Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hold on a second. I think doing your feedback. Oh, no. I think we're good. Okay. Um, I will go ahead. Nope.

Oh, this is me. Sorry. You always I do always forget where it's like. I just go to settings on my computer.

Nothing I think we're good. Yes. Okay. Um I will go ahead and call this meeting. It is Monday, August 11th. We'll start with roll call. Bob, we'll start with you online. All right. Bob Gresens's,

John Lamont here, Scott Winters, Marggo Clinton, Nathan Nelson. Great. Next, uh, I will There are no visitors in here, so I'm going to go ahead and say no one has any comments. And then it looks like assuming there are none online. I'm checking online next. No attendees.

Okay. All right. Next, we will move on to the quasi quasi judicial public hearing. I'll go ahead and open the hearing. This is for um a sightsp specific tax increment finance plan. See, um we will Yeah, Jonathan, you can come up and then we will go ahead and start with statement of prehering, contact bias, prejudice, or personal interests. Bob, you want to start again if you have any? No conflicts or personal interest. Gentle. No conflicts. I have none. I have none. No.

Great. Next, we will allow for a challenge to that. I think we have no attendees.

Um Okay. All right. Renee, thank you. Um, chair and commissioners and for anybody listening, I'll read a statement that explains the requirements of state law as its applies to the quasi judicial hearing. This one's a little bit unique in that it also involves a recommendation to council. So, the city will rely on the staff report and its presentation to list the applicable criteria for this proposal. All testimony, argument, and evidence must be directed to these criteria or other comprehensive plan criteria that you believe are applicable. The failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity for the planning commission to understand and respond to the issue and its recommendation to council or for other parties to respond may preclude an appeal on that issue to the land use board of appeals. the failure of the applicant in this case to raise a constitutional or other issue regarding a recommendation that the commission may make to the council with sufficient specificity for the commission to respond to or for other parties to respond may preclude a future civil action for damages in circuit court related to that condition or recommendation. Thank you. Great.

Next we'll go on to the staff report. Jonathan.

Yeah. So, good evening uh chair, members of the commission. My name is Jonathan Taylor. I'm the urban renewal manager for Burough, which is for the city of Ben. Like last time, I'm here representing Burough uh on behalf of them to uh present to you a proposed urban renewal or tax increment finance area for your consideration for recommendation and conformance with the comp plan that you will ultimately provide that to the city council. Just a little bit of background like I said before in the last round one on October 16th Burough adopted resolution 158 establishing the sight specific policy for housing affordability and growth. This policy allows for the implementation of sight specific urban renewals for property tax rebates for developments that include housing at 90% AMI or less. This was developed in consultation with city council, city council advisory bodies and over 25 opportunities for public involvement. One of the key requirements for establishment of an urban renewal plan is there has to be public involvement at every stage. And this policy while wasn't required to have public involvement, we went above and beyond the board for public engagement. This can be used for housing development in new and existing tiff areas. On June 18th, city council established three sight specific tiff areas under round one, which planning commission recommended all three at the last round. On July 16th, 2025, Burr adopted resolution 169 recommending the emblem tax increment finance area to the bid city council for adoption and initiating the form formal public review process. Bura also paused the current program for program review which was always the intention and they will be updating and reviewing that policy in the fall. With round one and round two, we are provided with the Oregon housing needs assessment requirements for the five-year production of housing goals. We are required to build in our community about 8,100 housing units at

various affordability levels from zero to 120% AMI. In the dark shaded effort, you will see that Burough has produced primary most of the proposals and the tonight's proposals are in uh yellow. If all said and done, my notes wasn't showing up, but Burough has incentivized over 16% of the five-year goal, which is impressive because that's within the first six months of this uh report being released. So, the planning commission's roles is pursuant to RS457 uh period 89, the planning commission is asked to review whether the proposed emblem tax increment finance plan conforms to the city of Ben's comprehensive plan and provide a recommendation to city council. So how is a tiff plan uh established? So for this particular one, Burough considered and interviewed the applicant which was implement tax increment on July 16th. They recommended that this initiates the formal public review process which then institutes the consult and confer period. The typical consult and confer period is 45 days, but we are extending that to 77 days because we actually have a lot of Burough items coming online on October 1st. So we're grouping this all together. So tonight, planning commission is going to determine the comp plan conformance on August 11th. During this consult and confer period, uh starting tomorrow, we are informing the taxing districts of their opportunity to provide written comment on the TIF plan. There will be a public notice from the end of uh August through September for the public hearing on October 1st and the county uh can solicit or request a presentation from me or from uh Chair Riley on this proposed process. They have not reached out yet. What does that look like? Excuse me. So in 2024 there was policy formation with 25 meetings on how to craft this policy.

On July 19th, Burough uh recommended this tiff plan. There's 77 days of consult and confer tonight. You are going to determine comp plan conformance, which is a quasi judic judicial hearing with public comment that is required. In September, there will be a mail notification going out like you saw last time, but I will say it's going to be a much simpler and more understandable postcard because we got a lot of feedback. uh on sep in September, Dashuites County can request a presentation and then October 1st, city council will have the first public hearing and then October 17th, they will adopt if it gets past that point. So, where is the proposed emblem tiff area? It is in the southeast area of Bend. Uh as you can see along Ferguson Road, uh it's near and adjacent to Southeast 27th Avenue or not road in the southeast area master plan. Its specific location is 61 61105 Ferguson Road. It is zoned medium and highdensity residential. The total acreage is 8.38 acres. The current assessed value is $101,000. the blighted conditions that we've identified in both the TIFF plan, your staff report, and the report to the TIFF plan is infrastructure deficiencies and stagnant unproductive land. Circling back to what the TIFF 101 is that I presented to you earlier this year, there are 14 key criteria for blight that we must identify and the only requirement is it has to meet one of those blighted conditions. The plan maximum indebtness is 22.1 million. That is a kind of a different condemnation term. There is no debt being issued in this. That is the amount of money that we can spend on both the rebate portion if they annually certify with their housing affordability and program implementation or auditing purposes. The plan term is 26 years, but the uh rebate timeline is 24. That 2-year differential is to allow for the

construction of the project and the reassessment of the value. The projects itself is housing development and administration. On the right hand side you will see the current status of that uh site which is vacant and undeveloped. To give a little background as we provided with Burough during the TIFF applicants uh presentation, this project, excuse me, this area was annexed into the city of Bend under the urban growth boundary expansion in 2016 and has went through three property owners and have remained vacant since the uh inclusion into the UGB. Staff has identified three chapters of the BIN comprehensive plan in which this TIFF plan meets. Chapter one, citizen involvement, chapter five, housing, and chapter 11, growth management. The differential between the last uh round and this one is growth management. Provide a mix of residential units in the southeast area to provide for the employment in the area and provide transportation networks that shall provide connectivity throughout the southeast area. And that is staff's presentation. Wow.

You said please take more time. I did make a joke to Jonathan about a five or 10 minute presentation. Take as much time just always listen to the attorney. Yeah. No. Do it in Spanish.

One day. Um just to kind of give you a background on this project. Unlike the last ones, you had a lot of affordability between 80 and 90% AMI and around 15% of the total units being dedicated to affordability. This particular project has elected to do 20% of their units going down as far as 70% AMI to 90%. So, as we continue to use this program, you are seeing a lot more um effort by the developers to really meet that affordability criteria. If you look at the original ONA goals, um there is a broad differential by how the state identifies the the range of affordability, but this does not take into account the current projects andor developments that currently are in Q without incentives. We will be updating that in the coming days to reflect the actual private development that's being conducted. And then also uh per councelor Francos's request, we are also going to break this out between home ownership and renership. So we're we're building this kind of data platform that housing is working on. But all that being said, if I emblem is passed, that means that 1,200 units will be built within the next 3 years using this incentive uh platform with 18% of those units being between 60% and um 90% AMI. Uh what will not come before um planning commission is the potential minor amendment to the core area tiff plan which is project jewel that is aundred 30 150 135 it it changes weekly but 135 units because they're trying to their current platform is they originally proposed this small site on fourth and only to be uh 35 units but with this program they're able to build up and out and also provide workforce housing. So

in terms of staff representing Burough, we believe that this is a very good program and it has been very successful where other communities are now looking to implement something similar in the state of Oregon. Okay. Question is with different ones. Um the amount needed by the developer, they sit down and say, "We would like to pull some of the rents down to make it affordable and here's a number and then you negotiate with them as to what's the number that's possible to be allocated. Yes. And then when you said not you, the report said on page nine of the TIFF plan that you're not or we are not funding this.

Yep. So instead of a front-end lump, they're getting it per year once things kick in. Is that right? So they give you certification, the number comes next year, same thing. So there's no big outlay upfront. No. when there's no risk to the city and or burough if they do not certify their annual report that collected tiff goes back to the taxing districts for that year at a certain point through the development agreement that Elizabeth Oshel and I have drafted a draft we haven't implemented any DAS yet but there will be provisions that if continued not to meet the affordability andor certification we elect to either come back for that amount given upfront that the rebate that's already been given or we just terminate the program. So there's there's minimal risk.

So as a city, I mean, it's pay as you go. It's not having to come up with big numbers up front. Correct. This is a a back-end use of urban renewal. Typically, urban uses their money upfront to generate development. This is um you provide affordability. You get your rebate for that extended amount of time. And then how do the SDC's work? you know, you're pulling in your tax increment to pay, but you folded into the formula then some of these SEC's that are paid paid need to be paid up front. They're going to be paid over time,

right? So, okay. Uh we are currently working with our city finance because the policy itself allows not only just uh rebates but for the coverage of SDC's uh based on the capacity and needs of the SDC funds the city will tell me or elect to say we have this amount of money over the next five years that you can offer for the SDC's but if for example Britidge which you recommended the last one they are the first ones in they are beginning construction now they've elected to use a portion of their SDC's uh that does uh reduce about by 5% their overall value because we're taking a risk up front for the SDC coverage. But we'll enter into a promisory note with the city of Bend Burough City of Bend to cover that SDC on behalf of the development. We will collect that rebate to pay off that promisory note and then once we pay off that then that's when they get that rebate.

Oh, really? Okay, great. Thank you, Bob. Yeah. So, in terms of the funds upfront, is that typically a bank loan or is it a revenue bond from the city?

It would be considered a revenue bond, but the way that I elect to look at it is that without TIF, these projects wouldn't have occurred because that's what the intention is to use TIFF. Therefore, SDC's would not have been generated to begin with. So, it's just more I wouldn't even say it's a revenue bond. more of a promisory note of like we are going to collect this at a later date because the city currently has a current program SDC deferrals which is 2% up until certificate of occupancy and or bankroft bonding which is a 7% uh interest on your SDC's you can pay that up to seven years after your certificate of occupancy and so instead of doing that we're electing to enter into a promisory note at 2% interest to Burough to cover that promisory but it's not really a bond it's just an intent to pay on behalf of the developer using that rebate.

Who who's it who's indebted? It would be Burough. So, the city? No, Burough. They're they're two corporate entities. Uh so, we would Burough would be indebted to the city. So, to make it complicated, they're the same elected body uh representing two different corporate bodies. So, city people. City people. Yeah.

Different. Yes. So, so trying to maybe make this a little bit more easier to understand or at least explain it on a broader burrow would enter into a promisory note which is a type of debt to the city of Bend to pay on behalf of the developer the SDC's from that tax generated um with that rebate. So, the city of Bend is lending to Burough. Yes. So, where does the money come from? The city of Ben, the general fund. Well, so and I'm gonna maybe Colin or Renee can explain this a little bit better, but there is no money being lost because the SDC's haven't been generated.

No, I'm not saying lost, but let's say and and this might be out it probably is out outside the scope of what we're focus on, but I think it gets to the point you made earlier in terms of making like the postcard a little clearer. I've got a fairly good financial background and it's still opaque to me. You know, who's the source of the funds? Is it a bank? Is it the city of Bend? And the reason to me that's important is uh I I get how the um monies are going to be paid back, but the 20 million up front is going to be used by the developer during the construction phase. Correct. So now I I understand where you're coming from. So actually there is no money being upfronted of that 22 million unless they elect to use it for SDC's which is a portion of that the remainder amount of that 22.1 million will be in forms of rebates. So there is no debt that's associated with and that's why it's the maximum indebtedness is a little confusing in terms of this particular project. Instead there is no debt. It's we establish the urban renewal district. They certify they still pay their taxes. If the district is established, then Burough will rebate a portion of Burough's portion which is about 80% of that total 100%

to the developer. So if the city does not elect to provide a promisory note for any SDC's, there is no debt whatsoever associated with this plan. If the city does elect to provide burrow with the ability to offer an SDC coverage, there's a line item debt. It's not necessarily a revenue bond because they're not giving us money. It's a delayed payment. Does that make sense, Col? Yeah, Ian. So, so from the developer standpoint, if they've got to raise, let's say this overall project costs 50 million and they're getting a $20 million uh deal from the city. Um, they go about raising that 50 million as they would have traditionally either out of their own reserves or going for a a construction loan, etc. Um most of the developers here since you said you have a financial background are using this to cover their net operating income loss by providing that lower levels of affordability. So um if they elected to provide the affordability without any type of incentives their net operating income you know the debt service and all that stuff associated with running a property would be much smaller. Therefore, their lending institution would not fund them at the at the rate because they're not meeting their revenue requirements for their equity or their collateral partners or their investors or anything like that. So, they would have maintained market rate uh to ensure that this because they're providing affordability, they needed some sort of revenue offset. And so instead of bonding or providing debt, we're just providing them cash back in order to balance their net operating income which makes their loss differential smaller and so it's not really affecting their lending capacity, their debt requirements, their collateral or anything stuff like that.

Okay, thank you. What was confusing to me is basically the money flows over time and I was under the u mistaken impression that uh the city somehow was fronting them the 20 million. Yeah. Yeah. And that little postcard is like tax increment. There is no tax increases. It doesn't increase it doesn't even increase the the sight specific property taxes. It's the same rate. the only way that a property tax can be increased by uh referendum or a levy. So, thank you.

Question. Um, back to the 90% level. I know you're still negotiating in the 70 80 whatever they're going to come back to and put in a package because it wasn't in the report. It's it's 90% is the program. Right. Right. So, if I got this right, because we I've been asked this three times to propose this, uh, our overall income levels in town are lower than other regions. And so, 90% of our median is still not that great. Correct. Okay. So, because some people are going, well, what's the big deal with the program at 90%? Well, we're not at that high a level of income levels around here to make things work, right?

So, okay, you answered that question. And then the last question was, um, Oh, so we will or the burough and the council will eventually know that mix. Is it 70 80 90 or is it mostly 90? It'll come down the road at in the fall when it comes. No. So Burough approved the breakdown of their units. So they're doing 20% between 70 and 90%. But they're doing 5% at 70, 5% at 80, and 10% at 90. Gotcha. Okay.

And if they don't meet that, then Bur does not provide that rebate because that's going to be the contractual agreement because that's what was approved. And then the last one for me is just the the link to us. We're not into the finance. Typically planning commissions don't get into the finance, but it's because it's a plan. Is that correct? That we have to have process and these other goals met. So surprisingly, even though so this is a land use decision, right,

per OS457 and it also so there are three requirements that a tiff plan has to meet or establishing a tiff plan. It has to meet OS457. It has to meet the comp plan of the city in which it's being established. And then it has to meet the economic development strategy of the city. We currently don't have an ED strategy. So the only two requirements is does it meet the blighted conditions outlined by OS457 and have we done the necessary requirements to implement a proposed TE plan? And does the planning commission find in conformance the comp plan requirements to establish that? And that is your only purview. But I'm all I'm all for answering questions because it's important to kind of educate uh about a tiff plan. On Friday, you will be well, we'll be releasing the state of the housing report of 2025. So, it's going to break down where we're at, what we need, how we've been, um the income requirements like we kind of did for the policy justification last year, but this is going to be a broader effort through the uh economic development strategy that the city's currently doing.

Great. And just to add, Jonathan's exactly right. Your your role here is to determine whether the plan complies with the requisite elements of the comp plan. the the process is set out in state law and it goes from the urban renewal agency to the planning commission assuming there is one for recommendation and then back to the city council. So it's it's a somewhat journey that the proposal goes on and it's state law says it is a land use decision. Uh it also is not particularly clear whether it is a quasi judicial land use decision, but we are treating it as such because it's a little bit of a belt and suspenders. There's more process and there's more um structure around it if we do it that way. But it is most definitely a land use decision. So it comes to planning commission because of that.

Any questions? I just had a question about that chart that you showed um where it it shows the projects that have gotten built and and it's really focused on that kind of 90% or 80 to 120% while the rest of it is kind of not there. What has there been any talk or strategies for how to get the spread that out?

Get that spread out a little bit more. Yeah. So, the city is currently in the process of their home committee, which is the housing opportunities made for everyone. They're looking at a various source and incentive ways of how do you incentivize housing production at all levels. But what I can tell you that affordability is not naturally occurring. And when you start getting below 80%, it gets harder and harder for a developer to make projects pencil. the 31 to 60% most communities struggle to implement that anyway even on good terms or good economics. Um the 120% most of that is just standard like housing production recent market rate and to your point um we are in a kind of a catch 22 because our city's median income is much lower than the region's median income which by HUD standards we go by the region definition. And just to let you know like we went from $104,000 median income last year to $123,000 median income this year. So it's shifting the burden to the to the more affluent and it's not meeting the needs of the 80 n uh the 90 80 70 60 uh portions the format

it it's and there's not much that we as a community can do because we we base most of our policy implementation like our hut grants and stuff like that through federal definitions but you do have a council that has directed uh a committee to really identify how do you lower the upfront cost in order to get that 61 to 80%. What's not on here because this is just Burr's effort. But last Wednesday, uh Melissa from the housing department presented I think uh 88 units that's going to be between the 31 and 80%. So there is movement there. It's just right now the market is only satisfying the 81 to 120%. And I do want to add you you've said this Jonathan, but just in case anyone missed that chart just represents what Burough's efforts have been and with this program the a the area medium income household incomes that have been able to be targeted by those policies. We do have private developers providing affordable housing to a broader range of that AMI level. It's just they have different funding sources that are helping them subsidize the 30 and 60%. So, it sounds like we'll get a more complete picture of our overall city housing stock pretty soon.

Yeah. And this is just 2025. This is just 2025. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But then even even this the 81 to 120 what I hear is that that's that's based on the area median. But in terms of actual local that 81 to 120 might be like 91 to 130

or it could be it would be like it'd be the other way. it' be 70 to 80 because of the skewed. Uh I do want to and this is where one simple graph doesn't tell the entire story that 81 to 120% also includes different variations of AMI for a one person, two person, three person, four person bedroom. So it gets like this is just kind of a simple view that we use with council that's like this is our efforts but one person bedroom like I think a 90% AMI is $1,900. That sounds a lot. Um, but that's what we're at. It's

But then 90% for a two-bedroom is $2,100. So, so it it's weird, right? It it there's a lot of variables that go into housing production. And for example, our and you'll see this in the state of the housing, but one person bedroom or one person households are the fastest growing households in the city of Bend. our family sizes and our household sizes are getting smaller. So indicating not only is one p person coming in more. You have smaller families and smaller households which indicates that you're going to need more units no matter what. So u that's where the disconnect there's a lot of nuance and variables in housing production

and follow up to your question though Renee is it's going to be more comprehensive. So it's going to be all the fine graining of the different levels and the different programs over the private so we'll have even bigger picture than that. Yeah, probably by the end of the year we'll have the 2025 output both private development investments, the other development investments

where the one person, two person, three person are hitting home ownership, renership, and then that because council has really directed staff to be like we want data to make more informed decisions. And so that's what we're really trying to build. And I mean we're starting from scratch with data. So that's what we've been doing all this year uh is really building that data. And that's not indicative of like city staff's past efforts. It's just this community has grown so fast in five ten years that we're we're playing catch-up with every type of investment which is a good thing to have because I'm from Appalachia where there is no investment or growth. Welcome. Yeah, Nathan.

You're all good. Little quiet mouse over here. Um I am really excited for the the the dashboard you were talking about. that's basically showing the different income levels and how much we've actually like built

to each one of those targets for the Oregon housing needs analysis requirements. That's really excited for that dashboard. Very cool. Um, the other kind of observation that I want to kind of say is like this is potentially the most I I think it's the most effective like incentive that I think that Bend has tried for getting incomerestricted housing units on the ground. Like this is like the fastest I've ever seen them come in. Like this is the the most like ratio of like the housing units to affordable housing that I've seen. Um, and uh just to kind of pair it what John said which is like a this is really targeted at 81 to 120 which I think is super important and like really needed but I would love to see that expanded like if we're re re-evaluating the uh the program or stopping and pausing and thinking about it um I'd love to see uh exploration of how we can continue to get like the same number of units but like

moved out a little bit get the other income bubbles. Yeah. Like I'd love to see more 31 to 60 like cuz I know that different like housing developers like there's like this process where you can kind of like batch you know units in. So like 5% of the 31 to 60 can be like somewhat subsidized by having like more like non-incomerestricted units right built into it. Um, and like the math can kind of they can budge the number of units to like hit the numbers if the numbers are different. Um, I don't know.

Well, and I think too getting that information about the bedrooms that is that really interests me because you think, you know, a studio versus like a two-bedroom price per square foot to construct it. A studio is much more expensive because it has a kitchen, same number of kitchens, you know, usually same number. But developers tend to focus more on those because of the profitability per square foot is actually better. And so yeah, I always go into these meetings and they're like, you know, our target audience is kind of a young professional single maybe living with someone else. And it's like, oh wait, someone who has a lot of money who can

be crammed into a small small space. And the problem is it's like every project I work on, they're always they're they're chasing after that and trying to make fish. I've done a lot of units and I've hardly done any three bedrooms or anything that like could be family um focused and so uh I think when that dashboard comes out then and all all the metrics that we could just geek over um I think that would be something that would be helpful for future TIFF projects to really focus on like not just looking at a generic unit or a generic person or something. And I think

might move us if there's no questions specifically for Jonathan and what we're looking at. I'm going to go ahead and move into the next areas deliberation. Yeah. Does anyone have any specific questions left? No. Thank you for the presentation. It was great. Yeah. Thanks, Jonathan. Um, there's you were our applicant's presentation. There's nobody here to provide testimony and no one online. So, I'm going to go ahead and Can I just breeze by that that way? Yeah, you know, I'm here to testify. You can there no further. I didn't know what I needed to call it each one. I can close the public. Okay.

Um, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Um, staff comments. I don't Okay. Deliberation. I just think it's great that we are fine graining and comprehensively thinking about all the housing options that we have to look at, not just one sizefits-all. So, thank you. Bob, do you have anything? No, I'm good. Thank you very much. Based on the presentation in the staff report, I think it conforms to the comprehensive plan. So, I don't have any problem recommending approval. Nor do I.

Great. Does anyone want to make a motion? Motion line. Uh, I'll go ahead. I move to recommend that the city council approved the project emblem sight specific tax increment finance plan based on draft findings that the plan conforms to the city of Ben comprehensive plan. Second. Okay. All those in favor? I I I just raising his hand. Yeah. Okay. And then all those. Do I need to do you want all the oppos? Okay. Um, vote moved. Motion moved. Great.

You might get in the Guinness book of world records is the shortest presentation. Not the shortest. All right. Thank you. When do we have to do anything else on this? Is there any because it doesn't counsel for we had a commissioner available for questions at city council but they didn't ask any so interest of saving time you probably don't need the representative there okay great all right we'll go ahead and move on to the next item work session

okay that's going to be oh goodness I need some some help on how to do this. Um I'm trying to share my screen in a way that is actually possible for people to read. That's not happening.

Um let me keep trying. Um what I think we are going to try to do today is walk through informally. Let me talk first then we'll share screens. Um a couple of the guiding documents that the planning commission has that we don't touch on very often. The planning commission has bylaws which are pretty basic and I'll walk through a couple things that I think are interesting. Planning commission also has rules of procedure which are not super complicated, a little less basic, maybe even a little more interesting. Um, and they go into a little more detail about how the planning commission can and probably should structure its proceedings. Uh, and then I've got a resource that I'm going to provide to everybody. will talk about it but provide to everybody after the meeting that is um it's called Rosenberg's rules of order and it is a simplified sort of modernized 21st century um procedural guide written by um Dave Rosenberg who's a state court judge in California who's also been an elected official I think he served on the city council for the city of Davis California and some other elected positions and so interesting character and that he's uh an experienced trial court judge and He's sort of been in various versions of these seats running meetings. And so he came up with more than 15 years ago now something that he called Rosenberg's rules of order which is his version to sort of simplify a lot of the principles in Robert's rules of order uh in a way that made sense for 21st century meetings not um arcane parliaments from hundreds of years ago. So, um, it's a document that has been adopted by a lot of governing bodies at all levels around the country. Um, so I'm going to send that to everyone because it's got some really good principles and we might try to walk through it.

Ian, did we today? Yes. Did we adopt it or No, I'll talk about I'll talk about what this body has adopted and kind of how we actually use it or don't use it. Um, I can share if you want me to. Yeah. Yeah, that might be better because I the bylaws and the rules of procedure which were like

uh let's start with the bylaws which will be quick. Thanks Renee. I probably should have asked you to do this because you're going to do this better than better than I will. I we got really good at this during the pandemic and I I'm not good at it anymore. Um, one thing I'll note, um, as Renee helpfully puts the bylaws up is that, um, both of these documents, the bylaws and the rules of procedure, it's been about 10 years since we've, well, since the commission has updated these, um, that's fine. Um, we may have some discussion at the end about whether these things need any changes, but these are the planning commission's laws and rules, so they are the planning commissions to amend and change. So, if we see things as we walk through them, we can talk about that. Um, time check. It's 6:13. I'm gonna endeavor to be done with this topic by 6:45. I don't really think it needs more than 30 minutes, but um, feel free to ask questions as we go on. Um, and and I'll let me be really upfront, too. The reason that I thought this would be helpful is we've we've had some deliberations this year that I think probably could have used um maybe a little more organization um both for for the commission's sake um for the audience's sake, for the applicant sake, for opponents sake. Um and that's not a criticism. It's just um it seemed like it was maybe time to turn to these things and remind ourselves that they were there and um they're designed especially Rosenberg's rules which we'll get to third to um just provide clarity and really the ability for everybody to track what's going on. So that's that's the goal I think for everyone. So um the bylaws again these were last uh these were adopted I think initially in 2009. They were last amended at least in so far as I can tell in 2015. So, it's been a while. Um, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on these other than to note section one, which is one of the

sections that outlines the responsibilities of the chair. And I'm citing this really partially for encouragement to the chair and vice chair and maybe um just insight to the rest of you that the chair and the vice chair in these in these proceedings and these meetings really not only do they get to lean in to run in the meetings, I I think they're supposed to. And that's in part because section one of the bylaws says that the chair among other things sees that all business is conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ben Development Code and chapters 197 and 227 of the Oregon Revised Statute. So sometimes you hear staff prompting, you know, hey, state law says this, our code says this, these are procedures, these are things we need to follow. Um we're we're kind of doing that I think in a way that's consistent with the planning commission bylaws which say the chair and the vice chair they kind of get to share the load really with staff in running the meetings. And that's not to say that certainly not saying the staff are running the meetings but we're trying to provide guidance to the chair and the vice chair to get through the meetings quickly and the chair and the vice chair do get to lean in to make sure that everything is happening the way it should. And that's not just me talking. That's in the bylaws that this commission, although it was 10 years ago and people who are no longer here, these are this commission's rules. So these are yours and you own them. Um, and these are obligations that you've kind of bestowed on yourself. Um, I'm going to move through these really quickly. SE sorry, rule, these aren't sections because these are the bylaws. Rule six, uh, is the section on time limits on speakers. And and we know this. I know you know this. If if 50 people show up, sometimes you think, "Oh my gosh, we should be gone before midnight. Let's think about how long folks have to speak." And rule six um is the expressed authority of the planning commission that it gets to limit the time during which people appearing may speak. Um,

one thing that's really effective, and I've seen, I think Marggo, I've seen you do this, is if there are 50 people and you have an idea that 45 of them might have similar things to say or similar concerns, it is perfectly reasonable to tell folks at the beginning. We're we're going to go down to two minutes or one minute per speaker, whatever you think is appropriate. Uh, and for those of you who are here, it's not a kind of a popularity contest. If you've heard three or four people make your point, you don't necessarily need to take that one or two minute to make the point again because you know you're not and shouldn't be you're not counting testimony. You're hearing input. So um perfectly within your purview to try to guide people um to sort of time and not be duplicative. Um the last sorry I was going to say that should be automatically the purview of the chair whenever we have a fairly good crowd because

been through enough of on both sides that let the chair say hey come on you don't all need to repeat the same thing 50 times right it's not going to impress us or or bring facts to us

and I think explaining to folks that again there you're not this isn't tallying votes for and against a project I think it's natural for people to think that and public input does matter but um you you're making a decision based on the criteria and the evidence in the record and um more of the same evidence or opinion or testimony is not not really more evidence. It's it's more people saying the same thing. That's valid. Um it's understandable, but it it really shouldn't. Whether eight people say it or 20 people say it, um if it's a if it's an opinion or a concern or a fact, it it is what it is whether it's eight people or 20 people or or two people or eight people. So that's perfectly fine. And then again, if somebody wants to use their one or two or three minutes and say the same thing, they get to um that's why we're here. That's why you're here. But certainly fair to make that point to try to guide them at the beginning if you want. Um lastly on the bylaws, uh to John's question earlier, uh rule nine, administrative procedures. One of the things this rule says is questions of procedure not specifically provided for in these bylaws or in adopted rules of procedures shall be generally governed by Robert's rules of order. So you heard my emphasis there. Um there's a I see I read a little bit of equivocation in the way this is written through that generally governed bit. Um, but what this says is that um these bylaws and the rules of procedure, which we'll get to in a minute, speak to procedural questions. If they have the answer, then that is your rule. If they don't have the answer, you should look at Robert's rules of order. Uh, at least generally speaking, um, you are not required to use Robert's rules of order. Um, having motions and seconds and some basic functions of parliamentary procedure does not necessarily mean you are relying on Robert's rules of order. Um, but your current bylaws do say if the

answer isn't in one of these documents, the bylaws are the rules. You should generally be governed by or turn to Robert's rules of order. So that's there. I don't think it's a bad thing. We'll come back to this when I talk about Rosenberg's rules of order. If you really wanted to, for example, adopt those rules, you would probably want to amend your bylaws to say that. I'm not suggesting you do do that. Not suggesting you need to do that. But if we really get into some parliamentary procedural quagmire, some maze that we can't get out of, we're going to probably have to turn to Robert Schwle's border because that's what your bylaws currently say. May the day never come. But and if council hasn't approved them, then we can just say they're guidelines for us to look at and Rosenbergs. I mean,

yeah, I mean council, you know, and I I don't say this that often, but this isn't really something that council has a lot to do with. Uh the code at this point says the planning commission can adopt its own bylaws and rules of procedure. It doesn't really say what those have to be. It doesn't say that those have to include or they have to include an acknowledgement that Robert's rules of order are your north star. They just say you can have rules of procedure and bylaws and you have them. So I think assuming that you want is assuming the changes you are thinking of are not illegal or don't run a foul of some other requirement. You you have control over these. Um um I will say they haven't proven to be a problem so far and it's the first time we're talking about them really since I've been here which come to think of it was the year that these were adopted but I got there afterwards. Um, but they're they're your rules, you know, within certain limits of kind of what makes sense and what's legal and doesn't present a conflict. So, so those are the bylaws. Any any questions there before we talk about the rules, the procedure? Okay, great. Okay, we'll spend a little bit more time on this. Um, uh, and this kind of this is actually a good segue. Um, in these findings, finding B, um, sort of speaks to the genesis of the rules. the planning commission. Again, these are also from 2015, so about the same age, 10 years. Planning commission worked with um our office and the planning department to develop the rules. Uh your rules say they are similar to the city council rules of procedure to better clarify and describe how the planning commissioner operates within the structure of the city. I think that's true. The council has its own rules. Um they're not called the city council rules of procedure anymore. They're called the council rules. They're sort of analogous to this, but they apply only to the council. They're they're different. Councils and planning commissions have different concerns, but they they describe how meetings work, what the schedule is, um how visitor sections work, how motions work. So, they're they're analogous. Um but these are

these are your rules and they don't have to be exactly the same. Some principles are going to be the same. um principles about for example free speech and expression and when uh a governing body the people of the dis manage or even control a speaker these are these rest on legal principles that are universal more or less at least within a particular state. So whether it's a city council meeting or a planning commission meeting, if there's an issue of a speaker or a community member and their conduct or behavior or as far as it relates to their speech or expression, that's going to be the same because that rests on legal principles having to do with, you know, tying to the ordin constitution and article one section 8 and other things. So some things are going to be the same, but um like I said before with the bylaws, the planning commission does have some flexibility here. question which came up two or three minutes ago and that is when someone's test not test someone giving us input not not the applicant but they're professionals

but the public other venues I've been in commissioners can ask them a question now you guys said no is that our procedure here I want to make sure I'm tracking because my my memory could be different but is the was your understanding was that when an applicant was presenting no applicant we always know we could question the engineer planners, architects, developer, but it was uh someone from the neighborhood or association or just the resident from the area and we were going to ask him a question and then you guys were saying no. Uh okay. Uh I don't remember the specific incident but what's sometimes happens is

and this is this is kind of sometimes a misconception of people who are coming in to testify. Um they come in with questions. Sometimes they want questions and uh rather than input, they're seeking answers and public testimony is public testimony. You're off technically speaking, at least in a land use proceeding, you're offering something into the record and that is that is your view, your opinion, that is evidence. Um it's not generally a Q&A. Um but this this wasn't Q&A though. This was us right going to ask Mrs. McGillicuy, could you clarify when you mean this what that means? Um, not that much.

I I think I think it is a better practice for the decision makers just to listen to that kind of input and not get into a Q&A with the person offering public testimony. There are cases where you aren't sure what somebody says and you're the decision maker and you want to understand what they're offering because you're considering whether and how it relates to the application. So, I can't say don't ask a clarifying question because that might be useful to you if you're sort of evaluating the input. Yeah.

Particularly whether it's relevant or exactly what their concern is. That is okay. Um, if anyone up here said don't talk to them, I apologize for that. I do think there is some nuance there in that getting into a Q&A with somebody who's not an applicant or part of the applicants team, somebody who's offering public testimony. I think I think there's a there's a line there where it becomes a little more than it should be. But a clarifying question is okay. Yeah. And I've just found that many many people you don't because they're giving you the straight scoop, but somebody's there saying, "Oh, the traffic is so bad." And you're like, "Where? What's the corner? What what what do you mean?"

Yeah. And if if if you know in that situation, you know, do you mean at a particular intersection? I'm trying to understand. That's an okay question. That's they're not going to generally they may they may not have traffic counts. you know, they may not they may not have the response, but if you have a clarified question, that's okay. I think the thing to be wary of, especially for the chair and the vice chair, whoever is presiding over the meeting, is that um sometimes people want answers to their questions, and this is not a good thing for that. Sometimes if you do get a if somebody clearly has a question,

it's it's I think appropriate to say, well, you know, the applicant who's sitting right there, you know, with you can you can look at somebody. The applicant is in the room. they're going to presumably be back for some rebuttal. Maybe the applicant can answer that question or or staff can clarify.

Yeah. Yeah, that's I think that's okay. Um often often not in the moment, but it's something that can be circled back to when the applicant staff are back to answer questions. So, sometimes it's better to hold that question for the staff or the applicant. But, um anyway, okay, moving through these um uh section one and again this is this is 2015. So, this is pre- pandemic before we pivoted and learned all these Zoom skills that I completely forgotten. Um, back in 2015, we the the commission said commissioners are strongly encouraged to attend meetings in person and then the rest says, you know, that's not that's not a hard fast rule. Um, I'm just pointing it out because I think there are times depending on what's on the agenda when and I sort of hate to say this because I'm personally a big proponent of flexibility and new ways of working and hybrid work and I think that's a good thing. But even even I think it is still true that there are times when it's just better to be in person. Um,

we can't avoid other things and being having being pulled in different directions. But um yeah, I think if you really want to engage and depending on what's on the agenda, sometimes it can be better to be in person if you can swing it. But um obviously remote attendance um it was allowed even in 2015. It's certainly allowed now.

Um communication with staff. This is actually section two. This is actually a good one. Commissioners are encouraged to ask relevant questions of staff outside of the public hearing a language. Um to help clarify items on upcoming agendas. Um, if you look at section B, commissioners should make every effort to raise questions to staff on draft material before planning commission meetings to avoid surprise and to allow staff time to respond. Again, it's always interesting to see 10 years later how these were written, but but the point I think is a good one. Um, if you're reviewing the materials and you have questions, it is always okay to reach out to planning staff with questions. And that that can usually start with Renee in this setting. Um that is also the case if you are looking at something coming before you and say this kind of happens in W applications often where you might want to suggest that um maybe there's a motion to approve because the application's got to that point and staff think it has met all the criteria for approval but you're thinking about an amendment you're thinking about maybe a different requirement or a different element. Um, I think sometimes talking to staff ahead of time to say, "Hey, I I this is okay, but I'm thinking about proposing an amendment to the package or an amendment to the project or an additional condition. Um, can we talk about this ahead of time?" That will kind of the simple truth is that will increase your odds of success because it will be thought out. Staff can give you as an individual input ahead of time. You still have to convince a majority of your decision-making peers on the body that's is a it's a good idea in the meeting. But you can you can test drive an idea. You can see if staff think it might fly. Sometimes the answer might be sure. Sometimes it might be I don't know. Um but you can test drive it even workshop language with planning staff or an amendment that you might want to make in the meeting. That is totally fine. I think it it if you do that it can result in a smoother meeting and sort of more clarity and coherence when you're

actually for example a motion to amend when you're deliberating on a decision. So don't don't hesitate to do that. I mean it's kind of you have to be ahead of things and it does take some staff time but I think that can result in sometimes a clear discussion because you can clearly articulate what you um what you might be proposing and staff can be prepared to to talk about it if there's a need to. And also I found sometimes that then staff can get ahead of staff that's presenting to say why don't you clarify that a little more. It seems like we're getting some problem with questions. You know certainly if for example we got similar questions from a couple commissioners we could as you said at the presentation just clarifying point I'm going to make just to try to address that or whatever.

Yeah. In the meeting and not have to generate as many questions in the hearing. And to be clear, sometimes things come up in the hearing. You you may realize or think of something. It's not to say you can't just propose a motion. You know, things come to you. But um yeah, don't hesitate, especially if it's substantive. And um yeah, test drive it with staff and staff can help you try to get prepared to present it during the meeting. Totally fine. Um I had I had a question about so for the the order of that you go for the quasi judicial hearing. Yep. And I was just I was trying to remember because I know that sometimes we've run into this where there's where it almost feels like we didn't maybe we went in order but

we're like moving into deliberation. We're moving into deliberation or it's like we have to reopen the public hearing and I was looking at like staff comments. So there's like, you know, the applicants presentation, testimony from the public, applicant rebuttal, close hearing and then staff comments. Yep. And sometimes through that we then have questions again. Yep. And I didn't know if that was something set in stone because it'd be nice if like closed public hearing right before deliberation.

Yeah. And I I some I don't know if you've noticed sometimes either here or the council meeting I if it needs steering in that direction I will do it because I I personally like that better because I think sometimes there can be a conflation between closing the public hearing and closing the public testimony portion of the hearing. Um public testimony closes when it closes. Um I sort of my view I mean I don't dog in the fight. I don't think I want to say that. um horse in the horse in the race. Um I think clo closing the public hearing early, technically speaking, it leaves things out of the record, including maybe some of those technical questions to staff. I want those in the record generally. So, um I sort of think of it as closing the public testimony portion of the hearing and then actually closing the public hearing. Um distinctions between those can be a little bit blurry, but we can work through those. But yeah, to your point, I think that's that's sort of corresponding to the point you're making

because it's like if we have like staff at the very end. Yeah. And then we want to ask the applicant something, it's like, well, we've closed the public hearing portion of it. And it's like, uh, I mean, I will say, you know, and if that arises and the applicant comes back and offers a bunch of clarifying questions or clarifying answers to technical questions, there may be people from the public who have testified who then want to yeah say more. So that that can still happen, but um let's just keep I for now just advise keeping that in mind. I mean I I see closing the public testimony portion of the hearing and closing the hearing is there's a distinction between well that's the closing the hearing comes before staff comments at the end and that's that's I was wondering if it was

part of clarify so I'm watching you read that. So, close public hearing, staff comments, deliberation. But as Scott says, what if there was a question back to the engineer or the architect or whatever. Um, but we close the hearing. We can't get at them. That makes it harder. If we're in deliberation, we would have to because then it's like, okay, we'll open the public hearing and then we do that and then and then it just seems But if the chair says, oh, okay, let's talk now. Let's deliberate. Can you do it with just closing the public testimony so we can get at the staff? I mean, no,

you know, your deliberation really the the the interested parties, meaning community members here to testify, anybody else, the applicant, that needs to be done before you start delivering. So, our questions need to get in the rebuttal applicant time. Yep. Okay. All right.

Okay. Moving on. Um, uh, this is pretty basic. Um, section four, ethical conduct. Just th this is this is not a concern but in addition to actual and potential conflicts of interest which have to do only with financial conflicts of interest. This is just a reminder that you all we all need to maintain high standard standards of ethical conduct. Everybody is entitled to due process. The applicant and their most vehement opponents of the project. No matter how terrible the project, no matter how um I'll say sort of um off base a criticism, um everybody's entitled to due process and a fair and impartial decision. Um I never never had a concern about that with this group, but um it's in your rules and I think it it's pointing to upholding a higher standard than just meeting the basics of not having financial conflicts of interest. Um again five further confirmation just another reminder you can win at the time for speaking. Uh, and let's go to seven and and especially 7B. And I think I think this can help. Again, this group actually does a pretty good job, but but under your rules, any one of you desiring to be heard during a meeting should again normally somewhat equivocal language be recognized by the chair and confined the remarks to the subject under consideration or to be considered. So, um, again, you have a certain amount of leeway to run your discussions the way you want, but in a slightly more formal setting, I'd say at the city council level here, which still fairly informal, um, a council member wishing to be heard will maybe do this and say, "Mayor, may I have a word?" And the mayor will acknowledge them and they'll they'll get their two cents in. Um, that happens pretty organically, pretty naturally.

Um, but if you look at the rule, that's really the way it's supposed to happen. So, it can happen in a pretty um I think authentically normal way even though I'm pointing out something that sounds kind of formal. Um but just remember that the chair or whoever is presiding over the meeting I Yes. I mean it's a little odd to say you need permission from them to speak. I recognize how that sounds but that's that's how meetings are supposed to work. And again it's soft. It's soft. Well, it's a good start. I mean, wouldn't it be the the preference of the chair if they want to watch everybody raising a hand or let the dialogue go? For sure. And I think I think there is a time for both.

Um I think it's up to the person running the meeting to kind of figure out what is going to work better for any particular meeting or the item. I think yes, sometimes the free flow of ideas, this is a a salon and we're we're talking about interesting things that that can be fine. I think sometimes it's it's better to defer a little bit. And if I mean, if I'm if I'm on the body, I'm I'm I'm trying to pick up signals from the chair. You know, what do they want in a particular meeting? Well, I I I I I think I may be wrong. I'd love to hear from others. Is that everybody's pretty respectful. If they got their question, they asked and then the other one would ask rather than raise their hand. And also, if they have eight questions, maybe ask three and then let the others talk then come back to them. But it's really to me what Margot likes. Do you like the Y

give you the not give you the finger but just raise your hand. What we've been doing in the past couple ones where I kind of go down the line I think is working fairly well. It's working better. I think you're turning down the line and going all right and running. I think it's she's calling out your name and seeing if you have questions.

Yes. And that's actually a great runway into 8A, which says commissioners are encouraged to each briefly speak once regarding the issue before a motion is made and deliberations begin. So again, that's an encouragement. It's sort of a best practice, but I think it's something that Margot's kind of adopted and works well. It lets everybody say, you know, for example, the record closes, you can go down the line and somebody can say, "Yeah, I think this is a good project. I sort of wish that it had did a little more of this and a little less of that, but like it meets the approval criteria, so I'm I'm going to be in support. And then somebody else can say their thing, which is maybe I can't support it because of ABC. And somebody says, "Yeah, I hear that, but I'm supportive because XYZ and the criteria are met." And you go down the line and everybody kind of looks at each other and you know where each other stands and then the chair can invite a motion.

But you're interpreting the word once is at least get something out of each commissioner to speak up. Yeah. I think I think what it is I mean I don't know if it's that or sort of a proviso to all of you to you know take take your moment and say something and then give everybody else an equivalent opportunity before we start sort of running things through the through the cycle again because sometimes that's the way discussion goes right but

um it's I there's a lot of deferral that I think happens on to to make a body like this work and this this body does work but I think you're you're deferring a lot of time and opportunity of your own until somebody else has that and then then you can run it run it through the run down the line again. So I think that uh it's a good practice and it's reflected in the rules. Okay. Um we do we do again have some details on the mechanics of motions. I'm not going to spend too much time on that. Um uh I will look at 13 which is a a the rule about general conduct. Again love the language. In general, planning commissioners shall conduct themselves so as to bring credit to the city by respecting the rule of law. I'm I'm a big rule of law person myself. uh ensuring non-discriminatory application of city development codes, keeping informed of the matters that come before the commission, and abiding by the recommendations and decisions of the commission whether or not the member voted on the prevailing side. Uh I'll just say there's a there's an analog to this in the council rules that essentially say they remind city councilors that they are part of the body. Um they are part of a whole. If there's a 61 or a 52 or a 43 vote, the council has taken a position. And you know, if there's a 4-3 vote, the city's council, city council's position is whatever those four voted for, there are three of them, assuming the meeting was fully attended, who didn't like that or voted against it, um they have an obligation to understand and reflect that the council's position, they lost, right? They can still say, you can still say after the fact, I I wasn't I was opposed to it. I voted against it. Um these are the reasons I voted against it, but a majority of my colleagues voted in favor of it. So that's where we are. You know, that is our position. I mean, it's it it's pretty simple, right?

It's pretty simple. Elections can be legitimate even when you lose maybe for example.

Um so that's in there. Um there is an analog in the council rules. I think this is pretty easy to understand. Um gosh, other other rules, we have some provisos on exarty contacts. We know what those are. We go we go through them and talk about them a little bit at the beginning of every quasa judicial hearing. Uh we have um a conflicts of interest provision which really tracks state law. And this is just a an example from or opportunity for me to say well up top we've talked about high standards of conduct even higher than what state law might require. What state law requires when we look at conflicts of interest whether they are actual or potential is determining whether there is a financial conflict of interest. Is this going to make money or save money for either a decision maker or a family member or household member or relative of a decision maker? That that's it. That is the question. Um if you don't have those things, you don't have an actual or potential conflict of interest.

Okay. Um that's it for those rules. And before I talk about the the Rosenberg's framework really quickly, any any questions or thoughts on those? I think digest these again these it's been 10 years since these has these have been updated. Um it's not really on anybody's work plan to update them. But if you look at them later and see things I I I don't think anything's broken here. I think these are in some ways a they're aging a little bit but I think they're still really sound pretty straightforward in terms of what they um what they say and the guidance they provide. But they are they are your your rules. So,

what is under motions a call for the question? Oh, goodness me. That is, and I'll I'll um I'll paraphrase a little bit. That is, can we please stop going around in circles and just vote on this darn thing? That is what that is. Question. Yeah, that is what somebody that is what somebody is doing when they resort to that. Um it's intended to close debates. Doesn't require a second. is not debatable. Um, and it just says, "Let's decide whether we should actually vote on this thing." I'm going to remember this one.

And usually what happens and and and if we get there, we get there. Um, often what happens, and I haven't seen it really with this group, but it's happened with other governing bodies that I attend meetings of sometimes. um deliberation on an item, not necessarily land use, could be a different item. Goes on for a long time. Um there's maybe some difference of opinion. Um nobody's quite ready to say, "Can I have a motion on this?" Somebody gets frustrated because they think the discussion is getting repetitive or off topic and they'll kind of mutter, "Call the question or call a question or call a question." Um, it it isn't it is an actual thing in Robert's rules of order that but it it is often something someone says when they're signaling that they are frustrated and it's time for a vote. Win or lose, let's make a decision and get on to the next thing. So that's that's that's usually what it expresses, but it is um it is it is a it is a an element. It is a thing in Robert's rules that exists that somebody can can put on the floor. to sort of close debate and move on.

I just want to check in with Bob really quick. Yeah. Yes. Bob, did you have any question? No, I'm good. Thank you. Sorry. I was going to speak to something Ian did cover um that's in the rules of procedure about when we were on the topic of each commissioner speaking once regarding the issue before a motion is made. That's also a good time for you to indicate again whether you think you may or may not support the project in front of you so that your colleagues then know do I have a majority here who may entertain this amendment I want to make to a condition of approval or if there aren't who are ready to approve it then saves time

maybe not yeah saving time not talking about amending condition because sometimes we've done that during deliberation where someone's like well I don't like this and I think we should have an amendment that kind of steers the the the approval in this direction and then maybe it's a quick workshop. Yep. I mean it' be nice if you had an amendment all typed out ready to go but doesn't always happen. Yeah, it doesn't always happen. Can't always happen. I've got two things. One is the leaison. So when we make a vote and we're sending it to the council, is it official rule or policy of the council to have one of us come and present it?

I think it's become a practice. Um, it's not in the rules anywhere. It's something it's kind of developed while I've been here, which is not as long as I've been here, but I think it's Yeah, I mean, I think it's I think it's good to have that connection between the planning commission and the council because sometimes a counselor might be interested sort of how did this go and they know they know maybe what the vote is. they know a it's coming with a recommendation to approve or or don't approve from planning commission but um somebody they can articulate or paint a little bit of a sketch sometimes. So the question I had, I wasn't clear how this all worked and I was sitting there and I had to put in a sheet. I thought the planning commissioner automatically after staff got a chance to say it. So it was a little confusing, but now I understand you got to write your thing, give it to the mayor. But what I was going to say is that there we think our agendas get long sometimes. Theirs is always long and to have the commissioner come up and then the mayor is very good about is there anything to add? If she's not asking me a question, then okay, then I'm, you know, I'm not getting any questions from a counselor. So, is there any kind of little rule we need to make? Okay, if we're all gonna go or one of us is going to go,

take message that maybe we don't need to say anything because they're so darn busy. That's the question. A four to three vote, a huge policy, a big change, then I get it. Be there because someone's going to ask you. But I just uh I don't know, maybe I was if you think it's one of those things, I think the person there can say, "Look, I know it's a busy agenda tonight. This was a pretty straightforward decision for us." If that's the case, um I'm just here for questions. If you have any, that's fine. All right. I I cut mine short. They were so busy tonight. She was thankful. Yeah. Yeah. Oftentimes, whoever's from the staff is presenting will say like, "So and so from Planning Commission's here if you have any." See, that's where I didn't get that. Now, and then they'll say, "No, we don't want to hear from them." Yeah, something a nicer one.

I I do like how we we kind of we've switched this and I don't know if this is part of bylaws or it's just uh but it used to be we would pick the person before and then we'd have instances where and I've done this before where I was like the dissenting vote and then I'm sitting there presenting the planning commission. So, and that's that's reflected in this other provision about representing the decision of the comm the majority of the commission. And I think that's actually a really good exercise to do. And I think sometimes having a person there who can maybe was a dissenter who can say this is how it went. This is why it went that way. Some of us thought it should have gone the other way.

That perfectly okay if it's done well and responsibly and I think it's again like you said John I mean that is democracy at work right. So yeah as a former counselor I enjoyed input. we didn't have this regular leazison onison thing which I think is pretty cool but if it was a 4 to3 vote that I'd like to know a little more what was going on but not not pointing any fingers just what happened one more one more thing and that and if we want to do this in a different session or offline or whatever uh our vote on the rimrock thing on the was that that was four to three

um I I think I'm I'm speaking for myself was totally confused about the clear and objective discussion we had So we found out from discussion with staff that clear and objective was raised by the applicant, not by us or by Aaron or staff. So when they raise it, we don't have to say yes, you're right. It's clear and ob it's not clear and objective. I mean, do we say no, this is this is what we're seeing as staff legally, planning, engineering, all that. and then go back because I was getting it to the point that they said this is not clear and objective but when I looked at the qual and I'm not going to go through all the thing when I saw the mission statement or the front-end goal of that there was a lot of specifics in there if they would have just if if our mission on that was was uh help preserve the environment well that you can drive a truck through when there was 8 10 12 things why are we not hanging our hat on that to do our ws work and if we got have a different session on that or oneonone. I I agree, but

I Yeah, I think it was confusing. Yeah, that's probably beyond the scope of this. I think we we're still we talk about the standards and the law was time to time. Um it's on our work plan. Yeah. Different different topic. All right. Well, as long as we get a chance to either together or oneonone get because uh I walked I go, "All right, what is our mission and was what is our mission as a planning commission?" And when they said it's not clear and objective, does that mean we automatically say, "Oh, I guess you're right. It's not clear and objective." and especially when there was a laundry list of stuff given to us in the code or in the plan. So, let's revisit.

Okay. Um, real quick, take five minutes to lesson and talk about Rosenberg's rules. I'm not going to put these up on the screen, but I will email all of these mail these to all of you afterwards. Um, couple pieces. There's some good information in here about the role of a chair. And by chair, it means whoever is running the meeting. Sometimes it's the vice chair. Um, let me read this. This is useful since the chair runs the conduct of the meeting. It is usual I think there should be an a there. Uh it's usual courtesy or a usual courtesy for the chair to play a less active role in the debate and discussion than other members of the body. This does not mean that the chair should not participate in the debate or the discussion. To the contrary, as a member of the body, the chair has the full right to participate in the debate, discussion, and decision-making. What the chair should do, however, is strive to be the last to speak at the discussion and debate stage. Again, aspirational goal, not a rule. The chair should not make or second a motion unless the chair is convinced that no other member of the body will do so at that point in time. And again, this is one person's opinion based on their experience. But I think it tracks and the chair is kind of the conductor. Chair can make a motion. The chair can second a motion. But typically, the chair will give others every opportunity to do those things. um before they jump in and do it. Um chair can guide discussion. It is sometimes typical of chair depending on the political environment to wait and see where everybody is because they want to see where people are before maybe they telegraph where they are. And that that's okay and you can do that if you want. But um the chair is uh they're conducting. They're not necessarily like shredding the 10-minute guitar solo. Conductors and guitar solos. I'm not sure they they go together. Um I'll leave you with one more note from this handy Rosenberg's rules. Um

he closes with notes about public input with what he calls three rules. I think they're they're pretty good especially for doing land use um public hearings, land use decisions because they can be so arcane and hard for people to follow. Um and these are sort of three rules to kind of lead to a successful input or successful meeting. Rule one, tell the public what the body will be doing. Um, I think you can do that at the beginning of a meeting. You can also do that as a meeting goes on. Sometimes it's remember folks, here's what we're here doing tonight. It's just depends on how things are going. You do that a lot and I think we should probably do more of that. Uh, no, I mean I mean that in a positive sense to help re reccalibrate, but uh, all of us can do that. Yeah.

Yeah. Tell the body what the excuse me, tell the public what the body will be doing. It's often the public trying to tell the body which which is sometimes good input, but you have the responsibilities. Uh, rule two, keep the public informed while the body is doing whatever it's supposed to do. So, again, check-ins, especially doing something that is long and confusing or back and forth. You can always pause and say, "Hey folks, just a reminder, we we had this, then we had this. We're trying to get through this, and then the next step will be this." So, you know, either you had your turn or hold your horses or your questions might be getting answered. I think those kind of check-ins um helps

with with the body sometimes or with the public can can really be helpful um as the thing is going along. And then I'll close close with this rule three. When the body has acted, tell the public what the body did. And I think sometimes you deliberate, you vote, you're done. It can it can sometimes be appropriate to say, okay, people who are still here, what this means is this. here's the next step. You know, this is going back to council for an actual decision if it was a recommendation on September, whatever. Um, so I think those are things to keep in mind to sort of keep folks informed and connected as you're going along. And so much of this, especially when it comes to land use, um, it's not all about confusion. That's don't mean that to sound that way, but there is confusion sometimes. And to the extent you can minimize it by keeping people clued in as you're going along, I think it's it's better informed folks and a better process. So I'll send you the Rosenberg's rules document tomorrow. Um again,

you haven't adopted them. Technically, you've tied yourself to Robert's rules. These are nevertheless helpful. Thank you. Very good. Okay. Next, we'll go on to approval of minutes. Um, does anybody disagree with them from we're looking at April 28th and May 12th? No. Bob? No. Looks good. Okay, great. Next is communications reports from planning commissioners. John, I have none.

None. Bob, none. Nothing to report. Great, Renee. Um, I do. So, we will have uh plan to have your next meeting, which will be August 25th. Um, I think at this point, the one item on the agenda will actually be a waterway overlay zone application, one that you saw last week or last year and was withdrawn. It's removal of the fire rock bridge.

Yeah. So, that's coming back. A slightly revised proposal. So that'll be on your agenda for two weeks from now. And then following that at your next meeting in September, I believe, as long as we stay on track, will be a work session for a very large package cleanup amendments to the Ben development code that Pauline has been accumulating for about two years. So nice. I want to try to get that out to the public as soon as possible. Plan for a lengthy work session with you all before it comes to you for any housing dashboard and clean up and development code is my birthday. It's your graduation gift.

It's my graduation. Excellent. That's it for me. Thank you. And then uh when housing I think uh Johnson said housing is going to make some kind of presentation or a report on Friday or something or it's coming out soon be released. I'm not sure exactly. We'll get a copy once you Okay. Yes. Thanks. State of housing 2025. I remember Uh, I don't have anything to report. Did you want to update just a status check on the um OSU master plan?

Oh boy. Yes. Because it's been continued a few times. So, the OSU plan amendment that came to the commission for recommendation probably back in March now has been to the council a couple times um and been continued. It was April if July maybe just last week. Um this is a BPD right away. All in the interest of trying to resolve some um access site access issues that BPRD has. We followed the commission's recommendation of council to look into that.

Yeah. Right. And so in order to allow the two parties enough time to get to some final resolution, council continued the matter to their August 20th meeting. They close the oral testimony portion of public hearing or do they they close the that's closed the written record close of business on August 13th I think for new new evidence argument or testimony and then

anyone who's a party can respond to that until the close of business on August 19th and then the council will plan to deliberate because the record will close at 5:00 p.m. the 19th uh at their August 28th meeting. And is that the the innovation park not master? No. Well, it's part of it the overall but the parks and rack access part of the master plan amendment was expanding the area of the innovation district and allowing buildings to go to 85 ft and height. Yep.

So that won't that would come to us eventually for fin or no it sounds like it's on a final track. So, I got a uh in the online or in the mail or something from OSU about soliciting developers to build that thing. You know, those that have experience with academ candidates, we're okay to send it if we're not going to see it.

Okay. I come to you. And then they they also testify. They had some administrators from OSU that they updated council on their upcoming plans. They did signal some urgency that they needed to do, but I think the council is going to accommodate their needs to in order to move forward the innovation district along the timelines there into. So hopefully by your next meeting we will have um a final decision from council that and then I don't have anything to report. Ian, anything else? I've said enough. Wait. Okay, meeting. Thank you all. See everyone.