Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to our regularly scheduled Canby Planning Commission. We will call this meeting to order and begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you all very much. We will begin this evening with our consent items. It is draft meeting minutes for June 22nd, 2026. Do we have a motion to adopt the meeting minutes?

I move to adopt the meeting minutes from

The only two people missing from the last meeting were McCarthy and Ellison. Everybody else is free to make a motion.

I move to adopt the meeting minutes from June 22nd as written.

I second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The ayes have it. Meeting minutes of June 22nd, 2026 have been adopted as written. Next up is citizen input on non-agenda items. This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the Planning Commission on non-agenda items. Each person will be given three minutes to speak. Staff and Planning Commission will make every effort to respond to any questions raised during citizens input before the meeting ends or as quickly as possible thereafter. You may speak on non-agenda items via Zoom as well at the provided link. Do we have any citizen input on non-agenda items? We do not. Okay, old business is none, new business is none, which brings us to the public hearings portion of the meeting tonight. Tonight there is a matter before the hearing body that requires a public hearing. All interested persons in attendance shall be heard on the matter. If you wish to testify on these matters, please fill out a public testimony card and give it to the recording secretary. When your name is called, please step forward to the microphone in front of the table, state your name, address, and interest in the matter. For longer presentations, proponents and opponents may buy time from one another. In doing so, those either in favor or opposed may allocate their time to a spokesperson who will be representing the entire group. All questions must be directed through the chair, that is myself. Any evidence to be considered must be submitted to the hearing body for public access. All written testimony received for, both for and against, shall be summarized by staff and presented briefly to the hearing body during the staff report. The public hearing will be conducted as follows. Staff will present for five minutes. Questions, if any, from the hearing body or staff. The chair will open the public hearing for testimony. The applicant will have 20 minutes. The proponents will have three minutes. Opponents will have three minutes. And any rebuttals, 10 minutes. The chair will then close the public hearing, questions if any by the hearing body, discussion amongst the hearing body, and then a decision shall be made by the hearing body at the close of the hearing on each matter, or it will be continued to a date certain in the future. This will be the only notice of that date you will receive. Does anyone have any questions about the procedure of the public hearings? Seeing none, we will turn it over to Planning Director Hardy and a consultant from 3J Consulting to discuss the Urban Growth Boundary Amendment, UGB 26-01.

Good evening, Chair Ellison and Planning Commission members. Tonight we'll be going through the urban growth boundary expansion recommendations that staff's providing to you. We're seeking a recommendation from Planning Commission to City Council. City Council will be hearing this on September 16. There will also be a September 2nd work session for Council as well before the hearing on September 16. I WANTED TO GIVE SOME BRIEF INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. STEVE IS HERE WITH US FROM 3J CONSULTING. THEY'VE BEEN LEADING THE CONSULTING WORK FOR THE PROJECT. AND I JUST WAS GOING TO START OUT WITH A FEW OF THE SLIDES HERE TONIGHT. AND WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO SOME MORE DETAILS. SOME OF THIS IS MORE HIGHER LEVEL AT THE BEGINNING AND WE'RE GOING TO SUM UP A BIT OF THE COMMUNITY SUMMIT INFORMATION WE'VE received however that really is more on the concept planning piece than the urban growth boundary expansion itself so with that um go ahead so i just wanted to go through the staff report and our findings for the urban growth boundary this has been a three-year process the that we've been working forward on and as part of that process we've made a number of findings which is that this process is consistent with this that can be sequential urban growth boundary process that we got approval through the county and through dlcd for it's consistent with the housing needs analysis of 2024 and the 2023 economic opportunity analysis which provides for a projection of housing and employment lands over the next 20 years Um, it's consistent with the Oregon Stateway planning goals that was in your packets that we provided to you all. We won't go into the detail of that, but there's a lot of detail on our packets about how this urban growth boundary process is consistent with statewide planning goals. It's consistent with the 2026 comprehensive plan, which was adopted in 2026 and also including goal 14. It's consistent with Clackamas County comprehensive plan goals as well. That's in our staff report as well. And it's consistent with state rules and statutes. And we've identified two of them and there's others that are related as well that it's consistent with. there's been significant community and partner involvement over the last three years we've had a number of public meetings and workshops open houses tabling events and a robust notification program and online engagement tools were used citizen involvement activities and materials were also translated into Spanish, and we've had several engagements with the Spanish-speaking community in Cambie, including an all-in-Spanish community summit with Bridging Cultures. Outreaches included mapping exercises where members of the community expressed their preferences and ideas related to land use patterns and community character and circulation and recreation and other topics. Public engagement has been partially overseen as well by the Project Advisory Committee, which was comprised of elected and appointed officials, community leaders, business owners, property owners, and other stakeholders. Significant community partnership we provided to the community also included the Planning Commission and City Council reviewing the elements through work sessions and discussions. And also, finally, DLCD in Clackamas County who have reviewed the Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Report also on your packets. So with that, I'm going to turn that over to Steve.

Thank you, Don. Excuse me. Thank you, commissioners. For those who weren't able to make it to the summit, here's just a little quick summary of what we did that night, just because it provides a little bit of information and context for a discussion you're going to have later. Basically, we gave groups a map with the proposed UGB expansion area and asked them to place these game pieces as to where they thought different uses would be best suited. The real purpose of this activity is to inform the concept plan process and alternatives that I'm sure you'll will come across your eyes at some point. But here is a quick summary of what we heard from folks at the summit. So for sub area one a People did place parkland commonly in the center of 1A, somewhere between 5 and 15 acres typically. One group, different than the others, placed parkland at either end of 1A. For sub areas two and three, and again, two and three, just to refresh your memory, are not included as part of the proposed UGB expansion, but we are looking at them as part of the concept plan to plan that area in a more cohesive way, comprehensive way. So in two and three, people generally placed higher residential densities along territorial road. They did often place a small amount of parkland in the center of the, or in between those two areas, two and three are connecting, and then connecting up to the parkland in 1A. And two groups placed some about five acres of neighborhood commercial along territorial road and adjacent to those higher density residential areas. There were 11 maps. I only included two here just so you can see, get a flavor of what the mapping kind of looked like when people were done with their maps. For areas 1B and 7 over to the east, most groups placed low intensity industrial in that northern part of the eastern expansion area. Two groups actually placed higher intensity up in that area, noting the benefits of having high intensity farther away from the city. But most put the lower intensity to the north. And a number of groups did put some parkland in this eastern area as well. And then the rest of that eastern area, sub areas 1, C, 8, and 9, most groups placed low intensity, again, in the northern areas. Some placed low intensity industrial closer to city limits and higher, so to the west and higher intensity to the east. Most groups placed low intensity industrial in the northern section of sub area eight and then higher as you get down into the lower part of eight and into nine. That's where they put the higher intensity industrial. Several groups said that they wanted to use the lower intensity industrial as a transition between residential areas and industrial areas. And then a few groups placed parkland in subarea 8 as well. Again, there's some resources, some wet land in 8, and I think a lot of people thought parkland would be appropriate there. So that's what we heard from the summit. Now this portion of the presentation will look familiar because it's similar to what we talked about the last time we were together. So I'll go through it, but please feel free to interrupt if you have any questions. As Don mentioned, we've been working on this process for about three years with Six community summits, actually seven, because one of them was just with the Spanish-speaking community. Our project advisory committee has now met seven times. We did have a technical advisory committee. Those two groups are now merged. And then we've made several briefings for you all and for city council. A reminder that our total land need is about 542 acres. Again, in the residential, that's 73.1 acres. That has to be accommodated in this expansion. Parks and neighborhood commercial, that's the city's choice of how much or if any. The city wants to accommodate in this amendment and the same goes for employment. There's 439 about acres of employment. Almost all of it is for industrial uses. And again, that's up to the city as to how much of that need the city wants to accommodate in this amendment. A reminder that property owners that are included in the expansion are not required to annex into the city or develop their property. Properties brought into the UGB will not see a change in their property taxes, not until they decide to annex to the city. This urban growth boundary expansion is about the boundary itself, not the uses, not the land uses, but we do talk about land uses because it's helpful to be thinking about that and to understand why we're expanding to the area we are. And then I'll just show this community map from a summit so long ago, two and a half years ago. But you can see that the community generally said, you know what, we think that residential land, residential uses are appropriate in that northwest area and that industrial uses are more appropriate to the east. The state of Oregon uses a priority scheme to determine which lands have priority to come into an urban growth boundary, first, second, third, and fourth. In the case of Canby, you have exception lands. Exception lands are lands that are not zoned for exclusive farm use. in the case of Camby. So the 1A, 1B, and 1C generally have a rural residential five-acre designation, and that's why they're a higher priority, because the state program tries to protect farm and forest land. So zoning is what really matters here. So 1A, 1B, and 1C are exception land, or N1D, sorry, and those need to be considered first, and then Um of the farmland that can be has it's all high value. So there's uh, we really have category one and category four in candy.

And maybe just to highlight here. Um, the word exception land essentially that's non EFU land. And so that's a differentiation that just to make that point across because exception land doesn't probably resonate with everyone but that's partial 1a which is not efu and that's the part it's zone rff5 rural residential forest five so it's not efu and we'll be talking more about the specifics of that property on that area i'd rather in a moment here

Thanks, Don. So as I mentioned, here highlighted in yellow are the exception lands, the lands that need to be considered first, 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D. 1A is about 116 acres. The recommendation, since, again, the community said residential in these areas is what is appropriate, the recommendation is to include the 73 acres of residential need in that subarea 1A, and then to consider if the city wants to include a certain number of acres of park and neighborhood commercial, neighborhood serving commercial use. And that's what we'll talk about a little bit later. And again, the city could consider up to 25.7 acres of parkland. So we're going to talk about that in a little bit. Subarea 1B, now that we've accommodated all of our residential land, the recommendation is to include subarea 1B for employment uses. That area could also include parks. Subarea 1C, same as 1B, to be included to accommodate employment need. Parks could also be located in 1C as well. And then 1D is built out with a manufactured home park and there's a cemetery there. And so even though we need to consider that first, we think we have grounds to say no, that should not be included in the urban growth boundary expansion. Now the blue areas are the areas in that priority for the high value farmland areas. Sub area two again appropriate for residential but we've used all of our residential land need in 1A so we recommend at this time to not include sub area two but the city can consider a subsequent process to include that because it's surrounded by the city and there's a mechanism the state has called exception. It's kind of how these exception lands that we talked about got their zoning. They applied for and received an exception. So that's something we're recommending that the city consider for sub area two. And the same for three, whether it's because sub area three is surrounded by, mostly surrounded by the city, it will, if this expansion goes through, I'll be completely surrounded once 1A is added potentially. But also if three is needed to provide services to that 1A, that's another reason you can receive an exception. So again, we recommend the city consider that subsequent to this amendment. Sub area four is the Dahlia Farm. an important economic and cultural institution in Canby, we recommend that that not be included in the urban growth boundary. Sub areas five and six, again, someday appropriate for residential use, but the city just doesn't have the land need right now for residential uses to expand up to five and six. 1A is the priority here. Excuse me, so that's five and six. Seven, like 1B and 1C, recommended to bring in to the urban growth boundary for employment uses. Parks could also be considered there. The same goes for sub areas eight and nine, both appropriate according to the community for employment or industrial uses. Parks could also be located in either one of those. And then sub area 10, there was a lot of discussion about sub area 10. If it was brought in now, it would need to be for industrial use. A lot of folks felt like it might be more appropriate for residential. So our thought was let's not include it at this time in a decision for what kind of use can be made down the road for the city. So that brings us to a recommendation. So the need again was about 542 acres. This recommendation is a total of 516 gross acres. And then if you take out some of the development constraints in terms of some wetlands and things of that nature, it's a net acres or unconstrained acres of 492. So it's less than the total land need, but pretty close approaching it. And this is what that looks like. So two and three are a different color because they're to be considered for a subsequent process and UGB expansion. But all the gold are recommended to include. I'll note I didn't for sub area nine, that bottom triangle, the southern triangle of sub area nine is in the 100 year floodplain. And so that part of nine is not included in the recommendation. All right, Don now is going to lead you through some exercise to think about parks and neighborhood serving commercial in that sub-area 1A.

this is really all about sizing for sub area 1a so as steve was mentioning 73.1 acres is the residential demand according to the housing needs analysis that's been adopted that has to go in sub area 1a so i have we have some graphics here and this this again is about sizing and This kind of starts to look at locations, but tonight is really about the sizing issue and the detail of the land use will come through the concept planning. As Steve also mentioned, within that sub-area 1A, up to 25.7 acres of parkland based on our urban growth boundary report can be developed in sub-area 1A. That's up to... there's a number of options that could play out here and we're going to try to help with formulating in your minds hopefully a recommendation going forward to city council on what that should be and so we have a variety of options from no park acreage in that that area and sub area 1a we have and again these are options that are based on Looking at parcels in the area, but again, we're not committing these to this specific designation and I was going to give a bit of background on that as well, but it is a sizing exercise for us as we go forward. We have another option that's 14.82 acres and a final option of 24.31 acres. The one thing about parks in specific is They likely would, you know, they would be more scalable probably to that area that's in subarea 1A. This again is about serving that area as a park in the future, and council's gonna have to go through and figure out that discussion as well, which is about could we reasonably develop a park in those areas, because it probably would be publicly directed. It could be public and private in its nature, but it's probably public in its nature. This would be an overlay of a park designation and the underlying zoning would be residential. So if in fact the park was not developed, it would end up being residential. It'd be on top of the 73.1 acres. So this is all again, we're not designating somebody's property park forever and they cannot do anything with their property. That's not what the situation is. So that I wanted to lead in with that. And in addition to the park issue, we also are seeking your input on neighborhood commercial, which could also be in Subbury 1A up to 3.7 acres. There's been some discussion in some of our meetings about what is neighborhood commercial? What does that look like? Um, it would be smaller scale and its nature it like a, you know, country store kind of thing, smaller scale. Um, and that again is that's something that we're seeking input on. We're also seeking input, obviously from property owners and the community as well as we go through these processes. But, um, yes.

Um, so The acres of parkland that we would say, oh, we would like for this to be used as parks. I understand that that's in addition to the residential designation. If that land ultimately is not used for parkland, will it be deducted from a future UGB assessment because we have that additional acreage that came in this time?

It will not. These are the rules, and we spent a ton of time with the LCD on this discussion. They're a bit interesting to navigate, but that's essentially it. We've been given a 25.7 based on the need that we've justified through the urban growth boundary process. And that really is the bookend. We can't go above that. So theoretically, there could be up to that amount. I think council also needs to weigh in on this as well to say, would that be reasonable for us to put that much parkland in that area? Staff is not suggesting that. But if that were not developed as parkland, it would be available for residential development.

And how would that impact parkland in the other areas that we're discussing?

It's essentially the other areas. The only other area that really parkland might go into is was recommended as there's a carve out in the economic opportunity analysis and the employment areas up to 35 acres could go in automatic automatically with no No discounts or anything else. So there's a carve out already. So if there's a desire for that, that still could play out in the employment areas.

And when you say no discounts, what does that mean exactly?

So basically it would come out of the total amount of employment land, but it would not have any other any other implications.

Okay, and in that instance, would it be the same kind of situation where we could say we'd like it to be designated for parkland, but it might not ultimately be used that way because the city has the discretion about how they want to maintain it?

It could be in the concept plan, and so that would be a similar scenario. Let's say it's on the east side. It's where we're showing the intention for employment lands, and it did not get fulfilled because it wasn't developed quick enough, and the city could not... execute if there was a desire for that for a sports complex, it would be, and it was developed as employment, it would end up being employment. So really, these are kind of market-driven issues. But there's also this kind of expectation, I guess, to some extent on the parkland, which I think council probably will feel a bit of an expectation because if we're noting them as such as a scalable area, that would seem like they would want to somehow fulfill that.

Yes. Looking at the west end of Area 1A, it looks like it kind of butts up against a riparian area that Area 5 seems to run over. It does, yes. And so I was just kind of curious if there might be a way to kind of leverage that as kind of a gateway, you know, to maybe expand the feel or area of a park without having it to, you know, eat up... Or to just maybe get us a larger park for a smaller commitment of acres.

And those are considerations about the location of that. And as I advanced through the slides, you know, we were not looking that far to the west necessarily in our examples here, but that that's something that definitely could be considered. And again, Looking at like size really here area and not so much the exact properties that that would apply. But I mean, those are part of the considerations that we would end up looking at. So and I'm going to advance because I have a number of other slides here here. So I just wanted to give kind of an overview before we dove into this. So some considerations for this, just trying to help folks work through this about like, well, how do I even know what the scale of what this might be? And this is a bit of an estimate here, and this is very early for us in the process of being able to tell exactly how many residential units would go into sub area 1A. But we've run some general numbers in terms of what the residential density could be possibly in that area. Not that it's been predetermined at all, but there's going to be a mix of probably a mix of residential uses in there. And it's about, we would estimate 466 units, 2.6 persons per household, 1200 folks. And so if you use the metric that we've adopted in our comp plan, 10 acres per thousand as the parkland ratio, that would be about 12 acres in that area. And again, there's other considerations, though, that like the last bullet point is, you know, sub area two and three staff will be recommending the council to do goal exceptions for both of those will need council's support for that. Those are properties that are to the south. Again, two and three in blue. And those are not part of the UGB process now because they can't be added in as residential now because we're at 73.1 acres, which is all fulfilled in sub-area 1A. However, they are eligible for goal exceptions after we get through our concept planning. We could go back through and do goal exceptions and add them in as residential afterwards. And these are all part of the state rules in that process. So with the consideration of sub area two and three, there could be other parkland that might be added in that area as well. We did get some general feedback. Let me go to the next slide here. for some other considerations here again about we're looking at the sizing issue of the ugb and not the exact location and there'll be you know obviously concept planning going on to identify the more of the precision of where the exact properties will end up being designated residential which ones have park overlay The last bullet point, part of this is looking at where we put parkland. Some considerations might be avoiding large homes because obviously you'd have to pay for those. The August 11th input from the community summit did have a number of table groups that looked at putting parkland kind of between subarea three and 1A, and then how the parkland could potentially buffer from the Dahlia Farm is another consideration. So I'm going to jump into some of these examples and again, oh yes, yeah.

When you guys are doing your estimations of how many homes you think would be in 1A, is that based on R1 or a mix of R1 and R1.5 and then potentially a little commercial?

It's really kind of an amalgamation and if you would, I can give you a general.

It was based on the HNA, right?

Yeah, well, it was based on the units that we are anticipating. There's HNA factors there, but we also kind of back checked it a bit based on looking at that acreage and taking a 25% deduction for infrastructure. And if you went through that exercise, you would end up with It's in the ballpark of 466. Let's say it's 1,000. It could be 1,000 units. I mean, 1,000 residents instead of 1,200. I mean, this is not an exact precise number.

No, no, I understand. I'm just kind of curious what the general mix was. And then just one quick clarification for my understanding. So if we were to recommend to add additional acreage for the park— Where does that acreage come from? Because right now we've got the 75 acres or so that is in that swath of 1A, and then we could say add up to another 25 acres. Where does it come from?

So let me show you on these maps, and we're getting to that right this next slide. Thank you. So we we did these and again these are these are again just basically more for sizing and we did four scenarios and so I'm going to get into the detail on these but option A would have zero B would have nine point. 52C would have 14.82 and D would have 24.31. So going through these individually, first is the one, and again, this presumes that that area in yellow is residential and there's zero parkland. And it presumes that that is in fact the area that would be residentially designated, which has not been determined. That's through the concept planning process that we'll do that. But again, that's what 73.12 acres looks like in subarea 1A. Next is you're going to see on the far left, and it's hard to differentiate this, but you can see slightly more yellow and less kind of tan on the upper left-hand side. And then the lower, I'm going to go back a slide. So you can, sorry. So it goes from here and then the additive, sorry, the additive is here.

Sorry, too fast.

There, sorry. So that would show, and again, that's just for scaling purpose. And you might say, why are you gonna have a park that's completely separated from another park? That may not be ideal at all, but it's just showing what 9.52 acres would look like. Let's say we did 10 acres because we thought there'd be 1,000 residents. This is, again, it's a scalability issue and for you all to recommend to council. So the next round would be 14.82, and that clusters all of them, and the Dahlia Farm is in zebra stripe and blue on the left. It would put all that into that remaining area that was not covered before. So everything immediately to the east of the Dahlia Farm, and then there's one more parcel there. That's what 14.82 acres looks like. Next slide would be 24.31, which would cover that same area that the 14.82 plus the far upper left, it would cover that whole area. So this again is, I know this is somewhat of a difficult exercise because like, but we're just trying to get to scale really is what this is. It's about a bit of a gut reaction on scale about what seems appropriate in that area. Yeah, I'm going to go to the next slide and I can go back here as well, but essentially what we're looking for from you all is what your recommendation would be looking at options B, B, C, D, all of all of that, which would be 25.7 or A, which is with no parks. And then again, going back to the neighborhood commercial piece, which we haven't spent as much time on discussions on that and. We have less, perhaps less guidance on that. It's a bit more difficult to do, I think, than the parkland, but that's another piece that we want your recommendation on as well. And I think the community input tonight will be helpful on this whole discussion as well tonight. And so I'm happy, we're happy to answer more questions, but that pretty much brings us to the end of our presentation. Oh yeah, sorry, the schedule. So again, the schedule, we have a work session with city council on September 2nd, city council hearing on September 16, county planning commission hearing is anticipated November 9, and board of county commissioner hearing is December 1.

Okay, so we'll start with questions from the hearing body. Commissioner DeRoche.

Just one quick one. What would be the downside if we just recommended the max parkland?

I mean, the downside, I guess, would be, you know, is there a commitment that the city made that they never put the parkland to that level in? I mean, it's a little bit of political... You know, like, was that really, you know, something that we...

Setting themselves up for something they can't fulfill, is that what you're saying? Exactly, yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you. I would say the other is, do you want that much parkland in this one area, right? Especially knowing that two and three may be brought in subsequently. You know, do you want to meet that entire need right in 1A, or do you later want to meet some of that need in other locations?

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

I wouldn't mind waiting to the end, like letting it go.

Any other questions from this end of the dais?

We have another chance.

We do. Yeah. Nothing. okay uh so following the schedule it's it calls for the applicant 20 minutes but you're the applicant so i'm assuming we can move right into proponents wanting to speak and i'll ask our recording secretary if we have any proponents that would like to have an opportunity to speak Just one point of clarity. Ed, I don't see it marked as proponent or opponent. Are you for or against? Pro? Opponent, very well. Thank you very much. Okay, we will begin with proponents, starting with Jerome at 168 Northeast 22nd. Come on up to the table.

All right. Hello. My name is Jerome Sidman, 168 Northeast 22nd. Appreciate the time. I'll make this very quick. We have a small nursery that represents the land between Hawley and Locust on 22nd on the gravel road. And I think it's been, the city's done a good job in getting community input. And I do support the growth of the Canby moving that way, especially east of Hawley Street. And so that's what I would say. East of Holly is where I would completely support that. However, they've done a great job getting information. So I do support this.

Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Second proponent looks like Susan Myers at 1590 North Ponderosa Street. Hi.

Hello, I'm Susan Myers. I am a Monocuco. I represent Monocuco Rentals. We own a lot of the property that Monocuco Farms farms on the north side of Cambie. We own a significant amount in areas five and six, and a little bit on the west side of 1A. And I am also serving on the PAC Advisory Committee and so have been very involved and appreciate the opportunity to serve as well as to speak tonight. When this all started, we, as Monaco Go Reynolds, we were saying it would be great to be able to develop some land along Maple Street because Maple Street has the road, it has infrastructure. With Doug Sprague's development at the end of Maple Street, we were able to get a significant storm sewer capacity to serve all of six when we go to develop that in the future. And the soil type there is not as sandy and as fertile as down on the far end of 1A, and also 2 and 3 for that matter. So we were asking, can we please leave the west side of Holly along 22nd alone and take some land down at the end of Maple Street instead. But we came to understand that the state has a very rigid language in that it has to take all this RRFF5 zoned land along 22nd before it can take any EFU land, which is exception land. So it's our understanding that in the future when we look at this in our housing the city looks at our housing needs in eight years this land along 22nd avenue that was part of the prune land lot subdivision i'm not sure if you guys are familiar with that was back in the I don't even know if it's 50s, 60s, 70s. It was early on before Tom McCullough was governor, and they brought in the urban growth concepts. And so prune land lots extended all along. They're 4.9%. and wrapped down Maple Street and included all of Andrus' property. When the zoning came through from the state, the state designated these 4.9-acre lots as RRFF 5. I see I'm limited on time.

You're okay. Go ahead. Okay.

And Andrus at some point rezoned as EFU. And so for the city of Canby, whenever we look at this, we are always going to have to bring in these RRFF lots before we can bring anything else in. So while at the beginning we were like opposed to this because of the rich soil by the Dahlia Farm, our property there, that's being farmed by the farm, at the end of the day, And Montecucco rentals as a group when we met, we said east of Holly Street was our recommendation. But as an individual serving on the committee, I'm thinking, let's bring as much of it in as we can. There's no infrastructure there. It is owned by a bunch of different property owners. Many of them do not want their property brought in. They may not be willing to down zone the EFU, but they don't intend to sell or don't intend to develop. So to get the infrastructure there is going to be quite challenging. It would take three developing and then some. So in my mind, why don't we bring in as much as we can and it gets it out of the way so when we do this again, we can start looking at some more reasonable property that could be more easily developed. such as more property between Holly and Maple extending down towards the river. And I'll try to be brief here. The one point I wanted to make is, can be assured of parkland everywhere. And in a meeting when the state was there, I asked the question, if we bring in 25 acres for parkland, 1a does that have to be developed as parkland because that's acreage that the whole city is short and To put it all in one corner doesn't make sense to me. I would think we would take Maybe bring in all of that but spread the parkland out in other neighborhoods throughout town and divvy it up and so you would have that Anchorage brought in, but we would be able to spread it out.

I think.

Oh, I think it's really important that as we're piecemealing growing to the north, that we really look at the transportation for five and six because it is landlocked by the Willamette River and the Malala River. And as we're, like the Dodds property, we're doing a neighborhood where locust is not being built out as a collector. The only collector we have planned right now is Holly Street, and it's not very big, and it's not an arterial. How, when the state is pushing density on us, because I will remind you all in the housing needs analysis, our study showed we need 200 acres. Portland State said 100 and some. The state has got us down to 73 because they want us to go up and dance. And that really historically hasn't been what Canby was about. But so we have to do more density north And five and six, how are we going to get people in and out of there? And if we're just doing little pieces, we need to have a plan so that as we're piecemealing it, we've got a grid system that relieves pressure. We've got collector streets. So I would encourage the city to spend some time to do that planning. And lastly, our farm also has the Malala Bottom, which speaks to what Michael was referring to. It is the lowland. It does flood, but it could be a significant parkland. And it can't ever be developed, but it would help the city develop the emerald necklace that has been in the plant. Any questions for me?

Oh, we got one question.

So on your comments about collectors, what would you suggest collectors should be in the north side?

I think we need to understand that Maple Street, Locust Street, Holly, and we're going to need some others. But right now we have, when you're moving west, what's the next one? And when you come into town, there is no natural connection. Maybe Birch, but that's it. I'm not a transportation expert. But as we're doing little bits, we're not building those roads out and the houses are going in and the roads are narrow. And I think we're creating a problem by not looking at this undesignated area we've acknowledged and this plan acknowledges is where Canby's residential will grow. but we're not planning for it and building out in a manner to accommodate that. And we're going to end up stuck because there's nowhere to go.

I agree. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Myers. Okay, we will now hear opponents for the UGB. We'll start with Ed.

Just a little history about prune land. It was planted in 1891, just so everybody knows. And pretty much I agree with Susie on most points, but Holly Street East has a fair amount of service, but Holly Street West... on 22nd has no sewer, no water, no storm sewers. It's a narrow road, no bike paths, excellent soils, flat land, good for farming, little to no soil erosion. Maple Street, on the other hand, has services, sewer, water, storm sewer, a 24-inch pipe that goes out to the Willamette River. There's also a pump station at the end of 34th Street to pump sewage to the sewer plant. The road is 35-foot wide, has a bike path. Soils vary from sandy loam to wapato gumbo. Has very steep hills, good views for houses, but has erosion that's severe. for intensive farming. The other thing is I'm looking at the land north of Canby there. And if you look at Locust Street towards the state park, there's a lake there. And from that lake, across over to Maple Street could be dug out and a water feature could be put in from the logging trail pretty much where the city trail ends over to the state park and have a bike path on one side and walking path on the other side and make one Good looking park, natural, good looking park. But I don't think that'll happen in the near future. The other thing is I don't know how hard it is to change the zoning. Maybe we should be working on that rather than follow the state and whatever they say goes. And you do have to do that, but changing the zoning might be an option. Just throwing that out. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you, Ed. I think you have one question from one of the commissioners, if you don't mind.

Go ahead. Ed, question. The lake that you're talking about, when is there now? How is that fed? Is that a spring fed? It's a spring. Spring fed? Spring, yeah. Does that stay full pretty much? Full all year.

Does it? Yeah. Okay. You would dig out the soil there from there to the logging trail. maybe not right up to it, but there's a 24 inch tile going out to the river that Doug Sprague put in, and you could regulate the height of that water in that water feature through that tile. Because that tile is, when we had Doug Sprague put it in, we asked the engineer how much drainage would that And he said, over 150 acres. And that's about what's down there. It's about 150 acres. So as the water comes up, it could go out the tile. The water goes down, it could be blocked. You could maintain a level in that water feature. It'd be a perfect park. Probably about 20, 25 acres.

25 acres?

Yeah. And it's in soil that's not good. Whatever you want to make it, you know, 20 feet, 15. And you could take that soil and put it up on the bank and bring your houses up or whatever you want to build there up out of the floodplain.

And what kind of soil have you got down there?

Well, in that area, it's heavy soil, real heavy. And, you know, Montecruco Farms does farm it, but they really leave it empty a lot. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Ed. Okay. We have a neither. A neither pro nor con. Mindy, Montecruco, come on up.

I always see the gray, the in-between. And I'm Mindy Monacuco, 1742 North Laurelwood Loop, here in Canby. And I serve the city on the, I chair the Bike Ped Citizen Advisory Committee. And I'm I have lived here and ridden my bike down in that floodplain around the lake and all the bottom land and the logging road and everything all these years and very unique features that we have here in our community. and um first of all the lake that ed was referring to is a favorite place for the audubon society and others to come to bird watch because as i was curious i asked them what the big deal was and they said it is unique in the sense that um There isn't a lot of trees around it. There's reeds growing, and it's just an extraordinary viewing feature. Yeah, feature. So anyway, I'm probably... It's great, but also there's a lot of appeal for natural wetland there, and probably that tile's gonna really need to be used to keep any development and housing controlled from flood damage. But anyhow, later to be seen. And linking up, between just thinking in the long run, being that it is poor soil running down Maple Street and they can't get regular crops off of it. It doesn't dry out for extended periods, so the growing season is very short. Is that right? Shorter. Shorter. So anyhow, down along Maple, as noted previously. But on 1A, out at the end, knowing that it drops down into the floodplain there, that could someday also be natural parkland, that area links up to or can link up to the Excuse me, yes, the state park, Malala River State Park. And keep in mind, the state park owns all that front land on the Willamette across the Malala and onto the other side there at the end of Eilers Road near Charbonneau. So, and also that we've just had added the metro property there on the other side also. So we've always longed to connect someday when that's not being farmed over to the state park, but recognize Cambia is sitting at a unique opportunity. We need to keep in mind to plan. If we do want to connect that trail, onto the metro properties there across the Pudding River Plain and, you know, on Gateway to the Willamette Valley. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Okay, so at this point in time, we will close the public hearing and have any questions or deliberations amongst this hearing body. Do we have any questions, comments that we want to start with? Actually, let's ask Mr. Llewellyn. Don't want to forget you out there in the internet land. Do you want to have any questions or comments at this time?

Yeah, I guess the concern I have, I brought it up before, more for Don probably. You know, when we annex in the industrial, that property for industrial, it goes inside the UGB, but it stays outside the city limits. And I said this before, we need to get back to the industrial area master plan. That should be looked at here at the same time. How is this all going to get financed? picture. The no-growthers come out in droves. They try to stop this. I guess my question for Don is, do these people understand what we're about to do to them? We're going to devalue their home and their farms.

You may.

Great question, Craig. Just maybe a couple things to keep in mind on this process. So the industrial park, you mentioned master planning. We're doing concept planning, which is parallel to this process. One thing I think that needs to be maybe restated is This is up to the property owners to bring in their property. We are not annexing anyone in this process. This is completely a property owner-driven process. With that said, the concept planning will address roads, infrastructure, and those kinds of things. It'll be part of the next step. I think that's an important element. I think beyond that element, I know the URA Urban Renewal Agency has been sunsetted, but if there is a project that we have like Sequoia for the Pioneer Industrial Park, which was funded by the city, if there is some project like that that came out of the concept planning, I could see that being robustly discussed with council as to bringing the URA back for specific reasons for providing that kind of access for the industrial area. So this all kind of is a step process. The concept planning is the first piece of that. Obviously, if there's property owner interest in that, that we would absolutely encourage that. As that continues, we are going to be reaching out to property owners as well. in that process, but I don't think it's going to be a situation. This is not just the boundary. We're continuing with the concept planning. You all will be voting on that sometime, probably May, June of next year, or making a recommendation rather to council on the concept planning, which is also parallel. We have a grant from ODOT for that, and that's parallel with this process. I think the first thing is to The first thing is really bringing the boundary, and this is the step process Oregon lays out, is do the boundary first, and then you determine the land uses in the boundary through concept planning and the infrastructure for that, and then the costing behind that. And then from there, there's gonna be some discussions with council on who pays for things, and the industrial park, that may make sense for the city to have a larger role. Typically for residential, residential developers pay for most of the roads in the city. They pay for half of a road and then the other side pays for the other half. That's typically how it works. Industrial is a bit different because it creates jobs and revenue sources that residential does not. Hopefully that answered your question.

How much do these property owners know? Because you're about to devalue their property.

I would say most of them have attended. I've spoken with folks that are on the east side and I would say the majority of them are probably in favor of coming in and most of them are aware of what's happening. I don't think there's a large number of folks that are unaware of what we're doing here.

Well, if they are, we're going to hear it. We've been through it. You know, the North So I don't know.

I can't speak to that era of time. I can just say that, I mean, I'm echoing what you're saying. I think roads and infrastructure are critical and that there needs to be a plan for that and we're going to be doing that. So I don't think there'll be surprises for folks. I think those issues are gonna get worked out in concept planning. And then we will have to amend our comprehensive plan as well and our transportation system plan. We have a number of steps to go through here before any of this could be annexed.

Yeah, I guess that's fine. I don't know. I hope so. I hope these guys don't get blindsided like we did. But that's my only concern here.

Okay, thank you, Commissioner Llewellyn. I have a question myself, planning director Hardy, and it kind of touches a little bit on what I think it was Mindy was talking about with We have this TSP process, transportation safety plan process upcoming. What does it look like for the citizenry in terms of involvement and being able to voice their opinions about, hey, we should have this collector street over here added, or hey, can we do a roundabout? You know what I'm saying? How are those...

connected yeah um and steve you want to join me up here because i'm i don't want to speak at a turn but um part of the discussion we've had is although subarea two and three are not part of this boundary expansion the concept planning we're going to be ending up is going to end up starting to address some of those issues to the degree of that i want to turn that over to steve but i think that starts to get into that issue about What does access look like? You all have been through this a bit because when Dahlia Glenn came through, we did sort of a concept of that area generically. Probably some of you remember that. There was a question about what does the road network look like in there that is in that area, even though that was not something that was really part of that discussion for that hearing, we looked at that issue. But I think it's an important element as to where the roads and circulatory system go. It's obviously feeding into 1A, but it's going to be going through 2 and 3, and it will continue to Susan Meyer's question. I think it's important that we have some vision as to where that's going further to the north as well, and we don't disagree with that comment. Can I throw something in because I think

I think it'll dovetail in with what we're talking about here. One of the things that I'm kind of trying to wrap my brain around is at what rate are areas two and three going to come in? Because as they come in, what that will do is depending on how developed 1A is, maybe it'll give us opportunities to stick towards the east side if we already have properties coming in, you know, that can serve our growth needs through another process. I mean, is the state just going to be concerned that this property comes inside the urban growth boundary and we're using the kind of property they want? And then after that, like you say, we're on to a completely different process depending on how we fill it up. And so, I mean, but, you know, I think for this kind of, for us to work, to give us more flexibility in our planning and how we use, you know, different parts of this property, it kind of depends on how fast two and three are going to come into play.

Great, great question. I, you know, and this, again, we're going to need some council direction, but I can tell you where staff's position is on this. We believe generally staff at the Council supportive of us going through the goal exception of two and three. So my visual of this would be we go through concept planning through June of 27 and then we would start the goal exception process for two and three. That probably would take a year to go through that process. We would come back again and update the comprehensive plan at that point and the transportation system plan at that point. And so therefore, all of it would be planned together. That would be my vision of how this should work.

Pretty comfortably before the next urban growth boundary expansion.

Yeah. And that gives us to your point. I mean, essentially, I mean, it's... There's a presumption that if you do an urban growth boundary, you're going to have people coming into the city. That is a presumption. When you have land that's fairly well developed already in a different pattern, it makes it much more difficult to do that. And that's one A. It makes it far more difficult to do that. But that is basically the situation where the rules come in from the state saying, yeah, it's not EFU land, it's exception land, so it has to come in first, even though it's not necessarily what we would suggest as a logical progression of how things should develop along the city. But there very well could be a combination of efforts going on. I think two and three would free up the ability to provide transportation access a bit more smoothly than just one aid developing by itself. And that would be a real strong reason for why the goal exception for two and three should probably happen, in my opinion. But again, council will need to give staff direction to say, yes, we agree with that process. But then we would wrap it all in together, two and three would go through a goal exception, we come back with a comp plan and transportation system plan update, and then it would all be packaged together consistently. And then the voices for those folks that wanted to get into the detail could totally dive into those with the transportation system plan. Again, that's a long, what I just gave you is a long trajectory, but that would be probably the best way to go.

so just kidding on steve then yeah there's really not much to add i think don said it the concept plan process looks at you know lays out infrastructure and transportation needs to support planned growth for transportation that would be kind of collectors and above not like local utility connections or local streets we are including two and three in our concept plan area and i think to miss meyer's point uh we will definitely we're making a commitment to be thinking about um areas five and six to the north we don't want to set up a road network that's not going to work down the road so i don't know exactly what that will look like but we'll definitely be thinking about okay In the future when this northern area builds up out, how does what we plan today feed into that to make sure that's feasible in the future?

And will that process involve kind of like what we've been doing all along the summits and all of those things so that the community has the ability to weigh in on that a little bit?

yes we've already had the first of three summits the one that we mentioned tonight i think there's i believe there's two more um there'll be other you know we have our project advisory committee is continuing on so all that there will be more opportunities i can say the next step in the process we're going to take what we heard from that summit and what we hear from people doing the online version of that. And that's gonna inform us coming back to the community with alternatives on how this area might develop in the future. And then there'll be another round of feedback on those alternatives. That's the next step.

That's great, thank you very much. Do we have any other comments, questions? Okay, Vice Chair Ewart.

One question or just observation that I wanna make. Over the years, we have parks that we talk about. What I'm hearing from some of the public here tonight is more of what I talk about open space. There's two completely different things. Parks are ball fields, swing sets, Pickleball courts seem to be the rage today. Tomorrow they probably won't be, but we have those kinds of things. Open space is a completely different thing. We used to talk about open space here in Canby a lot. I don't hear it talked about in what we're talking about at all. I mean, we've pretty much aborted it. What I hear the public talking about out here tonight is a huge opportunity to get back to our basics of what can be used to really, really want, and that is open space. And we have a huge opportunity, I think, to capitalize on a big, big piece of that in conjunction with the state and Metro, who seems to be capitalizing on land all around us. And I think that as far as a healthy community and whatnot, I think those are two separate conversations that we need to be really, really looking at. So I just wanna toss that out there. Open space is something that makes a community very, very livable. Parks are something that, makes us fit and recreationally sound they're great i have nothing against parks they're expensive and people have to want to support them open space tends to support itself and it makes a community very very livable so i think that that what they opened up in their conversation tonight was a I haven't heard that in any of our summits or discussions or anything. And I think it's something that we're really It's gone by the wayside. So I just want to throw that out there.

Does the state or the city make a distinction legally between the two?

Or can they be one and the same? I may have Ryan come up and speak on this to some degree. I mean, the parks master plan does address, you know, active parks and open spaces. It addresses both. Um, I think I would not disagree that, you know, open spaces is very important. I think the challenge a lot of this comes down to prioritization and funding and that really just to, you know, cut to the chase on that. It's it's difficult to fund everything. I know there's a discussion of a parks district. I know there is a district of some sort that has limited authority, but some sort of having more of a robust district here to address those kinds of things. I would agree that they both have value to them, and I think I think there's a lot of aspirational things here for both active parks and open space. And I think the challenge is really, you know, ultimately trying to figure out how you accomplish both and what are the targets are different for both of those as well. I think the targets, some of those, they also have to be annexed into the city for us to be able to financially do those things as well. Things that are way out in the county or that we can't really affect necessarily are way more challenging. And some of those open space issues are like public-private partnerships and grants that probably fit in more so than individualized projects. It takes some vision. I do know that the city has an aspiration to hire a parks director as well, and that would help in the situation as well to do a bit more visioning around that. And that would be helpful, I think, as we move forward.

Commissioner Driscoll, did you have something?

I did. Could we please bring up page 81 from the draft report? It's figure 14, or excuse me, figure 18, goal 14. It's PDF page 81, so you can type it at the top.

Yes, please.

Oh, passed it.

All right. Is there any way we can kind of zoom out a little bit so everybody can see the whole thing? Okie dokie. So this is looking at potential environmental consequences for the areas that we're looking at. And I'm primarily concerned about Section 9. So in the final recommendation, the formerly Nevada-shaped piece of Number 9 had been shortened to account for the 100-year floodplain. And the blue areas that you see are supposed to be like streamways that feed into the Malala River, which then feeds into the Willamette River. So our drinking water all comes from groundwater and the Malala River at this point in time. And the types of things that pollute waterways for people who have groundwater the most are industrial runoff and agricultural runoff from pesticides and whatnot. And my concern when we're looking at sections eight and nine in particular is the communities identified that they think they'd like to have heavy industrial in that area. And we've seen In the last 15, 20 years, huge changes in weather patterns and 100-year floodplains not being 100-year floodplains anymore. So I think that we need to take number nine out of the conversation entirely. and revisit it when we come back to the UGB conversation next in the next seven, eight years, like see what's happening in that area, both in terms of the development for the land we have brought in, because bringing in industrial is voluntary, right? It's a recommendation that we can make and the city can choose. It's not like residential where it's a must have. I think we need to leave nine out of it, see where we actually are seeing flooding and seeing where we are seeing things that can actually go into our drinking water. before we get too carried away with developing heavy industrial in that area. And if it turns out that the demand is there and we have to come back and have these conversations a handful of years down the road, then it wouldn't be a big deal to say, hey, let's bring it in if that's still what makes sense based on the development that we've seen and the weather patterns that we've seen. But I feel like that is really critical to just kind of like the overall environmental safety of the people who live here. Then I'd really like to... open up that conversation for consideration. Because I didn't see in the report anything about the water tables. I mean, usually just it goes to the low places, it goes towards where the water is. And the only reference to the water table and the water supply were coming from the staff reports in items five and six. That's the only thing I happened to notice.

Is that the only comment at this point before I turn it to them to answer?

That's the big one. And the other thing that is totally unrelated is when we were looking through the council packet from September of 23, There's 13 items about what we wanted the priorities to be. And one of the things that we had as a body had recommended was making changes to the code about the number of employees per acre and what that exception criteria might be, which kind of plays in a little bit about like maybe what the designations are for. Employment lands and I just wasn't totally clear on at what point we have that conversation if that's outside of the UGB conversation we're having tonight or if that's something that we need to be keeping at the forefront.

So my understanding is that that was going to be part of our code process of updating the code and requiring or making changes to the code itself. Completely separate track, right? It was my understanding. When we get to that part, you were saying we're going to look at the code at some point and start making changes.

Let me address that and I'm going to turn it over to Steve for the water part. Answer the questions here. So we are doing a code audit right now. for our development code and hopefully I'll have funding or a grant for the code update which will start next fiscal year. A couple observations here just as part of our community summit as well we looked at some identifications of low intensity and high intensity. We had the game pieces that people could place down. Part of that discussion is in regard to the type of industrial activity that happens in the urban growth boundary expansion area. Our current industrial zones may not be the ones that we want to use in the urban growth boundary expansion. The M1 zone is extremely liberal for a light industrial zone. It allows a lot of things, and should there be differentiation about that where it's more differentiated. So we have a focus on things that are... I'm not sure exactly where that target's going to be. Maybe it's more office park related or in its nature versus more heavy industrial nature. That's part of the concept planning that we're going to be doing. And so that's going to be identified as a baseline kind of situation there, not the code update, but identification of the light and heavy. And then that provides the differentiation that we would like start to look at to identify what the zoning should be.

So that's really conceptual planning. Exactly.

And considering the timeframe for this whole thing, and then you take the concept planning, June 27, and then another year for the subarea plan, for the subarea two and three, for the goal exceptions, you're at 28. I mean, this will all line up hopefully where the zoning code is really in place, and we have to do the comp plan update as well. that that would start to that would all kind of line up together with that. I think that would address some of the potential environmental considerations that you're concerned about. The urban growth boundary expansion really is not a deep dive into, you know, Are code satisfactory now, but it's maybe more like what you're talking about. What should they be one before someone ever annexes? So ultimately the city has complete control over situations where we can develop codes to say, you know, you need to do certain things or you know, or you you're limited in land use to these things. And this is the sort of contractual arrangement we have for the annexation to come in. So those issues, I think it can get worked out later. There's definitely goal five considerations that are part of this exercise, which the urban growth boundary report identifies. And I'll let Steve speak to that a bit.

The only thing I have to add is that, yeah, we gave people game pieces and kind of split the area, but that entire area could be lower intensity industrial uses. But what you're saying is certainly not unreasonable. But getting back to the open space as well, I mean, this concept plan could result in... open space you know along the edge there protections for those resources pushing low intensity industrial up to the north but i think don said it well in terms of we don't i think part of the concept plan is defining what do we mean by industrial and it's certainly within the city's purview to say yeah down in this area we don't want heavy industrial that's going to impact these natural resources

Does that answer the question?

I mean, more or less. For me, I still think that we are bringing in a big enough chunk of industrial and commercial land that we would have plenty of time to see how the winds are blowing with that and what the uptake is, even without the extra 60 acres in nine that's proposed in the limited area. So thank you guys. I appreciate it.

But as properties come and request to join the city, at least in the industrial properties, it'll come before us again, right? Does it bypass us on residential as well?

Well, I don't see the change in the industrial and commercial sector. The state legislature is not focused on that at all, and those are probably going to remain discretionary, and they will be fully reviewed by you all. They're large enough that they trigger our site plan, site and design review. Residential is changing. And you all will have a work session on September 28th on that, on House Bill 4037 and Senate Bill 974 on those changes and what that looks like and kind of where that's at. And the council is going to hear the same thing in work session on September 9th. And so that, but there are changes on residential, on notification, and currently we're in kind of a weird situation on, like, there could still be a hearing, but no public testimony. I know that sounds bizarre, but that's kind of where the state has left us on residential, not to get into the weeds on that. But more discussion is going to happen on that.

But, you know, essentially when it comes down to... to area nine it's like we have ample time to move it over to parks or you know to to to uh discourage development in that area for other reasons if we chose to just but you know like once once it's if we decide to leave it off then we can't turn it into parks land because it's not there and the southern tip is proposed to be removed so we're that that nevada description

That is not there. That will be sliced off. I mean, so that's our recommendation. We're not recommending the tip going into the floodplain. That is not what we're recommending. No, I understand.

I was just saying that I suspect that the 100-year floodplain that's established here that is cut off probably will extend into the area that we would be potentially annexing in. And it probably would make sense to kind of see what's actually happening over the next few years because we can always add more in.

And maybe just one more ad. We have another thing to update as well on top of all the other things we're doing, which is the 100-year floodplain regulations that are coming from the federal government, from the federal biological opinion that we're also trying to update as well. Those rules are very difficult to even do anything in the floodplain at all. So yes, you could annex the property, but they would still be subject to that. And anything in the actual floodplain in the future under these new regulations are gonna be extremely difficult to do. And it just has to do with endangered species and it's throughout the entire state of Oregon. Other states, Washington has already had to deal with this issue, but Oregon is now dealing with that. And so it's gonna be super challenging to what they call no net loss of functions and values, which is a very high bar to do anything in the floodplain. So I think that hopefully also mitigates the situation and your concern as well.

Well, not entirely because it just seems like we're inviting in more headaches for the city by bringing in land that could potentially be affected by it. Why not leave it outside of the city and then it's not the city's problem?

I think we've largely removed it, and I think we've tried to find a line that works, but we haven't gone out and surveyed the property, and we probably aren't going to do that.

Okay, so from here, unless there are more discussion or questions, come on up.

to the sub area two and three. When we talked about the amount of park in 1A and will it be the same process when two and three are brought in to consider how much of that area would be parks because it would be for park or would that all combine when you talked about development of all of it?

There would not be the same parameters that are on 1A, and this is a unique circumstance with the exception land. The rural residential forest farm is a unique circumstance here for the boundary expansion that has that special provision where it all needs to be, essentially, if you're going to lump some in parkland, it would all have to go in 1A, and that would be where it could be changed back to residential if it did not get built. Again, those would come in, and we don't have the same parameters on that about where we have leverage on those properties to say we're going to consider parkland, other than if they wanted to do a planned unit development or something like that, or to your point, more broadly to maybe look at this as more of an integrated development, and you might have a large developer that's interested in 3 and part of 1A. So that it's a bit unknown. I do think it creates an opportunity for access and utilities coordination as well as development to be done in a way that is a bit more holistic than 1A by itself, which is a bit challenging to deal with.

I'm just thinking of it in terms of the park and open space concept in a neighborhood. If there's a development in a neighborhood with more open space between houses, not necessarily managed park but you know more more open space between them to kind of spread that's what i'm thinking spreading some of that park designated as park to make it not feel so dense feel you know

And again, not to get too much into the concept planning, but that was, and again, it probably would be logical to have something that had some centralism between 1A and 3. We can't pre-influence where a park might go on 3 or 2, though. I mean, in that discussion, obviously, if someone were to want to put a park in on 1A, we would clearly... We want that to marry up with the development of three, but it doesn't have the same parameters around it.

Are you asking us tonight, though, to consider those different either 20... the 20 acres or the, you know, you're asking us to pick that tonight.

We're asking, yeah, and I know it's a hard question, and we're asking for a recommendation, and you've heard the community testimony on this as well. I think... There's some interesting dynamics in this and it did not go without notice on our end. I mean, when this comes back and there's a point about this coming back in eight years for being looked at again, whatever is left in 1A will have to be looked at again because it's still exception land. It doesn't go away. And so that has to be looked at again. And so there's kind of pros and cons here. Steve mentioned, is that really where we want all the parkland to go? And that hasn't really been evaluated at the same time. You have the situation where whatever is residual has to be looked at first yet again in eight years, I guess it's getting way down the path a bit. So there's, there's some interesting things. And then there's a scalability issue, which is also part of this as well. So that these all somewhat challenging things to do, like what would be the appropriate size for that? Um, I guess in the end, 1A does provide a unique situation, however, where whatever park overlay is not developed, it could be developed as residential. That does not apply anywhere else in any other sub area where you have that option. So that's an important distinction.

Is there a timeframe on that? Like within so many years, if it's not developed, then it could become residential?

Well, it would really take, you know, the underlying zoning would be residential in the end, and it would have a parkland overlay on it. So, you know, it would be, you know, whatever the amount of time. Somebody may never decide to come into the boundary. That would be their choice. Okay. they could say, I'm not going to come into the city, and that would be completely their choice to do that.

Okay. And that's what, to me, is so difficult about this process, right? So they're saying that in 20 years from the date that the survey was done, which was what year, 2020? 2020. When did Portland State do that analysis? Was it 2020?

Yeah, I think that was the base. That was the population base. They had not quite got to the next 22, but it was 20, yeah.

So 20 years, six plus thousand people, so roughly that assumes that 300 people a year, plus or minus, are moving in here. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen the flood of people moving in here. And I doubt we're going to have a sudden event one year of 5,000 people moving into the tent. So this whole process to me feels like so conceptual, such a long... potential and then it's also contingent on people actually being willing to sell their property right so you can have all the plans in the world but if nobody wants to sell their property then your plan just kind of goes to hell and back so and i feel like to get hung up too much on the details of what goes where right now, it's all contingent on the population demand, the economic drivers actually coming to fruition. And so I guess tonight, the goal is to say, you want a recommendation from us to send adoption of the boundary amendment with either zero acres of parkland, 9.52 acres of parkland, 14.82 acres of parkland, or 24.3 acres of parkland.

Or if you chose a number that was anywhere in the mix or all of it.

We have no basis to do that, though. That's what I'm, I just don't, it's a pig in a poke, right?

Yeah. It is a bit of a dart. Yeah.

It is.

Yeah.

I mean.

You could have the golf course decide to sell and blow this whole thing out of the water.

Yeah.

Yeah. Mr.

Chair, I have a question. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, amongst this body, is there any consensus? Oh, sure.

One quick question. Sorry, I wanted to follow up on Commissioner Llewellyn's comment. So if folks are for the industrial area, what is it about this process that would devalue people's land? I don't understand that.

I think he was under the assumption that if we were annexing it from them, like an eminent domain.

We could not do that. The city will not be annexing people's property.

That's not what I'm saying at all. You have farms and you have houses. All that becomes worthless. Nobody's going to buy that for farms or houses. How?

because nobody wants to live next door to it. Nobody's going to buy it for that.

They're going to buy it for the land, and they're not going to buy the land until it's annexed in. So the farmer's going to be stuck out there.

Well, they already are.

If you get no growth on these councils, which will happen, and they fight them, they're going to be stuck. That's what happened. Those houses and those farms become worthless. Nobody's going to buy those when the future zoning is industrial. And all you have to do is look at my property and the one next to me, because the minute those houses came down faster, you could blink.

OK, so Planning Director Hardy, do you want to address that from a process?

I mean, I don't know if there's really anything. I think the premise here is that once it's in the urban growth boundary, that people treat it as if it has the future zoning, even though it's not been annexed. I think that's the premise of that discussion. And that, you know, again, has to do with people's, you know, perception of, you know, I mean, obviously the intention, if it's going to be in the urban growth boundary, doesn't mean it's not farmable property. So we have a bit, I think the more significant point in which we're not in disagreement at all about is the planning for infrastructure and roads. Those are critical because if there's no plan, that's not what we're planning to do. It's not just a boundary expansion, which basically gives you nothing if you don't have concept planning, which has the infrastructure and the roads and all those pieces to it, which starts to tease out what that looks like. That is then where you plan that out, which we are planning to do. Now, concept planning is master planning in the same sense, but we call it concept planning in Oregon. So that really is part of that process. So we totally are in agreement with that piece of it. I think what might have happened years back is they weren't doing concept planning, the boundary was expanded, and now the developer has 100% responsibility to do everything, and that doesn't work so well on industrial property.

Okay.

I guess I would just follow up with that. You have an 80-year-old that needs to sell their property. And they can't sell the property because they can't get it annexed in. Number one, they can't afford it. Or number two, the council won't let them. The city will fight them. Now what do they do? Tell me how that property is not devalued. Yeah, we're not... If you can't annex in that property, you're not selling it. I mean, you know, really... Maybe we need to all sit down. I'll show you a lot of data on this. It's not cool what we're about to do to them. And I don't think they have a clue.

We will be doing concept planning to look at roads and infrastructure in the future. All the annexations for properties that we've done in the city, really the burden is essentially on are there utilities available to be access to the property and is it serviceable? That is the primary focus of annexation, really. I mean, does it have transportation, roads, and infrastructure? That's it. The city has no...

But aren't we asking them to do this...

The city's asking them to do this, are they not? We are doing an urban, we're suggesting an urban growth boundary expansion to accommodate employment needs over the next 20 years. Aren't we asking those property owners to be in that industrial property? Did they come to you and say we want to do this? I would say we've not had opposition for the properties and all of the outreach that we've done.

I know, but did they come to you and say, hey, Don, we really want to do this, we want to be in this industrial? They didn't. No. We're asking them to give up their farms to be industrial in the future. Do they really understand this? I don't think they do. I know they do.

Well, the impetus for this really is the state saying we have to do something surrounding the city. Like, it's not all voluntary on our part.

I'm not arguing that, but I think we need to be more proactive with these people.

This is just going to be a crazy show later on again. Commissioner Llewellyn, we've had multiple listening sessions with the property owners, specifically engaging them within the study area. We've had robust discussions with that. I don't think there's a lot of folks that are like, I'm not sure what's going on here. that they have not had an opportunity to say we're vehemently against this. In fact, we've had little, if any, of that in the industrial area on the east side that's proposed to be expanded.

Well, I don't think they really understand it, but that, whatever. We'll all learn again. But I do have another question on these parks for you. What can the city afford in terms of acreage?

And that is a really important question and you know but this gets back into you know the default which I mean there's there's that question which I can't answer that specifically where we're going to be getting into more of the detail and the concept planning on a parks planning.

it's more of a political con question because the city sat on parks money before and just not spent it when people have authorized it and put it into a budget you know it's you can do all of these things and then the city can just choose not to do it and so you know what this is all about really is creating potential for things to happen There's no final uses being mandated anywhere here. The only thing that's being mandated is the order in which the lands come into this urban growth boundary. And the people who live there can choose to not you know, sell their property to an industrial developer. But, you know, we've had people before this body before that they were upset that they were in an R2 zone and there's an apartment going up next to them instead of thinking about how their property could be developed into an apartment in the future. And it's the same thing that, you know, I've talked to Ed, you know, he used to farm up on Stark in Portland. And it's like, you can always move farther out, you know, and urban growth happens. The population is increasing. development happens, we like large lots, you know, and we like big industries, big flat warehouses, you can drive a forklift around it. And that's what happens with cities, you know, and, you know, there are people who have been upset about the way that Canby has grown and there are other people who really wish it was easier to get a job closer. And really, we're kind of here to accommodate all of them. And you know, no one's gonna sell who doesn't want to sell. But you know, the urban growth boundary isn't moving out that far. I mean, I bought on the side of the town that I chose because I knew that the river binds it and there's only so much real estate available on the north side. And so I thought that over time it would increase in value. Seems to have done that. But I don't really think that anyone's being duped here. And there is more than enough opportunity for people to shoot their mouth off in this town. And we do it all the time. There's empty seats here a lot of the time. But I mean, if you bought a house and didn't look into the zoning of it, that's kind of on you, I think.

specific to the conversation about how much parks land would we want to recommend i'm inclined to recommend more than less because while we cannot control if they actually will ever build it it gives the opportunity for it to be turned over to open space and or managed park space so I hear the argument like, well, do we want it all concentrated in one area? Like, no, I think that every my personal attitude towards this is every time I get an opportunity to vote in more park space, I'm going to say yes, because what we hear from people who come to talk to us and who are concerned about the development and everything else is we need more open and green spaces. So I will always say as much as we can encourage that, I think we should. So. That's what I'm gonna say for A1 or 1A rather. That's what I'll say for any other section that comes before us. We may as well try and take the will of the people and encourage the council to hear what we're hearing and say, put in as much as you can.

I kind of go back to my original thought process, which was, again, you're wanting us to adopt UGB UGB boundary amendment 2601 with the recommendation of ABC or D or some mixture in between. Yes.

And that's it. And that's both parks and I know we spent a ton of time on that. And if there's any thoughts on neighborhood commercial, you may say. we're not sure what we're doing on that because that's also another piece and you know council may end at the end of the day may say because there's you know really no advocates for that you know let's say there's none but they may not choose any but that's another element as well so both park acreage and neighborhood commercial acreage so if we were to be talking about a motion it would be a motion to adopt

UGB boundary amendment, UGB 26-01 with option blank of how many acres and no neighborhood commercial or some neighborhood commercial.

I believe it's referred to as alternative one. Is that right?

Before we get to that, does anybody share my concerns about bringing in nine right now? No. Because I know it's a skinny little thing on your screen if we switch back over to it, but that blue area is where anything that happens in eight or nine is going.

I say no, and I'll tell you why. Because it still has to go through the concept and zoning and all the things, right? So you're talking about making a hard ask or a hard decision on something that's going to be, I don't even know how far down the road.

But we know it'll be some level of industrial because that's what it's being brought in for.

Or a park. It does not have to be, it could be an office park for all you know.

So what's the designation between commercial and industrial in all of the documentation we've seen so far? Because it always says commercial like eight acres and industrial 500. So if we do get to choose differently. Why is it distinguished as such?

So almost all of the employment land is actually industrial land, but industrial can be an office park. That is in dependent, not Canby's current zones, but as we've talked about, I think staff is not thrilled with how those zones lay out uses right now. In other cities, office park is a light industrial use. Yeah. Did that answer your question? Yes.

Sort of. Yeah, so what do we consider commercial? Grocery stores and hardware stores?

Everything along Highway 99. The distinction is retail versus wholesale, essentially. I mean, at a broad scale. I mean, that's what you're looking at. Manufacturing versus selling products that are already... It's a retail component primarily. That's the differentiation, essentially. It's a public-facing versus... Yeah, I mean, you're making things, you're storing things, you're not being able to drive up to the thing and buy stuff. It's not a Fred Meyer experience. You can't go to the store and buy a roll of carpet. I mean, that's not... If they're making whatever they're making, for example.

Yeah. Let's hope it's not carpet. Yeah. Okay.

But again, to that point, there's going to be time for public hearing testimony, input on planning for, based on what I'm hearing, for what that zone or sub area is going to be, how we're going to characterize it, how we're going to define it. And we've still got the whole code thing that we want to talk about too.

It's 60 acres out of 500. It didn't seem like it was a huge amount that we would be potentially... delaying to a future revisit of our zoning, or not our zoning, but our UGB. Because we'd have to talk about it in seven or eight years if we didn't do it now. So it didn't seem to me like it was an unreasonable point.

I would point out that we are not fulfilling all the employment land need already.

I would point that out. And that's what I'm saying. I'd be willing to make that bet a thousand to one that we're not gonna be dealing with that in the next eight years. We haven't even touched the population part in the first five years. So to me, it's a moot point. We're gonna be able to address, provided we're on this body we're going to be able to address how that how that land is used so i'm not going to throw the whole process out right now just on something that's not even going to be messed with for the next 10 years okay i don't think it would be throwing the whole process out to say we approve it minus well that's not what he's asking he's asking us to say we adopt the amendment specifically referencing options whatever about the parks and neighborhood commercial for 1a that's what we're i thought we were doing are we saying that we're just blanket adopting anything i mean there is a broader there there is a broader brush i mean if you all want to you know if that's the plurality and you want to make a recommendation outside of you know

you know the 1a that discussion that's up to you all and we'll forward that to council and we're happy to you know entertain that that's a sizing issue again on the employment side i mean i think one consideration is this is not going to happen very frequently and you know that's you know it's important i think employment lands are important

I'll just add to that. The sub areas are, you know, they're not real boundaries. So you also could say, oh, well, let's only bring in half of sub area nine. I just wanted to make that clear to people as well. These sub areas were for us to be able to talk about the land and are not necessarily, you don't have to bring them in and whole, which is why we cut off the southern part of nine.

I'm not going to put a, I mean, we're not going to put a smelt next to the waterway, right? I think that's, yeah. So, I mean, if you really want to die on that hill, sure, we can add that and make a motion and we'll add that in. And if enough people want it, then we'll do it. How's that?

All right.

Yeah.

All right. Then I am making a motion. Nope, nope, nope. Okay. What's up?

If I may. Sure.

we haven't addressed the whole issue of the commercial and the residential thing you haven't spoken about that at all tonight would you like to explain that before because that's part of whatever motion and i and i really we not really delve into that at all i mean or very little and you're right so i think the neighborhood commercial and that's a scalability issue as well and council's going to need to sort that out whether you make no recommendation on that or not or a recommendation they're going to have to sort that out like what makes sense to them um and i think that i mean i think it should be small scale obviously you can have up to 3.7 acres that may be a lot for that area in my opinion if you're looking at a store that's a neighborhood store like you the perspective would be from my lens is how much land would that really be probably would be 3.7 acres that's but again this is a Another wild card that the state has thrown in there, which is new legislation saying you can do up to 5% of your demand, which is of the 73 acres, as additional neighborhood commercial.

Just to be clear, the neighborhood commercial is part of the new rules that we're not operating under. A city who goes forward with an urban growth boundary under the new rules has a safe harbor where when they're expanding for residential land, you can have up to 5% of neighborhood commercial added. So, well, you can do the math. can be is not operating under those rules but when we were talking to dlcd they said so so there's it's not a safe harbor we the city could say we want to adopt this and the state could say we don't want to allow that neighborhood commercial but when we were talking to representatives from dlcd they said you can ask for it if that's something that you think would be beneficial to that residential community that you're potentially adding to your city and you think yeah commercial would be an important part someplace that people can walk to etc then you're welcome to do that but we don't have the safe harbor that cities in the future will have where they they automatically get that additional five percent for can be it's more of an ask of the state that we'd like to have this because we think it's going to benefit the community so unofficial oh sorry so could you define just briefly just define to me again what that commercial is

Yes, what it entails. All I remember is it doesn't include gas stations.

Yeah, I don't have, last time I looked it up on my phone, but there were comments about walkability, small scale, things of that nature. I don't have the definition in front of me.

You're talking farmers, hairdressers, small grocery store type things.

I think those are great examples, good examples of what we'd be talking about.

Okay.

you would like for us to consider this? If that's on the table, because council is going to have to address it anyway. I mean, we're going to ask them the same question and for their vote. And ultimately, if you have thoughts on that, like we will pass those forward. Like, yeah, it makes sense to have a small, you know, convenience store, the neighborhood scale store. Yeah.

Satisfied? Okay.

And if we do say that we want that or that we're making that recommendation, if they accept that recommendation, then we will definitely have X amount of acreage that is designated residential commercial.

Neighborhood commercial.

Neighborhood commercial.

Apparently, if they approve it, we're going to ask if we really want it, but they may say no. Is that correct?

But if they say yes, it's restricted that they have to use it that way?

Correct.

It's not like the parks where it may or may not happen?

Correct. What happens if we don't ask now, we ask later when it's being developed?

I don't think that's an option to ask for it later, not for Area 1A. I think we would just be making

Okay, so maybe a little temperature check. Is there even an appetite to ask for it, Commissioner Luelling? Are you either for or against asking for it?

Oh, you're muted.

Can't hear you. I guess I just find this all a little odd. It's an odd request.

I'd be for something. I mean, it's a pretty big for or against. We don't know. It's not like a specific thing we're asking for. It's a general idea of something. I guess we're just asking. I guess we're just giving the council a blank check, really. It's just the availability to have it as an option. Do you support that or not?

Yeah, I would let them figure it out.

Okay. Commissioner Giroux is for it.

Yeah, that's the way I look at it. Give them the up to whatever percent and let them decide the details.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm neutral to let them decide. There isn't really much of that on the upper north side. So maybe there'd be some value to have it as an option. Okay.

How about you? Good. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So we got that part licked. So then as far as the acres, to me, I was going to say split the baby and go with 12 acres. And just so we don't put nothing in there, but we don't put everything in there that we have the option to put in. Does anybody see any logic in that? Or do you have a different idea?

I would leave it vague and leave it the same wording. It's up to a certain percent and let the council figure that out.

Okay. Take it all. Huh? Take it all. Take it all in 1A. To the hilt. Yeah. All the partakers, they'll let us specify and take them.

I'm on all of it.

So we got two for all?

Yep.

We got one for percentage. I agree for all. Three for all? All is 26.

25.7 acres.

Oh, what was the 24.31?

Well, that was because of the parcels that were out there. Yeah, but I mean, again, we'd have to figure that out. And like, we can do that. So if you chose 25.7, we would figure out where to put that. And the commercial was 3.7? 3.7 maximum, yes, yeah.

Okay. So then a motion would look something like a motion for the allowable percentage of neighborhood commercial.

3.7.

Do you want us to name the actual or just say?

It could be a percentage, whatever is your preference, yeah.

So the maximum allowable equates to 3.7 based on what you guys- Which is 5%. 5%, okay. Okay. So up to 5% commercial. Okay, so the motion would be to adopt the UGB 2601 with the provision of the maximum allowable commercial. A residential commercial, neighborhood commercial of 5% and the full allowance of acreage, parkland acreage within 1A.

And can we run that through taking Section 9 out and see if anybody's with me on that? Because I will die on the hill of protecting the waterways that we drink from.

Anybody, is anybody going on that?

No. We were talking about the potential for park space in 8 and 9, weren't we? yes um and that that's probably going to come full circle with council which is a whole other discussion on sports complexes and i'm guessing that will come back and that's really the only reason i would think we should leave it in because it's like any time we run up against a riparian area like that it's perfect parkland both for looking at birds and just hanging out walking around green space and all of that and so it's you know if we don't allow it in then you know if we decide one year that we're gonna we're gonna blow some bucks on parks then it won't be an option but that do we not shoot our whole shot with the 25 acres or is that

That's a separate issue. Another nuance to the rules, which is like completely separate. And we included that in the employment economic opportunity analysis, which meant that that's by right, that that could be done in that area with no consequence other than the reduction of employment area.

Got it.

The idea behind that is sports complexes by themselves are economic drivers to an extent.

So do we make any recommendations on the parkland in the other areas?

This is so narrow right now because there aren't any other avenues to address parkland elsewhere. That's it. That's the maximum. The 25.7 is the only other part of this that really is in play.

And do you want us to shout that out specifically for 1A?

It has to be in 1A. Or if it was in other sub areas, we would have to develop it as parkland. That's a confirmation from DLCD. It can't be sprinkled around. I know there was discussion around that. But without us knowing, we would buy that property. If in 1A, it can be converted back to residential. It cannot be converted. It would have to be that use. in other sub areas. So that's the distinction.

So where there's been discussion about potential park areas in other sections like eight and nine, at what juncture would there be a conversation about that in a meaningful way that we do want to make some part of it parkland? Is it always going to be the council makes a decision at some point in the future that they want to call some acreage parkland and buy it?

They do and they have I guess in terms of the parameters around that there's a capital improvement plan and an SDC system development charge plan that are operable that have just been adopted recently and those actually both have the sports complex in them. So I think that would be a driver and then they would have to go in the employment area. Those are the issues. That's essentially the boundary of that. On the residential side of things, the 25.7 acres is really it for the residential piece. Now, that doesn't discount the fact that there's many other parks planned in the city. This is not even part of what we're discussing tonight. There's many other projects that are actively on the list, the CIP list. It's not to say that that's all the parks the city's ever going to get. I want to be very clear about that. That's not at all the case. There's many other parks that are planned in the city that are on the CIP right now.

Okay.

Okay, so back to the motion. We've got the motion to adopt the UGB amendment and specifically Section 1A. Looks like there's larger support for bringing in all the parkland acreage and the full capacity of up to 5% of available acreage in neighborhood commercial. Is that sounding about right?

Craig.

You down with that? Yep. Sounds good. Okay. So can somebody craft that into a motion? And or if you want to add yours into the motion, bring that motion and see if there's a second.

Well, it sounded from the conversation like I don't have support on it. So should I even bother?

It's up to you. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we accept UGB 26-01 as submitted with the maximum park space for 1A being 25.7 and our neighborhood commercial standing at 5% or 3.7. And that would be my motion. Is there a second?

Seconded. Thank you. Seeing the second, we'll do a roll call vote starting with Commissioner McCarthy.

Yes.

Commissioner Hutchinson. Aye. Commissioner Ewart.

Aye.

I am also an aye. Commissioner Driscoll.

Aye.

And Commissioner Llewellyn is in approval for the recommendation. Thank you.

And I'm going to jump up on the dais here for the planning director updates. I'll allow it. Just kidding.

Okay, so then we officially, well, we closed the public testimony, but did we close the public hearing as well? Is that a thing? Well, it's closed. In case anybody's wondering, the public hearing is now closed. We voted on it, it's done.

Go ahead. You have the floor, sir. Just a few updates for Planning Commission. I was going to go through our next hearings or next anticipated hearings. We were planning to have a hearing on September 14. That's been pushed out. We met with the applicant. It's a subdivision and the city is planning to install a pump station, which changes some of the design parameters around the project. So they're going to push that out to September 28th. So we will not have a meeting on September 14, but we will have one on September 28. And then on September 28, we'll also have a work session following the hearing on House Bill 4037 and Senate Bill 974 with Josh Soper, our attorney from Barry Elsner Hammond, that on September 28th. We do have a hearing on October 12th, which is Habitat for Humanity. It's a conditional use permit, and this is a kind of relocation within the same site for them. It's a fairly simple one on October 12th. That's as far out as... We have planned at this point, we'll let you know about the additional hearings as they come up. And then just, we went through tonight on the, just a follow up on September, the next steps on council. The council has a work session on the urban growth boundary on September 2nd. Their hearing is on September 16th. And then we'll be diving into the county planning commission November 9th and the county board commissioners December 1st on the urban growth boundary. And that was pretty much it for what I had to report on tonight. Gotcha. Unless there's questions.

Mr. Ewert. Be advised, I won't be here on the 28th.

Got it. Thank you for the update. Next planning commission. Okay, we cover the items of interest and guidance from planning commission. Does anybody have any items of interest or? Go ahead, Mr. Ewert.

I have a question on the food cart that's on 99E and the Astro gas station. Corner Elm in 99. What is the status of that? Is that permitted? Food cart?

The Mexican cart, the red one?

I don't know if it's Mexican, Italian, Peruvian. I don't know what it is.

It's food court. I'm assuming it is. I mean, I can look. I don't have that. It hasn't opened for businessmen sitting there quite some time. I can ask. Brianna is the one that does all of our food courts, and I can confirm that with you tomorrow.

I'd be curious if you could shoot me an email. I am too. To back that up, there was one set up for a day or two in that TNT market right next to the Chevron and then in the Chevron as well. And it was quick. It was up, and then they moved, and then it was up again, and then they moved. And if it's two hours or less, there's no permitting. Gotcha. I'm serious. Okay. So it's a pop-up. Okay. Exactly. Does one tax lot consider moving every two hours? Okay. Any other questions? I think that was it. Unless anybody else has anything. Commissioner Llewellyn on the interwebs. Do you have anything else?

Okay.

All right. Seeing nothing else coming up, we'll take a motion to adjourn.