Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

As long as Tony can access us and the public can participate if they need to.

Okay. We'll call the meeting to order. First item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from March 26th to April 9th.

Commissioner Kelly approves both minutes, March 26th and April 9th.

Is there a second?

Commissioner Stockham seconds.

Okay. Is there any discussion?

No. No.

OK, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Tony says aye. Are there any members of the public? I don't see anybody in the room. Is there anybody online who would like to offer comments that aren't on the agenda? OK. Next, we have action item. We have a planning division work plan for fiscal year 26-27, deliberations.

Well, yeah, good evening chair commissioners will groves your planning manager. So this is the deliberations for the work plan. We conducted a public hearing on April 9th, and there was a open record period that went through the fifteenth. No additional submittals associated with that open record period. And so today is our deliberation through which you will provide recommendations on the work plan for the board as we carry it forward to them for their public hearing associated with that. And you have the memo associated with this. There's a number of tables in there talking about things that are Currently in action, so like the Terrebonne Community Plan, some of the clear and objective housing updates that we're continuing, the Sisters UGB Amendment, which will be coming your way shortly, and some work that we're doing with the City of Bend for UGB Amendments and the SB 1537. You know, of course, Table 2, we have ongoing operational responsibilities. These are things that we have to continue, such as resort and overnight lodging reporting, marijuana inspections, population estimates and forecasts, a number of other things. And you can see there's a coordination duties, which were outlined in the work plan and the memo. These are ongoing interactions that we have with our city jurisdictions and other agencies. And we bring you code updates every year in the form of maintenance housekeeping items. So what is really in your purview this evening is for recommendations are our zoning tax amendments. These are the ones shown in table three to see if you have any particular interest in those. Um, uh, to the extent you want to make, uh, recommendations. Uh, a number of commissioners have had, uh, introductions into the record for matters that they'd like to see the board attend to. So that would be an appropriate thing to discuss this evening. And then, uh, also, if you have any want to give any directions about, uh, future panels, those have always been, uh. a nice opportunity when we have a gap in the schedule to provide some value to the PC and the community through those. So what I've got for you this evening is just kind of an open format opportunity for you to talk about what's important for you in that space. As always, this isn't a formal hearing, so formal motions, you could make them if there's something that you want to speak with one voice as. But I can certainly just take notes about the relative interest, you know, see the minutes with, you know, one commissioner was interested in, several commissioners were interested in. This was identified as a priority. So not necessarily a necessity to vote on things if you don't feel like you need to carry the official and full weight. Okay.

And Mr. Chairman, if I may, Peter Gutowski, Community Development Director, Table 4 in your packet kind of encapsulates one framework for how to approach the work plan. I know during the hearing there was conversation about, you know, child care facilities, for example, as being of, you know, of interest. Obviously, you know, we've... We've tried to, you know, capture kind of what our responsibilities that are that are operational and a priority and then give you the space to, you know, identify new priorities that you would like us to carry to the board of county commissioners. Obviously, you can, you have the ability to kind of emphasize zoning text amendments as will noted. There's. There's obviously a space for other projects that I mentioned, and then just emphasizing the opportunity when resources become available, just what Will said about panels. So I don't know if that table is helpful. Maybe it's not, but it was an illustrative way for us to kind of capture these opportunities for you.

Great. Thank you. Any thoughts? Do you have comments?

I'll start with the zoning text amendments, and Commissioner Kelly brought it up at the public hearing. But child care facilities, that was towards the top of my priority list for the zoning text amendments portion. So I was curious what that entails, what the planning staff is thinking, or is that just creating a discussion for that? I'm just curious, because it would be great to be able to provide more opportunities for child care facilities in, I don't know if it's specific zones then, but

is the planning staff envisioning with uh with that bullet point right now yeah for sure so um what you have you know when you think about the state land use system sometimes it mandates that we do things sometimes it expressly precludes us from doing things in other areas it leaves that as an option and so something that we've been interested in doing for a while is going through and sorting out those things and making sure our code is functioning entirely properly for those so in recent years uh the state opened up additional opportunities for child care and commercial zones And they, through a legislative act, opened up in certain circumstances a possibility for child care in light industrial zones. So what I envision, although we look for board guidance ultimately before we rolled this project out, is to go throughout our code, look through the zones, make sure that child care is explored in all the zones where it could be lawfully allowed and isn't precluded as a matter of state law.

Yeah.

And make sure that any sort of difficulties that would make it hard to establish child care, that we take a look at those. There's always a balance as you're having zoning text amendments between ensuring that the use is compatible with neighbors and is safe in the place that it's located. And the cumulative effect of those can sometimes make it difficult to cite something, all of those. So what I'd imagine, it would be kind of a broad range. revisiting of child care as it's implemented in our county code and see what opportunities and challenges are there broadly. But at minimum, an exploration out of the past year's legislative effort to look and see if we want to allow these in light industrial districts. We don't have a ton of them, but an opportunity is an opportunity for child care.

Are they allowed in non-resource zones right now or not?

So the way that they've been allowed in non-resource zones for MUA 10, RR 10, for example, is there's an allowance for what's called a semi-public facility. So to the extent that these uses are non-profits, we've been able to cite them through that provision. And so I think it would be worthwhile taking a look to see if this should be called out as a separate and specific use for allowance rather than, because not all daycares have a 501c3 associated with them. So there may be scenarios under which it just should be a conditional use or maybe a use subject to standards. So if you think about the hierarchy of uses in a zone, there's outright uses. which, you know, it's just come and get your building permit generally. There's conditional uses which say, let's really think hard about does this fit in this space? And there's an intermediate type that's called subject to standards, which is we've decided this is a good idea as long as you come in within these sideboards. And so it might be interesting to explore with daycare to say, you know, actually, we intend to allow these things provided they have, you know, certain certain reasonable sideboards. And, you know, maybe they get upgraded from a maybe thing to a yes and thing. But that's a that's something that we would look to the board and the planning commission and the process to see where and how that might be appropriate.

Actually, of those six items, How about just, like I say, a 10,000-foot level of kind of explanation of what those are?

Yeah, can't do. So I'm going to work from the – so that's child care. The other thing that we had in the work plan identified was the Forest Zone Code. That's kind of a broad cleanup. Our code is – it's hard to read, and it's got – not legally out of sync. At least it's hard to read it together with the Oregon administrative rules. So we've wanted to do a project for a while to do a serious redlining of that code to make it more legible to – the community as they try to work through that. Lot lines adjustments and replatting. That topic had to do with the fact that this had to do predominantly in Terrebonne and Tumalo. has to do with reformatting existing neighborhoods. So lot line adjustments let you move a lot line around. And what we found in recent years is there have been occasions where a developer has moved a lot of lot lines, dozens of them, in a way that really strongly reconfigured the neighborhood in terms of important things like fire access. And so there was a question if some jurisdictions like Clackamas say, you know, there's limits on how much lot lining adjusting you can do before you need to come in with a more formal process called a replat. And in that replant process, you're asked expressly, can the fire department get there? Does this neighborhood layout make sense in terms of transportation and other resources? So that's what's going on there. Private burial grounds, that's something that is likely to, because it's a relatively minor item, that's likely to come your way during some sort of gap that we have in the work plan as we go through the year. But what's happening there is we learned that state law, in fact, requires the planning commission to bless any, we talked about this, any burial that's going on a private property. And at minimum, there's a recording that you have to do that says, hey, there's a body on the property. And here you hear everybody knows that it's here. And here's a map of where it is. So you don't accidentally dig it up future owner. So that's the minimum engagement associated with it. But what we would bring to you some jurisdictions have other requirements like, well, don't put it right on the property line. Or, you know, don't put it in a wetland or other places. So there would be a discussion associated with that if any additional sideboards were appropriate for that. With the Title 19, 20, and 21 related to Class 1, 2, and 3 road projects as allowed uses. So in Title 18, there was a pretty significant effort to make clear about how road projects, and these are predominantly things, improvements undertaken by our road department, how they work in the code, how they're allowed, and what requirements they fall under. So in Title 18, these got tidied up. But I don't nineteen, twenty and twenty one. Those have not been brought up to not haven't been brought up to match those standards. So it's been a long desire of the road department to see that work undertaken so that they have clear legal authority to engage in the work that they engage in in the rest of the county. Title 22 procedures ordinance. So a number of tidies tidying up there. So Title 22 is the rules of how we do things. And the one that's really the headline there has to do with has to do with the difference between legislative and quasi judicial matters. So when the county is asked to is either asked through application or through the board direction to undertake procedures. project, for example, you remember the the mini storage project or other other kind of legislative changes, there's a choice that the county has to make to run it through one of two procedures. And broadly speaking, legislative procedures are designed for things of broad, broad applicability. So for example, if you were going to change to allow something new in the r 10. So you would be coming through a legislative procedure. And so those come through the Planning Commission and affect a large number of properties. At the other end of that, there are quasi-judicial proceedings. So those are ones where the change to the comprehensive plan or the text really affects one property or a limited number of properties. And what we've run into is that there's a number of ones that come through that have kind of aspects of both. And they affect three properties or five properties or ten properties. And it's really unclear in the code which procedure, the quasi-judicial, which comes with strong – judicial-like protections or the legislative process, which is more of a community thought process about how to get through, about what's the appropriate way to use the code in a particular situation. And so what you can see in these situations, what's been really common is that once a lane is picked, whoever doesn't like the proposal will say that we picked the wrong lane. And because it's something that has been litigated at Luba a number of times, there's a famous case, Strawberry Hill Four Wheelers, that comes up with some regularity that gives you kind of a framework to make choices between going down one path or the other. One of the things that needs to be done there is to clean that out. It's produced some strange results, too, where hearings officers will be asked to make recommendations in quasi-judicial matters, and So if you can imagine that somebody proposed a text change that affect one property, it would come through the hearings office. Our Title 22 says that they make a recommendation to the board. But in some circumstances, the board may be precluded from hearing that uh that legislative change if the board had engaged with it and were conflicted out or there were other issues associated that might preclude the board from hearing it and so the hearings officer recommendation um would not be available as a potential final decision of the board in that situation so some fringe cases but ones that produce really concerning outcomes and uh there's a few things on the horizon that uh i can already see that are going to crash into this again so Looking to get that fixed. Some housekeeping with regard to notice and just getting some procedures that we're implementing already explained out clearly in the code where there's ambiguity or it's underexplained. So really just kind of the rules of the game, making sure that they're spelled out in the event that people want to fight about them in the future.

So what's the likelihood that we'll get through this whole list in the next...

I think it's going to depend somewhat on – I think actually it's pretty good actually. These are all relatively modest projects. None of them are – I think of them as especially controversial. I don't think that any of these have – there may be people who have feelings about how we get through them, but I don't think they're standing opponents to any of these projects. these updates so i think there's that advantage to them uh none of them are you know have the sort of the heft of a comp plan or even you know the a community plan update in terms of the engagement that's associated with these so these it wouldn't surprise me if we either got through all of these i mean there's some of them that uh that sometimes get paused because we realize that they're more legally complicated than we thought or we were waiting for some other actor to move before we move but i think it's in a practical sense it would be reasonable to expect to get through all of these in the next year is there a They're relatively modest. And, you know, you've got some, at the same time, you've got some big, big projects coming through like the Sisters UGB expansion and the Terrebonne community plan. So these would be, these would feel like fill-in projects. I think a lot of these rather than major projects.

Sure. I guess I was looking at over the last year, we've, we've skipped almost a third of our meetings probably as sort of light load projects.

Yeah, and I think this will help us establish and maintain a more consistent rhythm because these projects aren't as big of a lift and can get them off the ground and move them in. And because they're also not time critical, so there's none of these that have to be done ASAP, for example, that we can move these in as we have opportunities around some of these bigger projects.

And I can see some of these persons could do two or three in one night almost. I mean, very small, short, almost housekeeping in nature.

Yeah, I think the main obstacle here is that, you know, we've talked about that we have some family leave anticipated for two of our staff in long range. So that's the, I think that, you know, through the summer, we'll have relatively limited resources. And at the same time, we have an ambitious schedule during that time. That doesn't sound like very good planning for a planning department. No. Oh, yep. So, yep. Um, so, uh, that, I think that's going to be, that's the thing we're mainly watching through the summer, but coming into the fall, everybody should be back on board and we should be moving, uh, moving full steam ahead.

Sure. Sure.

Yeah.

So I guess, I mean, certainly we've got some, some half twos and I guess any, any other comments from you guys?

I appreciate your line of thought. I mean, in my mind, there's some validity to everything that we'll discuss tonight. Some of it's, in my mind, more exciting than others. But I am absolutely willing to take on whatever the board asks us to, obviously. But I appreciate you bringing up the child care because that is something that I would love to prioritize at the top of the list, obviously. um personally um and then the others i'm pretty kind of neutral and like hey it sounds like these are things we need to do um i would be interested in in adding the couple of the topics we discussed at the last meeting you know that's the uh

The homeless issue, I think there may be some opportunities to take a look at, quite frankly, at the county code and see whether there might be some opportunities to help solve some of that problem. I saw the application that came through that's created a bit of a stir with the Board of Commissioners that, you know, for homeless camping in the MUA, that to me is the potential to open some opportunities if that could be expanded. I mean, whether you did similar type sites that aren't quote-unquote homeless or in MUA or RR10 zones that might open up some more affordable housing opportunities. The other topic that, as we discussed before, is coordinated regional traffic planning that it seems to be, I mean, I may be wrong and maybe my perception is off base, but My observation is it seems that the different entities, be it state, county, and city, maybe aren't on the same page with regard to moving traffic through central Oregon. And to me, from emergency services, I'm concerned about some of the road restrictions as creating restrictions such that they could recreate a paradise-type tragedy in West Bend when people can't evacuate. And so, I mean, those are two topics I'd love to see added to the list. Any other thoughts? Commissioner Williams, do you have anything? There you are.

I agree with you, Chair Cyrus. Right now, the roundabout is being completed at Century and Huntington. So, like, with respect to fire, anyone who lives in Oregon Water Wonderland, River Meadows, they now only have two routes versus three routes. And, you know, albeit that roundabout is going to be complete, anyone who lives on Huntington north of State Rec only has one option out, and that's going south because of the road closures. So, I... I'm in agreement with you on that. I know we need solutions on the homeless. I absolutely understand that. And I know we had some folks come speak. So that's something where I... I would put the fire safety, fire roads above that just from my perspective, from having listened to you and listening to the folks talking about the homeless. I know everyone's trying to find a solution on that. And with respect to the text amendments, I would love to have us looking into alternative zoning for child care. We've had a child care down here that was in the business park, and it did great. I think there are opportunities, like in light industrial, you find the right lot, it's... Going to help the children, and it's going to help the families. So my priority on zoning text would be child care. Other projects would probably be just getting the in and out, the through fare on roads.

Anybody else?

I have more of a discussion. I'm kind of trying to wrap my brain about the... And I appreciate you bringing up the transportation because I do think that it can be frustrating. And I don't know exactly what the county's rule, like what exactly the outcome would be, but I do think it is a problem. So... But my, what I've been, I've been really thinking about the homeless, the houselessness, homelessness topic and like trying to wrap my head about because it really is a, it's a tough, it's a really tough subject. And I know that we would get a lot of input from. from various entities that would be very engaging and very, I'd be interested to hear. I'm just, when you said that Texan, in my mind, I was like, what would be our goal? What would be a potential outcome of having this kind of discussion? What would be, like, if you could imagine... some scenarios. I'm just kind of curious, going down that path, what your thoughts are.

Well, I guess my thought, I mean, granted we've got a lot of organizations that are taking a look at solutions. We, on a planning standpoint, can take a look at land use to see whether there may be some opportunities that could be opened up to create better opportunities to create housing. For example, whether it's zone changes or changing allowed uses within specific zones to say, okay, this type of facility could be created in this spot that may not currently be allowed under current code. You know, that was kind of my thought is whether we could explore, you know, what's legal under the law. I mean, for example, there's some exceptions is my understanding for homeless camp or type of facilities as was presented in the MUA application. I mean, in looking at that, that is a RV slash mobile home park. I mean, by design, I mean, quacks like a duck type thing, but falls under homeless camp. And maybe that type of facility could or should be allowed under a different label within those zones to allow for more opportunities for general housing or for lower income housing that doesn't have a particular label on it. That's all I was thinking was maybe we can explore opportunities, options. Is there something that we could do under the law to help facilitate housing? Certainly, you'd want those organizations that are working on it to be here front and center talking about it, but the public doesn't have an opportunity necessarily to weigh in with those groups. They're a little bit of an echo chamber. Um, we're just part of the thought and I think we're commissioner stock camp was coming from is. I haven't seen an opportunity for the public to weigh in and say, Hey. You know, here's some ideas. This is what we'd like. This is what we don't like. I mean, we're having to, to live with and deal with. some of the hazards and the risks, you know, be it fire or trash or whatever. But, you know, maybe we can come up with a collective solution to the problem that we as a planning staff or commission can help facilitate a solution.

Yeah, thank you for the explanation. It sounds like this is going to be a big lift.

And it would be, it could potentially be, yeah, larger than average type concept. But, you know, it seems to be top of mind on everybody's radar, you know, especially with the number of fires associated, the number of resources being committed. You know, Redmond Fire is dealing with it on a, at least weekly, if not daily basis sometimes, just in their own fire district. Bend has got similar issues. I mean, Sisters, all of the different communities are putting a huge amount of resources into it. And maybe we can try to come up with some solutions. So that was a thought.

Well, I'm curious what your take on this is. Is there, is there, I mean, this sounds like a very ambitious, you know, I'm just kind of curious your take on this.

Yeah, I think when you think about – I'll come at it from the angle that I know best, which is the direction of increased housing opportunity. You think about what primarily limits housing opportunity. It's the statutory scheme, right, coming out of the state law, the combination of Goal 14, which tries to force additional residential uses inside of cities. and limits residential density in rural areas and it treats all of that residential density as the same so if you're a manufactured home park or if you're a single family home a dwelling's a dwelling and generally you can't you know there's no easy way to get under one unit per 10 acres which is a very modest development scheme um you know to uh chair cyrus's remark the uh the the House Bill 2006 provided an opportunity for temporary houselessness transition camps that were operated in certain very specific ways to be allowed in rural residential exception areas or rural residential zones. And so there was a carve-out that's made for that. And we see that increasingly from the legislature of a carve-out approach. So UGB expansions come with Special carve outs. There was an effort in the legislature to for senior housing that was possible to add on to, you know, to to for a city to consider undertaking adding on to its urban growth boundary in a relatively facilitated way for for senior housing. And so I think that when you – so one path that you come in here is you'd be looking at legislative opportunities. So, you know, might be advocating, having the board advocate to the state to say, you know, either we should have enhanced opportunities on rural lands and or we should consider making special exemptions so that, you know, expanding the city's urban growth boundaries is, you know, is an enormous effort. And these carve-outs have their advantages and disadvantages, but you could imagine an opportunity for manufactured housing, for example, specifically like, hey, you can come into the city in easy mode if you promise to put in manufactured housing or long-term stay RV parks, not the 30 out of 60 recreational ones, but ones where this is somebody's primary residence. there could be exploration of those opportunities. So thinking about kind of legislative opportunities, certainly in the Goal 14 space, again, this would be a very significant change at the state level, but you can imagine the one unit per 10 acres. What Goal 14 says is it says broadly that if you get below one unit per two acres, so a higher density than that, you're certainly starting to look at an urban scenario. Those should be in sequence. And then there's kind of a gray area as you go between 2 and 10-acre densities. And above 10 acres, there's generally a presumption that this is inherently a rural use for residential uses. It might be interesting to see if the legislature would explore something like saying, well, maybe an effective unit for – manufactured home parks is one unit per five acres to give some enhanced opportunity to, you know, those things have different development economics associated with that. And we do see a shortfall of that type of housing compared with the demand and association with it. So I'm brainstorming here a little bit in front of you, but this would be kind of in what I call the legislative opportunity space. Also in that space, I've been talking to the commissioners lately about manufactured home parks, and we have a provision in our local code that is not mirrored in state code that says that when you're looking to expand a park, you're looking to add new uses to an existing manufactured home park, you're expected in a broad way to bring the existing park up to modern standards. And that's been an obstacle to a couple of projects that might have otherwise been viable. I mean, certainly you can see the reason why you want the width of fire lanes to be correct and other key infrastructure. And at the same time, it can make a project quite difficult. So something the board's asked me to come back to them, talk to them about is about the relationship between local code and state code for manufactured home parks and seeing where You know, we've chosen to be more restrictive if it's appropriate to maintain those boundaries. And so I think this falls adjacent to the space that you're talking about in terms of increased low-cost housing opportunities. So the current, the state requires or this county requires? County is more restrictive.

So the, so... Perfect example of what I was, if we can do some brainstorming and figure out how we might be able to solve some of this problem. If we loosened our restrictions a little bit so existing facilities could expand or back to the legislative, maybe we go back to the state and say, hey, guys, we've identified a potential opportunity. Work with us.

Yeah, so I think that's probably, as I've thought about it and I've been thinking about it all week, that's sort of the space I've been thinking about in that. With regard to houselessness generally in terms of the county's approach to that, I'm not sure that there's outside of legislative opportunities that there's something really specific that's – that seems like low-hanging fruit in terms of that opportunity. To the extent the board was looking for maybe more citizen engagement, it's possible that they might direct that to the Planning Commission to have those discussions, but that would be, again, at the board's discretion if they wanted to route that to you as their citizen engagement body.

Mr. Chairman and Planning Commissioners, It's important to acknowledge, you know, there is an application that Commissioner Cyrus noted. And I think it, you know, certainly this planning staff doesn't want to get in front of the planning commission. There's a multitude of issues that come with homelessness, you know. There's behavioral health issues. There's chronic health issues and addiction. There's public health and safety, unsheltered growth, emergency service demands, impacts to existing businesses and residences, affordable housing and barriers to housing, stagnant wages that, you know, where housing costs are outpacing local wages, and then you have an aging and vulnerable population. And that's just my list. So you would be weighing into a topic that has some very extensive issues around it. As it pertains to land use, I think it's going to be informative to see how this application is processed. And why do I say that? There is tremendous interest in this project, and that's been widely reported. To my knowledge, no county has ever approved a homeless shelter in the rural area. And so, you know, this – you may want to – again, I'm not – I don't want to get ahead of the Planning Commission, but you may want to see – What happens with this application, you know, it has to zone out of that. It's complicated to do that regardless if 1 wants to establish a homeless shelter or a regional park. or a private school, or zoning into rural industrial, or to any other kind of rural residential multi-use agricultural uses. It's complicated, and it's been that way here for some time. Even when you get out of the EFU zone, there are costs that come with that. What are those costs? You have to design a decentralized wastewater system, that's not going to be inexpensive. There's going to be trips that are generated from that use. That's not going to be inexpensive. You're going to have to have a water source. You're not going to be able to rely on a domestic well. And so those are just three examples, not to mention having an operator. It's got to be, I think, run by a nonprofit organization. There's a whole host of factors. And so Certainly, if the Planning Commission wants to make this recommendation, we will carry it forward. I'm just offering, I guess, the topic of timing. And if this is successful, and it very well could be, then you have a framework, at least one framework. one outcome that is tested in Deschutes County that can then be further examined. As it stands today, though, we don't have a model. So I offer that for you, again, not to take any opinion on this application. But our department has been involved in numerous pre-application meetings to talk about not just what it means to zone out of EFU, but what it means to actually get it entitled and then to build the requisite uh infrastructure um and you know there's there's exactions and you know that that come with such such a use so i'll pause there just i offer that for your consideration again no in no way to get to to deter you if this if the will of the planning commission is to talk about these topics um obviously as i mentioned it there's there's a whole host of themes that come with it and um this is very much a matter of first impression uh as it pertains to

rural land uses and i i would certainly agree i mean my my thought was strictly stick stay within our lane and that's strictly from a from a land use are there any opportunities or maybe it's a legislative recommendation to to soften some of the rules within the non-resource zones to allow for better for more housing opportunities i mean i've that was that was just kind of kind of my general thought is certainly not to get into all of the other side issues related to that because i agree i mean you could really get bogged down in the weeds on some of those topics

Can you tell me more about the pending application?

Yeah, we have a pending application for a plan amendment zone change. It's located near Hanby and Highway 20, the roundabout there. So its application is currently incomplete for a multitude of factors. I think, as I understand, the applicant is still kind of supplementing their burden of proof. This was an application that was submitted in February. So I can certainly provide you more information. um you know there's uh on dial um there's all of that is public record look at that yeah um uh it's the gales property is is is the family name um that's that's interested in zoning out of efu and and taking and providing uh uh numerous resources for our most vulnerable uh you know population so uh it's something that our our staff is is We have a case planner assigned to it, Hallie King, who you've met. So it's an application that will, because it's zoning out of EFU, it has to go to a hearings officer. That's specified in our procedural code. So that's something that we hope we can get scheduled, you know, if not in June and July, but still in a kind of incomplete status at this point.

Thank you.

Commissioner Williams.

So I will just for the record, let it be known that I, I don't disagree with the thought and the heart, but Right now, I feel like maybe I would rather let us see this Gales property and see how it plays out with respect to Peter, you know, the South County. We are nitrate high in the water. We don't got a lot of water. We're almost built out. So for us, Water and nitrates don't mix well, and it would be a challenge down south, I think. So at this point, I would like to see the Gales property play out. And just to have that on the record for the Board of Commissioners to know where I'm standing right now. And also knowing that I really respect what you're saying and your thought process and your thinking out the box. with some realignments and some exemptions. I think it's a fantastic idea if it could be exempted in the right areas that can handle it.

Great. Thank you. Did you have a follow-up?

Well, and I would, similar to what you're saying, I've been involved in several real estate transactions, including that involve mobile home parks, and they were being transitioned from a mobile home park to single family housing. And part of the conversation of both of those transactions were, it's so hard to find land zoned to put these mobile home parks. So I think that it's a a shrinking use. And I think it's a very needed housing. So I totally see where you're coming from. And I would be very much interested in exploring, or if we had the opportunity, if the board gave us the opportunity to explore that kind of legislative strategy, I think that is absolutely, I support it. It does seem like a very big lift. And So that's my big concern. It's just our time. And but I do see the value in it because I've been firsthand at the table with people, you know, in needing of that. And it's disappearing. Sure.

Well, that was kind of my thought. Mr. Stockett.

Yeah. I appreciate all the follow up on this from everyone. All the perspectives. Well, you made a point and it circles back to what my whole original intention with my comment was I submit two weeks ago. I just want to encourage goal one citizen involvement for future decisions that could be like residential housing on county-owned land. Because looking at the current work plan, just a bullet point pulled out of it. So it was the housing stability and supply and its support actions to increase housing production and achieve stability. And the one sub-bullet point says expand opportunities for residential development on appropriate county-owned properties. So when I read something like that, I just want to ensure moving forward I stated in my letter, I don't think the Juniper Ridge Temporary Safe State Area, I know it wasn't interpreted as a land use decision. I feel like goal one, citizen involvement, was not provided there. So if we're looking with these goals of appropriate county-owned land properties for residential development, I just encourage the board to have that citizen involvement, goal one. So that's kind of where I was coming at with this whole bringing it up. It is a huge lift. I agree with all of you. We can't accomplish it all at once. And we have all these big priorities in front of us that are the mandatory ones, like sister's UGB amendment. So I appreciate having the discussion about it. And I think Peter's recommendation is really valuable, too, of seeing how this current zone change application plays out. I'm also in agreement along with the child care facilities that we were discussing. What Tony and Matt were discussing was the transportation planning, especially for in case of like wildfire, like emergency exits and stuff. So just making sure there's a whole comprehensive plan with the growth of the county. So thanks for discussing this further. back to the the original discussion what's your pleasure i i mean i think from the timing of what uh peter was recommending with that application or what he was suggesting i i think talking about the if when the timing comes forward that we availability the transportation planning and also with tony saying a very great uh need right now it's nitrate and groundwater contamination so i mean That's in here, too, under coordination duties. So I know it's already a focus. But if there's anything we can put towards that to our residents in South County, I think that's very noble to be working on. So I think if houselessness and housing strategies, it becomes available later in the year, I think it's great to focus on that. But I think the transportation planning is very appropriate and important as well, especially with us facing probably an extended wildfire season this year with the less snowfall we had. if that helps answer priority.

So, so I guess back to that, um, do I have consensus then that we'd like to add transportation discussion into our list and that maybe where do, I mean, there's certainly some strong support for discussing housing opportunity, additional, maybe I should say enhanced housing opportunities and, Do we want to wait until we see where this other application goes before we address that? Granted, it's a zone change. I wasn't proposing anything to a zone change. It's just to see whether there might be opportunities within existing zones. But kind of what's your thoughts on that? Do we want to postpone and wait on that, or do we want to see where it fits in the process if it does?

My priorities, I guess, just to be clear so that Will can carry personally, my priorities would be those zoning tax amendments with child care at the top, you know, working our way through. And then sounds like if there's time, you know, I'm curious about these transportation and houselessness, but it's not, it wouldn't be my priority. I'd prioritize the zoning tax amendments above all.

So basically what I'm hearing is this maybe add those 2 topics to the other but not necessarily prioritize them over the other items.

I would be consensus that come from commissioner Williams.

Yeah, it seems we're all kind of dancing around a few different topics and we each have a different 1, 2, 3, on them because we are only 4 out of the 7. I'm almost to the point of making a motion. And I don't know if we're ready for that yet. Because the panels, I just, for me, destination resorts, I just, you know, been there, done that. Wildlife, I'm just a little dejected. We had a great... great public involvement with the mule deer migration and the planning commissions. Almost, I think maybe unanimous recommendation was shot down by the Board of County Commissioners. So in that respect, I'm a little depleted right there. I just, you know, like beating a dead horse. We try these things and We're not making steps. So with respect to the panels, you know, I'm fine doing them in that order.

So did you have any other comments on the other topics? I was going to hit the panels as the next topic. Yep, you bet.

I'm done.

Okay, so go ahead, Will.

There's Cyrus. I was thinking about, so I was thinking about how I might frame what I've heard from you so far to the board. I thought it might be helpful if I was to repeat back what I heard in sort of, you know, pretending that I was before the board and letting you give me some feedback if I've got this basically right. Would that be something that'd be interesting to you? Sure, absolutely. So imagine me before the board. Hey, we had, you know, on a date, we had a hearing with the planning commission and deliberations. The Planning Commission reviewed the work plan and showed enthusiasm for the zoning text amendments that were shown in there with an emphasis on child care. Many of the planning commissioners were interested in particular in child care opportunities. In addition to the items that were on the list already, there was a robust discussion about... transportation resources, particularly as they related to throughput through cities, especially in wildfire and emergency scenarios and how those interacted between state, local, and city transportation resources. So this would be a recommendation for the board to undertake a project to ensure that Difficulty in evacuation routes in particular, as we saw in various fires in the Western United States. We don't see those same types of problems if those are avoidable, and so it would be an exploration of those things. In addition, there was some discussion of houselessness generally, and that came in two regards. First, there was an interest in ongoing exploration about housing opportunities in rural areas. And there was some discussion generally about places where county code might be more restrictive, for example, with regard to manufactured home parks, but also other opportunities and where the county might look to either legislative changes to our code and or approaching the state legislature for opportunities for additional rural development associated with manufactured home parks or other rural housing. There was also some concern raised with regard to houselessness with respect to citizen involvement. A planning commissioner noted, that major choices are being made with how to approach houselessness in our community. And it's something that is obviously a topic that many of us are interested in and have a lot of resources directed to that. And a commissioner was interested in seeing opportunity for better citizen involvement associated with that.

I thought that sounded great. The very last sentence, I think, especially specific to county-owned property, was my takeaway on that because it seems like the board of commissioners seems to be making decisions related to housing on county land without specific input of the people who own it. Does that represent what your intent was?

Yeah, because in relation to the other, the application we're talking about, that it will have a public hearing with the hearings officer. So that will have goal one. So I'm very interested in that, the county-owned land. And some of that, I'm not putting that all on the board. Some of it's also with cities who own land too, like Juniper Ridge TSSA. So no, I think that was a great summary.

Okay, I made it up.

I'll do the transcript to summarize that before the board.

And, you know, to the extent that you have modifications or additions, certainly totally welcome. But I was, that's basically in past years, I've come to the board with a kind of a similar presentation of, you know, this is what planning commissioners were interested in, in this order, and with generally this emphasis. So that's about how I would present it.

So obviously, you've done this before.

Twice. Yeah.

Yeah, thank you. No, thank you. I thought you did an excellent job.

And I did a comment for panels if we're still discussing panels.

So are we good with projects? We're ready to move on to panels? Okay.

panels yeah uh i just want to throw wildfire in there i don't know if we've done a panel on that but whether it's like having obf wildfire mitigation contractors on here uh it's something we all face here residents deschutes county so i thought maybe that could be an interesting and uh commissioner williams was saying that wildlife she she feels dejected on it and we've we've had a lot of discussion on it. I just wasn't sure if wildfire's been one that's been on a panel before. So I thought it could be an interesting discussion. So I wanted to throw that one in there.

Yeah, and I can give you a little bit of context in that space. So recently we had the Oregon Department of, the Oregon State Fire Marshal come and speak to the board about a voluntary code that they're in the process of propagating for defensible space. It's really focused on the first five feet around a house. but also looks at kind of limbing and flammable vegetation removal around houses generally. This was something that was developed. We've talked about it a little bit before. This was developed kind of in the aftermath of the state wildfire hazard mapping effort that was ultimately not undertaken. And what instead came out of this was a voluntary code that talks about how you can protect structures using kind of defensible space zones associated with that. It's being propagated as a voluntary code, and there's some interest in exploration of having either fire departments or local jurisdictions adopt, enforce, fund, try to do some work in that space. So we are tasked with community development and Kyle Collins in particular is tasked with returning to the board to look at opportunities and challenges in that space. So there's a variety of jurisdictions in the Western United States, Ashland, Marin County, Los Angeles County, Paradise, town of Paradise, even Austin, Texas has looked into trying to do this sort of work. And it's really an effort to try to bring together a variety of factors that, you know, maybe not even predominantly regulation, but bringing resources, community, educational opportunities, volunteer opportunities, bringing together fire departments, the sort of work that our natural resources department does all the time. but bringing this together around in a defensible space arena. And one possible outcome of the board's engagement with that may be that they'd like to hear more from the community, more citizen engagement about what type of regulation, if any, that the community would be interested in. So I could imagine in that space in particular, if they had some interest in exploring a regulatory approach or engaging an additional community, engagement before uh heading out in a direction that that would be something very much aligned with your what what you're talking about but in terms of panels um so that's really there's there's a there's a big there's a big piece moving in association with that but i i think that i would be i would also be interested to hear you know once we uh once we get clear of that or as part of that effort to bring to bring forward kind of a wildfire topic before the uh the planning commission as a panel i think there's a lot that we could learn there and i think there's a lot of people who are working in that space, including our own natural resources department, who would love the platform to have an opportunity to get out the word about the good work they're doing and the things that we can do each on our own properties to improve our safety.

Yeah, I would second that. I think it'd be an interesting topic. It falls in with some of the transportation discussion we were just talking about. And a lot of land use, which is why we're here, You know, if there's some codes or different things that we're going to be addressing in the future with regarding to everything from densities to wildfire preparation, codes, that kind of stuff, it would probably be a good discussion.

I would third it.

Well, that sounds like at least unanimous support from those that are here. Any other discussions?

You know... Depending on what the wildlife topic would be, it would be a panel. We're not putting anything up to the board. So depending on what the topic, you know, I'm interested, I'm always interested in learning. I was just wanted to, you know, have it on the record, the frustration.

I appreciate that. And with regard to a couple of the other topics, there are a couple that I brought up last year. With regard to wildlife, maybe I was one of one or two people who voted against the proposal to expand the overlays after I did a significant amount of research into the actual causes of the decline in deer, and it had nothing to do with with rural residents. We danced around the topic, but we never addressed a solution. And that was why I thought it might be worthy of bringing in some people that a little more diverse expertise on especially the mule deer and their decline and what some of the solutions might be other than putting more restrictions on rural landowners. I personally have some, based on the studies that we researched during that, I mean, there's some other issues that are much more significant than simple landowners. rural living. So that was part of the logic behind that was, you know, we rejected one proposal but we never addressed how to solve the problem. And so that was kind of the thought with maybe we can do some brainstorming on how to actually fix the problem in a different direction. The other with the resorts, I think the last time resorts have been discussed on a county level other than in the media has actually been in the 90s when the mapping was being done. I know I was on the legislative group that helped create the state statute that it falls under for Goal 8. And so that committee actually did a tour of Central Oregon and looked at some of the resorts in Central Oregon at that time. And quite frankly, I don't think there's actually been a general discussion of pros and cons and overall benefits. economic impacts of resorts outside of an application since then, was part of my thought with a panel of preferably experts that could talk on kind of what they, the reason why the statute is there, the reason why Goal 8 exists, and what the intent was. So anyhow, that's kind of my background. Go ahead. Thank you.

In regards to panels, how I kind of see panels with, you know, we have limited time and resources here, up here, and I respect your guys' preparation time, is I love it when a panel preps us for something that we will be discussing. So my inclination would be to support a panel that preps us for a discussion we might be facing. So if we're going to face something with destination resorts or wildlife, then yes, I'd love a panel that would help educate us or give us at least a baseline of knowledge. But if it's not within our near future, I don't really see...

For me personally, I think it's great if it can provide educational for us or prep us for some, but also just being an educational resource for the community. Like, for instance, with specifically wildfire and bringing up, I don't think it ever hurts to provide as many resources as possible there. And I'm not saying anything that you're insinuating anything. But I think it's also what Chair Cyrus is saying is just sharing additional facts and stuff on maybe it was wildlife overlays before and then destination resorts, just getting a very well-educated panel of experts on it. But yeah, I think that's why it's at the bottom. Did we have two last year or was it one? I'm trying to remember.

We did water.

Water.

Water, and we had some Terabon preparatory panels.

Okay. And that was certainly interesting. Yeah.

With the land use, we had a short-range planner.

Planning 101. Planning 101. Oh, yeah. So, thoughts? What do we want to move forward on if there's time on any panels?

I would, I would support the wildfire.

Absolutely.

Yeah, that's, that's helpful to us. So to the extent that we have, uh, some addition, we have, uh, some gaps in the calendar and, uh, we can move appropriately in the space, uh, that the boards are, you know, either acting or preparing to act in, uh, while, you know, prior to prioritize wildfire panel as a, as a next opportunity for that one, as that arises. Okay. That's great. Is there any other discussion?

All right. Do you have enough information to move forward at this point, I guess? Yes, thank you.

All right. Does this require a motion or anything, then? Or is it just kind of a...

I don't think... It's up to you guys. I mean, I think...

I would move, I believe... that the staff typically says, we would like that you take our recommendation. So I would move that we recommend that the board accept the planning staff's recommendations and add our thoughts on the zoning text, other projects and panels as optimized by Will.

I second that Commissioner Stockham.

It's been moved and seconded to ask the board to do what Will tells them. So any discussion?

Just as the mover, I would say, you know, this is traditional annual work that we do. And the planning staff has their categories, their priorities, their high, medium, low, and the things they just got to get going. So let's let them do it.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Carries. All right. So with that, I think we don't have anything else on the agenda. So staff comments.

So we've got some calendar items coming up for you. So the next meeting is on May 14th. And making sure that we're going to lock these in. But it looks like the work session for the Sisters UGB amendment will be coming on May 14th. Kyle Collins presenting. He'll also be he looks like he's on track to bring you an additional clear and objective update. This one has to do primarily with multifamily housing. This is This is, again, required under ORS 197A-400 that in order for a county to have any rules whatsoever with regard to housing, you have to have clear and objective ones, and we do not with regard to multifamily housing. This was delayed because compared to the other projects that you did in the past year because we see it so rarely. So the risk associated with somebody trying to come through the door seemed limited and it seems to be increasing with the possibility of Terrebonne getting a sewer. So an important time to engage in that last discussion. clear and objective update. Also, we did our outreach at the Terrebonne, as we mentioned, at the Terrebonne School. And Tanya will be bringing you an engagement summary. So what we've got going on there is there was an in-person engagement, and the online open house continues to be open to the end of the month. So for anyone who'd like to give some opinions and feedback about zoning and land use in Terrebonne, there is an online engagement available associated with that at our website. Um, Heading into May 28th, public hearing likely for the Sisters UGB expansion and public hearing for the clear and objective updates. And then looking out into June, private burials potentially, if that's prioritized as a relatively easier fill-in. And by that time, we'll have direction from the board in terms of the work plan, and we'll be looking to align whatever direction that they have in that space to fill your calendar up.

So quick question. The Sisters UGB, my understanding is it was appealed. Has that been resolved?

So there's a – the city – let me try to characterize this correctly. So the city had engaged in an – there's – how far to back this up? So the – whenever you do a UGB expansion, there are people who want in – and get in and people who want in and didn't get in, you know, and so there's, uh, there's parties who, uh, who are interested in that process and there continue to be, uh, some, uh, properties, particularly the Mount, the, uh, the Mountain View property, um, the MMV property that, um, was not included in the sister's proposal because that, uh, zone change that would allow them to participate in that is still off at Luba. And so it didn't appear timely. So there continue to be, um, uh, uh, challenges to the city's process. But at this point, they are all ready to go forward. They've resolved those kind of current limitations and are moving through a parallel process. So both city planning commission council as well as the county government will be working their way through that UGB expansion process. And so again, work session and public hearing coming your way.

Thank you, Mr. Cyrus. Just a little more context. I think what the city council did is they adopted, I think, by resolution, by some legal instrument that they were initiating the legislative UGB amendment. And they were just acknowledging that they're going to go forth and formally amend, go through the process of formally amending their comprehensive plan and ultimately ours. That action was challenged. as a land use decision, for lack of a better word. And council withdrew that formality. And by doing so, it then focuses the attention on the sister's UGB amendment and the hearings that are going to start taking place next month, both with this planning commission and the city's planning commission. So it was a bit of a... Procedural vulnerability. I think the council wanted I'm surmised. I think they wanted to formally announce that they were concluding their analysis that informed their recommendation and in doing so left themselves open to some vulnerability. So they in abundance of caution revoked that declaration.

So it's been resolved for now.

Yeah, that's the meat of the issue is now heading to both this planning commission and the city planning commission. So this is the forum to for interested members of the public to engage about the city's recommendation. Yeah.

Great.

Were you done?

I had one more item. OK. And this is, I think we've talked about it a little bit, but just wanted to make sure that you were updated. And this has to do with the 2040 comprehensive plan. After reconsideration before the board, that was returned to LUBA.

And LUBA has reviewed that comprehensive plan and has remanded it.

And so there were a number of assignments of error that Central Oregon Land Watch basically said, Johnny, you're doing it wrong. And LUBA agreed. on a very narrow basis and not the entirety of it. The remand focuses on procedural issues. So there was an agreement from LUBA that based on some changes that were made with regard to cluster and planned unit developments relatively late in the process that additional notice was required and additional hearing process was required. So that's a procedural issue that can be remedied, should that matter come back before the Board and potentially the Planning Commission for reconsideration or for remand. And then the substantive issue had to do with OAR 660-0040 and how it approaches clustered and planned developments. This is, I'm going to try to keep this at a relatively high level. When properties are zoned rural residential exception areas or MUA 10, RR 10 areas, they tend to arrive that way in one of three ways. They were either given a goal exception. So the protections that are forwarded to farm and forest uses under goal three and goal four were expressly, these lands were expressly accepted from them. So an exception was granted. And those are those lands that were originally zoned that way back in kind of their initial zoning period under the state land use system. And it can be properties that received a goal exception to goal three and goal four, or goal four as appropriate. There's a third category of land that is a non-resource land. We've seen a lot of those in recent years. So if you had typically a farm zone property and you said, this isn't a farm zone, Never will be a farm, never was a farm, dirt's no good. You can basically become non-resourced land. So you didn't take an exception to the Goal 3 and Goal 4 rules under the state land use system. You simply became non-resourced land. and uh the county in our initial draft had treated for the purposes there's a state again the oregon administrative rule 660 004 sorry 004 uh is it 00308 talks about cluster and planned develop planned unit developments and how you can get some additional density or organize the properties and you know in in different configurations and typical 10 acre units And that section of the administrative rule is particularly opaque. And in an effort to ensure the maximum availability for cluster and plan developments for our community, we took a position that those would be afforded to non-resource lands as well as exception lands. And LUBA came back and said, no, non-resource lands are not available. are expressly not addressed under the cluster and plan development rules in state statute and thus are not eligible for those types of developments without taking a goal exception. Clear as mud. I would need a whiteboard in an hour to get you a lot deeper into this, but the short version of this is that we've received some pretty clear direction from LUBA that on remand that certain changes would need to be made with regard to non-resourced lands and cluster and plan developments. Because that matter has been remanded to us, that remand can in turn be appealed to the Court of Appeals by Central Oregon Land Watch, and they have a 21-day window which ends on May 4th. So it'll be interesting to see if that's appealed forward on into the courts or is handed back to the county for further action.

Okay.

That's what I was hoping to cover this evening. Thank you.

Great. Thank you.

Peter. Mr. Chairman and Prime Minister, I just have one item. Your next meeting is on May 14th, and the day before, on May 13th, the Community Development Department will be making its budget presentation to the Budget Committee, the Board of County Commissioners, three Budget Committee members, as it pertains to the funding of our department for next fiscal year, which is effective July 1st.

So

I just wanted to let you know that that's when it's scheduled and not anticipating much concern about our budget, but it's always nice to announce our budgetary process for anyone who might be interested in. And following that or participating it's a public meeting, and our presentation is, I want to say it's like from 1230 or 1245 to 130 right in that range.

So, that's all I have. I have a question for you.

And it relates back to the discussion on the that application we were talking about. It's my understanding that the county granted waivers for non... Is it generally waivers for nonprofits for land use actions or the specific ones?

So there's two questions there, as I heard it. One was asking how the Gales application was funded. And secondly, how does the Community Development Department's fee resolution or fee waiver policy apply? So to the first question, the Coordinated Homeless Response Board allocated $25,000 to this property in May of 2025. The application is short approximately $2,100. We're a fee-dependent department and so our fees have went up a few thousand dollars between fiscal year 25 and we're in fiscal year 26. So there are currently conversations that the board is having. The board will be revisiting this issue of the Gales fee circumstance this Wednesday. So that's the first part of your question. To the second, Deschutes County does have a fee waiver policy. It applies in two specific cases. One's really for code enforcement. If one is indigent and they need a land use permit or potentially even a building permit that can get them into compliance, we have the ability to waive our fees to get them into compliance with our codes, building codes on, say, wastewater land use. The other category pertains to nonprofit organizations that... require land use permits in a circumstance that they didn't anticipate. This is pretty rare. I can't remember a nonprofit organization being kind of stumped that they didn't realize that a land use application was necessary. To give you a hypothetical, a watershed council may want to do some restoration work. They weren't able to get the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's concurrence. If they do get their concurrence, that's an exempted... They qualify for an exemption under our county codes. But let's just say they didn't get that endorsement. They could... presumably apply because they're working in the wetlands or the floodplains to do some restoration. It's a community good. They didn't anticipate it under our fee waiver policy, which has been in place for decades. They could apply for that fee waiver and could presumably qualify for that. So those are the two examples that are explicitly called out.

Okay. I guess I was, like I say, I was concerned about how widespread the situation, for example, the Dale application and whether that was... It just seems that where your department is fee-based for all applicants, that if anything gets waived, it pushes the burden either onto other applicants or it reduces, it cuts your department short. Yeah. and I didn't know whether that's even the purview of what we can address, but my personal opinion is, is it's something that the board should pull out of a different budget to cover. But that's, Like I say, I don't know whether that's our purview to make recommendations, but that's my personal opinion.

Yeah, no, and I appreciate those responses. I would respectfully acknowledge that the Planning Commission's purview is to focus on land use policy and not our fees. um nonetheless any planning commission any citizen any resident can can express their their viewpoints on any number of issues to the board of county commissioners directly um and so i would to the extent that this is these types of uh opinions uh surface that would be the appropriate way to to provide them thank you commissioner williams i'm glad we had a quorum today

Yeah, thank you for attending. So, Commissioner Stockkamp.

I just want to thank fellow commissioners and planning staff for their work plan deliberation. So, looking forward to what's ahead and looking forward to my first UGB amendment hearing. When was the last one for coming from a planning commission?

Before my time.

The last UGB amendment was on remand by LCDC was the city of Benz 2016 UGB amendment. Before that was the city of, well, the city of Lapine would then be, I think the city of Lapine was approximately 2012. And then City of Redmond was 2006. And then City of Sisters, last time they did it, was 2005. So it's been a little over 20 years for the city. So it's such a good question, Commissioner Stockamp. We're one of those outside of Metro in the greater Portland metropolitan area. Deschutes County sees more UGB amendments, whether they're you know, expressed, you know, kind of fast track legislation that allows for one off UGB amendments that have happened in a quasi judicial realm. There's been, I want to say, three or four in the last four to six years. um but outside of those legislatively you won't find another county that's seen uh each of its cities uh amend or establish in the pines case or in the other three um uh amend their ugbs in approximately a 20-year period it's and that's just a reflection of the growth and development that we've seen here in our region right so commissioner kelly

Yeah, no comment. Well, thank you for a good discussion and appreciate all your help and how concise and quickly you were able to dictate our discussion. So thank you, Will.

Must be AI.

No, it's WG.

Well, and I'd just like to thank everybody. I mean, nice, quick, efficient meeting. We've got quite a bit covered, and we've got some proposals to move forward to the board. So I want to thank everybody. And meeting's adjourned.