Agenda 01/26/2017 Si CY oFka<
po
Valle k
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 B. Sprague Ave.
January 26, 2017 6:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 8, 2016
VI. COMMISSION REPORTS
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
i. Election of Officers
ii. Training — Open Public Meetings Act, Public Records Act
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall
December 8,2016
L Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for
the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were
present:
Kevin Anderson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Heather Graham Lori Barlow, Senior Barlow
James Johnson Micki Harnois, Planner
Tim Kelley
Mike Phillips
Michelle Rasmussen
Suzanne Stathos Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission
II. Agenda: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to accept the December 8,2016 agenda as presented. The
vote was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
III. Minutes: Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the October 20,2016 minutes. The vote on this
'notion was seven in favor, zero against, motion passes. The vote on this motion was seven in.favo,
zero against, motion passes.
IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had nothing to report.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow offered the only administrative report
was a thank you to Commissioner Anderson for his years of service to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Anderson joined the Commission in 2013 and participated in the City's Shoreline
Master Plan,the Comprehensive Plan update and many development regulation changes.
VI. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a) Study Session: Supportive Housing
Planner Micki Harnois began by giving a presentation regarding supportive housing, a review of a
presentation given on June 9,2016 regarding tiny homes and a review of proposed draft regulations.
Ms. Harnois stated tonight's discussion was about supportive housing in general, rather than
location specific lot. Ms.Harnois said the Planning Commission recommended supportive housing
section should be removed from the draft regulations accompanying the Comprehensive Plan
update for further review. The City Council removed this section of the proposed development
regulations in order for further study.
Ms. Harnois reviewed the demographics and emerging trends of tiny homes. Commissioner
Anderson asked if a park model home would be considered acceptable as a tiny home. Ms. Harnois
said based on the way the way they are manufactured they are still considered a recreational vehicle
(RV) and RVs are only allowed on a property for 30 days. They would be allowed in a RV park
and treated like an RV.
Ms.Harnois showed an example of a tiny home village,of supportive housing call Quixote Village
in Olympia. A village of tiny homes on 2.17 acres,homes are 144 square feet in size,and is owned
by a non-profit. Ms. Harnois stated she visited the village,which has a transit stop across the street
and a community garden. She also showed the a design for a village which has been proposed by
the Fuller Center in Spokane Valley, and pictures of tiny home villages in Portland and Seattle.
Ms. Harnois then explained the definition in the SVMC for a small residential dwelling is: Any
structure built on a lot for dwelling purposes, with access to water, sewer, and electricity, is
considered as a "small residential dwelling". Small residential dwellings on wheels are prohibited.
Ms. Harnois stated to take note of the part which states it must have access to water, sewer and
electricity. Commissioner Anderson clarified the building code would determine the suitable
foundation for a tiny home. Commissioner Stathos clarified there would riot be a requirement for
12-10-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3
each unit to hook up to water, sewer and electricity. Ms. Barlow pointed out the proposed
requirements would have a community building where there would be access to water, such as
showers,kitchens and laundry and sewer, such as bathrooms.
The proposed supportive housing requirements are currently:
• Maximum density is 15 dwellings per acre;
• Structure size maximum: 200 sq. ft. excluding porches;
• Building permit required; (Consistent with Title 24 SVMC)
• 0.5 Off-street parking space provided per dwelling;
• Located within a half mile of a bus stop or other transit service;
• On-site community facilities i.e. kitchens, dining, shower, laundry;
• Recreation. areas,garden areas, etc. designed as shared community facilities;
• Buffered and screened from adjacent ROW and surrounding properties;
• Must have a sponsoring agency and operations and security plan
Commissioner Anderson asked where the density of 15 units came from. Ms. Harnois stated the
consultants recommended this density based on what they have seen in other communities.
Commissioner Anderson clarified the maximum of 200 square feet per unit was a consultant
recommendation. Commissioners questioned the 0.50 per unit of off-street parking required, and
how this would be figured out. Commissioner Anderson stated the transit requirement would
hinder any development because of the limited transit service in our city. Commissioner Phillips
clarified the operations and security plan should also have a decommissioning plan should
something happen and the operation did not work out. Ms. Barlow stated all of these items would
be taken care of in the operations manual. Commissioner Anderson suggested having a full-time
manager should be required to be on site at all times.
Commissioner Graham said the Fuller Center is proposing an option of rent to own. Would there
be a rent only requirement for this type of housing, not rent to own so the homes could not be
picked up and moved. Ms. Barlow said this was not addressed in the draft regulations.
Commissioner Graham asked if there was a zone which would allow these homes on a regular lot.
Ms. Barlow stated the current regulations have a minimum width requirement, but the proposed
regulations do not have minimum width requirements, so a small home could be built as long as it
met the building code requirements.
There was a discussion about requiring restroom facilities in each unit,and not in just a community
building. Commissioner Kelley clarified the building code would dictate having the bathrooms in
houses. Mr. Lamb stated the reason for the provision in the proposed regulations was as Iong as
there was access to a comprehensive supportive unit, there would be access to those services.
Commissioner Phillips stated he is opposed to not having bathrooms in each facility, he said lie
thought this was a part of the discussion when the regulations were proposed earlier in the year.
Commissioner Graham said there was some dignity in being able to have a bathroom in their own
place,as opposed to having to share a facility with someone. Commissioner Johnson stated,he had
not determined his support of the proposal however,the people which are considered to be served
by what is being proposed would appreciate any kind of facility regardless of sharing and anything
which the Commission mandates must be inside will increase the cost of those units.
The supportive housing would be allowed in the R-3, Multifamily, Mixed Use, Corridor Mixed
Use, Neighborhood Commercial, Regional Commercial, and Industrial zones. Commissioner
Graham asked why they would not be allowed in Industrial Mixed Use zone. The supportive
housing would require a conditional use permit which will allow neighbors to comment on the
proposed use. Commissioner Johnson asked if the conditions could be different in each zone. Ms.
Barlow stated the conditions would be the ones which Ms. Harnois had laid out earlier and would
apply to each zone. Ms. Barlow also stated that through the Conditional Use Permit process,
conditions unique to each development could be imposed on the different proposals, but not any
less that what would be required. Commissioner Johnson said there could be an escalating number
of conditions for each zone. Ms. Barlow stated it was possible but did not know how it would be
implemented in the code.
12-10-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3
Ms. Harnois explained the Conditional Use Permit(CUP) process and the steps involved. A CUP
would require a notice of application,a notice of public hearing,and environmental review,it would
have a hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner and would also have an appeal period.
Commissioner Graham clarified the discussion as supportive housing which would be required on
a foundation, people could not rent to own because they would not be able to move the structure.
Ms. Barlow said in theory they could be moved, since they would be placed on a foundation,they
could be picked up and moved, but did agree the homes could not be an wheels. Ms.Barlow also
noted this could be a development for older people in a retirement mode, but this could also be a
development of homeless people looking to try and improve their situation. These could be two
different types of developments,but she did not know how different that would be. Commissioner
Graham asked if a retirement facility could be allowed in an R-3 zone where all the facilities are
required within the unit,but a homeless facility could require community facilities and only allowed
in Industrial zones, for example. Ms. Barlow said staff could look at the possibility of reviewing
the options of differing types of development, but it would implemented in different zones.
Commissioner Stathos stated she has only heard of tiny homes in reference to homeless
developments, she has not heard of any retirees wanting to be in a tiny home. Commissioner
Stathos asked if this would be required to be on church property,Ms.Barlow stated this was not a
requirement at this time. Commissioner Phillips asked about the noticing requirements for the CUP
and hopes that the standard 400 feet noticing requirement should be expanded in this case. Mr.
Lamb stated he wanted to review the proposed noticing language before making any determination
on expanding the noticing requirements. Commissioner Rasmussen asked if staff had reviewed the
homeless projects in Los Angeles or Salt Lake City as Commissioner Graham suggested.
Ms. Barlow reviewed what the Commissioners requested additional information on; Foundation
requirements, the rationale for 15 units per acre, information regarding supervision on site,
requiring bathroom facilities in each unit,rationale for not allowing in Industrial Mixed Use zone,
can different types of developments have different types of requirements (retirement
facility/homeless shelters), why the 0.50 parking space per unit,expanding noticing requirements,
looking at Los Angles and Salt Lake City's experiences, clarifying access to facilities, clarify the
operating plan making sure there is a sponsoring agency and a decommissioning plan, Want to
make sure the plan is being developed in a manner the City wants it developed. Commissioner
Anderson was asking about the possibility of obtaining the information about Quixote Village,such
as sewer, operations and such in order to get an idea as to how they run their facility. There was
some discussion regarding the communal living of the homeless and what they would and would
not do in regards to using a kitchen or community building. •
VII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:24 p.m. The vote on
the motion was unanimous in favor,motion passed.
Heather Graham,Chair Date signed
Deanna Horton, Secretary
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: January 26,2017
Item: Cheek all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business Z new business
❑ public hearing ❑ information IN admin.report ❑ pending legislation
FILE NUMBER: N/A
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Open Government Training
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: N/A
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30); Public Records Act(RCW
42.56);RCW 42.23
BACKGROUND: In Washington,there are numerous laws to promote transparent and open government
by the legislative and appointed bodies that serve the people. These laws include the Open Public
Meetings Act (RCW 42.30), the Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) and various laws setting forth ethics
requirements for municipal officers. As members of an appointed body, Planning Commission members
are subject to the requirements set forth in these laws. Staff will provide training and overview on the
various open government laws for Planning Commission members to meet training requirements for the
Open Public Meetings Act and to educate members on the other open government requirements.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney;Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation
RPCA for 2017 Open Government Training
\ I
I I
II. kr.
•
Cary Driskell
City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley
Erik Lamb
Deputy City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley
January 26, 2016
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney
OVERVIEW OF TOPICS
,v Training Requirements
Public Records Act cw 42.56)
Open Public Meetings Act (RC 42.30)
Conflictsof Interest
Appearance of Fairness
Code of Ethics
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 2
raining Requirements�
PRA Training
• Elected Officials
• Public Records Officers
• Within 90 days of taking office or taking over responsibilities
• Must be completed again within 4 years
• Must be based on State Attorney General's model rules (WAC 44-14)
Open Public Meetings Act Training
• Elected Officials
• Officials for every other governing body - so appointed boards or commissions,
such as planning commission
• Within 90 days of taking office or assuming duties
• Must be completed again within 4 years
üTc Records Act -- *
Historical background
Adopted in 1972 by Initiative 276.
a Codified by Legislature under RCW 42.17.
Re-codified by Legislature in 2005, RCW 42.56.
City implementation - SVMC 2.75.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 4
-"i
rongly worded mandate
"The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that
serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public
servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and
what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining
informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments they
have created." RCW 42.56.030
The PRA is the "preservation of the most central tenets of representative
government, namely, the sovereignty of the people and the
accountability to the people of public officials and institutions."
Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Washington, 125
Wn.2d 243, 251 (1994)
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 5
• ublic Record " definition
Relevant portion of definitions states as follows:
"Public record" includes any writing containing information
relating to the conduct of government or the performance of
any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned,
used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of
physical form or characteristics.
City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 6
ublic Record " definition
Most important parts are broken down as follows:
(1) "writing";
(2) "relating to the conduct of government or the performance of
any governmental or proprietary function"; and
(3) "owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency".
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 7
"Writing" definition
"Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating,
photographing, and every other means of recording any form of
communication or representation including, but not limited to,
letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination
thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes,
photographic films and prints, motion picture, film and video
recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, diskettes,
sound recordings, and other documents including existing data
compilations from which information may be obtained or
translated.
rite n electronic
O E-mails;
O Tweets;
• Text messages;
• Transitory postings on Facebook and other social media;
O Meta-data; and
O Police/security video.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 9
Agency duty to respond
Local governmental entities are mandated to adopt and
enforce reasonable rules governing how the agency shall
respond to requests. RCW 42.56.100.
• Spokane Valley has done that through adoption of SVMC 2.75.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney io
-
v practices"
enc best
1. Entity management attitude;
2. Training;
3. Prioritizing requests;
4. Tracking requests;
5. Effective monitoring;
6. Central point of contact in the agency;
7. Visible signage;
8. Transparency and communication;
9. User-friendly website;
io. Good records management and information technology;
n. Appropriate copying charges;
12. Using the installment method for large requests;
13. Communicate agency appeal process for record denials; and
14. Documenting the request process.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney
required Promp t response
Must respond within 5 business days by:
(1) providing the record (may be on line) ;
(2) acknowledging that the [agency] has received the
request and providing a reasonable estimate of the time the
[agency] will require to respond to the request; or
(3) denying the record request.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 12
_ mo -
___ -��
=-L _ recur • _ � , ___________
_
to Location not critical factor, nature of record is what is
critical (relates to performance
conduct of government or
of governmental or proprietary function) .
• Personal computer or phone of staff or Planning Commission.
• City has provided Planning Commission e-mail through the City system
All emails on City system are retained by City
• In possession of third party contractor.
o Must conduct reasonable search where records are likely
to be located.
• If we know or learn of facts that suggest a search of an additional
location or source might reasonably be expected to uncover responsive
records, we must make that extra search.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney '3
_ _
� ore details on Location of Record
Planning commission e-mails sent from personal e-mail
account are still public records, subject to disclosure
Relates to conduct of government OT the performance of any
governmental or proprietary function and prepared, owned,
used or retained by any state or local agency
Planning commission work done on a personal computer
(e.g., creating new documents) will be public record, and
personal computer may be subject to search
• Relates to conduct of government or the performance of any
governmental or proprietary function and prepared, owned,
used or retained by any state or local agency
- -
- - —
Exemptions
Initially only 10 in 1972
0 Now over 300
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 15
Information notrotect
e d -
exam l e s
0 Planning Commission and employee names
Salary, benefits, vacation/sick time used
Planning Commission and employee work e-mail addresses
Personal e-mail addresses are not exempted when used for
governmental business.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 16
na ties
o RCW 42.56.550(4) provides that it "shall be within the discretion of the
court to award such person an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars
for each day that he or she was denied the right to inspect or copy said
public record."
a how much of a fine to assess is based on two steps:
(1) count the number of days the party was denied access to the records, and
(2) determine the appropriate per day penalty, up to $100 per day depending on the
nature of the denial.
3 No daily penalty for each document - Yousoufian v. Sims, 152 Wn.2d 451
(2004).
Q The prevailing party is entitled to "reasonable attorney fees" and costs of
suit.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 7
Penalty document orper request ?
• Until this year, the rule was that the daily penalty applied to the request,
not per document. Yousoufian v. Sims, 152 Wn.2d 451 (2004).
0 In early 2016, the state Supreme Court ruled that it is within the trial
court's discretion to assess a daily penalty for each page of each
document wrongfully withheld, depending on the circumstances (i.e.
how egregious the violation was). Wade's Eastside Gun Shop v.
Department of Labor & Industries,
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney i8
Determininghow muchpenalty
• Good faith?
O Zink v. City of Mesa, 140 Wn. App. 328 (2007) - large and
frequent record requests by former Mayor materially
interfering with operation of clerk's office.
O Trial court was sympathetic ("substantially complied'; full
compliance amounted to "practical impossibility", the
requests "amounted to unlawful harassment") .
O Court of Appeals disagreed, finding strict compliance
required, not substantial. Penalty and fees of $246,000.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney ig
Questions on the PRA •
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 2o
- - _
- _ --
_,...---:- .------
.._______
.....,. -- - ._
•
— .
-_, .. L ,....
- - 2 .
...'",, 1 1 . J , Ll , ,---, r
,i ' -- l ' . ,,:...-•
_ _ ‘... ... ,...____, ....._. ,.._._ _ _I - .._..,_ _-......_.) _.1 .,.........;. _ ,..2 _ ,-‘....:.; .,...-_-..--, ,...: _ _ ..,,.., _r---,.. .. ,.,:.:,
„....,_..i
• . .
,
. . _
. ,
•
. . .
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 21
Theen Public Meetings Act
p
Washington State law enacted in 1971.
• Set forth in Revised Code of Washington 42.3o et seq.
o Applies to all city and town councils, and many subordinate city and
town boards and committees.
u Applies to planning commissions.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 22
rp oseofOPMA _I
-�
„ 3.,-
• Governments "exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business." RCW
42.30.010.
O "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which
serve them." Id.
O "The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the
right to decide what is good for the people to know and g
what is not good for
them to know." Id.
p p
O "The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control
over the instruments they have created." Id.
a Goal is transparency and public trust.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 23
A requirements
OPMA requires that:
All meetings of the governing body be open to the public.
All actions taken by such bodies be done at meetings that
are open to the public.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 24
at is a // meeting .r
40 There must be a "meeting" in order to trigger the requirements of
the o PMA.
• "Meeting" means meetings at which action is taken;
• "Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a
governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony,
deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final
actions;
• Physical presence not required.
a Majority (quorum) implicates "meeting" rules.
• "Serial meetings" may collectively add up to a "meeting."
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 25
�'f !� � • is a meeting i cont . )
o Email communications can constitute a meeting which violates the
OPMA if it goes back and forth.
• Solely receiving information is not a violation. Responding to email could be
a violation depending on the circumstances.
It is not necessary that a governing body take "final action" (a vote) for a
meeting to be subject to the OPMA.
Discussion regarding City matters is "action."
• Requires a public meeting if a quorum of members are present for the
discussion.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 26
Procedural RequirementsforMeetings
• Outlined in the Commission Rules of Procedure
• Some general requirements:
• Notice
• Open to public
• Votes cannot be by secret ballot
• Member of public cannot be forced to give their name or other
information as condition of attendance (can condition a person's
ability to speak at the meeting on providing information)
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 27
at is nota " meeti ng
" ?
�
What is not a meeting:
• If City matters are not discussed, then the gathering is not a "meeting"
subject to OPMA (even if a quorum is present).
• Examples:
• Social gatherings if City business is not discussed;
• Gatherings before or after official action (such as the time prior to
Council/Commission meetings) so long as City business is not discussed;
o Meetings of other government agencies so long as the Council/Commission
members do not discuss City business amongst themselves.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 28
OPMA exceptions and exemptions
o No City business = OPMA not implicated.
• If no official business of City is transacted, OPMA does not
apply.
• Public perception is a separate consideration from what is legal.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 29
• A penalties
0 Effect of penalty
• The penalty for a violation of the act is direct: any action taken in
violation of the OPMA is null and void;
• "Any person" may bring the action in superior court.
a Individual liability.
• $5oo penalty for first violation if they attend with knowledge that the
meeting is in violation of the Act, and $i,000 for subsequent
violations.
o City liability.
• Liable for all costs, including reasonable attorney fees.
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 30
_ ._ ....
Questions on OPMA?
City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 31
Conflictsh
oof l ircts of interest —
RCW 35A . 63 . 020
0 "If any person or persons on a planning agency concludes that he or she
has a conflict of interest or an appearance of fairness problem with
respect to a matter pending before the agency so that he or she cannot
discharge his or her duties on such an agency, he or she shall disqualify
himself or herself from participating in the deliberations and the
decision-making process with respect to the matter"
33
Conflicts of interest -- RCW 42 . 23 . 030
"No municipal officer shall be beneficially interested, directly or
indirectly, in any contract which may be made by, through or under the
supervision of such officer, in whole or in part, or which may be made
for the benefit of his or her office, or accept, directly or indirectly, any
compensation, gratuity or reward in connection with such contract from
any other person beneficially interested therein."
o Various exceptions, including when connection is too remote. Note also
that this restriction involves contracts only (not necessarily planning
decisions).
34
Conflicts of interest - continued
"The general rule for specific prohibitions against conflicts of interest is
that a public official may not exercise his or her office to confer a
personal benefit upon him or herself. This rule is grounded on the
fundamental principle that public officers hold a public trust. Under
this principle, public officers are held to a standard of behavior that does
not undermine, provide an opportunity to undermine, or appear to
undermine that trust."
C) Excerpt from publication on conflicts of interest by Bob Meinig,
Municipal Research Services Center
35
------ ------
Conflicts of interest - examples
o If a development regulation is being considered by the Planning
Commission and a member has a financial interest in getting the
development regulation passed, the member would likely have a
conflict.
36
Conflicts of interest - examples
0 If the Planning Commission, upon request from the City Council, were
to review potential annexations to the City and the member had a
personal interest in having (or not having) the area annexed, the
member would likely have a conflict.
37
Conflicts of interest - examples
0 If the member's child, spouse, parent, sibling, etc., could stand to
receive a direct or indirect personal or financial benefit derived by the
member voting or acting in a certain way. See Fleck v. King County, 16
Wn. App. 668, 558 P. 2d 254 (1977).
38
Conflicts of interest — generally
This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but is instead intended to
demonstrate that there are many different types of potential conflicts.
Each Planning Commission member should be attentive to such
potentialities, give thought to whether a specific factual circumstance is
a potential conflict, and try to resolve conflicts of interest in a manner
that ensures the Planning Commission and each member continues to
hold the public trust.
39
Conflict of interest — now what?
o A Planning Commission member who has a conflict of interest problem
should announce the conflict, then leave the room while that matter is
being considered by the Commission, and not participate in any way in
communications or in the decision-making process regarding the
matter.
40
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine
0 Applies only to quasi-judicial matters and not to legislative ones.
• RCW 42.36.mo
0 Doctrine requires government decision-makers to conduct hearings and
make decisions in a way that is fair to others in appearance and fact
• Test for Fairness: would a fair minded person in attendance believe that (i)
everyone was heard who should have been heard, and (2) the decision-
makers were impartial and free from outside influences?
4z
at actions areJ
-uasiicia .
q
o Those actions of a legislative body or planning commission that
determine the legal rights, duties and privileges of specific individuals
in a hearing or contested case. RCW 42.36.010.
b Indicators that action is quasi-judicial:
• Decision applies policy to a specific situation rather than setting policy.
• Decision has a greater impact on a limited number of people, and has only a
limited impact on general public.
• Purpose of the proceeding is to reach a fact-based decision by choosing
between two distinct alternatives.
42
Examples of quasi -judicial actions .
.
• Quasi-judicial:
• Subdivision approvals
• Preliminary plat approvals
• Conditional use permits
• Variances
• Rezones of specific parcels
• Discretionary zoning permits if hearing required.
O Not quasi-judicial:
• Adoption, amendment, or revision of comprehensive plans
• Adoption of area-wide zoning ordinances.
• Adoption of area-wide zoning amendments.
• Building permit denial.
43
Appearance ance of Fairness applied
0 Disqualifies decision-makers from the quasi-judicial decision-making
process who:
• have prejudged the issues;
• have a bias in favor of one side in the proceeding;
• have a conflict of interest; or
• cannot otherwise be impartial
0 Prohibits "ex parte" communications between a decision-maker and a
proponent or opponent of the matter being decided during the
pendency of a quasi-judicial proceeding. RCW 42.36.060
44
MunicipaI OCode of Ethics -
RCW 42 . 23 . 070
0 Prohibited Acts for Municipal Officers:
• Cannot use position to secure special benefits
• Cannot receive gifts related to scope of position
• No disclosure of confidential information
45