Chapter 19.11
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)

Sections:

19.11.010    Authority and content.

19.11.015    General requirements.

19.11.020    Lead agency and responsible official.

19.11.030    Lead agency determination and responsibilities.

19.11.035    Exemptions, determinations and adoption by reference.

19.11.040    Categorical exemptions.

19.11.050    Use of exemptions.

19.11.060    Critical areas.

19.11.070    Additional timing of and requirements for environmental review.

19.11.080    Mitigated determination of nonsignificance.

19.11.090    Public notice.

19.11.100    Environmental impact statement procedures.

19.11.105    Preparation of EIS – Additional considerations.

19.11.110    Substantive authority.

19.11.120    Administrative appeal.

19.11.130    Fees.

19.11.140    Severability.

Cross-references:
Chapter 43.21C RCW: State Environmental Policy Act.
RCW 36.32.120(7): Adoption of statutes, etc., by reference.
Chapter 197-11 WAC: SEPA guidelines.

19.11.010 Authority and content.

A. Authority. Cowlitz County is required under RCW 43.21C.120 to adopt rules pertaining to the integration of the policies and procedures of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) into the various programs within Cowlitz County’s jurisdiction. The rules adopted by Cowlitz County must be consistent with the rules promulgated by the Department of Ecology, which are set forth in Chapter 197-11 WAC.

B. Contents. The SEPA rules must be used in conjunction with this chapter, which incorporates provisions of the SEPA model ordinance, Chapter 173-806 WAC. This chapter contains the county’s SEPA policies as prescribed by WAC 197-11-902, and SEPA procedures as required by WAC 197-11-904. [Ord. 18-008 § 2 (Exh. A), 2-13-18.]

19.11.015 General requirements.

A. Purpose and Adoption by Reference. This section contains basic requirements of the SEPA process that apply generally. The county adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC by reference:

WAC

B. Additional Definitions. In addition to those definitions contained within WAC 197-11-700 through 197-11-799, when used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings, unless the context indicates otherwise:

1. “SEPA rules” means Chapter 197-11 WAC adopted by the Department of Ecology.

2. “Early notice” means the county’s response to an applicant stating whether it considers issuance of a determination of significance likely for the applicant’s proposal (mitigated determination of nonsignificance (DNS) procedures). [Ord. 18-008 § 2 (Exh. A), 2-13-18.]

19.11.020 Lead agency and responsible official.

A. The Cowlitz County Department of Building and Planning shall be responsible for performing the duties of the lead agency for the purposes of WAC 197-11-050 and 197-11-922 through 197-11-948.

B. Cowlitz County’s “responsible official,” for the purposes of Chapter 197-11 WAC and this chapter, shall be the Director of the Department of Building and Planning.

C. For all proposals for which the county is the lead agency, the responsible official shall evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposal, make the threshold determination, supervise scoping and preparation of any required environmental impact statement (EIS), and perform any other functions assigned to the “lead agency” or “responsible official” by those sections of the SEPA rules adopted by reference in CCC 19.11.015, including consulted agency responsibilities under WAC 197-11-912 when the county is not the lead agency.

D. The county shall retain all documents required by the SEPA rules (Chapter 197-11 WAC) and make them available in accordance with Chapter 42.56 RCW. [Ord. 18-008 § 2 (Exh. A), 2-13-18.]

19.11.030 Lead agency determination and responsibilities.

A. Any county department receiving an application for or initiating a proposal that involves a nonexempt action shall determine the lead agency for that proposal under WAC 197-11-050 and 197-11-922 through 197-11-940, unless the lead agency has been previously determined or the county department is aware that another agency is in the process of determining the lead agency.

B. When the county is the lead agency for a proposal, the county department receiving the application shall notify the responsible official who shall supervise compliance with the threshold determination requirements, and if an EIS is necessary, shall supervise preparation of the EIS.

C. When the county is not the lead agency for a proposal, all county departments shall use and consider, as appropriate, either the DNS or the final EIS of the lead agency in making decisions on the proposal. No county department shall prepare or require preparation of a DNS or an EIS in addition to that prepared by the lead agency, unless required under WAC 197-11-600. In some cases, the county may conduct supplemental environmental review under WAC 197-11-600.

D. If any county department receives a lead agency determination made by another agency that appears inconsistent with the criteria of WAC 197-11-922 through 197-11-940, it shall notify the responsible official who may object to the determination. Any objection must be made to the agency originally making the determination and resolved within 15 days of receipt of the determination, or the county must petition the Department of Ecology for a lead agency determination under WAC 197-11-946 within the 15-day time period. The Department of Building and Planning shall initiate any such petition on behalf of the county.

E. After consultation with the responsible official, departments of the county are authorized to make agreements as to lead agency status or shared lead agency duties for a proposal under WAC 197-11-942 and 197-11-944; provided, that the responsible official and any county department that will incur responsibilities as the result of such agreement approve the agreement.

F. Any county department making a lead agency determination for a private project shall require sufficient information from the applicant to identify which other agencies have jurisdiction over the proposal.

G. When the county is lead agency for a MTCA remedial action, the Department of Ecology shall be provided an opportunity under WAC 197-11-253(5) to review the environmental documents prior to public notice being provided. If the SEPA and MTCA documents are issued together with one public comment period under WAC 197-11-253(6), the county shall decide jointly with Ecology who receives the comment letters and how copies of the comment letters will be distributed to the other agency. [Ord. 18-008 § 2 (Exh. A), 2-13-18.]

19.11.035 Exemptions, determinations and adoption by reference.

A. Purpose and Adoption by Reference. This section contains the rules for deciding whether a proposal has a “probable significant, adverse environmental impact” requiring an environmental impact statement (EIS) to be prepared. This section also contains rules for evaluating the impacts of proposals not requiring an EIS. The county adopts the following SEPA rules by reference, as supplemented in this chapter:

WAC

[Ord. 18-008 § 2 (Exh. A), 2-13-18.]

19.11.040 Categorical exemptions.

A. WAC 197-11-800 identifies certain proposed actions that are categorically exempt from threshold determination and EIS requirements, subject to the rules and limitations contained in WAC 197-11-305. Local governments are authorized to raise the exempt levels for minor new construction, based on local conditions. The county adopts the following sections of SEPA rules and statute by reference, as supplemented in this section:

WAC

RCW

B. Cowlitz County establishes the following exempt levels for minor new construction under WAC 197-11-800(l), based on local conditions:

Table 19.11.040-1: Exempt Threshold Levels for Minor New Construction

Project Type	Exemption Threshold
Single-family residential	20 units
Multifamily residential	25 units
Barn, loafing shed, farm equipment storage, produce storage or packing structure	40,000 square feet
Office, school, commercial, recreational, service, storage building, parking facilities	12,000 square feet and 40 parking spaces
Fill or excavation	1,000 cubic yards*

* As well as all excavation, fill or grading necessary for an exempt project identified in this subsection.

C. The demolition of any structure or facility, the construction of which would be exempted under Table 19.11.040-1, is categorically exempt, except for structures or facilities with recognized historical significance.

D. A proponent of an action thought to be categorically exempt may request a statement of exemption from the responsible official. Such a request shall be submitted in writing and shall contain sufficient detail and description of the proposed action from which to determine whether or not it is exempt. If the proposed action is determined to be exempt, a statement of exemption signed by the responsible official will be provided.

E. These categorical exemptions from SEPA shall not exempt these projects from review under the county’s critical areas ordinance.

F. Whenever the county establishes new exempt levels under this section, it shall send them to the Department of Ecology under WAC 197-11-800(1)(c). [Ord. 18-008 § 2 (Exh. A), 2-13-18.]

19.11.050 Use of exemptions.

A. Each department within the county that receives an application for a license or, in the case of governmental proposals, the department initiating the proposal shall determine whether the license and/or the proposal is exempt. The department’s determination that a proposal is exempt shall be final and not subject to administrative review. If a proposal is exempt, none of the procedural requirements of this chapter apply to the proposal. The county shall not require completion of an environmental checklist for an exempt proposal.

B. In determining whether or not a proposal is exempt, the respective department shall make certain the proposal is properly defined and shall identify the governmental licenses required (WAC 197-11-060). If a proposal includes exempt and nonexempt actions, the department shall involve the responsible official to help determine the lead agency, even if the license application that triggers the department’s consideration is exempt.

C. If a proposal includes both exempt and nonexempt actions, the county may authorize exempt actions prior to compliance with the procedural requirements of this chapter, except that:

1. The county shall not give authorization for:

a. Any nonexempt action;

b. Any action what would have an adverse environmental impact; or

c. Any action that would limit the choice of alternatives.

2. A department may withhold approval of an exempt action, after consultation with the responsible official, that would lead to modification of the physical environment, when such modification would serve no purpose if nonexempt action(s) were not approved; and

3. A department may withhold approval of exempt actions, after consultation with the responsible official, which would lead to substantial financial expenditures by a private applicant when the expenditures would serve no purpose if nonexempt action(s) were not approved. [Ord. 18-008 § 2 (Exh. A), 2-13-18.]

19.11.060 Critical areas.

A. The county shall treat proposals located wholly or partially within a critical area or its buffer no differently from other proposals under this chapter, making a threshold determination for all such proposals. The county shall not automatically require an EIS for a proposal merely because it is proposed for location in a critical area or its buffer.

B. The categorical exemptions listed under CCC 19.11.040 and WAC 197-11-800 do not exempt projects from review under the county critical areas ordinance, Chapter 19.15 CCC. [Ord. 18-008 § 2 (Exh. A), 2-13-18.]

19.11.070 Additional timing of and requirements for environmental review.

A. Upon receipt of an application and environmental checklist, the responsible official, in an expeditious manner, shall make a determination of completeness for the purpose of compliance with this chapter and shall:

1. Issue a threshold determination (determination of significance, determination of nonsignificance or mitigated determination of nonsignificance); or

2. Request, in writing, any additional information deemed necessary to determine whether the proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts.

B. Unless otherwise provided by statute or agreement, the responsible official should make the threshold determination within 90 days of receipt of a complete application. A complete application for threshold determination shall contain the information identified in CCC 18.02.080(A)(1).

C. In the event additional information is requested from an applicant in order to meet the standards of a complete application, and upon receipt of a written response by the applicant to such request, either by providing the information or indicating an inability to provide it, the responsible official shall endeavor to:

1. Issue a threshold determination within 90 days from the applicant’s response; or

2. If a determination of significance is likely, notify the applicant and indicate the areas of likely impact (WAC 197-11-350), and that a final threshold determination should be made within 30 days of the receipt of the applicant’s first response to the county’s request for additional information.

D. Subject to time constraints established by other laws and county code requirements, the applicant may also request in writing and at any time during the 90-day period an additional time in 30-day increments for the threshold determination to be made. The responsible official has the sole discretion to grant such extension(s) when requested.

E. The determination of nonsignificance or final environmental impact statement for a nonexempt proposal shall accompany the staff recommendation to any advisory or decision-making body.

F. When Cowlitz County’s only action on a proposal is a decision on a building permit or other license that requires detailed project plans and specifications, the responsible official may provide an applicant with the opportunity for environmental review prior to requiring the applicant to submit such detailed plans and specifications. The amount of detail needed from an applicant for such early environmental review shall be determined by the responsible official on a case-by-case basis, consistent with WAC 197-11-100 and 197-11-335. [Ord. 18-008 § 2 (Exh. A), 2-13-18.]

19.11.080 Mitigated determination of nonsignificance.

A. WAC 197-11-350 allows the responsible official to issue a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) based on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or on changes to, or clarifications of the proposal made by the applicant.

B. The applicant may submit a written request for early notice as to whether a determination of significance is likely for the proposal. The responsible official shall respond in writing and shall indicate the general or specific area(s) of concern that are leading the county to consider a declaration of significance.

C. Any mitigation measures (clarifications, changes or conditions) proposed by the applicant must be in writing and must be specific. For example, proposals written as “control noise” or “prevent stormwater runoff” are inadequate, whereas proposals as “muffle machinery to X decibel” or “construct 200-foot stormwater retention pond at Y location” are adequate. Mitigation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS shall be deemed conditions of approval if the permit is approved and may be enforced in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit. [Ord. 18-008 § 2 (Exh. A), 2-13-18.]

19.11.090 Public notice.

A. Under the SEPA rules (Chapter 197-11 WAC), the public is to be notified when certain determinations are made, when certain environmental documents are issued, and when public hearings are held. WAC 197-11-510(2) requires the county to specify its method of giving public notice.

B. Whenever public notice is required during the environmental review process it shall be provided as follows:

1. If public notice is required for the proposal under some other statute, ordinance, or regulation, such notice shall include the status of environmental review of the proposal, including whether a DNS or DS has been issued; when comments are due; scoping procedure (if any); and the availability of environmental documents;

2. If public notice is not required for the proposal under some other statute, ordinance, or regulation, it shall be given by posting at the county SEPA information center located at the Department of Building and Planning and by at least one of the following methods:

a. Posting the property, for site-specific proposals,

b. Publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county or general area where the proposal is located,

c. Notifying public or private groups with known interest in a certain proposal or type of proposal being considered,

d. Notifying the news media,

e. Placing notices in stores, schools, or other appropriate regional or neighborhood meeting places,

f. Notifying property owners within a radius of 300 feet of the subject property by mail. [Ord. 18-008 § 2 (Exh. A), 2-13-18.]

19.11.100 Environmental impact statement procedures.

This section contains the rules for preparing environmental impact statements. The county adopts the following SEPA rules by reference, as supplemented in this chapter:

WAC

[Ord. 18-008 § 2 (Exh. A), 2-13-18.]

19.11.105 Preparation of EIS – Additional considerations.

A. Preparation of draft and final EISs and SEISs is the responsibility of the responsible official. Before the county issues an EIS, the responsible official shall be satisfied that it complies with this chapter and Chapter 197-11 WAC.

B. The draft and final EIS or SEIS shall be prepared by county staff, or by a consultant on contract to the county. If the responsible official requires an EIS for a proposal and determines that someone other than the county will prepare the EIS, the responsible official shall notify the applicant within 10 days after completion of the threshold determination of the county’s procedure for EIS preparation, including approval of the DEIS and FEIS prior to distribution. The consultant is normally retained at the expense of the applicant to prepare a preliminary environmental document and assist with an EIS. In all cases, the responsible official shall determine which consultant is best qualified to prepare the EIS and shall have approval authority over its contents.

C. The responsible official may require an applicant to provide additional environmental or project description information, including specific investigations necessary to reasonably understand the proposal and its impacts and to enable the responsible official to make a well-reasoned environmental determination. However, the applicant is not required to supply information that is not required under this chapter or that is being requested from another agency. (This does not apply to information the county may request under another ordinance or statute.)

D. Fees for preparation of the EIS shall be required of the applicant as set forth herein and the current county fee schedule on file with the Board of Commissioners. [Ord. 18-008 § 2 (Exh. A), 2-13-18.]

19.11.110 Substantive authority.

A. Under RCW 43.21C.060 and WAC 197-11-660, Cowlitz County is allowed to condition or deny proposals if such decision is based upon policies that have been identified and incorporated into regulations, plans, or codes formerly designated as possible bases for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA. The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those in the existing authorizations of Cowlitz County.

B. Subject to RCW 43.21C.060 and 43.21C.240, the county may attach conditions to a permit or approval for a proposal so long as:

1. Such conditions are necessary to mitigate specific probable adverse environmental impacts identified in environmental documents prepared pursuant to this chapter;

2. Such conditions are in writing;

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

4. The county has considered whether other local, state or federal mitigation measures applied to the proposal are sufficient to mitigate the identified impacts; and

5. Such conditions are based on one or more policies in subsections D and E of this section, and cited in the license or other decision document.

C. Subject to RCW 43.21C.060 and 43.21C.240, the county may deny a permit or approval for a proposal on the basis of SEPA so long as:

1. A finding is made that approving the proposal would result in probable significant adverse environmental impacts that are identified in an FEIS or final SEIS prepared pursuant to this chapter;

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

3. The denial is based on one or more policies identified in subsections D and E of this section, and identified in writing in the decision document.

D. The policies in the following Cowlitz County codes, ordinances, and plans are adopted and incorporated herein by this reference as the basis for the county’s exercise of authority under this chapter, and to condition or deny proposals in order to reduce or prevent adverse impacts, including through mitigation measures thereto:

CCC Title 19 – Environmental Protection;

CCC Title 18 – Land Use and Development;

CCC Title 17 – Forest Practices;

CCC Title 16 – Buildings and Construction;

CCC Title 15 – Water, Sewers, and Waste Disposal;

CCC Title 11 – Vehicles and Traffic;

CCC Title 10 – Public Peace and Morals;

CCC Title 9 – Parks and Recreation;

WA State Uniform Building and Fire Codes, Ch. 19.27 RCW;

Ch. 90.48 RCW, Water Pollution Control Act;

Ch. 90.52 RCW, Pollution Disclosure Act of 1971;

Ch. 90.54 RCW, Water Resources Act of 1971;

Ch. 90.58 RCW, Shoreline Management Act of 1971;

Ch. 70.93 RCW, Model Litter Control and Recycling Act;

Ch. 70.94 RCW, Washington Clean Air Act;

Ch. 70.95 RCW, Solid Waste Management – Recovery and Recycling;

Ch. 70.105 RCW, Hazardous Waste Disposal;

Ch. 70.105A RCW, Hazardous Waste Regulations.

E. Cowlitz County hereby adopts the following additional policies:

1. Erosion Control. Road building, site preparation, general construction, and other activities can contribute to erosion with subsequent loss of land and degradation of water quality from increased silt in lakes, rivers and streams. Cowlitz County may condition or deny proposals in order to reduce or prevent such adverse impacts. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, requiring installation of silt fences, silt traps, riprap or vegetative cover.

2. Noise Control. Inadequately controlled noise may adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the public, the value of property and the quality of the environment. Cowlitz County may condition or deny proposals in order to reduce or prevent such adverse impacts. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, requiring compliance with Chapter 10.25 CCC, Nuisance Noises, and the standards of Chapter 70.107 RCW and with any regulations thereunder, including Chapter 173-60 WAC.

3. Light and Glare. Sources of light and glare may create safety hazards and/or be aesthetically offensive from public roadways or surrounding property. Cowlitz County may condition or deny proposals in order to reduce or prevent such adverse impacts. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, requiring deflective devices on lights, vegetative buffer strips, fencing, etc.

4. Aesthetics. Some proposals may obstruct public views or create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view, particularly if located in residential or recreational areas or adjacent to public roadways. Cowlitz County may condition or deny proposals to reduce or prevent such adverse impacts. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, requiring screening (vegetative buffer strips, fences, walls, etc.), or other suitable measures.

5. Safety. Many proposals have the potential to create safety hazards. Examples include the storage of chemicals at an industrial site, a sharp curve, a deep hole created by surface mining, etc. Cowlitz County may condition or deny proposals in order to reduce or prevent such adverse impacts. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, requiring installation of protective coverings, fences, guardrails, etc.

6. State and Federal Regulations. Proposals must often comply with state and federal statutes and regulations as well as local codes and ordinances. Many state and federal regulations are designed to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public and the quality of the environment. Enforcement of state and federal permit requirements and permit conditions may be facilitated by incorporating such requirements and conditions into local approvals. In order to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impacts, Cowlitz County may condition approvals on the applicant’s compliance with particular state and/or federal statutes, regulations, agreements and/or permit conditions.

F. Substantive SEPA authority to condition or deny new development proposals or other actions shall be used only in cases where development regulations do not exist or do not apply, or where unanticipated impacts occur which are not mitigated by existing regulations. In cases where the County has adopted regulations to systematically avoid or mitigate adverse impacts, as in the areas of erosion control for water quality, critical areas protection, or noise control, those standards and regulations, where applicable, will normally constitute adequate mitigation of the impacts of new development. Unusual circumstances related to a site or to a proposal, as well as environmental impacts not easily foreseeable or quantifiable in advance will be subject to site-specific or project-specific SEPA mitigation.

G. To the maximum extent possible, and for purposes of local administrative procedures under RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680, SEPA review and appeals thereof shall be combined and integrated in all development permit processing. SEPA review and appeals thereof and the review of a development application shall be combined and integrated for all development permits not categorically exempt from SEPA or for which environmental review has not already been completed, in the following manner:

1. SEPA review, if required, should be analyzed within a single development permit review process that includes all land use, environmental, public and governmental reviews, as addressed by this chapter. If applicable development regulations already require studies that adequately analyze a project’s specific probable adverse environmental impacts, then additional or redundant studies shall not be required under SEPA.

2. Documents or studies prepared in the development permit review process under the requirements of SEPA or under specific development regulations shall be prepared so that they can be reviewed by the public, the county and other agencies during applicable commenting periods.

3. A SEPA threshold determination and/or a scoping notice may be issued with any public notice required under the pending, associated development application.

4. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.060 and 43.21C.075 and Chapter 197-11 WAC, as referenced in Chapter 2.05 CCC and CCC 19.11.120, any appeal of a determination of significance, appeal of the adequacy of a final EIS, or any appeal of procedure or the scope of local authority to review, determine, approve, or condition thereunder may proceed in advance of any hearings or appeals of the underlying development permit(s), and any appeal of a determination of nonsignificance pursuant to CCC 19.11.080 shall be combined with and processed at the same time as the hearings or appeals of the underlying development permit(s). A procedural determination by the county’s responsible official under this section shall carry substantial weight. [Ord. 18-008 § 2 (Exh. A), 2-13-18.]

19.11.120 Administrative appeal.

A. An administrative appeal along with an appropriate fee is allowed on a SEPA issue as set forth in RCW 43.21C.060. The appeal of a decision by the responsible official conditioning or denying a proposal under authority of SEPA is to the Cowlitz County Hearing Examiner pursuant to the hearings procedures in Chapter 2.05 CCC. Supplemental procedures for an appeal are set forth in subsections B and C of this section.

B. Appeals under this section shall be processed as follows:

1. Determination of Significance (DS). An appeal may only be made by the proposal applicant or sponsor, and shall be filed within 14 calendar days of the issuance of the DS/scoping notice. The appeal shall be heard and decided by a hearing examiner appointed pursuant to Chapter 2.05 CCC, whose decision shall be final and not subject to further administrative appeal.

2. Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An appeal may be filed by any agency or person in conjunction with the first nonexempt action on the proposal by a nonelected administrative official, as follows:

a. For proposals which may be approved by an administrative official without public hearing, including but not limited to building permits, floodplain permits, grading permits, critical area permits, and short plats, SEPA appeals must be filed in conjunction with, and within the limitation period applicable to, an available administrative appeal of the applicable permit or approval; provided, that if no administrative appeal of the underlying administrative permit or approval is otherwise provided for, an appeal under this section shall be filed within 14 calendar days of the issuance of the permit or approval, and shall be heard and decided by a hearing examiner appointed pursuant to Chapter 2.05 CCC. The decision of the hearing examiner or other initial appeal body on the SEPA appeal shall be final and not subject to further administrative appeal.

b. For proposals which may only be recommended for approval following a public hearing by the Planning Commission, including but not limited to comprehensive plan amendments and rezones, SEPA appeals shall be filed in writing with the board within 14 calendar days of issuance of said recommendation, which appeal shall be decided by the Board in conjunction with its decision on the underlying recommendation.

c. For proposals which may only be approved following a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner, including but not limited to special use permits and subdivisions, SEPA appeals of a procedural determination under SEPA shall be filed within 14 calendar days after a notice of SEPA determination. Such procedural and substantive SEPA appeal shall be decided by the examiner in conjunction with the Examiner’s final order on the proposal. The Examiner’s procedural SEPA decision is final and not subject to further administrative appeal.

3. Substantive SEPA Determination.

a. For proposals subject to final administrative action by an administrative official or tribunal for which no administrative appeal is otherwise provided, any agency or person may appeal conditions or denials, or the failure to condition or deny, based upon substantive SEPA authority within 14 calendar days of the issuance of the administrative decision. Such appeal shall be heard and decided by a Hearing Examiner appointed pursuant to Chapter 2.05 CCC, whose decision shall be final and not subject to further administrative appeal. The Examiner’s open record appeal hearing shall be held within 90 days unless parties to the appeal agree to extend this time period.

b. For proposals subject to final administrative action by an administrative official or tribunal for which an administrative appeal is otherwise provided, any agency or person may appeal conditions or denials, or the failure to condition or deny, based upon substantive SEPA authority by utilizing such otherwise available administrative appeal process.

4. The procedural determination by the county’s responsible official shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding.

5. The county shall give official notice under WAC 197-11-680(5) whenever it issues a permit or approval for which a statute or ordinance establishes a time limit for commencing judicial appeal.

C. 1. Appeals under subsection A of this section shall be made to the Hearing Examiner within 14 calendar days of the decision that is the subject of the appeal. The 14-day period shall commence on the day following the date the decision being appealed is issued in writing.

2. The appeal must be perfected by delivering written notice thereof to the responsible official within the 14-day period identified in subsection (C)(1) of this section. Delivery shall be complete when the written notice is received in the office of the responsible official, as indicated by its “date received” stamp.

3. If the SEPA decision on a proposal being appealed is also being reviewed or appealed on non-SEPA grounds, the Hearing Examiner shall have the discretion to require that a consolidated hearing be held as set forth in CCC 19.11.110(G). When requested by an applicant, the Hearing Examiner may also allow a hearing to be combined or consolidated with a hearing that may be required by another local agency, state, regional, federal, or other public agency for the same project; provided, that the hearing can occur within the time periods and guidelines specified in this code or the applicant agrees to additional time for project review. Such combined or consolidated hearings shall be conducted within the geographic boundary of the county.

4. If an appeal relating to the adequacy of a FEIS is filed, at the same public hearing on the underlying governmental action, if applicable, the decision-making body shall either affirm or reverse the decision of the responsible official and shall prepare a finding on its decision on the FEIS appeal. The powers of the decision-making body (e.g., Planning Commission) on FEIS appeals shall be consistent with the powers on the underlying governmental action. For example, the Planning Commission provides a recommendation on rezones to the Board of Commissioners; in such a situation, the Board of Commissioners would have final authority on the adequacy of the FEIS. By further example, the Hearing Examiner issues final decisions on shoreline permits, subject to appeal; in this situation, an appeal of the adequacy of the FEIS would accompany an appeal of the shorelines decision. If the decision-making body determines that the FEIS is not adequate, it may remand the FEIS to the responsible official requiring that specific impacts be reconsidered.

5. The Hearing Examiner shall have the discretion to determine the hearing procedures when multiple county public hearings, or county hearings and other agency hearings are combined or consolidated for purposes of conflicting hearing procedures. In all cases, appeals and hearings shall be combined or consolidated in a manner which retains applicable county procedures for hearing and/or appeal before the Hearing Examiner.

6. The proceedings at the hearing on any appeal shall be recorded verbatim by an electronic recording device. An applicant or an appellant may also provide for a court reporter to record the proceedings. The Hearing Examiner shall issue a written decision of the appeal, and shall include therein findings and conclusions.

D. 1. Upon the filing of an appeal with appropriate fee, the Hearing Examiner shall set the time and place for a public hearing on the matter.

2. Notice of the time, date, and place of the hearing shall be sent to the appellant and pursuant to CCC 19.15.200 by first class mail prior to the public hearing. Legal notice of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation and the subject property shall be posted with said notice not less than 10 calendar days prior to the public notice. Public notice on project permit applications, SEPA and appeal hearings may be combined when practical, where such combined notice will expedite the review process, and where minimum requirements of each individual notice are met by the combined notice.

3. The Hearing Examiner shall endeavor to issue a written decision within 10 calendar days after the public hearing. Such written decision shall be available to the applicant and appellant, and upon request to the public. [Ord. 18-008 § 2 (Exh. A), 2-13-18.]

19.11.130 Fees.

A. Fees for administrative reviews and actions, appeals, and public notice requirements under this chapter shall be adopted by resolution and on file with the Board of County Commissioners.

B. The responsible official may charge any person for copies of any document prepared under this chapter, and for mailing the document, in a manner provided by Chapter 42.17 RCW. [Ord. 18-008 § 2 (Exh. A), 2-13-18.]

19.11.140 Severability.

If any provision of this chapter or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the chapter or the application of the provision to other persons of circumstances shall not be affected. [Ord. 18-008 § 2 (Exh. A), 2-13-18.]