Development Commission · Wednesday, December 4, 2024 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of April 03, 2024

packet pp.3–9

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Wednesday, April 3, 2024

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Open Government Training

Information · Chris Grabowski, Deputy City Clerk · packet pp.11–21

▶ Watch from 1:16 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

Open Government Training CHRIS GRABOWSKI, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

Elect Chair & Vice Chair

Action · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.23–24

▶ Watch from 1:18 Open packet at p.23 ↗

Staff report:

Community Planning & Development P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3450 issaquahwa.gov

Rules & Regulations Review

Action · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.25–41

▶ Watch from 1:21 Open packet at p.25 ↗

Staff report:

Each year, following an election of Chair and Vice-Chair, the Commission is provided an opportunity to review the Rules and Regulations.

5. REPORTS

City Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.43–45

▶ Watch from 25:45 Open packet at p.43 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission 2025 Schedule (subject to change) 1/1/25 – Canceled 1/8/24 New Year’s Day

413 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ We are ready to go. That was good practice. Very smooth. Very smooth.

0:06 ↗ Good evening and welcome. I would like to call the December 4th City of Issaquah's

0:11 ↗ Development Commission meeting to order at 6.30 p.m. As a reminder, we do have a

0:16 ↗ remote aspect to our meetings. This means both staff and members of the public may

0:21 ↗ be participating in the meeting remotely via WebEx. For those attending remotely, If you have

0:27 ↗ questions or issues, please send the host a chat message or email staff at

0:33 ↗ stephenp.issaguawa.gov. There are no regular members absent tonight.

0:39 ↗ Our first item of business is to take action on the meeting minutes for April

0:44 ↗ the 3rd. Hope everybody's had a chance to review the minutes. Are there any corrections

0:49 ↗ to the April 3rd minutes provided in the agenda packet? Hearing

0:55 ↗ none, the minutes are approved as submitted. Next, I'd like to open the floor for

1:00 ↗ any members of the public, in person or virtually, who'd like to make a general

1:04 ↗ public comment. Mr. Padua, has anybody signed up to make general public comment?

1:11 ↗ Chair, no one has signed up to speak for public comment tonight. Okay, thank you.

1:16 ↗ So we'll go ahead with our first item of regular business tonight, open government training.

1:23 ↗ For this agenda item, Chris Grabowski from the City Clerk's Office will be presenting.

1:29 ↗ Chris, please go ahead with your presentation when you are ready.

1:37 ↗ CHRIS

1:46 ↗ GRABOWSKI, DEPUTY CITY CLEAR FOR ISSAQUA.

1:52 ↗ Tonight, I'm going to be going over some aspects of the Open Public Meetings Act

1:57 ↗ and Public Records Acts. These are often referred to as Sunshine Laws, and these are

2:03 ↗ relevant to your service as commissioners for the City of Issaquah. We provide this training

2:09 ↗ annually to all the City's Board and Commission members.

2:16 ↗ So the intent of this training is, has multiple aspects. First is to increase your

2:22 ↗ knowledge and decrease your risk. Number two, to decrease

2:27 ↗ violations or potential violations of the Open Public Meetings Act laws. Number three,

2:33 ↗ reduce the risk of lawsuits. And number four, to reduce inadvertent or unintentional

2:38 ↗ violations of the Open Public Meetings Act.

2:45 ↗ So the basic premise of OPMA or the Open Public Meetings

2:51 ↗ Act is that the public should be able to observe all city business being conducted.

2:56 ↗ And that means that in a physical meeting space like this, the doors have to

3:00 ↗ be open and unlocked and the room must be accessible to the public at all

3:05 ↗ times. In a virtual space, this means that we publish the meeting links and call

3:10 ↗ in information so that people can attend the meeting virtually. It also means that we

3:15 ↗ provide advanced notice of meetings so that people know where and when meetings

3:21 ↗ will be held and what will be discussed or acted upon. So the basic requirements

3:27 ↗ of the Open Public Meetings Act are that all meetings of a governing body of

3:31 ↗ a public agency must be open and all persons are permitted to attend. All

3:37 ↗ final actions must be adopted at a public meeting or they can be invalidated.

3:44 ↗ and secret voting is not allowed. So

3:52 ↗ here's some basic tenets of the Open Public Meetings Act, and the

3:57 ↗ city of Iskua's general practice. So the state requires that agendas be

4:03 ↗ posted and distributed prior to a meeting 24 hours, but the city's practice is that

4:09 ↗ we publish agendas at least four to five days in advance. Meeting minutes

4:15 ↗ must be taken. That's a state requirement. And our practice is that we video record

4:20 ↗ most meetings in addition to printed copies of the minutes.

4:27 ↗ State requires that a meeting be open at an open location. And the city's

4:32 ↗ practice is that most of our meetings are hybrid and have both a physical meeting

4:37 ↗ space and a virtual aspect. Public

4:43 ↗ comment is required if final action is being taken on a topic.

4:49 ↗ Our practice is that public comment is taken at all regular meetings. Virtual public

4:55 ↗ comment is offered for hybrid meetings. And with regard to special meetings, and sometimes you

5:01 ↗ will have special meetings, special meetings, any meeting that doesn't occur at the normal place

5:06 ↗ or time, And on special meetings,

5:12 ↗ only agenda items can be discussed or acted upon. There's no such thing as a

5:16 ↗ walk-on item at a special meeting. So

5:22 ↗ I'll touch briefly on executive sessions. It's pretty unlikely that executive sessions will ever

5:28 ↗ come before this body because executive sessions are limited to litigation, personnel issues,

5:34 ↗ and real estate sales and acquisitions, things that Obviously, you guys probably

5:40 ↗ won't be ever touching upon, but it's good to...

5:46 ↗ During an executive session, action cannot be taken. If an item is discussed during

5:52 ↗ executive session, the body has to go back into an open session to take any

5:56 ↗ kind of action on what was discussed at the executive session.

6:03 ↗ Let's talk about quorum. Quorums are very important. For the Development Commission, a quorum is

6:09 ↗ for members. A majority of members may travel together for purposes other than a

6:15 ↗ regular meeting or a special meeting, such as attending a potluck or a holiday party,

6:21 ↗ some sort of social function, as long as the members don't

6:26 ↗ inadvertently discuss business of the board or items that are likely to come before the

6:32 ↗ board at some future point. So again, meetings must be noticed

6:38 ↗ and you must allow the public to attend. So if you're having some sort of

6:42 ↗ holiday gathering and you're gonna be all there as a body, it's gonna have to

6:46 ↗ be noticed as a meeting and members of the public are allowed to sit by

6:51 ↗ and watch you eat dinner, if that's what the event is. One of

6:57 ↗ the things that I really wanna point out is to be aware of serial

7:04 ↗ meetings or meeting via email. So don't ever hit reply all on emails

7:12 ↗ to this body. If Stephen sends something to you all by way

7:18 ↗ of information, don't hit reply all with your opinion because in doing so, you've

7:24 ↗ created inadvertently a meeting of the body because all of you would be party to

7:29 ↗ that one email. The best way of responding to an email that Steven

7:35 ↗ sends out to you is to reply back to him directly without hitting reply all.

7:43 ↗ Avoid having a quorum at any outside events where a subject that...

7:50 ↗ Avoid having a quorum at an outside event on a subject that might come before

7:55 ↗ the commission at some point. I don't know if there would be really a

8:01 ↗ specific situation where that would occur with the Development Commission,

8:07 ↗ but something to be aware of. So there are penalties

8:13 ↗ involved with violations of the Open Public Meetings Act. Individual liability is $500

8:20 ↗ for a first violation and $1,000 for subsequent violations. In my experience,

8:26 ↗ Those have never been assessed to any city that I've ever worked for. But

8:33 ↗ city's liability for a violation would be costs and attorney fees, and any action that

8:39 ↗ was taken would be null and void.

8:48 ↗ We want to establish here a culture of compliance and ensure that the OPMA rules

8:54 ↗ are followed and that best practices and training are conducted like we're doing now.

9:00 ↗ So another aspect of the Sunshine Laws is the Public Records Act. So

9:06 ↗ public records are just that. They are the public's records. They're not your records. They're

9:12 ↗ not my records. They belong to the public. As a local government agency, we are

9:17 ↗ legally obligated to keep the public's records organized and to make them accessible. A

9:23 ↗ public record is pretty wide-ranging. Anything that's written or recorded in any

9:28 ↗ format that is prepared, owned, used, or retained by the city is a public record.

9:36 ↗ Location of the record doesn't determine if it's a public record. So if it's on

9:40 ↗ a private phone, but it's one of those things, then it's still a public record.

9:47 ↗ You could possibly have public records on a personal email account or in text messages

9:53 ↗ on your personal phone, and they would still have to be managed and disclosed according

9:57 ↗ to state laws. In the clerk's office, we highly recommend

10:03 ↗ that you use a separate email address for your board and commission work and avoid

10:07 ↗ mixing your city business with personal or work accounts and records whenever possible.

10:13 ↗ Mixing public records with non-public records may open up your non-public records

10:19 ↗ to scrutiny. So while rare, this is just good record hygiene to

10:25 ↗ keep your things that could be considered public records separate from your own

10:31 ↗ personal records. There's very few

10:37 ↗ exceptions for what can be withheld from disclosure of public records. For instance,

10:45 ↗ Social Security numbers and credit card numbers are exempt, but your application to serve on

10:50 ↗ this commission would not be exempt. So Washington State aims to protect openness and

10:56 ↗ transparency in government and typically errs on the side of full disclosure over withholding records.

11:07 ↗ If you ever have a question about whether something is a public record or subject

11:12 ↗ to disclosure, reach out to your staff liaison, Stephen, or to the city clerk's office

11:17 ↗ directly. The city clerk is ISSAQA's designated public records officer,

11:23 ↗ and we can answer any public records questions you might have. If you're

11:29 ↗ interested in reading more about public records, there's some RCW and IMC

11:38 ↗ citations in your agenda materials. Now because you're volunteering for a City of

11:43 ↗ Issaquah commission, it's possible that a public records request might be made regarding records that

11:49 ↗ you create or use as a commissioner. Most of the records that you're gonna work

11:54 ↗ with are generated by the city. They're included in your agenda materials or

12:00 ↗ emails that are sent to you by city staff. So any records that are sent

12:05 ↗ to you from the city or where a city employee is copied on a message,

12:10 ↗ those will be already part of the city's records. So you don't have to really

12:15 ↗ worry about those. However, you may have records that the city does not have, such

12:21 ↗ as emails between you and another commissioner or a member of the public as it

12:26 ↗ relates to your role on the commission. So these must be kept by you and

12:30 ↗ transferred to the city to manage. So the best course of action to take in

12:35 ↗ cases like that is to CC your city staff liaison, Stephen,

12:42 ↗ on all of these types of emails or messages when possible. This way the city

12:47 ↗ will have a copy and you can destroy the one that's in your possession. So

12:53 ↗ speaking of that, it's good practice to destroy your notes, reference materials, and

12:59 ↗ copies of any records that you have as soon as they've been sent to Stephen

13:05 ↗ or you know that the city already has a copy of them.

13:13 ↗ Yeah, just good standard practice to get rid of records that you don't need anymore

13:18 ↗ and you know you don't need them anymore. If you have them, I mean, this

13:23 ↗ is, if you have something and it

13:29 ↗ might end up in a search of public records if you have it. So it's

13:35 ↗ best to not have it as long as we have it.

13:42 ↗ So here's how you can get ahold of me directly or the city clerk's team.

13:49 ↗ All of this might sound alarming to you, but it's really not. It's not meant

13:54 ↗ to put you off or make you question your service to the city. Your service

13:58 ↗ is valuable and we really appreciate it. And your staff liaison and the clerks want

14:03 ↗ to ensure that you have a productive and worry-free tenure on this commission. So we

14:08 ↗ are here to help you. Again, if you have any questions at all, reach out

14:12 ↗ to your staff liaison or anybody in the City Clerk's office. And that concludes my

14:17 ↗ presentation. If anybody has any questions, I'd be happy to try and field them. Mr.

14:22 ↗ Morgan. Thank you. One quick question. Just to confirm, a quorum of four is

14:28 ↗ needed out of seven to have a meeting. Are four yes votes needed to approve

14:34 ↗ or approve something?

14:41 ↗ Other questions? No other questions? All

14:47 ↗ right. Thank you, Chris. I thank you for your time. So now we'll

14:53 ↗ move on to our next agenda item, which is conducting election of Chair and Vice

14:57 ↗ Chair. The following process will be used. First, I'll call for nominations. When all

15:02 ↗ nominations have been made, I'll close the nominations. If only one is made, the member

15:07 ↗ is considered elected to the position by unanimous consent. If multiple nominations are made for

15:13 ↗ a position, we'll hold time at our next meeting for an election process. At that

15:19 ↗ meeting, if there's more than one nominee for chair, Commission members will have an opportunity

15:24 ↗ To discuss the nominees, I'll then ask members to cast votes on the nominees in

15:29 ↗ the order they were nominated by roll call vote. Members may vote for only one

15:33 ↗ nominee per office and may vote for themselves. The first nominee to receive a majority

15:38 ↗ vote is elected to the position, then we'll repeat the process for vice chair. So

15:44 ↗ to get started, are there any nominations for chair? Mr. Chair, I nominate

15:49 ↗ Commissioner Sanford as chair. Are there any other

15:55 ↗ nominations?

16:03 ↗ Hearing none, the nominations are closed and I'll do my best to try to maintain

16:07 ↗ this blistering pace until May. Okay, now we'll move on to Vice Chair. Are there

16:12 ↗ nominations for Vice Chair?

16:19 ↗ Chair Sanford, I nominate Vice Chair Schor to continue to serve as Vice Chair. Are

16:25 ↗ there any other nominations? Hearing none, the nominations are closed,

16:31 ↗ and Commissioner Schor, you've been elected as vice chair through April of next year. Congratulations.

16:41 ↗ Next item on the agenda, rules and regulations. For this item, the current

16:47 ↗ adopted rules and regs were included as an attachment to our packet this week. The

16:52 ↗ document contains the Commission's operating procedures for meetings, taking action, and making recommendations

16:57 ↗ to the City. Each year, the Commission takes the opportunity to review the rules and

17:02 ↗ regulations for any changes proposed by staff or by the Commission. This year, staff have

17:08 ↗ no proposed changes, so we'd like to open the floor for Commissioners to ask questions

17:13 ↗ and propose amendments. If there are no proposed amendments, no action will be needed, and

17:18 ↗ the current rules and regulations will stay in place. If the Commission wishes to make

17:23 ↗ an amendment, formal action will be required. For this process, the Commission can have an

17:28 ↗ informal conversation and ask questions about different items in the rules and regs. Once the

17:34 ↗ initial discussion is concluded, I'll ask for any motions to be considered. With any motion

17:39 ↗ made, a second will be required for it to move forward for discussion. Following discussion,

17:44 ↗ I'll ask for a vote, and we can move on to the next potential motion.

17:48 ↗ Are there any potential amendments the Commission would like to discuss

17:53 ↗ regarding the rules and rights.

18:00 ↗ Hearing none so far, I did have one. So in our

18:05 ↗ quasi-judicial meetings, typically for site development permits,

18:11 ↗ when we're in deliberation, typically we talk and discuss the

18:17 ↗ proposal, discuss the applicant's presentation, and so on. And often,

18:22 ↗ although clarifying questions have a time earlier on, typically we ask clarifying questions of

18:28 ↗ both applicant and staff during that deliberation process. The current rules and regs say

18:34 ↗ staff only. So I'd like to tweak the words a little bit to try to

18:39 ↗ adapt that to our reality. The area I'm talking about is in sections 12 and

18:44 ↗ I. Chair Sanford, I put it on the screen for everybody to look at. Okay,

18:50 ↗ great. Thank you. Anybody can read that again.

18:58 ↗ So, of 12H, the part I'm talking about, if we look at the

19:04 ↗ second half of that paragraph, once the public hearing is closed on a

19:09 ↗ quasi-judicial matter, no additional testimony may be taken, and the Commission will be limited to

19:14 ↗ questions to staff only. deliberation and so on. So I'd like to add

19:21 ↗ words around that. And then on 12 , just as clarification for that second sentence,

19:27 ↗ during deliberation, the commission discusses whether the proposal complies with adopted code

19:33 ↗ criteria, period. So I'd like to add something there. So the actual

19:39 ↗ wording of my motion would be as follows. And now the second half of 12

19:45 ↗ , Once the public hearing is closed on a quasi-judicial matter,

19:51 ↗ no additional testimony may be taken, and the Commission will be limited to questions

19:57 ↗ to staff, strike the word only, insert the words, and the applicant, comma,

20:03 ↗ deliberations and voting, period. And then in 12-5 for that

20:09 ↗ second sentence, during deliberations, the Commission discusses whether the proposal complies with adopted code criteria

20:16 ↗ I would insert the words for clarification and may pose questions to staff or the

20:21 ↗ applicant, period. Do I second that

20:27 ↗ motion? I hear a second to that motion. Thank you, Smokey. Is there any

20:32 ↗ discussion? I have a few questions. What is the

20:38 ↗ intent of ending the testimony?

20:48 ↗ Is there supposed to be an end to

20:50 ↗ information?

20:56 ↗ Is that question two staff? Yeah, I guess. And I guess we're

21:01 ↗ discussing 12H, the closing of public hearing, right? Yeah, I'm just wondering if that's

21:08 ↗ a conflict. If we are supposed to stop testimony, however that's defined, if we then

21:14 ↗ later accept information from the applicant that wasn't previously provided, Is that a conflict?

21:20 ↗ No, because no additional testimony may be taken is referring to public comments, and that's

21:26 ↗ referring to the closing of the public hearing. Got you. Okay.

21:33 ↗ Any other discussion of the motion? Questions? Issues with it?

21:44 ↗ I'll jump in. I think it's an excellent... change to match what we often do.

21:51 ↗ But I also wonder, I guess one question would be would we want to have

21:54 ↗ the ability to ask members of the public because sometimes there are members of the

21:58 ↗ public who have testified to something or made comments that we may want to get

22:05 ↗ clarification from or there may be information they have that the applicant

22:08 ↗ doesn't. Would it be in our purview to also ask

22:14 ↗ members of the public in addition to the applicant? I'll just put in on that

22:20 ↗ from the meetings that I've shared. My sense is that there's a very

22:26 ↗ clear demarcation between public comment and the comment made by the applicant and staff and

22:32 ↗ the clarifying questions around the latter. So I don't know. That's my

22:37 ↗ opinion. I feel like there's a clear separation there. Commissioner Brennan. Yeah,

22:43 ↗ I would agree with what the Chair just said, I think we need to be

22:48 ↗ careful because if you leave it open for everybody, you get into a bunch of

22:52 ↗ debates and potential for people

22:58 ↗ making statements or accusations that create conflict. I think you need to have some

23:04 ↗ structure to this to get through it, particularly when we have more controversial projects, which

23:10 ↗ we don't have a lot of them that are like that, but the ones that

23:13 ↗ are can get kind of testy at times or could. So I think having the

23:17 ↗ structure and being very clear about the open public comment period is important.

23:23 ↗ I think if the Commission has questions, we generally send them to ask staff or

23:29 ↗ the applicant or their team. They have the experts with them typically,

23:35 ↗ and we're asking for some clarification or to improve our understanding of certain technical aspects

23:40 ↗ of the project. I think that is all good, and so I'm supportive of the

23:44 ↗ amendments that have been proposed. But I think we need to be really careful about

23:51 ↗ signaling to the public that they're still engaged in a conversation here, because I think

23:54 ↗ that can be problematic. Any other comments?

24:04 ↗ All in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed?

24:10 ↗ I know. You guys have it unanimously. Are there any other changes proposed to our

24:15 ↗ rules and regs? Any other items we'd like to discuss?

24:27 ↗ Hearing none, we can move on to our final items of regular business. I'd like

24:31 ↗ to ask staff to provide any updates on City Council activities. Thank you,

24:37 ↗ Chair Sanford. Earlier this week, the City Council met on Monday and did a series

24:42 ↗ of adoptions. So on Monday, they adopted the city budget, which contains our

24:49 ↗ biennial budget for the next two years. So please take a look at that if

24:52 ↗ you're interested to see what kind of projects or what funding was approved by City

24:56 ↗ Council for the next two years. City Council also adopted the City Comprehensive Plan for

25:00 ↗ the periodic update. This is an update that's conducted every 10 years. And so it's

25:06 ↗ a complete overhaul of what was in the comprehensive plan, a process that took staff

25:12 ↗ just about two years. And so it's a big accomplishment for the staff, and I

25:16 ↗ appreciate the staff and the long-range team going into getting that project adopted by Council.

25:22 ↗ The last piece of adoption was the update to the strategic plan. I believe some

25:26 ↗ of you were probably involved in some of the conversations around updating the strategic plan.

25:31 ↗ Please take a look and let staff know if you have any questions about that

25:34 ↗ looks like the strategic plan is the five-year implementation plan for the city on how

25:38 ↗ we're going to prioritize investment that's it for city council update

25:45 ↗ thanks are there any other items of business or announcements from staff i have a

25:49 ↗ few items um so one of the questions that kind of come up since this

25:53 ↗ commission um well i'll back up with the title 18 overhaul in 2023 it kind

25:59 ↗ of changed the scope of what this commission covers and as you saw this year,

26:04 ↗ it kind of resulted in a lot less meetings. And so one of the questions

26:07 ↗ I want to pose to the Commission as part of the calendar is, do we

26:11 ↗ want to keep the current calendar as it is where we're reserving a date each

26:14 ↗ month, or do we want to try a different approach of schedule as

26:20 ↗ needed once a month? And that is being when a project comes up, then I'll

26:25 ↗ contact commissioners to poll for availability for the next month and then schedule the meeting

26:30 ↗ instead of holding a date. would require a change into what we have in the

26:34 ↗ code but i want to pose the question because we've been discussing with the city

26:37 ↗ clerk in terms of the lack of meetings the commissioners been having with um in

26:42 ↗ review with or at least in line with the amount of development and the

26:48 ↗ size of large projects that the city hasn't been seeing has resulted in less meetings

26:53 ↗ for this commission so pose the question to you if we want to keep the

26:56 ↗ calendar as is or make a change

27:04 ↗ Well, I guess, am I on or off? I guess the question surrounding that is,

27:10 ↗ okay, so on the back side of it, things do pick up. Are we then

27:14 ↗ amending the code again? I don't know. It

27:20 ↗ just, and then I guess part two of my question would be, would that serve

27:25 ↗ the applicants? Do they often want to meet sooner than they potentially can, or is

27:30 ↗ that an issue? I think procedurally for staff, we would probably do the same

27:36 ↗ thing, which is we tell applicants they need to let us know either by the

27:39 ↗ middle of a month to get scheduled for the following month. And we would continue

27:44 ↗ those kind of conversations, even as an on-demand scheduling with the Commission.

27:48 ↗ Commissioner

27:55 ↗ Brown. Yeah, and I understand the clerk's office interest here because

28:01 ↗ when we have standing meetings they've got a notice cancellation of the meetings a lot

28:04 ↗ of stuff goes on in the background that we're not involved with but to manage

28:08 ↗ meeting times so I'm comfortable with a more flexible approach

28:14 ↗ it would be nice if we knew if we could hold to a day in

28:18 ↗ a you know of the month like a Wednesday and as we as a standing

28:24 ↗ period because people have to you know have to hopefully block some time on their

28:30 ↗ calendars on a regular basis and want to have at least some amount of

28:35 ↗ predictability, at least on the day of the week, that these meetings might have. MR.

28:41 ↗ Yes, staff can create some at least criteria of how we're going to be scheduling

28:45 ↗ this and looking at it. We can keep to Wednesdays. We can keep to certain

28:48 ↗ weeks of the month just as guidance, but that does allow us a little more

28:53 ↗ flexibility of being able to schedule these meetings. But we would pull the commissioners for

28:59 ↗ four to six weeks out to determine what that date would be. Yeah, I agree.

29:04 ↗ Keeping Wednesdays and predictable week of the month, because I see these on my calendar

29:10 ↗ and I keep it open. If it wasn't there, I probably wouldn't. I agree with

29:15 ↗ that. It's helpful. Yeah. First, to be able to count on a specific week per

29:19 ↗ month for sure, if there is a meeting, is to be a meeting. So do

29:24 ↗ we want to keep it as it is then, as the first Wednesday of each

29:27 ↗ month, as it just calendar hold and continue the process we have? That would

29:32 ↗ guarantee better on the calendars, at least if there's a concern of having the availability.

29:39 ↗ Stephen, is there significant time and cost savings in changing the process? For us, it

29:45 ↗ doesn't necessarily make a difference. It opens up the availability of the council chambers a

29:50 ↗ little bit more, but at the same time, we would probably still, on our end,

29:54 ↗ try to reserve certain dates, and then we would probably commit to probably canceling those

29:59 ↗ dates within two months if there's no indication of a permit coming to the Commission.

30:08 ↗ Could it be done without a calendar hold, per se, and then maybe we

30:15 ↗ would just keep it kind of for us, like we would know it would be

30:19 ↗ maybe on the first Wednesday of the month, but there wouldn't be an official calendar

30:24 ↗ hold, so then it would be open unless something came up for us? I wouldn't.

30:31 ↗ I guess I'll clarify. I would keep a calendar hold for council chambers to make

30:34 ↗ sure it's clear because people are scheduling events in council chambers as

30:40 ↗ much as six to eight months in advance because of the lack of availability of

30:45 ↗ large spaces that we can have large meetings. And so I would probably council chambers

30:50 ↗ reserved for us but for the commission it wouldn't necessarily result in sending you a

30:54 ↗ calendar hold unless we're polling or we're expecting something within the next couple months

31:09 ↗ any other input or questions i

31:15 ↗ think that if it's more efficient for the city and works better it's I'm in

31:19 ↗ favor of it. Sounds like it very likely would be the first Monday of a,

31:23 ↗ first Wednesday of a month that we would meet if we did anyways. That's what

31:28 ↗ we can aim for is certain Wednesdays and certain weeks of each month.

31:34 ↗ But this just allows a little more flexibility with you all so you're not constantly

31:38 ↗ getting these cancellations.

31:48 ↗ I'll work with the City Clerk on that. Thank you. The last question for

31:54 ↗ you all is, as it relates to the calendar, most of

32:00 ↗ the topics that come to you are related to what's defined in code in terms

32:04 ↗ of permits that come your way. Do you want to be involved in more policy

32:09 ↗ discussions as it relates to Title 18, as it relates to housing, as it relates

32:14 ↗ to major development? that may not impact projects that would come

32:20 ↗ your way. And in the past, we've heard feedback that we wanted to keep the

32:25 ↗ development commission specific to what the code says is the responsibility of the commission, but

32:29 ↗ we wanted to pose this question, especially since you all aren't meeting as often right

32:33 ↗ now. So do we want to include you on some of these conversations, or at

32:38 ↗ least invite you for some of these conversations, and have either joint meetings with PPC

32:42 ↗ or joint meetings with another board or commission? talk about different topics.

32:49 ↗ I would be in favor of that. You know, I think it would be great.

32:53 ↗ It's another way to engage. Another way to understand the process and all that goes

32:58 ↗ into it. You know, it's a language we're speaking, and the more we're opposed to

33:02 ↗ that, I think the better we are as a group. And, you know, obviously

33:08 ↗ we're not a voting situation. It's just a feedback situation. We're even just observing and

33:13 ↗ learning. think that goes a long ways you know i would for instance um aren't

33:18 ↗ we going on a missing middle walk here in january or something so would it

33:22 ↗ be things like that it's more of the formal uh

33:28 ↗ public meetings that we have with like planning policy commissioner maybe another border commission where

33:32 ↗ we're talking about policies yeah um and and a lot of the reason why we

33:38 ↗ haven't necessarily included the development commission in these conversations before is because the direction at

33:43 ↗ least the direction that I remember having the conversation with this commission was trying to

33:47 ↗ stick to any of the topics that would probably be coming to the commission, which

33:52 ↗ is why you're involved in joint meetings with PPC during the Title 18 update, is

33:56 ↗ because we were working on code that impacted the projects that would be coming to

34:01 ↗ you. So do we want to open that up a little bit more for maybe

34:06 ↗ not as the same size of projects, or we could get your input as part

34:10 ↗ of these conversations with either PPC or another quarter? Do you think that would be

34:16 ↗ beneficial for PPC to have our input? I think so, because I think

34:22 ↗ the Development Commission has a more technical perspective of the code that they don't necessarily

34:27 ↗ look at a lot of the time. But at the same time, I don't want

34:31 ↗ to always include the Development Commission on conversations where it's completely out of your

34:36 ↗ wheelhouse or it's completely a different topic that you're not normally involved in either.

34:43 ↗ I'm trying to be fair to you all in terms of what the expectations are.

34:48 ↗ So maybe invitations then could be specific to those types of topics that you think

34:54 ↗ we might have better perspective, hopeful perspective for? I think so. Just

35:00 ↗ because from a technical perspective, looking at housing developments, maybe at the larger size, but

35:05 ↗ even middle housing is a big topic that we're tackling right now as a project.

35:12 ↗ smaller commercial projects or retail projects potentially that wouldn't come to this Commission, you

35:18 ↗ know, getting feedback on any policy discussions we might have around that with mixed-use development

35:24 ↗ might be helpful for the Planning Policy Commission discussions.

35:32 ↗ I think it would be great. I think it would be helpful for us. I

35:35 ↗ totally agree with Commissioner Price about I think we could provide help to PPC and

35:41 ↗ And it'd be very helpful for us too to see what's going into the mix.

35:46 ↗ Eileen. I agree. I think

35:52 ↗ members of this commission bring, as you mentioned, certain focus,

35:58 ↗ effective expertise, range expertise that sits here that I think could be valuable. I'll leave

36:03 ↗ it to staff though to make sure that it's a useful perspective to bring to

36:08 ↗ the conversation. probably not productive for us or

36:15 ↗ the PPC or other board that might involve. But I think our

36:20 ↗ calendar has been light and I think it's an engaged commission and I think we'd

36:25 ↗ be, at least speaking personally, be happy to participate where you think it would be

36:29 ↗ valuable. I think that's great feedback. I think staff would, we

36:35 ↗ would focus some of the topic areas on something a little more relevant to this

36:38 ↗ commission. not involve you in the rooster code update or updates of pollinators,

36:44 ↗ but maybe on like housing and commercial retail development. Sounds

36:47 ↗ good.

36:53 ↗ Okay. Well, I appreciate the feedback on that. That's my last question, Chair. Okay, thank

36:58 ↗ you. Just a quick question. When does

37:04 ↗ the Planning Policy Commission meet? The Planning Policy Commission meets every second and fourth Thursday

37:09 ↗ of each month. So if we plan for

37:15 ↗ a special or if we had planned for a joint meeting with the Development Commission,

37:19 ↗ we'd first start on this commission's availability to meet on one of those days. And

37:24 ↗ if that wasn't available, we would look at probably a special meeting.

37:32 ↗ How much of the slowdown in meetings is due to the code changes or is

37:35 ↗ it just the development It's a combination of both. Because we

37:41 ↗ changed the thresholds and the amount of topics coming to this Commission, it changed a

37:46 ↗ lot of the meetings that would be coming to the Commission. But it's also the

37:48 ↗ amount of development also coming in. Any other

37:50 ↗ comments, questions from

37:56 ↗ the Commission? There being no further business before the Commission adjourned the

38:02 ↗ meeting at 7.07 p.m. Thank you.

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 (7)

Sanford

Vice-Chair Shore

Commissioners Brennan

Gilbert

Ikeda

Morgan

Price

Staff (1)

Chris Grabowski, Deputy City Clerk Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of April 03, 2024 With no corrections or comments the Minutes were approved. 3