← Back to City Council Digest

Meeting concluded — minutes pending. The agenda below is what the City posted; minutes haven't been published yet. Issaquah approves Council minutes at the next meeting and ships them embedded in that next meeting's packet, so they typically land here 1–3 weeks after the meeting. Transcript and recording will appear once the City posts the YouTube video and our pipeline catches it.
Planning Policy Commission Special Meeting Auto captions

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

6:30 PM · 2h 28m · Pickering Room, 1775 12th Avenue NW, Issaquah WA
Topic tracked across meetings:
Resources, Codes, and Permit Types 2/4
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.3
Staff report:
Planning Policy Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides Email guidance and direction for Issaquah’s future growth through continued review and improvement to the Regular Members City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related 2020 – Ron Faul land use documents. 2020 – Joan Probala 2022 – Joy Lewis Membership 2022 – Janice Carle The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2022 – Bill Rinehart seven regular members, with four-year terms; and 2022 – Jason Voiss several alternates, with two-year terms. All 2023 – Randy Harrison members are appointed by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by the City Council. Terms expire Alternate Members April 30 of the year listed. For more information, 2020 – Tom Haskins see IMC 18.03. 2020 – Robin Beukers 2020 – Vacant 2020 – Vacant
2. REGULAR BUSINESS
2a
Open Government Training Act and Other Essential Training, (I)
Tina Eggers, City Clerk Jim Haney, City Attorney
2b
Resources, Codes and Permit Types
Information · Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager Trish Heinonen, Long Range Planning Manager
Topics: Land Use
0:33 so tonight we're here for a training of
0:36 the Development Commission and the
0:40 Planning Policy Commission and we also
0:44 have staff from various city departments
0:46 and you have agendas so I think you can
0:52 sort of see the order that the City
0:55 Clerk's tena Eggers and tisha bees are
0:57 going to speak followed by the city
1:01 attorney Jim Haney and then Trish
1:05 Hyneman and myself will be the last
1:07 speakers Trish and I have a two-part
1:11 presentation the first part is relevant
1:14 to both Commission's the second part is
1:16 more relevant to the Development
1:19 Commission but planning policy may be
1:21 interested in hearing about that and are
1:23 certainly welcome to stay
1:25 [Music]
1:32 all right well I'll remind you that
1:34 you're in a room that is miked
1:35 so I will do my best to speak up if you
1:39 can't hear me though please let me know
1:42 and I'll use a larger voice for I was
1:46 planning on standing up but since we
1:48 might have some of our panel
1:51 rejecting I'm just going to stay seated
1:54 for now I want to thank you for coming
1:57 this evening
1:57 this training is important and the
2:00 service that you do and your volunteer
2:02 commitment to the community is much
2:04 appreciated
2:04 but we have you know 15 active boards of
2:07 commissions that means we have over 125
2:09 volunteers and these pointed seeds so
2:14 again thank you for your service for
2:17 those that don't know me I'm Tina Akers
2:19 I'm your City Clerk I've worked with
2:21 this apply for 15 but I've worked with
2:23 local government for over 25 I'm charged
2:27 with a legislative work of the council
2:28 and our office does records
2:32 administration we also coordinate the
2:34 many events and recruitment with boards
2:38 and commissions and one of our tasks is
2:40 to provide your mandated training that's
2:43 why we're here to my right as you can
2:47 see from your left we've got Jim Haney
2:49 our city attorney and then tisha Kizer
2:52 again she's the deputy city clerk so
2:54 we're split up our presentations so that
2:57 we can try not to be too boring
3:02 there's Mike
3:04 but let's go ahead and get started all
3:07 right so the intent of the open
3:10 government training is to increase your
3:13 knowledge about the laws and
3:15 responsibilities that jurisdictions have
3:17 who perform these duties that is
3:19 specific to staff for councilmembers and
3:22 to our appointed officials the state
3:25 auditor's office is looking for ways to
3:27 reduce findings decreased violations in
3:31 cities are certainly looking to reduce
3:34 risk the state auditor's office found
3:37 most violations were not malicious or
3:39 intentional violations resulted from
3:42 insufficient knowledge or training which
3:44 is why my fourth bullet is important
3:47 because it's really to eliminate
3:49 inadvertent violations and the more you
3:52 know the more that you can help each
3:54 other stay within the right zones of
3:56 Public Records and OPM a the act is
4:01 intended to foster open government
4:03 education and again to reduce liability
4:06 so the Public Records Act we're going to
4:10 look at that one first it's not new it's
4:12 been around since 1972 it's also
4:15 referred to as the sunshine law or the
4:17 sunshine act because it was created by
4:20 the people of the state to foster open
4:23 and transparent government
4:26 it requires that all public records
4:28 maintained by the state or local
4:29 agencies are made available to all
4:32 members of the public there's very few
4:34 exemptions and those are in our state
4:39 statutes that would list those few
4:41 exemptions this does not just mean the
4:47 written or physical records that the
4:50 agency has this could be electronic
4:52 it could be text messages photos videos
4:56 emails handwritten notes as your City
5:00 Clerk I'm designated as a public records
5:02 officer and that just means that if
5:06 someone wishes to file a formal request
5:08 they would do that through my office
5:13 as your City Clerk I also manage the
5:16 city's email system all the emails come
5:19 in and are retained
5:21 [Music]
5:25 what's the word that retained and
5:28 captured it retained so if we had a
5:31 request for something specific we could
5:33 do some queries and locate that
5:35 information
5:36 city staff who prepare your agendas and
5:38 minutes and staff reports manage the
5:43 records that that they're responsible
5:44 for should a request come in for records
5:48 that and they're asking for the first
5:50 specific records that are beyond the
5:52 ones that we maintain we may contact you
5:55 and say here's what is being asked for
5:58 here's the parameters by which we need
6:00 you to search your personal records for
6:03 and then you would have a responsibility
6:06 to maintain those records not destroy
6:10 them work with our office to produce
6:12 them so that we the city responsible
6:15 agents could then determine if they are
6:17 responsive and if any exemption applies
6:20 so it's not just it's not decisions that
6:24 you would make on your own it's ones
6:25 that we make it turtling
6:29 with that I would remind you that again
6:32 if you're instructed you have an
6:34 obligation a legal obligation to search
6:36 and not destroy and to produce those
6:41 records and we would work with you to
6:43 transfer those over saying that though
6:46 you are allowed under the state to
6:48 capture notes meeting notes that serve
6:51 to your benefit
6:53 you can also discard those records as
6:56 they have met your needs it's when a
7:00 request for records has initiated that
7:04 you would have to not have discarded
7:09 them so feel free to take your notes
7:12 discard them as they have served the
7:15 purpose to you I would recommend that
7:18 you find a rhythm that works for you so
7:21 if it's after a meeting and you want to
7:23 leave your note-taking behind staff can
7:26 recycle those if it's something that you
7:30 want to do monthly or quarterly
7:33 that might be a good idea some
7:35 Commission members will obtain a
7:38 separate email account so that they it's
7:41 not blended with their home stuff or
7:43 they'll have a separate file folder for
7:45 it and it's just sort of managing the
7:47 records that you have so if and when you
7:50 were asked to produce something that
7:52 would be easier when you came to that
7:55 situation Tina if people have questions
7:58 should they interrupt you or would you
7:59 like them to hold them tell me if you
8:02 have a question along the way we'll do
8:03 our best to answer it
8:04 we may indicate that we'll have more on
8:08 that topic at a later part of the
8:11 presentation so there's clarity that you
8:14 need let me know and if we hear that
8:16 there's an area of topic that requires
8:20 more information we can certainly
8:23 facilitate gathering that information
8:25 and distributing it to you at a later
8:27 time
8:32 the second part of the open government
8:36 training act is OPM a it's also the long
8:41 phrase of it is open public meetings Act
8:44 this is not new either this was created
8:46 in 1971 it's housed under RCW 42:30
8:50 and it's scattered throughout our
8:51 Municipal Code and specifically with the
8:55 creation of our boards of commissions we
8:58 have a varying level of boards and
9:02 commissions so we have some micro sister
9:04 cities that has you know less
9:07 responsibilities than say planning or
9:09 Development Commission so yours is
9:12 already a higher level under the state
9:15 it definitely falls under OPM a
9:18 provisions it basically means that your
9:22 meetings are open from start to finish
9:23 or sometimes refer to as gavel-to-gavel
9:26 if you run the council chambers so
9:28 there's very few exceptions where you
9:31 could have closed sessions so those are
9:33 considered executive sessions I'll touch
9:34 on those in a bit typically our other
9:39 boards of Commission's wouldn't see
9:41 executive sessions but I know that
9:44 you've had some certain situations where
9:46 you've been where do you experience
9:49 those so I'll talk about those in a
9:51 moment
9:53 let's talk about your regular meetings
9:55 versus your special meetings so your
9:57 regular meetings are your date and time
10:00 location-specific it's your regular
10:02 meeting calendar schedule so it's my
10:04 understanding that Development
10:05 Commission meets the first and third
10:06 Wednesday of each month 7:00 p.m.
10:08 council chamber chambers and then
10:10 Planning Policy Commission meets the
10:12 second and fourth Thursday of each month
10:14 at 6:30 and that would be in the council
10:20 chambers any time that you would hold a
10:22 meeting outside of this scheduled date
10:26 time or location could be considered a
10:29 special meeting and we would want to
10:32 ensure that the noticing indicated that
10:34 that your agendas and indicated that
10:37 your minutes and that you would want to
10:40 be cautious at those special meetings to
10:43 not take any final action on a topic
10:45 that wasn't explicitly identified on
10:50 your agenda so you'll notice that your
10:55 agendas indicate you know decisions or
10:57 information little footnotes
11:02 so we look out for you and that way yep
11:04 is there a timeframe in which
11:06 notification of special meetings has to
11:08 be made public
11:10 yes so if you click to the next screen
11:12 here special meetings can be also
11:15 referred to as other things like this
11:17 joint meeting training workshop retreats
11:19 tours regardless whether it's a special
11:22 meeting or a regular meeting
11:25 we must haven't noticed that at a
11:27 minimum with 24 hours before the meeting
11:29 we prefer more noticing than that
11:33 so we strive to get that out at least 5
11:36 days in advance so that you have the
11:37 materials that you need to be prepared
11:40 for your and if it's a public hearing if
11:44 it's the first night of a public hearing
11:46 then it's a difference of noticing right
11:49 there may be other elements involved
11:51 that require staff to have done a major
11:56 advance noticing it was not a meeting
12:00 for example if a subset of this group
12:03 got together to discuss some particular
12:05 matter on some evening but without any
12:09 formal authority but is that a meeting
12:13 uh well it depends so if it's a quorum
12:16 then and you're discussing business that
12:18 would have come before or is is intended
12:22 to be the Commission's work then that
12:24 meeting would need to be noticed if you
12:26 are less than a quorum or you're working
12:30 in a committee form again less than a
12:32 quorum you can go off and research or
12:34 review something and bring it back to
12:36 the full Commission for review in action
12:39 but you've got some quasi judicial
12:43 matters though that
12:45 have some restrictions and the attorneys
12:47 going to talk about that later
12:50 do you guys meeting subcommittees at all
12:53 we have them for a long time okay and if
12:57 you're meeting for a purpose if you're
12:59 getting together for a purpose that
13:00 isn't related to business of the board
13:03 as many of us want to get together can
13:05 get together you having a barbecue
13:07 someone's having a barbecue when you go
13:09 you're or you're attending some campaign
13:11 event that you happen to be at together
13:13 something that's not a meeting even
13:16 though you happen to be there a meeting
13:18 really occurs when you're discussing the
13:20 business of the Commission when you are
13:22 transacting the Commission's business so
13:25 anytime form of the Commission gets
13:28 together and is is discussing or
13:31 transacting the Commission's business
13:33 that is going to be a meeting right so
13:36 quorum for either of your Commission's
13:38 would be for members would constitute
13:40 that as the attorney said you're allowed
13:42 to travel and gather together so long as
13:45 you are not taking testimony or
13:49 deliberating or discussing considering
13:51 reviewing evaluating and or taking final
13:54 action on something that would be
13:55 commissioned business
13:56 I skipped ahead a few slides I'm gonna
13:58 go back but I thought it was important
14:00 that you know since we were discussing
14:02 it I you also want to be mindful that
14:06 you're not violating OPM a through other
14:09 avenues so if two of you were discussing
14:12 Commission business and then one person
14:17 such an email to to others or made a
14:19 phone call and you've reached that for a
14:22 member quorum about even if it's in a
14:24 string element you're violated OPM a
14:27 it's it's really about saving your
14:29 discussion for the noticed meeting
14:33 because the public has a right to be
14:35 present and observe what you're doing
14:40 yes so there's we don't have a concern
14:43 about giving the appearance of a meeting
14:45 if we happen to be meeting social aid or
14:47 something I thought that that was not
14:50 appropriate well my advice to counsel
14:53 there higher level authority but it is
14:55 it's always good to know a pianist can
14:59 you know maybe don't group in group
15:02 smarter than three sure that you're
15:05 refraining from talking about you know
15:07 the Commission's work but you are
15:12 allowed to say have a potluck so long as
15:15 you're well behaved I think the thing to
15:18 remember in something like that is those
15:22 kinds of situations are real easy to
15:24 turn into meetings right you know you're
15:26 you're meeting socially and then someone
15:28 says well what do you think about this
15:30 issue and all of a sudden you're
15:31 starting to discuss it and it becomes a
15:33 meeting so it's real easy to for that to
15:36 turn into a meeting and that's why we
15:37 always urge caution about that but
15:40 technically it is not a meeting unless
15:42 you are transacting the business of the
15:44 Commission unless you are discussing the
15:46 business of the Commission it's not the
15:49 meeting no matter how many of you give
15:51 together and you can get together for
15:52 social purposes and other purposes that
15:54 are not within the scope of the business
15:58 of the commissioners but just for
16:01 clarification two members from PPC two
16:04 members from Development Commission two
16:05 City Council members got together and we
16:07 thank often we were talking about
16:09 business that would constitute a forum
16:11 where three different bodies know it has
16:15 to be a quorum of the particular body
16:17 that I'm sorry to jump into it has to be
16:20 a quorum of the each body or any body of
16:24 those that has a quorum present is
16:27 hoping to me
16:32 so I'm going back to slides now just so
16:34 I could touch on the closed portions
16:37 there would be very few exceptions
16:39 exceptions to having an executive
16:41 session council generally does these
16:44 it's dictated in RCW 4231 zero and
16:51 there's again a very specific reasons it
16:56 might be litigation could be property
17:00 acquisitions or things like that it's
17:02 discussion only final action we need to
17:04 occur an open session and again
17:06 exceptions are very few that would allow
17:09 you to go into a closed meeting the
17:12 attorney or legal counsel our staff
17:15 would guide you through that if and when
17:17 it was needed
17:18 next slide I've got one more on
17:20 executive sessions and before you were
17:25 able to convene the executive session
17:27 other state law requires that the
17:29 presiding officers state the specific
17:31 RCW in the amount of time and again it's
17:33 something that we would help you through
17:35 if and when there was a purpose or a
17:38 reason for that
17:40 in just a comment that one of the things
17:43 to keep in mind about the Open Meetings
17:45 Act and the Public Records Act both are
17:47 that there's specific language in the
17:50 statutes that say they are to be
17:51 liberally construed in favor of
17:53 disclosure and in favor of open meetings
17:56 and every exemption is to be very
17:59 narrowly construed so every time you see
18:02 a court case and I read a lot of them on
18:03 the Open Meetings Act and the Public
18:05 Records Act that's the first thing out
18:07 of the courts mouth and when in the
18:10 opinion it's always we construe the Act
18:13 liberally in favor of disclosure we
18:16 construe all exemptions narrowly and so
18:19 if you if you think well it's kind of
18:22 within the spirit or you know I'm not
18:24 quite sure always err on the side of
18:27 caution because the court will construe
18:29 it because being an open meeting if it's
18:32 unless it's very specifically exempted
18:35 and one thing I would just add is along
18:37 with email be very conscious of texting
18:40 that is one that where the serial
18:43 meeting where two people talk and then
18:46 they one of them takes that and adds it
18:50 to another adds it to another and now
18:53 you've created a serial meeting that's
18:56 we try and remind you in email but we're
19:00 often not on your text change
19:03 not only remember that for open public
19:06 meetings when this Tina would tell you
19:08 remember it for public records because
19:10 your texts on City business are public
19:14 records and if we get a public records
19:16 request for your texts we are going to
19:19 have to produce those to the extent we
19:21 can and so just keep in mind I always
19:26 tell people that
19:30 if you question it at all something you
19:33 want to say and whether you'd like to
19:35 see it on the front page of the local
19:38 newspaper pick up the phone and call and
19:40 say it instead that way you're not
19:42 making a record but if you if you're
19:47 going to text or you're going to email
19:50 potentially anything is going to be
19:54 disclosable regardless of how
19:57 embarrassing you may think it is so
19:59 mister caution and the communications
20:02 that you use right I would I would from
20:05 the clerk's office say the best thing
20:09 you could say is that you've just you
20:11 don't text to communicate
20:13 any commission conversations that way
20:17 your affidavit could could be that food
20:19 we're gonna go ahead and move on to yes
20:24 so if you knowingly intentionally
20:28 violate an OPM a there are some
20:30 individual civil penalties and those
20:35 penalties are stated dollar threshold is
20:40 set by the state it says for the first
20:42 penalty it's five hundred and for each
20:45 additional it would be a thousand the
20:47 city has its own liabilities through the
20:50 court cases or costs and attorneys cost
20:52 and ultimately the action if it was
20:55 found to be in averting violation and we
21:01 lost in court the action of the body
21:03 would be considered null and void and I
21:05 can't imagine how you would go about
21:07 undoing something that's in place
21:11 and just to emphasize that happen when
21:14 Tina says individual liability the
21:17 statute says it is an individual
21:19 liability that comes out of your pocket
21:21 not the city's pocket if you're
21:23 knowingly violate the the OPM a the city
21:27 does have a ordinance that indemnifies
21:31 all local officials and all staff for
21:36 anything that is not covered by
21:38 insurance these kinds of things aren't
21:40 covered by insurance
21:41 OPM a violations but it indemnifies you
21:45 if you were acting in good faith it
21:48 would not indemnify you if you were
21:49 knowingly violating the Open Meetings in
21:53 that - so just keep in mind that because
21:57 it has happened in other jurisdictions
21:59 that I have worked with where individual
22:02 commission members or council members
22:04 were sued individually to get their
22:08 records and to and for knowingly
22:10 violating the OPM a and the city did not
22:15 there was a real question in those cases
22:18 as to whether or not the city would
22:19 indemnify them and whether they were
22:21 acting in good faith so right and that's
22:24 my training his importance and having
22:26 conversations
22:28 we're all together because there's only
22:30 moments where you're you know having a
22:34 conversation and this is what you need
22:36 to be mindful so that you are not
22:39 inadvertently violating no PA and feel
22:42 free to contact us well and that's the
22:46 other point is that staff can send out
22:48 inquiries to the group and collect that
22:51 feedback we wouldn't want an individual
22:54 Commission never doing that to their
22:55 full group so but data collection let
22:58 staff do that that's their job they they
23:01 are able to do that
23:05 because if you were doing it and it
23:08 reached a quorum you've just had
23:11 discussion of business of your
23:12 commission and that would be a violation
23:14 so rely on your staff okay Tish is gonna
23:22 take over the effective meetings portion
23:25 hi I'm tisha as Tina mentioned thank you
23:29 for being here this evening with us I'm
23:32 going to talk to you for a few minutes
23:33 about effective meetings we're going to
23:36 talk fairly generally about some
23:38 provisions and Robert's Rules and just
23:41 some things to keep in mind during the
23:43 conduct of your meetings so we'll be
23:47 covering specifically your role as
23:49 members some general meeting procedures
23:52 some tenants of debate and voting okay
24:05 sounds good okay all right so as far as
24:09 your role so there are a number of
24:13 factors that contribute to efficient
24:15 meetings effective and efficient
24:17 meetings and a number of these occur
24:20 prior to the meeting even beginning
24:22 including having an agenda set which is
24:25 set by the staff liaison in consultation
24:28 with the Commission chair having rules
24:32 and regulations that dictate how
24:34 specific procedures are handled by the
24:37 Commission and another aspect that
24:40 contributes to effective meetings is
24:43 some of your responsibilities as members
24:46 one of those being attendants so a
24:48 meeting can't occur if there is not a
24:51 quorum of the Commission present you've
24:53 heard the quorum talked about a few
24:55 times by now so I think you're all clear
24:57 that a quorum of a commission of seven
24:59 is four
25:00 this means that we really need you to
25:03 communicate any known attendance
25:05 conflicts in advance this is
25:07 particularly important for both of your
25:09 Commission's because a lot of the work
25:11 that you're doing is time-sensitive and
25:13 as Lucy and Tina mentioned there are
25:15 often some stringent legal noticing
25:18 requirements that have to occur and
25:20 there's a cost associated with those
25:22 notices in in the newspaper sometimes
25:26 physical postings as well so again we
25:28 just ask that you communicate known
25:30 attendance conflicts in advance to your
25:32 staff liaison or city staff and we'll
25:37 talk in a minute about distinguishing
25:38 your absent absence from meetings as
25:42 excused or unexcused then also coming
25:45 prepared you know reading through the
25:47 agenda materials that staff have
25:49 prepared for you I know I know they can
25:51 be significant in size and then also
25:55 come willing to participate in
25:58 discussion and of course vote and we'll
26:00 talk about some exceptions to that in
26:03 the next few minutes
26:05 one thing yes please send your questions
26:07 ahead of time to the staff person if at
26:10 all possible it allows us to be prepared
26:13 and to be effective in helping you to
26:17 move forward so you know if you are
26:20 reading your packet on the weekend and
26:22 you want to send us an email Saturday
26:25 night or Monday before either our
26:27 Wednesday or your Thursday meeting that
26:30 is so helpful because it really allows
26:33 us to make do prepare a more thoughtful
26:36 presentation or be prepared to respond
26:41 question on the quorum
26:43 what is that time threshold before you
26:46 know getting the quorum how long do you
26:48 have to wait or are we allowed to
26:50 typically wait you know before not
26:52 people show up I yeah you so you're not
26:55 the meeting the meeting cannot really be
26:59 convened until there's a quorum so I I
27:02 would suggest that you wait a reasonable
27:04 amount of time you know and I guess that
27:07 can be somewhat flexible say 15 minutes
27:09 is decided on if the if a quorum isn't
27:13 reached there are some procedures to
27:15 sort of preserve that legal noticing
27:17 that's occurred I think actually both of
27:20 your Commission's have have done this at
27:22 times where you'll the individuals
27:24 present will convene the meeting and
27:26 really the only thing they can do is
27:28 they can adjourn or continue it to a
27:30 date and time certain and the staff can
27:32 post the door so there is a process
27:34 there but we would prefer to avoid that
27:36 particularly if individuals are you know
27:38 showing up to make comments at the
27:40 hearing so but there isn't a specific
27:42 time parameter let me just let me just
27:46 add one piece but that's why RSVP'ing
27:49 either to a pole or a meeting invite is
27:52 so essential because we don't want
27:55 everyone showing up if if there isn't a
27:58 quorum and Tish is absolutely correct
28:01 for instance the uvd see didn't because
28:04 we're that we were down
28:05 such a few number of members we knew in
28:08 November that we were not going to have
28:10 a quorum for a meeting that we had
28:11 advertised a few days beforehand so we
28:16 all got we the chair and the vice chair
28:18 and I met and opened the meeting and
28:21 delayed it due to a lack of quorum so no
28:24 one else showed up but the three of us
28:25 but it is really you know that way we
28:28 can have something on the website we can
28:31 do things to let people know that it's
28:33 going to be delayed so as soon as you
28:36 can let us know whether you are not able
28:38 to attend it really is helpful and I
28:40 would even fact that at Morris you know
28:42 as an appointed official you you you
28:44 have at least on the known meeting dates
28:47 there's an expectation that you're here
28:49 we understand that there's you know an
28:51 illness or you know travel or there's
28:53 some indicator there that would but
28:56 these meetings are important your
28:59 involvements important and it's it's
29:01 very expensive and time-consuming to
29:04 continue meeting so up we're glad that
29:06 you have full our memberships now than
29:09 you've had previous so I will also give
29:12 you a real-life Horror Story which is
29:15 fresh in my memory because it happened
29:16 to me last night I was in a meeting in
29:19 are supposed to be a meeting in another
29:22 jurisdiction and I won't say which
29:26 jurisdiction it is but I arrived ahead
29:30 of the meeting probably 10 or 15 minutes
29:32 ahead of the meeting at the time the
29:35 meeting was supposed to commence there
29:36 were two out of the seven members who
29:38 were present they decided to wait ten
29:41 minutes later a third member showed up
29:43 still not a quorum and the city clerk
29:48 tried desperately to call around to all
29:51 of the other members to try to get them
29:54 to the meeting I couldn't reach anybody
29:56 they decided to continue to wait and we
29:59 sat for 45 minutes until they finally
30:02 decided
30:03 it was enough and they were all going to
30:06 go home so I was asked at that time well
30:09 you know is there anything in law that
30:11 says how long you have to wait and I
30:13 said no it's really up to you as to how
30:16 long you want to wait for a fourth
30:17 member but it would have been nice if
30:20 the four members who didn't show up
30:23 would have let the clerk know in advance
30:26 that they weren't going to be there and
30:28 that meeting could have been cancelled
30:29 or so and and I'll add one more thing
30:32 three unexcused absences can result in
30:36 near being removed from the commission
30:38 it doesn't happen very often but it's
30:42 part of we are really depending on you
30:45 and if a commissioner if something
30:49 happens in your life please just let us
30:52 know and we've had commissioners do that
30:55 I've had a baby I thought I could do
30:57 this I can't do this and have my job I'm
31:00 going to need to resign that's wonderful
31:03 we know you know and we'll be happy to
31:07 have that commissioner back at another
31:09 time when their life is more settled or
31:13 you know sometimes commissioners move
31:15 and they're no longer living in the city
31:17 I suppose they could maybe could
31:18 continue to serve out that term but it
31:21 wouldn't be convenient to them all
31:23 perfectly good reasons to just let us
31:25 know that you're not going to be able to
31:27 attend and then we know that we need to
31:30 be looking at the alternates maybe more
31:32 regularly and identifying them as
31:34 regular members
31:35 we cannot elevate an alternate to a
31:38 regular position unless we go through
31:40 the council but we can work with the
31:42 alternates to have them there were
31:44 prepared to serve as regular members so
31:52 getting back to our that was a good
31:55 conversation getting back to our meeting
31:58 procedures so so we've got it we've got
32:01 a quorum present and what happens next
32:03 you know the meeting is convened and the
32:05 chair plays that role and there are a
32:07 couple important things too for the
32:10 chair to distinguish at the beginning of
32:12 the meeting and that is who is excused
32:15 an excused absence would be one that was
32:17 anticipated to some extent even if it
32:20 was last minute for some sort of illness
32:22 or something unexpected an unexcused
32:25 absence would be one that wasn't
32:27 communicated in advance and as lucy
32:29 mentioned it is important to distinguish
32:30 those because there can be some
32:32 repercussions for continued unexcused
32:36 absences another important thing for the
32:39 presiding officer to announce at the
32:40 beginning is if there are regular
32:42 members absent which alternate members
32:44 will be voting in their place
32:46 this will prevent awkwardness if and
32:49 when there are votes to be taken at the
32:51 meeting so everyone's clear on who's
32:53 participating in the vote
32:56 [Music]
33:05 thank you so these here on the screen
33:09 are some general procedures for your
33:12 typical agenda items I was looking at
33:14 your minutes prior to this meeting and
33:16 saw that the two different Commission's
33:18 do handle commissioner QA at different
33:21 times
33:22 sometimes it's before the public
33:24 hearings sometimes after but this is
33:27 just designed to put in print what
33:29 you're probably already familiar with
33:31 which is a sort of a typical process for
33:34 an agenda item I know many times your
33:36 items are sort of continued over
33:38 multiple meetings in the next few
33:42 minutes I'd like to talk to you a bit
33:44 more about the debate and voting aspects
33:47 of your agenda items
33:53 so as far as debate goes both of your
33:56 Commission's subscribe to Robert's Rules
33:58 of Order and it's a big book there are a
34:01 lot of provisions and they're on any you
34:04 know situation you can imagine virtually
34:06 so I'm just going to focus on a couple
34:08 of sort of again basic tenants of debate
34:11 I think that their intuitive to most of
34:13 us just as far as how you know how to
34:15 interact with other people but they're
34:18 really important for you to be
34:20 intentional about four times in your
34:23 meetings where there could be
34:24 controversy it will be handled much more
34:29 evenly if you're practicing some of
34:32 these guidelines even if they may feel a
34:38 bit formal at times so one of these key
34:42 tenants is fairness and equity you're
34:47 part of a seven member Commission you
34:49 all have equal rights the chair has you
34:52 know particular role to facilitate those
34:55 meetings but but essentially has equal
34:57 rights so it's important that you be
35:00 mindful of a balance there and again the
35:03 chair sort of bears the brunt of that
35:05 role in facilitating your meetings so
35:07 some practices to keep in mind is that
35:10 are that you should be seeking
35:11 recognition of the chair before making
35:14 comments I don't know what's particular
35:16 to your typical of your Commission
35:18 meetings sometimes that's raising a
35:20 microphone maybe raising your hand
35:22 making eye contact so that they know
35:24 that you would like to be sort of in the
35:26 queue to speak next in the spirit spirit
35:30 of fairness and equity Robert's Rules
35:32 suggests that every member have the
35:34 opportunity to make a comment once under
35:37 debate before anyone makes a comment a
35:39 second time
35:42 and let's see here I think I've and you
35:46 know there isn't a formal rule as far as
35:49 when the chair should be making their
35:51 comments of recommendation is that the
35:53 chair can wait and sort of until the end
35:56 as things are wrapping up but again
35:58 there's not a hard and fast rule that's
36:00 just a guideline here all right so let's
36:05 move on to the next tenant which is
36:07 courteousness so a specific guideline
36:12 for debate is to not impugn others
36:14 motives also to address comments through
36:19 the chair and I know this can feel
36:21 formal particularly for smaller groups
36:23 but it's really meant to help defuse
36:25 situations if there is disagreement when
36:29 you're looking directly in the eye of
36:31 someone with an opposing viewpoint there
36:33 can be this tendency to foster a
36:35 back-and-forth sort of conversation and
36:39 that's not how your meetings are
36:40 designed to function so the comments
36:43 should be routed through the chair the
36:45 eye contact preferably you know should
36:47 be with the chair and maybe the other
36:49 members of the group you know not
36:51 necessarily the audience that the focus
36:53 of the meeting again is is with your
36:55 fellow commissioners interruptions are
36:58 not appropriate except under a few
37:01 circumstances one of those might be if
37:04 it has occurred to you that maybe the
37:07 chair inadvertently skipped over an
37:09 agenda item you know some sort of
37:12 procedural issue maybe your boat didn't
37:15 get conveyed correctly by the chair and
37:17 someone has started talking you know
37:19 that kind of situation would be
37:20 considered like a point of order and you
37:23 you would want to interrupt but really
37:25 for any other reason anything that isn't
37:27 particularly time-sensitive you know the
37:31 practice or the guideline is to wait
37:34 until you have that recognition and your
37:35 colleague is done
37:37 and then lastly under this on the slide
37:41 you know honor the outcomes of the
37:43 Commission so obvious obviously you're
37:45 not all going to agree on all points but
37:48 again you've agreed to be on the
37:50 seven-member Commission so if an outcome
37:52 is decided on it might not be the one
37:54 that you are in favor of but moving
37:56 forward you know it's important to
38:00 acknowledge the fact that that was the
38:02 will of the group and lastly efficiency
38:08 so as I mentioned Roberts specifies that
38:12 individuals should have up to two
38:14 opportunities to comment on each motion
38:16 before the Commission and it they
38:20 actually additionally specify those
38:22 comments shouldn't exceed ten minutes we
38:24 don't say we're not implying that you
38:27 need to have a timer at your meetings in
38:30 that regard or exactly monitor at the
38:33 frequency but I think it's just a good
38:35 thing to keep in mind and it trying to
38:37 achieve some balance also but also just
38:39 in the spirit of conducting the business
38:41 of the meeting you know you're asked to
38:43 be concise to not repeat comments and to
38:47 stay on topic and particularly to be
38:50 making your comments to the particular
38:52 motion before you
38:56 next slide so just a few comments about
38:59 general meeting conduct as I mentioned
39:02 earlier I know it can sometimes feel
39:04 unnatural I know that often you have
39:07 members of the public attending your
39:08 meeting you have prescribed times that
39:11 they can speak to you under a public
39:14 hearing if there's one on your agenda or
39:15 during the public comment period but
39:18 really the work of the Commission is
39:21 among the seven of you at the table and
39:23 it is important that that the questions
39:27 and the dialogue and debate stay there
39:29 if there's an individual who's trying to
39:31 interject something from the audience
39:32 that that's not appropriate and it would
39:34 be in line for the chair to indicate
39:36 that and if there was a desire of the
39:38 chair or another member on the
39:40 Commission and there was agreement to
39:41 bring someone forward to you know maybe
39:43 ask a follow-up question or make a
39:45 clarification that that would be okay
39:47 but what you need to keep in mind is
39:49 that it's important to be consistent
39:50 with how you treat everyone which is why
39:53 we have guidelines as far as you know an
39:55 approximate time for those who address
39:57 you and from clear places on the agenda
40:00 for that
40:04 the last point I'd like to make is
40:07 regarding voting Jim is going to talk to
40:10 you a little bit more about appearance
40:12 appearance of fairness disclosures and
40:15 Tina will be talking to you about ethics
40:17 and conflicts of interests but I'm just
40:19 I'm going to speak to you about some of
40:20 the more practical aspects of that so
40:23 when the time comes for a vote its
40:25 importantly you've spoken under the
40:28 disclosures or just stated a conflict of
40:32 interest prior to the vote if you have
40:35 one of those instances you need to leave
40:38 the room so as to not be participating
40:41 in the boat if you do not have a
40:44 conflict or an appearance a fairness
40:46 issue that you don't want to vote you
40:49 may abstain from voting however your
40:54 rules of procedure as does our City
40:57 Council's indicate that if an abstention
40:58 is counted as a yes vote so if your vote
41:01 will be a yes the chair is not obligated
41:05 to and shouldn't ask for abstentions so
41:07 if your plan is to abstain you should
41:09 need to state that prior to the vote and
41:11 again it will be recorded as a yes
41:14 unit using unanimous consent is a tool
41:18 that you can use at your meetings you
41:19 know that sounds something like if there
41:22 is no objection to continuing this
41:24 public hearing to our next meeting
41:27 it is therefore continued I'm not doing
41:30 the best job of stating that but the
41:32 chair can do this this can also work for
41:35 the minutes are there any objections to
41:37 approval of the minutes of our past
41:38 meeting hearing none of the minutes are
41:40 so approved that can be used first more
41:43 procedural things continuing a public
41:46 hearing minutes anything else where
41:49 there seems to be broad agreement if any
41:51 member is an in agreement they need to
41:53 you need to say something
41:55 I object wait and then a vote will need
41:58 to occur I also just wanted to emphasize
42:01 to you how important it is that you're
42:03 clear on what is being decided and voted
42:06 on and if you have
42:07 any uncertainty there please speak up if
42:10 you would like something displayed on
42:12 the projector you know because you're
42:14 unclear on the wording that your
42:16 colleague mentioned an emotion or you're
42:18 unsure that the consensus that's being
42:21 reached that you're in line with that
42:23 please it's really difficult once the
42:26 meeting moves on to do anything about
42:28 that it's very difficult to undo the
42:31 work so please feel empowered to make
42:36 sure that you are clear and that is what
42:40 I have thank you on the guidelines for
42:44 public discussion and they need to be
42:47 consistent in that
42:49 so if Commission normally says notifies
42:54 members of the public attending that
42:56 we'd like you to keep your comments to
42:57 5-minutes or whatever it is if there are
43:02 only one or two people fewer people in
43:05 attendance that have indicated they want
43:07 to speak is it alright to be flexible in
43:10 that regard with regard can you change
43:12 the guidelines from meeting to meeting
43:13 in terms of how much time members of the
43:15 public are given
43:17 so the presiding officer and generally
43:20 the rule estate this does have some
43:22 flexibility with the will of the group I
43:24 I would say and if anyone else has input
43:26 they can share it I would say that
43:28 that's maybe a good thing to convey for
43:31 example um you know you you have reached
43:34 the 5-minute comment period because we
43:36 have so few in the audience tonight the
43:38 will of the group we will allow you to
43:40 conclude your remarks or to have an
43:42 additional five minutes something like
43:44 that so kind of recognizing that you are
43:46 doing something a little different but I
43:49 believe that is within your your right
43:53 or particularly the chair seeking
43:56 agreement from the group does anyone
43:57 have any opposing perspectives are
44:00 different well I've certainly seen that
44:03 that's of course I'll now find out I'm
44:06 wrong but where for instance at one
44:10 meeting there's 40 people and at the
44:14 next meeting there are two people at the
44:16 14 person meeting they may say each
44:19 person gets three minutes at the two
44:22 person meaning they may say they may not
44:26 even state a time but probably
44:27 preferably to say you have up to 10
44:29 minutes to speak I don't I think as long
44:32 as you're consistent within the meeting
44:34 and that there's
44:36 objective basis for identifying a
44:41 shorter or longer time I guess my
44:46 perspective is that that you're trying
44:49 to then I'll get into this a little bit
44:52 my presentation but you're trying to get
44:56 information from the public when the
44:58 public is testified if you're in a
45:00 legislative hearing which I'll talk
45:02 about a little bit what you're trying to
45:04 do is get the public's input on some
45:06 legislative matter that's in front of
45:08 you if you're in a quasi judicial
45:09 proceeding what you're trying to do is
45:12 hear the evidence that the people want
45:15 to present to you and sometimes the
45:18 issues are more complex than others
45:20 obviously and sometimes people will say
45:24 gee I don't know that I can really get
45:29 address all of the issues I want to
45:31 address in four minutes or three minutes
45:34 or whatever it is and I think you do
45:37 have to be flexible particularly in the
45:40 quasi judicial context to give people a
45:43 reasonable and meaningful opportunity to
45:46 be heard in front of you I think most
45:49 jurisdictions are anywhere from three to
45:51 five minutes that's kind of the standard
45:54 rule but I think most jurisdictions also
45:56 allow some flexibility as tisha said to
45:59 to say okay can you finish at the end of
46:04 the five minutes or whatever say can you
46:06 wrap up your comments and they say well
46:08 I've really got three more issues I need
46:10 to address than to say well you know if
46:13 there's only so many people will allow
46:16 you to do that subject to the board
46:20 overruling the chair will allow you to
46:23 do that and
46:25 you know but you can't do that in every
46:28 situation because if you have 40 people
46:29 here and they all want to take ten
46:31 minutes you're never going to get out of
46:33 here and you need to be able to do your
46:34 business so it's really kind of up to
46:35 you as to what is a reasonable
46:37 opportunity does the city have a
46:39 recommendation as to in our meetings the
46:45 public comment period should be
46:48 I noticed that some Commission's have
46:50 public comments at the end of the
46:52 meeting and some have public comments
46:56 after the staff and the applicant have
47:01 made their presentation and before the
47:04 Commission in question has their
47:07 discussion comments questions whatever
47:09 is there any recommendation on the city
47:12 as to which of those two general
47:14 approaches is better well I think - it's
47:19 important to distinguish that you have
47:21 certain two types of public comment at
47:23 some of your meetings so you have your
47:24 agenda items which have a public hearing
47:26 component which is specific to that item
47:28 and then I've seen that on at times you
47:31 also have a public comment agenda item
47:34 that's just for general public comments
47:37 so those are going to look different as
47:39 far as when they occur that public
47:41 hearing item that public comment needs
47:44 to should occur before your
47:46 decision-making like I mentioned to you
47:49 I did see a difference as far as
47:51 sometimes Commission questions occurring
47:53 of the staff and applicant occurring
47:55 before or after I think again
47:57 consistency is important your rules and
48:00 regulations typically provide a order of
48:03 business and so that would be what you
48:06 would look to follow with your agendas
48:10 I guess what I would say is that it
48:13 depends on what public comment period in
48:16 some jurisdictions and some Commission's
48:18 just have a general public comment
48:20 period anyone can get up talk about
48:22 anything any item of Commission business
48:25 in this general comment period I think
48:28 the best practice is to do that upfront
48:29 because at the end you've already taken
48:32 your action and it's too late for the
48:34 public to come in on it so it's best to
48:36 do that one upfront if you're doing a
48:38 public hearing and there are two types
48:40 of public hearings I'll talk about in my
48:42 presentation a legislative public
48:44 hearing and equation judicial public
48:46 hearing in a legislative public hearing
48:49 you want to get that public comment
48:50 during the public hearing so you you
48:53 don't do it at the beginning you don't
48:55 do it at the end you do it whenever that
48:56 public hearing occurs and what's the
48:59 staff I think once the staff makes its
49:03 presentation and I think tisha covered
49:06 that in one of her slides makes its
49:09 presentation then you'll open the public
49:11 hearing for public comment and that's
49:13 when you want to take that when that
49:14 matter is at issue in a quasi judicial
49:17 proceeding and I'll talk about this a
49:20 little bit as well that's where you know
49:23 you're dealing with a particular
49:24 development application and so in a
49:29 development application an applicant
49:31 bears the burden of showing you that the
49:32 development application meets the code
49:35 therefore most jurisdictions and I think
49:39 this is the proper practice allow the
49:40 applicant to go first and either the
49:43 applicant or maybe staff to make an
49:45 overview and then the applicant to go so
49:47 that they have the opportunity to show
49:50 you how they meet their burden of proof
49:51 then after that then it's for the public
49:55 or the staff to come
49:57 and talk about their presentation and
50:00 then you know in in equate most crazy
50:03 unusual proceedings you because again
50:06 the the applicant has the burden to
50:09 prove you usually give them a slot at
50:11 the end to just respond to things that
50:14 people people have said so it really
50:16 depends on what the purpose of your
50:18 comment period is review again where we
50:26 stand on and asking people to sign him
50:28 name address name address signed in Liz
50:32 lists are optional it's not required to
50:35 attend a meeting you can and you can
50:38 certainly ask the person to state their
50:40 name an address or relationship to the
50:42 city they can decline or indicate a
50:45 neighborhood but you can certainly ask
50:49 yeah I think I think it's difficult to
50:51 compel them to to say well we're not
50:54 gonna let you to speak unless you can
50:56 unless you give us your address but I
50:58 think it's important
51:00 they're both upsides and downsides to
51:03 giving the address at their first upside
51:06 for the individual giving the address is
51:08 it lets you guys all know what their
51:10 relationship is to the project and if
51:12 somebody lives outside the city maybe
51:15 you think well I know you take
51:18 everybody's input into account but if
51:20 someone's loose outside the city is not
51:22 really going to be affected by the
51:23 ordinance you might discount that a
51:25 little bit
51:26 so and in vice-versa if they live close
51:29 to the project or they're really going
51:30 to be affected by it that leads you to
51:34 give them a little bit more credibility
51:35 the second upside for them
51:38 in giving their address is oftentimes
51:40 we're compiling a list a mailing list to
51:46 give out notices of upcoming hearings
51:48 and and so forth so that we can maintain
51:51 the transparency to the public and if
51:53 and if they just don't sign in or won't
51:56 give their name or anything like that
51:57 then we have no way of really contacting
52:00 them unless we know them we don't have a
52:02 way of doing that so that's an upside
52:03 for them is it helps us give them more
52:07 information the downside is that signing
52:10 lists are public records and sometimes
52:13 people don't want their address to be
52:16 out there and so they have to recognize
52:20 when they sign in or when they give
52:23 their address that anyone can know their
52:25 address anyone can get a copy of that
52:27 signing sheet so that's why we kind of
52:30 allow people to say okay you don't have
52:33 to give us your address for all we know
52:36 there's some reason why you don't want
52:37 people to know why where you live so and
52:41 I'll just say from staffs perspective
52:44 the two things that we particularly like
52:47 our name and email we're often not
52:49 mailing things we're emailing things but
52:55 it is helpful for all the reasons that
52:58 Jim identified and what I gather is you
53:03 could testify anonymously if you wanted
53:05 to whether you how much weight you give
53:10 the testimony of somebody who testifies
53:12 anonymously is up to you what you give
53:14 what way you give anybody's testimony is
53:16 up to you again sure but the answer
53:28 there's not so unanimous consent is is
53:33 just a tool to kind of help the meeting
53:36 help you move through an aspect of the
53:39 meeting quicker if there's clear
53:42 agreement among all members so if there
53:46 is not clear agreement or if maybe the
53:48 chair thinks there is and says if there
53:51 being is there any objection to you need
53:55 to say yes I object
53:58 in which case of both will occur
54:03 it was appropriate for emotion at that
54:05 time it helps for the majority of the
54:08 regular members to decide how they're
54:11 going to move forward so do they indeed
54:13 continue the hearing or do they close
54:16 the hearing but it's not on emotion you
54:19 could first start off with a there's
54:22 there no introduction we will do this
54:23 there's an objection then you can go
54:25 down the path of staying with someone
54:27 like to call for a motion and then see
54:29 what the majority of your members wish
54:31 to do with it but I mean if you're
54:33 making a motion for a decision on a
54:35 permit or we'd want that to be a formal
54:38 right but there's those minor things you
54:41 could do this for a minute so you could
54:43 do it for you know things it's just like
54:46 do we have stretchers
54:50 though real-life opportunity maybe are
54:53 there any objections to approving the
54:55 minutes right hearing none the minutes
54:58 are approved yes
55:01 first by the way that it's done by by
55:04 jurisdictions is a consent agenda itself
55:06 where if you know things are going to be
55:08 non-controversial coming into the
55:10 meeting maybe the chair works with the
55:12 staff and puts together an agenda that
55:15 has consent items on it that says
55:18 approval of minutes and so forth and no
55:20 circle those consent items may be passed
55:22 in a single motion without taking them
55:24 up individually that's certainly the way
55:27 a council does it that yeah so it's it's
55:31 another option it was that was a path
55:34 that was of interest to the board or
55:37 Commission we would want to work with
55:39 you on establishing that rule or kind of
55:41 guideline within your rules and regs
55:44 your bylaws
55:47 there's a recording voting my
55:49 understanding is all members do not get
55:51 a vote inside correct and if they feel
55:53 for a regular position do they get a
55:55 vote then is that how that works
56:02 so a code of ethics I'm gonna I've only
56:05 have two slides on this behind your
56:08 powerpoint is our code of ethics policy
56:13 and then a little guideline document
56:17 little Q&A you should have signed off on
56:22 this document being a board member once
56:24 you have it's on file with my office new
56:27 members should have received an email
56:29 once or twice for me saying to find your
56:32 ethics forum and Friday to a link if
56:35 you're like itit doesn't ring a bell
56:37 you can go to move forward go to
56:40 Issaquah walk of slash ethics and it'll
56:45 bring you right to that electronic page
56:46 to sign off on it
56:48 what you see on the screen here are the
56:50 categories by which are spelled out in
56:53 the actual policy and I won't read
56:58 through I can't read you the documents
57:00 but I will say that like conflicts of
57:09 interest section for Hibbins items such
57:12 as using city property or money for
57:14 personal gain disclosing confidential
57:16 information having an int interest
57:19 directly or indirect indirectly in
57:23 cities service contract or sale
57:28 there are some exceptions to that that
57:31 are allowed under state laws as long as
57:32 that was not in conflict gifts incra to
57:35 tease a section prohibits giving a
57:39 receiving special privilege exemptions
57:41 give some items of value there are some
57:44 exceptions such as yes you can have a
57:46 meal that relates to a city business or
57:49 advance so long as other values under
57:51 $50 you can accept Ward's of recognition
57:54 for public service political activity as
57:57 Jim mentioned earlier you could go do
58:00 that on your own time but when you just
58:03 can't use city resources and facilities
58:05 for that so that you need to be mindful
58:09 of that we've got some more issues
58:11 spelled out in the actual document
58:13 that's attached and then public records
58:16 in the open public median section
58:18 basically reiterates that you are bound
58:21 by this act and you are bound by the
58:24 same in the OPA the remaining portion of
58:28 the ethics form thank you
58:31 deals with the whistleblower protection
58:33 and then who to seek out if you have
58:36 clarifications or if you want to
58:38 interpret a portion of the policy you
58:41 can do that through the HR department or
58:43 through the City Clerk's office and then
58:45 the city has a role in investigating
58:47 complaints and there is a section as to
58:51 if there were violations
58:53 that there could be civil penalties that
58:55 we talked about earlier and someone
58:59 could certainly lose their office or be
59:02 suspended from service
59:09 [Music]
59:12 okay first of all thanks for being here
59:15 and thanks for having me it's always
59:17 nice to see how many people are willing
59:19 to volunteer their time to to work for
59:23 their community so congratulations to
59:25 all of you on being appointed and
59:27 condolences to you and your family for
59:29 all of the time you spend I'll just
59:32 introduce myself I'm Jim Haney I'm the
59:35 city attorney I have been practicing for
59:38 the last almost 40 years started in 1980
59:44 and I have been limiting my practice to
59:49 working with municipal clients since
59:52 1983 so it's that's pretty much all my
59:56 practice is representing municipal
59:59 clients I started with the city of
1:00:01 Issaquah as prosecutor as the city
1:00:04 prosecutor in 1983 and I prosecuted
1:00:08 cases for the city for several years I
1:00:12 also and I moved up I guess you'd say
1:00:15 moved up into doing assistant city
1:00:18 attorney and civil work for the city and
1:00:20 became City Attorney for other cities
1:00:22 through my law firm and when Wayne
1:00:26 Tanaka respond retired in end of 2015 or
1:00:31 16 I took over as the city attorney here
1:00:34 or so I've been acting as the Issaquah
1:00:37 city attorney for that period of time
1:00:41 so I I want to start by talking about
1:00:45 two types of public hearings there are
1:00:47 two types as I mentioned before there
1:00:50 are legislative public hearings in which
1:00:53 the object is to obtain input from the
1:00:57 public on a legislative policy matter an
1:01:00 example of that would be the
1:01:02 comprehensive plan
1:01:03 that's a legislative matter development
1:01:05 regulations that may come before you
1:01:08 various sub area plans like the central
1:01:11 physical plan and area-wide reasons
1:01:15 where you're looking at large areas and
1:01:17 rezoning multiple properties those are
1:01:19 considered legislative in nature so when
1:01:23 you're acting in legislative hearing
1:01:24 your your object is to get input from
1:01:27 the public on that legislative policy
1:01:30 decision that you are going to make the
1:01:33 contrast with that is quasi judicial
1:01:35 hearings and as the name sound sound
1:01:38 makes it sound like you're acting as a
1:01:41 quasi judge in those proceedings your
1:01:44 object is to side the legal rights of
1:01:47 parties in the preceding examples of
1:01:50 that are when you're hearing a public
1:01:53 when you're holding a public hearing or
1:01:54 on a development application of a
1:01:56 specific application a site-specific a
1:01:59 rezone is considered quasi judicial a
1:02:02 preliminary plat is considered quasi
1:02:05 judicial now in this fall a lot of those
1:02:07 things go to the Hearing Examiner they
1:02:09 don't come to your Commission's but
1:02:11 occasionally you do get a quasi judicial
1:02:13 matter that comes to you and in those
1:02:16 matters your object is to decide the
1:02:19 legal rights of the parties involved
1:02:21 based on the evidence that you received
1:02:27 you trying the word quasi at was content
1:02:30 well I think you'd say judicial is when
1:02:33 you are a judge quasi judicial is when
1:02:35 you're acting like a judge so that's why
1:02:38 we use that term to describe it because
1:02:40 you're not really judges but you're
1:02:43 acting like a judge and the same way
1:02:45 that a judge acts and it used to be I'll
1:02:49 tell you that the law used to be pretty
1:02:51 confused and the court cases about what
1:02:56 was the difference between a legislative
1:02:58 matter and a quasi judicial matter when
1:03:01 was a city border Commission acting like
1:03:04 a judge and doing something that a judge
1:03:06 would normally do and when were they
1:03:08 acting like a legislator and doing
1:03:10 something that a legislator would do and
1:03:13 I think it's pretty settled now after
1:03:17 the legislature adopted a definition of
1:03:21 quasi-judicial which is in the
1:03:23 appearance of Fairness Doctrine statute
1:03:25 and it basically says whenever you're
1:03:28 deciding the rights of individuals in a
1:03:30 hearing or other contested case
1:03:33 proceeding
1:03:33 you are acting quasi judicial like a
1:03:36 judge so in legislative hearings again
1:03:41 you're acting like a legislator you're
1:03:43 making decisions that affect the
1:03:44 community as a whole in order to hold a
1:03:48 legislative public hearing we are
1:03:51 required to give notice and
1:03:54 notice is generally supposed to be
1:03:58 reasonable it's supposed to give a
1:04:01 reasonable opportunity and meaningful
1:04:03 opportunity to people for people to be
1:04:05 heard and that means a couple of things
1:04:07 one the notice has to be given far
1:04:10 enough in advance of the hearing for
1:04:12 people to know that the hearing is
1:04:14 coming up ten days is generally
1:04:17 considered to be the minimum amount of
1:04:19 notice that you should give for a
1:04:20 military prize the public and that is
1:04:24 what most of the aqua public hearings
1:04:28 legislatively require is a tent a public
1:04:31 hearing notice notice must also be
1:04:35 specific enough to tell an inn to tell
1:04:37 individuals who read it what it is that
1:04:40 you're going to consider it's not
1:04:42 sufficient to say that we're giving
1:04:44 notice that we're considering amendments
1:04:46 to the Issaquah Issaquah zoning code in
1:04:50 chat in title 18 because that doesn't
1:04:52 really tell anybody what you're really
1:04:54 doing it kind of narrows the field but
1:04:57 it doesn't really tell the nature of
1:04:59 what you're doing and if I was a person
1:05:01 reading that notice I'd be asking hmmm
1:05:03 do I need to show up or do I not is what
1:05:07 what exactly are they talking about
1:05:09 so notice is generally considered
1:05:13 sufficient if it describes the action
1:05:15 that you are considering with enough
1:05:17 specificity for an individual to be able
1:05:20 to make a meaningful comment to know
1:05:22 what it is that you're talking about and
1:05:25 I know I work with staff a lot of a lot
1:05:27 on notices and we talked a lot about
1:05:30 exactly how specific do we want to be
1:05:33 and there's always this tension between
1:05:35 being so specific that the Commission
1:05:39 may not be able to discuss everything it
1:05:42 wants to discuss and being specific
1:05:46 enough to let the public know so notice
1:05:49 is one thing that gets litigated a lot
1:05:52 in growth board cases and in other cases
1:05:54 that I've been involved in as to whether
1:05:57 the pub
1:05:57 had reasonable notice of what the
1:06:01 Commission was considering doing and
1:06:03 notice is generally given in a couple of
1:06:05 different ways when we give notice for
1:06:08 legislative public hearings we are
1:06:10 usually publishing the notice in the
1:06:12 newspaper some jurisdictions also
1:06:15 require that even for legislative
1:06:19 matters that there be posted that there
1:06:21 be posting also for legislative matters
1:06:25 some jurisdictions require that we try
1:06:27 to give notice to property owners but
1:06:29 those kinds of mailed notice to property
1:06:32 owners published in the newspaper those
1:06:35 are usually related to quasi judicial
1:06:37 hearings that I'll talk about we do as
1:06:40 Lucy said use email addresses for people
1:06:44 to make sure we comply with the
1:06:47 requirements of the growth Management
1:06:49 Act regarding notice because it says
1:06:52 that when you're giving notice to the
1:06:54 public you should use means which are
1:06:58 recently which you can reasonably expect
1:07:03 what apprise the public of a hearing
1:07:05 coming up and you should make an effort
1:07:06 to notify those who are known to be
1:07:10 interested in the proposal and when
1:07:12 people come up and testify and they give
1:07:14 us their email we know that they're
1:07:15 interested so we do provide them with
1:07:17 notice they also give us that that
1:07:20 expressed that interest through their
1:07:22 comments we get an email and so forth
1:07:24 but that's that's why that is important
1:07:27 as to try to get that required notice
1:07:31 [Music]
1:07:34 with respect to the opportunity to be
1:07:37 heard and a legislative public hearing
1:07:40 all members of the public should be
1:07:41 allowed to speak it's really kind of an
1:07:44 informal process it's not as formal as
1:07:47 as quasi judicial processes if you think
1:07:50 of the way a courtroom operates
1:07:52 witnesses are called they testify they
1:07:56 testify because the lawyers ask them
1:07:59 questions and then when they're finished
1:08:01 testifying they leave the stand and so
1:08:04 forth and they're cross-examined and all
1:08:06 of that kind of thing
1:08:07 that's not required in a legislative
1:08:10 public hearing and most places do not
1:08:12 allow any questioning by anybody other
1:08:15 than the Commission during a legislative
1:08:17 public hearing it's really an
1:08:20 opportunity for the public to give you
1:08:22 their input and their input is valuable
1:08:24 to you on the policy choices that you
1:08:28 are going to to make you can't establish
1:08:31 reasonable rules for the public a time
1:08:35 limit is one of them if you have a lot
1:08:37 of people you make a shorter time limit
1:08:40 if you have fewer people you can make a
1:08:41 longer time limit but you really want to
1:08:44 give gauge your time limit to how
1:08:46 complex the issues are and that's why I
1:08:49 always suggest that if you're going to
1:08:50 set a time limit that you always enable
1:08:54 the chair with the with the commission's
1:08:57 help to be able to override that and
1:09:00 give additional time that that is
1:09:01 necessary you can in public hearings
1:09:05 legislate other carryings hold people to
1:09:07 relevant things you know if someone got
1:09:11 up and started talking about something
1:09:13 that was completely not the proposal
1:09:15 before you you could stop them and say
1:09:17 that's really not germane
1:09:19 it happens sometimes people just want to
1:09:22 talk they they show up they want to talk
1:09:25 about a particular issue and it may not
1:09:26 be what this hearing is about so I
1:09:30 always recommend that at the outset of
1:09:32 the hearing that the chair go over the
1:09:37 ground rules for the hearing so that the
1:09:39 public knows about what they need to do
1:09:42 it's always nice to have them printed on
1:09:44 the agenda as well which the City
1:09:46 Council does with theirs I'm not sure
1:09:48 whether your agendas include those but
1:09:51 the City Council does have its public
1:09:53 speaking procedures they also do put
1:09:57 them up on the screen when the public
1:09:59 gets up to testify saying here's here's
1:10:01 how you give input and so forth so I
1:10:04 think that's good so that people
1:10:06 understand the ground rules when you do
1:10:14 so in legislative hearings once the
1:10:16 hearing is completed you close the
1:10:19 public hearing and that means that the
1:10:23 hearing is closed and the time for the
1:10:25 public to give you their input is over
1:10:27 unless you have in some way allowed for
1:10:32 additional public comment a lot of times
1:10:34 in legislative matters people continue
1:10:36 to receive public comment in writing at
1:10:38 least or at during public comment
1:10:41 the general public comment period and
1:10:44 that's okay because in a legislative
1:10:46 matter you're making a legislative
1:10:49 policy decision you're not limited to
1:10:51 any particular evidence that is before
1:10:54 you unlike a quasi digital hearing you
1:10:56 can basically take input at any time and
1:11:01 from anyone the practical difficulty is
1:11:05 you know and I've run into this in other
1:11:08 jurisdictions where people continue to
1:11:11 give their input all the way up to the
1:11:14 final day of the final vote on something
1:11:17 from you and you've had discussions and
1:11:18 every comment period they're coming and
1:11:21 they're giving their input and when they
1:11:22 do that on that final day it's hard to
1:11:25 take that input into account because but
1:11:27 at that point you're sitting there
1:11:28 you're having discussed it if you've got
1:11:30 something formulated before you ready to
1:11:33 adopt and here comes someone in
1:11:35 now he's wondering why their public
1:11:38 input isn't incorporated into that
1:11:41 document so but it is difficult to cut
1:11:44 the public off on on a legislative
1:11:46 matter and so you just deal with that it
1:11:50 it rarely is something that you really
1:11:52 need to stop and say wait a minute we're
1:11:55 going to postpone as far as the criteria
1:11:59 for making your legislative decision the
1:12:03 Issaquah Municipal Code does set out
1:12:07 criteria for comprehensive plan
1:12:09 amendments it does say to set out
1:12:11 criteria for development regulation
1:12:15 approvals in fact all of the various
1:12:17 levels of review in the Issaquah zoning
1:12:20 code all have separate criteria for you
1:12:22 to consider and make your decisions on
1:12:24 your staff report will always tell you
1:12:28 how the staff believes that those
1:12:30 criteria have been met but you're always
1:12:32 free based upon the evidence and the
1:12:35 testimony and anything else that is
1:12:37 brought to mind during the legislative
1:12:39 matter you're always free to not adopt
1:12:43 the staffs recommendation or to change a
1:12:46 finding that the staff is stating you're
1:12:49 you should make or whatever you're
1:12:51 you're the ones who are in charge of
1:12:53 this and staff is providing you a
1:12:55 resource by providing you a draft
1:12:57 decision based on what they understand
1:13:00 the discussion could have been and based
1:13:02 upon what their recommendation is as I
1:13:06 said you're not limited to considering
1:13:08 testimony and documents presented in the
1:13:10 hearing this is different from a quasi
1:13:12 judicial matter again you're not acting
1:13:15 as a judge you're acting as a legislator
1:13:18 as you know the legislature takes input
1:13:21 from any and all sources up until the
1:13:24 time they make things and then they make
1:13:25 a policy judgment so that's really the
1:13:27 same kind of thing here
1:13:32 so in quasi judicial decisions like I
1:13:35 said you're acting like a court and if
1:13:37 you think of how a court acts what does
1:13:39 it judge do that judge holds a trial to
1:13:43 hear evidence and get all of the
1:13:45 evidence to decide the case the judge
1:13:49 then makes findings specifically based
1:13:51 on that evidence and only based on that
1:13:53 evidence what evidence did the parties
1:13:55 present to me so that I can make a
1:13:58 decision the judge then draws
1:14:01 conclusions from that evidence and
1:14:03 ultimately if the judge enters a
1:14:06 judgment in the in the litigation which
1:14:09 decides the rights of the parties and
1:14:12 what you do is very similar you're
1:14:13 holding a hearing on the course of
1:14:15 neutral matter in order to get evidence
1:14:17 so that you can make a decision as to
1:14:20 whether a permit meets the criteria or
1:14:22 it doesn't meet the criteria you're
1:14:25 gonna make your findings based on that
1:14:26 evidence you can't go outside that
1:14:28 evidence you can't say well you know I
1:14:31 even hear this during the hearing but I
1:14:33 happen to know that that project has
1:14:35 this thing about it or I happen to have
1:14:40 heard from somebody else that there is
1:14:42 there's this particular feature on the
1:14:44 land you need to confine in a
1:14:46 quasi-judicial matter your decision to
1:14:50 the evidence that you have received in
1:14:52 the hearing you apply the criteria to
1:14:56 the facts in order to apply your
1:14:58 conclusions as to whether or not the
1:15:00 permit meets the criteria for approval
1:15:03 and by doing that
1:15:06 you grant or recommend approval of that
1:15:09 permit which then decides the rights of
1:15:13 the permit applicant it decides the
1:15:15 rights of everybody who testified for or
1:15:18 against and basically you're making a
1:15:21 decision that is like a court's judgment
1:15:23 so when you've passed earlier to define
1:15:25 quasi digital that's really why the
1:15:28 courts look at it this way is you're
1:15:29 doing everything that a judge would do
1:15:31 and and when you do what a judge does
1:15:34 you're not a judge but we're gonna say
1:15:37 you're like a judge at quasi judgment so
1:15:40 that's the that's how that works
1:15:46 as far as quasi judicial decision-making
1:15:49 I'm an advocate for having standing
1:15:52 rules of procedure but if you do this
1:15:54 only rarely you know sometimes people
1:15:58 don't have rules of procedure and they
1:15:59 have to come up with them when a rare
1:16:03 quasi neutral matter comes in front of
1:16:06 them Hearing Examiner obviously has good
1:16:09 rules of procedure because he decides
1:16:12 quasi judicial matters all the time but
1:16:15 you get them rarely so you may not
1:16:17 always have those and it's always a good
1:16:20 idea to work those out in advance to
1:16:24 figure them out how you're gonna handle
1:16:25 the hearing and to announce that
1:16:28 procedure prior to the earring taking
1:16:30 place so everybody has a fair
1:16:32 opportunity to comply with those
1:16:34 procedures typically as I said earlier
1:16:38 the party with the burden of proof
1:16:40 presents first other parties go after
1:16:43 and then the party with the burden of
1:16:45 proof gets a chance for rebuttal if this
1:16:48 is just an application that is pending
1:16:49 before you then party with the burden of
1:16:53 proof is going to be the applicant the
1:16:54 applicant bears the burden of showing
1:16:56 that their application meets the
1:16:58 requirements of the code if it's an
1:17:00 appeal of a decision made by staff
1:17:04 then whoever appealed the staff decision
1:17:06 is going to have the burden of proof so
1:17:08 it will vary from case to case but this
1:17:12 is generally how we always see it done
1:17:15 is the party with burden of proof
1:17:17 presents first the other parties after
1:17:20 and then the party with the burden of
1:17:22 proof gets a chance for about its it's
1:17:24 kind of like it's kind of like what you
1:17:27 see in a courtroom again in a courtroom
1:17:30 the plaintiff because or the prosecutor
1:17:33 has the burden of proof so they always
1:17:35 go first and put on their case then the
1:17:37 defendant comes in and puts on their
1:17:41 case and then the plaintiff or the
1:17:44 prosecutor if it's a criminal case gets
1:17:47 a chance to come back and offer some
1:17:49 rebuttal again because they have that
1:17:51 burden that heavy burden of proving the
1:17:54 case before you
1:17:57 commissioners can ask questions at any
1:17:59 time and you shouldn't ask your
1:18:02 questions it's really up to you as to
1:18:05 whether you want to wait until someone
1:18:06 has finished testifying and and then ask
1:18:10 the questions at the end or whether you
1:18:12 want to ask the questions as they go
1:18:15 along but you have the right to ask
1:18:17 questions in a quasi judicial proceeding
1:18:19 you have the right to ask questions in a
1:18:21 legislative hearing so you shouldn't be
1:18:23 afraid to do that you need to get
1:18:26 whatever you need to get in order to
1:18:28 make your decision now next one of the
1:18:34 things that sets quasi judicial
1:18:36 decisions
1:18:37 apart from legislative decisions is that
1:18:40 with quasi judicial Precision's you're
1:18:43 bound by something called the appearance
1:18:45 of fairness and you hear about it all
1:18:48 the time you hear that term all the time
1:18:51 appearance of fairness appearance of
1:18:53 fairness but but it's it's both a
1:18:58 well-known concept and it's sometimes
1:19:01 kind of hard to understand but here's
1:19:04 the basics is that judges
1:19:09 commissioners when they enacted a
1:19:11 quasi-judicial manner are found not only
1:19:15 to be fair in fact to fairly judge the
1:19:19 quasi digital matter in front of them
1:19:21 but they must appear to be fair that is
1:19:24 they must be above reproach in terms of
1:19:28 their background and so forth that that
1:19:30 might cause a person to think that
1:19:33 they're not fair as a matter of fact the
1:19:36 question in appearance of fairness that
1:19:38 is asked is whether a reasonable person
1:19:42 knowing all there is to know about your
1:19:48 connections with the application or the
1:19:51 parties a reasonable person who is
1:19:54 disinterested in the proceedings
1:19:58 themselves would be concerned that you
1:20:02 might not be fair it's not that you
1:20:06 haven't been fair we can look at the
1:20:07 proceedings that objectively when we
1:20:09 look at the transcript who can say gee
1:20:11 there's nothing here that says that you
1:20:13 were unfair but not only do you have to
1:20:17 be fair in fact you have to appear to be
1:20:21 fair and what that means is that we need
1:20:25 to know at the outset of a quasi
1:20:28 judicial hearing
1:20:30 what connections you have to the project
1:20:33 and to the applicant into the property
1:20:36 so that we can determine whether you
1:20:39 might have an appearance of fairness
1:20:42 problem and I know Lucy does a really
1:20:45 good job at these hearings of prompting
1:20:48 you with the questions and so forth if
1:20:50 you if you need that and asking you the
1:20:53 things you need to know and the intent
1:20:55 is to get all of those things on the
1:20:57 record again that is important for a
1:20:59 couple of reasons one because it gives
1:21:02 members of the public and those who are
1:21:05 who have the burden of coming before you
1:21:08 have them know about particular issues
1:21:12 that you may have and have the ability
1:21:15 to respond to that it's second it's
1:21:19 important because if they want to
1:21:22 challenge you and your ability to be
1:21:24 fair they need to do it at the outset of
1:21:27 the hearing so they need to know at the
1:21:30 outset all of the things about you that
1:21:33 could trigger that appearance of
1:21:35 fairness issue and if they challenge you
1:21:39 and if there is a valid appearance of
1:21:42 fairness concern about you you will be
1:21:46 required to step down and you will be
1:21:49 required not to participate in the
1:21:51 proceedings and if you don't and they
1:21:55 appeal or if you don't disclose and they
1:21:58 later find out about something that
1:22:00 would have been a valid grounds to
1:22:02 challenge you and they appeal the
1:22:05 decision can get overturned and
1:22:06 everybody's better doing it all over and
1:22:08 so we don't want to do this
1:22:10 so just give me an example it's only
1:22:13 happen once that I've seen where someone
1:22:16 had a ballad and we were reviewing
1:22:20 Swedish Hospital violence and sitting on
1:22:23 the commission was a head of the
1:22:26 emergency room for Swedish and we asked
1:22:32 him to recuse himself and he agreed he
1:22:39 did show up and then we had to ask him
1:22:41 to leave because I just want to point
1:22:44 that out that if you are not supposed to
1:22:47 influence it you may not be in the room
1:22:50 and so he left and everything was fine
1:22:55 and there was no bad intention but again
1:22:57 it's the appearance of fairness and even
1:22:59 had a room with the relationship that he
1:23:02 had with the other commissioners it was
1:23:05 a concern that it might not appear there
1:23:08 I'll tell you a story from early in my
1:23:10 career I was the city attorney for the
1:23:13 city of Black Diamond and I was the
1:23:16 prosecutor as well and we had a a judge
1:23:20 who was not a lawyer at the time you
1:23:22 could do that in in small municipal
1:23:24 courts we had the judge who was not a
1:23:26 lawyer and the judge we would hold a
1:23:30 night in court and the judge would
1:23:32 decide the cases and if he ever got
1:23:35 stuck he would look out into the
1:23:37 audience and his wife was sitting in the
1:23:40 audience and she would give him the
1:23:42 subtle signal as to as to which way to
1:23:45 go in the case and he would rule the way
1:23:48 that she gave him the subtle signal well
1:23:50 that's why we ask people to leave the
1:23:52 room so that they can't give the subtle
1:23:54 signal there's no nodding there's no
1:23:56 there's no
1:23:58 thumbs-up thumbs-down there's no I I
1:24:03 shouldn't I shouldn't use it very well
1:24:05 there's no sitting there like in the
1:24:06 movie Animal House where you sit there
1:24:08 and go oh
1:24:11 there's none of that so we we want to
1:24:13 make sure that when there is an
1:24:15 appearance of fairness issue that's why
1:24:17 you're asked to leave the room so that
1:24:19 there is absolutely no question that
1:24:21 you're trying to influence influence the
1:24:23 body yes is are we as individual
1:24:28 commissioners allowed to for example
1:24:34 look at a site an application or the
1:24:38 subject of a planning policy
1:24:40 Commissioner or something like that in
1:24:44 advance of the meeting or are we limited
1:24:46 only to what is presented by the staff
1:24:49 the applicant public comment in the
1:24:52 hearing in the legislative matters
1:24:54 there's no question you're allowed to go
1:24:56 look at the site if it's if it's if
1:24:58 there's some rezoning an area or
1:25:01 something where it would be legislative
1:25:02 in quasi neutral matters I think you can
1:25:04 do that but you need to be careful about
1:25:07 it and you really should have a kind of
1:25:08 a rule that that says this again will
1:25:11 analogize to what a judge and a jury
1:25:14 does when a jury goes out to look at a
1:25:17 site during a trial they are instructed
1:25:21 their view of the site is not evidence
1:25:26 but they're being afforded an
1:25:29 opportunity to look at the site so that
1:25:31 they can understand the evidence that
1:25:33 they are receiving better so I know that
1:25:38 for example you know you you get platon
1:25:41 maps and so forth and it's a nice flat
1:25:43 drawing on a piece of paper or a site
1:25:45 map it's a nice flat drawing and you're
1:25:48 kind of looking at it and you're you're
1:25:50 not really you know unless you read
1:25:53 these plans all the time and I know you
1:25:54 do it's it's hard sometimes to visualize
1:25:58 it and as long as you recognize that
1:26:02 then you go out and visualize or go out
1:26:06 and actually see the site it's to help
1:26:08 you understand that document better and
1:26:11 to understand what that document showing
1:26:13 and not evidence in and of itself then
1:26:18 you'll be fine I would I would say I had
1:26:21 a I had a quasi-judicial hearing once
1:26:24 with a city council that wanted to take
1:26:26 a a site visit and we ended up recording
1:26:30 the site visit and and taking the
1:26:33 council out on site and it was amazing
1:26:37 to see council members like pointing to
1:26:40 what appeared to me to be a puddle of
1:26:42 water and believing that was a wetland
1:26:44 and things like that and drawing
1:26:46 conclusions from it but really and so I
1:26:49 had to bring it around when we got back
1:26:50 and say you know really this is not
1:26:53 evidence you're going and viewing the
1:26:55 site what you're viewing the site for is
1:26:57 to help you understand the evidence that
1:27:00 you're getting in the proceeding and
1:27:02 that may I hope that's clear but that's
1:27:05 that's the distinction so a couple of
1:27:08 questions if someone has visited this
1:27:11 site should they disclose that
1:27:13 yes I think you should and particularly
1:27:16 if you have questions about anything
1:27:18 that has that you saw at the site you
1:27:21 say you know I was out there just trying
1:27:24 to understand
1:27:26 am I right that you know this place up
1:27:29 here is where I saw the detention pond
1:27:32 and this over here if you have questions
1:27:35 it's helpful for to bring those to the
1:27:37 forum but again you should not draw
1:27:40 conclusions based on what you see out
1:27:42 there because it's really not evidence
1:27:43 is it okay to ask questions as a
1:27:46 follow-up for instance I had the exact
1:27:49 same example in mind they see a puddle
1:27:51 and they think it's a wetland is it okay
1:27:54 to say has the property been evaluated
1:27:56 for critical areas yes but as I like
1:27:59 that say it's a critical area yeah I
1:28:02 think I think you know to say I observe
1:28:05 some areas you know when I was out there
1:28:07 I just saw some areas they looked wet I
1:28:09 hasn't been evaluated for critical areas
1:28:12 and if the answer is yes it's been
1:28:14 evaluated here's the evaluation the
1:28:16 evidence you rely on is that evaluation
1:28:18 and what's been presented and not what
1:28:20 you saw out of the field it's only there
1:28:22 to help you understand and contextualize
1:28:25 what you have information you're getting
1:28:29 yes Jim and Lucy what's the protocol
1:28:33 because of fairness and say you've not
1:28:36 attended the first meeting serious do we
1:28:41 just simply state that fact to the
1:28:43 beginning of the meeting and then if
1:28:46 we're asked to sit off for the remainder
1:28:48 of the beat and then we just comply with
1:28:49 that or what's the correct apprentice I
1:28:51 think I think it depends if it's a
1:28:54 quasi-judicial if it's a legislative
1:28:55 hearing there's no problem with that
1:28:58 because again you're getting the public
1:29:00 input you probably have read the minutes
1:29:03 you know and so forth in here you know
1:29:05 enough if it's a quasi-judicial matter
1:29:10 then before you can participate in the
1:29:14 decision-making you would want to have
1:29:17 reviewed the entire record and have
1:29:19 heard the entire record so if you come
1:29:22 in and you know this is the second
1:29:24 meeting on a some quasi-judicial matter
1:29:28 who say you make it known I was not here
1:29:31 at the first meeting so I'll stay here
1:29:35 and and listen to the testimony if the
1:29:38 decision is going to be made tonight
1:29:40 then I won't participate because I
1:29:41 haven't read the record or if you've
1:29:43 gone and you've gone back and
1:29:45 everything's video yeah yeah watch the
1:29:48 video if you've gone back and watched
1:29:49 the video you say I wasn't here at the
1:29:51 last meeting but I have gone back and
1:29:53 watched the video and I have looked at
1:29:55 the document so I feel like I can I can
1:29:58 proceed you would be fine to do that at
1:30:00 that point it would be only if you
1:30:02 hadn't watched the video
1:30:04 you were only here for half of the
1:30:06 hearing and Commission is ready to make
1:30:08 a decision then really you shouldn't
1:30:10 participate because you don't have all
1:30:11 of the evidence and when do we when do
1:30:14 we state that after the the chair mate
1:30:15 has made the introduction or the the
1:30:18 meetings begun or wind in that process
1:30:20 yeah I would I would at the outset of
1:30:23 when the matter comes up before the
1:30:26 Commission I would suggest you make that
1:30:28 that statement is a technicality but
1:30:32 under the rules for a quorum if you have
1:30:39 four members but only three of the
1:30:41 members have seen the whole record and
1:30:43 get a fourth one that's not prepared the
1:30:45 Commission that's correct
1:30:48 at that point if you don't I mean
1:30:50 technically you have a quorum but I
1:30:52 think if he and if three members were
1:30:54 all in agreement it would be a valid
1:30:56 decision but in in many cases but I
1:31:00 would suggest that at that point if you
1:31:03 don't have enough people to be able to
1:31:05 put forth of all the votes that are
1:31:10 necessary to take the action that you
1:31:12 would probably want to continue it until
1:31:15 you do have those folks until more
1:31:18 people are gonna be there
1:31:23 [Music]
1:31:25 okay so we've listed some of the
1:31:27 appearance of fairness questions these
1:31:28 may be familiar to you since you may
1:31:30 have been through this with Lucy before
1:31:32 but if not I'll just lay them out some
1:31:36 of the questions we like to ask during
1:31:38 the appearance of fairness and I'll just
1:31:40 say in terms of the in terms of the way
1:31:43 kind of I like to go about it and
1:31:45 everybody has their different style but
1:31:48 but the way I like to go about it is to
1:31:50 either have the chair ask the questions
1:31:53 or if the chair wishes me or a staff
1:31:56 member to ask the questions ask the
1:31:58 questions
1:31:59 get the council or Commission members to
1:32:03 indicate if they are responding yes to
1:32:07 any of the questions and then ask them
1:32:09 to explain and then at the end when
1:32:11 everybody has made all of their
1:32:13 disclosures that's the point at which
1:32:15 the chair or the staff member or me then
1:32:19 asks are there any challenges to any of
1:32:23 the council members and the reason for
1:32:26 doing that is because anybody who was
1:32:29 there and at word even not there and who
1:32:32 should have known then what all of the
1:32:34 basis was for a challenge and it doesn't
1:32:37 make it that challenge has deemed waived
1:32:38 and the council members can and
1:32:40 Commission members can't continue to
1:32:42 participate even if they would have
1:32:45 answered one of these questions yes the
1:32:47 appearance of fairness can be waived so
1:32:49 that's that's why we do that they make
1:32:51 the disclosures then we try to figure
1:32:53 out whether anybody's challenging so the
1:32:57 disclosures first does the decision
1:32:59 maker have a personal interest financial
1:33:02 or otherwise in the matter such that he
1:33:04 or she stands to gain or lose by the
1:33:07 decision this is the old classic you
1:33:10 can't adjudicate your own case
1:33:13 so if you do have a financial interest
1:33:16 somehow and be proceeding you shouldn't
1:33:20 you should be disclosing that at the
1:33:22 outset question that sorry that is that
1:33:26 the direct financial interest or candid
1:33:29 broader in the sense that making up a
1:33:32 story there's developments proposed
1:33:33 clearly going to raise property values
1:33:36 in the city of this one I'm just making
1:33:38 up a story I live in the that'd be
1:33:43 an indirect then in that my house value
1:33:45 might go up well it's a good question so
1:33:47 let let me let me just say that it has
1:33:49 to be a financial interest that sets you
1:33:53 apart from other members of the general
1:33:55 public so you know every time the
1:33:57 council makes a decision on taxes or
1:34:00 whatever everybody has the same interest
1:34:01 you know the council levies taxes it's
1:34:04 going to go up but that doesn't mean
1:34:07 that that council member has a conflict
1:34:09 of interest in that even though their
1:34:11 taxes are going to go up it's a matter
1:34:13 of are you affected in a way that is
1:34:16 different from other members of the
1:34:19 public and the public in general I would
1:34:21 say for example let's say you've got an
1:34:24 ownership interest in the property
1:34:25 that's an easy one you know where you
1:34:27 were under contract to sell the property
1:34:30 to the developer that's an easy one or a
1:34:33 little bit more remote you own stock in
1:34:36 the developer
1:34:37 and your stock would rise or fall that's
1:34:39 a more direct kind of financial interest
1:34:42 that you might that you might consider
1:34:44 disclosing and it might create a problem
1:34:48 for you um can I just ask a question
1:34:51 sure for a legislative matter yes if
1:34:56 there was a reason of property that was
1:35:01 owned by commissioners not under state
1:35:11 law tea not doing anything in the ethics
1:35:15 code that would address an event as I
1:35:20 have seen a commissioner specifically
1:35:24 trying to change their zoning on their
1:35:26 property in a larger zoning matter yes
1:35:31 yeah ethics policy was intended to
1:35:35 complement the parcels
1:35:40 well I fanned that was not in this
1:35:42 jurisdiction yeah I mean I think in a
1:35:48 legislative matter generally you are if
1:35:52 it is truly legislative you are entitled
1:35:54 to bring your own prejudices and own
1:35:56 interests to the table and so that would
1:36:00 generally not be an issue many cities
1:36:05 have ethics codes which would require
1:36:07 you to recuse yourself under those kinds
1:36:09 of situations and the state conflict of
1:36:13 interest statute is pretty minimal it
1:36:19 mostly feels what contracts and your
1:36:22 interests in contracts that come before
1:36:24 you and you don't approve contracts so
1:36:26 it generally so it it really doesn't
1:36:28 mostly apply to you there are some
1:36:30 things about like not taking bribes and
1:36:33 things like that in the state ethics
1:36:34 code but there's nothing that
1:36:36 specifically addresses I think something
1:36:38 like you're talking about Lucy
1:36:42 the second one that I was going to talk
1:36:44 about was will there be prospective
1:36:46 employment for the decision-maker or his
1:36:48 or her family as a result of the
1:36:50 decision and I know that sounds kind of
1:36:52 that's a sounds like an odd question but
1:36:55 it comes from an actual case where I
1:36:57 hate to admit it an attorney was on a
1:37:01 Planning Commission acted on a quasi
1:37:03 neutral matter and then was hired by the
1:37:05 developer two weeks later held
1:37:09 appearance of fairness problem as
1:37:11 prospective employment and that was
1:37:14 considered to be an appearance of
1:37:16 fairness violation even though the
1:37:18 actual hiring did not take place until
1:37:20 after the matter was done court said
1:37:23 look you know nobody gets hired like the
1:37:25 next day we understand that that people
1:37:29 there's probably were discussions and so
1:37:31 forth that's an appearance of fairness
1:37:34 [Music]
1:37:35 is there any business competition
1:37:38 between the decision-maker and any
1:37:40 parties into earrings so if you own a
1:37:42 local business and your competitor is up
1:37:44 here asking for a permit to expand their
1:37:48 business and you think it's gonna ruin
1:37:50 ruin you you don't it's not a direct
1:37:52 financial interest but obviously you do
1:37:54 that in interest in the proceedings and
1:37:56 should disclose that are there any
1:37:59 familial relationships and I would say
1:38:01 also close friendships between the
1:38:04 decision-maker and any of the parties at
1:38:06 the area because again we're asking our
1:38:09 we're asking ourselves would someone
1:38:12 knowing that you are close friends with
1:38:15 the applicant or that the applicant is
1:38:17 your cousin would someone think you're
1:38:19 not going to be fair that you're going
1:38:20 to favor them
1:38:22 might not be fair that you're going to
1:38:25 favor them you can be as fair as
1:38:27 possible and maybe you hate your cousin
1:38:29 and you would just prefer that to do
1:38:31 anything that would that would make them
1:38:34 unhappy but someone could think that you
1:38:37 might not be fair and so you need to
1:38:39 dispose familiar with relationships and
1:38:41 close friendships you don't need to
1:38:44 necessarily disclose if you know
1:38:46 somebody enough to say hi you know on
1:38:49 the street you know their name you say
1:38:51 you've said hi
1:38:53 something like that but if you guys are
1:38:55 going out to dinner together you know if
1:38:57 you vacation together whatever that kind
1:39:00 of close friendship has to be disclosed
1:39:02 the next one does the decision maker
1:39:05 owner control property near the subject
1:39:07 property is your property going to be
1:39:10 specifically affected by this think
1:39:12 about a development that is going to
1:39:15 have a lot of traffic and it's going to
1:39:16 all run by your house are you affected
1:39:20 by the development do you have an
1:39:21 appearance of fairness issue the answer
1:39:22 is yes because you're gonna see you're
1:39:25 gonna there's going to be a tangible
1:39:27 impact on you the way I usually say is
1:39:31 as a rule of thumb is when we notify
1:39:36 people in a quasi-judicial proceeding we
1:39:39 notify property owners within a certain
1:39:41 number of feet property within a certain
1:39:44 number of feet of the proposed
1:39:46 development
1:39:47 if you're within that notice area that
1:39:49 means that you think you've got enough
1:39:52 of an interest that you should know
1:39:53 what's going on and that's probably
1:39:55 means that you need to disclose that
1:39:58 that theory if you're outside the notice
1:40:01 area and you just like everybody else
1:40:03 then move look at specifics as to
1:40:06 whether there was any specific impact of
1:40:08 this development maybe you live a mile
1:40:10 downstream from it and all the drainage
1:40:13 is going right by your house you know or
1:40:15 something like that we would have to
1:40:16 look at that but generally speaking
1:40:19 we're looking for a close connection
1:40:25 there's three million feet we actually
1:40:29 this is our older version of this
1:40:31 question we've actually updated it to
1:40:33 say as indicated by receiving notice
1:40:37 just so that is clear because for
1:40:39 instance the urban village development
1:40:41 Commission all the commissioners would
1:40:45 often disclose that they lived in his
1:40:47 kua Highlands if there was a matter
1:40:48 before them that was in his islands and
1:40:51 once we received the clarification that
1:40:53 notice was a good indication of that
1:40:56 then that meant that not all of them
1:40:58 felt they had to disclose that not that
1:41:01 it's bad to disclose things
1:41:03 [Music]
1:41:07 the next one has the decision maker made
1:41:10 a final decision on the request before
1:41:11 hearing any testimony or evidence
1:41:13 obviously if you have expressed opinions
1:41:16 about a particular quasi-judicial matter
1:41:18 and said that you prejudged it basically
1:41:22 and this is how you're gonna vote before
1:41:23 you've heard any of the evidence that's
1:41:24 a problem
1:41:25 you wouldn't want a judge who said that
1:41:28 and people don't want you in that
1:41:31 situation the last one I think is
1:41:35 whether you have had any ex parte
1:41:40 contacts an ex parte just means you're
1:41:43 having these contacts outside of the
1:41:46 proceedings so you're walking let's say
1:41:49 you're walking into the supermarket and
1:41:51 someone comes up to us I know that that
1:41:54 project is on your agenda on Tuesday
1:41:57 night and I want to tell you what I
1:41:58 think about it and proceeds to tell you
1:42:01 that's an ex parte contact and ex parte
1:42:05 contacts in a way for the best kind of
1:42:08 appearance of fairness problems because
1:42:10 they are easily cured they're easily
1:42:13 occurred and next slide please
1:42:18 the cure for ex parte contacts is simply
1:42:21 disclosing the substance of those
1:42:23 contacts at the outset of the hearing if
1:42:26 at the outset of the hearing you say you
1:42:28 know I was in the supermarket the other
1:42:30 day and Joe Smith came up to me and said
1:42:34 that he hated this project and he
1:42:37 thought that the it was going to be a
1:42:41 severe impact on wildlife in the area
1:42:43 and so I'm disclosing that Joe Smith
1:42:47 said that to me
1:42:50 that gives fair notice to anyone who is
1:42:53 going to come up and speak that somebody
1:42:57 said that to you and they can respond to
1:42:59 it if they don't know about it they
1:43:01 can't respond to it so disclosing those
1:43:04 types of calm comments and you don't
1:43:06 necessarily need to disclose and I've
1:43:08 been asked you need to disclose the name
1:43:10 do you need to give the time you don't
1:43:12 necessarily need to do that but you do
1:43:14 need to disclose the substance of the
1:43:16 communication so as long as you do that
1:43:19 at the outset of the hearing that will
1:43:22 allow people to respond to it and it
1:43:24 cures the appearance of fairness problem
1:43:27 other appearance of fairness problems
1:43:29 are not so easily cured there are
1:43:34 exceptions to the appearance of fairness
1:43:35 doctrine things like by to you at this
1:43:39 point things like they do statements
1:43:42 during a campaign when you're running
1:43:43 for office because you're you're not
1:43:48 sitting on an elected board you're
1:43:50 sitting in an appointed board so that
1:43:51 one wouldn't apply to you but the the
1:43:55 other appearance of fairness problems
1:43:56 are not so easily cured you need to
1:43:58 disclose them you need to see if people
1:44:01 object to you sitting and sometimes
1:44:05 people object based on things that
1:44:07 you've disclosed and it's not really an
1:44:09 appearance of fairness problem you sit
1:44:11 there and you say I've I've had this
1:44:14 contact from Joe Smith and he told me
1:44:17 that he hated this project and that this
1:44:19 was going to have an impact on the
1:44:20 wildlife and someone gets up and says I
1:44:23 challenge you into the appearance of
1:44:24 fairness doctor and you have to step
1:44:26 down and you
1:44:27 you'd get a ruling and say no he's
1:44:29 disclosed he or she has disclosed the
1:44:31 contact you have a chance to respond to
1:44:34 it not a valid objection but other times
1:44:38 when there is a valid objection it is
1:44:40 your cousin you do have a financial
1:44:42 interest in the property and so forth we
1:44:45 call upon the public and the people who
1:44:48 are here are there any objections and if
1:44:50 somebody objection you will have to step
1:44:52 down and you will have to leave the room
1:44:54 and not participate any further in the
1:44:56 proceedings you can't contact the other
1:44:59 members you can't you can't stand up and
1:45:03 go okay now I want to testify against
1:45:05 the project and stand to stand at the
1:45:07 podium and testify that's in there
1:45:09 goodnight yes sir so as counsel for the
1:45:12 city would you recommend that you simply
1:45:14 disclose and you allow the audience or
1:45:17 someone from there to object or would
1:45:19 you just pretty evident leave recuse
1:45:22 yourself it's just better to disclose
1:45:24 and let it be challenged on the old
1:45:25 Island yeah yeah I guess it what I
1:45:27 always tell council members and
1:45:29 Commission members have asked me as I
1:45:31 always say do you want to decide this do
1:45:36 you feel you can be fair despite what
1:45:38 you're telling me do you feel you can be
1:45:39 fair do you want to participate and if
1:45:42 they say yes then I say just disclose
1:45:44 and and let somebody challenge you and
1:45:48 what I would add is call us ahead of
1:45:51 time it's a lot better to have us be
1:45:55 able to consult with the city attorney
1:45:57 or have the city attorney speak with you
1:45:59 and hear the circumstances
1:46:02 and help make that decision I mean
1:46:05 you're all there because you want things
1:46:06 to happen and you're and you want to
1:46:10 represent the city well and so it's
1:46:14 easier to do that ahead of time than it
1:46:16 is to do it in real time and if you feel
1:46:20 you can be fair and you and you want to
1:46:22 participate there's no reason why you
1:46:24 shouldn't and I mean it is after all
1:46:27 your job as a commissioner that's why
1:46:29 you're on the commission was to
1:46:30 participate and make these decisions but
1:46:33 if you think you know I really I'm
1:46:36 second-guessing myself and I think I may
1:46:39 not be fair then then you can recuse
1:46:41 yourself a couple of other things that
1:46:44 aren't exactly ex parte but our
1:46:47 appearance of fairness if there is an
1:46:50 intermission during a public hearing
1:46:52 make sure you're not talking about
1:46:55 anything to do with the purpose it's
1:46:58 you've been talking talking listening
1:47:00 talking and then there's an intermission
1:47:03 and we had this happen where the
1:47:06 commissioners did not think about it and
1:47:08 kept talking about the permit during the
1:47:10 intermission when we were out of the
1:47:11 room and we came back and the applicants
1:47:14 like so we had to ask you know whether
1:47:20 the applicant was comfortable continuing
1:47:22 at that point so it's it's hard because
1:47:27 you know many times you guys know each
1:47:29 other well you're pretty comfortable
1:47:30 with each other as I said you're you
1:47:34 know you're stopping a conversation for
1:47:36 five or ten minutes and
1:47:37 having to pick up again and it just
1:47:40 requires a kind of level of awareness
1:47:44 this ex parte discussion
1:47:48 I love Safeway is only relevant when
1:47:53 it's it's not something it's already
1:47:55 happened it's history the apartment
1:47:57 complex is up it's something that is
1:47:59 either coming up or at the at the next
1:48:03 meeting is that cool yeah so we already
1:48:05 happened and people are buttonholing you
1:48:07 saying what what what the heck where you
1:48:10 think that yeah
1:48:11 that's I'm sure you never get that but
1:48:15 but no but that as the appearance of
1:48:18 fairness doctrine only applies while the
1:48:20 application is pending for you and once
1:48:23 and once the application has been
1:48:25 decided by you
1:48:27 I usually if there's a reconsideration
1:48:29 period under your rules I say it applies
1:48:32 until you're done with reconsideration
1:48:35 but once that passes and you can talk
1:48:39 about it with anyone and everyone
1:48:41 because you've done your job and it's
1:48:43 it's done at that point so only it only
1:48:46 applies from the time that the
1:48:48 application is is if it's something that
1:48:50 is always going to go to you like you
1:48:54 know a matter that that automatically
1:48:57 goes to the development commissioner the
1:49:00 Paulette policy Planning Commission our
1:49:03 planning policy Commission when when
1:49:07 it's filed it is quasi-judicial from the
1:49:09 moment it's filed until it comes before
1:49:11 you if it was like an appeal and it's a
1:49:15 staff decision
1:49:17 it gets appealed to you it's
1:49:18 quasi-neutral wants its appeal because
1:49:20 then it's pending before you so it's
1:49:22 really only when the application so if
1:49:25 someone is talking to them because they
1:49:28 know a permit is going to get submitted
1:49:30 great I mean technically it's not it's
1:49:35 not in pending what I always recommend
1:49:38 to commissioners is be cautious if you
1:49:40 think something could come before you
1:49:42 because again even though someone is you
1:49:47 know talking to you and it's not
1:49:50 technically pending before you it could
1:49:54 show prejudice or bias on your part if
1:49:57 you participate and conversation and so
1:50:00 I would I always advise commissioners to
1:50:03 say you know I understand you want to
1:50:05 talk to me I think that's probably going
1:50:08 to come before the Commission I don't
1:50:09 feel comfortable talking with you about
1:50:11 it we'll have a will have a hearing when
1:50:13 it comes in front of the Commission and
1:50:15 I encourage you to come and testify and
1:50:17 then I can then I can hear everything
1:50:19 you want to tell specifically regarding
1:50:25 the planning policy Commission I mean
1:50:28 you remember some may have this entirely
1:50:29 wrong but my understanding is that that
1:50:31 Commission does not make decisions it
1:50:33 makes recommendations yes so I see the
1:50:37 word decision here and your our
1:50:40 recommendation is similar in the sense
1:50:42 that all these rules you're not getting
1:50:46 quasi-judicial matters no yeah it would
1:50:49 mean if you were getting yes if you if
1:50:52 you the same thing the same rules apply
1:50:55 whether it's a recommendation or an
1:50:57 actual decision as
1:50:59 [Music]
1:51:00 policy planning Commissioner you you do
1:51:03 not get quasi-judicial matters but at
1:51:06 least not yet
1:51:07 what never knows so you don't get them
1:51:11 so this probably will not have that that
1:51:14 issue of appearance of fairness and all
1:51:17 of that before you but the legislative
1:51:20 matter all that still applies to
1:51:22 recommendations as well as decisions
1:51:27 deliberations in quasi judicial matters
1:51:30 deliberations can occur immediately
1:51:32 following the close of the hearing or
1:51:37 you can hold them over to a subsequent
1:51:38 date sometimes you're just exhausted
1:51:40 after a couple of hours a hearing and
1:51:42 you say I want to think about this can
1:51:45 we postpone the deliberations to
1:51:47 such-and-such a date and that's
1:51:48 perfectly fine you don't have to decide
1:51:50 at that night the decision must be based
1:51:53 on criteria in the code and all of the
1:51:56 applications that are in the code you
1:51:58 have criteria every level of review has
1:52:01 criteria and so you must make your
1:52:03 decisions based on that and lastly the
1:52:06 decision must be based on the record
1:52:08 that is it must be based on the
1:52:10 testimony you receive in the quasi
1:52:12 judicial hearing and all of the
1:52:15 documents that and exhibits that were
1:52:17 submitted again that's a quasi judicial
1:52:19 matter legislative you're free to take
1:52:21 into account absolutely anything when it
1:52:24 was presented to you in the hearing or
1:52:26 not wasted usually they're limited to
1:52:28 the record you have to make the decision
1:52:30 like a judge would have to me
1:52:32 I just have two last slides and I have
1:52:38 these in the last time I did this
1:52:39 presentation so I put them in this time
1:52:41 there's there's two concepts are a
1:52:44 couple concepts that apply to what you
1:52:48 do and they're called procedural due
1:52:51 process and substance differences
1:52:53 procedural due process is that parties
1:52:57 must be given adequate notice and a
1:53:00 meaningful opportunity to be heard and
1:53:02 we talked about that a little bit
1:53:03 earlier about how you give notice and
1:53:06 how you give procedural due process and
1:53:10 that's because the the Constitution in
1:53:14 the United States guarantees procedural
1:53:16 and substantive due process so what we
1:53:18 see when we violate that is we often see
1:53:21 claims based on violation of civil
1:53:24 rights and so these things can ripen
1:53:27 into a civil rights claim if we don't
1:53:29 give people procedural due process and
1:53:32 procedural due process also means that
1:53:34 the code has to be followed in terms of
1:53:36 the procedures the other one is
1:53:39 substantive due process and substantive
1:53:41 due process goes not to how you would
1:53:44 not the regulations but what the
1:53:46 regulations themselves say and do
1:53:50 adopted regulations must be the basis
1:53:53 for your decision and you know in that
1:53:55 in me and that's where the criteria that
1:53:57 we talk about comes in is that you need
1:54:00 to use the criteria for making your
1:54:02 decisions even legislative decisions
1:54:05 like comp plan amendments
1:54:06 and development regulations they have
1:54:08 criteria in the code and so you must use
1:54:11 those criteria any condition that you
1:54:14 impose an equation eternal matter must
1:54:16 be aimed at alleviating a public problem
1:54:18 that is made worse by the proposal or if
1:54:22 you're doing a legislative matter you
1:54:24 really need to it's it's saying that you
1:54:26 need to have some sort of legislative
1:54:29 some sort of issue that you're trying to
1:54:31 solve with the legislation that any
1:54:36 condition you impose must use reasonable
1:54:38 means of achieving its purpose same with
1:54:41 legislation you have to you have to see
1:54:46 that what it is that you are requiring
1:54:49 people to do by enacting this regulation
1:54:53 or by imposing this condition is
1:54:55 reasonable to achieve the purpose that
1:54:58 you're trying to achieve and lastly any
1:55:01 condition you impose and any regulation
1:55:04 you impose cannot be unduly oppressive
1:55:07 that's the language views duly oppressed
1:55:10 and what that means is that it cannot
1:55:12 require someone to shoulder an economic
1:55:15 burden that in fairness the public
1:55:17 should bear and for example the courts
1:55:22 have taught talked a lot about a 4,000
1:55:25 and how affordable housing is a societal
1:55:29 issue according to the courts it's not a
1:55:31 development issue so when developers are
1:55:34 coming in and and saying we're gonna I'm
1:55:38 going to demolish this affordable
1:55:40 housing project the City of Seattle had
1:55:43 regulations that said if you demolish it
1:55:46 you've got to replace it or you've got
1:55:47 to pay money into a fund to replace
1:55:49 affordable housing the court the sub
1:55:52 Washington's Supreme Court said
1:55:55 this is a societal burden homelessness
1:55:58 afforded the need for portable housing
1:56:00 it's a societal burden it's not the
1:56:03 burden of developers development doesn't
1:56:06 cause a lack of affordable housing yeah
1:56:10 that's what the Supreme Court said I
1:56:13 think we all understand that if we build
1:56:17 a development that is not affordable we
1:56:20 will not get an affordable house and
1:56:22 there have been some moves on the
1:56:25 legislative front to deal with
1:56:26 affordable housing and to give you more
1:56:28 authority to to impose conditions but in
1:56:32 reality what the courts look at in a
1:56:35 subsequent due process is are you just
1:56:37 being unfair to put that unfair burden
1:56:40 on this individual as opposed to
1:56:43 something that society should bear so
1:56:46 that's substantive due process so that I
1:56:51 think is the end of my presentation
1:56:53 right on it looks like right on right
1:56:55 closed on time so any questions this is
1:56:59 my contact information
1:57:01 I am the city attorney but I'm
1:57:03 contracted to provide legal services to
1:57:06 the city so this is my contact
1:57:07 information you can contact me if you
1:57:10 have more questions tonight I'm happy to
1:57:12 stick around and answer yes sir
1:57:13 that one for you on the roll of public
1:57:15 comment and quasi judicial proceedings
1:57:18 last year several of us on development
1:57:20 Commission went to an optional and
1:57:22 training and Northman
1:57:23 presented by Washington Department of
1:57:25 Commerce on some of these same issues
1:57:27 and what and one of their slides they
1:57:31 said that decisions could be overruled
1:57:34 or invalidated as arbitrary or
1:57:36 capricious and a few examples that they
1:57:39 gave on that were ignoring evidence or
1:57:41 making decisions based on a political
1:57:43 agenda
1:57:43 yes but another one that they said was
1:57:46 decision based on community desires
1:57:49 displeasure or public sentiment or
1:57:52 complaint yes so I'm trying to reconcile
1:57:55 the role of public comment in a
1:57:57 quasi-judicial proceeding we're hearing
1:57:59 the public comment is that appropriate
1:58:01 are we supposed to be able to
1:58:03 distinguish between a comment and
1:58:04 complaint or testimony of fact well
1:58:08 again in a quasi neutral proceeding you
1:58:11 are applying your development criteria
1:58:13 your permit criteria to the testimony
1:58:16 that you received and what the rule is
1:58:20 that you're talking about is that mere
1:58:23 community displeasure cannot be the
1:58:27 grounds for denying a permit so if if
1:58:31 everybody just happens to dislike this
1:58:35 proposal that's not grounds for denying
1:58:38 you can take public comment and
1:58:41 community displeasure into account but
1:58:43 it cannot be the basis you have to
1:58:46 decide based on the criteria does it
1:58:48 meet the criteria or it doesn't and if
1:58:50 you look at the criteria in a quasar
1:58:52 digital matter it doesn't say public
1:58:55 likes it or the public doesn't like it
1:58:57 it says it says it has to be consistent
1:59:00 with the comprehensive plan it has to be
1:59:02 consistent with the development
1:59:03 regulations and so forth so going
1:59:05 outside of that and saying gee the
1:59:07 public really doesn't like this
1:59:09 particular proposal in a quasi-judicial
1:59:12 matter is not grounds for denial and
1:59:15 we'll be overturned if that's what you
1:59:17 base your decision-making and that's
1:59:18 part of why when we you know when we
1:59:21 write a staff report and we take all the
1:59:24 public comments and we summarize the
1:59:26 topics and try and put them in context
1:59:29 we're trying to say this one relates to
1:59:33 this standard this one you know for
1:59:36 instance if they say this is just going
1:59:38 to make traffic terrible then we're
1:59:40 going to say what did the traffic
1:59:41 studies show you know what how does that
1:59:44 relate to the standards of how roads
1:59:47 have to be designed it's part of the
1:59:49 reason why we like to do the - meaning
1:59:51 format where we take all the Commission
1:59:53 and public comments at the first meeting
1:59:56 and write you a briefing response memo
1:59:58 so we can put those in the context of
2:00:01 standards rules all the things that Jim
2:00:06 mentioned we don't necessarily respond
2:00:09 to every public comment we're looking to
2:00:11 the commissioners to say we'd like you
2:00:13 to tell us you know what does this mean
2:00:15 that they don't like that that all the
2:00:18 buildings are going to be blue you know
2:00:21 and we can say we don't regulate color
2:00:23 in this part of town or we do and blue
2:00:25 isn't allowed you know so you know you
2:00:29 can always put that back on staff and
2:00:31 say what what does this comment mean in
2:00:35 the context of this
2:00:36 so if community of displeasure is is
2:00:40 made in the form of evidence if someone
2:00:43 comes in and says I don't like this
2:00:44 project because and they give you facts
2:00:47 that you can then use to relate to the
2:00:51 criteria that's okay the fact that the
2:00:53 public comes in and says that but if it
2:00:55 it's not a popularity contest if the
2:00:58 public says well we don't I don't like
2:01:00 this project
2:01:02 you know it's ugly and those kinds of
2:01:04 things that you can't really quantify
2:01:06 and relate to the standards that's just
2:01:09 mirror community displeasure so can I
2:01:23 just ask I know you guys are roasting in
2:01:25 here then would you see if you can get
2:01:28 that door open in heaven could you try
2:01:30 opening that door I don't know if it'll
2:01:32 make a difference but we can pretend
2:01:34 like it will it's all the hot air with
2:01:36 the attorneys fees so we we have two
2:01:44 brief presentations that we're going to
2:01:47 make one is just to give you some
2:01:50 resources so we're gonna run through the
2:01:56 inclusive so we don't really hand out
2:02:02 paper codes anymore so I want to give
2:02:05 you a sense of where some of the
2:02:07 regulations that you may want to look at
2:02:10 Trish is going to chime in for things
2:02:13 with planning policy Commission just for
2:02:17 general the notified this is the main
2:02:20 page of the city's website notify me is
2:02:24 a place you can sign up this does not
2:02:26 relate to any of your work but it is a
2:02:29 place to sign up for emails that the
2:02:32 city distributed and the new development
2:02:36 is where we are showing projects that
2:02:39 are happening in the city again you are
2:02:42 not supposed to be doing any research
2:02:44 but as an interested citizen separate
2:02:47 from your quasi-judicial matters you are
2:02:49 certainly well core legit or with
2:02:52 legislative matters
2:02:53 to look at that part of the website more
2:02:57 specifically and I'm sorry this is
2:03:00 really small
2:03:02 if you select your government on the
2:03:06 city's website there are three pieces
2:03:08 there's the city code there is the
2:03:11 document Center and then the boards and
2:03:15 commissions so I'm going to show those
2:03:17 in a little more detail but you can
2:03:19 click this is the sort of starting point
2:03:21 for any of those so if you want to look
2:03:25 at the city code and you click on that
2:03:28 it will take you to a list of all the
2:03:32 squad municipal code land use
2:03:35 regulations are in Title 18 which is
2:03:39 down here and then you would get this
2:03:43 sort of table of contents of the whole
2:03:46 land-use code and so you would just
2:03:49 click on them and you could find
2:03:53 provisions there we are not asking you
2:03:55 to go do your own research but you're of
2:03:57 course welcome to look at the land use
2:03:59 codes and as questions try and
2:04:03 understand the rules under which you are
2:04:05 being asked to make a decision
2:04:10 second is the document center when you
2:04:16 go to the document center most of what
2:04:18 you might need would be under
2:04:20 development and by clicking on one of
2:04:22 these white arrows it becomes black and
2:04:25 expands central is supplies located
2:04:29 there the comprehensive plan is located
2:04:32 there and development agreements we are
2:04:36 actually on this year underway to take
2:04:41 completely revamp title 18 and integrate
2:04:45 all the pieces into one single code
2:04:49 rather than having all these separate
2:04:51 pieces which will make your and our
2:04:54 lives a lot easier but that will get
2:04:57 adopted until next year so we have a
2:04:59 little bit of time before and then
2:05:06 sometimes you guys have questions about
2:05:08 about the board meeting border
2:05:11 commission meetings if you at the home
2:05:15 page select boards or commissions then
2:05:17 you get a list you get this page with a
2:05:20 list down the side and you could select
2:05:23 development or planning policy
2:05:25 commission and this is what a typical
2:05:27 page looks like if you ever had to find
2:05:31 it on your own the this is sort of where
2:05:33 the green box is at the top is the sort
2:05:36 of path you would follow to getting
2:05:38 there but in that on that page the
2:05:42 latest three packets are listed or you
2:05:46 could go to the archive center if you
2:05:48 were trying to find a previous packet
2:05:50 you can see who your lays on is
2:05:54 and email from there you can see all the
2:05:58 members and their terms when the
2:06:01 meetings are regularly held and in what
2:06:04 location so just to give you access to
2:06:08 information that you may be looking for
2:06:10 and if all else fails on the home page
2:06:14 use the search function
2:06:16 I hear it's actually pretty good and we
2:06:19 sometimes have to resort to it as well
2:06:21 so feel free to try that we talked about
2:06:26 watching the meeting on video if you
2:06:29 weren't able to be there and could you
2:06:31 show them the link where it would be oh
2:06:33 let me go back up here so one thing you
2:06:38 can do isn't it yeah so over here under
2:06:43 meetings it has ICTV 21 that's one way
2:06:48 to get to it also if you go to the
2:06:50 archive Center it usually has the
2:06:52 minutes the packet and the video
2:06:55 available at the top but you can search
2:06:59 for council meetings all of your
2:07:00 meetings and sometimes special events
2:07:02 they'll have you know like the salmon
2:07:04 days parade or visiting the zoo or
2:07:06 whatever but that page is really a fun
2:07:09 page the TV page that has all the videos
2:07:11 archived
2:07:14 so any questions about resources are you
2:07:24 watching us lately the library so just
2:07:29 quickly some sort of further context for
2:07:34 the Development Commission there are
2:07:37 three types of permits that are
2:07:40 specifically identified and come through
2:07:42 the Development Commission one is a site
2:07:45 development permit one is a master site
2:07:48 plan and another one is a development
2:07:50 agreement we're going to talk about
2:07:52 those in a little more detail about the
2:07:55 review process at the Commission for the
2:07:58 new commissioners and then some other
2:08:01 new responsibilities that the Commission
2:08:03 has so I'm not going to go into this in
2:08:07 detail you've got it you're welcome to
2:08:09 look at it but you can see across the
2:08:11 each of the permit types is listed the
2:08:16 triggers for each of these is listed I
2:08:18 would just point out that for site
2:08:21 development permits we have now updated
2:08:25 one of the triggers and in almost every
2:08:27 single Street not every street but
2:08:30 almost every single street in central
2:08:33 Issaquah is a trigger so even if you had
2:08:36 a project that was less than 150,000
2:08:39 square feet on a site smaller than three
2:08:41 acres it will come to the development
2:08:44 commission and that was really realizing
2:08:48 that some of the sites are small and yet
2:08:54 very visible and that that is the kind
2:08:56 of permit
2:08:57 that the commission says and the public
2:08:59 should have a opportunity to have a
2:09:01 conversation about as you can see the
2:09:05 role identifies whether you're making a
2:09:08 recommendation or you're the
2:09:09 decision-maker
2:09:11 whether it's quasi-judicial or not
2:09:14 development agreements go back and forth
2:09:16 depending on how much property and
2:09:18 property owner there is so feel free to
2:09:21 ask us if a development agreement comes
2:09:23 before you your scope is generally the
2:09:27 kinds of things that Jim identified the
2:09:30 comp plan the development standards
2:09:33 listed in your purview is technical
2:09:36 review I just want to clarify that for
2:09:39 our perspective that is technical
2:09:42 reviews associated with things in the
2:09:44 land use code so for instance if you had
2:09:47 questions about critical areas because
2:09:50 that is in title 18 you have an
2:09:54 opportunity to look at that we do use
2:09:58 wetland biologists and we would tend to
2:10:01 defer to them but I think one of the
2:10:04 things that sometimes comes up is street
2:10:07 standards and traffic and those kinds of
2:10:10 things and that is a technical review
2:10:13 that is outside of the land use code and
2:10:16 while you are confirming that we are
2:10:20 complying with street standards if there
2:10:22 was a question we would defer to the
2:10:25 technical expert on traffic
2:10:32 just on that missing clarification so
2:10:36 because almost every project now traffic
2:10:39 is an issue so and we kind of hung up on
2:10:44 that a little bit so when they're saying
2:10:48 that they disagree with you know the
2:10:51 conclusions of the city that
2:10:53 transportation impacts are yeah
2:10:56 negligible or mitigated appropriately
2:10:58 mitigated is the determination in front
2:11:02 of the Commission to agree or disagree
2:11:04 with the conclusion of the city on the
2:11:07 traffic mitigation or not did that make
2:11:11 sense because it could be a point of
2:11:14 dispute between an applicant they that
2:11:17 happen or a member of the public or an
2:11:19 organization and it could come in with
2:11:21 their own expert and dispute this the
2:11:24 city's conclusions so how how does that
2:11:27 get resolved if it's not within the
2:11:29 purview of
2:11:31 that commission because it because the
2:11:34 development approval would trigger the
2:11:36 trafficking man right um I am looking at
2:11:41 Jimmy's very carefully my thought is
2:11:46 that you are asking for the city to
2:11:50 explain the basis from their technical
2:11:54 expertise why you feel that they that
2:11:58 this has been addressed or to counteract
2:12:01 that I would I would add that so we've
2:12:06 never had someone else and the public
2:12:10 bringing their own technical expert that
2:12:12 I hadn't really thought about that one
2:12:14 I do want to point out I know that some
2:12:16 of the commissioners are trained
2:12:19 professionals and you you are not
2:12:21 selected to act in that manner of course
2:12:26 that informs your perspective and your
2:12:29 knowledge but we are we have you on the
2:12:33 Commission as as citizens rather than as
2:12:39 technical experts well you know if it's
2:12:44 as far as what you do with that kind of
2:12:47 testimony if they do bring in their own
2:12:48 traffic expert then obviously you can
2:12:51 consider that if they simply say I don't
2:12:53 agree with what the expert says you know
2:12:56 in its quays additional hearing you know
2:12:58 you have to give that what weight you
2:13:02 would give a lay testimony against
2:13:04 expert testimony and presuming that it
2:13:12 it is within your criteria as to what
2:13:15 you are deciding specifically and yes
2:13:18 you can make a determination based on
2:13:21 the traffic evidence in front of you as
2:13:23 to whether it's good traffic evidence
2:13:24 credible traffic evidence bad traffic
2:13:26 evidence whatever and I have seen
2:13:29 citizens bring in hire their own traffic
2:13:32 expert and bring them in so it does
2:13:36 happen sometimes
2:13:38 what would our decision be I mean
2:13:41 there's no there's nothing that are
2:13:44 criteria than specific about this means
2:13:48 of traffic the right area right there's
2:13:50 no well I think I think you'd have to
2:13:54 look and see if you can relate it to one
2:13:57 of your criteria it depends on you know
2:13:59 what the criteria for each of these
2:14:03 things site development permit master
2:14:05 site plans development agreement what
2:14:08 the criteria are but criteria are
2:14:10 generally broad and and you do have the
2:14:13 ability to with to related somehow to
2:14:15 some of those criteria particularly you
2:14:20 they're their broad when they say things
2:14:23 like that it has to be consistent with
2:14:27 the complan consistent with all of the
2:14:29 development regulations and so forth and
2:14:31 so you know yeah I think I would
2:14:34 encourage you under those circumstances
2:14:35 if you do have issues and if staff has
2:14:41 not taken those public comments and
2:14:43 categorize them as Lucy said to ask the
2:14:47 staff so if we wanted to impose a
2:14:53 condition based on traffic which of our
2:14:55 criteria would that would that fall
2:14:57 under and and how should we analyze that
2:15:00 and staff I'm sure will give you their
2:15:02 best recommendation on that and you know
2:15:05 that is a really good point
2:15:08 you know we're generally bringing things
2:15:11 forward that we're recommending for
2:15:13 approval at the same time we are here to
2:15:18 support you and so you might at a
2:15:23 meeting hopefully the first meetings
2:15:26 that we had a chance to go away and work
2:15:27 on it say you know we have a concern
2:15:31 about X and we would like you to help us
2:15:35 understand if we were to apply a
2:15:38 condition what are our options related
2:15:41 based in the code related to this topic
2:15:45 we'd like you to bring that back to us
2:15:47 next time now we might come back and say
2:15:50 here are your three options we still
2:15:53 stand by our previous recommendation or
2:15:55 we don't recommend you do 1 & 2 for the
2:15:57 following reasons but you know it is
2:16:00 absolutely appropriate for you to ask us
2:16:04 to help support you in making the
2:16:07 decision that you have every right to
2:16:09 make so long as it is based
2:16:12 and this ties into one thing that I
2:16:15 talked about in the appearance of
2:16:16 fairness which is when I talked about ex
2:16:19 parte comments I talked about you saw in
2:16:22 the slide I didn't really emphasize it
2:16:25 but their ex parte comments from
2:16:27 opponents or proponents of the project
2:16:29 staff is neither staff isn't an opponent
2:16:33 or proponent there are your staff trying
2:16:36 to assist you in making a decision so in
2:16:39 the normal situation where you have a
2:16:42 quasi ditches no matter pending before
2:16:44 you the staff contacts do not fall
2:16:48 within those ex parte contacts I I
2:16:51 certainly think that whatever work
2:16:53 product staff comes up with for you
2:16:56 should be shared with the entire
2:16:57 Commission so that the Commission all
2:17:00 Commission members have the same
2:17:01 information but it doesn't prevent you
2:17:06 from calling staff it hasn't even
2:17:07 questioned and and I would just add that
2:17:10 sometimes I think we sound like
2:17:11 proponents because we are responsible
2:17:14 for explaining the recommendation that
2:17:17 we have made so if we have recommended
2:17:20 approval we better be able to explain
2:17:22 why we're recommending approval which
2:17:24 will make us sound like we're being
2:17:25 proponents but you have every right to
2:17:28 ask us to help you craft something that
2:17:31 is different than what we have
2:17:32 recommended and Brooke had her hand up
2:17:34 earlier oh it's kind of worked itself
2:17:36 out I was wondering if
2:17:38 if there was an issue at the traffic you
2:17:40 guys would not recommend it for approval
2:17:41 correct
2:17:44 no but it is your right if it was
2:17:50 significant and we didn't feel we could
2:17:52 address it through a condition on the
2:17:55 other hand there is a perspective that
2:17:59 the Commission and the public bring of a
2:18:03 different viewpoint that we may not have
2:18:05 looked at and that's why we have that
2:18:08 conversation you know have you
2:18:10 considered this or doesn't it have to
2:18:13 meet this and when you know I look at I
2:18:17 look at some of the technical materials
2:18:20 that you've provided us
2:18:24 it doesn't seem consistent with the
2:18:27 criteria we have you know I mean it's
2:18:30 completely appropriate for you to ask us
2:18:33 to explain you know we are kind of
2:18:35 presenting an overview and then you're
2:18:38 going to tell us what you want us to
2:18:39 explain in more detail
2:18:47 so I'm just gonna kind of for the some
2:18:49 of the commissioners who haven't done
2:18:51 this before just kind of run through our
2:18:53 land use process we often start with
2:18:58 informal meetings that we go to more
2:19:02 structured review which includes both
2:19:04 required and optional pieces and then
2:19:08 the Commission piece so the the pieces
2:19:12 where the Commission is really involved
2:19:17 is we get this site development permit
2:19:19 or a Platts in the middle and then we
2:19:23 prepare a staff report which is sent to
2:19:27 the Commission and then there are the
2:19:29 Development Commission meetings that is
2:19:32 sort of the big the sort of nut of what
2:19:35 we are asking the Commission to be
2:19:37 involved with so if we kind of explode
2:19:40 those or unpack that a bit the staff
2:19:45 report generally comes to you about a
2:19:47 week in advance we be emailing the
2:19:50 packet comes out electronically usually
2:19:53 first followed by a paper packet most
2:19:56 Commission's do not get paper packets
2:19:58 but because we do not expect you to have
2:20:00 big screens at home we send you a set of
2:20:05 paper plans and the packet just to
2:20:09 facilitate your review at the
2:20:12 Development Commission we have the
2:20:15 public the the first part of the public
2:20:18 hearing is staff and applicant giving an
2:20:21 introduction to the project and hearing
2:20:23 the commissioners and public's questions
2:20:26 comments and concerns then we prepare a
2:20:29 briefing response memo where we bundle
2:20:31 these the things that we've heard from
2:20:34 you into topics
2:20:36 the staff provides a response the
2:20:38 applicant provides a response and we
2:20:40 give you a conclusion that maybe this
2:20:45 has already been addressed it may be
2:20:46 adding a condition condition revising a
2:20:50 condition and then we come back for the
2:20:54 conclusion of the public hearing to
2:20:56 present what we the briefing response
2:21:01 memo there is additional testimony and
2:21:05 then you are typically making a decision
2:21:08 at that second meeting part of that
2:21:11 decision is usually delegating to staff
2:21:15 to prepare the notice of decision which
2:21:18 includes findings and conclusions which
2:21:21 is reviewed by the ensign by the
2:21:23 chairperson and that's the actual
2:21:25 decision that would initiate an appeal
2:21:29 period I just want to put on the
2:21:36 Commission's radar that as part of the
2:21:38 replacement regulations for Tallis in
2:21:41 Issaquah Highlands a new responsibility
2:21:44 was added to the development Commission
2:21:47 which is a community conference on
2:21:50 preliminary Platts and so that community
2:22:00 conference would happen and then gives
2:22:04 the public and the Commission and
2:22:07 opportunity to give input on the
2:22:10 preliminary plat before it goes to the
2:22:13 Commission we would do it in a sort of
2:22:16 similar format in which we would hold
2:22:19 the community conference in front of the
2:22:21 development Commission we would prepare
2:22:26 a memo that would sort of look at the
2:22:29 topics that were raised whether they are
2:22:32 have a grounding in
2:22:34 or not and how that might inform
2:22:40 recommended conditions or changes to the
2:22:43 drawings and that would be provided to
2:22:47 any parties of record and the
2:22:50 commissioners for additional comment and
2:22:52 then it would be finalized and be one of
2:22:56 the attachments that goes to the Hearing
2:22:58 Examiner we're going to probably have
2:23:01 one of these in the next month or two
2:23:05 so I just wanted to explain that new
2:23:09 responsibility to the commissioners
2:23:19 initial goal and reduce review process
2:23:23 and the land use review process DC
2:23:26 portion this is just an observation but
2:23:30 I think the word collaboration generally
2:23:33 has a pejorative connotation I you know
2:23:36 I understand what it is but is the
2:23:39 collaboration between the city staff and
2:23:41 the applicant I don't know alright I
2:23:48 just I that seems to me that it could
2:23:50 have when it gets to the appearance of
2:23:54 fairness
2:23:56 a negative pejorative connotation I
2:23:59 don't know what what the what a better
2:24:02 word would be so I just I would defer to
2:24:10 him but when we talk about the
2:24:12 appearance of fairness and collaboration
2:24:15 between the applicant and the city and
2:24:16 it just doesn't sound right to me and is
2:24:21 there something like this for the
2:24:23 planning policy Commissioner I noticed
2:24:25 that this is all busy we did a lot of
2:24:29 hours in the meeting before right with
2:24:31 processing and how things in watch the
2:24:34 video so and this is just the I believe
2:24:43 the last slide and I just wanted to
2:24:45 describe some of the differences between
2:24:46 a site development permit and a plat
2:24:49 because the level of information is
2:24:51 going to be different than what many of
2:24:53 the commissioners are familiar with on
2:24:56 the left is kind of an example where
2:25:00 you're going to see a a fairly detailed
2:25:05 level of design showing you know the
2:25:10 layout the elements the materials it may
2:25:14 be at somewhat of a conceptual level you
2:25:17 might not see this is going to be a pine
2:25:19 tree and this is going to be a maple
2:25:21 tree but you would have a sense of where
2:25:23 trees landscape paving maybe paving
2:25:27 patterns buildings parking all of that
2:25:30 would be located with a preliminary plat
2:25:34 I mean this is a residential plat but
2:25:37 you would see the parcel lines
2:25:41 and you might only get enough to
2:25:45 information to determine that the
2:25:47 parcels are sized appropriately for
2:25:50 instance you might see this kind of road
2:25:52 this road classification is going into
2:25:55 this tract that will be dedicated to the
2:25:58 city and you're confirming yes that
2:26:00 tract is big enough to accommodate that
2:26:02 road probably the most discretionary
2:26:06 review that we have is around a Park
2:26:11 tract because we don't in most parts of
2:26:13 town have X square feet for for this
2:26:19 number of youth housing units and so
2:26:22 we're asking for a very high level
2:26:25 conceptual plan that gives a sense that
2:26:28 that Park can accommodate some
2:26:32 reasonable uses to serve that plat so
2:26:37 it's going to be less detail that's hard
2:26:42 to get used to sometimes and I just want
2:26:45 to sort of put that on your radar
2:26:47 any questions
2:26:51 your gussy how often does a third
2:26:53 meeting happen not that often I'm I'm
2:27:01 not well
2:27:02 well section 17th meeting no usually
2:27:10 usually it's because either something
2:27:15 comes up that can't be resolved at the
2:27:16 second meeting or we have occasionally
2:27:19 had where the applicant has delayed a
2:27:25 second meeting because they recognize
2:27:27 that they're just not ready and they'll
2:27:29 ask to delay it and tell certain issues
2:27:33 get worked through
2:27:38 any other questions no I've struggled
Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.