HomeMy WebLinkAboutSam Pace SKCR_ PC Public Hearing Land Use Appeal Process_20250114
DATE: January 14, 2025
TO: Renton Planning Commission
c/o Mr. Matt Herrera, Planning Director
DELIVERY: email only to: MHerrera@RentonWA.gov
FROM: Sam Pace, Housing Specialist
Seattle King County REALTORS®
Sam@SamPace.com
(253) 569-2663
RE: Title IV - Development Regulations: Proposed Code Amendment for
Quasi-Judicial Hearing Appeals of Land-Use Decisions
Dear Commissioners and Director Herrera,
I am writing to you on behalf of our 6,000+ members of Seattle King County REALTORS® to provide
public hearing comments (of record) in connection with the Planning Commission’s combined
Staff Briefing and Public Hearing scheduled for January 15th regarding appeals of land-use
decisions.
It is our understanding that:
• Renton’s city code currently provides:
o Decisions on land use-related development applications are currently made by a
professional Hearing Examiner
o Once the Examiner’s decision is made, the City Council acts as a quasi-judicial
appellate body for appeals of most land use decisions.
• The proposal before the Planning Commission on January 15th would:
o Streamline land-use appeals by removing the City Council from hearing such
appeals, to improve efficiency and predictability of outcomes.
o Make the Hearing Examiner’s decision final, and subject only to further challenge
in King County Superior Court.
We are pleased the city Planning Staff’s report to the Commission has noted the following: The
nature and existence of the conflict between the City Council's primary role as a legislative body,
and the quasi-judicial nature of “closed record” appeals; the legal prohibition on the Council
considering new evidence or testimony during appeals, the legal prohibition on creating new
standards via a quasi-judicial process (which instead requires legislative action), and the task-
specific skill of well-qualified professional hearing examiners to make these decisions.
As reported by the Municipal Research Services Center (MSRC), and noted by the Planning Staff,
most other cities with hearing examiner systems have already removed their city councils from
hearing land-use appeals.
Renton is “behind the curve” in this regard.
The “closed record” nature of appeals to the City Council invites public frustration, due to (1) the
legal prohibition on members of the public attempting to address any facts or concerns not
already in the record, and (2) potential “standing” restrictions on who may participate in such
appeals.
The notion that people can “take their concerns to City Hall” has a different meaning in the
legislative process than it does in a quasi-judicial setting, and most members of the public do not
have sufficient experience with “closed record appeals” to be able to appreciate the difference.
And, when they confront that difference (in the middle of a moment when they have something
they want to say), and are told of the limitations on their ability to do so, it creates frustration,
produces bad optics, and undermines public trust.
Such dissatisfaction is further exacerbated by the “appearance of conflict of interest” legal
restrictions on city council members that prohibit all “off the record” communication with
members of the public, and parties.
Transitioning away from council involvement in quasi-judicial appeals may also provide important
efficiencies that are beneficial to applicants seeking development approvals and permits.
Specifically, the proposal may:
• Provide greater congruency between city standards, hearing examiner decisions, and final
results
• Improve predictability of outcomes for applicants
• Reduce time frames required to move from initial submittals of applications, to
completion of construction, and receipt of certificates of occupancy/final inspections from
the city, and
• The more efficient process (the shorter time-frame) may also reduce project carrying costs
- such as interest paid on operating capital loans - in ways that can minimize unnecessary
expenses, improve affordability, and favorably affect whether a project will “pencil.”
Projects that don’t “pencil” don’t get “built.”
It appears this proposed “process improvement” can be accomplished without making any
“substantive” reductions in the health, safety, environmental, and structural, development
standards and protections that projects must satisfy.
Moreover, it is our impression that this change would not eliminate, or compromise, the current
provisions in Chapter 4-8 of the city code that allow project applicants, parties of record, and
others with standing, to appeal development permits that are either:
• Issued administratively by the Community and Economic Development (CED)
Administrator, or
• Issued by the Hearing Examiner following a public hearing.
By way of summary, we would draw your attention to the following paragraph in the staff report
for this matter:
“The result of the proposed text amendments would maintain due process rights for
appellants by maintaining open record appeals via the Hearing Examiner and judicial
appeals heard by King County Superior Court. Additionally, councilmembers would then be
free to discuss and engage with concerned citizens, property owners, and business owners
on development projects within the city.”
Thank you for the opportunity provide these public hearing comments of record.
Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Sincerely,
SEATTLE KING COUNTY REALTORS®
Sam Pace
Sam Pace, Housing Specialist
sam@sampace.com
(253) 569-2663
cc: Taylor Shanaman
Director of Governmental & Public Affairs