Thank you for your interest in land use matters in the City of Richland. Recognizing that these decisions are impactful to the community, the City has structured a system to provide the best opportunity for your participation in the land use process. We hope you find the following information informative, and we encourage you to reach out to the City’s Planning Department with any questions. 

City councils make two types of decisions: legislative decisions and quasi-judicial decisions. Different standards and rules apply to these two types of decision-making. From a high-level perspective, there is much more flexibility for a city council to make legislative decisions with deference to the voice of the citizens. When it comes to quasi-judicial decisions, however, city council (when sitting in a quasi-judicial decision-making capacity) must make decisions based on the relevant evidence in the record and the entitlements property owners have in their property. Ex-parte contact with parties (citizens or developers) is strictly prohibited, and the Appearance of Fairness doctrine applies to the proceedings when these types of decisions are made. Land use decisions, which are quasi-judicial in nature, are fraught with legal risk when a city council, without legal training and subject to political influence, make the final determination. 

In 2014, the Richland City Council recognized this risk and moved to a Hearing Examiner system to take Council outside the realm of quasi-judicial land use decisions. This allows City Council to stay focused on policy level decision-making like comprehensive plan and area-wide zoning determinations. This shift to a Hearing Examiner system, which is widely used throughout Washington, provides for an orderly system based on facts and law, outside of the legislative process reserved for an elected City Council. 

For nearly a decade, the system has worked exactly as intended in Richland. The Hearing Examiner, by law, holds one open-record public hearing to gather relevant evidence to determine whether the proposed development complies with the City’s development regulations. If it does, there is no basis for denial, even if or when numerous citizens speak out against the development. However, the project could be reasonably conditioned, and the Hearing Examiner, based on training and experience, is well-suited to identify conditions to mitigate the impact of the project. City Council, who rightfully are sympathetic and responsive to all citizens, struggles with this type situation when a project is controversial and citizens take positions on both sides of an issue. This is exactly why the Hearing Examiner system works so well. The City’s Hearing Examiner, who is a trained attorney with extensive experience deciding land use decisions across Washington, is free of political influence. He is able to evaluate the relevant evidence against the code and determine whether sufficient evidence in the record supports approval of the development, with or without conditions. This is a pure legal analysis that has to be defensible on appeal because an owner has a right to develop their property consistent with the City’s land use regulations. The sentiment of the citizens for or against a project simply cannot be the basis to make these quasi-judicial land use decisions. Instead, decisions must be based on facts and the law, including development regulations. Through its legislative function, the City Council may amend the City’s development regulations to suit the needs of the community vision, but the Hearing Examiner is responsible for applying the current standards against a project consistent with the rules in place when a complete project application is filed.  

The following are recognized benefits of the Hearing Examiner system:

• No political influence or pressure.
• Professional - specially trained.
• Experience with many different jurisdictions and regulations.
• Technically adept including a knowledge of physical land development and technical feasibility.
• More cost effective (reduce appeals and judicial challenges).
• More efficient process.
• Substantial reduction in judicial reversal of decision.
• Substantial reduction in potential legal damages claims against city.
• Avoids potential personal legal claims against citizen decision-makers (councilmembers).
• Instills public confidence in the decision-making process.
• Helps ensure constitutional protection of due process of law and equal protection.
• Helps ensure predictability and consistency.
• Skilled in understanding, interpreting and applying nuances of municipal code and general legal principles.
• Segregates and clearly delineates quasi-judicial decision making functions from legislative (law-making) and long-tern planning functions.
• Frees up city council and/or planning commission time for other important planning and law-making functions.
• Orderly process for citizen participation.
• Establishment of a complete record of all participation.