Sherwood planning commissioners receive refresher on quasi‑judicial process, ex parte rules and new ethics training requirement

Sherwood — The Planning Commission got a refresher Feb. 25 on quasi‑judicial procedures, public‑meeting rules and appeal risks tied to land‑use decisions, and staff said the city will schedule newly required state ethics training for several commissioners.

Carrie Richter, the city’s on‑call special land‑use counsel, told the commission the review covered two broad decision types commissioners will face: legislative (long‑range code or plan changes) and quasi‑judicial (adjudicative reviews of private applications). “In quasi‑judicial decision‑making, the focus is on the judicial — you’re acting as a judge to determine compliance with applicable requirements,” Richter said, outlining the stricter procedural protections such hearings require.

The training emphasized several procedural deadlines and rules that affect how applications are processed and defended on appeal. Richter summarized key timeframes: city staff has 30 days for completeness review; an applicant has 180 days to provide required information after an incompleteness notice; and, once an application is deemed complete, the city generally has 120 days to issue a final decision. She described the “fixed goal‑post rule,” meaning the code and standards that apply to an application are those in effect when the application is filed (assuming the applicant completes the submittal within the 180‑day window).

Why it matters: procedural missteps at the planning‑commission level commonly drive appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) or to circuit court, and can expose the city to attorney fees. Richter warned that if the city misses the 120‑day deadline, an applicant may seek a writ of mandamus in circuit court to compel approval.

The session walked commissioners through the city’s local review categories (type 1 through type 4) and who does the initial review, giving practical examples: type 1 administrative reviews (check‑the‑box permits) require no hearing or appeal; type 2 decisions (limited land‑use) are decided initially by the community development director with appeal to the commission; type 3 decisions (conditional uses and many typical planning‑commission hearings) are reviewed by a hearings officer with appeals to the commission; type 4 includes larger subdivisions and map or text amendments and proceeds with a planning‑commission hearing and a city‑council final decision.

The training addressed evidence, findings and appeals. Richter repeated a recurring LUBA standard: local findings must explain how the facts support the approval criteria and must address contrary evidence. She highlighted the importance of the record: “LUBA looks only at the record,” and evidence introduced only during deliberation — after the record is closed — creates risk because affected parties lack a chance to respond.

On ex parte contacts (contacts outside the public record), Richter said they are not prohibited but must be disclosed; the simplest cure is to submit the contact or material into the record so everyone can see it. She described a common script element in hearings: “raise it or waive it,” meaning parties must raise issues early to preserve them for appeal.

Commissioners and council liaisons discussed meeting‑management and public notice improvements. Councilor Taylor Giles, the new council liaison, and staff encouraged clearer agenda notices showing which review type and appeal body apply to each item so the public better understands why some matters go directly to staff while others appear before the commission. Gene Simpson, planning commission chair, asked for clearer guidance on how commissioners should register disagreements with staff reports when drafting alternative findings.

Staff described procedural tools to manage complex hearings: continuances, applicant‑requested tolling of the 120‑day clock, and the state’s 7‑7‑7 open‑record option (leave the record open seven days for initial submissions, seven days for responses, and a final seven‑day period for the applicant’s rebuttal) as alternatives to in‑person continuances.

Richter also reviewed conflicts and bias: commissioners must disclose ex parte contacts, personal or professional expertise that may influence their decisions, and any pecuniary conflicts. She said conversations with city staff or city‑hired consultants are not ex parte contacts. Richter noted the legal threshold to disqualify a decision maker for bias is high, but urged commissioners to recuse if they cannot make an impartial decision on the approval criteria.

Near the end of the session staff raised a new statutory requirement: several commissioners’ terms expire in June 2025, and the Oregon Government Ethics Commission requires certain advisory‑board members to complete ethics training once per term. Sebastian Tapia and other staff said the city will host an April training with the state commission and will explore alternate dates and streaming options to accommodate volunteers who cannot attend a weekday morning session.

The commission did not take formal votes during the work session. Staff said they will follow up on several items raised in the training: adding decision‑type and appeal‑authority notes to planning agendas, circulating a schedule for the state ethics training and confirming options for commissioners who must complete the training before their terms expire.

Next steps: staff will return with proposed agenda language and training logistics; commissioners and staff flagged continuing topics for future sessions including public‑notice timelines, evidence‑handling practices and drafting findings.

Ending: The training was presented as guidance to reduce procedural error and appeal risk; staff and the city attorney emphasized support for commissioners in hearings and availability of legal counsel on complicated or contested applications.