Chapter 17.15 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)

B. The city of Chehalis, hereinafter referred to as “city,” adopts this chapter under the direction and authority of SEPA, RCW 43.21C.120 and the SEPA rules, WAC 197-11-904. This chapter contains the city’s SEPA procedures and policies and must be used in conjunction with the current SEPA rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC, as amended by the DOE.

C. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the SEPA, Chapter 43.21C RCW, and to ensure that environmental values are given appropriate consideration in the city’s decision-making process.

D. The policies and goals set forth in SEPA are supplementary to the city’s statutory authority. The policies enumerated in WAC 197-11-030 are adopted by the city as if set forth herein. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.020 General requirements.

A. Lead Agency. The rules for determining lead agency status enumerated in WAC 197-11-922 through 197-11-948 are adopted by the city as if set forth herein (WAC 197-11-050).

B. Timing of the SEPA Process. The rules for determining the timing of the SEPA process enumerated in WAC 197-11-055 are adopted by the city as if set forth herein, provided:

1. The times at which the environmental review will be initiated will be determined by the applicant on a case-by-case basis (WAC 197-11-055(2)(b));

2. Receipt by the city of a completed checklist, whether or not part of an application, shall require the city to initiate the applicable SEPA process;

3. A threshold determination or DEIS should accompany any staff recommendation for any nonexempt action which requires a quasi-judicial decision, i.e., conditional use permit application;

4. A final threshold determination or FEIS should accompany any planning commission recommendation for any nonexempt comprehensive plan amendment or revision; and

5. The responsible official will determine when a checklist is complete after consulting with the DRC. Such determination of completeness will occur at a regular DRC meeting. If a checklist is incomplete, a notice of incomplete application will be used to solicit additional specific information sufficient to allow a proper review.

C. Content of Environmental Review. The rules specifying the content of an environmental review enumerated in WAC 197-11-060 are adopted by the city as if set forth herein, provided:

1. Proposals shall be described in sufficient detail so as to provide an ability to measure any impact of the proposal. Alternatives to the described proposal should be presented in the checklist and/or application. Quantitative aspects of the proposal must be identified, e.g., building size, number of parking spaces, cubic yards of fill, flow rate of storm water system, etc. Qualitative aspects of the proposal should be identified in the checklist. Whether or not identified, such aspects will be subject to such conditions as are determined appropriate by the city;

2. Nothing in this chapter shall limit the reasonable alternatives to a proposal, or any mitigating conditions identified by the city; and

3. The responsible official is authorized to allow or require a phased review pursuant to WAC 197-11-060.

D. Limitations on Actions. The rules specifying the limitations on actions during the SEPA process enumerated in WAC 197-11-070 are adopted by the city as if set forth herein, provided:

1. Nonsignificant impacts which may occur as a result of studies or the development of site-specific information for the purpose of the SEPA process, and not the implementation of the proposal, will not require separate SEPA review. Appropriate mitigation measures shall be implemented to minimize or eliminate any such impact.

E. Information Required of Applicants. The rules for submission of information related to the SEPA process enumerated in WAC 197-11-080 through 197-11-100 are adopted by the city as if set forth herein. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.030 Definitions.

The definitions contained in WAC 197-11-700 through 197-11-799 are adopted by the city as if set forth herein. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.040 Additional definitions.

In addition to the definitions contained in WAC 197-11-700 through 197-11-799, the words and terms defined in Chapter 17.06 CMC shall be used in the administration and enforcement of this chapter. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.050 Designation of responsible official.

A. For those proposals for which the city is the lead agency, the community development director shall be the designated responsible official.

B. For those proposals for which the city is not the lead agency, but is an agency with jurisdiction, or a consulted agency, the community development director shall be the city’s designated contact person for receipt of SEPA documents or issuing the city’s response to a lead agency. [Ord. 819B § 13, 2007; Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.060 Lead agency determinations.

A. All lead agency determinations shall be made by the responsible official. Any department within the city receiving an application for, or initiating, any proposal that involves a nonexempt action shall forward a copy of the complete application package to the responsible official for all SEPA determinations.

B. Any proposal transferred to the city as lead agency shall be forwarded to the responsible official. Any such transfer shall occur only if consistent with the procedures established in WAC 197-11-922 through 197-11-948.

C. All departments of the city shall consider and use, as appropriate, the DNS, MDNS or final EIS issued by the lead agency, whether or not the city is the lead agency, in making decisions on the subject proposal. The city may conduct supplemental environmental review at its discretion pursuant to WAC 197-11-600.

D. Any department or official of the city may object to any determination made by any agency acting as lead agency during a comment period. If the city is lead agency, such objection must be filed with the responsible official within the 14-day comment period. Such objection must identify in writing:

1. The application number or other identifying procedure or process number;

2. The location of the proposal sufficient to identify geographically the locale and vicinity;

3. The specific nature of the objection and discussion of alternative to the original decision; and

4. Attachment of, or reference to, any published documents or studies substantiating the objection and/or supporting the alternative.

E. If the city is not the lead agency, such objections must be filed in the manner prescribed by the lead agency.

F. The responsible official is authorized to make agreements as to lead agency status and shared lead agency status or duties for any nonexempt proposal pursuant to WAC 197-11-922 through 197-11-948.

G. The responsible official shall require that an application for a nonexempt proposal contain information in sufficient detail to determine which other agencies have jurisdiction over the proposal. In the absence of detailed information showing otherwise, the responsible official may assume that any agency listed in WAC 197-11-920 has jurisdiction, and require the applicant to submit appropriate applications to such jurisdiction. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.070 Transfer of lead agency status.

Any transfer of lead agency status to the city from any agency, or to any agency from the city, shall follow the applicable procedures identified in WAC 197-11-922 through 197-11-948. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.080 Time limits.

A. Categorical Exemptions. The responsible official should determine whether or not a proposal is categorically exempt within seven calendar days of receiving a completed application for the underlying permit, license, or approval. For the purpose of determining exemptions, the DRC agenda process should be used to present applications for such determinations. Nothing herein shall preclude such an application from being presented directly to the responsible official by the applicant for expediency in determining whether or not the proposal is exempt.

B. Incomplete Application. The city should determine if additional information is required on any proposal within 28 days of receipt of any application for any aspect of the proposal. A “notice of incomplete application” form should be used to identify all required information to be submitted by the applicant. Such required information should relate to the environmental (SEPA) aspects of the proposal as well as the statutory or chapter requirements for permitting or approval.

C. Results of Incomplete Application. Subsequent to the city issuing a “notice of incomplete application” to an applicant, the city should allow 30 days for the receipt of required information. After such 30-day period, the city will render the subject application and/or checklist void. The applicant may reactivate the application at any time thereafter by submitting the required information. Such a reactivation shall constitute a new application for the purpose of establishing time limits for decisions by the city. Outdated or obsolete information must be made current by the applicant in such reactivation.

D. Threshold Determination.

1. Threshold determinations should be made within 15 days from the city’s receipt of a complete application and/or checklist. If the responsible official determines that another agency with jurisdiction should be consulted prior to making a threshold determination, the nature of such consultation should be made a matter of record at the earliest DRC meeting. The responsible official should make the threshold determination within 15 days from the receipt of the information requested from an agency, but in no case more than 30 days from the date of a completed application and/or checklist.

2. If the applicant proposes or agrees in the application that an EIS is required, the responsible official should make a threshold determination within five days of the date of a completed application and/or checklist.

E. The time limits established in this section shall not apply to any proposal initiated by the city when the city is lead agency. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.090 Additional timing considerations.

A. In general, the environmental review and/or preparation of an EIS for a private proposal should occur at the conceptual stage and not at the final construction detail phase. If the city’s only action on a proposal is a decision on a building permit or other license that requires detailed project plans and specifications, the applicant may request in writing that the city conduct the environmental review prior to submission of the detailed plans and specifications. The submission of a completed environmental checklist for any proposal prior to submission of any application therefor shall constitute a request to conduct such early environmental review.

B. If any nonexempt proposal requires a statutory review, public hearing and/or decision by any city agency other than the responsible official, a copy of the DNS, MDNS, or draft EIS shall be made a part of the staff report/recommendation, if any, and such review, hearing and/or decision shall consider the environmental determination. If any scheduling requirement of any agency action conflicts with the time limits established in CMC 17.15.080, the requirements of the agency action shall prevail.

C. If the optional DNS process is used for any proposal, the timing considerations for that process will supersede the time limits established in CMC 17.15.080. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.100 SEPA required elements and process.

A. The rules for establishing the required elements and the procedural process for SEPA determinations enumerated in WAC 197-11-300 through 197-11-390 are adopted by the city as if set forth herein, provided:

1. Certain categorical exemptions are modified as set forth in CMC 17.15.110;

2. The city will not document that a proposal is categorically exempt. Such a decision will be annotated in the computerized application file for a development permit and such information is available to the public on request;

3. A threshold decision should be made within 15 days of the city’s receipt of a completed checklist and/or completed application;

4. A request for early notice will not be valid and need not be responded to if the application or checklist is not complete;

5. The applicant shall be responsible for the preparation and content of a checklist, EIS, and application. Nothing in this chapter shall require any obligation or responsibility of the city to assist in the preparation of any application or environmental document for private proposals;

6. If a proposal requires a 14-day comment period under WAC 197-11-340, the responsible official shall, at the conclusion of the comment period, either:

a. Withdraw the DNS and issue a DS together with a scoping notice; or

b. Issue a final DNS;

7. If new information is obtained during the comment period which was not available prior to the threshold determination process, the responsible official is authorized to attach additional conditions to the final threshold determination to mitigate any identified probable impacts, whether or not significant or adverse;

8. All nonexempt proposals shall be presented for discussion at a DRC meeting. Such meeting shall be the opportunity for all affected city departments to convey conditions relating to other department operations to the responsible official. The responsible official shall consider all conditions presented at any DRC meeting in making a threshold determination;

9. The responsible official is authorized to attach any reasonable development condition to any threshold determination consistent with WAC 197-11-330. Such conditions should result from a discussion of the proposal at a DRC meeting; and

10. All DRC meetings relating to the SEPA process shall be open to the public. Whenever the SEPA process provides for a comment period, all comments received by the responsible official shall be reviewed by the DRC and made a matter of record, whether written or oral. Written comments must be directed to the responsible official; oral comments must be presented on the record at a DRC meeting. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.110 Categorical exemptions.

The categorical exemptions enumerated in WAC 197-11-800 through 197-11-890 are adopted by the city as if set forth herein, provided:

A. Categorical exemptions shall not be applicable if any portion of the proposal occurs within a jurisdictional wetland.

B. Categorical exemptions shall not be applicable if any portion of the proposal occurs within any shorelines management jurisdictional area.

C. Certain categorical exemptions shall not be applicable for conditional use proposals identified in the “100” sections (special provisions) of Division V of this title.

D. WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(i) is amended to read:

The construction or location of any residential structures of nine dwelling units.

E. WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(iii) is amended to read:

The construction of an office, school, mercantile, service, storage, utility or similar nonresidential building with 12,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, and with associated parking facilities designed for 40 automobiles; The construction of an assembly (group A) building with 5,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area and with associated parking facilities designed for 40 automobiles.

F. WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(iv) is amended to read:

The construction of a parking lot designed for 40 automobiles.

G. WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v) is amended to read:

Any landfill or excavation of 500 cubic yards 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.

[Ord. 750B § 3, 2003; Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.120 Use of categorical exemptions.

A. The responsible official shall determine if any proposal or application is categorically exempt from the SEPA process. Such exemption determination shall be final and not subject to administrative review. If a proposal or application is exempt, none of the procedural requirements of this chapter shall apply to the proposal or application, and the city shall not require the completion of an environmental checklist as part of any SEPA process. Nothing herein shall preclude any city agency from requiring the completion of a checklist as part of any application process for the purpose of defining additional information, as long as such checklist is not related to the SEPA process.

B. In determining whether or not a proposal is exempt, the responsible official shall require a completed application and identify the governmental licenses, permits and/or approvals required. If a proposal includes both exempt and nonexempt actions, the SEPA process shall be required for the entire proposal, even if the application that triggers the determination is exempt.

C. Notwithstanding subsection (B) of this section, if a proposal includes both exempt and nonexempt actions, the city may authorize exempt actions prior to compliance with the procedural requirements of this chapter, except:

1. The city shall not authorize any nonexempt actions; any action that would have a significant adverse environmental impact; or any action that would limit the choice of reasonable alternatives;

2. The city shall withhold approval of any exempt action that includes modification of the physical environment if such modification would serve no purpose if nonexempt actions were not approved;

3. The city may withhold approval of any exempt action that involves the potential for significant financial expenditures by the applicant if such expenditures would serve no purpose if nonexempt actions were not approved. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.130 Environmental checklist.

A. A completed environmental checklist in substantially the form provided in WAC 197-11-960, together with the required State Environmental Policy Act fee, shall be submitted as an attachment to any application for a nonexempt proposal. Absence of specified information on a checklist, and/or the required fee, will constitute an incomplete application for the purpose of application review. A checklist need not be attached to an application if:

1. The application indicates that an EIS will be prepared as part of the application process;

2. SEPA compliance has been accomplished prior to the submission of the application, and a copy of the document verifying such compliance is attached to the application; and

3. The application identifies and states that an agency other than the city is lead agency for SEPA compliance.

B. The applicant shall be responsible for providing all information required on the checklist in sufficient detail and completeness so as to allow an appropriate review and decision by the city. In the case of a private proposal, an applicant may solicit regulatory information from the city, but the city may not assist in the completion of any discretionary answers on the checklist.

C. A complete checklist shall contain all applicable questions answered in such a manner that the city will be able to quantify the proposal and measure any impacts, expressed in standard units of measure acceptable to the city, together with any plans, specifications, and/or applications that may be associated with the proposal. Any mitigation proposed in a checklist must also be measurable. The DRC shall advise the responsible official of when a checklist is complete.

D. The city may issue a “notice of incomplete application” for a SEPA checklist as well as an application. Such notice will specify the additional information required before the application and/or checklist will be considered complete. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.140 Early notice.

A. An applicant may request, in writing, early notice of whether or not a DS is likely on the application and/or checklist. Such a written request must:

1. Be an integral part of, or attachment to, an application and/or checklist for a nonexempt proposal for which the city is lead agency; and

2. Precede the city’s first threshold determination on any aspect of the proposal.

B. The responsible official should respond to a request for early notice within 15 days from the date of a determination of completed application and/or checklist. Such response shall:

1. Be written on a standard form used for this purpose;

2. State whether the city currently considers issuance of a DS likely, and, if so, state the specific areas of concern, including lack of appropriate information, that cause such a consideration; and

3. State that if a DS is likely, the applicant may withdraw the application and/or checklist within 10 days from the date of the city’s response, modify or revise the proposal, application and/or checklist to mitigate the areas of concern, and resubmit the application and/or checklist.

C. The city will respond to an applicant inquiry relating to identification of environmental impacts, regulatory requirements and, to the extent practical, anticipated concerns of other agencies with jurisdiction. The responsible official will not give advice on the sufficiency of proposed mitigation measures, or adequacy of the additional information as it relates to the proposal. The applicant is responsible for the content of the application and/or checklist.

D. If an application is not withdrawn within 10 days of the city’s response to a request for early notice, the responsible official shall issue a threshold determination therefor. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.150 Threshold determination process.

The process used for making a threshold determination enumerated in WAC 197-11-330 is adopted by the city as if set forth herein, provided:

A. If the responsible official determines that a proposal can be mitigated to preclude any significant impacts, but the detailed plans for the proposal are not available at the conceptual stage, a phased review is appropriate consistent with WAC 197-11-060(5). The responsible official shall require a SEPA checklist on all aspects of a proposal, but such checklist may be submitted sequentially as detailed plans and specifications become available.

B. In establishing the mitigating conditions for such a phased review process, the responsible official shall ensure that all aspects of a proposal are identified in at least one checklist and in a reasonable sequence, and that elements of the proposal are not initiated by the applicant inconsistent with this chapter or WAC 197-11-070. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.160 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS).

The process used for issuing a DNS or MDNS enumerated in WAC 197-11-340 is adopted by the city as if set forth herein. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.170 Mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MDNS).

A. The city shall have the authority to attach mitigating conditions to any permit, license or approval pursuant to WAC 197-11-660.

B. The rules for determining mitigating conditions for any proposal enumerated in WAC 197-11-660 are adopted by the city as if set forth herein.

C. The standards set forth in adopted chapters, resolutions, rules, regulations, codes and any other adopted regulatory requirement, or in any comprehensive plan, shall be a basis for the attachment of any mitigating condition to any SEPA determination, permit, license and/or approval. Such standards shall include, but not be limited to, all appendices contained in this title.

D. Standards, guidelines, or other relevant criteria contained in studies, reports or other published documents may be a basis for attachment of any mitigating conditions if a direct relationship with the proposed action can be demonstrated. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.180 Optional DNS process (ODNS).

A. For any nonexempt action which requires a public notice and/or public hearing for any application for any aspect of the proposal, the responsible official may elect to use the optional DNS process. If such optional process is used, the process specified in WAC 197-11-355 shall be used.

B. The rules for implementing the optional DNS process enumerated in WAC 197-11-355 are adopted by the city as if set forth herein. If any requirement of WAC 197-11-355 conflicts with any requirement of this chapter, the SEPA rule will control and govern. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.190 Adoption of existing environmental document.

A. The rules for using existing environmental documents enumerated in WAC 197-11-600 through 197-11-640 are adopted by the city as if set forth herein.

B. The responsible official shall consider, whenever appropriate, existing environmental documents as a basis for a DS, DNS or MDNS. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.200 Effect of threshold determination.

The rules specifying the effect of a threshold determination enumerated in WAC 197-11-390 are adopted by the city as if set forth herein. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.210 Environmental impact statement (EIS).

A. The rules for preparation of an EIS enumerated in WAC 197-11-400 through 197-11-460 are adopted by the city as if set forth herein.

B. For any nonexempt proposal which requires an EIS, the applicant shall be responsible for the preparation of any DEIS, SEIS, and/or FEIS.

C. For any nonexempt proposal initiated by the city which requires an EIS, the department having the implementing authority over the proposal shall be responsible for preparation of any DEIS, SEIS and/or FEIS.

D. A completed EIS shall be submitted to the responsible official for distribution and processing. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.220 Public notice.

A. Categorical Exemption. The city shall not publish a notice of categorical exemption. All such exemptions shall be annotated in the city’s permit application file for an exempt action, and such decision shall be available for public review on request.

B. Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS, MDNS, ODNS).

1. If a public notice is required by some other statute or chapter for any nonexempt action, such notice shall state that a DNS has been issued and, if a comment period is required, when comments are due.

2. If a public notice is not required for any nonexempt action, the city shall:

a. Publish a legal notice in The Chronicle one time;

b. Notify KELA/KMNT and KITI/Live 95 radio of the DNS via fax; and

c. For project actions which are site-specific, mail a notice to property owners of record within 300 feet of the subject property.

3. Such notice for a DNS shall be in substantially the form identified in WAC 197-11-970. Copies of any DNS will be available at the office of the responsible official for public review during regular business hours.

C. Determination of Significance (DS).

1. In addition to the notice requirements identified in subsection (B) of this section, a DS shall state the scoping procedure for the proposal consistent with WAC 197-11-408.

2. Such notice for a DS shall be in substantially the form identified in WAC 197-11-980.

D. Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS, SEIS, FEIS). In addition to the notice requirements identified in subsection (C) of this section, an EIS shall specify the availability of the document for public review.

E. For purposes of this section, a public notice shall contain a brief description of the nature of the proposal, location of the proposal, description of the city’s determination, and the date for commenting, if any. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.230 Public hearing.

A. If a public hearing is held regarding any aspect of any nonexempt proposal under some other statutory or chapter requirement, such a hearing shall also consider all determinations made under the requirements of SEPA.

B. A public hearing shall be conducted by the city council if any of the situations identified in WAC 197-11-535(2) occur.

C. The nature and specificity of any comments received by the city shall be consistent with WAC 197-11-550. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.240 Open record hearing.

A. For nonexempt proposals which require a public hearing before the board of zoning adjustment, planning commission, director of community development, and/or city council, such hearing shall constitute an open record hearing for the purpose of SEPA compliance. The chairperson of such hearing shall provide an opportunity for public comment on the SEPA aspects of any proposal in addition to, or in conjunction with, the statutory or chapter aspects during such a public hearing.

B. For nonexempt proposals which do not require a public hearing, an open record appeal hearing would be conducted on any properly filed appeal consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70B.020(3). [Ord. 810B § 6, 2006; Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.250 Public meeting/workshop.

Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit one or more informal workshop meetings to discuss any aspect of a proposal, including SEPA. Such workshop meetings shall not substitute for nor satisfy applicable SEPA requirements. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.260 SEPA decisions.

The rules for making SEPA decisions enumerated in WAC 197-11-650 through 197-11-660 are adopted by the city as if set forth herein. The responsible official shall consider mitigation conditions consistent with WAC 197-11-660. Any conditions shall be based on adopted standards and/or regulations, and be made a matter of record at a DRC meeting. Denial or conditioning of a proposal based only on public displeasure or unsubstantiated demands shall not be allowed. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.270 Administrative appeals.

A. The rules for the conduct of appeals enumerated in WAC 197-11-680 are adopted by the city as if set forth herein.

B. There shall be no method of appeal of any SEPA determination to the legislative body (city council).

C. Appeals of a final threshold determination and/or the adequacy of a final EIS may be submitted as provided in this section. Such appeals may be initiated prior to the city’s decision on an underlying permit, license or approval. Appeals of intermediate steps under SEPA will not be allowed.

D. The required appeal fee must be submitted with any appeal document. No appeal will be accepted for filing if the filing fee is not included. It is the responsibility of the appellant to complete any appeal filing within the required time limits.

E. Only one open record or closed record appeal will be allowed on any proposal. If more than one appeal is filed, all appeals will be consolidated into one procedure. All appeal documents must be submitted in substantially the form identified in CMC 17.15.280.

F. An open record appeal hearing will be conducted on any properly filed appeal if no open record predecision hearing has been conducted on any aspect of the proposal. A closed record appeal will be conducted on any properly filed appeal if any open record predecision hearing has been conducted on any aspect of the proposal.

G. All administrative appeals must be filed with the hearing examiner within 14 days of the date that the decision being appealed is made a matter of record. Such decisions will be made a matter of record at a scheduled DRC meeting. In the case of a decision made at, or subsequent to, a scheduled public hearing, such decisions will become a matter of record at such time as they are made at an open public meeting. If the SEPA process is conducted on a nonexempt proposal prior to any permit applications being submitted, any SEPA appeal must be filed with the hearing examiner. If the SEPA process is conducted on a nonexempt proposal concurrent with permit application review, any appeal of the permit decision must be filed together with the SEPA appeal. The city will not entertain separate appeals for permit decisions and SEPA decisions if both such decisions have been made on any proposal.

H. The procedural actions of the city shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. An appellant shall be required to identify a specific procedure or process required by this chapter, and demonstrate wherein the city failed to follow such procedure or process.

I. The substantive decisions made by the city shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. An appellant shall be required to identify the specific criteria required to be considered by this chapter, and demonstrate wherein the city failed to consider such criteria. An appellant shall also describe with reasonable specificity what significant adverse environmental impact would occur if the proposal was constructed, and why statutory or chapter requirements and/or applicable conditions would not prevent such impact.

J. For any administrative appeal conducted by the city, the city shall provide for a record consisting of the following:

1. Testimony of all participants under oath;

2. A taped transcript in standard cassette format; and

3. Written findings, conclusions, and a decision on appeal. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.280 Form of appeal.

A. Any appeal filed with the city shall be in substantially the following form:

1. A heading in the words “before the hearing examiner of the city”;

2. A caption reading “appeal of ...” (giving the names of all appellants participating in the appeal);

3. A statement setting forth the legal interest of each of the appellants in the proposal, if any;

4. A statement in ordinary and concise language as to what is being appealed, including reference to CMC or WAC sections being cited as the basis for the appeal;

5. A brief statement describing wherein the city’s actions or determinations are not consistent with the regulations cited;

6. Attachment of copies of the applicable pages of any documents referenced in any appeal statement, including the CMC;

7. A brief statement describing with reasonable specificity what relief is being sought by the appellants;

8. A clear and concise description, including quantifying terms and/or measurements, of what significant adverse environmental impact would occur as a result of the proposal, an explanation of why statutory, chapter and/or mitigating conditions would not preclude such impact, and the documentation, evidence, proof, etc., demonstrating that such impact is not speculative and would probably occur;

9. The signatures of all parties named as appellants and their official mailing addresses; and

10. A declaration under penalty of perjury that the statements contained in the appeal document are true and correct and signed by at least one of the appellants.

B. The hearing examiner may waive informalities in the form of the appeal document, but may not waive the substantive information required by this section. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.290 Notice – Statute of limitations.

The city may publish a notice of action consistent with the requirements of RCW 43.21C.080 in substantially the form provided in WAC 197-11-990. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.300 Administrative appeal – Exclusive process.

The administrative appeal provisions contained in CMC 17.15.270 and 17.15.280 are exclusive. There shall be no administrative appeal process to the city council. The administrative appeal process must be used prior to commencing any judicial appeal of SEPA determinations except as provided in CMC 17.15.310(B). [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.310 Judicial appeal.

A. After exhausting the administrative appeal process, an appellant may file a judicial appeal. Such judicial appeal must be filed with the Lewis County superior court in such manner as prescribed by the court. The nature and type of appeal is at the sole discretion of the appellant, consistent with the applicable statutes.

B. For any nonexempt proposals involving a variance or conditional use permit issued by the hearing examiner, such judicial appeal shall be filed within 10 days of the date of the hearing examiner’s decision on the underlying government action. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.320 Fees.

A. Any applicant submitting a SEPA checklist for review and decision-making pursuant to this chapter shall submit the required application fee therewith. Such application fee may be refunded if the checklist is formally withdrawn from consideration by the applicant, and no threshold determination has yet been made thereon. Payment of an application fee shall not warrant or guarantee that the application will be approved by the city.

B. The city shall not charge a fee when it is acting as a consulted agency.

C. Any administrative appeal filed pursuant to this chapter shall require the specified appeal fee attached thereto. Such appeal fee shall be refunded to any appellant prevailing on appeal.

D. The city may charge any person for copies of documents and/or mailing costs. Such a charge shall be prepaid. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]

17.15.330 Forms.

The forms identified in WAC 197-11-960 through 197-11-990 are adopted by the city as if set forth herein. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit submission of electronically produced forms in substantially the same format, provided the required information is contained therein. [Ord. 720B § 1, 2002.]