that agency. In making this deferral, the county shall base or condition its project approval on compliance with that agency's rules or laws;

If the county bases or conditions its SEPA approval of the project wholly or in part on compliance with the requirements or mitigation measures identified in subsections (2)(b)(i) and (2)(b)(ii), during project review the county shall not impose additional mitigation under SEPA for those impacts so conditioned;

Nothing in this subsection limits the authority of the county in its review or mitigation of a project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental analyses and requirements under other laws, as provided by SEPA.

Threshold Determination. The "threshold determination" is the decision regarding whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the project shall have a probable significant adverse environmental impact on an element of the environment. A threshold determination is required for any proposal that meets the definition of an "action" under WAC 197-11-704 and is not categorically exempt, a planned action, or subject to WAC 197-11-600(3). The responsible official shall make and publish the threshold determination for public comment as provided in JCC § 18.40.780:

Determination of Significance (DS). If a project may have a probable significant adverse environmental impact, a DS shall be issued, and an EIS shall be required. In determining an impact's significance, the responsible official shall take into account the guidance in WAC 197-11-330 and 197-11-794, including:

Locational, quantitative, and cumulative effects, severity and likelihood of the effects, and effects on environmentally sensitive or special areas; and

Mitigation measures that will be implemented. The responsible official shall not balance whether beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse environmental impacts in determining significance.

Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS). If a project will not have a significant adverse environmental impact, a DNS shall be issued.

Request for Early Indication of DS. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-350(2) and (6), submission of an environmental checklist and prior to the responsible official's threshold determination on a proposal, an applicant may ask the responsible official to indicate whether it is considering a DS. If the responsible official indicates a DS is likely, the applicant may clarify or change features of the proposal to mitigate the impacts that led the responsible official to consider a DS likely. The applicant shall revise the environmental checklist as may be necessary to describe the clarifications or changes. The responsible official shall make its threshold determination based upon the changed or clarified proposal. If a proposal continues to have one or more probable significant adverse environmental impacts, even with mitigation measures, an EIS shall be prepared. The county's indication under this section that a DS appears likely shall not be construed as a determination of significance. Likewise, the preliminary discussion of clarifications or changes to a proposal shall not bind the county to a mitigated DNS.

Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS). The responsible official may issue a MDNS as provided in this subsection and in WAC 197-11-350, based on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or on changes to or clarifications of the proposal made by the applicant.

Mitigation measures that justify issuance of a MDNS shall be incorporated in the DNS shall be deemed conditions of approval of the permit decision, and may be enforced in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit. The county may incorporate implementation or enforcement provisions in the MDNS and require performance guarantees.

If the tentative county decision on a permit or approval does not include mitigation measures that were incorporated in a MDNS, the county shall evaluate the threshold determination to assure consistency with WAC 197-11-340(3)(a) (i.e., withdrawal of a DNS).

The responsible official shall provide for prompt and coordinated review by government agencies and the public on compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including mitigation for specific probable significant adverse impacts arising from the project that have not been considered and addressed at the plan or development regulation level. The county may clarify or change features in their own proposal, and may specify mitigation measures in their DNSs, as a result of comments by other agencies or the public or as a result of additional agency planning (see WAC 197-11-350).

Durations of comment periods are as provided in JCC § 18.40.780. At the end of the comment period the threshold determination becomes final unless retained, modified, or withdrawn, and the appeal period begins.

Preparation of EIS.

Preparation of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) are the responsibility of the county under the direction of the responsible official. Before the county issues an EIS the responsible official must be satisfied that it complies with this article and with Chapter 197-11 WAC. When a DS is issued, an opportunity shall be provided to comment on the scope of the EIS that shall be developed.

The DEIS, FEIS or SEIS shall be prepared by the county or by a consultant in accordance with county procedures established for consultant selection. If the county requires an EIS for a proposal and the responsible official determines that a consultant shall prepare the EIS, the applicant shall be so notified immediately after completion of the threshold determination.

The county may require an applicant to conduct specific investigations and to provide information the county does not possess. The applicant is not required to supply information for the purpose of EIS preparation if such information is not required under this article.

If a consultant is preparing an EIS, the responsible official shall assure that the EIS is prepared in a responsible manner. The county shall:

Initiate and coordinate scoping and ensure that the consultant receives all substantive information submitted through the scoping process;

Assist the consultant in obtaining information from applicants; and

Direct the content and organization of the EIS.

The responsible official shall maintain procedures for preparation of EISs in accordance with the above.

(8)

The DNS and checklist, or FEIS, for non-exempt proposals shall accompany county staff recommendations to any appropriate decision-making body (e.g., the hearing examiner).

(9)

The county shall not take any action on the project permit application until the SEPA appeal period has lapsed.

(10)

Any appeal of the final SEPA determination shall be heard as provided in JCC § 18.40.810.

(Ord. 8-06 § 1; Ord. 11-24 (Att. A))

§ 18.40.770 Substantive authority.

The county may attach conditions to a permit or approval for nonexempt actions pursuant to WAC 197-11-660; provided, that:

The conditions are necessary to mitigate probable significant adverse environmental impacts identified in environmental documents prepared pursuant to this code and Chapter 197-11 WAC;

Such conditions are in writing;

The mitigation measures included in such conditions are reasonable and capable of being accomplished;

The responsibility to implement the mitigation measures are imposed only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse environmental impacts of the applicant's proposal, although voluntary additional mitigation may occur;

The county has considered whether the requirements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and development regulations adopted to implement the Plan, as well as other local, state, and federal laws or rules, provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the project proposal; and

(f)

Such conditions are based on one or more policies in subsection (3) of this section.

The county may deny a permit or approval for nonexempt actions pursuant to WAC 197-11-660; provided, that:

A finding is made that approving the proposal would be likely to result in probable significant adverse environmental impacts that are identified in an FEIS or final SEIS prepared pursuant to this code and Chapter 197-11 WAC;

A finding is made that there are no reasonable mitigation measures capable of being accomplished that are sufficient to mitigate the identified impact;

The denial is based on one or more policies set forth in subsection (3) of this section.

The county designates and adopts by reference the following county plans, ordinances and policies as the basis for exercise of county authority pursuant to this article:

The county adopts by reference the policies in the following Jefferson County plans and ordinances:

The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, as now exists or may hereafter be amended;

The Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, as now exists or may hereafter be amended;

This Unified Development Code, as now exists or may hereafter be amended;

(iv)

The Jefferson County building code, Chapter 15.05 JCC, as now exists or may hereafter be amended;

(v)

The Jefferson County flood damage protection ordinance, Chapter 15.15 JCC, as now exists or may hereafter be amended;

(vi)

The Jefferson County stormwater management ordinance, JCC § 18.30.070, as now exists or may hereafter be amended;

(vii)

The Jefferson County Road, Traffic and Circulation Standards, as they now exist or may hereafter be amended;

(viii)

The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings; and

(ix)

All other county plans, ordinances, regulations and guidelines adopted after the effective date of this Unified Development Code.

The policies enumerated in RCW 43.21C.020.

The county further designates and adopts the following policies as the basis for its exercise of authority pursuant to this article. The county shall use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of state policy, to improve and coordinate plans, functions, programs and resources to the end that the state and its citizens may:

Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;

Assure for all people of the state of Washington and Jefferson County a safe, healthful, productive and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surrounding;

Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;

(iv)

Preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage;

(v)

Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources; and

(vi)

Achieve a balance between population and resource use, which shall permit a high quality of life for all residents of Jefferson County.

(Ord. 8-06 § 1; Ord. 11-24 (Att. A))

§ 18.40.780 Public notice and comment.

When the responsible official makes a threshold determination and issues a DNS or MDNS under WAC 197-11-340(2), the lead agency shall not act upon a proposal for 14 days after the date of issuance. The responsible official shall send the DNS and environmental checklist to agencies with jurisdiction, the Department of Ecology, and affected tribes, and each local agency or political subdivision whose public services would be changed as a result of implementation of the proposal, and shall give notice as set forth in JCC § 18.40.210.

As an alternative, the responsible official may utilize the "optional DNS process" pursuant to WAC 197-11-355. Under this process, where the county is the lead agency for a project and the responsible official has a reasonable basis for determining significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely, it shall use a single integrated 14-day comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and the likely threshold determination for the proposal. When the "optional DNR process" is used, there is no second comment period following issuance of the DNS or MDNS.

The notice of application shall contain the information regarding the optional DNS process as set forth in JCC § 18.40.190(11), and shall be noticed as set forth in JCC § 18.40.210. The notice of application and environmental checklist shall be sent to agencies with jurisdiction, the Department of Ecology, affected tribes, and each local agency or political subdivision whose public services would be changed as a result of the implementation of the proposal, as well as anyone requesting a copy of the environmental checklist for the specific proposal.

For Type II projects, the threshold determination shall be issued concurrently with the notice of the administrator's decision on the underlying project, as further set forth in JCC § 18.40.300(3).

For Type III projects, the notice of the threshold determination shall be issued concurrently with the notice of public hearing on the underlying project before the hearing examiner.

If the county indicates on the notice of application that a DNS or MDNS is likely, an agency with jurisdiction may assume lead agency status during the comment period on the notice of application pursuant to WAC 197-11-355(3) and 197-11-948.

Type I projects that are not categorically exempt from SEPA shall be subject to notice of application and comment period provisions of JCC § 18.40.150 through § 18.40.220, as well as the notice requirements of this section.

(f)

If a DS is made concurrent with the notice of application, the DS and scoping notice shall be combined with the notice of application; provided, however, that the DS/scoping notice may be issued before the notice of application (RCW 36.70B.110). If sufficient information is not available to make a threshold determination when the notice of application is issued, the DS may be issued later in the review process (WAC 197-11-310(6)). If the responsible official issues a DS under WAC 197-11-360(3), the responsible official shall state the scoping procedure for the proposal in the DS, as required by WAC 197-11-408, by publishing notice in the official county newspaper.

If the county issues a DEIS under WAC 197-11-455(5), FEIS under WAC 197-11-460, or SEIS under WAC 197-11-620, notice of availability of the documents shall be given by publishing notice in the official county newspaper; by notifying groups which have expressed interest in a certain proposal being considered; by notifying the news media; by sending notice to agency mailing lists; and by other means deemed appropriate by the responsible official.

The applicant shall be responsible for all costs of the public notice requirements under this article.

Comment periods begin with the publication of notice as provided in this section. Comments must be received within:

Fourteen calendar days for a DNS or MDNS;

Twenty-one calendar days for a DS and scoping notice. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-408(2)(a)(iii), the date of issuance for purposes of computing this comment period shall be the date the DS is sent to the Department of Ecology and other agencies with jurisdiction and is made publicly available; and

Thirty calendar days for a DEIS.

If the DNS process is utilized per WAC 197-11-340, the SEPA notice shall state the following:

(i) This shall be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal.

(ii) Unless the responsible official withdraws the threshold determination pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(3)(a), the threshold determination shall be final at the end of the comment period.

(iii) Agencies and interested parties shall be notified if the threshold determination is withdrawn.

If the optional DNS process is utilized per WAC 197-11-355, the responsible official shall either issue a DNS or MDNS after the comment period with no additional comment period using the procedures set forth in Article IV of this chapter and this article; or issue a DS; or require additional information or studies prior to making a threshold determination. A copy of the DNS, mitigated DNS or modified DNS shall be sent to agencies with jurisdiction, the Department of Ecology, those who commented, and anyone requesting a copy. A copy of the environmental checklist need not be recirculated.

A DNS or MDNS becomes final at the end of the comment period unless the determination is modified or withdrawn by the responsible official. Appeals of a SEPA threshold determination shall follow procedures in JCC § 18.40.810.

§ 18.40.790 Public hearings and meetings.

Notice for public hearings shall be given consistent with this section and JCC § 18.40.230, and may be combined with other notice(s).

(Ord. 8-06 § 1; Ord. 11-24 (Att. A))

If a public hearing on the proposal is held under some other requirement of law, the hearing shall be open to consideration of the environmental impact of the proposal, together with any environmental document that is available. This does not require extension of the comment periods for environmental documents.

In all other cases a public hearing on the environmental impact of a proposal shall be held whenever one or more of the following situations occur:

The county determines that a public hearing would assist it in meeting its responsibility to implement the purposes and policies of SEPA and its implementing rules;

When 100 or more persons who reside within the county, or who would be adversely affected by the environmental impact of the proposal, make written request to the lead agency within 30 calendar days of issuance of the DEIS; or

When two or more agencies with jurisdiction over a proposal make written request to the lead agency within 30 calendar days of the issuance of the DEIS.

Whenever a public hearing is held under subsection (2) of this section, it shall occur no earlier than 15 calendar days from the date the DEIS is issued, and not later than 50 calendar days from its issuance. Notice shall be given as set forth in JCC § 18.40.780(6).

Whenever a public hearing is held under subsection (2) of this section, it shall be open to discussion of all environmental documents and any written comments that have been received by the county prior to the hearing. A copy of the environmental document shall be available at the public hearing.

Comments at public hearings should be as specific as possible (see WAC 197-11-550).

The county may hold informal public meetings or workshops. Such gatherings may be more flexible than public hearings and are not subject to the above notice and similar requirements for public hearings.

Public meetings held under Chapter 36.70B RCW may be used to meet SEPA public hearing requirements so long as the requirements of this section are met. A public hearing under this section need not be an open record hearing as defined in RCW 36.70B.020(3).

(Ord. 8-06 § 1; Ord. 11-24 (Att. A))

§ 18.40.800 Critical areas.

Actions identified as categorically exempt from SEPA under JCC § 18.40.750(1) shall remain exempt under SEPA even when located in one or more of the critical areas classified, designated and mapped under Chapter 18.22 JCC. A threshold determination shall not be required for actions identified as categorically exempt.

Actions located in one or more critical areas that are categorically exempt from review under this article, and which require issuance of a permit or approval under this code or any other applicable county ordinance or regulation, shall be reviewed, and as necessary, conditioned or denied to assure consistency with the protection standards contained in Chapter 18.22 JCC.

(Ord. 8-06 § 1; Ord. 14-18 § 4 (Exh. B); Ord. 11-24 (Att. A))

§ 18.40.810 Appeals.

Appeal of a Threshold Determination for a Type I Permit Decision. Threshold determinations on Type I permit decisions may not be appealed administratively to the hearing examiner.

Appeal of a Threshold Determination for Type II Permits – Open Record Hearing. The decision of the responsible official on Type II permits making a threshold determination of a DNS or MDNS, approving a proposal subject to conditions, or denying a proposal under SEPA's substantive authority may be appealed to the hearing examiner pursuant to JCC § 18.40.280, Chapter 2.30 JCC, and the Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure for an open record appeal hearing. Any such appeal must be filed within the time limits of JCC § 18.40.330(2)(b), and must be consolidated with any appeal on the underlying Type II permit decision.

Appeal of a Threshold Determination for Type III Permits – Open Record Hearing. The decision of the responsible official on Type III permits making a threshold determination of a DNS, approving a proposal subject to conditions, or denying a project under SEPA's substantive authority may be appealed to the hearing examiner pursuant to JCC § 18.40.280, Chapter 2.30 JCC, and the Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure. The open record public hearing on the SEPA appeal shall be before the hearing examiner, who shall consider the appeal together with the decision on the project application in a single, consolidated hearing as further set forth in Article IV of this chapter.

Appeals of Threshold Determinations for Type V Actions. Threshold determinations of the responsible official on Type V decisions (other than a DS) may not be appealed to the hearing examiner.

Limitations on Appeals for All Types of Permits. When a threshold determination results in a DS it shall not be appealable. In addition, issues relating to the adequacy of the EIS and other procedural issues may not be appealed under this article.

Who May Appeal. An applicant or other party of record, as defined in Chapter 18.10 JCC, may file a SEPA appeal as provided in this article.

Time to Appeal Administrative Decisions. A written statement appealing the threshold determination must be filed within 14 calendar days after the notice of decision is issued.

(8)

Form of Appeal. A person or group appealing the decision of the responsible official shall submit a written appeal in the form and manner set forth in Chapter 2.30 JCC and the Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure.

(9)

Scope of Review. The hearing examiner shall affirm, modify or reverse the responsible official's decision, and shall enter findings and/or conclusions into the record to support the decision. In making the decision, the hearing examiner shall give deference to and afford substantial weight to the decision of the responsible official.

(10)

Judicial Appeals. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075, if there is a time period for appealing the underlying permit decision, appeals under this article shall be commenced within such time period. The county shall give official notice stating the date and place for commencing an appeal.

Optional Limitation Period. If there is no time period for appealing the underlying government action, the county, applicant for or proponent of an action may use a notice of action pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075 and 43.21C.080. The notice shall describe the action and state time limitations for commencing a challenge to that action, in a form substantially similar to that provided in WAC 197-11-990. The notice shall be published by DCD, applicant or proponent pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080, and any action to set aside, enjoin, review or otherwise challenge any such governmental action shall be commenced within 21 days from the date of the last newspaper publication of the notice of action, as further set forth in RCW 43.21C.080.