By
Janine Unsoeld
A situation of a possible violation of the Open
Public Meetings Act when two strategically planned, off the record meetings and
conversations occurred, involving six members of the city Planning Commission,
three Olympia city councilmembers, and an area developer, Jim Morris.
The Planning Commission is a quasi-judicial body
that hears land use issues and reports and makes recommendations to the city
council.
Morris is a party to a code text amendment zoning
case having to do with a professional office/residential multifamily zoning
district in the Kaiser-Harrison area on the Westside of Olympia.
Morris is in favor of the proposed zoning code
amendment, and submitted comments on it prior to the deadline of March 10.
March 10 at 5:00 p.m. was the last day to comment on
the case, File 14-0210, which is currently before the Commission. Several
community members who knew this made the effort to comment, with many
requesting that no action be taken on this case by the Planning Commission or
the council until all the facts, meetings held, and conversations are known.
Some community members are calling for the
resignation of Chair Max Brown, Vice Chair Kim Andresen, and possibly others.
These letters have been posted online at the City of Olympia website with the
agenda for the next Planning Commission meeting on March 17.
The Planning Commission heard the case on March 3,
and is scheduled to deliberate and vote on a recommendation on the zoning text
amendment case involving Morris’ property on March 17, a decision which is
forwarded to the city council.
Letter
About Off-the-Record Meetings
Late last week, Little Hollywood received emails
containing two attachments: a letter dated March 8 from Judy Bardin, Olympia
Planning Commissioner, addressed to Leonard Bauer, City of Olympia deputy
director of the department of community development and planning, and a letter
dated March 9 from attorney Bob Shirley to the Olympia Planning Commission.
The letter by Judy Bardin details that she was
invited by telephone by Planning Commission vice chair Kim Andresen to attend a
private meeting with developer Jim Morris and others related to the development
field.
Bardin chose not to attend because she felt it would
be a conflict of interest given Morris' interest in the zoning code amendment
and her position on the Planning Commission. In February, she found out that
four other members of the Commission and city councilmember Nathaniel Jones
attended the meeting held January 31 at the offices of Jim Morris.
On March 3, another meeting was held with Morris,
real estate agents and others, with Planning Commissioner Carole Richmond,
Mayor Stephen Buxbaum and Councilmember Cheryl Selby in attendance. The evening
of March 3 was when the Planning Commission heard the zoning case in a public
hearing.
Bardin said she decided to write the letter because she is concerned
about the integrity of the Olympia Planning Commission and concerned for the public perception of the commission with respect to whether it is dedicated only to the public interest.
Bardin goes on to say that she does not think the
commission should take any action on File 14-0210 and that the vote scheduled for
March 17 should be tabled indefinitely.
The
March 3 Planning Commission Meeting
In the online audiotape of the March 3 meeting of
the Planning Commission at
http://olympia.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1113,
Planning Commission Chair Max Brown tries to quickly shut down Ms. Bardin's
question about the meeting with Morris held earlier in the day. The
conversation starts at 1:39:30, and lasts almost exactly five minutes.
There is great effort to get a minimal amount of
information dragged out of city planner Amy Buckler, who chooses her words
carefully, and Planning Commission Chair Brown about the meeting.
The
following is an unofficial transcript as heard from the audiotape by Janine
Unsoeld and is not to be used for legal purposes.
Bardin: I wondered if Commissioner Andresen could
fill us in on the meeting at Morris’ office today.
Andresen: That was a private meeting, you mean, it
didn’t really have anything to do with the business at hand though.
Brown: Yea, I think I’ll take that one off the
record for - since it’s not part of the - our liaison assignments – I’ll leave
that ‘til a later time.
Bardin: Could we hear who was at the meeting?
Brown: (asking Andresen) Are you OK with that, or -
Andresen: Could we ask staff if this is pertinent to
the meeting?
Buckler: Well, I think what she’s asking is, ah, the
Planning Commission leadership and the Planning Commission itself wanted to
meet with some economic development or developers – to learn about development
issues in general and I think you announced it at another meeting or told
everybody or invited everybody
individually to come outside of a quorum, to sit with some developers,
not to speak about any particular projects themselves but just issues in
general as part of your efforts to learn more. And when it was discussed at the
leadership team meeting it was - Leonard was at the last one of these events -
it was announced at that particular event that this was not specific to any
issue with the city, there’s not a quorum, it was a general discussion about
development issues, just like when other groups meet to learn more about their
specific issues, like the Carnegie Group, so –
Bardin: So, I’m just curious, umm, who was at –
there was an earlier meeting?
Male Voice: Yes.
Bardin: So, there were two meetings that were
basically the same, pretty much the same, today, and the earlier meeting, sort
of the same agenda?
Buckler: The same agenda existed for both…I’m trying
to figure out what information you would need….the whole planning commission
has had the opportunity to be there.
Bardin: Right, but it would just be nice to get,
like, a report. Was anything discussed that was relevant to planning and who
was at the two meetings?
At this point Chair Brown jumps in, speaking
quickly.
Brown: I can give a report - I just don’t want to
take up more time since this wasn’t something that we were going to discuss as
tonight’s meeting. I’ll give a quick overview…and we can talk about this
off-line. The day that we went, I think, there were four commissioners: myself,
Commissioner Andresen, Commissioner Parker, Commissioner Horn, city
councilmember Mayor Pro-Tem Jones was there, and then a group of four or five,
either developers or commercial real estate folks and they were just kind of
saying, ‘Here’s some of the opportunities that the city has to or that we see –
or that other jurisdictions are using to help incentivize growth and to get
projects moving.’ There’s kind of a perception in the community – and Leonard
was there as well – and I think, it was just, more than anything, it was a
question and answer opportunity for us as officials and city staff to say,
‘What are other jurisdictions doing to help you that’s making it easier for you
to do business here that we can be aware of and it was really just kind of some
pretty candid conversations about past opportunities that have been missed or,
umm, projects that have had opportunities but never been developed but we were
very clear about saying any projects that anyone is intimately involved with or
working on currently is not to be discussed and those issues were not
discussed. It was really just an informative – and I think part of it, too, was
to build those relationships of something that hasn’t been in the past to say,
‘What did we learn, what do we not know, you’re the experts, we’re not, what
can we do, so I think I’d like to leave it there and kind of wrap it up real
quick if you don’t mind and feel free to ask me questions of the meeting or
those that have participated. There might be one more and if you have time to
go I think it would be very beneficial to hear what people are doing and what
people are trying to make happen….
Brown then abruptly adjourns the meeting after
getting a first and a second to do so.
Brown, in explaining that at least one more meeting
was planned, assures that, eventually, all planning commissioners and city
councilmembers would have been extended the opportunity to privately attend one
of these off the record meetings, again, without any official quorum, just
prior to votes by both bodies about the code amendment case involving Morris.
Commissioner
Richmond's Perspective
In a public email on March 9, Planning Commissioner
Carole Richmond said that the meeting she attended on March 3, the same day as
the Commission meeting, was not about the zoning change affecting Morris'
property, which she says was never brought up.
Richmond says Andresen did not stay for the March 3
meeting, because she said she had a “professional relationship” with Jim
Morris, indicating that she is an employee or consultant to Morris. Leonard
Bauer, deputy director of the city’s Community, Planning and Development
department, attended the first meeting.
“Issues discussed were: The homeless situation and
how that affects the desirability of doing business or living downtown, lack of
a unified vision for the future of Olympia, the costs of construction downtown,
restrictions imposed by lenders (one of whom was also in the room), and
"things taking too long." That was about it and it was just a
free-flowing conversation. These are certainly issues over which the City
Council and Planning Commission have some influence, but none of these issues
have taken the form of proposals to be acted upon. I think these are issues
that developers (and others) would like the Council and Commission to put on
the radar,” said Richmond in the email.
Richmond goes on to say that she is glad that Bardin
brought the issue to the attention of the whole Planning Commission because of
the "appearance of fairness" issue.
"Morris scheduled these meetings so that less than a
quorum of Planning Commissioners could attend (at staff/OPC request) and that
looks bad. Given a choice, I would've preferred for one meeting with developers
to be held during a regular Planning Commission meeting, as nothing was
discussed that couldn't be said in public, but I didn't question this. I do
know that many developers don’t particularly want to take part in public
processes and I wanted to hear what they had to say,” said Richmond.
City
Response to Public Comment
Leonard Bauer, city deputy director of Community
Planning and Development, sent a letter via email on March 12 at 5:26 p.m., to
all those who commented, including Little Hollywood, on the meetings with
Morris.
The letter summarizes information about the two
meetings, providing explanations that were never given at the commission
meetings by staff, commissioners, nor mentioned by city councilmembers Jones,
Buxbaum, or Selby during their council reports.
It is common practice for commissioners and city council
members to report their attendance at community meetings that they attend,
especially if more than one or two or three attended the same meeting.
Bauer attended the January 31 meeting. He states
that at the beginning of each meeting, it was stated and agreed that there
could be no discussion of any issues that could become the subject of review by
either the Planning Commission or City Council, including no discussion of any
specific permit or specific use.
Bauer says the topics of conversation included that
the cost of construction in downtown Olympia is high, making redevelopment
difficult; impact fees are high and the timing of the payment may be difficult
to finance; lending practices for construction can make it difficult to
redevelop; the usefulness of the multi-family housing tax credit program;
increased homelessness has had negative impacts on potential development in
downtown Olympia; and a perceived lack of a unified vision by the city for
development in Olympia.
Great topics, worthy of public discussion, yet,
Morris and others were able to privately control the conversation, and
personally reach and possibly influence six out of nine Planning Commissioners
and three out of seven city councilmembers.
One public, official opportunity was never offered
to the commissioners, councilmembers or the public to learn more about these
“economic development opportunities” or “barriers to development” from a
developer’s perspective.
Many commenting on the situation feel that the fact
that no one spoke up about the meetings until the issue was forced by
Commissioner Bardin seems to be a deliberate attempt to circumvent the spirit
of the Open Public Meetings Act. Such actions cast suspicion on how prevalent
the practice is of purposefully arranged private meetings of members of the
same body to prevent a quorum, which would trigger public notice and recording
of the conversation.
“I am concerned about the integrity of the OPC,
since it has recently come to light that they are having secret meetings with
developers. While this might technically be legal, it sure is sleazy. How can I
pursue this problem as a private citizen?” writes Nancy Sullivan to the city
clerk in a March 9 email.
“…According to a member of the Planning Commission,
the staff and members of the Commission recently met in private with a party
with a material interest in the instant rezone request – an ethical and legal
breach of practice. There was, evidently, an awareness of the fact that such
meetings were improper….Will there be consequence in this instance? Will the
consultant to the developer be asked to resign from her post? Will the
tarnished rezone issue be withdrawn from consideration? Will this initiate a
serious review of how the city conducts itself and does business? I look
forward to learning the steps the city will take,” writes Bethany Weidner to
Community Planning and Development staff in a March 9 email.
The
City of Olympia website is www.olympiawa.gov.
