Notice of the time and place of an open record hearing shall be made available to the public by the Department no less than 15 days prior to the hearing, through use of these methods:
•
Mail. Mailing to owners of real property located within 500 feet (1,000 feet for master development plan permits and SCTF or essential public facilities special use permits) of the subject property;
•
Newspaper. The Department shall publish a notice of the open record public hearing in the newspaper of general circulation for the general area in which the proposal is located;
•
Post Site. Posting the property (for site-specific proposals).
(Ord. 238 Ch. III § 5(b), 2000; Ord. 317 § 1, 2003; Ord. 581 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2010; Ord. 591 § 1 (Exh. A), 2010; Ord. 669 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013; Ord. 882 § 1 (Exh. D), 2020)
Unless an administrative appeal is timely filed, a land use decision of the City shall be effective on the date the written decision is issued.
(Ord. 238 Ch. III § 5(c), 2000)
A. 
Type A decisions may be appealed to the King County Superior Court pursuant to Chapter 36.70C RCW, Land Use Petition Act.
B. 
Type B decisions, except for shoreline permits, may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to Chapter 20.30 SMC, Subchapter 4, Land Use Hearings and Appeals. Shoreline substantial development, variance, and conditional use permits may be appealed to the Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, Shoreline Management Act.
C. 
Type C decisions may be appealed to the King County Superior Court pursuant to Chapter 36.70C RCW, Land Use Petition Act.
D. 
Type L decisions, except for development agreements, may be appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW, Growth Management Act. Development agreements may be appealed to the King County Superior Court pursuant to Chapter 36.70C RCW, Land Use Petition Act.
Decision Type
Appeal Authority
Type A
King County Superior Court – Chapter 36.70C RCW
Type B (nonshoreline)
Hearing Examiner – Chapter 20.30 SMC, Subchapter 4 (1)
Type B (shoreline)
Shoreline Hearings Board – Chapter 90.58 RCW
Type C
King County Superior Court – Chapter 36.70C RCW
Type L (Comprehensive Plan and development regulations)
Growth Management Hearings Board – Chapter 36.70A RCW
Type L (development agreements)
King County Superior Court – Chapter 36.70C RCW
Notes:
(1) Final decisions of an appeal on a Type B decision to the Hearing Examiner may be appealed as provided in Chapter 20.30 SMC, Subchapter 4.
(Ord. 238 Ch. III § 5(d), 2000; Ord. 581 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2010; Ord. 959 § 1 (Exh. A), 2022)
Any administrative appeal shall be linked to the criteria of the underlying land use decision. The grounds for filing an appeal shall be limited to the following:
A. 
The Director exceeded their jurisdiction or authority;
B. 
The Director failed to follow applicable procedures in reaching the decision;
C. 
The Director committed an error of law; or
D. 
The findings, conclusions or decision prepared by the Director or review authority are not supported by substantial evidence.
(Ord. 238 Ch. III § 5(e), 2000)
A. 
Any aggrieved person may appeal a decision to the Hearing Examiner. Only Type B decisions may be appealed.
B. 
Appeals, and the appeal fee set forth in the fee schedule adopted pursuant to Chapter 3.01 SMC, must be received by the City Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. local time on the fourteenth calendar day following the date of the notice of the Director’s decision.
C. 
Appeals shall be in writing and comply with the form and content requirements of the rules of procedure adopted by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to SMC § 2.15.070. The written appeal statement shall contain a concise statement demonstrating the person is adversely affected by the decision; identifying each alleged error of fact, law, or procedure and the manner in which the decision fails to satisfy the applicable decision criteria; and the specific relief requested.
(Ord. 238 Ch. III § 5(f), 2000; Ord. 469 § 1, 2007; Ord. 959 § 1 (Exh. A), 2022)
A. 
All administrative appeals are conducted pursuant to rules of procedure adopted by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to SMC § 2.15.070.
B. 
No more than one open record hearing shall be heard on any permit decision.
C. 
An appeal shall be heard and decided within 90 days from the date the appeal is filed. The parties may agree in writing to extend this time. Any extension of time must be submitted to the Hearing Examiner for approval.
D. 
Timely filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the Director’s decision until the appeal is ruled upon by the Hearing Examiner or withdrawn by the appellant. A subsequent appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s decision to the King County Superior Court shall not stay the effectiveness of the Director’s decision unless the Court issues an order staying the decision.
E. 
The hearing shall be limited to the issues set forth in the written appeal statement. Participation in the appeal shall be limited to the appellant, City, including all staff, and the applicant for the proposal subject to appeal, if not the appellant.
(Ord. 238 Ch. III § 5(g), 2000; Ord. 959 § 1 (Exh. A), 2022)
No person may seek judicial review of any decision of the City, unless that person first exhausts the administrative remedies provided by the City.
(Ord. 238 Ch. III § 5(h), 2000)
Any judicial appeal shall be filed in accordance with State law. If there is not a statutory time limit for filing a judicial appeal, the appeal shall be filed within 21 calendar days after a final decision is issued by the City.
(Ord. 238 Ch. III § 5(i), 2000)
In the event of any conflict between any provision of this Chapter and any other City ordinance, the provisions of this chapter shall control. specifically, but without limitation, this means that the provisions of this chapter shall control with reference to authority to make decisions and the timeframe for making those decisions, including the requirements to file an appeal.
(Ord. 238 Ch. III § 5(j), 2000)
The appeal authority may dismiss an appeal in whole or in part without a hearing, if the appeal authority determines that the appeal or application is untimely, frivolous, beyond the scope of the appeal authority’s jurisdiction, brought merely to secure a delay, or that the appellant lacks standing.
(Ord. 238 Ch. III § 5(k), 2000)