There are times when an elected official cannot speak freely to his or her constituents.

Soon, the Maple Valley Planning Commission, and then the City Council will be considering a rezone of several acres of property in Maple Valley (the “Brandt property rezone”).

This will be step two of a two-part process. Step one was consideration of Comprehensive Plan changes and that process began last spring. Step one was legislative in nature and it concluded Oct. 8 when the City Council adopted certain Comprehensive Plan changes. Step two of the process is very different. It is “quasi-judicial” in nature, special rules are involved, and the process itself is more structured and formal.

If you, as a member of the public, send an email or stop in the grocery store to talk to a Planning Commission member or a City Council member about the Brandt property rezone, do not be surprised if the response is, “Sorry, I can’t talk to you about that.”

Try not to take it personally, and realize that both the Planning Commission and the City Council have been trained about the rules involved in a quasi-judicial action, and they know they should avoid “ex parte” (one-sided) contacts with either proponents or opponents of this rezone.

It helps to think of it this way: judges are expected to avoid ex parte contact in court cases because of the possibility that the judge may become biased due to that one-sided conversation with just the one party to a lawsuit. The same principle applies in a quasi-judicial action before the Planning Commission and City Council.

What is a quasi-judicial action, and why are special rules involved? A quasi-judicial action is one that involves the property rights of a particular party. The special rules are known as the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, and the rules are statutory. This rezone involves 11 contiguous parcels, bisected by Southeast 240th Way, consisting of just over 50 acres owned by Lois Brandt.

The Brandt property rezone proposes to change the property from its current zoning of MU (Multiple Use) to three different zoning categories: PRO (public, recreational, open space); CB (Community Business) and SC (Service Commercial).

The process will work this way. First, the Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and create “the record.” The commission, when conducting the public hearing, must follow special rules to treat the parties (proponents and opponents) fairly.

There will be an attorney present at the Planning Commission public hearing to help the process run smoothly, and to lead each commission member through required disclosures about ex parte contacts, conflicts of interest, etc. The recommendation and all materials that consist of the written record created by the commission will be forwarded to the City Council, along with the recordings of all testimony before the Planning Commission. The City Council is the ultimate decision maker on this rezone request.

Second, the City Council will set a date to consider the recommendation and to make a decision, based solely on the record created by the Planning Commission. The City Council will not conduct a second public hearing.

When making this decision the City Council must apply the law to the facts, like a judge does in a trial. In essence, the City Council is sitting as a single body of judges when making this rezone decision.

Citizen input and participation is welcomed by both the Planning Commission and the City Council, just know that the members are constrained as to how they interact with the public about this matter. City staff will be available to answer questions about this rezone, the process, the deadlines for submitting written comments to the Planning Commission, and the date of the Planning Commission’s public hearing.

Watch for official published notices, and keep your eye on the city’s website for information on how to participate.