Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Well, good morning and welcome everyone to administrator issues and updates on March 17th, 2026. County Administrator Gary Schmidt, would you do us a favor and call the role? Yes, chair. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. The uh Commissioner West is out of the office at another meeting this morning representing the county. Roll call. Commissioner Schrader here. Commissioner Helm here. Commissioner Savis present. Chair Roberts here. All right. Thank you, Gary. You want to introduce our first agenda item today?

Yes. First is a 2025 food security emergency response spending report and update. Uh presenting is Tony Marinick who's policy adviser in the board of county commissioners office. Go ahead, Tony. Good morning, commissioners. Tony Marinick, policy adviser, office of county administrator. In October of 2025, this board declared a state of emergency related to potential lapsed funding of the federal supplemental nutrition assistance program. Um through that state of emergency, the board authorized $100,000 to be distributed to local food banks to assist individuals who might need food from their local food bank because they wouldn't be getting their SNAP benefits. The ultimate recommendation was to make direct grants to local agencies because they were best positioned to use those dollars through that program. We the county distributed $50,000 to Clackamus Service Center who used that funding to serve 3,872 households. Also, Colton Helping Hands received $10,000. They served 1,614 households. Esticada Area Food Bank received $10,000. We used that funding to purchase 8,46 pounds of food and served 2,500 2585 households, including they note a 25% increase in the two weeks before the lapse and 40% increase in demand in the first two weeks of or in the first week of that lapse. Um, also the Sandy Community Action Center received $10,000. They use that funding to enhance food boxes distributed during the holiday season, enhance their senior box pro distribution program with additional fresh produce, and served approximately 547 hot meals for local

households and homeless individuals in the Sandy area during that period. Um, additionally, $20,000 was held in reserve for what was an anticipated need for baby formula and other women, infant, and children program programmatic needs. There are restrictions on how what dollars, what items wick can purchase and ultimately we were able to fill that need through other funding sources and that funding was not needed. Um, wanted to come back and give the board a brief update on what happened there and answer any questions you might have. We sincerely appreciate our partners at Clackamus Service Center, Colton Helping Hands, Escade Area Food Bank, and the Sandy Community Action Center for stepping up during this period to assist individuals and households throughout Clakamus County.

All right, fantastic job. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Go ahead, Martha. Yeah. Um I was really I think it's fantastic you're able to do that and it seems to be a lot of um distribution in the rural areas. But I just wanted to mention that I got a call from Lake Asiggo while we were doing this because they also have uh hunger fighters Oregon and that is at four Monroe Parkway in Lake Asiggo and they uh they weren't aware of uh Northwest you know the services. So, I would just like to mention that I think um just because sometimes we think that there's wealth in in an area doesn't mean that necessarily there isn't food scarcity. So, I would suggest that we put um Hunger Fighters Oregon on the list and uh the Chuatin food pantry too. We have portions of Chalatin that are in there.

Both of those entities were evaluated as part of this process. Oh, good to know. Part of the rationale behind the recommendations that were made at that time was that those entities would be receiving resources from Oregon Food Bank and other partners. And the decision was made at that point to ensure that our dollars reached out to rural areas, unincorporated areas that might not have the same level of resources and philanthropic engagement that Okay. more more urban areas might.

Yeah. Yeah. And thank you for uh explaining that because I got a call from the mayor and I was like, well, I don't know. But now I can uh let him know that actually because of the urban nature oftentimes there are easier ways. I mean they have more of a coalition. So So I did notice again the emphasis on the rural areas which evidently was quite appropriate. So thanks Tony. Yeah. Thank you Tony. Any other comments? Thank you again and Gary. What do you have next for us?

Great. Thank you, Tony. Next is a potential item for consent agenda that we're bringing to you first for your review to see if you want to move forward or not. It is approval of a personal services contract with Metropolitan Public Defender for legal services to secure or maintain housing. Contract value is $465,761 for 2 years and 4 months. Funding is through Metro Supportive Housing Services Measure Funds. No county general funds are involved. Presenting is Mary Rumbar, director of health, housing and human services and beahed Brown who's division director for the housing and community development division of health housing and human services. Go ahead please.

Good morning uh Chair Roberts and commissioners again Mary Ramba H3S director. Uh so we are here in front of you today to to talk uh briefly about this contract which is a critical critical component of our newly launched housing for success program which is designed to help households transition off long-term rental assistance by increasing income and building pathways to financial self-sufficiency by pairing rental support with wraparound services such as employment assistance assistance and targeted legal resources as contemplated in this contract. we are actually able to address the underlying barriers that prevent families from stabilizing their housing and advancing economically. The specific contract with Metropolitan Public Defender will provide services to address the legal challenges that often stand in the way of securing or maintaining housing and employment opportunities, which is what we want for all of our families. So, Vheed Brown, our deputy director of HCD, does have a few more details as I know that there have been some questions about this contract.

Thank you, Mary. Bahid Brown, Housing and Community Development Division. Good morning, Chair Roberts, commissioners. Um, as Mary said, this this contract of in this suite of services is meant to be part of the menu of programming and services supporting households enrolled in the housing for success program. And that's a program aimed to um assist households in transitioning from long-term rent assistance to a shorter term supportive program that uh increases self-sufficiency and helps households grow their own income. So it it is it will be coupled with three years of rent assistance with employment services through a partnership with um children uh family and community connections to uh employ dedicated um employment specialists and mental health navigators through that division. It also will be coupled with a savings program that the housing authority will match when the household increases its income and therefore increases its contribution to the rent. Um, and these legal services are a part of this suite of services meant to assist households to achieve self-sufficiency. So, the services that Metropolitan Public Defenders would provide through this contract include eviction defense, eviction record expungement, pre-eviction dispute resolution, housing denial appeals, reasonable accommodation requests, debt negotiation, criminal record expungement, warrant resolution, and driver's license restoration. So, these are the sorts of legal services that that Metropolitan Public Defenders has a line of business in its community law department to provide support for low-income households that experience barriers to uh obtaining housing or maintaining security in their housing. Now, Metropolitan Public Defenders has um other divisions, other departments within its organization that receive funding from the state to provide representation to defendants in criminal legal proceedings. The community law department does not. The community law department of metropolitan public

defenders receives no state funding, provides no representation to criminal defendants, and whether or not they are funded through this program will have zero impact on whether criminal defendants in Clackamus County or the state of Oregon are receiving public defense. It's a separate department. It doesn't do criminal legal um issues at all and it doesn't receive any of the associated funding. Um, happy to answer any questions that commissioners have. Yeah, chair. Yes. Go ahead.

Yeah. So, um, my, and maybe we can just bring this back next week is what where I'm leaning, but my understanding on this is that, and again, maybe you have quite the shopping list of services, but my understanding that a lot of these services are currently available um, today. uh not through these folks but currently available in programs. So let's just assume for a moment that's true that my other aspect of this is that's $465,000 that would otherwise be directed towards other things that this particular services contract wouldn't uh you know whether that is you know um you know uh rent assistance or whatever may be under the SHS. So, I am I am concerned that um if there is and maybe maybe I can sit down with you and uh we can talk about some of those other sources I'm I'm aware of. Um again, it's quite the shopping list of stuff. I want to make sure that that's if there's something unique here or if there actually truly is a gap between what is available um currently um expungement and so so on things like that. My understanding is that that's available for not just people um that are on the edge of homelessness or not, but so I you have any background on that? Does that does that ring a bell?

Yes, Commissioner Savis. The there are periodic expungement clinics that are provided by different organizations in the community that um you know that do that. they're open to the public and people can come and have um kind of criminal background expuned if they have eligible charges in their background that can be expuned. Um those are are not available at kind of um at need or you know upon demand. They are at periodic intervals um in what what are called expungement clinics. Um I don't believe those are monthly right now. I think those are a quarterly basis but I could confirm that for you. Um, these are services that legal aid organizations typically do provide, but again, it's it's the ondemand and available when needed component that's that's kind of um underlying our desire to contract with an agency. So, we did solicit proposals from all uh qualified providers of legal services in the regional pool of qualified providers under SHS. Two organizations responded and we we reviewed them. Um currently in our programs, this menu of services is not um generally available to folks in the community who are enrolled in our programs who need these kinds of services on demand at no cost. They can be weight listed for them. They can wait for an expungement clinic for that narrow component of this many of services. But um we we do believe that these are services that needed to be procured um specifically for the program.

Okay. So, I appreciate that clarification. I mean, I'll I I want to just test that with what I've learned here recently. Um but I can't do that here today. And but um if this is $230,000 a year, right? 465 divided by two. Um it doesn't that's not very much money. I mean, is it is it going to make the distance or is is is that on on demand really a um uh less of a need and infrequent um versus the ongoing services that are out there today?

Yeah, this is um really specific to the folks enrolled in the housing for success program and that's not a a terribly large cohort of of of families. Um we have slots in that program budgeted for 135 households. Um, we uh went through all enrolled households in the regional long-term rent assistance program, determined who was population B. These are folks who weren't uh chronically homeless with disabling conditions at the time they received rent assistance. That was the first step. And then a separate layer of screening was done for anyone who was over 65 and disabled was excluded from consideration. So, we're looking at um households that that did not have a history of homelessness, did not have disabilities in the household, were not elderly, and had the ability to earn or increase their earned income. And that's about 110 at the moment that we're looking at enrolling. So, it would be within that subset of 135 slots of people in the program that Metropolitan Public Defenders would be dedicating their services to.

Okay. You know, I the other thing I want to just share too is that um you know, I I know of someone um who received a number of these services um from these sources, right, that I'm talking about that I learned of. And she's doing way better. I mean, she got her, you know, got her driver's license. She's got her got her record expuned. So, she's doing really well. So, I know those services are out there. Um and again if there can be more dollars uh you know that go towards both population A and B for other services you know I just kind of wonder if there's how much duplicative aspect of this there is and I understand on call piece so I appreciate that bit of information um and um do we have a a means of gauging that? I mean let's just say they're all I mean are they is it are they available all the time or are they just have just as long a waiting list as anyone else? Do we know?

It's a good question, Commissioner Savis. I don't know off the top of my head. Um, but from the, you know, the the team that put together the House of Group success program, um, it was not deemed this was available enough in the community that we would be able to provide the the specific support to these households to address these barriers in a timely fashion. So the the rent assistance is not longived and there's a there's a three-year time frame to really provide dedicated support to these households to achieve self-sufficiency. That's the goal. Um legal services on a contract basis for folks who are experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness are typical. They're they're they typically are contracted for in our industry so to speak in the homelessness response systems. Metropolitan public defenders contracts with Multma County. Um other the Oregon Law Center has contracted with us in the past. They contract with Mulnoma and Washington County. Um Legal Aid Services of Oregon often provides similar suites of of programming. Um but in order for folks enrolled in our systems to access those services, typically it is through a contract basis. They aren't publicly available at the scale of need. Okay. Appreciate your good work and chair U board. I just asked for, you know, maybe give me a little bit more time to chase this down. Again, you know, I know that my my worry, I'll just tell you had a lengthy conversation is that uh, you know, I think we're all concerned that um, will the voters or not renew the SHS supportive services and if not then, you know, we're facing some cliffs and this would just be another cliff. And that is exactly why the hazard for success program was was um was designed was to get ahead of that cliff and to to really bend the cost curve on these long-term programs.

Always appreciate appreciate you. Thank you Martha. Yeah, I had a question. Um who who was the workforce uh component again? It was community and children, family and community uh connections connections. So, so our own division under H3SC, CFCC. Okay. So, so how are you managing then that workforce piece? Are you getting people into the community college? Are you assessing what training they need? Are you working with Work Source Oregon, which is our, you know, our kind of hub here for that. So, that's what they would be doing is helping to coordinate with all those other all the above.

Really? Okay, great. That's all. And that's an internal function too. Okay. I just wanted to know where the workforce connection was going to be. Thank you. Um, Commissioner H. Yeah, thank you for the presentation, Bahid. Um, the, um, do the other counties regionally contribute to this fund as well? Um, the the housing for so the the metropolitan public defender. Yes. Metropolitan Public Defender does contract with Multma Countyy's homelessness services department, Washington County, too. I don't know.

Okay. Interesting. Okay. Um, and then just for my own, you know, help here, housing for success, is that a regional or is that Clakamus County only? That's a Clackamus County. That's our own program. Correct. Yes. And then to follow up with what Martha was talking about workforce um which kind of really has nothing to do with what we're talking about here, but um just because I hear the jobs reports on a very regular basis. Are is there a difficulty in placing people in jobs with the lack of jobs that are available out there or are we running into kind of like a brick wall? That's a good question. I I don't have kind of the data I know. Yeah. Yeah. To answer that question. It's a different topic, but I would be curious in a in a future meeting to know those numbers.

I would like to see a and I would say exactly what we're trying to address is what actually before whether there's a job available or not, commissioner, if you don't have a driver's license, you're not getting a job. You're going to get a job. Exactly. If you have a criminal background that we can't expunge, you're likely not getting a job. And so, we are not going to advance these individuals who can actually contribute to this community if we're not breaking down these barriers. Okay. Okay. Cool. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments? Chair, I don't I don't know if we need a motion, but can we bring this back? Just give me a little bit more time to do some research on this. I mean, it sounds I I think there's been a good case here made. I just want to just double back.

Yeah. Is that looking for my colleagues? I don't think we need a vote, but can we get a head nod? It's all right to Yeah. Well, I'm I'm fine to put it on the agenda for Thursday. I don't I don't uh the fact that this is also your only this is the on call as you say the on call needs it's not a ton of money but it's very necessary money um to get upstream of the problems. So I I don't know what other information are you looking for? I just got to sit down and okay and and meet with that. I'm not sure I can get that done by Thursday but I can get it done by Tuesday. Okay.

Pretty confident about that. But those services, one of my my point is those services are out there today, right? And my the person I know that I just mentioned who's been successful with that. But as Vahed's arguing here, um, that this is more has more of an on call element to it. And I'm hoping to hear if there is any backlog currently. So if it truly is on call, let's just say the waiting list is the same, then it's it's it's all it is is an expense. It's not necessarily a solution. If the waiting list is the same, right? Well, this would be for dedicated staff for this program. So, these would um this this contract would would fund, just to answer that question, it wouldn't fund access to their weight list. It would fund dedicated capacity to enroll our households in these legal services.

Okay. So, what you're saying is that they're going to hire an FTE to do this, yes, the packet, I believe, has that information in the budget. Um, but I don't have that in front of me, Commissioner Savis. Okay. Yeah. I I just appreciate a little bit more time to to hammer this out. Martha, well, if you can get it done by Tuesday, um, next week, then it would be on the following Thursday. Is that going to hold you guys up to the point where it' be I mean, I'm looking at your faces. There's no business meeting next week. So, this will be April 2nd,

right? We're pushing not to next week. I I think we ought to move ahead then. Okay. I'm sorry, Paul, but I I think I think we got to get the answers to the questions, but we can always revisit. But at least now, let's just Why don't we just move forward? You can just stay up till midnight and read now. Yeah. Well, it's not me. It's my source. Oh, okay. All right. Yeah. So, it sounds like we have a probably a consensus to go ahead and uh put it on the agenda. Got it. All right. Thank you. And we will follow up, Commissioners. We'll follow up with everyone with some of these answers as well. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Gary, what do you have?

Okay. Thank you. Next is another item that is on your agenda for this Thursday. It is to prep you for that. It is approval of a boundary change proposal for the annexation of the city of Gladstone to Clackamus County Fire District number one. There are no county general funds involved. Jeff Muns, assistant county council, will present. Go ahead.

Yes, thank you and good morning. This is uh one of the more unusual boundary changes that you'll see. Normally, it's an annexation of a property owner coming into a district. This is one where Clackamus Fire District is annexing the entire city of Gladstone. And that process is initiated by the city itself and voting to approve that and put it on the ballot. And that was on the ballot last fall and November and was approved by the city. And then the city after they certified the results and passed another resolution to approve the annexation into the fire district, the fire district board took it up and approved that and then got it to us which then puts it on your agenda to review and approve. I'll also note that this one has a rather short timeline because we have to if we approve it on Thursday, we have to get it to Department of Revenue and get the map and uh legal description approved by March 31st so that the fire district can assess the area within the city of Gladstone starting on July 1st. So, we got um we got it in just the nick of time, I guess we could say, and put on your agenda for this annexation. Um happy to answer any questions you have about the process or your role in the review.

Right. Any questions? hearing none. It looks like you have your direction. All right. And uh thank you very much, Mr. Muns. Gary,

thank you. Next is budget committee applicant interviews. So, commissioners, as you know, uh Jan Lee resigned from the budget committee. There's an open recruitment to fill the remainder of her term. That recruitment is still open through today. So, if anyone wants to apply, you have until today. Up till today. Up till now, there are four applicants so far for the position. But again, the position closes today. This is an committee that you would like to interview the candidates before you make a final decision. So today, I'd like to ask which one of you would like to interview the candidates for the open budget committee position after it closes today. There are at least four candidates, and I ask not more than two of you so we don't have a quorum.

Uh chair, this is uh something I've always taken a keen interest in. I think uh no no no doubt here probably no argument that there's probably nothing more important than um the budget that we face and the challenges we face. And so I I I put um a high level of interest in this um to make sure we pick the the person that can bring the most to this uh to the budget committee. So I would like to be one of those people to do the interview. All right. Does anybody else have an interest in when are the uh interviews taking place? Gary, we will make them work to that fits your calendar over the next few weeks.

I'd be happy to do it if uh if you need another volunteer. We just have really busy schedules coming up. So, all right. So, Commissioner Helman, Commissioner Savis. Yep. Okay, great.

Uh, no motion needed. I will note that and we'll work on your calendars after it closes today to schedule those interviews. Thank you. Uh, next is review of your board business meeting agenda for this Thursday, March 19, 2026. You will have public communication, a presentation from county clerk McMullen on an update of the May 19, 2026 primary election informationational presentation, a public hearing on the city of Gladstone annexation to Clackamus Fire District as you just heard, uh, a consent agenda for the board of county commissioners. And that is it. If you have any question on these items, if you'd please let me know prior to Thursday and I will answer it for you or have staff in the room to answer it for you. As I mentioned, there's no business meeting next week because the board is on recess. So, this will be your last meeting for the month of March.

Uh, thank you. Uh, the last item today is Commissioner Communications. All right. And it looks like we're also going to be back here at 1:30 for policy sessions. Correct. Absolutely. Uh, so Commissioner Communication, um, Commissioner Shrader.

Well, let's just say happy St. Patrick's Day. I have a little Irish in me, you know, as well as the Italians. So, uh, I remember my dad always used to wear his shamrock and his Aaron go bra, you know, go Ireland and pin every Yeah. St. Patrick's Day. So, I hope you all have a chance to get some real authentic fish and chips tonight and raise a pint of Guinness, you know, if you really want to do it. I think there's going to be celebrations. Um, one of the things that I've been newly appointed to is is all issues concerning garbage collection. Okay. on the metro on the metro committee, which is turning out to be more fascinating than I originally thought

because one of the conversations I was talking to one of the lobbyists the other night from the haulers and evidently our friends at Metro are thinking about actually maybe taking some of those transfer stations inhouse and having it rather than contracting out with people who

uh you know who are in the business and know how to you know and have done it and have structured that uh that has been part of the discussions and I don't know how you uh colleagues you feel about it but to me that just kind of seems like scope creep so I'm a little worried about that because you know uh Metro's expertise was the zoo uh you know contracting out for for garbage you know renew renewal and then of course it morphed into land use um transportation, you know, have been key for years and then housing. So, I worry a little bit that I although I I think a regional approach is actually a good idea uh in many multiple ways, I do worry a little bit about scope treat creep and the level of expertise that would have to be built up in the organization in order to do that. So, uh, with your permission, I'm going to basically say, "Hey, I don't really think that's a I don't really think that's a good idea at this point." So, uh, that's the news I have there. All things U Metro. And, um, that's about it for the day.

You know, I'm going to be meeting with the fair board actually coming up, too. So, see how they're doing. So, all right. Thank you, Martha. Okay,

Commissioner Savis. I I'll just build a little bit on what uh Commissioner Schrader just raised. Um you know, in my in my business experience, I never really took on much more until I really had the I'll say the machinery infrastructure hammered down to where I was doing a great job and I had the capacity to take on more and I had a track record of, you know, maintaining what I was the the base of my work. Um that I could do it do it well. And I think that right now um not critical of my colleagues at Metro um as much as I am looking at the state the status right now of some of the challenges we face which are pretty severe um challenges such as this housing crisis which you know obviously you know appreciate Metro's involvement in the SHS um our transportation crisis which is not getting any better whether you look at I don't care what mode you look at most especially surface transportation and transit uh transit in particular that's that we're not doing so good on. So I I wonder if we are too spread out um to do what we are charged with doing before tackling or taking on other aspects of it. So I think we need to prioritize um if I was you know maybe if I was sitting at the dis at Metro Council I would say gez I think what's our core mission um you know how we doing um and if we're not doing so well what it's going to take to get there and focus on those and then lower priority issues you know maybe they can be tackled at some point in the future but um you know you mentioned scope creek or mission creep um to me I think it's spreading ourselves too thin is the argument I would make. That'd be my nuance to that. Um I appreciate competition. Um and I think competition is valuable and uh if you take away competition then you you we put ourselves in a situation where the public has uh no no alternatives and uh

right now households are struggling. I don't want to add to that. I'm I'm understanding that PGE here pretty soon is going to be announcing new rate increases. I think we're all like in a panic mode. Um I just don't want to see anything that adds to that um and adds to the uncertainty um of uh of that. And I I did meet with you know a number of the people several months ago, a couple months ago um on the on the uh on the hauler side of the world uh realizing the challenges they're facing. I know we have uh a future um rate request that'll be be in front of us and we'll be tackling that. Um, I'm sure the economics probably have a greater calling for an adjustment than they we did last year, but I I think it's very clear that households are having a hard time and um I you know that's the topic that everywhere I go that's all I hear right now is how many people are are fiscally at that edge where they're just trying to hang on to what they got. and we need to think differently and make sure that we're working hard to keep um uh affordability uh right front and center into everything that we do and everything we we uh advocate for. So, I'll leave it there and yield back. Sure.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. Yeah. I uh Happy St. Patrick's Day. I have a lot of Irish in me. Yeah, I think I'm I'm at 30 some percent every time I get a new uh uh what is it? the DNA thing you send in. They they they think I have more than that in me. But anyway, um and I don't own green, so there you go. Oh, yeah. I am in the spirit, though. Um back to the metro thing. I I don't envy your conversation at the table. No. And I think one of the things that I hear most um just from our constituents is is sometimes the private sector does things better than Yes.

government. And um I you know I understand there's probably reasoning there with Metro um but uh in the best interest of taxpayer dollars sometimes the private sector really does um a better job and um uh we can hold them accountable and it's there's there's just I think there's cost savings involved by that competition by taking it out for bids and stuff. So, um, yeah, I don't I don't envy you having to sit there and have that conversation, but I think it's also a little bit fascinating. Um, other than that, um, I don't think I have anything else, chair, so I'll yield back.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Helm. Just a couple quick things. the um uh yesterday sat down with county administrator and we had a number of uh department directors present their budget and uh just uh a big thanks to all the department directors that showed up and elected officials that uh helped present their budget. And I think that um kind of following up on a little bit what Commissioner Savis has said, you know, this is challenging and I think one of the highlights too as we're kind of hearing on these budget presentations is just just alone that 7 to 10.5% increase in PGE. Um we have a lot of usage of power across this county and uh county buildings that do impact us. So anyway, just I know a lot of people put a lot of time and preparation in that even before the meeting and I had a great uh organized notebook and could flip through. We actually did it in kind of a record time I thought. So that's because of all the preparation uh in getting ready for that. So wanted wanted to thank you for that. And also um just a a reminder for folks, the public safety levy is going to be on the on the May ballot. And again, it's um it's a a renewal with basically keeping the same staff that we have. And um it is it is a slight increase and it's just for those same kind of reasons I talked about the the power and um and so uh want to remind folks that will be on the ballot. And then my very last thing and I'm very excited to kind of do this today and I don't know if we can get the cameras to shift to uh Andrew over here. Uh, but this is Mr. Irish. St. Patrick's Day. Uh, there he is. Look at that. I love the guy. He is. You You

make me stand up. I know. Come on, show everybody. He's I love this guy. I mean, look at him. Irish. He is just our star. He comes in and I'm sorry, Andrew. I just I very much enjoy working with you. You're you're so amazing. You You buzz through topics so fast and and he is a classy dresser. So, um, with that, I'm, uh, sorry to put you on the spot. I'll apologize for that now, but, uh, we'll go ahead and adjourn and we're going to be back here at 1:30. Thanks so much.

Okay. Okay. Uh, good afternoon everyone and welcome back to our afternoon session on the board of county commissioners. Uh, it's March 17, 2026. County Administrator Gary Schmidt, would you please call the role? Yes, thank you, Chair. Commissioner West will be here shortly, but is not here yet. Roll call. Commissioner Schrader, here. Commissioner Helm, here. Commissioner Savis, present. Chair Roberts, here. All right, Gary, you want to introduce our first item for us? Yes. Thank you. The first session today is commercial property assessed clean energy program or CPACE. This is a follow-up to prior actions and decisions you have made. Presenting is Dan Johnson, director of transportation and development and Laura Edmunds, economic development manager. Go ahead, please.

Great. Thank you so much, Chair Roberts, Commission. We are here to do a followup um to you from prior discussions we had about CPACE. Um essentially a financing tool um the board has given us direction to look at try to implement as uh quickly as possible. So, we are reporting back to you um from our prior discussion to kind of share conceptually what we are envisioning this program will look like. Um and to admit to you there's a couple things we've kind of got to get resolution. We're working with our partners to get some resolution on that we'll uh speak to briefly um and then come forward to you uh with a public hearing should the board direct us to to adopt the program. So, with that, I'm going to turn it over to Laura Edmonds to kind of run through the materials before you today and then we'll answer any questions you might have. Okay. Um, so thank you, Laura Edmonds, Office of Economic Development Man, uh, manager. So, what we have before you, and I just want to kind of, um, go over on January 13th, 2026, if you recall, you directed staff to, and I'm going to kind of tap into what Dan said. Um, directed staff to investigate a little bit further, CPACE, and what it would look like to be able to stand up our own program. So in doing that we um wanted to make sure that we just kind of cap captured again the the reason and the basis for doing it is to assist owners of qualifying real property and financing cost-effective efficiency improvements and seismic rehabilitation known as the CPACE program. Um, in addition to helping property owners, the program provides a broadened opportunity for capital providers meeting Oregon requirements to do business in the state. Um, the supace program specifics are determined by establish the establishing jurisdiction, you board of county commissioners, in this case county. Um, and the program can vary with fees collected, deadlines for

application review, stringency of improvement efficiencies that are required, and lean enforcement methodology. Um, so you can determine the program specifics in the areas to be compliant with the Oregon Revised Statute authorizing the CPACE program. But what we're bringing forward to you today is the recommendations based on staff's um, uh, research on some best practices that we can adopt in our program. So what we're recommending are to designate the DTD office of economic development program as the administrators of the CPACE program. Adopt an ordinance amending the county code to include CPACE and holding public required public hearings. Direct office of economic development to send advanced notices required by statute to all utilities in the county providing electricity, natural gas, and water before the program or ordinance are adopted. and then direct staff to finalize the county process for collection for closures as if a local improvement district and then memor memorialize um in the CPACE some distinct business terms that award um parameters in the affformentioned materials. So we are recommending a 1% fee capped at $75,000 due due to the office of economic development upon funding of improvements by the capital provider. the lean collection as if it's a local improvement district. Only taxes are superior to the lean. Um foreclosure fee and time and materials charges to the um capital provider if properties are foreclosed upon and no county deadline for application approval and no conditional approval. All required applicant documents must be complete upon submittal by the capital provider and then the owner and capital provider to selfattest improvements covered by

capital comply with Oregon law. So with that said that's that's pretty much some of the basics and I will answer questions when you're ready. So legal policy requirements are being completed in coordination with the um with county council who has drafted the required documents for the CPACE program and advised on the will advise on the public hearing process. All CPACE program elements will comply with OS um public and government participation. This is what's still being determined through our processes. Could be um assessment and taxation, county treasur, or a combination of both. And then so the options today, do we want to cover the options? Yep. Okay.

Yeah. Actually, real quick, real quick, just to run you through the materials just so we have more a little more information.

Attachment A is basically the statutory requirements that require um not require that allow um for certain jurisdictions to adopt these programs. These programs for anyone to use them. Um a number of the initial inquiries we've got are from our city partners that are looking for um possible CPACE financing for projects in their jurisdiction. Um the the method and or the tool is um predicated and or bound and supported through the power um that the public has through our assessment and taxation program. And so the county has to adopt the program for the cities to be able to use it. I say use it for for projects within cities to be able to use it. we've got to adopt the program. They've got to go through the program to the county. Um, so you see this the uh state statute requirements for attachment A. Attachment B would be what would be adopted, which is changes to county code, which would adopt this program into the county code. Um, we've worked uh Caleb's done some great work um with county council to kind of review all this and draft all of this. There are a couple of things in there that we're trying to refine and I just want to bring them to your attention. So, for example, um there's references to the treasurer. Let me back up that um a lot of it is predicated off local improvement district leans and levies. And so, those lean collections are just I don't want to get into the details, but there's a method in which the lean is established. And what we are um continuing to try to research and just dive a little deeper into is essentially the foreclosure. It's risk assessment like the um to make sure that we're reducing our risk and the work we have to do to collect on these um to the most um to to limit that risk and exposure going forward and in in all honesty the work that has to be done by our partners um namely our partners at assessment and taxation um and also uh both treasur's office. So, why we give you this

information right now, some of the terms, and we'll highlight it to you if we bring it back and the board directs us to, but some of these terms in this uh may change a little bit because we may not need the power of the clerk. Um, we may be looking at possibly hiring like a third party provider or collector that may um be able to reduce some of the requirements of assessment and taxation as well. So, just sharing that. Um, but there are three options before you today. Um, but fundamentally and most importantly, we want to share kind of the concepts around the program that we were looking to develop. Um, this has been a fast time. I'm going to be honest, it's been a fast timeline. There are things we don't know. I mean, there's things that we know, but we think we know, but we want to make sure we know before we adopt anything or put anything in front of you for adoption at a public hearing. But for the most part, we're pretty confident in what we've seen to date. Uh, there doesn't appear to be a lot of risk. There just some refinements that we've got to do regarding a couple of small things. So, with that, um, you see the options that are before you today and the recommendation from staff. We'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Helm. That was a question or comment. Yeah. Uh, comment number one, thank you for putting this on the fast track. I know that we pressed and we appreciate it uh based on the requests from the cities um that would like to implement this program. Will you go back up to page two, Andrew? I just just want to clarify um under the memorial memorialize CPACE um distinct business terms. So no county deadline for application approval. Will you explain that to me? Sure.

You good? Okay. So yeah, be happy to. So basically um some other programs um have specified a response deadline by county staff um and some do it as in short as short as 10 days in which to respond to an application process and lean

um submittal. And we are not proposing a deadline such as that because it will bind numerous departments and it will cause conflict with existing programs that will have to be stopped entirely in order to meet such a stringent deadline. So we are recommending no deadline that we but we still will respond in a very professional manner and as quickly as possible in a reasonable amount of time. Right. I I I don't that that language I almost think needs to be added because it almost looks as if we could sit on it for as long as we want, right? We'll get back to you in a couple years. Um

that that was concerned. And then the same with the no conditional approval. Same kind of thing where you've seen that language in other bodies and you want to make sure that there's it's not hanging us up. Correct. Correct. the if let's say and one of the examples I can give you is if the lender or the capital provider doesn't have a fully executed mortgage holder consent because the mortgage holder is going to have to take a second right position so to the CPACE um lender and so without that consent it can we could do all this leg work and all this work for nothing if they don't get it right

and and I none of us want to process something that's not fully baked, right? So, the intent is to not to approve and to work on this until they have all their paperwork in place. Number one, and number two, some of the, as you see in a lot of like the land use decisions that we do, if it's theoretically feasible, we approve it with conditions of approval.

We don't want to get into that game. You give us the materials. If the materials are right and you've got the materials, we'll take a look at it, get it turned around as timely as possible. Okay. I also want to highlight um you know a lot again a lot of these improvements these qualified improvements this is not like a full funding kind of discussion this is um stacking capital for projects and so um these qualifying improvements kind of fall into two categories one of which is um like energy efficiency and seismic are kind of the primary areas that fall into we didn't do any um higher than current code like efficiency standards and some juris jurisdictions have and we didn't do that because our in all honesty, you know, our energy efficiency standards for the state are very high,

right? Um but you it's kind of a low barrier kind of access to this program and this plan. You've see not all programs have done that, but some have. I think for example, city of Portland one has a little bit higher 5% increase on the efficiency. Yeah. Um but others don't and so we just kind of kept a barrier pretty standard and pretty simple. So Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Savas. So um I do know that we would have a bite from a city in Clacamus County for something like this and also one in the unincorporated area. So it it's it's doesn't need to need need a city for cooperation, right? I mean it can happen unincorporated is my point.

But knowing sometimes that there's misunderstandings. Um what if uh what if there is a a project owner property owner who wants to implement something like this in a city that doesn't want to do it where the city is saying I don't want to be involved. I mean is that I mean I don't I'm trying to understand the inner workings as far as you know because you know we had a program here recently. I won't, you know, I not going to go there as far as what, you know, whatnot. But I I think sometimes that when it comes to taxes, if one mistake can lead to, you know, a compounding problem that was not intended and so I just didn't know if there was an opt-in, opt out, or is this literally case by case?

Um, we currently currently the plan has no optin or opt out components. It also has no impact on the taxes collected by that particular city. Um it it is not foregoing tax. It is not waving, adjusting, modifying. Um I believe in that other set of circumstances you were having, there was some tax reductions that impacted the city that were in that weren't intentional. Um and this this does not adjust tax rates. It does not u promote tax abatement. Um so but yes, to the heart of your question, it does not require concurrence from the city currently, a city currently.

Okay. I I just want to make sure that that's somehow in moving forward we at least message that that um that and again I just want just one clarifying question I want to just put right back at you is that if there's a project owner in a city um can that project owner um move forward with CPACE strictly through our our department without the city's cooperation or authorization. Okay. Y as currently structured. Yeah,

so just for clarity sake there again Dan already alluded to it. This doesn't affect property taxes. What this does is it provides a less expensive lending mechanism for the specific right um energy and seismic improvements. So it's cheaper funding for the capital project and that's all it is. It's for them to be able to access at a lower rate, you know, f four 8% instead of 11 as an example. And so it's cheaper funding that adds to the value of the construction project or redevelopment project. So it'll actually if all else fails, it actually potentially could improve the value of the property within those limits.

And I don't think there's anything that's limiting the board county commissioners from saying we want to add that. I was about to say that you have interest in that. We can add that as a requirement. That was going to be my comment. We could put language in there that makes sure that we engage the local jurisdiction. I mean, that's very simple. We have heard loud and clear that local jurisdictions have been left out of the conversations when it comes to things like this that are administered by us. So, I Yeah, I think that's an an easy ask.

Yeah. And the reason I really bring that up is that you're citing here a couple times as if a local improvement district, right? And I know that's different than urban rene urban renewal district, which is even more complex, right? So I just again sometimes it's confusing and people can I think sometimes their fears jump in as opposed to reality and so I don't know what other kind of language we can add that is educational to this so that people know.

Yeah it's um and I'm um we have tax professionals in the room which I am most definitely not. Um, but I guess just so you know, I mean the nuance around the the LI is the um the positioning regarding the lending and the extinguishability um and the risk associated that. And I think the L the term LI was used to kind of describe that type of lean um and the and the value of that type of lean because it has um um it's it's sturdier than other leans that are put on properties. So, but yeah, it is an independent separate component of our LIS that we run for public projects. You're you're totally correct. Yeah.

Okay. And maybe one more last thing. I just think about it just for the record. Um this would not impair any ability for the city to not collect taxes it would otherwise. Right? They're going to receive the same, you know, the investments made. They're going to get an assessed value increase. There's nothing that impairs the city's ability or the the collection. Um there's no abatement of any tax to any city and or taxing district. Yep. That's what I was after. Thank you. Okay.

All right. Um one comment first of all, uh Laurel and Dan, thank you so much. I know this has been on the fast track. It's like we keep adding things to your plate, so I know you're aware of that. Um, but I want to uh say thanks um council and everybody that has kind of stepped up to help us move this kind of on the fast track. I know that um in some of our conversations, I think you had mentioned, correct me if I'm wrong, but Washington County had started down this path? I mean uh have they had any challenges or any lessons learned from what they've done? He's smiling. I would love to. Let me take this. I'm always want to take advantage of lessons learned, right?

So, lessons learned. Um, Washington County after they took two years to stand up their program over in reality, they only just saw some program or projects come to fruition in the last year. So, they haven't had any major pitfalls. Dashes County, we've spoken to them. They recently had a CPACE program for a biotech um firm. It was substantial, but um what ended up happening because the 10-day limitation on response, they had to drop everything else they were doing in order to meet that deadline. They did it,

but it was a lot. It was a very um arguent period of time for their agency to be able to fulfill that that deadline. So, that was one of their lessons learned. And then um and honestly I think some of the others they've they and that's why also when I look at Dashuites County so M uh Mid Columbia Economic Development District works they're the administrator for Sherman Wasco a number of counties um and no before I'm asked they can't be our administrator because they're geographically bound just just being preemptive. So, um, but what they've learned is that that not being provided the entirety of the packet in advance before they started working on the lean, uh, the deal fell through and they ended up spending hours in yes in and the setup and arrangements to be able to accommodate the lean in their short period of that deadline

and it ended up not coming to fruition. So that's yeah there have been a lot of lessons learned. It's also the lean type is a lesson that we've learned. We've been talking collectively ourself um Steve from office of economic development and others meeting with these folks um getting up to speed on the program. All all those discussions have kind of led to the dialogue that you see here today. Um I mean it is we are trying to make it as flexible and viable as possible. um not creating any additional headaches or limitations or objectives, but ensuring we're reducing our risk um as much as we can. So, yeah, great job on uh researching and talking to those folks. I want to thank you. Commissioner West had a comment.

Um thank you, Chair. We've been learning about this quickly as it has been presented to us and we had business leaders and developers here in the metro area come and meet with us and say we need all the tools we can get to have um perform a work and to make sure that we can continue to develop and build. I think this is super creative and interesting tool and we're trying to be innovative and responsive to our business community here in Clackamus County. Um it's and please correct me if I'm wrong. Guess it says here on the in the packet that it has an estimated cost not much but 75,000 per year on average. Um am I So my question is is there not an administrative fee that we charge um or maybe I walked in late you guys already talked about

that's a request from um individuals to put a dollar amount there. I can't tell you how much it's going to cost. Okay. I mean I'm I'm going to look at you right now and say you know what if we've got somebody that comes in for funding over a certain amount of money it's 1% it's a 1% point on the total cost. That's kind of what I thought about worst case scenario. Um, but it may be a wash too, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, it's gonna depend on the loan amount and the lending amount, but if we can help produce more commercial and economic development and then that in the long run is really good for um, Clackmus County in the region. I mean, I think overall we actually are a net positive on this base.

Um, I think it's great because it really deals with the cash flow needs that that industry and businesses are seeing right now that lowers that upfront cost. that's a big deal and improves property value and cash flow. Um, gives them like certainty and fixed rate financing and a number of other benefits that they're needing to be able to make these investments that they've had trouble to do, not just in the Portland area, but in the state as a whole. Um, so I think that this is creative. I support it. I'm glad that hey, thanks for being so responsive to get this. This has moved really fast, but the board has wanted to jump on this and be responsive and so thank you for that. Totally recognize it. all hands on deck to address this issue in the Portland metro. Maybe this will make us not 80th out of 81 of real estate investing attractiveness. We're trying to we're trying to do better and so uh thank you for that. I appreciate it. And um I think we actually might end up on top here and maybe not even have any costs. So, uh I think that's good.

All right. Well, may I have a motion by someone? I move to direct staff to schedule a public hearing for adoption of an ordinance amending county code to implement the CPACE program as proposed. Second. All right. Uh, Commissioner Trader has moved to direct staff to schedule a public hearing for adoption of an ordinance amending county code to implement the CPACE program as proposed. Commissioner Helman seconded that. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk, would you please call the poll? Commissioner Savis, I. Commissioner West, I. Commissioner Shrader, I. Commissioner Helm, I. Mr. Chair, I.

Motion passes five to zero. Mr. Chair, and Gary, what do you got?

Thank you. The next policy session is file ZDO-290, clear and objective standards. Presenting is Dan Johnson again, director of transportation and development, and Jennifer Hughes, the planning division director. Go ahead, please. unfunded mandate. Just going to say that out right now and be done with it because it works so well for um for our partners in crime last time you were here. So, um hey, we are here and we thank you for the time today. We um this is a land use topic. Um it's an amendment to our code. Um it is we apologize for how complex it is um because it is going to do kind of a deeper dive into a variety of different topics and um we're just happy to be here to answer any questions you might have. We um Jennifer has done a Miss Hughes, our plan director, has done an amazing job kind of writing the staff report to make it as clear and concise as we can make it. Um and then we we do have a PowerPoint and the PowerPoint is to try to assist kind of going through this decision-making process. Um kind of we're going to take a couple seconds for Jennifer to kind of run through it, kind of highlight the why are we here, what needs to happen, and then roll through kind of the questions that we have for you and the direction we're looking for from the board. So with that, Jennifer. Good afternoon. I'm Jennifer Hughes and I'm the uh planning director in planning and zoning. And you run the slides. Is that right? Thank you. So, we're here to talk to you today about file ZDO-290, which has the really short title clear and objective standards for implementation of statewide planning goals 5, six, 7, and 15. Next slide, please. Oh, you've already got it. He's ahead of me. Um, so for starters, why why are we doing this? Why is this project necessary? Um, it's been kind of percolating out there for a while. So, some of you who've been on the board for a while may kind of remember hearing about this on previous long-range planning work programs. There was some hope at one time that maybe some legislation would save us from this. Um, that did not happen. So, um, we are at the point now where we really um have to do something about our code.

Uh, so why is it necessary? It's necessary because state law requires that standards that are applied to housing development be clear and objective. Okay. So what does that mean? Um generally to be clear it means that it's if it's clear it's easily understood. So that's kind of the first thing and then sort of what does it mean to be objective? It means that we cannot be applying subjective value laden analysis to our criteria. So for example if somebody is building a multif family complex we can't have a standard that says the development shall be consistent with the character of the neighborhood because we don't know what consistent means. We don't know what character means. we don't even know what the neighborhood is. So it and you can get pretty far down the rabbit hole with these things. Our definitions have to be clear and objective. Often you need to have maps. If you are measuring something, you need to know where you're starting and ending that measurement. Um so it can get um pretty far into the weeds in terms of figuring out how we do this. Our code is clearly not compliant with that requirement currently. I'm not saying every standard we have is um is non-compliant, but we have a lot of things that are still subjective that apply to housing, technically apply to housing. We're not able to actually apply them at this point. So, that's that's the reason. Um we're doing it because we have to to comply with the law. So, why can't we simply repeal the non-compliant regulations, right? That would be the easiest thing. We'll just go in, we'll just repeal everything that's um subjective. And there's two reasons for that. Uh policy reasons. So, first of all, there are some good reasons why some of these regulations were adopted over the years or at least boards before you over the last 60 years or so thought there were some good reasons to do uh to do some of these things to regulate things for environmental protection or aesthetics or quality of life, infrastructure, um all those things. And then there are legal reasons, which is that just because our standards have to be clear

and objective doesn't mean we're um we're not required to comply with statewide planning goals. We are. So if we were to simply repeal, for instance, our statewide planning goal 5 regulations for streams, we would then be non-compliant with statewide planning goal 5. So we have to strike a balance in terms of how we clean up the code without uh putting ourselves out of compliance with state law. So where are we um in this project in this zoning code update process? Uh, and I guess I would say I still feel like we're kind of early in it, although uh, we have been working on this for some months with a consultant, but what's been happening so far has really been what I would describe as preparatory. So, um, the Department of Land Conservation and Development has funded a consultant to assist the county with this. So, there's a little funding for this mandate. It's not enough funding, but there's some. Uh, and so the consultants have gone through our code for these specific areas, which we'll talk more about. um and they have identified the provisions that are problematic that are not clear and objective. They have suggested some things that we could consider to make them clear and objective. We've talked to the planning commission a couple of times about their thoughts. We have not yet done public outreach. That will happen. We have barely begun drafting code amendments. The consultants have started on some that we didn't need immediate feedback from you on. Uh so this is going to be playing out for about the next year we would anticipate um and ultimately would culminate in public hearings before the planning commission and and you uh before of course the code were to be amended. So this is the first time you're hearing from me in detail on in detail on this but it certainly will not be the last. So policy questions, you know, why why are we coming to you today? In order for the consultants to move forward with the next phase of draft amendments to the code, there really are some what I view

as significant policy questions that we need to get some input from you on. The reason for that is because, as I said, it's sort of you say clear and objective, you think, oh, that's sort of deceptively simple. It's it's really not. And when we go into our code and realize that some of our regulations are decades old, relying on maps that are decades old, you can imagine the sort of sometimes we're not even sure what the standards were supposed to mean in the first place. I mean, we've been applying them, but does anybody really know uh and the mapping in some cases are adopted maps are paper or maybe laminated paper rolled up in the corner of a room over in planning. um which isn't particularly modern in today's world in terms of how we are, you know, used to thinking about um about the resources that are available to people when they want to figure out what's on their property and what's being regulated. But every decision we make has the potential to regulate more people or to regulate them differently to provide more protection or less protection for various environmental resources or uh hazard areas. And so it creates a lot of complexity like Dan said. So, what we want to talk to you about today specifically um are four questions. I'm going to give them all to you first and then we'll walk through them one at a time. Should the county update the regulatory maps of streams and wetlands? Should the county update the regulatory maps of mass movement hazards? Should the county adopt regulatory maps of fire hazard areas? And should the county implement clear and objective upland tree protection regulations in the urban area? So, really easy questions today. I think, you know, Dan and I kind of talked about this. I feel like it might work best to talk about these one at a time. Um, but that is absolutely at your discretion. Uh, Mr. Chair, if you would like to take it that way. We're happy to do it that way or I can run through the whole presentation all at once.

Um, Gary, what do you think? It's a lot to cover. You want one at a one at a time? Yeah. One at a time. One at a time is my suggestion. All right. So let's maybe start with the streams and wetlands.

Okay. So I mentioned um the long title for this project. So statewide planning goals 5, six, 7, and 15 uh to summarize uh cover for the most part environmental uh environmentally protected areas and um areas that are prone to natural hazards. So um it's streams, wetlands, steep slopes, landslides, wildfire hazard areas, flood planes. Uh we're not covering flood plane today, but that is covered by goal seven, the Wammer River Greenway, water quality. So all of those pieces are encapsulated in those in those four goals. We regulate streams and wetlands um in a couple of different ways. We regulate them for water quality and then we regulate them for um habitat, fish, fish and wildlife habitat. So there are two different ways that we do that um which is part of the reason this is so complicated. We have different standards in the urban area than we have in the rural area. But the bottom line is the mapping that exists is in the rural area out of date with regard to the sort of current version of the streams of the stream maps. We have maps we adopted in the 1990s and since then the state has updated those. They have better information about where fish are, where fish can actually go in these streams, you know, removal of barriers to fish passage, that kind of thing. So, there are more modern updated maps we could update. Uh, excuse me, we could adopt in the urban area. The mapping is better. Um, it was it's more recent. It was done by Metro. It's not perfect. Uh, but there are ways for the public to sort of navigate that if we have something mapped that shouldn't be. Um, but there are also there's also text in our code that regulates for water quality purposes with no maps. So, it's just simply if it happens that there's a water feature out there on your site, you're required to meet these highly discretionary standards that they're definitely not clear and objective. So,

essentially, we're at the point now where we're trying to figure out, okay, what's the minimum we have to do? And then what are the other options available to you? The minimum requirement that we think is we have to repeal the discretionary standards. It's clear that we're not able to apply those. So, that's sort of the minimum. What else could we do? We could adopt updated maps. So if we'd adopt updated maps, what does that mean? Well, sort of what I mentioned. It means some people will be regulated who are not currently regulated. It means we will have a higher level of environmental protection in some cases than we currently have. Um it also could mean that some streams that really, you know, were some sort of mapping anomaly that aren't really there. I mean, there would be some people who might not be regulated anymore. um if we you know it doesn't just work one way but for the most part it's likely that we'll find additional features that require uh regulation. The new mapping expands the scope of the project so it increases cost in addition to property owner impacts. Uh we're not we weren't really anticipating doing that additional work. So if we are going to do that, we either need to sort of put it in a parking lot and come back to it after we finish kind of this first round of amendments or we need to take a step back and figure out hiring consultants, more staff time, whatever it is to figure out what that new mapping would look like exactly. Uh and then the other issue is potentially there is some loss of water quality protection if we don't do new maps because we will be removing that kind of general text that says, "Hey, if we find a stream on your property, you have some standards. whatever they might be, we'll figure out in the moment. Uh that would go away. So those are kind of the issues. I know it's a lot. Um in the rural area, to sort of summarize, you can repeal the discretionary standards that we have right now. Rely on the maps adopted in the '9s. Or you could adopt new maps which would come from the state. We wouldn't do our own mapping for that. Um and that would just be for streams. wetlands, we defer to the state for

wetlands. In the urban area, you would either again repeal the discretionary water quality standards and then if you want to adopt new maps, that's something that we're going to have to figure out. Potentially, we would have to do our own. Um I'm not sure what other source there is. We might have to do our own mapping. We'd have to sort of pull together some resources and figure out how big of an effort that would be.

One little quick point of clarification. The part where Jennifer said, "This is not the last time you're going to hear from me." I want to emphasize that we're simply getting guidance on which way to start this process. Okay. So, if you look at if you look at the options and recommendations, um we broke every one of these down into unique uh recommendations and or pardon me into unique options and uh unique recommendations. So, on the screen right now, you can see you can see the option uh keep going down. Keep going down right there. Thank you. So, you'll see there are there are and I'm not going to read these because you can see them on the screen obviously, but there are two recommendations or um yeah, two options there, pardon me. You can see the recommendation that we have presented for you today is essentially directing staff to advance the CDO amendment um to in the urban area continue to use existing adopted stream and wetland inventories and repeal discretionary water quality standards for unmapped streams and wetlands in the rural area. Continue to defer to Department of State Lands and Army Corps of Engineers for wetland regulations. uh continue to use existing adopted stream inventories and repeal discretionary water quality standards for streams not on the adopted inventory. That's a probably a dissertation. Then we can spend the next three hours figuring out what that all that means. But yeah, happy to answer any questions.

Yeah, I have a go ahead. Um give me an example of what you're talking about when you say a discretionary water quality standards. Okay. just give me I mean know discretion means it's kind of up to you and you may or may not use be a little more immutable in what you I guess but I don't I don't have a context for what

I wish I could quote the standard off top of my head and I don't have the code in front of me but it would be something like um you know development shall be designed to minimize erosion preserve natural vegetation and result in the maintenance of a natural buffer strip along the river, something like that. But we don't know what a natural buffer strip is. We don't exactly know what natural vegetation is. We don't know for sure like the width. There's a range. Oh, it might be 100 feet. It might be 150. We have to decide based on some subjective features. That would be discretionary as opposed to simply saying you, you know, all structures shall be a minimum of 100 ft from the mean high water line and then have a definition of what that is.

Okay. Right. Um, uh, Commissioner Hill,

thank you. Yeah, it is confusing, but I we did receive some constituent communications on this. I know you guys were probably forwarded. Uh, the one that stood out most to me was the Hoodland CPO um because they know all about fire and floods, right? So, um, they had recommended language that they're concerned about ambiguous language in there. And I just would encourage you to please um read through what they wrote. I they took a lot of time and I think they have a lot of really great points that they made based on their experiences up there um at the mountain. So um I'm hoping you guys can work some of this into this and I appreciate that this is the start of the conversation and we're not done but um I'm just hoping we can kind of weave some of their concerns into what you're you're working on. So

I'm I'm not saying that. So because that's a great example that material that was submitted because it add if you read it and it added more specificity towards a lot of the terminology they were using and that's what that's what needs to be done. Not saying that we're going to adopt all that verbatim, but it's a great example of kind of how we add clarity to the code

and it does need clarity because what's happened up there I know is that you know homes were built too close to the river and the homes are now in the river or floating down the river and um where had they not been allowed to be there and and what is the right number as the as the river shifts it's called the sandy river for river for a reason right it it shifts continually so Um I I just just encourage you that that that the I think that people have put a lot of thought into this and I want to take that into consideration. Thank you. All right, Commissioner Sis.

So similar thoughts. Um what we're saying here that would be somewhat aligned or guiding, you know, if there's a distance requirement from a stream or a high water mark, we're relying on the state maps. Is that what I'm hearing? Um the streams themselves are mapped by metro in the urban area. I'm sure based on some state data uh state in the rural area. The measurements generally and this is going to need to get synced up but generally are from the mean high water line. And there is um there's some ambiguity in what that is. So the consultants are re are going to recommend or have recommended that we adopt a new definition. I don't have that memorized, but it'll be more specific than what we have currently about where you start running your measurement.

Right. So, my my concern is um I probably the best one we just just talked about it was where the is a zigzag or the sandy or whatever is that channel migration just because it's there's so much erosion.

It's one wet one wet period can move 10 15 feet, you know, in in one fell swoop. So, not only could they lose land, but they also gain a lot of land. And so, that's always changing. So, how often typically have we seen those maps being updated? So, um I don't know the cycle that the state's on, but it it wouldn't I think the the real issue is not so much that we can't figure out where the river is today, but the issue is you're going to pull your measurement the day you come in with your building permit and then three years from now, in fact, the river may be somewhere else. And I don't have a solution for that unless you want really large buffers or certainly we've had suggestions in the past to not permit new development in the channel migration zone, but that is a significant policy conversation if you're going to consider doing that. It's beyond the certainly beyond the scope of what we're talking about here. But yeah, I don't I don't have an answer for the whole river moving. You're right. It it's going to shift the point of measurement.

Right. And then the the high water mark, which is a different dimension, right? High water. I mean, uh, how often is that updated or visited? So, the mean high water line is generally defined as the it's sort of like something you can see when you're looking at the bank because you can kind of tell how high the water's been based on changes in vegetation. I mean, it's a it's sort of an observational kind of thing. And that's I think part of the problem and why the consultants are saying we have to do something that's a little bit more specific than that. But again, it's not ma that point is not mapped, which is why we're going to have to define it in a way that's a little more clear than what we have currently.

Yeah. And and earlier you mentioned and from experience experienced this on land use stuff in the years past and present and that is that um you know what is or what is not a buffer, right? And the definition of that and how it applies to wherever and absent high water mark, right? It's really about where, right? um or or the distance. So um we by adopting you know metro in the urban area with probably they use some referencing of the state maps are we are we bound by are we bound by that? Is there any other source that anyone could I mean I guess what I'm getting at is that let's just say it's 10 years from now before they update something and we know it's wrong or we know it's changed or moved,

right? I mean, it seems like we're tying ourselves to if we're clear and objective standards and then we're going to tie ourselves to something that we know is outdated, we're stuck, right?

For now. Yeah. You would have to adopt, right? If you chose today to just we're going to stick with the old maps, then that's what we have is the old maps and we we know that they're not I mean, they're right in a lot of respects, but they're not they're not as current. Um, and it's and you're right, it could shift tomorrow. Um, I think the problem is are we to are we bound? Well, sort of. Under goal five, Metro did a specific inventory that's been acknowledged by the state. We're sort of protected under that umbrella if we use their goal five inventory for the urban area. For the water quality piece that we're talking about, we could do our own thing. We could try to find other mapping sources, which I mean, I'm not saying they don't exist. We just have never tried to catalog all of that. So we could adopt our own maps that are more comprehensive and apply uh water quality buffers if we wanted to and that's kind of the question is whether you want us to explore that.

All right. So the other one I want to just ask about because we keep on saying water quality right not necessarily the location of where the stream is or it's not but water quality. I mean are we going to be is that going to be defined and looked at like everything else with TMDLs um with you know turbidity with temperature I mean is is it going to be that is going to be that granular

so um we're not doing I mean we as a county of course have some obligations under TMDL which are far beyond the scope of just the land use piece and I don't pretend to remotely be an expert on that but of course county's got an erosion control program now so there are layers of things that are you know kind of in Okay, for us from the water quality quality standpoint, so far it's been really about a buffer. Again, how far away do you keep building? It's about some sort of during construction, where do you stage your construction materials? Where how do you protect, you know, protect stuff from running off, which is really that erosion control piece. Um, there's some vegetation, you know, like mitigation. If you're going to build something, you maybe have to plant some things to replace what's lost. So there's the mitigation piece to it, but the we're we don't have land use regulations that say, well, we're going to go out and measure the temperature or check the sediment or there's no sort of ongoing monitoring of those kind of environmental pieces. It's really about do development in a way that sort of encourages that that will not get worse or might improve, but there's no like scientific testing going on through the land use piece.

So it's not it's not going to be specific. is going to be more so to speak advisory and pre prevention from erosion or or whatnot. Yeah, it's more about pulling the development away from the stream and then mitigation plantings and the the sort of construction piece of erosion control. Yep. Okay. So, yes, I'll stop here with this last question. How do you make that clear in a in a objective? I have no idea, Commissioner Savis. This project is keeping me awake at night. Um I mean I guess some other jurisdictions have have done some things that we can kind of model after and do the best that we can but it is hard because it really does kind of

it leaves you in this like there's no such thing as sort of engineering judgment which is you know start thinking about other things like road improvements sewer improve like this isn't just for these this just what we're talking about today but it has ripple effects in a number of areas and it and I think it's a lot harder than the legislature thinks to make things clear and objective and and probably counterintuitive to what what you're trying to do. Yeah, flexibility actually isn't bad in a number, but that's the implication of this is that it is. Yeah.

Um yeah, one comment and then I'll go to I I do want to on your option 1A. I I really do like how you phrase this in here. In the rural area, continue to defer to the Department of State Lands Army Corps Engineer for the wetland regulations. And um I mean just reading this and getting conflicting stuff um the areas I I that really does appeal to me is kind of a a good direction to go. That's all I wanted to say. Commissioner Helm.

No, that's um on one of the correspondence it talks about there's kind of a conflict between FEMA terminology uh ZD the 704 there's that they quote a lot of OARS and the definition of mean high water line does not comply with goal five. um because oar dot dot dot applies to top of bank instead of mean high water as a point to start a measure that would establish the setback in a riparian corridor. So I it it is very confusing but I I think we could make our own language that again makes it reasonable common sense based on what's happened in some of these areas where we've had problems and even in areas where we haven't had problems there there we are maybe likely to have problems in the future. So, um,

we're not afraid to try. I'm sure we'll get there. I know. I know. I just It's reading through this, it's it's there's a lot of confusing, um, language between all the different things that are are kind of married into the same ordinance. So, correct. Yes, for sure. And we'll definitely be back to you with language and things as this moves moves along. For sure. All right. So, I think what we'll do is uh take this first item one at a time. And if there's a commissioner willing to uh make a motion on the streams and wetland topic we've been discussing.

Oh, I move to direct staff to draft ZDO amendments to this is a long one. In the urban area, continue to use existing adopted stream and wetland inventories and repeal discretionary water quality standards for unmapped streams and wetlands. in the rural area continue to defer to the Department of State Lands Army Corps of Engineers for wetland regulations and continue to use existing adopted stream inventory and repeal discretionary water quality standards for streams not on the adopted inventory. Um, I'll second that even though I'm

I think I understand it. I have to sing. All right,

mud. All right, our first one of many to go. Three. Um, it looks like uh um let me get through the motion in a second and then I think Commissioner Savis has a comment. So, Commissioner Helm has moved to direct staff to draft ZDO amendments to in the urban area continue to use existing adopted stream and wetland inventories and repeal discretionary water quality standards for the unmapped streams and wetlands in the rural area. continue to defer the Department of State Lands and Army Corps of Engineers for wetland regulations, continue to use existing adopted stream inventory, and repeal discretionary water quality standards for streams not on the adopted inventory. That has been second by Commissioner Strader. And I know we have further discussion by Commissioner Savis. Sir, go ahead.

Yeah. Well, I for all the questions and answers, everything has been said here, I'm I'm at this level of discomfort and not because of either the motion of the language or any of you what what you're recommending, but it's the situation we kind of talked about and I can just see as soon as it this becomes adopted, um the first application might be exact, maybe it's the second one comes along and someone's going to challenge something about this and say it's either not clear, objectional, or the or or the or the location of the buffer is incorrect, right? It's going to be challenged no matter what. So I and also the way I'm wired, I'm wired to do things as best as possible. Nothing's ever perfect. I'm also wired to do things that make sense. And it's got this pragmatic, logical approach. Um, and that's where I'm having a hard time connecting here, right? because I don't see any any way of achieving that other than we're going to go through an exercise just to be just to at least have the appearance of comp of complying, right? Knowing that we're going to have all these challenges. So, I'm just going to say I'm struggling with this. Um, and I don't see I I don't see an example right now as we talked about all those things, water quality, high water mark or the location of the buffer um relying on all these maps where it will be clear and and clear enough uh and not be able to be challenged. So I I don't see us actually achieving the goal. That's where I'm struggling.

I know that you're trying. Not a criticism. There's nothing you can do better. Right.

Well, right. And maybe try I guess I know that because I get overwhelmed by this project, but today we're really just wanting to talk about which streams and wetlands we regulate. So all the rest of this, there's going to be more decision points, more discussion points for things like do do we like the definition we came up with of top bank? Did we get the vegetation mitigation requirements correct? There's there's other decision points. This is really just direction of, hey, planning department, go out and find me better mapping and let's adopt new maps. And then it's public notice and telling people there's streams out there we're now going to regulate and that we weren't before and all of that or at least we weren't clearly before. So, it's really just about the maps today, which I'm not saying that makes your decision easier, but it is a narrower decision, I think. can correct me if I'm wrong. The specific language that looks that has the specificity that you're trying to get to will be presented to you at a future date for consideration.

Yes. Correct. So you talk about those terms that you're in your head that you're trying to see and this this is not doing that. Um that will come though, right? So exactly. Okay. All right. Well, with that, clerk, will you please call the poll? Commissioner West. I Commissioner Shrader I Commissioner Savis sh I'll pause I think I

Commissioner Helm and I'm I'm an I but I I will say these are all very reluctant eyes because it's so confusing but I I think we trust you a lot to to bring us the right language and I I think that's why we're all like you know it's kind of above our pay grade here. It's difficult. Sorry. You're fine. And Mr. Chair, motion passes 5-0. Mr. Chair, thank you everybody. I can tell that one down. Couple more. We're just getting easier. We're going to talk about landslides. Oh,

yeah. I'm obviously kidding that it's not easier. So, um, the county co the zoning code calls them mass movement hazards, but more commonly we'll hear them referred to as landslides. Um, our maps that we've been regulating for 50 or 60 years are from the 1970s. We literally have laminated maps rolled up in the corner of the like phone room where we take public service calls. Um, it's not an ideal situation. the data is um not entirely inaccurate but it is somewhat inaccurate and it also doesn't cover a huge section of the county. So at the time that they did these maps in the 70s they were able to do sort of the northwest part of the county. Um now there is much better data available. So the state agency is the department of geology and mineral industries. They have a much better more modern mapping created with lighter technology that has revealed that some of what they mapped in the 70s is not really landslide topography. So some people would actually no longer be mapped as having a hazard. But of course they found many more that are um that weren't mapped previously and it now has much more coverage. So it goes out toward Mount Hood. Um, so this is this is another situation where arguably

we don't have to adopt new maps. It's um I thought I had turned it off but I did not. So sorry to interrupt. It's okay. No problem. It's always good to have a moment of levity while we're here. You got my attention. At least that's the tone of the discussion. kind of think she went all to Okay, so do I have a motion? All right, back to the the landslide. Sorry. So, um, so there are Well, this is going to be a tape someday.

There's still some question in our minds. Um, we're going to have to continue to do some research. the state did adopt some additional landslide hazards in 2002, still a long time ago, that the counties never adopted, that we may be legally required to start regulating. That's a little very unclear to me at this moment. So, ongoing research there. Um, but even that isn't the best data. The best data is newer than that. And so, the question is, um, you know, should we adopt those new maps? I will say um the planning commission felt very strongly that we should that this is a safety issue and that if there's better mapping that shows that certain building sites may be at risk uh we should be regulating that. The way the regulations currently work u and the way we would anticipate that they would continue to work although slightly more clearly and objectively than they currently do is the requirement to get a geotechnical study done. So the applicant hires a consultant. The consultant prepares a report, looks at the building plans, looks at the building site, says, "This is what you need to do here." There's never a guarantee. They're not going to promise it's not going to slide down the hill, but they're going to give them that these are the recommendations. This is how you reveate. This is where you divert your storm water. This is how you design your foundation. So, it is a cost. It's a cost to have that report done. Um but I staff's recommendation is that you do adopt um the new maps and that we regulate using the best scientific data that we have available. It will mean sending out notices to folks and letting them know that these maps may be affecting their property. Some people will be removed. Um and again, it's not that every one of these landslides potential landslide sites is developable or doesn't, you know, not everybody's going to be developing. It's not like every urban lot has this, but um but it will be new um new regulations for some people.

Just a point of clarification, these requirements aren't retroactive to the current development though. No, it would be for new development moving forward. So they wouldn't if somebody had had to construct it on their property. If this was new Nappa area, it would be information for them. It would not be retroactive to make them go back and change their current structure. Correct. Yes. New development. New development. So,

so the options on this one, I'll just um were direct staff to draft ZDO amendments to continue to use the adopted landslide hazard maps from the 1970s with the potential addition of rapidly moving landslide hazards mapped by Dami in 2002 or direct staff to draft ZDO amendments to replace the existing landslide hazard maps with new mapping available from DAMI. And that's staff's recommendation to be on that one. To be Yeah, that makes more sense. All right. Any questions for my colleagues?

I I just I just have a question. I mean, do we just knowing how much erosion there is and landslides and movement? I call it the ooze, right? Everything just kind of some areas just kind of just crawl and just the land just moves, right? And sometimes you can see it in the vegetation um that that is moving. So my question is do we have an is there any recommended or anticipated frequency in which this is done right where we we do it let's say in 2026 are we going to do it again in are we going to wait another 24 years or um you know do we anticipate any frequency to update those maps and the reason I'm asking this is that let's just say them is a one-time movement I'm just kind of concerned in a way that people that maybe don't show a movement today Now the the mapping is all done. We can't help this obviously, but you know what? If their what if their insurance company says, you know what, we're not going to we're not going to insure this property any longer.

All right. Um because we think it's moving. It's kind of like almost like a fire hazard kind of a thing, right? So insurance companies are doing that. I'm just wondering um is there only one when we update this? Is it is it do we have a choice? Is there an option as to how solid that work is? does that is it re is it a reliable source or is there multiple sources who does this this work

to I mean to my knowledge just uh department of geology and mineral industries in Oregon as far as I know I'm certainly not an you know authoritative source on everything related to landslides but that's what we hear about and it you know over a period of years they have done these flyovers funded that expanded the coverage whether they will be able to continue to update those over time I'm sure like everything else is a budget ary question. Um, I wouldn't assume that we would have the resources to do it ourselves. I think we'd be relying on, but there's nothing that prevents us from adopting new data when it becomes available.

And the comfort we can give you is it's it's a heck of a lot more um solid than the mean high water line discussion we were just having. It's based off soils. It's based off topography that's in the area, slope characteristics. If you've looked at the maps, they're very clear about escarments and slopes associated with the soil types underneath it. there's less of a frequency or of change associated with them than some of the issues we were dealing with with rivers. So, not saying it's perfect, not by any means. Um, but it it tends to last the test of time a little bit more. All right. With a little bit of experience on landslides, I know insurance does not typically cover it, so you're pretty much on your own

when it comes to landslides. And um, and you're right. I mean, I've had to hire geologists to do the whole soil samples and and there are a lot of slight areas in our county. So, um anyway, with that being said, is there any my colleagues wishing to make a motion on the landslide hazards? Okay. I direct staff to draft CDO amendments to replace the existing landslide hazard maps with new mapping available from Dogami.

Second. Thank you, ladies. Commissioner Shrader has moved to direct staff to draft the ZDO amendments to replace existing landslide hazard maps with new mapping available from DOG AMI and Commissioner Helm seconded that. Any further discussion? Clerk, would you please call the poll? Commissioner Savis, I. Commissioner West, I. Commissioner Schrader, I. Commissioner Helm. I, Mr. Chair, I. Motion passes five to zero, Mr. Chair. All right, friends. We're moving right along. Wildfire hazards.

Wildfire. Um, so the what what the county has now are extremely discretionary standards. No map that says where those apply. It's just sort of these blanket statements about fire hazard areas um that have been in the code I think since about 1980. Uh definitely problematic under for housing. I mean we could keep them for other types of development but I don't think that's necessarily the most efficient thing to do but for housing we definitely cannot keep them. So the options um sort of the minimum requirement is we need to repeal those standards. There are other standards. I don't want to make it sound like we have nothing that would apply um toward wildfire. I mean, we have certainly um what they call fuel break standards when people are building dwellings in our forest zones that require that defensible space. Um that's only in forest zones though the state requires that. So, we apply those. Um we certainly have coordination in DTD with our fire districts in terms of um access requirements and you know if on steep slopes maybe having to sprinkler the house and or have you know sources of firefighting water. There are some things that apply but certainly not to every house in every situation would that be the case. Um, most of you are aware, I'm sure, about the state's efforts to adopt a wildfire hazard map, which they did do and then repealed because of the reaction. So, I'm hesitant to come here and tell you that I think the county should take that on on our own. Um, given what we saw, it seems um like it would be a a big lift, I guess, to do that. So, I think the minimum requirement is we repeal the discretionary standards. We rely on the other ZDO standards I mentioned. There's also the ability for the county to do non-regulatory things um through our disaster management department, public education. We already do some of that anyway, but um but there are other things that we can do that that don't fall under that regulatory umbrella.

Alternatively, if you want to do more, we could adopt clear and objective standards. Those would that would need to apply then on some geographic basis, which could either be everywhere. It could be based on certain areas of the county. For instance, you know, rural zones but not urban zones, zones that are we could slice that any way you you would want to. Um or by adopting our own fire hazard maps, which presumably would rely upon the work that the state already did, I'm assuming. I don't think we would be going out and doing it ourselves. Um and then the question would be what would the standards be that would apply in those areas? Um the two that come up most frequently are defensible space, which as I mentioned we do have for um dwellings and forest zones that require vegetation clearing within certain distances from homes and a number of other types of structures. And the other one is fire hardening of new structures. So um that would not be adopted through the zoning code. That would be something the county would adopt as a building code provision. I believe Dashuites County did just do that recently. So, um, that is the alternative. Staff's recommendation at this point is the minimum. Repeal the discretionary fire hazard area standards and rely on the other ZDO standards we already have. Um, but certainly if you're interested in looking at some of these other things, we can, you know, come back. It can go in a parking lot if there's interest and and be a project in the future or you could direct us to start work on it. No, you want to read I don't I won't read all the options for number three, but the recommendation is option 3A, direct staff to draft ZDO amendments to repeal the general regulations for unmapped fire hazard areas and rely on other ZDO standards.

I just want to and Jennifer did a great job of kind of highlighting those other standards. I do want to be clear, new development is required to be consistent with the requirements focal fire district regarding fire access. So that's regarding to like uh driveway access turnarounds, fire, water supply, all of that is currently out there. Um doesn't deal with the hardening or the fuel brakes. Think about the fuel brakes. A large percentage of our forested areas, shockingly our zone timber or egg forest where those apply. And so we have a large portion of our county that's already subject to those kind of buffer standards that are out there for fuel break areas. So we'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. All right. Commissioner West has a comment.

Yeah, thank you for that. I I think I totally agree with your reasoning around this. Um, some of this is already covered. It would be duplicative, potentially have unintended consequences that could make livability um a little bit more difficult uh for residents of Clackamus County. This is probably impacts rural Clackamus County more than the urban area.

Um so yeah, I I appreciate your thoughtful approach to this to try to minimize um where government's reach would be here. I my one question is um I know in the rural area maybe there's already regulations that in this would cover that but you see a lot of like like burn pits or not burn pits are like burn piles um and and whatnot happening is is that already heavily regulated within our our code on how like burning large amounts of like garbage or whatever on your rural property or is that not already covered? Um essentially that uh s sort of public bu uh burning is regulated through the local fire district authority to burn on that. Um

and you'll notice they have notifications on burn days and and burn days in which you cannot burn. And if somebody's burning on a day that they put a restriction in place, their contact and they coordinate with local um local fire fire. Yeah. Perfect. Um yeah, then I your minimal approach I totally support. Thank you. Uh Commissioner H. So, Jennifer, you you brought up that the state I think this was in the short session, they tried to do a wildfire map that was

So, they did one um I'm going to get my years all mixed up. The sessions have started to run together. um they did one they worked with Oregon uh OSU and you know they they actually adopted it and then in 2025 they repealed it because of the extreme push back and they've um switched to more of a voluntary, you know, try to help folks establish defensible space fire hardened and not and not the we're going to create a map and require you to Okay. And it was the regulatory piece of that that everyone freaked out over, right? It was really the I think the map is actually the biggest piece that people were really concerned.

The insurance company looked at that and then they would drop people couldn't get their homes insurance any longer or they like extor like huge premiums. Okay, that's I just wanted a little history on that too. Thank you for Thank you for that clarification. Okay, another example of clear objectal standards by the map which completely backfired. Right. Didn't go well. Yes, that is true. We would definitely fill this room if we started talking about that.

Yes, we would. I I think one of the points that I would sure like to uh learn more about and and that's has to do kind of uh uh former TW Valley Fire Chief Jeff Johnson kind of enlightened me about um and you've touched on it um kind of what you can do ahead of time as far as uh defensible space um as he describes you know hardy plank uh siding which is a concrete type board having metal roofs double wall drywall on um exposed sides and in some of the major fires that he saw that made a difference in the the homes that actually survived uh some pretty um significant burns. So I think that um again I want to make sure we kind of got a lot of input on that and that's just really from conversation with some of the fire personnel but I think that can make a difference. So, um, with that being said, I think we're close to a motion on this. Uh, would someone like to make a motion? I move to direct staff to draft ZDO amendments to repeal the general regulations for unmapped fire hazard areas and rely on other ZDO standards.

Second. All right, ladies. Again, thank you. Commissioner Elma has moved to direct staff to draft ZDO amendments to repeal the general regulations for the unmapped fire hazard areas and to rely on other ZDO standards. Commissioner Shrader is second of that. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk, would you please call the poll for us? Commissioner West. I. Commissioner Savis, I. Commissioner Helm, I. Commissioner Schrader, I. Mr. Chair, I And we're moving on to the last one. the tree protection. They they just don't get any easier, honestly, as we move through this. Save the best for last.

Um I guess maybe the the easy part about this one is that staff has not identified really any um legal requirement related to these regulations. They're not part of our goal five protected inventories. There, you know, it's not um I don't think it's something where the state said you have to do this.

So there's I'm a little less I've said that now. I of course have jinxed myself, but I don't think that we have to worry really about that aspect of it. Um, having said that, communities feel pretty strongly about their tree canopy, and so I don't want to um imply that repealing our tree regulations is going to be without um without concern. The issue with um with our tree regulations is that they are very clearly not clear and objective. And so currently staff is not able to apply them to housing developments anyway. Um, and I don't believe there's a legal requirement to replace them with something else. And so really the question is, you know, the minimum is we can repeal. Uh, the minimum is to repeal them for housing. You could leave them in place um for other types of development. So if somebody's building a school or a commercial development or, you know, something that isn't housing, we can leave them in place. They primarily apply in the urban area. We're very um restricted from regulating tree removal in the rural areas because of the Forest Practices Act. Um, and you know, commercial forestry is kind of allowed out there. So, we don't we don't have a lot of um a lot of regulatory authority out in the rural areas. The um the county did consider doing um what I'll call kind of a citystyle tree ordinance in 2010. Um it did not go well. Um let's just leave it at that. Did not go well. And in the end, the board did adopt, I'll call it, I think it's safe to say it's a dis it was a disincentive to to developers sort of clear cutting the property, then coming in and by that point being unable to preserve any of their trees. Um, so that was sort of the compromise and the the more comprehensive tree ordinance was not adopted at that time. Um, there are certainly some of our urban communities and CPOS that feel very strongly about their tree canopy. So, I do expect that you'll probably hear some um some folks advocating for adopting new standards.

Um I do think it's not something we can probably take on in the next year with this project. I think it would be a really big stretch. It doesn't mean you can't direct us to do that, of course, but I'm concerned about resources on that. Um so again, the minimum requirement is to repeal the upland tree and again this doesn't affect stream buffers. This is upland tree away from that river buffer or stream buffer. repeal the upland tree protection regulations uh for housing development. That's the minimum. And then you could alternatively repeal those regulations for all development or you could direct us to develop clear and objective um upland tree protection regulations either by expanding the scope of ZDO290 or through a subsequent project. Uh and staff's recommendation is that you repeal the tree regulations for housing um and leave them go ahead and leave the discretionary standards in place for other types of development.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner West. Uh, so if an individual in unincorporated Clackamus County has a huge tree, it's not super healthy, do they currently have to come to the county for a permit to remove this tree? Generally not. If they are if it's if it's a tree that was required to be preserved as part of a development application in the past. So like a heritage tree like in Villa we have all these huge natural oak could be something like that where it was required to be preserved or if it's in that buffer that water quality type buffer then uh they have to at least bring us evidence that it is in fact dangerous diseased that sort of thing. Um but otherwise if it's outside that um those protected areas then no we don't require them to come to us.

So we would only like regulate street trees. We do have we require street trees now. we didn't and you know for years and years. So there's a lot of streets that don't have them. But yes, we have planner strip requirements and where those trees are removed they are supposed to be replaced. It's not a high priority code enforcement item for us but technically yes. So the current the the effort that Jennifer two years was it a year and a half? I know PTSD really long time.

It was a long passionate discussion. um and I'm not devaluing that discussion with that statement, but it was a long long discussion and the results of that came into um this punitive approach came and so basically it was hey if you're a developer and you go out there and I'm going to get this wrong because I used to be a planner but I'm not a planner anymore but um and you say just clearcut the entire site you had to wait a certain amount of time I believe until you could come in for development. So it basically impacted your ability to develop. So the the thought was and the hope was you'd come to the table and have a more collective dialogue regarding and that's kind of where the board at the time kind of landed the plane on that particular topic. But we don't have any specific

unlike a lot of the city jurisdictions that have you know very very specific requirements like Asiggo has very requirements about where the what you can cut what you can't what you need to cut. Like I said, Jennifer explained the fact that we don't have a lot of requirements for that unless it was a conditioned approval component.

Um, thank you for that. Um, do we ever talk about uh not a lot of restrictions, but some but at least maybe around the type of trees that are planted um appropriate. So, you could plant private property, but then it starts to buckle the sidewalks because you planted a tree that wasn't necessarily um appropriate for that space. it it caused harm to public um sidewalks or streets or it's really not a great species that it does well for the environment here. There's some species I know that Friends of Trees has a whole list or the city of Portland has a whole list. Not that we want to be like Portland at all, but they have a whole list of trees that you can choose from that are appropriate for the climate and for the region. Um do we ever say, "Yeah, you can plant. We love trees. we don't want to get in your way, but please stay in this lane and please make sure you're getting the right size and anything like that.

So, we do four street trees. We have adopted street tree lists based on the width of the planter strip um that are administered through our engineering department when they're doing the road, you know, the road improvement plans um or permitting. We do not have requirements for what people can plant just sort of generally on their private property. Again, if it's some sort of a mitigation planting like related to a wetland or a stream, then there are limits in terms of what type of vegetation, but just generally if it's my suburban backyard for instance or even my front yard, we don't we do not have anything that tells people what they have to plant. Yeah. Currently, okay, thank you. Great, Commissioner Helm.

So, I think we might have been we had PTSD from the same time period is when the city of Damascus formed and we were trying to implement a tree ordinance. It took three years. Wow.

And many many council meetings absolutely filled with people who would yell at us that you you can't tell me I can't cut my trees. And what we were trying to do was uh have some rules for when development happened, right? We're not saying you can't do this right now. It's it's in anticipation of the development that never happened. But um I will say that I learned a lot. We had on council a uh forester um and I learned a lot during that process and my hope would be that developers and rather than come in and take down every single tree for their development they leave some because the trees have more value standing than not. And after we used, we shouldn't have done this, but we used Happy Valley as our example cuz we saw every hillside just every tree was removed from every hillside there. And that's not what we wanted. We wanted some of our trees preserved. So, I kind of have a little bit of pain here saying removing it for housing development because I'm hoping developers will learn that there there's a value in leaving some of those older trees on properties and they work well with newer neighborhoods. You can you can leave some of the older ones if they're healthy and and you and they have neighbors, right? They have neighbor trees that they all they stand together and protect one another, not one single tree out there all by itself. But um yeah, it it's it's a tough conversation to have with people and uh I I I have I have a little bit of heartburn removing all of them. So

yeah, I mean I don't disagree from a from a personal or professional perspective that urban tree canopy is a good thing. Um I think the challenge just what we witnessed um 15 years ago with the difficulty of trying to adopt standards it was just surprisingly difficult and to make them clear and objective it's like which trees how many what size where do I measure from what you know how many can I cut how do I decide and all the things it's um it's challenging so not that it can't be done and that's exactly what we did we did it based on how far from the ground and how wet was the diameter of the of the stump that was No, we did it based on all of that. It was down to the

and it was painful and uh I'd say I think we did get it passed eventually, but it didn't matter in the end. So, there you go.

So, one of the things you um that drives the discussion around um the preservation of vegetation on lots is the size of the project and the grading associated with the project. And so I think you really got to think about especially like in areas that are when we um I'll hearken back to like the 80s when we were blowing up. I mean we had a couple hundred lot subdivisions we were rolling through. We had project like windswept waters that were coming in big big huge green field projects where they're going out there and they're scraping the entire site. Um and I'm not I I don't want to ever come across to say the fact that we're not going to have larger projects again because we we've had one here recently. you have one that's near and dear to Commissioner Sab's heart and his local community that had some impact with some trees that are on there. Um, but the development type matters. So for the smaller the smaller developments which one or two, there's there's a little bit more latitude and feasibility and viability or redevelopment of a lot. It's a little more possible uh for the preservation and we tend to see more of that development now than we do kind of this large scale three or 400 lot projects. Um, yeah. I'm not sure. Those of you who have lived here for a while, my phone blew off the hook when you're driving down 205 and you looked up at Happy Valley and that huge subdivision was just scoured the entire and that's cuz it's the topography and the slope and the grading that's got to occur to make the lots buildable. So, just something to I'm not it's not going to alleviate the problem, but just something that just kind of our development type has kind of changed a little bit for the most part. So,

all right. Thank you, Commissioner Savis. Yeah. Well, I've been I think we've all the number of us have lived through this for decades, right? I mean, I remember in 97 when I first got involved locally and development was happening and the p people that were advocating for tree ordinances at the time. I mean, back in '97 um and thou shalt not cut these trees. These are old growth trees or these are trees that are established. And it has typically been the discussion I would say not always but it's typically been about the established tree canopy right whether it's urban or rural and in my area um you know you have people that you know are environmentally um minded when it comes to whether it's climate or whether it's housing or whether it is the tree canopy all these things we need to do smart growth and uh I've been I I find myself listening to audiences that are conflicted uh big time. The same people that are arguing uh that we need uh you know we need to change the densities from you know R20 or R12 or R10 and we need that to reduce that down to 45 or 50 something units per per acre are the same people that don't want to cut the trees. I said well if you get that look out the window right or or look at an example and in order to build that density um all the trees on this property are gone. there's no way to get there. And so as they need to try to reconcile that and being through all the fights, um my gosh, but I I I find it that it's it's a no-win. Um it's never been able to be clearly defined from that community or those communities as to where that balance is. And Oak Grove has been used as this ideal urban tree canopy. And why are you allowing all these developments to happen? Well, you know, no one we can't turn away someone who wants to apply to

build something, whether it's something modest or it's high density. And I've been watching around my neighborhood. I mean, not my exact neighborhood, but nearby, you know, the trees just just one at a time just gone. And I I love my trees, right? I don't have as, you know, I I don't have as many trees as some other properties. I but I don't have a huge property. But nonetheless, um the canopy is disappearing. The mandates are to build the housing. the mandates don't disregard or don't really respect um you know the tree canopy or the call for that. It's about building the housing at the end of the day. And if you look at the the the housing standards, it's higher density, so therefore it's less trees. All to say that um

I I don't I don't when we say except for housing, I mean to me it's that that's that's where the gist that's where most of the trees are being cut down is because of housing. So, I don't see that, you know, repeal the upland tree protection regulations for housing development. Um, I I I I don't I'm not saying that's not enough. I'm not saying it's enough. All I'm saying is that I don't think that's going to accomplish what the advocacy wants to see or hear. But yet, that conflicts with with the state mandate to build housing. So, we're we're stuck in this horrible spot. And I just go back to how much friction and heat um took place with that Jennings Lodge Evangelical Retreat Center when there was over 300 a stand over 300 something old growth trees not all old growth but a pretty significant stand and it's gone and what what's there today housing um and so that was a extremely painful thing and I I don't I don't know how we grapple with this um because what standard or regulations. Are we going to comply with the environmental ones, the mandate to build housing

or the mandate for for preferred density? Which ones do we abide by? I just need help because I I don't know what to do here.

It's challenging. I mean, I think the pendulum has clearly swung toward the housing right now. That doesn't mean it's going to stay that way, but that's how it is now. And the state isn't telling us that we can't have tree codes. They've amended the law that I think already told us they had to be clear and objective to make it even more explicit that tree codes have to be clear and objective. They did do that recently. Um so yeah, it's there's no doubt they have to be clear and objective, but it isn't to say we can't try to do something. Um if that is that that's the will of the commission, staff will we can dust off what we had drafted. it still exists what we drafted before and see if there's parts of that or what Damascus adopted you know that we can um we can take some things from and if you would like us to do that we will we'll certainly look at it

so as I understand it today if you have a lot and you just decide to arbitrarily clearcut it right you still today the way the code's written you can't build for five years it's a fiveyear moratorum is that right yes and then that won't make sense if we repeal because there'll be no requirement to save it. The whole idea was make them keep it so they have to come in and then we can try to get them to preserve some of it consistent with their development. But once we don't have regulations that make you save it at development, that won't matter either. So they kind of go together. They go hand in hand.

Yeah, there's been this call like, oh commissioner, you don't have a tree canopy in urban collect. Well, actually in our incorporated we do. That's kind of it, right? I don't know what the other requirement is other than uh we don't have a dimensional one like the city of Lake Asiggo does for example. It's just literally you can't clearcut

the problem. Yeah, that's the the disincentive piece that was adopted. Beyond that, we have some very general and that's the problem standards that talk about saving significant clumps or groves of trees, but we don't define what significant is. And it's again if it's sort of if it's feasible, if it's consistent with the development. And so it's pretty difficult to make people preserve. But historically going back to like Dan's talking about the go- go9s when they were subdividing all kinds of things, we did require pe developers to save some trees. Um that was able to be done, but now we just have regulations we can't use.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Weston. little bit of experience with this policy-wise being a Wil former Wilsonville city councelor. They have the sterling rating for their tree canopy. Super proud of it. I live in the neighborhood Villa and that is one of the best neighborhoods in Clackamus County to live in because of how it was designed. You feel like you also live in a park, but it has housing types for everybody across the spectrum. And we preserved a lot of heritage trees, white oak particularly. We have 10 specific groves in Wilsonville that we have preserved. We have old growth Douglas fur. We have um made a conscious effort to have a very well-maintained good um uh tree canopy. It also was one of the fastest growing cities in the entire state over the last couple decades. So development didn't stop because we preserved trees. Uh in Oregon we talk about caring about climate issues, but one of the best ways to sequester carbon is through trees. It's actually quite affordable and effective and it's a much better way to do it than a lot of these looney ideas coming out of Salem. We can just actually just take care of the existing tree canopy and we can help deal with the carbon issue. Um it helps with pollution. It helps with wildlife. Uh we have a tree just outside our house and I get to look out my back door um right here in Vilba and I get to see the owls and wildlife um and that is um part of the character that we care about in Oregon. I don't understand how we have to cut down heritage trees or specific species and that means we're sacrificing housing. There's no evidence of that. There's zero evidence of that. But we can be pragmatic. we can have maybe a percentage of our Clakamus County area preserved for a for a canopy that benefits us for generations. We shouldn't be cutting down these old trees um uh and clear cutting. I I mean

I just have no appetite to believe that we have to like sacrifice economic development and then just cut down all of the old growth important heritage trees in a community. Um I think Clack in this county has examples where we can do this pragmatically. We don't have to look like Wilsonville exactly or or Lake Asiggo, but I don't support this. I mean, I just don't think that this is the type of community I'd want to live in. I think Happy Valley is wonderful, but you gave a fantastic example about how a whole hillside was cleared off and there was opportunities to protect a lot of um special assets and um environmental um opportunities in Happy Valley when it was developed. So, I'm not going to support this. I'm a no vote. Uh but I think that we can look at other communities around here and we can have both. We can have uh environmentally friendly, good urban habitat, tree canopies and housing. And I don't think it's our trees that are stopping the housing from being developed.

So do you want to do C? Is that what you're saying? Or just I mean we see what the motion is, but I know that's I'm I'm just asking. I would be open to see but do you want to do A or C? A you're saying absolutely not. I think C is going to be the and C would C would open up the Pandora's box. It opens it for um options. Well, okay. The language that I think might need to be added. And may I can I just one more one more comment too? Yes. Is that I find the closer you get to a tree ordinance, the faster people cut down their trees

because they hurry and cut them down before the ordinance goes into effect. So we found that people were just clearcutting their properties in anticipation of this tree ordinance that we were doing which was to prevent it. So it was it was it totally backfired. So I I agree. I don't I don't think we have to sacrifice one for the other. I I think that um again developers are learning that that trees have a lot of value and that they're they're they we should be keeping some of the really special ones and um not all the scrub trees. I mean there's a lot of scrub trees out there. So um I yeah I don't know I don't know if C is the answer is that is that the right answer here for the expanding the scope of the current project or through a subsequent project does we just left the door open correct that's what C does

sees the op sees the option and ultimately we'll be back to talk to you because there'll be a lot of questions about scope is this just for new applica you know new develop development coming into subdivide is it people building single family houses is it the trees that are in on existing like there will be a lot of polic policy questions to answer about the scope. Uh, Commissioner Shrader. Oh, I just wanted to say that the I will just mentioned the tree ordinance in Lake Oiggo. Everybody loves it, but that's Lake Oiggo. And um, the other thing though that I always worry about is fire mitigation, okay? Because it's a heavy canopy. So,

all right. Commissioner status. Well, I in a way when I say this, I know it's going to be um problematic. I get that. But I don't think there's any any way we're going to avoid the problems this is going to create. So, I'll I just think that what we ought to do and I and some of the emails I read that we received on today was along the lines of we can't speak to you. you know this under this work session you know there's no public comment which I think this one here almost commands some degree I mean and and it's not that it has to be um done in a way that that you know it's going to be one department or another to me it's more uh how do we get because again we're responding to state this is this is like a top down from the state we got to make all these changes and I think that we need I I don't want the narrative to run away that we're doing this somehow independently. So I think it's I think it almost commands frankly whether it's a town hall or a public session to say by the way Clackmus County is facing these state mandates to you know do this and um and and we also have stamp main to build housing and just lay it out there um as opposed to arbitrarily being seen or subject ourselves that we're just doing this independently. And I think that is that that might be the I don't want a false narrative to run away that we're just doing this independently and and give our staff we'll say shelter but cover, right? Because they're going to take the heat for it. You know, we're going to take heat for it no matter what. That's our job. But I just don't want people to think that we are we're just arbitrarily doing this.

No. All right, Commissioner West. Everybody should go home today and watch the Lorax. I'm just kidding. Um, I is there a state mandate to to to do it this way right now? Is that I guess that's my question is I'm not I know that we're some of this We love being up here just talking about it. Yeah. No. No. There's a state mandate for us to allow to like just remove uplift tree protections. No, no. There's a state mandate that we can't apply the standards we have because they're not clear and objective. So to protect trees, we would need to adopt different regulations than we currently have. That's what we need to for current coding.

Thank you. Okay. So we need Well, I'm all about it being very clear and precise and maybe we should do that. But I I just literally like fundamentally less I think it's ludicrous that somehow we're going to get more housing if we allow just, you know, unmitigated cutting of trees on property and getting rid of trees that have been around since, you know, the Oregon Trail. like I'm just not interested in in in that. And I just think that that is um not true. All right. Anybody willing to make a motion? Not even sure which one it would be.

Chair, I move that we direct staff to draft ZDO amendments to develop clear and objective upland tree protection regulations either by expanding the scope of the current project or through a subsequent project. Second. All right. All right.

So, Commissioner West uh has made a motion to direct staff to uh draft ZDO amendments to develop clear and objective upland tree protection regulations either by expanding the scope of the current project or through a subsequent project. It's been second by Commissioner Helm. Any further discussion? All right, seeing none. Going once. Okay, go ahead, Andrew. Commissioner Shrader. Hi, Commissioner Savis.

I'm not I'm not there. I'm I'm not a yes at this point. I mean, I I think that we need to approach this one differently. Can Can we go to discussion then? Or do you We can step back for sure. Can we go point of order? Point of order. You called. You have to finish the vote. You called for the vote. I'm sorry, Commissioner Savis. It was not clear to me. Could you repeat your vote? My My vote was I'm not ready at this time, so that's a no. Commissioner Helm, I. Commissioner West, I. Mr. share.

Um I motion passes 4 to one. Mr. Chair, so many long pauses today. I know it's that was a tough one. I'm trying to figure out the best direction. I mean I think chair can I can I just put some on the table? Yeah, of course. I mean I I I'm not looking to ask that we do something today. Um, but I just want to just throw out the idea again that I just kind of talked about earlier is kind of lay this out to the to the public in a way that um whether again whether it's a town hall or a notice because this will be misunderstood

period. So do you want to get in front of it now or do you want to wait for the backlash later? So I'm just saying that

whether again whether there's interest in how we approach this and maybe you know I again I want to give staff cover. I don't want to have them suggest something but you know ultimately staff will be in front of us when we have a town hall or something like this if we do indeed lay out the case that where we're kind of stuck. So there um the public involvement for the project as a whole, not specifically for trees, but this entire project uh does include believe it's two um online town halls that the consultants are going to help facilitate that will involve some you know outreach to people and the ability to come and ask staff questions and that kind of thing. So you may be envisioning something that's more, you know, central to you or people coming to speak to you, but I did want you to know that at least that will happen as part of this project. Yeah, just putting that out there.

All right. Well, go ahead, Commissioner.

Commissioner's office, do you have an idea? I'm I mean, about how we I'm I'm open to supporting public comment on this issue and engagement and speaking to us as commissioners. I mean, they can email us, call us, but something maybe a specific meeting beyond with the consultant online. What we with your experience, what do you what do you think would be good? Well, again, I I don't think it's urgent, but I think that we need to somehow share with the public what we're up against here on this and get their input. And so, they clearly understand that again, I think it's conflicting state policies, right, that that have to reconcile itself. And yet we are simply going to try to follow as best we can um you know some middle ground in there. But but to me I think people need to understand this.

This is a constant I I'm sure you're all having it too. I'm not not alone up here. Yeah. We're all having these conflicts where we talk to people and they say, "Geez, Commissioner, I just found out that that property across the street from me, you know, and it's a high it's a low density neighborhood." um you know is that that people just bought it, want to build a a huge little sub subdivision on it, right? Um and I bought this property years ago. It's been in my family for whatever how many generations and suddenly my lowdensity neighborhood is now going to have this change. How did that happen? Yeah. Right. And and by the way, all the trees that are there are going to be gone. Yeah. Every one of them. There's no small trees on this property.

Yeah. So I think that staff is going to be coming back with information. I mean this is a step forward where we have a lot more questions and you have a lot more work to do. So this will be coming back to us and I think at that time we can also make some modification or changes isn't set in stone at this point. So uh with that being said I appreciate the conversation everybody. I think each one of us are kind of struggling trying to find that happy uh medium in there. So, um, if there's nothing else with you, Gary, I'm going to conclude our business meeting for the day and a big thanks to you and your staff. You guys did a great job. Thank you.