Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates attic/FAR guidance, executive‑session logistics and limits on public‑comment time
Summary
Members asked Development Services for more information about an attic/FAR decision, discussed a more streamlined executive‑session process for hybrid hearings, and tasked legal staff with advising on possible limits to public‑comment time and the practice of donating speaking time.
Board members spent a substantial portion of the meeting on internal procedure and policy discussions, focusing on three areas: clarifying Development Services’ guidance after a recent attic/FAR ruling, reworking logistics for mid‑hearing executive sessions in a hybrid meeting environment, and considering changes to rules limiting public‑comment time and the donation of speaking time.
On the attic/FAR matter, members said they wanted Development Services to provide the presentation it had given to contractors and to send affected parties the recording or slides so the board can better assess impacts. One board member noted the department had presented to developers and suggested that material be made available to the BOA before a future discussion.
On executive sessions, members argued for a less cumbersome process for retreating to closed session when legal advice is required mid‑hearing, especially since many participants now attend remotely. Legal counsel cautioned that attorney‑client materials and some recommendations could be privileged, that practical broadcast and room logistics matter, and that she would research options and provide written guidance on what can be shared with the public without waiving privilege.
On public‑comment rules, some members favored keeping individual speaker limits (suggested three minutes) but eliminating the ability for speakers to donate time to one another, while others warned that capping aggregate time for a case could unduly limit community advocacy. Legal counsel agreed to produce parameters showing what rule changes are legally permissible and which matters would remain attorney‑client privileged.
The board directed staff and legal to follow up with Development Services, to explore a feasible executive‑session workflow for hybrid hearings, and to provide guidance on possible rule changes for public comment ahead of the next meeting.
