Skip to main content
This section is included in your selections.

A. General. A Process I decision of the hearing examiner approving a proposal with or without SEPA conditions or denying a proposal under the authority of BCC 22.02.140 and a decision of the director approving a Process V permit with or without SEPA conditions or denying a Process V proposal under the authority of BCC 22.02.140 may not be administratively appealed. A Process II or other administrative decision of the applicable department director approving a proposal with or without SEPA conditions or denying a proposal under the authority of BCC 22.02.140 may be administratively appealed. The appeal will be processed in conjunction with the administrative appeal for the underlying action. In cases where no administrative appeal is provided for the underlying action, the appeal will be provided as a Process II appeal (LUC 20.35.200 et seq.), except that there is no administrative appeal of SEPA associated with a Process V proposal. Only one SEPA appeal may be conducted for a proposal. The SEPA appeal must consolidate consideration of procedural and substantive issues and must be held in conjunction with any appeal of the underlying action; provided, that an appeal of a determination of significance shall be conducted prior to any appeal on the underlying action and an appeal of a determination of nonsignificance for a Process I decision shall be conducted and decided by the hearing examiner in conjunction with the public hearing for the proposal.

B. Issues relating to the adequacy of an EIS may not be appealed under this section; provided, however, the hearing examiner may consider issues related to an EIS that were specifically raised earlier in the public process and may rely on credible environmental information presented at a hearing to modify conditions or to justify new conditions or a decision to approve or deny a proposal. New evidence presented at a hearing and relied on by the hearing examiner shall be adequately documented, referenced, and incorporated into the environmental record as an addendum through the examiner’s decision or recommendation. If new significant impacts are documented, the examiner’s report shall be remanded to the environmental coordinator for circulation as a supplemental EIS.

C. Who May Appeal. Any person adversely affected by a substantive SEPA decision may appeal; however, only those persons who submitted comments prior to issuance of the decision may appeal unless a showing is made to demonstrate that environmental issues raised in the appeal were not known to the appellants and could not reasonably have been known to the appellants in time to submit comments.

D. Issues on Appeal. Appeals are limited to those issues raised through the comment period; provided, that new issues may be raised if the appellant shows that the project has changed substantially from what was identified in the public notice or information on expected environmental impacts was not reasonably available prior to issuance of the threshold determination.

E. Time to Appeal Administrative Decision. A written statement appealing the substantive decision of the applicable department director must be filed with the city clerk within 14 days of the date the decision was mailed or otherwise became effective, or, if the decision is issued concurrently with a determination of nonsignificance for which a comment period is required by state or local rules, within 21 days of the decision.

F. Time to Appeal Substantive SEPA Decision to Superior Court. A decision on an administrative appeal of substantive SEPA issues must be appealed to superior court in conjunction with an appeal of the underlying action in accordance with RCW 43.21C.075 and within the time limits specified in RCW 36.70C.040.

G. Exemption. This section does not apply to decisions made pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shorelines Management Act. (Ord. 6719 § 1, 2023; Ord. 5618 § 5, 2005; Ord. 4978 § 32, 1997; Ord. 4817 § 12, 1995; Ord. 4257 § 3, 1991; Ord. 4102 § 11, 1990.)