Development Commission Special Meeting · Wednesday, May 29, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission reviews all land Lucy Sloman, use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Land Development Manager Commission further serves as an advisory board Email to the City Council on land use actions requiring council approval (Level 5 review). Regular Members 2020 – Melvin Morgan The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2020 – Kevin Price Development Commission members and City 2022 – Michael Brennan Council members from discussing the merit of 2022 – Richard Sowa specific land use development applications outside 2022 – Richard Sanford of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, 2023 – Brooke Shore however, may discuss any issue with the City's 2023 – Ben Rush Development Services Department. Written comments are also welcome. Alternate Members 2020 – Mark Rigos Membership 2020 – Nischitha Venkatesh The…

2. REGULAR BUSINESS

Open Government Training Act and Other Essential Training, (I)

Tina Eggers, City Clerk Jim Haney, City Attorney

Resources, Codes and Permit Types

Information · Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager Trish Heinonen, Long Range Planning Manager

Topics: Land Use

3202 segments .txt ↗

0:33 ↗ so tonight we're here for a training of

0:36 ↗ the Development Commission and the

0:40 ↗ Planning Policy Commission and we also

0:44 ↗ have staff from various city departments

0:46 ↗ and you have agendas so I think you can

0:52 ↗ sort of see the order that the City

0:55 ↗ Clerk's tena Eggers and tisha bees are

0:57 ↗ going to speak followed by the city

1:01 ↗ attorney Jim Haney and then Trish

1:05 ↗ Hyneman and myself will be the last

1:07 ↗ speakers Trish and I have a two-part

1:11 ↗ presentation the first part is relevant

1:14 ↗ to both Commission's the second part is

1:16 ↗ more relevant to the Development

1:19 ↗ Commission but planning policy may be

1:21 ↗ interested in hearing about that and are

1:23 ↗ certainly welcome to stay

1:25 ↗ [Music]

1:32 ↗ all right well I'll remind you that

1:34 ↗ you're in a room that is miked

1:35 ↗ so I will do my best to speak up if you

1:39 ↗ can't hear me though please let me know

1:42 ↗ and I'll use a larger voice for I was

1:46 ↗ planning on standing up but since we

1:48 ↗ might have some of our panel

1:51 ↗ rejecting I'm just going to stay seated

1:54 ↗ for now I want to thank you for coming

1:57 ↗ this evening

1:57 ↗ this training is important and the

2:00 ↗ service that you do and your volunteer

2:02 ↗ commitment to the community is much

2:04 ↗ appreciated

2:04 ↗ but we have you know 15 active boards of

2:07 ↗ commissions that means we have over 125

2:09 ↗ volunteers and these pointed seeds so

2:14 ↗ again thank you for your service for

2:17 ↗ those that don't know me I'm Tina Akers

2:19 ↗ I'm your City Clerk I've worked with

2:21 ↗ this apply for 15 but I've worked with

2:23 ↗ local government for over 25 I'm charged

2:27 ↗ with a legislative work of the council

2:28 ↗ and our office does records

2:32 ↗ administration we also coordinate the

2:34 ↗ many events and recruitment with boards

2:38 ↗ and commissions and one of our tasks is

2:40 ↗ to provide your mandated training that's

2:43 ↗ why we're here to my right as you can

2:47 ↗ see from your left we've got Jim Haney

2:49 ↗ our city attorney and then tisha Kizer

2:52 ↗ again she's the deputy city clerk so

2:54 ↗ we're split up our presentations so that

2:57 ↗ we can try not to be too boring

3:02 ↗ there's Mike

3:04 ↗ but let's go ahead and get started all

3:07 ↗ right so the intent of the open

3:10 ↗ government training is to increase your

3:13 ↗ knowledge about the laws and

3:15 ↗ responsibilities that jurisdictions have

3:17 ↗ who perform these duties that is

3:19 ↗ specific to staff for councilmembers and

3:22 ↗ to our appointed officials the state

3:25 ↗ auditor's office is looking for ways to

3:27 ↗ reduce findings decreased violations in

3:31 ↗ cities are certainly looking to reduce

3:34 ↗ risk the state auditor's office found

3:37 ↗ most violations were not malicious or

3:39 ↗ intentional violations resulted from

3:42 ↗ insufficient knowledge or training which

3:44 ↗ is why my fourth bullet is important

3:47 ↗ because it's really to eliminate

3:49 ↗ inadvertent violations and the more you

3:52 ↗ know the more that you can help each

3:54 ↗ other stay within the right zones of

3:56 ↗ Public Records and OPM a the act is

4:01 ↗ intended to foster open government

4:03 ↗ education and again to reduce liability

4:06 ↗ so the Public Records Act we're going to

4:10 ↗ look at that one first it's not new it's

4:12 ↗ been around since 1972 it's also

4:15 ↗ referred to as the sunshine law or the

4:17 ↗ sunshine act because it was created by

4:20 ↗ the people of the state to foster open

4:23 ↗ and transparent government

4:26 ↗ it requires that all public records

4:28 ↗ maintained by the state or local

4:29 ↗ agencies are made available to all

4:32 ↗ members of the public there's very few

4:34 ↗ exemptions and those are in our state

4:39 ↗ statutes that would list those few

4:41 ↗ exemptions this does not just mean the

4:47 ↗ written or physical records that the

4:50 ↗ agency has this could be electronic

4:52 ↗ it could be text messages photos videos

4:56 ↗ emails handwritten notes as your City

5:00 ↗ Clerk I'm designated as a public records

5:02 ↗ officer and that just means that if

5:06 ↗ someone wishes to file a formal request

5:08 ↗ they would do that through my office

5:13 ↗ as your City Clerk I also manage the

5:16 ↗ city's email system all the emails come

5:19 ↗ in and are retained

5:21 ↗ [Music]

5:25 ↗ what's the word that retained and

5:28 ↗ captured it retained so if we had a

5:31 ↗ request for something specific we could

5:33 ↗ do some queries and locate that

5:35 ↗ information

5:36 ↗ city staff who prepare your agendas and

5:38 ↗ minutes and staff reports manage the

5:43 ↗ records that that they're responsible

5:44 ↗ for should a request come in for records

5:48 ↗ that and they're asking for the first

5:50 ↗ specific records that are beyond the

5:52 ↗ ones that we maintain we may contact you

5:55 ↗ and say here's what is being asked for

5:58 ↗ here's the parameters by which we need

6:00 ↗ you to search your personal records for

6:03 ↗ and then you would have a responsibility

6:06 ↗ to maintain those records not destroy

6:10 ↗ them work with our office to produce

6:12 ↗ them so that we the city responsible

6:15 ↗ agents could then determine if they are

6:17 ↗ responsive and if any exemption applies

6:20 ↗ so it's not just it's not decisions that

6:24 ↗ you would make on your own it's ones

6:25 ↗ that we make it turtling

6:29 ↗ with that I would remind you that again

6:32 ↗ if you're instructed you have an

6:34 ↗ obligation a legal obligation to search

6:36 ↗ and not destroy and to produce those

6:41 ↗ records and we would work with you to

6:43 ↗ transfer those over saying that though

6:46 ↗ you are allowed under the state to

6:48 ↗ capture notes meeting notes that serve

6:51 ↗ to your benefit

6:53 ↗ you can also discard those records as

6:56 ↗ they have met your needs it's when a

7:00 ↗ request for records has initiated that

7:04 ↗ you would have to not have discarded

7:09 ↗ them so feel free to take your notes

7:12 ↗ discard them as they have served the

7:15 ↗ purpose to you I would recommend that

7:18 ↗ you find a rhythm that works for you so

7:21 ↗ if it's after a meeting and you want to

7:23 ↗ leave your note-taking behind staff can

7:26 ↗ recycle those if it's something that you

7:30 ↗ want to do monthly or quarterly

7:33 ↗ that might be a good idea some

7:35 ↗ Commission members will obtain a

7:38 ↗ separate email account so that they it's

7:41 ↗ not blended with their home stuff or

7:43 ↗ they'll have a separate file folder for

7:45 ↗ it and it's just sort of managing the

7:47 ↗ records that you have so if and when you

7:50 ↗ were asked to produce something that

7:52 ↗ would be easier when you came to that

7:55 ↗ situation Tina if people have questions

7:58 ↗ should they interrupt you or would you

7:59 ↗ like them to hold them tell me if you

8:02 ↗ have a question along the way we'll do

8:03 ↗ our best to answer it

8:04 ↗ we may indicate that we'll have more on

8:08 ↗ that topic at a later part of the

8:11 ↗ presentation so there's clarity that you

8:14 ↗ need let me know and if we hear that

8:16 ↗ there's an area of topic that requires

8:20 ↗ more information we can certainly

8:23 ↗ facilitate gathering that information

8:25 ↗ and distributing it to you at a later

8:27 ↗ time

8:32 ↗ the second part of the open government

8:36 ↗ training act is OPM a it's also the long

8:41 ↗ phrase of it is open public meetings Act

8:44 ↗ this is not new either this was created

8:46 ↗ in 1971 it's housed under RCW 42:30

8:50 ↗ and it's scattered throughout our

8:51 ↗ Municipal Code and specifically with the

8:55 ↗ creation of our boards of commissions we

8:58 ↗ have a varying level of boards and

9:02 ↗ commissions so we have some micro sister

9:04 ↗ cities that has you know less

9:07 ↗ responsibilities than say planning or

9:09 ↗ Development Commission so yours is

9:12 ↗ already a higher level under the state

9:15 ↗ it definitely falls under OPM a

9:18 ↗ provisions it basically means that your

9:22 ↗ meetings are open from start to finish

9:23 ↗ or sometimes refer to as gavel-to-gavel

9:26 ↗ if you run the council chambers so

9:28 ↗ there's very few exceptions where you

9:31 ↗ could have closed sessions so those are

9:33 ↗ considered executive sessions I'll touch

9:34 ↗ on those in a bit typically our other

9:39 ↗ boards of Commission's wouldn't see

9:41 ↗ executive sessions but I know that

9:44 ↗ you've had some certain situations where

9:46 ↗ you've been where do you experience

9:49 ↗ those so I'll talk about those in a

9:51 ↗ moment

9:53 ↗ let's talk about your regular meetings

9:55 ↗ versus your special meetings so your

9:57 ↗ regular meetings are your date and time

10:00 ↗ location-specific it's your regular

10:02 ↗ meeting calendar schedule so it's my

10:04 ↗ understanding that Development

10:05 ↗ Commission meets the first and third

10:06 ↗ Wednesday of each month 7:00 p.m.

10:08 ↗ council chamber chambers and then

10:10 ↗ Planning Policy Commission meets the

10:12 ↗ second and fourth Thursday of each month

10:14 ↗ at 6:30 and that would be in the council

10:20 ↗ chambers any time that you would hold a

10:22 ↗ meeting outside of this scheduled date

10:26 ↗ time or location could be considered a

10:29 ↗ special meeting and we would want to

10:32 ↗ ensure that the noticing indicated that

10:34 ↗ that your agendas and indicated that

10:37 ↗ your minutes and that you would want to

10:40 ↗ be cautious at those special meetings to

10:43 ↗ not take any final action on a topic

10:45 ↗ that wasn't explicitly identified on

10:50 ↗ your agenda so you'll notice that your

10:55 ↗ agendas indicate you know decisions or

10:57 ↗ information little footnotes

11:02 ↗ so we look out for you and that way yep

11:04 ↗ is there a timeframe in which

11:06 ↗ notification of special meetings has to

11:08 ↗ be made public

11:10 ↗ yes so if you click to the next screen

11:12 ↗ here special meetings can be also

11:15 ↗ referred to as other things like this

11:17 ↗ joint meeting training workshop retreats

11:19 ↗ tours regardless whether it's a special

11:22 ↗ meeting or a regular meeting

11:25 ↗ we must haven't noticed that at a

11:27 ↗ minimum with 24 hours before the meeting

11:29 ↗ we prefer more noticing than that

11:33 ↗ so we strive to get that out at least 5

11:36 ↗ days in advance so that you have the

11:37 ↗ materials that you need to be prepared

11:40 ↗ for your and if it's a public hearing if

11:44 ↗ it's the first night of a public hearing

11:46 ↗ then it's a difference of noticing right

11:49 ↗ there may be other elements involved

11:51 ↗ that require staff to have done a major

11:56 ↗ advance noticing it was not a meeting

12:00 ↗ for example if a subset of this group

12:03 ↗ got together to discuss some particular

12:05 ↗ matter on some evening but without any

12:09 ↗ formal authority but is that a meeting

12:13 ↗ uh well it depends so if it's a quorum

12:16 ↗ then and you're discussing business that

12:18 ↗ would have come before or is is intended

12:22 ↗ to be the Commission's work then that

12:24 ↗ meeting would need to be noticed if you

12:26 ↗ are less than a quorum or you're working

12:30 ↗ in a committee form again less than a

12:32 ↗ quorum you can go off and research or

12:34 ↗ review something and bring it back to

12:36 ↗ the full Commission for review in action

12:39 ↗ but you've got some quasi judicial

12:43 ↗ matters though that

12:45 ↗ have some restrictions and the attorneys

12:47 ↗ going to talk about that later

12:50 ↗ do you guys meeting subcommittees at all

12:53 ↗ we have them for a long time okay and if

12:57 ↗ you're meeting for a purpose if you're

12:59 ↗ getting together for a purpose that

13:00 ↗ isn't related to business of the board

13:03 ↗ as many of us want to get together can

13:05 ↗ get together you having a barbecue

13:07 ↗ someone's having a barbecue when you go

13:09 ↗ you're or you're attending some campaign

13:11 ↗ event that you happen to be at together

13:13 ↗ something that's not a meeting even

13:16 ↗ though you happen to be there a meeting

13:18 ↗ really occurs when you're discussing the

13:20 ↗ business of the Commission when you are

13:22 ↗ transacting the Commission's business so

13:25 ↗ anytime form of the Commission gets

13:28 ↗ together and is is discussing or

13:31 ↗ transacting the Commission's business

13:33 ↗ that is going to be a meeting right so

13:36 ↗ quorum for either of your Commission's

13:38 ↗ would be for members would constitute

13:40 ↗ that as the attorney said you're allowed

13:42 ↗ to travel and gather together so long as

13:45 ↗ you are not taking testimony or

13:49 ↗ deliberating or discussing considering

13:51 ↗ reviewing evaluating and or taking final

13:54 ↗ action on something that would be

13:55 ↗ commissioned business

13:56 ↗ I skipped ahead a few slides I'm gonna

13:58 ↗ go back but I thought it was important

14:00 ↗ that you know since we were discussing

14:02 ↗ it I you also want to be mindful that

14:06 ↗ you're not violating OPM a through other

14:09 ↗ avenues so if two of you were discussing

14:12 ↗ Commission business and then one person

14:17 ↗ such an email to to others or made a

14:19 ↗ phone call and you've reached that for a

14:22 ↗ member quorum about even if it's in a

14:24 ↗ string element you're violated OPM a

14:27 ↗ it's it's really about saving your

14:29 ↗ discussion for the noticed meeting

14:33 ↗ because the public has a right to be

14:35 ↗ present and observe what you're doing

14:40 ↗ yes so there's we don't have a concern

14:43 ↗ about giving the appearance of a meeting

14:45 ↗ if we happen to be meeting social aid or

14:47 ↗ something I thought that that was not

14:50 ↗ appropriate well my advice to counsel

14:53 ↗ there higher level authority but it is

14:55 ↗ it's always good to know a pianist can

14:59 ↗ you know maybe don't group in group

15:02 ↗ smarter than three sure that you're

15:05 ↗ refraining from talking about you know

15:07 ↗ the Commission's work but you are

15:12 ↗ allowed to say have a potluck so long as

15:15 ↗ you're well behaved I think the thing to

15:18 ↗ remember in something like that is those

15:22 ↗ kinds of situations are real easy to

15:24 ↗ turn into meetings right you know you're

15:26 ↗ you're meeting socially and then someone

15:28 ↗ says well what do you think about this

15:30 ↗ issue and all of a sudden you're

15:31 ↗ starting to discuss it and it becomes a

15:33 ↗ meeting so it's real easy to for that to

15:36 ↗ turn into a meeting and that's why we

15:37 ↗ always urge caution about that but

15:40 ↗ technically it is not a meeting unless

15:42 ↗ you are transacting the business of the

15:44 ↗ Commission unless you are discussing the

15:46 ↗ business of the Commission it's not the

15:49 ↗ meeting no matter how many of you give

15:51 ↗ together and you can get together for

15:52 ↗ social purposes and other purposes that

15:54 ↗ are not within the scope of the business

15:58 ↗ of the commissioners but just for

16:01 ↗ clarification two members from PPC two

16:04 ↗ members from Development Commission two

16:05 ↗ City Council members got together and we

16:07 ↗ thank often we were talking about

16:09 ↗ business that would constitute a forum

16:11 ↗ where three different bodies know it has

16:15 ↗ to be a quorum of the particular body

16:17 ↗ that I'm sorry to jump into it has to be

16:20 ↗ a quorum of the each body or any body of

16:24 ↗ those that has a quorum present is

16:27 ↗ hoping to me

16:32 ↗ so I'm going back to slides now just so

16:34 ↗ I could touch on the closed portions

16:37 ↗ there would be very few exceptions

16:39 ↗ exceptions to having an executive

16:41 ↗ session council generally does these

16:44 ↗ it's dictated in RCW 4231 zero and

16:51 ↗ there's again a very specific reasons it

16:56 ↗ might be litigation could be property

17:00 ↗ acquisitions or things like that it's

17:02 ↗ discussion only final action we need to

17:04 ↗ occur an open session and again

17:06 ↗ exceptions are very few that would allow

17:09 ↗ you to go into a closed meeting the

17:12 ↗ attorney or legal counsel our staff

17:15 ↗ would guide you through that if and when

17:17 ↗ it was needed

17:18 ↗ next slide I've got one more on

17:20 ↗ executive sessions and before you were

17:25 ↗ able to convene the executive session

17:27 ↗ other state law requires that the

17:29 ↗ presiding officers state the specific

17:31 ↗ RCW in the amount of time and again it's

17:33 ↗ something that we would help you through

17:35 ↗ if and when there was a purpose or a

17:38 ↗ reason for that

17:40 ↗ in just a comment that one of the things

17:43 ↗ to keep in mind about the Open Meetings

17:45 ↗ Act and the Public Records Act both are

17:47 ↗ that there's specific language in the

17:50 ↗ statutes that say they are to be

17:51 ↗ liberally construed in favor of

17:53 ↗ disclosure and in favor of open meetings

17:56 ↗ and every exemption is to be very

17:59 ↗ narrowly construed so every time you see

18:02 ↗ a court case and I read a lot of them on

18:03 ↗ the Open Meetings Act and the Public

18:05 ↗ Records Act that's the first thing out

18:07 ↗ of the courts mouth and when in the

18:10 ↗ opinion it's always we construe the Act

18:13 ↗ liberally in favor of disclosure we

18:16 ↗ construe all exemptions narrowly and so

18:19 ↗ if you if you think well it's kind of

18:22 ↗ within the spirit or you know I'm not

18:24 ↗ quite sure always err on the side of

18:27 ↗ caution because the court will construe

18:29 ↗ it because being an open meeting if it's

18:32 ↗ unless it's very specifically exempted

18:35 ↗ and one thing I would just add is along

18:37 ↗ with email be very conscious of texting

18:40 ↗ that is one that where the serial

18:43 ↗ meeting where two people talk and then

18:46 ↗ they one of them takes that and adds it

18:50 ↗ to another adds it to another and now

18:53 ↗ you've created a serial meeting that's

18:56 ↗ we try and remind you in email but we're

19:00 ↗ often not on your text change

19:03 ↗ not only remember that for open public

19:06 ↗ meetings when this Tina would tell you

19:08 ↗ remember it for public records because

19:10 ↗ your texts on City business are public

19:14 ↗ records and if we get a public records

19:16 ↗ request for your texts we are going to

19:19 ↗ have to produce those to the extent we

19:21 ↗ can and so just keep in mind I always

19:26 ↗ tell people that

19:30 ↗ if you question it at all something you

19:33 ↗ want to say and whether you'd like to

19:35 ↗ see it on the front page of the local

19:38 ↗ newspaper pick up the phone and call and

19:40 ↗ say it instead that way you're not

19:42 ↗ making a record but if you if you're

19:47 ↗ going to text or you're going to email

19:50 ↗ potentially anything is going to be

19:54 ↗ disclosable regardless of how

19:57 ↗ embarrassing you may think it is so

19:59 ↗ mister caution and the communications

20:02 ↗ that you use right I would I would from

20:05 ↗ the clerk's office say the best thing

20:09 ↗ you could say is that you've just you

20:11 ↗ don't text to communicate

20:13 ↗ any commission conversations that way

20:17 ↗ your affidavit could could be that food

20:19 ↗ we're gonna go ahead and move on to yes

20:24 ↗ so if you knowingly intentionally

20:28 ↗ violate an OPM a there are some

20:30 ↗ individual civil penalties and those

20:35 ↗ penalties are stated dollar threshold is

20:40 ↗ set by the state it says for the first

20:42 ↗ penalty it's five hundred and for each

20:45 ↗ additional it would be a thousand the

20:47 ↗ city has its own liabilities through the

20:50 ↗ court cases or costs and attorneys cost

20:52 ↗ and ultimately the action if it was

20:55 ↗ found to be in averting violation and we

21:01 ↗ lost in court the action of the body

21:03 ↗ would be considered null and void and I

21:05 ↗ can't imagine how you would go about

21:07 ↗ undoing something that's in place

21:11 ↗ and just to emphasize that happen when

21:14 ↗ Tina says individual liability the

21:17 ↗ statute says it is an individual

21:19 ↗ liability that comes out of your pocket

21:21 ↗ not the city's pocket if you're

21:23 ↗ knowingly violate the the OPM a the city

21:27 ↗ does have a ordinance that indemnifies

21:31 ↗ all local officials and all staff for

21:36 ↗ anything that is not covered by

21:38 ↗ insurance these kinds of things aren't

21:40 ↗ covered by insurance

21:41 ↗ OPM a violations but it indemnifies you

21:45 ↗ if you were acting in good faith it

21:48 ↗ would not indemnify you if you were

21:49 ↗ knowingly violating the Open Meetings in

21:53 ↗ that - so just keep in mind that because

21:57 ↗ it has happened in other jurisdictions

21:59 ↗ that I have worked with where individual

22:02 ↗ commission members or council members

22:04 ↗ were sued individually to get their

22:08 ↗ records and to and for knowingly

22:10 ↗ violating the OPM a and the city did not

22:15 ↗ there was a real question in those cases

22:18 ↗ as to whether or not the city would

22:19 ↗ indemnify them and whether they were

22:21 ↗ acting in good faith so right and that's

22:24 ↗ my training his importance and having

22:26 ↗ conversations

22:28 ↗ we're all together because there's only

22:30 ↗ moments where you're you know having a

22:34 ↗ conversation and this is what you need

22:36 ↗ to be mindful so that you are not

22:39 ↗ inadvertently violating no PA and feel

22:42 ↗ free to contact us well and that's the

22:46 ↗ other point is that staff can send out

22:48 ↗ inquiries to the group and collect that

22:51 ↗ feedback we wouldn't want an individual

22:54 ↗ Commission never doing that to their

22:55 ↗ full group so but data collection let

22:58 ↗ staff do that that's their job they they

23:01 ↗ are able to do that

23:05 ↗ because if you were doing it and it

23:08 ↗ reached a quorum you've just had

23:11 ↗ discussion of business of your

23:12 ↗ commission and that would be a violation

23:14 ↗ so rely on your staff okay Tish is gonna

23:22 ↗ take over the effective meetings portion

23:25 ↗ hi I'm tisha as Tina mentioned thank you

23:29 ↗ for being here this evening with us I'm

23:32 ↗ going to talk to you for a few minutes

23:33 ↗ about effective meetings we're going to

23:36 ↗ talk fairly generally about some

23:38 ↗ provisions and Robert's Rules and just

23:41 ↗ some things to keep in mind during the

23:43 ↗ conduct of your meetings so we'll be

23:47 ↗ covering specifically your role as

23:49 ↗ members some general meeting procedures

23:52 ↗ some tenants of debate and voting okay

24:05 ↗ sounds good okay all right so as far as

24:09 ↗ your role so there are a number of

24:13 ↗ factors that contribute to efficient

24:15 ↗ meetings effective and efficient

24:17 ↗ meetings and a number of these occur

24:20 ↗ prior to the meeting even beginning

24:22 ↗ including having an agenda set which is

24:25 ↗ set by the staff liaison in consultation

24:28 ↗ with the Commission chair having rules

24:32 ↗ and regulations that dictate how

24:34 ↗ specific procedures are handled by the

24:37 ↗ Commission and another aspect that

24:40 ↗ contributes to effective meetings is

24:43 ↗ some of your responsibilities as members

24:46 ↗ one of those being attendants so a

24:48 ↗ meeting can't occur if there is not a

24:51 ↗ quorum of the Commission present you've

24:53 ↗ heard the quorum talked about a few

24:55 ↗ times by now so I think you're all clear

24:57 ↗ that a quorum of a commission of seven

24:59 ↗ is four

25:00 ↗ this means that we really need you to

25:03 ↗ communicate any known attendance

25:05 ↗ conflicts in advance this is

25:07 ↗ particularly important for both of your

25:09 ↗ Commission's because a lot of the work

25:11 ↗ that you're doing is time-sensitive and

25:13 ↗ as Lucy and Tina mentioned there are

25:15 ↗ often some stringent legal noticing

25:18 ↗ requirements that have to occur and

25:20 ↗ there's a cost associated with those

25:22 ↗ notices in in the newspaper sometimes

25:26 ↗ physical postings as well so again we

25:28 ↗ just ask that you communicate known

25:30 ↗ attendance conflicts in advance to your

25:32 ↗ staff liaison or city staff and we'll

25:37 ↗ talk in a minute about distinguishing

25:38 ↗ your absent absence from meetings as

25:42 ↗ excused or unexcused then also coming

25:45 ↗ prepared you know reading through the

25:47 ↗ agenda materials that staff have

25:49 ↗ prepared for you I know I know they can

25:51 ↗ be significant in size and then also

25:55 ↗ come willing to participate in

25:58 ↗ discussion and of course vote and we'll

26:00 ↗ talk about some exceptions to that in

26:03 ↗ the next few minutes

26:05 ↗ one thing yes please send your questions

26:07 ↗ ahead of time to the staff person if at

26:10 ↗ all possible it allows us to be prepared

26:13 ↗ and to be effective in helping you to

26:17 ↗ move forward so you know if you are

26:20 ↗ reading your packet on the weekend and

26:22 ↗ you want to send us an email Saturday

26:25 ↗ night or Monday before either our

26:27 ↗ Wednesday or your Thursday meeting that

26:30 ↗ is so helpful because it really allows

26:33 ↗ us to make do prepare a more thoughtful

26:36 ↗ presentation or be prepared to respond

26:41 ↗ question on the quorum

26:43 ↗ what is that time threshold before you

26:46 ↗ know getting the quorum how long do you

26:48 ↗ have to wait or are we allowed to

26:50 ↗ typically wait you know before not

26:52 ↗ people show up I yeah you so you're not

26:55 ↗ the meeting the meeting cannot really be

26:59 ↗ convened until there's a quorum so I I

27:02 ↗ would suggest that you wait a reasonable

27:04 ↗ amount of time you know and I guess that

27:07 ↗ can be somewhat flexible say 15 minutes

27:09 ↗ is decided on if the if a quorum isn't

27:13 ↗ reached there are some procedures to

27:15 ↗ sort of preserve that legal noticing

27:17 ↗ that's occurred I think actually both of

27:20 ↗ your Commission's have have done this at

27:22 ↗ times where you'll the individuals

27:24 ↗ present will convene the meeting and

27:26 ↗ really the only thing they can do is

27:28 ↗ they can adjourn or continue it to a

27:30 ↗ date and time certain and the staff can

27:32 ↗ post the door so there is a process

27:34 ↗ there but we would prefer to avoid that

27:36 ↗ particularly if individuals are you know

27:38 ↗ showing up to make comments at the

27:40 ↗ hearing so but there isn't a specific

27:42 ↗ time parameter let me just let me just

27:46 ↗ add one piece but that's why RSVP'ing

27:49 ↗ either to a pole or a meeting invite is

27:52 ↗ so essential because we don't want

27:55 ↗ everyone showing up if if there isn't a

27:58 ↗ quorum and Tish is absolutely correct

28:01 ↗ for instance the uvd see didn't because

28:04 ↗ we're that we were down

28:05 ↗ such a few number of members we knew in

28:08 ↗ November that we were not going to have

28:10 ↗ a quorum for a meeting that we had

28:11 ↗ advertised a few days beforehand so we

28:16 ↗ all got we the chair and the vice chair

28:18 ↗ and I met and opened the meeting and

28:21 ↗ delayed it due to a lack of quorum so no

28:24 ↗ one else showed up but the three of us

28:25 ↗ but it is really you know that way we

28:28 ↗ can have something on the website we can

28:31 ↗ do things to let people know that it's

28:33 ↗ going to be delayed so as soon as you

28:36 ↗ can let us know whether you are not able

28:38 ↗ to attend it really is helpful and I

28:40 ↗ would even fact that at Morris you know

28:42 ↗ as an appointed official you you you

28:44 ↗ have at least on the known meeting dates

28:47 ↗ there's an expectation that you're here

28:49 ↗ we understand that there's you know an

28:51 ↗ illness or you know travel or there's

28:53 ↗ some indicator there that would but

28:56 ↗ these meetings are important your

28:59 ↗ involvements important and it's it's

29:01 ↗ very expensive and time-consuming to

29:04 ↗ continue meeting so up we're glad that

29:06 ↗ you have full our memberships now than

29:09 ↗ you've had previous so I will also give

29:12 ↗ you a real-life Horror Story which is

29:15 ↗ fresh in my memory because it happened

29:16 ↗ to me last night I was in a meeting in

29:19 ↗ are supposed to be a meeting in another

29:22 ↗ jurisdiction and I won't say which

29:26 ↗ jurisdiction it is but I arrived ahead

29:30 ↗ of the meeting probably 10 or 15 minutes

29:32 ↗ ahead of the meeting at the time the

29:35 ↗ meeting was supposed to commence there

29:36 ↗ were two out of the seven members who

29:38 ↗ were present they decided to wait ten

29:41 ↗ minutes later a third member showed up

29:43 ↗ still not a quorum and the city clerk

29:48 ↗ tried desperately to call around to all

29:51 ↗ of the other members to try to get them

29:54 ↗ to the meeting I couldn't reach anybody

29:56 ↗ they decided to continue to wait and we

29:59 ↗ sat for 45 minutes until they finally

30:02 ↗ decided

30:03 ↗ it was enough and they were all going to

30:06 ↗ go home so I was asked at that time well

30:09 ↗ you know is there anything in law that

30:11 ↗ says how long you have to wait and I

30:13 ↗ said no it's really up to you as to how

30:16 ↗ long you want to wait for a fourth

30:17 ↗ member but it would have been nice if

30:20 ↗ the four members who didn't show up

30:23 ↗ would have let the clerk know in advance

30:26 ↗ that they weren't going to be there and

30:28 ↗ that meeting could have been cancelled

30:29 ↗ or so and and I'll add one more thing

30:32 ↗ three unexcused absences can result in

30:36 ↗ near being removed from the commission

30:38 ↗ it doesn't happen very often but it's

30:42 ↗ part of we are really depending on you

30:45 ↗ and if a commissioner if something

30:49 ↗ happens in your life please just let us

30:52 ↗ know and we've had commissioners do that

30:55 ↗ I've had a baby I thought I could do

30:57 ↗ this I can't do this and have my job I'm

31:00 ↗ going to need to resign that's wonderful

31:03 ↗ we know you know and we'll be happy to

31:07 ↗ have that commissioner back at another

31:09 ↗ time when their life is more settled or

31:13 ↗ you know sometimes commissioners move

31:15 ↗ and they're no longer living in the city

31:17 ↗ I suppose they could maybe could

31:18 ↗ continue to serve out that term but it

31:21 ↗ wouldn't be convenient to them all

31:23 ↗ perfectly good reasons to just let us

31:25 ↗ know that you're not going to be able to

31:27 ↗ attend and then we know that we need to

31:30 ↗ be looking at the alternates maybe more

31:32 ↗ regularly and identifying them as

31:34 ↗ regular members

31:35 ↗ we cannot elevate an alternate to a

31:38 ↗ regular position unless we go through

31:40 ↗ the council but we can work with the

31:42 ↗ alternates to have them there were

31:44 ↗ prepared to serve as regular members so

31:52 ↗ getting back to our that was a good

31:55 ↗ conversation getting back to our meeting

31:58 ↗ procedures so so we've got it we've got

32:01 ↗ a quorum present and what happens next

32:03 ↗ you know the meeting is convened and the

32:05 ↗ chair plays that role and there are a

32:07 ↗ couple important things too for the

32:10 ↗ chair to distinguish at the beginning of

32:12 ↗ the meeting and that is who is excused

32:15 ↗ an excused absence would be one that was

32:17 ↗ anticipated to some extent even if it

32:20 ↗ was last minute for some sort of illness

32:22 ↗ or something unexpected an unexcused

32:25 ↗ absence would be one that wasn't

32:27 ↗ communicated in advance and as lucy

32:29 ↗ mentioned it is important to distinguish

32:30 ↗ those because there can be some

32:32 ↗ repercussions for continued unexcused

32:36 ↗ absences another important thing for the

32:39 ↗ presiding officer to announce at the

32:40 ↗ beginning is if there are regular

32:42 ↗ members absent which alternate members

32:44 ↗ will be voting in their place

32:46 ↗ this will prevent awkwardness if and

32:49 ↗ when there are votes to be taken at the

32:51 ↗ meeting so everyone's clear on who's

32:53 ↗ participating in the vote

32:56 ↗ [Music]

33:05 ↗ thank you so these here on the screen

33:09 ↗ are some general procedures for your

33:12 ↗ typical agenda items I was looking at

33:14 ↗ your minutes prior to this meeting and

33:16 ↗ saw that the two different Commission's

33:18 ↗ do handle commissioner QA at different

33:21 ↗ times

33:22 ↗ sometimes it's before the public

33:24 ↗ hearings sometimes after but this is

33:27 ↗ just designed to put in print what

33:29 ↗ you're probably already familiar with

33:31 ↗ which is a sort of a typical process for

33:34 ↗ an agenda item I know many times your

33:36 ↗ items are sort of continued over

33:38 ↗ multiple meetings in the next few

33:42 ↗ minutes I'd like to talk to you a bit

33:44 ↗ more about the debate and voting aspects

33:47 ↗ of your agenda items

33:53 ↗ so as far as debate goes both of your

33:56 ↗ Commission's subscribe to Robert's Rules

33:58 ↗ of Order and it's a big book there are a

34:01 ↗ lot of provisions and they're on any you

34:04 ↗ know situation you can imagine virtually

34:06 ↗ so I'm just going to focus on a couple

34:08 ↗ of sort of again basic tenants of debate

34:11 ↗ I think that their intuitive to most of

34:13 ↗ us just as far as how you know how to

34:15 ↗ interact with other people but they're

34:18 ↗ really important for you to be

34:20 ↗ intentional about four times in your

34:23 ↗ meetings where there could be

34:24 ↗ controversy it will be handled much more

34:29 ↗ evenly if you're practicing some of

34:32 ↗ these guidelines even if they may feel a

34:38 ↗ bit formal at times so one of these key

34:42 ↗ tenants is fairness and equity you're

34:47 ↗ part of a seven member Commission you

34:49 ↗ all have equal rights the chair has you

34:52 ↗ know particular role to facilitate those

34:55 ↗ meetings but but essentially has equal

34:57 ↗ rights so it's important that you be

35:00 ↗ mindful of a balance there and again the

35:03 ↗ chair sort of bears the brunt of that

35:05 ↗ role in facilitating your meetings so

35:07 ↗ some practices to keep in mind is that

35:10 ↗ are that you should be seeking

35:11 ↗ recognition of the chair before making

35:14 ↗ comments I don't know what's particular

35:16 ↗ to your typical of your Commission

35:18 ↗ meetings sometimes that's raising a

35:20 ↗ microphone maybe raising your hand

35:22 ↗ making eye contact so that they know

35:24 ↗ that you would like to be sort of in the

35:26 ↗ queue to speak next in the spirit spirit

35:30 ↗ of fairness and equity Robert's Rules

35:32 ↗ suggests that every member have the

35:34 ↗ opportunity to make a comment once under

35:37 ↗ debate before anyone makes a comment a

35:39 ↗ second time

35:42 ↗ and let's see here I think I've and you

35:46 ↗ know there isn't a formal rule as far as

35:49 ↗ when the chair should be making their

35:51 ↗ comments of recommendation is that the

35:53 ↗ chair can wait and sort of until the end

35:56 ↗ as things are wrapping up but again

35:58 ↗ there's not a hard and fast rule that's

36:00 ↗ just a guideline here all right so let's

36:05 ↗ move on to the next tenant which is

36:07 ↗ courteousness so a specific guideline

36:12 ↗ for debate is to not impugn others

36:14 ↗ motives also to address comments through

36:19 ↗ the chair and I know this can feel

36:21 ↗ formal particularly for smaller groups

36:23 ↗ but it's really meant to help defuse

36:25 ↗ situations if there is disagreement when

36:29 ↗ you're looking directly in the eye of

36:31 ↗ someone with an opposing viewpoint there

36:33 ↗ can be this tendency to foster a

36:35 ↗ back-and-forth sort of conversation and

36:39 ↗ that's not how your meetings are

36:40 ↗ designed to function so the comments

36:43 ↗ should be routed through the chair the

36:45 ↗ eye contact preferably you know should

36:47 ↗ be with the chair and maybe the other

36:49 ↗ members of the group you know not

36:51 ↗ necessarily the audience that the focus

36:53 ↗ of the meeting again is is with your

36:55 ↗ fellow commissioners interruptions are

36:58 ↗ not appropriate except under a few

37:01 ↗ circumstances one of those might be if

37:04 ↗ it has occurred to you that maybe the

37:07 ↗ chair inadvertently skipped over an

37:09 ↗ agenda item you know some sort of

37:12 ↗ procedural issue maybe your boat didn't

37:15 ↗ get conveyed correctly by the chair and

37:17 ↗ someone has started talking you know

37:19 ↗ that kind of situation would be

37:20 ↗ considered like a point of order and you

37:23 ↗ you would want to interrupt but really

37:25 ↗ for any other reason anything that isn't

37:27 ↗ particularly time-sensitive you know the

37:31 ↗ practice or the guideline is to wait

37:34 ↗ until you have that recognition and your

37:35 ↗ colleague is done

37:37 ↗ and then lastly under this on the slide

37:41 ↗ you know honor the outcomes of the

37:43 ↗ Commission so obvious obviously you're

37:45 ↗ not all going to agree on all points but

37:48 ↗ again you've agreed to be on the

37:50 ↗ seven-member Commission so if an outcome

37:52 ↗ is decided on it might not be the one

37:54 ↗ that you are in favor of but moving

37:56 ↗ forward you know it's important to

38:00 ↗ acknowledge the fact that that was the

38:02 ↗ will of the group and lastly efficiency

38:08 ↗ so as I mentioned Roberts specifies that

38:12 ↗ individuals should have up to two

38:14 ↗ opportunities to comment on each motion

38:16 ↗ before the Commission and it they

38:20 ↗ actually additionally specify those

38:22 ↗ comments shouldn't exceed ten minutes we

38:24 ↗ don't say we're not implying that you

38:27 ↗ need to have a timer at your meetings in

38:30 ↗ that regard or exactly monitor at the

38:33 ↗ frequency but I think it's just a good

38:35 ↗ thing to keep in mind and it trying to

38:37 ↗ achieve some balance also but also just

38:39 ↗ in the spirit of conducting the business

38:41 ↗ of the meeting you know you're asked to

38:43 ↗ be concise to not repeat comments and to

38:47 ↗ stay on topic and particularly to be

38:50 ↗ making your comments to the particular

38:52 ↗ motion before you

38:56 ↗ next slide so just a few comments about

38:59 ↗ general meeting conduct as I mentioned

39:02 ↗ earlier I know it can sometimes feel

39:04 ↗ unnatural I know that often you have

39:07 ↗ members of the public attending your

39:08 ↗ meeting you have prescribed times that

39:11 ↗ they can speak to you under a public

39:14 ↗ hearing if there's one on your agenda or

39:15 ↗ during the public comment period but

39:18 ↗ really the work of the Commission is

39:21 ↗ among the seven of you at the table and

39:23 ↗ it is important that that the questions

39:27 ↗ and the dialogue and debate stay there

39:29 ↗ if there's an individual who's trying to

39:31 ↗ interject something from the audience

39:32 ↗ that that's not appropriate and it would

39:34 ↗ be in line for the chair to indicate

39:36 ↗ that and if there was a desire of the

39:38 ↗ chair or another member on the

39:40 ↗ Commission and there was agreement to

39:41 ↗ bring someone forward to you know maybe

39:43 ↗ ask a follow-up question or make a

39:45 ↗ clarification that that would be okay

39:47 ↗ but what you need to keep in mind is

39:49 ↗ that it's important to be consistent

39:50 ↗ with how you treat everyone which is why

39:53 ↗ we have guidelines as far as you know an

39:55 ↗ approximate time for those who address

39:57 ↗ you and from clear places on the agenda

40:00 ↗ for that

40:04 ↗ the last point I'd like to make is

40:07 ↗ regarding voting Jim is going to talk to

40:10 ↗ you a little bit more about appearance

40:12 ↗ appearance of fairness disclosures and

40:15 ↗ Tina will be talking to you about ethics

40:17 ↗ and conflicts of interests but I'm just

40:19 ↗ I'm going to speak to you about some of

40:20 ↗ the more practical aspects of that so

40:23 ↗ when the time comes for a vote its

40:25 ↗ importantly you've spoken under the

40:28 ↗ disclosures or just stated a conflict of

40:32 ↗ interest prior to the vote if you have

40:35 ↗ one of those instances you need to leave

40:38 ↗ the room so as to not be participating

40:41 ↗ in the boat if you do not have a

40:44 ↗ conflict or an appearance a fairness

40:46 ↗ issue that you don't want to vote you

40:49 ↗ may abstain from voting however your

40:54 ↗ rules of procedure as does our City

40:57 ↗ Council's indicate that if an abstention

40:58 ↗ is counted as a yes vote so if your vote

41:01 ↗ will be a yes the chair is not obligated

41:05 ↗ to and shouldn't ask for abstentions so

41:07 ↗ if your plan is to abstain you should

41:09 ↗ need to state that prior to the vote and

41:11 ↗ again it will be recorded as a yes

41:14 ↗ unit using unanimous consent is a tool

41:18 ↗ that you can use at your meetings you

41:19 ↗ know that sounds something like if there

41:22 ↗ is no objection to continuing this

41:24 ↗ public hearing to our next meeting

41:27 ↗ it is therefore continued I'm not doing

41:30 ↗ the best job of stating that but the

41:32 ↗ chair can do this this can also work for

41:35 ↗ the minutes are there any objections to

41:37 ↗ approval of the minutes of our past

41:38 ↗ meeting hearing none of the minutes are

41:40 ↗ so approved that can be used first more

41:43 ↗ procedural things continuing a public

41:46 ↗ hearing minutes anything else where

41:49 ↗ there seems to be broad agreement if any

41:51 ↗ member is an in agreement they need to

41:53 ↗ you need to say something

41:55 ↗ I object wait and then a vote will need

41:58 ↗ to occur I also just wanted to emphasize

42:01 ↗ to you how important it is that you're

42:03 ↗ clear on what is being decided and voted

42:06 ↗ on and if you have

42:07 ↗ any uncertainty there please speak up if

42:10 ↗ you would like something displayed on

42:12 ↗ the projector you know because you're

42:14 ↗ unclear on the wording that your

42:16 ↗ colleague mentioned an emotion or you're

42:18 ↗ unsure that the consensus that's being

42:21 ↗ reached that you're in line with that

42:23 ↗ please it's really difficult once the

42:26 ↗ meeting moves on to do anything about

42:28 ↗ that it's very difficult to undo the

42:31 ↗ work so please feel empowered to make

42:36 ↗ sure that you are clear and that is what

42:40 ↗ I have thank you on the guidelines for

42:44 ↗ public discussion and they need to be

42:47 ↗ consistent in that

42:49 ↗ so if Commission normally says notifies

42:54 ↗ members of the public attending that

42:56 ↗ we'd like you to keep your comments to

42:57 ↗ 5-minutes or whatever it is if there are

43:02 ↗ only one or two people fewer people in

43:05 ↗ attendance that have indicated they want

43:07 ↗ to speak is it alright to be flexible in

43:10 ↗ that regard with regard can you change

43:12 ↗ the guidelines from meeting to meeting

43:13 ↗ in terms of how much time members of the

43:15 ↗ public are given

43:17 ↗ so the presiding officer and generally

43:20 ↗ the rule estate this does have some

43:22 ↗ flexibility with the will of the group I

43:24 ↗ I would say and if anyone else has input

43:26 ↗ they can share it I would say that

43:28 ↗ that's maybe a good thing to convey for

43:31 ↗ example um you know you you have reached

43:34 ↗ the 5-minute comment period because we

43:36 ↗ have so few in the audience tonight the

43:38 ↗ will of the group we will allow you to

43:40 ↗ conclude your remarks or to have an

43:42 ↗ additional five minutes something like

43:44 ↗ that so kind of recognizing that you are

43:46 ↗ doing something a little different but I

43:49 ↗ believe that is within your your right

43:53 ↗ or particularly the chair seeking

43:56 ↗ agreement from the group does anyone

43:57 ↗ have any opposing perspectives are

44:00 ↗ different well I've certainly seen that

44:03 ↗ that's of course I'll now find out I'm

44:06 ↗ wrong but where for instance at one

44:10 ↗ meeting there's 40 people and at the

44:14 ↗ next meeting there are two people at the

44:16 ↗ 14 person meeting they may say each

44:19 ↗ person gets three minutes at the two

44:22 ↗ person meaning they may say they may not

44:26 ↗ even state a time but probably

44:27 ↗ preferably to say you have up to 10

44:29 ↗ minutes to speak I don't I think as long

44:32 ↗ as you're consistent within the meeting

44:34 ↗ and that there's

44:36 ↗ objective basis for identifying a

44:41 ↗ shorter or longer time I guess my

44:46 ↗ perspective is that that you're trying

44:49 ↗ to then I'll get into this a little bit

44:52 ↗ my presentation but you're trying to get

44:56 ↗ information from the public when the

44:58 ↗ public is testified if you're in a

45:00 ↗ legislative hearing which I'll talk

45:02 ↗ about a little bit what you're trying to

45:04 ↗ do is get the public's input on some

45:06 ↗ legislative matter that's in front of

45:08 ↗ you if you're in a quasi judicial

45:09 ↗ proceeding what you're trying to do is

45:12 ↗ hear the evidence that the people want

45:15 ↗ to present to you and sometimes the

45:18 ↗ issues are more complex than others

45:20 ↗ obviously and sometimes people will say

45:24 ↗ gee I don't know that I can really get

45:29 ↗ address all of the issues I want to

45:31 ↗ address in four minutes or three minutes

45:34 ↗ or whatever it is and I think you do

45:37 ↗ have to be flexible particularly in the

45:40 ↗ quasi judicial context to give people a

45:43 ↗ reasonable and meaningful opportunity to

45:46 ↗ be heard in front of you I think most

45:49 ↗ jurisdictions are anywhere from three to

45:51 ↗ five minutes that's kind of the standard

45:54 ↗ rule but I think most jurisdictions also

45:56 ↗ allow some flexibility as tisha said to

45:59 ↗ to say okay can you finish at the end of

46:04 ↗ the five minutes or whatever say can you

46:06 ↗ wrap up your comments and they say well

46:08 ↗ I've really got three more issues I need

46:10 ↗ to address than to say well you know if

46:13 ↗ there's only so many people will allow

46:16 ↗ you to do that subject to the board

46:20 ↗ overruling the chair will allow you to

46:23 ↗ do that and

46:25 ↗ you know but you can't do that in every

46:28 ↗ situation because if you have 40 people

46:29 ↗ here and they all want to take ten

46:31 ↗ minutes you're never going to get out of

46:33 ↗ here and you need to be able to do your

46:34 ↗ business so it's really kind of up to

46:35 ↗ you as to what is a reasonable

46:37 ↗ opportunity does the city have a

46:39 ↗ recommendation as to in our meetings the

46:45 ↗ public comment period should be

46:48 ↗ I noticed that some Commission's have

46:50 ↗ public comments at the end of the

46:52 ↗ meeting and some have public comments

46:56 ↗ after the staff and the applicant have

47:01 ↗ made their presentation and before the

47:04 ↗ Commission in question has their

47:07 ↗ discussion comments questions whatever

47:09 ↗ is there any recommendation on the city

47:12 ↗ as to which of those two general

47:14 ↗ approaches is better well I think - it's

47:19 ↗ important to distinguish that you have

47:21 ↗ certain two types of public comment at

47:23 ↗ some of your meetings so you have your

47:24 ↗ agenda items which have a public hearing

47:26 ↗ component which is specific to that item

47:28 ↗ and then I've seen that on at times you

47:31 ↗ also have a public comment agenda item

47:34 ↗ that's just for general public comments

47:37 ↗ so those are going to look different as

47:39 ↗ far as when they occur that public

47:41 ↗ hearing item that public comment needs

47:44 ↗ to should occur before your

47:46 ↗ decision-making like I mentioned to you

47:49 ↗ I did see a difference as far as

47:51 ↗ sometimes Commission questions occurring

47:53 ↗ of the staff and applicant occurring

47:55 ↗ before or after I think again

47:57 ↗ consistency is important your rules and

48:00 ↗ regulations typically provide a order of

48:03 ↗ business and so that would be what you

48:06 ↗ would look to follow with your agendas

48:10 ↗ I guess what I would say is that it

48:13 ↗ depends on what public comment period in

48:16 ↗ some jurisdictions and some Commission's

48:18 ↗ just have a general public comment

48:20 ↗ period anyone can get up talk about

48:22 ↗ anything any item of Commission business

48:25 ↗ in this general comment period I think

48:28 ↗ the best practice is to do that upfront

48:29 ↗ because at the end you've already taken

48:32 ↗ your action and it's too late for the

48:34 ↗ public to come in on it so it's best to

48:36 ↗ do that one upfront if you're doing a

48:38 ↗ public hearing and there are two types

48:40 ↗ of public hearings I'll talk about in my

48:42 ↗ presentation a legislative public

48:44 ↗ hearing and equation judicial public

48:46 ↗ hearing in a legislative public hearing

48:49 ↗ you want to get that public comment

48:50 ↗ during the public hearing so you you

48:53 ↗ don't do it at the beginning you don't

48:55 ↗ do it at the end you do it whenever that

48:56 ↗ public hearing occurs and what's the

48:59 ↗ staff I think once the staff makes its

49:03 ↗ presentation and I think tisha covered

49:06 ↗ that in one of her slides makes its

49:09 ↗ presentation then you'll open the public

49:11 ↗ hearing for public comment and that's

49:13 ↗ when you want to take that when that

49:14 ↗ matter is at issue in a quasi judicial

49:17 ↗ proceeding and I'll talk about this a

49:20 ↗ little bit as well that's where you know

49:23 ↗ you're dealing with a particular

49:24 ↗ development application and so in a

49:29 ↗ development application an applicant

49:31 ↗ bears the burden of showing you that the

49:32 ↗ development application meets the code

49:35 ↗ therefore most jurisdictions and I think

49:39 ↗ this is the proper practice allow the

49:40 ↗ applicant to go first and either the

49:43 ↗ applicant or maybe staff to make an

49:45 ↗ overview and then the applicant to go so

49:47 ↗ that they have the opportunity to show

49:50 ↗ you how they meet their burden of proof

49:51 ↗ then after that then it's for the public

49:55 ↗ or the staff to come

49:57 ↗ and talk about their presentation and

50:00 ↗ then you know in in equate most crazy

50:03 ↗ unusual proceedings you because again

50:06 ↗ the the applicant has the burden to

50:09 ↗ prove you usually give them a slot at

50:11 ↗ the end to just respond to things that

50:14 ↗ people people have said so it really

50:16 ↗ depends on what the purpose of your

50:18 ↗ comment period is review again where we

50:26 ↗ stand on and asking people to sign him

50:28 ↗ name address name address signed in Liz

50:32 ↗ lists are optional it's not required to

50:35 ↗ attend a meeting you can and you can

50:38 ↗ certainly ask the person to state their

50:40 ↗ name an address or relationship to the

50:42 ↗ city they can decline or indicate a

50:45 ↗ neighborhood but you can certainly ask

50:49 ↗ yeah I think I think it's difficult to

50:51 ↗ compel them to to say well we're not

50:54 ↗ gonna let you to speak unless you can

50:56 ↗ unless you give us your address but I

50:58 ↗ think it's important

51:00 ↗ they're both upsides and downsides to

51:03 ↗ giving the address at their first upside

51:06 ↗ for the individual giving the address is

51:08 ↗ it lets you guys all know what their

51:10 ↗ relationship is to the project and if

51:12 ↗ somebody lives outside the city maybe

51:15 ↗ you think well I know you take

51:18 ↗ everybody's input into account but if

51:20 ↗ someone's loose outside the city is not

51:22 ↗ really going to be affected by the

51:23 ↗ ordinance you might discount that a

51:25 ↗ little bit

51:26 ↗ so and in vice-versa if they live close

51:29 ↗ to the project or they're really going

51:30 ↗ to be affected by it that leads you to

51:34 ↗ give them a little bit more credibility

51:35 ↗ the second upside for them

51:38 ↗ in giving their address is oftentimes

51:40 ↗ we're compiling a list a mailing list to

51:46 ↗ give out notices of upcoming hearings

51:48 ↗ and and so forth so that we can maintain

51:51 ↗ the transparency to the public and if

51:53 ↗ and if they just don't sign in or won't

51:56 ↗ give their name or anything like that

51:57 ↗ then we have no way of really contacting

52:00 ↗ them unless we know them we don't have a

52:02 ↗ way of doing that so that's an upside

52:03 ↗ for them is it helps us give them more

52:07 ↗ information the downside is that signing

52:10 ↗ lists are public records and sometimes

52:13 ↗ people don't want their address to be

52:16 ↗ out there and so they have to recognize

52:20 ↗ when they sign in or when they give

52:23 ↗ their address that anyone can know their

52:25 ↗ address anyone can get a copy of that

52:27 ↗ signing sheet so that's why we kind of

52:30 ↗ allow people to say okay you don't have

52:33 ↗ to give us your address for all we know

52:36 ↗ there's some reason why you don't want

52:37 ↗ people to know why where you live so and

52:41 ↗ I'll just say from staffs perspective

52:44 ↗ the two things that we particularly like

52:47 ↗ our name and email we're often not

52:49 ↗ mailing things we're emailing things but

52:55 ↗ it is helpful for all the reasons that

52:58 ↗ Jim identified and what I gather is you

53:03 ↗ could testify anonymously if you wanted

53:05 ↗ to whether you how much weight you give

53:10 ↗ the testimony of somebody who testifies

53:12 ↗ anonymously is up to you what you give

53:14 ↗ what way you give anybody's testimony is

53:16 ↗ up to you again sure but the answer

53:28 ↗ there's not so unanimous consent is is

53:33 ↗ just a tool to kind of help the meeting

53:36 ↗ help you move through an aspect of the

53:39 ↗ meeting quicker if there's clear

53:42 ↗ agreement among all members so if there

53:46 ↗ is not clear agreement or if maybe the

53:48 ↗ chair thinks there is and says if there

53:51 ↗ being is there any objection to you need

53:55 ↗ to say yes I object

53:58 ↗ in which case of both will occur

54:03 ↗ it was appropriate for emotion at that

54:05 ↗ time it helps for the majority of the

54:08 ↗ regular members to decide how they're

54:11 ↗ going to move forward so do they indeed

54:13 ↗ continue the hearing or do they close

54:16 ↗ the hearing but it's not on emotion you

54:19 ↗ could first start off with a there's

54:22 ↗ there no introduction we will do this

54:23 ↗ there's an objection then you can go

54:25 ↗ down the path of staying with someone

54:27 ↗ like to call for a motion and then see

54:29 ↗ what the majority of your members wish

54:31 ↗ to do with it but I mean if you're

54:33 ↗ making a motion for a decision on a

54:35 ↗ permit or we'd want that to be a formal

54:38 ↗ right but there's those minor things you

54:41 ↗ could do this for a minute so you could

54:43 ↗ do it for you know things it's just like

54:46 ↗ do we have stretchers

54:50 ↗ though real-life opportunity maybe are

54:53 ↗ there any objections to approving the

54:55 ↗ minutes right hearing none the minutes

54:58 ↗ are approved yes

55:01 ↗ first by the way that it's done by by

55:04 ↗ jurisdictions is a consent agenda itself

55:06 ↗ where if you know things are going to be

55:08 ↗ non-controversial coming into the

55:10 ↗ meeting maybe the chair works with the

55:12 ↗ staff and puts together an agenda that

55:15 ↗ has consent items on it that says

55:18 ↗ approval of minutes and so forth and no

55:20 ↗ circle those consent items may be passed

55:22 ↗ in a single motion without taking them

55:24 ↗ up individually that's certainly the way

55:27 ↗ a council does it that yeah so it's it's

55:31 ↗ another option it was that was a path

55:34 ↗ that was of interest to the board or

55:37 ↗ Commission we would want to work with

55:39 ↗ you on establishing that rule or kind of

55:41 ↗ guideline within your rules and regs

55:44 ↗ your bylaws

55:47 ↗ there's a recording voting my

55:49 ↗ understanding is all members do not get

55:51 ↗ a vote inside correct and if they feel

55:53 ↗ for a regular position do they get a

55:55 ↗ vote then is that how that works

56:02 ↗ so a code of ethics I'm gonna I've only

56:05 ↗ have two slides on this behind your

56:08 ↗ powerpoint is our code of ethics policy

56:13 ↗ and then a little guideline document

56:17 ↗ little Q&A you should have signed off on

56:22 ↗ this document being a board member once

56:24 ↗ you have it's on file with my office new

56:27 ↗ members should have received an email

56:29 ↗ once or twice for me saying to find your

56:32 ↗ ethics forum and Friday to a link if

56:35 ↗ you're like itit doesn't ring a bell

56:37 ↗ you can go to move forward go to

56:40 ↗ Issaquah walk of slash ethics and it'll

56:45 ↗ bring you right to that electronic page

56:46 ↗ to sign off on it

56:48 ↗ what you see on the screen here are the

56:50 ↗ categories by which are spelled out in

56:53 ↗ the actual policy and I won't read

56:58 ↗ through I can't read you the documents

57:00 ↗ but I will say that like conflicts of

57:09 ↗ interest section for Hibbins items such

57:12 ↗ as using city property or money for

57:14 ↗ personal gain disclosing confidential

57:16 ↗ information having an int interest

57:19 ↗ directly or indirect indirectly in

57:23 ↗ cities service contract or sale

57:28 ↗ there are some exceptions to that that

57:31 ↗ are allowed under state laws as long as

57:32 ↗ that was not in conflict gifts incra to

57:35 ↗ tease a section prohibits giving a

57:39 ↗ receiving special privilege exemptions

57:41 ↗ give some items of value there are some

57:44 ↗ exceptions such as yes you can have a

57:46 ↗ meal that relates to a city business or

57:49 ↗ advance so long as other values under

57:51 ↗ $50 you can accept Ward's of recognition

57:54 ↗ for public service political activity as

57:57 ↗ Jim mentioned earlier you could go do

58:00 ↗ that on your own time but when you just

58:03 ↗ can't use city resources and facilities

58:05 ↗ for that so that you need to be mindful

58:09 ↗ of that we've got some more issues

58:11 ↗ spelled out in the actual document

58:13 ↗ that's attached and then public records

58:16 ↗ in the open public median section

58:18 ↗ basically reiterates that you are bound

58:21 ↗ by this act and you are bound by the

58:24 ↗ same in the OPA the remaining portion of

58:28 ↗ the ethics form thank you

58:31 ↗ deals with the whistleblower protection

58:33 ↗ and then who to seek out if you have

58:36 ↗ clarifications or if you want to

58:38 ↗ interpret a portion of the policy you

58:41 ↗ can do that through the HR department or

58:43 ↗ through the City Clerk's office and then

58:45 ↗ the city has a role in investigating

58:47 ↗ complaints and there is a section as to

58:51 ↗ if there were violations

58:53 ↗ that there could be civil penalties that

58:55 ↗ we talked about earlier and someone

58:59 ↗ could certainly lose their office or be

59:02 ↗ suspended from service

59:09 ↗ [Music]

59:12 ↗ okay first of all thanks for being here

59:15 ↗ and thanks for having me it's always

59:17 ↗ nice to see how many people are willing

59:19 ↗ to volunteer their time to to work for

59:23 ↗ their community so congratulations to

59:25 ↗ all of you on being appointed and

59:27 ↗ condolences to you and your family for

59:29 ↗ all of the time you spend I'll just

59:32 ↗ introduce myself I'm Jim Haney I'm the

59:35 ↗ city attorney I have been practicing for

59:38 ↗ the last almost 40 years started in 1980

59:44 ↗ and I have been limiting my practice to

59:49 ↗ working with municipal clients since

59:52 ↗ 1983 so it's that's pretty much all my

59:56 ↗ practice is representing municipal

59:59 ↗ clients I started with the city of

1:00:01 ↗ Issaquah as prosecutor as the city

1:00:04 ↗ prosecutor in 1983 and I prosecuted

1:00:08 ↗ cases for the city for several years I

1:00:12 ↗ also and I moved up I guess you'd say

1:00:15 ↗ moved up into doing assistant city

1:00:18 ↗ attorney and civil work for the city and

1:00:20 ↗ became City Attorney for other cities

1:00:22 ↗ through my law firm and when Wayne

1:00:26 ↗ Tanaka respond retired in end of 2015 or

1:00:31 ↗ 16 I took over as the city attorney here

1:00:34 ↗ or so I've been acting as the Issaquah

1:00:37 ↗ city attorney for that period of time

1:00:41 ↗ so I I want to start by talking about

1:00:45 ↗ two types of public hearings there are

1:00:47 ↗ two types as I mentioned before there

1:00:50 ↗ are legislative public hearings in which

1:00:53 ↗ the object is to obtain input from the

1:00:57 ↗ public on a legislative policy matter an

1:01:00 ↗ example of that would be the

1:01:02 ↗ comprehensive plan

1:01:03 ↗ that's a legislative matter development

1:01:05 ↗ regulations that may come before you

1:01:08 ↗ various sub area plans like the central

1:01:11 ↗ physical plan and area-wide reasons

1:01:15 ↗ where you're looking at large areas and

1:01:17 ↗ rezoning multiple properties those are

1:01:19 ↗ considered legislative in nature so when

1:01:23 ↗ you're acting in legislative hearing

1:01:24 ↗ your your object is to get input from

1:01:27 ↗ the public on that legislative policy

1:01:30 ↗ decision that you are going to make the

1:01:33 ↗ contrast with that is quasi judicial

1:01:35 ↗ hearings and as the name sound sound

1:01:38 ↗ makes it sound like you're acting as a

1:01:41 ↗ quasi judge in those proceedings your

1:01:44 ↗ object is to side the legal rights of

1:01:47 ↗ parties in the preceding examples of

1:01:50 ↗ that are when you're hearing a public

1:01:53 ↗ when you're holding a public hearing or

1:01:54 ↗ on a development application of a

1:01:56 ↗ specific application a site-specific a

1:01:59 ↗ rezone is considered quasi judicial a

1:02:02 ↗ preliminary plat is considered quasi

1:02:05 ↗ judicial now in this fall a lot of those

1:02:07 ↗ things go to the Hearing Examiner they

1:02:09 ↗ don't come to your Commission's but

1:02:11 ↗ occasionally you do get a quasi judicial

1:02:13 ↗ matter that comes to you and in those

1:02:16 ↗ matters your object is to decide the

1:02:19 ↗ legal rights of the parties involved

1:02:21 ↗ based on the evidence that you received

1:02:27 ↗ you trying the word quasi at was content

1:02:30 ↗ well I think you'd say judicial is when

1:02:33 ↗ you are a judge quasi judicial is when

1:02:35 ↗ you're acting like a judge so that's why

1:02:38 ↗ we use that term to describe it because

1:02:40 ↗ you're not really judges but you're

1:02:43 ↗ acting like a judge and the same way

1:02:45 ↗ that a judge acts and it used to be I'll

1:02:49 ↗ tell you that the law used to be pretty

1:02:51 ↗ confused and the court cases about what

1:02:56 ↗ was the difference between a legislative

1:02:58 ↗ matter and a quasi judicial matter when

1:03:01 ↗ was a city border Commission acting like

1:03:04 ↗ a judge and doing something that a judge

1:03:06 ↗ would normally do and when were they

1:03:08 ↗ acting like a legislator and doing

1:03:10 ↗ something that a legislator would do and

1:03:13 ↗ I think it's pretty settled now after

1:03:17 ↗ the legislature adopted a definition of

1:03:21 ↗ quasi-judicial which is in the

1:03:23 ↗ appearance of Fairness Doctrine statute

1:03:25 ↗ and it basically says whenever you're

1:03:28 ↗ deciding the rights of individuals in a

1:03:30 ↗ hearing or other contested case

1:03:33 ↗ proceeding

1:03:33 ↗ you are acting quasi judicial like a

1:03:36 ↗ judge so in legislative hearings again

1:03:41 ↗ you're acting like a legislator you're

1:03:43 ↗ making decisions that affect the

1:03:44 ↗ community as a whole in order to hold a

1:03:48 ↗ legislative public hearing we are

1:03:51 ↗ required to give notice and

1:03:54 ↗ notice is generally supposed to be

1:03:58 ↗ reasonable it's supposed to give a

1:04:01 ↗ reasonable opportunity and meaningful

1:04:03 ↗ opportunity to people for people to be

1:04:05 ↗ heard and that means a couple of things

1:04:07 ↗ one the notice has to be given far

1:04:10 ↗ enough in advance of the hearing for

1:04:12 ↗ people to know that the hearing is

1:04:14 ↗ coming up ten days is generally

1:04:17 ↗ considered to be the minimum amount of

1:04:19 ↗ notice that you should give for a

1:04:20 ↗ military prize the public and that is

1:04:24 ↗ what most of the aqua public hearings

1:04:28 ↗ legislatively require is a tent a public

1:04:31 ↗ hearing notice notice must also be

1:04:35 ↗ specific enough to tell an inn to tell

1:04:37 ↗ individuals who read it what it is that

1:04:40 ↗ you're going to consider it's not

1:04:42 ↗ sufficient to say that we're giving

1:04:44 ↗ notice that we're considering amendments

1:04:46 ↗ to the Issaquah Issaquah zoning code in

1:04:50 ↗ chat in title 18 because that doesn't

1:04:52 ↗ really tell anybody what you're really

1:04:54 ↗ doing it kind of narrows the field but

1:04:57 ↗ it doesn't really tell the nature of

1:04:59 ↗ what you're doing and if I was a person

1:05:01 ↗ reading that notice I'd be asking hmmm

1:05:03 ↗ do I need to show up or do I not is what

1:05:07 ↗ what exactly are they talking about

1:05:09 ↗ so notice is generally considered

1:05:13 ↗ sufficient if it describes the action

1:05:15 ↗ that you are considering with enough

1:05:17 ↗ specificity for an individual to be able

1:05:20 ↗ to make a meaningful comment to know

1:05:22 ↗ what it is that you're talking about and

1:05:25 ↗ I know I work with staff a lot of a lot

1:05:27 ↗ on notices and we talked a lot about

1:05:30 ↗ exactly how specific do we want to be

1:05:33 ↗ and there's always this tension between

1:05:35 ↗ being so specific that the Commission

1:05:39 ↗ may not be able to discuss everything it

1:05:42 ↗ wants to discuss and being specific

1:05:46 ↗ enough to let the public know so notice

1:05:49 ↗ is one thing that gets litigated a lot

1:05:52 ↗ in growth board cases and in other cases

1:05:54 ↗ that I've been involved in as to whether

1:05:57 ↗ the pub

1:05:57 ↗ had reasonable notice of what the

1:06:01 ↗ Commission was considering doing and

1:06:03 ↗ notice is generally given in a couple of

1:06:05 ↗ different ways when we give notice for

1:06:08 ↗ legislative public hearings we are

1:06:10 ↗ usually publishing the notice in the

1:06:12 ↗ newspaper some jurisdictions also

1:06:15 ↗ require that even for legislative

1:06:19 ↗ matters that there be posted that there

1:06:21 ↗ be posting also for legislative matters

1:06:25 ↗ some jurisdictions require that we try

1:06:27 ↗ to give notice to property owners but

1:06:29 ↗ those kinds of mailed notice to property

1:06:32 ↗ owners published in the newspaper those

1:06:35 ↗ are usually related to quasi judicial

1:06:37 ↗ hearings that I'll talk about we do as

1:06:40 ↗ Lucy said use email addresses for people

1:06:44 ↗ to make sure we comply with the

1:06:47 ↗ requirements of the growth Management

1:06:49 ↗ Act regarding notice because it says

1:06:52 ↗ that when you're giving notice to the

1:06:54 ↗ public you should use means which are

1:06:58 ↗ recently which you can reasonably expect

1:07:03 ↗ what apprise the public of a hearing

1:07:05 ↗ coming up and you should make an effort

1:07:06 ↗ to notify those who are known to be

1:07:10 ↗ interested in the proposal and when

1:07:12 ↗ people come up and testify and they give

1:07:14 ↗ us their email we know that they're

1:07:15 ↗ interested so we do provide them with

1:07:17 ↗ notice they also give us that that

1:07:20 ↗ expressed that interest through their

1:07:22 ↗ comments we get an email and so forth

1:07:24 ↗ but that's that's why that is important

1:07:27 ↗ as to try to get that required notice

1:07:31 ↗ [Music]

1:07:34 ↗ with respect to the opportunity to be

1:07:37 ↗ heard and a legislative public hearing

1:07:40 ↗ all members of the public should be

1:07:41 ↗ allowed to speak it's really kind of an

1:07:44 ↗ informal process it's not as formal as

1:07:47 ↗ as quasi judicial processes if you think

1:07:50 ↗ of the way a courtroom operates

1:07:52 ↗ witnesses are called they testify they

1:07:56 ↗ testify because the lawyers ask them

1:07:59 ↗ questions and then when they're finished

1:08:01 ↗ testifying they leave the stand and so

1:08:04 ↗ forth and they're cross-examined and all

1:08:06 ↗ of that kind of thing

1:08:07 ↗ that's not required in a legislative

1:08:10 ↗ public hearing and most places do not

1:08:12 ↗ allow any questioning by anybody other

1:08:15 ↗ than the Commission during a legislative

1:08:17 ↗ public hearing it's really an

1:08:20 ↗ opportunity for the public to give you

1:08:22 ↗ their input and their input is valuable

1:08:24 ↗ to you on the policy choices that you

1:08:28 ↗ are going to to make you can't establish

1:08:31 ↗ reasonable rules for the public a time

1:08:35 ↗ limit is one of them if you have a lot

1:08:37 ↗ of people you make a shorter time limit

1:08:40 ↗ if you have fewer people you can make a

1:08:41 ↗ longer time limit but you really want to

1:08:44 ↗ give gauge your time limit to how

1:08:46 ↗ complex the issues are and that's why I

1:08:49 ↗ always suggest that if you're going to

1:08:50 ↗ set a time limit that you always enable

1:08:54 ↗ the chair with the with the commission's

1:08:57 ↗ help to be able to override that and

1:09:00 ↗ give additional time that that is

1:09:01 ↗ necessary you can in public hearings

1:09:05 ↗ legislate other carryings hold people to

1:09:07 ↗ relevant things you know if someone got

1:09:11 ↗ up and started talking about something

1:09:13 ↗ that was completely not the proposal

1:09:15 ↗ before you you could stop them and say

1:09:17 ↗ that's really not germane

1:09:19 ↗ it happens sometimes people just want to

1:09:22 ↗ talk they they show up they want to talk

1:09:25 ↗ about a particular issue and it may not

1:09:26 ↗ be what this hearing is about so I

1:09:30 ↗ always recommend that at the outset of

1:09:32 ↗ the hearing that the chair go over the

1:09:37 ↗ ground rules for the hearing so that the

1:09:39 ↗ public knows about what they need to do

1:09:42 ↗ it's always nice to have them printed on

1:09:44 ↗ the agenda as well which the City

1:09:46 ↗ Council does with theirs I'm not sure

1:09:48 ↗ whether your agendas include those but

1:09:51 ↗ the City Council does have its public

1:09:53 ↗ speaking procedures they also do put

1:09:57 ↗ them up on the screen when the public

1:09:59 ↗ gets up to testify saying here's here's

1:10:01 ↗ how you give input and so forth so I

1:10:04 ↗ think that's good so that people

1:10:06 ↗ understand the ground rules when you do

1:10:08 ↗ that

1:10:14 ↗ so in legislative hearings once the

1:10:16 ↗ hearing is completed you close the

1:10:19 ↗ public hearing and that means that the

1:10:23 ↗ hearing is closed and the time for the

1:10:25 ↗ public to give you their input is over

1:10:27 ↗ unless you have in some way allowed for

1:10:32 ↗ additional public comment a lot of times

1:10:34 ↗ in legislative matters people continue

1:10:36 ↗ to receive public comment in writing at

1:10:38 ↗ least or at during public comment

1:10:41 ↗ the general public comment period and

1:10:44 ↗ that's okay because in a legislative

1:10:46 ↗ matter you're making a legislative

1:10:49 ↗ policy decision you're not limited to

1:10:51 ↗ any particular evidence that is before

1:10:54 ↗ you unlike a quasi digital hearing you

1:10:56 ↗ can basically take input at any time and

1:11:01 ↗ from anyone the practical difficulty is

1:11:05 ↗ you know and I've run into this in other

1:11:08 ↗ jurisdictions where people continue to

1:11:11 ↗ give their input all the way up to the

1:11:14 ↗ final day of the final vote on something

1:11:17 ↗ from you and you've had discussions and

1:11:18 ↗ every comment period they're coming and

1:11:21 ↗ they're giving their input and when they

1:11:22 ↗ do that on that final day it's hard to

1:11:25 ↗ take that input into account because but

1:11:27 ↗ at that point you're sitting there

1:11:28 ↗ you're having discussed it if you've got

1:11:30 ↗ something formulated before you ready to

1:11:33 ↗ adopt and here comes someone in

1:11:35 ↗ now he's wondering why their public

1:11:38 ↗ input isn't incorporated into that

1:11:41 ↗ document so but it is difficult to cut

1:11:44 ↗ the public off on on a legislative

1:11:46 ↗ matter and so you just deal with that it

1:11:50 ↗ it rarely is something that you really

1:11:52 ↗ need to stop and say wait a minute we're

1:11:55 ↗ going to postpone as far as the criteria

1:11:59 ↗ for making your legislative decision the

1:12:03 ↗ Issaquah Municipal Code does set out

1:12:07 ↗ criteria for comprehensive plan

1:12:09 ↗ amendments it does say to set out

1:12:11 ↗ criteria for development regulation

1:12:15 ↗ approvals in fact all of the various

1:12:17 ↗ levels of review in the Issaquah zoning

1:12:20 ↗ code all have separate criteria for you

1:12:22 ↗ to consider and make your decisions on

1:12:24 ↗ your staff report will always tell you

1:12:28 ↗ how the staff believes that those

1:12:30 ↗ criteria have been met but you're always

1:12:32 ↗ free based upon the evidence and the

1:12:35 ↗ testimony and anything else that is

1:12:37 ↗ brought to mind during the legislative

1:12:39 ↗ matter you're always free to not adopt

1:12:43 ↗ the staffs recommendation or to change a

1:12:46 ↗ finding that the staff is stating you're

1:12:49 ↗ you should make or whatever you're

1:12:51 ↗ you're the ones who are in charge of

1:12:53 ↗ this and staff is providing you a

1:12:55 ↗ resource by providing you a draft

1:12:57 ↗ decision based on what they understand

1:13:00 ↗ the discussion could have been and based

1:13:02 ↗ upon what their recommendation is as I

1:13:06 ↗ said you're not limited to considering

1:13:08 ↗ testimony and documents presented in the

1:13:10 ↗ hearing this is different from a quasi

1:13:12 ↗ judicial matter again you're not acting

1:13:15 ↗ as a judge you're acting as a legislator

1:13:17 ↗ and

1:13:18 ↗ as you know the legislature takes input

1:13:21 ↗ from any and all sources up until the

1:13:24 ↗ time they make things and then they make

1:13:25 ↗ a policy judgment so that's really the

1:13:27 ↗ same kind of thing here

1:13:32 ↗ so in quasi judicial decisions like I

1:13:35 ↗ said you're acting like a court and if

1:13:37 ↗ you think of how a court acts what does

1:13:39 ↗ it judge do that judge holds a trial to

1:13:43 ↗ hear evidence and get all of the

1:13:45 ↗ evidence to decide the case the judge

1:13:49 ↗ then makes findings specifically based

1:13:51 ↗ on that evidence and only based on that

1:13:53 ↗ evidence what evidence did the parties

1:13:55 ↗ present to me so that I can make a

1:13:58 ↗ decision the judge then draws

1:14:01 ↗ conclusions from that evidence and

1:14:03 ↗ ultimately if the judge enters a

1:14:06 ↗ judgment in the in the litigation which

1:14:09 ↗ decides the rights of the parties and

1:14:12 ↗ what you do is very similar you're

1:14:13 ↗ holding a hearing on the course of

1:14:15 ↗ neutral matter in order to get evidence

1:14:17 ↗ so that you can make a decision as to

1:14:20 ↗ whether a permit meets the criteria or

1:14:22 ↗ it doesn't meet the criteria you're

1:14:25 ↗ gonna make your findings based on that

1:14:26 ↗ evidence you can't go outside that

1:14:28 ↗ evidence you can't say well you know I

1:14:31 ↗ even hear this during the hearing but I

1:14:33 ↗ happen to know that that project has

1:14:35 ↗ this thing about it or I happen to have

1:14:40 ↗ heard from somebody else that there is

1:14:42 ↗ there's this particular feature on the

1:14:44 ↗ land you need to confine in a

1:14:46 ↗ quasi-judicial matter your decision to

1:14:50 ↗ the evidence that you have received in

1:14:52 ↗ the hearing you apply the criteria to

1:14:56 ↗ the facts in order to apply your

1:14:58 ↗ conclusions as to whether or not the

1:15:00 ↗ permit meets the criteria for approval

1:15:03 ↗ and by doing that

1:15:06 ↗ you grant or recommend approval of that

1:15:09 ↗ permit which then decides the rights of

1:15:13 ↗ the permit applicant it decides the

1:15:15 ↗ rights of everybody who testified for or

1:15:18 ↗ against and basically you're making a

1:15:21 ↗ decision that is like a court's judgment

1:15:23 ↗ so when you've passed earlier to define

1:15:25 ↗ quasi digital that's really why the

1:15:28 ↗ courts look at it this way is you're

1:15:29 ↗ doing everything that a judge would do

1:15:31 ↗ and and when you do what a judge does

1:15:34 ↗ you're not a judge but we're gonna say

1:15:37 ↗ you're like a judge at quasi judgment so

1:15:40 ↗ that's the that's how that works

1:15:46 ↗ as far as quasi judicial decision-making

1:15:49 ↗ I'm an advocate for having standing

1:15:52 ↗ rules of procedure but if you do this

1:15:54 ↗ only rarely you know sometimes people

1:15:58 ↗ don't have rules of procedure and they

1:15:59 ↗ have to come up with them when a rare

1:16:03 ↗ quasi neutral matter comes in front of

1:16:06 ↗ them Hearing Examiner obviously has good

1:16:09 ↗ rules of procedure because he decides

1:16:12 ↗ quasi judicial matters all the time but

1:16:15 ↗ you get them rarely so you may not

1:16:17 ↗ always have those and it's always a good

1:16:20 ↗ idea to work those out in advance to

1:16:24 ↗ figure them out how you're gonna handle

1:16:25 ↗ the hearing and to announce that

1:16:28 ↗ procedure prior to the earring taking

1:16:30 ↗ place so everybody has a fair

1:16:32 ↗ opportunity to comply with those

1:16:34 ↗ procedures typically as I said earlier

1:16:38 ↗ the party with the burden of proof

1:16:40 ↗ presents first other parties go after

1:16:43 ↗ and then the party with the burden of

1:16:45 ↗ proof gets a chance for rebuttal if this

1:16:48 ↗ is just an application that is pending

1:16:49 ↗ before you then party with the burden of

1:16:53 ↗ proof is going to be the applicant the

1:16:54 ↗ applicant bears the burden of showing

1:16:56 ↗ that their application meets the

1:16:58 ↗ requirements of the code if it's an

1:17:00 ↗ appeal of a decision made by staff

1:17:04 ↗ then whoever appealed the staff decision

1:17:06 ↗ is going to have the burden of proof so

1:17:08 ↗ it will vary from case to case but this

1:17:12 ↗ is generally how we always see it done

1:17:15 ↗ is the party with burden of proof

1:17:17 ↗ presents first the other parties after

1:17:20 ↗ and then the party with the burden of

1:17:22 ↗ proof gets a chance for about its it's

1:17:24 ↗ kind of like it's kind of like what you

1:17:27 ↗ see in a courtroom again in a courtroom

1:17:30 ↗ the plaintiff because or the prosecutor

1:17:33 ↗ has the burden of proof so they always

1:17:35 ↗ go first and put on their case then the

1:17:37 ↗ defendant comes in and puts on their

1:17:41 ↗ case and then the plaintiff or the

1:17:44 ↗ prosecutor if it's a criminal case gets

1:17:47 ↗ a chance to come back and offer some

1:17:49 ↗ rebuttal again because they have that

1:17:51 ↗ burden that heavy burden of proving the

1:17:54 ↗ case before you

1:17:57 ↗ commissioners can ask questions at any

1:17:59 ↗ time and you shouldn't ask your

1:18:02 ↗ questions it's really up to you as to

1:18:05 ↗ whether you want to wait until someone

1:18:06 ↗ has finished testifying and and then ask

1:18:10 ↗ the questions at the end or whether you

1:18:12 ↗ want to ask the questions as they go

1:18:15 ↗ along but you have the right to ask

1:18:17 ↗ questions in a quasi judicial proceeding

1:18:19 ↗ you have the right to ask questions in a

1:18:21 ↗ legislative hearing so you shouldn't be

1:18:23 ↗ afraid to do that you need to get

1:18:26 ↗ whatever you need to get in order to

1:18:28 ↗ make your decision now next one of the

1:18:34 ↗ things that sets quasi judicial

1:18:36 ↗ decisions

1:18:37 ↗ apart from legislative decisions is that

1:18:40 ↗ with quasi judicial Precision's you're

1:18:43 ↗ bound by something called the appearance

1:18:45 ↗ of fairness and you hear about it all

1:18:48 ↗ the time you hear that term all the time

1:18:51 ↗ appearance of fairness appearance of

1:18:53 ↗ fairness but but it's it's both a

1:18:58 ↗ well-known concept and it's sometimes

1:19:01 ↗ kind of hard to understand but here's

1:19:04 ↗ the basics is that judges

1:19:09 ↗ commissioners when they enacted a

1:19:11 ↗ quasi-judicial manner are found not only

1:19:15 ↗ to be fair in fact to fairly judge the

1:19:19 ↗ quasi digital matter in front of them

1:19:21 ↗ but they must appear to be fair that is

1:19:24 ↗ they must be above reproach in terms of

1:19:28 ↗ their background and so forth that that

1:19:30 ↗ might cause a person to think that

1:19:33 ↗ they're not fair as a matter of fact the

1:19:36 ↗ question in appearance of fairness that

1:19:38 ↗ is asked is whether a reasonable person

1:19:42 ↗ knowing all there is to know about your

1:19:48 ↗ connections with the application or the

1:19:51 ↗ parties a reasonable person who is

1:19:54 ↗ disinterested in the proceedings

1:19:58 ↗ themselves would be concerned that you

1:20:02 ↗ might not be fair it's not that you

1:20:06 ↗ haven't been fair we can look at the

1:20:07 ↗ proceedings that objectively when we

1:20:09 ↗ look at the transcript who can say gee

1:20:11 ↗ there's nothing here that says that you

1:20:13 ↗ were unfair but not only do you have to

1:20:17 ↗ be fair in fact you have to appear to be

1:20:21 ↗ fair and what that means is that we need

1:20:25 ↗ to know at the outset of a quasi

1:20:28 ↗ judicial hearing

1:20:30 ↗ what connections you have to the project

1:20:33 ↗ and to the applicant into the property

1:20:36 ↗ so that we can determine whether you

1:20:39 ↗ might have an appearance of fairness

1:20:42 ↗ problem and I know Lucy does a really

1:20:45 ↗ good job at these hearings of prompting

1:20:48 ↗ you with the questions and so forth if

1:20:50 ↗ you if you need that and asking you the

1:20:53 ↗ things you need to know and the intent

1:20:55 ↗ is to get all of those things on the

1:20:57 ↗ record again that is important for a

1:20:59 ↗ couple of reasons one because it gives

1:21:02 ↗ members of the public and those who are

1:21:05 ↗ who have the burden of coming before you

1:21:08 ↗ have them know about particular issues

1:21:12 ↗ that you may have and have the ability

1:21:15 ↗ to respond to that it's second it's

1:21:19 ↗ important because if they want to

1:21:22 ↗ challenge you and your ability to be

1:21:24 ↗ fair they need to do it at the outset of

1:21:27 ↗ the hearing so they need to know at the

1:21:30 ↗ outset all of the things about you that

1:21:33 ↗ could trigger that appearance of

1:21:35 ↗ fairness issue and if they challenge you

1:21:39 ↗ and if there is a valid appearance of

1:21:42 ↗ fairness concern about you you will be

1:21:46 ↗ required to step down and you will be

1:21:49 ↗ required not to participate in the

1:21:51 ↗ proceedings and if you don't and they

1:21:55 ↗ appeal or if you don't disclose and they

1:21:58 ↗ later find out about something that

1:22:00 ↗ would have been a valid grounds to

1:22:02 ↗ challenge you and they appeal the

1:22:05 ↗ decision can get overturned and

1:22:06 ↗ everybody's better doing it all over and

1:22:08 ↗ so we don't want to do this

1:22:10 ↗ so just give me an example it's only

1:22:13 ↗ happen once that I've seen where someone

1:22:16 ↗ had a ballad and we were reviewing

1:22:20 ↗ Swedish Hospital violence and sitting on

1:22:23 ↗ the commission was a head of the

1:22:26 ↗ emergency room for Swedish and we asked

1:22:32 ↗ him to recuse himself and he agreed he

1:22:39 ↗ did show up and then we had to ask him

1:22:41 ↗ to leave because I just want to point

1:22:44 ↗ that out that if you are not supposed to

1:22:47 ↗ influence it you may not be in the room

1:22:50 ↗ and so he left and everything was fine

1:22:55 ↗ and there was no bad intention but again

1:22:57 ↗ it's the appearance of fairness and even

1:22:59 ↗ had a room with the relationship that he

1:23:02 ↗ had with the other commissioners it was

1:23:05 ↗ a concern that it might not appear there

1:23:08 ↗ I'll tell you a story from early in my

1:23:10 ↗ career I was the city attorney for the

1:23:13 ↗ city of Black Diamond and I was the

1:23:16 ↗ prosecutor as well and we had a a judge

1:23:20 ↗ who was not a lawyer at the time you

1:23:22 ↗ could do that in in small municipal

1:23:24 ↗ courts we had the judge who was not a

1:23:26 ↗ lawyer and the judge we would hold a

1:23:30 ↗ night in court and the judge would

1:23:32 ↗ decide the cases and if he ever got

1:23:35 ↗ stuck he would look out into the

1:23:37 ↗ audience and his wife was sitting in the

1:23:40 ↗ audience and she would give him the

1:23:42 ↗ subtle signal as to as to which way to

1:23:45 ↗ go in the case and he would rule the way

1:23:48 ↗ that she gave him the subtle signal well

1:23:50 ↗ that's why we ask people to leave the

1:23:52 ↗ room so that they can't give the subtle

1:23:54 ↗ signal there's no nodding there's no

1:23:56 ↗ there's no

1:23:58 ↗ thumbs-up thumbs-down there's no I I

1:24:03 ↗ shouldn't I shouldn't use it very well

1:24:05 ↗ there's no sitting there like in the

1:24:06 ↗ movie Animal House where you sit there

1:24:08 ↗ and go oh

1:24:11 ↗ there's none of that so we we want to

1:24:13 ↗ make sure that when there is an

1:24:15 ↗ appearance of fairness issue that's why

1:24:17 ↗ you're asked to leave the room so that

1:24:19 ↗ there is absolutely no question that

1:24:21 ↗ you're trying to influence influence the

1:24:23 ↗ body yes is are we as individual

1:24:28 ↗ commissioners allowed to for example

1:24:34 ↗ look at a site an application or the

1:24:38 ↗ subject of a planning policy

1:24:40 ↗ Commissioner or something like that in

1:24:44 ↗ advance of the meeting or are we limited

1:24:46 ↗ only to what is presented by the staff

1:24:49 ↗ the applicant public comment in the

1:24:52 ↗ hearing in the legislative matters

1:24:54 ↗ there's no question you're allowed to go

1:24:56 ↗ look at the site if it's if it's if

1:24:58 ↗ there's some rezoning an area or

1:25:01 ↗ something where it would be legislative

1:25:02 ↗ in quasi neutral matters I think you can

1:25:04 ↗ do that but you need to be careful about

1:25:07 ↗ it and you really should have a kind of

1:25:08 ↗ a rule that that says this again will

1:25:11 ↗ analogize to what a judge and a jury

1:25:14 ↗ does when a jury goes out to look at a

1:25:17 ↗ site during a trial they are instructed

1:25:20 ↗ that

1:25:21 ↗ their view of the site is not evidence

1:25:26 ↗ but they're being afforded an

1:25:29 ↗ opportunity to look at the site so that

1:25:31 ↗ they can understand the evidence that

1:25:33 ↗ they are receiving better so I know that

1:25:38 ↗ for example you know you you get platon

1:25:41 ↗ maps and so forth and it's a nice flat

1:25:43 ↗ drawing on a piece of paper or a site

1:25:45 ↗ map it's a nice flat drawing and you're

1:25:48 ↗ kind of looking at it and you're you're

1:25:50 ↗ not really you know unless you read

1:25:53 ↗ these plans all the time and I know you

1:25:54 ↗ do it's it's hard sometimes to visualize

1:25:58 ↗ it and as long as you recognize that

1:26:02 ↗ then you go out and visualize or go out

1:26:06 ↗ and actually see the site it's to help

1:26:08 ↗ you understand that document better and

1:26:11 ↗ to understand what that document showing

1:26:13 ↗ and not evidence in and of itself then

1:26:18 ↗ you'll be fine I would I would say I had

1:26:21 ↗ a I had a quasi-judicial hearing once

1:26:24 ↗ with a city council that wanted to take

1:26:26 ↗ a a site visit and we ended up recording

1:26:30 ↗ the site visit and and taking the

1:26:33 ↗ council out on site and it was amazing

1:26:37 ↗ to see council members like pointing to

1:26:40 ↗ what appeared to me to be a puddle of

1:26:42 ↗ water and believing that was a wetland

1:26:44 ↗ and things like that and drawing

1:26:46 ↗ conclusions from it but really and so I

1:26:49 ↗ had to bring it around when we got back

1:26:50 ↗ and say you know really this is not

1:26:53 ↗ evidence you're going and viewing the

1:26:55 ↗ site what you're viewing the site for is

1:26:57 ↗ to help you understand the evidence that

1:27:00 ↗ you're getting in the proceeding and

1:27:02 ↗ that may I hope that's clear but that's

1:27:05 ↗ that's the distinction so a couple of

1:27:08 ↗ questions if someone has visited this

1:27:11 ↗ site should they disclose that

1:27:13 ↗ yes I think you should and particularly

1:27:16 ↗ if you have questions about anything

1:27:18 ↗ that has that you saw at the site you

1:27:21 ↗ say you know I was out there just trying

1:27:24 ↗ to understand

1:27:26 ↗ am I right that you know this place up

1:27:29 ↗ here is where I saw the detention pond

1:27:32 ↗ and this over here if you have questions

1:27:35 ↗ it's helpful for to bring those to the

1:27:37 ↗ forum but again you should not draw

1:27:40 ↗ conclusions based on what you see out

1:27:42 ↗ there because it's really not evidence

1:27:43 ↗ is it okay to ask questions as a

1:27:46 ↗ follow-up for instance I had the exact

1:27:49 ↗ same example in mind they see a puddle

1:27:51 ↗ and they think it's a wetland is it okay

1:27:54 ↗ to say has the property been evaluated

1:27:56 ↗ for critical areas yes but as I like

1:27:59 ↗ that say it's a critical area yeah I

1:28:02 ↗ think I think you know to say I observe

1:28:05 ↗ some areas you know when I was out there

1:28:07 ↗ I just saw some areas they looked wet I

1:28:09 ↗ hasn't been evaluated for critical areas

1:28:12 ↗ and if the answer is yes it's been

1:28:14 ↗ evaluated here's the evaluation the

1:28:16 ↗ evidence you rely on is that evaluation

1:28:18 ↗ and what's been presented and not what

1:28:20 ↗ you saw out of the field it's only there

1:28:22 ↗ to help you understand and contextualize

1:28:25 ↗ what you have information you're getting

1:28:29 ↗ yes Jim and Lucy what's the protocol

1:28:33 ↗ because of fairness and say you've not

1:28:36 ↗ attended the first meeting serious do we

1:28:41 ↗ just simply state that fact to the

1:28:43 ↗ beginning of the meeting and then if

1:28:46 ↗ we're asked to sit off for the remainder

1:28:48 ↗ of the beat and then we just comply with

1:28:49 ↗ that or what's the correct apprentice I

1:28:51 ↗ think I think it depends if it's a

1:28:54 ↗ quasi-judicial if it's a legislative

1:28:55 ↗ hearing there's no problem with that

1:28:58 ↗ because again you're getting the public

1:29:00 ↗ input you probably have read the minutes

1:29:03 ↗ you know and so forth in here you know

1:29:05 ↗ enough if it's a quasi-judicial matter

1:29:10 ↗ then before you can participate in the

1:29:14 ↗ decision-making you would want to have

1:29:17 ↗ reviewed the entire record and have

1:29:19 ↗ heard the entire record so if you come

1:29:22 ↗ in and you know this is the second

1:29:24 ↗ meeting on a some quasi-judicial matter

1:29:28 ↗ who say you make it known I was not here

1:29:31 ↗ at the first meeting so I'll stay here

1:29:35 ↗ and and listen to the testimony if the

1:29:38 ↗ decision is going to be made tonight

1:29:40 ↗ then I won't participate because I

1:29:41 ↗ haven't read the record or if you've

1:29:43 ↗ gone and you've gone back and

1:29:45 ↗ everything's video yeah yeah watch the

1:29:48 ↗ video if you've gone back and watched

1:29:49 ↗ the video you say I wasn't here at the

1:29:51 ↗ last meeting but I have gone back and

1:29:53 ↗ watched the video and I have looked at

1:29:55 ↗ the document so I feel like I can I can

1:29:58 ↗ proceed you would be fine to do that at

1:30:00 ↗ that point it would be only if you

1:30:02 ↗ hadn't watched the video

1:30:04 ↗ you were only here for half of the

1:30:06 ↗ hearing and Commission is ready to make

1:30:08 ↗ a decision then really you shouldn't

1:30:10 ↗ participate because you don't have all

1:30:11 ↗ of the evidence and when do we when do

1:30:14 ↗ we state that after the the chair mate

1:30:15 ↗ has made the introduction or the the

1:30:18 ↗ meetings begun or wind in that process

1:30:20 ↗ yeah I would I would at the outset of

1:30:23 ↗ when the matter comes up before the

1:30:26 ↗ Commission I would suggest you make that

1:30:28 ↗ that statement is a technicality but

1:30:32 ↗ under the rules for a quorum if you have

1:30:39 ↗ four members but only three of the

1:30:41 ↗ members have seen the whole record and

1:30:43 ↗ get a fourth one that's not prepared the

1:30:45 ↗ Commission that's correct

1:30:48 ↗ at that point if you don't I mean

1:30:50 ↗ technically you have a quorum but I

1:30:52 ↗ think if he and if three members were

1:30:54 ↗ all in agreement it would be a valid

1:30:56 ↗ decision but in in many cases but I

1:31:00 ↗ would suggest that at that point if you

1:31:03 ↗ don't have enough people to be able to

1:31:05 ↗ put forth of all the votes that are

1:31:10 ↗ necessary to take the action that you

1:31:12 ↗ would probably want to continue it until

1:31:15 ↗ you do have those folks until more

1:31:18 ↗ people are gonna be there

1:31:23 ↗ [Music]

1:31:25 ↗ okay so we've listed some of the

1:31:27 ↗ appearance of fairness questions these

1:31:28 ↗ may be familiar to you since you may

1:31:30 ↗ have been through this with Lucy before

1:31:32 ↗ but if not I'll just lay them out some

1:31:36 ↗ of the questions we like to ask during

1:31:38 ↗ the appearance of fairness and I'll just

1:31:40 ↗ say in terms of the in terms of the way

1:31:43 ↗ kind of I like to go about it and

1:31:45 ↗ everybody has their different style but

1:31:48 ↗ but the way I like to go about it is to

1:31:50 ↗ either have the chair ask the questions

1:31:53 ↗ or if the chair wishes me or a staff

1:31:56 ↗ member to ask the questions ask the

1:31:58 ↗ questions

1:31:59 ↗ get the council or Commission members to

1:32:03 ↗ indicate if they are responding yes to

1:32:07 ↗ any of the questions and then ask them

1:32:09 ↗ to explain and then at the end when

1:32:11 ↗ everybody has made all of their

1:32:13 ↗ disclosures that's the point at which

1:32:15 ↗ the chair or the staff member or me then

1:32:19 ↗ asks are there any challenges to any of

1:32:23 ↗ the council members and the reason for

1:32:26 ↗ doing that is because anybody who was

1:32:29 ↗ there and at word even not there and who

1:32:32 ↗ should have known then what all of the

1:32:34 ↗ basis was for a challenge and it doesn't

1:32:37 ↗ make it that challenge has deemed waived

1:32:38 ↗ and the council members can and

1:32:40 ↗ Commission members can't continue to

1:32:42 ↗ participate even if they would have

1:32:45 ↗ answered one of these questions yes the

1:32:47 ↗ appearance of fairness can be waived so

1:32:49 ↗ that's that's why we do that they make

1:32:51 ↗ the disclosures then we try to figure

1:32:53 ↗ out whether anybody's challenging so the

1:32:57 ↗ disclosures first does the decision

1:32:59 ↗ maker have a personal interest financial

1:33:02 ↗ or otherwise in the matter such that he

1:33:04 ↗ or she stands to gain or lose by the

1:33:07 ↗ decision this is the old classic you

1:33:10 ↗ can't adjudicate your own case

1:33:13 ↗ so if you do have a financial interest

1:33:16 ↗ somehow and be proceeding you shouldn't

1:33:19 ↗ be

1:33:20 ↗ you should be disclosing that at the

1:33:22 ↗ outset question that sorry that is that

1:33:26 ↗ the direct financial interest or candid

1:33:29 ↗ broader in the sense that making up a

1:33:32 ↗ story there's developments proposed

1:33:33 ↗ clearly going to raise property values

1:33:36 ↗ in the city of this one I'm just making

1:33:38 ↗ up a story I live in the that'd be

1:33:43 ↗ an indirect then in that my house value

1:33:45 ↗ might go up well it's a good question so

1:33:47 ↗ let let me let me just say that it has

1:33:49 ↗ to be a financial interest that sets you

1:33:53 ↗ apart from other members of the general

1:33:55 ↗ public so you know every time the

1:33:57 ↗ council makes a decision on taxes or

1:34:00 ↗ whatever everybody has the same interest

1:34:01 ↗ you know the council levies taxes it's

1:34:04 ↗ going to go up but that doesn't mean

1:34:07 ↗ that that council member has a conflict

1:34:09 ↗ of interest in that even though their

1:34:11 ↗ taxes are going to go up it's a matter

1:34:13 ↗ of are you affected in a way that is

1:34:16 ↗ different from other members of the

1:34:19 ↗ public and the public in general I would

1:34:21 ↗ say for example let's say you've got an

1:34:24 ↗ ownership interest in the property

1:34:25 ↗ that's an easy one you know where you

1:34:27 ↗ were under contract to sell the property

1:34:30 ↗ to the developer that's an easy one or a

1:34:33 ↗ little bit more remote you own stock in

1:34:36 ↗ the developer

1:34:37 ↗ and your stock would rise or fall that's

1:34:39 ↗ a more direct kind of financial interest

1:34:42 ↗ that you might that you might consider

1:34:44 ↗ disclosing and it might create a problem

1:34:48 ↗ for you um can I just ask a question

1:34:51 ↗ sure for a legislative matter yes if

1:34:56 ↗ there was a reason of property that was

1:35:01 ↗ owned by commissioners not under state

1:35:11 ↗ law tea not doing anything in the ethics

1:35:15 ↗ code that would address an event as I

1:35:20 ↗ have seen a commissioner specifically

1:35:24 ↗ trying to change their zoning on their

1:35:26 ↗ property in a larger zoning matter yes

1:35:31 ↗ yeah ethics policy was intended to

1:35:35 ↗ complement the parcels

1:35:40 ↗ well I fanned that was not in this

1:35:42 ↗ jurisdiction yeah I mean I think in a

1:35:48 ↗ legislative matter generally you are if

1:35:52 ↗ it is truly legislative you are entitled

1:35:54 ↗ to bring your own prejudices and own

1:35:56 ↗ interests to the table and so that would

1:36:00 ↗ generally not be an issue many cities

1:36:05 ↗ have ethics codes which would require

1:36:07 ↗ you to recuse yourself under those kinds

1:36:09 ↗ of situations and the state conflict of

1:36:13 ↗ interest statute is pretty minimal it

1:36:19 ↗ mostly feels what contracts and your

1:36:22 ↗ interests in contracts that come before

1:36:24 ↗ you and you don't approve contracts so

1:36:26 ↗ it generally so it it really doesn't

1:36:28 ↗ mostly apply to you there are some

1:36:30 ↗ things about like not taking bribes and

1:36:33 ↗ things like that in the state ethics

1:36:34 ↗ code but there's nothing that

1:36:36 ↗ specifically addresses I think something

1:36:38 ↗ like you're talking about Lucy

1:36:42 ↗ the second one that I was going to talk

1:36:44 ↗ about was will there be prospective

1:36:46 ↗ employment for the decision-maker or his

1:36:48 ↗ or her family as a result of the

1:36:50 ↗ decision and I know that sounds kind of

1:36:52 ↗ that's a sounds like an odd question but

1:36:55 ↗ it comes from an actual case where I

1:36:57 ↗ hate to admit it an attorney was on a

1:37:01 ↗ Planning Commission acted on a quasi

1:37:03 ↗ neutral matter and then was hired by the

1:37:05 ↗ developer two weeks later held

1:37:09 ↗ appearance of fairness problem as

1:37:11 ↗ prospective employment and that was

1:37:14 ↗ considered to be an appearance of

1:37:16 ↗ fairness violation even though the

1:37:18 ↗ actual hiring did not take place until

1:37:20 ↗ after the matter was done court said

1:37:23 ↗ look you know nobody gets hired like the

1:37:25 ↗ next day we understand that that people

1:37:29 ↗ there's probably were discussions and so

1:37:31 ↗ forth that's an appearance of fairness

1:37:34 ↗ [Music]

1:37:35 ↗ is there any business competition

1:37:38 ↗ between the decision-maker and any

1:37:40 ↗ parties into earrings so if you own a

1:37:42 ↗ local business and your competitor is up

1:37:44 ↗ here asking for a permit to expand their

1:37:48 ↗ business and you think it's gonna ruin

1:37:50 ↗ ruin you you don't it's not a direct

1:37:52 ↗ financial interest but obviously you do

1:37:54 ↗ that in interest in the proceedings and

1:37:56 ↗ should disclose that are there any

1:37:59 ↗ familial relationships and I would say

1:38:01 ↗ also close friendships between the

1:38:04 ↗ decision-maker and any of the parties at

1:38:06 ↗ the area because again we're asking our

1:38:09 ↗ we're asking ourselves would someone

1:38:12 ↗ knowing that you are close friends with

1:38:15 ↗ the applicant or that the applicant is

1:38:17 ↗ your cousin would someone think you're

1:38:19 ↗ not going to be fair that you're going

1:38:20 ↗ to favor them

1:38:22 ↗ might not be fair that you're going to

1:38:25 ↗ favor them you can be as fair as

1:38:27 ↗ possible and maybe you hate your cousin

1:38:29 ↗ and you would just prefer that to do

1:38:31 ↗ anything that would that would make them

1:38:34 ↗ unhappy but someone could think that you

1:38:37 ↗ might not be fair and so you need to

1:38:39 ↗ dispose familiar with relationships and

1:38:41 ↗ close friendships you don't need to

1:38:44 ↗ necessarily disclose if you know

1:38:46 ↗ somebody enough to say hi you know on

1:38:49 ↗ the street you know their name you say

1:38:51 ↗ you've said hi

1:38:53 ↗ something like that but if you guys are

1:38:55 ↗ going out to dinner together you know if

1:38:57 ↗ you vacation together whatever that kind

1:39:00 ↗ of close friendship has to be disclosed

1:39:02 ↗ the next one does the decision maker

1:39:05 ↗ owner control property near the subject

1:39:07 ↗ property is your property going to be

1:39:10 ↗ specifically affected by this think

1:39:12 ↗ about a development that is going to

1:39:15 ↗ have a lot of traffic and it's going to

1:39:16 ↗ all run by your house are you affected

1:39:20 ↗ by the development do you have an

1:39:21 ↗ appearance of fairness issue the answer

1:39:22 ↗ is yes because you're gonna see you're

1:39:25 ↗ gonna there's going to be a tangible

1:39:27 ↗ impact on you the way I usually say is

1:39:31 ↗ as a rule of thumb is when we notify

1:39:36 ↗ people in a quasi-judicial proceeding we

1:39:39 ↗ notify property owners within a certain

1:39:41 ↗ number of feet property within a certain

1:39:44 ↗ number of feet of the proposed

1:39:46 ↗ development

1:39:47 ↗ if you're within that notice area that

1:39:49 ↗ means that you think you've got enough

1:39:52 ↗ of an interest that you should know

1:39:53 ↗ what's going on and that's probably

1:39:55 ↗ means that you need to disclose that

1:39:58 ↗ that theory if you're outside the notice

1:40:01 ↗ area and you just like everybody else

1:40:03 ↗ then move look at specifics as to

1:40:06 ↗ whether there was any specific impact of

1:40:08 ↗ this development maybe you live a mile

1:40:10 ↗ downstream from it and all the drainage

1:40:13 ↗ is going right by your house you know or

1:40:15 ↗ something like that we would have to

1:40:16 ↗ look at that but generally speaking

1:40:19 ↗ we're looking for a close connection

1:40:25 ↗ there's three million feet we actually

1:40:29 ↗ this is our older version of this

1:40:31 ↗ question we've actually updated it to

1:40:33 ↗ say as indicated by receiving notice

1:40:37 ↗ just so that is clear because for

1:40:39 ↗ instance the urban village development

1:40:41 ↗ Commission all the commissioners would

1:40:45 ↗ often disclose that they lived in his

1:40:47 ↗ kua Highlands if there was a matter

1:40:48 ↗ before them that was in his islands and

1:40:51 ↗ once we received the clarification that

1:40:53 ↗ notice was a good indication of that

1:40:56 ↗ then that meant that not all of them

1:40:58 ↗ felt they had to disclose that not that

1:41:01 ↗ it's bad to disclose things

1:41:03 ↗ [Music]

1:41:07 ↗ the next one has the decision maker made

1:41:10 ↗ a final decision on the request before

1:41:11 ↗ hearing any testimony or evidence

1:41:13 ↗ obviously if you have expressed opinions

1:41:16 ↗ about a particular quasi-judicial matter

1:41:18 ↗ and said that you prejudged it basically

1:41:22 ↗ and this is how you're gonna vote before

1:41:23 ↗ you've heard any of the evidence that's

1:41:24 ↗ a problem

1:41:25 ↗ you wouldn't want a judge who said that

1:41:28 ↗ and people don't want you in that

1:41:31 ↗ situation the last one I think is

1:41:35 ↗ whether you have had any ex parte

1:41:40 ↗ contacts an ex parte just means you're

1:41:43 ↗ having these contacts outside of the

1:41:46 ↗ proceedings so you're walking let's say

1:41:49 ↗ you're walking into the supermarket and

1:41:51 ↗ someone comes up to us I know that that

1:41:54 ↗ project is on your agenda on Tuesday

1:41:57 ↗ night and I want to tell you what I

1:41:58 ↗ think about it and proceeds to tell you

1:42:01 ↗ that's an ex parte contact and ex parte

1:42:05 ↗ contacts in a way for the best kind of

1:42:08 ↗ appearance of fairness problems because

1:42:10 ↗ they are easily cured they're easily

1:42:13 ↗ occurred and next slide please

1:42:18 ↗ the cure for ex parte contacts is simply

1:42:21 ↗ disclosing the substance of those

1:42:23 ↗ contacts at the outset of the hearing if

1:42:26 ↗ at the outset of the hearing you say you

1:42:28 ↗ know I was in the supermarket the other

1:42:30 ↗ day and Joe Smith came up to me and said

1:42:34 ↗ that he hated this project and he

1:42:37 ↗ thought that the it was going to be a

1:42:41 ↗ severe impact on wildlife in the area

1:42:43 ↗ and so I'm disclosing that Joe Smith

1:42:47 ↗ said that to me

1:42:50 ↗ that gives fair notice to anyone who is

1:42:53 ↗ going to come up and speak that somebody

1:42:57 ↗ said that to you and they can respond to

1:42:59 ↗ it if they don't know about it they

1:43:01 ↗ can't respond to it so disclosing those

1:43:04 ↗ types of calm comments and you don't

1:43:06 ↗ necessarily need to disclose and I've

1:43:08 ↗ been asked you need to disclose the name

1:43:10 ↗ do you need to give the time you don't

1:43:12 ↗ necessarily need to do that but you do

1:43:14 ↗ need to disclose the substance of the

1:43:16 ↗ communication so as long as you do that

1:43:19 ↗ at the outset of the hearing that will

1:43:22 ↗ allow people to respond to it and it

1:43:24 ↗ cures the appearance of fairness problem

1:43:27 ↗ other appearance of fairness problems

1:43:29 ↗ are not so easily cured there are

1:43:34 ↗ exceptions to the appearance of fairness

1:43:35 ↗ doctrine things like by to you at this

1:43:39 ↗ point things like they do statements

1:43:42 ↗ during a campaign when you're running

1:43:43 ↗ for office because you're you're not

1:43:48 ↗ sitting on an elected board you're

1:43:50 ↗ sitting in an appointed board so that

1:43:51 ↗ one wouldn't apply to you but the the

1:43:55 ↗ other appearance of fairness problems

1:43:56 ↗ are not so easily cured you need to

1:43:58 ↗ disclose them you need to see if people

1:44:01 ↗ object to you sitting and sometimes

1:44:05 ↗ people object based on things that

1:44:07 ↗ you've disclosed and it's not really an

1:44:09 ↗ appearance of fairness problem you sit

1:44:11 ↗ there and you say I've I've had this

1:44:14 ↗ contact from Joe Smith and he told me

1:44:17 ↗ that he hated this project and that this

1:44:19 ↗ was going to have an impact on the

1:44:20 ↗ wildlife and someone gets up and says I

1:44:23 ↗ challenge you into the appearance of

1:44:24 ↗ fairness doctor and you have to step

1:44:26 ↗ down and you

1:44:27 ↗ you'd get a ruling and say no he's

1:44:29 ↗ disclosed he or she has disclosed the

1:44:31 ↗ contact you have a chance to respond to

1:44:34 ↗ it not a valid objection but other times

1:44:38 ↗ when there is a valid objection it is

1:44:40 ↗ your cousin you do have a financial

1:44:42 ↗ interest in the property and so forth we

1:44:45 ↗ call upon the public and the people who

1:44:48 ↗ are here are there any objections and if

1:44:50 ↗ somebody objection you will have to step

1:44:52 ↗ down and you will have to leave the room

1:44:54 ↗ and not participate any further in the

1:44:56 ↗ proceedings you can't contact the other

1:44:59 ↗ members you can't you can't stand up and

1:45:03 ↗ go okay now I want to testify against

1:45:05 ↗ the project and stand to stand at the

1:45:07 ↗ podium and testify that's in there

1:45:09 ↗ goodnight yes sir so as counsel for the

1:45:12 ↗ city would you recommend that you simply

1:45:14 ↗ disclose and you allow the audience or

1:45:17 ↗ someone from there to object or would

1:45:19 ↗ you just pretty evident leave recuse

1:45:22 ↗ yourself it's just better to disclose

1:45:24 ↗ and let it be challenged on the old

1:45:25 ↗ Island yeah yeah I guess it what I

1:45:27 ↗ always tell council members and

1:45:29 ↗ Commission members have asked me as I

1:45:31 ↗ always say do you want to decide this do

1:45:36 ↗ you feel you can be fair despite what

1:45:38 ↗ you're telling me do you feel you can be

1:45:39 ↗ fair do you want to participate and if

1:45:42 ↗ they say yes then I say just disclose

1:45:44 ↗ and and let somebody challenge you and

1:45:48 ↗ what I would add is call us ahead of

1:45:51 ↗ time it's a lot better to have us be

1:45:55 ↗ able to consult with the city attorney

1:45:57 ↗ or have the city attorney speak with you

1:45:59 ↗ and hear the circumstances

1:46:02 ↗ and help make that decision I mean

1:46:05 ↗ you're all there because you want things

1:46:06 ↗ to happen and you're and you want to

1:46:10 ↗ represent the city well and so it's

1:46:14 ↗ easier to do that ahead of time than it

1:46:16 ↗ is to do it in real time and if you feel

1:46:20 ↗ you can be fair and you and you want to

1:46:22 ↗ participate there's no reason why you

1:46:24 ↗ shouldn't and I mean it is after all

1:46:27 ↗ your job as a commissioner that's why

1:46:29 ↗ you're on the commission was to

1:46:30 ↗ participate and make these decisions but

1:46:33 ↗ if you think you know I really I'm

1:46:36 ↗ second-guessing myself and I think I may

1:46:39 ↗ not be fair then then you can recuse

1:46:41 ↗ yourself a couple of other things that

1:46:44 ↗ aren't exactly ex parte but our

1:46:47 ↗ appearance of fairness if there is an

1:46:50 ↗ intermission during a public hearing

1:46:52 ↗ make sure you're not talking about

1:46:55 ↗ anything to do with the purpose it's

1:46:57 ↗ hard

1:46:58 ↗ you've been talking talking listening

1:47:00 ↗ talking and then there's an intermission

1:47:03 ↗ and we had this happen where the

1:47:06 ↗ commissioners did not think about it and

1:47:08 ↗ kept talking about the permit during the

1:47:10 ↗ intermission when we were out of the

1:47:11 ↗ room and we came back and the applicants

1:47:14 ↗ like so we had to ask you know whether

1:47:20 ↗ the applicant was comfortable continuing

1:47:22 ↗ at that point so it's it's hard because

1:47:27 ↗ you know many times you guys know each

1:47:29 ↗ other well you're pretty comfortable

1:47:30 ↗ with each other as I said you're you

1:47:34 ↗ know you're stopping a conversation for

1:47:36 ↗ five or ten minutes and

1:47:37 ↗ having to pick up again and it just

1:47:40 ↗ requires a kind of level of awareness

1:47:44 ↗ this ex parte discussion

1:47:48 ↗ I love Safeway is only relevant when

1:47:53 ↗ it's it's not something it's already

1:47:55 ↗ happened it's history the apartment

1:47:57 ↗ complex is up it's something that is

1:47:59 ↗ either coming up or at the at the next

1:48:03 ↗ meeting is that cool yeah so we already

1:48:05 ↗ happened and people are buttonholing you

1:48:07 ↗ saying what what what the heck where you

1:48:10 ↗ think that yeah

1:48:11 ↗ that's I'm sure you never get that but

1:48:15 ↗ but no but that as the appearance of

1:48:18 ↗ fairness doctrine only applies while the

1:48:20 ↗ application is pending for you and once

1:48:23 ↗ and once the application has been

1:48:25 ↗ decided by you

1:48:27 ↗ I usually if there's a reconsideration

1:48:29 ↗ period under your rules I say it applies

1:48:32 ↗ until you're done with reconsideration

1:48:35 ↗ but once that passes and you can talk

1:48:39 ↗ about it with anyone and everyone

1:48:41 ↗ because you've done your job and it's

1:48:43 ↗ it's done at that point so only it only

1:48:46 ↗ applies from the time that the

1:48:48 ↗ application is is if it's something that

1:48:50 ↗ is always going to go to you like you

1:48:54 ↗ know a matter that that automatically

1:48:57 ↗ goes to the development commissioner the

1:49:00 ↗ Paulette policy Planning Commission our

1:49:03 ↗ planning policy Commission when when

1:49:07 ↗ it's filed it is quasi-judicial from the

1:49:09 ↗ moment it's filed until it comes before

1:49:11 ↗ you if it was like an appeal and it's a

1:49:15 ↗ staff decision

1:49:17 ↗ it gets appealed to you it's

1:49:18 ↗ quasi-neutral wants its appeal because

1:49:20 ↗ then it's pending before you so it's

1:49:22 ↗ really only when the application so if

1:49:25 ↗ someone is talking to them because they

1:49:28 ↗ know a permit is going to get submitted

1:49:30 ↗ great I mean technically it's not it's

1:49:35 ↗ not in pending what I always recommend

1:49:38 ↗ to commissioners is be cautious if you

1:49:40 ↗ think something could come before you

1:49:42 ↗ because again even though someone is you

1:49:47 ↗ know talking to you and it's not

1:49:50 ↗ technically pending before you it could

1:49:54 ↗ show prejudice or bias on your part if

1:49:57 ↗ you participate and conversation and so

1:50:00 ↗ I would I always advise commissioners to

1:50:03 ↗ say you know I understand you want to

1:50:05 ↗ talk to me I think that's probably going

1:50:08 ↗ to come before the Commission I don't

1:50:09 ↗ feel comfortable talking with you about

1:50:11 ↗ it we'll have a will have a hearing when

1:50:13 ↗ it comes in front of the Commission and

1:50:15 ↗ I encourage you to come and testify and

1:50:17 ↗ then I can then I can hear everything

1:50:19 ↗ you want to tell specifically regarding

1:50:25 ↗ the planning policy Commission I mean

1:50:28 ↗ you remember some may have this entirely

1:50:29 ↗ wrong but my understanding is that that

1:50:31 ↗ Commission does not make decisions it

1:50:33 ↗ makes recommendations yes so I see the

1:50:37 ↗ word decision here and your our

1:50:40 ↗ recommendation is similar in the sense

1:50:42 ↗ that all these rules you're not getting

1:50:46 ↗ quasi-judicial matters no yeah it would

1:50:49 ↗ mean if you were getting yes if you if

1:50:52 ↗ you the same thing the same rules apply

1:50:55 ↗ whether it's a recommendation or an

1:50:57 ↗ actual decision as

1:50:59 ↗ [Music]

1:51:00 ↗ policy planning Commissioner you you do

1:51:03 ↗ not get quasi-judicial matters but at

1:51:06 ↗ least not yet

1:51:07 ↗ what never knows so you don't get them

1:51:11 ↗ so this probably will not have that that

1:51:14 ↗ issue of appearance of fairness and all

1:51:17 ↗ of that before you but the legislative

1:51:20 ↗ matter all that still applies to

1:51:22 ↗ recommendations as well as decisions

1:51:26 ↗ okay

1:51:27 ↗ deliberations in quasi judicial matters

1:51:30 ↗ deliberations can occur immediately

1:51:32 ↗ following the close of the hearing or

1:51:37 ↗ you can hold them over to a subsequent

1:51:38 ↗ date sometimes you're just exhausted

1:51:40 ↗ after a couple of hours a hearing and

1:51:42 ↗ you say I want to think about this can

1:51:45 ↗ we postpone the deliberations to

1:51:47 ↗ such-and-such a date and that's

1:51:48 ↗ perfectly fine you don't have to decide

1:51:50 ↗ at that night the decision must be based

1:51:53 ↗ on criteria in the code and all of the

1:51:56 ↗ applications that are in the code you

1:51:58 ↗ have criteria every level of review has

1:52:01 ↗ criteria and so you must make your

1:52:03 ↗ decisions based on that and lastly the

1:52:06 ↗ decision must be based on the record

1:52:08 ↗ that is it must be based on the

1:52:10 ↗ testimony you receive in the quasi

1:52:12 ↗ judicial hearing and all of the

1:52:15 ↗ documents that and exhibits that were

1:52:17 ↗ submitted again that's a quasi judicial

1:52:19 ↗ matter legislative you're free to take

1:52:21 ↗ into account absolutely anything when it

1:52:24 ↗ was presented to you in the hearing or

1:52:26 ↗ not wasted usually they're limited to

1:52:28 ↗ the record you have to make the decision

1:52:30 ↗ like a judge would have to me

1:52:32 ↗ I just have two last slides and I have

1:52:38 ↗ these in the last time I did this

1:52:39 ↗ presentation so I put them in this time

1:52:41 ↗ there's there's two concepts are a

1:52:44 ↗ couple concepts that apply to what you

1:52:48 ↗ do and they're called procedural due

1:52:51 ↗ process and substance differences

1:52:53 ↗ procedural due process is that parties

1:52:57 ↗ must be given adequate notice and a

1:53:00 ↗ meaningful opportunity to be heard and

1:53:02 ↗ we talked about that a little bit

1:53:03 ↗ earlier about how you give notice and

1:53:06 ↗ how you give procedural due process and

1:53:10 ↗ that's because the the Constitution in

1:53:14 ↗ the United States guarantees procedural

1:53:16 ↗ and substantive due process so what we

1:53:18 ↗ see when we violate that is we often see

1:53:21 ↗ claims based on violation of civil

1:53:24 ↗ rights and so these things can ripen

1:53:27 ↗ into a civil rights claim if we don't

1:53:29 ↗ give people procedural due process and

1:53:32 ↗ procedural due process also means that

1:53:34 ↗ the code has to be followed in terms of

1:53:36 ↗ the procedures the other one is

1:53:39 ↗ substantive due process and substantive

1:53:41 ↗ due process goes not to how you would

1:53:44 ↗ not the regulations but what the

1:53:46 ↗ regulations themselves say and do

1:53:50 ↗ adopted regulations must be the basis

1:53:53 ↗ for your decision and you know in that

1:53:55 ↗ in me and that's where the criteria that

1:53:57 ↗ we talk about comes in is that you need

1:54:00 ↗ to use the criteria for making your

1:54:02 ↗ decisions even legislative decisions

1:54:05 ↗ like comp plan amendments

1:54:06 ↗ and development regulations they have

1:54:08 ↗ criteria in the code and so you must use

1:54:11 ↗ those criteria any condition that you

1:54:14 ↗ impose an equation eternal matter must

1:54:16 ↗ be aimed at alleviating a public problem

1:54:18 ↗ that is made worse by the proposal or if

1:54:22 ↗ you're doing a legislative matter you

1:54:24 ↗ really need to it's it's saying that you

1:54:26 ↗ need to have some sort of legislative

1:54:29 ↗ some sort of issue that you're trying to

1:54:31 ↗ solve with the legislation that any

1:54:36 ↗ condition you impose must use reasonable

1:54:38 ↗ means of achieving its purpose same with

1:54:41 ↗ legislation you have to you have to see

1:54:46 ↗ that what it is that you are requiring

1:54:49 ↗ people to do by enacting this regulation

1:54:53 ↗ or by imposing this condition is

1:54:55 ↗ reasonable to achieve the purpose that

1:54:58 ↗ you're trying to achieve and lastly any

1:55:01 ↗ condition you impose and any regulation

1:55:04 ↗ you impose cannot be unduly oppressive

1:55:07 ↗ that's the language views duly oppressed

1:55:10 ↗ and what that means is that it cannot

1:55:12 ↗ require someone to shoulder an economic

1:55:15 ↗ burden that in fairness the public

1:55:17 ↗ should bear and for example the courts

1:55:22 ↗ have taught talked a lot about a 4,000

1:55:25 ↗ and how affordable housing is a societal

1:55:29 ↗ issue according to the courts it's not a

1:55:31 ↗ development issue so when developers are

1:55:34 ↗ coming in and and saying we're gonna I'm

1:55:38 ↗ going to demolish this affordable

1:55:40 ↗ housing project the City of Seattle had

1:55:43 ↗ regulations that said if you demolish it

1:55:46 ↗ you've got to replace it or you've got

1:55:47 ↗ to pay money into a fund to replace

1:55:49 ↗ affordable housing the court the sub

1:55:52 ↗ Washington's Supreme Court said

1:55:55 ↗ this is a societal burden homelessness

1:55:58 ↗ afforded the need for portable housing

1:56:00 ↗ it's a societal burden it's not the

1:56:03 ↗ burden of developers development doesn't

1:56:06 ↗ cause a lack of affordable housing yeah

1:56:10 ↗ that's what the Supreme Court said I

1:56:13 ↗ think we all understand that if we build

1:56:17 ↗ a development that is not affordable we

1:56:20 ↗ will not get an affordable house and

1:56:22 ↗ there have been some moves on the

1:56:25 ↗ legislative front to deal with

1:56:26 ↗ affordable housing and to give you more

1:56:28 ↗ authority to to impose conditions but in

1:56:32 ↗ reality what the courts look at in a

1:56:35 ↗ subsequent due process is are you just

1:56:37 ↗ being unfair to put that unfair burden

1:56:40 ↗ on this individual as opposed to

1:56:43 ↗ something that society should bear so

1:56:46 ↗ that's substantive due process so that I

1:56:51 ↗ think is the end of my presentation

1:56:53 ↗ right on it looks like right on right

1:56:55 ↗ closed on time so any questions this is

1:56:59 ↗ my contact information

1:57:01 ↗ I am the city attorney but I'm

1:57:03 ↗ contracted to provide legal services to

1:57:06 ↗ the city so this is my contact

1:57:07 ↗ information you can contact me if you

1:57:10 ↗ have more questions tonight I'm happy to

1:57:12 ↗ stick around and answer yes sir

1:57:13 ↗ that one for you on the roll of public

1:57:15 ↗ comment and quasi judicial proceedings

1:57:18 ↗ last year several of us on development

1:57:20 ↗ Commission went to an optional and

1:57:22 ↗ training and Northman

1:57:23 ↗ presented by Washington Department of

1:57:25 ↗ Commerce on some of these same issues

1:57:27 ↗ and what and one of their slides they

1:57:31 ↗ said that decisions could be overruled

1:57:34 ↗ or invalidated as arbitrary or

1:57:36 ↗ capricious and a few examples that they

1:57:39 ↗ gave on that were ignoring evidence or

1:57:41 ↗ making decisions based on a political

1:57:43 ↗ agenda

1:57:43 ↗ yes but another one that they said was

1:57:46 ↗ decision based on community desires

1:57:49 ↗ displeasure or public sentiment or

1:57:52 ↗ complaint yes so I'm trying to reconcile

1:57:55 ↗ the role of public comment in a

1:57:57 ↗ quasi-judicial proceeding we're hearing

1:57:59 ↗ the public comment is that appropriate

1:58:01 ↗ are we supposed to be able to

1:58:03 ↗ distinguish between a comment and

1:58:04 ↗ complaint or testimony of fact well

1:58:08 ↗ again in a quasi neutral proceeding you

1:58:11 ↗ are applying your development criteria

1:58:13 ↗ your permit criteria to the testimony

1:58:16 ↗ that you received and what the rule is

1:58:20 ↗ that you're talking about is that mere

1:58:23 ↗ community displeasure cannot be the

1:58:27 ↗ grounds for denying a permit so if if

1:58:31 ↗ everybody just happens to dislike this

1:58:35 ↗ proposal that's not grounds for denying

1:58:38 ↗ you can take public comment and

1:58:41 ↗ community displeasure into account but

1:58:43 ↗ it cannot be the basis you have to

1:58:46 ↗ decide based on the criteria does it

1:58:48 ↗ meet the criteria or it doesn't and if

1:58:50 ↗ you look at the criteria in a quasar

1:58:52 ↗ digital matter it doesn't say public

1:58:55 ↗ likes it or the public doesn't like it

1:58:57 ↗ it says it says it has to be consistent

1:59:00 ↗ with the comprehensive plan it has to be

1:59:02 ↗ consistent with the development

1:59:03 ↗ regulations and so forth so going

1:59:05 ↗ outside of that and saying gee the

1:59:07 ↗ public really doesn't like this

1:59:09 ↗ particular proposal in a quasi-judicial

1:59:12 ↗ matter is not grounds for denial and

1:59:15 ↗ we'll be overturned if that's what you

1:59:17 ↗ base your decision-making and that's

1:59:18 ↗ part of why when we you know when we

1:59:21 ↗ write a staff report and we take all the

1:59:24 ↗ public comments and we summarize the

1:59:26 ↗ topics and try and put them in context

1:59:29 ↗ we're trying to say this one relates to

1:59:33 ↗ this standard this one you know for

1:59:36 ↗ instance if they say this is just going

1:59:38 ↗ to make traffic terrible then we're

1:59:40 ↗ going to say what did the traffic

1:59:41 ↗ studies show you know what how does that

1:59:44 ↗ relate to the standards of how roads

1:59:47 ↗ have to be designed it's part of the

1:59:49 ↗ reason why we like to do the - meaning

1:59:51 ↗ format where we take all the Commission

1:59:53 ↗ and public comments at the first meeting

1:59:56 ↗ and write you a briefing response memo

1:59:58 ↗ so we can put those in the context of

2:00:01 ↗ standards rules all the things that Jim

2:00:06 ↗ mentioned we don't necessarily respond

2:00:09 ↗ to every public comment we're looking to

2:00:11 ↗ the commissioners to say we'd like you

2:00:13 ↗ to tell us you know what does this mean

2:00:15 ↗ that they don't like that that all the

2:00:18 ↗ buildings are going to be blue you know

2:00:21 ↗ and we can say we don't regulate color

2:00:23 ↗ in this part of town or we do and blue

2:00:25 ↗ isn't allowed you know so you know you

2:00:29 ↗ can always put that back on staff and

2:00:31 ↗ say what what does this comment mean in

2:00:35 ↗ the context of this

2:00:36 ↗ so if community of displeasure is is

2:00:40 ↗ made in the form of evidence if someone

2:00:43 ↗ comes in and says I don't like this

2:00:44 ↗ project because and they give you facts

2:00:47 ↗ that you can then use to relate to the

2:00:51 ↗ criteria that's okay the fact that the

2:00:53 ↗ public comes in and says that but if it

2:00:55 ↗ it's not a popularity contest if the

2:00:58 ↗ public says well we don't I don't like

2:01:00 ↗ this project

2:01:02 ↗ you know it's ugly and those kinds of

2:01:04 ↗ things that you can't really quantify

2:01:06 ↗ and relate to the standards that's just

2:01:09 ↗ mirror community displeasure so can I

2:01:23 ↗ just ask I know you guys are roasting in

2:01:25 ↗ here then would you see if you can get

2:01:28 ↗ that door open in heaven could you try

2:01:30 ↗ opening that door I don't know if it'll

2:01:32 ↗ make a difference but we can pretend

2:01:34 ↗ like it will it's all the hot air with

2:01:36 ↗ the attorneys fees so we we have two

2:01:44 ↗ brief presentations that we're going to

2:01:47 ↗ make one is just to give you some

2:01:50 ↗ resources so we're gonna run through the

2:01:56 ↗ inclusive so we don't really hand out

2:02:02 ↗ paper codes anymore so I want to give

2:02:05 ↗ you a sense of where some of the

2:02:07 ↗ regulations that you may want to look at

2:02:10 ↗ Trish is going to chime in for things

2:02:13 ↗ with planning policy Commission just for

2:02:17 ↗ general the notified this is the main

2:02:20 ↗ page of the city's website notify me is

2:02:24 ↗ a place you can sign up this does not

2:02:26 ↗ relate to any of your work but it is a

2:02:29 ↗ place to sign up for emails that the

2:02:32 ↗ city distributed and the new development

2:02:36 ↗ is where we are showing projects that

2:02:39 ↗ are happening in the city again you are

2:02:42 ↗ not supposed to be doing any research

2:02:44 ↗ but as an interested citizen separate

2:02:47 ↗ from your quasi-judicial matters you are

2:02:49 ↗ certainly well core legit or with

2:02:52 ↗ legislative matters

2:02:53 ↗ to look at that part of the website more

2:02:57 ↗ specifically and I'm sorry this is

2:03:00 ↗ really small

2:03:02 ↗ if you select your government on the

2:03:06 ↗ city's website there are three pieces

2:03:08 ↗ there's the city code there is the

2:03:11 ↗ document Center and then the boards and

2:03:15 ↗ commissions so I'm going to show those

2:03:17 ↗ in a little more detail but you can

2:03:19 ↗ click this is the sort of starting point

2:03:21 ↗ for any of those so if you want to look

2:03:25 ↗ at the city code and you click on that

2:03:28 ↗ it will take you to a list of all the

2:03:32 ↗ squad municipal code land use

2:03:35 ↗ regulations are in Title 18 which is

2:03:39 ↗ down here and then you would get this

2:03:43 ↗ sort of table of contents of the whole

2:03:46 ↗ land-use code and so you would just

2:03:49 ↗ click on them and you could find

2:03:53 ↗ provisions there we are not asking you

2:03:55 ↗ to go do your own research but you're of

2:03:57 ↗ course welcome to look at the land use

2:03:59 ↗ codes and as questions try and

2:04:03 ↗ understand the rules under which you are

2:04:05 ↗ being asked to make a decision

2:04:10 ↗ second is the document center when you

2:04:16 ↗ go to the document center most of what

2:04:18 ↗ you might need would be under

2:04:20 ↗ development and by clicking on one of

2:04:22 ↗ these white arrows it becomes black and

2:04:25 ↗ expands central is supplies located

2:04:29 ↗ there the comprehensive plan is located

2:04:32 ↗ there and development agreements we are

2:04:36 ↗ actually on this year underway to take

2:04:41 ↗ completely revamp title 18 and integrate

2:04:45 ↗ all the pieces into one single code

2:04:49 ↗ rather than having all these separate

2:04:51 ↗ pieces which will make your and our

2:04:54 ↗ lives a lot easier but that will get

2:04:57 ↗ adopted until next year so we have a

2:04:59 ↗ little bit of time before and then

2:05:06 ↗ sometimes you guys have questions about

2:05:08 ↗ about the board meeting border

2:05:11 ↗ commission meetings if you at the home

2:05:15 ↗ page select boards or commissions then

2:05:17 ↗ you get a list you get this page with a

2:05:20 ↗ list down the side and you could select

2:05:23 ↗ development or planning policy

2:05:25 ↗ commission and this is what a typical

2:05:27 ↗ page looks like if you ever had to find

2:05:31 ↗ it on your own the this is sort of where

2:05:33 ↗ the green box is at the top is the sort

2:05:36 ↗ of path you would follow to getting

2:05:38 ↗ there but in that on that page the

2:05:42 ↗ latest three packets are listed or you

2:05:46 ↗ could go to the archive center if you

2:05:48 ↗ were trying to find a previous packet

2:05:50 ↗ you can see who your lays on is

2:05:54 ↗ and email from there you can see all the

2:05:58 ↗ members and their terms when the

2:06:01 ↗ meetings are regularly held and in what

2:06:04 ↗ location so just to give you access to

2:06:08 ↗ information that you may be looking for

2:06:10 ↗ and if all else fails on the home page

2:06:14 ↗ use the search function

2:06:16 ↗ I hear it's actually pretty good and we

2:06:19 ↗ sometimes have to resort to it as well

2:06:21 ↗ so feel free to try that we talked about

2:06:26 ↗ watching the meeting on video if you

2:06:29 ↗ weren't able to be there and could you

2:06:31 ↗ show them the link where it would be oh

2:06:33 ↗ let me go back up here so one thing you

2:06:38 ↗ can do isn't it yeah so over here under

2:06:43 ↗ meetings it has ICTV 21 that's one way

2:06:48 ↗ to get to it also if you go to the

2:06:50 ↗ archive Center it usually has the

2:06:52 ↗ minutes the packet and the video

2:06:55 ↗ available at the top but you can search

2:06:59 ↗ for council meetings all of your

2:07:00 ↗ meetings and sometimes special events

2:07:02 ↗ they'll have you know like the salmon

2:07:04 ↗ days parade or visiting the zoo or

2:07:06 ↗ whatever but that page is really a fun

2:07:09 ↗ page the TV page that has all the videos

2:07:11 ↗ archived

2:07:14 ↗ so any questions about resources are you

2:07:24 ↗ watching us lately the library so just

2:07:29 ↗ quickly some sort of further context for

2:07:34 ↗ the Development Commission there are

2:07:37 ↗ three types of permits that are

2:07:40 ↗ specifically identified and come through

2:07:42 ↗ the Development Commission one is a site

2:07:45 ↗ development permit one is a master site

2:07:48 ↗ plan and another one is a development

2:07:50 ↗ agreement we're going to talk about

2:07:52 ↗ those in a little more detail about the

2:07:55 ↗ review process at the Commission for the

2:07:58 ↗ new commissioners and then some other

2:08:01 ↗ new responsibilities that the Commission

2:08:03 ↗ has so I'm not going to go into this in

2:08:07 ↗ detail you've got it you're welcome to

2:08:09 ↗ look at it but you can see across the

2:08:11 ↗ top

2:08:11 ↗ each of the permit types is listed the

2:08:16 ↗ triggers for each of these is listed I

2:08:18 ↗ would just point out that for site

2:08:21 ↗ development permits we have now updated

2:08:25 ↗ one of the triggers and in almost every

2:08:27 ↗ single Street not every street but

2:08:30 ↗ almost every single street in central

2:08:33 ↗ Issaquah is a trigger so even if you had

2:08:36 ↗ a project that was less than 150,000

2:08:39 ↗ square feet on a site smaller than three

2:08:41 ↗ acres it will come to the development

2:08:44 ↗ commission and that was really realizing

2:08:48 ↗ that some of the sites are small and yet

2:08:54 ↗ very visible and that that is the kind

2:08:56 ↗ of permit

2:08:57 ↗ that the commission says and the public

2:08:59 ↗ should have a opportunity to have a

2:09:01 ↗ conversation about as you can see the

2:09:05 ↗ role identifies whether you're making a

2:09:08 ↗ recommendation or you're the

2:09:09 ↗ decision-maker

2:09:11 ↗ whether it's quasi-judicial or not

2:09:14 ↗ development agreements go back and forth

2:09:16 ↗ depending on how much property and

2:09:18 ↗ property owner there is so feel free to

2:09:21 ↗ ask us if a development agreement comes

2:09:23 ↗ before you your scope is generally the

2:09:27 ↗ kinds of things that Jim identified the

2:09:30 ↗ comp plan the development standards

2:09:33 ↗ listed in your purview is technical

2:09:36 ↗ review I just want to clarify that for

2:09:39 ↗ our perspective that is technical

2:09:42 ↗ reviews associated with things in the

2:09:44 ↗ land use code so for instance if you had

2:09:47 ↗ questions about critical areas because

2:09:50 ↗ that is in title 18 you have an

2:09:54 ↗ opportunity to look at that we do use

2:09:58 ↗ wetland biologists and we would tend to

2:10:01 ↗ defer to them but I think one of the

2:10:04 ↗ things that sometimes comes up is street

2:10:07 ↗ standards and traffic and those kinds of

2:10:10 ↗ things and that is a technical review

2:10:13 ↗ that is outside of the land use code and

2:10:16 ↗ while you are confirming that we are

2:10:20 ↗ complying with street standards if there

2:10:22 ↗ was a question we would defer to the

2:10:25 ↗ technical expert on traffic

2:10:32 ↗ just on that missing clarification so

2:10:36 ↗ because almost every project now traffic

2:10:39 ↗ is an issue so and we kind of hung up on

2:10:44 ↗ that a little bit so when they're saying

2:10:48 ↗ that they disagree with you know the

2:10:51 ↗ conclusions of the city that

2:10:53 ↗ transportation impacts are yeah

2:10:56 ↗ negligible or mitigated appropriately

2:10:58 ↗ mitigated is the determination in front

2:11:02 ↗ of the Commission to agree or disagree

2:11:04 ↗ with the conclusion of the city on the

2:11:07 ↗ traffic mitigation or not did that make

2:11:11 ↗ sense because it could be a point of

2:11:14 ↗ dispute between an applicant they that

2:11:17 ↗ happen or a member of the public or an

2:11:19 ↗ organization and it could come in with

2:11:21 ↗ their own expert and dispute this the

2:11:24 ↗ city's conclusions so how how does that

2:11:27 ↗ get resolved if it's not within the

2:11:29 ↗ purview of

2:11:31 ↗ that commission because it because the

2:11:34 ↗ development approval would trigger the

2:11:36 ↗ trafficking man right um I am looking at

2:11:41 ↗ Jimmy's very carefully my thought is

2:11:46 ↗ that you are asking for the city to

2:11:50 ↗ explain the basis from their technical

2:11:54 ↗ expertise why you feel that they that

2:11:58 ↗ this has been addressed or to counteract

2:12:01 ↗ that I would I would add that so we've

2:12:06 ↗ never had someone else and the public

2:12:10 ↗ bringing their own technical expert that

2:12:12 ↗ I hadn't really thought about that one

2:12:14 ↗ I do want to point out I know that some

2:12:16 ↗ of the commissioners are trained

2:12:19 ↗ professionals and you you are not

2:12:21 ↗ selected to act in that manner of course

2:12:26 ↗ that informs your perspective and your

2:12:29 ↗ knowledge but we are we have you on the

2:12:33 ↗ Commission as as citizens rather than as

2:12:39 ↗ technical experts well you know if it's

2:12:44 ↗ as far as what you do with that kind of

2:12:47 ↗ testimony if they do bring in their own

2:12:48 ↗ traffic expert then obviously you can

2:12:51 ↗ consider that if they simply say I don't

2:12:53 ↗ agree with what the expert says you know

2:12:56 ↗ in its quays additional hearing you know

2:12:58 ↗ you have to give that what weight you

2:13:02 ↗ would give a lay testimony against

2:13:04 ↗ expert testimony and presuming that it

2:13:12 ↗ it is within your criteria as to what

2:13:15 ↗ you are deciding specifically and yes

2:13:18 ↗ you can make a determination based on

2:13:21 ↗ the traffic evidence in front of you as

2:13:23 ↗ to whether it's good traffic evidence

2:13:24 ↗ credible traffic evidence bad traffic

2:13:26 ↗ evidence whatever and I have seen

2:13:29 ↗ citizens bring in hire their own traffic

2:13:32 ↗ expert and bring them in so it does

2:13:36 ↗ happen sometimes

2:13:38 ↗ what would our decision be I mean

2:13:41 ↗ there's no there's nothing that are

2:13:44 ↗ criteria than specific about this means

2:13:48 ↗ of traffic the right area right there's

2:13:50 ↗ no well I think I think you'd have to

2:13:54 ↗ look and see if you can relate it to one

2:13:57 ↗ of your criteria it depends on you know

2:13:59 ↗ what the criteria for each of these

2:14:03 ↗ things site development permit master

2:14:05 ↗ site plans development agreement what

2:14:08 ↗ the criteria are but criteria are

2:14:10 ↗ generally broad and and you do have the

2:14:13 ↗ ability to with to related somehow to

2:14:15 ↗ some of those criteria particularly you

2:14:19 ↗ know

2:14:20 ↗ they're their broad when they say things

2:14:23 ↗ like that it has to be consistent with

2:14:27 ↗ the complan consistent with all of the

2:14:29 ↗ development regulations and so forth and

2:14:31 ↗ so you know yeah I think I would

2:14:34 ↗ encourage you under those circumstances

2:14:35 ↗ if you do have issues and if staff has

2:14:41 ↗ not taken those public comments and

2:14:43 ↗ categorize them as Lucy said to ask the

2:14:47 ↗ staff so if we wanted to impose a

2:14:53 ↗ condition based on traffic which of our

2:14:55 ↗ criteria would that would that fall

2:14:57 ↗ under and and how should we analyze that

2:15:00 ↗ and staff I'm sure will give you their

2:15:02 ↗ best recommendation on that and you know

2:15:05 ↗ that is a really good point

2:15:08 ↗ you know we're generally bringing things

2:15:11 ↗ forward that we're recommending for

2:15:13 ↗ approval at the same time we are here to

2:15:18 ↗ support you and so you might at a

2:15:23 ↗ meeting hopefully the first meetings

2:15:26 ↗ that we had a chance to go away and work

2:15:27 ↗ on it say you know we have a concern

2:15:31 ↗ about X and we would like you to help us

2:15:35 ↗ understand if we were to apply a

2:15:38 ↗ condition what are our options related

2:15:41 ↗ based in the code related to this topic

2:15:45 ↗ we'd like you to bring that back to us

2:15:47 ↗ next time now we might come back and say

2:15:50 ↗ here are your three options we still

2:15:53 ↗ stand by our previous recommendation or

2:15:55 ↗ we don't recommend you do 1 & 2 for the

2:15:57 ↗ following reasons but you know it is

2:16:00 ↗ absolutely appropriate for you to ask us

2:16:04 ↗ to help support you in making the

2:16:07 ↗ decision that you have every right to

2:16:09 ↗ make so long as it is based

2:16:12 ↗ and this ties into one thing that I

2:16:15 ↗ talked about in the appearance of

2:16:16 ↗ fairness which is when I talked about ex

2:16:19 ↗ parte comments I talked about you saw in

2:16:22 ↗ the slide I didn't really emphasize it

2:16:25 ↗ but their ex parte comments from

2:16:27 ↗ opponents or proponents of the project

2:16:29 ↗ staff is neither staff isn't an opponent

2:16:33 ↗ or proponent there are your staff trying

2:16:36 ↗ to assist you in making a decision so in

2:16:39 ↗ the normal situation where you have a

2:16:42 ↗ quasi ditches no matter pending before

2:16:44 ↗ you the staff contacts do not fall

2:16:48 ↗ within those ex parte contacts I I

2:16:51 ↗ certainly think that whatever work

2:16:53 ↗ product staff comes up with for you

2:16:56 ↗ should be shared with the entire

2:16:57 ↗ Commission so that the Commission all

2:17:00 ↗ Commission members have the same

2:17:01 ↗ information but it doesn't prevent you

2:17:06 ↗ from calling staff it hasn't even

2:17:07 ↗ questioned and and I would just add that

2:17:10 ↗ sometimes I think we sound like

2:17:11 ↗ proponents because we are responsible

2:17:14 ↗ for explaining the recommendation that

2:17:17 ↗ we have made so if we have recommended

2:17:20 ↗ approval we better be able to explain

2:17:22 ↗ why we're recommending approval which

2:17:24 ↗ will make us sound like we're being

2:17:25 ↗ proponents but you have every right to

2:17:28 ↗ ask us to help you craft something that

2:17:31 ↗ is different than what we have

2:17:32 ↗ recommended and Brooke had her hand up

2:17:34 ↗ earlier oh it's kind of worked itself

2:17:36 ↗ out I was wondering if

2:17:38 ↗ if there was an issue at the traffic you

2:17:40 ↗ guys would not recommend it for approval

2:17:41 ↗ correct

2:17:44 ↗ no but it is your right if it was

2:17:50 ↗ significant and we didn't feel we could

2:17:52 ↗ address it through a condition on the

2:17:55 ↗ other hand there is a perspective that

2:17:59 ↗ the Commission and the public bring of a

2:18:03 ↗ different viewpoint that we may not have

2:18:05 ↗ looked at and that's why we have that

2:18:08 ↗ conversation you know have you

2:18:10 ↗ considered this or doesn't it have to

2:18:13 ↗ meet this and when you know I look at I

2:18:17 ↗ look at some of the technical materials

2:18:20 ↗ that you've provided us

2:18:24 ↗ it doesn't seem consistent with the

2:18:27 ↗ criteria we have you know I mean it's

2:18:30 ↗ completely appropriate for you to ask us

2:18:33 ↗ to explain you know we are kind of

2:18:35 ↗ presenting an overview and then you're

2:18:38 ↗ going to tell us what you want us to

2:18:39 ↗ explain in more detail

2:18:47 ↗ so I'm just gonna kind of for the some

2:18:49 ↗ of the commissioners who haven't done

2:18:51 ↗ this before just kind of run through our

2:18:53 ↗ land use process we often start with

2:18:58 ↗ informal meetings that we go to more

2:19:02 ↗ structured review which includes both

2:19:04 ↗ required and optional pieces and then

2:19:08 ↗ the Commission piece so the the pieces

2:19:12 ↗ where the Commission is really involved

2:19:17 ↗ is we get this site development permit

2:19:19 ↗ or a Platts in the middle and then we

2:19:23 ↗ prepare a staff report which is sent to

2:19:27 ↗ the Commission and then there are the

2:19:29 ↗ Development Commission meetings that is

2:19:32 ↗ sort of the big the sort of nut of what

2:19:35 ↗ we are asking the Commission to be

2:19:37 ↗ involved with so if we kind of explode

2:19:40 ↗ those or unpack that a bit the staff

2:19:45 ↗ report generally comes to you about a

2:19:47 ↗ week in advance we be emailing the

2:19:50 ↗ packet comes out electronically usually

2:19:53 ↗ first followed by a paper packet most

2:19:56 ↗ Commission's do not get paper packets

2:19:58 ↗ but because we do not expect you to have

2:20:00 ↗ big screens at home we send you a set of

2:20:05 ↗ paper plans and the packet just to

2:20:09 ↗ facilitate your review at the

2:20:12 ↗ Development Commission we have the

2:20:15 ↗ public the the first part of the public

2:20:18 ↗ hearing is staff and applicant giving an

2:20:21 ↗ introduction to the project and hearing

2:20:23 ↗ the commissioners and public's questions

2:20:26 ↗ comments and concerns then we prepare a

2:20:29 ↗ briefing response memo where we bundle

2:20:31 ↗ these the things that we've heard from

2:20:34 ↗ you into topics

2:20:36 ↗ the staff provides a response the

2:20:38 ↗ applicant provides a response and we

2:20:40 ↗ give you a conclusion that maybe this

2:20:45 ↗ has already been addressed it may be

2:20:46 ↗ adding a condition condition revising a

2:20:50 ↗ condition and then we come back for the

2:20:54 ↗ conclusion of the public hearing to

2:20:56 ↗ present what we the briefing response

2:21:01 ↗ memo there is additional testimony and

2:21:05 ↗ then you are typically making a decision

2:21:08 ↗ at that second meeting part of that

2:21:11 ↗ decision is usually delegating to staff

2:21:15 ↗ to prepare the notice of decision which

2:21:18 ↗ includes findings and conclusions which

2:21:21 ↗ is reviewed by the ensign by the

2:21:23 ↗ chairperson and that's the actual

2:21:25 ↗ decision that would initiate an appeal

2:21:29 ↗ period I just want to put on the

2:21:36 ↗ Commission's radar that as part of the

2:21:38 ↗ replacement regulations for Tallis in

2:21:41 ↗ Issaquah Highlands a new responsibility

2:21:44 ↗ was added to the development Commission

2:21:47 ↗ which is a community conference on

2:21:50 ↗ preliminary Platts and so that community

2:22:00 ↗ conference would happen and then gives

2:22:04 ↗ the public and the Commission and

2:22:07 ↗ opportunity to give input on the

2:22:10 ↗ preliminary plat before it goes to the

2:22:13 ↗ Commission we would do it in a sort of

2:22:16 ↗ similar format in which we would hold

2:22:19 ↗ the community conference in front of the

2:22:21 ↗ development Commission we would prepare

2:22:26 ↗ a memo that would sort of look at the

2:22:29 ↗ topics that were raised whether they are

2:22:32 ↗ have a grounding in

2:22:34 ↗ or not and how that might inform

2:22:40 ↗ recommended conditions or changes to the

2:22:43 ↗ drawings and that would be provided to

2:22:47 ↗ any parties of record and the

2:22:50 ↗ commissioners for additional comment and

2:22:52 ↗ then it would be finalized and be one of

2:22:56 ↗ the attachments that goes to the Hearing

2:22:58 ↗ Examiner we're going to probably have

2:23:01 ↗ one of these in the next month or two

2:23:05 ↗ so I just wanted to explain that new

2:23:09 ↗ responsibility to the commissioners

2:23:19 ↗ initial goal and reduce review process

2:23:23 ↗ and the land use review process DC

2:23:26 ↗ portion this is just an observation but

2:23:30 ↗ I think the word collaboration generally

2:23:33 ↗ has a pejorative connotation I you know

2:23:36 ↗ I understand what it is but is the

2:23:39 ↗ collaboration between the city staff and

2:23:41 ↗ the applicant I don't know alright I

2:23:48 ↗ just I that seems to me that it could

2:23:50 ↗ have when it gets to the appearance of

2:23:54 ↗ fairness

2:23:56 ↗ a negative pejorative connotation I

2:23:59 ↗ don't know what what the what a better

2:24:02 ↗ word would be so I just I would defer to

2:24:10 ↗ him but when we talk about the

2:24:12 ↗ appearance of fairness and collaboration

2:24:15 ↗ between the applicant and the city and

2:24:16 ↗ it just doesn't sound right to me and is

2:24:21 ↗ there something like this for the

2:24:23 ↗ planning policy Commissioner I noticed

2:24:25 ↗ that this is all busy we did a lot of

2:24:29 ↗ hours in the meeting before right with

2:24:31 ↗ processing and how things in watch the

2:24:34 ↗ video so and this is just the I believe

2:24:43 ↗ the last slide and I just wanted to

2:24:45 ↗ describe some of the differences between

2:24:46 ↗ a site development permit and a plat

2:24:49 ↗ because the level of information is

2:24:51 ↗ going to be different than what many of

2:24:53 ↗ the commissioners are familiar with on

2:24:56 ↗ the left is kind of an example where

2:25:00 ↗ you're going to see a a fairly detailed

2:25:05 ↗ level of design showing you know the

2:25:10 ↗ layout the elements the materials it may

2:25:14 ↗ be at somewhat of a conceptual level you

2:25:17 ↗ might not see this is going to be a pine

2:25:19 ↗ tree and this is going to be a maple

2:25:21 ↗ tree but you would have a sense of where

2:25:23 ↗ trees landscape paving maybe paving

2:25:27 ↗ patterns buildings parking all of that

2:25:30 ↗ would be located with a preliminary plat

2:25:34 ↗ I mean this is a residential plat but

2:25:37 ↗ you would see the parcel lines

2:25:41 ↗ and you might only get enough to

2:25:45 ↗ information to determine that the

2:25:47 ↗ parcels are sized appropriately for

2:25:50 ↗ instance you might see this kind of road

2:25:52 ↗ this road classification is going into

2:25:55 ↗ this tract that will be dedicated to the

2:25:58 ↗ city and you're confirming yes that

2:26:00 ↗ tract is big enough to accommodate that

2:26:02 ↗ road probably the most discretionary

2:26:06 ↗ review that we have is around a Park

2:26:11 ↗ tract because we don't in most parts of

2:26:13 ↗ town have X square feet for for this

2:26:19 ↗ number of youth housing units and so

2:26:22 ↗ we're asking for a very high level

2:26:25 ↗ conceptual plan that gives a sense that

2:26:28 ↗ that Park can accommodate some

2:26:32 ↗ reasonable uses to serve that plat so

2:26:37 ↗ it's going to be less detail that's hard

2:26:42 ↗ to get used to sometimes and I just want

2:26:45 ↗ to sort of put that on your radar

2:26:47 ↗ any questions

2:26:51 ↗ your gussy how often does a third

2:26:53 ↗ meeting happen not that often I'm I'm

2:27:01 ↗ not well

2:27:02 ↗ well section 17th meeting no usually

2:27:10 ↗ usually it's because either something

2:27:15 ↗ comes up that can't be resolved at the

2:27:16 ↗ second meeting or we have occasionally

2:27:19 ↗ had where the applicant has delayed a

2:27:25 ↗ second meeting because they recognize

2:27:27 ↗ that they're just not ready and they'll

2:27:29 ↗ ask to delay it and tell certain issues

2:27:33 ↗ get worked through

2:27:38 ↗ any other questions no I've struggled

2:28:08 ↗ you

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.