County appealed corrected determination by regional panel of growth management hearings board that most of county ordinance that amended land use code governing winery, brewery, and distillery facilities did not comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
The Superior Court transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeals pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for finding of compliance. The Supreme Court accepted review.
The Supreme Court held that:
- Amendment did not comply with the GMA, and
- Determination of nonsignificance (DNS) which county issued for amendment did not comply with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
County’s amended land use code governing winery, brewery, and distillery facilities in rural and agricultural areas, which county determined was a nonproject action and made a threshold determination of nonsignificance (DNS), did not comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA); development of rural and agricultural land with no environmental review failed to maintain the natural resource industries and failed to protect water quality, while county’s DNS checklist did not address any potential environmental impacts and concluded no potential environmental impacts existed, and ordinance allowed accessory uses of wine tasting and large-scale events with no adequate regulations and adequate setbacks to prevent conflicts with agricultural activities.
Threshold determination of nonsignificance (DNS) which county issued for amendment of land use code governing winery, brewery, and distillery facilities in rural and agricultural areas did not comply with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA); amendment created opportunities for new and existing businesses to open or expand operations within land classified as rural and agricultural, and it was very probable that the affected land, which was in a popular winery destination area, would be used in that manner, and SEPA checklist which county used did not disclose potential environmental impacts from the potential expansion of facilities in the area.