Renton: Reform of Development Regulations for Land-Use Appeals

Currently, Renton’s city code provides that decisions on land-use–related development applications are made by a professional Hearing Examiner. Once the Examiner’s decision is made, the City Council acts as a “quasi-judicial” appellate body for appeals of most land-use decisions.

Seattle King County REALTORS® are making good progress advocating for streamlined land-use appeals by making the Hearing Examiner’s decision final and removing the City Council’s responsibility to hear such appeals. Any challenge to a Hearing Examiner’s decision would be filed in King County Superior Court, without the necessity to first go through an additional city council appeal process.

The change, which was supported by REALTORS® in the Planning Commission’s public hearing on the matter, would improve efficiency and predictability of outcomes. In the process, it would reduce the cost and time to bring new inventory to the market.

City officials have acknowledged the existence and nature of the conflict between the City Council’s primary role as a “legislative” body and the “quasi-judicial” nature of closed-record land-use appeals. City Council members:

• Are prohibited from considering new evidence or testimony during closed record appeals.
• Are prohibited from creating new standards in the middle of an appeal (because the establishment of new standards is a legislative action, and taking such action in a quasi-judicial process would violate the property owner’s constitutional due process rights).
• Do not typically possess the task-specific skill of well-qualified professional hearing examiners to make these decisions.

Additionally, the closed-record nature of appeals to the City Council (where the introduction of new evidence or testimony is prohibited during the appeal) invites public frustration. The notion that people can take their concerns to City Hall has a different meaning in a legislative process than it does in a quasi-judicial setting. Most members of the public do not have sufficient experience with closed-record appeals to appreciate the difference. When members of the public confront that difference (in the middle of a moment when they have something they want to say) and are told of the legal limitations on their ability to do so, it creates frustration, produces bad optics, and undermines public trust. Such dissatisfaction is further exacerbated by the legal restrictions on city council members that prohibit all off-the-record communication with members of the public and parties regarding the substance of any appeal to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Approval of this change supported by REALTORS® would leave councilmembers free to discuss and engage with concerned citizens, property owners, and business owners on development projects within the city.

Transitioning away from council involvement in quasi-judicial appeals may also provide important efficiencies that are beneficial to property owners and housing developers seeking development approvals and permits. Specifically, the proposal supported by the REALTORS® may:

• Provide greater congruency between city standards, hearing examiner decisions, and final results.
• Improve predictability of outcomes for property owners and developers applying for permits.
• Reduce timeframes required to move from initial submittals of applications to completion of construction and receipt of certificates of occupancy/final inspections from the city.
• The more efficient process (shorter timeframe) 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. This is important because projects that don’t pencil don’t get built.

Additionally, 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.