## Facts

- A developer sought City approval for a residential project dividing about 17 acres into 81 single-family lots with a planned unit development overlay in the Ponderosa area of Spokane County, a location with a history of severe wildfires.
- The City’s planning division issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MDNS) under SEPA and granted preliminary approvals, relying in part on a traffic analysis asserting evacuation would not be significantly impeded.
- A neighborhood association appealed to the City hearing examiner, challenging the MDNS and related approvals on wildfire evacuation and public-safety grounds.
- The hearing examiner found multiple flaws in the developer’s traffic study and, using the developer’s own data, concluded that evacuation performance would fall far short of the City’s 30-minute evacuation goal (about 20% of existing traffic and none of project traffic within 30 minutes).
- The hearing examiner ruled the MDNS “clearly erroneous,” required preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS), and remanded for SEPA compliance.
- On judicial review, the superior court reversed, concluding the hearing examiner had improperly substituted judgment for the SEPA responsible official.
- The neighborhood association appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the hearing examiner’s determination that the City’s MDNS was “clearly erroneous” under SEPA in light of wildfire evacuation constraints.
2. Whether the hearing examiner exceeded permissible review authority by critically evaluating the developer’s traffic study and performing additional analysis from record data.
3. Whether wildfire-related evacuation and public-safety risks can constitute significant environmental impacts requiring an EIS under SEPA.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court and reinstated the hearing examiner’s decision.
- The court held the examiner’s “clearly erroneous” finding was supported by the record and consistent with SEPA’s threshold determination standards.
- The court upheld the examiner’s authority to test the adequacy and credibility of the developer’s study and to draw reasoned conclusions from record evidence, including the proponent’s data.
- The court required an EIS because the record showed probable significant adverse impacts tied to wildfire evacuation capacity.
- The matter was remanded to the City for preparation of an EIS.

## Legal Principles

- A SEPA threshold determination (DNS/MDNS) is reviewed under the “clearly erroneous” standard, requiring an independent review of the whole record to decide whether the decision-maker made a mistake.
- Deference to the SEPA responsible official does not require acceptance of a threshold determination unsupported by the record.
- A hearing examiner may evaluate the adequacy of technical submissions, identify methodological deficiencies, and rely on record data to determine whether impacts are likely significant.
- Public-safety consequences linked to physical environmental conditions (such as wildfire evacuation constraints) may qualify as environmental impacts under SEPA.
- When record evidence indicates probable significant adverse impacts not adequately addressed through an MDNS, SEPA requires preparation of an EIS before project approval proceeds.

## Conclusion

The court required an EIS for a residential development in a wildfire-prone area because record evidence supported the hearing examiner’s finding that the City’s MDNS was clearly erroneous given evacuation limitations, and it confirmed that a hearing examiner may critically assess supporting studies and require an EIS when significant impacts are likely.


Lanzce G. Douglass, Inc. v. City of Spokane Valley, 225 P.3d 448 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010)