Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm going to call the meeting uh to order. So, first we'll start out with roll call. Darcy, could you do that, please? Commissioner Stevens, I'm present. Commissioner Murphy, you're on mute. Yes. Present. Commissioner Lee, present. Commissioner FS here. Commissioner Cantonwine, present. Commissioner Sadder,

present. Commissioner Wilson. Um, I do not see Commissioner Wilson in the audience either. Okay, Commissioner Peterson here. Okay, we have a quorum.

Okay. Uh, so this is an opportunity for a public comment uh any issue or concern u to the planning commission uh except for what we're discussing tonight in the public hearing. Um this uh the public hearing is is uh on file ZDO 293 and it's uh related to the 2026 minor amendment package. Uh it's just a small package um that uh there will be an opportunity for public testimony during that time um which will be later in the agenda. So, is there anyone in attendance who would like to provide comment on something other than a ZDO 293? Please raise your hand feature now. Anyone out there? You're on mute, Darcy.

It looks like Dennis's hands up. Sorry, I have Dennis Tilka. Okay. Hello, Dennis. Are you there? I I I I can you hear me now? We can hear you, but we're getting an echo. I don't know what that is. I'll just turn my speaker off. Perfect. Do you still have an echo? No, it stopped it.

Oh, okay. is what I'd like to talk about is ZDO74. It's going to be coming up eventually under the clear and objective standards. Okay. And our CPO uh we worked we reworked the zoning ordinance and came up with a bunch of suggested language and we were hoping that you would get a copy of it and get a chance to look at it before it comes up. That's it. Thank you. Okay. Um trying to remember when that's coming. Do you know Darcy

or Martha? So I think that is related to Joy Fields project um under the clear and objective standards, right? And you still have a few study sessions set up. I don't believe any public hearings will be scheduled until early 2027. Okay, good. And so that's when you would consider proposed changes. I don't know what the next study session will be about, if it's about section 704 in the zoning development ordinance. I imagine um that would be a good time to discuss it, but that's something that Jennifer and Joy would have to um determine.

But it sounds like they've already submitted their comments. Yes. Yes. Yes. We we have a tenative study session on August 10th. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So I I'm assuming we will receive those comments then at that session. Okay. All right. Thank you. Anyone else from the audience? Oh, Ryan, you had your hand raised. Commissioner Wilson's in the audience, it looks like we want to get him into our session.

Yes, I'm working on that. Okay, you got it covered, Darcy. All right, so he'll be joining us shortly. All righty. Why don't I see those in my screen? I must not have something set up properly. You have to click on participants and then choose attendees.

There it is. Got it. All right. I see it now. All right. Okay. I guess with that we can uh jump into the public hearing. We're all pretty excited about this. Um so um so I'm going to go ahead and open the the public hearing. So I have a little some comments that I need to read. So bear with me for a few minutes here. So the public hearing is now open for the consideration of ZDO 293, a legislative proposal to amend the zoning and development ordinance with corresponding changes to the Clammus County comprehensive plan. Uh assisting it in the hearing today are several members of the county staff. Principal planner Martha Fritzy, senior planner Melissa Lord, planner to Nick Hart, and administrative specialist Darcy Reinhardt. This public uh hearing is being recorded conducted virtually using the Zoom platform. Panelists for today's hearing, which include members of the planning commission and county staff, have both audio and video capability. If a panelist is participating with audio by not video, members of the audience will not see the panelist's name on their screen, but will be able to hear them when they speak. Audience members who have joined the meeting will have their mics muted unless they wish to testify, in which case they will be called upon to do so by the county staff uh moderator. Audience members video will not be turned on at any time. Today's hearing is being recorded as required by law. The county will make every effort to post the recording on the county's website as soon as possible. So, I have a few general statements. Excuse me. Uh, the planning commission is charged with making a recommendation

on the legislative amendment proposal to the board of county commissioners. The record from this hearing will be forwarded to the board, which will make the final decision on this matter. The board will conduct another hearing on this application on June 16, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. That hearing will be done to no vote, meaning that will the hearing will be started a new and additional testimony may be offered. Tonight's hearing will not go beyond 10 p.m. unless a majority of the planning commissioners and tenants vote to continue past that time. If not concluded, it will be continued at a date and time certain. The hearing may be conducted for other reasons continued for other reasons as well. If an announcement of an additional hearing date and time is made tonight, it will be the only notice given of the additional hearing. So now I'm going to talk about how we're going to conduct the hearing. So first we're going to hear the planning and zoning staff report. Then there'll be entry in the record of any additional correspondence that's been received. Any technical information from other government agencies, testimony by representatives of recognized committee planning organization or hamlets, testimony by any other person, then we'll close the public hearing and the planning commission will have a discussion and make take action. So, with that, uh, let's go ahead and proceed with the, uh, planning and zoning staff report. Martha.

Alrighty. Let me share our presentation. We'll get started as soon as it starts. Hello Joe. All right. Can everyone see that? Excellent. Everyone's way over here. Yeah.

Okay. So, um as the chair mentioned, we are here to discuss ZDO 293 minor and timesensitive comprehensive plan and ZDO amendments. Um, this is a legislative amendment package that will make changes to uh proposes to make changes to one section of the one chapter of the comprehensive plan, 40 sections of our zoning and development ordinance or ZDO and it proposes to add two new sections to the ZDO. Um, this is a package that you have um, similar to other packages you've seen in the past. It's something that we try to do annually or bianually um in order to ensure that our regulations comply with state law um particularly with new mandates out of state law also to clarify existing language and correct errors and it often includes optional provisions but it's those that require only a minimal ana amount of analysis. Um it's really intended to be a minor package. I do understand um that changing that many sections of code your packet didn't look too minor. Um there's a lot a lot of pages um and I apologize for that but we we because of the the things that we were doing it really ended up touching a lot of sections in our zoning code. So this year's uh minor and timesensitive code amendment package proposes to do a number of things. Um and we have sort of summarized them into five actions or five buckets or types of amendments. The first being implementing recent changes in state law. Um these may be changes that happen through the legislature or rulemaking. These are changes that are either now in effect or will be in effect very very soon. Um and

so it requires us to update our zoning and development ordinance to implement these changes. Um the second action would be to align um the agriculture and for forest zone requirements with state law. This includes some recent changes to state law, but it also includes a pretty um indepth audit of state law and our zoning code. Um Jennifer Hughes, our planning director, did most of that and really focused on exclusive farm use, the agriculture um zone, and found a number of areas, a surprising number of areas, I think, where our code is no longer consistent with state law. And so there were a fair number of changes in those zones that are being proposed. Um the next action would be to amend certain standards within the Wamtt River Greenway. Um, and Melissa Lord is going to talk to you a little bit about what those are and what that means. Um, the other action is to clarify how to identify lot lines for measuring structure setbacks, which seems like something really easy, but it's not. Um, and Nick is going to talk to you about um why why we have done that um and what we're proposing. And then the last bucket is sort of a catchall. It's other minor changes. Um we we like to where possible reduce administrative burdens. Um add some clarifying language. In this case we even added some definitions to clarify um some standards. And then of course nobody's perfect. We always find um sort of housekeeping type corrections, correcting citations, typos and things like that. So I'm going to start in on number one. This is a very very big topic. I could talk about it for hours, but I promise you I will not. Um, we have talked a little bit about in past study sessions about all of the

changes um that keep happening um through the legislative sessions and all the changes to state law. And so there are a lot that are currently in effect. A lot of them came out of the 2025 legislative session, some before and even a couple from 2026. And so we um are proposing to incorporate all of those changes into our zoning and development ordinance. And there's a sort of a couple different categories of these changes. One is procedural. Um there are some new procedural pathways that were created by the legislature. Most of these really apply to applications for housing. Some of them also apply to these special uses that I'll talk to you a little bit about. um the legislature created these sort of special carveouts for certain uses um that the county is and and other cities are now required to allow in certain areas. Um but procedurally um there's a couple of different new um application types that we are sort of subtypes that we are proposing to add to um section 1307 of our zoning code to try to incorporate some of these changes. And so just generally speaking without taking too much of of your time um there's four different types of of applications. A type one um is is really um it's a ministerial. An applicant applies. It doesn't you know the decision does not involve discretionary standards. Um it is it's made at a staff level. a type two an applicant does apply um for but the decision does involve potentially some some discretionary approval criteria. A type three which we're not talking about today are the more complicated more discretionary um applications like zone changes or conditional uses, excuse me. And type fours are what we're doing

today. They're legislative changes. Um and so because of recent legislation, um we have had to sort of add these subtypes because there's sort of different procedures that we're required to use for certain application types, but it really is a type two, but it's not. And so we're trying to weave all of these things together. And how that ended um up was creating these new application types, a type 1h which applies to um housing projects seeking approval only under clear and objective standards. Um and I can I'm going to talk a little bit about what that's going to mean in terms of procedures. And then there's a type 2E um which is for expedited land divisions and it applies to certain partitions and subdivision applications and also middle housing land divisions. And then a type 2S are these special uses and some other housing applications which are really um a type two but they have certain special requirements including things like different notice distance or no notice at all, different comment periods, different rules and how appeals are processed. Um and so if you're confused, you're not the only one. It is very confusing. We're in the process of creating a big table for ourselves for staff and also a flowchart and are struggling through it as planners to try to wrap all of these pieces together. Um so we are doing our best to add these into the code with this package understanding that some of these may be moving parts still um and may require some changes again. And speaking of changes, um, I'm gonna hand this off to Nick really quick to talk about a little bit about middle housing land divisions and how that is changing.

Thanks, Martha. Uh, the changes to middle housing land divisions are kind of a revision of the middle housing land division process that was originally adopted when middle housing became a thing in Oregon. So that's the duplexes through quadplexes and cottage clusters in urban areas. When you build those, you also have the opportunity to do what is called the middle housing land division, which is to divide each unit in that middle housing, be it each half of a duplex or each cottage in a cottage cluster onto their own lots. With the most recent set of changes, they've increased when people can apply for middle housing land divisions. So, you can now apply concurrently with your traditional subdivision or partition application. You can also apply for a middle housing land division before, during, or after you submit your building permits for the middle housing. And then possibly most critically, they've provided flexibility where we can now allow the utility districts for water and wastewater to determine whether or not separate um services are going to be required or not. Currently, you're required to run a separate water line and a separate sewer line to each unit or at least set up separate accounts with those utilities. Moving forward, planning and sort of the zoning and development ordinance will be out of that and we'll be allowing service districts to apply their own standards to those utilities as they see fit. So, those are the big changes. The other one is that it aligns the middle housing land division application with the type 2 E procedure that is also applicable to expedited land divisions. So there's a little bit of consolidation in terms of the number of procedures that's going on here as well.

Thanks Nick. Um and then I mentioned there were two new housing applications and these were um this first one called an urban housing application came out of the 2025 legislature. There is a requirement that um within an urban growth boundary if an applicant um is applying for a planned unit development variance or zone change and this is a zone change without a a corresponding comprehensive plan designation change. Um and it's for housing. there is this new streamlined process that they can go through which includes a 14-day notice period to neighbors. Um so neighbors do get notified but the the notice period is or the comment period is shorter than our typical 20 days. Um, and most importantly, it requires that any issue um be raised during that it must be raised during that 14-day comment period in order um for it to be considered an appeal. And so that's a little bit different than our current process. The issue does have to be raised, but this is very very strict that it needs to be raised within that 14-day period. And so that only applies um to those types of proposed developments. All of the rest of the standard procedures under a type two um would apply in terms of timeline completeness checks and timelines and things like that. Um, I think one thing that did change pretty notably, I think Nick may have to correct me if I'm wrong, is that in consolidating the middle housing land divisions and expedited land divisions, um, it took away the public notice. There is no public notice requirement. In fact, we can't send public notice with those two types of land divisions

anymore. Um, so this is a little bit different. you can. This last one doesn't even really have a name. Um I'm calling it right now the clear and objective housing application. This came out of the 2026 legislature. There's still a lot of questions um going back and forth between um various counties and cities and the state on how this actually is going to work. Um, we think it applies to all housing both inside the UGB and outside the UGB and rural residential zones that are subject to the clear and objective standards um, requirements. And it applies only if the housing proposal is using clear and objective standards as opposed to these discretionary optional discretionary standards that we are allowed to have. Um it it's a type one because it only uses clear and objective standards. It is not under any using any discretionary standards. Um but it is limited um in a in that notice may be sent to neighboring property owners only within a certain distance which is different than our current distance. Um but only the applicant may appeal to LUBA and so notice can be sent um and property owners can provide comments but property owners do not have a right to apply the decision to Luba. Um and so this is causing a lot of consternation and some questions as far as we can tell. this is what the rules say and so this is how we have um proposed to include it in our zoning code at this point. So getting past procedures a little bit there also were a number of special uses um that the legislature is requiring um be located. These generally apply in the

urban areas. Um, in exhibit two of your packet, I included a table that describes um where either in the urban or rural area these particular uses um have to be allowed, including child care centers, which really affect uh multif family zones and commercial zones and to some extent industrial zones in the urban area. um emergency shelters which actually affect any zone in the urban area and uh rural residential zones. Uh emergency shelter sighting is something that actually has been in the statute and been a requirement for a number of years now. The county has actually approved two of those um in the urban area just directly out of state law. It originally was going to sunset, but now it's tied to the the the count the homeless count, the statewide homeless count. Um, and so we don't think it's going to sunset for quite some time. So, we decided to add it to our code. All of these are just really for ease of administration because it's so so hard to implement state law directly out of state law when it's presumably in many cases in conflict with our our county zoning code. Um residential treatment facilities and treatment homes are required um have to be allowed on public lands um in the urban area land zone for residential use, commercial use, certain industrial lands. Um there are some limitations. They can't locate on um areas that are protected as hazard areas like the uh flood hazard areas, um uh steep slopes, things like that. uh mental and psychiatric hospitals and crisis stabilization centers are two separate uses um that the um the legislature allowed sort of in different places only they have to locate next to they have to locate adjacent to each other and so I think there's going to be fairly limited

applicability for these um but again this is something that has to be allowed in in the majority of our urban area although mention and psychiatric hospitals um are not do not have to be allowed in residential zones and then preschool, pre kindergarten, um associated with a place of worship. Um that was added into sort of the allowed accessory uses for places of worship. This applies to places of worship that are allowed under the code um not to non-conforming uses. And so then my last slide dealing with um implementing state law, I told you I could talk about to you about this for hours and hours, has to do with parking. And we have talked about this in the past. Um, under state law, um, under the b the transportation planning rule, the Oregon administrative rule 660, division 12, um, it says that within the urban area, well, it doesn't say it like this, but the rules mean that uh, within the urban area, Clackamus County can no longer require um any minimum off- streetet parking with associated with develop velment. There are also maximums um in certain urban areas for off- streetet parking that have to be applied and then certain design standards in and um including tree canopy for parking lots, new parking lots that are over a half of an acre in size. These stand these rules are already in effect as of July 1, 2024. The county has not been able to enforce any of our parking off- streetet parking mandates that are in the ZDO. We have been implementing them right out of state law. Um it is interesting to know um because uh Nick and Melissa were kind enough to look up

some permitting history um in since then in 2024 and 25 off streetet parking has continued to be provided by developers in the urban area. Um, with that said, we have had one cottage cluster development to to my knowledge with five units that did not provide parking. All of the rest of the middle housing developments provided parking and in fact provided more parking than we would have required. Um, before 20 July 1, 2024, it would have they would have had to provide one park off streetet parking space per dwelling unit. Um, and much more was provided. And then other developments some we had some commercial multif family institutional uses provided about the same amount of parking that would have been required under our ZDO. Um I think it was like it was about 98% of the total that would have been required. So that doesn't mean that this is going to continue to happen. Um but it does mean that developers um in many cases do want to provide parking. Um and understand that Clacamus County is is not is not an an intense urban area like the city of Portland. Yes, I said that in a public meeting. So that that is sort of the uh all of the largely housing related changes um under state law. There were some changes under state law that affected our agriculture and forest zones. Um, but like I mentioned, uh, the planning director also went through, um, in detail the both the Oregon administrative rules, um, and the revised statutes as they relate to what sorts of uses and procedures we have to allow in these zones. Um, excuse me. For Clakamus County, our agriculture and forest zones are

exclusive farm use or EFU, which is section 401. Section 406 is timber or TBR, and then egg forest, which is a mixed farm forest, which is section 407. And so there were a fair number of changes um to those three sections in your packet. Those were made for consistency with state law. Um they included um a number of changes to reflect recent rule making in EFU. Um and also um uh recent legislative changes including the repeal of the state wildfire map. But then when Jennifer was looking uh our planning director Jennifer was looking um at how our code aligned with state law, she found a lot of other inconsistencies um including certain approval periods. Um, and so amendments were made to those to align those with state law. There were some land divisions that were allowed under state law that were not in our code. Um, and so we added those. There were a few things that she deleted um from our code because they either didn't seem to be allowed in state law or in the case um or they required um an analysis and that had been that had the county had not been that the county had not yet completed um in order uh for that specific use to be allowed. And so it was confusing to have something in our code that we actually couldn't allow. She looked at this through the lens of the direction that the board has given us over the past several years that uses there are listed uses in farm and forest zone that the county has to allow um outright and then there are some that the county may allow and subject to certain standards.

the board of county commissioners has consistently given us direction to allow for as much as state law allows to not be more restrictive. And so she was looking at it with this lens um and found a number of discrepancies. Like I said, she took the deepest dive into the farm um into the agricultural zones into EFU. Um but there were uh a number of changes also in section 406 um the timber zone. And then finally, section 407 looks really really scary um because there's a lot of red line and a lot of deletions. Um at the end of the day, it didn't substantively change anything. What happened um what what we are proposing at this point is there is this extensive table of uses in the a forest zone. in the mixed farm and forest zone with the exception of dwellings generally speaking um somebody could do everything allowed in the farm zones everything in 401 and EF if you and everything in 406 and it's subject to the same standards in both of those zones where the standards are conflicting you have to to either meet both or the more restrictive standards and so rather than continue this long long list um of these of us uses from both of those zones. The proposal is to take that long list out and just simply send people to either section 401 or 406 to understand what they can do. So that's why it's not substantively different. The substantive changes of course would be um if something substantively changed in 401 or in 406 then it also will have changed in in 407 if that makes sense. So, I'm sure you're tired of hearing me talk. That is all I'm going to say at this point about aligning our code with state law. I am going to hand this off to

um Melissa to change gears here a little bit and talk about one of our optional or a few of our optional changes proposed as they relate to the W River Greenway.

Thank you, Martha. Uh well, good evening, folks. I'll talk to you this uh evening about the proposed changes to the WMT River Greenway uh code. Our zoning code section that applies these rules is ZDO section 705 and chapter 3 of our comprehensive plan. We're not proposing to change or amend the greenway design plan or the greenway boundary in any way. Um what I will explain to you tonight is just a couple of changes that we are proposing. So first we're looking to add some clarification on how to measure the size of a dock. Uh we often get questions about this um from new planners and from customers. And so we're adding proposing to add language to help clarify what we've already been doing as well as a diagram that um is consistent with DSL. So hopefully that should add some clarification for everybody. um proposing a dock or or amending a dock in the future. Uh also related to docks um and I'll talk to you on our next slide about it a bit more is the proposal to remove a prohibition on docks on non-commercial uh private docks in a specific area of the greenway. And then lastly, I'll talk to you about the uh proposal to remove a height restriction that applies um specifically in the highdensity residential zoning district within the WMT River Greenway. Next slide, please. Thank you. Uh so on here we've got a map. Um and I'll describe the map to you very quickly just so we know what in the heck we're looking at. On the left hand side of our map, we've got well both both maps here are showing the extent of what we call a limited use area on the WMT River Greenway. There are two areas uh on the Wamtt River that are identified as this

limited use area. The first uh which is the left hand side of your your map here is generally near the Malala River State Park or the Weber Farm Natural Area. Um, and then on the right hand side of this map is the second area of the limited use zone, limited use area, and it's generally between, I guess, north of, uh, Rock Island and then Balancing Rock as well. So, um, what we looked at in in in doing this mapping exercise, we took a look at these limited use areas and identified that of 41 lots within this limited use area that have homes on them. Um, only three of these lots currently don't have a dock. Now, our zoning code actually prohibits docks in this limited use area. And so for whatever rich which reason only three homes currently are actually impacted by this prohibition. And so our proposal is to remove the prohibition as it really does have such a limited uh impact moving forward uh by restricting only three of 41 riverfront properties uh riverfront properties with homes on them. currently. Um, as I mentioned, there are uh height limitations or height height restrictions on residential development in the Wamut River Greenway. Currently, uh, currently the zoning code reads that any residential development uh, shall be limited to 35 ft in height. Non-residential development doesn't have a height restriction in the Wamtt River Greenway. So, um, we'll specifically focus on residential development. Uh, interestingly, this 35 ft height limit currently applies to lowdensity residential zones. Um, but in the highdensity residential zones uh outside

of the Wamtt River Greenway, there is no height uh maximum height or uh yeah, maximum height allowed for residential structures. So what we've looked at is to um amend the code in order to remove that restriction on residential height uh limits specifically in the HDR highdensity residential zoning districts. Now the map here um the map here shows a couple things that I'll draw your attention to. The first are um all the properties highlighted in orange is every property within the Wamtt River Greenway uh overlay and um the uh greenway overlay is in this blue line shown kind of on the perimeters of the of the river itself. But every property in the highdensity residential zone that's within the Wamut River Greenway. Now, our mapping software uh shows the entire parcel, but if you do focus in a little bit more on where that blue line um delineating that Wamtt River Greenway uh buffer is, you can see that only a few partials are wholly in incorporated um in the HDR zone in the Wamtt River Greenway or just small fractions um of specific properties. So, our proposal really to remove the height height limit on HDR zoned property within the greenway um doesn't actually impact too many lots overall within the entire greenway and certainly within the HDR zones itself. Um there will be a small restriction a small area where that restriction would be alleviated. This proposal would align more closely with the current residential development allowances uh in the HDR zones that aren't in the Wamtt River Greenway.

Thanks, Melissa. Um we're going to move on to Nick who's going to talk about a couple of other topics.

Sure. The first of these that I'll talk with you about tonight is the work that we did to clarify how lot lines are established for the purposes of determining setbacks. Last time we were here to talk to you about this amendments package, we shared a bunch of interesting shaped lots that we've found as we're we're doing our permit reviews and shared a little bit about the ways in which those lots cause problems for staff and cause problems for members of the public in determining where is my front lot line, where is my side lot line and then how can I, you know, situate my development on this lot to meet the setback requirements. The bulk of the work that we did in making these changes can be found in ZDO sections 202 and 903 which are each the definitions and setback exception sections respectively. And with those changes, what we were able to do is try and make our language a little bit more straightforward. We were defining terms where we hadn't defined them before and we were clarifying definitions that we already had to hopefully make things a little bit more approachable for folks and to make sure that we're actually getting the outcomes we want with that. And because we were only making changes to these definitions, our hope is that we haven't made any change to the setback distances required by various zones. So if it was a requirement that you were 15 feet from your front lot line before, the requirement is still that you are 15 feet from your front lot line. I know that at the last meeting we had heard a little bit of discussion and certainly at the board as well. I think there was some discussion of of evaluating some of the distances that we are requiring, but that's not what we've done with this package. So, it may be a question that we're directed to look into moving forward, but with this one, we were really focused on the nuts and bolts of making sure we get the lot lines in the right places in a way that is consistently understandable for staff and members of the public.

And Martha, could I get the next slide? Oh, perfect. Um, this one is a bit of a grabag. Uh, other minor changes. So these are all of the the little things the sort of pain points that we've identified as we've worked with the code and as people have pointed out to us as they try and work with our code. Taking steps to reduce administrative burdens, correct citations where we had errors, remove incorrect citations and provisions that no longer say what they used to say. Um little hanging things that were left over from prior cleanup projects and things like that. We sought to increase clarity by adding definitions and and reworking some of the language to try and avoid things that cause confusion for staff and the public. And generally, this is just sort of our housekeeping bucket. Um the the biggest procedural change is going to be the next slide here, which is that Jennifer has decided, Jennifer, who's the planning director, has decided that we're going to do away with most all of our time extensions. Time extensions are a part of our code that has been here for a long time. Generally, our land use approvals are valid for four years. And at any point in your last year of your approval period, an applicant may request up to two additional years to implement their approval, to get things built out, to establish their uses, to to finish their subdivision, whatever it may be. The way that time extensions work in our code is an applicant is essentially required to demonstrate that their project still meets all of the approval criteria. And what that means is it's basically the same as doing a new application all over again. It's a lot of time for staff and it's a lot of time for applicants. And ultimately, our zoning and development ordinance is not changing so substantially so often that we frequently find that things that we approved four years ago are are in no way, shape or form approvable today. A

lot of times these are kind of wrote exercises and in rehashing a lot of what had already been gone over before. And so with this, the the proposal is to extend almost all of our approval periods from four years to 6 years. So to essentially just give everyone an extra two years off the bat and then to get rid of that opportunity to do a time extension. So there won't be any 8-year approvals coming out of this. It's just everyone's going to get six years. The one exception to that is some approval periods in our zoning code come directly from the natural resource zones. Those are the a forest EFU and timber that Martha was talking about earlier. Those are set out by state law. We can't do anything to change those and so those will continue to match those requirements whatever they may be.

Thanks, Nick. And I will say that this is one of those items that created a lot a lot of paperwork for you. Um there were a number of sections in um in the packet where this was the only change, but we have to provide the whole section with the red line. And so, um, hopefully it was helpful that there were summaries of the changes at the beginning of each section so you understood which of those were really just there because of this. Um, one of the other minor changes has to do with um, specialized structures in our industrial zones. Um and so there is a category of structures um identified in our industrial zones or well identified in our code um called silos, towers and other specialized storage and processing structures. Currently they're found actually in section 105 under sighting uh building and site design. Um, currently these types of structures are prohibited in our light industrial zones which are light industrial and business park unless they are inside of a building and the building needs to meet all of the design and and building standards. You can store in it um what you want. Um they current these types of structurals currently are allowed both inside and outside buildings in general industrial zones. Um this it came to our attention that maybe there are some circumstances in which specialized these types of specialized storage structures um could and should be located outside in the light industrial zones um in certain circumstances. And so um we looked at it and talked about it and um included in this package a proposal that would allow such structures outside in the light industrial and business park zones but subject to certain limitations.

Um because there are certain limitations already for outdoor storage and display and processing and operations in those zones. Um and so in this case the proposal would be to limit the height to 12 feet for these specialized structures. It has to locate behind the building. Um and it needs to be screened with a fence um from neighboring properties a minimum sixoot fence. Um and so that would be the proposal to allow on a limited basis certain specialized storage structures outside. And I know the question is going to be asked, well, what is a specialized storage structure? And that's a very very good question. Um, and I know there was some testimony that you received in your um packet exhibits three and four um related to this specific item and there was a specific request to define a specialized structure. We've talked about it. It's a very hard thing to define. A specialized structure really isn't about what it's storing. It's a structure. Um, and the example that was in the testimony and that we think about is, you know, is a storage tank for something. It's not really a structure. It it it's intended to store something very specific, be it hazardous or not, be it water or some sort of, you know, hazardous chemical, but it's a structure that can't meet standard building design and building codes and pro and obviously and shouldn't. um you know and silos and towers are also specialized structures. They tend to be a little different than regular structures in terms of having to meet um building designs um not building codes but building um designs for aesthetic um purposes. And so the

the specialized structure we we stopped a little short of actually creating a definition because we didn't want to um unintentionally restrict something that we think should be allowed under this and without understanding sort of the breadth of what we have out there that we would define as a specialized structure. Um we the proposal is to leave it without a definition. Um, we have been able in the past to understand what this means in our code in the general industrial zone. And so we would just continue to sort of work with the same understanding if um if this proposal moves forward to allow it on this limited basis outside in the light industrial zones. I swear I'm almost done. Um, one other minor change that I want to bring to your attention is single room occupancies. um only because this arguably is not required um in our code yet. Um but it will be required under state law as of January 1st, 2027. And I wanted to add it to our code now for a couple of reasons. Um we've talked about SRO's before in the past because they are we did have to add them to all of our urban residential zones. SRO's this is the definition of SRO out of state law. It's a little bit confusing, but it's essentially like dormatory style living. They're not actual dwelling units. They're units that folks live in, but they have um you know, shared kitchen space or shared bathroom spaces in the structure. And so, state law required SRO's be allowed in all residential zones. Arguably, it already should be allowed in urban commercial zones that allow multi family housing and congregate housing types. Um, but it's not real clear. It

wi it is clear in recent legislation that as of January 1, it will have to be allowed. I think personally I wanted to in include this because if somebody were to come in right now in a commercial zone that allows multif family housing and congregate housing and other sort of multi-unit housing types um if they were to propose an single room occupancy they would have to go through a similar use determination and to me this falls under this administrative burden. Why why would we send somebody through a similar use determination which is um an interpretation which will take you know 4 months potentially um when this is going to have to be allowed in January anyway. I think it's pretty obvious this is a similar use to other sorts of sort of multi-unit um housing situations and so that's why we're proposing to put it in our code right now. So, um that's the big long explanation of all of the changes that we're making hopefully or most of the changes at least um the most pertinent ones. Um as per usual when we are making changes to our comprehensive plan, our zoning code, um we need to make sure that we are meeting um all of the applicable approval criteria. The findings are included in the staff report that was in your packet. Um it includes findings against the various um statewide planning goals also the um Oregon revised statutes and administrative rules because a lot of these apply in the um Portland metropolitan urban growth boundary were also subject to both the um urban growth management functional plan and because of the parking related um changes were subject also to standards in the regional transportation functional plan um of metros and then of course the county's

own comprehensive plan. Um and in this case we did need to amend chapter 3 for the changes that we're proposing in the William River Greenway and then the zoning development ordinance. Uh most of the other standards in the both the comp plan and the ZDO really have to do with procedural standards which were followed in this case. Um I'm not going to get into a lot of detail about the findings. They are in your staff report. Um the conclusion is that staff finds that we have met all of the applicable approval criteria. Um of note is goal five under the statewide planning goals because those are the rules that apply to the WM River Greenway. And anytime you're proposing to make changes to the greenway, you need to make sure you are compliant with goal 15. Did I say goal five? I meant goal 15. Um and so after um you know Melissa had mentioned that the changes that we're proposing um we believe will have a very minimal um impact if any impact because of the small um amount of the small number of docks that would potentially be allowed with this change because of the very small number of parcels that are both within the Wamtt River Greenway and the highdensity residential area that would then be allowed to develop housing potentially taller than 35 ft. Um we think um that those changes are very minor and would have minimal if any impact and did not find anything in goal 15 that requires us to have either of those standards. Um and so staff does did find that the proposed changes that we are making do comply do do maintain the county's compliance um with goal goal 15 the William River Greenway

and so I'm going to try to wrap this up into a lot sort of some logical buckets again it seems to be my word of the day um because there's a lot a lot of changes um and a lot of these changes are mandatory to comply with state law. And we have to do these. Um, arguably we don't have to do them and we could continue to implement things directly out of state law. Um, arguably that does not arguably that does cause confusion and problems. um confusion with staff, confusion with the public, um and technically could put the county at risk at some point for um some sort of enforcement action from the state because we we are required to implement these these changes in our code. Um which is why we are proposing to do those. I will note under sort of these mandatory compliance with state law options under the procedures that sort of wonky one that I said came out of the 2026 legislature where we can provide notice to property owners but property owners cannot appeal to Luba. Um there is I we think some discretion to say hey we don't want to provide notice even though we can historically um we have always provided notice in every instance where we are allowed to and so we are proposing to that to to do that in this case but I suppose that is one sort of policy decision point um if you were like to go down that road um absolutely we can talk about that and then the other optional items obviously are optional um including the Wamtt River Greenway amendments. Um the the clarification um that Nick talked about related to lot lines and setbacks, the specialized structures, the time

extensions, SRO's and commercial zones. I put sort of that's my super technical term. I mean technically it might be optional right now, but it does need to be um added by January. Um and then the other changes to definitions and other clarifying amendments. Um those are those are really sort of the optional policy type decisions that are available at this point and we can certainly talk through those a little bit more. At this point, um, staff does recommend that the planning commission recommend to the board adoption of, excuse me, ZDO293, including all of the amendments that are in attachment A in that big stack of paper that you received in the mail. And that is where I'm stopping for now. That was long. I apologize. We were aiming for a little bit shorter, but it's just it's a lot. So, I will stop sharing. I will end this and we'll move on.

You're you're on mute, chair. Okay. Sorry about that. Uh so uh looks like we have a few few uh members of the commission that would like to have their hands raised. So Commissioner Stevens, I think you were first. So

um thank you Peterson. I I think my first question is going to be how do you want to approach comments and questions because as you have articulated quite well, this is an arm load. Um, do we do we want to go by each of these little packets or do you want us I I how how how would you best digest this, Martha? I don't have a strong preference.

Okay. Okay. I guess you can start asking questions and any of the three of us um may may answer depending on sort of the piece of work that we do. Well, I won't monopolize. So, let me go through a couple.

Um some of these I actually got answered by your presentation. So, thank you. Um okay, just a weird one. You know how when you redline there's always a mark on the left that says there's a red line here and there is a mark on 202-9. Um is that how how yeah 202-9 but I couldn't find the correction. I just want to point that out. You know there was a correction made but it doesn't show it. So that was uh the easiest one you're going to get tonight. Um, oh, when we get into 202-12, lot area or lot size, and obviously we're into definitions. It talked about, and I found this just fascinating, um, for property with a comp plan design of rural agriculture or forests, lots with street frontage on county or public road right of way may include the land area between the front lot line and the center of the county or public rightway. Because I do understand that out here in the country, we own the property to the middle of that road. It's like an easement. And so I'm curious about this. Not only why are are we and what would you do use that for? Can anybody does anyone know?

I can take that one if Oh, please. All right. Um, the reason that we proposed that change in that location is because with the recent changes in state law that allow for accessory dwelling units in some rural areas, that's tied to a 2acre minimum lot size standard for the lot that would have an ADU on it.

Under the prior definition of lot area or lot size, you weren't able to count the area under the right ofway, but then if you came in to do a land division, we would let you count that area. And so our intent was just kind of consolidating the different ways that we describe and measure lot area or lot size to say that hey every time we do it in these zones we're going to do it exactly this way. This will help people who have 1.99 acres and would like an ADU in some rural areas and it will help everyone by making it a lot easier for us to answer questions at the counter and for people to understand how big is my property actually when I go to talk to planning and they say I need this many acres this is exactly how I will measure it and I only need to know the one way.

That's a perfect explanation. I couldn't come up with that scenario and well done. Thank you Nick very much. um flag lot. I I have a ranch with a heck of a lot of easements and I've helped a lot of people with the easements. I found this no greater than 25 ft in width. I don't have an easement under 30 ft. So, I was just curious why 25 was chosen because most of our access easements out here are 30 plus.

Sure. The 25 ft in width is a width that we chose when we were drafting this primarily with an eye towards the urban area. One of the unique challenges of the zoning code is that it or the zoning and development ordinance is that it gets to work in both rural and urban areas. The reason we picked that no more than 25 ft in width is once you're over about 25 ft, you start having the opportunity where your flag pole, your easement, whether it's deed or or an easement is now wide enough that you could conceivably build something in it and still meet the setbacks. Excellent.

At which point it's not really like a flag pole anymore. Like that's just part of your admittedly kind of strangely shaped lot. And so that's why we put the the break where we did. We're of course open to feedback on if a different number makes more sense, but that was sort of

when you said urban, then it began to make sense. So, okay, got it. Um, I only had one question actually, which is quite shocking on the timber zone TBR, which is the um 406. Back on 40620 19 and 20, the mineral aggregate oil and gas uses to to include commercial utility facilities for the purpose of generating power and new electric transmission lines with rightaway widths were all deleted. Were did I miss that they were redefined elsewhere? I mean, so why let's just go with why were they deleted? because there's a lot of mineral and egg on TV stuff.

I need a minute to look that up. So, I don't know if you want to move on to another question while actually um I'm going to save EFU to the end because that's my big one. But I did have one more

and then those are all my questions other than the EFU stuff. So under Oh, procedures. Uh oh. Okay. Um I'm going to save that one as well. And and it and what you said, Martha, is going to be a discussion I really want to have about this giving shorter notice and not being able to appeal to Luba. I mean that's that so flies in the face of land use state land use rule number one. I I really want to have a very serious conversation with this planning commission about that. So and most importantly the county stance on it and I'll I'll stop until we can get to EFU and thank you. Thank you Chair Peterson.

Okay Martha, were you still looking up the response or You can go ahead. I can listen. I'm I'm looking for something in particular. I know what I'm looking for. So, so I'll move on to the next person and and then so just for clarification, uh Tammy, uh this your concerns about the FU, are these that you want to talk about during deliberations or are they questions specific to staff? Um you know what? I haven't gone back through. I did this a few days ago. Let me go back through uh chair and I will answer that in just a minute. Okay. If that's okay. Yeah, that's great.

I want to make sure I understood what you meant by discussing this with the commission. Don't want to get into deliberations before we've had uh the rest of the testimony. Oh, no, no, no. Definitely not deliberation. It's just more of a a discussion and question and answer on the topic of um Okay. uh less notified and and not no right to appeal. That's that's kind of but it's still a staff question in other words. Absolutely. Okay. Thanks. All right. All right. Uh Commissioner Burke. Oh, I see Martha. You looks like you have I have an answer for Tammy. Oh, thank you.

Sorry. Sorry. Um it's not that it's not that it was removed. um the it was moved up to the table of uses. So if you look up at the table of uses under mining and processing of oil, gas, and other subsurface resources, you'll see some additions there. And I think the reason that that was moved is because where you had found it struck Yes.

was really just an explanation of what it was. This area is intended to be for standards that need to be met. Um, and there aren't any really standards. It's just explaining what it what the use is. And so rather than send you down to page 20 for a little bit more explanation of what the use is, um, we moved it up into the actual table of uses. Okay. That it just got was very conflicting to me. Here it's like yes and here. no more. And I'm like, whoa. Okay, but now I see what you're doing.

No, that's totally fair. And also to answer your previous question, um it's very possible when there's a line indicating track changes that it's a formatting change. I turned off all of those so you wouldn't see that on the right hand side. Um Okay. So, thank you. It's missing anything. Okay. Good. Good. Thank you. Okay. So, we'll move on to Commissioner Murphy and then we'll come back to you. Thank you, Tom. Yeah.

Um, question about 839. Uh, will the building codes reflect home hardening at all? Uh, state fire marshall is pushing that. You know, there's quite an effort in the Mount Hood corridor to harden our properties. Uh, and we have insurance companies right now making sure you harden. Is our Clackman County code going to reflect that or are these going to have to be efforts once you've been approached by your building code? Yes.

So 839. Let me open that one real quick. Um Oh, that's the removal of Okay. So, so yes. um the sort of the the reason that that is being struck out of and so 839 is the accessory dwelling units and I think you're referring to us striking the requirement for um of course this is taking its sweet time to open um striking the requirement for the um particular building code requirement for hardening within areas identified on the wildfire map under certain categories so So that wildfire map was repealed. Um and these rules under state law that we have to follow for rural ADUs were also repealed because the map was repealed. And so there's there's no law anymore that requires that the county have these provisions and they kind of don't make a whole lot of sense outside of the context of the state wildfire hazard map. Um the construction the the R327 construction standards in the Oregon residential specialty code are not going away. Um but what's happening is our zoning code is not requiring it in every single case anymore. I don't know how it's required under the building code u because we don't implement the actual building code. I do think that there have continued to be conversations at the state level since the repeal of the statewide uh wildfire map related to well what should we do and what changes should be made and I think there may be some building code changes and I don't know if other land use changes are coming but as it stands right now we're

not required to have this in there there is no longer a state wildfire hazard map and so this require requirement um is being repealed. It I think it's going to freeze or is he really mad at me? No, not at all. Can you hear me now? Oh, is it me or is he I can hear Murf and you're kind of um jumping Martha. Uh oh. Okay. Your batteries are low. I I'm afraid I didn't hear what you said, M. Okay. Should I continue then?

Yeah. Can I Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. No. Are you have additional questions? Uh, yes, I did.

Okay. 848 would be would this include this is an emergency sheltering. We just had an evacuation practice. I've often asked have we done any pre-planning of transitional housing like for FEMA trailers or areas that we may need to put a large group of people if we do have a catastrophic wildfire similar to the Riverside fire. Where are we going to put everybody? It's not going to be in a high school gym. We're going to need places where we could accept FEMA trailers or things of that nature for long periods of time. Um, so I was wondering if this proposal would cover that. So my understanding of the rules for emergency shelter sighting are not intended for for that. These are if you look at the definition an emergency shelter is a building or a cluster of buildings that provide shelter on a temporary basis for individuals and families who lack permanent housing. Um, it's it's for homeless, which doesn't mean that somebody who is temporarily homeless couldn't, you know, take advantage of one of these types of emergency shelters, but it's not an area to park temporary trailers. Um, we my understanding is that I mean that's a temp that would be a temporary use. Um and so there are other ways to authorize temporary uses in areas that wouldn't require code changes. Um this is a more permanent use of the land. Um and so for example, we use this to authorize um I I

call it the second phase of the vets village. It's not really for vets, but it's right next to the vets village, if you're familiar, off of Jennifer and 114th 15th um

for a shelter down there where they placed with building permits, you know, permanent structures to house um homeless for periods of time. So on that subject, SRO's are SRO's only on one foundation in a group or would there be such a thing as SRO's in a cottage type setup where they would share kitchen, they would share restrooms, laundry, but they would be built more like the Veterans Village where they'd have individual units.

So that's a really good question. And I have to go back to the definition of SRO. I don't know if it's required to be in one building or not. Um um next is item three setbacks. Wait, wait. Okay. Um I'm almost there. So single room occupancy residential development. Uh I mean it doesn't require that it be in one building. So I guess theoretically an SRO could be multiple buildings. Okay. Excellent. So, um, but only within a channel migration zone or only within an urban growth boundary. The SRO's Yes.

Okay. Okay. Now, 903 setbacks. We still Clackman County still has not recognized channel migration even though it's paid for mapping within the Sandy Watershed. Uh, it's also been mapped in the Malala area. Channel migration is a serious issue. We have my neighborhood. I just walked down the street. I have a house foundation hanging over into the river and due to angle of repose, it keeps changing. It keeps losing soil underneath it. Uh and we're seeing some very very intense erosions in this area. I highly recommend Clackmus County start recognizing these channel migration zones for development. Lot lines, they disappear. How do you deal with a a setback in a habitat area uh when the propertyy's gone and your riverbank is under your home? This is something that uh we need to look at as reality. We have a dynamic landscape that changes constantly. codes might not change, but our our landscapes do and we need to take that into consideration. And I'll leave it right there. Thank you.

That's all your comments then for now. Yeah, for now. All righty. I know there will be more. Uh there'll be another opportunity, so hold on to them. Uh Commissioner Wilson, your hand is raised. You're on mute.

Well, you're still on mute, Commissioner Wilson. Must be having technical diff difficulties. I don't know. Well, uh, if there while we're waiting, is there anyone else? I sent him a request to unmute himself. Okay. Well, he was in for a while there was anyway. Unmuted. Uh, there you are.

Okay. Well, I was asking Mr. Hart there. Uh, allow you said allow districts to set standards. Now, what do we mean by a district? And do some of these districts butt up against each other? And could there be some confusion as to standards in one district and they not be the same standard in another district? I'm just a little confused there. Could you clarify me on that? I can try. Yeah. When you say standards being different from district to district, are you talking specifically about the the lot area that I discussed earlier or is there another section you're looking at?

So, we're not talking about things like water districts or fire districts or something like that, right? I think he's talking about housing land division. Oh,

yeah. So, with water districts and sewer districts, there are a number of them in the county. It's another somewhat unique thing about Clakamus County. Whereas often in cities you have city water, here we have three or four different water providers, already the standards are different between different districts. And so there's already a degree of of complication inherent in that by allowing or by amending our code in this way with the middle housing land divisions, we're allowing those districts to set their standards. And so we're actually just removing a layer of planning says you must do this, say Oak Lodge water says you must do this, and West Sewer says you must do this. Now it's just going to be talk to the sewer provider, talk to the water provider. Planning and zoning will take what they say as they're the ones providing the service. So, it's hopefully not going to increase the degree of confusion in terms of the different standards between districts because we're, you know, removing planning and zoning as an intervening entity in that. It's, you're still going to have to meet the West standard or the Oak Lodge standard or the Sunrise standard. Um, you just won't also have to meet the planning and zoning standard to provide those separate lines. So, so you are providing some guidelines as to what a standard can be, right?

Planning and zoning is not providing model ordinances or model standards to these service districts. They're each setting their own standards. They each have their own I believe they each have their own advisory boards. I know West certainly does. Uh, and Clakamus River Water, I believe, does as well. So they they set their own standards for what connection to their services and their systems will look like. Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Wilson? Nope. I got it. All right. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Stevens, you're back.

Well, I'm happy to launch into EFU if and when Martha's ready for that. I'm trying to get it boiled down so it's not too much. Okay, go for it. Um 401-15.

And I know Joy will appreciate this comment, Joy Fields, because of her clear and objective standards. But just on page 15, there's significant change, significant increase, important influence, significant impact. I mean, all of that's completely subjective. So, it's just something as I was reading through all these changes, it was like, well, why are we going down that road? Why don't we say it needs to be less than 10%. Or it cannot be more than 20%. Or I mean, it's that's that's a piece of advice because it doesn't fit. Um, another one I'm really struggling with getting my arms around this high value versus low value. U EFU soil and um and what I mean by that is you can take really high value soil and grow just about anything. You can take low value and grow just about anything if you amend it and treat it properly. Um or you don't have to grow high value stuff. You could do Christmas trees. And so this opportunity to get a note from the Natural Resource Conservation Service and change your soil rating. So maybe now you can build a house or maybe you could do I I this this page uh 40116 it worries me about more what's behind the curtain. What's behind this? because um it's a comment. I'm not I don't think you can really answer it unless you know what's behind it.

Um yeah, if I could jump in on those two items really quickly. Okay, please.

The first one, um the reference that you're making is uh well, first of all, we all would love clear and objective standards all the time. Um but it's not really possible. all of the time. The the state law requiring clear and objective standards for housing does not apply in farm and forest zones. And so the state law requiring clear and objective housings, clear and objective standards is only for housing development. And it's only inside of the urgent growth boundary or uh rural residential zones. And so it is under state law perfectly okay to have discretionary standards um for housing and other things. So, what this addition is that you're referencing on page 15

is an explanation of um what it means or what sort of analysis you have to do to make a determination that whatever it is that you're posing proposing will not force a significant change in accepted farmer or forest practices on surrounding land. that has always had to happen, but there wasn't a lot of clarity on how you do it. And so, um, based on, um, various, uh, LUBA cases, I don't know if there were actually any changes in rulemaking or state law or if this is really just based Oh, there was I see Nick nodding. Um, go ahead, Nick.

I was just going to say this is one of the changes that came from that. um codifying case law OAR amendment package that they did where they took some of the things that existed nebulously in in common law and codified them into the administrative rules to make implementation easier. Oh, okay. And so this language comes almost directly out of the administrative rules. Um, and so

we we hesitate to try to define something more clearly and objectively um that comes out of the administrative rule and case law because we could have we could unintentionally make it mean something different. And so this is discretionary um but it actually provides a lot more direction than it used to for this kind of analysis. Okay, that helps a lot. It's just sometimes really helps just to understand where this came from. I know. Well, there's a lot of red lines in this section. I totally understand.

Um, the next one you asked about on page 16, I'm assuming it's uh B where it talks about a non-farm dwelling application. Uh, well, it it kind of is all of number two on page 16. Yeah, just the whole

Okay, so that is allowed under state law now. um these and so we have had in our code for a long time this allowance where you can go get your own separate analysis of your soils um in order to demonstrate that your soils were mismapped and of a different class in or for the purposes of getting approved for this specific type a lot of record dwelling application a lot of record dwelling um generally requires certain soil types types um certain length of ownership of the property and there's other standards. So that's been in our in our zoning code for a long long time. What we recently found out is that you actually can do that same process for a non-farm dwelling as well. We didn't have it in our code um but you could do it. And so we are putting that in our code. Um, and it allows for this process to remap your soils for the purposes of the non-farm dwelling, which um, also has additional standards and analysis that has to be done. Um, but if you do have soils that are lower classification, um, then you possibly could get approved for a non-farm dwelling. So what I can say is nothing in this will change what state law cons if state law considers you high value or low value farmland for the purposes of any of the other uses up above on that table. Um,

the only other instance that I'm aware of when you can do a remapping of your soils would be for a specific type of zone change, which we've never seen in the county, but apparently has been done in other parts of the state, and I won't get into that. We don't need to put that in our code. Um, but it's not a free-for-all. You can't just have somebody remap your soils. It also has to be you know it has to be the the soil what is it scientist has to be um reapproved by DLCD. I mean there are some checks in there. Okay.

Um but it is not the case where you can just get your soils remapped by an individual or even a soil scientist for the purposes of allowing all the other uses up in the table on low value versus high value. Okay.

Does that help? It does help. It does concern me. You know, people with lots of um bottomless pockets can get things they want and it just that kind of thing concerns me with our resource lands. Um down at the very bottom of 40116, there's a number three and wow, I read that and reread it and I think it's just mostly out of curiosity. It's the land owner for the dwelling shall sign and record in the county deed records a document binding the land owner and the landowner successors in interests prohibiting them from pursuing a claim for relief or cause of action alleging injury from farming or force practice for which no action or claim is allowed under OS. What do you know what that's about?

Um, again, this is a requirement under state law. And so, this is a deed restriction that we've required for a long, long time for um most, if not all of the various dwelling types that you can get approved for. And it essentially is saying that you understand you're building a dwelling in an agricultural area and your neighbors may be um doing certain farm or forestry practices like for example spraying I guess is the one that most you know often sort of comes to mind and that you um recognize they have a right to do that and you won't sue them. Oh interesting.

I'm not an attorney. I don't know how legally binding this is, but we have been doing this for years and years also. They're all these out there. Been forever since I even looked at the EFU. So, it was quite fascinating. Okay. Promise. My last question on EFU page 46 and it may be the same answer as TBR. You took out the commercial utility facilities for the purpose of generating power for public. Did you like move that up into the table or Hold on. Let me I'm looking now to see. I think it moved down.

I'll have to find where that moved.

Yeah, I'm I'm just looking through the whole table. Uh not seeing it. Um I So the question would be why was that removed? because there are many public um so removing it there doesn't remove the allowance. Um again this is supposed to be where there are standards. There is a standard in here and I will need to spend a few minutes looking at it to figure out what what that change is about. So we can move on again if you'd be fine. It's just um I'm I just I'm not seeing the table, but you can look that up. And that's it. Hand down. Thank you.

Okay. Uh looks like Shirley has their hand up. Would you like to um Yeah, I got a quick question. Yeah. In section 315, item number four on the summary says, "Exempt developments with 20 or more dwelling units from the building design standards in the following table." So, first of all, what is an exempt development? And if no, none of these design standards apply, what design standards do apply?

Ah, a good question and something I missed in my presentation. Thank you. Um, so there was a uh it's Senate Bill 974, I believe, in the 2025 legislature, which has this um little blurb at the very end that um creates a requirement within the urban area that certain developments be exempt from certain types of design standards. And they really are standards that have to do with aesthetics um with materials used or um roof pitch uh things like that. And the bill actually um exempts it's I'm saying it a little bit backwards. So, the footnote, while it might be confusing and maybe needs a little bit of tweaking, the footnote is intended to mean that developments of 20 or more units of those particular housing types are exempt from those design standards. But there are other design standards um sighting and design standards that would apply. Things like setbacks, things like height limits. Those are not exempted standards. These are really truly aesthetic standards. Quite frankly, we don't have a lot of them in our zoning code. Um, we don't have a lot in our single family zones. Um, but because there are things in there that talk about like roof pitch and there's a couple of others that may actually be design like aesthetic design standards, we have to exempt those. So, I'll look at the wording of it if it's confusing and maybe try to tweak that a little bit so it's

clear, but we don't have a choice in that matter. State law says we have to do that. So, are all 20 or more dwelling units exempt or are there certain 20 unit dwellings that are exempt? That's one of my first question. And in the second one, you said that those are primarily aesthetic standards, but yet table 3513-3's got height standards, driveway widths, percentage of lot coverage, all kinds of other stuff that's not aesthetics. So the footnote should directly relate to only like it should be next to only those standards that are related to aesthetics. Okay. Not the entire table.

Not the entire table. No. So if you look at what footnote was it number 24 you looking on on um section 315 it's your summary item number four on the front cover page.

Oh I'm sorry. So if you if you go down and look at the actual table um there will be a footnote that is only related to certain things. And so the first thing that comes to mind is where did I add it? Oh um on table the top of table 24 there are building design standards. Front facades shall be designed with balconies or bays. Window trim shall not be flush with exterior. Um I see it's your footnote like 24 is is it that's what you're talking about. So it only applies to those particular design standards.

Got it. So that standard is also found in section 845 for middle housing. Um but again we don't have many of these aesthetic standards in our code. A lot of other like cities have a lot more than we do. Okay. Are there any other questions from the commission? Um, so I guess if there aren't any other questions, Tom, are are you asking questions or No, I'm just waiting to see if there's anyone else that has questions. Okay.

Um, so I'd like to have with questions obviously the staff. Um the one thing and Martha New Wood that is in my opinion just not right is uh not only limiting or more limiting community notice and the amount of time to comment which it's normally 20 days. we have um you know goes out to CPOS's for community comment and input and lowering that to 14 but more importantly not having the right to appeal it just for me um I understand that a huge goal is more housing more development more more but you know I I have to use personal experience here and I look at you know a lot of development that's gone in not very far from our area And if we had not had the appeal right, it would have gone forward and homes absolutely would have been built on landslides. So or or predicted landslides and and maybe it wouldn't have applied. I know that there's a lot of variables here, but if this commission were not to support those state changes, even though I understand their state changes, could the county um say no, you know, we're not going we are going to give the full 20-day notice and if uh somebody wants to appeal to Luba other than the applicant that that the countyy's going to support, not support it, but allow it. I mean, do are do we even have any flexibility here, Martha? I'm just I this really upsets me. And I know it's not a county thing, it's a state thing, but

No, I understand. And we do not um we do not have flexibility u for those procedural uh th those procedures that are mandated um from the legislature. And I mean, I I guess I should leave it at that. I we have some constrnation about it as well. Um which is why we are proposing to include the notice um in the one housing type where it actually is optional whether or not you're providing notice even though there's really limited appeal

um or there's no appeal opportunity to LUBA. We believe there's always an an opportunity to appeal to circuit court which isn't really a great solution but um so that's why that proposal is in there. Um yes it does. It causes us a lot of concern as well. Um but we do not have flexibility. Um so really I mean it's individual citizens going to our state legislators. I mean that's what this boils back down to is going back to the state.

Yes. Or CPOS or you know whatever group. Well, I mean CPOS's go to counties, so that's not going to make any difference. I mean, it's got to be at a state level is what you're saying. No, no. I mean, the CPO going to the legislature or Oh, a larger group. A larger group than an individual is what I was trying to say in articulately. Yeah. Unfortunately, that has to have an attorney because you can't have an individual representing a CPO. You actually have to hire an attorney. So, it would have to be at this point individual unless we have bottomless pockets. But, okay. I appreciate allowing that discussion.

Okay. Anything else? Commissioner Stevens? No. Okay. Commissioner Kenwine, I see you have your hand raised. You have a comment.

Yeah. Thank you. um kind of tagging off of Commissioner Stevens to borrow Martha's word uh consternation regarding some of the I'm sorry consternation regarding some of the noticing requirements. Um, I I understand that what I'm going to say is is largely symbolic and just for the record because as Martha pointed out, the vast majority of this is required for compliance with state law. But yeah, I just to echo Commissioner Stevens um anytime that we are and when I say we, I'm not referring to the commission. I'm I'm saying lumping us in with the madness in Salem. Anytime we're reducing the ability of a of a land owner to participate in the land use process that is that is diametrically opposed to one of the explicit statewide planning goals and that just makes zero sense.

Yeah. Um, again, I I understand that that this line of thinking is is purely symbolic and and for the record, um, because I I would not advocate departing from these mandated standards and putting the county in a in a litigation risk or spending more county resources to to defend what the county thinks is right. Um, doesn't seem like a good use of resources. Um, but just going on record really opposing uh the policy direction here. I I I understand that the the state is uh laser focused on housing production. Um I respectfully don't think the reason that they're meeting generously half of their stated housing goal. I I don't think um issues like those that are in these code amendments are the reason we're missing those goals by more than half. Um I'm I'm going to leave it at that and and not waste any more of our time.

All right. Appreciate your comments. Uh Commissioner Slatter, you your hand is raised as well. I was on that same topic. Okay. I put it in the chat. I don't know if everybody saw it, but maybe we could have a discussion. I know that when we had a development come in here in Malala. Um the the um it was commercial development. Yeah.

Be clear at first. They added after some residential, but um but the state wasn't requiring them to put a light in at this um commercial development. and the developer um was volunteering to do it. The city wanted it done. The you know, everybody wanted it done but ODOP. And so the city council wrote um they spoke about it. They agreed on language and then they sent a letter to the state um to ODOT expressing their concerns. Now, ODOT still didn't cave, but um maybe that's something we could do. We could talk about, you know, I feel like at least half of us and maybe more have really big concerns. Uh yes, Scott in the chat. Uh that was with the Dollar General and everything. Um, but at least half of us have concerns, you know, about this and maybe we could express that to the state and uh this affects our families and our quality of life.

I I I don't disagree, but I think we're kind of getting into the discussion section of the meeting. So, if you don't mind, I I wouldn't mind uh revisiting this topic when we get into deliberations because I tend to agree it's been might be something we want to go on record. Uh but now is not the time. We're still still in the uh testimonies phase. So, it's all right. I'd like to if there's no no more questions of the um county staff, I'd like to move into the next part of the meeting. So, if there's anybody in the audience that wants to talk, they have an opportunity to ask their make their testimony as well. So,

may I just hop in with a quick answer to Tammy's question in 401. Okay. Um because I figured it out. Um the on page 46, the commercial utility facilities is not actually struck. If you look down at the paragraph below, it says in different words the same thing. Mhm. Um it had been redundant and then some of it was moved in that extra sentence. Okay. It took me a while to find that. Well done. Thank you very much, Martha. Yes, I'm starting to read it. And there it Yeah. All right. Thank you. Good. Good uh answer. Thank you.

Okay, no more any more questions. Okay, I think we'll move on uh to the next phase then. So, have we received any correspondence on this matter other than the items that have been included in the meeting packets? No, we have not.

Okay. So, now it's time for public testimony. So, uh, if there's any of you in the audience that would like to provide testimony, uh, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom, um, on, uh, if you're not sure where it is, if you have a PC or an iPad, there's a raise hand button on the Zoom bar. And, um, if you're using a telephone, you're on by telephone, use a star nine to activate the raise hand feature. Uh when the moderator switches to you over to provide testimony, your screen will look different for a moment. Primarily, you'll see all participants cameras, not just the one who's speaking. Uh the moderator will call upon you when it's time for you to provide testimony. Uh for the record, please begin by stating your name and where you are from or whom you are representing. So once you have provided testimony, your mic will be muted and your screen will be retuned to uh return to normal. So we're going to start with uh are there any representatives of the community planning organizations or hamlets here to speak? Doesn't appear to be any. Okay. Um, let's see. Um, so now I guess we'll move into uh the public testimony. Do we have any any person here that wishes to speak on this proposal? Uh, you'll each have three minutes to testify. So, do we have anyone from the the public that would like to

testify on this on the CDO? Chair Peterson, I have Marty Bound. Okay. Followed by Pat Erdenburgger and then Dennis Tilka. Okay. So, I guess we'll start with Marty.

Good evening. Uh, thank you so much for listening. I just have a small uh request on the 4-year approval process that's now in place with the 2-year extension. By the way, I am with the Hoodland CPO. You know, us is very active out in this area. Um, in regard to the four-year approval with the two-year extension going to simply a six-year approval, um, we're quite concerned in our area because of our, uh, rivers that seem to change course every time it floods. If you take a look at the recent zigzag river mitigation study and then also at the sta sandy river mitigation study, you'll see that these rivers move often quickly and take land and give land. Um, with a 4-year approval, it's already uh a little bit tenuous. uh for example, the county has land up for sale that uh due to the river being changed, that land is now in the river. So, um these rivers change often and swiftly. We simply ask that the 4-year approval with two-year extension be kept for uh you know, the river and stream conservation area, Z0704, which we're highly involved with. And um I realize that you want to do a blanket sixyear but we're asking you to please take exception uh for ZDL74. Thank you.

Anyone have a question or no? Thank you for your comment. Yeah. Uh next is have Pat Erdenberger. Okay. Yes. This is Pat Erinberger. I'm the chair of the Hoodland CPO. Welcome.

I'd like to thank you all for a very interesting meeting. Thank Martha, Melissa, and I guess it's Nick for all their hard work. This isn't easy. Uh, my comment is similar to Marty's on page six, item five of the the the time extension. It's extremely important up here for any of the Riverside properties in land use of permits that that we watch closely where the midline of the river is and the high side and the low side. It's it changes very rapidly and it doesn't require a major disastrous flood for the river to migrate and we've talked with people in disaster management who have done presentations on the migration of the river. Uh particularly Jay Wilson has some very interesting thoughts on that. So, I'd just like you to know that for Riverside property, having having something that is so such a long period of time is a problem. And I'm sorry, Melissa, I don't want to make your job harder. I would like I would like the Riverside property to be considered as along with the EFU, AGF and and TBR as an exception. Thank you all very much.

Thank you for your your comments. And next, my screen doesn't show all of these, Darcy, so I'm relying on you. Okay, I've got you. I have Dennis Tilka.

Yes, my name is Dennis Tilka. I live in Welches. I have a question for Martha on type one-8. the if a housing is approved under clear and objective standards or regulations is unappealable is I thought all of our zoning ordinance were going to be clear and objective under the new law. So that means Martha said something about discretionary permits weren't included but 704 I thought was a discretionary permit and it's going to be under the same regulations. Am I correct? Well, are you talking about the the new type 1h approval? Is that what you're asking about?

Yes. Um, so, so, so yes, all housing has to be approvable under clear and objective standards, but part of the law that requires clear and objective standards also allows for um, optional discretionary pathways. And so, like a good example would be um, your setback from the Wamut River is 150 ft. That's your clear and objective standard. But if you meet certain other discretionary standards, maybe you can build 100 ft from the river. Um, and so in this CA in that example, the housing would have to be 150 ft. Not exercising that optional discretionary standard.

So is 704 going to be clear and objective standard is going to be appealable or not? So 704 um will be amended through a different project that Joy Fields um and Jennifer Hughes are working on to assess um 704 our you know all of our goal five our our natural resource um protected areas hazard areas to ensure that there is a clear and objective pathway for housing. Um and so presumably if a housing development uses o only those clear and objective standards um it can be approved under this one age pathway.

Okay. I have another comment under the uh time extensions for the Sandy River or for 703 and 704. 703 is the floodway is one when they make the application for a flood plane permit maybe 50% of their land is within a flood plane but next year 100% of their land is within a flood way how are you going to allow them to continue to process that application when their land is in a flood way now that was one example and then another example is on the PRCA the 704 you have to mark the mean high water line and again one year the mean high water line might be 100 foot from your house the next day could be 10 foot from your house so how are you going to allow someone to process that thank you very much

Martha do you want to comment on that or you want to hold that

I can I I may need um an assist from from Nick or Melissa um but I think regarding the flood hazard area, those areas we we regulate to FEMA's maps. FEMA's maps are not updated every year. And so um whatever regulations apply um currently will apply to the mapped area um on FEMA's maps that we have adopted. And so I don't know that something that has flood plane on it one year is suddenly going to have floodway on it the next year. Um I can only recall in the long time that I've been here over 19 years uh one change to the FEMA maps that happened at the federal level to remapping. Um regarding how we're going to process it. I mean, I guess I may need to think through if and if I understand what you're asking, you know, what happens when there's a stream and somebody's proposing development is they come in and they get their land use approval and their land use approval is conditioned on. So, let's say Dennis, um, you were approved for this dwelling. When you come in to permit your dwelling, you need to show us that your dwelling is 100 ft from the mean high water line. If in that year that you're approved and you're coming in to permit your dwelling, your mean high water line has moved somewhat, you still need to be 100 feet from that mean high water line. If it is the case where it has rendered your property undevelopable, that's sort of a different different question. And I don't know that that I I I don't I'm not familiar enough with our codes to understand um in that case what might or might not happen. Um, but if the mean high water changes somewhat, you still when you come in to build your dwelling

have to be 100 ft from where the mean high water line is at that time. I don't know if anyone else has anything else to add from the planning team. Uh, that's an interesting dilemma. Well, I want to uh I'd like to kind of explore this more maybe when we get into deliberations because it it raises some questions in my mind. But in the interest of getting through the testimony, I'd like like to move on to the next um person who would like to speak. Tarzy, are you keeping?

I don't have any more hands. Okay, we're done. All right. Okay. Uh I think we can close the hearing public testimony period of the of the uh and move to to discussion. But I'm thinking we've been going for almost two hours. Uh if anyone want to take a short break, uh maybe we could to take that now and then we get into discussions when we get back. Everyone's agreeable to that. Say five minutes that or less that work. I'm seeing no. Would three minutes be enough?

Three minutes would be fine. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll be right. I'll see you in a minute. No break for two hours.

if you would humor me. Um, I actually have sort of a second part to my answer to Mr. Tilka's question. Okay. That's what happens when you get a threem minute break. Yeah, that's fine. Well, I was I needed to stand up. My legs were ramping up. Needed some water. So, so I thought, yeah, two hours is a long time to sit without a break. So, thank you. That's why I put my hand up. I'm like, "Oh, I'm not going to make it to the end." No, no, no. Two. I mean, we would go for two hours. We usually We usually would I know when we met in person, we would usually take a break two hours. So,

uh anyway, I need to get a charger for my iPad. I was worried of my I had to switch to my iPad uh which is a smaller screen so I don't see everything as well but it works better than my computer for some reason but I was my battery's getting low it's like okay I need to also make sure I don't run out of power that would be embarrassing I thought I'd brought a cord up with me but it was the wrong one anyway So, I don't know if everyone's back. I can't for some reason I'm not seeing the Where where is it participants? Here we go.

Um, Darcy's not back. And I um the ones that don't have pictures are Jennifer, Ryan, and Scott. So, I don't know. Nope. There's I have a camera off because I was enjoying a fruit pouch. Ah, my uh my daughter's eating solid foods now. So, we can share some share some of the same foods. Wow. Awesome. Congratulations. I didn't know you had a new little one. Yeah, she's uh a little over a year now. Oh, wow. We uh we I just became a grandparent here

years ago. So, we've been having a lot of fun uh with our grandchild. They live nearby. In fact, Thursday they're starting once a week. They we babysit in the mornings on Thursday. So, they come over here to Los Angeles over to my It's been a lot of fun. So, very nice. I don't know. Is everyone back? I don't really know. I'm going to assume we are. I think so. Okay,

we can we can go on without Darcy. She'll show up. Okay. So, uh so uh Martha has uh some a response that she just thought of during the break. So, uh we'll we'll let Martha have one more shot at trying to explain herself here. So,

excellent. Um thank you for indulging me. So I you know I I was I was thinking of course as I was getting my water on the break and I think sort of the second part answer to Mr. Tilka's question or others um is if something if conditions on a property have changed so significantly um it is likely under our current standard under our current four-year approval period or the six-year approval period um that you would be required to actually submit a new land use application if something has changed so significantly and the approval really no longer longer is applicable to what's going on on your property.

Um, we we would require a new approval. So, I just wanted to throw that out there. There seems to be sort of degrees of what might happen on a property. Okay. Um, so in other words, the request to uh keep the four-year with the two-year option really this circumstance which they which came up repeatedly, they really would have to start over. And so you're you're not the six year four year really wouldn't matter at that point because you're starting over. Is that what you're saying? if the property has changed significantly,

which that would be pretty significant in my book with the the situation they're talking about that. With that said, I mean, it's several people have requested it. It's certainly something to consider. I just wanted to clarify what what that would mean. That's all. Uh, Commissioner Murphy, I see you have your hand raised. I'm guessing you'd have a comment on the on some of your neighbors up there that were commenting. Yes. Uh I want to thank uh the three members of the Hoodland CPO for coming. Uh they come with some of my encouragement too. I

I talk about this quite often. Since 2011, I've been involved with channel migration and uh the state, the federal, the county at all levels be trying to come up with some kind of design uh or flood plane development standards that restrict uh development in these high hazard areas. Like I said, you can walk down the street right now from my house and there's a house hanging over the edge. another one that's going to ready to go. Just upstream of a couple hundred yards, there's two water lines flopping in the in the river. One is owned by West, the other is owned by uh my neighborhood's water system. That's $4 million worth of water line flopping around. What are we going to do? Are we going to continue to add this uh type of development at this level? What they're bringing up is that if we put it on a six-year hold, uh, that you can go ahead and pull a permit and six years later, your property may not exist. Now, who's going to report that? Or there may have been significant damage to that property or your property may have been found to cause damage if it has a solid structure on it. Uh, the these are other issues when we start uh filling up our pous areas and closing off our sidest streams, we have some serious issues.

Yeah. So the so the question I would have is okay, I agree I agree with what you're saying, but uh that's not really what we're dealing with tonight. It's in my mind that's a different policy that we need to make that even allows development in those areas. Or am I or am I mistaken that these policies it does affect these policies that we're viewing tonight? I just want to get clar clarification on that.

Um it having this setback or having this uh permit go from a fouryear to a six-year automatically without any extension process I think is wrong. I think it could be lowered to two years. I've seen the river change dramatically since I've lived here. And you're you're at risk. If you don't do your homework and you buy lots to develop, you better know what this river is going to do. I it's it's taken over so many.

So, um so what would you propose we we do for that? Are you proposing that the language be amended to to make can keep it as it is as was requested specific for those areas.

If we're going to change it, then we should change it uh to actually uh protect people not prolong it. This this is uh encouraging development. I think we need to in these particular high hazard areas. We haven't adopted the maps that identify this as a high hazard area even though Clakmos County paid for it. So this is something that has been very dear to my heart to try to bring for the future of this area, the safety of this area. Yeah. Along with our disaster management, we need to please pay attention to what we're doing legal wise.

More homes in this particular area is not better for for the area. So as it relates to these proposed amendments to as it relates to this I would say leave asis on 703 704 705 706 709 710 and 710. Yep. Those right there. I wouldn't change them.

Okay. All right. Thank you for clarifying that. All right. Uh any other I'd like to hear from all of the rest of the commissioners on any uh take their take on on what they've heard. Are there uh any other suggestions that we to uh staff that we might want to uh make or acknowledge a motion or are we okay with everything with with maybe the exception of what uh Commissioner Murphy is proposing? So, who wants to go first?

I I want I want to get clarification uh Murf on what you're what you're saying. Are you saying that you want to keep the the Go ahead and tell me again what it is you want to keep. Currently an application is good for four years and then with the opport they have opportunity to extend that application for another two years to six years but it has to go through a review. It's looked at at that time. Am I correct Martha that when it it before you get your extension yes it's it's reviewed again. So what this policy that we're looking at tonight is saying when you receive your application it automatically goes to six years with no review after four

and without the review what's going to happen

in the dynamic neighborhood that I live in we have seen land changes of the river and just in my neighborhood alone alone. In 2011, the river's bed rose 12 feet. It came up from erosion upstream. This past December under the zigzag bridge of which I helped set the depth gauges this summer with disaster management. The elevation of the riverbed came up six feet and it's still there. So that means the water goes all different directions. And when it does that, it starts to grow and takes properties that you thought were safe and they just disappear.

So somebody b So somebody buying that property and they don't build on it for four years, then the river changes. Okay. But if they build on it on two years and the river changes, they've lost their house.

Exactly. So why, you know, if it doesn't make sense if you if you're going to have it for six years, you know, the river is going to change. So what's what what are we protecting here? Are we protecting the person even though they built on it in two years and it and the house went away? Michael, I've been I've been trying to bring sense to these high hazard areas that have been identified these channel migration zones. I mean, if you went to a map, if you Google channel migration zone mapping in Oregon, it comes up with rivers all over the place. I, you know, the Mala River, definitely river, one of them. These are rivers that we know will change course because they're They have a riverbank of sand in cobble.

So, so Murf, if I could interrupt for a second, I don't really answering uh his question that the and I'm kind of on the same page uh with Commissioner Wilson here. I'm trying to understand how the sixyear versus fouryear and twoyear makes a difference for the person that's I I'm struggling with what the difference is for them why they're proposing that what what advantage does it give them I I'm struggling with that as well and so if you can maybe help me understand how that benefits them by maintaining the same same way I understand the river is going to change.

We we have 704 that governs our area with a generally 150 foot setback from the high water mark. If that changes and you've already staked out your place, pulled your permits, you're going to build your house right here, but the river is now encroached within that 150 ft. Now it's only 75 feet and you're going to keep building because your permits are okay. They're not going back to review. Now, that is that's what I'm saying is that you will not see or the the county will not see that until foundations are set, the sections come.

But what does that but what does that have to do with the fouryear versus six year? How does that make more of a more of a time that that for that to happen that channel migration to come into your property? I I I tell you, Bur, if if I was buying a piece of property there and I was concerned about the river changing, I would like to see what happened in six years rather than in two because I could then say, well, okay, I'm not going to build. I'm not going to lose my house. I've saw 300year floods since 1996.

Okay. Do you have anything more, Commissioner Wilson? No, I got it. All righty. Commissioner Lee, your hand is up.

Yeah, thank you. Um, to answer Murphy's question and issue, it's probably beyond the scope of this particular discussion, but what I have seen done is apply like special overlay districts to those type of properties and then you can have more control. But that's beyond what we're talking about here. Um, that's probably what needs to happen. But my my I raised my hand because I wanted to echo the concerns about the public input uh provisions being removed and I'd like to put my name in the hat to put together help put together some sort of document from the Clackamus County Planning Commission to whatever appropriate state agency to say where we don't think this is right. you know, we we are governed by the people and the people should have input on these very important decisions that are being made. And when you start removing people's input, it starts to sound a little different than what we're used to seeing in our constitutional republic. So, I'm I'm a little frustrated by that and I want to put my name to that also.

Well, I will cheerfully throw my name on there, too. Not to interrupt, but you're fine. I think or I think there quite a few of us will probably want to do that. Uh, Commissioner Stevens.

Thank you, Chair. Um, and I'm not proposing a motion at all, but I have made motions in the past and they came became a little controversial. So, I thought it's part of the deliberation. Um, the first thing I would say is I would support, you know, 99.9% of this. And so if a if a motion were to be made, you know, I' I'd go down the line of a motion to recommend to the board of county commissioners approval of ZDO 293, then I can would go on to say the planning commission would like or or certain members or whatever would like to share our objection to limiting citizen noticing, limiting citizen response time, and eliminating appeal rights. Um, I think those were the three keys, but I wanted to throw that out as an idea as we're deliberating to talk upon that kind of emotion. Now, if we want to add something um more regarding stuff on the mountain or, you know, along creeks and rivers, we could do that. But other than that, I'm I'm really for me personally deliberating, I'm very supportive other than what we talked about. Okay. Thank you.

Great. Great idea. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Murphy, your hands raised again. I'll keep it short, Tom. But yeah, in our uh planning commissioner bylaws, which has your signature on it, you have the right to form a special committee. Okay. As chair. All right. Noted. Are you proposing one? I'm sorry I you went blank. You went mute on me. Sounds like cooking here, Tom.

Okay. Uh, all right. Other commissioners, any would like the opportunity to to uh share any concerns or where where they stand on this? Uh, see, we've heard from Commissioner Lee. We've heard from uh we've heard a little from all of you a little bit. Any Mr. Sat, you have anything more you'd like to add or comment on?

I have I have one more thing um which talk to Murf about. I believe that what the purpose of that uh movement from four to six was to save work time for the you know planning department and I think that that's important that we change that so that they have more time okay it's not you know they want to they want to make this thing a little little more smooth in in the application of of this appeal stuff. So, I really think that keeping it at six years like they're proposing is good.

Okay. Uh I Commissioner Senator, did you want to comment on anything or are you good? Um, well, I mean, you know, it's a lot of the things we deal with are mandated by state law, so we don't get a lot of leeway on it. Um, so there's that, but we could talk afterwards, uh, you know, if we want. Are you are you generally okay with what's being proposed or Yes. Yes. Yes. There was a few things, but those were state mandated. So,

yeah. Uh, what happened? Did we lose one of our commissioners? Commissioner FS apparently lost power. Oh, no. Okay. I see he's not on the list anymore. Uh, I have a question back to uh for Martha, if you don't mind, Martha. Go ahead.

Uh, regarding this this conversation that uh and what what uh Commissioner Murphy is proposing and what was being proposed from your perspective uh what's the pros and cons uh as it relates to their particular situation? I'm curious what you think. Um, well, we all know I have a lot of opinions, so um, I think I mean I think you could it could go either way, right? I I agree with Commissioner Wilson that the reason that we are proposing this change is for to save the applicant time and money. Um, a time extension does cost money and take time, but also to save staff time. But at the same time, I understand that maybe the river and stream conservation area and particularly up on the mountain is a little unique. Um, you have to understand that somebody comes and applies for a time extension if they have not already implemented what was approved. And so, and so they need a time extension to have more time to do it. And I think what I'm hearing is that it is that it is important in certain areas um to be able to take this reook after four years. Whereas in some areas it might not be important because the rules don't change. The landscape doesn't change and it really is just an exercise that takes time and money for very little value. But there may be some value in um exempting 704 specifically from this rule because the rules are specifically tied to where the river is located. I think exempting it for the flood management district or

within the greenway or the habitat conservation areas, those are mapped areas that don't really change. Um but the river does change and so there may be some value in looking at it again after four years if nothing has been built yet. Um I think that exempting that adds pretty minimal administrative burden um you know under this whole time extension if we continue to do the six years for others. Um but it is time and money for for the applicant either way. How Martha, how many times does this happen? How many times does this happen? Yeah. How many

how many time extensions where where on the review after four years they they was denied or whatever because of a river change. How many Oh, I have no idea off the top of my head. How many would be denied because of a river change? I know we don't deny a lot of time extensions and I see Nick looking up the um the application stats so he can tell you how many time extensions we Is that what you're doing, Nick?

Yeah, I did flip through our permitting records back to 2021 and did a a pretty coarse search for time extensions. So, there's a possibility something was filed wrong. But from today back to 2021, we did six pages worth of time extensions, which should be like 40ome records and only two of those were related to these stream conservation area permits that we're discussing. And so obviously that's very much napkin math. It was not an exhaustive search, but the the circumstance of a stream conservation area permit being extended does happen, but is rare in the scope of of time extensions. A lot of them are for partitions and subdivisions where people need to build roads, and that just takes longer than the four years was the bulk of what I saw as I was clicking through.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Murphy, your hands about began. So with that in mind, um it doesn't seem that it's going to affect much if we remove uh like 704 from that. Uh very little effect. Most uh applications are completed within four years. There's not necessarily an extension needed if they've only extended two since uh 2021. I don't see a big demand or loss of large dollars because of it. Okay. Any other thoughts or comments? Uh would anyone like to entertain a motion uh for us then on this item? Well, I'm happy to do it, but I have no concept how to word how the commission feels about the extension.

Could Could could that be a separate action after the um I don't think it would be a motion as much as a comment, but Martha can guide me on that. That could be an amendment. An amendment.

Yeah. You make a motion. I move that the Camus County Planning Commission recommend approval of ZDO293 FY2026 minor amendments to the Clakamus County Board of County Commissioners. Okay, that's to do the whole thing the way it is. If Murk wants to make an amendment that says we want to change that particular piece of it, then we can vote on that. Uh and I I get that. I think what what Commissioner Stevens is talking about is uh some of us uh also feel strongly that even though we we don't have a choice that we need to uh make a comment about some of the new provisions that don't allow the appeal process other than the applicant as an example. And I don't know how we I'm

Yeah, that's what you're struggling with whether we can put that motion or not. I mean, and Commissioner Wilson's correct. I make a motion as I stated it and then we can all vote and then um I make a motion there's a second. Once there's a second, Murf can then or Commissioner Murphy can then I think amend or make a motion to amend and then that's voted on. So, I'm not sure which order that goes in, but you vote on the amendment first and then the the proposal as amended or without the amendment.

You can you can propose you can make a motion that includes the parts that you would like to amend of the proposal. Right? It's one full motion, right? Or you can make a motion as Commissioner Wilson stated, you get a second and then there's a motion to amend, right? Which has to have a second and go through the approval. Right. Right. So, the amendment would have to be voted on, then the actual motion would have to be voted on. Correct.

Oh, okay. All right. Well, then I'm happy to make the motion if we're ready. Okay. Um, make a motion to recommend to uh to the board of county commissioners approval of ZDO-293. The planning commission would like to share our strong objection regarding the limitation of citizen noticing of limiting citizens response time and eliminating appeal rights on land use. um land use applications. That's my

Okay, everyone understand that? Okay. Do we have a second? A second. I second it. Okay. So, I think it was Commissioner Lee was first. There heard two of you. I think it was Lee first. Okay. Uh uh, Commissioner Murphy, are you uh wanting to amend this or are we going to leave it as is? I'd like to amend. Okay. I would like to remove the proposed comprehensive plan and ZDO amendments number 11 and number 12 under list of attachments A on page 22 of the stat.

No. Uh, what are 11 and 12? I thought 703 and 704. Okay. I'm I've got the packets. That's what I'm looking at. So, you're looking at a a written document. Okay. I'm get I'm with you. Okay. Is there any uh Do we need a second for that uh amendment? I guess. Yep. You need a second. Do we have a second? I'll hold it. Artha, you have a your hand up. I have a clarifying question. Okay.

You You're proposing to just totally remove all of the amendments under 70 and 703 703 and 704. We're only changes to the Oh, 703. I'm sorry. I wrote down 705. So, so the effect is keeping the four-year two-year approval period that we have right now the same in the flood plane management district and in river and stream conservation area. Exactly. Okay. Thank you. Clear as mud.

Well, uh, thanks for clarifying that because I wanted to make sure that that was what I was assuming it was. Uh uh Nick, you have your hand up. I'd just like to note that there is one clerical correction in 703. So there's one amendment to remove the time extension provisions and then there's one corrected citation. And so I don't know if the intention is to to strike both of those or if it's just to strike the the change to the time extension procedures.

Just to strike the time extension, please. Okay, thanks for clarifying that. Okay. Uh, so do we have a second to uh Commissioner Murphy's uh amendment? No second. Uh well, guess if we don't have a second, I guess we can't vote on it. What? It fails. No second.

Okay. Well, sorry, Murf. Um having uh so we have uh been moved and and seconded to uh I don't I can't repeat everything that you sent to me because I don't have it written down uh to to accept the uh re staff recommendations uh along with the uh commissioner's concerns regarding the notification processes and appeal. Uh, so can we uh take a vote here? So, uh, I think Darby, you take the roll call for us, please. Yes. I want to make sure we're clarifying. There's no amendment to it, right?

Correct. Okay. Tom, can we clarify exactly how this is going to read as far as um as far as the motion that will appear to the Oh, uh, the board. I'm assuming it's going to read the same way u Tammy proposed it. Darcy should have that derby. Do you have it? The motion will be taken exactly out of the recording. Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

Thanks. Okay. So, uh can we take a vote now then? Um would you want to go ahead and go through uh poll the commissioners for me please? Sure. Commissioner Stevens. Yes. Commissioner Murphy. Hey. Commissioner Lee. Yes. Commissioner Cantonwine.

Uh yes. And calling attention to the objections that I raised earlier and which are captured in the resolution uh related to public noticing. Thank you. Yes, those will be captured in the minutes as well as the motion. Thank you. Commissioner Sadder. Yes. Commissioner Wilson. Yes. Commissioner Peterson. Yes. The motion passes.

Okay. So, I think we are done with the public hearing. is now closed. Um, so we do have u minutes from a previous meeting that need to be uh approved. I assume everyone's had a chance to read those minutes. Um, anyone have any comments to minutes or can get those approved? I'll make a motion to approve as as distributed. I second it.

Okay. Was that Commissioner Cantwine and and Commissioner Wilson? Did you get the right people? Yeah. Okay. Uh, all those in fa We'll just do this orally. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. I. Did I get Brian? Did I get Tammy? No. I have to abstain. I was not in attendance. You're abstaining. As you should.

I wasn't there either. So yes, I as well. Okay. So I think they pass. Uh schedule review. Anything for on the schedule? I looks like we have something in next month in June and in August.

Yes. Um so there is a quasi judicial uh land use hearing for a proposed comp plan zone change um on June 22nd that will be with uh senior planner Taylor Campy. She's taking the lead on that. Um and I will be there as with an assist if she needs it, although she's very competent and probably doesn't.

It looks like there is a tenative study session for the clear and objective standards project on August 10th. I know that there's a lot of things percolating for sort of late summer, fall, but I don't know of anything else that's coming in June or July, but I will let Jennifer make the decision obviously whether or not to cancel the meetings. Um, I can say that the board hearing for this item that you heard today is scheduled for Tuesday, June 16th. That is the that is the right date, I think. Tuesday, June 16th at 11 a.m. And so, obviously, we'll forward your motion. Um, we always write a little summary of what happened. Um, and we'll certainly bring forward your concerns as well. It may be a good one to have some representation um to provide testimony and sort of reiterate that if you can show up, Chair Peterson, or somebody else.

Okay. Uh, I'll put that on my calendar. If anyone else wants to join me, they're welcome to. Commissioner Stevens, your hand is raised.

Two things really fast. Bravo. I mean, Martha and Nick and Melissa, really, bravo. Well done. What a monster to take down. And the second thing, uh, several commissioners stressed their um, uh, desire to be involved in a letter to the state. um anyone leaping up to to volunteer to draft something that we could all get on a Zoom and put together together, you know, later. I'm I've got my arms kind of uh heavy with some other obligations in the Hamlet right now. So, I I just don't have time right now. But, if somebody thought they might have some time to draft something up and then we could get together and Oh, Scott, would you be willing to do that?

I would be happy to take a first pass at it and share. Awesome. I I know commissioner I know commissioner Lee was excited as well so I don't want to step on any toes but I'm happy to pardon me start a uh word document and circulate that if we wish if we did a zoom uh besides Commissioner Lee and you Scott myself anyone else like to be on that Zoom to discuss it Commissioner Murphy and Commissioner Sadder

Sadder excellent awesome I think it's a I think it's a great a good I think it's a great idea So, I have no idea who exactly we'd send it to, but I think we know people who would know. So, uh, thank you, Scott, if you'd be willing to do that. And then we've got, um, a way to get those out to us via email, and then, you know, I'm happy to schedule up a Zoom. Okay. How many? Happy to do that.

Yeah. Um, so, so we have a quasi subcommittee as M suggest Tammy suggest. Oh, can we put it together? Uh there there is other business. Uh we uh my term has ended. Uh however, uh in light of the fact that uh we don't know Commissioner Murphy's status at this point. I believe you're a reup up. Is that true? U and uh and also uh we we lost a commissioner. Um so I would propose that we defer that to the next meeting so we will know for sure who all is uh the makeup of the current commission will be um and so and so a lot of you uh thank you for responding to my uh my query for any interested parties. I didn't get a lot of takers, but I got a few. Uh, but uh I think in light of the circumstances, I'd like to postpone it a month. Not that I want to be chair any longer, but I just think it might work out better once we know the status of all the commissioners uh before we we do a vote. So, anyone everyone okay with that?

U Commissioner uh Peterson or Chair Peterson, who is the current vice chair? Is it Commissioner Murphy? It is. Okay. I mean, kind of quote unquote normal succession is the vice chair becomes chair, but now I understand that challenge. So, we may be only looking for a vice chair, but we'll see. Right. Right. Okay. Want to clarify.

Well, or or I was I was I was curious if anyone else was interested in uh I mean, we don't necessarily have to move the vice chair up. We could also bring in a new chair. I was I was uh because that's how it works for me. I was approached and I'd had only been on the commission for well you were there Tammy there very long and all of a sudden someone hey Tom you would like you to be the chair you know wet a little wet behind the ears. You were a little wet behind the ears. Yeah. Now I got to start somewhere. No, I mean I I Yeah, I kind of jumped into the fire.

Yeah. Then I got a nice long wait period of sit back, come back. But anyway, if if everyone's okay, uh I propose we put that off one uh one one month. Yeah. And we'll then I can can move on and just be a spectator again. Oh, hey.