Development Commission · Wednesday, October 20, 2021 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Staff Liaison Lucy Sloman, Land About Development Manager Created in 1983, this commission reviews all Email Lucy Sloman land use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Commission further serves as an advisory Regular Members board to the City Council on land use actions 2022 – Michael Brennan requiring council approval (Level 5 review). 2022 – Richard Sanford 2022 – Richard Sowa The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2023 – Patty Dillon Development Commission members and City 2023 – Brooke Shore Council members from discussing the merit of 2024 – Kevin Price specific land use development applications 2024 – Arthur Schulte outside of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, however, may discuss any issue with Alternate Members the City's Development Services

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of October 6, 2021

packet pp.5–8

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-06-21 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000]

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Adopt Development Commission Rules of Conduct & Procedures, (A)

Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager · packet pp.9–17

▶ Watch from 2:30 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RULES & REGULATIONS

5. STAFF REPORT

Council Update

Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.19

▶ Watch from 1:28:03 Open packet at p.19 ↗

Staff report:

OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS a) 2021 Development Commission Schedule (tentative) (updated 10/14/2021)

3110 segments .txt ↗

0:13 ↗ okay you'd like to call to order the

0:14 ↗ october 20th development commission

0:16 ↗ meeting um we're

0:19 ↗ beginning being at 702 this evening

0:21 ↗ so due to the virtual format of

0:23 ↗ tonight's meeting just a couple quick

0:24 ↗ comments

0:25 ↗ about participation um

0:28 ↗ we'll have participants

0:29 ↗ attending by computer and other means um

0:32 ↗ and so for all attendees if you would

0:34 ↗ speak clear clearly and pause frequently

0:37 ↗ when you're speaking

0:38 ↗ uh state your name each time before you

0:40 ↗ speak

0:41 ↗ um if for commission members i'll call

0:43 ↗ you by name when um generally um so no

0:47 ↗ need to restate your name but i'm just

0:49 ↗ to make sure that when they're taking

0:50 ↗ minutes they know who's speaking

0:52 ↗ mute your microphone when you're not

0:53 ↗ speaking

0:54 ↗ and if you have technical issues you can

0:57 ↗ always hop on my smartphone or a tablet

1:00 ↗ and if we need to we can pause to let

1:02 ↗ people jump back on the meeting if

1:04 ↗ there's a technical issue

1:06 ↗ so tonight's meeting we will be

1:08 ↗ discussing the proposed rules and

1:10 ↗ procedures for the development

1:12 ↗ commission

1:13 ↗ the request is to adopt these

1:16 ↗ uh for our future meetings so these will

1:18 ↗ be our operating rules and procedures uh

1:21 ↗ following tonight's meeting um after we

1:23 ↗ get through the adoption

1:25 ↗ so lucy um would you first before we get

1:28 ↗ started here call roll of the commission

1:31 ↗ yes um as i clear name um please mute

1:35 ↗ and say here

1:37 ↗ mike brennan

1:38 ↗ i'm here

1:40 ↗ richard sanford here

1:43 ↗ richard sowa here

1:45 ↗ patty dillon

1:47 ↗ here

1:48 ↗ brook shore is excused

1:51 ↗ kevin

1:52 ↗ price here

1:55 ↗ arthur schulte here

1:58 ↗ johnny cada

2:00 ↗ here

2:01 ↗ mel morgan

2:02 ↗ here

2:07 ↗ great thanks lucy

2:09 ↗ um so uh before we get to the main topic

2:12 ↗ on the agenda i've got uh meeting

2:14 ↗ minutes to approve from our october 6th

2:17 ↗ meeting

2:18 ↗ are there any corrections to the meeting

2:19 ↗ minutes from october 6.

2:25 ↗ hearing none

2:26 ↗ the minutes are approved by consensus

2:28 ↗ thanks

2:30 ↗ so the agenda item

2:33 ↗ is the adoption of the commission rules

2:35 ↗ of conduct and procedures

2:38 ↗ so

2:39 ↗ tonight lucy the planning manager for

2:42 ↗ the city will present proposed rules

2:45 ↗ and procedures for the commission ms

2:47 ↗ sloman you have

2:49 ↗ the screen

2:50 ↗ thank you let me share i have a very

2:53 ↗ brief presentation just to

2:56 ↗ give an overview

3:01 ↗ can you see my screen

3:03 ↗ yes we can

3:05 ↗ excellent

3:13 ↗ so um in general there are four purposes

3:17 ↗ to this update

3:18 ↗ uh the first one is to update um

3:22 ↗ is to correct outdated provisions and

3:25 ↗ one example is that the 2005 rules had a

3:28 ↗ commissioner serving as a secretary

3:31 ↗ whereas the current rules say that we

3:33 ↗ will provide you with a recording

3:35 ↗ secretary

3:36 ↗ um the second example uh is not so much

3:40 ↗ an outdated provision but um a more

3:43 ↗ current provision which is the issue of

3:46 ↗ inadvertent quorums that's something

3:48 ↗ that's come out of case law

3:50 ↗ and we just wanted to make sure that was

3:52 ↗ included

3:55 ↗ the second purpose of the update is to

3:57 ↗ have more consistency for the rules and

4:00 ↗ procedures between boards and

4:02 ↗ commissions

4:04 ↗ this was

4:05 ↗ something that's very important to the

4:07 ↗ clerk's office

4:09 ↗ for example the order of business

4:12 ↗ that is included in your rules the

4:14 ↗ proposed rules and procedures

4:16 ↗ is revised and expanded and much more

4:19 ↗ like that for other boards and

4:21 ↗ commissions

4:22 ↗ um

4:23 ↗ another example of consistency is

4:26 ↗ abstentions that has was not a part of

4:29 ↗ the previous set of rules

4:31 ↗ but for any uh and it's not something

4:33 ↗ that you all

4:34 ↗ commonly do

4:36 ↗ i haven't seen it in a long time

4:38 ↗ but it's important to note that

4:40 ↗ abstentions are a yes vote

4:45 ↗ another reason to

4:48 ↗ update the rules is to provide guidance

4:50 ↗ for

4:51 ↗ things that are very specific to the

4:52 ↗ development commission

4:54 ↗ and that um the example i give here is

4:57 ↗ the use of alternates um there are

5:00 ↗ provisions in the rules and procedures

5:02 ↗ for other boards and commissions on the

5:05 ↗ use of alternates but because of the

5:08 ↗ quasi-judicial permits and hearings that

5:11 ↗ you are predominantly holding

5:14 ↗ the role of the alternate what

5:17 ↗ alternates can do when how they are

5:19 ↗ selected

5:21 ↗ all of that has been expanded

5:23 ↗ specifically

5:25 ↗ for the development commission

5:28 ↗ and then lastly is

5:30 ↗ to provide

5:33 ↗ procedures for public hearings you are

5:35 ↗ not the only board that holds public

5:37 ↗ hearings for instance planning policy

5:40 ↗ commission does

5:42 ↗ but they do not hold quasi-judicial

5:45 ↗ public hearings and those are a little

5:47 ↗ trickier and

5:49 ↗ we've seen

5:50 ↗ them become more complicated and in

5:52 ↗ cases some cases more contentious

5:55 ↗ and so the purpose of

5:58 ↗ updating the procedures was to really

6:01 ↗ work through a much more detailed set of

6:04 ↗ procedures for these

6:06 ↗ that provides a

6:08 ↗ framework for the commission to work

6:11 ↗ with and to make things more predictable

6:13 ↗ for the public and applicants

6:17 ↗ and that's it

6:27 ↗ you're muted mike

6:29 ↗ thank you lucy um

6:32 ↗ i think the best way maybe to track

6:33 ↗ through this tonight since the goal is

6:35 ↗ at the end to get to a place where we

6:38 ↗ vote on adoption of these updated rules

6:41 ↗ and procedures

6:42 ↗ um might be to take it section by

6:45 ↗ section

6:46 ↗ uh just so if there are any questions or

6:48 ↗ suggested edits then we can handle it um

6:52 ↗ kind of at one section at a time instead

6:54 ↗ of just opening it all up i i don't know

6:56 ↗ how much

6:58 ↗ uh how many edits or or questions we'll

7:00 ↗ have here but maybe that's a

7:02 ↗ an efficient way to track through this

7:05 ↗ uh and then lucy if you could capture

7:07 ↗ any any

7:09 ↗ adjusted edits we'll try to get

7:10 ↗ consensus on anybody that would want to

7:12 ↗ make an amendment to these rules

7:15 ↗ so before we start that um before we uh

7:17 ↗ start with the first section here

7:20 ↗ are there any questions about how or

7:21 ↗ suggestions you've done about how best

7:23 ↗ to proceed through

7:24 ↗ tonight's business

7:27 ↗ my first question is how

7:29 ↗ how committed are we to this being the

7:32 ↗ exact document

7:33 ↗ i don't know who wrote it i don't know

7:35 ↗ what kind of flexibility i might be

7:37 ↗ if somebody suggests a change

7:40 ↗ um so that's a great question this um as

7:44 ↗ i mentioned uh the clerks wanted

7:47 ↗ consistency

7:48 ↗ and the city clerk provided us um with

7:52 ↗ the latest

7:54 ↗ set of rules that are in use by another

7:57 ↗ commission which is the planning policy

7:59 ↗ commission

8:00 ↗ uh then uh the city attorney

8:04 ↗ mini dollywall myself and tisha geezer

8:07 ↗ the city clerk

8:08 ↗ uh worked on these

8:10 ↗ um so it um

8:12 ↗ reflects uh the four of us trying to

8:16 ↗ clarify our questions

8:19 ↗ uh the city clerk is in fact offered to

8:21 ↗ make herself available

8:23 ↗ if there are questions or concerns

8:26 ↗ that need that

8:28 ↗ level of expertise

8:30 ↗ to help us get through this this evening

8:36 ↗ any other questions about

8:39 ↗ the process and what we're trying to

8:41 ↗ arrive at here again just real quick on

8:43 ↗ a follow up on that lucy if if there are

8:46 ↗ areas some of these are referring to

8:47 ↗ state statutes and there are very

8:49 ↗ specific requirements that are part of

8:52 ↗ normal kind of operating rules and

8:54 ↗ procedures i think if we start

8:57 ↗ wandering into that territory you might

8:58 ↗ need to let us know

9:00 ↗ where there's limited flexibility

9:03 ↗ for amendment but generally we want to

9:05 ↗ open it up if people have questions or

9:08 ↗ suggested edits that we can

9:10 ↗ take them by section

9:13 ↗ um would you

9:14 ↗ i've got a document here that i can edit

9:18 ↗ and track changes

9:19 ↗ do you want me to share my screen or

9:21 ↗ would you prefer to be able to see each

9:23 ↗ other

9:24 ↗ and uh instead just have me wait and

9:27 ↗ pull this up either if we get into a

9:29 ↗ more detailed discussion or at the end

9:34 ↗ is there a preference for the commission

9:38 ↗ i think i'd prefer to see people

9:40 ↗ discussing it and

9:42 ↗ see the changes at the end

9:45 ↗ and i i think it depends on

9:47 ↗ what how significant or if there are

9:49 ↗ changes recommended so i'd rather see

9:51 ↗ everybody until that situation might

9:53 ↗ arise

9:55 ↗ i think that's a good suggestion so we

9:57 ↗ if necessary we can put it up on the

9:58 ↗ screen

10:00 ↗ make any necessary edits

10:02 ↗ and then

10:03 ↗ get back to in person it's a little

10:05 ↗ easier for me too to

10:06 ↗ um

10:07 ↗ to cheer if i can see people so if you

10:09 ↗ can just raise your hand or use the chat

10:11 ↗ feature um if you have a question you

10:14 ↗ can just write question in the chat and

10:17 ↗ a lucy or i

10:19 ↗ um we'll see it i think and we can call

10:21 ↗ on you for from there as well but i can

10:23 ↗ see everybody so just a reason your hand

10:25 ↗ will work as well so let's um let's

10:28 ↗ start by

10:30 ↗ just really the first section

10:32 ↗ does anybody have any questions or

10:34 ↗ suggested edits

10:39 ↗ uh commissioner morgan

10:44 ↗ you're muted

10:48 ↗ thank you question on location did i

10:51 ↗ remember that we might be meeting down

10:53 ↗ at uh tibbetts

10:55 ↗ entered some point in the future

11:01 ↗ there is discussion of using tibbetts

11:04 ↗ manor um for

11:06 ↗ uh public meetings uh but that hasn't

11:10 ↗ been decided

11:11 ↗ i i would um

11:14 ↗ i guess i would suggest at this time

11:16 ↗ that we leave this location we can

11:18 ↗ always amend them

11:19 ↗ the um

11:21 ↗ rules if a different location is

11:24 ↗ selected or make them special meetings

11:28 ↗ if they're not being held at the time in

11:29 ↗ the place specified in the rules

11:33 ↗ okay and i guess that was one of my

11:35 ↗ questions too do we have to do the rules

11:37 ↗ have to specify

11:38 ↗ the location or can they say

11:41 ↗ sunset out way or

11:43 ↗ an alternative location

11:49 ↗ i don't know

11:50 ↗ let me quit the city clerk while uh

11:53 ↗ i think there was another question on

11:55 ↗ the floor

11:57 ↗ thank you

11:59 ↗ was there another question i missed

12:02 ↗ uh commissioner sanford

12:04 ↗ uh yeah a question regarding procedures

12:06 ↗ so are we taking this

12:08 ↗ document from part one

12:11 ↗ stepping through each part

12:15 ↗ is that what we wanted to do there

12:18 ↗ so

12:18 ↗ in other words

12:20 ↗ share your question are there any

12:22 ↗ comments on part one did that mean

12:25 ↗ part roman numeral one

12:29 ↗ um

12:31 ↗ i guess yes well i think what we'll do

12:33 ↗ is we'll need to take the sections

12:35 ↗ when we're talking about there's a major

12:37 ↗ articles but for for now yes so roman

12:40 ↗ numeral one will go through the roman

12:41 ↗ numerals and we need to we need to break

12:43 ↗ down by section underneath sorry jumped

12:46 ↗ ahead too far

12:50 ↗ so yes roman numeral one

12:54 ↗ and so i'm guessing that

12:58 ↗ uh article number two membership

13:03 ↗ i think that's pretty straightforward

13:05 ↗ and then article number three

13:10 ↗ and we can come back to commissioner

13:11 ↗ morgan's question article number three

13:13 ↗ let's deal with this

13:15 ↗ article um

13:17 ↗ well i think we can take the whole

13:18 ↗ article so any questions or comments

13:20 ↗ regarding article number

13:22 ↗ three

13:27 ↗ i have um just one

13:32 ↗ clarification uh related to the chair in

13:34 ↗ section two number two it says open the

13:37 ↗ meeting on time and call the meeting to

13:39 ↗ order there are instances where we don't

13:41 ↗ have a quorum so opening it on time may

13:44 ↗ not be possible

13:45 ↗ um

13:46 ↗ so just uh i i know that's a little bit

13:48 ↗ of a

13:50 ↗ um

13:51 ↗ black and white application of that

13:53 ↗ language but um

13:55 ↗ just to be clear there are instances

13:57 ↗ where we don't start right on time at

13:59 ↗ the at the published meeting plan

14:02 ↗ um

14:07 ↗ the way i read this is

14:09 ↗ and and since i'm doing this in real

14:11 ↗ time feel free to let me know if it

14:14 ↗ doesn't read this way to you uh it reads

14:17 ↗ to me is that these are the powers that

14:19 ↗ are granted to you not necessarily um

14:26 ↗ that that you must do it

14:28 ↗ you know if it's not on time then it is

14:32 ↗ wrong yeah i i think it's really a

14:35 ↗ technicality here i don't have an issue

14:37 ↗ with the language just

14:38 ↗ clarification there that

14:41 ↗ there are instances we don't open up

14:45 ↗ are there other questions for

14:47 ↗ article number

14:49 ↗ or or edits for article number three

14:54 ↗ okay seeing none

14:56 ↗ um

14:57 ↗ or article number four meetings

15:01 ↗ any questions

15:06 ↗ um

15:07 ↗ so

15:08 ↗ commissioner morgan

15:11 ↗ thank you i just have a comment that we

15:13 ↗ only have to meet till 10 pm now instead

15:15 ↗ of 11 p.m in the old deadline so i guess

15:18 ↗ we're slacking off

15:22 ↗ yeah and i um similar comment here

15:25 ↗ i flagged that as well

15:28 ↗ a journal later than 10 pm there are

15:30 ↗ instances where we have gone

15:32 ↗ long and

15:33 ↗ purposefully because we needed to

15:35 ↗ conclude that business it was time

15:36 ↗ sensitive

15:38 ↗ so

15:39 ↗ i want to make sure that the language

15:40 ↗ here does not prevent us

15:43 ↗ if we um

15:45 ↗ necessarily need to go long from past 10

15:48 ↗ o'clock that we can do that

15:52 ↗ my read of the language i'm not getting

15:54 ↗ a response from the city clerk yet um so

15:56 ↗ i apologize um i'm unable to pull her in

16:00 ↗ so you're getting um

16:03 ↗ my perspective

16:04 ↗ um

16:06 ↗ is that uh

16:09 ↗ this is more guidance than

16:12 ↗ um

16:13 ↗ absolute

16:14 ↗ given

16:15 ↗ every effort will be made

16:18 ↗ to run it as efficiently as possible

16:22 ↗ i don't think this gives

16:27 ↗ the commission the ability to both go

16:30 ↗ long but also to

16:34 ↗ frame the length of the meeting and for

16:37 ↗ uh you know if there's some disagreement

16:39 ↗ among commissioners to have a basis for

16:41 ↗ conversation about how late a meeting

16:44 ↗ can

16:45 ↗ appropriately go

16:48 ↗ i see uh director dolly wall has her

16:50 ↗ hand up

16:51 ↗ yeah you know what we can do is we can

16:53 ↗ add some language there to say unless um

16:57 ↗ finish at 10 pm unless uh

16:59 ↗ by consensus it can be extended by the

17:02 ↗ board members so that that's usually

17:04 ↗ what we can add there so you take a vote

17:07 ↗ after if you're extending 10 pm you're

17:09 ↗ so close to getting a close to a

17:11 ↗ decision so you want to extend it

17:13 ↗ another half hour so you can

17:15 ↗ do that by

17:16 ↗ taking a vote

17:19 ↗ to extend

17:21 ↗ the meeting time yep

17:23 ↗ commissioner dylan

17:31 ↗ you're still muted

17:39 ↗ okay sorry about that um

17:42 ↗ if it would be more consistent with the

17:44 ↗ other commissions to add the language i

17:46 ↗ would be fine but i think it's since it

17:48 ↗ starts with every effort will be made

17:50 ↗ that's that's not promising that it will

17:52 ↗ always happen

17:58 ↗ yeah

17:58 ↗ i uh after listening to the discussion

18:01 ↗ here i think that

18:03 ↗ that opening um phrase every effort will

18:06 ↗ be made probably gives us some latitude

18:08 ↗ that it's not a

18:10 ↗ a specific deadline that we gotta hit

18:14 ↗ um one more quick i have one more quick

18:16 ↗ question

18:17 ↗ the role of the chair here is um

18:19 ↗ regarding scheduling and reski or

18:21 ↗ canceling and rescheduling

18:23 ↗ that is generally the staff

18:26 ↗ takes point on that so is the

18:28 ↗ expectation that we're going to ask the

18:30 ↗ commission chair to play a more active

18:31 ↗ role

18:32 ↗ in making those decisions or are we are

18:34 ↗ going to continue to operate

18:36 ↗ the way we have where

18:38 ↗ um the need is identified by staff and

18:40 ↗ the scheduling because usually it's

18:42 ↗ project specific depending upon where

18:43 ↗ you are in project review

18:46 ↗ um i i noticed that as well and in

18:49 ↗ deference to consistency i

18:52 ↗ didn't ask to

18:54 ↗ change that but i think that what that

18:57 ↗ means is that there will probably be

18:59 ↗ more contact between staff and the

19:01 ↗ chairperson to confirm

19:04 ↗ schedules um

19:06 ↗ cancellations and such

19:08 ↗ uh rather than um

19:12 ↗ staff you know making kind of making all

19:14 ↗ those decisions

19:17 ↗ okay

19:18 ↗ um

19:19 ↗ that's fine with me just a additional

19:23 ↗ administrative burden on staff that i

19:25 ↗ just want to make sure we're not doing

19:27 ↗ something that's not adding value here

19:28 ↗ as well

19:30 ↗ okay

19:32 ↗ any other questions on article 4

19:36 ↗ um so should the phrase

19:39 ↗ unless it is extended by consensus of

19:40 ↗ the commission members or uh have we

19:44 ↗ um reached a consensus on adding that

19:46 ↗ the necessity to add that phrase or not

19:50 ↗ i'm comfortable with the language the

19:52 ↗ way it is i don't know other

19:53 ↗ commissioners is there a strong sense

19:56 ↗ about adding that language

19:58 ↗ yeah i thought the introductions it says

20:00 ↗ every effort should be made does it

20:02 ↗ gives you the latitude you need so i

20:04 ↗ wouldn't change it

20:08 ↗ i'm seeing general thumbs up and

20:10 ↗ consensus on that so we'll leave the

20:11 ↗ language as it is

20:13 ↗ thank you

20:14 ↗ um i think i had commissioner sanford

20:17 ↗ you had your hand up

20:19 ↗ thank you yeah um a couple of comments

20:21 ↗ or questions and this is a very long

20:23 ↗ article so i'll just confine my um

20:26 ↗ comments to 4-1

20:29 ↗ at this point

20:30 ↗ uh in 4-1 a

20:33 ↗ it says any meeting scheduled outside of

20:36 ↗ the commission's regular day time or

20:37 ↗ location is considered special

20:40 ↗ so i noticed that there was no

20:42 ↗ accommodation for virtual meetings in

20:44 ↗ this

20:46 ↗ so really according to that language

20:47 ↗ would this be a special meeting because

20:50 ↗ it's not it's a different location

20:53 ↗ um

20:55 ↗ my

20:56 ↗ impression is no because of the

20:58 ↗ governor's order

21:00 ↗ um that is the determining factor uh in

21:05 ↗ our holding the meetings virtually

21:08 ↗ uh

21:09 ↗ but it's a good question um that i

21:13 ↗ don't know many of you have additional

21:15 ↗ information to add

21:17 ↗ you know my thought was that even when

21:20 ↗ the governor's order may expire that

21:22 ↗ this may be

21:23 ↗ a more common hybrid way of doing

21:25 ↗ business as a lot of other businesses

21:27 ↗ are

21:28 ↗ so i was wondering if this should

21:31 ↗ accommodate virtual meetings

21:34 ↗ um is it necessary really to specify

21:37 ↗ that

21:38 ↗ a different location

21:40 ↗ uh constitutes a special meeting

21:43 ↗ or really is it a matter of time and

21:46 ↗ date that constitutes a special meeting

21:48 ↗ i i don't know

21:52 ↗ um

21:56 ↗ my impression is that it is um

22:00 ↗ i think we're required to provide a

22:02 ↗ location

22:03 ↗ so that um we are not holding it

22:07 ↗ um

22:09 ↗ in your basement

22:11 ↗ at 7 pm on the first and third wednesday

22:14 ↗ where no one can find us

22:18 ↗ it is uh

22:21 ↗ she's going to hop on

22:28 ↗ so i think that would be uh

22:32 ↗ that's my impression is that because of

22:35 ↗ the um

22:38 ↗ governor's order we're able to do that

22:41 ↗ i'm sorry i'm

22:42 ↗ i'm watching for her to join in case she

22:44 ↗ comes in as an attendee and i need to

22:46 ↗ move around

22:50 ↗ so i i would agree with we're in a

22:53 ↗ unique set of circumstances there are a

22:55 ↗ lot of legal

22:56 ↗ questions that related to the governor's

22:58 ↗ order these are going to be standing

23:00 ↗ rules and procedures for the

23:02 ↗ duration i think if we have to come back

23:04 ↗ and make additional amendments because

23:07 ↗ whatever happens after we get into

23:09 ↗ whatever the new normal is then that's

23:10 ↗ always a possibility i

23:12 ↗ i expect

23:15 ↗ okay uh related may i continue on

23:18 ↗ for one yeah go ahead

23:20 ↗ okay on 4-1-d

23:24 ↗ it it says that if regular meeting falls

23:26 ↗ on a legal holiday the meeting shall

23:28 ↗ automatically go to the next day that's

23:30 ↗ not the legal holiday um

23:33 ↗ and i don't think we've ever had that

23:36 ↗ situation have we and it says unless

23:39 ↗ the commission sets

23:41 ↗ an alternative day

23:43 ↗ and typically i don't think that the

23:45 ↗ commission sets

23:47 ↗ those alternative dates is is that

23:50 ↗ always

23:51 ↗ city staff that proposes

23:53 ↗ the the next uh

23:55 ↗ next date i don't think we've ever

23:57 ↗ played that role

24:01 ↗ um

24:03 ↗ i'm just making some notes um

24:06 ↗ i'm not saying uh tisha yet

24:10 ↗ um

24:14 ↗ i think that there would be the

24:16 ↗ [Music]

24:18 ↗ rare possibility

24:20 ↗ for instance

24:23 ↗ veterans day is one that floats july 4th

24:26 ↗ is one that floats it would be most

24:28 ↗ likely that july 4th would

24:30 ↗ impact the commission since you're the

24:32 ↗ first

24:33 ↗ and third and it would be unlikely that

24:36 ↗ um

24:37 ↗ november 11th would fall on the first or

24:40 ↗ third uh wednesday of the month

24:43 ↗ uh

24:46 ↗ so i think that we would um we would

24:49 ↗ probably be proposing to you an

24:52 ↗ alternative day to determine that we

24:54 ↗ were able to get a quorum

24:56 ↗ and um that

24:58 ↗ the commission was willing to meet on

25:00 ↗ that alternative day so

25:03 ↗ um

25:05 ↗ and that's a sense i think uh

25:08 ↗ you are setting that

25:10 ↗ uh effectively because we are consulting

25:13 ↗ with you so maybe it's the set the word

25:15 ↗ set

25:17 ↗ well no it's really to me that there

25:19 ↗ were two issues with that essentially it

25:21 ↗ says that the commission does it

25:23 ↗ and

25:24 ↗ we really don't do it

25:25 ↗ and secondly that it simply specifies

25:28 ↗ that

25:30 ↗ the default unless the

25:32 ↗ that stamp for the commission act is

25:34 ↗ it's the next day

25:36 ↗ and typically city council chambers

25:39 ↗ don't work like that i you know i don't

25:41 ↗ think that we could ever specify that we

25:43 ↗ just wanted on a thursday because a

25:45 ↗ wednesday happened to be a holiday

25:47 ↗ so both of those things you know i think

25:49 ↗ are problematic with this clause

25:55 ↗ commissioner dylan did you have your

25:56 ↗ hand up

26:00 ↗ i

26:01 ↗ yes i i did i think that um that my

26:04 ↗ comment was covered that it it is

26:06 ↗ calling for it to be

26:08 ↗ the next uh the next day was the the

26:11 ↗ thing that jumped out there um and maybe

26:14 ↗ if the language could just be

26:16 ↗ changed to an alternate day approved by

26:18 ↗ the commission or something like that

26:22 ↗ i might

26:23 ↗ suggest that it is similar to what we're

26:25 ↗ doing above where the chair is the

26:28 ↗ kind of the go-to as far as

26:30 ↗ determination on

26:32 ↗ on meetings that it's instead of pulling

26:35 ↗ the whole commission into the decision

26:36 ↗ it would be the commission chair

26:39 ↗ and it would be at the

26:41 ↗ next available date or something like

26:42 ↗ that

26:43 ↗ so i i agree the language is pretty

26:46 ↗ restrictive here

26:50 ↗ um geezer

26:52 ↗ city clerk has joined us and i've

26:55 ↗ you know finally noticed her

26:59 ↗ and so uh

27:01 ↗ tisha i don't know if you have um the

27:04 ↗ rules uh in front of you that

27:07 ↗ were distributed as part of the packet

27:12 ↗ i do

27:14 ↗ and we are currently on page two

27:18 ↗ article 4 meetings

27:21 ↗ section 1

27:23 ↗ and we have a couple of questions

27:26 ↗ under subsection a and d

27:32 ↗ okay

27:37 ↗ i think the one of the questions um

27:40 ↗ around a is

27:42 ↗ that we're specifying a location that

27:45 ↗ we're not meeting at

27:47 ↗ um and uh

27:49 ↗ is this for instance this evening a

27:52 ↗ special meeting because we're not

27:53 ↗ meeting in the council chambers

27:56 ↗ and do we need to make some provisions

27:58 ↗ for virtual meetings

28:01 ↗ yeah that's a really good um question so

28:04 ↗ um what

28:06 ↗ the position the city's been holding on

28:09 ↗ this is that um under the governor's

28:11 ↗ proclamation 20-28

28:13 ↗ um which prohibits um meetings that fall

28:17 ↗ under the open public meetings act from

28:19 ↗ meeting

28:21 ↗ uh solely in person it requires um an

28:24 ↗ audio or virtual component to any

28:26 ↗ meetings at this time

28:28 ↗ um that's sort of the authority under

28:31 ↗ which we're convening our city council

28:34 ↗ and advisory board and commission

28:35 ↗ meetings remotely

28:37 ↗ and so um we at this point haven't

28:39 ↗ modified the rules and regulations of um

28:43 ↗ either our governing body the city

28:45 ↗ council or our advisory boards but

28:48 ↗ um and while the governor's proclamation

28:50 ↗ remains in place um we're comfortable

28:52 ↗ with that we include uh information um

28:55 ↗ on your meeting agendas and in your

28:57 ↗ minutes citing the authority under which

29:00 ↗ we're convening these virtual meetings

29:02 ↗ so um when and if that proclamation um

29:06 ↗ is terminated then uh that would be

29:08 ↗ you know

29:10 ↗ a separate discussion um but i do um

29:13 ↗ commend that you are absolutely

29:14 ↗ understanding um special meetings

29:17 ↗ correctly that under any other

29:18 ↗ circumstances when you meet at a

29:20 ↗ different location that does trigger a

29:23 ↗ special meeting under the open public

29:24 ↗ meetings act

29:28 ↗ great thank you

29:29 ↗ um

29:32 ↗ lucy you want me to jump down to the

29:34 ↗ next question do you have that

29:36 ↗ the next question um is in both b and d

29:40 ↗ um

29:42 ↗ that

29:45 ↗ it's who's setting the meetings um

29:48 ↗ because we cancel our meetings so

29:50 ↗ frequently

29:51 ↗ staff are typically making those

29:53 ↗ determinations based on whether there

29:56 ↗ are agenda items

29:58 ↗ permits typically that come forward

30:01 ↗ and

30:03 ↗ so there were questions about whether we

30:07 ↗ are

30:09 ↗ setting ourselves up for extra

30:12 ↗ work um

30:14 ↗ chair brennan was kind enough to

30:16 ↗ consider both i think his email inbox

30:20 ↗ and the effort of staff

30:23 ↗ to do that and so there were some

30:25 ↗ questions about whether

30:27 ↗ we should more accurately reflect that

30:30 ↗ staff are setting those based on um

30:33 ↗ whether there are agenda items

30:40 ↗ yeah i think that's a good observation

30:42 ↗ and it seems to me that there could be

30:45 ↗ um language added and i um i'd need to

30:47 ↗ refer to your current rules i feel that

30:50 ↗ i've come across some similar language

30:52 ↗ in

30:53 ↗ other rules and regulations that just

30:55 ↗ says if there are no

30:57 ↗ agenda items that require the you know

31:00 ↗ commission's

31:03 ↗ action or discussion or something like

31:04 ↗ that that could be another trigger for

31:06 ↗ canceling a meeting via staff

31:10 ↗ well you know b does say that in the um

31:14 ↗ second sentence if in any given month

31:17 ↗ there is no business which requires

31:19 ↗ commission action

31:21 ↗ the regular meeting will be cancelled it

31:23 ↗ just doesn't say by staff

31:25 ↗ um

31:27 ↗ and so i suppose that could be a

31:28 ↗ clarification added

31:33 ↗ i see

31:35 ↗ i see that there um i think

31:38 ↗ so it it never hurts to clarify things i

31:41 ↗ think as if i were to read that i would

31:43 ↗ um

31:44 ↗ i it seems to me that staff could

31:46 ↗ reasonably be the

31:48 ↗ the ones to cancel meeting as you are

31:50 ↗ typically the determiner of um if

31:53 ↗ there's work to come before the

31:54 ↗ commission but i think that would be a

31:56 ↗ perfectly reasonable

31:58 ↗ clarification to add

32:02 ↗ commissioners

32:06 ↗ i would certainly prefer that

32:08 ↗ currently the construction is passive

32:10 ↗ and it doesn't specify who the actor is

32:13 ↗ so i think it would be helpful to in all

32:14 ↗ these cases to specify who has the

32:16 ↗ responsibility for the action

32:21 ↗ so the suggested language would be that

32:23 ↗ the regular meeting will be cancelled

32:26 ↗ by staff is it in in any given month if

32:29 ↗ there is no business

32:33 ↗ or right staff liaison will cancel

32:36 ↗ will specify that the meeting was

32:38 ↗ cancelled

32:42 ↗ is there is the rest of the commission

32:44 ↗ comfortable with that

32:46 ↗ edit

32:47 ↗ and the thumbs up works okay

32:50 ↗ okay we've got agreement with that

32:52 ↗ change

32:57 ↗ thank you

32:58 ↗ and then the third one um

33:03 ↗ was indeed

33:05 ↗ uh there was

33:07 ↗ a concern that

33:09 ↗ the meeting there was a a meeting that

33:12 ↗ on a regular meeting that automatically

33:14 ↗ fell

33:15 ↗ on a holiday it is automatically

33:18 ↗ uh set the next day

33:21 ↗ and that is up to the commission to set

33:24 ↗ an alternative day

33:26 ↗ um when again typically staff identifies

33:29 ↗ this brings this to the attention

33:32 ↗ of the commissioners and determines

33:34 ↗ whether uh you know proposes alternate

33:36 ↗ days because as commissioner

33:40 ↗ sanford identified the council chambers

33:42 ↗ are not typically sitting open waiting

33:45 ↗ for things to fill them

33:54 ↗ sure so it sounds like the commission's

33:56 ↗ looking for a little more flexibility

33:58 ↗ there

34:00 ↗ so

34:01 ↗ default

34:03 ↗ yes and and this also uses the language

34:05 ↗ the commission and elsewhere when it's

34:08 ↗ talking about meeting schedules or

34:10 ↗ reschedules referring to the chair

34:13 ↗ instead of the entire commission

34:20 ↗ so um

34:22 ↗ certain you know this is these are are

34:24 ↗ your rules and it's um thank you for

34:27 ↗ paying such

34:28 ↗ taking such care in um in reviewing them

34:31 ↗ i think

34:32 ↗ um

34:33 ↗ i think certainly some alternative

34:35 ↗ language could be

34:37 ↗ offered here and i'm you know um

34:42 ↗ it

34:43 ↗ you know i think the benefit is um

34:45 ↗ you're you're absolutely right it's

34:47 ↗ going to be rare that the day following

34:49 ↗ a holiday

34:51 ↗ is open in the council chambers

34:53 ↗ and often we have to be more creative

34:55 ↗ with our scheduling

34:57 ↗ so maybe maybe just leaving leaving it a

35:00 ↗ little bit flexible so if um in the case

35:03 ↗ of a holiday

35:05 ↗ um

35:06 ↗ you know staff will work with the

35:08 ↗ commissioner the chair to determine an

35:10 ↗ alternate meeting date something

35:13 ↗ akin to that

35:15 ↗ could be could be simple as just saying

35:17 ↗ if it falls on a holiday the chair will

35:19 ↗ set an alternative date

35:22 ↗ in consultation perhaps with uh city

35:26 ↗ staff liaison

35:32 ↗ everybody comfortable with that as an

35:34 ↗ amendment to that section did everybody

35:36 ↗ track that okay

35:38 ↗ do we need to add

35:40 ↗ something that would

35:42 ↗ point to the timeliness of it i mean we

35:44 ↗ know that it's not going to be the next

35:45 ↗ day but

35:46 ↗ um

35:49 ↗ specifying a

35:50 ↗ rescheduled date as soon as

35:54 ↗ as the commission is available or

35:55 ↗ something along those lines

36:01 ↗ so that lucy did you catch the original

36:03 ↗ edit

36:04 ↗ to that right now

36:07 ↗ i'll tell you what i have you'll tell me

36:08 ↗ whether i captured it or not

36:10 ↗ uh if a regular meeting falls on a legal

36:14 ↗ holiday the chair will set an alternate

36:16 ↗ alternate date

36:18 ↗ in consultation with the staff liaison

36:24 ↗ is that adequate commissioner dylan or

36:27 ↗ did you want to add additional language

36:28 ↗ about timeliness

36:33 ↗ i

36:34 ↗ i'm not uncomfortable with the language

36:35 ↗ i'm not sure what the

36:38 ↗ some of the other commissions look like

36:39 ↗ i'm not sure if the timeliness clauses

36:41 ↗ is needed there i guess

36:46 ↗ other thoughts on that question from the

36:48 ↗ commission

36:53 ↗ i'm

36:54 ↗ mr morgan

36:56 ↗ um i'm i'm fine with the way it's stated

36:58 ↗ in that we know it's going to have to be

37:00 ↗ within less than two weeks right because

37:02 ↗ we will run into another scheduled

37:04 ↗ meeting anyway

37:05 ↗ um

37:06 ↗ and it i think is going to be driven

37:08 ↗ largely by availability of

37:10 ↗ a room to meet and time and all that so

37:14 ↗ i don't think we need to add something

37:16 ↗ about timeliness

37:21 ↗ is uh the commission comfortable with

37:24 ↗ that amended amendment as it stands then

37:28 ↗ any objection

37:30 ↗ during that okay so

37:32 ↗ we're making progress here

37:34 ↗ um

37:35 ↗ let's take this article four by sections

37:38 ↗ so

37:39 ↗ is are there any questions or amendments

37:42 ↗ suggested amendments for

37:44 ↗ article four section two

37:51 ↗ okay i'm not seeing any

37:55 ↗ commissioner sanford

37:58 ↗ right okay um

38:00 ↗ [Music]

38:02 ↗ let's see in

38:04 ↗ 4-2

38:06 ↗ it says special meetings of the

38:07 ↗ commission may be called by the chair or

38:09 ↗ by a majority vote

38:12 ↗ of the commission members

38:14 ↗ so again similar point isn't really a

38:17 ↗ community planning and development

38:19 ↗ department that does that

38:21 ↗ or

38:22 ↗ staff city staff does that whichever

38:25 ↗ term we want to use for them

38:30 ↗ so would you suggest language similar to

38:32 ↗ the the amendment we made to the

38:33 ↗ previous section which would be

38:36 ↗ by the chair

38:37 ↗ in consultation with the staff liaison

38:40 ↗ sounds good to me

38:44 ↗ other questions or comments or concerns

38:46 ↗ about that amendment

38:52 ↗ lucy did you capture that

38:54 ↗ yes

38:55 ↗ okay good comment thank you

38:58 ↗ any other

39:00 ↗ questions

39:01 ↗ regarding article four section two

39:06 ↗ okay section three

39:12 ↗ aurum mr sanford

39:15 ↗ yeah a question about uh 4 3 b

39:22 ↗ so it says

39:24 ↗ whether in person by phone or email

39:26 ↗ commission members shall not discuss

39:27 ↗ commission business with other members

39:30 ↗ if a quorum of members are present or in

39:32 ↗ a series which could create a serial

39:34 ↗ meeting

39:36 ↗ uh does that apply to legislative

39:38 ↗ meetings as well as quasi-judicial or is

39:40 ↗ that just a quasi-judicial

39:43 ↗ rule

39:46 ↗ i refer that question to the clerk

39:50 ↗ i'd like that

39:52 ↗ yeah

39:53 ↗ yes that that applies to any meeting of

39:56 ↗ the commission legislative or

39:57 ↗ quasi-judicial so um that again um falls

40:01 ↗ back on a requirement under the open

40:03 ↗ public meetings act that a quorum of the

40:07 ↗ members don't

40:09 ↗ meet without notice and having their

40:11 ↗ meetings open to the public but also

40:13 ↗ don't cumulatively meet by

40:16 ↗ talking

40:17 ↗ to one or more individual and sharing

40:20 ↗ the perspective of their previous

40:22 ↗ conversation what we refer to as a

40:24 ↗ serial meeting

40:25 ↗ okay okay

40:27 ↗ and so uh where it says

40:29 ↗ um or in a series which could create a

40:33 ↗ serial meeting so that means

40:36 ↗ a series of emails like an email thread

40:40 ↗ about a topic

40:42 ↗ okay

40:43 ↗ okay thank you

40:46 ↗ very much

40:48 ↗ um

40:49 ↗ section four

40:57 ↗ any questions

40:59 ↗ mr sanford

41:00 ↗ okay in

41:02 ↗ 4 4 f

41:06 ↗ uh during review of a multi-day

41:08 ↗ quasi-judicial hearing a regular member

41:11 ↗ who's missed the first or previous

41:13 ↗ commission meeting at which the hearing

41:15 ↗ has occurred

41:18 ↗ i think the first is superfluous there

41:34 ↗ so in other words i would just say has

41:36 ↗ missed a previous meeting

41:39 ↗ missed a previous

41:42 ↗ meeting

41:45 ↗ on a

41:46 ↗ multi-day quadrant judicial hearing that

41:48 ↗ would make sense right exactly in other

41:50 ↗ words everything else the same except

41:52 ↗ delete the first

41:54 ↗ right

41:55 ↗ yeah any anybody have a concern about

41:57 ↗ that amendment i think that's just

41:59 ↗ a clarifying edit i think that's good

42:02 ↗ so language correction thank you for

42:04 ↗ that

42:06 ↗ any other

42:08 ↗ any other suggested amendments

42:11 ↗ or questions about the language in this

42:13 ↗ section

42:17 ↗ provides a lot of specificity about the

42:19 ↗ role

42:20 ↗ uh of the alternate alternates

42:24 ↗ and how they're engaged

42:27 ↗ okay

42:28 ↗ same on section 5 attendance

42:34 ↗ mr sanford

42:35 ↗ yeah i'm sorry to be doing this but lucy

42:38 ↗ knows very well that's how it goes when

42:39 ↗ a document uh yeah

42:41 ↗ okay uh

42:43 ↗ 45b

42:46 ↗ any member anticipating absent should

42:48 ↗ notify support service staff and the

42:50 ↗ designated staff liaison

42:54 ↗ support service staff i don't know who

42:56 ↗ that would be if i'm going to be absent

42:58 ↗ i just notified the staff liaison

43:03 ↗ so i would recommend deleting sports

43:05 ↗ service staff unless that's a new

43:06 ↗ requirement

43:10 ↗ anybody

43:13 ↗ let me just um provide some a thought

43:16 ↗ here

43:17 ↗ um

43:18 ↗ i don't actually send you the agenda

43:21 ↗ packet right

43:22 ↗ um

43:23 ↗ the support

43:25 ↗ service staff is the one who is sending

43:27 ↗ you the packets

43:29 ↗ and um i think one advantage of um

43:34 ↗ having that and i and i appreciate that

43:36 ↗ that may not be apparent to you that

43:38 ↗ that is who is

43:40 ↗ sending you the packets is that if i was

43:43 ↗ for instance on vacation when the packet

43:45 ↗ went out

43:46 ↗ um

43:48 ↗ it might be someone you know an

43:51 ↗ alternate alternative person who the

43:53 ↗ notice should go to

43:57 ↗ i see okay so then i wonder if we could

44:00 ↗ make support service staff a little more

44:01 ↗ specific

44:03 ↗ by role

44:08 ↗ uh does that

44:09 ↗ would gretchen have a specific role you

44:12 ↗ know

44:13 ↗ the distribute the

44:15 ↗ support service staff in charge of

44:17 ↗ distributing meeting packet

44:22 ↗ um

44:26 ↗ really up to you on what would um serve

44:29 ↗ your purposes best

44:34 ↗ to me it would be a support service

44:37 ↗ um

44:39 ↗ i don't know if it would be staff or

44:41 ↗ employee

44:42 ↗ responsible for distributing

44:45 ↗ the meeting packet

44:47 ↗ it's long

44:50 ↗ support service staff just seemed you

44:52 ↗ know too vague to me i i couldn't really

44:55 ↗ form a picture of who that would be

45:00 ↗ could you say commission support staff

45:02 ↗ so because that could be people who are

45:05 ↗ assigned to serve the commission because

45:06 ↗ that could change as well

45:08 ↗ so it would be the staff liaison

45:11 ↗ and commission support staff

45:14 ↗ would that be adequate i guess i still

45:16 ↗ don't know who would be

45:17 ↗ you know i i would like to see an actor

45:20 ↗ qualified there to me it's more like who

45:22 ↗ would i who would i notify the person in

45:24 ↗ charge of distributing the packet you

45:26 ↗ know

45:30 ↗ um commissioner dillon

45:36 ↗ i worry that if we get too specific

45:38 ↗ it'll be overly prescriptive and

45:41 ↗ if

45:42 ↗ at for some particular meeting there

45:44 ↗ might be a different person who we've

45:46 ↗ been working with that um would be

45:49 ↗ somebody to to notify that

45:52 ↗ um

45:54 ↗ we're then being overly prescriptive i

45:55 ↗ guess i'm comfortable with um

45:59 ↗ with um chair brennan's suggestion

46:05 ↗ so it would be the people who are

46:06 ↗ assigned to not by a specific job title

46:09 ↗ but by that are assigned as the liaison

46:11 ↗ or as commission support

46:14 ↗ so at least if you called city hall you

46:16 ↗ said i want to talk to the person that's

46:18 ↗ the support staff or the commission they

46:20 ↗ would be able to track the person down i

46:22 ↗ think i think that's probably accurate

46:26 ↗ it could be in lucy's department

46:30 ↗ i believe that's minnie's department but

46:32 ↗ yes lucy minnie yes

46:35 ↗ if i may um you know you guys aren't

46:38 ↗ how's it happen actually working

46:40 ↗ today you send an email to lucy and if

46:43 ↗ she's out you'll get an out of office

46:46 ↗ reply and it'll have a message who to

46:49 ↗ respond to because she's not in the

46:50 ↗ office right so

46:52 ↗ so i think it i mean the gretchen's not

46:55 ↗ going to know she's not keeping track of

46:56 ↗ who's coming to the meeting what the

46:59 ↗ quorum is so in practice and the way it

47:01 ↗ works is the staff liaison if they're

47:04 ↗ going to be away we find someone to fill

47:06 ↗ the staff liaison role and we

47:09 ↗ communicate with the commission

47:11 ↗ so i mean i i think i'm comfortable with

47:13 ↗ just leaving it notify the staff liaison

47:16 ↗ and not over complicate it

47:18 ↗ i would appreciate that because that's

47:19 ↗ really how we work today that's how

47:21 ↗ we've always worked basically

47:24 ↗ so would that um have us striking

47:27 ↗ support service staff and the designated

47:30 ↗ and just say notify the staff liaison

47:36 ↗ are the commissioners comfortable with

47:38 ↗ that

47:41 ↗ okay i think we're good with that

47:45 ↗ um any other comments in section five

47:50 ↗ section six committees

47:56 ↗ about between screens here about section

47:58 ↗ seven

48:02 ↗ commissioner sampling

48:04 ↗ oh justin knit on 4 7 c1

48:08 ↗ it says when recognized

48:10 ↗ commenters are encouraged and the word

48:13 ↗ two is missing thereafter commenters

48:16 ↗ incur rather after encouraged encouraged

48:19 ↗ two years voting

48:23 ↗ that's a

48:25 ↗ scrivener's error so we'll take care of

48:27 ↗ that one i had a i did have a question

48:29 ↗ here

48:30 ↗ um we've added um

48:34 ↗ the commit comment shall be limited to

48:36 ↗ five minutes or less

48:40 ↗ are we um

48:41 ↗ and we haven't really kept been

48:45 ↗ really uh disciplined in the amount of

48:48 ↗ time for

48:49 ↗ speakers at hearings or just commenters

48:54 ↗ are we going to put in place a more

48:56 ↗ structured way to monitor the time for

48:59 ↗ commenters or

49:00 ↗ do we need to add something here that

49:02 ↗ allows for some flexibility at the

49:03 ↗ discretion of the chair

49:06 ↗ i believe that's present after number

49:09 ↗ four there's um a paragraph that says

49:12 ↗ that you shall have the discretion to

49:14 ↗ make acceptance to define restrictions

49:16 ↗ or

49:17 ↗ impose an overall maximum duration

49:21 ↗ yeah okay

49:23 ↗ yep you're right okay that resolves that

49:25 ↗ thanks

49:31 ↗ are there other questions on this

49:33 ↗ section

49:38 ↗ sorry which section are we on seven

49:41 ↗ yes

49:43 ↗ yes

49:44 ↗ okay go ahead consider stanford

49:47 ↗ okay uh four seven

49:50 ↗ c four

49:51 ↗ any written materials provided the

49:53 ↗ commission shall also be provided to the

49:55 ↗ staff liaison or the recording secretary

49:57 ↗ during the meeting or hearing

49:59 ↗ so does that really mean that

50:02 ↗ someone has to provide a copy of

50:04 ↗ anything that they bring to the meeting

50:06 ↗ um

50:07 ↗ it's saying that it's provided to the

50:09 ↗ commission

50:12 ↗ and then it should also be provided to

50:13 ↗ the staff liaison or the secretary

50:17 ↗ so i think the intent of that is if

50:19 ↗ you're handing out letters

50:21 ↗ um for instance

50:23 ↗ if you're just speaking

50:26 ↗ that's not handing out written materials

50:28 ↗ but if you're handing out a paper copy

50:32 ↗ to the commissioners there needs to be

50:34 ↗ one also provided

50:36 ↗ as part of the record to the staff

50:39 ↗ liaison or the recording secretary

50:42 ↗ right so would that be an actual copy

50:44 ↗ then not the original one that's

50:46 ↗ provided to us or

50:48 ↗ because this says i'm not sure what this

50:51 ↗ is

50:53 ↗ the material shall also be provided to

50:54 ↗ the staff liaison

50:57 ↗ a copy i assume

51:00 ↗ well i assume that the materials

51:01 ↗ provided to the commission are actually

51:03 ↗ copies because they're probably

51:05 ↗ providing more than one to uh

51:10 ↗ the members that are present

51:14 ↗ so i wonder if we could just clarify

51:16 ↗ being by inserting the words

51:18 ↗ a copy shall also be provided to the

51:20 ↗ staff

51:21 ↗ i don't know if we need it

51:28 ↗ any questions or concerns about that

51:30 ↗ that amendment

51:35 ↗ so um it would take

51:37 ↗ probably a little bit more editing i

51:39 ↗ believe it would need to say then

51:42 ↗ and i know you are the professional

51:44 ↗ editor and you will fix what i'm about

51:45 ↗ to say

51:46 ↗ um when any written materials are

51:49 ↗ provided to the commission a copy shall

51:52 ↗ also be provided to the staff liaison or

51:55 ↗ recording secretary

51:57 ↗ or if

51:58 ↗ any

52:00 ↗ yes

52:02 ↗ just so we get the idea of a copy and

52:03 ↗ that people know

52:05 ↗ that they can't just give it to us that

52:08 ↗ they're going to really have to have a

52:09 ↗ copy for to be recorded as well

52:13 ↗ and also on that same one i was

52:15 ↗ wondering is this language redundant

52:17 ↗ with 4 11 0.

52:20 ↗ maybe there must be a shade of

52:22 ↗ difference between those i

52:24 ↗ don't get what it is but it seems like

52:26 ↗ that paragraph is copied in 411 oh

52:32 ↗ um

52:37 ↗ i uh

52:38 ↗ i'm not sure where that is in the

52:40 ↗ document for eleven oh maybe i've got

52:43 ↗ the wrong ones already

52:58 ↗ i'm trying to find where we were um

53:01 ↗ what was under

53:02 ↗ public participation is the one that we

53:05 ↗ were just editing

53:07 ↗ um on page the top of page five

53:11 ↗ on um

53:13 ↗ page

53:14 ↗ 11

53:16 ↗ item

53:18 ↗ o

53:19 ↗ letter o

53:20 ↗ um

53:21 ↗ would also apply to applicants and to um

53:27 ↗ so not just the public and what um

53:31 ↗ this is a standard item that appears in

53:35 ↗ the rules and procedures of um

53:39 ↗ uh

53:40 ↗ other commissions and boards but this

53:42 ↗ actually has been a problem in the past

53:45 ↗ um that uh applicants may not uh provide

53:50 ↗ things to the staff liaison

53:53 ↗ okay just want to make sure we were on

53:55 ↗ the the same literal page uh 411-0 is on

53:58 ↗ page 16 of 19 is that the one you're

54:01 ↗ looking at

54:03 ↗ no oh i'm sorry i'm looking at the

54:06 ↗ number in the word document because

54:08 ↗ that's where i'm editing oh okay

54:10 ↗ yeah this is under

54:12 ↗ um

54:14 ↗ additional rules that shall apply to all

54:16 ↗ public hearings before the commission

54:21 ↗ yes that's the one i'm referring to

54:24 ↗ photographs map slides letters invoices

54:27 ↗ and so on

54:28 ↗ yeah

54:30 ↗ okay so

54:33 ↗ the is this different in any way from

54:38 ↗ four seven c4

54:40 ↗ yes

54:41 ↗ okay so the the one that we were

54:44 ↗ initially editing is under public

54:46 ↗ participation

54:48 ↗ uh this would apply the second one that

54:52 ↗ you're identifying would also apply to

54:54 ↗ applicants

54:56 ↗ and um

54:58 ↗ and so that is so there's one that's

55:01 ↗ under participation this uh i think a

55:04 ↗ pro applies a bit more broadly and is

55:07 ↗ important as part of a public hearing to

55:10 ↗ be clear that applicants are required to

55:12 ↗ provide all the materials that they're

55:14 ↗ using in their presentation i understand

55:16 ↗ that now okay great thanks

55:20 ↗ all right moving on to section number

55:22 ↗ eight

55:23 ↗ oh sorry commissioner schulte

55:28 ↗ i had a question on section eight um

55:30 ↗ okay go ahead what's your question uh

55:32 ↗ sure uh let me jump to the article here

55:34 ↗ uh so section b

55:36 ↗ uh regarding conflict of interest um

55:41 ↗ before the

55:42 ↗ if uh let's see

55:44 ↗ if there's a conflict of interest

55:46 ↗ um any the commission shall declare

55:49 ↗ conflict interest as soon as reasonable

55:51 ↗ possible but no later later than prior

55:53 ↗ to voting on the issue which they have a

55:56 ↗ conflict um

55:58 ↗ so i guess my question is if there is an

56:00 ↗ interest of conflict

56:03 ↗ uh

56:04 ↗ is that commission member allowed to

56:06 ↗ comment during the

56:09 ↗ partici the applicant presentation

56:12 ↗ um it it seems like there needs to be a

56:14 ↗ little bit more clarity as to when

56:16 ↗ um

56:18 ↗ that should be disclosed it sounds like

56:20 ↗ before the directly before the applicant

56:22 ↗ presentation is that correct

56:25 ↗ so um i i it's an interesting question

56:29 ↗ um a conflict of interest is different

56:32 ↗ than the appearance of fairness doctrine

56:36 ↗ so

56:36 ↗ if there is an appearance of fairness

56:40 ↗ issue raised

56:42 ↗ you would not be allowed to participate

56:44 ↗ not you but one would not be allowed to

56:46 ↗ participate in the just even in the

56:48 ↗ discussion

56:49 ↗ and the um

56:52 ↗ uh commissioner would

56:54 ↗ if determined to have an appearance of

56:57 ↗ fairness

56:58 ↗ issue

56:59 ↗ um they would leave before the matter

57:02 ↗ even commenced

57:03 ↗ um conflict of interest um i'm i

57:08 ↗ looked at this a week or two ago but i

57:10 ↗ don't remember the specifics enough to

57:12 ↗ identify

57:14 ↗ i don't know whether tisha you can speak

57:16 ↗ to this

57:18 ↗ uh if

57:21 ↗ it seems like this would be more likely

57:23 ↗ to show up in a in a public meeting than

57:25 ↗ a public hearing

57:30 ↗ i what i can speak to is in in my

57:34 ↗ experience typically um

57:36 ↗ typically someone can identify

57:40 ↗ if an item on the agenda may they may

57:42 ↗ have a conflict with it and so usually

57:44 ↗ there's work to consult with

57:47 ↗ the city attorney and the staff liaison

57:49 ↗ in advance and as you suggested

57:52 ↗ make a statement either

57:54 ↗ before that agenda item comes up or

57:56 ↗ right after it does and remove

57:58 ↗ themselves from the entire discussion

58:01 ↗ that that is what i've seen typically

58:03 ↗ occur

58:04 ↗ i'm

58:05 ↗ i don't know what the logic is in this

58:08 ↗ language that allows for a little bit of

58:11 ↗ flexibility

58:13 ↗ to possibly participate in the

58:14 ↗ discussion i agree with you it's

58:16 ↗ probably not a best practice but i can't

58:18 ↗ speak to

58:20 ↗ legal ramifications

58:24 ↗ so the conflict of inter a conflict of

58:27 ↗ interest is um discussed in a little bit

58:30 ↗ more detail and this is the part that i

58:32 ↗ don't remember

58:33 ↗ um in the uh

58:35 ↗ active links that are at the end of this

58:37 ↗ document under the code of ethics

58:40 ↗ and

58:41 ↗ um

58:42 ↗ there are two

58:43 ↗ fixed guides at the end let's see code

58:45 ↗ of ethics and ethics guidelines

58:48 ↗ um

58:50 ↗ and what i don't remember is

58:53 ↗ um how much they spell out

58:57 ↗ i think this my guess is this language

58:59 ↗ was reviewed by the city attorney and

59:02 ↗ i'd be a little concerned about amending

59:05 ↗ because the conflict of interest is uh

59:07 ↗ um those are terms of art in legal world

59:10 ↗ so

59:10 ↗ and how they're addressed there's lots

59:12 ↗ of procedural issues around that so i

59:14 ↗ would be a little concerned

59:16 ↗ about editing this but if there are

59:18 ↗ edits um commissioner schulte that you

59:20 ↗ would like to suggest um absolutely make

59:23 ↗ those requests

59:24 ↗ uh thank you that was just more of a

59:26 ↗ clarification so just um so just unclear

59:29 ↗ if

59:31 ↗ if a commissioner was involved in a

59:33 ↗ discussion with a with the developer or

59:37 ↗ um possibly was involved in the project

59:40 ↗ in any given way would would that be

59:43 ↗ considered conflict of interest or is

59:44 ↗ that the other scenario the um

59:48 ↗ that would come up under appearance of

59:49 ↗ fairness apparentness of fairness okay

59:52 ↗ and and so that would be addressed prior

59:54 ↗ to the hearing being opened

59:58 ↗ um

59:58 ↗ okay

59:59 ↗ there is um i'm i did open the code of

1:00:02 ↗ ethics and um

1:00:05 ↗ uh chair brennan is correct there are

1:00:07 ↗ rcws related to conflict of interest

1:00:11 ↗ um many of them sound similar to our

1:00:14 ↗ appearance of fairness

1:00:15 ↗ um so i i do think appearance of

1:00:18 ↗ fairness will cover us during

1:00:20 ↗ quasi-judicial matters

1:00:22 ↗ and um the conflict of interest will

1:00:25 ↗ more likely come into play uh for public

1:00:28 ↗ hearing uh public meetings or

1:00:31 ↗ non-quasi judicial matters

1:00:34 ↗ okay that's helpful i understand that

1:00:36 ↗ there's two two scenarios here depending

1:00:38 ↗ on which scenario you fall in dark

1:00:40 ↗ um i wasn't sure if the conflict of

1:00:43 ↗ interest my next question was whether

1:00:45 ↗ the applicant has the right to

1:00:48 ↗ um

1:00:49 ↗ deny

1:00:50 ↗ um

1:00:52 ↗ you know participation or not but it

1:00:54 ↗ sounds like that's a

1:00:55 ↗ the fairness the fairness issue then

1:00:57 ↗ right the applicant has a say

1:00:59 ↗ in whether or not

1:01:01 ↗ you can participate

1:01:02 ↗ is that is that correct

1:01:05 ↗ i i see uh director dollywall has her

1:01:08 ↗ hand raised

1:01:10 ↗ thank you you know i was trying to think

1:01:12 ↗ of when um of an example of a conflict

1:01:15 ↗ of interest that could come into play

1:01:16 ↗ for a quasi-judicial and how that would

1:01:18 ↗ be separate from a appearance of

1:01:20 ↗ fairness

1:01:21 ↗ example so if you were looking at a

1:01:23 ↗ project to approve

1:01:26 ↗ and you want a fence to go around you

1:01:28 ↗ know and offense the whole thing i mean

1:01:30 ↗ that's not what you're going to probably

1:01:32 ↗ do but just for a hypothetical example

1:01:35 ↗ and you own a fencing business

1:01:37 ↗ so you propose an amendment to your

1:01:40 ↗ someone proposes an amendment to require

1:01:42 ↗ a fence around an acre property and then

1:01:44 ↗ there would be a conflict of interest

1:01:46 ↗ because you are in that business that

1:01:47 ↗ you want to disclose it so it can come

1:01:50 ↗ into place just to catch all but like

1:01:52 ↗ tisha said most of these are going to be

1:01:54 ↗ addressed earlier during the appearance

1:01:56 ↗ of fairness questions but this is

1:01:58 ↗ supposed to be the catch-all of

1:02:00 ↗ if you

1:02:01 ↗ are going down the path of adding new

1:02:03 ↗ conditions

1:02:04 ↗ or changing new conditions and you have

1:02:06 ↗ some conflict you know conflict of

1:02:08 ↗ interest that you would disclose that

1:02:10 ↗ and have an opportunity to ex you know

1:02:12 ↗ to not vote

1:02:15 ↗ that's helpful thank you

1:02:17 ↗ that's all i had for that

1:02:21 ↗ the second paragraph and

1:02:23 ↗ after the conflict of interest and the

1:02:25 ↗ if the member is excused from voting

1:02:27 ↗ they shall leave the meeting room

1:02:29 ↗ uh then they'll be considered absent and

1:02:31 ↗ i it seemed like

1:02:32 ↗ there's a bit of a focus on absence and

1:02:35 ↗ not having too many if you if it seems

1:02:37 ↗ like

1:02:38 ↗ why it's not obvious to me why they

1:02:40 ↗ should be considered absent there should

1:02:41 ↗ be some other term there that allows

1:02:43 ↗ them to be acknowledged for being at the

1:02:45 ↗ meeting but uh not qualified or

1:02:47 ↗ something

1:02:49 ↗ well there's a there the distinction is

1:02:52 ↗ actually between an excused absence and

1:02:54 ↗ an unexcused absence

1:02:57 ↗ so in this case that would um

1:03:00 ↗ and it's uh it's implied

1:03:02 ↗ so maybe that's the issue it says if a

1:03:04 ↗ member is excused from voting

1:03:07 ↗ uh they shall leave the room immediately

1:03:09 ↗ and they will be considered absent and

1:03:12 ↗ and i think the intent is that it's

1:03:13 ↗ considered an excused absence

1:03:18 ↗ so that word could be added before

1:03:21 ↗ absent

1:03:22 ↗ to clarify

1:03:28 ↗ it just left me a little confused on

1:03:30 ↗ whether that was an excused absence or

1:03:32 ↗ not but apparently it's obvious to

1:03:34 ↗ everybody else

1:03:36 ↗ if i mean um

1:03:38 ↗ commissioner so if you want to make an

1:03:40 ↗ amendment and add that term

1:03:42 ↗ will be considered an excused absence

1:03:44 ↗ that that's certainly fine as well

1:03:50 ↗ undo that

1:03:54 ↗ so people the rest of the commission are

1:03:56 ↗ you comfortable with adding that

1:03:58 ↗ clarification that that the absence

1:04:00 ↗ would be considered

1:04:01 ↗ an excused absence

1:04:04 ↗ there's agreement

1:04:05 ↗ with the commission okay great so can we

1:04:08 ↗ make that amendment as well lucy

1:04:10 ↗ or clarification

1:04:13 ↗ okay um anything else on on section

1:04:16 ↗ eight

1:04:19 ↗ uh commissioner sanford

1:04:22 ↗ uh just just curious um

1:04:24 ↗ in terms of history i i wondered how

1:04:28 ↗ about um abstention

1:04:30 ↗ and how abstention became a vote in

1:04:33 ↗ favor

1:04:34 ↗ my understanding is that there's no

1:04:35 ↗ state law that specifies how this is

1:04:37 ↗ treated and it it's the

1:04:40 ↗ the uh up to the the municipalities and

1:04:44 ↗ issaquah i know it's the same rule for

1:04:46 ↗ city council um and i was just wondering

1:04:49 ↗ how that

1:04:50 ↗ came to be treated as a yes instead of

1:04:53 ↗ an abstain it's really an override of

1:04:55 ↗ robert's rules of order

1:04:57 ↗ so i was kind of interested to see how

1:04:59 ↗ that came about and why

1:05:04 ↗ commissioner i um

1:05:07 ↗ i wish i had more light to shed

1:05:09 ↗ on this i too have been quite curious

1:05:13 ↗ about where it originated um

1:05:16 ↗ i am speculating that it is um

1:05:20 ↗ it compels one to vote i think in a

1:05:23 ↗ small community and um in the case of

1:05:26 ↗ our volunteer advisory boards where

1:05:28 ↗ there can

1:05:29 ↗ maybe occasionally be discomfort um or

1:05:31 ↗ uncertainty about taking a position and

1:05:34 ↗ especially you know all both our city

1:05:36 ↗ council and our advisory boards are

1:05:38 ↗ typically all small boards consisting of

1:05:40 ↗ less than a dozen members so to get the

1:05:43 ↗ maximum input of the individuals who

1:05:45 ↗ serve on those bodies i i think this was

1:05:47 ↗ just

1:05:48 ↗ a method to compel

1:05:51 ↗ a vote that's my theory and um as you

1:05:53 ↗ mentioned it's not required in state law

1:05:55 ↗ it's not recommended by robert's rules

1:05:57 ↗ but it is a provision in this is equal

1:06:00 ↗ city council and all the advisory board

1:06:02 ↗ rules and regulations at this time

1:06:05 ↗ right thanks and certainly nothing that

1:06:07 ↗ i've ever seen you know occur

1:06:09 ↗ um in any of our meetings certainly but

1:06:13 ↗ you could think of odd situations in

1:06:15 ↗ which for example we have a quorum of

1:06:17 ↗ four

1:06:18 ↗ and there could be one member voting

1:06:20 ↗ against and three abstentions and the

1:06:22 ↗ measure would still be approved

1:06:24 ↗ you know so logically it's it kind of

1:06:27 ↗ strains but but

1:06:29 ↗ uh i i guess there was just kind of a

1:06:33 ↗ social rationale behind it

1:06:36 ↗ yeah okay thank you great interesting

1:06:39 ↗ question

1:06:41 ↗ and uh sounds like a logical answer too

1:06:43 ↗ um

1:06:45 ↗ section number anything else on section

1:06:47 ↗ 8

1:06:49 ↗ section 9.

1:06:54 ↗ and section 10 order of business

1:06:59 ↗ mr sanford

1:07:01 ↗ yeah um i just had trouble with sections

1:07:04 ↗ 10 and 11 understanding the difference

1:07:06 ↗ between those

1:07:08 ↗ uh they both concern order of business

1:07:11 ↗ um

1:07:12 ↗ 11 is called public hearings is entitled

1:07:15 ↗ public hearings

1:07:17 ↗ but it seems to be

1:07:18 ↗ basically just about quasi-judicial

1:07:21 ↗ and all meeting all of our meetings are

1:07:23 ↗ public

1:07:25 ↗ so

1:07:26 ↗ is 11 a subset of 10

1:07:29 ↗ i guess i'll stop there at this point

1:07:32 ↗ yes um so

1:07:34 ↗ our order of business

1:07:36 ↗ for a public meeting which is anything

1:07:39 ↗ that isn't a public hearing

1:07:42 ↗ would be

1:07:43 ↗ covered by section 10 when we're holding

1:07:45 ↗ a public hearing

1:07:47 ↗ item number four

1:07:49 ↗ under section 10 public hearing

1:07:52 ↗ would then

1:07:54 ↗ be the uh expanded

1:07:57 ↗ uh

1:07:58 ↗ components

1:07:59 ↗ of

1:08:00 ↗ item number four in section 10.

1:08:04 ↗ okay so would tend and apply to a

1:08:07 ↗ meeting like tonight to a legislative

1:08:09 ↗ matter and 11 applies to quasi-judicial

1:08:13 ↗ i just think in terms of trainings we've

1:08:15 ↗ had when that's been the typical

1:08:17 ↗ division between leading types

1:08:22 ↗ so 10 would be our order of business

1:08:26 ↗ for every meeting

1:08:28 ↗ whether it's a public meeting or a

1:08:30 ↗ public hearing

1:08:32 ↗ on on an evening like tonight um there

1:08:35 ↗ is no public hearing so number four

1:08:38 ↗ would be eliminated from the agenda

1:08:42 ↗ where

1:08:43 ↗ the

1:08:44 ↗ public hearing is taking place

1:08:48 ↗ a through k

1:08:50 ↗ would almost be it would be for

1:08:53 ↗ public hearings and then a through k

1:08:56 ↗ would be the components the order of

1:08:58 ↗ business

1:08:59 ↗ under the public hearing if one is being

1:09:02 ↗ held

1:09:05 ↗ okay so 11 is kind of a more detailed

1:09:07 ↗ decomposition of 10 to some degree

1:09:11 ↗ um and i guess legislative meeting then

1:09:15 ↗ would be under the

1:09:17 ↗ auspices of

1:09:20 ↗ section 10

1:09:21 ↗ because the type of meeting that we have

1:09:23 ↗ um

1:09:24 ↗ would community conference be a

1:09:27 ↗ quasi-judicial type then

1:09:29 ↗ no there's no decision being made

1:09:32 ↗ and um so it is a public meeting and not

1:09:36 ↗ a public hearing

1:09:37 ↗ in fact we're only allowed to hold one

1:09:40 ↗ open record public

1:09:42 ↗ hearing

1:09:43 ↗ on um

1:09:46 ↗ permits that need a quasi-judicial

1:09:50 ↗ hearing so a community conference

1:09:54 ↗ a

1:09:55 ↗ neighborhood meeting those are actually

1:09:57 ↗ just

1:09:58 ↗ specific types of public meetings

1:10:06 ↗ uh director dollywell

1:10:08 ↗ you know i would add to that's a

1:10:10 ↗ quirkiness in our code but those uh

1:10:13 ↗ community conferences do fall under the

1:10:15 ↗ auspices of

1:10:17 ↗ quasi-judicial matter because ultimately

1:10:20 ↗ that project is going to come to you for

1:10:22 ↗ a decision on a quasi-judicial matter so

1:10:26 ↗ we have to treat them

1:10:28 ↗ with the same kind of carefulness about

1:10:30 ↗ not discussing those topics outside of

1:10:32 ↗ the meeting not talking to each other so

1:10:34 ↗ they do fall under that umbrella of

1:10:35 ↗ quasi-judicial

1:10:37 ↗ okay yeah thank you i think i

1:10:40 ↗ could recall one that we hosted and it

1:10:42 ↗ was quite formal and i couldn't remember

1:10:44 ↗ whether it was quite judicial or not but

1:10:46 ↗ i thought that it was

1:10:49 ↗ okay and and

1:10:50 ↗ le and i i think uh director dollywell

1:10:54 ↗ is making an important uh

1:10:56 ↗ point

1:10:57 ↗ to just i i don't think that means that

1:10:59 ↗ it's a public hearing that we are

1:11:02 ↗ following necessarily all these specific

1:11:04 ↗ steps although we may follow many of

1:11:06 ↗ them

1:11:07 ↗ i think the important thing is about

1:11:10 ↗ your communications

1:11:12 ↗ outside of uh the meeting

1:11:16 ↗ and that that the discussions and such

1:11:19 ↗ related to the community conference for

1:11:22 ↗ instance become a part of the record

1:11:25 ↗ that happens during the public hearing

1:11:28 ↗ on which you're making a decision

1:11:30 ↗ and so the same level of attentiveness

1:11:33 ↗ about who you talk to about what

1:11:36 ↗ comes into play

1:11:42 ↗ great any other

1:11:44 ↗ uh questions

1:11:46 ↗ um on section

1:11:48 ↗ number nine

1:11:49 ↗ i'm excuse me 10

1:11:52 ↗ or 11.

1:11:56 ↗ um yeah

1:11:58 ↗ mr stanford

1:12:00 ↗ yeah so um

1:12:04 ↗ 411b

1:12:05 ↗ uh commission members shall attempt to

1:12:07 ↗ not read or reply to any correspondence

1:12:10 ↗ received on a quasi-judicial matter uh

1:12:12 ↗ should we insert i i understand that the

1:12:15 ↗ intention there means directly from the

1:12:17 ↗ public and not from staff because we

1:12:19 ↗ always do receive these email and we do

1:12:22 ↗ read them so i was wondering if we

1:12:24 ↗ should insert the term received

1:12:28 ↗ directly from the public or unsolicited

1:12:30 ↗ directly from the public or words to

1:12:33 ↗ that effect

1:12:38 ↗ any

1:12:39 ↗ uh anybody have concern about adding

1:12:41 ↗ that language for clarity

1:12:46 ↗ no concerns uh

1:12:48 ↗ lucy did you get that

1:12:52 ↗ i would say from the applicant or the

1:12:54 ↗ public

1:12:55 ↗ because you can communicate with staff

1:12:57 ↗ but if someone tries to you know send

1:12:59 ↗ you from the applicant side that also

1:13:01 ↗ should not

1:13:02 ↗ be but the applicant or the public

1:13:06 ↗ so the way i've uh proposed it is

1:13:08 ↗ commission members shall attempt to not

1:13:11 ↗ read or reply to any correspondence

1:13:14 ↗ received from the applicant or the

1:13:16 ↗ public on a quasi-judicial matter

1:13:23 ↗ i'm pretty good with that

1:13:25 ↗ it seems odd that we're saying we should

1:13:27 ↗ attempt to why don't we just say they

1:13:28 ↗ shouldn't read stuff from the public or

1:13:30 ↗ the applicant wha why should we why

1:13:32 ↗ should we attempt it you know i mean it

1:13:34 ↗ must be direct if we're going to be

1:13:35 ↗ directed

1:13:38 ↗ it seems like adding that attempt notion

1:13:40 ↗ is kind of

1:13:42 ↗ weird to me

1:13:43 ↗ would it be a must not or it should not

1:13:48 ↗ it would be it should because you you

1:13:49 ↗ don't know sometimes when you open

1:13:51 ↗ something

1:13:52 ↗ what it is until you start reading it

1:13:54 ↗ right then we have an obligation to

1:13:56 ↗ disclose it if that happens

1:14:00 ↗ we haven't had much of a problem here

1:14:02 ↗ but it's a formality

1:14:04 ↗ so

1:14:06 ↗ commissioner stanford as far as the

1:14:08 ↗ language do you have specific language

1:14:10 ↗ that you want to present

1:14:12 ↗ i think what uh the staff liaison just

1:14:15 ↗ stated adding uh the term should not

1:14:19 ↗ should not open

1:14:21 ↗ or or read

1:14:26 ↗ it's

1:14:27 ↗ you know is the commission is

1:14:28 ↗ commissioned comfortable with that

1:14:29 ↗ amendment

1:14:31 ↗ everybody seems

1:14:33 ↗ comfortable okay thank you

1:14:38 ↗ any other questions

1:14:40 ↗ on uh

1:14:42 ↗ this section

1:14:44 ↗ 11.

1:14:46 ↗ uh commissioner morgan

1:14:49 ↗ um thank you i question on

1:14:52 ↗ um

1:14:53 ↗ 11b

1:14:55 ↗ it's it's entitled conflicts of interest

1:14:57 ↗ and the pureness of fairness

1:14:59 ↗ and on number four it mentions conflict

1:15:02 ↗ of interest

1:15:04 ↗ um

1:15:05 ↗ but everything else is the the

1:15:08 ↗ um

1:15:09 ↗ all the workings of an appearance of

1:15:11 ↗ fairness

1:15:12 ↗ and the actual

1:15:14 ↗ how things work with conflict of

1:15:16 ↗ interest is covered earlier under number

1:15:19 ↗ eight it seems a little confusing to me

1:15:22 ↗ to have a mention of conflicts of

1:15:25 ↗ interest here

1:15:27 ↗ but the discussion under aid about

1:15:30 ↗ what you do if there's a conflict of

1:15:32 ↗ interest

1:15:34 ↗ and and wondering can that be

1:15:37 ↗ since we call this conflict of interest

1:15:39 ↗ and fairness can we include

1:15:41 ↗ what you should do if there's a conflict

1:15:43 ↗ of interest in this section instead of

1:15:46 ↗ eight

1:15:49 ↗ my hesitation in doing that is that this

1:15:52 ↗ is specifically related to public

1:15:54 ↗ hearings

1:15:55 ↗ and the conflict of interest

1:15:58 ↗ above applies more broadly than just to

1:16:01 ↗ public hearings

1:16:04 ↗ so i think the question might be should

1:16:06 ↗ conflict of interest be removed from

1:16:08 ↗ this section

1:16:10 ↗ um

1:16:11 ↗ rather than trying to fold conflict of

1:16:13 ↗ interest in here

1:16:17 ↗ that would make sense too yeah because

1:16:19 ↗ the only way i saw it place i saw it was

1:16:20 ↗ number four

1:16:22 ↗ where it's prohibited which is already

1:16:24 ↗ discussed above so

1:16:26 ↗ i'd be fine with that if we took it out

1:16:31 ↗ so that would be

1:16:32 ↗ you're recommending

1:16:34 ↗ the deletion of item number four from

1:16:36 ↗ atlas

1:16:38 ↗ and and on the title it would just say

1:16:39 ↗ appearance of fairness disclosures

1:16:42 ↗ i think the standard questions for

1:16:44 ↗ apparentness of fairness do have the the

1:16:47 ↗ question about um do you have any

1:16:50 ↗ conflict of interest or material

1:16:52 ↗ gain so

1:16:53 ↗ i'm not sure we can delete it from when

1:16:55 ↗ we ask you the first four questions

1:16:57 ↗ during the appearance of fairness

1:17:00 ↗ um you know questions

1:17:03 ↗ but the second time the section 8 was

1:17:05 ↗ sort of a second time around if there

1:17:08 ↗ wasn't any conflict of interest to begin

1:17:10 ↗ with but you're right about to

1:17:12 ↗ deliberate

1:17:13 ↗ and or on a topic that that's a second

1:17:16 ↗ time to kind of disclose anything that

1:17:18 ↗ came during the deliberations part

1:17:22 ↗ that's the way i was reading it but i'm

1:17:24 ↗ not sure we can delete it from from here

1:17:31 ↗ do do we have the standard questions we

1:17:33 ↗ asked during the appearance i believe we

1:17:36 ↗ one of the questions deals with conflict

1:17:37 ↗ of interest there

1:17:42 ↗ lucy do you have that one

1:17:45 ↗ i'm looking for it right now let me um

1:17:52 ↗ yeah so if the

1:17:54 ↗ so if conflict adventure

1:17:56 ↗ that makes sense if it's considered one

1:17:59 ↗ of the items under pureness of fenris

1:18:01 ↗ doctrine

1:18:03 ↗ and if we need to include that but then

1:18:05 ↗ i would say we would take out conflict

1:18:07 ↗ of interest from the title b

1:18:10 ↗ because then it would just be about a

1:18:12 ↗ fairness

1:18:13 ↗ appearance of fairness disclosures

1:18:15 ↗ um

1:18:17 ↗ i think that the implication of all the

1:18:20 ↗ questions that we do is a conflict of

1:18:22 ↗ interest but i don't think we use

1:18:23 ↗ exactly that term

1:18:25 ↗ so maybe the splitting of the baby is

1:18:28 ↗ that we take it out of the title of b

1:18:30 ↗ but we leave it in uncapitalized form in

1:18:34 ↗ number four

1:18:36 ↗ so that it's a more generic

1:18:38 ↗ sense of the conflict of interest and

1:18:41 ↗ not a um

1:18:44 ↗ specific

1:18:46 ↗ term

1:18:48 ↗ commissioner morgan is that aggression

1:18:50 ↗ that sounds reasonable to me

1:18:52 ↗ commissioner dylan uh you have your hand

1:18:54 ↗ up

1:18:55 ↗ uh no i i was going to suggest something

1:18:58 ↗ similar that it may be a little bit

1:19:00 ↗ clunky but i think there's some nuances

1:19:02 ↗ in in both places that it's probably

1:19:05 ↗ safer to leave it in

1:19:06 ↗ okay so uh any objections to amending

1:19:09 ↗ the title um by eliminating

1:19:12 ↗ the conflict of interest statement

1:19:16 ↗ no objections okay any other

1:19:19 ↗ um

1:19:20 ↗ questions or um edits under section 11.

1:19:24 ↗ commissioner sanford

1:19:26 ↗ on the that same section 411b it says a

1:19:29 ↗ couple of times that

1:19:32 ↗ the challenge remember would would be

1:19:33 ↗ excused from voting on the issue is it

1:19:36 ↗ just voting or is it participating at

1:19:39 ↗ all

1:19:41 ↗ um it's

1:19:43 ↗ oh

1:19:44 ↗ i see what you're saying yeah it occurs

1:19:46 ↗ in that section twice

1:19:51 ↗ that's right at the beginning and then

1:19:52 ↗ it's down toward the end

1:19:54 ↗ after commission members have completed

1:20:00 ↗ well i

1:20:02 ↗ intend and um

1:20:04 ↗ you know i think the clarity is good um

1:20:07 ↗ if a member is excused from voting they

1:20:10 ↗ shall leave the chamber

1:20:13 ↗ uh the intent of that is that they're

1:20:15 ↗ leaving immediately

1:20:17 ↗ not before

1:20:20 ↗ voting

1:20:21 ↗ but immediately upon being excused

1:20:25 ↗ because they're it's important that they

1:20:27 ↗ are not

1:20:29 ↗ influencing

1:20:31 ↗ other members or the discussion

1:20:34 ↗ by their presence

1:20:36 ↗ i'm wondering if instead of excuse the

1:20:38 ↗ member from voting maybe we could do

1:20:41 ↗ excuse the member from part further

1:20:44 ↗ participation in the meeting or from

1:20:47 ↗ participating in the meeting

1:20:50 ↗ and is that really the intent at a point

1:20:52 ↗ at which someone declares that

1:20:53 ↗ essentially they must leave is that

1:20:55 ↗ correct

1:20:56 ↗ um maybe

1:20:58 ↗ uh

1:20:59 ↗ what if the edit was if a member is

1:21:01 ↗ excused

1:21:03 ↗ from voting

1:21:05 ↗ um they shall leave the chamber

1:21:07 ↗ immediately

1:21:10 ↗ that sounds good to me there and um

1:21:13 ↗ again down at the bottom i guess that

1:21:15 ↗ would be

1:21:16 ↗ something of a rewrite as well if such a

1:21:18 ↗ challenge is made by the public the

1:21:20 ↗ commission shall then deliberate and

1:21:21 ↗ vote whether to excuse

1:21:24 ↗ the excuse the challenged member from

1:21:26 ↗ participating in the meeting instead of

1:21:28 ↗ from voting on the issue

1:21:31 ↗ i'm sorry i don't know where you're

1:21:33 ↗ reading from yeah it's down at the

1:21:35 ↗ bottom of that same section it's the

1:21:36 ↗ last paragraph that starts after

1:21:38 ↗ commission members have completed their

1:21:40 ↗ appearance fairness

1:21:43 ↗ and i was referring to the last sentence

1:21:44 ↗ of that

1:21:47 ↗ just above see the opening of public

1:21:49 ↗ hearing

1:21:53 ↗ so then and then add um

1:22:00 ↗ i i was suggesting

1:22:02 ↗ yeah i was just suggesting just sheldon

1:22:05 ↗ deliberate and vote whether to excuse

1:22:07 ↗ the challenged member from participating

1:22:09 ↗ in the meeting

1:22:14 ↗ um

1:22:16 ↗ i would be inclined to leave the

1:22:18 ↗ language and add the sentence that we

1:22:21 ↗ were just editing above that if a member

1:22:23 ↗ is excused they shall leave the chamber

1:22:25 ↗ immediately

1:22:26 ↗ um

1:22:28 ↗ that would be another way to do it sure

1:22:30 ↗ yeah

1:22:31 ↗ only because the city attorney liked

1:22:33 ↗ this language so i i'm hesitant to

1:22:35 ↗ change it

1:22:37 ↗ you can do it twice then that's good

1:22:39 ↗ then lucy would have to explain herself

1:22:41 ↗ tomorrow

1:22:43 ↗ and i i think it ought to be an excused

1:22:44 ↗ absence too because they they went so

1:22:48 ↗ don't leave it up in the air

1:22:52 ↗ commissioner morgan

1:22:55 ↗ um one other question about that the in

1:22:58 ↗ the section the

1:22:59 ↗ uh part that says a commission member

1:23:01 ↗ shall consult with the city attorney

1:23:04 ↗ ahead of the meeting determine if they

1:23:05 ↗ should recuse themselves

1:23:07 ↗ um

1:23:09 ↗ but then if say it was the only matter

1:23:12 ↗ on the dock at that night you would

1:23:14 ↗ essentially have to show up

1:23:17 ↗ um announce your attend and then leave

1:23:19 ↗ the chamber so would they not be allowed

1:23:22 ↗ just to say

1:23:23 ↗ i'm not going to attend the meeting and

1:23:25 ↗ make it i want an excused absence they

1:23:28 ↗ have to show up and actually

1:23:30 ↗ disclose that

1:23:32 ↗ so i've had this conversation with the

1:23:35 ↗ city attorney recently

1:23:36 ↗ and um in fact it is an important part

1:23:40 ↗ of the record

1:23:41 ↗ and so doing it in that a inter more

1:23:45 ↗ indirect um

1:23:47 ↗ manner uh where it would be coming in

1:23:50 ↗ via staff member rather than as an

1:23:53 ↗ official part of the record of making

1:23:55 ↗ that declaration

1:23:57 ↗ and then being voted voted to be excused

1:24:01 ↗ um is an important part of um

1:24:05 ↗ precluding a potential challenge

1:24:12 ↗ thank you

1:24:13 ↗ did we capture the edits there uh lucy

1:24:16 ↗ to that section so

1:24:18 ↗ here's the the edits that i've made in b

1:24:21 ↗ first of all it's like the interest and

1:24:24 ↗ is being removed from the title

1:24:26 ↗ um

1:24:27 ↗ then um

1:24:31 ↗ if a member is excused strike from

1:24:34 ↗ voting they shall leave the chamber

1:24:36 ↗ immediately

1:24:37 ↗ and then in the next sentence they will

1:24:39 ↗ be considered

1:24:43 ↗ i guess i should say

1:24:45 ↗ and excuse

1:24:46 ↗ absence

1:24:51 ↗ when voting occurs

1:24:53 ↗ um and then uh

1:24:57 ↗ the second last paragraph

1:25:00 ↗ um

1:25:02 ↗ can be

1:25:03 ↗ about

1:25:04 ↗ correspondence commission members

1:25:07 ↗ should not read or reply to any

1:25:09 ↗ correspondence received from the

1:25:11 ↗ applicant or the public on a

1:25:12 ↗ quasi-judicial matter

1:25:15 ↗ and then um the last paragraph of b

1:25:18 ↗ would have the sentence if a member is

1:25:20 ↗ excused they shall leave the chamber

1:25:21 ↗ immediately

1:25:26 ↗ and we're at the point where it would be

1:25:28 ↗ helpful for me to share my screen

1:25:30 ↗ temporarily i would be glad to do so

1:25:33 ↗ are people comfortable with the answer

1:25:35 ↗ would you like to see them on the screen

1:25:39 ↗ no objections i think

1:25:41 ↗ i think everybody gave me a thumbs up

1:25:43 ↗ was that a hand up commissioner schulte

1:25:45 ↗ or a thumbs up uh there was a both

1:25:48 ↗ thumbs up and we should go ahead an

1:25:50 ↗ additional question on that last

1:25:52 ↗ paragraph right before c where it states

1:25:57 ↗ the chair shall invite members of the

1:25:58 ↗ public to raise a challenge under the

1:26:00 ↗ appearance of fairness doctrine

1:26:02 ↗ would the members of public include the

1:26:04 ↗ applicant at this point or do we need to

1:26:06 ↗ state

1:26:07 ↗ the applicant and the members of the

1:26:09 ↗ public

1:26:12 ↗ i um

1:26:14 ↗ it's an interesting question i think

1:26:16 ↗ it's just an open question to the room

1:26:19 ↗ okay and that anyone may respond but

1:26:22 ↗ again if that clarification seems

1:26:25 ↗ important um we can certainly add that

1:26:28 ↗ i think we made that clarification up

1:26:30 ↗ above as well

1:26:32 ↗ that we're referring to both the

1:26:33 ↗ applicant

1:26:34 ↗ and the public so i think that would be

1:26:37 ↗ consistent at that here as commissioner

1:26:39 ↗ schulte

1:26:40 ↗ suggests uh other anybody object to

1:26:43 ↗ doing that

1:26:46 ↗ i'm hearing no objection so we could

1:26:48 ↗ make that addition that would be helpful

1:26:50 ↗ thanks and and before we vote on it um

1:26:54 ↗ or before you take any action i will

1:26:57 ↗ share my screen so we can scroll through

1:26:59 ↗ and um

1:27:01 ↗ commissioner sanford can make the final

1:27:03 ↗ um tweaks

1:27:05 ↗ [Laughter]

1:27:09 ↗ you know i'm just sticking to the top

1:27:11 ↗ level stuff tonight i know you are i i

1:27:13 ↗ realized i made a terrible error um not

1:27:17 ↗ having you go through it with your

1:27:18 ↗ fine-tooth comb

1:27:20 ↗ okay so we're making good progress here

1:27:22 ↗ we're getting close um

1:27:24 ↗ any other you see we are still in

1:27:27 ↗ section

1:27:29 ↗ nine right eleven eleven excuse me 11.

1:27:32 ↗ any other

1:27:33 ↗ questions on edits

1:27:35 ↗ commissioner sanford

1:27:37 ↗ uh just at the top of that section 4.11

1:27:41 ↗ in the list of components of the

1:27:43 ↗ meetings

1:27:44 ↗ i just noticed that that list doesn't

1:27:47 ↗ have any adjournment at the end but 10

1:27:48 ↗ does

1:27:49 ↗ i don't know if

1:27:51 ↗ because 11 is a more detailed subset i

1:27:54 ↗ don't know if it requires a german

1:27:57 ↗ i would say no because after the public

1:28:00 ↗ hearing there might be uh regular

1:28:03 ↗ business reports uh other business and

1:28:05 ↗ announcements and so

1:28:07 ↗ i would say then we would

1:28:09 ↗ go back to uh section 10

1:28:13 ↗ to address

1:28:14 ↗ any accidents after the public hearing

1:28:17 ↗ right makes sense okay yeah

1:28:20 ↗ that makes sense to me too okay

1:28:22 ↗ anything else on section 11

1:28:25 ↗ i have a question on inadvertent uh

1:28:28 ↗ reading of uh

1:28:30 ↗ of uh communications from the public or

1:28:33 ↗ um

1:28:35 ↗ you know if if they send an email and

1:28:36 ↗ they have return receipt they see that

1:28:38 ↗ you've opened the document

1:28:40 ↗ um do you need to then just say

1:28:44 ↗ i read a as an email from

1:28:47 ↗ the applicant

1:28:48 ↗ didn't delete it or

1:28:51 ↗ i guess i'm just trying to

1:28:52 ↗ because it's saying you need to announce

1:28:54 ↗ that you've read the corresponds or

1:28:56 ↗ inadvertently read the correspondence

1:28:59 ↗ right so um i would recommend

1:29:02 ↗ if that inadvertent uh

1:29:05 ↗ reading or

1:29:07 ↗ access to the correspondence occurs that

1:29:09 ↗ you would let the staff liaise on no

1:29:12 ↗ and then um so that they can counsel you

1:29:17 ↗ and then during the appearance of

1:29:20 ↗ fairness

1:29:21 ↗ you would disclose

1:29:23 ↗ uh that

1:29:24 ↗ that had taken place

1:29:26 ↗ and then the um applicant and the public

1:29:30 ↗ would have the opportunity um

1:29:33 ↗ to

1:29:33 ↗ you know question whether that was

1:29:35 ↗ significant or not okay thanks

1:29:41 ↗ good question

1:29:43 ↗ um any other i'm sure sanford

1:29:47 ↗ okay last one on 11. um if the public

1:29:49 ↗ hearing is to be continued that's in 4

1:29:52 ↗ 11 h

1:29:54 ↗ um if these requirements are not met and

1:29:56 ↗ so on i was wondering if this is

1:29:58 ↗ redundant

1:29:59 ↗ with 411l or if this is

1:30:03 ↗ like what i thought was redundant before

1:30:05 ↗ and there's really a shade of difference

1:30:07 ↗ in in the two of these

1:30:12 ↗ so 4 11 h

1:30:14 ↗ and 4 11 l

1:30:47 ↗ so i think that um

1:30:57 ↗ i think

1:30:59 ↗ so

1:31:00 ↗ you're bringing up a great point i think

1:31:02 ↗ that the

1:31:02 ↗ um

1:31:04 ↗ that h is intended to address

1:31:08 ↗ uh the process used if the commission

1:31:10 ↗ does not have a consensus about closing

1:31:13 ↗ the hearing

1:31:14 ↗ whereas um

1:31:16 ↗ l is about continuing the hearing

1:31:20 ↗ if um

1:31:21 ↗ there is

1:31:24 ↗ uh you know you're not able to

1:31:25 ↗ accommodate everything

1:31:28 ↗ uh during that one evening

1:31:31 ↗ um but i i appreciate that that's not

1:31:34 ↗ that's

1:31:35 ↗ pretty subtle

1:31:37 ↗ yeah so there is a nuance there

1:31:40 ↗ but i wonder if the general statement

1:31:43 ↗ could cover it

1:31:44 ↗ by adding a word or to the 411l

1:31:58 ↗ so um i i do think h is important in

1:32:01 ↗ that location because it this is a

1:32:04 ↗ series of steps that you're going

1:32:06 ↗ through in the hearing

1:32:08 ↗ um

1:32:14 ↗ so i i um

1:32:15 ↗ [Music]

1:32:17 ↗ i'm not sure that the second paragraph

1:32:20 ↗ under h um tisha

1:32:22 ↗ is necessary um because i think l does

1:32:26 ↗ cover the

1:32:27 ↗ procedural

1:32:29 ↗ uh issues

1:32:31 ↗ um and i think that's really the

1:32:33 ↗ distinction is h is trying to say

1:32:36 ↗ do all the commissioners agree that the

1:32:37 ↗ public hearing that the hearing is being

1:32:40 ↗ closed because when that's closed there

1:32:42 ↗ are certain things that can no longer

1:32:44 ↗ take place

1:32:45 ↗ and so

1:32:46 ↗ if there is an objection this is how you

1:32:48 ↗ handle it

1:32:49 ↗ whereas

1:32:53 ↗ l is more around notice

1:32:57 ↗ well however i do see that

1:33:01 ↗ h is specific to quasi judicials

1:33:06 ↗ and l is all hearings is that right

1:33:10 ↗ well this is all under public hearing

1:33:17 ↗ right

1:33:20 ↗ the way i'm reading it is h is

1:33:23 ↗ if i if you get in the discussion and a

1:33:26 ↗ commissioner doesn't feel like there's

1:33:27 ↗ been an adequate discussion

1:33:29 ↗ or it hasn't hasn't been everybody heard

1:33:32 ↗ out

1:33:33 ↗ that uh

1:33:34 ↗ they'll they will uh

1:33:36 ↗ take a vote

1:33:39 ↗ to continue the hearing

1:33:41 ↗ l is really if you haven't fulfilled all

1:33:44 ↗ the agenda items so i think i think

1:33:46 ↗ there is a nuance of difference one is

1:33:49 ↗ we don't think we've heard enough the

1:33:50 ↗ other is there's still agenda items that

1:33:52 ↗ we haven't we haven't redeemed yet

1:33:57 ↗ commissioner dillon

1:33:59 ↗ i'm actually thinking that the language

1:34:02 ↗ in

1:34:03 ↗ l could be substituted for

1:34:06 ↗ the

1:34:06 ↗ the first two sentences of the second

1:34:09 ↗ paragraph in h

1:34:12 ↗ so it would provide

1:34:15 ↗ the another situation where it could be

1:34:17 ↗ continued

1:34:18 ↗ um but then still round out the last

1:34:21 ↗ sentence in in h i think is important to

1:34:23 ↗ be there that the commission may not

1:34:25 ↗ proceed to deliberate and vote until the

1:34:27 ↗ public hearing is closed but there are a

1:34:28 ↗ couple sentences

1:34:30 ↗ in l that are

1:34:31 ↗ that are the same and it adds a little

1:34:33 ↗ bit of information about continuance

1:34:36 ↗ mr sanford

1:34:38 ↗ i'm noticing another issue though that i

1:34:40 ↗ didn't see before up in

1:34:42 ↗ uh where we in h

1:34:45 ↗ the pair the paragraph regarding the

1:34:47 ↗ continuing the meeting

1:34:49 ↗ uh a majority vote will be required to

1:34:51 ↗ continue the hearing once the public

1:34:53 ↗ hearing is closed and a quasi-judicial

1:34:55 ↗ matter no additional testimony may be

1:34:56 ↗ taken and so on

1:34:58 ↗ but then the next paragraph still refers

1:35:00 ↗ to a public hearing being continued

1:35:03 ↗ so i wonder if we have a place uh

1:35:05 ↗ um if the

1:35:07 ↗ wording regarding once the public

1:35:09 ↗ hearing is closed and a quasi-judicial

1:35:10 ↗ matter should really be last should

1:35:12 ↗ really be the final paragraph

1:35:15 ↗ because the two paragraphs above are

1:35:16 ↗ really dealing with continuation

1:35:19 ↗ and whether that final paragraph

1:35:21 ↗ regarding what happens when it's closed

1:35:25 ↗ is this language or the other i'm not

1:35:27 ↗ sure but i i think

1:35:29 ↗ the last sentence

1:35:31 ↗ in the first paragraph of h may be out

1:35:33 ↗ of order and should be moved to the end

1:35:35 ↗ of that section

1:35:42 ↗ uh

1:35:43 ↗ so

1:35:44 ↗ that's um

1:35:47 ↗ the commission may not proceed

1:35:49 ↗ to deliberate

1:35:50 ↗ um i think that that sentence does

1:35:54 ↗ make sense moving up to the end of the

1:35:56 ↗ first paragraph under h

1:35:59 ↗ and potentially the first sentence in

1:36:01 ↗ the second paragraph of h

1:36:04 ↗ be deleted and rely on

1:36:06 ↗ l instead

1:36:14 ↗ and then my remaining point would be

1:36:16 ↗ that once the public hearing is closed

1:36:18 ↗ on a quasi-judicial matter should be

1:36:20 ↗ last in that section

1:36:22 ↗ i'm sorry say that again yeah that uh

1:36:25 ↗ the sentence once the public hearing is

1:36:27 ↗ closed on a quasi-judicial matter no

1:36:29 ↗ additional testimony may be taken and

1:36:32 ↗ the commission will be limited to

1:36:33 ↗ questions to staff only deliberations

1:36:35 ↗ and voting i'm proposing that that be

1:36:37 ↗ last

1:36:38 ↗ in section h since it regards closing

1:36:42 ↗ and the other two paragraphs regard

1:36:44 ↗ continuation

1:36:47 ↗ i would agree that that makes sense too

1:36:49 ↗ to move that to the bottom

1:36:52 ↗ it's the the wording's fine it's just

1:36:55 ↗ it's a sequence question really it's

1:36:57 ↗ what community correct is reasoning

1:36:59 ↗ correct in other words i'm just

1:37:01 ↗ uh suggesting moving the language

1:37:03 ↗ regarding closing to the end of that

1:37:05 ↗ section mr morgan

1:37:11 ↗ thank you i actually have a question

1:37:12 ↗ about the the wording of that sentence

1:37:14 ↗ itself and from a practical standpoint

1:37:16 ↗ because there have been a lot of

1:37:17 ↗ situations where

1:37:18 ↗ we've closed the public hearing we're

1:37:20 ↗ discussing something and then a question

1:37:22 ↗ comes up that we want answered by the

1:37:24 ↗ applicant or in some cases a member of

1:37:27 ↗ the public

1:37:29 ↗ but it sounds as if the way this is

1:37:31 ↗ written we cannot

1:37:34 ↗ send any questions to anybody other than

1:37:36 ↗ the staff and so is there some

1:37:40 ↗ way in here it can be written such that

1:37:42 ↗ we can do that if we want to

1:37:45 ↗ um

1:37:46 ↗ no um

1:37:49 ↗ but i do um

1:37:52 ↗ it's your deliberations that need to

1:37:55 ↗ take place

1:37:57 ↗ after the public hearing is closed and

1:37:59 ↗ by commission practice you tend to have

1:38:02 ↗ a question phase

1:38:05 ↗ and a deliberation

1:38:06 ↗ and a comment and sort of discussion

1:38:09 ↗ phase

1:38:10 ↗ and i think that is the right practice

1:38:13 ↗ um

1:38:14 ↗ but that we need to close the hearing

1:38:16 ↗ between those two phases

1:38:18 ↗ um so that you have the opportunity to

1:38:21 ↗ ask your questions potentially direct

1:38:24 ↗ them to an applicant

1:38:26 ↗ or to a member of the public if you so

1:38:28 ↗ choose but that once you're past

1:38:32 ↗ questions

1:38:33 ↗ then

1:38:34 ↗ the hearing is closed and you're

1:38:36 ↗ commenting and deliberating

1:38:46 ↗ so yeah i guess i'm still sort of

1:38:50 ↗ because it seems like once the public is

1:38:52 ↗ done

1:38:53 ↗ the applicant has spoken the public is

1:38:54 ↗ spoken and then chair says okay we're

1:38:57 ↗ going to close the public hearing

1:39:00 ↗ and then we move into our

1:39:01 ↗ [Music]

1:39:02 ↗ discussions deliberations things like

1:39:04 ↗ that

1:39:06 ↗ if we're going through those things and

1:39:08 ↗ then something comes up where

1:39:10 ↗ we have a question

1:39:12 ↗ that the applicant would be best able to

1:39:14 ↗ answer

1:39:17 ↗ technically we can't

1:39:19 ↗ get an answer from them then

1:39:21 ↗ in our deliberations

1:39:28 ↗ which which seems frustrating that we

1:39:30 ↗ wouldn't be able to do that

1:39:35 ↗ there may be a question for the city

1:39:37 ↗ attorney to respond to i'm not sure that

1:39:40 ↗ has been our practice on

1:39:42 ↗ occasion we do

1:39:43 ↗ ask for clarification of a piece of

1:39:45 ↗ information that we're looking at from

1:39:47 ↗ the applicant for example commissioner

1:39:49 ↗ morgan's right on that

1:39:52 ↗ that helps with our deliberation

1:39:57 ↗ and i do know there are

1:39:59 ↗ there's

1:40:01 ↗ formalities to public hearings that

1:40:03 ↗ we've got to follow i mean it's under

1:40:05 ↗ state law we've got to do that so what

1:40:07 ↗ are

1:40:08 ↗ what a lot of people we have we may have

1:40:09 ↗ to ask that offline

1:40:12 ↗ well and and i think um

1:40:15 ↗ so i'm not sure that there's latitude to

1:40:16 ↗ change this language

1:40:18 ↗ um but there is

1:40:20 ↗ you know

1:40:21 ↗ it has also been our practice to hold a

1:40:25 ↗ public hearing over multiple nights

1:40:28 ↗ and part of the reason we do that is to

1:40:31 ↗ allow

1:40:33 ↗ staff and the applicant to respond

1:40:36 ↗ in the briefing response memo to the

1:40:38 ↗ issues that have been brought up

1:40:41 ↗ by the commissioners and the public to

1:40:45 ↗ further document the record

1:40:48 ↗ and to ensure that if there's editing or

1:40:52 ↗ revising of conditions that that can

1:40:54 ↗ take place

1:40:56 ↗ and all of that needs to occur before

1:41:02 ↗ we get to deliberations so

1:41:05 ↗ i think the question is whether there is

1:41:07 ↗ a way to

1:41:09 ↗ structure this

1:41:11 ↗ to um

1:41:13 ↗ give the commission access

1:41:16 ↗ to the um

1:41:18 ↗ opportunities that they you want to make

1:41:21 ↗ sure you're making a decision on with a

1:41:24 ↗ full understanding

1:41:26 ↗ and

1:41:28 ↗ not

1:41:30 ↗ not

1:41:31 ↗ violating the tenants of the public

1:41:33 ↗ hearing

1:41:35 ↗ and and i think part of it could also be

1:41:37 ↗ then too if we

1:41:38 ↗ if we

1:41:39 ↗ know well ahead of time if we truly

1:41:41 ↗ understand it that

1:41:43 ↗ once we say that public hearings close

1:41:46 ↗ we just can't

1:41:47 ↗ and do that

1:41:49 ↗ and that's why

1:41:51 ↗ and i think that was the intent of

1:41:52 ↗ making this very clear in here because

1:41:54 ↗ um

1:41:55 ↗ that sort of crisp line is is

1:41:59 ↗ important

1:42:00 ↗ yeah

1:42:02 ↗ okay

1:42:13 ↗ so what i've done so far and and

1:42:17 ↗ correct me if i've misunderstood

1:42:20 ↗ is under eight closing of the public

1:42:23 ↗ hearing

1:42:24 ↗ the first paragraph is unchanged except

1:42:28 ↗ the last sentence of the second

1:42:30 ↗ paragraph the commission may not proceed

1:42:32 ↗ to deliberate et cetera

1:42:34 ↗ is now the second to last sentence in

1:42:37 ↗ the first paragraph of h

1:42:40 ↗ so it would say um the pair should ask

1:42:43 ↗ the commission if there's any objection

1:42:45 ↗ to closing the hearing if there is no

1:42:47 ↗ objection

1:42:48 ↗ the public comment portion will be

1:42:50 ↗ closed if a commission member objects

1:42:52 ↗ vote will be taken on whether to

1:42:53 ↗ continue the public hearing a majority

1:42:56 ↗ vote will be required to continue the

1:42:58 ↗ hearing the commission may not proceed

1:43:00 ↗ to deliberate and vote on the issue

1:43:02 ↗ until the public hearing is closed once

1:43:04 ↗ the public hearing is closed on a

1:43:06 ↗ quasi-judicial matter no additional

1:43:09 ↗ testimony may be taken and the

1:43:10 ↗ commission will be limited to questions

1:43:12 ↗ to staff only deliberations and voting

1:43:17 ↗ the and then the next paragraph the

1:43:19 ↗ remainder of the next paragraph is

1:43:21 ↗ struck

1:43:26 ↗ commissioner you're muted um chair

1:43:30 ↗ nicely done um thanks for that

1:43:33 ↗ uh any objections to the language that

1:43:35 ↗ lucy just

1:43:37 ↗ commissioner dillon

1:43:39 ↗ i would actually flip those last two

1:43:41 ↗ sentences um the

1:43:43 ↗ um

1:43:45 ↗ the last sentence the commission may not

1:43:46 ↗ proceed to deliberate and vote on the

1:43:48 ↗ issue until the public hearing is closed

1:43:49 ↗ to me is the most final

1:43:52 ↗ of that process so i would just flip

1:43:54 ↗ those two sentences but no strong

1:43:56 ↗ objection if others feel differently

1:44:01 ↗ yeah any objections to commissioner

1:44:04 ↗ dylan's

1:44:05 ↗ recommended edit to flip those last two

1:44:08 ↗ sentences

1:44:10 ↗ um

1:44:11 ↗ i'm sorry i think i missed that um how

1:44:14 ↗ would the ending

1:44:16 ↗ paragraph read then

1:44:27 ↗ the rest of that second paragraph

1:44:30 ↗ um that was talking about the

1:44:32 ↗ continuance would go away and be covered

1:44:34 ↗ in l so it would just

1:44:36 ↗ be basically taking

1:44:38 ↗ the last sentence

1:44:39 ↗ of

1:44:40 ↗ the first paragraph in the last sentence

1:44:42 ↗ of the second paragraph

1:44:43 ↗ putting them together in one order or

1:44:45 ↗ the other

1:44:55 ↗ i will read the last three sentences um

1:44:58 ↗ if that's helpful to you yeah perfect

1:45:00 ↗ okay

1:45:00 ↗ so i'm going to start with a majority

1:45:02 ↗ vote

1:45:03 ↗ um and rather than reading the whole

1:45:05 ↗ paragraph a majority vote will be

1:45:08 ↗ required to continue the hearing the

1:45:10 ↗ commission may not proceed to deliberate

1:45:13 ↗ and vote on the issue until the public

1:45:15 ↗ hearing is closed

1:45:16 ↗ once the public hearing is closed on a

1:45:18 ↗ quasi-judicial matter no additional

1:45:20 ↗ testimony may be taken and the

1:45:23 ↗ commission will be limited to questions

1:45:25 ↗ to staff only deliberations and voting

1:45:29 ↗ or

1:45:30 ↗ a majority vote will be required to

1:45:32 ↗ continue the hearing once the public

1:45:34 ↗ clearing is closed on a quasi-judicial

1:45:37 ↗ matter no additional testimony may be

1:45:39 ↗ taken and the commission will be limited

1:45:41 ↗ to questions to staff only deliberations

1:45:44 ↗ and voting the commission may not

1:45:46 ↗ proceed to deliberate and vote on the

1:45:48 ↗ issue until the public hearing is closed

1:45:56 ↗ i think it works

1:46:00 ↗ others

1:46:01 ↗ uh agree disagree with that

1:46:06 ↗ any objections to that i'm playing with

1:46:08 ↗ it either way

1:46:10 ↗ the the language captures the way we

1:46:13 ↗ need to operate i mean

1:46:15 ↗ yeah i think we're fine

1:46:17 ↗ i just need to know which order you want

1:46:24 ↗ any objections to the last

1:46:26 ↗ um sequence that lucy read as the

1:46:31 ↗ final amendment

1:46:35 ↗ i prefer the last sequence she read

1:46:38 ↗ okay

1:46:39 ↗ i hear no other i hear no objections to

1:46:41 ↗ that so we'll use that uh last sequence

1:46:43 ↗ lucy okay

1:46:45 ↗ thank you

1:46:47 ↗ okay anything else in section 11.

1:46:54 ↗ yay okay section 12.

1:46:59 ↗ actually we're moving on to uh article

1:47:01 ↗ five

1:47:02 ↗ well there is a section twelve but i

1:47:04 ↗ don't know that

1:47:05 ↗ article five

1:47:08 ↗ article six any

1:47:11 ↗ questions or edits

1:47:13 ↗ and article well i'm pretty sure we're

1:47:16 ↗ okay with the last one

1:47:17 ↗ so i think that gets us

1:47:21 ↗ oh commissioner sanford below the line

1:47:25 ↗ you didn't read below the line oh chair

1:47:28 ↗ uh the link to the imc at the end there

1:47:31 ↗ actually goes to that's the that that's

1:47:33 ↗ the imc for the planning policy

1:47:35 ↗ commission

1:47:36 ↗ and uh our should be imc 1803 080 130.

1:47:43 ↗ nice catch i did not go that far

1:47:46 ↗ commissioner morgan

1:47:48 ↗ i do have one question on article 11 or

1:47:51 ↗ no six amendments

1:47:53 ↗ um they may be amended by a majority

1:47:55 ↗ vote of the full commission is there a

1:47:58 ↗ definition of the full commission does

1:48:01 ↗ that mean it has to be

1:48:03 ↗ seven regular members or can it be four

1:48:06 ↗ that's a quorum

1:48:13 ↗ okay lucy removed it muted

1:48:19 ↗ and i'm happy to answer that that's just

1:48:21 ↗ clarifying that um

1:48:25 ↗ it's not a majority of a quorum so if

1:48:28 ↗ you have four

1:48:30 ↗ four of you attending a meeting which

1:48:32 ↗ would be a legitimate meeting and three

1:48:34 ↗ of you voted in support that's not

1:48:36 ↗ sufficient there needs to be

1:48:39 ↗ four of you voting in support

1:48:42 ↗ it could be four or four or it could be

1:48:44 ↗ four of seven it's just clarifying that

1:48:46 ↗ four is the minimum threshold that can

1:48:48 ↗ adopt revisions to the rules and

1:48:50 ↗ regulations

1:48:52 ↗ so when it says a majority vote of the

1:48:54 ↗ full commission full commission means

1:48:57 ↗ seven members correct

1:49:02 ↗ should

1:49:03 ↗ i'm just just curious could that be

1:49:05 ↗ clarified to say by a vote a positive

1:49:08 ↗ vote of at least four members of the

1:49:10 ↗ commission

1:49:11 ↗ it could

1:49:17 ↗ the majority of well i think it's four

1:49:20 ↗ four is a majority of seven so that's

1:49:22 ↗ considered uh yes and atisha for the

1:49:26 ↗ quasi-judicial proceedings too if we

1:49:28 ↗ only have four members present that day

1:49:31 ↗ and they're making a decision on a

1:49:34 ↗ project and three say yes and one say no

1:49:37 ↗ that means it's a no because it's not a

1:49:39 ↗ majority of the seven

1:49:43 ↗ that has come up in some robert's rules

1:49:46 ↗ on a complicated hearing in one time i'm

1:49:48 ↗ not sure we run into a situation here

1:49:50 ↗ where we only have four members

1:49:52 ↗ attending but

1:49:53 ↗ it would be helpful to clarify

1:49:55 ↗ yeah many under under robert's rules um

1:49:59 ↗ if there's four commissioners present

1:50:01 ↗ and three are in support and one is

1:50:03 ↗ opposed that would still

1:50:05 ↗ pass if a a majority of the commission

1:50:08 ↗ is the requirement

1:50:10 ↗ i know um

1:50:11 ↗ i know with the city council there are

1:50:13 ↗ some provisions in state law that that

1:50:16 ↗ trigger

1:50:17 ↗ this provision a majority of the full

1:50:20 ↗ membership

1:50:22 ↗ and so

1:50:23 ↗ uh it depends if there's not a provision

1:50:25 ↗ in state law then i would say

1:50:28 ↗ three to one would be

1:50:29 ↗ um

1:50:31 ↗ pass

1:50:33 ↗ yeah that we walked away from one

1:50:34 ↗ hearing with that idea and the next day

1:50:37 ↗ the city attorney said no that meant it

1:50:40 ↗ it failed and then we had to go back and

1:50:42 ↗ kind of

1:50:43 ↗ redo that thing so i don't know whether

1:50:45 ↗ which rules played out over there but

1:50:47 ↗ it's

1:50:49 ↗ but again it's a hypothetical situation

1:50:51 ↗ we may not run into a situation where we

1:50:53 ↗ only have four members present because

1:50:54 ↗ we have alternates so

1:50:58 ↗ commissioner morgan did you want to make

1:51:00 ↗ a

1:51:01 ↗ recommendation on an edit to article

1:51:03 ↗ number

1:51:04 ↗ um

1:51:06 ↗ i i think would help just to clarify to

1:51:08 ↗ say that um and somehow to say it means

1:51:11 ↗ at least four yes votes

1:51:14 ↗ because again if it would it would if it

1:51:16 ↗ was five people voting and it was three

1:51:17 ↗ voted yes that would fail for this

1:51:21 ↗ amendment

1:51:23 ↗ [Music]

1:51:25 ↗ and so

1:51:26 ↗ instead of just saying full commission

1:51:28 ↗ unless we define full commission

1:51:35 ↗ and i would suggest um using four or

1:51:37 ↗ more

1:51:38 ↗ members in lieu

1:51:43 ↗ that sounds good to me

1:51:51 ↗ amended by

1:51:55 ↗ an affirmative vote of four or more

1:51:58 ↗ members

1:52:00 ↗ there that's that's yeah that i think

1:52:02 ↗ that works

1:52:04 ↗ good

1:52:11 ↗ okay

1:52:12 ↗ um

1:52:13 ↗ commissioner sanford are you good

1:52:18 ↗ okay

1:52:19 ↗ any

1:52:20 ↗ final call

1:52:22 ↗ commissioners any other questions or

1:52:24 ↗ suggested edits

1:52:28 ↗ all right seeing none good work so

1:52:31 ↗ lucy i think we're we need to move this

1:52:33 ↗ to a vote of the commission do we want

1:52:36 ↗ to walk through the document very

1:52:38 ↗ quickly so you can see the amendments

1:52:39 ↗ before

1:52:41 ↗ uh is that possible can you give your

1:52:42 ↗ screen um

1:52:44 ↗ yeah

1:52:46 ↗ if you're ready

1:52:47 ↗ okay so um

1:52:52 ↗ oops

1:52:55 ↗ i just

1:52:56 ↗ um bringing in a um into the chat uh

1:53:01 ↗ for uh commissioners

1:53:03 ↗ uh emotion

1:53:05 ↗ uh so that in case uh you can consider

1:53:08 ↗ that along with everything else i'm

1:53:10 ↗ about to show you

1:53:12 ↗ um okay

1:53:14 ↗ you're doing a good job multitasking

1:53:16 ↗ tonight lucy

1:53:18 ↗ thank you

1:53:22 ↗ there we go

1:53:32 ↗ all right is this big enough can people

1:53:34 ↗ see this

1:53:36 ↗ you might need to go a little bigger if

1:53:38 ↗ possible okay

1:53:40 ↗ or i can move it on to my big there that

1:53:42 ↗ that's good

1:53:43 ↗ is that is that big enough

1:53:49 ↗ all right um

1:53:50 ↗ this is done

1:53:52 ↗ so you know if you don't see

1:53:54 ↗ a line on the left or um

1:53:57 ↗ so here's our first

1:54:00 ↗ edit

1:54:02 ↗ under article 4 1 b

1:54:05 ↗ the staff liaison will cancel the

1:54:07 ↗ regular meeting

1:54:10 ↗ under d

1:54:11 ↗ if a regular meeting falls on a legal

1:54:13 ↗ holiday the terror will set an alternate

1:54:16 ↗ date in consultation with the staff

1:54:18 ↗ liaison

1:54:21 ↗ uh under special meetings special

1:54:23 ↗ meetings of the commission may be called

1:54:25 ↗ by the chair

1:54:26 ↗ in consultation with the staff liaison

1:54:35 ↗ uh

1:54:36 ↗ in f we're removing first or

1:54:42 ↗ in b

1:54:44 ↗ section five b

1:54:46 ↗ um

1:54:47 ↗ any member

1:54:49 ↗ anticipating absence from a meeting

1:54:51 ↗ should notify

1:54:52 ↗ the designated staff liaison in advance

1:54:55 ↗ of the meeting

1:55:01 ↗ inserting two

1:55:06 ↗ [Music]

1:55:11 ↗ if any written materials are provided to

1:55:13 ↗ the commission a copy shall also be

1:55:15 ↗ provided to the staff liaison or the

1:55:17 ↗ recording secretary during the meeting

1:55:19 ↗ or hearing

1:55:23 ↗ um

1:55:24 ↗ under voting if there's a conflict of

1:55:27 ↗ interest

1:55:28 ↗ the commissioner will be considered

1:55:31 ↗ ex

1:55:36 ↗ that doesn't work

1:55:44 ↗ um could do lucy suggesting their

1:55:47 ↗ absence will be considered excused

1:55:58 ↗ please remember that for the next

1:56:00 ↗ situation that shows up because this

1:56:02 ↗ occurs one other time

1:56:04 ↗ and i like that i like that wording

1:56:06 ↗ better

1:56:09 ↗ i think you have excused in there twice

1:56:12 ↗ uh their absence will be considered

1:56:16 ↗ you're good

1:56:17 ↗ okay

1:56:19 ↗ um

1:56:21 ↗ removed conflict of interest and from

1:56:23 ↗ the title

1:56:25 ↗ uh

1:56:27 ↗ if a member is excused they shall leave

1:56:29 ↗ the member of the chamber immediately

1:56:33 ↗ um

1:56:34 ↗ they will yeah this is

1:56:41 ↗ their absence will be considered excused

1:56:43 ↗ when voting occurs

1:56:49 ↗ commission members

1:56:50 ↗ should not read or reply to any

1:56:52 ↗ correspondence from the applicant or the

1:56:54 ↗ public on a quasi-judicial matter

1:57:00 ↗ after commission members have completed

1:57:02 ↗ their appearance of fairness disclosures

1:57:04 ↗ the chair shall invite the applicant and

1:57:06 ↗ the members of the public to raise a

1:57:08 ↗ challenge under the appearance of

1:57:10 ↗ fairness doctrine

1:57:12 ↗ if a member is excused they shall leave

1:57:14 ↗ the chamber immediately

1:57:21 ↗ so a majority vote will be required to

1:57:23 ↗ continue the hearing once the public

1:57:25 ↗ hearing is closed on a quasi-judicial

1:57:27 ↗ matter no additional testimony may be

1:57:29 ↗ taken and the commission will be limited

1:57:31 ↗ to questions to staff only deliberations

1:57:34 ↗ and voting the commission may not

1:57:36 ↗ proceed to deliberate and vote on the

1:57:38 ↗ issue until the public hearing is closed

1:57:41 ↗ next paragraph is removed

1:57:48 ↗ the rules and regulations may be amended

1:57:50 ↗ by an affirmative vote of four or more

1:57:52 ↗ members of the commission

1:57:55 ↗ and then we'll correct the citation here

1:57:59 ↗ i believe it's 80 through 100.

1:58:04 ↗ anything that um i should uh go back to

1:58:08 ↗ or that commissioners need to see again

1:58:14 ↗ i'm hearing

1:58:16 ↗ i'm hearing none

1:58:17 ↗ can we go

1:58:19 ↗ me go back to section two

1:58:21 ↗ sure

1:58:26 ↗ it was too quick in the draw

1:58:32 ↗ i'm noticing that we took out the

1:58:34 ↗ ability of the majority of the

1:58:36 ↗ commission to call a special meeting um

1:58:39 ↗ and and assign that just to the chair

1:58:42 ↗ and i'm wondering if

1:58:44 ↗ um i i would think in most circumstances

1:58:46 ↗ that would be just fine but i'm

1:58:48 ↗ wondering if if that's something that we

1:58:49 ↗ would want to retain in there

1:58:59 ↗ so that in your concern is

1:59:03 ↗ for a special meeting

1:59:06 ↗ that a hypothetical situation say where

1:59:08 ↗ the chair is is opposed to calling a

1:59:11 ↗ meeting and but the majority

1:59:13 ↗ um

1:59:15 ↗ would would overrule that i i don't

1:59:17 ↗ think it's very likely i'm just

1:59:20 ↗ wondering if we want to protect that

1:59:24 ↗ that avenue

1:59:28 ↗ so if you did we could move the in

1:59:30 ↗ consultation with the staff liaison to

1:59:33 ↗ right after

1:59:35 ↗ maybe called by the chair in

1:59:36 ↗ consultation with the staff liaison

1:59:38 ↗ liaison or by a majority vote of the

1:59:41 ↗ commission members

1:59:45 ↗ that would

1:59:46 ↗ that i think that would be fine too i

1:59:48 ↗ mean the majority of the commission

1:59:49 ↗ should be able to overload the chair

1:59:52 ↗ i would hope so yes so

1:59:55 ↗ as far as that edit any concern about

1:59:59 ↗ adding that clarification

2:00:01 ↗ nope

2:00:18 ↗ okay

2:00:20 ↗ personally comfortable with that

2:00:21 ↗ language

2:00:26 ↗ anything anyone before i draw too

2:00:29 ↗ quickly and shut down the shared

2:00:31 ↗ document anything else

2:00:33 ↗ anyone would like to revisit

2:00:40 ↗ okay lucy i think you're safe

2:00:43 ↗ okay uh good work getting all the way

2:00:45 ↗ through the document and excellent

2:00:47 ↗ questions and edits uh is there a motion

2:00:50 ↗ for approval

2:00:52 ↗ morgan

2:00:53 ↗ a question i guess um

2:00:57 ↗ mr chair lucy would i be voting in this

2:01:00 ↗ case as an alternate

2:01:02 ↗ the longest

2:01:04 ↗ standing alternate in place of remember

2:01:08 ↗ that's not in attendance

2:01:11 ↗ well this isn't a quasi-judicial matter

2:01:15 ↗ um

2:01:16 ↗ and uh it is pertaining to the entire

2:01:19 ↗ commission

2:01:20 ↗ uh

2:01:23 ↗ so uh tisha i don't know if you if you

2:01:25 ↗ have more insight

2:01:30 ↗ so uh the the total vote count tonight

2:01:33 ↗ can't exceed seven so i see there are

2:01:35 ↗ eight members present including two

2:01:36 ↗ alternates so one of the alternates

2:01:38 ↗ should vote as a regular member

2:01:41 ↗ and um

2:01:42 ↗ the by the rules that are about to be

2:01:44 ↗ adopted do provide some more specific

2:01:49 ↗ tools to help determine which alternate

2:01:51 ↗ they're not in place

2:01:53 ↗ right now so um

2:01:55 ↗ maybe the chair can help determine which

2:01:57 ↗ uh alternate votes on this issue

2:02:02 ↗ so

2:02:03 ↗ well perhaps perhaps since after the

2:02:05 ↗ vote

2:02:06 ↗ i would have to vote but before john

2:02:07 ↗ could vote maybe we let him vote on it

2:02:10 ↗ give him a chance to vote on something

2:02:14 ↗ uh you're funny actually i did read the

2:02:16 ↗ rules and the longest standing

2:02:17 ↗ membership gets to vote so

2:02:19 ↗ well those aren't adopted yet um that is

2:02:22 ↗ a new feature so um

2:02:24 ↗ you you could be the designated hitter

2:02:27 ↗ tonight

2:02:29 ↗ all

2:02:30 ↗ right okay

2:02:32 ↗ akita will uh take the chair um for the

2:02:36 ↗ vote then

2:02:37 ↗ okay so i need a motion

2:02:40 ↗ mr chair

2:02:43 ↗ i'd like to

2:02:44 ↗ i would like to make a motion to

2:02:46 ↗ recommend adoption of the development

2:02:48 ↗ commission rules of conduct and

2:02:49 ↗ procedures

2:02:50 ↗ as presented in tonight's agenda

2:02:52 ↗ materials

2:02:53 ↗ with the following amendments

2:02:57 ↗ exactly how are we entering the

2:02:59 ↗ amendments into the record

2:03:01 ↗ well um i think you might

2:03:03 ↗ i might make a suggest a friendly

2:03:05 ↗ amendment and since we've just reviewed

2:03:07 ↗ them in such detail and that it might

2:03:09 ↗ say as presented in tonight's agenda

2:03:11 ↗ materials and with the amendments as

2:03:13 ↗ shown

2:03:15 ↗ okay

2:03:16 ↗ i'm going to restate the motion

2:03:19 ↗ uh mr chair

2:03:20 ↗ i'd like to make the motion to recommend

2:03:22 ↗ adoption of the development commission

2:03:24 ↗ rules of conduct and procedures as

2:03:26 ↗ presented in tonight's agenda materials

2:03:28 ↗ with the following amendments

2:03:30 ↗ um

2:03:31 ↗ and of course i forgot what you just

2:03:33 ↗ said

2:03:34 ↗ it's in the chat

2:03:36 ↗ if it's useful to you oh i don't see it

2:03:39 ↗ um

2:03:42 ↗ and with the amendments as shown

2:03:44 ↗ great

2:03:45 ↗ second is there a second

2:03:48 ↗ a second

2:03:51 ↗ okay we have a motion and a second are

2:03:54 ↗ there any uh is there any additional

2:03:56 ↗ discussion

2:03:59 ↗ hearing on all those in favor say aye

2:04:02 ↗ aye aye aye aye

2:04:04 ↗ aye and opposed

2:04:06 ↗ cna

2:04:09 ↗ the motion carries by unanimous vote

2:04:12 ↗ thank you very much

2:04:13 ↗ um

2:04:14 ↗ let me

2:04:15 ↗ go back to my list here

2:04:22 ↗ on what's next for tonight

2:04:26 ↗ um i think do we have any council report

2:04:28 ↗ um

2:04:29 ↗ lucy for this evening

2:04:31 ↗ um i would actually defer to director

2:04:34 ↗ dollywall um

2:04:36 ↗ she attends council more often than i do

2:04:38 ↗ i don't have any items uh

2:04:41 ↗ that i'm aware of

2:04:44 ↗ yeah no reports on that

2:04:49 ↗ i've lost track of my notes so i'll just

2:04:51 ↗ have to

2:04:52 ↗ wing it here

2:04:53 ↗ are there any is there any other

2:04:55 ↗ business for the commission upcoming

2:04:56 ↗ meetings um that we should be aware of

2:05:00 ↗ um yes um thank you uh chair brennan um

2:05:04 ↗ there are several upcoming meetings and

2:05:07 ↗ we're hitting a busy season

2:05:09 ↗ as you may be aware

2:05:11 ↗ uh next week on october 28th we're

2:05:14 ↗ having a joint meeting with the

2:05:17 ↗ planning policy commission

2:05:19 ↗ beginning the first of three buckets

2:05:23 ↗ related to title 18

2:05:25 ↗ that the development commission has been

2:05:28 ↗ asked to work

2:05:29 ↗ with

2:05:32 ↗ planning policy commission on

2:05:34 ↗ uh there is a potential second meeting

2:05:37 ↗ on november 4th

2:05:39 ↗ uh that meeting will only occur if there

2:05:43 ↗ is additional discussion from the

2:05:45 ↗ october 28th meeting that needs to uh

2:05:49 ↗ needs

2:05:50 ↗ additional time

2:05:51 ↗ we don't anticipate that at this time

2:05:53 ↗ but we we don't know how robust the

2:05:56 ↗ conversation may be

2:05:58 ↗ uh and then november 17th is currently

2:06:02 ↗ scheduled as a

2:06:06 ↗ community conference and neighborhood

2:06:08 ↗ meeting

2:06:10 ↗ and on a project that's forthcoming

2:06:15 ↗ the uh lead planner holly keaton and

2:06:18 ↗ myself would like to meet with the uh

2:06:20 ↗ chair and vice chair

2:06:22 ↗ to uh we have some

2:06:23 ↗ [Music]

2:06:25 ↗ a revised approach

2:06:27 ↗ uh from how the furs at talus

2:06:29 ↗ meeting was structured that we would

2:06:31 ↗ like to meet with you and review

2:06:34 ↗ to make sure that makes sense

2:06:36 ↗ [Music]

2:06:38 ↗ just in terms of order and structure

2:06:41 ↗ and

2:06:42 ↗ then i believe that's the end of the

2:06:45 ↗ meetings for the year until january

2:06:48 ↗ um

2:06:49 ↗ the only other item i i wanted to add

2:06:52 ↗ unless they're questions about the

2:06:53 ↗ meetings

2:06:54 ↗ from any of the commissioners

2:06:58 ↗ no additional questions uh one real one

2:07:01 ↗ quick um before you move to the next

2:07:03 ↗ thing is we did not uh i don't know if

2:07:05 ↗ there was anybody on the call this

2:07:06 ↗ evening uh lucy but for public comment

2:07:09 ↗ if there are members of the public that

2:07:11 ↗ are present

2:07:12 ↗ this evening i give them an opportunity

2:07:14 ↗ to speak

2:07:16 ↗ um thank you for confirming that no

2:07:18 ↗ there are no other uh attendees at the

2:07:20 ↗ meeting

2:07:22 ↗ okay and back to you

2:07:24 ↗ um

2:07:26 ↗ one thing that you will notice going

2:07:29 ↗ forward is that

2:07:32 ↗ there will be

2:07:33 ↗ a request when you get a packet

2:07:36 ↗ to rsvp if you're not attending and i

2:07:40 ↗ just want to emphasize that because with

2:07:42 ↗ the webex format i actually cannot track

2:07:45 ↗ your responses unless i um get an email

2:07:49 ↗ so um for instance uh

2:07:53 ↗ i i do send the placeholders and you all

2:07:56 ↗ are very good about responding to those

2:07:58 ↗ but things do happen and change and so i

2:08:01 ↗ um

2:08:03 ↗ would request that if you are not going

2:08:05 ↗ to be able to attend that you

2:08:07 ↗ specifically send me an email um

2:08:12 ↗ letting me know that so that to ensure a

2:08:14 ↗ that you have an excused absence and b

2:08:17 ↗ that we have a quorum

2:08:19 ↗ because for instance this evening and

2:08:21 ↗ this is in no way

2:08:24 ↗ a criticism of any commissioners this

2:08:26 ↗ was an error on my part i actually

2:08:28 ↗ didn't know if we were going to have a

2:08:30 ↗ quorum this evening

2:08:32 ↗ so

2:08:33 ↗ we we will

2:08:35 ↗ add a note to the emails that go out

2:08:38 ↗ to be a tickler to ask you to let us

2:08:41 ↗ know

2:08:44 ↗ great thank you for that

2:08:46 ↗ any other questions um or comments for

2:08:50 ↗ this evening

2:08:52 ↗ hearing then i believe our business has

2:08:54 ↗ concluded so we will adjourn the meeting

2:08:57 ↗ at 9 10. have a good evening everybody

2:09:00 ↗ thank you

2:09:01 ↗ thank you everyone

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (9)

Michael Brennan, Chair Lucy Sloman, La

Kevin Price, Vice Chair Minnie Dhaliwal

Richard Sanford Tisha Gieser, D

Richard Sowa

Patty Dillon

Arthur Schulte

Jon Ikeda, Alternate (acting as regular member)

Mel Morgan

Brooke Shore

Staff (2)

nd Development Mgr. , CP&D Director

eputy City Clerk

Recommendations & actions (3)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

Hearing none, the minutes are approved.
MOVED BY PRICE, SECONDED BY DILLON to recommend adoption of the Development Commission Rules and Regulations as presented in the agenda materials with the amendments made at tonight’s meeting.
Sloman requested that Commission members send her an email when they receive the agenda packet if they cannot attend the meeting.