City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Today is Wednesday, 05/06/2026, and I'm calling to order the, regular city commission meeting. It is seven about 07:14 or so.

May we have the roll call, please, mister Wiley? Commissioner Rocky Smith? Here. Commissioner Scott Wilson?

He's on his way. Here.

Commissioner Adam Marle? Here. Commissioner Mike Mitchell? Here. And Mayor Denise McGriff?

Present. For those who are able, if you can, please rise and join me in the flag salute or join us in the flag salute, please. Kathy, why don't you start it off?

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.

Thank you. So as you've as you've noticed, we have a number of proclamations and, items on our agenda, and I'd first like to call on commissioner Morrow. He has a very special walk on proclamation that he would like to read.

Yes. Thank you, mayor. So when I was at the League of Oregon Cities conference, staff presented me with this resolution that was passed by the board of directors. And for those who are unaware, the League of Oregon Cities is an organization made up of Oregon's 241 cities, and it advocates for us at the state and federal level. And it also provides professional development trainings, all sorts of great resources for us as a local government.

And last year was their one hundredth year in operation, and so this is recognizing the City of Oregon City as one of the founding members of the League of Oregon Cities. So League of Oregon City's resolution twenty five sixteen, a resolution of the League of Oregon City's recognizing and commemorating the partnership between the sit between the City of Oregon City and the LOC as the LOC commemorates one hundred years of service and Oregon City's role in the creation of and continued support of the LOC. Whereas the League of Oregon Cities was founded in 1925 by agreement in of Albany, Astoria, Baker, Beaverton, Cottage Grove, Drain, Eugene, Forest Grove, Gold Hill, Gresham, Hillsborough, Marshfield, Milwaukee, Oregon City, Portland, Prineville, Saint Helens, Salem, Scappoose, Silverton, Toledo, Troutdale, Tualatin, Warrenton, and Yamhill. And whereas the Oregon constitution creates the right for cities to self regulate, create their own form of government via a charter, have local decision making control, and govern public health, safety, and welfare with the right to license and tax. And whereas the League of Oregon Cities is celebrating its centennial anniversary by acknowledging the involvement of its founding members while also recognizing each city's accomplishments throughout the last century.

And whereas in 1925, representatives from the above 25 Oregon cities met to consider a number of issues including a proposal for a state constitutional amendment that would guarantee to Oregon cities the full control of their own affairs and insulate their home rule powers from legislative interference. And whereas on 01/25/1925, the League of Oregon cities was formed and the 25 cities agreed to form a new organization in which each member would have one vote and would pay annual dues for the support of the organization. And whereas the League of Oregon Cities is best characterized as a governmental agency created by Oregon's cities to provide those cities with governmental services, including advocacy, professional development, necessary resources, and networking opportunities. And whereas the city of Oregon City is a strong partner of the LOC, an exemplary city within the state of Oregon and worthy of recognition and appreciation by the LOC board of directors. Now, therefore, the board of directors of the League of Oregon Cities resolves as follows.

Section one recognizes the city of Oregon City as an extraordinary city within the state of Oregon. Recognizes Oregon City was established in 1829 by the Hudson's Bay Company and was incorporated 12/24/1844, becoming the first incorporated city west of the Rocky Mountains. B, recognizes Oregon City as a home rule charter and commissioner manager form of government. C, recognizes Oregon City is located in Clackamas County, sits on the confluence of the Clackamas and Willamette Rivers and serves as the county seat. D, recognizes Oregon City is designated as an Oregon Heritage All Star Community by the Oregon Heritage Commission.

E, recognizes that Oregon City is home to a municipal elevator originally built in 1915 and rebuilt in 1954 and added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2014. Section two recognizes the city of Oregon City as an exemplary partner and supporter of the League of Oregon Cities. A recognizes the importance of the City of Oregon City being one of the League of Oregon City's founding member cities. B recognizes the following Oregon City officials who served as LOC president, city attorney Chris Schuylbull, 1928 to 1930, and city manager JL Frazen, 1940 to 1941. C recognizes that representatives of the city of Oregon City have continuously been actively engaged in LOC initiatives and programs working collaborative collaboratively with the LOC to ensure that all Oregonians live in thriving communities that are equitable, healthy, and safe.

And lastly, d, recognizes that the city of Oregon City has been and continues to be a strong and reliable partner of the LLC serving not just its own residents and businesses, but also serving the residents and businesses across Oregon as it collaborates and advocates with all localities in the best interests of all Oregonians enacted on 12/12/2025 by the LOC board of directors. And this was an organization that I had the privilege of also serving on the board of directors for, and so, we are very grateful to have this honor.

Thank you for reading that. And, commissioner Smith and I will make a few corrections. We are the first incorporated city west of the Missouri River. We were incorporated officially on 12/24/1844. We were established in 1829 by doctor John McLaughlin. He had not filed his plat just yet, but he staked a claim on behalf of himself, and our at our location at the Head Of The Falls. So we have can't blame them for making a couple of corrections. Thank you so much for that. It'll be great. We'll be hanging that up somewhere in city hall, as a charter city.

And as I like to remind people when I introduce myself, as I say, I'm Denise McGriff. I am the privilege of having being the mayor of the first incorporated city in the state of Oregon. So, I'm gonna, skip over item three a. I'm gonna wait till commissioner, Wilson gets here because I'd like him to read that. So we're gonna go directly to, item three b, which is the May 4 proclamation. And, I'd like to, call up I'm gonna read this in front of everybody. Call up wing commander Williams, and, I will also come up. We do we need a microphone? Yes. I do have one.

Purchased from a local company right here in Oregon City.

Good evening, Jedi Mayor McGriff, members of the Galactic Senate. My name is wing commander Greg Williams, and, I lead the X Wing squadron, which patrols, Sector 606 of the OC system. Recently, we received intelligence of an impending imperial imperial, incursion of the Jedi Library. We were a little worried that the imperials this year might, might finally do us in, but we sent out the call to all the inhabitants of Sub Sector 606, and I am very proud and pleased to say they heeded our call for assistance. We had between seven and eight hundred inhabitants of our sector come and rally to the defense of the Jedi Library.

We turned back the Imperial troopers, the scout troopers. They even turned back Lord Vader when he made his appearance. So I am very grateful to everybody, in the community who came out and supported the Jedi Library. I wanna give special thanks to our sector administrators, Troutman and Conkel, who also came and helped in the defense of the Jedi Library. You may not know the Jedi Library has recently become a depository for Old Republic credits.

So with the Imperial Incursion, we decided it was safe to we we it's probably a good idea to move those credits around different places so each of you has. You You are now entrusted with an old republic credit to safeguard against future incursions of imperial forces. So with that, if there are any questions about the event, I'm happy to answer them.

Are there any questions of commander Williams? He's been promoted, by the way. I'm turn this on. So Alright. I just had it tuned up at Cyber force.

Oh, and and if I may, I must also recognize some incredible assistance we had. Our lightsabers for several of our young Jedis were provided by the master saber forgers of saber forge within Sector 606. We were able to construct some droids and some starships out of the material called Lego, which you may be familiar with. That endeavor was supported by True Busy Toys and Yellow Castle Bricks, so we're very grateful to them. And I also have to thank the friends of the Jedi Library for their support in defending, the library against Imperial. So thank you to all those, participants and everybody who made our defense so memorable.

So if you're a Star Wars fan, you'll know what the purple means. Alright. So our resolution tonight is let's see if I can do this. I don't know if I can hold it at the same time and read. So where as oh, thank you. He's guarding me while he's doing it. Okay. So whereas both end spies recently alerted the Jedi library in Sector 606 about an imminent invasion by the forces of the dark side. And whereas the art the archivist? I thought it was activist.

Archivist. Archivist at the Jedi Library sent out a call for help were all luminous beings of the OC system. And whereas word of the Jedi Library's impending peril spread throughout the galaxy from the swamps of Dagobah to Mos Eisley Spaceport to the forest moon of Endor to Cloud City in Bespin. And whereas the residents of the OC system carved craved not adventure and excitement, but bravely rallied to the Jedi Library's defense, never succumbing to fear, for fear is the path of the dark side. And whereas the residents of the OC system trusted in the force to defeat the empire, for rebellions are built on hope and all is as the force wills it.

Now therefore, I, Denise McGriff, mayor of the OC System, do hereby commemorate 05/04/2026 at Star Wars Day and thank all the residents of the OC System who resisted and turned back the forces of the Empire at the Battle of the Jedi Library for our ally is the force and the powerful ally it is. And I will sign this today on the 05/06/2026. Therefore, there is no try. Thank you, commander Williams. Glad you got here in time for that.

Oh, I am too. You guys can play with

it later if you want. Alright.

Thank you. So, Commissioner Wilson, are you ready to read Mental Health Awareness Month?

I would be happy to. As a social worker and therapist, this topic is very near and dear to my heart. Whereas mental health is part of everyone's overall health and well-being and mental illnesses are prevalent in our county, state, and nation with one in five adults experiencing a mental health issue every year. And whereas stigma and the resulting discrimination is a primary obstacle to early identification and effective treatment of individuals with mental illness and their ability to recover to lead full productive lives. And whereas approximately half of chronic mental illness begins by the age of 14 and suicide is the second leading cause of death of individuals ages 10 to 14 and 25 to 34.

And whereas long delays averaging eleven years occur between the time symptoms first appear and when individuals get help, and it is therefore essential to cure the stigma and discrimination that is the primary cause for those delays. And whereas every citizen and community can make a difference in helping cure the stigma and discrimination that for too long has surrounded mental illness and discouraged people people from getting help, and whereas public education and civic engagement improves the lives of individuals and families affected by mental illness.

Now, therefore, I, Denise McGriff, mayor of the city of Oregon City, hereby proclaim May 2026 as Mental Health Awareness Month in order to increase public understanding of the importance of mental health, to promote identification and timely treatment of mental illness, and to cure the resulting stigma and discrimination, I will sign this proclamation on the May 2026. So next we have National Public Works Week Proclamation. Whereas since 1960, the May has been designated as American Public Works Association, APWA, as National Public Works Week, a nationwide public education campaign that recognizes and celebrates the tens of thousands of public works professionals who play a direct and vital role in improving the quality of life in communities across the nation. And whereas this week highlights the public works professionals including engineers, managers, administrative staff, and employees at all levels of government and in the private sector who are responsible for protecting and enhancing our nation's infrastructure by planning, building, managing, and maintaining public buildings and spaces. Emergency management systems, solid waste services, water treatment facilities, safe roadways, and rights of ways services, all of which are essential to safe, sustainable, and resilient communities, including for the people of the city of Oregon City.

And whereas this year marks the sixty sixth annual National Public Works Week and with this year's theme, rooted in service, powered by community, acknowledging that the roots of the service runs deep in public works, and it is what has propelled public works innovations that have helped our communities evolve into places where people can lead lives of purpose and possibilities. Whereas some work, like building roads and bridges, is highly visible, while other public works contributions, like maintaining water and sewer systems, are sometimes hidden from view. Together, these efforts form the foundation of thriving communities, reminding us that every project, seen or unseen, powers the connection between service and the people it supports. Whereas it is in the public interest for the residents, civic leaders, and the youth of Oregon City to gain knowledge of and maintain ongoing understanding of the importance of public works and public works programs in their respective communities. Now, therefore, I, Denise C.

McGriff, mayor of the city of Oregon City, do hereby proclaim May 2026 as National Public Works Week and urge all residents to join with representatives of the American Public Works Association and governmental agencies to honor and thank our public works employees for their professionalism, hard work, and high level of dedicated service to our community and to recognize the substantial contributions they make in protecting our national health, safety, and quality of life for all. I will sign this today on the May 6. And I want to add to those folks that help keep our communities is our South Fork Water Board staff who help maintain our fabulous drinking water.

Rocky? Next is a proclamation for Police Week and Peace Officers Memorial Day. Whereas in 1962, president John f Kennedy signed a proclamation which designated May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which that date falls as Police Week. And whereas there are approximately 800,000 law enforcement officers serving in communities across The United States, including the dedicated members of the Oregon City Police Department. And whereas since the first recorded death in 1791, more than 24,000 law enforcement officers in The United States have made the ultimate sacrifice and died or have been killed in the line of duty, including two of our own officers, officer George j Hanlon and officer Robert Libke.

And whereas the members of the Oregon City Police Department play an essential role in the safeguarding of the rights and freedoms which we have been guaranteed by the constitution to every American citizen and whereas it is important that people throughout our country know and understand the problems, duties, and responsibilities of their police departments and that members of our law enforcement agencies recognize their duty to serve the people by safeguarding life and property by protecting them against violence or disorder and protecting the innocent against deception and the weak against oppression or intimidation. And whereas the Oregon City Police Department has grown to be a modern and scientific law enforcement agency with increasingly or sorry, with which unceasingly provides a vital public service.

Now therefore I, Denise C. McGriff, mayor of the city of Oregon City, along with the city commission, hereby call upon the people of Oregon City to observe the week of May 2026, excuse me, as police week with appropriate ceremonies in which all of our people may join together in commemorating police officers, both past and present, and our puppy dogs, and who by their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities have rendered a dedicated service to their communities, and in doing so, have established for themselves an inevitable and enduring reputation for preserving the rights and security of all citizens. I further call upon the people of Oregon City to observe Friday, 05/15/2026 as peace officers Memorial Day in honor of those peace officers who, through their courageous deeds, have lost their lives or have become disabled in the performance of their duties. These officers that have been lost but will never be forgotten. This community will forever be grateful.

We ask for a moment of silence as we remember Oregon City's valuable public service servants and pray for the healing and hope for the future. I will sign this today on May 6. May we have one moment of silence, please? I just want to make note for the record for after item f three f, we have a presentation by, the executive director of NAMI. So not at the end of item F.

Next, we're commemorating so many things in May, we have a few more proclamations coming up at our next meeting as well. So it's also National Historic Preservation Month. That is celebrated every year in May. And whereas historic preservation is an effective tool for promoting building reuse, sustainability, revitalizing neighborhoods, and fostering local pride and enhancing livability, and whereas historic preservation is relevant for communities across the nation, both urban and rural, for all Americans of all ages, all walks of life, and all ethnic backgrounds, and whereas historic preservation in The United States is undergoing a significant shift moving from its traditional focus on stately historic homes towards a more inclusive approach to a wider range of cultural, social, and economic histories, and whereas as The United States marks its two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Help us celebrate the historic sites, neighborhoods, and landmarks that tell the full American story, places that remind us how far we have come and how far we still have to go. Therefore, I, Denise C.

McGriff, mayor of the city of Oregon City, do proclaim May 2026 as National Historic Preservation Month and call upon the people of Oregon City to join their fellow citizens across The United States in recognizing and participating in this special observance. And as I said before, we are number one, and we are probably one of the most historic cities in this state. So now we'll go to water safety month.

This is a proclamation for water safety month in May and International Water Safety Day, May 15. Whereas the city of Oregon City recognizes the vital role that swimming and aquatic related activities contribute to good physical and mental health and enhance the quality of life for all people, and whereas the city of Oregon City recognizes the vital importance of water as a valuable resource and acknowledges the inherent risks associated with aquatic environments, and whereas every citizen deserves the opportunity to enjoy water related activity safely, whether swimming, boating, or simply being near bodies of water. And whereas the month of May presents an opportune time to heighten awareness of water safety as warmer weather often often leads to increased recreational water activities. And whereas nationally an estimated eleven people die each day from unintentional drowning, and drowning is the second leading cause of death among children's ages one to 14, and whereas promoting responsible aquatic practices and equipping individuals with the necessary knowledge and skills can significantly reduce the incidence of drowning and other water related incidents, and whereas by fostering a culture of water safety, we reaffirm our commitment to protecting the lives and well-being of our citizens, especially our youth who are particularly vulnerable to water hazards, and whereas the city of Oregon City is dedicated to collaborating with local organizations, schools, and community members to implement effective water safety initiatives and programs.

And whereas by declaring May as water safety month, we pledged to prioritize water safety awareness and education, empowering individuals to make informed decisions and take appropriate precautions when engaging in water activities.

And, now I therefore, Denise C. McGriff, mayor of the City Of Oregon City, along with the city commission, do hereby proclaim May 2026 as water safety month and urge the residents of our community and communities across the country to join in this observance. And may I also say for the record that our pub our parks and recreate the city of Oregon City, through its Parks and Recreation Aquatic Department, basically add, let me read this statement, play an essential role in advancing water safety by providing swim lessons that build lifesaving skills, offering lifeguard supervision at aquatic facilities, and promoting safe safety messaging and outreach initiatives. And so while proclaiming this water safety month, the city affirms its commitment to fostering a culture of safety, increasing awareness of water related risks, and empowering residents with the knowledge and skills needed to enjoy aquatic environments responsibly. And I'd like to now take the pleasure of asking, Dave Hunt to come forward.

Thank you for being here, David, and thank you for helping us promote Mental Health Awareness Month.

Thank you, Will. For the record, I'm Dave Hunt. I have the privilege of not only being a resident of Gaffney Lane neighborhood, but of serving as the executive director of NAMI Clackamas. We appreciate you recognizing, Mental Health Awareness Month. Obviously, we try to focus on mental health throughout the year, but appreciate an extra focus in the in the month of May. I have just a few stats and some information about what's happening, what services are available. I should note that NAMI Clackamas has been around since 1978 and a 100% of our services are free. Everything you're gonna hear about today is is available without any cost. I think one of the challenges that we face, you may have to advance this Jacob because I'm not seeing it go. There we go.

One of the one of the challenges we face is that there's such a huge gap between when people sense that maybe they might have some kind of a mental health challenge and when they actually do something about it. If you think about breaking your arm, there's not much of a time gap between when you actually I mean, for guys, it was we probably wait a little too long, but it's days. It's not like it is with mental health where the average is eleven years between when someone suspects they may have a mental health condition and when they actually do something about it. So the more we can break the stigma because that's the number one reason. If there are a lack of therapists, that is true.

There is a lack of adequate insurance, that is true. There's a lack of slots among the therapists that are out there that take the right insurance. So there are lots of gaps in the system to be sure. But stigma is the number one reason that people don't do it. They don't wanna recognize in themselves, that they have a mental health condition and therefore they don't do anything about it.

And that just makes the situation worse. So that's why we offer all kinds of classes. We have our two most popular classes are our peer to peer class, which is taught by people with a mental health condition for other people with mental health condition and our family to family class taught by family members for other family members. Those are both eight week cohorts. Right now we have a peer to peer cohort going online and we have a family to family cohort that actually meets on Saturdays mornings in Oregon City, for the next eight weeks.

But we're always taking sign ups for the next, cohorts of those classes. We have a ton of support groups that are meeting online and in person weekly, biweekly, monthly. Some are open to all with a mental health condition or their family members. Some are focused on serving specific constituencies. But all of these are accessible to all Clackamas County residents for free.

We've made a real discernible different focus in the last two years by investing in the county jail. There's such a significant co occurrence as I'm sure the chief is aware between the criminal justice system and mental health. And so we now have three day a week mental health classes inside the county jail for adults in custody, as well as a weekly support group for men who are in the jail and starting next month, we'll have a weekly supporter for women who are in the jail. We also have volunteers in the Clackamas County Mental Health Courts every week providing resources to family members. And so that's been really well received both by the adults in custody and by law enforcement.

And so that's been a real major focus. We also now have three and we will soon have four peer support specialists who are available to meet one on one for people who cannot find a trained therapist. This is often a bridge to therapy for people, because we don't require any diagnosis or insurance or costs. And so these are staff are available to help people walk through life one on one. They're not trained therapists, but they are trained peer support specialists.

And we also have lots of presentations. I'd say to all residents of Oregon City, if you're part of a neighborhood or a club or a faith community or whatever the group may be, we'd be happy to come out and make a presentation not just in May but anytime throughout the year about mental health and resources that are available. I'd like to say wherever there are five or more gathered, we were happy to come out. My pastor gives me a hard time. He thinks that should be where two or more gathered.

But, but last year, I think we did 75 presentations across the the community. So, we are very much focused on that education focus. Again, everything's a 100% free. And that happens because we have fundraising events like the ones you see on the screen. Our our next two coming ones, actually, our theater night is going to be in Oregon City on September 17.

The folks at Clackamas Repertory Theater on sorry. Actually, that's not that's not the one up there. That one. June 25, which is the first night of laughter on the 23rd Floor, which is a Neil Simon comedy. Folks at Clackamas Rep have donated a whole block of tickets to NAMI and so all the proceeds from the sales of those tickets will go to NAMI, which we will appreciate Clackamas Rep and that's it's gonna be a really fun show.

It's not PG. I'd it's at least PG 13 because it's framed around a comedy writer's room. So there's a little bit of language, Cindy has told us. And then we have our, our annual walk is actually on May 16 and then our our big, party with a purpose auction and fundraiser on Thursday, September 17. So lots of opportunities to give, of opportunities to volunteer. We had 131 volunteers last year who taught and facilitated and did other things throughout the year. So we very much appreciate your, your partnership and your support and recognizing Mental Health Awareness Month in May. Please.

As Dave, so aptly reminded us, there's lots of activities going on. There's lots of activities in Oregon City going on this month for preservation month, so check out, our museums, the McLaughlin House, the Museum of the Oregon Territory, the Ermittinger House, the William Holmes House, all sorts of fun stuff going on celebrating, National Historic Preservation Month. Next, have on our agenda, we have public comments. William, you have item four on your slip. Would you please come forward?

If you want, you could be knighted also if you're ready for that.

I beg your pardon?

You could be knighted.

I could be knighted?

Mhmm.

Were you here for the Star Wars proclamation?

Thank you. Good evening, commissioners, and mayor. I'm I'm William Buford. I live in Oregon City. As many of you know, my, my wife Joyce and I walk almost every day to the post office up Moala. And we watch we see a lot of things happen. But one of the things that we were noticing as we went by that the place where the old pancake cut used to be in front of Fred Myers on Molalla there.

Elmer's? Elmer's. Elmer's. That's what it was. Yeah.

Miss it. Joyce thinks it ought to be a great food cart place, but that's another story for another time. We've been watching these bushes grow more and more and more into the sidewalk. I think they're just about impassable, but with a wheelchair. And finally, I got tired of it and took a picture and turned it into my OC or OC request or whatever it's called.

The next day when we walked by there, it had been cleaned up. I was so impressed that we could walk side by side down the sidewalk again. It was very nice. And I don't know who did that, whether that's public works or parks and recount care who does it. But I just wanna say how proud I am of our city and how fast they can respond to things. So please, whoever did that, give them some kudos, would you please?

Thank you. I had actually turned it into the manager store manager at Fred Meyer about a week ago. I brought it to his attention.

No point. No point. No. You use OC request.

I know. Get it done. But I figured I'd give him the courtesy of That's nice. Doing something about it before I did the

OC request. Don't diminish my request. It got done the

next day. That's okay. He didn't do it in a week. So there you go. Anyway, thank you. We will pass it on to our code, officers and thank them again. So next on our agenda, we have adoption of the agenda, and we have the consent agenda. Do we have any questions or concerns about anything on here, or do we have a motion?

I'd like I'd like to pull item seven g just for a one word correction.

Okay. Do it right now.

I just pulled it up the consent agenda. We need to vote on the rest

of it and then discuss that. One word correction. We don't have to pull it. Why don't you just make the correction?

Yes. We do. Yeah.

Okay. Alright. Let's have a motion to adopt everything except item g, and then we'll go back to that and get correction.

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second. Second by commissioner Smith. Moved by commissioner Morrow. Commissioner Rocky Smith. Aye. Commissioner Scott Wilson. Aye. Commissioner Adam Morrow. Aye. Commissioner Mike Mitchell. Aye. Mayor Denise McGriff? Aye. Motion passes. It may be the same

one that I saw. So go right ahead, sir.

Okay. On item seven g, under item nine c, there's a name that's spelled wrong. I wouldn't normally make an issue over one word. But since it's somebody's name, the record really should be accurate. It I forget what it says exactly now, but it's Derek Metson, m e t s o n. Oh, you're talking about Derek Matson? Yeah. It m e t s o n is the way you spell his name. And it says Metzer, I think, in there now. Okay. So with that change, I'll move to approve item seven g.

I'll second

it. Commissioner Rocky Smith. Aye. Commissioner Scott Wilson. Aye. Commissioner Adam Marle? Aye. Commissioner Mike Mitchell? Aye. And mayor Denise McGriff? Aye. Motion passes. If you guys happen

to see anything like that, let staff know. If you see stuff like that, let them know ahead of time. Alright. I do have a request of the commission. I am wondering if we can, exchange places with item eight and item nine. The applicant for item nine a is here. And if that's okay with you, we'll move that up. That'd be okay? Alright. Alright. We're gonna move to item nine a, adaptive reuse development agreement, London D Investments LLC. And who's doing that staff report? Mister Conkel or miss

And I'll do this.

Okay. Alright. And we need the clicker. Thank you, Ms. Griffin.

All right. Good evening, commissioners, and good evening, mayor. I'm Anne Griffin. I'm the economic development staff person for the city of Oregon City, and I'm joined this evening by with Donna London, who is the building owner and the, program participant in our adaptive reuse, program.

Good evening, mayor and commissioners. I'm gonna turn the light on. Move it up really close. It moves. So just move it up close. Good evening, everyone. Good evening, mayor and commissioners. Thank you again for being here. And

we have a very, specific purpose for coming before you tonight and that is to speak about and review the, development agreement that will be entered into between the City of Oregon City and Donna London through the adaptive reuse program. And we're going to walk through the specific items that will be included in the rehabilitation project and what will be needed to be accomplished in order to convert the loan to a grant through the loan forgiveness component of the program. Oops, I'm going the wrong way. I'll put this slide in just to orient ourselves. I think you'll be remembering the conversations.

Miss London has appeared before you a few times to talk about the project at 70 Three-seven 05 Main. The building was built in 1908, and the project, will leverage additional investment in the building, will restore currently vacant space and create a visually unified facade at that location. I had, our city recorder pass out a, updated copy of the development agreement. I think you all have one now. The specific item that was corrected into what you received tonight versus what you got in the ahead of time was the very top of the item three, the second column on the right.

It mentions that the development period is going to be one hundred and sixty days. And so that's corrected in what our city recorder is passing out. So just to walk you through, again, is a legal agreement that we're entering into. The way that the program works is that the participant in the adaptive reuse agrees to undertake specific improvements at the facility. These are the items in particular.

There'll be removal of the rear shed, reconstruction of the roof at that rear building. The 1st Floor commercial area ceiling will be raised by approximately four feet. There will be new windows and commercial door installed at the 705 storefront. We'll be opening up the basement, which is now closed off, and installing five office units in that basement level. There will be also the installation of a new fire suppression system and a new fire alarm.

So those are the specific items that we'll be looking for to activate the forgiveness aspect of the building program. So as you can see, those are listed in the development agreement.

And

then when the project team does complete each of those improvements, we'll receive a project completion report that will include photographs. And then we'll have someone from our building inspection staff go down and verify that, and that's what will activate the loan forgiveness aspect of the program. So those are the highlights of the development agreement that I wanted to have, make sure that folks at the commission were aware of as we enter into this legal agreement with with Donald London. Do folks have any questions?

Hypothetical. Start working on old buildings and stuff happens and schedules slide. So my question is, say we get to this January 18 date where it would become a loan and payments would have to start and four of the six are completed, but all six aren't, how how would we handle that situation if there's been a good faith effort to get to the finish line, but we hit the finish line before what our contract says before all the work is done?

It's a good question and I appreciate it. I believe, you know, we'll be in continual contact with the project team even before we sign. You see this is a draft. We'll have an if we think we've if we need to add additional days to the one hundred sixty, this is what, the project team has told us that they but you're right. Things do slide, Work people get sick, you know. I I don't foresee any difficulty in us renegotiating that one, you know, that day as long as it's something that is reasonable. And as you said, negotiated in good faith, I think we can accommodate a reasonable, a reasonable change in the in the schedule as you're pointing out.

We're talking about an extension.

I'm happy to see this go forward. I think it's a great program and I just want to make sure we don't end up jammed up at the end, despite Ms. London's efforts to get it done. So thank you.

Thank you.

Rocky? My only question is about, if you go back to the picture, which I know is just the picture of the current building. But, so the the when it it's only referring to one door. So is that the door on the left?

I think, actually, both of the doors are gonna be Okay.

Well, that's not what

it says. So I'm concerned that it says

That's what Derek said was gonna happen to both Well, I am that's not what it says in the agreement.

I'm just pointing out that it doesn't say that. It says one it basically implies one commercial door. So since it said that, I was like, well, is the nor the one door you're replacing matching the other one? And if it is both doors, then it needs to say both doors.

It will be so amended.

I think that's all I have. London, that's correct. Both door as I recall from Yeah. Mister Matson's presentation that both doors were going to be replaced.

Okay. So then it just needs to match. I don't know.

We can make an amendment to to the documents since it's still in draft. Anything else? Do we have a motion? Where we don't want the awkward silence. I'll I'll find the

I'll move to approve the adaptive reuse development agreement with London D Investments, with revision to refer to two doors. Second. It's been moved

and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Rocky Smith. Aye. Commissioner Scott Wilson. Aye. Commissioner Adam Marrow. Aye. Commissioner Mike Mitchell. Aye. And Mayor Denise McGriff. Aye. Motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you, staff. Thank you. Thank you. We need a break. Okay. Everybody good? You got a break? Okay. Alright. Alright. Let's move back to, the agenda where we're going to go back to item, eight a. And hang on just a second. Let me grab my agenda. So tonight, we have a, public hearing. It is an appeal of Planning Commission decision regarding thirteen sixty seven Molalla Avenue master plan general development plan approval.

Take a deep breath conditional use approval for drive through uses, maximum parking adjustment, detailed development review, DDP for construction of a new public road, parcel c. And I will skip reading all the file numbers if that's okay.

That is okay, mayor. Okay.

So I'm gonna go ahead and open the public hearing and have you Yes. Read the statement. So

Thank you, mayor. I'm gonna read the go please go ahead and open it. Opened.

It's open. Yes. Open public hearing.

Commissioners, I'm gonna just read through a few sideboards. This is an appeal hearing, and it's a land use appeal hearing. Members of the commission are required to be unbiased. So first, does any commissioner wish to declare any bias? Okay. Nope. Does any commissioner wish to disclose any potential conflicts such as family, financial, or business relationships with the applicants?

I don't believe so.

Okay. Have any commissioners discussed the application with any of the parties, or do you have independent knowledge of relevant facts such as a site visit? So any ex parte context to disclose. I do wanna put on the note that there was a newspaper article a couple of weeks ago. And if you happen to read that, that would be fine to disclose that as an ex parte contact.

Just go down the line.

No ex parte contact. I did not read the newspaper article. I wasn't aware of it. And, other than driving past the location multiple times a day, that's that's it.

Yeah. Same. No ex parte contact I'm aware of. Again, drive by the site regularly. Adam?

I drive by the site regularly, but my focus is on not getting a flat tire on Wallala Avenue, so I can't focus on that site. No ex parte contact. I did see the Oregonian article after several of my state colleagues sent it to me, so I did see that. As far as bias, I have been known to enjoy a spicy chicken sandwich at Chick fil A, but apart from that, I have nothing else to disclose.

I I do drive by the site regularly. I I did see, and I did read the Oregonian article, but I had no real takeaway. Didn't provide me any information that I really didn't already know about.

I also live here and drive by the site multiple times a day. I did read the article in The Oregonian. I also am very familiar with Dale Younger, the late Dale Younger and his family. I've known them for years. I've used to work with them when I was city of Oregon City land use planner. And I will say that in the past, probably twenty five years was probably the last time I was on-site. So I've not been on-site recently because it's been been stopped. So those are my ex parte contacts. I think everybody in town drives by that. I will say this, that I did, pull off the road to read the notice of land use action sign that was posted, which I do with many places in Oregon City when I see them and it's safe to pull off the road.

Thank you, commissioners. Does anyone in the audience wish to question any of the commissioners about these disclosures? Okay. Hearing none. The, the commission rules of procedures state that the public hearing process for this appeal item is buried in my paperwork.

It is that the staff report will have fifteen minutes for the staff report. Then we will have ten minutes for the appellant presentation. We'll have three minutes for any individuals who who participated orally in writing before the planning commission and then five minutes for the appellant's rebuttal. And, with that, I believe Ms.

Ryan, I do have one more thing that I need to declare. So I did attend the first hearing that was scheduled before the planning commission, but there was no evidence presented. There was nothing. It was canceled. But I was sitting in the audience, but there wasn't any discussion about anything. It was a continuance was asked for, and that was the end of the meeting. Okay. And I was actually there for the other item that was on the agenda that night.

Thank you, mayor. Does anyone please go ahead.

On that line, I did, view the video of the most recent planning commission hearing, but that's part of the record,

isn't is part of the record.

Okay. Thank

you. Those are both part of the record. Thank you. Okay. I think we're ready for the staff report.

Yes. Please go right ahead.

Oh, and here I am. Yes. We

have to go over that.

Here I am again. Okay.

What we get to read. So

This this is an appeal that's considered by the commission, you, on the record. What that means is that no evidence that's not already in the record can be submitted tonight or considered by the commission. And what that means is that although it's really tempting and really difficult, your personal knowledge of other applications for this site that have happened in the past or your personal knowledge of perhaps the applicant or or just your personal knowledge from living in the community is not in the record, and so it can't be considered. Again, only people who submitted comments during the proceeding below, meaning before the planning commission, will will be able to allowed to participate in the hearing. Under the code, the scope of your review is limited to the items that are identified in the applicant's notice of appeal.

And there's a single issue that was raised in the notice of appeal. And as we will get into, in more detail in the staff report, it is an issue of code interpretation regarding OCMC seventeen forty four zero six o subsection l. And I think tonight you're gonna hear that just shorthanded frequently as l or subsection l. Okay. Based on the appellant's appeal statement, we wanted to list some issues that were addressed in the planning commission decision, which again was an approval with conditions that weren't raised in the notice of appeal.

And those include the timing of construction of TSP project s 28, which you'll hear referred to as the shared use path. The availability of a fee in lieu, a payment of a fee in lieu of constructing TSP S 28 and whether the cost of TSP S 28 is roughly proportional to the impacts from the development. Those are not issues that were raised in the notice of appeal. And so, I would recommend that you refrain from considering them as part of this appeal.

Okay. Alright. So just to provide a quick overview of what the planning commission approved on 04/20/2026. This was for a framework master plan and a detailed development plan for Parcel C, which is the new public street. The planning commission approved the master plan detailed development plan with conditions and they specifically provided direction on the four following topics.

They approved the conditional use for the drive through on Parcel A and Parcel B D. They approved the parking maximum request on Parcel D, but denied the parking maximum request on Parcel A but they did encourage the applicant to provide additional detail and apply during the future detailed development plan for that parcel. They agreed with the staff recommendation and conditions to relocate the north end of the shared use path and integrated into Parcel B and really is relevant to tonight's appeal. They agreed with staff's interpretation of OC MC seventeen four four zero six zero l, and indicated the development standards that staff does not have the authority to approve development in the buffer area beyond what is allowed by the development code. And there is a fair amount of findings in the staff report that address this.

And so if the city commission agrees with the planning commission decision, there are relevant findings for that. If the planning city commission chooses to have alternate findings for that interpretation, you will need to work work with staff and our city attorney on next steps for that. We believe staff that we've adequate findings in the record that address this question that the planning commission, found that they agreed with staff on this finding. So I'm gonna pass this over to assistant city attorney, excuse me, assistant city engineer, Josh Wheeler, who will, lay out, the issues related section of the geologic hazard code.

Thank you, Christina. Good evening, mayor and commissioners. So as you heard, this appeal is solely about the interpretation about a portion of geologic hazard code. My presentation is going to provide a background of this land use application, a review of the code, some snippets of planning commission discussion, and staff's interpretation of seventeen forty four. 60L, all of which is part of the existing land use file.

On 04/21/2025, a year ago, after a pre application meeting with the applicant, city engineering development services staff provided notes that summarize many parts of the project, but specifically included notes on the geologic hazards overlay zone, which said in part, portions of the project reside within geologic hazard areas. The applicant will be required to address chapter seventeen forty four of the Oregon City Municipal Code. The development standards for sites within geologic hazard areas are outlined in forty four sixty and includes requirements related to a number of, elements of development. The most notable but not comprehensive list of seventeen forty four sixty H and I, development where map landslides slopes over 25% and their buffer zones occur within the parcels. And also say contact the city and geotechnical engineering consultant, Poly Consulting for all geotechnical engineering coordination.

A year later, 04/13/2026, Planning Commission meeting chair SB asked the applicant if there was any dialogue during the process. The applicant only mentioned a discussion on a phone call a week prior to that meeting. Chair Esby also asked if there was anything in the record. Staff stated nothing was written between the pre application meeting and that planning commission meeting and that was staff's understanding there was no coordination by the applicant with the city's geotech. You're going see why that's important in a minute.

On March 24, a few weeks earlier, 2026, staff summarized in detail in a letter to the applicant that the application and plans presented showing impacts to the geologic hazards overlay zone, specifically to the landslide deposit buffer zone. Staff detailed this in their presentation then on 04/13/2026.

The

coding question of seventeen forty four dot 60 h and I states, among other things, that development proposed within a geologic hazards overlay zone within steep slopes, landslide deposits or landslide deposit buffers is limited to 4,000 square feet of disturbance per existing parcel. That's generally what that summary on the screen says. Going back, you'll see here that the magenta pink, purple color, whatever your eyes see there that is labeled city map landslide buffer, you'll see that the stormwater management area, the roadway and portions of the parking lot are in that buffer zone. Now furthermore, code 1740 four-60L is in question. And the assistant city attorney stated on 04/13/2026 that the review of this code interpretation was discussed with executives in the city staff, and it was determined the key phrase was as provided in this chapter.

This does not allow any type of variance as desired by the applicant. Now the applicant has a different interpretation of Part L, but assuming staff's interpretation is correct, let's dive a little further. On 04/13/2026, staff spoke on behalf of the city's geotechnical engineer and said, his job is to review applications per the code, not necessarily the science, because code is intentionally more conservative than the science. Back in 2021, it was intentional by the city commission to make the code more conservative than what the science would probably say. I've and this is me speaking at that meeting.

I have talked to our geotech engineer. Our geotech engineer has said based on the code and the way he is interpreting the code and the way the city has historically interpreted the code, we have consistently said the section l, which has been in the code since sometime before 2010, l has always been there. It's a catch all. It says here is everything in the code that applies. And once you get to l, if we miss something, feel free to make some engineering interpretations, but not feel free to revise what you just read.

The variableness is what is not in the code. It is our geotech's opinion that the current proposal does not meet code, but can if adjustments are made by moving things. His answer also was that scientifically it makes sense. Unfortunately, it does not meet code. The applicant submitted a geotechnical report dated 2022 and one dated 2012, both of which I know were prepared prior to the pre application for the project.

But it showed a 35 foot setback. And in this picture here, that's represented by the black line to the right. That was their 35 foot setback line. The 35 setback line was their recommendation from their report from previous applications, but it is different from the city's 50 foot buffer for steep slopes and the 200 foot buffer from land side deposits. The reports did not include any maps from the city's current GIS showing the city map geotechnical hazard overlay zone, including any regulated buffers.

So to recap, a small background on code changes occurred back in 2021 During a response to the Planning Commission on 04/1326 staff said back in 2021, it was intentional by the city commission to make the code more conservative than what the science would probably say. While the 35 foot setback is not listed as an option in code and staff's opinion that section L does not allow for variance, staff still felt that the application could be conditioned for approval. And this led to land use conditions two, twenty one and thirty eight in the DDP and ten and eleven in the GDP. And so I want to list two of those quickly. DDP condition 38 impacts to the map, land side area and buffer located to the rear of the property shall be limited to 4,000 square feet of grading stripped vegetation or coverage and improperable surfaces per parcel.

The proposed stormwater pond and roadway improvements shall be redesigned or relocated outside of the geologic hazard area to meet this standard. GDP condition 11, parcel B's future GDP application shall be required to make significant changes to its site plan in order to meet the city's geologic hazard code within the map landslide and steep slope areas for allowable earth disturbance and dwelling unit density. These conditions of approval along with several others as listed in the land use decision before you were recommended to be accepted by the Planning Commission. So if you were to deny the appeal by the applicant tonight, you would be supporting these conditions of approval. All

right. I'm going to hand it back to Assistant City Attorney, Missy Ryan.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioners. So on our for our last slide for the report, we have, wanna suggest two options. One option would be to deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission decision, approving the application with conditions and adopting the Planning Commission's interpretation of subsection l as the commission the city commission's interpretation. The second possibility is to approve the appeal based on modified findings adopted by the commission, approving the application with relevant conditions modified by the city commission.

Because of the timing and because of when the one hundred and twenty day deadline expires, we would need to either write those findings tonight or more likely, perhaps have a special meeting early next week. That concludes the staff report.

Commissioners, are there any questions of the staff? Okay. So we will move forward with, testimony, and, we will call up the applicant. And I do want to make it clear that I will be keeping strict, time. I have a timer here in front of me. You have a timer there. So please stay on task. Green button.

I know it. This is my third time I've been here in the last month that I always forget to press the button.

Everybody does it. Everybody does it.

Thank you very much. Madam mayor and members of the city council before the clock starts, just for the record, my name is Greg Hathaway. I'm an attorney of representing

the If you're starting to talk, then the clock is starting.

Okay. Then then I will not talk, but make a request that because of the complexity of this appeal and what has happened to this applicant based upon staff's change of position, that basically the Planning Commission recommendation is a denial because we could not develop this project based upon

that

interpretation. So we're requesting requesting additional five minutes of time to make our presentation respectfully.

I'm fine with that.

Okay. They concur.

Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. So again, for the record, Greg Hathaway representing the applicant Cypress. With me this evening is Scott Franklin who is the project engineer for Cypress and also Kirk Williams who is the managing director for Cypress.

Just excuse me. Mr. Franklin. Oh, hi there. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Franklin is going to talk about the two key development issues that were raised by staff. And based upon this new interpretation by staff affects how this project gets developed. So Mr. Franklin is going to focus on those two key development areas so that you

have an

understanding of how this interpretation basically does allow the applicant to develop the site. Mr. Williams then is going to testify explaining the difficulty of accepting this interpretation and how devastating it is to, this proposed development. Again, the Planning Commission recommendation, for approval or decision for approval with conditions is effectively a denial by accepting the staff's new interpretation of your code. We did not intend to be in front of you this evening talking about an appeal from the Planning Commission.

Let me tell you why. Cypress and the PrideTech's team spent over a year working with staff to make sure that the applicant would get a positive staff recommendation with conditions based upon what was proposed, including development within this 200 foot buffer area that we're talking about this evening because the original application that the staff recommended approval for included that development in that area and the applicant relied upon that. We came to the March 23 Planning Commission hearing with the notion that we were going to accept that staff recommendation with conditions. But instead, right before that hearing started, we were advised that staff was changing the location of the shared path from the ways designated the transportation system plan to somewhere else on the site that would absolutely significantly impact how we develop the property. Less than twenty four hours later, we got a message from Mr.

Wheeler that staff is now changing their position and interpretation of how development could take place in this 200 foot buffer. Heard it for the first time, less than twenty four hours after the first hearing. That was continued at our request. And I call it a change of interpretation because it had to be a change of interpretation because staff recommended approval of that development in that area. So it was a change of interpretation for what we understood to be the city's interpretation.

And Mr. Wheeler called it historically the staff has interpreted, the city's interpreted that provision not to allow the safety valve that we're asking for now in interpretation because again staff knew that this development was going to occur in that area and in fact recommended it. Twenty four hours later after that first hearing, they changed their position. That's what we're concerned about is that it's a change of position and it devastates this project. And Mr.

Williams is going to talk more about that. But the key here tonight is this interpretation that we're advocating, which is apparently the interpretation that staff had going into the March 23 hearing, is plausible. It makes all the sense of the world because it doesn't allow any development to incur in this buffer area unless it works from an engineering perspective, from a science perspective. And our interpretation, which I think was the staff's interpretation going to the March 23 hearing, is that the city had absolute discretion to determine whether or not this development should occur. With this new interpretation now, there's no opportunity for a project like this to develop.

And so we're going to be asking this evening for your city commission to adopt your city attorney's option two, which is to interpret this the way staff interpreted it going into the March 23 here. And I'd like to have Mr. Franklin talk about the development issues.

Yes, Scott Franklin, Langen Engineering, Clackamas. And first comment is just for clarity on the pre app. Mr. Wheeler talked about a reference in the pre app notes to the specific sections of seventeen forty four and implied that staff directed us to to all of those sections and and said, hey, this is something that you guys knew about. The reality is that section l is also in seventeen forty four, which allows a detailed study, which is exactly what was provided.

So the discussion of no ifs, ands or buts, no engineering solution is saying that that was known upfront is simply not true. I'd like to direct your attention to the layout that you see. The buffer is the dash line next to building running through the storm water facility running across the road and extending down into the purple road going to the south. And the the impact of that is is that there's obviously an impact to the layout, there's impact to the the city's pathway, impact to the sidewalks and and roadway. And the in this exhibit, you also see the the retaining wall that mister Wheeler pointed out.

There's a high factor of safety that's that's well above the the the industry norms for that. And now picture that whole development pushed to the west 200 feet. Now that doesn't solve the road issue and note that the sidewalks are in the road. So if that's developments pushed to the west, then yes, the development is pushed out beyond the buffer area, but that doesn't eliminate the risk. So rain can still fall on that and the landslide risk within that buffer still exists.

And if it's pushed out beyond the buffer, the wall doesn't exist. The wall will not be constructed. And the proposed development will capture the rainwater and divert it away from the landslide area and the buffer. And that's a key element of slope stability. I want to direct your attention to seventeen forty four-six-zero gs.

And this was also discussed in our presentation at Planning Commission. And that section specifically refers to what the roads can do within the buffer and it says road shall be the minimum width necessary to provide safe vehicle and emergency access And it says also that the review authority may grant a variance from the city's required road standards upon findings that the variance would provide safe vehicle and emergency access, not pedestrian pathways. So this section makes no reference whatsoever to pedestrian pathways. And so if the interpretation is that section l is carried with lesser weight than the other sections and cannot be considered, then there's no sidewalks in that road. The road is already designed for minimum travel for vehicles and emergency vehicles, but it can't have sidewalks in that buffer based on this code section.

So the applicant's process of a scientific solution to this solves all of that. And Mr. Wheeler also commented that we're seeking a variance by implementing this section by Section L. We're not seeking a variance. Section L carries the same weight as the other sections.

And again, pushing the Parcel B development West doesn't solve any of the issues. And also, if the interpretation is that that nothing can be done in that buffer other than just the roadway, then the Beaver Creek access management plan also can't be done because you can't have the sidewalks in that management plan. Kirk, I'll turn this over to you.

Good evening, madam mayor, commissioners. My name is Kirk Williams, 3012 Rosedale, Dallas, Texas. I wanna begin with the most important fact before the commission tonight, our proposed development would make this site and the surrounding properties safer than they are today. Both our geotechnical engineer and the city's own geotechnical engineer agree that the engineered retaining wall system in our proposal would stabilize the historic shallow landslides on this site and protect the downhill properties from future landslides. This is not a contested point.

This is science. The 200 foot GEO buffer exists in the code for one purpose, to protect health, public health, safety and welfare of the landslide hazards. Our proposed development directly advances and improves upon that very purpose. Doing nothing leaves the historic landslide condition in place. Approving our project removes that condition, that unsafe condition.

This is why we're asking the commission to consider a plausible interpretation of the section in discussion tonight. Such an interpretation is plausible. It is consistent with legislative intent of the code and it provides the city absolute discretion to determine whether a proposed development would prevent landslides and damage. And with that as a foundation, I would like to walk the commission through kind of how we got here because we believe the history of this matters because we've been working with city staff for over a year. We also been working with the surrounding neighbors and the neighboring properties and the homeowners in the area.

We've also been working with property users to successfully develop the site to its highest and best use. All of this effort is consistent with what we expected, but what was not expected was the last minute change and the city staff coming up with interpretation that we completely believed otherwise. This change of interpretation came regardless of everybody's acceptance that the city staff and the city geoengineer had accepted the science of the retaining wall system that would stabilize what was an unsafe condition. Again, these last minute changes devastate our position. Please understand what we received was not an approval.

It was a denial with conditions. We can't go forward with this in the current situation. Now let me I understand this is a complicated situation. I do understand that. And I understand the easy button would be to accept the city staff and the planning commissions with the conditions they put on the property.

I get that. I'd be in the same place you are. But our collective role here is to push past this over simplification of the previous decisions and understand what is being requested. And that is to to consider this to make the side safer and getting it right is significant because the upside of getting it right is the project goes forward with an engineered retaining wall that makes the site safer. Approving this project means the design road connecting Beaver Creek to Malala gets completed.

Approving the project means the contribution that's discussed to the shared use path, wherever that is. And approving this project means an abandoned vacant property returned to productive use generating tax dollars. And approving this project sends a clear message to us, to future investors, to developers that the city's process works. We respectfully ask the the commission to interpret Section 17.44.060L to permit on a case by case discretion to allow this project to go forward with the retaining wall system in the 200 foot buffer. Thank you very much.

Madam Mayor, members of the commission that would conclude our initial presentation and we would preserve our five minutes for rebuttal.

So we only have one, person who's asked to provide some testimony on this particular item.

Madam mayor, if

I could just say Please don't call me, madam. Okay? Thank you.

I apologize. That's okay. Mayor. Yes. Thank you. If the if the commissioners have questions questions of the appellant applicant, please ask them before you begin your deliberations.

Wasn't gonna do that. I was just noting that we did have one person. I was letting the commissioners know. Okay. Was not ready to go there. Do you all have any, questions? Nope. Nope. Okay. So may I call the person that would like to comment? K. Star of the show. Come on up. Mister Gifford. Just for the record, remember that we can't introduce any new information. This is an on the record hearing. And we do have your testimony that you made previously written testimony that's in the record.

Thank you for the clarification. My name is William Buford, I live in Oregon City. Specifically, I live just a few 100 feet away from this site, so I consider myself fairly intimate with the, with the situation. And I talked to all my neighbors about it. I mentioned in my testimony, and I just wanna make sure that that was included in there.

And I hope that you all read. It's a very short letter, but it starts off with a very simple concept. We don't need that path. Nobody has asked for that path except the concept from, what, twelve years ago or so about hoping to have a trail system between the parks. It doesn't even go to Mill Creek Canyon Trailhead.

It goes out the back door, up a hill, across a neighborhood with no sidewalks, and into a side entrance. It's not a good place for a path. And if that is causing so much consternation insofar as the geological, hazards, I just don't understand why don't we just move the path as I suggested in my letter. It just doesn't make sense to me that we have to beat a dead horse and say we have to have that path. It has to be this. We have metro involved. We have the the geologic is gonna wind up at a sewer pump station. Why

are

we doing this? Why don't we just move the path? Take it down Mo'Lala. The sidewalks are already there. All it would take would be some signing. No must, no fuss, no science involved at all. It's just to me, it's just a brainless solution. Just do it. I mean, it's not something you have to overthink it. So please don't overthink it. Move the path. Take that out of the plan.

Thank you.

I'd be happy to answer any questions. I've got another whole minute on the clock.

Absolutely. Do you sing or dance?

No other questions? Can anybody answer why the path has to be there? We're not gonna really be I'm not asking you questions. No. Thank you.

Thank you, William.

Is the path location part of what we're or or whether or not there's a path part of what we are discussing tonight? Not really.

No. It is not.

Okay. Thank you. Yep. Well, I don't see there's nobody here for rebuttal. There's nobody making a pardon?

Yes. So I'm looking at the commission rules of procedure. It allows three minutes for individuals. There's also a section for questions of staff, and then there is five minutes for the applicant's rebuttal, although it doesn't really make sense to rebut yourselves if you're the appellant. Well, that was my thinking. He the applicant's counsel did ask for to reserve five minutes for rebuttal.

I don't see that we have anything to rebut Okay. At this point. I mean, do you? Alright. Go right ahead.

Well, first thank you, mayor. First, I would like to ask staff to come back up because I do have some questions, and I would be in favor of allowing the rebuttal. I assume that they would have items to rebut from the staff, so I would be interested in hearing that.

I think they kinda pretty much did that.

So Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I'm sorry.

We just need to take a breath for a minute. It's just dry in here. Thank you. So Go ahead.

First, I was hoping staff could explain where this last minute change came from. Where what was it that caused that change of interpretation so late in the process? It it was embarrassing to to see that information, and I think it communicates the wrong thing about what we would like to see in Oregon City. So having something that I can justify for that reason would be very helpful.

Yes. Thank you for that question. First of all, I wanna know that staff interpretation has been consistent. However, the communication of that interpretation may have been lacking. So as I said in my presentation, in the pre application notes, staff mentioned seventeen forty four sixty and its buffer, it's written in the pre application notes.

That buffer does not show up in any of their materials, in the applicant's materials. Staff also relied on the applicant to review those sections of code and apply to their application accordingly. Staff also relied on applicants' consultants to coordinate with the city's geotechnical consultant. As I said in my presentation, that never occurred. Now, could staff have done a better job at communicating with the applicant saying the things you're proposing do not meet what we talked about in April 2025?

Yes. Are we putting things in place to prevent that again? Yes. However, the message did not change. The message was still on March 24 that the buffer is important and that our geotechnical consultant needs consulted. And that was the memo of March 24, which came out after the planning commission meeting of March 23.

Okay. Thank you. And then I just have one more. So in reading through, subsection l, every time it refers to the review authority, is your interpretation that the review authority is staff?

So it depends. When it's a type two application and there's only a staff review, staff is the review authority. When it's a type three and it's planning commission, the planning commission is review authority. And if that's appealed or it's a type four and it gets to city commission, then the city commission becomes the ultimate review authority. That's our current interpretation.

Okay. So when I hear that, because that that was how I read it as well. When I read that we are the review authority and it says that we shall determine. So replacing review authority with us, we shall determine whether the proposed methods of rendering a known or potential hazard site safe for construction, including proposed geotechnical remediation methods are feasible and adequate to prevent landslides or damage to property and safety, it feels like that does give some air of choice of interpretation to us as the review authority. Is that not

what

you would say? That is not staff's interpretation. Staff's interpretation is that the review authority, whoever it may be, depending on what process we're in, has the authority to review things that are not within the code. So if there are sections of the code that talk about steep slopes and landslides and buffers and 4,000 square feet, the different numbers you've heard tonight. Those are set in stone. Those are the standards. Geotechnical engineering science may have more to say about that. And those extra things are what staff say are

up to the review authority to determine because those are beyond what code has available. Okay. And lastly, I just want to acknowledge the fact that you have been on your own for a while now just without city engineer position having been filled until just recently. So I want to acknowledge that, and thank you for holding down the fort for that period of time. Thank you.

I think we would all concur with that. Are there any other questions? I think in I think not maybe not you were here, but we spent considerable amount of time, as a commission and the planning commission strengthening the codes that regard this particular section because we all had concerns about what could be done, what couldn't be done, not making any interpretation about this, but, we had very specific reasons why we wanted some of the standards in the code to be a little more stringent because of the situation we have with our community. We know that there are significant areas of properties that move. We've had experience with that over the many years that some of us have been here, including staff.

Do you have a point of order? Yes. So Is what the mayor is saying sounds to me like new information? What I'm Regarding how the commission got to the decision that we're

particular section. I'm just saying that we asked that. So I'm

What I'm saying is this is background information, as to how 17.4406 was was strengthened, and it's not a part of the record.

Not that specific section. I was saying our our work and deliberation. So what my concern is is the Planning Commission made decisions and information based on a whole number of factors. And as we some of us know, they tend to do the heavy lifting, for what is going on. I read everything probably several times, and I think that the report is pretty clear and succinct. I didn't have any difficulty in understanding what it is you were the staff was trying to get across.

Commissioner Mitchell, I understand the, mayor's comments to be along the lines of what is already in the record, testimony by the city engineer about the 2021 adoption of the geologic hazard overlay zone provisions. I wasn't specific to the date, Mike.

That's what I

was I just don't want what I was referring to. I just don't want us to get into a situation where we're allowing the information that was not in the record. I just wanted clarification.

I agree.

That was in the record. Questions? K. Thank you. Did you wanna say anything?

No. Thank you so much. I would recommend allowing the applicant to have their five minutes of rebuttal to to close everything out.

That would be

preferable? It would be.

As long as they're not blaming people. For once, it's too hot in here.

Madam Mayor and members of the city commission. Again, Greg Hathaway representing Cypress. Appreciate the comments that staff has made, but I think it's important to clarify a couple of things because Mr. Wheeler tried to give the impression that we should have known better, that in fact, the code didn't permit what we have proposed to do. But remember, the staff actually recommended approval of that development in this area when it made its recommendation to the Planning Commission.

We didn't find out that the staff had changed its position until twenty four hours after the first hearing. So any comment by staff that we should have known better, I would say they should have known better or they should have told us about it other than twenty four hours after the first hearing where they were recommending approval in this area, development approval in this area. During a phone call, I stated this to the Planning Commission, so it's in the record. I asked Mr. Wheeler during a conversation shortly after March 24, Mr.

Wheeler, did you review the staff report that recommended approval of development in this area? His answer was, I did not review it. But it went forward as a recommendation to the Planning Commission until Mr. Wheeler wrote his letter to us saying, you can't do it because staff now has this interpretation. But I told the Planning Commission, we didn't want to talk about mistakes or errors that happened that adversely affect this development.

I said, let's focus on the solution. The solution is your City Council has the authority to interpret its own code. And the interpretation that we have offered to your city council is very plausible because it gives this city absolute discretion to determine on a case by case basis whether a particular development should take place in this area. And all the experts, including the city staff agree, it's okay to do in this area. It meets the test of Section L.

You have absolute discretion and it makes it safer and better. If you don't adopt that interpretation, this project is not going to occur. This project, this property is going to remain vacant and it's going to be the same attractive nuisance for all the wrong reasons instead of allowing this development to occur. It's our legal position that your city council has the authority to interpret the code as we see it, as two members of the Planning Commission saw it and it's plausible, it's defensible and it's the right result under the right circumstances because with our interpretation, the city council has total discretion. The city has total discretion either to allow it or not based upon sound engineering and sound science.

So we're asking, your city council to adopt, option two, and accept an interpretation that allows this development, to move forward. Mr. Williams, do you have a comment?

I've heard it tonight and I've heard it at, Planning Commission is that of to prevent the failure of similar to other projects. I spoke to our geoengineer in regards to that comment. That failure of a complex, totally different design, not have a soldier pile retaining wall established five foot into the bedrock and and had

Excuse me. Let me stop you. I don't think that that sounds like new information is getting brought into this.

Mayor, there was discussion in, prior to the close of the record by both planning commissioners and citizens about the Forest Heights Apartments. I think they called them by name. So there's some little bit of information in the record about this, but I don't believe that there is information in the record about how that particular, building was engineered.

Okay. Your time has stopped, so Stop it for just a second. So this is that must be a new name. We're talking about Newell Creek Apartments? Okay. Thank you. They changed the every time that the apartments get sold, they change to something else. I can't keep up with all the names. So Okay. Thank you. You can start the clock.

Again,

this is just coming back to the science that the science of of that project was highly inferior

to He just said we're not talking about that. Okay. Sorry. Okay. I apologize. Yeah. Thank you.

Real quick. Mr. Wheeler talked about that was the applicant's responsibility to, confirm with the city geotechnical engineer. Section L says it's a review authority. It's not the applicant's responsibility to connect with the city's geotech engineer.

That completes our presentation. Thank you very much.

Thank you. K. I'm gonna close the public hearing and allow for deliberation by the city commission. I'm just gonna make one statement to lead off. My long career in planning, the applicant has the sole burden approved to review all ordinances and codes.

That is what is required. It is not our responsibility to review that other than if there's an appeal. That is like land use one zero one. Gentlemen, do you have any comments? Should I go down the line before I lose my voice here altogether? Adam?

Sure. Please.

Thank you

so much. Thank you.

And this is an appeal. So Yes. It gives us the opportunity to do that. I've I've gone back and forth on this because I take very seriously the charge that we have sitting here, which is not to create new policy but to interpret existing code in the existing language. But as I read through the text, so looking first at the intent and purpose of seventeen forty four, the intent and purpose of the provisions of OCMC chapter seventeen forty four are to ensure that activities in geologic hazard areas are designed based on detailed knowledge of site conditions in order to reduce the risk of private and public losses.

And then I'll skip down to section d, which says to mitigate risk associated with geologic hazard areas, not to act as a guarantee that the hazard risk will be eliminated nor as a guarantee that there is a higher hazard risk at any location. From the applicants,

the advance document, or the city's document?

This is from Oregon City Municipal Perfect. Thank you. Yeah. So I read that first. And then going back to my prior question to staff about who the review authority is, that's us.

And so as I read through section l and I replace review authority with city commission, it reads, the city commission shall determine whether the proposed methods of rendering a known or potential hazard site say, for construction, including proposed geotechnical remediation methods are feasible and adequate to prevent landslides or damage to property and safety. The city commission shall consult with the city's geotechnical engineer in making this determination. Cost for such consultation shall be paid by the applicant. The city commission may allow development in a known or potential hazard area as provided in this chapter if specific findings are made that the specific provisions in the design of the proposed development will prevent landslides or damage. The city commission may impose any conditions including limits on type or intensity of land use, which it determines are necessary to assure that landslides or property damage will not occur.

So going to the text, it it seems to me like we do have the discretion.

I

know that that isn't staff's interpretation, I see the city the assistant city attorney's light on, so I would love to hear your thoughts.

Okay. Commissioner, so the the staff's interpretation and also, you know, having read it my interpretation is that the key phrase in l is as provided in this chapter, and that really refers back to the allowed development in the geohazard overlay zone in the buffer, which is allowed as described only in subsection I for this property, subsection I two. As it it's as set out in the supplemental staff report, which you might be reading from, the this interpretation is an interpretation of the provisions of the geologic hazards overlay zone as it is anywhere in the city. So, also including other other types of zoning categories, including residential. And the staff report pointed out that one of the objectives in, the city amending the code in 2021 was to provide cleared objective standards for evaluating residential development proposals.

And so an interpretation that gives the city commission ultimate discretion to decide whether to exceed the limits in I would likely be apart from the, needed housing statutes. So that's something to consider as well. But the key the key phrase really in our view and which, of course, the commission, you know, this is ultimately your decision, is the as provided in this chapter. And so it's what what the staff thinks it's saying is that subsection l says, if you propose 4,000 square foot or under disturbance or you propose a dwelling density, not really an issue here, then our you'll our geotech will review that proposal to make sure that it it is, you know, safe. Obviously, the applicant's interpretation is more wide open and would allow essentially although they don't like when I say this word, what I'm gonna just call a variance or an adjustment to to all of the development, any any development standard that limits development in the geohazards overlay zone.

Rocky? Oh, Michael? I'll go next.

Thank you. So we do have, as has been mentioned and I, we do have the authority to interpret our code. That's why we're here. And so what, as provided in this chapter means will be us to up up to us to decide. So when I look at all of seventeen forty four point o six o and it it's establishing those rules, there's nothing magic about that 4,000 square foot number.

Those rules are kinda creating a box. And if your project lands in the box, it's good. If it in some way goes outside the box, then that's where the problem arises. But then section l talks about a review authority. And if a review authority can only stay inside that box, to me it doesn't have any authority because it's already provided in our code that it's allowed.

So if we say that there's no way that the review authority can go outside the box in any way, to me that that eliminates the purpose for a review authority and and there wouldn't be any reason for that to be in the code. The other thing I'll say, regarding how long it took for this to come up, that to me speaks to, the fact that there is no clear, this is the only way to interpret it as as the, staff report indicates. Because if it was very clear that's what it meant, I believe that our staff would have raised the red flag substantially before the day after the hearing. So to me that that the fact that it took that long for it to come up speaks to the fact that it doesn't have a firm and clear definition, and it is up to this review authority to decide. And and to me, given, where section l calls out for an engineered alliance design solution, I think the applicant has met that, and I'll be in favor of upholding the appeal.

Do you wanna let somebody is it germane to that? Because I wanted to make sure they have an opportunity.

Yeah. It's just

a quick comment.

So I appreciate the reference to the clear and objective statute and the needed housing. Dealing with that every day in my day job, I have a hard time with the notion that the clear and objective needed housing statutes ought to be used to prevent the development of housing given that it's for needed housing. So I just wanted to throw that out there.

Scott, do have anything you wanna add?

Yeah. I guess for me, just I I understand, the emphasis on the, as provided in this chapter where I'm getting kind of caught up or reading is is right after if specific findings are made that the specific provisions in the design of the proposed development will prevent landslides or damage. And so to me, that's reading if if the plans mitigate that risk, which is why this was put in the code in the first place, that there's room for interpretation.

I tend to agree with the past com or the comments from commissioner Mitchell and commissioner Wilson, but I'd also like to hear the mayor's interpretation.

Well, I'm not really in a position to interpret. I'm not a geotech engineer. And having been through some of this in the past, I will say that I don't find let me back up. So the Planning Commission went through a lot of testimony, a lot of reading, a lot of review to get to where they were. They did not deny the application.

They approved the application with conditions. And I feel comfortable that this development can succeed. I don't find the statement that if we don't get our way, we're not going to do anything. I think that the conditions that were outlined in the staff report beyond what the city engineer said to '12 '21, '38, and 11, there may there was a couple of others that I noted, do allow for this development to move forward. I think that navigating through all of these things, and again, I appreciate your comment about the work that staff has done on this, And I know that both in the planning side and the public work side, that they always work very hard to, try to get everything right.

But we are people. I don't find the statements casting aspersions on the staff. I don't find those credible. I've worked with these people a long time. I know the type of work they do. And I really find that the staff has properly and the planning commission, particularly, I mean, let's let me just talk about the planning commission. I think the planning commission has properly applied conditions as evidenced in the report that will allow this development to move forward. I think we've got everything in place. I don't think there's anybody that can guarantee that even with the best engineering in the entire world that something can't happen. There's always a risk.

We know when mother nature decides to do something, our best efforts sometimes don't, don't always come to fruition. I think that we all have to work very hard to make sure that everybody knows everything that they need to know. But again, as I stated earlier, anybody that applies for any application, period, has the burden of proof. There is no variance to that. There's no exception to that.

They have the burden of proof to make sure that they comply or they understand or they are aware of all the codes. That has been, in my opinion, one of the foundations of the land use planning process so that things can move forward. Excuse me. And I feel that based on everything that I've read and the testimony that I have heard, I believe that this project, as conditioned by the Planning Commission, can move forward. I'm comfortable with, I did go back and I went through the same thing you went through, Michael, looking at the sections.

And I did get fixated on as provided in this chapter because I went back, and I'm not a geotechnical expert, as I stated before, but I tried to reread all of that to get to how everything applies. And it's, again, it's beyond my professional and personal knowledge. So that is kind of where I'm coming down on this. I thought the findings were substantial and significant to allow for the applicant to come back to meet those conditions and work with staff to make this development happen. I feel comfortable with that and I strongly believe that this development will be successful.

And I appreciate the fact that it's a complicated site. It's not easy, and that's what's left in Oregon City. We got all the complicated sites that are left, and I appreciate the efforts that you all put into getting to, a project that you think will work, and I think this project will work. I'm satisfied with, what was submitted. I'm satisfied with the outcome that the Planning Commission, went through and made findings.

And I believe that this project will be a success. So, gentlemen, where would you like to go with this? People want a break?

Has everybody said what they wanna say?

Mostly. But they could say more, I'm sure.

Well, I was gonna make a motion, but I don't wanna do that before everybody had their say.

Well, why don't you just go ahead and we'll see where we land? And

I'm gonna make a motion to approve the appeal. Second.

Is there any discussion? I will say that, I will not support the motion because I don't think that the applicant has met the burden of proof to deny to have the repeal, approved. I think that the again, as I stated previously, that everything is in place for them to come in with the conditions that have been approved recommended by the Planning Commission that they can make this development work. So anybody wanna say anything else? Please call for the roll, please.

Commissioner Rocky Smith. Commissioner Scott Wilson? Aye. Commissioner Adam Marle? Aye. Commissioner Mike Mitchell? Aye. And mayor Denise McGriff? No. Motion passes.

We need to take a, recess right now. I don't know when we'll come back, but we're taking a recess so we can Over with our recess. We are back on the on the clock, and I will turn this back over to staff.

Okay. Thank you, commissioners. The applicant has requested an extension of its hundred and twenty day deadline in order for the applicant and staff to work together to prepare new findings that reflect the commission's decision tonight. They're going to prepare them? I believe, staff and the applicant will work together. Okay. Thank you because I

don't feel comfortable with that. Yes.

That meeting will will be back on June 3 to approve those written findings. And we have, also have a little bit of an, an extension beyond June 3 in case the findings need further discussion and further refinement.

Okey dokey. Do those go to the Planning Commission first, or do they come right to us? No.

They go to the commission. Okay. To you.

Alright. Just asking. Thank you. Yep.

It's all us. They're out of it now. Okay. Alright. So we are at the end, sorry, end of our agenda. And do we have any communications?

I do not have anything tonight. Thank you.

What about the dinner? Jacob, what

is this? CCA dinner? Yes, please. Yeah. We are hosting the May 2026 CCA dinner. If you don't know what that is, that's Clackamas Cities Association. We'll be right here in the Luchy Chambers here, having our dinner. The presentation is going to be the city manager, talking about current topics and things happening in the city.

And I may keep putting in a special request to my favorite police chief to be present because I would like him to participate in that discussion if he is available. And if not, he could send one of his two incredibly intelligent captains. Can that happen? Thank you. I appreciate that. I told Tony I was gonna ask you. He's over there giving me the smirk. Okay. Commissioners, anything exciting?

I have one thing. Good. Say if

I can. Chairman, could you please tell us?

Yeah. So,

this last, not this last week and the week before.

That was last week.

Anyway, went to the teddy bear parade. I think that was a exciting event. You know, lots of things there. But I have to be transparent. Something didn't sit well with me, and it has to do with the closure of Main Street. The event didn't even happen. To I mean, the the parade didn't even start until 10th And Main.

That's where it always has been forever.

But where I just kinda where I I'm sitting at is is we closed down downtown for staging the parade, parade, closing access to all those businesses for staging the parade. When the parade itself doesn't actually even happen downtown, it doesn't even start till 10th in Maine. So that just

Have you ever tried to plan a parade in Oregon City?

Because No. I haven't. I I just

I I haven't. Tell you.

Well, we can meet offline. I can tell you why it's exactly the way

it is and why it can't go anywhere else. I I I respect you feel that way. I just it it to me just felt, you know, we talk about supporting our businesses and and making sure that customers have access to it. It was just interesting that we shut down downtown for staging the parade, and then it remained closed well after the parade had left.

So The public works was right on the spot of getting it open prior to, 11:30 because I was back down there. They were hustling. And in that vein, I wanna thank the public work staff, the, police department, and the code enforcement staff. It was great. We even had our wonderful and exciting motorcycle officer down there, keeping an eye on everybody. But, yeah, it was a it was a lot of fun. But thank you for your comment. Appreciate it. Mister Morrow, anything for you? Mister Smith?

No. K. So besides the, Clackamas County Cities dinner that's coming up, I think you sent out the invitation, and and I appreciate the fact that we're going to have some vegetarian because couple of our mayors are vegetarians, and we did not have any vegetarian options in Estacada. And it was definitely noticed by that those two people. So it's much appreciated.

I do want to, prior to the press release, just, let people know that, we submitted, on behalf of the city, three entries into the If I Were Mayor contest to the Oregon Mayor's Association. And we received a notification yesterday that we received a first place win in the multimedia contest. Our, student is Zoe Zhao. She is a tenth grader at Oregon City High School. I called and let, doctor Spitzer know today that that that that had happened.

And we're supposed to be getting some press releases here, but, just very exciting that, we placed. And I will have to say, Albany and Lake Oswego are also in the winners column as well. So don't have anything to hold over my friend, Mayor Joe Buck, or my friend Alex Johnson. But we're in there too. So that's just exciting news that, we were able to do that.

And so we will be having that on a city commission agenda, in early June and be giving her her award, which is about $500 plus she got our award as well. So that was, is just very rewarding and we're going to try to recruit her for the Youth Advisory Commission as well. Our SA winner is already going to be applying for sending an application. So that's, Miriam and I can't think of her last name at the moment, but she goes to, I believe she goes to Gardner or was it Tom Walker? Well, it's one of the two.

So anyway, Alright. Being no further business, I would like to adjourn the meeting if that is okay with everybody. So thank you everybody for your participation, commissioners for your hard work. I know there's a lot of stuff to read and get through. And thank you to staff as always for all your work, and, thank you again.