Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

What have commissioner within? It is a new year. Did we have a new appointee too? We did. Yes, we or we did just a moment ago. Well, that's understandable. What have commissioner within? It is a new year.

Did we have a new appointment? Hello. Goodbye. Great. I will call the January 13th meeting of the commission to order. Welcome everybody and happy new year. I believe we are starting off with the oath of office for the new commissioner. Correct. All right. And commissioner, can you tell us how you say your last name?

Infante. Infante with me. Nick Infonte. Correct. Thank. All right. Could have gone either way there. Welcome. Thank you. Okay. Raise your right hand. Repeat after me. I font dom. I f do swear. I support the constitution of laws of the United States of America and of the state of war and city. I the best of my ability for sale.

Please perform the duties. Perform the duties of commissioner for

All right. So we We have a roll call. We'll make sure you get seated there. The roll call, please. Lisa, do you have someone to introduce? Start that. Um, yes, we have new admin staff. So, as you recall in December, Jen left us to go roam the world. U, Megan Smith has joined us. Say hi, Megan. Hello.

Welcome. and she's had quite a first week because we have planning commission uh hearings officer and HLC this week and we've hired another admin person but they're out this week so her second week is three meetings so um be kind and she's doing a great job and we're very excited to have her. Welcome Commissioner. It's green.

Commissioner F here. Commissioner Tev here. Commissioner Via Brendell here. Commissioner Slater here. Commissioner Rhodess here. Commissioner Leven, Commissioner Heler here. Commissioner Frybeck here. We have quorum.

All right. Great. So, first up is election of president and vice president. So, I just want to say that I have been delighted to serve as the president for the past two years. It's been a pleasure and I appreciate everyone's courtesy and intolerance of my informality uh as president. Uh it's also time to hand over the gabble to someone else. I talked uh with commissioner with vice president fa and she expressed an interest in staying on as vice president for another term. Is that am I that's correct?

That's accurate. Okay. So, my intention was to nominate Vice President Fonta. Um um since I'm limited in who I can talk to, I did reach out to someone else. I reached out to Robert um and asked Robert if he would be willing to serve as president. He said that he would. So, I am will be very happy to nominate Robert, but it's not my decision. It's everyone's decision. So, we will actually open this up for nominations. Um which I'll do so with a bang there. It's open. Uh I'm going to rob nominate Robert. Uh but again, it is open and it's not my decision. So, if someone else is interested in running or you have another candidate, uh I guess it's a small group, but don't be embarrassed and go ahead. Going once, going twice. All right. Uh I guess then we go ahead with a vote or do we? Okay. In that case, again, if we could call the role for a vote.

Commissioner F. I. Commissioner Frybeck. I. Commissioner Heler. I Commissioner Rhodess I. Commissioner Slater. I. Commissioner Tev. I. Commissioner Via Brendell. I just feel like I should abstain on a matter of principle. Got to vote for yourself. Right. Vote. Okay. I Right. Commissioner Trump did not vote for himself. Like he would stay home. Right. You know. All right. There we go. Congratulations. I'm going to switch spots for you so you can take the gabble already. Yeah, here we can move our name tags over

effective immediately. You know, like the yesterday's fish, right? You know, old officers. Is there a ceremony where you hand off? Think I just did one.

Okay. I think it's my first order of business. I'm going to ask if somebody has an agenda I can look at because I do not have a printed copy with me. I've been sharing Lisa's vice president. Okay. Yes. Um I uh I guess similarly I know it's not my decision but I would uh nominate Vice President FA to remain as vice president um and open it up to uh discussion. I will second it. Uh, I'll just say she's been doing a great job. Very heated campaign. Okay.

Spent on this one. Yes. Uh, I suppose without uh any further discussion, I will move on to voting. Commissioner F. Hi. Commissioner Frybeck. Hi. Commissioner Heler. Hi. Commissioner Rhodess. Hi. Commissioner Slater. Hi. Commissioner Tev. I. Commissioner Via Brenell. I. Commissioner Infante. I.

Motion passes. Mostly just doing that for fun at this point. Okay, motion passes. Okay, that's my role. Wow. O, you have a be tricky.

Yeah, that Okay. Um, so now I think we're moving on to agenda item number three. Um, public comment for anything other than public hearings, deliberations. Um having I think almost doubled the number of public attendees we have in person this time. Uh are any of the people that are here uh here to speak for the public comment portion of the meeting? Okay, nobody has signed up. Okay, then I guess we will move on to agenda item number four, the consent calendar. Uh approval of minutes, adoption of routine items. Um, it looks like what we have is an approval of minutes from the December 2nd meeting. Uh, noting that Commissioner Levin is not here. Um, can we get Vice President F to fill in?

I was absent, so I will be abstained. Hey, do we have a volunteer? I move to approve the minutes of the December 2nd Salem Planning Commission. Do we have a second? A second. Okay. uh move on to discussion. Seeing no discussion, I would move on to voting and I will have my counting fingers ready. Commissioner F abstain. Commissioner Frybeck I. Commissioner Heler I. Commissioner Rhodess I. Commissioner Slater I. Commissioner Tev.

I. Commissioner Vieiraa Brendell I. Commissioner Infante. Hi. I believe that the motion passes. Um, I suppose should I ask uh if Commissioner Fonte, did you have an opportunity to review the recordings of the previous? Was this on the Mil Creek? No, this is the advisor.

Yeah. So, Commissioner Fonte, I didn't prep you for this, but generally, if you weren't at the meeting, you would just abstain from voting on the minutes unless you went back and watched the meeting. So, if you weren't at you weren't at the December 2nd meeting, did you watch it? You want us to change your vote to an abstension then for that adoption of the minutes? Okay. That okay with the

Okay, that's okay with the chair. And motion still passes. Uh, there are no resolutions and no action items. Um, moving on to item number five, public hearings. There are also none of those. So, I suppose we will move on to special order of business agenda item number six and discussion of planning commission membership requirements.

Um, I'll just speak to this one um real quick. Um, the as the staff report says that the council's looking at different requirements for boards and commissions and the makeup of boards and commissions generally. Um, for example, last night they voted to limit people to only being on two boards and commissions because there had not been a limit before. Um, one of the things that we were asked is to ask all of our commissioners, commission commissions, um, about the membership requirements and if you would have any recommendations to change those membership requirements. Um, planning commission's pretty open as far as the requirements. You have to live inside city limits or one of you can just live inside the UGB. Um, no more than two of you can be engaged principally in buying, selling or developing real estate for profit. Um and then no more than two of you can be in the same kind of business, trade or profession and and that's it. So just open discussion and um uh Thomas Kapan is on as well, our assistant city attorney. Um, so he might chime in if if he has more to add to this than feel free Tom. But otherwise,

I I would just add that uh one of the goals uh of this endeavor is to try to find ways to make um Oh, is Tom. Am I talking? Hold on, Tom. We can't hear you. Okay. Thankfully, I wasn't muted

all over again, right? Sorry. The commit the the Marian County staff came in and set it all up for us. again. I don't even tested. We did test and it worked again. I don't Oh Are you a bit

to call in for audio. Can you try now? Can you try again? Uh, how's this? Can you hear me? I'm talking. Hold on. Not working still. Sure. Tom has something really great to say, too. So, I feel really bad it's not working. We don't know. Try. Can you try again, Tom?

How about now? It says it's it's picking up the speed. It's just not affecting it. Oh,

sorry. Sorry, sorry, sorry. I'm trying trying different things over here. Not that one. Don't. Not that button. Not that one. attempting to constantly establish something. Tom, you want to keep trying for me? Uh, sure. I know. I'm gonna keep clicking some things. I'll just keep blathering on and on. Oh, Tom, I need to call it. Yeah.

No. Okay. Now we can see them. Wow. I don't understand.

Don't understand it. He's going to call me. I'm just

going to get a better view. Feels good. Okay, we have Tom on speakerphone. Oh, good. Okay, I'm gonna but uh I'm going to mute the uh Zoom uh meeting because I'm getting feedback.

Sounds good. So, uh I the purpose of this endeavor is to try to identify ways to make commission membership more inclusive. Um there are some limitations for planning commission have occurred that are in place. So uh may not be a lot to be done. What about the employment limitations you're talking about? Say again.

Could you explain more what you mean by employment limitations? You only allow uh two people from real estate or two people from the same industry to be members.

Okay, I think that was good. Everyone's nodding. Okay. I guess I could offer up a Oh, is there a question? Sorry. You have a question. I withdraw my question.

So, two council meetings ago, they voted to require background checks of boards and commission uh appointees. Um, do I'm just I guess clarifying that you will let us know when you hear if that's retroactive or not. Yeah, absolutely. That happened I think at their special meeting like a week and a half ago and so they haven't um shared any information with staff leaison about how that would roll out. So I'll keep you posted.

Yeah, not previously been a requirement to be on planning commission. I guess I my thought is that to the extent that we have a diversity problem, it tends to be kind of on the race ethnicity side and potentially the income side and not the employment diversity side. Um, and I understand, you know, the point on the on the employment restrictions. Um, and I I think they make sense to me. So, I don't see any need to change those. I think the issue of of race diversity is one that is a really big challenge that's kind of outside our ability to to deal with it because it has to do with volunteer time and child care and income and when people meet and how they meet and I don't have any very good solutions and I haven't heard of any very good solutions from other places as well. So I don't have any ideas on how to tackle that one frankly except to acknowledge that it's a real problem. Uh I think my only thought is I think it's fantastic that we generally have had good diversity across the commission from professions. Um, and I wouldn't want to specifically I think my only thought is uh I wouldn't want to mandate a single profession type but I do think it's important um you know I am an architect on the commission and I think that that is an important type of of role to have filled. Um so once I'm not on the commission it would be you know I think I would hope that there will be another architect or similar design professional um who can step into that role and you know also having you know someone representing the construction industry and the um development and real estate and urban planning and soils and

transportation. you know, we have we are very fortunate right now to have that I think largely covered. Um, so I don't know if there's anything to specifically document as a an expectation, but I do hope that we cons continue with this level of uh industry background. It's been really beneficial. I think

actually a question on that. Um the HLC requires having like they require to have an an architect on the board, right?

Y um the historic landmarks commission requires seven of the nine commissioners to meet the um federal standards for uh preservation professional. So that can be, you know, historic preservation, you know, you have a degree, it could be historian, it could be an architect, it could be archaeologist, it could there's like a whole list of things that come from the federal law. And then the other two positions can be at large. So they're going to have the same discussion two nights, two nights from now. Um, uh, I think some commissions have real specific requirements and then they've had the council's had a really hard time getting any candidates to fit that kind of niche, you know, that they're asking for. Um I don't you know we've not when we've had uh not a full commission it's generally because we're waiting for the council to sort through the applications and appoint someone. It's not that there's no applications. Um same on HLC they generally Kimberly is able she recruits people pretty heavily. Um and because we're the the state capital there's lots of actual um folks that um work for the state that have you know that background or or architects or something like that. So we haven't had a problem on that commission either. I know some commissions have had, you know, years and years of years of certain positions just vacant that they can't fill them. So, that's part of the reason to have this conversation.

I know the um the parks and recreation committee is supposed to have an arborist fill that and they have a tough time to fill that position. They just haven't been able to do it. I just think compared to other boards and commissions of the city, our membership requirements to me seem pretty lax. I think I think to me they're appropriate and I think I don't really see much of a discussion to be had. I know this is like broadly applied to all the other boards and commissions. Um, I think there are issues uh with just, you know, city finding a diverse pool of applicants and making sure everybody is kind of represented on the city's boards and commissions, but I don't necessarily think that that could be addressed by uh changing our membership requirements. I think that has more to do with outreach, meeting time, location, um how I guess we'll talk about this, but you know, how the appointment processes are and other things. So,

do we need a motion to not change anything? You don't if you don't have a official recommendation to change anything, you don't need a motion. I

think I have a a question for staff. So it it sounds like people are not uh very interested in creating a bunch of strict requirements. We don't have a bunch of requirements. Um is it an option for us to make uh recommendations for um preferences? I know that we don't pick the people that go on to planning commission and that's a city council role. But would it be possible for us to create a document saying we would prefer to have these qualifications or the sort of split of people? Maybe preference would be one person from every ward. Understanding that's probably not going to happen and we don't want to hinder ourselves by making that a requirement but we would like to have a preference in the application screening process to have geographic diversity to have industry diversity to have these things. Do we even is there a mechanism to do that or or is that not real?

I think through this process if you want to recommend to the council that they put in you know that they consider this list that you give them. The code does say in making appointments, the council shall encourage but not require geographic distribution of members throughout the city, but other than that, there's no encourage but not require language in there. So, if that's what the commission wants, I don't, you know, anything you want to recommend to the council um regarding this discussion, you can. Yeah, I mean I I guess that would be my preference then is to is to sort of codify some sort of preference so that we can maintain I think the strength that we have as Commissioner Fod said with the different fields that we have and try to improve the diversity for the purpose of representing the city more fully. Um, obviously there's some geographic diversity already built into the uh requirements, although I would suspect that we probably don't have a um uniform distribution of representation here for the entire city. Um, I just know that when we were downtown, I seem to be the only car that would be hitting north. Um, so, oh yeah, two of us. Um, and so I would love to see more uh diversity from different wards or different parts of the city cuz I think that will inherently create different viewpoints and we can have better discussions that represent the entire city. Um, but I also do not want to create a hindrance on us getting qualified applicants by creating requirements that can't be met. So I guess I would like to propose that we create a recommendation list for um applicants. Um, and I don't know what that would look like or what everyone's preferences would be, but that would be what I would ask for.

I mean, I would completely agree with that and and probably list on there. You know, having professionals who are engaged in the development process in its varying stages naturally means that you're coming to the table with some experience and education and training in the in those um which really informs the discussion process. Um, so I think that we should have at least list some some of those professions as to be considered so that we can try and make sure that we continue the uh the breadth that we have currently. Mr. Slater.

Yeah. I guess my only comment is that when we think about what those professions are, we should think very broadly. So we're not limited to just individuals that are involved in the current construction process, you know. So for example, we have someone in soil science, right? That's not someone who's involved in development, but that's someone who brings a knowledge that is related to how we manage our natural resources. I think that's an important part. So I wouldn't want us to create a list that just means basically you have to be employed in the in the you know, you're either an architect, uh an engineer, you're doing, you know, actual development work. There's more to it than that. So I would just encourage us to think about that. And you know in terms of process I know that we can't have a subcommittee.

So what would the process be to create something that we could all look at that doesn't involve us sitting down as a group and brainstorming at a public session? Yeah, we could continue this item this discussion to the next meeting and in the interim anybody could send me their ideas that they would want on the list and then I can just compile the list and we can have it for the meeting. Um, and then you could discuss everything that's on the list. And obviously you could by motion add things to the list during that meeting. But that's one way we could do it. I like that. I like that plan. Would it require us to make a motion to continue this or No, just put it on the agenda. Okay. Can if that sounds good to everybody. Okay. So, if you just have ideas, you can Oh, go ahead.

Oh, yeah. I just um I wanted to say I agree with with you. I don't want to butcher your name. Uh, Commissioner Vayra Vieier Brando, it'll take a minute. Yeah. Um, I agree with you on uh on that idea with having representation from each ward because again, professionals from every that live in different wards, know about those areas, and can bring subject matter, you know, information to the panel and, you know, knowledge of what's going on in their ward. And I think that's a good idea also. Great. Okay. Um,

just a question on that. Um, is there a way to find out what words we're missing right currently? I can send an email and and list all the wards that we have members in after the meeting or tomorrow. I can send that out.

Yeah. Um, so if we want to get it published in the packet, our next meeting is on the 27th and we publish the agenda the week before on the 20th and that's when we add things like to the website. Um, so it doesn't give you that much time, but uh I don't know by Monday's a holiday. So end of day Friday if you could email me or do you guys need the weekend? So then it'd be like 8:00 a.m. Tuesday morning would be allowable. We needing the weekend, we need three-day weekend to come. Okay. How about how about 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday the 20th? Let's say 9:00 a.m. I don't check my email. 8 9:00 a.m.

Tuesday the 20th if you've emailed me by then. Um your ideas and um then I'll just put them all together and put them on the website. Okay. Thank you. you. Um, this feels like a very related special order of business 6.2. Um, Lisa, do you want to start this discussion?

Uh, sure. So, I just put together a staff report. You might remember at a previous meeting, Commissioner Fryback requested that we have an item to discuss the interview process. Um, and so I just put some facts. Some of you have been were interviewed before you were appointed, some of you were not. It's not codified. So the council did it and then they kind of stopped and started and stopped. So just maybe want to turn over to Commissioner Fryback who asked for this item.

Yeah, of course. Um so I guess when I I guess the initial motion to appoint me to planning commission I think that was in like I think that was in like April or May. And then um one of the city councilors mentioned that she would like to have us interviewed um in order to improve kind of the transparency of the appointment process and making sure all kinds of decisions of uh local governments are um you know people can learn more about the applicants and stuff and and watch their interviews if they so choose. Um, and you know, I was under the impression that that process would carry forward because prior to the pandemic, um, every planning commission appointee was interviewed prior to appointment. Um, and then so after myself, um, Commissioner Tev and, uh, Commissioner um, oh gosh, I'm totally blanking on his name. Laura Medkiff were all interviewed. I had then assumed that would be the case going forward. Um the previous two appointees um haven't been interviewed. Um that's not to say that their qualifications are subpar. I certainly believe that they are um good. Uh but um I feel like that every appointee to planning commission should be held to the same standard as all the others. um the decision whether or not to interview uh just shouldn't be decided, you know, on a whim. Um I know it might seem odd if, you know, a board of commission just hasn't historically had interviews and then just out of the blue we decided to interview somebody for the position when they hadn't. I feel like it's to me feels the same to

not interview somebody um just based on decision. So, I feel like just based on the historical context of city council interviewing appointees, um I think it would be very helpful to codify that into the SRC and just make sure every, you know, we're all being consistent. Um so, I had a motion prepared tonight uh to read and then I think we can probably have a discussion about the specificities afterwards. Um, so I just would like to say that I move uh that a letter be written to the city council stating that the planning commission requests that commissioners being appointed to a non-consecutive term be interviewed by council and that the public be notified of a vacancy on the commission at least uh two weeks prior to an individual being selected for interview to fill that vacancy.

Second.

Any discussion? Well, I just wanted to add the uh second part of that um motion about u vacancies being publicly notified. Um I looked on the city's vacancies website after a vacancy was made available and prior to the city council um motioning to appoint somebody to the position, the vacancy was not posted on the boards of commission's website. Um which could be a reason. And I know planning commission doesn't seem to have an issue with people not applying. Um, but I feel like it's important if we have a page where the city posts vacancies for boards and commissions that there be some kind of requirement for that vacancy to be posted. I know um the state has a requirement that um jobs be posted for I think a week prior to um an offer being provided. I don't know if we need to have a longer posting requirement or shorter, but I think two weeks is a good starting point.

Well, I would say that um I support the motion. Um, I was also interviewed as part of my appointment to planning commission and um, as you said, I think it's a great opportunity to, excuse me, uh, to just learn a little bit about each commissioner, you know, before they're joining the commission. Um, and, uh, yeah, I completely agree. It it's in the interest of transparency. You really can't have too much, you know, information about um, you know, why someone wants to join and what their expectations are and what they hope to accomplish and contribute to to the planning commission.

And it does seem important to me to have it be uniformly applied to everyone. Uh, I think it adds confidence in in the process if if everyone has the same process, there's only one. I also think it um helps with what we're talking about with um the different wards, making sure everything is equal. Um having it could feel targeted for people if some people were interviewed and some aren't. Um I was not interviewed. I was in that that COVID kind of coming out of that bubble. But um I think moving forward consistency is key um for all So, do we want uh do we want to just vote on um or or what are people thinking in terms of just voting on the um motion to write the letter kind of as is and then coming up with the um just continuing to develop the discussion on the membership requirements uh separately or is there an interest in um amending the motion to include the membership requirements? I don't want to bog down the motion with this other discussion that I think might take a minute. Um, so I guess my my thought is to keep them separate, but I don't know if other people were interested in kind of consolidating that discussion.

Yeah, I would uh I would agree. I think we should keep them separate. Uh my thought um I haven't been on planning commission to where we've actually sent a letter to council before. I don't know how that process works, so Lisa, you might have to help me out. Um, but I was thinking I could draft something up uh between now and Tuesday at 9:00 am and and get it over to you so it can be on the agenda and then everybody can then review that at the next meeting. And then if we all agree that that's the proper verbiage and stuff for whichever whatever. I was just thinking a short bulleted list. Um uh but then we could just vote on that at that point and then send this off. So to me this is like telling council to start the code updates process and then us now or next meeting will approve the actual verbiage.

Um yeah that sounds fine. Mhm. Any more discussion on the motion? Do we need to withdraw the motion then if we're not going to vote on it? Are you saying you don't want them to vote on the motion tonight, Commissioner Fairck? Uh, no. I'm saying that I think items 6.1 and 6.2 should remain two separate items. Yes, that's what I that's what I was saying yes to. So you could vote on this motion tonight and then at the next meeting if we have a formal recommendation um we can combine those together like in one missive to the council you know that there was two different discussions for them to consider

or we can do two separate you know send them separately to council but I think if we're going to send a letter we could put them in both both in one letter if they both get have some sort of outcome. Thank you. I think the only concern that I have is um it's easier for me to understand a resolution when it's written down rather than when it's orally presented. I don't know if we can uh if we have the ability to type something on screen or if there's another way to display this um or at least maybe if uh Commissioner Fry would read it back again very slowly. Yeah, I have it in my notes app actually. So his motion. Yes.

Yeah, his motion. And then his motion is that that a letter be written. So then we would that would come back to the commission to look at before it gets sent to council. Okay. So we're not we're not really voting on language. We're voting on intent. Yes. Okay. I love the intent. I'm there. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Would you like me to read it again? No, I'm good. Okay. Any more discussion? Seeing none, I would ask that we vote on the motion. Commissioner Fod, I. Commissioner Frybeck, I. Commissioner Heler, I. Commissioner Rhodess, I.

Commissioner Slater, I. Commissioner Tev, I. Commissioner BR Brendell, I. Commissioner Infante, I. Motion passes. Okay. Um gosh, Lisa looks like a hat-tick for you. Uh appointment to Mil Creek Waller Dam Advisory Committee.

Open. Yes. Wish I don't I don't know a ton more than what's in the staff report, but yes. Um North Sanmed Council has requested a planning commissioner. I've not um you know nobody's reached out since the staff report went out so I don't know if there's a you know natural volunteer for this. Um last night the council did um vote to authorize you to pick your own um person to be appointed own commissioner and then they appointed um councelor Nishioka with councelor Tyen as the backup um and it's going to as the staff report says there'll be um you know technical experts, community leaders, local voices etc on the um committee and it's to review the Waller dam and and that's what it is. So, and I think we do have someone here that could speak to it um from the with Jen, right? Yes. Watershed Council. So, would you like that to hear more about it before we throw things?

Yes, I think that would be great. Great. You want to come up here, Brandon? Is that right? Yeah. So we want to go to push or push it and then speak really closely to it.

Okay. So Brandon Hillbrand, executive director of the Northian watershed council um as a partnership with four other watershed councils in the Midwamtt Valley. We received funding from Noah uh restoration center for about $8 million to look at fish passage improvements in the Midwamtt region. So looking at 42 stream miles um across the Midwait Valley which is really exciting. Um our specific projects are looking at Waller Dam and alternatives analysis preferred alternatives selection and then permitting for the project. Um as we know Waller Dam is very complicated. There's a lot going on there. A lot of stakeholders, a lot of partners, a lot of community members who have reached out to us about improvements there. So um we applied for this grant in 23 were awarded last year. Um kicking off an advisory committee to bring everybody together to hear different perspectives about the structure. Um no implementation will occur under this funding. So that will be a future opportunity. um but as an asset for the city, we find it valuable to seek um different representation for the city to help bring perspective and guidance to those alternatives. So,

Commissioner Slater, I was just going to say I've had a little bit of exposure to this damn issue. This damn issue. Uh, and I would be happy to serve on this unless someone else really wanted to do it. I was actually wondering, um, so Waller Dam is the one that's next to State Street, correct? Kind of like near 20th. Yes. Yeah.

Okay. And then so like I know that area flooded like three weeks ago. Um so like say if this dam ends up being removed would that reduce flooding impacts because the level of water would be then lower. So that's the point of this work is toarily and so we're taking all of that information community engagement. That's the best Um to it will be because Cool. Thanks for the info.

Do we need to nominate someone for it? Is that how it's working or is Commissioner Slater's volunteer motion? I mean, um, so we would vote on on who to appoint. I guess if there's other folks that are interested then, you know, you can say you're interested and then stump speech. I'm not sure you can say why you would want to be on it. It's already been quite an election night. So, um, but I would move to nominate Commissioner Slater. Second.

Any discussion? Any other nominations? Hearing none, I would move to voting. Commissioner F. I. Commissioner Frybeck. I. Commissioner Heler. I. Commissioner Rhodess. I. Commissioner Slater. I. Commissioner Tev. I. Commissioner Var Bundell. I. Commissioner Infonte. I. Motion passes. Nomination secured. This has all the suspect the Chinese Communist Party legend. Thank you.

Okay. Um on to item seven. I don't believe there's an information report at least listed on the agenda. Um item eight, subcommittee reports. I do not believe there are any of those. Although I do believe there will be a wetland subcommittee meeting after this meeting. So um I do actually have a tiny report to share. Oh, tiny report to share. Okay. So, uh I was invited to meet with Crestston Rutherford and Dan Aches who is the city attorney and also I guess now the interim director of enterprise services. So, they are part of the he's now deputy city attorney. Deputy Deputy City Manager and the city attorney officially both. Okay. Deputy city manager and city attorney.

Okay. And no longer interrupt enterprise manager. Yes. Part of what the deputy city manager does. So enterprise services which if you don't know is IT and HR and fleet and Okay, great.

So this was I I had sent a letter asking if the new city manager would meet with the wetland subcommittee members and they said not surprisingly that the new city manager was very busy and that the um uh there are other considerations but they offered Kristen and Dan. So, I took it. Um, and we had, I think, a good hour-long conversation about what the subcommittee was working on and what we hope to accomplish. And, you know, there's always three things that the city will say. They will say that there's never any money for new initiatives. There's never any staff for new initiatives. And, um, the council sets policy. So, we worked through those conversations. Um and after that I think we wound up having a fairly productive conversation about um what the subcommittee at least based on its preliminary report uh was recommending and what we were hoping to accomplish. And I got the sense that you know Dan and Kristen were uh willing to sit down with other senior management and the city manager to kind of discuss how they might think about these and how they might respond back to us. So they said, you know, nothing quickly, but there will be a senior strategy meeting coming up and they will bring it up there to see if there's an appetite among other members. They pointed out one of the things that was in our recommendation, which was that um Kristen noted that the topics that I was bringing up cross five different boundaries within the city. Um and so five different departments. And that's kind of one of the challenges I think that we all discussed when we were looking at it.

Sounds like Dan might run all those departments though, so that could simplify this. Well, that explains why it was there.

So, I felt uh, you know, I would have preferred if we could have met as a group. I think that would have been more productive than just me. But on the other hand, I think it was a good open opening conversation. Um, and hopefully we'll get a good response. I just think this is kind of at the front end of what may be kind of a longer process. So that's my report. Okay. Any questions on the report? Okay. Um nothing listed for planning administrators report still true.

No, I always have I don't list it the top of my head. No. Um just our next meeting is on the 27th. We do have two items. Well, now we're going to have three because we've continued our membership discussion. Um we're going to have the um some public works project engineers um project managers and engineers to come here to talk about the state street improvement project um which is funded in the bond. We just had recently had an open house um uh for the public that went well and um they'll talk about the history of it but it was came out of the nessna neighborhood plan and then we did a corridor project um to redesign the street and then it got funded and um in the meantime UNUNICE has had two children and they've you know got started almost finished elementary school but we've been working on this project for over a decade so um construction's still about two years out but we're very excited. So um it will be adding bike lanes and and pedestrian um amenities. So they will present on that and then um we are going to have the transportation subcommittee members. Yes, there only two now. Commissioner Fback, Commissioner Commissioner Tev um to present on the work that they did as a committee um and what they produced and whatnot so that we can have that out in the public as well. So that's going to be on there. And besides having hiring two admin staff, we do have two new planners. We won't bring them for a while, but we're excited um to have a full full staff all of a sudden. So, yeah, four new people. So, that's all we have. That's all we have. That's all I have. Olivia says I'm good, so I'll stop there.

Yes. Oh, was that for me? Go ahead, Commissioner F. I just had a question. Um, I was wondering if there was any updates on either of the block projects that the city facilitated. Not that have been shared with me. So, no, no applications have been submitted.

I have a question for both staff and and President VR Brendell. I'm wondering if at some point uh when it's convenient for her, we could have our climate action manager come and give a report. I know that she is wrapping up the 2025 report that we'll give out and I thought it might be useful if that would if she'd be willing to come and present that to us one night if the president is amendable. I am amendable to that. I think that would be great.

Yeah, I'm happy to ask for that. And um uh Commissioner Fryback asked if the fire chief would come to a future meeting to talk about single stair development and the city's kind of position that we're uninterested in that because it's uh because of the fire safety issues. So um that we're trying to schedule, you know, reach out for that. So um when we get dates, we'll we'll let you know. Okay. Any other comments or questions on the planning administrators report? No. Yes. Uh, commissioner comments for the good of the order. Anyone?

Um, just if anyone is watching, we do have a wetland subcommittee after this, but if it's uh pleases the subcommittee, I thought we could maybe make like a 10-minute break while we kind of shift things around and try to fix Tom's mic and then um and then we'll start a new. So, if anybody's watching, they want to watch that. It will be a different YouTube stream. So, this one will quit and a new one will start on the same channel when the wetland subcommittee convenes tonight. Thank you. That makes sense. Um, public comment. Okay, I guess that leads us to item 12, adjournment meeting adjourn. Thank you. That