I'd like to call to order the February 28th, 2024 HPC training.

Okay.

So my name's Scott Waxter.

I'm one of the assistant city attorneys.

Sitting with me is Iris Annan, also assistant city attorney.

And we're going to go over some training for tonight, talk about um motion making, some considerations uh about making good decisions, and then I think that Christina and Sarah might give you some information a little bit on um some of the things that we've come across recently, some contributing, non-contributing, and what how the votes and and sort of decision processes are from that.

So I think I may have been giving you guys this training once before.

If I have and you remember all my punch lines don't ruin it for everybody else.

So but preliminarily, uh sort of the role of the Historic Preservation Commission, um, it's a quasi-judicial or it's quasi-digital commission, which means that your decisions can be appealed over to the circuit court for determination as to whether or not they are um accurate, correct, um, what we like to call defensible decisions.

I want to make sure that you're making defensible decisions.

And the attorneys that sit here, uh the mantra that I like to say is I don't I don't really care what you decide, right?

It's not for that's not for us to worry about.

It's my dis my job is to make sure that you don't get overturned on appeal.

So the the goal is to make sure that everything that you're saying up here is something that Iris or I can defend in a brief and write and make sure that it is upheld by the circuit court.

So when the circuit court decides your cases, the first thing they look at it and they determine is whether or not it was made based on an error of law.

You don't get any, we as a collective, we don't get any deference from the court if you've made an error of law in your decisions.

And and that's different than an error in judgment.

An error in law is if you are citing to the wrong code, you're citing to the wrong law, you're you're absolutely using the wrong measuring stick, if you will.

Um, you won't have that a lot because staff will certainly guide you in the right direction if necessary, one of the lawyers will stand up and say, I think you're not making the decision appropriately in that regard.

So if we find if we think you're making an error of law and you hear us talking about that, that's perk your ears up because that won't be anything that we can defend over in court.

And you'll you'll hear us kind of correct you and and jump in on that.

So if you don't make an error of law, then the second thing that the circuit court looks at is whether your decisions involved by the agency had sufficient evidence in the record to support the decision.

So is there enough in the facts in front of you, whether that be from your site visit, whether it be from the staff report, whether it be from your own um knowledge of the property, but if there's enough facts in the record, whether or not you have that will determine whether or not the the decision is going to be upheld.

And I I don't love the read, but I'll read some of the sufficient evidence is determined is determined to exist if reasonable minds might accept it as adequate to support your conclusions.

The reviewing court will not overturn your decision by substituting its judgment of the question of facts.

So whether or not something is too massive for the streetscape or something like that, that's a decision that you will make, and the court's not gonna say, well, we would have found differently.

As long as you again you have adequate information in the record and you cite to adequate evidence, the court will accept that as a correct decision.

The court looks at it not as to um re it's it's excuse me, it's a question of reasonableness.

Is your decision reasonable?

Not whether your decision is right.

Because if you have enough, you know, the majority of you are citing to the right um cases, looking at the right law, and you make a decision, they're not gonna say, well, we would pick something else and overturn you.

That's not the way that works.

The third step is whether a reasonable mind could reach the conclusion from the facts in the record that you reached.

So if everything points to the make crazy examples, but if everything points to this building is 15 stories and everybody says it's a monstrosity and it's and it's there's no way you could possibly come to the conclusion that oh no, it's it's small enough.

It's it's the right decision.

It if it's reasonable that an HPC person could reach this conclusion, then it'll be upheld.

Oh, Robert's here.

We'll pause for a second.

You've heard it all before though.

We didn't want to start, but Iva said we had to start without you.

A little bit.

Oh, yes, we've heard.

I'm sorry to hear that.

Well, quickly was as I started.

This is a quasi-judicial capacity, is how you sit.

Your decisions are reviewed by circuit court, they determine whether you've made an error of law to start, and if you haven't made an error of law, then the second decision is whether or not the agency had sufficient evidence in the record to support its decision.

Sufficient evidence is determined by reasonable minds, whether a reasonable mind might accept it as adequate to support your conclusion.

And then the third step is whether a reasonable mind could reach the conclusion from the facts in the record before the HPC.

If the HPC conclusion can be rationally supported by the evidence, then it's deemed to be based upon substantial evidence and it will be upheld.

Which is brings us to when you're going to make motions.

And I'm going to talk about motions sort of a little bit now and then a lot at the end.

But it's important when you're making your decisions that you weave into your motion, and the way I like this, I prefer if you just say I may a motion to um approve or a motion to deny or a motion to approve with modifications, and then that can be seconded.

But then it's very important to say, okay, now that my made my motion and we're in the discussion phase, and I think the chairman does a great job of saying, okay, we've heard a motion, we've had a second, open for discussion.

And then you say, I made that motion, and here's all the reasons why I am in support of that motion.

Here's why I'm making my findings, because you know, as you see on page 28 of the guidelines, it says X, Y, and Z, or because I visited and I and I think that this is not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood, if you're going to deny something.

And and those are really important because that's what I will or I was will write in our brief and say on page you know 72 of the transcript, you'll see that Commissioner X said this in favor of the motion and it supports her decision or his decision in favor of the motion.

So using good factual findings and and pulling out information from the record to support why you're making the motion is is really the most important and helps us do our job and it helps make sure that that nothing bad happens with your decisions.

We find ourselves sometimes after doing this for a long enough time, it it gets a little easy to say, yeah, motion to approve, and you don't really put in a lot of facts.

And and typically if somebody an applicant is getting what they want or they're getting an approval, you have a much less chance of anybody being worried and going to appeal that.

When you're denying something, there's a much greater chance, right?