Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, the light doesn't seem to work. Call the September 8th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to order at 532. Can we get a roll call?

Commissioner Villar-Brendel?

Here.

Commissioner Fott? Here. Commissioner Freibach?

Here.

Commissioner Heller, absent, excused. Commissioner Infante?

Here.

Commissioner Levin?

Here.

Commissioner Rhodes? Here. Commissioner Tebb?

Here.

Commissioner Slater?

Here. Okay, well, I'm not sure we recorded Commissioner Rhodes' presence. We do have quorum. Is there any public comment for agenda items other than the public hearing? Nope, no comments, no sign up. No one's volunteering to come up here, okay. Moving on, agenda item four, approval of the minutes. Do we have a motion?

I move to approve August 11th.

Second.

We have a motion and second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, can we move to a vote?

Commissioner Villar-Brendel?

Aye.

Commissioner Falk? Aye. Commissioner Freibach?

Aye.

Commissioner Rhodes? Aye.

Yes.

Hi.

Hi.

Hi. Hi.

Motion passes. Seeing no resolutions or action items, I guess we will get to agenda item five, public hearing. Can we have someone... All the hearing name out. You want me to do it?

No.

This one has a lot fewer letters than most of them. I think I could pull it out.

That's our criteria that needs to be read on there.

Yeah.

This is a code amendment. Number 26 dash 02. Amendments to the Salem revised code to promote the development of housing and comply with state rules and laws.

Okay, thank you. Who, Eunice, are you leading this one?

Yes, I am. Good evening. I'm Eunice Kim, Long Range Planning Manager here for the City of Salem. And with me tonight are many other planners who are here that have worked on the code and will be helping answer questions that you may have this evening. I'm here to present the staff report for Code Amendment Case 2602. Great. So tonight I'll be giving an overview of the proposed code amendment, including kind of where the project came from, the process that we undertook to establish the proposed code amendment, and then a brief overview of some of the changes. I'm not going to be walking through all of it, but I'll give some examples of some of the 500 pages of proposed changes. So just as a reminder, this project largely stems from the housing production strategy. The city adopted the first housing production strategy last year, and it's essentially a six-year action plan that lays out 17 different actions that the city is committed to taking to produce more housing here in Salem. It aims to encourage the production of more housing generally, different types of housing, more affordable housing, and more equitable housing choices across the city. council approved it in may the state then approved it in october and so we've been working on this project ever since here are the 17 actions that are in the housing production strategy the ones that are kind of highlighted in blue those three are the ones that are being implemented by this proposed code amendment tonight So the proposed code amendment, when we brought the housing production strategy to the council last year, was really brought as a priority from the council. They directed us to immediately start working with the development community and others to identify potential barriers in the code that we could remove to encourage the production of housing. And so we've been working again since then to come up with this list. We presented the list of ideas to the council in December to get there okay, so then we could proceed with the development of code. And we've been doing that. So we've been working really closely with the development community, neighborhood associations, the community at large to kind of vet some of these ideas, refine them, and kind of make revisions as we've been receiving comments. So what you see tonight is our best effort at addressing those comments and concerns and coming up with a proposal that will meet that idea of more production of housing. So again, the proposed code amendment looks at everything from single family, multifamily, middle housing, mixed use, and other standards in our code that are involved or related to housing, whether that's our tree regulations or public infrastructure requirements. And again, I will walk through some of those. So one of the things the code does is looks at promoting infill, particularly around middle housing and single family. As an example, it looks to make it easier to do cottage clusters. So just as a reminder, middle housing is two units, three units, four units, or a cottage cluster, which is really small units around a common green. Today we allow up to 12 cottage clusters in the single family zone. The proposal is to increase that to 16. The proposal would also allow detached and attached cottages. Today we only allow detached cottages. The state is requiring us to allow at least attached cottages up to groupings of four. So you'll see that in the code. We're also proposing to allow more units on a flag lot access way. That's where you have one house that kind of has street frontage and a few lots behind it. And so currently on that flag lot access way, we only allow four units to be built. Understanding now that those lots can have middle housing on them, we're proposing to increase the number of units that you can build on that flag lot access way. That access way, though, would have to be wider, so 27 feet paved, so that you can have two-way circulation as well as a five-foot sidewalk on one side to maintain pedestrian access and safety as there's more units built on that flag lot access way. Another proposal is to eliminate kind of the larger lot requirements that we have for those flag lots behind the main lot. When flag lots and infill lots were first introduced, it was kind of this new idea of infill. Those lots currently have to be 5,500 square feet in this single family zone when our minimum lot size for a regular lot is just 4,000 square feet. So we're proposing to get rid of that larger lot size for those infill lots. So for multifamily housing, we're looking to make it easier to do multifamily housing across the city. One of the things we're looking at is making infill in our multifamily two zone easier. So today that zone has a 15 units per acre minimum density. So if you have like a 10,000 square foot lot and you have an existing house on it, but you just want to build one more unit, right now the minimum density would say no, you have to build two more houses. And so this would say if you have a smaller lot, less than a half acre in that zone, you can go ahead and add a unit without having to meet minimum density. Sometimes people just want to add one unit. It's also making it easier to do smaller multifamily up to 16 units. So today we have multifamily design standards, and it largely breaks down those design standards based on a smaller project, which today is up to 12 units, or larger projects more than 12 units. Those larger projects have a lot more design standards, whether it's articulation, more open space, more landscaping, things like that. We're proposing to kind of bump up the number of units you can do, so 16, and still do that smaller amount of design standards. Again, those are properties that are usually smaller, more constrained, harder to kind of do all of the additional design requirements that are in our larger design standards today. We're also looking to facilitate more housing in our mixed-use zones. Today we have a mixed-use one zone that when we first envisioned it, we really thought there would be ground floor commercial uses. So the mixed-use zone has all of these requirements for ground floor uses that really don't facilitate ground floor housing because it requires more awnings, more windows, the setbacks still kind of close to the street. And so this change would kind of recognize that we're getting mostly full residential and that mixed use one zone, and it reduces some of those design standards to better meet kind of the needs of ground floor residential. So less windows, you can be set back a little bit further from the street, maybe 15 feet instead of 10, less awnings, things like that. One of the things that we're looking at is making it simpler or easier process to remove trees. We're not changing the type of trees that we're going to require to be preserved. We're looking at process largely. So today, if you want to remove a significant tree because you want to develop multifamily housing, you go through a tree removal permit. That's an administrative process, so there's no notice, there's no appeal of those. But if you want to remove that significant tree, the same one, and develop single family or middle housing, you have to go through a tree variance, which is a more notice, bigger process. So the idea is to kind of streamline that process, so whether you're developing multi-family, single-family, middle housing, and you're moving that significant tree, it's the same process. We would still have criteria around making sure that there's no reasonable design alternatives, like there is no other way to develop that lot with what you're trying to build and not preserve that tree, so we will still have criteria in there. The other change is allowing limited encroachment into what we call the critical root zone. That's kind of the area around the base of the tree that we're trying to protect to make sure that tree survives. Today we require an arborist report if you want to encroach into that critical root zone by up to 30%. We've looked at kind of what other cities do in that critical root zone and several other cities allow for encroachment into that outer half of the ring of up to 25% without an arborist report. So we're recommending that change. We did work with our urban forester. They said that wouldn't kill the tree. So that 25% would be only of that outer ring. If you still wanted to do more removal or more encroachment up to that 30%, we still have that opportunity to do it through an arborist report. And then last on this slide, you'll see that we're looking to add more mitigation options for removing more trees in a tree conservation plan. So today, when you're doing a subdivision, you need to save a certain percentage of trees, at least 30% through a tree conservation plan. And if you can't reach that and you want to remove more trees, we have a list of ways that you can mitigate that. like EV charging, more density. And so we're adding to that list. One of the things we want to add is if you want to do accessible units, so kind of a type A accessible unit, it's another way to mitigate that additional removal. So when it comes to infrastructure planning, this first idea of allowing middle housing units to essentially share sewer and utilities through a land division comes from the state. The state recently changed the law so that middle housing land divisions cities can choose whether or not to require separate utilities. And so today, when someone has middle housing, so if you think of three units on a lot, and it's been developed as middle housing, now that developer wants to separate those units onto their own lot. Today our code requires them to have separate utilities, which is harder to do once you've already developed it. So the law now, or the proposed change allows us to share a utility with the sewer and still do that division. We've worked extensively with our utility planners, development services to make sure that kind of works. All the mechanisms are in place for kind of maintenance and things like that going forward. And then one of the things we're looking at is exempting middle housing, not cottage clusters, but three family and four family projects from having to do boundary street improvements. So today we exempt single family and two family from boundary street improvements. So that's improving the street up to half of the street in front of you to meet our street standards, if you think about sidewalks. We exempt those, but we also exempt a single family that is converted into a two-family, three-family, or four-family. So this change is basically saying if you're doing a new three-family or four-family, you don't have to do that boundary street improvement. Cottage clusters, understanding they're larger projects, more frontage, would still need to do the boundary street improvement. one of the other changes we're making related to infrastructure is to really establish clear driveway approach standards so this this includes everything from a minimum width and a maximum width for driveway approaches as well separation between driveways the thinking behind that really is around kind of creating walkable pedestrian friendly neighborhoods so we don't have driveway driveway driveway and we have some room for trees for example between those driveways So we've really established kind of clear standards for those driveway approaches. And that really enables us to do an administrative kind of type one process for driveway approaches. So it's both making the standards more clear and then the process simpler. Other changes that we're proposing to make are to incentivize accessible housing. So the state is requiring us to incentivize accessible housing for middle housing, but one of the things we want to do is also incentivize a single family and an accessory dwelling unit that is accessible. So you're thinking kind of the type A unit where it's more accessible for like someone who's using a wheelchair device as an example. So the incentive is essentially if you're doing an accessible unit, you can cover more of your lot if you're a single family, understanding that those buildings need more kind of space, wider hallways, wider entrances, radius, things like that. And then for the accessory dwelling unit, today our cap is if you do that accessory unit, it's only 900 square foot as the cap. This would allow up to 1,000 square feet for that accessory dwelling unit. And then we're looking at making it easier to essentially rebuild a two-family house if it doesn't meet current standards, whether that's in the multifamily zone or in the mixed-use zone. Today it's fairly easy to rebuild a single family, and so we're trying to make it easier to retain those two-family uses that are being rebuilt. So there's a whole host of changes that are in the proposed code amendment that really stem from new state rules and recent legislative bills and laws. I'll walk through some of those. So the first kind of slew of changes are looking to implement the climate friendly and equitable communities rules. These are rules that the governor and the legislature, they passed back in 2022. The goal of those rules generally is to promote more climate friendly, equitable, communities, more housing choices. And so one of the things those state rules require us to do as a city is to designate walkable mixed use areas. These are areas that allow kind of a diversity of uses, whether it's commercial uses, multifamily uses, and also is pedestrian friendly in design. So you'll see that there's kind of four blobs that are circled on this map. Those are the four areas we're proposing to designate as walkable mixed use areas. None of them require any rezoning. We're not changing any minimum densities. Most of the regulations we have today already align with those state rules. And these are also areas through the Our Salem project that the community has already said we want these areas to be walkable mixed use areas. So it's largely just designating them officially in our code. One of the things we are required to do is establish shorter block lengths in those four areas. And so today, our standard block is 600 feet maximum. In these walkable mixed-use areas, it will shrink to 350. Most of these neighborhoods already meet those kind of block lengths, but the idea, again, is more pedestrian-friendly areas, and so you'll see that in the proposed changes. Another proposed change that is citywide stemming from those CFEC rules is new pedestrian-friendly, pedestrian-oriented design standards in our commercial zones. So if you think of our mixed-use zones, right, we have a lot of design standards that kind of promote walkable mixed-use areas. This state is requiring us to include some of those in our commercial zones. So in our commercial zones going forward, you would not be able to have a new parking lot, for example, in front of your building. It would have to be beside or behind So that's going to have a bigger impact throughout our city beyond our mixed use zones. And last but not least, we are required to change our bike parking standards for multifamily. So today we require one space per unit in our multifamily projects. This date allows us to go down to half a space per unit as long as it's covered. The idea is the trade off of like more useful, better protected, more secure bike parking, but you can require less. And so we're proposing to do that in this code. Many other state laws, I'll just touch on a few. State law recently is requiring us to allow daycare centers and residential treatment facilities more broadly across the city. So for example, in our multifamily two zone, today you can't do a daycare center without a conditional use permit, which as you know is a public hearing process. The state is now requiring us to allow those outright. So you'll see some of these uses allowed outright across many of our zones. We are also adding a density bonus, again, for accessible units and affordable middle housing. The middle housing would have to be affordable home ownership. The state defines that as having an area median income of up to 120% of the area median income for at least 10 years. And if you do that or you do a type A accessible unit, you can get one or two more units to your middle housing development. We've also adjusted kind of our setbacks, our heights and things like that to accommodate that kind of larger development in our proposed code. Last but not least, the state is requiring us to calculate SROs, single room occupancy, differently when it comes to density. So today, if you're trying to meet a 15 units per acre minimum density, one room in an SRO is equal to one unit. And the state is saying, no, that doesn't make a lot of sense. They're requiring us to say three rooms equals one unit, just understanding that one room is really not the equivalent of a full unit.

Oh, there's more. OK.

So there's also changes from state law that's going to impact our process, kind of how we review different land use applications. One of them is around housing-related projects. So if there's a housing development and it essentially meets all of our clear and objective standards, maybe like a simple partition as an example, it is now going to go through this process that we're calling 1H, H for housing, which is a really streamlined process. Notice goes out to fewer people, and the only people that can appeal really is the applicant. And so it's very streamlined. Once you get an adjustment or anything related to that housing, it kicks you out of that to your type two process, but that type one H process is to really expedite those clear and objective housing projects. Type two processes, which is probably what you're familiar with, notice goes out, there's opportunity for public comment and appeal. That is changing across the board based on changes to state law. So it's gonna really limit who gets notice. So today, type two, if you think of a subdivision or an adjustment that goes out for notice, Today it goes out to property owners within 250 feet of that subject property. That's going to be shrunk to 100 feet. We also send out notice today to tenants in addition to homeowners. It is now being restricted just to property owners. Usually appeals, you know, a neighborhood association can appeal. The appeals are going to be restricted to the applicant, the property owner, or anyone who provides comment. So neighborhood associations that want to appeal will need to provide comment during the public comment period. So I think the state's really looking to streamline again the process for approving developments. Another change driven by state law is making residential zone changes and planned unit developments type two processes. So right now those are type three. So they have a public hearing, but that's going to change to a type two where there's just public notice opportunity to appeal. It's not any residential zone change. It's just a zone change that gets more dense. So if you have like a multifamily one zone and it's going to a multifamily two or a two to a multifamily three and there's no comprehensive plan map change so it's just that zone change it will now be a type two process so again i think the state's looking to streamline approval processes So there's quite a few cleanups in here. I'm just going to touch on a couple. One of them is basically new and improved lighting standards. We've had lighting standards that have been not very exhaustive. And you'll see that we are now looking at lighting standards that do everything from establish a maximum height of your actual lighting fixture based on the use that it's serving. as well as limiting the light trespass onto adjacent properties or the right of way. So you'll see that there. We don't have the language for our short term rental process that we're proposing to change. We brought those to council as a concept earlier this year and got direction to incorporate those into the code amendment. But that's essentially looking at streamlining the process but still allowing for public comment. As an example today, if you're doing a short term rental in the single family zone, you have to do a conditional use permit. We are proposing a new or an old bringing back process of an administrative conditional use permit, so there's still opportunity for conditions and comments, but it would be an administrative approval. We're seeing a lot of kind of similar conditions when conditional use permits are being approved for short-term rentals, and so we're planning to incorporate that as just standard conditions or requirements for short-term rentals. There are many other proposed changes related to that, and Bryce is here to answer questions. We received a lot of public comments. Hopefully you saw all of them. They were kind of coming in fast and furious today from neighborhood associations, Thousand Friends, Home Builders, and others. We're happy to address those if you have specific questions. So staff recommendation is to adopt the facts and findings of the staff report and recommend that council accept first reading of the proposed code amendment. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

I would imagine there may be some questions. Mr. Freibach.

Yeah, I had the two things that I wanted to run by staff real quick that I've already talked about with them previously. Two possible additions to... the modifications that we're proposing here. As it stands right now, middle housing is only exempt from density maximums in places where the state requires the city to exempt the middle housing from density maximums. So you end up in a weird situation for like our RM2 zone. Metal housing isn't exempt from density maximums, but it is an RM1. And so you end up in a really weird spot where you can build a quadplex on a 4,000 square foot lot in an RM1, which is the less dense zone, but you can't build a quadplex on an RM2 lot that's the same size, even though it's supposed to be the denser property. I believe that staff supports this change. Yep. Cool. And then the second one was expanding accessible and affordable middle housing unit bonuses to all the same zones that middle housing is currently allowed. Same deal. City was only proposing it for areas that they're required to by the state. I think that we should allow that in all places where we are currently allowing middle housing. and then that's the uh the two things that i had on here um yes

This is a lot of material to digest and I'll confess that I took it seriously. I did read it. My expertise is not housing. So I do have some questions. First of all, for me, it would be helpful. And maybe this is just maybe advice going into the city council is to distinguish between what is required by the state what are kind of code cleanups and what are kind of discretionary items that the city is developing from the housing strategy workshops. And the reason for that is that if the state's requiring us to do something, we're just going to vote yes, I'll read it, but I'm not going to spend my time asking questions or trying to massage it in any particular direction. And I feel fairly similar about code cleanup. I mean, I would look at it, but when the staff says it's code cleanup, I generally will trust that the staff is not making giant policy decisions under the cloak of cleanup. So it just helps me kind of focus where my attention goes on some of this. And this is just a really broad topic. I know you've organized it by section, but within sections we have code cleanup, housing production strategy, and state. So it's just hard for me to kind of pick in this large pile of material. So just something to think about for the future, not anything that I'm asking you to do today. So unsurprisingly, I'm fine with the tree changes that you are suggesting. I realize that this is a balancing act. And I think of myself as a tree advocate, but I do know that we need to do things to improve housing opportunities here. And that's an issue. Mr. Erdmann made some suggestions as well on his comment. He suggested that we remove, I think it was a tree permit requirement with a land use because the tree issues are already dealt with on the land use. I don't know if you had an opportunity to look at that. I think it just came in today. I'm trying to sort through my material to get there. Right.

oh sorry that wasn't on uh that udc chapter uh 808 and so we've as soon as indicated we've amended the tree requirements it used to be you'd have to get a variance in order to remove a tree you know for like a uh single family development or something like that and then but now it's through a uh a permit and so uh and with a well in most cases when we consider when right-of-way is going to be dedicated, that will be, you know, with a land division, most likely. If it's just a single family home on a lot, we're not looking at, you know, right-of-way dedication, there would be a special setback. And so we think, you know, the easier type one process rather than being a variance, I think that, you know, is an improvement. And, you know, just exempting it outright would be maybe going a little bit too far. I'm sorry, say that last sentence again. Exempting it outright would might be, you know, maybe going too far. Okay.

Thank you. I would just add that as a separate package, we're working on an update to chapter 86, which is the authority for the street tree removal permits. And we're working to consolidate those street tree removal permits with the land use application. That way that separate permit is not coming at time of construction, which is what's happening now for the trees are in the right of way. So all of the trees would be reviewed concurrently. and the other benefit of that package is that as we've identified a like a boundary street improvement is required where the tree we're saying you have to build something and therefore the tree must go that would be an easier review process in 86 um to allow those trees when we've already determined that a street improvement would be required okay so i think mr erdmann is redundancy they're putting really in two applications effectively from a

They're both making a proposal for the disposition of the larger area, and then they're applying for individual tree removals.

Yes, and so the ideas will consolidate everything.

Okay, so you feel like you will be addressing that concern in another package?

Yes.

Okay, that's helpful.

Thank you. A permit would still be recommended to be required, and the proposal is to not require it, just exempt them from a permit.

Right, of course it is, yes. And then one last question, I'll kind of turn it over to other folks here, is that I am not supportive of removing the arborist requirement for the 25% root intrusion. I think the evidence shows that that will cause the long-term failure in most cases of a tree. So I think if we're really going to go in that direction, I would just say go ahead and remove the tree if it needs a 25% intrusion because then at least we get the mitigation. And what we don't have is a slowly dying tree that's creating all sorts of disease issues in the neighborhood. So I'll just share my perspective on that one. then I'll turn it over to other folks while I gather my next round of questions.

Okay. Um, I have a few questions that are maybe really specific, so I'm just going to go down the line. Uh, so the first one under, uh, chapter two 20 site plan review, uh, The bullet is clarifying that paving of an unpaved area is exempt from site plan review unless applicable standards apply to that area. How are we handling stormwater requirements for paving currently unpaved areas?

That would not, if there were stormwater standards that would apply, one, you wouldn't be exempt from site plan review under that.

Thanks. So we have a trigger for stormwater management, which is 5,000 square feet of new replaced impervious surface. So through the site plan review, we would review that application to determine if that trigger is required, and then they would construct a green stormwater infrastructure facility if they hit that threshold.

Okay. Just a little bit vague in the summary. So just wanted to make sure that was still being addressed.

Yes, no changes there.

Okay. Then under Chapter 533, the MU1 zone, for... allowing the greater setback at the street edge for ground floor residential. Generally speaking, I don't have an issue with that. I think, you know, you can create some really dynamic street edge conditions with that. But in order to maintain a street edge, will there also be requirements to have like low landscape walls or certain landscape requirements that will kind of maintain that buffer from the sidewalk while also preserving a vertical street edge of some sort?

We are proposing to add that list of pedestrian amenities for that space, similar to what we do in the MU1 and MU2 today, that's kind of vague. So there'll be more clear and objective kind of use of that space.

Okay, so the, yeah.

It would be requirements, yes.

Okay. Okay, and then chapter 803 streets and right of way improvements. So this is in reference to exempting two, three, and four family uses from constructing boundary street improvements. I have no issue with exempting them from the actual construction of that, but will the right-of-way requirement remain so that sidewalks can be added in the future? We have a lot of locations in the city where developments went all the way to the street, and there's no possibility for a sidewalk, so...

Yes, that's a great question. So we're not proposing to still require the right of way dedication. However, we do apply a special setback, which is reserving that 30 feet or however many feet from center line half width for a future street widening project. So the The special setback would apply, and then all the development setbacks, like a front yard setback, is measured from that special setback area. So if you're deficient 10 feet of right-of-way, you have a 10-foot special setback, and then you have your 12-foot front yard setback that's measured from that additionally. So the right-of-way dedication would not occur because that's part of the boundary street improvement requirements. However, if there is existing curbs along the street and there is sufficient width for a sidewalk, then that would be a separate code section that still requires the construction of the sidewalk if those kind of the curb is already there and it's just lacking a sidewalk specifically.

Okay. So then within that setback, will there be any details around not building fences and low walls and anything else that is generally difficult to remove?

Our current code is very limited as to what is allowed in a special setback area. We allow fences, signs, bus shelters, but they specifically have to have a removal agreement, which stipulates that we're allowing the encroachment now. However, if at such time the city does a street widening project, those would be removed, and that's an agreement between the city and the property owner. We don't allow buildings and special setbacks at all, so it's really limited in what is allowed, and it's just generally things that can be easily removed.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Slater, you're up again.

So I want to take just a little bit of a step back and talk about maximum lot coverage. So right now we have standards for maximum lot coverage in our residential areas. Is that correct? I think it's somewhere around 60%. And the maximum lot coverage is related to the footprint of the building. Is that correct? So you could have a situation where you have a 60% lot coverage, but then you put hard surfaces over the rest of it. And in fact, you have 100% impermeable surface, even while meeting the requirement of a 60% lot coverage. Is that a possibility? I hope no one does that, but it is possible. Pardon?

It's accounted towards that it's structures and accessory structures.

Right. So Laurel is that really good. So we have, so basically we have no standards for the amount of permeable surface that must exist in a residential or mixed use area. Is that correct?

Nothing. I'm looking at the planner. So nothing aside from the green stormwater infrastructure requirement, which applies regardless of what project you are. So if you have a, 5,000-square-foot lot, you cover the entire thing, then you'll have a GSI facility, which inevitably reduces that down by some amount.

Okay. And in several of our zones, we have a development site landscaping requirement. That's a percentage of the lot that has to be landscaped. Percentage of the lot that has to be landscaped?

Yeah. Okay.

That doesn't apply to single-family zones?

That does not apply to single-family zones. No.

Okay. But then like in multifamily, you have minimum open space requirements. So there's other ways to get at it. So you're not, you know, but single family is one of the areas where you could have a home, you know, an accessory building less than 60% and then entire front yard back. Right. But then, you know, we run into issues with, well, you can't park there and it's, it becomes a enforcement nightmare, quite frankly.

Right. Well, we have a huge budget for enforcement, so that's not a problem that I'm worried about. So I guess where I'm going with all of this is, you know, as we try and fit more space, more product onto landscapes, and we know we have some conversations that maybe even why I think 4,000 feet is pretty small for what is generally a suburban style community, that maybe we need to go a little bit smaller. My concern is the amount of permeable space that's on a landscape, primarily because I'm interested in the kind of the ecological consequences of kind of filling up urban spaces to the point that we don't have some of the critical ecological functions that we need in urban areas. So I guess I know it's not part of this code and I'm probably introducing this conversation very late in the process, but this is when it came to me. So I will say that I would be very interested in taking a look at if there are ways that we can rethink kind of this maximum footprint, this maximum lot coverage, because from my perspective, it really doesn't matter if it's paving a patio or a roof structure. What really matters is the total amount of permeable versus impermeable space. And if we can kind of rethink that in a way that both guarantees a certain amount of permeable surface, but then just allows the rest of it to be buildable in any capacity, that might actually be more flexible in the long run. So I guess I would encourage you to maybe think a little bit if there's a way that we can get at that. I mean, just kind of our general rule of thumb that I heard is that you need about 10 to 15% of a particular land for proper stormwater kind of mitigation and maintenance. So, you know, again, that's just a general rule of thumb. So if we're looking at maximum buildable space... especially in a residential area, we're probably looking at, you know, you can go up to 80% or 85% of cover lot coverage for hardscape building structure, as long as you've got some preservation of vegetative space. So that would be kind of my major feedback on this. And I do think that we should maybe be willing to have a conversation about lot size coverage. And I think that's what the 10,000, 1,000 friends, 100,000 friends of Oregon was 1,000 friends. And their evocative but not specifically detailed letter that they sent today, which is like, we should be thinking bigger than incremental. And we should look at Eugene, which is always a really good model for the rest of us. I'd say that half jokingly because they've got their own problems in Eugene. I know that. But is that something that we should be looking at? Should we, should we be looking at lot size and setbacks a little bit more than we have already?

We certainly could if you want. I mean, I don't know if you're asking to make a recommendation to counsel ultimately.

No, I'm really just asking you and maybe my colleagues if this is something that deserves more exploration or if you've already explored it and decided it's not worth pursuing.

I would say that it's not that we are... When we started the project, we started with, like, what are the barriers to development, and what is the development community really looking to change that would make a difference? Lot size has not traditionally been something that they've said is, like, 4,000 square foot is too big for us. You know what I mean? Too small?

Too small.

Too small. Sorry, I just said that. Right? And so it wasn't something we dug into. We've not done outreach on smaller lot sizes. Eugene does allow much smaller lot sizes for middle housing in the residential zones. I think there would be a lot of engagement we would need to do across the community as that would change quite a bit. So at this point, we haven't done that outreach and we haven't heard it as a concern, but I do hear the concern from Thousand Friends.

Okay. And I see Commissioner Freibach has his hand up, so I'll stop there.

Yeah, I think from what I expected this code change to look like and what it did end up looking like are two different things. From when I read through the code, and I've been reading it for like a month now, so it's, you know, I could write a book report on it maybe, but it... It reads a lot to me like the city did a lot of outreach with the people that are currently developing housing in Salem, and they did a lot of outreach with the, you know, neighborhoods and stuff about what they're currently having issues with. And I feel like that that's a good direction to go with. if we were meeting our housing goals. But like in the past 11 years, we've met them twice. And it shows it in our planning commission annual report. And I'll talk about this later. I wrote up a lot of words about it. But, you know, you've got other cities like Eugene, citywide, they allow mental housing, like quadplexes, on 4,500 square foot lots. That includes single family residential zones. And Bend allows them on 4,000 square foot lots. When the city implemented their middle housing law here in Salem, we chose the biggest possible minimum that you could have required by law when we went in and we did our middle housing. And I, you know, not the fault staff, that's the feedback that they got from the community is that we want, you know, less quadplexes or we want less density in this specific zone. And that seems like that's what ended up happening. And then, you know, in this code update, we didn't, apply accessible bonuses to middle housing initially because nobody said that we should or had to. We didn't get comment from neighborhoods on that. And, you know, developers aren't asking us to do that, or I guess they weren't. And then same thing with, you know, the affordable bonuses or just the various other things. And so I guess what my read is, is that we wrote a lot of this in direct response to issues that are happening in Salem. But I feel like in order to resolve the issues that we're seeing with our housing production, that we really need to think outside the box and figure out how we're going to get more housing on, I guess, in Salem. Because essentially what we have now in our multifamily lot or multifamily zone is you have a zone where it's like, if you have an existing urban lot, the biggest thing you can build is a quadplex. And, you know, I attached a chart and it was some pictures of different what different urban multifamily housing looks like. And, you know, I think the way that we govern small multifamily today is a lot different than what I think we should be doing. Right now, we look at a building and we say, how many units are in here? You know, you could build a four-story multifamily structure with four units in it in our multifamily zone, and the city would be fine with it. It would meet our standard. But then you suddenly want to add another unit or two units or three units in there. Even if the building looks exactly the same, we would deny it because it's too dense. And personally, I don't think that's the right direction to be going in when we're struggling to meet our housing production goals. And I thought that this would be the time to make that change. And I've talked about this a few times in our previous meetings, but like we don't really have any commitments or we don't know when we'll be able to change that. And So I just I'm just uncomfortable with that. And I think it's important to have that be a part of this code update.

I guess may I ask a question? Thank you. So I guess I don't totally understand, Commissioner Freibach, where you're going on. I mean, I think I understand in general, but are you suggesting that in what we currently call erroneously now single-family zones that we allow more than buildings that have more than four dwellings?

But right now in our single family zone, I guess staff could probably answer this better than I, but we allowed, we implemented House Bill 2001, which the city actually signed a letter against in 2020 to basically allow quadplexes, duplexes, and triplexes in a single family zone. And I think the minimum lot sizes for those are 4,000 for a duplex are required to have those be in 4,000. It's required to be 5,000 for triplexes and it's required to be 7,000 for lots.

So your concern isn't the cap of four dwelling units. It's the land size that's associated with those dwellings?

That's one of my concerns, yeah.

Okay. I'm asking because I think I'm... Supporting where you're going with it, I'm just not quite sure what you're asking for.

I think as written, if we recommended this code change to council, I don't think we really can recommend any change that would address that because then that would require additional outreach. Such as modifying things. I don't think council can themselves resolve that issue without... sending the code revisions back through the process.

Well, I mean, does this body have the authority to recommend that we allow or recommend that we modify the existing code to allow duplexes, triplexes, and quadruplexes and properties that are 4,000 square feet or greater? Can we make that change?

You can make a recommendation on code size. Sure. I think Commissioner Freibach and I had a conversation about maybe some larger changes he's wanting in the multifamily zone that we feel like need outreach and perhaps TPR analysis that's not been done because it affects land citywide. But we have not done any outreach, so... on lot sizes changing for middle housing so the testimony you would be receiving tonight from neighborhoods or the written testimony wouldn't be addressing that for example because that's not something we've done any outreach on but we can make a recommendation

I could also talk to my thoughts on that thing that Lisa was just talking about. Our RM2 zone, its maximum density is 4,000 square feet. Sorry, its maximum blot size, maximum density is 31 doling units per acre. And if we make the minimum Tom Preston- lot size 4000 square feet basically say we're going to treat middle housing and exempt it from the density maximums like it is for. Tom Preston- All the other zones that it applies to the then effectively your maximum zone capacity for that multifamily zone would be 44 dwelling units per acre. but you could only build 44 dwelling units per acre if it's in the shape of a quadplex. So if you built 44 dwelling units per acre in the shape of a fiveplex or a sixplex or whatever, you know, depending on, you know, if somebody has a 7,000 square foot lot and they want to build 44 dwelling units per acre, you can't build, you know, you can't do a lot division and build two quadplexes. You'd basically be stuck at your quadplex. And so you couldn't build five on that lot. And so the thought is, is if we, say, do a modest density increase for RM2 and say, hey, you can build this 44 dwelling units per acre density on any, because that's really what we would allow with quadplexes and exempting from the density for middle housing, that to me would seem reasonable. And then with our accessibility bonus, that would bring the maximum zone capacity for RM2 up to 65 dwelling units per acre, which, you know, that's a whole different discussion. But like Lisa mentioned, doing a density increase would require TPR analysis. And the city didn't do that for this code amendment because I don't blame them. They probably didn't expect to have this conversation. But yeah.

So it seems like perhaps the RM2 question is outside our scope at the moment, given that we don't have the technical information to pursue that, but that the question about the lot size and single family residential is within our scope to discuss. Is that kind of where you're thinking is Lisa?

Yeah, I guess Eunice is going to disagree about the lot size triggering TPR. I don't know. It depends, I guess, what we come up with because you could be overall doubling density by making a smaller lot size. So it might be something we have to go.

Maybe middle housing was exempt.

I don't know. It's something we'd have to look at, I guess, and maybe come back and list Eunice's size.

We should come back and make sure we know.

Well, I would love to invite our architect to offer a thought on this if she is willing to do so. Not to put you on the spot.

No, not at all. I mean, I definitely support having higher density housing where it's appropriate. And we know that there are many people living in housing conditions where they do not have cars. We have examples of that in our downtown core. So, you know, I think, like with many things it's going to be finding the right balance to support that. But, yeah, I think there are lots of great examples of particularly attached and detached cottage cluster style developments where you have high density with, you know, still reasonable open space and you know, they can create a really nice dynamic to neighborhoods. So definitely support that. And I don't know what that would look like from a TPR standpoint. But, you know, I think we should be looking at providing housing for those who also don't necessarily have, you know, two cars per household, that's not necessarily a standard.

I think Commissioner Levin, while you're thinking Slater.

I have two things, one of which, as it relates to Ben's comments, the simple conversation regarding RM2 and a 7,000 square foot lot. If 4,000 square feet is the criteria for a lot where you could have a fourplex, then a 7,000 square foot lot, could you then build a seven flex being correct with the numbers and the site coverage. So that's one equation and one comment. And that's something that you can address as you move forward. The other thing that is a primary issue for me in the pond that I play in is the time and the cost of doing business with the City of Salem. And one of the things that I have come to grips with in the process of building, developing, remodeling, et cetera, is the process by which you get through the journey with the city of Salem to get a permit is a challenge. And to say that it's a straight line with even if you go into pre-app review and try and identify problem areas of concern and principal needs and requirements, et cetera, on a project, it doesn't happen that way. So are there surprises that can be expensive and substantial time requirements and the answer is yes, when you come up against an issue in the development process that requires you to go back to all of your design folks and redo something because of an oh by the way in the code or more particularly an oh by the way from somebody that's reviewing it. So there are there are no clean standards and guidelines, and there's no simple process, and the cost to get through the process, even with repeat products, you're doing a fourplex on this lot. Your cost to do that fourplex for permits is X number of dollars, okay? you go to do the same fourplex 10 times on 10 lots in a single submittal, and it's 10 times that cost. Even though the review process for the other nine items is a fragment of the original process. So, The only benefit to submitting it once is the fact that you may get through the process within a year or two. And to say that that's not a correct time estimate by city staff is fraudulent, okay? That's for me to go in the PAC center door with a minor change of tenant costs thousands of dollars in paperwork because of the form that you have to have it. That's number one. And number two, to tell a tenant that they're going to get an occupancy in less than four to six months is silly. And I will tell you that from my world, you can't go back to somebody who's ready to move into some space in three weeks and tell them that they can't have possession for four to six months because you guys haven't waved your magic wand. Okay. So, so that's one piece of the conversation and the other. Oh, by the way, as it relates to city code and ability to get through a process is if we run into a situation where requires and I love the phrase and adjustment. Okay. The adjustment process, cost, time consumption of professional documentation, all the reviews by engineers and architects, whatever, is of no interest or concern to the city. We have our fees. And our fees have no relationship to what's being requested or the simplicity of it, okay? So my suggestion is if this song and dance about you improving your housing code and criteria to provide more available housing in the city, that's all well and good and I applaud your efforts. However, that is but a minor piece of the criteria to make it viable to actually have people do something to accomplish the creation of the housing. And your paper shuffle in the PAC Center and the review process and the fee structure all need to be looked at. I will tell you that I've been playing in this pond for a while. And to say that it is not of interest to me to develop any new property is simply because of the way the city of Salem has so thoroughly mucked up the process. It is difficult. It is not friendly. It is expensive. And if I was prone to drink, that would consume a lot of the angst. Thank you.

So I guess that leads me to a question. Did you reach out to a lot of the development community as part of the code cleanup process on this? And does this address what felt like most of the sort of pain points they identified?

Yes, we had rounds and rounds of meetings with the development community as well as one-on-ones, interviews. Yes, we did. From architects, engineers, lawyers, consultants, developers, kind of the whole spectrum. Can I go back to one thing? Yeah. I found the provision in state law that does allow for amendments to land use regulations that allow additional middle housing. If we do that, if it's for that purpose, then TPR is not triggered.

I think what we're getting at that is within the scope of what we can ask for is that lot change.

Good.

Right.

I guess I just wanted to maybe offer one more perspective. And I'm assuming it's, you know, as an architect, and I was also a part of some of the conversations with the development community. I think generally, Many of the, as you put, pain points have definitely been discussed and addressed. I think it's important that we have these code updates not only allow for greater flexibility, but also maintaining a standard of development is very important for the longevity and the sustainability of developing the city. So making moves like higher density lot coverage, things like that can really go a long way in allowing maybe smaller homes that are more available and affordable for new people moving to the city or smaller families, et cetera. And I think generally speaking, it felt to me that when I was reviewing the various code amendments that I was pleased with the variety and the flexibility offered while still maintaining some of those things that I think are really important for having a well-developed and thoughtfully developed city.

Mr. Slater. I'll go back out. All right. So, um, Oh, a couple of years ago we had an interesting land use hearing that dealt with adult daycare centers. Um, And right now I see that we're allowing outright child daycare centers in certain areas. I've always been concerned that our differentiation between adult and child daycare centers created kind of an age discrimination issue and potentially some vulnerability by the city or the city. Do we have any, do we look at adult daycare centers alongside child daycare centers? I think this change is just implementing a state law that talked about childcare centers. But to me, it seems an opportunity to address adult daycare centers at the same time. Especially important to me as I'm aging. Looking for daycare soon myself.

Commissioner Slater, I don't think we did. We had a conversation and we went back and you hadn't made a motion. I was like, I remember there being a motion. And I went back and I listened to that whole meeting. There was no motion. So we didn't put it in there. And we thought we weren't sure. There was a discussion about maybe doing that.

So it's your fault we don't have this.

Well, no. So it's good that you brought it up. So if that's something. And I think that case was in single family. Yeah. And I don't know if you would be, if you, for example, want to make a motion to do that in this amendment.

I don't know if you've ever encouraged me to make a motion.

That would be the, that would be the method is what I'm saying. You know, if it, or if you want staff to look at what other zones that might be appropriate. I think maybe we treat them the same and like multifamily zones, but I'd have to look and see.

Yeah, I guess I will make a motion at the appropriate time. I think I'm out.

Okay. I think I had seen, and there's so many comments here, I don't remember who I think said it, but I think on one of them it said something about completely eliminating the cap on cottage clusters, how many can be on a lot, or maybe it was just the density, but I thought I had read that somewhere. That's not... That's not in here, right? It's 16. Is that correct? Okay. Okay. I'm just sorry. There's a lot of material I've gone over, and I'm just trying to make sure I understand what's going on. Hmm.

There is one small change to cottage cluster beyond the 16. In the multifamily zone, the development community had asked that they be able to do cottage clusters and not meet multifamily design. Because right now, multifamily in the RM2 has to meet multifamily design. And so we did carve out allowing cottage clusters and the kind of traditional design of that in the RM2. And that cap, I think, is like 31 or 34. Okay. essentially aligned with the density. So there is a larger number allowed in the multifamily two zone. That might have been why.

Thank you. I did have another question around the awning requirement or reduction thereof for the, I think, is it in the downtown area or just in general?

The changes? That's in the mixed use one zone.

It's in the MU1, okay. And that's just reducing it from 65 to 50%. So there still will be an awning requirement in general. Okay. I have no idea if you know the answer to this, but is there, just thinking about the lot density, um, Would there be any sort of offer for incentivizing that higher density if they, for example, to provide smaller units on a small lot while still providing a certain amount of landscaping where they can, so you can get that kind of older model of the very small starter home within this cottage cluster? Or is, you know, to meet that density, I don't want to also forego having any sort of green space there. I want to maintain a balance there so that we have that.

Are you referring just to the cottage cluster, or are you meaning if lot sizes are reduced?

Lot sizes are reduced and still have multiple units on it, which I definitely support. Would it still have a minimum percentage of landscape requirement for that? And would they be incentivized to, say, go multi-story for that higher density by providing additional landscaping, as an example?

In the cottage cluster, there would still be required open space, a certain amount per unit. There could be a trade-off where a smaller lot size for other middle housing is allowed if X. I do think there are other communities, maybe Eugene, that says if the house is of a certain size, I think it's maybe 900 square feet, don't... Don't quote me on that. Then you can have the smaller lot size. So it's not across the board. There's like an additional incentive for smaller houses to then be allowed on smaller lots. If I remember correctly.

Okay. And if you're remembering correctly, and I don't recall this offhand, but what is our minimum size for a house in a cottage cluster?

It's 900 currently. That is proposed to be changed in this state law, changed to an average of 1,400 square feet to provide flexibility so you can have some larger units and some smaller units as long as the average is 900 square feet, or 1,400 square feet. Okay.

I mean, 900 square feet is still quite large. I know personally, my first house was like 650 square feet and it was wonderful. So, I mean, I think that's something that should also be explored is to have units that are smaller than 900. I mean, that's a substantial size house.

So I'm going to ask a question on the opposite end of that, because, uh, Smaller units are appealing in some ways, but sometimes it terrifies me as well as someone who lives in a 1,600-square-foot, one-story residential house on a quarter-acre lot. So I just put my position out there. We do have minimum sizes, though, don't we? Do we have minimum size requirements for units?

For a house?

No, but we do for apartments. Is that right?

Nope.

So you could have it.

I think the building code does. Building code does. But not zoning. Yeah, not the zoning code.

Okay, gotcha. That's helpful. That's it.

Question. What is the landscape requirement for single-family residents on a 4,000-square-foot lot?

There's an amount of lot that needs to be landscaped. It's setbacks and lot coverage.

We do a required trees.

Yeah, but that's like 10% or 400 square feet. It's setbacks and lot coverage, which dictate, you know, the amount of land leftover that's not covered. And as we discussed earlier, that could be structures and then it could be paved. So, you know, if we were to look at, you know, you know, wanting to maintain permeable area, we would have to, you know, put into the, you know, the single family zones, a requirement that a certain amount be left open. And because currently we don't have, we don't have that other than, yeah, there is so many trees that have to be planted on a lot based on the size. But generally, you know, the setbacks and the lot coverage are, you know, dictating how much, you know, land is not covered with buildings. Thank you.

Then I have a question that probably is not even particularly important within this company, anything that we really have to care about. But the question from the Dark Sky group, they had one at the end there where they talk about a conflict between two sections, the Requirement on page 348 is the enterprise zone, and page 448 appears to just be like the lighting.

Yeah, when we went through the amendments, we scoured the code, obviously looking for all the changes that we need to make. The EC zone was left out, so we will be making that change to strike the EC zone standards and say in compliance with 800.060. Loop it all into that. Okay.

Thank you.

so do we need maybe a motion to hold the hearing open and i think there's public testimony first and then maybe at the end of that um if the commission would want to continue it because first i would like a response on a couple of the questions especially okay yeah so i guess procedurally i have a quick question and then we'll do the public comment first uh but i

Mr. Freibach provided a lot of relatively dense spreadsheet material. And I was just wondering if we could have a moment at some point to just kind of ask him to explain it because I have gotten lost.

Yeah.

Okay. Well, I'd like to do the public comment first. And then I really want to know what all this is. So if there are no more staff questions, then public comment time. Okay, we got three people signed up. I don't know if there's anyone else that would like to comment, but I will start with Anna Kemper. Come on up. I believe you have five minutes. Okay, please state your name and address or ward for the record.

No.

Okay. Hello, everyone. I am Anna Kemper. I am speaking as the great communities director at 1000 Friends of Oregon. We are 1000 Friends, unfortunately not 10,000. And I live in Portland, southeast Portland. So 1000 Friends of Oregon is a statewide land use advocacy organization, and we advocate for safe, thriving Oregon communities with abundant housing. And we represent members from all walks of life across the state. So very excited to chat with you all today, especially since we've already talked about some of the things I wanted to chat about. I will say first that 1000 Friends of Oregon believes strongly that how a city writes its code is not a neutral technical matter. It is a moral choice about what the future of our communities looks like. and the proposed amendments are a really good step forward. We appreciate the hard work that city staff has put into the housing code project process and we're supportive generally of the code amendments that make infill, multifamily and accessible housing easier to build and the updates that incentivize development. As currently written, the updates comply with state law and we're really excited about the specific opportunities to make it easier to build type A accessible housing. But I do want to say we believe there are some opportunities to make it easier to build the kind of missing middle housing that working families, renters, and young people looking to break into an increasingly unaffordable market need. And so, yeah, our recommendations have already been discussed a bit tonight, specifically unnecessarily low density cap and large minimum lot sizes for middle housing or decisions that can keep housing scarce and expensive. We talked a bit in my testimony that I submitted about Eugene, a city that is of comparable size, has shown that a city can successfully allow more housing on smaller lots. So we would encourage, if it is possible, to allow for a change that allows smaller minimum lots for middle housing, which will help Salem fulfill the goals of the housing production strategy. And again, 1,000 Friends, we do support the code updates in general, including the density bonuses for accessible and affordable housing. And I wanted to call out that I'm specifically grateful for the call-outs regarding CFEC. But we believe the code updates can be even more ambitious. And I'm just here to advocate on behalf of that regarding lot size and allowable units for middle housing. So thank you so much for your time. And yeah, I just want to say what's decided for this code update process will shape what gets built or doesn't get built in Salem for many years to come. Thank you all so much.

Do we have any questions?

Of course we do. Yes. Do you have specific recommendations for lot size for us?

Well, I was appreciative of Ben's comments earlier on the specific updates for the middle housing. It sounds like there's a little bit of, we're trying to figure out if it makes, if it's possible to make that, if you all can make that recommendation, but I don't have a specific number necessarily, but yeah, just in general, making it more possible to allow for that density.

I confess I don't entirely understand Ben's point, and I look forward to him explaining it in greater detail. But it seems like it's zone dependent because the issue is not residential zones. The issue is multifamily zones or mixed-use zones. It would be helpful, I guess, if we have the conversation in the context of zones. You know, where we have the kind of the greatest political pinch points is really single family. Right. So I think a lot of us want to be very careful and get that right. When we're talking about mixed use, we're talking about commercial. I think there's just a little bit more flexibility to be to think creatively about that. And so I just encourage that the more we can have the conversation in terms of specific zones, the easier it is to both understand it and the implications.

Yeah, certainly. Yeah, I will say I don't have the exact numbers necessarily, but I think just wanted to encourage the commission to get creative and be thinking, you know, right now what's been proposed is matching with what complies with state law. But the thought is, can we get more creative and more bold on it?

We're very compliance driven here.

Yeah.

So with you, Jean, what's the minimum lot sizes for a triplex and a quad? Do you know?

I believe it's 4,000. 4,000.

Okay.

Thank you. So 3,500 for a triplex and 45 for a quad.

Good for you. Thank you, Ben. Yeah. Good for you. Thank you very much.

In addition to the lot size recommendations, do you have in your experience any other thoughts around, not related to lot size, but just in general things that you've seen in other communities that have incentivized better and bolder housing development?

Yeah, let's say looking to Portland and the residential infill project and the, you know, there was many rounds of feedback from community. There was, you know, big tent input on that. And it's been exciting to see. I think that between 2021 and 2024, there was 1400 middle middle. And in full housing permits that were that went through. And so I think Portland is, you know, it's bigger city, obviously. But it's a good example of when we get creative. And when we get bold, we can see results there. And, you know, yeah, so I think that's another good example.

not exactly clear on what the what your example is.

I guess I'm talking specifically about metal housing and other residential infill project in Portland that allowed for for more of that infill. So I think again, just like that example of getting creative with our with our code updates and requirements there can can allow for for more infill housing. So can I answer your question?

That's okay. I think it might be a little bit too specific. Because I think the lot density and what's allowed in all the different zones is largely achieving what you're speaking to. I just wasn't sure if there were specific design standards that have been implemented or not to facilitate that while still maintaining the you know, that more vibrant and dynamic character of development?

Yeah, for sure. I think it's a great question. I can definitely follow up as well.

Have you had any experience in form-based codes or in kind of prepackaged design standards to ease the transition from single family residential to triplexes and quadplexes? Have you seen that developed any place?

That's also a great question. I'm taking notes. I will follow up. I'm more of an advocate here and just trying to represent some of the communities. I have less of the technical expertise as some of y'all, but just, again, just trying to be pushing on that bold vision.

We have had some recent experience where the city developed design standards and kind of archetypes that could be easy to implement. I do think that one of the challenges is in our single family residential areas is that it's kind of hard to envision how to accommodate those different forms those those different types of buildings in a residential setting and the more that we can do to kind of think through that transition in advance and help people understand them and give designers and contractors models on how to do that successfully kind of the more successful that transition will be

Or for Michael, the city of Portland uses for area ratios to never intensity and development and all their multifamily zones.

And I apologize to my commissioners online, I feel like I have not paused to give you time to ask questions if you have any.

Appreciate that. Listening intently here. No questions. Thanks.

I am here listening. No questions right now. Thank you.

You passed the test. Okay. I think we have no other questions. Evan West. That's your Ward 7. I assume that's correct. That is correct. Looks like your handwriting. Yes, thank you.

Members of the Planning Commission, I appreciate it. I believe I'm still live here. I'm Evan West. I am a citizen of Ward 7, but I am here tonight in my capacity as chair of the SCAN Neighborhood Association. That's the South Central Association of Neighbors. I'm here to just summarize and reiterate just a few of the requests and feedback that our Neighborhood Association submitted regarding the housing and short-term rental code amendments. First and foremost, we want to encourage this commission and we have encouraged and continue to encourage city council to take more time to ensure that all voices are heard before approving actions. The staff reports in this case are lengthy and have been difficult to access in some cases. And we are not confident that enough of the public is aware of this discussion to ensure that constituent voices are being equitably heard at this time. Holding this hearing open or continuing this hearing will serve that request to an extent. I appreciate that. We're also concerned that in the rush to reduce red tape and build more housing at what appears to be almost any cost, requirements that relate to health and safety are lost or maybe being lost. For example, allowing up to 16 units on a flag lot, we view as simply irresponsible. In that scenario, simultaneous ingress and egress in the emergency becomes impossible. This is just one of several such concerns our hardworking volunteers have identified. We're also gravely concerned by the lack of action on short-term rental. Our neighborhood association has long held the official position that short-term rental where the property owner does not live onsite should not be allowed in Salem. We hear continuously that the answer to most of our problems would be the presence of more housing stock. For every residence that's dedicated to tourists instead of Salem citizens, we lose housing stock. Preventing this loss in our community is consistent with council's efforts and indeed the governor's efforts as well to increase our housing supply and to address our housing shortage. But that alone is not enough. We also need greater enforcement of existing rules, including the requirement that short-term rental must be registered and licensed by the city. Some communities across the nation levy serious fines for unlicensed short-term rental operations, and we hope that Salem will implement similar policy. We also need to adopt the policies of communities such as Lincoln County, where short-term rentals are required to post contact information, including a nuisance reporting hotline. That's just a few, a quick summary. We know there are a myriad additional problems and challenges surrounding short-term rental that this council has not, sorry, city council has not discussed. For example, I would say, did you know that Salem Revised Code actually regulates building use in national historic districts and that this code is written to supersede other land use and planning requirements? I'm willing to bet that many of you did not, but that's okay. That's just an example of the additional information we encourage you to gather before proceeding. I want to thank you for starting the conversation today. We do agree that some code amendments are necessary, including those that focus on providing truly affordable housing, not legal definition affordable housing, but truly affordable housing, as well as increased regulation and enforcement of short-term rental. I'm looking forward to answering any questions I have, or sorry, you have that I might be able to answer, and I'm looking forward to having additional conversation with anyone who's interested going forward.

Mr. President, we'll start with you.

Mr. West, you mentioned you're concerned about health and safety about 16 units on a flight lot about egress and access during an emergency. Staff proposed increase in the access width to 27 feet, which is a five foot sidewalk and two 11 foot travel lanes. It's pretty much the same as our city's collector standard. Does that kind of satisfy that concern?

It does to an extent. I would, the interesting thing to me, I was not aware of that change before I came here tonight. The interesting thing to me is that to me that changes in my mind from being a flag lot to more being almost a unit with a collector street next to it. And I don't think that that is the necessarily intent of allowing flag lot housing and development. But that being said, that is critical. You have to allow space for emergency ingress and egress to be simultaneous and that would serve that purpose.

Thank you. I guess I'd just like to follow up on the statement that I didn't understand this. Maybe you could clarify it. It sounds like you were saying that the proposed code amendments will supersede any historical landmark requirements.

Apologies for any confusion there. Not necessarily, no. By way of example of talking about what hasn't been addressed yet in our view, again, I'm representing the Neighborhood Association. what's come up several times with short-term rental specifically is that, uh, for a residential and commercial national historic districts in the city of Salem, uh, Salem revised code section two 30 has a code requirements for, uh, what type of use is supposed to be permitted in those areas specifically for a residential historic districts. Commercial lodging is generally prohibited except for room and board, which has a very specific definition when we've, uh, submitted feedback or testimony for short-term rental conditional use permits previously. That's been lost in translation primarily because those permits are usually heard by planner staff and hearing officers who don't have any familiarity with Section 230. And so what we really hope to see is some greater coordination and reconciliation of sections of the code that do not come up very often, including our very robust historic preservation code, because we believe that That exists for a reason and we're appreciative of it, but not being coordinated properly currently in our view.

Great. I see the 32 city staff present taking notes. So my guess is that there will be at least a response to that. I don't feel like qualified to respond at all. I am very sympathetic to your short-term rental issue. It's not the scope, I think, of this particular project, but I appreciate you bringing it up because I do think it's definitely worth a conversation, and I am sympathetic to your point of view.

Thank you. I appreciate it. I apologize if I had a misunderstanding. I believe that the staff report indicated this was going to be a relevant agenda item to this hearing.

made absolutely so we don't have the language written yet but we went to council last month with recommendations on changes we can make for short-term rental and while it was not a vote uh they didn't say they disagreed and we told them we would add it into this code amendment but yes into this code amendment um so it's highlighted in the staff report there's a link to the council um staff report so you can see the items that were brought up the changes we're proposing to make but we don't have that language written yet so it's not in the ordinance uh that was presented it's not in the code amendment but if you read the council staff report there's very clear recommendations there's like six i think that we're going to change before we take this whole package back to council at council direction so we are is the is the planning commission will see that or that will just go directly to the council You won't see the language, but we would welcome any feedback on the ideas that are in there. So I think Eunice talked about, for example, short-term rentals require conditional use permit in a single family zone. So short-term rental is when it's 100% used as like a vacation rental. You don't live there. It's not your house, you know, part of the time. And we're recommending based on council feedback at previous meetings that to turn that into an administrative conditional use. So we would send notice, but there would still be a land use process and people would still get to comment and we would still place conditions. For example, we also have come across through our enforcement, because we are doing enforcement, the council added, gave us money to buy a third-party system, so now we can track who's out there unlicensed, and we've been working through that list. Through that, we've come up with issues that we don't allow them in mental housing, but in some zones, because it's not called mental housing, they're allowed in the... And there's like some inconsistency there. Downtown, we already allowed hotels. So we never said anything about short-term rentals and short-term rental licensing. So people can just convert their condo to a one-room hotel and then get out of the license. Things that have come up that we were like, well, that's not what we meant in 2017. Or other codes have changed without the short-term rental being changed. So there's a list of recommendations there. And that council staff report that we got generally positive feedback on. One of the comments we addressed is, should they be banned in, for example, historic districts? You know, the council, I think, is well aware of that request. The Planning Commission is. It's not a staff proposal because those areas are zoned single family, just like areas that aren't in a district. But it's ultimately a policy decision whether to allow short-term rentals at all, how to allow them, you know, what zones to allow them. what districts to allow them.

And currently we allow short-term rentals 100% of the time. So you could be an absentee owner, essentially.

In the single family zone, we allow if you get a conditional use permit. Gotcha. In other zones, it's allowed outright because they already allowed hotels or bed and breakfast when we did the code amendment. Accessory short term, when you live there, you just need a license. And then it's limited on how many days you can rent the whole house and be gone. In both cases, you need a license. You need a... Safety certification, you show you have insurance, you need to show the property owner approves it. There's limits on how many people, how many bookings, how many bedrooms, that kind of stuff is handled through the license.

Gotcha.

Yeah.

Thank you.

And it's a very small percentage. So even though when we started, there were two or three getting a license, you know, and there's about 400 showing up on the platforms. We're whittling the numbers down. Quite a few of the people in lieu of getting a conditional use permit have determined, decided that they were going to do long-term rental of their dwelling unit instead. You know, just rent it out for somebody who lived there. Yeah. and you know overall it's less than one percent of all the housing units it's very small number compared to all the housing units we have so thank you so not like palm beach not like palm beach um there was a council question about should we be you know setting an overall cap in the city um because it's such a small percentage we're not proposing that you know we're not a lincoln city or so you know we're not a beach city so it's not necessarily been um a huge impact in that way but again all those are just you know, policy decisions on how we want to treat them. We've allowed them, we haven't made any changes since we adopted the code in 2017.

Mr. Frebeck.

Do we have any numbers on like how many, I guess the way I'm looking at this is we have our annual housing production and then if we get new short-term rentals and that would, you know, subtract from our annual housing production and then your total net gained housing. So do we know how many short-term rentals we're getting per year?

Yeah, I think we have like, wait, maybe the staff, maybe you're looking at the staff report. I can't remember the numbers now. I think there's about a hundred of the day of that staff report that were showing up as unlicensed. So out of compliance. And then I think we have maybe 70 licensed at the moment, you know, and it's an annual license. So it's a very small number. We don't allow them in multifamily units. We don't allow them in ADUs. because we want to, you know, ensure those remain housing, ADUs, good SEC waivers, different things like that. So there's various things we already do to limit the impact on housing.

Per year, we don't have any number of like, because if I think we're going to, you know, ban short-term rentals to alleviate the housing crisis, I look at this from like a, you know, is it a one-time bump and then we're still struggling with production? Yeah. Or is it prohibiting in the null?

Are you saying housing's being built just to use as a short-term rental? Is that your question?

I'm saying is it prohibiting, say, if we ban all short-term rentals, is that going to have any sort of significant impact on our net housing?

It's unlikely because the number is so small. Okay. So small. Yeah, we've never seen more than 400 showing up on any of the platforms. And that's when we first started before we started enforcement. And the way these third party operators that we use, they scour all the different platforms, not just Airbnb, other ones. And then they use all publicly available information they can to identify What the property is based on the pictures, based on looking at, you know, Facebook or Street View or whatever. And then they provide us with a list and the address. And then we can see their ad and we can see what they're, you know, how many times they had their ad up and when it was booked and when it wasn't booked and all these different things through those third parties. So I guess just because it's such a small number, even when they were unlicensed and we weren't doing enforcement, that we don't currently think it's having a big impact on the housing supply. Okay, thanks.

Any other questions? Thank you for your time. Thank you. Mark Shipman, come on up. Please state your warder address for the record.

Thank you very much, Mr. President, for the record. My name is Mark Shipman. I'm a land use attorney with Sawfield Griggs, 250 Church Street. Suite 200, Salem, Oregon, 97301. I also am a resident of Salem, proud member of Ward 7. Here this evening to speak specifically not on housing, but on code updates and specifically to bicycle parking in the industrial zones. I wanna talk about a couple of positive code changes that I see that staff has added to the code that I think are very good. And then I wanna propose a couple additional ones, I think that hopefully will gain some traction. So first, staff has done a great job in creating the new industrial complex concept for the industrial uses by adding this to the minimum bike parking table. I see that as a very positive change. The second positive change that I see and I appreciate staff doing was also under the industrial complex bike parking calculations, reducing those from four down to two. For that initial calculation, I see that as also a very positive change. recommendation to the council. But I'd like to also propose a couple of additional ones to you. We're kind of talking about reducing a couple of the pain points and applications, and hopefully this could help in that conversation. What I'd like to do is I'd like you to consider to separate what I would call a minor change in use from a major change in use. And the minor change of use is not, it's just my term. And it would be those changes of use that would not involve any sort of additions or expansion to an existing facility. And as compared to a major change in use, which would involve addition or expansion. So if you had an industrial complex and you were going in, you're trying to put a new tenant, for example, into a space, and it was a different tenant that had been in there previous, that would be a change in use. And if you weren't changing anything with respect to the exterior of the structure at all, it would be treated as minor and subject to different provisions. Whereas if you're adding on, of course, or adding a new warehouse, that would be the major. And my reason for that is that Under the code, if you have a current change in use, you're subject to a site plan one or two. And if your bike parking for that industrial complex is not up to code, then traditionally, that would subject the entire complex, not just that building or that space that you're looking to improve. It subjects the entire complex. In some cases, this can be an acre, five acres, 10 acres or more. And that when you start taking a look at that entire complex and you start looking at bike parking, you start looking at landscaping, you start looking at other elements, it can add up and it can take a substantial amount of time for a property owner to go through the process. So, Having been a community member that served on the original site plan review process and adopting that, and essentially as a community member, I feel like we've strayed away a bit from what was originally intended, particularly for those minor changes of use. So if you've got a change in use with no exterior additions or expansions, you should be able to file for, and this is my pitch, would be to file for one of two things. One, an exemption so that you don't have to file, you don't have to address the bike parking requirements. Okay, again, minor change in use. You could file for an exemption. You don't have to go through the bike parking requirements in that as a part of the site plan review process. The second alternative that I have is if you don't like the exemption process would be to essentially file for a site plan review just for that space. So again, this is in the minor context. You're just going for that space in that warehouse facility where that new tenant is proposing to go in. You're not looking at the entire complex. Right now, the code isn't very specific with respect to how staff looks at that and factors that in. With a major change, I think that if it's a major change, then there's no exemption to the bike requirements and there's no limitation with respect to the site plan review just for that unit or that space. I think that out of reasonableness or fairness, that would allow the code, the reviewers and folks involved in the process to be able to take a look at the entire property. So I realize I've got just a few seconds left. I realize this is a slight departure and clarification to the code from what you've been considering this evening, but I feel it's important for our community. Reminder change in the site plan review process, and I'm happy to address any questions that you have at this time. Thank you.

Are you proposing that specifically for the industrial business?

I am.

Okay.

Lisa, do you have an initial response?

Well, I guess I would say that, yes, if you're doing a change of use and you're doing nothing on the exterior, you're not triggering landscaping, you're not triggering pedestrian connections, but we do require that they have the bike parking, just in the way that when we had minimum car parking, we required they had car parking. And many, many, many developments in Salem were built long before we had bike parking. And so if you always exempt it because they don't want to do anything on the exterior, you'll never get bike parking. So our code used to only require bike parking through a change of use if The new use had a higher number that would be required, but it didn't matter if there were any there or not. So it'd be like, oh, this use and this use have the same bike parking requirement. So it's not triggered. And we're like, but where is the bike parking? Well, they don't have it because it was built without bike parking. So for decades, even though we had a bike parking standing, we weren't getting any bike parking. So the code was changed then to require parking. For a change of use. That's one of the things that you have to have is your bike parking. And once you install it, if you do your change use next time it's there, or if you already have bike parking. Even if it doesn't meet the standard, maybe it's not a staple rack. It's a wheel bender or what I'm going to call it, you know, that qualifies as well. And we have different ways you can do bike parking inside. We have long-term, we have short-term. So we have a lot of different bike parking options. standards, and we propose to reduce the number for industrial uses, because we hear a lot of complaints about that. So I guess Mr. Shipman's proposal would be a change to how site plan review functions overall in the city would be a larger change. which would take a lot more work than what the amendment in front of you is. And I guess I would just say that we're just trying to get bike parking overall. So if the number that we're requiring is not the right number, then perhaps, you know, we are proposing a lower number. Maybe that's not the right lower number. I don't know. Right now I think it's the greater of four spaces or one per 10,000 square feet for the first 50,000 and then you get one more for the next 20 to 50,000 square feet so it ratchets up. And so if your building doesn't get that then it's for we're proposing to change it to two for a minimum, which is one rack.

Would it be possible instead of making it a square footage basis, make it an operational by employee minimum instead?

I think we used to have it by employee. And it's kind of a nightmare because it's hard to get the numbers. And then if the numbers change for the next business and they give you a different number. And they're like, well, we're doing the same. We have two more warehouse guys. It's like, oh, now you need more bike parking. And then it's a big argument about, I don't ride a bike. I've never seen a person ride a bike here. Why are you bugging me with this? so it's it's been easier to come up with a standard maybe the square footage is not correct that is the standard for general manufacturing heavy heavy manufacturing and printing and then we put industrial complex in is our proposal that um mr shipman was mentioning because we have like shopping complex or whatever. So it takes instead of each one having their own, which when you add it up could be a lot more than maybe you need. It lets you look up a number versus all the businesses, you know, in that complex and then have a smaller number maybe overall for the complex than you would need if you were adding each use up individually.

So would it still apply? This might be really getting into the weeds, but...

Okay, that's what planners love to do.

I'm thinking about it a little bit as if you're banking it for the entire site. And I mean, I do agree that if you're only modifying, doing a TI that has no changes to the exterior whatsoever, and it's simply just a new tenant moving in, you should not be reviewing the entire campus of that project. Really? But if there's an opportunity to show that bike parking exists on the campus, then that still meets? Yep.

Yes.

But it wouldn't trigger any sort of overall campus review. You just have to show where it is.

It depends on the development site. So we have a definition of development site, and it depends on how the site is developed together. So everything, for example, if you trigger landscaping, you trigger it across the development site. You trigger pedestrian paths, it's across the development site. So yes, for parking, when we had car parking for maximum parking, we're looking across the development site. We're not saying, oh, your business doesn't have the max, so you're good. If the whole site right means the maximum, you can add more parking. So it's all across the development site, which is if they're in the same ownership or if they are functionally built together to like operate together as a complex.

And is the bike parking required to be covered? Is that one of the barriers to providing it? It's not.

It's just staple racks. Yeah. There are dimensional requirements. So you have to have a certain amount of square footage between the racks and sidewalk. Yeah. And so you can put them on the sidewalk. You can put them, you can get rid of one parking spot and put them there and put a curb around it. You can do some of it can be inside the building, depending for long term percentages. You can do long term bike parking.

I have a couple of comments regarding bicycle parking. The first issue that I'd like to address to Lisa is the fact that the understanding that we're not going to review the entire complex would be an important piece of the equation. would I acquiesce on some part of that and ask the question, if there was some bicycle parking in the complex, as you referred to as not at all, then could the current proposed land use change for, let's say an area that was 1 40th of the complex. So it was a 40,000 square foot complex, and it was a thousand square foot tenant was changing use or occupancy. Could we express that that location now needs to have a bi, Space that would be common and the answer is yes and i'd be okay with that if we're talking about a rack for two spaces that's that's okay. I will say that. I want to know where. the city of Salem came up with the numbers and their criteria and the ratios because those numbers are so out of whack. I have 40 and 80,000 square foot business properties that require 10, 15, 18 spaces And if any of one of those spaces is ever used at any time, it's a surprise. So there is one 40,000 square foot complex that is required to have, I want to say 14 or 16 bicycle spaces. And there is one business that you can occasionally find one or two bicycles on a Saturday morning. And that's it.

So Bryce, have you come to offer an answer?

Yeah. In terms of, you know, thinking back to the UDC days, 2014, you know, when we adopted that, you know, so we, you know, part of that was we looked at bike parking. We based the numbers on, you know, published, you know, studies of best bike parking practices at the time and also legacy, you know, numbers that we had, you know, from the old chapter 133, which was the

parking chapter so this combination of what we had and then also looking at the you know best practice documents that we had and i will suggest that that my experience with the required number of bicycle spaces is many times the need and the possibility of having that neat change with the type of tenants and the location and the people that are coming and going from that space is unrealistic. So if the bicycle parking count, numbers, ratios, et cetera, were reduced substantially not by half, but by a quarter, two of the current number. So if you needed 10, you would go down to three. And if the current numbers say 10, you would go down to 25% and you'd round up to go from two and a half up to three. And that is a more realistic number. It costs thousands of dollars to install bicycle parking spaces. You can't buy code, put a hoop in the ground. It's not allowed. You have to remove asphalt, excavate, get a concrete guy to come in, put in concrete. You have to possibly remove or eliminate a parking space because you couldn't possibly have a bicycle parking space on a five foot sidewalk. I mean, it gets silly. I had a 14,000 square foot business owner on a warehouse distribution. He needed bicycle parking was a requirement. So instead of giving up parking that he needed, he said, can I put some of the bicycle parking because of the number of employees, can I put them inside? And he said yes, and then he said great i'll go ahead and put up some bicycle racks on the wall where where we have space and good access and they said no. You have to create a separate room around the bicycle spaces inside the warehouse inside a locked building etc, etc, I mean the kind of requirements that you've. Added and added and added are just a challenge and they're not cheap to deal with.

We do allow bicycle lockers or covered lockable bicycle enclosure inside a building in addition to a restricted access room for non-residential.

And it doesn't make any sense that a business that's open during normal business hours can't be allowed to have a couple of bike racks on a wall.

I think that it might make it difficult to lock. I'm not sure. Bryce, do you know why we don't allow?

It's not difficult to lock. It's inside a business where there isn't public access.

Okay. I would like to move on. Commissioner Freibach, do you have a question?

Yeah. I think your concerns are valid. I think that the I don't think it's fair, you know, if you have a tenant to move out and then you're moving a new tenant in, I don't think you should have to review the entire site. I do think it might be reasonable to just look at to see if that new tenant's use meets the standards. And to Commissioner Levin's point, I think the new bike standards take the per square footage and then they just apply the two standards. number i think correct so like for an industrial use only two spaces would be required i think it's uh based on the square footage okay the building is the proposal but the minimum is two or right now the minimum is four okay so i think that's and then that the per square footage is that amount being changed at all

Uh, no, that's still the same. So it's like the greater of. So if you have a really big building, you have to do the more. But if you have a smaller building, you have to do the minimum, which right now is four, and we're proposing to change that to two. So two would be one staple rack.

Okay. Um, I think for like a minor change, I think it would be reasonable if we're not changing the structure of the building. to allow that to be in a non-secured indoor space because to me like if i'm i rode my bike today and it's in an unsecured indoor space and you know i have showed up to businesses um before in the past where the bike rack out front is full and then the alternative is finding somewhere inside to store it um i think those two things are equivalent and sometimes it's actually more comfortable Even though if it's not in a locked enclosure. So I think for a... with a minor change, I think that would be reasonable in lieu of a bike room to just provide that space in a on a wall as long as that space is clearly designated and it's not just like also forklift parking because that happens at Home Depot. I've noticed they like to park their carts and forklifts right in front of the bike racks too. And so that can kind of be tough, but I think it's a reasonable ask and

Would there be a distinction between public access or not?

I think there should be. I think there should be a designation for long-term bike parking at a residence. There's short-term and long-term. I think you could probably say the same thing.

That's true.

Maybe you could say that you would require a minimum of two public access spaces and then, you know, if you're doing a change in use, then you could provide those spaces in an indoors if it's minor.

So just to clarify, are we providing feedback to staff right now and asking for a change? Is there a motion for a change?

I don't think we need a motion. I mean, I think just feedback if the hearing is going to be continued, we can bring back information. I don't know if you still have questions for Mr. Shipman.

Yeah, because I think... Sorry, Mr. Shipman, were you going to speak? No. Yeah, I mean, I think it's reasonable. Like if I have an Amazon warehouse and I'm now a Home Depot distribution center and I've got maybe more employees, but the amount of people that I might be serving publicly can change. Maybe you could just provide additional indoor space or something like that. But I don't think the whole site needs to be reviewed.

So I have a quick question. We've gone all around on this bike thing quite a bit. Was this part of your proposal not just lowering the minimum, but also lowering the kind of ratio that Commissioner Levin was talking about with the number of bike racks to square footage? Is that also part of your request?

No, it wasn't because my request was to essentially not have that detailed review as a part of a minor change. And that would take care of that ratio, right? It would take care of that. Um, I, I think that, you know, I, so you're asking is really just limited to like, if an occupant moves, that's kind of occupant moves and you've got a new occupant coming in, changing use different, different user, different occupant. You know, I think that, I think that most businesses with, you know, if going in, they realize which of their employees ride, which ones don't. I mean, I I'm in a, I'm in a 38,000 square foot office building in downtown Salem. I ride occasionally from Ward 7 to downtown. And in that building, there's over 100 people that are in that office building. There's only two of us that ride. We don't keep our bikes outside in the bike racks that were there. We bring them inside, bring them inside and store them in a secure space in my personal office, just because I don't, I don't, you know, I'm in the Southern part of the downtown core and I can't keep, you know, I can't keep my eye on my bike at all times. So that's just, that's kind of a tangent a little bit, but I'm not talking about changing the ratios as a part of this. Like I understand what Lisa is saying, but I'm just trying to come up with a simplified process that, for just for evaluating bike parking generally as a part of that evaluation for the site plan review process. Because your site plan review application, I can go to Kaylee and I can ask Kaylee to get me a site plan one application and she'll crank it out for me. in a day or a week, okay? If I have to go to Caylee and tell Caylee, I've got a site plan, I got an SPR two application, I've got to have adjustments, then that requires Caylee to go out and potentially get ahold of a surveyor, get a survey prepared. And so pretty soon that application that would typically take their firm a week to two weeks to prepare and get it filed with the city and have it reviewed fairly quickly, then becomes months and months. And what that does is to someone like Nate that owns that property is it risks the potential that he loses that tenant. We're in a really tenuous, landlord tenant situation in Salem right now. It's not ideal. And having, I own commercial property downtown and it's tough. It's tough to bring people in. It's tough to bring people in, not only on the commercial side, on the office side. And I'm assuming industrial, I think is doing better than the rest of the sectors. And so we have that opportunity to have that tenant in there. You want to keep that fish on the line.

Yeah, that makes sense. I get it, yeah. And just anecdotally, for many years, I worked in an industrial area. I rode my bike, and I was the only person that rode my bike. So I understand the complaints there. And I also have an office on the south edge of downtown, and my bike does not stay outside.

Do the customers, the outside bike parking is for customers? It's not just for employees, the bike racks outside? Yeah.

But if I understand correctly, industrial has a couple different categories, right? I mean, there's industrial that has some retail activity.

Absolutely.

And then there's industrial that doesn't have retail activity. So, I mean, I too am sympathetic with this issue. So I'll just voice my concern then.

I'll say that back to the complex issue, the code can absolutely be changed to require just the tenant. But for example, Willamette Town Center would not have provided bike parking around the site, right? They came in, we said, hey, our code changed, and they had to put bike parking all around. There's some tenants that will never leave. There are some grocery stores that will never leave their shopping complexes. They're never going to trigger bike parking. They were built without it. They've never done a change of use. They're never going to do a change of use. They will not have customer bike parking. But if somebody goes in on the other side of the complex and all of a sudden it's triggered, it's much cheaper to put in the bike racks than to do a zoning adjustment. So, none of them own it. There's an owner. They tell the owner, oh, the site you're leasing to me doesn't have enough bike parking. The planners say I need it. It needs to be spread out. And they put it on their site plan and they install the bike racks and, you know, we move on with life versus doing a zoning adjustment. They're not necessarily doing it.

But isn't that a zone by zone discussion? Yeah.

A zone for the use?

Well, we're talking about the industrial zone here. You're giving a retail example.

No, I know because the discussion is changing the code to only allow required bike parking for the use in a complex. Commissioner Freibach's comment wasn't just for an industrial complex. We have complexes that mix commercial and industrial uses, for example. So they might have a tap house next to somebody building custom signs. That's like very complex.

We were disagreeing with Commissioner Freibach, not me.

I'm just explaining what we've seen happen once we changed the code. We've gotten a lot more bike racks across sites. Same thing with pedestrian standards. Oh my goodness, I don't want to do it for the whole complex, but it's required for the whole complex.

I'm all for leverage.

Yeah, so just there are a lot of developments that were built out by parking that will never on their own trigger bike parking. So if it's a question of the actual standard for certain uses, then we can go back and look at that standard, I think would be a better path maybe.

So there's a way forward on the industrial side.

But we have reduced it to two already. Yeah. But, you know, maybe the question is, are the thresholds for more than that? Maybe they're not correct. Maybe it's on employees or maybe it's breaking it down the type of industrial. We could go see what other cities do. I don't know if you've done that research.

I think Mr. Shipman has a good lay of the land.

Yeah, I think I just want to say, Mr. Shipman, that this is not the area that I thought we were going to get caught up on tonight. So thank you for that twist. This was good. Keeping us lively. Question for Ibex.

So could we limit it to industrial uses? Like if you have an industrial commercial zone and you have... Because I think the commercial... And a turnover can be a lot less frequent than maybe industrial uses. It's just not going to limit the triggers.

Limit the trigger, so not triggering bike parking for .

For example, it's one of the reasons why I don't ride my bike to Winco is because they have the wheel bender racks. And you can take the racks apart with a wrench. And so I don't park there. But, like, I'm always thinking about it, like, man, it would be really nice if Winco got a nice new bike rack, and then I could actually ride my bike to Winco. Well, if a tenant on the lot that Winco's on changes, it would be cool to force Wincos, because I've emailed them a bunch of times. Yeah. But for like an industrial use, I feel like turnover is higher than like, you know, Winko or Fred Meyer who purpose build their buildings and then they never move out of them. Whereas I think for industrial spaces, I think generally somebody builds a warehouse or something and then tries to lease that out after the fact. So I think it would make more sense.

Yeah, I think we'll have to look at that and see what's in an industrial classification. It could be awkward treating two uses next to each other on the same lot differently. Oh, you're not industrial. You're not manufacturing. Therefore, you trigger this. But yeah, the tenant next door doesn't because they're in an industrial classification.

I think if a retail use, like I'm thinking like Salem Brewing Supply, not to name any specific business. Sorry.

I go by there a lot and I'm a little sad there.

They weren't open when I went by last. But like say if some new tenant moves into that space and it's a commercial tenant and that is more customer-facing and there's more turnover there as opposed to a whatever. And so I feel like that that net level.

So tying it to customers, if they have an area open to the public, maybe is different to a business that doesn't have any area open to the public.

That sounds like kind of an outward-facing versus purely just...

I don't think you can ride up to Amazon and pick anything up, right? You can't.

They turn me around pretty quick. Yeah.

Okay, we can look at that. Okay. Perhaps a different ratio for that use, or are you thinking perhaps not? I guess I just want to clarify. So, okay, this business doesn't have any public area. Are we thinking a lower ratio altogether, or is the commission saying maybe never trigger bike parking for them because they were built without it, and they're never going to trigger it unless they do a big addition?

I think you could probably say, like, you could, like, if you change a tenant, you...

i think i'm leaning towards the latter i i just i i want to encourage bike riding anywhere everywhere all the time i just don't think it's going to happen with a lot of industrial sites and i'm fine not trying to force bike parking but you said you rode your bike and you had a place to put it so now you're saying the next next oh i didn't say that's the problem then okay we'll work on that thank you

We spend many hours of our day defending bike parking and getting screamed at over requiring bike parking. But I will say it's pretty common. Most architects now, they just submit their plans for class one with bike parking. They know the standard and they identify the area. And I'll say it was like five days.

I'm not creating the architects correctly.

Yeah, we had a lot of outreach with them. So it's very clear when we're requiring it, what should be on the plan, you know, where they should put it and, you know, that they shouldn't bother with a zoning adjustment if they're only required to do two staple racks that they, you know, it's always going to be easier and cheaper to install them versus going through months and they're probably not going to get a zoning adjustment approved to have zero bike parking, you know, so a lot of conversation around it when it was a new standard a few years ago, so. to be clear about what we are needing to see on the plans.

Well, I think we've got a couple parts to this left. One, I think, Mr. Reverend, could you provide us a written summary of it and give us a brief verbal overview and then maybe write a written summary so that when we come back in the next hearing, we will have an opportunity to Well, I guess let me throw it out there. My hope and intention is for us to continue this hearing so that there's a little more time for everything. I believe that's how we've been operating the meeting. Is everyone on board with that? I mean, we'll have to make a motion, but just generally speaking, I assume everyone's fine.

Can I make a motion to continue the hearing? Right now? Yes. The simplest approach.

Oh, I don't know. Was Commissioner Freibach going to go over the notes first?

That would end today. That would end the discussion.

Yeah, if there's more questions of staff, they're all still eager to answer them. Or if there's more suggestions that the commission or things you want us to bring back more information. We obviously took notes on what came up today, so we'll bring back information on that. But if there's things we haven't touched on that you would want a clarification on or discussion on?

Well, I... My thought is that I don't know that there's any additional questions of staff. And with regards to Mr. Freibach's notes, comments, review, et cetera, it's quarter of 8. And I'd be delighted to continue this to the next meeting instead of going till 9.15.

Oh, I have faith in Christian Freibach. He can keep us to 945.

Yeah, I can go however long you want. I'll keep this chart. So this first chart here, I guess preface, I'm a big GIS guy, so I like data. I don't like paying for ArcGIS, so I use QGIS instead. It's free. And I downloaded Marion County's tax lot data set. Old county has a tax lot data set, but it doesn't give you which zone they're talking about and I didn't want to spend any more time figuring it out than I needed to. Um so this chart only shows um stuff in Marion County and yellow bars here. Actually, if you go to the second chart, that's the first one that I made. Um the one with the black bars. So it's a histogram of every single lot that's zoned RM2 in the city. That one. Those hatch bars there show lots zoned RM2 that are less than 6,000 square feet, which I guess in essence are RM2 lots that are not eligible for multifamily development. um and so it's a pretty sizable chunk of lots um between six thousand and fourteen hundred that's between the vertical line and the line with a bunch of arrows attached to it those are lots that allow less than 10 units at 10 units i've read in a few studies produced by various universities is kind of like the, sometimes the threshold with whether or not, you know, infill projects pan out or not, you know, whether or not it makes sense if somebody's, you know, wants to sell their house or they want to develop housing, if it makes sense for them to, do a teardown or do some other way to develop multifamily on there. That usually pans out 10 or more units. And so what this chart captures is below 6,000 square feet, you're not allowed to build multifamily. And below 14,000 feet, it doesn't really pan out for you to do a lot of infill in most situations. And so the RM2 properties that you see that are really ripe for infill development and redevelopment are those larger than 14,000 square feet. And the intent of this chart was to show that while we may say that a large physical area of the city is zoned RM2 for multifamily or zoned for whatever truly a small proportion of the lots that are within the city are actually able to be redeveloped into multifamily housing within any reasonable timeframe. And so I guess any change in policy that I think the city should pursue is try to get many lots within that feasibility kind of realm. I'm looking at this like if I I'm rolling the dice or flipping a coin for each one of these lots to have them come up and be developed. I want that it actually be possible to do infill on them. I mean, we're talking about changing our standard for RM2 to say you know you can't you know you don't have to meet minimum density to build then but what if somebody does want to build and then they exceed and then so I guess our standards aren't really allowing that to happen on a huge majority of our RM2 lots and I think changing that is going to be a big factor and addressing our housing shortage And then the chart, that's the big black map. I used all the city's ink for this one page. But it's a chart. And each one of these lots that you're seeing on here is a lot that's zoned RM2 multifamily. The orange ones are all lots that are bigger than 14,000 square feet. And so those ones actually can have 10 or more units on them. And that means that they're kind of good candidates for redevelopment. And if you'll notice, just about every single one of those lots is outside that kind of what might be considered the urban walkable, bikeable core. They're far away from downtown. They're far from frequent transit. Some of them aren't even on streets with sidewalks or have utility service from the city. So I just really want to underline that a lot of the multifamily lots that we have in the city aren't falling within feasibility to be redeveloped into new housing or additional housing. And the ones that are aren't actually located in areas where people might walk or bike or, you know, Get around in a way that doesn't involve getting in a single occupancy vehicle or taking the bus or whatever. And I think it's important to provide this context because our transportation system plan and our climate action plan. both require these things. Like I think we were just talking about how we want to triple or quadruple transit ridership in the next like 30 years or significant like I think it was like a bike ped trips walking and biking trips need to be like 15 to 30% of all trips that are short range. And I feel like a big component of that is making sure that we're able to build housing in places where it's actually feasible to do those things. Because we don't want to add like, you know, I love housing. I'm a big housing guy, but like, we don't want to put in like, you know, 5,000 units all the way out in the outside of the city, because that's all that we're comfortable with allowing based on public comment or whatever council's comfortable with. And then we're also required to then meet all these requirements in the TSB. Because if we don't do that, if we don't, figure out how to get rm2 and you know until the happen in the close-in parts of the city it's going to happen on the edges and that's where it's happening now um and so i made these more colorful ones. This first one on the front page shows you the current zone capacity for RM2. And those two little blue bars is what is proposed being added with this code amendment. So, the change in lot size minimum, because quadplexes aren't exempted from, you know, they still have to meet maximum density, it doesn't actually add a whole lot of housing in those areas. Right now, a lot of these smaller lots are basically the equivalent of single family lots because they're so small and the maximum density is 31 bollingeys an acre, which is a quadplex on a 6,000 square foot lot. And most of our existing lots that are zone RM2 are like 6,000 or 7,000 square feet. And so on the next page here, This is a modest increase. And this is just based purely on what if we exempted quadplexes from meeting that density maximum.

And this is assuming that if you built a quadplex, if you had an 8,000 square foot lot, you do a division and you build two quadplexes.

That doesn't really happen a whole lot. Um, but this alone would add 8,000, 8,300 units to our zone capacity. Um, currently on our smaller lots less than an acre, our zone capacity is 17,000. Um, so that's like a 30% increase by just changing that number and being okay with that.

Ben, can I ask a question? I'm hearing that our minimum density requirements are preventing people from increasing density because they have too small a lot to achieve the minimum density required.

That's fine. I don't have... Is that what you're saying? No.

No, you're not saying that. I don't have... So I'm not understanding. Okay.

No. So I'm talking about maximum density here. So I think the issue with the minimum density is if I've got a house in an RM2 lot and my lot's 10,000 square feet and I want to add one unit, I won't be able to meet minimum density. I think it's fine if somebody wants to add that one unit. My issue... is if the person wants to add 12 units i feel like that they should because if you want to add 12 units there i mean it would be reasonable if you save meat density or whatever and it's just so this is a conversation about how much housing you can put on a small lot i think this is a conversation about where we really see housing in the next 15, 20 years. Do we see Salem being okay with kind of more dense walkable neighborhoods? Like I see, I added a bunch of pictures here towards the end. You know, we've got some eight-unit buildings that are 70 dwelling units an acre. We've got some 16-unit buildings that are 140 units per acre. We've got 131. All these different, you know, types of buildings that are, you know, in some of the most desirable neighborhoods in the state. Like, these are screenshots of, like, the Northwest 23rd area. People from all around flock to that part of the state, like, People love it. But if we changed the density for that zone to 131 to 100 units per acre, that might not be feasible because of whatever reason. You get those developments on the edge of town, then maybe you get a high rise in the middle of that big lot. So I think there's an issue here. I think there needs to be a conversation about how to solve it.

And so does staff have enough information based on this to address some of this? Like, is there enough understanding to address some of this before our next meeting?

I've showed them all these charts before.

I think this goes back to the conversation we had earlier. The proposal would be to increase the max density in the multifamily zone, and that requires TPR analysis, which we've not done. And we haven't done any outreach. So in looking at the... i don't know the the map the dark map that um commissioner fryback provided you know it's basically the purple areas are concentrated in scan cessna and then grant highland right um we haven't done outreach with those neighborhoods i will say eunice and i did the nensessna neighborhood plan um and we spent a lot of time discussing those areas that were zoned multi-family that are basically single-family neighborhoods there's a few you know apartment buildings in there And why they were zoned multifamily? Well, the reason this area around downtown in the 70s, the idea was everyone's moving to the suburbs. We're going to have these high rises near our downtown. They're going to ring our downtown, right? And there was a lot of disinvestment in those neighborhoods and they were up zoned. And so when we did that outreach, the neighborhood and the property owners very much felt like they were targeted for disinvestment by being zoned multifamily. So the recommendation in the Nancessna plan was to down zone those areas to single family. And then when we did our Salem, we went back around and said, hey, we can down zone you guys now. And they were like, well, in single family, you can do mental housing now. How much can you, what can you do on our lots? And we said, oh, you can basically do the same. And they're like, well, then we're fine. You don't need to bother with it because we want to be the same. Same, same. We want to be the same. Not to say that that's where it needs to be forever, but, and Commissioner Freibach and I talked about this, like, I feel like if we are going to propose to increase the density of to allow more than the single family zones, which a lot of these people in this area really, that's how they view their neighborhood. We would want to go do that outreach in addition to just doing the TPR analysis, which may not be that involved. It may, you know, we'd have to look at this analysis, do our own analysis.

Sounds like this would be beyond the scope of this code change.

Yes, and I think we had talked before that it could be paired with potential changes to allow the single stair development that we talked about before, and we know that our fire chief came and spoke, and I think maybe it's a city decision to allow it, but I think maybe there's more changes coming at some point. At the state level, Eunice maybe should come to the mic and answer this. So that could be its own project on its own, like outreach, like what's the density, what can really, can we change if we want to allow more dense development there, how can we do single staircase buildings, like all together, but

My understanding is that the building code is going to change next year to allow the single stair. And so when we talked with the fire chief, the thought was that we could do it all together and work with the community and see where that arm to zone bigger changes. We would do a whole project related to it as opposed to kind of trying to squeeze it in now.

I think that's fine. It's just, you know, I'd like to have a commitment.

Do we do that? Do we do commitments on a timeline?

Eunice Kim, do you have a commitment on a long-range project in the future, or do you maybe have an announcement that you want to give?

I'm actually going to be switching positions next week, leaving the long-range planning position and moving to city manager's office.

This sounds like a great time to make a lot of commitments.

But yeah, and I don't think maybe density is the way to go. I know right now we govern based on how many people are living there. I think it might be appropriate to govern based on how big the building is. Instead, like I said, you can build a four-story tall fourplex, but you can't build a two-story tall eightplex. And I don't think that's right. So that's end of my rant. Thank you. I'll say the same thing again in a year, I guess.

One more comment. Not that I want to keep us all here any longer, but... um along the lines of that i think something we should also talk about is adjusting our land use to also allow a certain size of commercial in these different neighborhoods because if we're trying to promote walkable neighborhoods they have to have a place to walk to. Walking to your neighbor's house cannot be the extent of that walkable neighborhood, if that makes sense.

Yeah, so we did neighborhood hubs in our Salem. So we created it as a zone. So it's something somebody could apply for and place it. We created it as a requirement in really large subdivisions that they have to designate a hub, although they're not required to build the commercial use that, you know. And then we, through our Salem, picked... eight 16 different locations or something around the city that we thought were you know were walkable or parks yeah vitriol you could not imagine how many did we end up getting adopted six or something yes very few very few but you can't do a zone change you can do a zone change but i'll tell you it was one of the most unpopular ideas we had And our Salem people couldn't believe, and we're talking small scale, couldn't be bigger than a single family dwelling house. I couldn't have parking in the front. You can burn an existing house. You could build a new little shop. We had a very limited, we have a very limited list of uses that you can do. Even on the council floor, when our Salem was adopted, the counselors were, you know, crossing out locations. It was assumed because they heard. So it is, it was very, very difficult to, So, yeah, we agree. We definitely agree on that. It just was not something we were able to really get across the finish line. The ones that we did get adopted, some of them were already commercial uses from like the 50s, but it always been in a single family zone. So it was like. yeah, that, that gas station corner shop should stay. Right. So that made sense, but people couldn't envision even in places across from a city park where the city had just updated all the sidewalks and put in a flashing crosswalk. And it was just the worst idea that neighborhood had heard.

So for what it's worth, some of the best cities and small cities I've ever been in are littered with that use. And I think we should revisit it.

put more work on your plate but it well you just said not not it yeah it's a tough one okay well i think commissioner levin did you have a motion that you wish to throw out there okay so we um We are prepared to come back at the next meeting on the 22nd. Or no, are we saying October?

Well, it would be helpful, I guess, to kind of understand. The things that seem clear to me to bring back are related to density and middle housing, perhaps minimum lot sizes and bike parking. Were those the top three that might be doable by the next meeting? But it just obviously depends on the longest.

I certainly was interested in minimum lot coverage.

lot covered you mean having a new requirement for pervious impervious that i would say not new but maybe shifting the way we talk about it i see the two you looking at each other well you're i mean we don't have a prohibition right now and people for example paving their entire lot we have prohibitions on where they can park if they have paved it or they can't like cut down a tree that's a similar tree or something like that so that would be a new standard i think yeah well

Right. I guess what I'm saying is that we should take this opportunity to make a change in how we express minimum lot sizes. And we should instead of having minimum lot sizes or lot coverage, minimum lot coverage, excuse me, I should be very clear, minimum lot coverage, we should instead be saying we don't have a 60% minimum lot coverage. What we have is a 15% vegetative coverage. Or 15% permeable surface. And what you do with the rest of it, whether you want to erect a structure or you want to pave, that's fine. You can have parking standards. But I'm talking about hardscape buildings versus permeable surface. So that's my intent. And whether or not you support it or not, it really would be great if we could have some thought about it.

We can explore it, I think that come back with a solid proposal for what that would look like it's a pretty big change throughout all the zones to to impact lot coverage would be a big shift.

Are you talking about just in the single families only talking about all loans, because, because the rest of the zones have minimum landscaping minimum open space, depending on the zone, which is going to get me a yes answer. Well, it's a smaller proposal, I guess, for single family.

That's my proposal.

That is the majority of our land in the city. So it does impact the city the most.

That works.

Impacts the most a lot. So, yeah, I guess we can research that. So based on that, are you saying October 13th, Eunice and Bryce?

Yeah.

October 13th would be our proposed day to come back then to continue the hearing.

Okay.

I see Commissioner Tebb turned on her camera. I don't know if maybe she was going to raise her hand.

I just haven't piped in much. So I just wanted to do a little check in where I'm at. I'm hearing a lot of cultural kind of growing pains as we shift towards density. And I appreciate commissioner Frybeck's like spatial look at that, because I think that is when it comes down to it really important with our climate goals and goals as a city. I'm a little disappointed that it seems like we keep bouncing between the state laws and our code. And I wish we could get ahead of that a little more, but you know, Yeah, I don't know what the best answer for that is, but just want to let you know that I was listening in and hearing all this. And I also have some takes on urban soils and permeability as well, but maybe save that for next time. I wanted to thank everybody, especially staff, for all of the work that's gone into this and everybody's attention and questions and feedback and the public and everybody. So thanks. And yeah, that's all.

And I know I haven't made a motion yet, but if we continue, it's the staff offer to meet with any commissioners outside of the hearing would stand. So if you're interested in the next month and meeting with us, we're happy to set that up. Just let me know. And then if you have further thoughts that you want to send by email or something after the meeting, you know, we're always happy to receive those. Thank you.

Okay, now does anyone have a motion?

And if it's continued just so the public knows, then there'll be a public testimony, will be open written testimony between now and the next hearing, and then obviously anybody can testify in person at the hearing if it's continued.

I move that we continue the hearing to the October 13th date.

Second. Motion and second. Any discussion? Hearing none, can we vote?

Commissioner Pierre Brandel.

Aye.

Commissioner Fott. Aye. Commissioner Freibach.

Aye.

Commissioner Infante. Aye. Commissioner Levin. Aye. Commissioner Rhodes. Aye. Commissioner Tebb.

Aye.

Commissioner Slater.

Aye. Motion passes. No resolutions, no special orders of business on the agenda. Are there any information reports? Nope. No subcommittee reports, planning administrator reports.

Sure. Just a reminder, the only agenda item we have at our next meeting on the 22nd is Michael Anderson from Sightline will come and talk to us about housing policy, which will be great. And then I just wanted to say, I don't know if you saw the City Data Press release that there have been dates picked for the data center open house for the public. I just want to say it's Commissioners, if you go, again, because you might be the appeal authority for the application, which is separate from what the task force is working on. Maybe, you know, be mindful about having conversation about the application if those come up, if you go. And October is planning month. Yay, planning month. And we are going to have Plannerpalooza again. And we had it all scheduled and then the task force or the open house was scheduled over it. So now we've got to change the date. So we are thinking probably October 8th and we have not secured our location yet. So we will let people know and hope everyone will join us again in the evening for Plannerpalooza. I also wanted to announce that Bryce Bishop will be acting in capacity as our long range planning manager while we have a vacancy going on. So we try to get through all the work.

Excuse from all other duties, right?

We have, in fact, taken him off the planner's desk and not assigned to many more applications, which is difficult because we have two other vacancies in current planning. And because of that we reduced our hours at the planning desk starting next week planners will only be available to help the public from 10 to four, instead of eight to five to address the staffing issues at the moment but we did interviews all day today and we're feeling pretty good about folks out there that we might hire so that's all I have.

A question or comments to the good of the order. I have one very quick one. So I don't know if people have been following the issue, but the city council had a number of questions about the North waterfront district and concerns that did not adequately address the waterfront. And the staff has kind of pulled back the proposal in order to answer some questions. So we'll see how that unfolds.

Yeah, and I think, I don't know if they announced a date when it's coming back. Sometime before the end of the year, I think it will go back to council. I'm sorry, I don't know. And I did mean to announce, you know, there was the appeal of the comp plan zone change on Front Street. The planning commission decision was appealed to council. Instead of having the hearing at the night we had it scheduled, the applicant asked for it to be delayed so they could spend some more time on a potential use list that they, you know, might be interested in. And it was delayed till when? October 23rd at City Council. Yeah, I was going to say that's too long. September 23rd at Council. Oh, and I also forgot to mention that we had our Planning Commission annual report. at council and commissioner president VR Rendell presented it and did a great job. I don't know if any of you watched.

I can send the link. Even though it was over three hours after I got there that I finally got up there for my five minutes. So I was very tired at that point.

It was a long meeting.

But I think I was able to pretty effectively communicate essentially our letter that we would like everyone to be interviewed because we have a very strong deliberative body and we want to maintain the strength and diversity of viewpoints and background here. They seem pretty receptive. So I think that went pretty well. Public comment other than agenda items?

Before we close, can we talk about next dates for the wetland subcommittee meeting?

I have something to submit that I can do later tonight.

Okay.

And then we can have something to talk about at the next Wetland Subcommittee meeting.

Okay. So do we want to have that on the 22nd after the Planning Commission? Is that when we want to schedule the next Wetland Subcommittee meeting? That sounds fine with me. Okay. And so the only documents we should be expecting would be from you, President Pierre-Brendel?

I cannot speak for others, and I have no idea.

Okay, because last time we were waiting for track changes of your changes, Commissioner Slater of Commissioner Tev's introduction, I think.

Yes, that was the case.

So are you going to submit those for the next meeting? No. Okay, so the only document is you would have a new document, and then that's what we would put out with the agenda for the next meeting.

I believe so, yes.

Okay, great. Just wanted to get that scheduled. Thank you.

Okay.

Adjourned.

before I can say another word.