May 2, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

[MM:SS] timestamps correspond to the YouTube recording.

[0:00] Glad to see you. I'll call to order the City of Boulder Planning Board Meeting for May. Second, 2,023 super light agenda today. Our first we're going to ask Vivian to do a abbreviated version of the rules for public for participation, and then we'll go to public participation. Great. Thank you. So I mentioned before the meeting started that the rules we share are in place to help us achieve a balance between transparency with community members and security that minimizes disruption. So everybody here has heard these over and over. and they really are for the benefit of people who may not attend city meetings regularly or less familiar with the rules. So I think tonight I would suggest that we go ahead with the open comment. Okay. all right. If you have an open comment. You want to make a comment in open comment for him.

[1:05] Please raise your hand electronically. and then Vivian will call on you. and you'll have 3 min. Are there any hands on? Vivian? No, we have one member from the public who's Lynn, and we will give them 3 min. One sequel. I I can show the timer Devin from my end. Okay, please go ahead and then thank you so much for not putting yourselves and us through that disclaimer again yet again. And I really would like to know who is at these meetings. I think that for 3 years of complaining about not knowing that that someone should address it. Do you care about your community knowing each other. do you? How could you let something like that just go by? Oh, well.

[2:10] we can know, but we don't want them to know they don't have a right to know who's at their meeting. I go to Zoom Meetings all the time from all over the world, and I see who's at the meeting. I see them oftentimes with their video. but at least in participation. I've told you countless times also what I think about your main objective in the city. Now it's housing. and the lack of affordable housing. and the the real costs of housing. and I Haven't heard anything back about the jobs housing imbalance, and how that causes increase services which causes increased demand for for affordable housing for service people that can't afford to pay in boulder.

[3:05] I mean it's it's just it's like talking to the wall. Why do you think I would do that. Why do you think it's not worthy of even being brought up? Because it's fundamental to what you do, what your job is. It's the biggest problem the Us. Has go. The world economy has. and it's not even brought up. you know, and me Well. I guess I can afford to pay sales tax revenue when I've got a 3,700 bill for my catalytic converter, which was probably stolen by someone on meth. and that person on math had fallen into despair about housing. and that person on meth can get cured in 6 months

[4:00] in jail at $40,000 a year. and then, once they're out of jail they'll fall into meth again. and it'll be decades before their brain gets back to normal. What's the cost of this to the community? It's hefty. and every day you continue making height amendments and parking reductions to developers in this town. It doesn't make sense. Yeah. alright. Thank you, Lynn. Thank you. There no other hands raised? Okay, thanks, Vivian. Okay. There are no dispositions or call ups, and there are no public hearings. So we're going to go right to matters. Hella will be walking us through a session on motion, drafting motion making. But before she starts Brad would like to

[5:00] sort of set the stage for us. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to kind of frame this matter before you. Obviously, the Board has talked about this, and and we're happy to come back with a discussion around it. I would say it's kind of a rare opportunity we have to just dedicate a little bit of time to procedural matter. talking a meeting about meetings. And so I I look forward to you all being able to take care of that. In addition to the boards, rules of procedure and and Robert tools that we're talking about the and point out that this is really a set of rules in both cases designed to have the Boards efficiency realized to create a mechanism. But at the end of the day, of course, the efficiency of of any board is going to be reliant on. Really. What kind of parameters you said among yourselves, irrespective of rules and and the various details that we'll go through tonight.

[6:09] And, in fact, tonight is itself an opportunity to exercise those rules and benefit from them. So look forward to the discussion and thank you in advance to Hello for preparing this for you all. Thanks. Thank you, Brad. All right. Take Take us away. all right. I'll try to share my screen here. so I have a little slide show. and then I hope that I'm going to be Let's see if i'm doing this right. Can you guys see my slides now? Yes. i'm gonna try to be able to still see you guys.

[7:01] and then yes, far. So I prepared this slide show. But i'm i'm happy, and i'm happy to go through the entire slide show, or to do this more in a conversation, in a manner. If you have questions, you can ask those questions. provided that somebody would have to let me know, probably, that you have questions because I can. With my shared screen. I can only see a few, a few, but not everybody. So why don't I take responsibility for calling on people if they put up their electronic hands? All right. That sounds good great. So I wanted to start out by talking about what rules to even apply to motion making, and I think the boards had some discussion about Robert's rules in the past meeting, some of which I haven't I wasn't present for but the main rules that apply to the board are the board's own rules the old 1987 type, written

[8:02] board rules. and they don't say a lot about motion making, but they do have a few things in there. So those are the primary rules that apply, but because they're pretty brief, and when you talk about requiring a motion the second, and that this chair states the motion, and so forth, we'll go through that in more detail. The Board has always used Robert's rules to supplement those the Board's own rules, but in case of any kind of conflict between the Board's rules, and Robert's rules. The board's own rules control. and then you all know that you follow Robert's rules, but you have kind of a more informal procedure and sorry. Hello, Hello! I'm sorry. Mark has already raised his hand. Could you go? Could you go back one slide, please?

[9:03] So what I heard you say? I thought I heard you say was in the case of conflict. The boards okay. for it's rules, control, and so that is okay. I got it. I'm sorry I I this is all unnecessary. Excuse me. no, no worries, and and the reason for that is, then the the Board has authority to adopt its own procedural rules. Another charter, and even under the code. Well, the Board has done that, but kind of in a limited fashion. and Robert's rules anticipate that scenario as well, and states that in those scenarios the the boards procedure overall control. If there's any kind of conflict. Oh. so you guys use Robert's rules, but not very strictly. And and your rules actually address that and State, and these are the Board's own rules that for routine business. By general consent

[10:01] the Board can use a more informant procedure. So if you don't follow, Robert's rules or your own rules to the to the letter, then that's okay. As long as there's. There's general consensus on the board about that. So what if there's not general consensus? If if you feel like more former rules should be considered, then one of you could ask for that object and ask that in a particular instance you actually follow the the proper form of procedures, and that can be requested by just one board member. and it would have to be followed any rule, and your roots can also be suspended by an affirmative vote of 4 at any time. and I don't actually remember the vortex ever doing that. But you do have that power. I I have a question then. So how is

[11:00] How is 1 one person can object to an informal procedure? But 4 people are needed to suspend a formal rule. Yeah. So let's say. Maybe i'll give an example. I think I I have some examples later. You know you. You can follow a very formal procedure. and how you state the question and repeat the actual motion, or be a little bit less formal, and say i'm. Stating with the question, the motion is the motion mark made earlier? So that would be the prerogative of the chair to state the question in that way. But if a board member found that that's to inform it in this instance, because they're not quite sure what the actual motion is and what it repeated. Then that Board member could ask for that, and it wouldn't really be

[12:00] a change of the rules. It would just you up the you just be operating under a less form of procedure. And what member would ask to go into a really form a procedure and follow the rules to a T. The rules, the rules being the 1,987 procedural rules of the planning Board. Yes, okay. But it could also be the the Roberts rules. As you apply them to supplement your own rules. There are no hands up. So please go ahead all right. So on this next slide I'm trying to show the life of a motion, and i'll go through each of these steps separately, and talk about them with their purposes, and so forth. But you all know that generally a motion is made has to be seconded. It can be friendly amendments before the motion is repeated by the chair which is called stating the question, and after that the motion becomes open to debate.

[13:11] A motion is maybe subject to subsidiary motions. One of those types of motions is a motion to amend. That's the the really the only function. I think, that the board regularly uses the only type of motion that the board regularly uses to change the main motion after debate is done. The question is called which formally requires to be stating the motion, which is then followed by a vote. What do you use? Motions for? The planning Board generally uses a motions practice to make a decision on cause. They do additional applications, but also in your legislative function. When you make recommendations on changes to the land, use, code. or changes or adoption of the Bbcp master plans, area, and subcommittee plans. or and other actions that you may want to take.

[14:13] So what goes into making a motion to make a motion. The motion maker has to have the floor, and and this is actually one of the rules under the board rules. That is also a typical rule under Robert's rules, and somebody obtains the floor by being recognized by the chair to speak, and that it's that person person's time to speak or to speak. When a motion is made. The maker can briefly state the reasons for the motion, but shouldn't really go into discussing the motion yet. and the reason for that is, that because no motion should at all be discussed at all, unless the motion is also seconded, and that's also one of the few rules that the Board's rules. The 1987 goals contain

[15:02] the Board's own rules, also state that a mayor of a motion can neither speak against nor vote against the motion once it is open for debate and action. and, as I just mentioned, for a motion to move forward, a motion must be seconded that can be by any other member of the board. But if there is no second, then the motion dies immediately, and should no longer be discussed friendly amendments. So there's been a bit of discussion about front. Your amendments in the recent past, and I think this board mostly refers to friendly amendments as changes to a motion that are made before the chair, states the question. and stating the question is kind of a crucial timing and form and motion making, and that before the chair states the question, the motion remains the motion of the motion maker.

[16:04] and the motion maker can make changes to that motion. and that is that that's also the reason why at that point in time friendly amendments can be made. I'm: sorry. Hello, Hello! Before we go on to friendly amendments. Kurt has his hand up. I'm sorry I didn't see it, and I think he might have a question about motion making. So. Kurt: yeah, if you want me to hold it. I can. Is it about motion making or about friendly amendment? It's about motion making. So if you want to continue this. No, no, go ahead, I think. Let's let's ask. Ask the question, and then we'll okay. The the question was just that the motion maker can't vote against their own motion. But what if it gets amended in a way that they don't like? They still have to vote for. It should be German into the motion so hopefully, that situation wouldn't come up, but I think it could

[17:04] come up, and so the motion should not be changed through amendments to accomplish the opposite. For example, it should just be a change to it. but not something completely different. But I think they could still be amendments that change it, that maybe would cause the motion maker to no longer support the motion. And I think in in that circumstance it could be construed as, and not being the makers of motion anymore for this for that purpose. Okay. So in that case it would be yeah. I think that would be the only fair construction, right? It it wouldn't be there to not be able to to vote against it if it was if the meeting was changed so much that you don't support it anymore. Okay, Thank you. So before the the question is stated by the chair, the motion remains the motion of the motion maker, so the motion maker can change the motion. and other Board members can suggest what we've mostly been considering friendly amendments, and because the motion is not yet the motion of the board, the motion maker could accept the friendly amendment or reject it.

[18:22] and the person who seconded the motion should also accept it. But if that person doesn't accept that they can withdraw, and the person who proposed the friendly, and then it would automatically become the second, or of that motion. Friendly amendments should be limited in scope, because the motion is not yet app for debate, so they should really. We only made to improve the motion, or make it more likely to pass, and should not be something that would generate a lot of debate. So, stating the question turns the motion over to the board that makes it the board's motion. How do you state the question that the the chair can say something like it is moved and seconded that, and then repeat the exact motion language, and that's, I think, the most formal way

[19:18] to follow Robert's rules. However, reading through Robert rules the exact motion. Language is not necessary if the Board share things that really the language of the motion is clear to everybody who is going to vote on it. So in that case you don't have to repeat it all. But you could just refer to the motion. and by whom it has been stated to make it clear what you're voting on. And so this is one of the circumstances where I think a board member could say. I object. I would like the whole motion to be stated, for example, because they they want to make sure they fully understand the exact language that they're going to be moving upon.

[20:03] So once the motion we can becomes the motion of the board. The maker of the motion can by him or herself no longer modify the motion or withdraw it without board, input and the stating of the motion opens it for debate and debate is really just a terminology that's used in Roberts rules. But really what it means is now you're discussing the motion sometimes, and I think this Board Hasn't really done that. But I know that sometimes friendly amendments are proposed after the motion becomes the motion of the board. The chair has stated the question. I think it's still okay to do those at that point in time. however, because the motion is now the motion of the board. It's a good practice for the chair to ask if any Board member objects to the friendly amendment, and if any Board member objects.

[21:00] then formal procedures have to be used, and it has to be treated as an actual motion to amend. So a separate motion that again requires a second and discussion, and a vote. can you? I'm sorry. Can you? Can you say that in terms of what that would actually look like versus motion to amend to motion? I mean it. Yeah. So let's say so. Let's say you stated the question. You repeated the motion that's been made. and Kurt says I'm, proposing a friendly amendment to change words 3 and 4 to say the following. So because this the question has been stated. the motion is the property of the board, and and the whole board has the right to weigh in on, whether that friendly amendment is made to the motion or not. But if it's something.

[22:06] maybe it's a medical correction. For example, it doesn't really change the meaning, then it's a small thing, and you could say. Well, the motion has been. The question has been stated, the motion is the motion of the board. Does anybody have an objection to this friendly amendment? And if nobody has an objection, then you can move forward and accept that as an actual amendment to the motion. But if and now says no, I object to this being treated as a friendly amendment for Kurd to get his proposal through. The motion would then have to be treated as an excellent motion to amend, which means courage would be treated as having said, I move to amend the motion by replacing words 3 and 4, with the following words.

[23:00] i'm i'm just making that up. and there would be a requirement that that motion by current is seconded before it moves forward, and the and then, if there's a second, the chair would have to state the question repeat the motion, and at that point the motion to amend would be debated by the board. and the motion that gets re stated at that point is Kurtz motion, or the to the initial motion that was already stated. plus Kurtz amendment. It would be Kurt's motion to amend only, and the discussion would only be about currents motion to amend. But you know I I assume that discussion would involve how that would change the original motion, then. but that's the purpose at that point in time, and before you can then vote on the first motion, the main motion. the board would first have to act on currents motion to amend.

[24:00] Okay. So I see Ml. Has her hand up. Ml. That that was my question. I was wondering if once the discussion has started, and an amendment is made. if that means that the whole motion is folded into that amendment. But i'm hearing how to say no. the original motion remains. and it's the amendment that then either goes to a boat and actually amends or not. It's not the whole thing right? That's at stake. Every time there's an amendment. Yeah, you've been voting on separately on the amendment, and then, if the amendment passes, then then the main motion would be a minute accordingly. and and when you vote on the main motion. That's what you would be voting on the amended motion. Yeah. thank you. So then you need to restate the original motion

[25:02] with the the friendly as part of it. Is that correct for the record? Yeah, I think that would be a good practice, although I think you would be. you would be stating the question for the motion to amend you, Vote on it, and then you, you state the vote, and I I think then it would be a good practice to repeat the motion, how it's been amended. which you can continue to discuss at that point in time, and maybe additional motions to amend our proposed. Can you. can you? This I don't know that this is the right time, but i'm wondering if you can differentiate for us between a friendly amendment and an amendment. Yeah, I think the best way to differentiate between those 2 is

[26:00] to make friendly amendments only before the Chair states the question. It makes a motion, a motion of the board. and only use that process doing that early part of the motion. because at that point it's still the motion of the board. and if I can jump in and and add to that what we are clarifying here tonight is friendly amendment. A friendly amendment is essentially the same as an amendment. and some of the literature I've read suggest they are. you know, one in the same. So that's help. That's why I call it suggestion that using the term friendly, probably is. It's contextually best to do before the question is stated that I will point out that's different than is commonly used, or the Board probably has used friendly amendments in the past, where just the person making the quote unquote, friendly amendment is consulted, and then, you know, if the person says yes, then you move on.

[27:06] But under Roberts rules a friendly amendment is essentially the same as an amendment. so Mark has his hand up then, Laura. But just can I follow up on that? Can we. just from an informal perspective. start calling what we've been calling friendly is clarifying amendments and amendments. Just amendments, because I think friendly implies that the other amendments are unfriendly. that I I just the the friendly amendment is a odd moniker. Anyways, I put that out there. But Mark and then, Laura, go ahead, please. Well, sir, I I concur that. and I concur with you and Brad that a friendly amendment is an amendment. An amendment is an amendment as an amendment. and what I what I wanted to clarify was in How is

[28:03] circle of motion? Debate? I thought that was a great little graphic. The The informal quote. friendly amendment was seemed to fall in order before the motion becomes the motion of the board, and I would think that that would have to be before it was seconded, because once it is seconded. it's, it's over it's a motion, and then everything modifying that is an amendment to the motion once it's been seconded. So even under our in formal rules. there is only a brief moment there to make some sort of friendly amendment prior to being seconded. Is that correct?

[29:01] It's it's a little bit different. The motion can be changed by the motion maker before it's stated by the chair. Even after there has been a second. it still has to be the second, or can withdraw if they don't like the amendment. and if the if the change was made by the motion maker themselves, then maybe there is no other second. But if another person proposes a change, even after it's been seconded. that person can become the second, or if the motion make her accept it, and the original second or with us. So okay, I I and maybe the the I understand the desire for friendly amendments as an expedient way. If someone has left out a comma, or it's it's maybe they've used a word improperly, and it's like, hey, I have a friendly amendment. Can we make that? And and instead of it, or

[30:06] and it's like, yeah, sure, that'd be great. We don't have to go through making an amendment, seconding and an amendment. I've been debating that. And then voting on that amendment. And so the way I read Roberts is that the chair simply says, rather than trying to deal with it as a friendly says, Does anyone have a problem with that a minute? Just as the procedure you've explained. But it's just treated as an amendment, and the chair moves the meeting along by saying. Unless someone has an objection. we're adopting this, and then that gives the opportunity for me, as the motion maker. Any other member of the board to say, No, I object, I want it to be, and and not or and so there it goes, but it it just it's a way to both. Follow the procedure and move the meeting along quickly.

[31:02] Yeah. thanks. Laura. I just second what what Mark just said? That's my understanding of a friendly amendment to is that under Robert's rules it's a chance to like somebody used the wrong word. They They meant to say Tuesday, and they said Wednesday, or they did the wrong date, or they they used a word that was in precise, and someone wants to sharpen it up. But it's it's not a a substantive addition, or a substance of change to the meaning of the motion. That that was my understanding of what a friendly is. And if you want to make a substantive change, add another another chunk of something, or take a piece out of the motion that happens under the amendments that have to be seconded and debated in order before you go back, to approve or or deny the motion that that was my understanding what a friendly amendments purpose was. If we want to just cut out the friendly amendments and treat everything as an amendment. I'm: okay. With that, I think it will slow us down a little bit, but we could try that. And then, if we see it in practice and don't like it, we could go back to the friendly Amendment concept.

[32:12] Hello! What are your thoughts about that? Yeah, I I think that's totally fine. However, you want to do it. I I do agree with how Mark and Laura characterized friendly amendments, and and then really in it's a tool to get something done quickly. If it shouldn't generate, debate without having to go through all of the different. You know all of the different steps of the motion to an end. But if it creates confusion. you could just not use it. Hmm. Okay. So we're not making any decisions at this point, but that's helpful to keep in the back of our in our back pockets for future discussion.

[33:00] but it raises the question of Then you've walked us through the informal procedure. If a friendly amendment is made once the motion has been restated. If a friendly amendment really is just a clarifying and versus or or Tuesday versus Wednesday. Why would we allow a friendly to be made once the motion has been restated versus only more substantive amendments. No, it could also be done before the motion has been stated. But at that point it can be done without the whole board getting input the motion maker could just correct it, because the motion is not. When you are walking us through stating the question, you noted that there is an informal procedure. If a friendly amendment is made, once the motion has been restated. and i'm asking a question of if the friendly amendment is just about clarifying something

[34:01] versus a substantive change. Why do we allow a friendly amendment to be made? Once the motion has already been restated just for efficiency purposes. You could allow it. I'm not sure. I'm. I'm. Understanding your question. If you're asking. Once the motion has been stated by the chair, it becomes the motion of the board. Why would we ever allow a friendly amendment at that point in time? If it's why, Why. yeah, I mean, we have a we have space for friendly to be made before the question has been restated. So so why are we now? Why are we? Why are we then. allowing another opportunity for friendlies versus focusing on the substantive amendments. That's what i'm trying to understand. I think it's maybe it didn't occur to anybody beforehand. It's not, and it's not it's a little bit more than correcting something. You can also propose an improvement. It just to be something simple that the motion maker.

[35:13] this, and or the the maker of the friendly amendment Doesn't think it's going to generate any objections. Essentially. Okay. I just it. It can just be a way to to speed up a little change to the motion language, I guess. to allow it as a friendly amendment by saying, Does anybody object to this change? Versus the motion? Is we have a second. I'm going to state the question now. We're going to debate it and and going through all of those different steps. But you, as the chair can always say. the question has been stated, this is in effect a motion to amend. So we're going to go through the process and formally require a second state the question and do a

[36:03] Okay, I think I'm asking a somewhat different question. But let's move on. And we'll clarify this later. I'm: i'm just saying that what you described here is 2 opportunities to make friendlies. and that doesn't seem efficient to me at all. That seems like the opposite of it would have already come up right at the beginning. Right? But okay. okay. okay, let's go back to your Powerpoint, please. Okay. So once the motion is on the floor and subject to discussion by the board. so subsidiary motions can be made, and so to your emotions and motions that relate to the motion that you're already discussing their motions to amend the main motion, but they could also be to divide the main motion into 2 motions.

[37:05] or to limit, extend or close debate to move the motion forward. these motions must be voted upon and otherwise disposed of, just like the prime a motion. and they typically have the same life cycle as the main motion. But there are some exceptions, and those typically apply. When you're trying to limit debate on the motion. the motion you guys almost exclusively use as a subsidiary motion is the motion to amend the main motion. and what's the purpose of the the motion to amend the purpose is to change the wording of the main motion. So, just like the main motion. the motion only moves forward. If there's a second. it is a motion that's debatable. So once there is a second, and the motion is stated by the chair.

[38:04] the Bo. The board has the opportunity to debate the motion, and even this motion can be amended as well. So it it just functions like the original emotion. It just has a little bit different, a different purpose. and to pass a motion to amend it requires a vote vote of at least 4 members, just like the main motion desk. examples of motions to amend, and these come straight out of, as I move, to amend the motion by adding the following words: and then you would add in those words. I move to amend the motion by striking the following words. and apparently I have a spelling error in there. or I move to invent the motion by striking out the following, and adding in their case these following different words. So the intent really is to to have very accurate language in here, and know what the original motion is, and place it in there.

[39:05] because that creates this confusion, and makes the most clear on what the motion actually is. I think the board sometimes. Is not that exact? And if that's not the case, then I think we all need to make sure that everybody knows. or that there's some record of what the motion actually is, and you know what you're discussing and voting on. But the best practices to actually refer to the language that's being changed and accurately described it. So I got to be honest. I've been on planning board now for 4 years, plus a month. I have never had don't remember a motion being amended this way by by being that exact. I think that's probably true. Yeah. But sometimes the board does this on the screen. I think that's when it comes when you come closest to to doing it this accurately. and and you can see how you know the language reads.

[40:15] Okay. I see Marx raising the same. Oh, sorry, Mark, go ahead. Hell in your prior slide. I think the the one just prior to this you mentioned subsidiary motions. And so one of them is one type. Okay. I would if a person on the board wanted to break a motion into 2 pieces which we have experienced this.

[41:00] and it became controversial. Would that be best done as a subsidiary motion? Or if if the motion, if if the motion but all encompassing motion. I I move to adopt Plan a is on the floor. Then either either someone has to amend that to say I adopt. We want to adopt plan a partially. and then they would have to once that first motion. Hey, I i'm trying to. I'm trying to think of what is the procedure? And is it? Does it use subsidiary motions or amendments to break a big motion into smaller pieces? Yeah, there is something. There is a motion to divide the main question, and I i'm going to scroll down through my Powerpoint to go to a slide that I kind of had as a back pocket slide

[42:01] that that addresses that because I did look this up I I know that something that you guys have been thinking about it. At least some of you have been thinking about, and I looked at Robert's rules, and there is a motion for division of question that has to be made before a motion is voted on, and there is a difference whether the motion is on one subject. or if it relates to 2 different subjects. if it's 2 different subjects. and a member requests that the motion be separated into separate motions, then that request has to actually be honored, and the motion has to be separated into separate motions. If it's on the same subject. then emotion can be made to divide the original motion into separate motions. but it should only be done if the motion can be separated without changing the content

[43:04] without changing the meeting. There can be some slight restructuring of the motion to make the language make sense once it's separated. But the meaning of each separated part. It should still be the same as it was structured when it was one piece. and so that can be a motion, and it requires a second, and it's not actually debatable. So the the Board would just vote on that, and whether or not to approve that at that point in time. so the other way to to achieve this would be for a board member, even though, let's say, staff in one scenario had put forth a motion staff puts it out there. But Staff can't make motions right? You yeah. Staff can recommend motion language with staff can't make a motion.

[44:01] Okay. so the board number. if they pop their hand up and say to the chairperson, i'd like to be recognized. I am making the following motion. Can a board member make multiple motions, or do they have to be made individually debated and voted on, and then go to the next, and then go to the next. Only one motion can be made at a time. Okay. Okay. They could state their attention to make multiple motions. but make one motion at a time. Yeah. okay, thank you. Ml. Has her hand up. So, Helen, if if a subject or a commotion is contains more than one subject.

[45:01] and somebody makes a motion, and it gets seconded. and then another person Deep wonders whether that should be 2 motions rather than one motion. Can that happen either before or after? The question is called or rent. can that happen in a different subject? Motion happened? I would say yes. and at that point in time it would still be up to the motion maker to just say, Yes, I agree this should be separated. But if the if that person doesn't agree, then after the question is stated, then the motion can be made to divide the question. Okay, so the main motion can be rather than amended. It can be broken into 2 motions after the question has been read.

[46:02] Yeah, if the motion maker agrees to it. But at that point after it's been read, it belongs to the board. Yeah, right? So then, it would take a 4 member vote to divide the question. because it's a motion to amend to divide it. So you'd have to vote on it and have at least 4 members agree to divide it. That right? Yeah. And this this is this is very confusing in this part. If it's a single subject. If it's a different subject. and a board member request that it be separated that the different subject be separated out in a separate motion. Yeah. then, then, that must be granted. And how does that debate happen if you've got 2 motions sitting after the question has been read, you've got 2 motions in in that amendment part. I've got the little I did a screen share or screen steel of your zoom diagram. But in that place, right where the question is being read now it belongs to the board. But now there's 2 motions.

[47:05] How does that work? If it's been divided? Yeah, I think then do you have to treat them separately, and first go through the whole process for one of the motions, and that would be followed by the whole process for the second motion, and this that's an example for a different subject. This sometimes has come up when the board, for example. the board makes a motion to approve a development approval. But was we be bothered by one of the review standards, and also once a message wants to send a message to Council that we should amend the code. Because you guys didn't agree with how one of the review standards reads, or something like that. Then the approval of the Development Project is a different subject than the code change that you're also discussing. So if one of you said, these are 2 different subjects, right.

[48:08] I ask that the motions be separated. then it should be separated without the even being a motion. And in this particular example I would also ask you to do that just to it was a judicial item, separate and clean from their items. and even that way it can happen during the debate that the motion to separate. Oh, the request. Yeah, yeah, I could. Okay, Thank you. All right. Laura has her hand up. So this is really interesting, and thank you for helping us understand this, Hella. I do think that this idea of what is a different subject might be somewhat controversial at times. You know that the the the time that this board struggled the most with how to make the motion

[49:04] was when there was an ordinance that was being proposed, and changes were being proposed to the ordinance that were one package, and then there were changes proposed to the staff transmittal letter which some folks might have seen as a different subject, and some folks might have seen as the same subject. So I don't want to debate that here and now. I think that valid arguments could be made either way. But if we, if we did treat it as a single subject here, here's the question that I have one board member whose opinion I very much value and and respect very much made the comment of. If these things are separated, then that that that affects how I would vote on both of them. That board member did not see those things as separable is that I mean, I can understand people like. So let's say, let's put it in a different context. And say. how is that deal with? How did you decide whether it's the same subject or a different one? Well, I guess I guess what i'm getting at is if somebody sees their vote on the 2 things as linked right, even though maybe they could be

[50:08] several parts that are capable of standing as a complete proposition if the others are removed. But somebody sees their vote on those 2 things as linked. Is it still kosher to separate them and vote separately and just understanding that that will affect people's votes. Or does that mean it's inseparable? Yeah, I think I think it would work this way the chair would look at it. And yeah, I guess the best way. If you, If the person who wants to separated things, it's 2 different subjects, and they should say so. and then the chair can think about it and say, I agree. These are 2 different subjects. We're going to separate them. or if the chair is not sure the chair could say. I'm not sure. Is this a different subject or not? I'm going to take a vote of the board on this. and just ask for people to vote if they think it's a different subject or not. And then the decision is based on that, whether it's a different subject or not.

[51:08] Okay, thank you. And then, if it's a if we agree that it's a single subject right? The single subject says, When a motion relating to a single subject contains several parts, each of which is capable of standing as a complete proposition. If the others are removed. the parts can be separated to be considered, and they must be easy to separate. and that is something that has to get a vote of the Board right every time. Yeah. So anybody could propose and say, I think this is a single subject, but I want to separate the parts, and then it would be up to the Board to vote on whether or not to separate them. That's right. Okay. I think that procedurally would have helped us. I wish that I think I made some mistakes procedurally in that discussion from ignorance, and i'm glad to be learning more now. So thank you all right. I'm going to scroll back up. So you are with me.

[52:02] and we're gonna get a copy of this right? Hello for reference. Thank you. So motions to limit debate are also subsidiary motions that can be made, while your main motion that you're discussing is pending. and maybe the purpose is to move forward. There's 2 different types. One is a motion to move the previous question, and the purpose of that is to just stop debate, debate, and go to the vote. The other type of motion to limit debate is to reduce the number of speeches board members can make to reduce the length of the speeches that can be made. or to require that debate end at a certain time. So there's different ways to try to it. It's kind of a time management to these motions are a little bit different than a motion to amend, or the main motion, and how they're handled.

[53:00] They do require a second, but they are not supposed to be debated by the board there's just supposed to be a vote on it. And to pass these motions it requires a two-thirds majority of the of the board. So there is, I think, with these rules there is a balance that's being struck with allowing time efficiency. but not cutting people off from being able to to speak. and I've never seen the Board use any of these tools, but I wanted you to be aware that they exist, and if the roots are a little bit different. and how they apply it from other motions. But if you ever want to use it. you could ask how to utilize them, and and you can implement them so once there's been oh, I see Mark is raising his hand. Oh. if you go back to that slide.

[54:02] I so is motion to move the previous question the same as calling the question motion to call the question. Yes, yes. okay. thank you. And now did you. Is that something I'm: sorry. Call it. Is that something that any member of the Board can make? Yes. so once there's been debate, the chair can call the question, and that's the purpose of that is to end debate and bring the motion to a vote. and the chair chair can do that by saying, is there any more debate. Are you ready for the question? And then the board votes. and in a form of setting the motion is actually again repeated

[55:03] to call the question. But, as I said, the the Board can act in more informal procedure, and just refer back to the, to the, to the motion that has been previously made. But you should be sure that everybody understands exactly what you're voting on. I'm sorry Mark has his hand up. I'm. I'm sorry about this, but so calling the question or calling the previous question. That's not debatable. That requires a two-thirds vote. So we're in the think of a debate and some board member says. Madam, chair, I call the question. My understanding is, the debate stops right then and there. and we vote without debate on whether to call the question or not. Yeah. Two-thirds of the board agrees to call the question.

[56:01] Then we go to the procedure on on the screen. That that's on the screen right now. But if if 2, that's one way to get there, let's say you've had enough debate, and you just want to to vote on the motion. But then the debate can also naturally come to an end, and Sarah is given everybody the opportunity to speak. and so she can call the question now, the chair has the authority to call the question right? Right? Okay, Great. But but if if I had called the question and I did not receive a two-thirds vote of support to call the question. Then at the chairs discretion, the debate continues, and my my motion to call the question has failed. Yes, okay, Gotcha, thank you. But you did just say that then the chair can also call the question

[57:01] without a vote. That's a Two-, that's part of the role of the chair to call the question, and Mark would make a motion to call the question. It would still be the the chair who calls the question ultimately, but you could force you through this a successful vote on this motion to call the question and and debate. Okay, so i'm sorry. Go ahead, Laura can the chair, and and i'm not implying anything about Sarah at all. I'm just wanting to understand the the rules here. Can a chair call the question at any time like if they don't want to have any debate, could they just call the question immediately. I think, under the out of the rules it could be done. But the role of the chair is to facilitate the discussion and make sure that everybody is heard, and the rules anticipate that every person gets 5 min to speak on emotion in general.

[58:02] but maybe that maybe nobody wants to speak on the motion right? So Sarah could check in and ask it. Is there any desire to discuss the motion, to debate the motion? And if there's not, she could just call the question, If yeah, yeah, if if Sara goes and decides. I don't want to hear anybody about talk about this, and just calls the question. Then the Board could force a vote could force a discussion. I guess. How would the board if we did have a rogue chair which would not be Sarah? But if we did have a rogue chair, how would the board get back to debate if the chair we're trying to call the question somewhat prematurely. I think that let's see. I'm gonna take a quick look at the rules of the board itself while you're looking, I will say I will only go, rogue, if it's 1130 at night.

[59:02] Well, then, Staff had better not give us too many items in our agendas. We've had some of those really long meetings, but I think it's usually because we have like 2 or 3 really meeting items. So the the rules state the chair, states the motion and asks for discussion. General debate and discussion follow up members desire. So if if Sarah decides there's no discussion, I think one of you could say point of order. I object. I want to follow the rules of order and allow for discussion, and everybody had the opportunity to at least speak once. Thank you. Hello! I'll put my hand down. Okay, hell on. Please continue so. After the after this about the chair is supposed to announce the result and the the rules actually state. The motion is not complete until the result is announced. and that is the life cycle of emotion. And I put a few things on this last slide to just discuss

[60:08] what's okay with motion practice. It's okay for emotion to fail. So you, you don't have to try to work on emotion until you're very sure that it's gonna pass it's okay for a motion to fail. It's also okay for motion to pass on a vote that's not unanimous. It's okay to ask for a motion to be split and for motions to be split. Sometimes you have to be careful and cause a judicial decisions. I recommend that you always adopt findings of fact along with your motion, and include the conditions of approval, all in one motion; and I would recommend against approving. making a motion to approve, and not including their conditions of approval, because you should only approve. If you know.

[61:03] you can only approve a quasi- your digital item. If all the review criteria are met, and if you're imposing conditions you're saying only with these conditions the the project meets the review criteria. So you shouldn't separate a motion out in that fashion when it's a cause of you disappearing. But that's something I can help you with. But if you working on a legislative item and are giving policy, input oftentimes it's possible to split motions into separate motions. You are that before I call before I call you, I just have, like a follow up question how to the finding conditions and findings, in fact. So I don't think in the year in this past year we had any at least while I was in when I was in meetings, any conditions that were added. But in previous years it's been things like.

[62:00] you know, hours of operation, that kind of thing. But what do you mean by findings of fact, because you all staff Staff's packet is the city's findings of fact. So what what are our findings of fact? Well, Steph's findings are the way the recommended motion language is drafted typically is that staff recommend that you approve the proposal. Adopting the staff memorandum and its attachments as findings of fact, the staff always includes a criteria analysis. and by having that in writing it allows you guys to adopt that as your findings effect, you could adopt different findings of fact. and if it's very simple, I think you could incorporate it into your motion language. But if it's not very simple, you could ask us

[63:00] to draft different findings of fact, and bring the item back to the board, either solely to adopt the findings after it's already approved, or continue even approval. and and then approve at a later time with your own findings of fact that we would draft based on your feedback. So i'm sorry. So Project X is asking for a very is asking for a B C D. Variances. and a majority of the board finds that those variances. our in not in alignment with something in site, review, or something in the site Review criteria, even though Staff said it's close enough. which is some sometimes. What's the says in more diplomatic language than that if we vote down that project because

[64:00] a minimum of 4 of us say it, doesn't, meet the Site review criteria. That is our finding a fact is that is that what I just want to make sure? I'm: understanding. Yeah. So that would be one. You would have to make a motion to deny. And the way we've handed that in the past, if the Board wants to do something different than what Staff recommended. the the board has continued the item to a later meeting, and then we prepare findings consistent with the Board's decision for adoption at that later meeting. Okay. So I think we did that most of you were there. Maybe not Curd for the raising Keynes user view. I think the staff had recommended approval, and the Board denied it, and before the board made the motion to deny we said it all. The board continued the item, and then it was brought back. We drafted findings based on

[65:03] what the Board had discussed and what we'd heard. And and you all then made a motion to deny adopting the findings we had specifically drafted for that purpose. Okay. all right. That's very helpful. So Brad has his hand up. And then Mark had his hand up. The mark just took his hand down. So, Brad. And then I thought it would take just a few minutes to give elaborate on some of these points on this slide, because in in my experience. They really do boil down to kind of the main things that a board needs to be aware of. and i'm just going to elaborate a little bit on what Pell has said and and written here. and share some kind of anecdotal experience. so recommended. Motions. Language, as it says, is is just that it's just a recommendation. and I will share with you that I've seen the evolution of this in jurisdictions over the years to where it's a very scripted thing right? We we give you a motion that's very precise. And says

[66:02] I, I move to approve, based on blah, blah, blah, blah! And again, this all gets to the rationale of worst case scenario. If these types of things go t to be litigated. nobody ever litigates something that's approved. Right? Nope. No no applicant does right. If there are other folks that have standing, maybe there's an odd situation where they would. and so the recommended language motion. It. It can be modified, and it, you know literally, and and hell might disagree with me on this. But literally, if you're moving to approve it, it stands up to just simply say. I move to approve the item. Is there a second? Yes. and and I say that somewhat flippantly, because I've seen boards over the years become so attached to that language, and so attached to the choreography of a specific motion, and those types of things that they they kind of lose the intent behind that. So I try to. I share that to kind of. you know, give give sense around the intent.

[67:12] The reason we, as staff. make a point of saying, let's get in the habit of citing the criteria. or i. E. The findings of fact. It is that worst case Tomorrow an applicant disagrees, and it has to go to court, or somebody else, maybe, who has standing depending on the process. Maybe maybe the public has a standing in some some cases, but it goes to court, and then the court has to find really that it was arbitrary, capricious, which simply means that you all weren't. You were arbitrary or work. Usually Council is arbitrary in making their decision. If you simply make the point that I am. Oh. I move to deny this because it doesn't meet criteria acts.

[68:04] You're pretty much covered at that point, you you've you've given rationale. You haven't been arbitrary. You haven't been capricious unless you know the discussion makes it clear somewhere along the way somebody said, I don't like this person or boy. I don't like purple buildings, even though that's not the criteria. You know. Things like that that are very. very subjective and not tight to criteria. So that's why we really work to have boards. Get in the habit of planning boards get in the habit of using the the criteria particularly to deny things. The other thing I wanted to kind of highlight that's in this slide. Here is again. One way to get through the debate and discussion about various iterations is to simply make the motion, and and if it's clear, it's gonna not pass. you know. Just have the vote and and move on to another motion. Many, you know, many motions can be made

[69:08] and voted upon. and that's okay. And I know that I've seen boards really strive towards unanimity sometimes in the theory that Council will see that as as a resounding vote of yes or no. and and there certainly can be some truth to that. But there's probably a tipping point where, if you're contorting so much to get to that point that that it's really lost its intent. I would just encourage you to recognize that you know 5 to vote, or whatever it is. It is fine, and all of that still gets reflected in the minutes. both in summary of the vote and in longer form, you know, in in the debate and and discussion. So just just a perspective of some of what I've witnessed and seen over the years. And hopefully that builds up what hell I was saying and happy to answer any questions

[70:08] that's really helpful. Thank you very, very much, Mark. You have a question or a the the statement is, is that the raising Keynes motion to deny which I naively put forth as a motion to deny just simply that it was such an educational experience for me to have Ellis guidance to say, hey, let's continue this. and let's give step a chance to create a finding a fact. and and to come back at that next meeting, and have Staff do a really excellent job at taking our jumble of thoughts and coalescing them together into a finding of fact.

[71:07] I was. I was both happy with it and impressed by it, and I thought it gave the applicant a real basis on which to review their application. And who knows, maybe come back someday. So, anyway, that was kind of a kudos thing. The The question is. Are we debating motions too late in our meetings because we go through this process, and we have lots and lots of debate. and our motions tend to be made in the final couple minutes and and many times. There is no real debate on that motion project. you know. Staff recommended motion languages. X. We say yes, someone for fun to really, says I move someone seconds. and and there really isn't much debate because we kind of pre debated it.

[72:13] So my question is red, how anyone that has experience with our sort of board. Should we be debating the actual motion? Should we make a motion early on, and then have that debate about the motion versus doing it all in advance, and then kind of just voting right at the end. So i'm not the lawyer, not the attorney, but I will say that one of the directions that David gave us last the 2 years or 2 years ago was to come to the meeting with a draft. If you thought you were wanted to make

[73:01] a motion that was different than Staff's motion, or you wanted to make an amendment. was to come to the meeting with something pretty drafted. and if at the end of the meeting, when we got to the discussion portion of the of of the hearing to raise to put, you wouldn't put on the table yet, because we haven't gotten to the motion making. But to say you had an amendment that interested you, and to sort of put it into the discussion for feedback. so that by the time we got to motion making you would know whether there was any interest in supporting it or not. We can. Certainly I think that it was a useful tool. I don't actually remember that many amendments being made. but that is one tactic that

[74:01] can address that. What I' if i'm understanding what your your concern you're raising correctly. But I I don't want to. I didn't want to keep hell of from answering the question from a legal perspective. But that was a strategy we used a couple of years ago from a particular perspective. You certainly could make a motion right away any anybody could, and reading through Robert's rules, they actually state there shouldn't be any debate on the motion that's on the table. and that's really not how the Board has been operating. and you know, stuff usually lay out some the issues to discuss and and typically the Board does want to do some just want to have some discussion, and I think board members often want to get a fear, for where other Board members are, because you have to make a decision. All of you have to vote on something, and concluded in that way. But you. Ml. Has your hand up. I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt. Hello! Sorry.

[75:04] So how? The question I was wondering about to what Mark is raising? Do you think that training the discussion around key issues promises to have the debate. even though the key issues are the motion itself. but promises to kind of clear out any any discussion there may be about the motion, because the key issues are the things that our key that we're going to be concerned with. So i'm just wondering what role how these key issues might have directed us to have the thorough conversation before. You know. as opposed to this little cycle, that the life of a motion diagram suggest that the debate happens after the motion is made, and the question is stated. So

[76:10] i'm wondering if that's how we or or how we got to our process, and if we should do anything about it. How it just before you answer, Brad has his hand up. Well, I was just going to offer up the opinion that I think the key questions are probably a very useful tool that I'm discouraged from getting from it. I understand your point, Ml: that that might lead to. and even asking that question to debate discussion. But I think the reason they we came about is that without a clear focus on key questions. everything becomes a question, and and you end up, You know, kind of wandering the wilderness, and of course you should never, as the Board feel constrained by those being the only questions upon the to base your discussion, but that's just meant to be kind of a winnowing process.

[77:06] I I think it's probably a a little bit of dancing on the pens to discussion about what, when something turns from discussion into debate. And my experience over over the many years is that it's it kind of is a distinction without a difference. So the question of how much debate before the motion versus after. you know, ideally, as Robert rules indicates, you should be debating after motions on the table, but sometimes you don't know what motion to make until you've got to vetted through, so there's a little chicken and egg and practice, and I I I've yet to see any board. no matter how robust or or rigorous in their process, is able to then slice that to say, okay, now we are done discussing. Now we're going to debate. I think the point is just if you find yourself discussing it for a fairly long time. It's probably time to put something on the table as a motion, and then

[78:00] continue. You know, continual the meeting along through that mechanism. That'd be my advice. Yeah, I agree with you about the key issues. I think they are fundamental and so incredibly useful. So my point wasn't to do not have them. It was like, should we have them as part of the debate. But i'm. I am hearing that there is a difference between discussion and debate, and the debate has more to do with where there are a point opposing, maybe positions that one wants to make about what I don't know. Anyway. No, I agree. We have to keep our key issues. I think they're They're vital to keeping this on track. You know the in terms of meeting management. you know, one of the things that's been different in the last year has been the amount of questions we tend to ask of applicants and staff. and that does

[79:01] often extend. I I think we've all gotten better at focusing on questions and not couching it in in opinion or evaluation during the question period. But we do actually spend much more time than we used to in those Q. A. Parts with the applicant and board. I'm sorry staff which then makes when we get to board discussion. Sometimes it already feels like we've been been here for quite some time. and I don't know that there's a way to limit that. But I I that is something I have noticed over the last year or so, and so maybe we can think through how to how to be super concise in our questions

[80:02] to both applicant and staff, and and kind of get to the board discussion. and then motion and debate sooner. Just a thought all right, so does Are there any parts of Hella's fabulous Powerpoint and presentation that folks I have still have questions about it, or would like to go over here, I mean i'm. I know we can call Hela and ask her for a deeper dive into portions that we might be confused on. and I will admit I will be calling Hella. and maybe I'm the only one who's still a little little confused. But are there any particular questions or things that we've experienced as a board that doesn't seem to be covered here, that you'd like to raise and kind of explore a bit.

[81:01] No, I see. No, No, I see no wait. Laura just raised her hand. No, I don't have additional questions at this time. But. Hella, if you feel comfortable. I would love it. If, when you share this with us, you include your back pocket slides that we didn't have time to go over, which is totally fine. But i'm sure contain really interesting information. So I would love to be able to see those 2. Yeah, they're They're part of it, anyways. I'll. I'll send those to you and I'll, I'll send out the 1987 rules again. and they are a little bit modified in the virtual environment. So I don't set that separate. Send that separate set as well. Great, thank you. And or as Sarah is, of course, right, contact me. If you have any additional pass. I didn't mean to. I didn't mean to offer you up on a silver platter there. How? My! My! My apologies! I'm always available for Kurt has his hand up. We're in the orle since you Yeah. Kurt, go ahead, please.

[82:00] My question is just about the board rules is there? I assume that there is a process for modifying the board rules in. If so, where is that? Well, the the Board can amend the rules. There's not really a process that set out for the planning Board rules. The city has some rules about adoption of roads that include publication and so forth, and those are ideally for that which fun the Board also has authority to adopt what's out of the Charter so arguably you wouldn't be required to follow that but that said they are 1987 Rules They are outdated some of the things in their you you don't really follow, and it's been my desire to get those updated for a long time, and I just never got into it, and the board that always has a busy agenda. But that's one of the things I've been talking with laurel about, and we're hoping to

[83:02] to actually work on that. And and one of the big reasons to do it now is. there have been some changes to the code in terms of it didn't use to be allowed to have a virtual meeting until Covid. So then, the virtual meetings were first and out through the emergency rule power that the city manager had at the time. But now the code has been amended to allow virtual rules, and at some point this board will get to decide how to meet in the future, whether it's going to be an in-person meeting or virtual meeting, or a hybrid meeting, and the rules should adequately address that, and not have a set of site routes for virtual meetings that were drafted with Covid in mind. and so that will come up under matters at some point the opportunity arises. and it would just be a majority vote to approve the rules at least. Yeah, at least 4 members have to vote to approve them

[84:03] planning for through the 4. Okay, Thank you. marked. So I have a couple of other procedural questions, and I wasn't Sure, if yeah. I think this they would be addressed later, or I'm just wondering about the timing. or are we done with motion making, or should I pose my questions now or later. Well, let me. Just I was. I was asking if anyone had more questions about how this presentation I don't have more motion making questions. Okay, does anyone alright, see? I, seeing no one, has questions, Mark, please put on a tape what what you want to talk about? But also please note that Laura does have this letter. She wants us to go through and matters so we can complete that and move forward with that. So mark, go ahead, please.

[85:00] So this motion, making rules and so forth, have made me aware of. There are a lot of kind of procedures that as a new board member, you kind of say, oh. I see, this is how they do this, or you know this is how it's done. and it's not written down anywhere. And so one of my questions, and as I've experience planning board and tab, and then several housing, advisory board meetings and watch city council meetings, different boards do things differently. And One of the things that I am curious about is whether it's in our rules. If there's a quasi-judicial problem with it is responding to or asking questions of speakers during a public hearing. And

[86:03] there. you know, I've seen council pause, and actually ask a speaker questions, or ask for additional information or comment, or whatever I've seen. The same things go on at. Have. It was the procedure at Tab, and it seems to be our procedure that you say thank you and nod your head, and and that's that's really the only thing that goes on. So my question is, i'll sum it up. Do we have rules, formal or informal in the procedure in regard to asking questions responding to public speakers at at any point during the meeting, and are those different from quasi judicial matters than they are for legislative or policy or advisory issues.

[87:01] So from a legal perspective. your rules Don't, address that. But I don't see a problem with you asking questions of members of the public. and I I do know that the Board has done that in the past, maybe. But you but I think you're right. I don't recall it in the recent past. and there's a little bit, maybe, of a timing question as well in terms of When do you ask that question? I guess it should probably happen when that person is still at the dyes. Red, You have thoughts. Yeah. It would just add to that that if it's. you know, during the public hearing or not, the public during the open comment portion in the meeting. I think boards typically the practice is going to be to ask clarifying questions.

[88:00] The the idea of having a board is to never get into a conversation right. So once you start once you start balling back and forth. You're now in a conversation, and that's not really the role of a word. The role of a board is to take in information. absorb it. clarify, and then and then go from there. Now with an applicant that's going to be a little bit different. And so you know there tends to be conversational need to get clarification. And then, when it's taking public testimony. you know, out of fairness, Typically, there's not going to be questions, because otherwise one person is going to get 10 min where the other got the 3. But there again, if somebody says a word that you don't know, or reference. Getting clarification, of course, is is logical in that in that sense. right? So that's all that's all clarifying. And and and yet

[89:01] it's the situation that came to mind was during our last concept review of the baseline project. You know we had a couple of speakers that had what I I found substantial, substantive, substantial information that raise questions for me. And yet at the same time. you know I an and and we're experts, that though those people were at Scott Mccarry as a transportation engineer with the county. and carries his his thoughts, you know, carry some weight. At the same time we had limited all the speakers time to 2 min. That's fine. So you know. In that case it it was. You know I had an internal debate. Do I ask my questions? Or is that, like you say, unfair to the other speakers who you know? Or could it be perceived as unfairness on

[90:13] my part to in essence, give him more time, etc. So you know, that was a that was a tough call. I opted not to ask any questions, but the appropriateness of doing. That is is what i'm trying to figure out, and and maybe that's a judgment call, and you just exercise it with real caution. The the one that I would add just from an ego perspective, thinking about this a little bit more. If you do ask follow up questions, you should always keep in mind that you want to give the applicant who has the property right; that when you're dealing with an opportunity to respond to whatever was said, if if you ask the question after the applicant had that opportunity previously.

[91:06] If I can weigh into a little bit on that, I think you you're absolutely right. I mean? These are judgment questions. But if the public, during the public hearing, bring forth information that is new, you know we we're seemingly new. and you know i'm going to just use an absurd example. But if somebody says, hey. planning board, did you realize that site was haunted? Nobody told us this was haunted. Boy, is it haunted? I don't know. You know. One thing to is to kind of ask the the person from the public over and over, but ultimately that's not going to get you to to a conclusive answer, no matter how much the expert they are or not. probably better to hell. His point is to say. Hey, applicant, hey, Staff, did you know this was haunted? Did you have any research on that?

[92:00] And if we all say no, you know we had no idea, and that that's interesting news. We didn't know about that mean at some extreme point, you might say as part of your deliberation, boy. I don't feel like we know enough about this claim of it being haunted. I move to continue this item to the next date certain, so that this can be research, because that is a huge concern to me, and I It sounds like there's credible reason to think it's on it, and we probably need to get to the bottom of that before we make it a final decision on this. that that might be especially true if the person speaking is an actual ghostbuster. Right? Okay, Thank you. It's it's a real can of worms, I think. to be honest, because we have a city filled with very well educated people who are expert in all kinds of stuff. and and we have a city staff that is also expert in all kinds of stuff.

[93:03] And you know, during a concept review which is what you're referring to. The gentleman was able to submit his slides. and i'm sure Staff has looked at those slides. So it just I just it. It does. Each of us could probably identify folks who, we think are experts, because they have all those letters after their name. and they are experts, and can speak at length about whatever particular topic they are expert in. I I would just suggest using that right. judiciously sure, and and at the same time. Hella a. And something I learned first day. One is

[94:02] bring it to the hero right, you know, Don't don't have exparte communications. Bring it to the hearing, Ask your questions at the hearing. and so there is also the get it done at the hearing benefit. So yeah, I I agree. It's a judgment call, and use it. Use it judiciously. I I think we have. as a board have possibly under utilize that. But I just wanted to clarify whether there was a rule against it or informal rule, or it's just it. It's a rarity. It should be that way. Yeah. okay, I will say that I don't recall anyone quit may maybe once, maybe in 4 years. I just. I don't recall anyone from the public being asked to pontificate further than their 3 min, or to answer specific questions

[95:07] posed by a board member that doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I just don't call it at all. Okay, are we, marker you? Do you feel like you've gotten the answers? Okay, so, Laura, I think we're moving on to our other matters, which is Laura's letter for our letter that Laura has drafted. Laura. Why, don't you manage this portion? So you get what you need from everyone. Okay, Thank you, Sarah. So, as everyone knows. We sent a letter to Council on April fifth about the Airport community conversation for which I am the Planning Board liaison. and as we discussed at our last meeting. It seems like this is an appropriate time to follow up to that letter. As conditions have changed a bit, we want to update counsel, and let them know how much we appreciate some of the changes and clarifications we're seeing from staff that are moving in the direction of what planning board had recommended in our April fifth letter.

[96:04] Did everybody have a chance to read it? Okay. Is there anybody who wants me to walk through the letter? Or would you like to move straight to any proposed changes? Anybody want me to walk through it? And you know, hearing none, hearing none. Would anybody like to propose changes or have questions about what's in there. Lisa has a hand up. Yeah, i'm not. I'm not sure whether it's desirable or like a a solid use of time. I think my bias would be to just kind of tighten it up, and maybe strike some stuff, but not necessarily because I disagree with anything that's in there. I'm not sure. I just came back through to see if there's anything that jumps out. But yeah, it's not so much that i'm like oh, like that doesn't drive it just a little long.

[97:01] and and I wonder if it might be a little more impactful if it were a little more pippy, but I also don't want to drag us down and towards nothing, because I don't think that's a great use of our time. So yeah, that that's my feedback. I don't know if other people feel that way. And again, i'm I don't feel so strongly about it that I actually want to run around like crossing, step out, or if we wanted to, we could maybe do it as like a little committee thing or something. But yeah, otherwise I think it's excellent, and thank you so much for being our lease on more sure. I'll just say it is long. The first 3 paragraphs are just reminding council of what was in that April fifth letter, because I know they have a lot on their plates and on their minds they I didn't want them to have to go back and dig it up. The next following 2 paragraphs are. Here's our appreciation, and here's what we're seeing that we are appreciating. And then the last paragraph is just a a summary of how kind of weighty and important this decision is, and what this is moving towards, just reminding Council of that. So I I agree. It's kind of long, and if folks want to tighten it up, we certainly can work on that either. Here and now it's only 7, 39, I mean. This is like a super short meeting for us, and we do need to avoid serial meetings. So either we can take it offline and work in committee to tighten it up and bring it back to the next meeting, which I think is in 2 weeks.

[98:17] or we can take some time to edit here. If anybody feels strongly. I don't know people's people's thoughts. I'm open. I want this letter to feel good. It's. It's all of ours. It belongs to all of us. So I would just say, I agree with these. It's a bit. It's a bit long, but I would trust you to edit it down a little bit and send it. I don't think it. I mean, if you want to bring it back to us, you're welcome more obviously more than welcome to. But I don't. Does anyone feel the need to? I work with, or want to work with Laura on editing it down just to Tad. All right. I see no one's everyone's going. No. So, Laura, are you okay? Just taking a little bit of a red pencil to it and

[99:04] consolidating it a bit, and then. okay, I'll try to cut some words. Okay, cut some words, and and then. if everybody is okay with the general contents. If there's nothing in here that people find stressful or non-representing your opinion, then I can just cut it down a bit. just kind of down. It. It perfect? Okay? And are we okay? If Laura. do we want Laura to bring it back to us in 2 weeks, or we okay, with Laura just going ahead and sending it. If you're for sending it thumbs up. All right, Laura. Just edit and send. We're fine, we trust. Okay, Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. this letter was approved by the planning board on date, with a vote and a vote count. Can I just say this sent? This letter is sent with the unanimous approval of the planning board. Yeah, perfect. Okay, Thank you. Lots of thumbs up. Okay. We have finished our matters issues that we knew were on the agenda. Brad, is there anything that you would like to bring to our attention?

[100:07] You know there, isn't. Thank you as always for your perfect. We appreciate it. Thank you. Hella. Is there anything else you'd like to bring to our attention? No, nothing else for me. Okay, Devin. What would you like to bring to our attention. Nothing for me just saying, Hi! Awesome. Okay. Then good news. We are adjourning this meeting at 7 41 Pm. On May second. Oh, wait! I'm sorry. Sorry Ml. Has her hand up. I I just wanted to thank Hella for that. You know this is. I wish I knew on day one some of these things. But thank you so much for the clarity, and you know just the little diagrams. And it was a really really useful, helpful, and i'm sure we will be a much better board as a result of your presentation tonight. So thank you so much. You're welcome.

[101:04] Well, I I second that, and i'm sure everyone. Third, fourth is 6 and 7. Is it? At least we don't have any excuse for not being a better board just ourselves we are our own excuse for not being better. Okay. So I will try again. We are, I'm. A we are joining this meeting at now. 7 42 Pm. Everyone have a good evening. Thank you.