The Renton City Council passed a land use ordinance change to remove themselves from the appeal process.

At the Feb. 10 meeting, the council had the first and second reading, along with the adoption, of an amendment to the land use appeal procedures.

Formerly, the Renton Municipal Code called for the city council to act as a quasi-judicial appellate board for appeals of most land use decisions. The council would hear appeals made after the professional hearing examiner’s decision.

The change will now make the hearing examiner’s decisions final, and can only be challenged if appeals are taken to the King County Superior Court.

According to the agenda bill, the city believed the councilmembers’ primary role as a legislative body conflicted with the quasi-judicial nature of the closed records appeal. The council was restricted in its ability to engage with constituents and risked creating false expectations that it could act on their concerns. The councilmembers also said the professional hearing examiner is well-qualified to make the decisions and their role in the process was unnecessary.

“It allows us to have a conversation with the residents when there’s land use issues that are going on that may go to appeal,” Councilmember Ed Prince said. “Previously, we were unable to have conversations with them because if there was an appeal of the hearing examiner’s decision, it would come to council.”

Prince said in that role, they could not have outside information.

“Previously we weren’t able to engage at all. Now we are able to engage in conversation about whatever issues they are seeing with the land use issue,” Prince said.

Most cities with hearing examiner systems have already removed their city councils from hearing land use appeals, according to the council. The city staff has reviewed the codes of several cities in King County and said it appears that none of those surveyed had closed record appeals to their respective city councils for land use decisions. Cities that do have the city council review land use applications treat their decisions as legislative decisions rather than quasi-judicial closed record appeals.

Prince said this was the only ordinance that operated in this way.

“This was the only area where we were quasi-judicial,” Prince said.