Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Also, I got your message. So, my sister and my nieces are coming to my house from Utah. They left this morning and they be here very soon. And my niece's name is Lissa. Okay. And she was texting me about dinner. And so then I saw a message and I was like, Marissa is Oh, no. Different. Marissa. [laughter] Lissa trying to get into my house who I was like she's supposed to be in my house any minute you know and so it said I'm like let me in [laughter] kisses are everywhere. Yeah. Who knew? But

All right. We'll wait just um two more minutes here before we get started. See if Commissioner Heler can make it in time for the start of our meeting. We have no quorum requirements. Ryan, we can't make decisions. vote on one of you. Then that's kind of a joke. It's a subcommittee. I know. Let's take a vote. We don't have bylaws for committee. So,

oh, this is the default rules. [clears throat] How's the civic center renovation going? Got holes in the wall. As [clears throat] you see, they took out all the windows in my old office. Somehow that's where all the shoe walls are going. Right in my office. [clears throat] Oh, really? I don't call it my I was like, "Oh, that that in that random office." That's not a different

unclear where I'm moving back. Correct. I think planning needs to be closer to pack. That's my current theme that I'm on. We need to be center. We need to be closer. I know for 30 years we've been in this corner where it has no windows anymore. We need to be down there. Pack does occupy some time of my professional life. Yeah. Yeah. Those packations. Yeah. Yeah. Came in at the pack center up there. What? That was the pack center. You came in up there. What was that? the pack center. All right. Now I know where I can tell

my colleagues. [snorts] All right. Well, let's get started. So, I guess I will call this to order. And we've had a request to do a formal roll call. So, we'll look for Jennifer. President Slater uh here. Commissioner Tub here. Commissioner Vell here. All right. That sounds great. And you had you could do that without any notes. That was the impressive part. Lisa, Commissioner Heler, excused. Thank you. Delayed.

That's a delayed. I know she's on her way. Okay. So, I guess at this point we will look over to public comments. We will look to the public here. Would you like to say anything or introduce yourself? Yes. Um, I don't have like a three minute max, do I? There's no light. A planning question. You get five. What? All right. Yes. And I guess it's up to the subcommittee.

I'll try I'll try to be brief. Um, good evening. My name is Natalie Janny. I'm a civil engineer at Multi-T Engineering. Our office is located at 115513 Street Southeast. Um, I wanted to um come and uh speak to you tonight about this um proposal to initiate legislation to protect environmental lands in Salem. Um, I don't know if there is like a record since it's not like a real like a formal meeting, but I did want to kind of put on the record um some concerns that I have in general with notice about this procedure and the meetings that have led up to this the formation of this document. Um, to my knowledge, there was no um public notice regarding the creation of any of the things that went into this document. Um on the second page there's a reference to interviewing city staff and state of Oregon staff. No names of who was interviewed. Um there's reviewing of policy documents. Doesn't state which documents or reports. Doesn't state which OS was reviewed. Does not state um what the papers were that were that were read as a part of a peer-reviewed journal article. Um, and so I'd like to request that all of those documents, all the information be provided to the public so that um, that's uh, more transparent and we can see kind of the background information that's gone into this because on page one when it talks about background, the document I have does not have a date or a case number, but I can kind of infer I think I know what case may have sparked this and I think that maybe some of the background information is not correct um that led into this [clears throat] um document. And so part of the problem is because there's not been public stakeholder uh involvement

in the formation of this document, things like that can't be cor like they haven't been corrected. I don't believe there's been any um or at least it's not listed in this document. any outreach to the development community or property owners that could be affected by this because um and I think that stuff is important. That stuff I think that information is important because the uh recommendations listed in this document greatly open the city up to um litigation. um the idea that a collection of 50 50 residents and or a 501c3 andor the planning commission can just put in writing that the coun and the council shall designate these sensitive area sensitive lands um seems like a takings issue. Um and so the idea that that can be initiated without property owner having any say. Um I think it's really important that all of this background information and public meetings that all be clarified. So, um I just I I'm a little confused about the background, what went into the what what we're really trying to protect as a part of this um proposal because um I think we're kind of losing the forest for the trees. Um the land that we have within the urban growth boundary needs to be developed in a way that allows us to utilize that land so that we don't have to go and expand the urban growth boundary. And designating or providing additional um land that now cannot be developed seems to be counterintuitive to that especially when you consider the fact that the city already has policies in place to protect a lot of the lands

listed in this. So, the city already has a flood plane development permit that that um you need to go through if you're going to develop within the flood plane. We are on the committee for goal five repairing corridor. There's already repair. I will let you speak. I just want to let Lisa Heler is at the door and said she'll give us a couple minutes before she leaves. Okay, [clears throat] we'll get her in. All right. Where did Jacob go? Please go ahead. I didn't interrupt.

She apologize. Um and um there we have tree uh protection for uh tree groves. So we already have to go through a permit process in order to remove um oak trees. Um and there was another one I swear. Oh, and wetlands are regulated by the state and and oftent times the federal government. So my concern would be that we would you would have a piece of property um say an environmental group that's a nonprofit puts in writing that they would like um a portion of it to be considered a significant land. It that happens as a part of this action through city council. The property owner may not be savvy enough to know what's happening even if they got notice of it. Um but say the property then goes to development. there is a process in which the property owner can apply to remove and fill in those wetlands. And so you could have a situation where you could be allowed to fill in the wetlands, but now the city says that you can't. So now we also have conflicting ideals. So um those are just some of my um concerns. Um yeah, thanks for letting me speak. That's what I got so far based off of the information. I don't even know. Brandy Brandy found this document and I went to find it again and I couldn't find it. So, I'm not even sure how I found it. How she found it the first time. She's like a wizard. So,

I couldn't find it the second. She found it and I couldn't find it the second. Thank you. All right. Any other Is there anyone in the waiting room? No. All right. So, some of your comments will get answered. Okay.

Um and we'll hear and uh one or two other things. So um the first subcommittee item is review of committee actions to date. So it's probably worth remarking at this point for the public record that um the planning commission and the subcommittee itself learned just a few weeks ago that the subcommittee meetings were public meetings and therefore needed to comply with public meeting laws. that information was new to the committee, the subcommittee, and we are here today in a public meeting to try and begin to cure that process. So uh with that I think the best that we have for the moment and I don't have the packet here in front of me is I made an effort to u provide some documents uh that I provided with to the city that reviewed who was involved when we met what the general topics of conversation were and what some of the next steps were as a way to um begin to complete the missing record. Do people have a chance to take a look at that?

I looked through it. You looked through it partially. Marissa partially looked through it. I know the city has it. They published that. That's now available to the public. Did either of you have any concerns about any of the materials? Did it misstate anything? It was not meant to be a complete record. It was just my recollection based on notes. No, it was consistent with my memory of what has happened to date. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Great. Um, I wrote it so it's consistent with I I remember. Lisa, is there anything else that you need from us regarding those? Um, let's ask Tom. Do you think that there's more that should be said about the work today?

Yes, I think it would it would be helpful uh to uh lay out a timeline for uh when things occurred. there was a an illusion made about uh that a particular case may have generated uh the impetus for this subcommittee and so I think it would be helpful to uh have a narrative uh regarding you know when things started what was the motivation to in the committee uh the subcommittee members minds about why this was necessary what the goals were uh at the beginning of the process what materials were relied on um uh uh as you went through the process and how the initial goals may or may not have changed from the the uh beginning of you know meeting and uh uh uh deliberating on these uh materials to where we're at today. And so what we're what we really want to do is sort of expose for the public um you know what started this, what motivated this, what the process was uh throughout the uh the meeting periods and h where did we end up and how did we end up there?

All right. So, in um one of the materials that you should have access to, I don't know who it got emailed out to, was a uh subcommittee report um to the planning commission. Um on the first page and continuing on the second page, there's a background section that just that includes I think some of the material that you're looking for. I don't know if you had a chance to look at that. I did and I I I think uh some of the material that I was looking for is probably an accurate uh uh description. It we really need a much more robust narrative about what occurred and when it occurred.

I'm not sure that that's I mean what is your proposal of how we go about doing that? Well, I mean you guys were there. I think you need to describe what happened and when it happened and what you relied on. All right. Well, thank you.

So, I do know in the document that you provided by email um Commissioner Slater that that has a bunch of numbered items [clears throat] at the top. The date is November 7th. you went through your calendar and you kind of lay out the meeting dates and some of the like agenda or the topic. So, so maybe expanding on that, you know, keeping each one of those ahead. Like number one, you said like first time we met was May 7th uh agenda. What are we trying to accomplish in the city's, you know, lack of action or inferior inventory? And your decision maybe then under there you could expand that and put like these are the you know, these are the resources we looked at for that particular meeting. These are the assignments we gave each other. you do have a conclusion like a decision, a lot of research into the issue and options. I don't know if you could use that as a um like an outline template and then expand under each one of those might be a way to do it. Brainstorming.

I appreciate that suggestion. I can take a look at that. I'm not sure if my recollection will be up to that level of detail. Just memory.

Anything else, Tom, on this item? Uh I think that's a good start. Yes. I I think really tying the the actions to the materials uh uh that were relied on for those particular actions will be really important. Uh, additionally, if uh there were outside folks that were uh discussed, you know, if there were co-workers or uh uh people out in the community that you talked to and gathered information, be able to identify those folks and uh uh describe what you discussed. That would also be helpful as well. And I don't know if there are folks like that.

All right. All right. Thank you. And Tom, would you say that um at some point whenever we get a final version of this information that it should be discussed at a full planning commission meeting and not just the subcommittee? I I think that would be a good idea. Yes. See, I knew that because he told me that this afternoon I [laughter] as a question. You ever ask a question you don't know the answer to, right? That is law 101. Robert, you had something. I So, I thought that was always the proposal was to put it through a planning commission process. The what

uh whatever this final version is going to be. Is that I mean, is that what the question just was? Was should we No, I'm talking about the work the subcommittee's done to date. The discussion of the work today? Yeah. Okay. should be discussed, presented, but you know, like we if we have more materials or whatever package, put on the agenda for a full planning commission meeting and have it be agenda item and then present it to everybody so that they can be aware of it when they choose to vote on whether they can have all that background. Yeah. Okay. And it maybe a more public venue than just I know we're streaming today and everything, but we do have a member of the public. I know, but you know, maybe as a full planning commission meeting, we might get, you know, more viewers or more people. [clears throat] Understood. Would see that.

That makes sense. And Tom, do we have a timeline that we would suggest for them for accomplishing this?

Uh, boy, I'm going to uh let folks pick their own poison uh regarding uh how quickly this gets done. Um I mean I think I would uh I would opt for thoroughess over speed myself. So um I think whatever whatever works best for the workload of the of the subcommittee and then also keeping in mind the the demands that are going to be made as part of the planning commission. uh those should all be taken into account. So I I don't have a definitive timeline. Uh it's really what what works and what's going to be feasible to pull all this stuff together. It's you know I I acknowledge it's a lot of work and you know spanning a lot of time and so uh give yourself time to do it. I have, as someone who pulls administrative records on occasion, uh, suggestions. Um, some of this predates my participation, so I can't contribute to stuff before I was on the commission. Um, but looking So, we covered emails. It sounds like we did a thorough email search. Um, next would be phone as well. So, for example, uh, Commissioner Heler was texting you that she was here. Look for those texts in the past um to fill in like attendance if we want to have an attendance um record um with the date. There should be a dates and a time stamp for all of the all of those communications and phone calls. Um,

yeah. And then maybe like a shared document that we can all contribute to so that it's not just you, Commissioner Slater putting President Slater putting this all together. Yeah. I mean I that makes [clears throat] sense to me as an action item.

Probably what would be helpful then is maybe just a very concise list of um what exactly you need, Tom. that would be useful. So, um I heard, if I understand correctly, the name of every person that we discussed on staff or in the public um that we may have what what's the criteria here? Something that we may have consulted in the development of the material.

Yes. And so what what we're trying to do is we're trying to uh get the public up to speed about how the committee deliberate. And so the the important parts of that are dates when you met, who you met, both committee members, uh folks outside the committee, uh staff, uh documents that you relied on, any research you did, um a recap of the conversations that occurred um during the meetings uh that you know were part of the deliberative process. process. Um you know uh to the extent that you can identify what the goals were at the beginning and what things caused uh those goals to change or uh or uh

evolve or be abandoned. Um those kind that that's what we're looking for. What we're trying to do is we're trying to replicate the uh the process that you went through over you know over these meetings so that the public can be informed about how we got here today. Okay. Okay. That is clear. Thank you. [clears throat]

Um, before we move on, just to update, Commissioner Heler is not at the building yet and through some emails seems to be making her way to this building. So, she's [clears throat] not abandoned outside. The staff walked all the way around the building, went to both doors, and she clarified she was somewhere else, a different building. So, she still says she's on her way. Don't you think we abandoned her outside? All right. Thank you for that. Let's break so much about the staff abandoners. No. Well, I didn't get up, but I [laughter] was down there and then Jen went to hell. They went to old doors. They walked all around. I emailed her. So, um hopefully she will be here soon.

Okay. Anything else on this item? Move to the discussion of the wetlands project next steps. just a better sounds like what we just did but [laughter]

yeah this is not quite the meeting I had anticipated. All right so um we have at least three things that we had talked about presenting to the planning commission uh next Tuesday. So those three documents were one a um a subcommittee report which you have before you this is a draft subcommittee report. Um the second item is um a uh resolution initiating legislative process and the third thing was a draft ordinance. So um there are a couple things that we probably want to discuss. I think the main thing is where we are in terms of comfort level with the staff report. the staff report. Sorry, just a highlight. The subcommittee report, you know, if we feel like what it says is appropriate and we're comfortable recommending it to the planning commission, I would say that um this is probably, you know, three weeks later than I had hoped to get this piece done. Um my hope would be had been to get this circulated among the staff first and give the staff a couple weeks to look at this if they wanted to. Um and we haven't done that. So, um, if people are concerned about that, I think I would be okay if we moved this process back a week or two. Um, the second thing is, um, the resolution authorizing, um, uh, initiating legislation. I think Lisa and I had a conversation about that today. that it's probably worth having this conversation again with the other members of the committee here because I think that's a very important strategic decision um on how we want to go. And the third thing is whether or not to include the draft ordinance um in the package that we provide. Um, so my thought on the draft ordinance, and I think we've already talked about this, is that it's basically an organized set of talking points and that the goal was to get that into

the public record so we could begin a conversation and then engage in the typical kind of public outreach that the city does when we move through a legislative process. So my thought was we present this as a as a package, as a set of materials. the planning commission if they vote for it, adopt the ordinance, the resolution, and then we have, you know, a five, six month um process um a more public process by which we talk about this, get feedback, amend, make other decisions, and um whatever changes we might feel are necessary. So, that's kind of what we're here to decide today is whether we want to follow that, if we want to delay it, if we want to make any changes. Do we want to spend more time and have the staff review this? Um, and I think that's that's the question we're hear. Does that sound like the right question?

Yes, sure. Yes. Okay. All right. So, Lisa's concern, and I think it's valid, is a couple things. Um, one is that this might get confused or is getting confused with the repairing inventory, which I think no one wants us to do that. And the second thing, and this is maybe we have a little bit of a a different opinion on this, is um I [clears throat] don't know what the best way to say it is.

You just use whatever words you want. [laughter] Hi. [clears throat] Um what if you know in what capacity can the Salem can the planning commission advance materials directly to the city council and in what and um and you know where the staff fits in all of that process. Um and maybe Lisa can maybe articulate that a little bit more clearly. Would you want to make the point about the um about the preparing inventory first?

Sure. So, we're working on the goal five riparian project. We [clears throat] finally had our first um committee. There's a committee, two two counselors, two planning commissioners, Miss Jamie here [clears throat] and some other community folks are on the committee and we had our first meeting earlier this month. Um we're getting and [clears throat] I'm I'm afraid it's going to get worse. DLC DLCD staff were getting information and questions from you all or maybe just from Michael on this project and they thought it was part of the riparian project. They actually delayed giving us a response on something we needed for that because this they're reviewing our ordinance and we didn't really know what they were talking about and then they're like, "Oh, you're you're doing wetlands. We didn't know you're doing wetlands." And they're trying to give us advice on that. We're like, "No, that's not we're not we we this project is not that." So, there's some of that confusion. Obviously Natalie here and and raise her kind of confusion and I have I think a wellfounded fear that we may not get that project adopted just from my 20 years of experience in Salem. I know you all are feeling the same way that Salem's not appropriately protected our natural resources in the way you would like to see. I want to get that project over the finish line. Like I want that to be adopted at the end. Whether it's a safe harbor, whether it's the whatever the committee and the council decide to do. I don't want it to be abandoned and I we're as staff all in on focusing on that and trying to get support for that and come up with what the re, you know, the regulations are going to be and working with the development community and like we're going to do a lot of outreach with property owners and really not just the committee but the whole council and like get them to understand what it is and how it impacts our land supply and it's like a big project, right? We're just barely getting into that. You know, the first committee meeting I you know two of you were there. um we haven't got to the part we haven't finished the inventory but that's next year is going to be all about what are the regulations what's the council want to adopt if anything and so I don't want to confuse

that with other land that might be protected that's like related but not related and kind of confuse people I want to make sure we get the majority you know I need five votes on council I want to make sure I get the five votes on council for whatever the recommendation ends up being out of the committee across the finish line because I think that's really important for Salem. So that's that's my main concern. I think and I've talked to to Michael well to say what my recommendation is for the work you're doing and you can think about that as we talk about other things. Um I think there's two different ways instead of just having the planning commission initiate this ordinance um that we could do it that would make more sense. Maybe kind of have like a co coalition or like more support. Um, I think one would be like you did with the riparian project, the letter planning commission asked the council to fund the project. We're starting budget season. Public works could put it in their budget. They're that's where natural resource natural resource planning staff are in public works could put it in their budget and they could start that after the riparian project if the council directs them to. Um or it could be presented to the riparian committee and the committee could weigh in on if they think that's a natural next step project, right? Finish riparian and go forward with a recommendation that we start an official wetlands project. And and the reason I think we need the reason I'm recommending doing one or the other is because I want it to be a funded project to actually result in something at the end. The planning commission does have the authority to initiate a res a resolution for a code amendment, but you don't have the authority to direct our budget, our staff time or ever make us bring a public hearing forward or make us do any outreach or anything like that. And I'm not saying that to be adversarial like I'm not going to work on your project. I'm just saying it's not in our budget. We don't have staff dedicated to it. And in fact, it would be natural resources

staff who don't report to me. So that would be a different conversation with public works which I haven't had. So, I don't want I don't want you guys to be so frustrated that you did all this work, you have a resolution, and then nothing happens with it when I think it could be a very logical next step for our riparian project. And I guess I'll stop there for comments. See what you think.

Um, well, we don't have a timeline yet, a full timeline for the rack. So, I guess my concern is that that may drag on as it already kind of has. [clears throat] Uh, and so we'll never get to the wetland piece or the other sensitive lands that aren't either or of those. That's my initial everything takes a long time and uh so doing them in in sequential order isn't really working. [clears throat] That's where this has kind of come from. Yeah, I guess I think I also share that concern. I mean, and I understand your points, Lisa, and that those make a lot of sense. Um, but I do also share the concern that if we push this out, keep pushing this out. I mean, how long has this been getting pushed out for?

Years. Um, my question is it will ever be completed. We have a four-year limit. [laughter] to our terms. So, can we get anything done in that? You know, is this grinding us to the point where what is the planning commission doing if we're not, you know, Yeah. Sorry.

And I'll [clears throat] say, you know, Michael and I have talked about it a few times now. We do have a disagreement on what the role of planning commission is. writing an ordinance, writing a resolution, doing your own outreach is I, in my opinion, is outside of the bounds of what the planning commission is tasked to do. You're tasked with policy and directing staff and giving your feedback on policy and making decisions that way, but not doing the actual staff work. And so even though you know Michael graciously offered to do the outreach on this if we were directed or budgeted to do this project we would do all the work over and so like you know thirst staff would have to do we don't understand necessarily what gold flag requires of wetlands we haven't worked with legal and you know we don't necessarily know what the city's done in the past we do have some wetlands themes adopted were they done correctly it was abandoned in the middle I don't know we haven't done all that research we haven't met with the LCD staff to talk about, you know, if we're doing a wetlands project, what kicks in for us, what doesn't. We haven't worked with our legal staff, other city staff that would be impacted. How does it impact our flood planes? Like maybe talk to the flood plane managers. There's just there's a lot of staff work that we would do and the ordinance would be the end product of that, not the beginning. And I know Michael dis disagrees on that and that's okay. But I'll just

Well, not that not that staff certainly doesn't play an important role and have a lot of stakes in the outcome, but but yeah, I guess just because we're having a public meeting and we're putting things down in the public record, I guess I would uh just make the point that I I disagree that I think that it's contrary to the the long history of the planning commission, maybe not the immediate past history of the planning commission, and not consistent with the intention of um planning um you know goal goal one in the citizen participation program that um by default and I've said this before that uh the planning commission then exists only to deal with issues that are brought forward and are able to be and able to be processed by staff. So there's kind of our disagreement here but here we are today. So I'm interested in trying to move this forward. I you know I agree with my colleagues that this has been a long and frustrating process and I don't have confidence that it will reach an outcome. Um I'm more confident today than I was six months ago that it will reach an outcome. Um, but I'm I'm a little concerned and um I'm concerned that you know if we look at this timeline of what happened and then we project that to wetlands and then we project that to the next goal five inventory and then we project that to the next goal five inventory you know we're looking at 15 years and during that time I feel like we are um losing the opportunity to preserve some of the important lands that we have. In fact, we have lost the opportunity. We've [clears throat] had some pieces developed already that were in within 50 ft of uh of the stream since we started this process. So, we've already gone from my view, we've already lost so much time um that we have to do something. And the idea of trying to get a consensus from the people that have been unwilling to kind of move this forward is also a little bit frustrating. Um, so that's I guess leaving the emotional

piece of all this aside and looking at how we move forward on this. Um, I feel like my goal is to a and I I'll look to my colleagues maybe this is wrong is a to get um some public conversation about this broad issue occurring. not just we need a a stream inventory or we need a repairing inventory, which we do, but that we really need to think about this kind of comprehensively across our land management approach and a development approach in the city. And this is a way to do it. And um B, we just need to have um we need to see the repairing inventory as a step or piece of the puzzle and part of a larger puzzle. and by parsing it out like we're doing, I just don't think we get there on the timeline and in the comprehensive way that we're doing it. So, I I'm I'm open to ideas other than a planning commission initiated ordinance. Um although I I did say I'll just and I said it earlier, but I'll say it again. I think the draft ordinance that we have is kind of a set of talking points. Um it hasn't gone through any public engagement process. It hasn't met with the development community. So it's there as I really think a set of notes rather than something that we're we would [clears throat] ask anyone to adopt as it is. Um so it's more of a talking point but nonetheless I think it lays out a little bit of a vision on what we're thinking about and that has some value. I'm looking at other alternatives that the planning commission could pursue that would do the same thing. I don't know if you have ideas Lisa process-wise. Um, I don't think the planning commission has the ability to actually go and give a presentation to the city council. I think I could do a three-minut speech, but I don't think that I can sit down and give a presentation or the planning commission. I don't think there's a a venue to allow that. We could turn this into a report

and divide a 50minute presentation up amongst the five of us. Um, I mean there are a range of things that we could do if initiating an ordinance is going to be um, I think uh, kind of productive to the long term of where we're all trying to go. But I think what we do want to avoid is a 15-year process. And I do think what we want avoided I don't know is that is that the right thing right? And I think we don't want to have to just go through a tenure process where every single person in every department agrees that this is what they want to do. I think that just that's just in my view that's not how politics and government works. Like at some point people decide and then we kind of get on board and we move along with that. Um and that hasn't happened yet when it comes to wetlands. The opposite happened. So I don't know if we have alternative ideas in terms of I mean I don't think we have a problem with the report. I don't think we have concerns about the planning commission debating this issue. I think the concern is the initiation of the legislative process. Is that correct?

Yes. Okay. So, can the creative people here think of like an alternative way to try and get a larger picture into this conversation and you don't want to do a letter to council that got funded that path doesn't interest you? I feel like there's a lot of ifs in that path that I just don't see being resolved favorably in a in a [clears throat] timeline that makes a lot of sense. Yeah. Yes.

I guess I would say part of the problem with riparian is the staff assigned to it are not assigned to planning commission, right? So it's funded in public works staff. So I don't report to me. Yeah, we can't we can't try to make an apartment.

I will say we're doing phase two. That's why there's now a committee. And so when we get the inventory, we will do phase two and there will be some sort of result because we'll eventually go through the process the planning commission and council. I can't guarantee that the council will vote for anything but you know been planning adventure 11 years. No project's been abandoned in the middle. council could direct me to right then I have to almost as a no vote but we've never abandoned a project. So, we'll get it over. We'll get it to council and we'll hopefully have, you know, favorable approval when it gets there as far as the timeline for Riperian. But, we are not in charge of it yet because phase two is not started. So, I can't give you a timeline until phase two starts and phase two can't start until the consultants are done with it. Phase one inventory is what's working on now. it is it's only going to be I guess a successful project if it's funded at some point like if staff are directed to work on it and you know Michael you and I talked about the way things get funded either the council says this is really this this came to our attention in some way and it's really important and we want you to go work on it and then it's funded or a director it rises to their level that they think it's important and they put it in their budget and it goes through the budgeting process and sometimes they're called out specific projects. If it's just really staff time, [snorts] then they just put it kind of in, you know, we call work plan. If it's we need to hire consultant, then that goes into the budget is called out like, hey, we're going to spend this amount on this consultant or something, which is how the riparian project was, right? Council said do this. Public works went put it in their budget as a specific project and they kind of got delayed a little bit on that. the money rolled over until they were able to start that,

you know, it's going to be a official successful project that gets at some point officially to the council to consider, you know, meeting all the goal five requirements and everything it needs at some point to be funded and have staff dedicated to work on it. I think that's helpful information.

Yeah. So, I don't know. Um I I think our job at least one of our jobs to decide today is whether to bring forward the resolution next Tuesday. We probably need to know that. So what's what is Robert? Do you have thoughts on where you're leaning? I feel like this is a very productive and good conversation. Stressful um [laughter] and a little awkward [clears throat] in this giant space on TV, but um I think this is a very useful conversation.

Yes, I think it's very um I guess where I'm leaning right now is maybe at least putting it off another month and not right now. One to fill in some of this background which should be completed before we make that decision. Uh, and two, I think there's a lot for me to digest right now in terms of thinking about what these other options are and what the impediment [clears throat] are, what the plan is, as I understand it today, um, of introducing legislation directly from my commissioner proposing or whatever. Um, and I think I need a minute to think about that. Probably not while I'm full of tricky. So, Marissa Yeah. Yeah. I feel similarly uh about digesting. Um yeah, I guess I'm just frustrated in general and that's kind of clouding my brain right now uh about how it's sort of circular. It's like this the city's own policies and procedures are getting in the way. And then that's also the excuse of why we can't do it. [laughter] And I work in government so I understand constraints um and long timelines. Um but that's not what's best for the city and I don't know how to fix it and I feel

yeah a little helpless I guess right now. um with our options being beg for money or give it to the rack I guess which or go to the city council I think was one of the options that Lisa presented. Yeah. or invite them I guess to our commit our meeting right it could go either way but I don't think that they have probably and they can't meet if there's quorum anyway so maybe that wouldn't work

yeah I guess I wouldn't think of it as begging I would think of it as we've identified like a policy issue and something that we think is important and here's the reasons why I think it's important but there's you don't know staff or or or funding for it and so we want you to prioritize it the same way that you've done for the riparian project by directing the public works well hopefully a more speedy

well you could ask [laughter] way but this is a to fund this you know project and again I haven't talked to public works director assistant directors um about it but I am you know I don't know if they'll say there's no capacity next year or not but assuming they don't say that then I think they would say you know yes that could be the next project after the riparian like that they you know they are related and kind of go together. So or I don't know we could have another subcommittee meeting and try to invite public works leadership to talk about it. I you know can't guarantee they'll come. I don't know. I'm happy to you know if you want to do that and have a conversation maybe about what they see as their capacity. Maybe then it's a just more of a budgeting thing for public works, you know, like yeah, hey, we understand it's important and and we'll budget for it. I I don't know.

I guess there is two pieces on this, right? There's the overall intent to regulate certain lands and what that how that is going to be regulated and then there's the actual adoption of the inventory. Yeah.

So, there are kind of two pieces here. I know because the repairing inventory is going on, we're kind of focusing on that, but there's rigor there's also that kind of that bigger picture that you want to discuss. Um, and again, you know, as I said to you, and I know we have a guest here, so I'll raise this up as well, that I really think of goal five and going through the goal five process as helping the city along and expanding its buildable lands inventory. So, um, I personally don't think there's a conflict between preserving environmentally significant lands within the current urban growth boundaries and our ability to have developable land down the road as we expand the urban growth because we're getting close to that point anyway. So, um, you know, I think that's that's another piece of what we have to kind of talk about in terms of the big picture. And I certainly wouldn't want to go through an urban growth expansion without having addressed some of these issues. that I'm not sure we can even can we add property without being in compliance with goal five?

I don't know. I haven't done that research. See, I don't no idea. I haven't done a UGB expansion. Well, we did it for the third bridge. It got remanded, but not on goal five. So, maybe you only have to do it for the area you're bringing in. I think you do have to do it for the area that you bring it in, but I I'm not sure on that. I'm not sure on that. That's an interesting question. And you're saying um it doesn't impact it because um under the state law you get a credit basically for what is not developable is what he means Natalie. So if you said so many acreage is no longer developable you you get to add that you do the expansion.

Yeah. But you're you don't have infrastructure out there. You're now you're farther away. People are driving for I mean there's tradeoffs, [laughter] right? Which Yeah. And if you're the property owner of the property, we can we can follow up. Yeah, there's it doesn't feel the same. Yeah, I'm trying to be quiet. No, I get it. I've been in your situation. I don't like it. [laughter]

All right. So, it sounds like perhaps frustrations all around. Perhaps even Lisa might be frustrated today. Uh frustr frustrations all around. Need some time to think about it. Um, so I think we can push off then the question of the ordinance to a future date because the planning commission can take it up at any point as long as it's I assume well can take it up when it needs to, right? Um, so then if we want to wait a little bit on that, can we go back to the um uh the report? I think are [clears throat] we still planning then on doing the presentation? Yes, I think we should still do that because I think getting this further into the sort of public discussion is is part of the point of this and I think that furthers that goal. I and if the if the real [clears throat] trepidation here is the initiation of the legislative process, at least getting the report out there is um something that I believe we're all in favor of.

So the current report that you have is asking the commission to initiate. So are you saying you would take that out and I think that we can make some edits? Yes. Okay. Yeah. And are you thinking maybe still the second or you're talking about pushing that the report going on the second next week or I think the report would accompany the presentation and would that be next week or and that is next week that is currently scheduled. Yeah. Okay. I'm not sure that's the only item we have. So I we're not going to have it. But we have to have one anyway. Exactly. Well, that's what I'm wondering. I just want to make sure we don't have So um so I expressed a concern earlier we should send this through the staff. Lisa, did you have an opinion? if you want me to edit it before. No, no, I'm not asking you at all to edit to look at it.

Do you think the city staff would appreciate the opportunity, even if they don't take it, to look at it and comment or I don't or if they're not if no one cares, then no one cares. Um, I think yes, but I don't know that there's any time because everyone's out of the office between now and next Tuesday. Oh, I would go I would Yeah, I would I would give them more than a week. I thought you were talking about doing this next Tuesday. That's fine. Okay. So, I'm gonna step backwards and say now that I'm thinking about this from a longer term perspective. Yeah. I just don't know. I mean, I hear that no one has any time. Yeah. And they're not assigned to this. So, I don't know if it's worth sending out for people to look at or is it just something I don't know.

Um, you can send it out and we can look at it if it's not for next Tuesday. Um, just because, you know, the city's nobody's here tomorrow basically and city is closed rest of the week. Um uh and [clears throat] then you know I wouldn't we wouldn't do like a full edit but if there's you might maybe expect some comment bubbles like oh maybe you should reference this or maybe that's not right or that case number that's missing in there and go look that up for you reference the case and stuff like that. I mean there are a significant amount of facts and findings. Yeah. Okay. So I guess we'll give that some pause. Robert versus you have a preference thoughts.

Go ahead. No, no, I No, I think uh Yeah. No, I think that I think Well, Robert said earlier um that pushing it out might be best. We kind of ended up back there. I think we're going to push the I think we're going to set the ordinance aside until we call call it back up. So let's that seems like my interpretation where we're at. So for the moment that's off the table, but we could pull it back up if we needed to.

So So the next question is in terms of the report because there's a fair amount of facts and findings in here. You've edited them. I feel fairly confident in them. Um, on the other hand, you know, I typically I had planned that at least staff would have a chance to review and take a look at these in case they objected um to anything in particular. Um, but I didn't have that time. So, okay. Sorry. It sounded like we at a minimum need to take out the ordinance reference. Correct. So, there's already edits that need to happen. I would I'm a kind of a perfectionist,

so I kind of. Uh, so I wouldn't mind another whack at Yeah. [snorts] I would like to harmonize some of the stuff that's in there that's not consistent. Gotcha. Gotcha. Well, maybe we do want to do this in the first week of January. The first meeting in January. That seems like a reasonable accommodation. Yeah. To everyone's. Or you could decide to have the december 23rd planning commission. [snorts] Well, here Christmas Eve is the Christmas Eve. Eve. Yes. Um, let's No, let's not.

Lots of public engagement. I'm just I'll be handing it out that our two meetings we have next. I'm in town. I mean, we have a vacancy. I don't live in Oh, okay. so many things. [laughter] So I think then I guess we should talk about what's happening the planning commission next week if this was the only item. Do we still want to have a brief meeting and the and the wetlands committee can talk about the work that you've done up to [laughter] to this date in your plan going forward for providing more of that information.

Sure. It could be a fairly short meeting but meet our requirements having a meeting. I have a question about coordinating about the record. We can't do that in al together. We have to do that like right now, right? What's the question? Tom, can they talk outside of this meeting to coordinate the record and stuff or is that a serial meeting a meeting about? Yes. Right.

It's meetings all the way down. So if if the purpose of the communication is to simply supply material. So you know a transmitt of you know these are the m these are the 18 emails I have. I'm giving them to you. If that's the if that's the communication, that's okay. But if you're going to make decisions about what's in and what's out,

then that has to be part of a meeting. So it has to be purely non-deliberative and just just it's just a supplying fact. This this Okay.

Yeah. So, do we want to right now establish because you would kind of suggest we find text messages of which I don't think there's many, but text messages, notes. Do we want to kind of write down right now what those things are in this public meeting of the things that we're looking for so that we can then just supply those things? Or you could gather your information separately and decide I don't know if President Slater is still the person. Then he could add it all into like the maybe timeline that you're working on. And then we could have another subcommittee meeting where you could all review that timeline. Like you've gathered some of the information, you can review it in a gathered form.

Yeah.

[clears throat] That second one feels like a lot more work for you, not going to lie. Yeah, it's like Lisa's revenge there.

Well, no, he said submitted all the original stuff that we attached packet the fact that that we're not given proper advice, but the the best effort I could give on that and not find there's more. not um not sure where I am on that fact. Um so in terms of so this is more a public records question than I public meeting law question. So in the process of um editing and and deciding on this doc so I will presumably get comments back. [clears throat] [snorts] Um I guess if I just make the final decisions then on what this looks like otherwise we would be deliberating in a public meeting to accept it. Right. So I guess those are those my two options Tom. So if I'm getting feedback on our report um the choice would be either one person makes the decisions on what edits to include or we have a public meeting on what edits to include. Is that correct? Well, uh, one alternative would be somebody would be tasked with, uh, drafting the report and then, uh, it could be reviewed by the subcommittee as a whole at a public meeting, you know, accept or alter or edit uh, that report. And then the the product of those deliberations would then be the report that would move forward.

But that would not include feedback from other members to the person making the draft, right? the you would have to sort of rely on them to capture the material and then you could provide that feedback at the meeting which could include um where you take their document and you know redline it and then present those red lines at the meeting. working independently.

But I guess what I'm getting out of this is that it would in fact be a serial meeting if we were all to send emails saying this is what I think would be in there or this is the change that I think or had a shared document. Yeah. Right. That would be a shared document is a meeting now. Yeah. Okay. That's that's what is it a shared document that people can comment on would be considered a public meeting. Yes. Yeah. I think that's the that's the TLDDR182 there.

And I think for for my purposes, what would be very helpful to understand is um or at least to to know is that um if this level of planning work were done at the staff level and not the volunteer uh planning commission level, it would not be subject to these meeting laws. Right? staff can meet amongst themselves to draft and prepare documents and those are not public meetings, right? It's your status as a a deliberative body that pulls you into the public meeting and public uh records realm. Thank you.

I guess I'm not sure how to move forward actually now that we have this information. Does someone give me the short version? Well, I mean, you could appoint one of you to make edits and then we could schedule another subcommittee meeting and we'll go over that one person's edits as a group. We'll put up on the screen, track changes or whatever and you guys can debate the the edits in the final version in the meeting just be like a that's how others I've been on have done when I was on the HP pack. That's how it I wrote everything and then they deliberated on it. Right. So, all right. I guess that's guess that's what we'll do. Sounds like Commissioner Te really perfectionist. [laughter]

No, no, that was that's exactly where I'm going. You're going to take this on and finalize it then? Sure. Okay. So, what do I need? I need this. You have this. You only You just need this document, right? We're only dealing with We're only dealing with the staff with the committee report. Just the staff report. Is that the committee or is that just this part? Is that attachment A and B as well? Like I would put this in there. No, that's what you're talking about. No, you are just

all you're doing is you're just going through and editing that. So, you've already done that. So, what we're going to get is Robert's going to look at it and he's going to give you comments. We'll send it to the staff. They may have comments and then you would go through and do your own edits. So, we're just getting this to the final product. Okay. Sorry. So, we're talking different from the record. Yes. Completely different conversation. Okay. Tom's raising his hand. Sorry, Tom. Uh, and I'm sorry to interrupt. Um, you guys are making reference to documents during this meeting, but it's not possible to tell what documents you're talking about. You could just give us a Yep. Sorry. They are all on the website, but maybe we can reference what we're talking about.

Right now, we are talking about how we take the draft committee report and turn it into a final approved document without violating the serial meeting rules. Right. Got it. Okay. Okay. And our process is Marissa is going to be the final editor. People will individually send her comments. She will bring a final document that then we will review and approve. And there will be no deliberations until we are all together. Although Melissa will be makea will be making her own decisions. And then I and then I think kind of a point of further clarification is is you know exhibit A and exhibit B are referenced within this document.

So we will take those out. We'll withdraw exhibit A and it could be thus averting a contentious constitution legislative process and constitutional crisis of [laughter] the city. that every day you get to do that. Yeah. Okay. And if there's any other direction you would want to give Commissioner T now about that would be

so it's removing the exhibits and references to the legislation. I mean, I think removing the for now recommendation to initiate the legislative process, but I think and removing the ordinance there. Um, but I think maybe just replacing it with a statement saying that that is a point we would like to get to. Well, you can send those edits. Yes, please do. I [laughter] will. And Lisa, I will send you Wait, are you talking about I'm sorry. Can I ask Commissioner VR rendel sending your edits directly to Commissioner Tub?

Yes, we can do that, right? I thought we just said no on that. We can I thought we could each send our individual edits to Marissa. Marissa can go through and make those changes as she see fits and then come back and bring the document for all of us to review and approve. No, what we had talked about was sending her information for her to use

her preparing a draft document and then you can edit it um in the meeting. What you can do is she can publish her draft ahead of time and you can prepare your edits in preparation for the meeting and then present it at the meeting. So we all have to bring our own independent version basically if you want to. What? Yes. [clears throat] Yes. If you want to if you want to bring a virgin. Geez. I'm gonna abandon this process and go to the legislature and talk about public media laws. [laughter]

Yeah. Let me tell you where the trend is on that. It's for more and not less.

Yeah. just just more reverse outcomes. Not federally. Yeah. Not federally problems. Federal paper in practice. Yeah. All right. But Tom, I could edit a draft of it as staff and give to Commissioner Tub to work off of. I'm sorry. Ask that again. Can I I can edit a version of it as staff and give to Commissioner Tub? Yes. Like, why would you want to do that? you asked me to us to look at it. I'm just saying, can I do that? Can I do that outside of this meeting? And I believe the answer is yes. I just wanted to make sure.

All right. So, I guess while we're still in this meeting, what I was going to suggest at the edit would be removing a resolution ordinance, but leaving kind of those sections there and stating, hey, you know, we want to propose a resolution someday as part of this. that is not occurring as part of this report but that at a point in the future we would like to kind of keep the placeholders there for that and you know vote on that I guess but that's our right yes reserve our reserve our right put that back in there

um and then just kind of state you know that that a rough draft of an idea of a concept of an ordinance has been [laughter] developed It would it [snorts] would do some of these things. Yeah, it would do some of these things. Oh, well, no. I I agree. That's that's a that's a thought. We think that an ordinance should include the following provisions or it makes sense to have some of the following elements in an ordinance. Yes. This is going [clears throat] to be really a a really painful next meeting. Yeah. Yes. All right. I'll bring beer and drink. Other things that we need to do today,

can we talk about what the date would be for the next meeting? Do you want to schedule that? And then can we talk about if this is the right location or if it's not because the door locks um it is it is easier to use equipment here and do editing, but the doors are locked down there at five. Um, I think it would be Well, let me ask. Do we think it's as easy to do editing on a Zoom or Teams call as anything? Do we need to be in person for that one? We don't need to be in person. Do they need to be in person, Tom? I I think our A say generally we the meeting should be in person. It should be hybrid. But for public,

I haven't looked at the AP in a long time. I think you can do a uh a hybrid meeting. So the you would have have to staff a room and let people in to participate, but the members wouldn't necessarily have to be there. Oh, I think well well Mark Weinstein sent out an email. I guess he didn't send it to you, his fellow attorney, um last week to everyone that staff a board and commission reminding us number one on the reminder is all public meetings must be conducted in a hybrid format in person and virtually. So we can't all be on Zoom I guess is

okay. I think the public can person I will go wherever this you want to schedule it. I don't care where it doesn't does the library close depends on the day I think. Close Mondays. Yes Mondays. But they're open Sundays. they are um but I think we're talking about this meeting in early January and Commissioner [clears throat] Heler was unable to locate the building and went home um just to figure [laughter] out on that. So um

when's our first plan meeting the sixth which I will be arriving back from Sweden that day. Nice. Well, actually technically should we do the 13th day then

for a subcommittee meeting. I think our meetings in January are different because the holidays I think they're the 13th and the 27th. Yeah, we will send out we just got Yeah, I saw the the new calendar wasn't that they created. So, should we meet on the 6th then? The subcommittee I Well, she's Oh, you're done. Well, you just said in time. [laughter] Um, I know it's early to know if we will have both meetings, but do we have an expectation that we'll have both meetings or would we like to maybe repurpose one of the planning commission meetings? Oh, I think we did today

as we did with this one because that also, you know, it's kind of No. Uh Laurel. Oh, Laurel said she would have one on the 27th. Let me double check, but I'm pretty sure it's Yeah. So, she'll have an I don't know. That's kind of already built into our sort of notice and time. Yeah. Yeah. We may not have anything on. I guess we're going to do a lot of editing. You don't want it to have have it to be at the end of a planning commission meeting. you would like a different night, right? So, it's kind of taxing, I think, to have it at the end. Then you're going to do a lot of editing. Plus, we'd be in the senator room, so that's kind of

the best not the best space for for editing a document. Um, and then I mean, you don't necessarily have to have it on the Tuesday. The six isn't going to work. The 20th is in between. So last planning commission meeting that we did have to have it on a well we're trying we wanted to for staffing reasons to have them at the end of planning commissions but clearly that seems not a great idea if you're going to be editing a document right

yeah sorry it's just a whirlwind of like we said we were told we had to be in person and now it says like we have to be hybrid we were told we had to we had to meet only on planning commission like it keeps changing like when we're where where when it where it's appropriate to meet. So, we're trying to trying to follow um the city's required hybrid since COVID ended, but we had special permission to be in person only. Planning Commission voted they wanted to be in person and we don't have staff because we were in chambers and we couldn't use the cameras that are in chambers. It's like a whole thing,

right? I remember it's just like Yeah, just like you just read that thing from the attorney. It's confusing for us to keep up. [laughter] Um, but I'm good with the 13th is all that to say. Oh, if it's canceled. How's everyone the 14th?

No, I won't have any admin stuff. We'll just stick with the 13th. We'll just have to make it work. So, we would do it here. If the [clears throat] meeting is cancelled, we would try to have it here. And if not, we'll just do it in the senator room at the end of the thing. Well, since Jen doesn't really work here anymore, I better write this down. Was today your last day? No, my last day is on the 11th. Oh, I thought maybe like at five o'clock that you were done.

Well, I would have been done. Want me to send you a draft appointment right now for that? Yeah.

Okay. Anything else we need to do? So, so we still have a meeting next week of the regular planning commission and you're just going to verbally talk about what the committee's done to date. We have a PowerPoint presentation. Oh, PowerPoint. Oh, yes. And then the materials that were provided for the subcommittee, not the staff report and draft ordinance, but the other materials that you provided about like meeting history, you want to surprise that to full planning commission at this point, or are you guys going to do more of a narrative like T was talking about? anyone wait for those materials.

Um I am deferring to advice of counsel. I mean I'm I'm not leading this process of of the last you know of curing the problem. That's I'm not leading that process. So okay. So the question is, [snorts] so [clears throat] next week at a regular planning commission meeting, they're planning to uh do a PowerPoint presentation and present on what the committee subcommittee's been working on. Correct.

And my question was, should I provide to the full planning commission the materials that summarize the work that they've done to date? Should I provide that for next Tuesday's meeting or should we hold off because potentially they're going to make those materials more robust? Uh, I would wait and make the materials more robust and then present them. Okay. And I I don't mean to put a wrinkle in things, but now that you mentioned a PowerPoint So they've created a PowerPoint as the subcommittee that they're going to present at planning commission. Any issue with not having I guess that vetted here or do they need to

Well, that should be published with you know the the materials that are going out with the agenda.

Okay. Well, the agenda went out today already. So, when would you provide those? We can do an addition to the agenda, but when do you think you'd have the PowerPoint to provide? Sunday at midnight. So, at Monday 8, [laughter] when you have a final draft of that, will you send to Jen and I will absolutely

make it a PDF and send it to the commission posted as part of the agenda? I think that's not my meeting. I don't know that I feel like I have notes of things to do. No, no, it's helpful. As I said, it's been a little stressful, a little difficult, but I think a good meeting towards our overall progress here. And uh I'm going to say journey. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. Thank you.