Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thanks. This is the April 13th planning commission meeting at the city of Oregon City. Um, and it's a second Monday we can convene the meeting and start roll call. Yes, sir. Uh, Commissioner Minig is excused. Commissioner Gmont present. Commissioner Henderson present. Commissioner Lasal present. Commissioner Laws online here. Vice Chair Dole present. Chair SP here.

Okay. Uh any public comments that are not related to the agenda this evening? Hearing none. Okay, we have um we have a series of public hearings this evening and um without any further I will go ahead and review or read the um uh the opening of the first quasi judicial public hearing on the agenda. Public hearings on land use applications are scheduled for tonight and our role is to conduct the public hearing to make decisions about uh the matter before us. In making those decisions, we must apply applicable codes and laws and we cannot vary from the change or change from those codes or laws. The staff report has been prepared for each application and has been made available to the public 7 days before the first public hearing. And the staff report identifies the approval criteria that apply to each applicant's proposal. Staff has analyzed the criteria which is contained in the staff report and the hearing procedure that the planning commission will follow is set out in state law and the Oregon City Municipal Code. The hearing procedure steps are shown on the planning commission website. Public testimony will be called in the order that it was requested and if you wish to testify in person, please fill out a speaker card available in the back of the room over on I believe on the table over there. And if you wish to testify virtually, you will be called either uh from a request to speak email to city staff at at the Oregon City uh website in in advance of this meeting or by raising your virtual or physical hand when I ask if there are others in the audience who would like to participate. For the public record, please begin all testimony stating your name and the city of residence. You don't necessarily have to to uh mention your address unless you want to receive um additional uh transcripts from tonight's uh proceedings. Uh testimony in evidence should be directed toward the applicable approval

criteria. And if you believe other criteria apply in addition to those addressed in the staff report, identify and discuss those criteria and explain how and why you believe they apply to the application under consideration. Any person may submit written material while the public record is open on each application. Any written materials received by the city staff during the time period with the record when the record is open will be placed in the record. Written materials submitted during the public hearing must be presented to city staff in order to become part of a record. If a person intends to submit a PowerPoint presentation, report, pictures, or other exhibits in their oral testimony to be placed in the record. Copies must be submitted to city staff while the record is open. If they are not given to staff, they will not be included. Any person wishing a continuence to present additional evidence and testimony or to keep the record open to respond to new evidence must make that request before the public testimony portion uh before the initial hearing is closed. If the planning commission makes a decision with which you disagree, any issue that you may wish to appeal must have been raised before the planning commission in order to be considered by the city commission. And in the event of further appeal to the land use board of appeals without raising the issue on the record with sufficient detail and accompanied by statements of evidence allowing the city and all parties to respond, the issue will not be considered on appeal. In addition to participating orally or in writing and raising all issues during the planning commission proceeding, the filing of an appeal must include the required fee. A city recognized neighborhood association may request the

waiver of an appeal fee subject to the requirements set forth in OCMC 1750190C5 and 175290C. In addition, the failure of an applicant to raise constitutional or other issues related to the proposed conditions of approval with sufficient detail to allow the local government or its designate to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. So, okay. So, um, we will now open the record for, uh, GLUA26001, WRG26001, um, 807 Main Street, and this is a review and approval of the Wam River Greenway criteria for proposed 83,000 square foot mixeduse development. Um, members of the planning commission are to be unbiased and as a result, I will call on each of you to find out um whether or not there are any family or financial ties to this project and um if there are any um conflicts or biases. I'll also ask you if you've visited the site and if there are any conflicts in that regard. Okay, we'll just we'll just go down the wrong line from

Yeah. Uh I'm conflicted with the applicant. So I will be recusing myself from the presentation, deliberations and null vote. Okay, very good. Uh no conflicts, no bias, no exparte communications uh driven by the site. You know, enjoyed our downtown, but no conflicts or anything from that. And I have no conflicts or biases with regards to this project either. No bias, no conflict of interest. I've driven by the site many times.

Yeah, no conflict, no bias. I'm familiar with the site. I will say that I had some exparte. Um I was an adviser to Denise McGriff um during the county city task force. So sat on a wall during those proceedings prior to the county deciding what to do with the property. Okay. Does anyone in the audience wish to question any of the planning commissioners about these disclosures? This we have commissioner laws as well. Oh, I'm sorry, Carla. Yes. No conflicts, no bias. Um, I mean, I go downtown and do normal things, but I have no conflicts, no bias, no self-interest. So, thank you. Yeah, your your picture disappeared and I you were out of sight and out of mind. I apologize for that.

Okay. Sorry to open up to speak fast enough to be able to talk. I have to swing over to done speaking or speaking to the button. So, thanks. Okay, sounds good. All right. Does anyone in the audience wish to question any of the planning commissioners about these disclosures this evening? Okay, we will now commence with the with the uh staff report and presentation.

That's okay. And before we before we begin, I'm going to hand this over to Missy Ryan, our assistant city attorney, to go over a little bit um the unique nature of this application.

Okay. Okay. Thanks, commissioners, chair, and um vice chair and commissioners. Uh uh thank you. I just wanted to uh give a very brief explanation about the somewhat unique nature of this application. This is an application for WAMIT River Greenway compatibility determination that is derived from goal 15 as really well explained in the staff report. The unique nature of this is that it's also fundamentally an application for housing. And so uh applications for the development of housing are may only be subjected to clear and objective approval standards. However, an applicant developer can always uh choose to opt in to standards that are not clear and objective. And so this application uh recognizes the community values that are embedded in the in the city's uh implementation of the goal 15 compatibility standards and has chosen to apply for compatibility determination and and seek uh approval from the city under the under the standards. I think that covers it.

Okay. Great. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much.

All right. So this is once again um a type three review for the Lamborghin Greenway, but this is um I just kind of want to go over what this is and what this is not and then I'll I have a few more slides that go over uh the site plan and then how we're approaching it um you know goal 15 is not clearing objective and we are looking at um in our analysis can we provide conditions that um are proportional and have a nexus to the to the goal goal 15 uh goals. So this is subject to the criteria in the Wyoming Greenway Code. Once again, staff has provided findings. So what this application is not, it's demolition of the existing structure on site that actually has already been completed. The city issued the demo permit a couple weeks ago and the applicant is moving forward on the demolition of the former county courthouse. uh the site plan design uh review of the new proposal that will happen through a type two process later in 2026. The applicant is still working on that. Um and so what you see in their proposal is their site plan. Uh but we don't see elevations because they're still working on the elevations, but really the Wam River Greenway is looking at uh access to the river and the elevations are not needed for this review. uh the natural resource overlay district which is uh they kind of have a little of the same interest but the natural resource overlay district is a much more technical review looking at habitat and water quality uh when there is a a change in impervious surface on site and that will be done through the type two site plan and design review and any conditions that are applicable will be added to that and historic review. the county courthouse is not a locally designated historic resource and therefore there's no historic review board review for that demolition. So when the applicant submitted for the demolition permit that was processed like any commercial building permit uh it was reviewed by our planning building

departments and uh it was issued based on the requirements of the building code. So, the Wamtt River Greenway is a Oregon land use goal and um it you kind of we have to time travel back a little bit to the 70s I always say. Um looking at really broad ways of uh enhancing the natural scenic historical and recreation resources on the Wamtt River, ensure that development in the area is compatible with the river's ecological health and promote access to the waterfront. uh recreational opportunities are very important in the in the uh Wamburg Greenway as also the river's natural landscape. So once again, those are all very um aspirational goals. Uh the other piece I wanted to identify is goal 15 specifically looks at uh the requires lands committed to urban uses within the greenway shall be permitted to continue as urban uses including commercial and residential uses. and we've adopted those measures inside our existing goal uh 15 our existing goal 15 code and uh 17.48. So it was even in the 70s it was identified if you're in the Lambert Greenway and you're in urban core you can remain an urb in an urban development. So the site at 807 Main Street is the former county courthouse. So you can see the attack lot identified on the map. And this is really the crux of why we're here tonight. The compatibility review is when you're uh more than uh was 150 ft of the ordinary low water line. And um this little part and I'm actually going to pop back for a second. U this little section of the mant river kind of pops in a bit where the eighth street dock was. So there's a little bit of an inlet and if you look here uh that we start the measurement at that

ordinary water low water line. So in other parts most other parts of downtown will not be subject to the WER Greenway because we're measuring from the edge of the shoreline well on the other side of uh the Goffin Boulevard 99E. But in this sense we have that little inlet where the Ninth Street dock is and that's where we're measuring. And so that's where that 116 feet is measured to the foundation of the uh new building, but also that foundation um line is also mirrors the existing county courthouse footprint. So this shows the county courthouse uh from Main Street. And this I wanted to include. This is a Skug Street view. If you see where my arrow is, and we're looking at a um public access easement that allows both construction and maintenance easement if and when the McGlolin Boulevard enhancement phase three is built as a future public project. This is the area we're talking about actually where that squad car is. And the new construction is uh the footprint's going to go no farther than the existing footprint. Though there is a little bit of canal levered above the uh the upper stories for the new construction, but the footprint itself doesn't go further than the courthouse. This is a screen from the adopted Wam River, excuse me, the Montloff Boulevard enhancement phase three. This is was adopted to the transportation system plan last year. And so it is a um shared use path that is part of our city's transportation system plan. And therefore uh when applications like this come in, we want to make sure that there is adequate easement area both for construction and maintenance whenever a public project is built. So, we did we asked the applicant actually I'm going to go back to bring in um some of the data we had from our um consultant with the McGin Boulevard enhancement and they integrated that data into this uh um

side view you're seeing. And so we wanted to make sure that um there was enough space and they provided that. Um, so what you see on this side would be the version that had a a a ramp that went down to a future dock. And where you see in blue would be the underpass that would go underneath um Mclofflin Boulevard 99E. And once again, that occurs oops in right here, this area. So there would be an underpass uh ramp that would go underneath. And that's this kind of 3D space that's part of our um easement. Okay. So, what you see here is their proposed layout. Um, in the dotted line is the existing courthouse foundation. And so, the new proposal will be uh more abuing main street, but it will not go the foundation will not go farther. There will be uh a canal levered in the upper floors. You'll notice it's uh a little bit skinnier. The new proposal to the existing footprint. Um the area in between will be um some outdoor area and storm water planners. Uh so I'm going to go to the next slide. Once again I uh made sure that um we had a slide that really looked at is there enough space between the um footprint of the building including the canal levers and 99E. And uh even with the canal levers there was adequate space because that um when we did the analysis we're looking at the existing building and this just pops a little bit more on the upper floors. So uh what you have in your packet tonight are really two conditions. One related to the pedestrian access along the river for construction and maintenance. Um that's a line. So that actually will be um ensured that will be um implemented through the site plan design review. And as the Wamber

Greenway is looking at enhancing the shoreline, separate from any natural resource overlay district requirements, we wanted to make sure that the edge that you see right here uh was planted with native plantings and all invasive species were removed. And so we have a metric condition that will be moved forward with the site plan design review which will be separate from anything the natural resource overlay district will require because there's existing imperous surface. I don't know how much it will be um an increase. So that's why we wanted to make sure through the the Wam River Greenway that we were able to get that native planting at the shoreline and the invasive species removed. And so we have a 3,800 square foot, it's not the full area, but we have a a proportional area which will be dedicated to native plantings. Um because it's a very rocky outcropping, um trees probably are not appropriate there, but they're uh we're looking at native plantings that are appropriate for the rocky outcropping. So tonight um you have the opportunity to adopt the proposal with um the existing conditions or approve the proposal with modified conditions and provide additional findings. Once again as um our assistant city attorney identified um the applicants submitted this um because they felt that they could meet the the Wamber Greenway code with their existing proposal. We agree. We think both conditions are proportional to the request and have an excess both the uh native landscaping and the access easement.

So that's all I have right now and I'm available for any questions. I'm going to go to questions from the commissioners. I think you clarified it Christina so appreciate it. But when we talk about public access we're talking about access for the future bridge to be constructed pathways down to the dock. Not

what it is. It's a it's a construction easement access. We're saying that if a public project is built there because there I mean you can already walk on McGloin Boulevard. There is access along McGaffen Boulevard in both directions. Um this is a unique case. You know, if you were on another lot where you actually had direct access to the shoreline, you know, the city could potentially require u the construction of, you know, a pathway. in this situation. We already have an adopted public access project. We don't know when it's going to be built. So, couple questions on that. Yeah.

Seems like if we're looking out for the public, we would want to secure that access point now, right? Cuz I from my understanding, we've had issues with folks or individuals going down that pathway. Do you know, is there any intention on the type 2 review to secure that and make it, you know, only accessible for maintenance? uh that is actually owned by ODOT and so that would be their direction. This is not our control and actually um there's kind of well they the they don't really front 99e because they don't really there's like air space between them and 99e. I think really this an ODOT facility and ODOT maintenance and any conversations with ODOT should be happen kind of the city commission level of government to government outside of a land use process. Excuse me. Um and so in this situation, we're looking at how do we ensure that we have a legal um public construction access easement and maintenance easement for when if and when this public project is built.

And how confident are we with you know we don't have a design on the bridge? No. And and like most TSB projects um you know we go through multiple grant cycles to continue refinement. uh this is to ensure that if that happens we already have this this easement's already been uh acquired and recorded. So what degree of certainty do we know that the easement's adequate though for that future brid

there is and that's part of the analysis is we downloaded uh KDson Associates they put together the package and I'm going to go back to here and that was the analysis is uh there was identified uh more sorry the 25 ft of vertical uh was enough uh was more than enough to ensure that um that that under the under ramp can be built. Good. Thank you.

Does that easement also include like you said construction access, but is also future access when a pathway is put in to because that will be a public project. So, there's already public access. So, um I think the key thing we always will make sure is that there construction access usually involves a little bit of wiggle room on either side, right? Because you can't build things, you need a little bit of space. And then future maintenance, we need to make sure that there's air space. So, um, couldn't like build a random addition on, I guess, can levered if we needed that for access trucks or a a boom arm they needed to get around or any of those things that we um were told we need uh to future maintain it.

Got it. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, we'll close the public hearing and um is there Oh, wait. Oh, we have the applicant here. No, we got to hear from the applicant. I'm sorry.

Public comment. Yeah. Yeah, there is. You're right. I'll make sure.

Uh good evening, commissioners. Uh, I'm Jennifer Jenkins with Level Development Northwest, uh, representing Level OCC1 LLC, the applicant. Um, our project designer is sitting in in the, um, audience here, and if you, if you have any questions for our designer, I'll bring them up as well. Uh, Christina, thank you for that overview. That was great. I just have a couple of quick things to add. Uh through the county's RFI process, the goal was to identify a redevelopment partner who could help bring new housing activity and long-term vitality to this part of downtown while replacing this, excuse me, while respecting the site's relationship to the river. Uh as staff noted, the intent of the greenway review is to ensure development along the river protects scenic and environmental resources while also supporting appropriate urban uses and future public access. Uh we agree with staff and their recommendations and happy to address any questions uh related to this application. Thank you.

Good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Do and we have uh I have one speaker slip for public testimony. Josh Malone was I have uh Josh Malone for for this item that wishes to testify. Is he here? Well, that's very strange. Is there anybody else that would wish to testify on this item this evening hearing? None. I will go ahead and close public hearing. And um is there anything that the commissioners would like to discuss regarding the project?

Yes. This has nothing to do with planning, but my curiosity has peaked. It states that you'll be removing the Himalayan blackberries on the I think the west side there. How do you propose to do that since you can't use any insecticides near the river like that? Wow, I didn't think I was going to get a question like that. Um, we will work with our landscape architect uh to make sure that everything is by code. Um and if those blackberries are invasive, which I understand they to be, uh we will make sure that um the removal of those uh will be done um by the books.

Okay. Any other questions?

They're tough to get rid of. Yeah. Um I guess I wanted um obviously we're interested in the Wamic Greenway and we don't necessarily have full designs on the the structure. Um given that there is that public access and potential future pathway is the building being constructed in such a way that you know there will be storefrontage because it sounds like there's going to be like retail and restaurants on the bottom and and housing above. Is that taking into account that that public space that that future public space that we all would like to see to put in at some point or is it more focused on the the actual street frontage that the site has?

Yeah, great question. Uh because of the slope of the site and because we are required to put parking in, parking actually fronts the north side of the um project, we are really focusing the retail and the active space of the lobby along Main Street and Liberty Plaza, more specifically Liberty Plaza. Um, and with the unknowns around um, the goals and the future project that's actually happening there, it's really hard to design something um, that you don't know is actually going to happen. So, um, to answer your question, the retail is focused on uh, Main Street. Got it. Thank you.

Okay. Can I entertain a motion? I'll make a motion to approve GLU A2600001 WRG26001 807 Main Street. I'll second. Commissioner Los I. Commissioner Gmont I. Commissioner Lasowl. Hi. Vice Chair Dole. Hi. Chair SB.

I um at 1367 Malala Avenue, master plan, general development plan approval, conditional use approval for drive-thru uses. Uh this was continued from our last time and I don't think we need to read the uh spiel again. Right.

This is a continued hearing. Is that correct? Continued hearing, right? Yeah. I'm going to say no. I hope I don't regret it. Maybe what you could do is read uh the raise it or wave it portion. Okay. Can't we just refer back to the one we already Yeah, we can just we just Okay. And and exparte uh for every every continued hearing we have to ask for any more exparte communications.

Absolutely. Yeah, that's fine. That's fine. So um so if the planning commission makes a decision for which you disagree any issue that you may wish to appeal must have been raised before the planning commission in order to be considered by the city commission and in the event the f further appeal to the land board of appeals without raising the issue on record with sufficient detail and accompanied by statements or evidence allowing the city and all parts to respond the issue will not be considered on appeal. In addition to participating orally or in writing or raising any issues during the planning commission proceeding, the filing of an appeal must include the required fee. A city recognized neighborhood association may request a waiver of the appeal fee subject to the requirements set forth for forth in the relevant code. And um in addition in the the failure of an applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient detail to allow local government or its designate to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. So um members of the commission need to be unbiased. Uh I want to go ahead and go down the line to see if you have visited the site and if you have any conflicts or bias at this point.

I have no bias. No conflict of interest. I've driven by the site many times. Yeah. No bias, no conflict, no exparte. Uh am familiar with the site. I have no bias or conflicts. I have been by the site numerous times. Uh no bias, no conflict. I drove by the site on the way here. It's on my route coming here. No exparte. Yeah. No exparte, no conflict, no bias. Watched the video from last meeting. Uh have reviewed the site only from the public right away. uh gave a presentation at Hillenddale Neighborhood Association where Chick-fil-A also gave a presentation uh but they brought food and I didn't touch it. Okay. Did you talk about Chick-fil-A

at the neighborhood association meeting? Did I talk about Did you Did you give a presentation? No, I I gave a presentation on the courthouse. I apologize. And they gave a presentation. We were at the same meeting. Just being fully transparent. Just making sure. Okay. So um all right commissioner laws laws I have no bias uh no conflicts of interests. Okay very good. Uh does anybody in the audience wish to question any of the plan commissioners about the disclosures this evening? Okay we will go ahead and move on with the public hearing. And do we have a a presentation?

I do. Um I have a couple slides just to uh reorient the commission to what uh we reviewed at the last meeting. Right. Um assistant city engineer Josh Wheeler is here to talk a little bit about the shared use path and the geologic hazard overlay and then I have a little wrap-up and I know the applicant does have a a presentation. Great.

Okay. This is uh these are really two separate applications but they're tied together. um will hold whenever there is a motion during deliberations, you will provide um two motions. Uh the master plan is a type three process. It goes to the planning commission. It's a way to look at a 20-year horizon for a long-term redevelopment of a site. Um and then detailed development plans are identified as the implementation are usually done at a type two level. In this situation, um the applicant chose to do a concurrent review for parcel three, which is the road. Um and so they're um attached together um through the um planning commission hearing process. So just to orient everybody again, um 1367 Malala Avenue, um the uh parcels that are and I can you see my Yes. Okay. the um kind of the square parcels up here are part of the 20-year master plan. Kind of these three smaller um extensions are related to the road construction. The way it's set up is those parcels are brought in to allow approval and construction of of parcel C, but once that's complete, they will not be part of the 20-year master plan. Uh this provides you a little um zoning map context. There's a lot of zones around this area. This property is owned mixeduse corridor 2 which does have a minimum F floor area ratio and the applicant is well above that. Um they have a little bit of room regardless of what's um developed. Um and it is generally this um uh mixeduse office retail and residential is identified. Um, general commercial uh is over um across the street and general commercial actually drive-thrus are permitted uses and mixers corridor 2 as well as mixed use corridor 1. They are conditional

uses. So that is one of the issues you'll be reviewing tonight. Uh we have some small residential sections just north are 3.5 and R10. Um the property uh that Metro owns uh for New Creek Canyon is zoned R10. And then we have some campus industrials. as we get closer to the county campus. Uh this was discussed uh last meeting, so I wanted to make a slide showing the location of the New Creek Canyon parking lot, which you see to the north and then the subject site. S28 is the shared use path. And I just want to take a moment to orientate people what a line on the map on a TSP means. Um it doesn't mean when you see when you open up our transmission system plan maps and you see all of the proposed roads or shared passes p shared use paths the line on the map is not the final alignment. It is really a point A to point B line using best guess like we think it's towards the back of the property you know or we think it's close to the front of the property or we want to connect these two streets so it might have to go through the middle of the property. That is the level of analysis on purpose that a transportation system plan is looking at. We're trying to connect uh known points with these new shared use paths. So what you see here for S28 is just showing that we need to connect Beaver Creek up to Hilltop Avenue. And um the proposed connection is um along Sheros for bike and pedestrians on Hilltop Avenue um into Otter Lane or Beaver Lane into the Canyon parking lot. So uh this is uh not identified for any improvements as using existing conditions for biking and walking. So uh as part of the master plan segment of we talked previously, you're really looking at two pieces that are required for type three review. One are the two

requests for the drive-throughs. that's in uh parcel A and parcel D as well as the parking maximum requests in parcel A and parcel D. So the both of those require planning commission review. And so that is really um one of your main goals as you do deliberations is has the applicant adequately demonstrated a need for those adjustments and have they um have any adverse spin adverse effects been mitigated and has the applicant designed a drive-through facility that is safe contains adequate Q storage and has any adverse effects been mitigated. staff believes that through the conditions of approval related to the enhanced landscaping as well as the opening day for parcel D to do an opening day safety plan uh along with the you know review technical review of the drive-throughs queuing that these are two safe drive-throughs. Uh this is uh and as we move forward and questions are asked, I wanted to put this summary map. This kind of lays out all the items as it relates to the master plan, but also identifies which parcel is which. So there if you have questions tonight, I can go back to this slide so we can go back and remind everybody which parcel is which. The other piece I wanted to highlight is um the shared use path is on parcel C. Um as it um from Beaver Creek up to kind of where it's on the normal master plan parcels and as it makes that bend, the shared use path leaves the road portion and continues north on it own. So, a lot of the um development service conditions talk about the shared use path. And I just want to uh remind the planning commissioners that the shared use path is also on the road on that that lower section. It's just um as the road bends, the shared use path will um be separated and be its own piece. So the shared use

path on plan on the city's end can be implemented through uh like an appendage of parcel C or it can be um implemented through the construction on parcel B. It can kind of it can be whatever you want it to be. It can be an appendage of of this application and parcel C or it can be um delayed and implemented when parcel B is constructed. one item that did not get implemented through the revised effort board and I apologize it is completely on me I failed to do that we talked at the last meeting um that the enhanced landscaping in front of the um fast service restaurant is under some PG power lines so there's a revised condition that says the applicant can put shorter trees in the enhanced landscape area um when the planning commission moves forward for any deliberations and um identifies any amended conditions this amended condition will be added to the notice of decision. So, uh that's the master plan piece. Um the detailed development plan looks at parcel C and once again um part of the shared use path is on the street and then the other piece can once again be seen as like an appendage or built as parcel B. Um, I know I'm going to be passing this over to our assistant city engineer Josh Wheeler, who he has a couple slides to talk a little bit about the geological hazards overlay district and the shared use path and some additional conversations we've had with the applicant and review inhouse um, with staff um, and what has been implemented in our revised staff report. So, I'm going to hand it over to Josh and he can let me know when I should advance the slide. Yeah, I think we can go ahead and go to the next slide. Um, so, uh, changes since March 23rd. Um, we've listed here, um, two major

changes. Um, as staff reviewed things, uh, uh, we found additional details that we needed to add additional findings and conditions to. The first one being that um, staff is requiring a relocation and construction of that shared use path, the portion portion not along the road. the portion that would be either built as an extension from parcel C or um we're offering the ability to have that part of the path done with parcel B. Um uh we say that in the first two bullets there. Um we also are requiring that it be pa uh of paved materials um most commonly asphalt um but we would accept concrete but asphalt would be fine. Um and um it must be located to be used by this development and visible for safety. And so at the last meeting you heard some comments from Metro as well as some citizens. And um we agree that um the location that was proposed previously was kind of down kind of hidden um and wasn't connected to parcel B. So it didn't really feel connected for the use that um its purpose is which is a multi-use trail to connect bike and ped um throughout the neighborhood so they don't have to go out on Malala. Um we are proposing that they need to find a location more than likely uh adjacent to at grade with the proposed parking lot of parcel B so that um it will be safe um it will not have the wrong type of people using the path and it'll be connected with those that can use the path there as well as to the other neighborhoods. Uh we also have added findings within the de the um staff report about how it is proportional to the development and um um all the changes we made in the staff report uh staff reports uh we highlighted in yellow. So um uh I cop I have those here with me if you have questions about what we highlighted um

since the last time um but there is a fairly lengthy discussion of how we do feel this path is proportional to the development. Secondly, staff is requiring redesign of parcel B due to the existence of the geologic hazard overlay zone. So, this also affects these parking standards that um they're seeking some uh is it um that the maximums on parcel B is not requesting any parking?

Oh, it's the others. Okay. Um but on parcel B and you'll see a picture in a minute. U their parking lot is um being proposed into the geological hazard overlay zone. And in uh 2021 the city commission um changed the geological hazard code to be more restrictive. And what they did during that time was um approved code that required um any development within the geological hazard overlay zone um of these three categories. There's four categories. Three of them are within steep slopes 25% or greater within a mapped landslide deposit or within the buffer of that deposit. Um the buffer of the slopes is not one of the criterias that I'm getting ready to talk about. But within those three criterias, if you're within any of those three parts of the zone, um you have a maximum of 4,000 ft of land disturbance that you can have within that zone. So if you have uh or 50% of the size of the area. So if you had a 5,000 ft area completely in that zone, you'd be at 2500 ft². if you had 10 acres in that zone, you'd be limited to 4,000 square feet or one acre and so on. So, it it always goes back to 4,000, which can be really limiting to certain properties. Um, but that is what the code says today. Um, and so, currently, the way it's proposed, they are impacting the zone more than they are allowed to. And so, we have added conditions saying that from a conditional standpoint, you can revise your site plan and be able to meet the code. So we are still recommending um approval with conditions but those conditions do require a revision of their plans and when they submit that when someone submits a DDP for parcel B um it will not be able to look uh like the plan that we see today. Uh next slide.

Uh this is a picture of what I'm talking about. And so, um, within the, uh, if you go to the right hand side of the picture, you'll see, uh, the block that says city map, landslide area. Um, the whole area is all of that that, um, we just threw the arrow uh, arrow over. And then the buffer of that area is the magenta or light purple color, whatever your eyes see there, which goes into their storm water area. It goes into the parking area. um does not look like it impacts the proposed buildings. Um if it did impact the proposed buildings, then there's density limitations. Um but right now there's only disturbance uh from pictorially what we can see. Um we placed uh this image over approximately. So it's not perfect. We did the best approximation we could using our maps and their site plan to overlay it. um when they get to actual design plans, we'll require them to use our GIS data and overlay it uh directly. Um but this is a fairly close uh representation. And so anything within that the brown on the right or the um magenta light purple color um can have no more than 4,000 square ft of area disturbed in it. So that disturbed really means a shovel in the ground, any type of dirt movement. And you can see that the roadway um at the bottom right hand corner goes through uh those areas and it actually goes through on two different parcels and you are allowed to do the 4,000 ft per parcel. And so we've calculated approximately that by putting that road through there, um, as long as they stay to existing grade for the most part and not a ton of filling or cutting, so that there's a lot of transition, they will be able to meet that 4,000 ft standard per parcel to get the road in. But besides that, most of the area is going to have to remain undisturbed. Um, and

so that is our interpretation of the code, our understanding of the code. Um, and that's where we're at today. Um, and I believe uh the next slide is all yours.

Thank you, Josh. Just to um let you know that the applicant um did request um seven additional days for um final uh comments. So, what that means is tonight you have the ability to ask staff question. Well, you'll hear the applicant's presentation. You can ask staff questions. You can ask the applicant questions, but you will not have any deliberations tonight. So, the deliberations will occur at next week's meeting at April 20th. All the testimonies in Yeah. And they've asked for 25 minutes for their presentation.

And and that's fine because they did not um the applicant um didn't really present at last meeting. So, it um it was fair to kind of combine both of their um opportunities. So, they talked about five minutes last time. So, um we So, that was very reasonable to kind of um have both.

Great. Um and uh just to reiterate um you know we're looking at the master plan as well as the detailed development plan for the um shared use path. I know the applicant does have some comments related to our the interpretation of our code related to as what um Joshua identified as the disturbance area and the buffer and they'll talk about that. Um but um I'm kind of the sometimes um if things get confusing kind of rise above the for a moment. We have the master plan where the two things you are you know required to look at which is the parking and the conditional use and then uh listen to the applicant listen to staff's presentation about the geologic hazard and the recommendation of how to address the shared use path um as you move forward for any deliberations at next week's meeting. Very good. Thank you.

So, I have um what I just said on the slide. So, I am going to uh Josh and I are available for any questions you may have before we move on to the applicant. Okay. Are there any questions of staff? Yes. Yeah. Josh, really quick question. So, the mixeduse path, does that count towards the 4,000 square ft?

Um it's a little bit of a tricky question. Um the simple answer would be yes. However, if the path were built uh outside of the land use um using a type one process um it could be potentially considered exempt if it's built at grade because there's one exempt criteria that says you um if you don't cut more than 2 feet or or take away more than 25 cubic yards then you're exempt from the geological hazards code. So there might be a way around that if you do it timingwise, but if you look at it holistically here, it's part of the 4,000. And you know, the safe bet is to just stay out of the the overlay zone.

Is that overlay zone something that could be waved? I mean, I know it exists for a purpose, but is that something where the applicant, if they feel strongly about this, could apply for a variance or a waiver? Um, or is that set in stone by some other law that Yeah, that's a good question. So, um staff has considered that question and um we had discussions about that question with the applicant and um the u the applicant will will likely bring up their position on that. But, um the city's position on that question is that there is no variance in the current code for geologic hazards. Um and um what the code says is is what it has to be.

Got it. Thank you. And if you have additional questions about that later once you hear more testimony, I can give clarification on that. Thank you. Thanks. Kind of piggybacking a little bit, Josh. Thank you for your presentation tonight. Um, with the significance, you know, the significant revision that would be required, why would we not ask the applicant to do that now at the master plan level? Um, I'm going to look to Missy and Christie on this, but there's a there's a little bit of a timing issue. Um we we caught this a little later than um uh we normally catch these things and um I believe there's a timing issue that is kind of requiring this to go forward.

Well, I'm going to give my planning answer and then I might pop it over to Missy. Thank you.

So I you know and I maybe I'm just taking it much more simply as a planner. You know they aren't proposing development on parcel B yet. So that's a detailed development plan. that level of um construction you know analysis uh site plan design review analysis geologic hazard review for the parcel B is just not here right and that's the goal is we wanted to create parcels so that could they could be implemented through future DDPs but really as the master plan what conditions need to be added um that kind of steer um improvements so things like we have conditions related to transportation improvements like SDC's and off-site contributions to our 213 project. So, that's embedded. We looked at our water, sewer, storm, you know, existing they can build within, you know, on site with our we didn't have to upgrade a sewer line down the road. So, we looked at that kind of larger analysis um bigger picture, but each parcel will come in for their own detailed development plan based on natural resource overly district or geologic hazards and that analysis will be done. I think the key is you have this shared use path that looked simpler and now it is not as simple and so we're trying to find a way to um either address it through this parcel C DDP or through a future redesign of parcel B or future actually really future design of parcel B.

Yeah, it just it just feels like that it would be such a significant change that they would almost have to come back and revise the master plan. Not necessarily because we're looking at a worst case scenario. So if they come back in any of the three um once again this is my planning hat. This is not my engineering hat.

Even if the parcel a restaurant came back slightly smaller we do have a condition that requires that they have to show that they still meet floor area ratio. Once again they're at like 78 for a 0.25 F. So they're well above. So they still have to track that. Um, if any of these buildings came back smaller, that's perfectly fine on the DDP level. So, if the parcel C comes back with less dwelling units or u maybe they're located differently, that will be reviewed by the clear and objective standards of our site plan design review code. So, I'm going to pass it to with the other piece related to kind of the

Thanks. Thanks, Christina. Uh, good question. So, that's a good planning answer, but the the legal answer is that uh we're up against the 120day time limit as extended. And we are also the applicant has used up all of the extensions of the 120day limit. So, we really are literally out of time. I do think it is important that the master plan does freeze some things. Um, you know, I believe that it can freeze some of the code that's in place. Um, and it's also important, it's important that the city's geologic hazard overlay zone is accurately reflected in whatever master plan is approved. So, I would agree.

Those are kind of my legal answers. I appreciate both responses. So, thank you for that. Humor me. Question on the geological hazard. You know, from my experience, it's an overlay on an aerial image. It's a map. Does the applicant have the opportunity to through like some sort of soil analysis come in and challenge that buffer that where that location is on the map. I mean, I know there's no procedures for variance within the code, but through expert testimony analysis, could they come back and say, "No, it's it's actually here on the map and educate the city or

Yeah. So, we've had that question with other applications in the past. Um what we have allowed as a practice is on slopes. If um because our slopes are based on LAR data which comes from the satellites which is approximate and so if if if you're at 26% okay you barely hit the threshold and you can prove with an on the ground survey that it's less than 25. We accept those um with with no question. Okay. with respect to landslide deposits, which is where their main issue is.

Those we don't have any flexibility because there's um many many maps out there that um show where these are and then um there's others that prove again that they're there. They might be a slightly different shape barely, but um there's just not a lot of evidence to say that those don't exist and they're mapped by the state. uh the state holds them as as what we're supposed to follow. Thank you, Josh. Are there any code provisions for um impervious surfaces as opposed to doing asphalt for that pathway? Uh I don't understand your question.

Impervious. Can can the pathway be impervious like crush granite or bolt? Oh, pvious. You mean pvious? Yeah. Um I'm sorry. Pervious. Yeah. Okay. previous meaning it can flip through. Um uh no and our um our review of code um we we believe this follows what's called an access way

in our chapter 1612 code and it says directly in there the word paved. Um and so paved would mean impervious. Um there's lots of different paving pavers, asphalt concrete, others um pvious concrete, but still those are all um paved situations and and impervious situations. So things like um uh gravel or u mulch or um things like that would not be allowed. Um and the other reason is this is an ADA accessible path too. um because it's meant to be multimodal and so it's meant to uh get people to and fro and not just recreationally but from a transportation standpoint. So it has to meet um those type of services that can handle things like wheelchairs, crutches. Okay.

Um and other things. Will the pathway be lighted? It is required to be lighted for any lighting. Okay, good. Um now lighted does um normally mean pedestrian lighting which is a lowle lighting. However, um if it happens to be next to a parking lot that already has some lighting on it and that lighting spill goes to it, you can kill two two birds with one stone. Okay, thanks so much. Okay, any others?

Okay, let's hear from the applicant. Is that on? It is. Okay. For the record, uh uh good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. Greg Hathaway. Uh representing the applicant. Uh I'm an attorney with the law firm at Hathway Larson. Uh our address is 1125 Northwest Coot Street in Portland, 9729. And with me this evening is Kirk Williams who's the managing director of Cyprus uh and also Scott Franklin uh who is the project engineer uh for the project. Also we have Christopher Hal who is our geotech engineer uh who is remote uh but is available to participate uh answer any questions that you might have. I'm going to make some preliminary remarks and then I'm going to ask Mr. Franklin to talk to you about what what we believe to be the two key issues uh in your hearing tonight uh dealing with the shared path as well as the geo tech issue and parcel B development. Uh so Scott will be able to provide graphics describing uh those issues uh what we see as problems but also solutions that we think are available uh to your commission to help solve uh these problems. I think it's important though to go back and look at a little history of how we got here tonight because we came to your planning commission uh I guess 3 weeks ago on March 23rd with the full intent to accept this staff recommendation and all the conditions of approval.

And the reason why we supported the staff report that you had in your hands before the hearing started on March 23rd was because Cypress and Cypress project team, myself, Mr. Franklin, Mr. Williams, uh, who's going to testify tonight on behalf of the applicant spent a year working with the staff to make sure that this proposed development satisfied all of the city's requirements. And during that year's process, the st the staff asked the applicant to make a number of changes to his development plan because staff felt that those changes need to be made to properly address the city's requirements and Cypress accommodated those. We disagreed, but we agreed to uh to to implement those changes recommended by staff. So, Cyprus worked for a year getting into a position the evening of March 23rd in support of a positive stack recommendation with conditions. But what happened the evening of March 23rd, minutes before the hearing started, we were advised by staff that the shared path location on the eastern portion of the property, which is consistent with the alignment in the TSP, was no longer going to be located there based on staff's position that it had to move. And it had to move in a way that from our perspective could significantly adversely affect the proposed development. And that's why we asked for the continuence because we weren't prepared for it. Again, we're prepared to tell you to adopt the staff report and all the conditions of approval. So, we were not expecting that. So, that's

what I refer to as the shared path issue. But it gets worse. Literally the next day on March 24th, Josh Wheeler, your assistant city engineer, sent the Cypress team a letter advising that we could not proceed with the proposed development that we had negotiated with the staff for a year. We could not do that anymore because staff now had an interpretation of its code that said that we couldn't develop in this geological hazard overlay area literally a day after the hearing where the staff had previously recommended approval and development in this area based upon the applicant's geological report. So, uh, talk about blind side and Mr. Williams will talk about that and I respect your staff, by the way. There's no doubt or question. I've known these people for a while and I appreciate Mr. Wheeler being very honest with us. They didn't catch it. And during a conference call with Mr. Wheeler, I said, "Did you review our proposal in this development, the geo geohhazard area, the overlay? Did you review that before the staff wrote its report and recommended approval with conditions? The answer I did not as the assistant city engineer and our geotech city geotech engineer never reviewed this. So, as important as we hear tonight that this area is so important to the city and to make sure that area is protected, staff never took the time to review our proposal that

proposed development in this area until the day after our first hearing that got continued to tonight. So, Mr. Williams is going to express serious concern about what's happened here and rightfully so. And again, I'm not trying to place blame on anybody. People make mistakes. But this is a real serious mistake because both issues adversely affect how we proceed with this development after working so hard for a year to get it right, which we thought we did. Our focus tonight, though, is not on dredging up what the heck happened here. Our approach tonight is to talk about solutions to these problems because we think there are solutions to the problems. So even though we we we didn't expect them to happen, we believe that there's an approach that Mr. Franklin is going to talk about in a second that will solve the shared the shared path issue and he's also going to talk about how we can solve this geotech geog the geo geohhazard area issue. Um so I want to talk about the shared path first before I introduce Mr. Franklin to talk about it. We believe Mr. Franklin Wood described how we believe that we can move the shared path from where it was originally proposed so that it could be done but it wouldn't adversely affect the development and again Mr. Franklin will talk about that in just a second. Uh we're also prepared to dedicate the dedicate the right of way for the shared path in the area that Mr. Franklin's going to talk about and the the land cost associated with that if we're talking about a proportional share is approximately

$200,000 of land costs to dedicate that rideway for this shared path. But Cypress is also willing to pay a fee in lie of constructing the the path now in the amount of $80,000 which we believe is more than the proportional share because as we stated last week or the last meeting, we don't think it's appropriate for this city to actually make the improvement to that path under the current condition out there. It's not safe and the city staff is asking us to construct what we think to become what would be become an attractive nuisance. And so instead of building a path to nowhere today, let's preserve that path with a dedication and then having this applicant bear its proportional share of the cost of improving that with the fee and loo uh in an amount of $80,000 which very well may be beyond uh that that that proration cost and we believe Metro uh may very well agree with our position. Now the next thing I want to talk about is a geological hazard area issue. And uh the record shows that our geotech report shows that this development can in fact occur in this area. And I know some of the commissioners were asking questions about well can their geotech engineer demonstrate that it's okay to to build here. It's safe. The answer is yes. The report says so. And we discussed that on our call with the staff uh a week before last. And our geotech was on there and he explained to the staff as apparently the staff believed at one time because they recommended approval that it's safe to

build here based upon the scientific analysis that's been done by our geotech. And I don't want to misquote the city's geotech engineer who was on the call, but I believe the city's geotech engineer, I don't think he's here, but I think if you ask him the question, he'd say, "Yeah, it's okay. You can build here. You actually can." In fact, I think Mr. Franklin's going to indicate that by building in this area, we're going to provide improvements that actually make it safer because we're going to control the water in this area, which could cause landslides. So the question is how does this planning commission get to a place to allow these engineering reports to support development in this particular area and that is a provision in your code and it's 17 um 44060 L and we believe this provision is unambiguous. It gives this city the discretion to in fact review a geotech report and reach a conclusion that it would be safe to develop on this property. I'm going to read L to you because this is a very critical section. The review authority 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. The review authority should consult with the city's geotech engineer making this determination. Cost for such cons consultation should be paid by the applicant. The review authority may allow development. This is important. The review authority may

allow development in a known or potential hazard area as provided in this chapter. If specific findings are made that the specific provisions of the design of the proposed development will prevent landslide or damage, the review authority may impose any conditions including limits on type of intensity of land use which it determines are necessary to ensure that the landslides and property damage will not occur. This is the vehicle that your commission was just talking about a few minutes ago. So, it's not a question of whether it's scientifically or engineering wise shouldn't happen. I think all the experts are going to say it's okay to do. The only thing holding back the city since they raised it a day after the first hearing is to help us agree that this provision allows that opportunity. Let me tell you what's so important about this. It allows the city absolute discretion to determine whether or not you should do it or not. The application unilaterally get to get that to make that call based on this provision. The city staff, you have the sole discretion to determine whether this should happen. But it's but it's got to be based upon engineering expertise. And I think we have that in this case and Mr. Hal will be able to talk about that if you have any questions. It also allows the city to impose conditions if that's necessary. But I think what's most important, it achieves the legislative intent behind protecting the public health and safety and still allowing development to allow much needed housing in Oregon City. So there's an opportunity here if the city wishes to interpret its own code to do what I think is unambiguous that they

have you have the right to allow this development to occur if the city agrees that scientifically and engineering wise it's appropriate. So we're focused on solutions excuse me solutions tonight not to focus on how this happened but we want to solve the problems together and allow us to go forward with this development. So with that, I'll turn that to Mr. Franklin.

Good evening. Uh my name is Scott Franklin with Langan Engineering. Our uh offices are in Clakamus, Oregon, 10135 Southeast Sunnyside Road. And uh I will try not to duplicate uh some of what Greg just talked about, but uh u you can interrupt me if I get too deep in that. What you see on the screen right now is an overlay of the the GIS uh mapping that uh Josh mentioned and and that mapping is is what has what the city has based this this interpretation on and the red lines that you're going to see in the next exhibit. I wanted to show this so you could see how that was was placed on there and it actually fits very very well on the site within the GIS mapping. Can we jump to the next slide real quick? So the reason for the previous slide is to to justify the location of the the the mapped landslide area which is the the east red line and then the buffer is the dashed red line about 200 ft west of there. And as you can see, it's it does impact the site. Uh it impacts a lot of the parking. The building is slightly based on on our overlay, the building is slightly into that. But uh what I want to talk about first is the location of the the pathway. And Greg talked about uh some proportional shares and and impacts. and and we can we we take issue with some of the the nexus that was presented in the staff report and we'd be happy to talk about that if if that's a a concern with folks. But the the location of this pathway is is based on our analysis of a number of different

possible solutions for a pathway. One suggested by staff early on was putting it right above, and this was before the March 24th letter, putting it right above the retaining wall and then coming up off the public street and coming into the site and then ramping down to the northeast corner. Uh that poses some issues relative to ADA. Uh there's another opportunity to to route it through the site west of the storm ponds and then head over to the east. uh that helps with the ADA on the southeast corner but doesn't solve ADA on the north side. So this route is is one that addresses the ADA. It routes it around the proposed development. it does have to tie in through the the buffer area uh just by virtue of the fact that the buffer extends across the entire east side of the property and the the applicant Cypress is willing to to to look at the the proportionate share of that and and Greg mentioned 80,000. How we got to that number is that pathway uh area right there is about 6200 square feet. And using the city's numbers that they talk about in the staff report, that's $62,000. Typical um a typical bond for that would be about 125%. So that's where the $80,000 comes in. and uh that's a solution that can work for Cyprus and they'd be willing to do that. The next issue is is obviously the big issue on the site. Can we go to the next slide, please? So again, this this is the the GIS uh

print out of of the mapped area. And the key thing to note here is that that the landslide is actually below the top of bank. And uh and I don't think there's there's a dispute to that. It's it's what the city is is concerned about for for all of this. And again, this goes back to uh where we would position the the the setback lines. Next slide. As Greg mentioned, the the applicant the the applicants to technical engineer Teraccon has prepared a slope stability analysis of this site. And in that analysis, they specifically talk about and identify how the the system can be designed so that it can be safe against landslides. And what you see in that report is a a very clear um a very clear indication that the both in the static condition and in the condition during a seismic event that the the proposed soldier pile wall can retain the the site and and avoid a landslide there. The soldier pile wall is drilled into the bedrock 5T on holes on piles every 8 ft. And the factor of safety typically used for uh for a static condition is 1.5 and typically used for a seismic condition is 1.15. Those are identified in the geotech report. What they also identify in the report which is shown here is a much greater factor of safety based on this wall design. So from a technical perspective this can definitely solve the issue.

So there is a solution here that allows the project to move forward. Um, a key element. Greg talked about various code sections that that uh that are applicable. Section L 060L is is a key one for sure, but that's not the only one that talks about uh geologic assessment. 050A talks about a geological assessment. Um 06G talks specifically about uh roads within the the buffer area and the hazard area. And it specifically says that the roads need to be a minimum of minimum width necessary to provide safe vehicle and emergency access, minimize cut and fill, and provide positive drainage control. 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. Section G does not mention pathways at all. So, if the city's position is that we can't do any work in there or can only work up to 4,000 ft, then it doesn't support section 060 point G because it doesn't allow for pathways. So, that's a that's a an important element here as well. And one of the the other key elements for overall slope stability is that um as shown in our grading and drainage plan, water doesn't flow down the the face of of this landslide area. It's captured by the site and drained to a a specific location. One of the key elements for for uh stability of a of a landslide

area is making sure the water doesn't intrude. And that's what this project does. So the solution here is to allow what's already in the code, which is a technical solution to this issue, to allow that to occur. And if that's done, this issue is solved. One of the things that staff has brought up to us uh about section L is that it really relates to more of a means and methods or a construction element or construction approach and not necessarily a an approach to design or or solution that would would solve this issue. Um the reality is that the language of section L specifically mentions that uh the geotech report makes specific provisions in the design of the proposed development to prevent landslides. That's exactly what Teraccon recommends in their report. So there is a solution for this. Thanks. We have uh a little over two minutes. I'd like to have Mr. Williams come up and testify. And with the with the permission of the chair, I I don't believe we're going to need five minutes for for any rebuttal. So, if we do go over, uh, we will wave any any rebuttal. But, I'd like to introduce Mr. Williams.

That's fine.

Thank you, commissioners. My name is Kirk Williams. I live at 312 Rosedale, Dallas, Texas. So, I'll try to let my accent not affect uh my communication, but thank you for uh for having me here tonight. Um, as I mentioned, I am the applicant. Um, I had initially planned uh an entirely different opening statement when than when I was here 3 weeks ago. At that hearing, I was excited to share with you a proposal that we would bring to the city of demanded uses, retail demanded uses, housing demanded uses for a site that is set, that is set vacant and abandoned for far too long. I was going to both unpack our development and applaud the city staff uh particularly Christina who's worked tirelessly with us for the last year and I was proud to come to the forward and talk about that with you. But this development is supported and then and is supported now by the surrounding neighbors, by the adjacent property owners, the neighborhood metro, our civil and our geotechnical engineers, our capital partners who have spent hundreds of thousand dollars and the market because we have the pad users here tonight that are looking to develop and they've come in on their own. All of these people are present here tonight. However, as previously discussed, city staff introduced new information to us, illtimed, and devastating to our project. This was the new information that we got 30 minutes before the hearing 3 weeks ago was devastating. And that was the shared use path. We've worked through that issue. We put that aside. The more disturbing was the fact that we received damaging, completely disruptive information with

regards to how the city was interpreting the geohhazard. We knew it was a geohhazard, but we were working with code. And the fact that we've been working over one year with city staff, and that had not been brought up until the day after our hearing 3 weeks ago led us to believe that this is the right path in the interpretation of the code. But I'm saying, if it's so important to him now, how come it wasn't important to him a year ago at our preapp? How come it wasn't important to them when they were reviewing our report our our application between July and December of last year? How come it wasn't important to the director of public works when I came here to meet with her to discuss the shared use path and the ADA connection in the geohazard zone? How come it wasn't important to her then to bring that up? And that was in February. And how come it wasn't in your the staff report that you gentlemen received and lady received three weeks ago? As as Greg Hathaway explained, we have solutions here. We do. But I got to say, over 42 years of being in this business and countless hearings, I've never had this kind of information, this kind of devastating information that has shown up. the day after our hearing was scheduled. As developers, we understand there's entitlement risk. We get it. I understand that. That's part of the risk, but not information that we cannot endure this information coming in like it has. So late in the game, Greg gave you the legal argument. Scott gave you the technical argument. I'm going to tell you the capital argument, both tangible and intangible. We have spent hundreds

of thou. It's not a cheap process to get to this level on the DDP and the GDP. We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. We've got legal commitments with the pad users. This kind of information cripples us in this regard. But there's a solution. But I am really upset because I've got great people here with us and they trusted me because I trusted city staff and I trusted the process. But there is a solution. There truly is. So we're asking the the city planning commission to work through this process to listen to what Mr. pathway has said to listen to the engineering not just of Teraccon our geotech engineer but also listen to your own engineer in regards to there being a solution that doesn't compromise the geohhazard area but it actually g makes it better it makes this safer rechaning the water and we're making this a better solution so we asking you to do this for for the development, for the good people of of Oregon City, and for the process that this can be done, right? Thank you.

Okay. Yeah, we have uh a couple of uh public testimony items. Oh, is there anything else? No, other than if you had any questions and we're happy to answer any questions that you might have later. Thank you. Any questions from the commission to the applicant? Um, I have one. Um, was there any dialogue that you had with our geologist? I know I've heard a lot of information about the geotechnical aspects of this site from you guys. I'm just wondering if there was any evidence that was pro uh provided from the city um that rebuttz agrees or any of that. We had a call with city staff. Yeah,

I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead. I was just correcting myself. Thank you. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. No, no, go ahead.

We did have a call with myself, with Mr. Hathaway, with Mr. Franklin, but also with Mr. Ha, with Terracon Engineers, and also the city staff and the city's geotech engineer. As Mr. Hathaway mentioned, when the question got brought up, did you review Teracon's report to the city geotechnical engineer? His response was, yes, I did. And the response from there was what's your opinion? He says it's a good report. Now obviously there's more information that needs to go in but there was a an affirmative aspect from the city's geoengineer that it is a good report.

So I guess maybe my question to staff is that is there any written information from or written comments from the city's geotechnical engineer in response to the applicant's geotechnical engineer at this point? Is it appropriate for staff to answer at this point? Okay. I don't know who. That's fine. Just wanted to make sure process was right. It's still open record.

Um there is nothing written in the record. Um between the preapp and the phone call that was just referenced. Uh my understanding is that um there was no coordination on the geotech um because our geotech did not review things until recently um when he was asked can the report be um based on the report can can it be built safely and he did verbally say yes not based on code but based on the report.

Okay. I mean, until I'm convinced otherwise, you know, I don't know. I know that the applicant wants to come to a solution on this, and I want to and I want to come up with one, but um until I'm told otherwise, I really am feeling like I'm lacking evidence, and we can get into this later, but I'm feeling like I'm lacking geotechnical geotechnical evidence from the city's side of things uh before we take a look at this. And um if there's any other follow-up comments that the applicant has at this point, anything else? You guys have anything else? No. Okay. No, sorry. All right. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. So, now question. Yeah. Yeah. Go right ahead.

Yeah. Yeah. Quick quick question for staff. Uh Christina, uh in re in regards to what we are reviewing this evening, it's specifically the conditional use of the two drive-thrus as well as the increase of the maximum parking ratio. That's the Yes. And uh those are the type three pieces of the master plan that you need to do, right? I think the geologic hazard piece um has um filtered its way into the conditions of approval. Okay. Um that are in the master plan that kind of talks about it's kind of a generalized utilities approach. You know,

here are the utilities you need for your master plan. You know, phasing you can do it this these different ways. And then the DDP kind of also talks about you know if you can build the shared use path with this parcel C or you could do it later. So solving or responding to both what the city brought up and what the applicant brought up regards to the geologic hazards kind of touches both applications. So, um, providing clarity on where the planning commission falls in that I think will be part of your deliberations next week, if that makes sense. Um, and I know, uh, Missy's here to answer any questions related to code interpretation or how to go about um, you know, as your role as planning commissioner. So, I can pass that on to her as well if that's helpful. Yeah, I think that was where my question was going to go was from we've heard from the applicants advocate and it's his job to advocate. Um, it's your job to advocate for the city. Uh, can you provide I didn't fully catch the entire code reference, but I think I saw you scrolling through our code book over there. Um, in your legal opinion, does that provide

what the applicant says it provides or

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. I I think Christina is going to put the code section, the reference code section up on the screen. Uh so this is 1744060 L. And interestingly, this provision was not addressed at all in the application materials. And so the an original staff report that was issued didn't cover section L at all. This interpretation that you heard only verbally tonight was also presented on a a large uh group call about a week after I think it was nine days after the last hearing on this. It's difficult in many ways to address an interpretation of code. that this is a complicated code section up up here L to address a proposed interpretation of code that is never set out in writing. And so staff was really challenged um with understanding what the applicant's interpretation is, you know, was only verbally, never to this point yet has it has their interpretation been put in writing. But the staff report, the DDP staff report does include a fairly comprehensive interpretation of subsection L at page 76 of the DDP staff report and that's for parcel C. Uh essentially city staff considered the proposed verbal interpretation the interpretation that was proposed only verbally. I'm going to say the city ran it fairly high up at at a very high level this proposed interpretation and staff just could not get behind it. And so the interpretation that's at uh page 76 of the DDP staff report is the

interpretation that the city stands by which is that uh subsection L isn't a variance provision to allow a variance from the really what they are safety standards of the geologic hazards overlay. And we can get more as indepth as you want to go um on that, but it's again I'm sure I'm at a disadvantage and I've heard already heard this argument and been pondering it for 10 days and you just heard it tonight 5 minutes ago. So

yeah. Okay. Um Commissioner Liselle, I guess I'm a little confused. According to our agenda, we were here to address the conditional approval for drive-thru uses of maximum parking adjustment and also to consider a new public road. Suddenly, we're into a landslide area far to the west of the property for the whole development, not just the specific areas that we were to address tonight. Correct. I I'm

and I think that was I didn't come prepared to discuss any landslide areas or anything like that at all because of the late information that was received. Um, and so we're all receiving this a little late. And

um, so back to the interpretational question. um if you want to you know sort of talk about our understanding of the applicant's interpretation which is that subsection L does essentially include an additional safety valve or or release valve for uh varying from the standards if there's a geotechnical report that provides some safety uh asurances. um you know staff looked at that and it did find a specific provision in 174406 which is in G which specifically does state that's two pages before on 73 you know road shall be the minimum width necessary uh the but the review authority may grant a variance from the city's required road standards upon findings that the variance would provide safe vehicles. So, under one way to interpret code, that would be evidence that the city does know how to write a a code provision that allows for a variance when it wants to. That's not to say that that's the only way to write a code provision for a variance, though. So, you know, definitely willing during deliberations to help the or now to help the planning commission understand these these two

competing interpretations. Okay, I appreciate that answer. Yeah, very comprehensive. Um, so given that there's a code possible need to a code amendment to that could be addressed with the city commission, I assume to change the code before this application has to be decided on. No,

but the application that we have to decide on isn't the final design of the building and such. We're interested in the parking lot parking and the drive-thrus. So, we could decide on that. It sounds like and the master plan and and the shared use path and that sort of thing. And the applicant could then take this up with the city commission who actually has the power to change this code where whereas it sounds like we don't. Um

or do I have that wrong? So I think maybe commissioner what you're suggesting is that uh uh delaying having to reach this issue until the DDP the detailed development plan for parcel B is actually submitted. That's what you're suggesting. And that would give the time that would meet the timeline that we have for this application and allow the applicant the time to take this to the city commission who may or who would be empowered to change the code to allow a variance that then may come back to us. Yeah. or

actually I have to step in here. the that's true if you got a code revised before the next DDP for parcel B if we're only talking about the parking lot but the current proposal that we've seen for the shared use path is a significant grading effort that would be um tens of thousands of square feet of dirt moved um not 4,000 which is our interpretation and so the the path which part of this still poses a geologic hazard issue to me. Um, based on our interpretation, even with their reroute that they proposed,

we're not sure what their reroute is based on what I heard tonight. Um, I don't know what the grade is. I don't know if there's any movement of dirt. Um, I I don't know any of those at this time.

Just to um job is to pull us up a bit. Um so right now the planning's recommendation is kind of doing what you are saying which is further analysis of the road or the shared use path can be done in parcel B during a future DDP. So think of it as if you agree with staff's recommendation that is what's happening and and the any any um uh findings you make related to the parking amendment and the conditional use for the the driveways. What the applicant is saying really is this has too much this is provides not enough clarity for us because it kicks the can down the road for us to understand what is going on with parcel B and so the applicant actually wants clarity

in this master plan and they don't want to wait like we have conditions that'll allow them to do that but they don't want to wait because that's too much uncertainty for them so I think that's just the difference Right? We are saying that's fine. There's, you know, a lot more work that needs to be done. You don't have to build this part now. It can be done later. But they're saying we don't want to we want to resolve this uncertainty now. And so I think that's really the crux of where we are between now and when you make your deliberation is understanding you as a planning commission how you want to address that. Um this the next steps is a no decision will be given and then the applicant if they choose can go to the city commission on appeal for a final decision decision if they don't get the clarity that they request at this planning commission level. So that is really would be the next step.

Yeah. For me I mean I think it's okay. So if they want clarity now, I have to respond by saying I don't have enough evidence to really make a decision on on based on what we have today because I haven't heard anything from the city geotechnical engineer. I don't really know where the pathway is going to go. So itations, but on the second, you know, in the second tier, I would say that,

you know, if they if you want to kick it down the road and you want to do the do it during the the DR, then then that's fine. then you can you have a little extra time to work that out, have the geotechnical engineer and engineering staff to um you know to flesh this out a little bit better because I in my opinion I don't think it has been given you know the amount of time that's elapsed since all this information has come in. I mean those I think those are the two I think those are the two I mean it's a bit of a fouian bargain but I think that's what that's what's before us at this point. Is there enough time between now and the next, you know, deliberation, the next hearing to get a condition or to get feedback from the city's geotech engineer so that we can give clarity to the applicant within that timeline?

I can speak on behalf of the city's geotechnical engineer and I can just say that there is not enough time under the current the current uh deadline that's looming. Right. Okay. So, I just want to make sure I'm tracking here. I'm going to I'll let you Josh if you don't mind. Okay. Okay. So, I guess so say we move through the motions tonight. Yeah. We'll we'll go ahead and accept public testimony um because I think there's some additional public testimony. And then we'll um allow for the applicant to to um uh hold the record open for another seven days, I think, is what you guys wanted to do. And um then, uh gosh, I don't know what we'll do from there, but

well, cuz if the if we do that, which sounds great, that's what the outcome wants. We can we can move forward with that that way. When the next level plan comes through and the applicant still wants to be within the geological hazard, where would that go, Christina? Would that come back to us or would that go to city council? So, if I may, um, while they're deliberating, I I think, um, because it feels like we're in a loop here, a little bit. Um, no.

I think the clarity that the applicant is requesting um from us tonight is whether or not um their interpretation of this code section L is um appropriate or if staff's interpretation of code section L is appropriate. uh the way that staff interprets it and it might be worthwhile for for Missy to do a little bit more of a detail of what our interpretation is as it's written in the staff report. Um what staff's interpretation is it frankly it the geotechnical evaluation of the review at the staff level is not necessary at that point because our code in in staff's interpretation for uh the simplest of matters and and Josh can correct me if I'm wrong here is basically that it it it doesn't matter um because the proposals don't meet what the code says um in terms of what L authorizes. And so I think that the the conversation and the deliberation needs to be on the code interpretation with the understanding that even without that on the geologic hazard side of the equation, as Christina talked about earlier, we're talking about a master plan development that is absolutely subject to change and what is proposed is the maximum intensification of it. And so even if it lessens, there's still a path forward further consideration by the planning commission with the understanding that these things need to be addressed when they get to actual on the ground development side of the equation.

But I feel we've heard tonight from the applicant, the development that we see on paper today is what they want to intend to build, right? That is what they intend to to desire to build. Correct. So when they submit their detailed development plan, if it stays consistent with where it's at today, and they provide soil analysis and backup on the geotech side, you come in and say you're going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to ensure the safety of the site. Where does that go when it when it goes to a type two review? It would go over the counter and then you guys would deny it or would you loop it back into planning and then ultimately at the city? Like what are the next couple?

Sure. I'm going to answer process and I'll pass over to Josh on content. So, um, this is a traditional master plan, which means once the master plan is approved, there'll be conditions of approval that might relate to future DDPs. Um, when a DDP comes in, that's a type two process. Uh, that's a notice to the neighbors, twoe public comment, community development director uh decision unless appealed by the city commission. So, you will not once you've approved this master plan, it will not come back to you unless there's a revision that is required to be um reviewed. But I don't or or they can't meet a condition or they want to revise something like there has to be a type three reason to come back to you

and and implementation of the DDP is a type two process. And then to answer this what I think is the specific question is in that type two review, one of two things would occur. If if the layout was as it's proposed today that you've seen,

um we would uh either deem it incomplete because it's not matching the geological hazard code. Um uh but the applicant has the right that applicant has the right to force completeness. And then if they force completeness, uh our practice in Oregon City has been to always recommend approval with conditions. and we would have a condition saying you have to move everything out of that um area um because we have not had a practice of denying. Um we would have to talk about that as staff if we actually did do a recommendation of denial, but it would it would either be a recommendation of denial or a recommendation of conditions that made a significant change, but that would be a poison pill condition, right? I mean, it would be a very rough condition.

I think that would kill the project if you were to condition that that version of the project. Sure. practically speaking. Yeah, I'm seeing nods back there. So then who makes the final decision on the interpretation? Thank you for asking. So the planning commission uh has the authority like any decision-making body to interpret the code in the way that it thinks is uh consistent with the meaning of the words on the page and with the intent of the city commission basically in adopting it. And so for this decision, the planning commission makes uh can make an interpretation of you know disputed code provisions

in in the way that you you know agree on. And that would be the goal of the next hearing. Correct. During deliberations probably. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Because we're not in deliberations, which is hard to believe. We're just asking questions. I know we're sort of edging there, but I guess I have a follow on question. So if if we side with staff's interpretation of the code or come up with our own

and deny at least the geotechnical aspect of this even if we're happy with the parking and the drive-thru usage and you know approve it from that standpoint but go you know we don't think you can build within the geological hazard zone I guess isn't necessarily on the table and it got appealed it would get appealed to the city commission they as part of that appeal Would they be able to change the code or that's probably a separate process, right? No, they would do their own interpretation if they wanted to have a different one. So they they could interpret the code that they wrote and decide that this does allow for a variance and then it would come back to us for that variance.

One thing I want to advise though is we have a pretty substantial set of findings in our staff report. If the planning commission through deliberations next week is aiming to have a different interpretation um that you will need to replace those findings with your uh with your interpretation.

I don't think that's hard that extreme. I think we're I think we're more or less in parody with what you have written in the report. But, you know, SANS is just one small it really is I don't want to call it a small detail, but it's something that I think that can be solved. And um but I just at this point I don't feel like I've got enough evidence to really make that. So, I'm I I am grateful for that additional week for us to be able to um uh you know, work this out.

Yeah. And just so you know the you know planning is not going to provide any additional and devel development services like the city staff were we're done with our record. It's really the applicant is providing that additional information. Well Josh then can you speak to a little bit to the city's engineer soils engineer that you I felt like you were going to speak on their behalf.

Um I mean what I I can speak on their behalf. So, um the um just as a small bit of background, this the uh city hires a third party geotechnical consultant to do our geotechnical review. Um and um his job is to review applications per the code, not necessarily per um the science. Um because the code is intentionally more conservative than the science. Um back in 2021, I was involved in those code amendments. Um it was intentional by the city commission to make the code more conservative than what the science would probably say. Um based on my small background in geotechnical engineering as a civil engineer, the um our geotechnical engineer has said based on the code and the way he's interpreting the code and the way that the city has historically interpreted the code, we had a previous consultant for about 20 years prior to him and then we've had him for I think it's four or five years now. Um, we've consistently said that section L, which has been in the code for some time before 2010, um, because there was a major rewrite in 2010 under two public works directors ago, and then there was a major rewrite in 2021. Uh, L has always been there. Our interpretation has been that it is a it's a catchall that says here's everything in the code from part one down to part whatever and when you get to L if we miss something feel free to make some flexible engineering interpretations but not feel free to revise what you just read from part one all the way to there. That's our interpretation that

those are solid and not variable. the the variableness is what we didn't talk about. Um and so it's our geoteex opinion that the current proposal does not meet code but can if adjustments are made by moving things and shifting things. Sure. Does it change the amount of density or the amount of parking? Absolutely. Um but it could be done. Um, and his answer also was from a scientific standpoint, he does agree with Terracon's proposal that scientifically it makes sense. Unfortunately, it doesn't meet code. Got it. Okay. And

thank you, Mr. Chair, members of Planning Commission. Uh, I I will tell you this. I' I've done this for a lot of years and uh your conversation tonight uh totally grabs on to the issues that are confronting the applicant and frankly confronting the staff and you have really examined it carefully uh and asked really good questions and my response to what I've heard tonight is it does boil down to the interpretation issue involving the geoh hazard area. The shared path thing, we have a place to put it, but as someone said, we still have to I think maybe Jos said this is that we still have to demonstrate that that shared path that new location where we think we can do it and still be able to develop the property has to pay pass the geotech test. And so if in fact it's going to displace more square footage uh to to build that path at some point in the future, we still have to get past the interpretation issue.

Right.

And I appreciate uh Ms. Ryan's comment uh that the only time that she's really heard, at least my argument on the interpretation was in a call about a week and a half ago. Um and I have not yet put anything in writing. Um, but I do plan to put something in writing because the purpose of the final written argument is basically to address everything that you just talked about. And what we're going to produce for you are uh findings that uh show what our interpretation is and why. And I don't mean to be trit when I say this, but you interpret something and the first thing you determine is it ambiguous. If it's not ambiguous, if it's not ambiguous, there's no interpretation. There's no interpretation asked for. It stands on its own face. And when we read L, this isn't a variance provision or an adjustment provision. And Miss Ryan said, we know how to write those provisions because we have language in that section that says that this is a variance or an adjustment to to be able to do something. For example, with the roads,

there's no such language here. It's very direct. It gives the authority, the discretion, if they choose to exercise it to allow this to happen. This is not a variant section. It's a very specific, unambiguous, direct section that allows this to happen if the science is correct. And if there's one thing I think in this room we can agree on, it's okay to do it. It's just a question of whether or not legally the city can do it based upon the interpretation of this provision. So I I'm going to do the best I can in my final written argument is to at least share with you our view of the interpretation and advocate that it's unambiguous. I think more importantly when you do interpret something you have to look at the context and the context of the Jew of this area is to make sure that nothing happens here that would be unsafe. And again, the one thing we can all agree on probably if you built this exactly the way we proposed it, it's not unsafe. In fact, it makes it better. And so all we have to do is find a legal vehicle to make that happen. and we're going to do the best we can to try to provide that to you in our final written argument.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I'm and I'm looking forward to that because I think that will provide a little clarity maybe, you know, in addition to some of the information that we received from the city staff and we'll be able to weigh it out and make our decision. Thank you. You know, and hopefully it'll be the correct one for you. Okay. So, um without any further, I want to go ahead and uh accept public testimony this evening. And I have I have Joyce Gford.

I'll push the button on so it's a green light.

Thank you for the work that you do for our city and I know that that's volunteer work and this is a really hard decision for you guys to make. Um, I was here a couple weeks ago talking about that path to nowhere and I went down and and took a good look and I hope you get a chance to do that too. Take some pictures there. It's not a path to nowhere. It's a path to a sewage pump station. That's where that path will end. And when that path comes out from the apartments, it's going to have to go down into the canyon area a little bit to go around that sewage pump station or across somebody's driveway. There's no other room for it to go. Um it so it's been called a lot of things. Um what I want to what I heard tonight was one of the reasons the path needs to be paved is so that it is ADA accessible. There are ADA accessible sidewalks all along Beaver Creek Road and Molala Avenue. That path right now is there. It is a path made by the homeless. You can walk it. And I know that's on down on the canyon side and they want it up away from the canyon. So, let's put up a homeless highway because that's what it's going to become. We see it every day. It's not just that, but I can also see the residents of these lovely apartments that they're planning on building. If there's not enough parking, hey, there's a path right over here. It's well lit. Lands up in this little neighborhood over here that's got, you know, two little culde-sacs, a little tiny neighborhood that has no sidewalks, but it has ample parking on both sides of the street. So, we'll just come over and park there.

I want to say that I try not to be a nimi, okay? Um, and we welcome the houseless people that we see going by. If they're in need of help, we give that help to them. If they need water, we can get them water. Again, it it it makes me a little scared when I see them carrying propane tanks down into the canyon. But this path that you want to build is not going to be for the residents. I can't see a shared use path going from park to park in Oregon City. It doesn't go to a park except to the cemetery, which there's a still a big hole in the fence at the cemetery that the homeless are using. So, um, just want to say think about it. go take a walk and see what that path really would be like. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, William Gford.

Thank you, commissioners. I know my night my time is short and thanks very much for uh the opportunity to say some things. Um, we did have a presentation as uh, Commissioner Henderson mentioned at uh, at the Hillenddale Neighborhood Association. I'm the land use chair for the Hillenddale Association. One thought that was brought up is that directly in front of the proposed uh Chick-fil-A currently is a bus stop. And it's a pretty uh pretty intensely used bus stop, but it seems to me as though there's some should be some connectivity between people that would that would use that bus stop, both the employees and the residents of these apartments to be able to to access that bus stop. Since there's not a lot of parking, we're assuming they're going to be using public transit and God knows what Trimet's going to want to do, but uh something to consider. Number two is in in the uh I guess it's the staff report, there's a figure one uh that shows a picture of the gate going into uh that area directly out from Colton Way uh into the Walmart property. And um what that doesn't show and My wife Joyce and I walk in front of it every day. So we This is our neighborhood. We know it very intently. Uh you can't see how that drops off in the back. From Molala, you stand and it just looks like a big open field. If you go a little bit further, it drops down and you can see the homeless camps back there. I mean, there's a lot of people living back there. Sorry, I know they're going to be kicked out, but you don't see that from Molala. Furthermore, if you come back around the houses on Hilltop, Hilltop is the is the street to the north of that property

that drops down severely. Those houses are practically perched on a cliff before they come down um uh before it moves into this other area where this uh where this path this proposed path is. Um the big biggest question that I had was uh why why is there a path there at all? Um I understand that that was a 10 plus year old plan uh that which would provide connectivity in the neighborhoods and the parks. Um that's not the place to put it. That's not the place to put it. My suggestion is bring it down Molala. Got nice wide sidewalks. Take it all the way down to Warner Milney. Warner Milney takes you right into the trail head. Um that's my solution. Or just drop the whole thing. But um I think that this this shared path is the tail wagon the dog. And I think the housing is far more important than putting in a little trail system. Thank you very much. Okay, I think that is it for public testimony. I do have this one um speaker slip that never got

nobody ever came up. Josh Malone, he was here for a different item that's actually going to be continued. Okay, so he's no longer with us. Okay, great. I just wanted to make sure that everybody got their their fair. Um, all right. So, um I think with that we will go ahead and entertain a motion to um allow the record to um remain open for a period of 7 days. Okay. So, uh right. So, the record is going to close I believe tonight and then the applicant the applicant's final written argument period can't start until the record is closed.

Okay. So, what we're hoping will happen tonight is that the planning commission closes the record, closes the hearing, but then allows the applicant until April 20th at 400 p.m. hopefully sooner to submit their final written argument. Yeah. Is that going to allow enough time for staff to respond and all that? It's very close. We are going to do the best we can. Okay. All right. Can I just Yeah. Could we maybe get it by Friday cuz that would give me the weekend to review it as well instead of getting it 3 hours before the meeting.

They do have stat by statute they do have seven days. I I'm hoping that the room is listening to you. Yeah. If they can if I don't think we can make them do it. It would be great if they could. That's Yeah. All right. So, um All right. So we'll close the public record and um we will allow the it to remain open for a period of seven days for writt testimony only um and then final deliberation you know on April 20th. Right. So the so for written final written argument from the applicant only. Yeah. Closed to all others. Thank you. Yeah. Got it.

Okay. So I think we are moving on to the next item. or are we done? Do we need a motion to close a formal vote for the continuence? Well, I think I don't think we need a motion to close because we're looking but chair, if you wouldn't mind just uh either taking a vote to continue the hearing to April 20th and let's say the exact date and the date and the time and the place. Got it. Okay. Vote for you can say glue at 2525 because that involves both files. See, so what's what would the uh would that be April 20th then? Yes, at 7 p.m.

Okay. So, um I will entertain a motion to continue the meeting until April 20th at 7 p.m. for written testimony from the applicant only. Is that for deliberations? For deliber for deliberation. You see a second. I'll second. Okay, go for the vote. Commissioner Laws I. Commissioner Lasowl I. Commissioner Gmont I. Commissioner Henderson I. Vice Chair Dole. Hi. Chair Espie.

Hi. Okay. So, let's move to the next one. So this is So do I need to call out the continuation of item C as well? I'm assuming that I that this was for B and C for both items, right? It was covered under the glua 25-25 that you you identified which falls under both applications. So B and C were appropriately continued.

Okay. All right. So we are we are done with that item then or those two items. Absolutely. Great. Okay. So then um on our agenda we have item D glua 24 uh SUB243 GO2407 N O 24032 request for continuation of the ParkPlay 2 subdivision proposal. I will entertain a motion to continue that item. If I may, we have a date.

Uh, yes, if I may. Uh, the application staff report originally identified the May 11th hearing for this. However, the applicant has reached out to us um and identified that they will need some additional time. Uh, and so they are requesting the May 25th meeting. May 25th. Yes. Okay. So, May 25th is a holiday. Not for you. What holiday? Memorial Day. Well, yeah. I don't think this is it 26 or 25. That's good to know. Yeah, that is that's Memorial Day. Yeah,

perfect. Missy and Christina, sorry to interrupt. Christina, I need your historical knowledge bases here. If a planning commission meeting lands on a holiday, do we do it on the Tuesday or We don't do it. Okay. So our next meeting that they would do at that point would not be May 25th. It would be 21st. It would be the June 8th is when they would be requesting unless we wanted to do a special one. So we'll entertain a motion to continue this until June 8th. There you go. I'll second that. Okay. I make a motion to continue

the request for continuation of the Park Place 2 subdivision proposal to June 8th. Second. Okay, for the vote. Uh, Commissioner Laws, I. Commissioner Lel, I. Commissioner Gal, I. Commissioner Henderson, hi. Vice Chair Do I?

Chair Esp., Item E, request for a continuence to April 27th, GLUA25057, CU 25502, SP 25145, PI2508, park 252, PG line center expansion continuence to April 27th, 2026. Entertain a motion. I make a motion to allow the continuence to April 27th, 2026, GLUA25057, CU2502, SP 255015, uh, PI 258, park 252, PGE line center expansion.

Second. Commissioner Laws, I, Commissioner Lasal, I, Commissioner Gmont. Hi, Commissioner Henderson. I, Vice Chair Dole, I and Chair Espie. I communications.

Hey, guess what? We're going to have a meeting on the 27th. Um, and we will also have the special meeting. I believe Gail has already verified that we will have a quorum. So, we will see you all again next week. Um, thank you all for your your understanding and willingness to participate in a special meeting. it is greatly greatly appreciated. Um and then I believe coming up sooner or later this summer uh early summer we are planning on having a readout of HB 4037 um which was just passed uh in the short session and the implications associated with that of of how we process land use. Um, so that is to come. Uh, I think we were originally planning sometime in May, but with differing hearings, we might have to do sometime in June. So, uh, I don't have any further things to report. I'm not sure if anybody else does, but that would be it.

I think they made a bunch of changes to public meetings laws, too, as well, didn't they? Did they have Aren't there two Senate bills that they they did do changes to public meeting laws? Um there's one, the last I looked at over the weekend, that the governor is considering to veto. Um and so that is still a moving goalpost. Uh and so we do have a bit of a wrapup um of those public meeting laws and the general legislative session that is going to the city commission in two days from now. Um, but once that's actually finalized, we'll we'll probably do an update of that and wrap it all together in one as well. Okay. Have we seen the agenda for a week from

Actually, I was just about to say that. So, the agenda you see posted today really was just the file numbers and a small two staff uh report that says this will be continued. So, at some point we will repost the full, you know, I did not knowing what was going to happen and what new information I'm going to repost with um all the exhibits you have, you know, because this is the you'll have all the um nothing has been added to the record from planning staff from tonight's meeting. So, I'm going to repost all that and then when we receive the applicant's final rebuttal, I will post and send that. So, um you will probably get a a notice that um the staff report for next week will now be

uh added to which will be replic almost a replication of all the exhibits you see tonight. I think we have a pretty good idea of what he's going to have in in written form because he said it tonight. So, I think we should probably not talk about that agenda item during um communications because that hearing is closed. Yeah. Thank you. Keep us legal. We just can't behave, you know. All right. All right. Uh, move to ajourn. I have a final comment. I'd like to I'd like to move that the city treat us all to dinner. I'll second. I like that. Third. All right. Call the vote. Thank you, city staff, for being here tonight, Josh. Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for all of your hard work on all of this and other stuff. This was This is tough. Yep. Yeah. Thank you. Well, we'll agree to feed Carlo's cat. How's that sound? Look at that. A one thing that would