City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the Wednesday, 02/04/2026 City Commission meeting. I'd like to commit can't even talk. Convene the meeting and ask for the roll call, please.

Commissioner Mike Mitchell? Here. Commissioner Rocky Smith? Here. Commissioner Adam Marle? Here. Commissioner Scott Wilson? Here. And mayor Denise McGriff?

Present. As you can, and if you are able, would you please stand and join us in the flag salute?

I I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Anyway, I am suffering a little bit from sinuses, so I am not gonna sound exactly like myself. But, I bear with me. Before we get into regular business, I just wanna say that we, we know what you probably know this off the top of your head. What what is our session? What is the 30 something or other session of the Oregon legislature began on Tuesday on Monday or Tuesday?

Yes. On the second.

Second. Yeah. And is there, like, a specific number? The I know it's the something I heard it on OPD. They said it's the such and such a legislature, and they gave a number, and I didn't get it right. I'm not sure. Anyway, well, I just wanted to say just for the record to our our representatives, Anessa Hartman and senator Mark Meek, who are representing us in the legislature as it begins its work, started on Monday. We appreciate them, and we know that's gonna be a heavy lift for the thirty five day session that's upon them. And we wish them well because they're gonna need it. Alright.

So tonight on our agenda, we have, one proclamation, and I will we will get to that. So as many of you know, February marks the beginning of, Black History Month. So each February, National Black History Month serves as both a celebration and a powerful reminder that black history is American history. Black history is American culture. Black stories are essential to the ongoing story of America. And whereas in 1776, every president excuse me. Not 1776. 1976. Could be the 1776. You never know.

United States has declared the month of February as Black History Month. Black and African Americans have made immeasurable contributions that have enriched America and indeed the lives of every American. Black and African American Americans have made and to make America a better place and American people better people. Whereas throughout the arc of history to the present day, black and African Americans have experienced and endured the inhumanity of injustices and equities, and whereas in the face of wounds and obstacles older than our nation itself, black and African Americans have can be seen in every part of our society today, strengthening and uplifting all American Americas and Americans. And whereas on 06/09/2020, the city commission of the city of Oregon City individually signed resolution twenty nineteen stating and outlining the city's stance against racism, discrimination, and social injustice in our community and in our country.

And whereas we celebrate National Black History Month, let all of us recommit to ourselves to reach for that which every American is due. Let us move forward the work to build an America that is benevolent, diverse, and united, and therefore be it resolved that the city commission of the city of Oregon City calls upon educators, librarians, and all the people of The United States and of City Of Oregon City to observe this month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, activities. And we do hereby proclaim February 2026 as Black History Month and call upon all residents of Oregon City to join their fellow citizens across The United States in recognizing and participating in this special observance. And I will sign this on behalf of the city commission today, the February 2026. And I think, we have already started meeting for the city's annual Juneteenth celebration, which I believe will be third Saturday in June, I believe, at the end of the Oregon Trail Center.

And there will be other commemorations and celebrations. I will say, however, for the record that it is very unfortunate that at many of our national parks, the true history of our country is being removed. I think that we need we have an obligation to tell the full story, not just the story that some people want us to know, and we need to recognize that everything about our country is not always apple pie, but that we have gone through some trials and tribulations, and we've always come on the other side of it being stronger. And that is really, really important that we recognize the things that happen. I can say that I am very proud that this commission has supported these activities, and we have been forthright and and, taken a stance against things that discriminate against people in our community.

I think also that, things like dedication of the Cayuse 5 Memorial, it's a part of history that I found out many people still don't know about that. And I think it's important that that side of

the story be told and how we resolve that is really important to our community and our our well-being,

and I look forward to us moving forward on phase two. Commissioners? Would you like to add anything? That's usually so talkative all the time. Right. So let's move on to item four. We have one person who requested to make a public comment for items that are not on the agenda tonight. Tahira Wansal, would you like to come forward, please? You know the drill. Just make sure the green button's on.

Gone fast. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Tara Wanstal, owner of Watershed Cafe on Main Street. The businesses along Main Street are employers, community gathering spaces, the faces of our downtown. When Main Street closes even for positive community events, those closures directly impact businesses.

Currently, Main Street closures are treated as administrative decisions. These closures have real economic consequences, yet closures are not evaluated through a public policy driven process. Under Oregon City Municipal Code 10 dot 25, the city manager or designee has full authority to approve or deny street closure permits. The city commission is only involved if an applicant appeals a denial as outlined in OCMC 10 .25.1hundred. That means even major multi day high impact closures of our most important commercial street never come before you unless someone is unhappy enough to file an appeal.

Main Street is not an ordinary street. It's the economic and cultural center of Oregon City. Decisions that determine when it is open, when it is closed, when, how often businesses lose access to their customers are not administrative questions. They are questions of economic stability, community identity, and public accountability. It is critical that Main Street closures be governed by a commission adopted policy rather than left to administrative discretion. Some might argue that Main Street closures today are infrequent, but that notion misses the point entirely. There is nothing in the municipal code that limits how often Main Street can be closed or for what purpose. No cap on frequency. No limit on duration. No distinction between a one hour closure or a full weekend closure.

There's not an objective criteria for assessment of business or economic impact. Under the current approval process, an applicant could close Main Street or request to close Main Street as often as they like, and there's no policy framework requiring the decision to come before the commission. The only safeguard is staff discretion and a broad set of permit criteria which cannot be substitute for policy. Oregon City is an outlier in this. Cities of similar size across Oregon, including McMinnville, Hood River, Corvallis, and Ashland already require their elected councils to approve Main Street closures.

They do this because they recognize that their main streets are economic districts, tourism anchors, and community identity centers. When a closure affects those functions, it becomes a policy rather than administrative decision. I recommend adopting a tiered policy framework, the same model used by our peer cities, where city staff continues to approve routine low impact right of way closures, closures that the commission provides oversight and approval for special event permit or high impact closures. This gives staff clear direction, business predictable expectations, and ensures decisions affecting our downtown economy reflect transparency and community values. I spoke before the commission on this matter in the fall, but I'm bringing it to your attention again.

As the weather improves, event related closure applications become more frequent. We need a commission adopted policy now. I'm asking the commission to direct staff to schedule a work session as soon as possible to develop a formal policy governing Main Street closures that include cleared criteria, frequency and high impact limits, and a defined role for the commission approval. Thank you for your time and your service to our community.

Thank you very much. Next on our agenda, we have the, we do not have any presentations this evening. We do have adoption of the agenda and the consent agenda and, items seven a through d. Are there any questions or concerns about any of them?

For the agenda, would it be possible at some point for us to discuss what miss Blanstahl has brought before us?

During tonight's meeting? Just a quick Oh. Sure. Yeah. Temperature check if there's Yeah. We can we can do it can do it as a new item c under nine.

I agree. K.

Just for clarification, since, I did go over there today under seven a. So although the address is 610 Main, that is the Home Light Furniture built business. And then if you go around the corner where, Live Edgewood used to be, Nigel Bray, That is the space on facing 6th Street. That is the space where the the retail off premise sales, application is. They're gonna put in a high end market.

So is there a motion to adopt the consent agenda? I move to approve the consent agenda. Is there a second, please? Second. It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the consent agenda as submitted.

Commissioner Mike Mitchell? Aye. Commissioner Rocky Smith?

Aye.

Commissioner Adam Marrow? Aye. Commissioner Scott Wilson? Aye. And mayor Denise McGriff? Aye. Motion passes.

Alright. Tonight, under item number eight, we have one public hearing. It involves the first reading of ordinance twenty six ten o six amendments to the municipal code and public improvement exemptions. And that would

be mister Peter Walter. Good evening, commissioners, madam mayor. Ordinance twenty six one zero zero six, approving code amendments to Oregon City Municipal Code sixteen twelve for public improvement exemptions. This is file, GLUA twenty five zero five four, legislative file twenty five zero three. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed code amendments on January 12, and voted recommendation of their approval to the commission.

These amendments implement house bill twenty six fifty eight, which is twenty twenty five bill relating to frontage improvements, by amending city code section sixteen twelve zero one one applicability. Chapter sixteen twelve is our public improvements code, and we apply it to development of all kinds, housing, and nonresidential development as well. Per this bill, municipalities are not allowed to require public street improvements for certain types of building permits, and those, include, per this bill, accessory dwelling units, any improvement where the total building square footage does not increase, and any improvement where the total valuation of alterations is less than a 150,000. And we've prepared it's a very short section of of code. As you can see in your packet, it's less than half a page.

The one change since the Planning Commission was recommended by a city attorney that the $150,000 figure be adjusted per the consumer price index as allowed by the state bill. And that was an important catch so that we can accurately do the evaluations whenever the building permits are submitted. We have made a set of findings for compliance with the city's municipal code and for the consistency with the city's comprehensive plan. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about these code amendments. They really are quite straightforward.

And as with many of the bills coming legislature last year and this year, they're actually already in effect, so we have to apply them. So So

being that this is a public hearing, I don't have any slips for anyone testifying for or against this particular item. As you said, it's it is housekeeping. Does the commission have any questions?

I've got two Please. Really quick ones. This applies only to street improvements and not to collecting SDCs. Right? Correct. Okay. And then okay. Hypothetical. MUC Corridor on 7th. And let's say there's a residential house there now. They're not gonna change the footprint. They're gonna spend a $100,000, but they're gonna open a coffee shop, which is a much higher use. Mhmm. We still would not be able to require street improvements in that case.

I understand these apply to both residential and commercial development. So I believe the answer to that is correct.

Okay. So the use the use doesn't matter.

Right.

It's just On the 100. The value of the improvements and the not changing the square footage.

Right. Right. Very situation occur on Division Street where there was a residential occupancy, and then they have now converted it to a coffee shop.

Mhmm. Right. Yeah. Across from hospital?

Yes, sir. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

I am wondering just for the record if you could give an example of sort of before this bill and after this bill. Well, Thinking of any recent applications we've had within the last, oh, five years that you've been here.

Well, we do already have some limitations on public street frontage improvements, and we use a 10% figure to make it proportional. So these would act very similar to that. I guess the differences would be completely waiving improvements in this case. And what we currently do is either take fee in lieu or the applicant builds the improvement. We are approving certain types of modifications already for middle housing types, which go through a type two public improvement modification process or public process to if we're not gonna require improvements at all.

And that would be in situations where it doesn't actually make sense to connect to anything because there aren't any sidewalks in that particular neighborhood and the infill is not gonna help that situation. So this would be similar to that. Oh, I so Yeah.

Thinking of so I know that there was an infill project on Josephine Street where there was an existing house, and then they built another dwelling unit, and then there's another dwelling unit behind that. But I I did note that there is now a new sidewalk in front of that particular parcel. Both it's a corner lot. There's sidewalk on one side connecting up to the other sidewalk. Mhmm. Would we be able to do that under this now currently, if if there was no sidewalk or anything of that sort or a driveway apron or

It would all depend on the evaluation of the of the job.

It's say those two new houses were definitely more than a $150,000.

Over the valuation where we could do our standard methodology. Yeah. So it's gonna be a case by case basis.

Basis? Yeah. So what is the net really the net effect of this?

The intended effect is to make small improvements easier for residents and business owners by reducing the cost of those street frontage improvements, and that would free up money to actually invest in the on-site stuff, the on-site private development.

So are there any unintended consequences?

We will see.

Miss Richter?

Well, I think the unintended consequence is gonna be the circumstance that commissioner miss Mitchell raised. The conversion of a single family house that, you know, has very little pedestrian generation, very little traffic generation to a coffee shop with a very low cost alteration fee. Right? So if you if you can spend a 149,000 and make it a coffee shop, you don't have to put in the sidewalks. Seems unlikely that that could happen, but, theoretically, it's possible.

I mean, I could see some though there could be some manipulation in that $149,999 alteration cost. Perhaps I alter my floors today, and I alter my walls next week. And, you know, I mean, you could could you couldn't you do a serial alteration?

Hopefully, we would not allow that. It's happened. I'm aware of a situation like that in the past. So, I mean, it I I read the bill, and and they're not easy to read. So I'm trying to understand, you know, if the intent is to allow for somebody to put in an ADU, you know, in their backyard like the one that's going on, and it's actually not an ADU, but on Holmes Lane, there's a the house that looked like it was about ready to collapse and had its own green roof ecosystem.

There's now a larger structure behind it. So there's there is a sidewalk there. There is a curb cut there. It probably will generate a little more traffic than currently is existing because the house has been vacant since forever. So you're gonna have a number of families there, but let's say it wasn't an improved section of that particular street.

And, you know, I obviously, the valuation is more than even if you index it, it's gonna be more than a 100 and whatever the number is gonna be. So okay. Just trying to get it straight in my head as to how that was gonna work. And like you said, it's already approved, and we're just trying to catch up. So do we have a, so being no test public testimony, I'm gonna close the public hearing and ask for deliberation and whether or not there's a motion.

Don't all speak up at once.

I'll move to approve the first reading of ordinance 26 dash one zero zero six.

Second. It's

been moved and seconded. Ordinance. Yes. Please read it, and

then I'll roll. Ordinance number 26 dash one zero zero six, an ordinance of the city of Oregon City amending Oregon City Municipal Code chapter sixteen twelve relating to public frontage improvements and providing for specific exemptions.

Commissioner Mike Mitchell? Aye. Commissioner Rocky Smith? Aye. Commissioner Adam Marle? Aye. Commissioner Scott Wilson? Aye. And mayor Denise McGriff? Aye. Motion passes. Thank you, and we'll be back

with the second reading in at the next meeting.

Yes. You very much. Thank you

for the very thorough report. Thank you. Alright. Flip flip flip pages. Think they make the make these bills really kind of unreadable on its face. I mean, they're not they're not in regular English. That is for sure. Okay. Next on our agendas that, as you are all aware, we have, an opening on the Planning Commission, and we are still in the process of seeking, applicants to apply an interview. So we have, one application that's been submitted.

We have some options. I am hoping that we will, schedule an interview as we have done with everybody else that we have considered for this for our the Planning Commission. Are there any, excuse me, comments, opportunities, or concerns? The silence is deafening. Don't make me start reading Chuck Norris jokes.

I mean, I wouldn't I wouldn't

be opposed to it. I would also argue, I think, commissioners, we have a fair degree of familiarity with the applicant. I don't know if that means that we would have the ability to make a decision tonight or people consent to it by just putting that out there.

Miss.

Know what's in those interview questions and how basic they are, and I know that what we all know about the applicant feels to me like wasted effort to to do an interview, honestly. So I would have no problem with going ahead tonight.

Well, I think that nothing is ever wasted, and I I wanna be, I wanna continue to keep the same process that we've had where we interview people. I think that there are some other questions that may come up that are not on the interview, but, the application will still open.

I don't believe we would be allowed to ask. We follow a written Absolutely. Format which I think is a legal requirement, and I don't think we can go beyond that.

No. No. It's legal, but we have been consistent. We have been consistent in what we have done. We have had follow-up questions on some of them, because, again, we just see these as individuals. Go ahead.

Thank you. I at this point, I would prefer to move with an interview, simply because, I agree with what's already been said. I feel like I already am aware of his qualifications. I think the reason why we should have an interview is given the nature of his profession. I think it would be good for us to give him an opportunity to defend not only to us, but to others why he is suited for this role.

So Yeah.

I would agree with that. I think, we well and there's a lot of public that may not know the things that we know about an individual candidate. And so being consistent and having the public be able to to know that we've interviewed them in the same process we interview anyone else is, I think that's fine.

Yeah. I I understand. I I think that that makes sense.

Honestly, I hadn't thought of the of the public the That's Yep. The reasons why I

would like us to Yep. To schedule the interview. I would like to see us keep the application process open for at least one more month because my understanding from our last meeting is that we were going to make sure that application had processed or you had fixed that, but you were gonna get back to us with I had not seen that revised app with how you did it this last time. Did not see that. No.

I'm not criticizing. I'm just saying that was my understanding that we were going to go back, look at it, and then decide how long we were gonna go out to do this next round. And that sort of didn't quite happen. But, again, it was we were having a lot of conversation, but that's what I wrote down in my my

I think I think what we heard was to change the application so that that has addition two additional questions related to the specificity around the planning commission.

I'm a

just Included in the attachment is that. I guess we did not realize that the commission wanted that brought back. We made the changes I don't to the application, which have been addressed by the applicant.

I said, I wanted to see it. I don't know if anybody else did. I didn't see it.

I don't think there was commission direction.

There wasn't a consensus. It was just I said, would be nice for us to see it so we know what it says.

I I also would just like to throw I I'm not interested in waiting another are we talking

about not interviewing for a month? No.

Just say we schedule an interview, but we keep it open because there's people out there that may be interested. I don't wanna preclude anybody else from the phone.

Sure. I mean but if we were to conduct an interview and make an appointment, we would, of course, close the application. Right?

Because that would I would suggest we commission. I would suggest we try and find a time as soon as we can that works for mister Henderson Agree. And leave it open until then, in which case if someone else would like to apply, then, sure, I I wouldn't have a problem with that. Because we only

have one position. Right? Yes. Okay.

Or or do we? Well

Well, that's that's that's important to know.

Somebody that is staying on until their replacement, and they

Oh, so we had the two. Right? Yes.

Right. So But well okay. K. Can I can I just ask the applicants here?

I don't even know. I would like to have an interview. K. Just because of what Adam said, and

that's how I see it.

Oh, he's he's in the audience. What I'm

saying is he's in the audience, and I'm wondering if he'd be open to an interview this evening.

We didn't ask to do that in the public. Okay. I think we need to do it the way we've done it. We schedule it. It's advertised, and we find are transparent. Turn on you. That was that was his toast.

That lost dog over here.

That was his toast. Yes. So let's get let's have let's have staff work on getting us a schedule for an interview, and it will be leave it open till then as you recommended.

Would we a question for miss Richter. Would we be violating public meetings law if we were to have an interview tonight because it was not originally posted in the agenda?

No. Because we were we it is in the agenda that you're gonna consider this candidate. So I don't think so, but I think if the goal is for the public to know to watch to hear this candidate's discussion, then that goal isn't furthered by doing the interview tonight. Yeah.

And I would prefer that. I think it's just again, it follows our process of what we've we've been we will be consistent. Consistent. The only time we have not done is because we'd already interviewed the HRB applicants because they were both filling vacancies. We knew they were a known quantity. They were the only two that were qualified to apply for that particular spot that we had. So can we do that, staff? Can we look for a time that works, and then we can do that?

I'd like to suggest you at our at our next meeting. We're talking one interview. It's not like we have to dedicate you know, we don't have to do like we do when we have multiple interviews. Yeah.

That makes sense to me. And if if people want to apply in between now and then,

I think

that's their right to do that. But I'm I'm just not interested in holding up this process much longer given that it there doesn't seem to be a a clear pipeline of people who are super interested in this role.

And transparently, that was kind of my suggestion on why don't we just interview the candidate tonight. So I'm gonna make a motion that we interview Seth Anderson this evening for a planning commission position.

Second.

Again, I am not prepared to be interviewing anybody tonight, and I want the process to be open and transparent, please, just the way we have done on the floor. I understand that.

Call to roll. Commissioner Mike Mitchell? Aye. Commissioner Rocky Smith? No. Commissioner Adam Marrow? Aye. Commissioner Scott Wilson? Aye. Mayor Denise McGriff?

No. Motion passes. Well, it's gonna be at the end. It's not gonna do we don't have the questions in front of us right now. So if you can Right. Manage to manage those, we will change the agenda around. So alright. Tonight on our general business, we have a second reading of ordinance number twenty six one zero zero five, minor sidewalk code update regarding notice statements. Do we have, our staff is here. Do does anybody have any questions or concerns about the second reading?

I'll move to approve the second reading of I will

Sorry. Do I need to open a public hearing? This is not a public hearing. So please make a motion.

Move to approve the second reading of ordinance

Oh, man.

Twenty six dash one zero zero five.

Is there a second? Oh, I'll second it. Commissioner Mike. Oh, sorry. She's gotta read it. Ordinance number 26DotDash1005, an ordinance of the city of Oregon City amending notice statements for

the sidewalk code. Commissioner Mike Mitchell? Aye. Commissioner Rocky Smith? Aye. Commissioner Adamaro? Aye. Commissioner Scott Wilson? Aye. And Mayor Denise McGriff? Aye. Motion passes.

Okay. Let's have, the 2026 Oregon State legislative sort short session policy primer. Will there be a test? Yes. Okay. We will take copious notes.

And they will all have changed by tomorrow. Yeah.

I will say amen to that. K.

Well, good evening. So before you tonight is

And you are. Myself. You're you're You're still new to you. Tell them love you just like we do.

Kelly Hart, the community development director for the city. So before you tonight is a bit of an experiment for Oregon City. We are, a bit of a starting point, in our legislative process to determine how the city might want to move forward, with an expanded participation in the state legislature. I wanna start off by saying that this is our first go at it, and so it's our first attempt at identifying what might be of interest, how much information we're putting out there, the format of the information we're putting out there, and so feedback would be greatly appreciated for us as we move forward through this process to make sure that we are calibrating this to the the best of our ability for you all. And then also, this is really just the start of our process.

After the sprint of this short session, our goal is to come back with a bit of a readout of what has occurred, but then start with an a conversation with Oregon City, specific policy direction as to what are some policy statements and and goals that you wanna see as part of the legislature and formulating an an actual legislative framework out of that so that we have true direction of how to move forward, not just in legislative sessions, but year round in conversations with our representatives as well. So it's a start, and then let us know how we're doing. And then beyond that, tonight, our goal is to give you a quick review of the city commission goals, the themes, and then identify how those city commission goals intersect with the legislative process itself and the the committees and their own themes that that come as part of it and how they they sort of interconnect, and and get further direction on how those bills, work with the city commission goals. As we move through each theme, we'd be looking for some high level policy direction from the city commission tonight, about where our policy stances are at at the general policy level.

Our goal is not necessarily to go line by line through the different bills, because as you can see in the staff report that we provided you, it talked about just simply legislative concepts. But by the end of that week, after the agenda had already been posted, it had changed to bill numbers and different bills had come out beyond that. So this is a fluid conversation. Lots of things change through this session process, and so having that more of a a north star conversation of where we sit on a policy direction, helps us at the staff level then identify how when we get into the weeds, where we are supposed to point our guided conversation. And so an example, is something that we have actually just done in the last few weeks, with a a commission meeting a few times ago, where we had the conversation about ODOT and the possible transportation bill come back, and the city commission provided general conversation points regarding not wanting to see tolling be brought back into the conversation and keeping that as a prohibited item, and then making sure that the state is maintaining the focus on oversight over ODOT.

So those two mixed with the city commission's already existing goals, and the commission goals relating to advocacy for infrastructure helps provide us, like, with an overall, goal understanding of where the city commission sits on infrastructure in general and transportation. So those are the types of directions and policy points that we're we're looking for tonight. Finally, we'll also do a quick short session calendar review and then discuss how staff is gonna try to interject through that process as well. So as a quick overview, on the screen, which is incredibly small for you all. I apologize.

Are the adopted city commission goals for 2025 to 2027. Based on the legislative concepts and bills that have been produced since then, for the short session, there are four key overlapping areas, that touch on the city commission goals, and that's the support of economic development and tourism throughout Oregon City, increased housing opportunities, invest in city facilities and infrastructure, and reduce, houselessness in the in Oregon City. Other goals, there are some tangential connections to them, but they are not necessarily policy bills. They're more tweaks in terms of existing language within the state legislature, and don't necessarily directly relate to the intent of the city commission's goals. So it's it's not necessarily fully connected.

Within the priority areas of the city commission goals, there are already three identified specific advocacy points that have been created, and that's to prioritize, infrastructure funding and influence the legislature to provide additional funding, support infrastructure and funding specifically to support needed housing, and to address state mandates, and then also to advocate for proportional funding to address community impacts, and the increased social social service needs around houselessness, in the city. And so this already gives us a basic primer of where the city commission sits, but the goal tonight is to expand upon that based off of what's in front of us for the short session. So as the city commission has goals areas, the state legislature does as well through their legislative committees and their priority areas. The short session legislative themes as it pertains specifically to cities, would be identified in six key distinct areas as identified on the screen. Within these theme areas, we started out with 27 legislative concepts that we provided.

When the bills came out, we did a scraping of those bills to see if there was anything more, and that ballooned up to 49 bills, associated with, the cities and how it might tangentially affect us. Not all of these bills are policy related bills. Quite a few of these bills are simple language changes or technical fixes, to make things clearer. A great example is in the public safety, realm of bill themes. A lot of it is just providing further direction about how to do the work that's existing and and being done already.

But there are quite a few bills that are policy related, and, we want to go through those. But I just want to reiterate, this is not a targeted lit this is not a comprehensive list that we'll be going through tonight, but more of a targeted list. And if there's anything in specific you guys wanna go over, we can do that as well. So in terms of how the bills, at the legislature and the commission goals intersect, we have the commission goal of invest in city infrastructure and facilities. There are currently seven bills that we're tracking related to infrastructure and try transportation.

None of these bills provide for new funding opportunities nor do they affect existing funding opportunities. And so the goal is kind of moot in terms of the city commission goals. However, there are two bills that may be of interest. There's s b fifteen forty two, which requires and directs ODOT to create a ten year, capital improvement, investment plan. And though this is not necessarily a direct policy bill, it is one to track because we could pay attention to the projects that ODOT is identifying on that CIP list and advocate for Oregon City projects to be in that.

Similarly, for house bill 4,008, this would identify a transit task force that would be looking at metro transit and identifying funding mechanisms and how to maintain the system. This is yet again one of those bills that we could track to try to maintain that Oregon City transit systems are maintained, through Tri Med as well.

Do you guys sponsor people for these since you're talking to them?

I do, and I can provide you with those lists as well. Just the the like, for instance,

the first one. Who's the main sponsor for that?

For $15.40 Yes,

please. That one's a committee bill.

Yeah. I don't have that directly in front of me. It's on my spreadsheet on my computer, but I can get that for you. But Adam's helpful on that. Okay.

So there's one final one of, fun, for for cities is that the League of Oregon City is sponsoring this bill, which is a feel good feel good bill, for establishment of, water professionals appreciation week, which is once a week in October. So that is something that the city can consider supporting or neutral as well. Then with with the public works professionals week. Exactly.

And planning professionals week. That's right.

So now the city commission, like I said, has previously provided direction on this goal, and that's regarding the no tolling and the maintenance of ODOT oversight. But are there any other policy directions that you would like specifically regarding what you are seeing, in transportation and infrastructure before us tonight?

Well, I, anyway, got myself volunteered for the League of Oregon City's Transportation Committee. We have not had a meeting yet, but we've been receiving lots of correspondence. My understanding from the league executive director and the league lead lobbyist is that the only three things that are on the table for the referendum are the tax measures measures and that everything else is intact. So my question to them was, okay. If everything else in that bill is not proposed for the ballot, what does that mean?

And they don't really know the answer yet. So I guess we are stay tuned. Representative, Hartman and senator Meade know, our position on this particular item with regard to auditing and the the tolling. That was, representative Hartman's one of the reasons why she voted no. So I think other than I mean, I will never say never until I think it's really dead and, you know, we could put the rest of the nails in the coffin, but things have a way of resurrecting themselves.

I think for me, professionally and personally, what I'm get most concerned about are what I consider to be arbitrary and capricious requirements involving housing or getting rid of, design standards for historic districts or things, I mean, very things that are very germane to our community. And what my hope is is that, as you have already done, is that we have been doing a very good job in tailoring these things to meet the needs of our community while still meeting the intent of the law, which I think is we should continue to do that. But I do worry about the fact that it would be nice for local jurisdictions to be at the table so that we can be a positive influence in terms of bringing ideas and opportunities to any future housing things rather than us being on the defensive, that would be preferable. Because I think when we jointly come up with a solution to a problem, people have a better sense and they feel more ownership about how to make it work as opposed to people being told the city is being told this is what you are going to do. Obviously, as you are very aware, many of the jurisdictions, the big stumbling block is what you've talked about on this infrastructure is that it's you know, you got in order to do the one, you gotta have the other, and you can't do the other without that one.

So it's it makes it very difficult for jurisdictions. And I know that even though we are currently in compliance, I know other jurisdictions who lack, infrastructure are just not gonna be able to do it. And I don't know what we're going to do because there is not a lot of pot of money out there to go, hey. Here's some infrastructure money, city people.

So

those would be the, you know, the concerns, you know, that that I'm aware of. Alright. I know that there's, I did hear about something that will affect the jurisdictions is that the driverless car company is trying to pass a bill, which we hope doesn't get out of committee, to exempt them from all regulations or franchise fees of any sort, which I don't think that the league is going to support that, and I don't think we would support that. So somebody's gonna be driving around on our streets, they better be paying attention. I do know there's a bill that's being looked at, with regard to scooters and things because if they're in the bike lane, I saw one today.

No helmet. They're going about he was driving faster than I was at Moala Avenue, and went, you know, right through intersections and didn't really stop for the light. Just kept on buzzing. And so I don't there's they're trying to get a bill to define this. I I don't know what we do, sans any requirements, but, you know, they are kind of a a danger to themselves and others.

Okay. Do you know anything about that, chief?

There is a a bill. The the bill that you're talking about would basically change the licensing requirements and then change the ticketing requirements and the age limits associated with those vehicles. So Yeah.

I would say all but one, only one person that I saw today of three different riders, only one of them had a helmet, and they were exceeding the speed limit.

K. So seeing

no Anybody else besides Adam die deep diving deep into these potential pills? Yes, please.

First of all, greatly appreciate your initiative on this. I think in the years since I've been on the commission when as we've talked about the potential of being more engaged and potentially having a lobbyist, until now that responsibility has fallen on me. And I can't tell you the amount of times I've had legislators emailing me on my work email about city business and reminding them that that is not the place to do it or having people stop by my office to talk city business as well. So your presence in Salem is greatly appreciated. With that being said, in my new role as a registered lobbyist on behalf of the state's land use agency, I am just going to not participate in this conversation just given the possibility that I will be asked in my professional capacity to take a different position.

And so I'm this is all I'm gonna say for this conversation, and I'm going to abstain from any votes. But I'm sure you're all aware that I do have many thoughts on this. So and we can talk about that in in private. Thank you.

You again. Q for, looking at this, this is not easy. Is there more? More.

Oh, there's

sorry. I thought I thought we're taking a pause. We were done. Okay. Please continue.

Yeah. So there's a couple of different policy areas. There's there's four more, I think, that we're going through. Three more that we'll we'll go through really quick. So I did take notes on your your housing conversation now. So for this next policy area, it's the the intersection of economic development, small business, and trade with the state legislature as well as our city goal of supporting economic development and tourism throughout Oregon City. Can you explain just because the public doesn't know

what the RSIS site is?

Yes. I will I will do that. So the governor has proposed legislature. They have a large omnibus bill regarding economic development, that provides a couple of different things to promote economic development. It falls generally.

These bills will fall into two different categories. One is economic development incentives, and the other one is regarding tourism and how we allocate our, tourism lodging tax funds, basically. So house bill forty one forty eight is the governor sponsored bill, and that is promoting the streamlining of, permitting processes in state agencies, when there is a business investment of a 150,000,000 or more in capital improvement funding, basically. And so this is trying to bring in larger businesses to Oregon, and and support a a streamlining process through that. As part of this bill, also, there is the the minor tweaks to the the or the regionally significant industrial site program, which basically allows for the the designation of sites, in industrial zones, as, development ready and provides an incentive, tax incentive associated with that site, to try to again bring forward, business to that location.

So that bill provides for lots of different tools and economic development, packages as part of that, which definitely aligns with the city commission's goals. There is also SB fifteen eighty six and h b forty one zero four, which are bills that modify the tax credit for semiconductor research as well as the chips program, which is also part of semiconductor research. I'm not an expert on that stuff. James is. But, basically, it's to bring in manufacturers to build those chips associated with computers and and AI systems and that kind of thing.

And then finally, there are three different bills, out there right now, which are ultimately gonna be consolidated into one or none, that reflects, the conversation around the transient lodging tax. This was a conversation that was raised during the long session last year in the state legislature, which was pushed, through with, the League of Oregon cities. It did not make it over the finish line. But generally speaking right now, a city collects transient lodging tax, and the bill and the law currently says that 70% of those funds must go towards, tourism functions of the city, and 30% of that can be geared towards, the general fund or other functions of the city. The previous bill was much more expansive as trying to how to define and get flexibility for this fund, this generation.

It is just trying to expand the those splits a little bit more. So now it is being proposed as a sixty forty split. So still promoting tourism,

but

then providing opportunities for more of the funds to go towards, city functions to, support the things that tourism supports, like roads and police departments and all that kind of stuff, and having that that modified flexibility. So in review of all these bills, we believe that they are consistent with and able to be supported by the city commission under its current goal. But if you wanted to provide additional policy direction, we'd be happy to hear it. Or we can move on.

On the economic development items, there's a bill being promoted by the city of Hillsborough, which would allow for some additional land to be brought into I can't remember now if it's the reserves that are there or the ones that were previously urban reserve. Anyway, there's they're making a big push for that. Mhmm. As a onetime you know, everybody says it's always a onetime thing, then it ends up not being a onetime thing. They basically are saying that this would benefit the region.

You know, obviously, it's really gonna benefit Washington County in a lot of ways. I mean, I'm not not naive about that particular, aspect of it.

Right. K.

I have not said anything in our regional meetings that would allow me to say I'm for it or against it. I'm just saying I just wanna see what how the chips fall out. So Makes

sense. Okay. So moving on to everybody's favorite topic. Yeah. Housing. There's a couple of different committees in the state legislature on housing, one in the house, one in the senate. I think there's a joint one,

but don't quote me on that.

But they are busy again, in the short session. Currently, I'm tracking 10 bills, but LLC has, I think, 21 that's under their purview. But some of it is tweaking language. The 10 bills that we're really tracking are are more directly associated with how it would impact cities. I just wanted to highlight two in particular.

There is the the house bill forty thirty seven, which is the omnibus bill that was presented by the governor's office and through, the house committee on housing. And this is the bill that would have the the greatest impact to cities in terms of operations. This bill does align with the city commission in terms of the desire to increase housing opportunities, but it does so by modifying the city's processes, processing mechanisms as well as furthering the state's goals of permit streamlining as well. The bill does have lots of different aspects to it. It is an omnibus bill, so not all of it necessarily applies to us.

But there are a couple of key focus areas associated with this bill. So there's the providing the housing accountability and production office or HAPO, with what I like to call more teeth, where, basically, if there is a city that is in their enforcement action period, they would be requiring the city to, apply a model code, instead of the city's code until such time as the enforcement period resolution is identified. The next is, providing for properties that are building one or two dwelling units only. They're identifying an opportunity to exempt them from building permit plan reviews as long as they have a stamp from a certified engineer or an architect. So they would still have to submit for a building permit.

They would still have to go through the inspections process, but we just would not have our plans examiners be reviewing those plans. There is direct language in there that does exempt the city from any liability of anything that creates an issue, associated with nonplane review, but the language is not necessarily fully clear. So that's probably something that will have a little bit of cleanup to it. And and what

is the problem that is trying to solve? I don't see that there is a problem.

I I believe in in this aspect. They're trying to create expediency. So if there is a architect or an engineer that has done their review, created the plans, and is willing to put their stamp on it that says that this is accurate and correct, and they're willing to take on that liability, then the state is saying that that should be sufficient, for the purposes of creating a a single family home or a two unit process. So See, these are the things that just drive me crazy. I mean, it's taking away more, you know, more review.

Yeah. I I I think that these are are the balance between trying to identify to make sure that the regulations are being adhered to while providing that expediency that the the state is looking for, which is where a lot of these bill languages have come from in the last couple of years. So, I would

be interested to know if this is a big problem throughout the state, or is this somebody nitpicking this because they had a bad experience?

I don't have that answer for you. Have you heard anything?

Talking to me?

Yes, please.

So

you'll remember that last year, we had senate bill nine seventy four

How can I

which, among the other planning things, it imposed a hundred and twenty day limit on the issuance of permits? And my observation is the ink is hardly dry on that, so we don't know. So that took effect on January 1. So we don't so this hundred and twenty day processing, before that before Senate Bill nine seventy four, there was no time limit. So building permit office review could take a really long time, and in some jurisdictions, the evidence was that it did.

And so But not all. So, my understanding is that in Oregon City, there's no reason to believe that the city won't be able to comply with the hundred and twenty day deadline of Senate Bill nine seventy four. But I think this is another solution that, you know, we're gonna we're gonna do we're gonna do automatic approvals of housing of, you know, less than two units. The other thing, though, is this is this covers container houses. Right?

Right now, it's right now, under the current standard is it's stick built structures. So this would allow container homes to get to be part of the automatic review process too, We which are have some in we

have three in Oregon City.

So I think that's what that particular component part of this bill is intended to do.

Mhmm. Thank you. K. This next component, I might also call on Carrie to help me out a little bit because this is the most complex part of it. But, the establishment of a local government process for land use approvals for housing.

So when there is a house require a housing, proposal that meets the clear and objective standard. I believe the bill identifies that that those should be permitted outright without a public public hearing, and with minimal notification in terms of preapproval and significantly minimal notification in terms of actual application approval. Specifically, once an application is approved, then the the notification is limited to those that are basically contiguous to the property itself. Am I getting this alright, Carrie?

More or less. I mean, if if the commission wants to get into this, this is a real problem. Yeah. What it provides is that when we're doing clear and objective decision making, which we've had in our code for a long time, there's no discretionary decision making, There will be no public hearing. The only note there is no notice required.

And if the local government wants to, the extent of the notice is to the property owners that are adjacent, shared property lines, or across the street. So this takes our usual. So we were we were at 250 feet, then the state law said it's a 100 feet. Now we are if you want to give notice at all, the notice is adjacent property owners. There is, no right to appeal unless there is so there's no local appeal hearing, and there is no right to appeal to Luba unless you are the applicant and you want to argue that the standards that were applied were not clear and objective.

So it is a lopsided appeal, right, that runs only to the developer if that developer believes that there are standards that were discretionarily applied that should have been clear in objectives. They can go to LUMA and argue about that. If you are an opponent and you believe that other standards should have been applied because maybe the use categorization is wrong, you are out. You have no you will not be able to part there will be no locals proceeding, and you will not have standing at Luba anyway because you didn't participate below. So the governor's office, when they presented this to the committee of the housing committee the house housing committee explained that the reason why they're doing this is because this is discretionary decision making anyway or nondiscretionary decision making anyway.

So there is no it there it does no good to have a hearing because participants in the hearing couldn't change the outcome. In other words, if the standard is the building can only be 35 feet tall, it doesn't matter how many times I tell you that the building should be shorter because the standard is 35 feet. That's the governor's office's position. Out of the interest of full disclosure, Ed Sullivan and I wrote our daily journal of commerce article excoriating this piece of the provision. And if you're interested, I can share it with the commission.

I would like that. So do we have any ability to do a

little more than the minimum? No. That's the problem with this bill and senate bill nine seventy four and the mandatory waivers of 1537. There it doesn't allow they're not permissive. The only thing you can do is provide notice to the adjacent property owners.

K. Well, what if we say we wanna we wanna use our the number that we use? So

You'd be in violation of the

So we're in violation for letting our community know what's going on.

And and if I were an applicant who still wanted to, I would say you are prohibited from providing greater notice. Mhmm. And to require the provision of greater notice, you know, exceeds state law and, you know, then you get turned into HAPO. Oregon City is violating state law, and you get a complaint filed at HAPO, and then HAPO doesn't invest I mean, we can go through all that, but

it's Right.

You want me to keep going? Nope.

So what we would consider a type three now would not have a public hearing?

Moe, as I understand it, and, Kelly, I should clear it up, but all of the clear and objective decision making that happens in Oregon City, the very most process it gets is type two. Correct. And there isn't a clear and objective review in Oregon City that is type three. But the type two process provides an appeal right to the city commission today Mhmm. And that goes away. Right.

So this to me sounds like it would be a direct contradiction to the statewide planning goals where it says in goal one that the community or the public has a right to be involved in all phases of a process. So it basically just says, you're out of luck. Sorry. Doesn't matter. I'm only concerned about the notice requirement. If adjacent property owners, are we still allowed to do posting? Are you still allowed to post the property?

It says the old I've I'll have to go back and look. I believe it says the only notice.

Yeah. Well, no. I'm talk yeah. So somebody's so I don't live three I don't live a 150 feet or adjacent to the property, and I drive by and I see the posting. I could pull over and stop and look at it and go, oh, okay.

That's what's going on. I don't think that posting is allowed.

So I I think this is one of those great examples where some some direction in terms of policy guidance would help. So this is one of those where it it absolutely falls in line with the goal of trying to increase housing. Right? But the city commission could provide direction to say that, you know, we are wanting to ensure that any housing policy that is provided ensures that we have right to noticing or, you know, that we want to maintain the rights of goal one and and be able to still hear from the public because the input that we receive from public hearings helps us on our long range planning goals. Right?

And so having a a direction form of that, there's there's lots that's gonna change in this bill, hopefully, in between now and when it it gets proposed for a vote. And so to your point of wanting to provide the constructive notes of how to make things better and to work together, having that middle ground where it's let's let's address some of these major concerns because this does end up having some significant impacts on you know, we're gonna have to talk about redoing how we do our permit fees to make sure that we are collecting, you know, an appropriate fee because we're still gonna have to review them. Exactly. But it's not going to be at a type two level anymore potentially. Right?

And so the types of downstream impacts that this type of bill has. So getting a good understanding of of some of those general guardrails helps us then provide the appropriate impact and and feedback.

It's it's still the same amount of work. Yes. It's not like the work is is changing. Matter of fact, I think it makes the work a little more difficult. I I I would definitely suggest that that we support opportunities for our, I mean, our community to be notified about things that are going on.

That that isn't that's that's critical to, you know, everything that we do. You know, the public should know because a lot of times, as you are aware, the public, it's like, until it starts going in the ground, they have no idea what's going on. And, well, when did this happen? Well, this happened way back when, but we're posting to let you know this is gonna, you know, this is this is gonna be happening. I mean, it's not whether they agree or disagree with it.

It's it's the opportunity to have that information. Right. And just adjacent to me is not enough. K. I just think, you know, our our people's ability to understand what's happening is is shrinking and shrinking, and I don't think they're it's it's out of balance as to you know?

So I I you know, goal one is supposed to be a a guiding principle for everything that we do in the land use realm, and it seems like it's just getting death by a thousand cuts. K? Are you all supportive of people getting some sort of a notice without you know, with no notice, it's you know? Because we get asked about that now. You know? When did this happen? Well, yeah, there was a there was it was posted. And

Okay. I have that. So one additional part of this lovely housing omnibus bill is, shortening the time period for review of, projects of substantial similarity, which is not quite defined anywhere.

Of course.

So the this is an example of you have, you know, a proposal of a a duplex over here and then a block over owned by the same property, owned by the same owner. They want to propose the the same similar duplex. And as long as the two properties are similarly situated, they they should have an an automatic shortened review period because you have already done the type of review that you need to do, and it's it should be familiar, basically. So that that is, an additional shot clock that we would be having to track as well, and then defining what similarly substantial is, or substantially similar is. And I'm not sure whether that'll be cleaned up in the bill language or if it'll be rulemaking or taken out altogether.

So

Substantially similar doesn't sound very clear and objective. Not

at all. And what if one of the properties has an overlay on it and the other one doesn't, but they're proposing the same thing? It it's not the same level of review. And I think that's where the substantially similar comes into play. Right?

They're not saying that it has to be identical, but if, you know, it has an overlay on it, but the overlay doesn't impact the the way that the development is designed, then is that substantially similar enough sort of thing. Right? So I think that still needs to be flushed out. Well,

anybody that's worth their salt would be designing the building to fit the lot and not vice versa. But I don't think that happens as often as we would like it to happen. Sure. Kaneema being a good example. Let's build a big flatland house on a steep slope. Sure. And then our final, s b fifteen twenty one. How exciting.

Yeah. So, this one is an interesting one where it doesn't really apply, but it could apply in the future. And the only reason I'm bringing it up is because it's in your guys', commission goals. So s b fifteen twenty one specifically prohibits any city within the Portland Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is us, from enforcing inclusionary housing. So, basically, it says that if you have an inclusionary housing program, which the only city currently that has one is the city of Portland, then you have a responsibility to do an assessment of how much money the developer would be losing by providing those set aside of affordable units, and then the city is required to pay the developer for the that that differential, basically.

It's not an issue for us now, and it may not be in the future. But the only reason I bring it up is because there is a city commission goal under increasing housing opportunities where it says for us to consider, doing an inclusionary housing program or a vertical housing tax credit. So it's it's lumped into something that we're already doing. But if the city commission was interested in pursuing that inclusionary housing and this bill does pass, there's that to consider at that point. The the League of Oregon Cities is, sort of taking a a neutral stance, but also a negative stance because the city of Portland is, where this isn't really a large issue because, a, Portland's the only city that really has this, program right now in the the metropolitan statistical area, and there are lots of other housing techniques and opportunities to achieve something similar, basically.

So this is very specific, and not necessarily something that would stop us from doing something that the intention of inclusionary housing does in the future. So but I bring it to your attention. So k.

And just real quick. To your point right there, I think in the past commission discussions about what a potential inclusionary zoning program might look like in Oregon City, at least when I brought it up, understanding that it takes several different iterations. And there's the required path that the city of Portland goes down, and I think the one that I've talked about in the past has been the option for density bonuses. Mhmm. So I don't think that this one would apply to that. Is that okay.

Not to density bonuses. This is only if it's a requirement or as part of a project with 10 housing units, you shall set aside 20% of them specifically for affordable housing.

Great. So if the if the bill does pass in this, format, then we would still be able to

Do

that option. Yeah. Thank you. Mhmm.

So as I said, there are lots of other housing bills out there. A lot of them are either additional tools to add to our tool belt. Like, there are two UGB amendment onetime bills. One is to make the existing one time expansion easier. The other one is specifically to provide an opportunity for a one time expansion for senior housing and manufactured home parks.

So those are just added tools to the tool belt, so kind of innocuous. And and then the rest of them are just sort of either areas of extreme specificity or requiring cities to allow for replacement housing if a house is burned during a wildfire, that kind of thing. So it's more of technical fixes of stuff that other cities are experiencing and bringing into legislative process. So beyond all of the things that we've already talked about, are there any additional policy areas to discuss? Or did you wanna add anything else, Carrie?

I just wanted to real quickly mention House Bill four one zero eight, which is a mandatory annexation authorization where the owners of the land petition to the city for annexation. If all of the owners, file the petition and the land is located within an acknowledged urban growth boundary, it's, designated for residential or mixed use on the city's acknowledged comprehensive plan, and it is connected to and receives all utilities provided by the city. So only those utilities that the city provides must be there, then there is no discretion about annexation. It's a it's a it's a go. If they aren't there.

Is not just for housing. This is for mixed use too. And there is no contemplation of transportation here, and this would allow all kinds of cherry stem or or, you know, non this is a noncontiguous annexation bill. So and there's no size limit. So I I mean, I I don't know if that this mean you know, if this is a situation where the sky is falling, but it seems like the sky could could fall under this bill. But so another land use related thing that has me a little worried, and I'll be watching.

And why would transportation not be included? That's that's

that's the straw that breaks the camel's back. For that bill, maybe clarification on the the connection for the city utilities. And reading it, I thought that it was a requirement that the property had already had to be connected to city utilities. So this is

like It has to receive all the utilities that the city provides. Okay. So if the city didn't provide all the utilities, it wouldn't be have to be connected. Okay. But, I mean, moving aside from that, I mean, there's one thing about sort of could the city provide them and then are they there? And then the lack of consideration of all the other utilities that and transportation impacts that a Sure. Development might need. Right. And it's just not coordinated. I mean, our whole system is about coordinated expansion and planning for these areas, and this doesn't seem to take that into account

at all. Nope. This must be somebody's pet bill.

So this came out of the City Of Eugene area, from my understanding, where there was some pretty specific outlier properties that were, having some issues. In sitting on the call with the League of Oregon Cities, the City Of Eugene wasn't was gonna maintain neutrality on it, so was the league. And so I think I need to get with Carrie to understand a bit more about what some of the downstream concerns are gonna be. So but, yeah, that that is yet another one of those that that are out there.

So Sounds like a case where there's a one off, and now everybody has to suffer because of

it. You might be right.

So my question, maybe hypothetically or maybe in reality. So we've been told time and time again that all housing is needed housing. And I find it difficult to believe that a house that's in excess of a million dollars is a needed house. Maybe needed by somebody, but it's not needed by our community, so to speak. But is there a way that we can define what we feel is needed housing?

Because, I mean, we've said time and time again, and it's it's been our goal to try to get more housing for the middle income or workforce or whatever number we want, whatever title we wanna use, and that we don't have a lot in that range. We have a lack because affordable housing to me is a catch all. I don't know exactly what that really means. I mean, it's who it's affordable to whom. I don't know.

It's either low income or it's the high income. And it's that stuff in the, you know, in the middle, and I'm not talking about middle housing. I'm just talking about housing that, you know, my pharmacist maybe could afford or, you know, the nurse practitioner or somebody like that. That's something based on our housing needs analysis that we need. Right.

And we're having a, you know, very hard time getting more of that. I'm only aware of a couple of developers that are working in our community right now that are building housing for first time homebuyers, which is critical because people who own big hurricane houses are not moving because what are they gonna be able to afford to get into, but people want to downsize. And it's that starter home that's out there that's not out there, that's not anywhere that anybody could get, you know, started on their their first house.

So I I think the answer is, that through the city's housing capacity analysis, there there is an identified amount of housing that needs to be provided based off of different income levels and housing types. Right? Mhmm. And then there's the the next step of the housing production strategy, and that is where Oregon City gets to put its stamp on the housing process to say, we want to incentivize the the housing that is needed in Oregon City, and here's how we want to do it. Or we want to design it in a manner that is going to feel like Oregon City while also meeting the intent of state law, and here's how we're going to do it.

I don't think that we're going to be able to change the state's mind that all housing is needed housing until we are no longer in a housing crisis. But we do have that mechanism to say, but here's how we want to prioritize the housing that we as a community as identified as needed through the housing capacity analysis. And the implementation tool of that is the housing production strategy. So this year, we're starting the housing capacity analysis. The year following will be the housing production strategy, and that's where you get to put your stamp on

it, basically. Well, somebody will

Yes. The city commission

has to put this down on it. I'll be in the audience testifying. K. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Yep. Finally, this one's quick and easy. Reducing homelessness in the city of Oregon City. There's really only one bill that directly speaks to that, which is to re repeal House Bill thirty one fifteen, which was the time, place, and manner bill, for sleeping in public places. I bring this up to say it's on the docket, but it's also very likely not going anywhere and won't even get a work session, or a public hearing, but it is there. So, I'm not sure if there's much policy direction to provide right now, but it could be something of discussion as as the larger process moving forward.

I'm just interested in knowing what the unintended unintended consequence I mean, I can guess, but what would be the unintended consequences of not having a time, place, and manner bill? Does it go back to what we had before that bill was passed? So I think

have I'll need

your point

on this. The point is that since the Supreme Court rulings have occurred to to basically say that it is the Grant pass case and the City of Boise. Thank you. Case were were basically overturned, that it is no longer, applicable, in an extent, but somebody else who's smarter than me can talk to it in a greater extent.

I don't I don't know that much about this bill, but my understanding is that the I haven't read the bill, but from what I've heard about it is that this would return us to the US Supreme Court's decision in the Boise case that says that we can regulate sit sitting and standing in public places Yeah. With greater flexibility than we thought we could under the Ninth Circuit's decision. Right.

K. So I've talked a lot. I've gotten lots of good feedback. So the next steps, the short session is an absolute sprint. We are technically already in it. We're halfway through the first week. Today was the revenue forecast. I would love to say that I have an update for you, but generally speaking, how the HR one from the the federal government has had a impact on on the state's funding mechanisms. But all of the other projections that are outside of federal government influence are pretty much in line with what the state was expecting. Beyond those details, I'll have to watch it in more detail and give you more later.

But we are very quickly coming up to the the first deadline of the short session, is next week. Each of these deadlines basically indicate that if a bill does not have either a work session or a public hearing by these deadlines, that means the bill falls off and is no longer able to move forward, for consideration of final vote and and signature.

I just want if I could interrupt you real quick. I just want to clarify for my colleagues that work session has a different meaning in the legislature, whereas for us, work session is where we talk about it before we vote on it. Yeah. Work session is when they vote on it. Yes. Yes. So just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you. Thank you.

I was aware of that, but not everybody is.

So as it moves moves through, it it's going to be going very quickly. As part of this session, they are having the review of a capital funding request or or what is the the Christmas tree bill. And so the city, we have submitted a request through senator Dameek's office. He has decided to sign on to support our capital funding request, and that is for the necessary improvements to 213 In Beaver Creek Road to address the congestion in that area and open up for further housing development and economic development along that corridor. So that has been sponsored by by senator Meek.

We have already had conversations with his office, to discuss how we can best advocate, for the the support of of that proposal and that request. And that will be, considered at the end of the session. And so at this point, I have gotten quite a bit of additional feedback from you all based off of tonight's discussion along with the the basic advocacy points that were identified in the city commission goals. So unless there are any other salient points that you would like us to take back, we will participate in the process, continue to review these bills, work with our city attorney's office to make sure that we have appropriate comments and feedback, and do any appropriate testimony as possible.

So is there anything that you would ask of us such as, you know, signing something, signing a letter saying we support this or don't support this or advocating for the 213 Redland Road thing or saying, yes, we support the

TLT change or So we'll have to pay attention to the bill regarding the transportation changes. And at that point, it would be helpful to have potential letters or or testimony as appropriate. I think there will be an opportunity for one public comment period regarding the capital funding request. So having either our city manager or or a representative from the city commission participate in that process to to speak on that. It is a a quick hit.

We have two minutes basically to be able to provide comment on it, but being in person is very valuable. And then the the housing bills seem to have been the the big point of conversation. And so I think as particularly the housing omnibus bill goes through, we'll pay attention to opportunities for public comments beyond just letter writing if we feel that it gets to attention point, think.

As you know, when you ask about this, is there something that the commission can do related to the the the the funding request that Kelly just talked about for 02/13 in Beaver Creek? We did send it over to Clackamas County. You know, a significant number of these trips are county trips.

Yeah.

So it'd be wonderful if the Clackamas County Commissioners could hear from the city commissioners asking for their support at the legislature for that funding. This is their road intersecting a state

They seem to not recognize that.

I understand.

Well, maybe we can check into when they have a public comment portion of their meeting. We could come in and say something about that. K. As they say, giddy up. It's a lot to be thinking about, a lot to to digest.

Did you want to revisit

Yes. Briefly.

The discussion about the comments related to closing Main Street? Yes. Just so if the commissioner is aware, you're actually gonna receive the work session packet tomorrow for next week. In that, when we identify upcoming agenda items for work session topics, the March 10 work session included update from Portland General Electric City Seal special event permitting and a Thimble Creek update. So we were planning to bring that at the March work session for the commission to discuss.

The last conversation was around, you know, timing and notification as well as potential impact, but then also looking at other certain things that we could do. What you heard tonight adds a little bit more to that, but we just wanted you to know that's where it fits and where we're sliding

things in at this point. Gonna ask. I mean, I I think that the points that were made earlier in the year, we understand. We get it. I think we're probably all in support of our process being beefed up so that that there is more to this.

I mean, I've I've already been made aware that somebody wants to have an event at the April. And I strongly suggested to this person that they, not only talk to the city, but they also talk to the downtown Oregon City Association, and that they talk to their adjacent business owners or property owners, whoever is around them. And, I think they heard, but I'm not sure whether they've taken any action on that. But again, I think the points are well taken. I I don't wanna be involved in the process.

I think that if we're involved, it's some sort of an appeal rather than us making that decision because we have standards. But, again, it could be beefed up. We all I think we all are in agreement that they can be beefed that it can be beefed up. It needs to be a little more robust, not not onerous, but have some some standards more standards. So so that's coming up, so we we know that.

It's on the March 10? Yes. Correct. Okay. The discussion has to go beyond notification.

Oh, I agree.

Okay.

Don't you agree? I absolutely. That's why I said it. Everything needs to be more robust, and we need to give direction about what that robustness is.

And I disagree that this commission or future commission would not be involved because well,

a it's a discussion for that

Let's wait that. Later night. But notification doesn't solve the problem for downtown businesses that are negatively impacted by these events. It has to go beyond notification. There has to be some to quote our friend, Frank O'Donnell, who benefits and who pays?

Exactly. How many businesses are gonna be helped by that particular special event and how many are gonna be harmed? Because our downtown businesses, we know they're facing challenges, and they're they're working on thin profit margins. And if you lose a day, that could flip you from a profitable month to a loss. So it needs to be a bigger discussion than just than just, the notification part.

I agree. I don't think anybody disagrees, but there there's a look there's other factors.

So Okay. And I guess I misunderstood what you said.

I said it needs to be more robust. I said it's beyond it's not just notice. It needs to be more robust about what we are going to be looking at. Not I say we, the city. You know? It's not just whether, yeah, you have this, you have this, and you're checking a box. It's again, there are many more impacts that than just that streak. It's sort of a radiating thing. We have to there are other factors involved as well. So I agree with you. We're all we're on the same page. So that's coming up.

Commissioner Smith had a question. I think Commissioner Smith had

a Yes, sir. So

the placeholder for the meeting with the special event topic, Was that specific to road street closures, or was that just special events in general? Because though there's multiple conversations that have to happen under special events, and no matter what, that will be a huge conversation. So I if we're expecting that this is a street I mean, it's gonna be more than a a meeting if it's if it's special events and street closures, and there's a lot there. So that's my question. I I assume that placeholder was for special events in general.

That's how it started. Yes.

And and I think to say we can't continue afford to be added.

No. It's It's

part of a bigger thing.

Special events. Don't you think that street closures are are nested within the special events?

Absolutely. Okay. But that topic was not why it was on the agenda. No. You're I agree. So that's all I'm saying. The other thing is because to me, if there is the special event application process, that's one topic. How the departments interact between that special permit, that's another topic. Street closures is another topic. Park usage and pub you know, street, that's, you know, that's all another thing.

There's a lot more minutes. And one other piece to it that I think if we're talking about just specifics when we start talking about specific street closures, there are things that I think we need to also be aware of in that conversation that go outside of special events. We label things with these words, but that I don't think includes filming. So we have a whole we have some guidelines for film processes and closing the street. Now we have not had a lot of film productions happening in Oregon, but there's been some summers in recent past.

We've had two or three film productions happening in town where they've closed public streets. So that conversation also has to be part of the street closure thing. And then the question is, do we treat Main Street as any other street in the city? And that's part of why I think this came up. So it's a huge, huge conversation, and we may need to break it into categories. I don't know.

No. I I think everything you brought up is relevant. It's all kinda nested Yep. Within that. It's a matter of how we break it out. You've given a list. That'll be hopefully, Jacob can pull that out, and we can have that as a starting point.

What list are you talking about?

Because he just ran down a list of things that he feels Oh. Didn't you just hear him? Heard that. Yeah. That's his list. I thought you were referring to some list No. I said I said Rocky's list that he just gave. These points are things that he thinks need be.

List may not be the title. I mean, I'm sure there's

other things you're not thinking of. I know. But Yeah. It's a big I agree. It's a big list, but you listed out some things that we wanna make sure we don't forget that we're brought up. So that's that's it. Can we do the annual compensation financial report and then take a quick break and then have the interview? Is it gonna take as long as the last one? The Annual compensation financial report.

Sure. This is the same thing where

Right.

We talk about urban renewal.

Right. He's coming up.

We could do this real quick.

Yes. That's what I said.

Essentially, did our annual review for the city as a whole and came back unmodified or clean. Because we have a federal loan through the WIFIA loan project, We have to do a a single audit on the federal funding. There was one finding related to three instances where we missed the calendar requirement in in the agreement. So the first one was we submitted on July 31. We thought it was based on July, and it was actually thirty days.

So we should have submitted it on July 30 rather than the thirty first. And then the other two are a misunderstanding of the update needs to needed to happen within six months, which which we missed by going into January. So it there were no discrepancies related to the actual numbers accounting. It was it was a finding related to noncompliance with submitting within the timeline identified in the agreement related to the WIFI alone. We've made corrections.

Matt and his team have made corrections. We will say that when we do the single audit next year for the WIFI alone, we will get one finding, really, because we submitted it again in January like we did the year before because we were interpreting it the same way. So we will get one finding. But moving forward, I expect that we meet the meet the timelines as identified and consistent with the findings in the audit. I know if I miss anything. Wanna add?

Jacob, do have my PowerPoint fifty fifty slides?

No. Thought it was 75 slides slide deck. That was a 75 slide deck.

John I talked to John Lewis today and he's he's suggested I go You

cut it back to 50?

Yeah. Tony Tony did a nice job summarizing it. These in reality, the city continues to get the, the clean audit, basically. And we also one thing that wasn't mentioned is that we continue to submit for the Government Finance Officers Association award award for excellence. And so that we anticipate getting that. We got that last year. We'll continue to get it. Then we've gotten it for, like, thirteen years in a row or at least before I came. Let's put it that way. Many years.

Yeah. So, anyways, happy to entertain any questions. I do there was not a test either, but the full financial statements and and a letter to the board from the auditors was also included here. So I'll transfer it for you to look at.

Please ask any questions.

Thank you. Is this the first year that we've been required to do the single audit report for the WIFIA?

For the WIFIA, yes. I we started we had approved for the loan, but, you know, a few years back. But the way that we structured our spending on these projects was essentially spend as much of the city money first so that we wouldn't be incurring interest on debt until we absolutely had to. And so we did a small drawdown of $1,500,000 this last in the fiscal year that's been reported. We'll probably do another $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 in the current fiscal year.

But related to the WIFI loan, yes, this was the first single audit. It's really a combination of all federal funds spent within a year that are greater than $750,000. So we absent the WIFIA, we would not have had to have a single audit. There are other years that we've had single audits like when the ice storm happened or we get some Mhmm. FEMA money, etcetera. So Right.

Yeah. And are there any penalties on our end for the slip ups?

No. Okay. Yeah. The the auditors actually I mean, they called it a finding. The information in the in the statements is really what's critical. And even the EPA itself didn't bat an eye on on that. I'm glad that the auditors have to find it. They have to report it according to a different part of the federal regulations, but the actual implication is is nil. Okay.

Thank you. Yeah. Yeah.

So is it so what I read was it's mainly was addressing the WIFIA project as opposed to everything else that we are doing?

Correct. Yes. We had essentially two audits. Had we had the audit for the city, came back clean. Yes. Then we had to do the single audit strictly around the federal funding associated with WIFIA.

Well, I will tell you that we, you know, we've been posting very nicely about what's going on with the water project. And so there was one where when it posted, I looked at it and it said, WIFIA moving along in Malala, but it didn't say Malala Avenue. And I looked at and I said, city of Malala got a WIFIA grant? I said, when did that anyway. And then I read the rest of the the article, and it went on to say Malala it never said Malala Avenue in the headline. And so I was like, okay. But, you know, just at a quick glance, and I thought, how did they manage that? But, anyway, it wasn't that. Anyway, thank you. It looks like we don't have any questions, and we don't need to do anything other than hear the information. Correct?

Correct.

Okay. Alright. So why don't we take a, break and come back at a few minutes before nine or sooner? So just depends on how line is for the restroom, etcetera. Reopen the meeting of the city commission for 02/04/2026.

And we are moving on to, our additional item that we have on our agenda tonight besides communications. It was determined, that we would conduct an interview for the vacant planning commission position. And, we have one applicant who is in the audience tonight. I will say for the record that I serve with the applicant on a board, and we have worked on a number of projects together. It's, it's not an ex parte contact, but just wanna make that very clear.

So, do we wanna handle this in the same way we generally handle it? It's all good? Okay. Alright. So we will go through there.

Probably because this is an unusual situation, we may have some additional questions that we probably haven't asked the other people because it's circumstantial. So, mister Henderson, would you like to come up? So I'll probably modify this a a little bit because there really isn't a you live in a different neighborhood that's not in our neighborhoods, but anyway. So, would you please introduce yourself and explain why you would like to serve on the planning commission, and what are the opportunities and issues that you see facing? I'm gonna use the city of Oregon City.

Yeah. Good evening, mayor, commissioners. Thank you very much for making the time this evening for this interview. My name is Seth Walker Henderson, and I detailed hopefully, you felt that the application response was complete. I spent a significant amount of time on it.

In regards to why do I wanna serve on the planning commission. So after watching the last round of interviews, thinking about I'm preaching to the choir here, but we all have a finite amount of time that we can dedicate to things that we feel passionate about. And so it's assessing your knowledge base, your skill set, and thinking about where can I make the greatest positive difference? And the planning commission aligns well with my experience and knowledge base. And I I know it's a response that the mayor doesn't appreciate, but I actually do want to contribute and give back and serve.

And I believe it's a Excuse me? There there have been times and events where you say the that general statement, there needs to be more to it than just doing a civic duty. And so that's that's a component of why I wanna serve, but it's much more than that.

Well, the comment we usually get is I wanna serve. Got it.

Got it.

And we have all agreed that that's there needs to be Too ambiguous. Yes. Thank you.

Yep. In regards to, what opportunities or issues are facing Oregon City, and I I actually believe the question relates not only to Oregon City, but also to the neighborhood I live as the question stated, as well as every city currently in Oregon. We just saw all the bills that are being proposed, and the previous housing bill has just gone into effect, and already there are additional modifications being made before we even know the ramifications of what previously was approved. So the the challenge is really, Oregon is exceptional at coming up with great ideas. Inclusionary zoning, pre k for all.

There there's a whole list of them. Right? Decriminalizing drugs. And in every occurrence, they say, here's a good idea, and completely mess up the execution. And so this is a situation where everybody agrees we don't have enough housing, but taking a blanket solution and applying it across the board in any situation is inefficient.

It's ineffective, and you end up having the cities and counties and the state fighting one another when, again, we're all trying to get to the same thing, is additional housing production. So I I I would say the challenge is how does each unique area keep that identity and uniqueness while abiding by Oregon statute.

Alright. Next question is what is of the planning commission?

So I I can probably start off responding to that first that any of the committee boards or commissions that are advisory boards, I see them as they're supposed to be taking work off off the desk of the individual sitting at the dais right now, the city commission. So the the primary goal is to address land use issues and matters so that they never end up on your plate. That that is what I see the primary is. I think I again, the challenge right now for the planning commission is how to appropriately incorporate what the state is pushing down while while keeping the unique identity of Oregon City.

What are your thoughts on balancing livability, housing costs, and state and local code requirements?

So so if you kind of put that in a hierarchy, you've got state code pushing down on local code, which impacts livability of which the housing costs are a component of livability. And so I do believe in supply and demand, so you do need to produce additional housing. So the question is, where do you build that? And the comp plan actually says, this is where we want density. And so it is balancing affordability for your constituents while looking at all the effort you put into the comp plan, which should be educated by the zoning code, and how do you use those two together to maintain the livability of a city while making it more affordable.

And it is not a one size fits all. It is not a single solution for everyone. But in in my experience, if you're focusing on housing costs, need to produce more diversified housing at in the right places.

Thank you.

So what relevant experiences, skills, abilities, have prepared you for a planning commission role?

So William mocked my resume when I walked in. So, hopefully, you guys actually had the time to read all whatever six pages it is that gets kicked out of LinkedIn. But in terms of experiences, skills, and abilities, what I my background, I have a BS in civil engineering, which I then pivoted to general contracting, so understanding construction, then construction manager, then owner's rep, then national developer, then local developer, then my own development firm. So I've spent a lot of time before design review commissions, boards, historic review boards, working with planners, working with city staff, working with architects and engineers to understand the codes across different cities. I've worked in Washington, Oregon, and California.

I think about 12 municipalities within those three states. So I have seen how different cities address different elements of their codes and how to in my experience, 90 to 95% of land use matters, you defer to the staff. So the staff is the expert. They have a background in planning. They've spent years understanding the code, in some cases actually writing the code that you're assessing.

And so your job as a commissioner is to ask the right questions of staff as well as the applicant to make sure that all of your questions are answered and that the the code is being applied in a black and white manner so that ultimately a bunch of appeals don't end up on the city commission's plate.

Absolutely. Follow-up to that one, and it's a question that I have had to ask myself. So you have been on, as I like to say, on one side of the counter in your role as, in the development world, and this role is not that. So would you like could you address, that from the standpoint of the policy? And how would you look at that using your experience, but yet you've gotta kinda put that over here?

And like I said, I've asked that question to myself because I've been on that side as well, and it's a different role. Understood. Yeah. Great question. Obviously, we're looking for clear and objective standards.

So whether you were applying the code from this side or from that side, if the code is written well, if it is supportive of the comp plan, then which side you're sitting on really shouldn't make a difference. So I am working with a planner. Right? So if I'm working with Christina, it's Christina, how do we best abide by this code? And on that side, the question is, has the applicant abide by this code or not?

And a very well written code, a clear and objective code, it it should not make a difference which side you're on. It's one presenting and one assessing, but it should be the same code and the assessment or reading of that code.

Yeah. So when you said when I'm talking about different sides, I don't mean taking sides. I meant just.

No. No. Understood. Are you the applicant, or are you reviewing the application?

Well, it's policy versus actual. So Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Did that accurately Yes. Respond? Yeah. Okay.

Types of decisions does the planning commission get involved in?

So table seventeen fifty o three o does a great breakout. The way, like, when people ask me, the way I typically describe them is type one is over the counter. So not all of them are over the counter, but it means that there's not a lot of assessment involved. Type two is staff. Type three, that's when the planning commission is involved. And then type four is the quasi judicial, which is you. There's actually a fifth one, which is the expedited land division. And, yeah, I was doing some research on exactly how that applies because I haven't had a lot of experience with that specific decision type.

Sorry. Oftentimes, public comments are opposed to development projects. How would you take public comment into account in making your decisions?

So so this is a really tough one because everybody wants to be heard. Everybody wants the opportunity to feel like their input is being listened to. And, ultimately, if the planning commission is not listening to everybody who has an opinion, it's probably gonna end up in front of you guys in one way or another, whether it's an email, whether it's an appeal. I mean, depending on how much cities are handicapped by the state, normally, it would be elevated to your level. So but the truth is, a planning commissioner is reviewing code.

They're reviewing the findings of the staff, and that is what they should be assessing. So they can listen to, hey. I'm concerned about the traffic generation from this particular project. But if a TIA has been done and the proper mitigation has been done, then it's the job of the planning commission to listen and understand the concerns. But those concerns cannot apply to a clear and objective standard.

Thank you.

So the planning commission generally is meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of each month at 7PM. That would be a requirement that, attend all and any and work sessions and whatever else is going on plus training. And you're able to do that? I am. I did look at a kind

of an annual calendar, and the March every year falls within spring break for all the schools in Oregon. So I have probably two more spring breaks with my family, and then they're off every direction. So I would I would hope that I would have the ability to participate remotely for that, assuming that there is a planning Commission. Meeting on that one date. But otherwise, I have no other conflicts on Mondays.

K. So before I get to number eight, I will give the commission the opportunity to ask any other questions that they may have. So probably have one for our staff just quickly because I didn't have a chance to finish researching this, but I know that one of the things that we have been, the commit I say we when I talk I'm talking generally the commission, that we wanna make sure that, we have a broad representation, and we have no more than two people from any sort of industry. So this is this person does not have that conflict. We would have somebody already in the development business on the planning commission, economic development, local government, and I forgot what Trace does, unfortunately.

I have looked up his resume before I left, but I did not get a chance to bring it with me, so I forgot what he does. And Greg is in the lifesaving business of a paramedic. So who am I who am I missing? 245. Should be one more. Who who's Victoria. Yeah. I got her. She's in economic development. Victoria Carla Brandon. Sorry. Yeah. And, yeah, she's not she does, she's just a a generalist. So okay. It's all good.

So I so it's not a zinger, but one of the things that you and I have talked about is that given your extensive involvement, we have a member on the Planning Commission that already serves on a board that you and I serve on. And so how would you balance all that? Are you going to lessen your involvement in some of these things so that you can I mean, not that the Planning Commission has an overwhelming load, but, it is it's pretty, you know, technical, and and you're able to read that?

Yeah. So so first of all, I don't sleep, if you haven't figured that out yet. Yeah. And I am all about diving in to the details. I love that. I'm passionate about that. This is this is an opportunity I'm really excited about and being able to contribute. I I don't have any concerns in regards to my ability to contribute, and that means showing up prepared and actually being involved in the discussion. You you've served with me. I I I think you understand that I am one to speak up and provide an opinion.

And at the same time, you know, I I put in my application, but I run project teams of hundreds of people. And I I need to learn to how to work with productively every type of person. And that's something that I'd like to think that I've honed a skill at. I I the reason I didn't go into civil engineering, I didn't want to sit in the office all day. Not not anything against civil engineers, but I did not wanna sit in an office all I

had to sit in engineer, so we take no offense.

Yes. And just do calculations. I enjoy interacting with people. And I also have an agreement with my partner that every time I take on additional commitment, I have to let one go. So I've been on the Construction Management Association of America's board for twelve years now. And as of June, I will, be stepping down. So

So ex parte. You're definitely gonna have people come up to you and ask you your opinion, which they do to us, and I I have to tell them, I'm sorry. I can't discuss that with you.

Yes. I will have no problem whatsoever saying that.

You have a question? Are you with me?

Am I what? Are you with me? Am I with

you? Yeah. It just looked like you were just zoning out there for a quick second. No.

I I was just confused by the question. Yeah.

No. Any questions? Nope. Mitchell? There's still the last Yes. Well, the very last one is, what questions do you have for us?

Yes. I I wanna be sensitive to your time, but I I've got two We're

not past the boo itching hour yet.

Okay. I I've I've got two general questions and two specific questions.

That's great. And we will do our best to each one of us to answer.

Perfect. The first one is is general question. In your opinion, what makes a planning commissioner a beneficial contributor to that body? Especially for those of you that have actually served on the planning commission, you know, what did you appreciate from the other members up there?

What did we appreciate from the other members? I mean, obviously, it's gonna be us two answering that question.

Well, for me, it was it was somebody who had done the work and done the research and was willing to speak up, regardless of maybe the way the direction of the conversation seem to be going with the other commissioners. If if somebody had a different opinion, having them speak up, that was important to me. So we yeah. Being prepared and and speaking up to me, that was that made a good commissioner.

I would probably have to second that. I was very fortunate to serve on the planning commission with some extremely dedicated people who were genuinely interested, and we had a fairly heavy workload at the time. I mean, it was we met regularly. Sometimes we had we met a third time during the month. We were doing all sorts of reviews.

It's always very apparent to me when, when I was on the planning commission if somebody had not read the material, and there was a lot to read. There's a lot to comprehend. I think what I most appreciated was, before a meeting, if I had substantive questions, I would was able to contact staff and ask them, I read this. Am I seeing this this way, or here's my opinion about that? They would definitely and I would say, well, can we discuss that at the meeting?

Because if I'm thinking about it, maybe somebody else thinking about it in the public realm so they would see that on the hearing. I frequently will ask a question even though I know the answer. But I because I think it's in the public interest that they know that information, I will ask the question on the record, but I always let staff know that I'm going to ask that question. I don't, having been staff, I don't particularly like being blindsided, on some big issue. I mean, sometimes there's something what I think of on the fly, and I go and I say, hey.

I need to ask this question. So I think being prepared, understanding the big picture because planning commission is pretty much all about policy in the bigger picture. I can't say that we had a lot of appeals. The standards were different, when I was serving, so we didn't have some of the things that we have now. You also didn't have all those things either.

So looking for when there was a dispute, as you heard, I I strongly believe in goal one. I served on a state advisory committee for eight years that focused strictly on goal one. I believe that people have the opportunity to be heard, but my mantra is you have the opportunity to be heard, but it doesn't mean you get what you want. And that is very hard for sometimes when you tell somebody at a hearing, here's the criteria. You need to address the criteria.

We know you hate it. We know you don't like it. You know you know, you're this is that, and but that is not what we make our decision on. And and helping the public understand the decision making matrix of how you go down and look at it is critical as well. They don't always understand nor do they agree. But I think that we have done, as a planning commission over the years, a good job of trying to explain that, particularly when people are passionate and heated and they tell them, we don't want this, you know, the whole NIMBY thing. And we say, well, this has been planned and zoned for twenty years. We now have the infrastructure to build this. This was coming. Everybody knew this was coming.

Maybe you didn't wanna recognize it was coming, but it was it's there. So I would say yes.

Appreciate that input. Another general question. What can the current planning commission do better, if anything, to support the city commission?

I would say ask questions. I've watched some of the planning commissions meetings and when not everybody I mean, I'm not even an expert. I mean, even though that's been my profession, my field, there's always something new to learn. I get concerned sometimes when I watch their meetings and nobody's asking anything. And I'm thinking, do they all just get it? And stuff they've been dealing with is complicated. I don't even get it. So I think that's something that they could ask more questions.

Is that of staff, the applicant, each other, all? Uh-huh. Be engaged.

Yes. I think the engagement is is paramount.

I don't have anything really additional to that. I mean, you spoke to a lot of the things that I think are important in understanding, how to take public input that might not be following the criteria that you have to do. So I think you spoke to a lot of other things that are very important.

Yeah. I'll mirror what Rocky said. I think just making sure balancing taking public input, listening, and recognizing what we can control and what we can't control.

Which is less and less. Unfortunately.

Unfortunately. Right. Yeah. Yep.

Got two more specific ones that

I can Oh, don't have anything to ask.

I've got two more questions. So this is actually something that I I found interesting. I read through two twenty four, chapter two twenty four, which is all about the plan commission. Two twenty four zero nine o, there are 11 powers and duties stated stated there.

Five of

them are related to industrial. I don't know how many discussions I've seen of the planning commission that really dived into industrial. Is that something left over from the history of Oregon City? Is that something you hope rules and duties of the planning commission relates to industrial sites and

industrial industrial focus? Focus. Do You you wanna wanna talk a little bit about

Yeah. People create a little bit. I mean, I would say part of it is probably because of the history, you know, with the mill and and the working history of the town. But then I think it also the point that you make about that is one of our things in the city that we are now desperately lacking and and probably does need to be a concern to think about. You know? So I think both of what you mentioned right on the dot. Yeah.

I it I think it it's an artifact from a different time. But, you know, it it would be great if we could get to a situation where the planning commission had had work to do in that area

Yeah.

Promoting industrial. Because it I mean, residential development doesn't pay for itself in terms of infrastructure and and commercial industrial does. So I mean, we need we need more than that. We we we we can't afford to be a bedroom community and maintain a level of services. So, I mean, hopefully, we get to a spot where the planning commission has work to do in that area.

Well, when the, industrial zones were created some years ago, we were still working on filling out the Red Soils Complex, which was a big step forward for the city when we purchased the land from the county to do our own development because we were kind of tired of waiting on the county to do it. They sorta did it, but, you know, they had other fish to fry. And so when we were able to purchase the property from them, there was a real push to get it subdivided, get get the road, get all of that. And then when we did the expanded Beaver Creek Road improvements to fix that intersection, that really opened up the area even more so. So that was one task that the planning commission had worked on, and then it went up the, you know, the food chain to the city commission and so forth and back and forth.

I think the we have had less success with the area along, Beaver Creek and what's happening out there. And I think that the you know, probably no surprise, but the apartment complex that came in across from the high school was completely mind blowing to me because I knew what it was zoned. And I said, wait a minute. How come that is there? That was not that way.

But I think having further discussions about how we can move, forward with discussions with the college, discussions, involving all of that land, and I think we have, you know, we've been waiting a very long time for people to do something, and we know they're not doing something. So I think we need to do it, along along that corridor because that's that's where we have planned and zoned for future development. And we're not talking about warehouses or or server farms or stuff like that. We're talking about a place where, we can, provide jobs. I mean, you know, the best of all possible worlds, it would be great if we could take half the workforce at Rivermark and have them live here so they're not commuting.

But, again, and it's that whole affordable housing component. If they already have a house and with mortgage rates and everything else, are they gonna make that move? But then maybe the offset savings is that they're not commuting on 02/13 or 02/17 or '26 to get some you know, to get to here. So

One one last one. And this is pointed probably the most pointed of the four questions. I'm all about lessons learned and trying to figure out better ways to do things. And so this question is about ICON's development in Park Place. And I'm curious if the planning commission could have done something differently or what what were the lessons learned from that entire process?

Can we even have a discussion about can we answer that question? I'm a little concerned. What is your advice?

I mean, it's it's a discussion about a previous decision that's that's adjudicated and over. You know, obviously, ICON is still a developer in our community. I mean, I hope you would focus on the process, not not the applicant or the product. I didn't wanna talk about them. Or you can just decline.

Just need a little clarification. I've got it. I didn't know whether we were still Well, I I still debating something with them or

an agreement with them. They they just came forward with another 200 and some house In that proposal in that area. So I'm a little even more leery to get

into I I thought the issue was resolved. If it's not resolved, I withdraw that question. I

The original one is resolved. Is dead and gone.

But there's compounding factors that Mike has talked about.

I I think this is safe to say. I think where where, that one became really difficult Was it was happening almost at the same time that clear and objective standards were becoming the law of the land. And the difficulty that the planning commission had was how do we honor the ideals of the Park Place concept plan when they were not clear in objective standards. So I don't know that it's lesson learned, but it it appears that it's less enforced on us that it's that the idea of having a concept plan with any kind of lofty, nonobjective ideals is is out the window. I think I think I think part

of it I think if I if I may was that Sure. How we've historically addressed addressed development from this large idea and then funneled it down to a more narrow one that that had been done for a long, long time in the state of Oregon is acceptable all of a sudden disappeared. Right. Right? And so we were caught a little bit without those we had we had the concepts and the concept plan with the lofty goals and the policies that would have then been implemented through a master plan that was required where it would have been more refined and and tailored.

And that step all of a sudden by the state was like, uh-uh. You can't do that. Right? So we kinda lost this ability to implement what the community had spent years on trying to identify what they'd like to see. And so I think that was a struggle for everybody to try to figure out how do we how do we stay true to what the process was in this new regulatory environment that that was brand new to everybody and all of our past norms that got kinda thrown out the window.

Are there any other concept plans currently that need to

be taken to clear an objective to avoid this? South End concept Okay. Yeah.

I think Park Place had the most

Had it had the most

Kinda changes.

Change. Yeah. And the standards.

I Yeah.

Yeah. I still think that that process is valid, that the community should be able to talk about and promulgate concepts concepts and and goals goals that they want for the place that they live in. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think that on its face, the master plan process should work. If you have somebody who is, you know, willing to work with you on that, we have had they have been successful here in the past, and we have gotten a good product.

We've gotten a compromise. It wasn't all one side or the other. I think you have on that particular concept plan, I think you have to go back, back, back, back to all of the failed annexation attempts because I think inherently the community knew that the property wasn't ready, that there were things about it because, as you know, where we are now in our region, the most difficult pieces of property are now being looked at. And some of them should never be developed because they just they've got yeah. There you go.

That other issues, you know, you got the slopes, you got streams, you got groundwater, you got I mean, you've got all the things. And I and I think regardless of what anybody will say, you can't engineer everything. If mother nature wants to do something, it is going to happen, and it doesn't matter how much we do, to make to try to mitigate that. It's we've setting ourselves up for failure. So I think the the the lesson learned to me was I feel that the process and the state let our community down.

People invested a lot in that process, and the city invested a lot in the process, and we were all committed to making that work. I I think inherently the plan is good. I think that where we as Tony said, where we got short circuited is that we were at the at the point where we were coming down to, okay. We've got these. How do we make this how do we match these two things up?

We never got a chance to do that. And I think that if we had been able to do that, I think that we would have come up with something that would have been absolutely fantastic. I really strongly believe that. I don't think we're gonna get all of that now. And there's a lot of resentment out there, particularly from that particular neighborhood. Not directed at us directly. They know generally most for the most part what happened. But it's how do, you know, how do we reconcile that? And I don't have an answer for that. We kept getting telly told, no.

We can't do that. We can't do that. We can't do and I'm not one. We had an applicant I mean, a a petitioner say, well, you can't just blame everything on the state. You know, the buck stops here. Well, how do we say politely, we don't have any authority to do this? I mean, sure, we could try to do it, then we'd get sued within an inch of our lives. And I don't think that's being fiscally responsible.

Thank you for taking my questions. That's all the questions I have this evening, and I appreciate your time in considering my application.

K. Thank you. Go right ahead. Yeah. So thank you, mayor. I'd be happy to kick off deliberations.

Sorry. I can't tell if I'm getting ready to sneeze or cough.

So, anyway, like several of us up here, I've had the great pleasure of working with Seth on a variety of projects. The the one that I'm most proud of is, having worked with him to lobby our federal delegation for infrastructure dollars, the for the federal earmark or what they call congressionally designated spending now. We don't use the term earmark anymore. But working with Seth and his team to lobby our federal delegation for those dollars, it was when he was working toward the Rossman Landfill project, and that was a a very coordinated activity. I I believe that it's it's something that we haven't received in a while.

Attention from our federal delegation, from our state delegation on these critical infrastructure points. And the the fact that he stayed around after the urban renewal election occurred and it failed massively, I was expecting to never see him again. And I I think many people probably felt the same way, and I wouldn't have blamed him. But the fact that he actually got more involved after that, I think, is a testament to his passion for this community. And I the only reason why I felt like we needed to have an interview tonight, or I guess there were two.

I I do believe in our public process, and this is what we do. But, I also felt the need to give him the opportunity, because I know that in this community and communities elsewhere that developers are often seen as the enemies or the the boogeyman of the community. And I think that he did a very good job of explaining what his role would be as a planning commissioner separate from his private role as a developer. And he said it he he hit the nail right on the head, which is that if the the codes are written clearly and objectively, then it shouldn't matter what your professional background is. And so I would enthusiastically support him being on the planning commission.

I think he's demonstrated his passion and dedication to our community, and, clearly, he is knowledgeable about the work that he would be taking up in this role. I think that he struggles from having been in the unfortunate position of being the only applicant for certain things. I think of this, and I also think of the courthouse. And I in both cases, he did a very good job applying for those, different openings. And in both cases, he was faulted for being the only person even though that wasn't his fault.

And even if he wasn't the only person in either of those cases, I have a strong feeling that he would have still been the most qualified person for either of those. So I would be excited to have his perspective on the planning commission and would welcome his further engagement in our community.

Go ahead, Michael.

Yeah. I support support his appointment as well. Obviously, he's well qualified. I think the two things that maybe I'm the most excited about with his particular background and skills is our planning commission is gonna be having to do a lot of detailed detailed work on it, on what do we need to do to comply with the ever shifting sands of the state requirements and how we can make that work for the city of Oregon City. And I and I think he's got the skill set to do that.

But I'm maybe even more excited about the fact that he has dealt with codes and planning commissions in a bunch of different locations because I think I've referred to our planning commission or or, excuse me, our code before as it it's this balloon, and we've been sticking Band Aids on it as the leaks in the balloon pop up. But

is that

the best way to be doing it? Are there other communities that have codes that serve them better, that work more easily from both sides of the table? And I think he can bring that perspective to our planning commission, and I'm very much supportive.

Pardon me. I would also support his appointment a a year into this. I I haven't done a ton of interview, interviews with, candidates for, you know, various commissions and appointments. I will say though that of the ones that I have done, I think that the interview tonight was the most comprehensive, informed, informational, and prepared that I've seen a candidate. So, again, would very much, support. I

would as well. The I was trying to remember the last time. We we haven't had very many candidates that are in that top tier that understand all the things that we are asking and and the questions that we have. So I I think that Brandon

Dole and Paul Espey. What? Brandon Dole and Paul Espey. We interviewed them.

Say one person. I said in the top tier.

That Oh, top tier. Okay.

I I mean, at least I think that's what I said. Is that what

I said?

Close to it. K. Me just say that the majority of people we interview are not at this level of understanding and answering the questions that we had from our applicant tonight. So I appreciate that. I do think this is a candidate we should, you know, appoint.

I also appreciate the fact that I don't remember the last time we ever really had many people ask a question back, let alone two or three or four. We rarely have the questions back, and and so I I think that, was telling as well to have more of a dialogue. The only thing I really have a concern of is we should have posted this and had the interview at the next meeting and appointed him at that meeting. I didn't do this. So I support the the the applicant.

I would basically ask the commission to withhold the actual appointment till the next meeting so that there is a record of this meeting people could watch, and then we make the appointment on the next day. I'll support it if we do that. If we don't do that and we do the met thing tonight, I think I'll abstain because I I think we should have that time so people see it and make the appointment at the next meeting. But I'm open to whatever. My abstention is not gonna hold it or

Do you wanna make a motion to that effect?

No. I we we need to hear everybody, and you you should speak to I'm whatever you feel as

okay with your your motion. I wanted us to interview, but do it next Well, I'll let

the majority of the commission make make the motion because I don't think so now we'll see where that goes.

Well, if you feel strongly better, make a motion.

Well, I I have a quick question first because as I read the agenda and it says planning commission, application review, and potential appointment, I don't see It doesn't say interview. We usually post that we

have interviews. This is the missing element there. So I agree. You're right. But we usually post we're having interviews on these nights, and therefore, people could still watch the interviews. We made it. We can make the appointment then next meeting. The the purpose of having interviews notice is so that if people wanna come and witness it or have quest you know, not that we take questions, but, you know anyway, I just think that's from the. I'm applying either way. But

I said if you want that, make a motion. That way we can vote up vote it up or down.

Right now, we have freeze that support the the the application. I said what I I felt if someone wants to make a motion, then I'll choose the way I vote because I just said, hell, I can't vote.

Well, I would support you, but I can't make a motion.

So moved. I'll second.