Will the Planning Board vote to shut you out of council appeals?

Tonight, the planning board will once again take up land-use appeals to the council. In the past, they have recommended to shut the public out of the council appeal process. Will they do so again, despite the fact that the city council has made it very clear that this is not going to happen?

I was still on the council when the planning board recommend shutting the public out of council appeals. When I analyzed their reasoning, it was based solely off a recommendation made by the Association of Washington Cities, who claim it's a legal liability. Yet, the planning board could not sight any evidence that the council had ever created a legal liability in its land-use decisions.

Folks who advocate for removing the council and the public from land-use appeals believe a hearing examiner will deliver better legal decisions that will save the city from costly law suites. What they fail to realize is that the hearing examiner has already made many costly legal mistakes.

And I can site examples:

Bauer V. Edmonds: The hearing examiner decided to approve a building which clearly failed to meet roof modulation requirements. The council went along (by only one vote), and the city was sued and the decision was overturned.

Day V. Edmonds: The hearing examiner applied code standards to a change of use when the code wasn't yet passed. The judge quickly overturned this decision.

Petso V. Edmonds: The hearing examiner approved a PRD that failed drainage and open space standards. This costs the city a bundle of cash. Petso is a very aggressive opponent.

If there was a legal liability issue with the council hearing appeals, then we should see cases where a council overturns a hearing examiner, and the judge restores the hearing examiner's decision, but there are no such examples to find.

When confronted with this basic reality, those who want to shut out the council and the public from the land-use process begin to grope for examples. One example is the appeal of an ADB decision regarding Old-Mill town. "Look," they say, "the council had to settle that case. Oh my, the council needs to be out of land-use process."

Actually, the ADB review process worked very well for the public regarding Old-Milltown. Thanks to that process, the council secured changes to the new design of Old-Milltown that the public clearly wanted. The citizens made dynamite arguments during the hearing, arguments that were based on law, not passion.

Most council members who voted to settle did so because it essentially locked in the improvements. The council was going to have to pay money anyway to defend the case, why not use it to get what the public wants?

In short, the Old-Milltown case is an example of why the council needs to be in the process. It is NOT an example for why the council should be out of the process.

And I am not the only one who thinks that: Look at what the Enterprise editorial board stated.

The public and the council need to remain in the land-use process. The planning board needs to look at the evidence and do their own thinking on this issue, because the evidence is more important than the recommendations.