TO: Committee of the Whole - Public Safety and Human Services
FROM: Mayor Angela Birney
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR CONTACT(S):
|
Planning and Community Development |
Jason Lynch |
425-556-2483 |
DEPARTMENT STAFF:
|
Planning and Community Development |
Jeff Churchill |
Interim Deputy Director |
|
Planning and Community Development |
Alex Hunt |
Principal Planner |
TITLE:
title
Appeal of SEPA Threshold Determination for Noise Code Amendments [QUASI JUDICIAL]
OVERVIEW STATEMENT:
recommendation
The City Council will receive the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation on the appeal of the SEPA Threshold Determination for Noise Code Amendments, hear arguments from the City and the Interlake Sporting Association (”Appellant” or ”ISA”), and then make a decision on the appeal per RZC 21.70.190.F.2.b at the Council’s Special Meeting on Nov. 2, 2026.
Background
In early 2026, the City of Redmond proposed certain amendments to RMC 6.36, Noise Standards. The amendments are subject to environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act. Key dates in the environmental review process are:
• May 13, 2026: City issued SEPA determination of non-significance.
• June 10, 2026: City re-issued SEPA determination of non-significance.
• June 24, 2026: ISA appealed the threshold determination.
• Sept. 1-2, 2026: Hearing Examiner held open record hearing on the appeal.
• Oct. 16, 2026: Hearing Examiner issued recommendation on the appeal.
The Hearing Examiner’s recommendation and related appeal documents can be found online at <https://www.redmond.gov/2629/Interlake-Sporting-Association-Appeal>.
City Council’s Role in Deciding Appeal
Because this is an appeal of a threshold determination of a non-project action, the appeal is heard and decided according to the provisions of RZC 21.70.190.F.2.b.
• The Hearing Examiner holds an open record hearing on the appeal.
• The Hearing Examiner issues a recommendation to the City Council on the appeal.
• The City Council makes the final decision on the appeal based on the prior open record hearing and corresponding Hearing Examiner’s recommendation.
According to the City Council Rules of Procedure Section IV(J)(3), “Whenever a quasi-judicial matter pending before the City Council has been the subject of a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission, the Council shall allow each side (proponents and opponents) to speak for a maximum of ten minutes each. No new evidence may be presented by either speaker, and testimony shall be limited to argument based upon the Hearing Examiner’s or Planning Commission’s record. All quasi-judicial items shall be noted on the agenda as being quasi-judicial and a statement shall appear on the agenda indicating that each side may speak for a maximum of ten minutes each.”
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine
Because this is a quasi-judicial matter, the appearance of fairness doctrine applies. The appearance of fairness doctrine is a rule of law requiring government decision-makers to conduct non-court hearings and proceedings in a way that is fair and unbiased in both appearance and fact. It was developed by the courts as a method of ensuring that due process protections, which normally apply in courtroom settings, extend to certain types of administrative decision-making hearings, such as rezones of specific property. The doctrine attempts to make sure that all parties to an argument receive fair and equitable treatment.
The doctrine requires that adjudicatory or quasi-judicial public hearings meet two requirements:
• They must be procedurally fair, and
• They must appear to be conducted by impartial decision-makers.
Per RCW 42.36.060, during the pendency of any quasi-judicial proceeding, no member of a decision-making body may engage in ex parte communications with opponents or proponents with respect to the proposal which is the subject of the proceeding unless that person: places on the record the substance of any written or oral ex parte communications concerning the decision of action; and provides that a public announcement of the content of the communication and of the parties' rights to rebut the substance of the communication shall be made at each hearing where action is considered or taken on the subject to which the communication related.
The City Attorney will review the application of this doctrine with the City Council before the quasi-judicial proceeding.
Next Steps after City Council Decision
The City Council is the decision-making body for the final decision on the SEPA appeal.
☒ Additional Background Information/Description of Proposal Attached
REQUESTED ACTION:
☐ Receive Information ☒ Provide Direction ☐ Approve
REQUEST RATIONALE:
• Relevant Plans/Policies:
City Council Rules of Procedure Section IV(J)(3).
• Required:
RZC 21.70.190.F.2.b
• Council Request:
N/A.
• Other Key Facts:
N/A.
OUTCOMES:
The outcome of this item will be a final decision from the City Council on the SEPA appeal.
COMMUNITY/STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND INVOLVEMENT:
• Timeline (previous or planned):
N/A.
• Outreach Methods and Results:
N/A.
• Feedback Summary:
N/A.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Total Cost:
The staff time dedicated to this appeal is accounted for in budgets for the Planning and Community Development Department and City Attorney’s Office.
Approved in current biennial budget: ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A
Budget Offer Number:
290 - Executive Leadership
303 - Development Services
304 - Community and Economic Development
Budget Priority:
Strategic and Responsive
Vibrant and Connected
Other budget impacts or additional costs: ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ N/A
If yes, explain:
N/A.
Funding source(s):
General Fund
Budget/Funding Constraints:
None.
☐ Additional budget details attached
COUNCIL REVIEW:
Previous Contact(s)
|
Date |
Meeting |
Requested Action |
|
N/A |
Item has not been presented to Council |
N/A |
Proposed Upcoming Contact(s)
|
Date |
Meeting |
Requested Action |
|
11/2/2026 |
Special Meeting |
Approve |
Time Constraints:
N/A
ANTICIPATED RESULT IF NOT APPROVED:
Staff seek a final decision on the appeal. Without a decision the SEPA appeal will remain unresolved.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.