Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I call this meeting of the seaside planning commission to order. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. The United States of America and to the republic one nation, indivisible and justice for all. Roll call. Roll call, please. Miss Kenyon. Uh, chair Brendan Craft, present. Vice Chair Roger Mitchell, present. Commissioner Chris Rose present. Commissioner Robin Montero

here. Commissioner Kathy Cleles here.

All right. Approval of the minutes. Are there any corrections, deletions, or additions to the draft minutes for March 3rd, 2026? Hearing none, the meeting uh the minutes are adopted as written. Welcome everyone. Uh this is the time and place duly advertised for the seaside planning commission to hold its monthly meeting. Agenda items can be initiated by the general public, any legal property owner, seaside city council, city staff, and the seaside planning commission. Does anyone present feel the commission lacks authority to hear any item on the agenda? Hearing none. Conflict of interest declaration. It is standard for p uh standard procedure for the members of the commission to visit any sites to be dealt with at these meetings. Do any commissioners wish to to declare an exparte contact or declare an and explain any of the conflict of interest? Hearing none. Uh this meeting is actually a different meeting than uh normal. We do not have any public hearing items. Uh we are going to go into discussion topics which is the draft comprehensive plan. Mr. Flory.

Thank you chair. Uh tonight we have our consultant from 3J Consulting. Uh Scott is going to give a quick presentation on where we're at, how we got here, and then we can have some discussion on our next steps in getting this thing across the finish line and to adoption. Great. Go ahead, Scott.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, chair and commissioners, for having me tonight. Uh I think the last time I was with you was about uh in three or four months ago in November. Um so I took that presentation. I've kind of shortened it a little bit because I think we're we've moved further along. we have another draft of the comp plan ready now. Um, so I just kind of want to leave the most of the time to discussion and answer any questions you have. Um, and just do a kind of a quick run through here. So I won't waste your time, but again, if if anything comes up during the presentation, please stop and raise your hand and let me know. We can hash it out right there. Um, so we've been at the comp plan process for over two years now. Um, as you know, we had a a great steering committee that that we worked with along the way to get there. We've done a lot of public outreach and I'll I'll give you a little bit about just a quick recap of the the comp plan project itself itself and where how we got to where we are now. Um I show this slide every time to the to our steering committee and you've probably seen it but essentially we started with the background report. We developed a vision um goals and policies and then an action plan to go with that. So we've now have that we have a draft comp plan with all those pieces um and also the land use map. That's another big piece too. updated land use map. Um, we had a lot of community engagement without the T. No, that's a typo. I just noticed it. So, uh, we did public advisory project advisory committee as I mentioned. We had several community events. We did community conversations. Um, we had some online engagement in terms of scenarios and web page updates. We did some uh large community summits as well. So, I just put together a slide of all those different events. Um, they were different targeted areas. Sometimes we had folks at the tables working on maps, sometimes we did instant polling. Um, but they were a really great way to get the greater public involved in in the planning process. So, just wanted to point that we had the point out we had the project website and I think that I can definitely say that this plan was

developed based on community input. I think that was a huge part of how what led us to get to where we are. Um, so the draft comp comprehensive plan, I hope you've had some time to take a look at it. Um, I'm pretty proud of it. I think a lot of work went into it. Um, it starts with a vision statement. I said we developed that, but that kind of lays out the different topics and the goals that will be discussed and where the city wants to be aspirationally in the next 2030 years. So, that vision statement is kind of the intro to the comp plan. And then we have 10 actual chapters within the the comp plan. And I I usually have a slide in here that I removed it, but um comprehensive plans are based are are driven by the 19 land use planning goals for Oregon. So all of these chapters relate directly to those planning goals. And I think that's really important that all those are covered. The reason we don't have eight or 19 chapters is because some of them we put together. um for example, natural resources and the environment in a lot of the coastal resources chapters and then there's other goals that don't pertain to seaside like the Wamut Valley and things like that. So that's why we ended up with 10 uh 10 chapters and just using land use and urbanization as an example. Um each of the chapters have the same identical structure. So they all have an introduction then they talk about seaside today, seaside in the future and then the the real key to the to comprehensive plan as you know is the goals and the policies. that's really what what drives the document. Um, so again, all the chapters are organized very similarly. Um, they all um kind of have an introduction and a and a separator page. The other thing I think I wanted to point out too was that I mentioned those land those uh statewide land use goals. On the front of each page, it it shows you physically or right there on the page what this chapter is addressing in terms of that goal. So for example, land use and urbanization is goal two, land use planning and goal 14, urbanization. So

this chapter is uh pertains to those land use goals and each chapter will have that uh which is pretty important to notify. And then I don't want to go through each of these um we did this last meeting, but at the when you get to goals and policies, they're all very similar in terms of a goal statement and policy. So, community engagement and equity, community services and historic resources, again, goal statements and policies. And depending on the chapter there, there there'll be a different set of number of these. Some are very heavy in terms of goals and policies and some are lighter. Um, you'll notice that um some of the chapters that were uh we have to have a lot of required goals and policies, particularly some of the environmental stuff, some of the stuff with transportation or even some of the housing things are things that the state requires us to have. So you'll notice that um some chapters have a lot more policies and a lot more goals than others. And so they're just kind of tailored to fit the situation and that particular goal. Land use and urbanization, uh transportation, economic development, employment, uh public facilities and infrastructure, your housing and parks, parks and wreck, natural resource environment. Again, these are the ones that are kind of heavier in some requirements from the state. and the coastal preservation uh is another one. So I just wanted to point out that you now have a wonderful new um land use and zoning map. One thing that came out of this process which I think was really great which is new for seaside is that previously you had both a future land use map that was associated or sometimes cities call it a comprehensive plan map. Um and then you have a zoning map and they're two separate kind of documents. Um, moving forward, you're going to have one map that's your comprehensive plan map and also your your zoning map, which is kind of great because uh they're technically they're always supposed to be consistent, but a lot of cities they're not. You'll have a future land use map that doesn't always match your your zoning. So, I think that hopefully

moving forward this one map system will work really well. Uh we worked really hard to identify um and clean up some of the zoning categories as well as your urban growth boundary and your um city limit layer. There was quite a few different versions out there. So with the state and the county, we were able to to um make sure that this is um now up to date and so when the plan gets adopted, this will be now your new official zoning and comprehensive plan map as well. So that's a big deal. And Scott, I'm going to add to that really quick, just so the commission's aware. We're not changing the zoning Yeah. of any properties here.

This is just cleaning up several different versions of what the zoning map was between what the county had, the state had, and what the city had, and getting everybody on the same page as to where these boundaries are. Um, so essentially, property zoning is not going to change. It's just cleaning up the city limit boundary, the urban growth boundary, and um where these zones were kind of splitting properties and doing odd things. We were able to clean some of that up as well.

Yeah. And there was also some instances where um you know, a PUD would have been passed, but it didn't get reflected in the map or just was missed at some point in time. And so that that zoning designation wasn't actually what legally was there. So those there's some cleanup things. Again, thank you Jeff for clarifying that we didn't we're not changing anyone's current zoning.

Um question on that. I know throughout the conversations over the last two years, there have been uh there was public testimony at one time from specific individuals, I don't remember the names, but they uh when they went and they presented what their zoning should be to say FEMA and to the city and the state and whatnot that it was uh you know their site was approved to be zone whatever was was that included in this process? was FEMA. Is this approved by FEMA yet? Or FEMA is not part of our zoning designation? FEMA has their own set of maps that designate flood plane. That's not part of our zoning.

Then maybe it was the state one because I does anybody else remember that conversation from at least uh two constitu constituents, sorry, two residents that took their plot of land and went through and said, "Well, hey, here's what the land actually is. It should be zoned XYZ." Um, were those changes on individual properties updated on this or are we I'm not aware of those, but if if a landowner does come forward and say this is what our zoning should be and we can show that it was passed by the city council and confirmed by DLCD, DLCD gets all of these. Sure. Uh, then we can certainly make that change in designation on our map. If we can show that it's gone through the appropriate process to receive that zone change some point in the past.

And I wish I could remember who it was, but I do remember two distinct uh examples of that. I I know folks had arguments over whether their property was or was not in a flood plane and this is not not the same map. This is completely different. Okay, that might be what it was. So if they if they are challenging whether or not they should be included in the flood plane, that's all done through a letter of map revision through FEMA.

Okay. Yeah. And I would I just say that's really I'm really glad you brought that up because the way that one of the best things that happened from timing perspective was that the state went back through what's called their papa notice post acknowledgement plan amendments that the city has to provide anytime there's an ordinance for a zone change or whatnot. And they were actually able to confirm all these changes happened. So that was a really good good timing for us to make sure that what we were saying on the map actually had an ordinance to back it up. So that change actually did occur. Lucky for le us, they were in the middle of digitizing all of their files as we were doing this. So things that were previously difficult to track down, they tracked it all down and it really cleaned up everything between us and the county and going with what's been acknowledged by the state. Makes it way easy for us. Yeah.

Great. Kathy, um I have a question a comment that isn't spec isn't really about, you know, what you did and cleaning up the the the map because I think that part is really great. um question about whether this is the colors that this is going to stay because accessibility wise that's really to be able to tell the difference between some of those different zoning types. The colors when you look at them next to each other look like they're exactly the same thing. And so is that how that's going to stay? Because that is kind of a problem. Okay. It it is all the peaches appear the same on that map when I'm looking it up that end up being the same color and there's several yellows that are Yeah,

there's two light blues that are basically the same when Yeah. And this is I wish this was better quality, but you'll also see some of them are hash marks and things like that because they're the same color, but they're a different overlay. So, it is tricky. A1 and A3 when you print it out look exactly the same and R R A2 and SR look the I mean so they're awfully close. They're pale shades of the same color. And I think that, you know, for a high-tech screen, which we're going to call this, it's one thing, but when somebody's printing it out on their home printer or they're looking at it on their on their device at home, which may not have the same kind of resolution or they have vision impairment, that map is not legible for them.

Okay, that's that's good to know. I I think we can work on some of the colors. Um there they are standard land use colors. So you'll see commercials are reds and and pinks. Uh industrials are blues and purples. You know, residentials are yellows and and oranges. Those are kind of standard land use colors that you'll see everywhere. Um you do have a lot of types as well, which which makes it challenging. So I think I I'm more than willing to try to help work with that. Um I would also say the way that that a lot of people will use this is in a GIS interface. So they'll be able to zoom around and look in and click on it and it'll tell you what the zoning is. There's a lot of people there.

Well, whoever uses it, I mean, we use I every time I get anyone who asks me a question about their land, I always send them to the the county's GIS so they can zoom around and find it. And I know you have one, too. So, but I I think that's a really good comment and I think that's something we could we could try and work on. Super important that we're making things as accessible from Go rather than there's actually rules about that too that we have to. So, in in two weeks they're even stricter. Okay, good to know.

Uh, odd oddly enough, I have been using the the county GIS a lot uh over the last 6 months and it is it's my dad is is visually impaired. He only has 10% eyesight in one eye, blind in the other, and he was actually able to when I was looking at it with him, he was actually able to pick it out. So, good good point. But yeah, is definitely with all those the variations of colors. Yeah. The other tricky part was north is this way and then we because we wanted to use a two page spread.

So that's one other thing I I I tend to have to remind people as I mean you all know which way is north because you live here. But a lot of pe some people don't re some people don't read maps as well as others. You know some people are map people and some people have no idea which way north is and it doesn't make any difference which orientation. So we worked a little bit through that too. But you're right. It's got to be usable in multiple formats, whether it's the version in the plan or online. So, Scott, can I just ask a quick question? Yes, please. In in regards to the color palette, I mean, is this based on the county web map palette?

This is based on your current palette basically. And it's kind of funny. There's no like set land use color palette per se, but there's kind of like a rule of thumb that planners typically use for planning designations. color.

Yeah. So, yeah, like I was saying, you know, typically yellows and lighter yellow is less dense residential and like to an orange would be like a a more dense residential. And then the same thing with um your commercial zones or the are the reds and the pinks, mixed use is usually purple. So, there's it's just kind of a weird standard that planners use. Um but it's not to say you can't use whatever you want. I think the trick here too is because you have so many um other categories that it it became it became hard to that's why we started using some of the stippling and things like that to show the different using the same color with a different overlay. So I appreciate those comments and that's that's definitely something I'd like to hear now rather than when we get there for adoption. So, because this is a big big deal, you mean this and this is going to be really important for your staff because this is what they're using to when they're when permits come in or when they're writing staff reports. Um, this is the map that you'll be referring to. Uh, so in terms of plan review, one of the greatest things I think that I lessons learned in working on this that I hadn't done in the past was getting the plan out for review well ahead of adoption. A lot of times what happens is we'll start adoption processes and then you'll get all these hands raised that say hey the state DLCD I I haven't taken a look at that you know uh Oregon Shores or Surf Rider hadn't reviewed it. So the neat thing is at this point we've had um UHold had been taken a look at it the advisory committee I should have put the advisory committee up here because they developed it in terms of plan comments. the the client commission. We've had staff um city manager, planning staff, uh other staff for the city have reviewed it. Um the county as well, the state definitely reviewed it. Actually, amazingly enough, they sent each of the chapters to the to the their specialist. So, the environmental person got to do that section, the transportation folks looked

at that section. So, that was a really neat thing. And hopefully, if you get a chance to look at some of the comments that we received, um there was it was quite substantial what we received back from them. And it took several months to get to the point where um uh we received them just because there's there's a lot of different expertise you know when you start asking them and especially the coastal folks spend a lot of time making sure you know that um the coastal chapters in shape in shape and it met all the city requirements. So happy to show that list. Um and then in terms of the community survey we still have a final community survey. I'll mention that as next steps, but we plan to do that probably this month. I think now that once we move into adoption, we want to have another uh option for the community to weigh in on the draft plan. Um it'll be very similar to one I did recently in Manzanita. It's already drafted. I think we've we've reviewed it. Um uh and so we're ready to make that live. It basically goes through each of the chapters and says here's what we have existing. This is what we're proposing. What do you think is working well and what needs improvement? just one last chance for folks to weigh in on that. So, I think that'll be helpful. Uh, and then in terms of the adoption schedule, our last advisory committee was October. I met with you all in November. Um, so we're now in April and we're looking at um releasing that public survey here and then we'll meet with you the next few months and um city council when and hopefully start the public hearings. I guess this meeting really is to make sure that um you're comfortable with where we are and want to move forward with those public hearings. Um so how do we want you to help? Continue providing feedback. You gave me some feedback tonight. I expect some more as part of our conversation. Um general comments are great or specific comments or even better. Um and then you know we're hoping to move into formal adoption if you can if you feel so you'd like to move forward and do the public hearing next. We'll do we'll get that scheduled and then we'll hopefully when we get to the council if you all want to attend

those meetings and answer questions on behalf of the planning commission because a lot of times you get to the council they and they say well did the what did the planning commission think and it sure is nice to have one or two representatives there saying well this is what the discussion we had and to just give them information if they need it. So that's kind of what we're asking of you to finalize this. Um, so the plan, we have a new draft out. I just want to say that we've tracked all the policies. So, we have, this has been a big deal because I like to hand this to you all and and the council when we get there because it lists what we used to have in the in the comp plan currently and then what's being proposed. So, there's a direct ch uh tracking of what we what we did and how we got there. So, that's super super helpful for everyone to look at. Have

I don't think you've sent that to I haven't sent that out yet. Okay. and we'll yeah send it to me and I'll get it on the website and then get it to the commission.

Yeah. And so the neat thing is here you can see you'll have both the what the comments you receive plus you can see just the the goals and policies which is kind of like a cheat sheet because all the goals and policies are in each of the chapters of the plan. But this is just kind of a neat way to be able to look at old versus proposed. So we'll get that out to you as well. And I I think we may actually have to update this is probably why we didn't send this out because this is based on the last draft and this new draft. I think we'd have to populate this with a new version. So we'll populate it with the new version and make sure you all get that in that when you send that out in that notes section there. If there's nothing in the notes section means nothing was changed.

No, that's not it's it's typically we if we needed to specify something or clarify something, I'd just put a note just if there isn't a note. It just might be that um like for example sometimes there wasn't one and we added a new one so there was no you know there was no replacement or sometimes we just removed an old one that was no longer relevant. Great.

So you'll you'll find that too. Um some of the policies were done or they were 20 years old and they were no longer relevant so they were just removed. Others were edited and then there was also additionals that were added. I think you're going to find that you're you're going to have more overall. we actually ended up adding more policies than uh than your current plan had. Although some of the as I mentioned before, some of the ones that were in there were removed. But um so there's still uh quite a bit of policies in each of the the chapters. So this is a great great tool. Uh another question, so on the sampling size for surveys that were sent out and the feedback being received, y

what were your were your expectations met or exceeded about the amount of feedback? Do we have any statistics on the amount of feedback because going from saying hey 50 people developed this comp plan by giving input versus 5,000 people what what's that delta so actually I think in the uh the first chapter one is our it talks about some of the stats from that but we also have a uh summary of uh community input so we've actually collected all that data we have all the numbers behind and I think we presented it to our uh steering steering committee. I don't know Robin if you remember looking at those numbers but I don't recall.

Okay. I don't recall either but I think we did um we did that. If not we can provide you know number of meetings. It's always nice to have that how many meetings we had, how many people responded to those surveys because we did you know inerson live polling and we also did a couple of uh web surveys throughout and then we're going to do this next one. I think I want to say it's it was in the in the several hundreds of responses we got from those surveys which is makes sense for you know this for the population of seaside. Perfect. Yeah, that I think that's a great question because we and I think that's also important to when we get to um to council to be able to articulate that and you all want to know that so they're going to ask the same question anyway. So

can I just ask a clarifying question please? the comp plan that is linked in our agenda. Is that the updated with the things incorporated in or is that an older version? It's the newest version. That's I took the old version off the website. This link, if you look down at the bottom of the title page, it says draft March 2026. Okay, perfect. Didn't notice that. Thank you.

Yes. Yeah. So then, yeah, the newer version includes uh our response to all the comments. Now, you'll find that we didn't some of them we didn't change, but we but for the most part, we addressed every single comment. Some of them we didn't uh change because they weren't necessarily requires. They were they were recommendations, I will say. So, we we used um our best judgment to to take the input that we received and make those changes. But, we did I would say the majority of them are reflected. So, we did take them all into consideration. Um, and that's another thing that we don't always do is provide those those lists of feedback, but I thought it was a great way to just be very transparent, open about everything we've heard so far because this is uh it's important when you get to this point in the plan. Um, so next steps, um, we want to release that final community survey. Um, we'll have if if you're all happy with it, we'll we'll schedule that public hearing. I think we need to do two public hearings here or is it just one?

Just one at the planning commission and then the planning commission will make a recommendation. But essentially, it's up to you guys on what schedule you want to go. I just need at least 35 days to give DLCD public notice. And then we've also got to do a mailed notice to every property owner in Seaside to ensure that they receive notice of the the new map and all of the comprehensive plan changes. Yep. That's a big effort and but um hopefully we're ready to do that. And then after after you know we're we're done here, then it goes to um city council public hearing. And that's all I have for presentation wise. I appreciate the questions throughout and I think now we'll just have a conversation. And I'll do best to answer any questions.

Could you leave that previous slide up there unless you have something else to go to show up there? The slide. Yeah. Yeah, that one. Thank you. Sure. Okay. Did you have a question to go with that? I didn't have a question to go with it. I want to make sure that we're on track. So final community survey will go out and then so plenty I guess it's not actually necessarily that one. Um can you go back a a few slides to the one like what we want you to do. Um yes that one actually great. Provide feedback by planning on the draft plan. Uh provide general comments and guidance as the final plan is produced move forward. Okay. Um okay so then it is um feedback time comments. I have a quick

so in the very use 10 chapters. Yeah, Robin, can you use your microphone? Your mic. Thanks. At the beginning, you said that there were 10 chapters, but um am I right? I hope I'm right on that. I'll be embarrassed if it says there are 12 and that includes natural resources and coastal resources. We must I think we ended up breaking those out is what happened. And then let next chapter thanks for catching that. So what happened was when we got the feedback from DLCD, it made that chapter huge, right? And so we broke that. I think we broke that into two. So thank you. I will update that. Good catch. Great. Explains from like reading all the comments. Okay, great. Thank you.

Thank you for reminding me. I I almost forgot we did that, but yeah, it just made sense. Those are some pretty hefty chapters and there's quite a few requirements that we have to have in there. Um, but it was great to get uh Meg Reed from DLCD was the one that did a lot of the review and assistance with that. So, she's been super helpful. Well, it looks like you also got great feedback in here. I mean, there's some uh comments in here that say kudos.

Yeah. No, that was neat, too. You know, we don't always we don't always get get everyone so positive. So, I I felt like, you know, there we didn't get we got way more positivity than being critical. And every I think the neat part was that everyone who did give us comments were sincere and wanted to make it better and make sure that you know we got it right. That was the whole idea. And you know there's there was one comment um in here that I have to I had to put on my other glasses. Sorry. I have to totally agree with regarding a glossery whether it's a glossery or an index in the back. Okay, that would be terrific because I am uh in the comments from the uh from Meg Reed from DLCD.

Yep. She's got all her comments, but I have no idea what chapter she's referring to. Oh, really? Yeah. I mean, it just says written comments, so there's nothing referring to chapters 11 or 12. And it kind of it really threw me off trying to find where she is looking so I can follow along with the bouncing ball on the goals that she's that she's uh citing. But um yeah, something like the uh a glossery or an index for easy cross reference. So are you talking about

your father-in-law might be or your father might be blind in one eye and impaired on the other but you know as making it as easy and accessible as possible to everybody. So just to be clear um the a glossery for the comp plan or glossery to help get organize the comments. So well no this I figured out postits and everything. No no no just for the comp plan. Okay I agree with that. that did. There are so many goals, but which chapter and which which goal and which chapter are we supposed to be looking for?

Scott, you and I discussed doing an executive summary just listing the chapters and the goal statements. So the actual actionable items uh that are part of the comprehensive plan that don't dive into the background but the actual policies and goals in in a one sheet be a couple pages. Uh but it it just an executive summary of just the goals and the chapters and not the background information that's included with

that that's fine. I just want to you know when I open up my car manual I just want to go to the back page and tell me how to turn on the lights kind of thing. No, I think part of that too was um especially in some of the terminology that's used in terms of glossery um that came up. I think Meg was the one that made that point was that she was using a lot of coastal terms that frankly I didn't know some of the words that were used and and some of those policies. So having some sort of glo the tricky part is not having to have not necessarily glossery but an index for sure. An index. Okay, that's good. Yeah. Uh, any other ideas or thoughts or comments? I

mean, I just have a couple comments in regards to especially Meg's comments and us being coastal. Um, yeah, I feel like some of the things that she said uh were more than just suggestions, but then they're either NA or they're not addressed, which I think is the same thing in in in the results or not. Um, and so is that something that's going to be further discussed? Um, how are we we in this process going to address the things that were not addressed?

Sure. I mean, we could go through them. A lot of times what happened was there was overlap in other chapters. So, if we didn't address it because it was already addressed or or for some reason. So, I guess what you're saying said that that that's exactly usually we did say that. You're right. But that's why I'm saying I mean to me there were some significant things that were not addressed, okay, when we're talking about geological hazards and and and labeling um estuaries properly and making sure that we're pointing out that those plans need to be in place and need to beated. Yep. Those are important elements of our comp plan.

And they were either labeled NA or not addressed. And so those types of things to me feel like need further discussion rather than just dismissing because

Well, we can discuss them. I'd love to do that. Or I mean, I guess that's that's what we need to do tonight. If you have specific ones to bring up, I I think we should discuss whether they need to be in or not. Um part of the part of that too is the hazards hazard stuff specifically. This was I was still talking about like yes a lot of the hazard stuff as well but this was brought up even in Meg's comments and so when it's similar types of comments that come up in overlapping jurisdictions especially to me it seems like we need to make a statement in that regard in our comp plan. So the geological hazards thing is something that came up in not just one person's comment. It came up in multiple comments. And so how do we make sure that we're addressing that? Setback requirements and things like that came up in multiple comments and they're not addressed. And how do we make sure that we address those?

Well, I I didn't realize that they weren't addressed. So I guess what I would love to hear is what are your thoughts on how we should address them? If you agree with them, then we can add them back in. If you think we should leave them out, then that's fine, too. I guess I guess that this is the time to talk about that. Sure. I mean, and those are just things that I noticed. I don't know. I mean, I this is a at this point in time five person show. And so, uh, you know, we need to make sure that this isn't just something that jumps out at me, but the I mean, when our experts in the state are pointing them out, to me, that brings it up to a higher level and we really need to make sure that we're we're looking at those things and and addressing them. I agree. I mean, and that's why we ask them to look at it ahead of time because we I mean, frankly,

they're going to bring it up. We're going to have to Exactly. They're going to see it anyway and they have to approve it. So, um that was the whole idea is trying to make sure and you're right. If if it gets, you know, if it gets to them and they say, "Well, why didn't you address this? We'd let you know." Then that then that doesn't look all that great. So, we want to make sure we do. Yeah. Can you tell me what this might be naive, but NHMP stands for hazard mitigation plan? Ah, okay. Thank you. because that's what

so and part of what you're talking about too I think and I remember specifically why some of those is that they were covered within that natural hazard mitigation plan and and what we do and there was a goal and now I remember exactly why we did we said NA is because there if you look in there it says we have to implement the um county's natural hazard mitigation plan through the comp plan and what the recommendation was was a direct it was basically the exact same thing that was said in natural mitigation plan. She was saying, "Please put this in your comp plan." And our thinking was that we're already saying we have a goal and a policy that says to implement that. So, we didn't want to repeat those um policies again because they're already in that plan. That's what that was. That's why we didn't do that. So, we could take the and here's an example. We could take all the policies from the NA natural or hazards mitigation plan and put them in a comp plan, but to simplify things, we have a one policy that just says implement those policies.

So, we're not ignoring any of them. So, and that and and that was that that was the discussion we had about why we didn't address those specific um policies because she was literally quoting those uh policies from that mitigation plan. So, with that being said, and this is going to be accessible on the web. Yes. Yes. Will there uh could there be hyperlinks to outside? Oh, yeah. For sure. And I Yeah. Outside policies.

Yeah. And this is the this is another thing where we run into this in transportation too where um we have a transportation system plan, right? TSP. So rather than um relist every single policy in the transportation system plan, we just said, you know, the comprehensive plan needs to support and implement your and and and actually um not just support, but they have to, you know, work together essentially um uh the both your TSP and your comp plan. So, we didn't repeat all your TSP um policies, but we just said implement your transportation system plan and update it regularly and make sure that the plans are consistent. So that's it's kind of a weird thing because

comp plans um naturally everyone wants to put everything in for each topic, but we also have a bunch of other plans that that that are consistent with like the transportation plan or you'll you'll have a housing plan, your your your housing capacity analysis, housing needs. We we can't list all your housing policies, but we can say make sure your housing capacity analysis is up to date and you renew it every five years as a big picture concept in the comprehensive plan. So, it's kind of walk you have to walk that tight rope of of of acknowledging and being consistent with other plans but not dumping every policy from every plan into your comp plan,

right? And and the process for a comp plan is is much longer than the individual department. So then um if that department changes like okay we realize it's going to go through its own checks and balances it doesn't need to be in here as well and go through a whole another set of checks and balances. So then then on this how we do we as a commission how do you want to proceed? There are three sets of public comments that were linked from the agenda that Jeff sent out. We had the seaside planning commission. We have the department of land conservation and the ocean shore surf surf riders um uh watershed and mechanicum. So we have those three. How does the commission want to proceed? Do you want to go through every line item on comments? Do you want to go through h how how does uh I need a let's get a consensus of how this uh should be structured or do you want to just go from individual down the line to add your thoughts and comments? I think it would help to have a um a more concise version of this. U you know, you had the comments about housing and how there was an overarching policy to all of that and we can't go through all of that. And you know, we have over 120 pages here of of um of your report. It it would I think help in our discussion of this to have something that only talks about the actionable items, the things that only we are going to be speaking on because you know some of the things that we want to enact may not be permissible according to the state. So it seems like those state comments should be one of the main things that that go in there. An overarching thing that says this is possible, this is not. And I don't know if you do that or or if if we do that. Well, I mean, it's it's kind of our responsibility to make sure that work with the state to to have all those comments. I I guess the other thing is this this comes up a lot, too, that you know, you you you weren't as you weren't

closely involved as the steering committee was in developing this over the last two years. So, you're kind of trusting them as as your you know, acting body to to give you a plan that, you know, represents all the work that we did and and the public input. So, I I don't I don't want to feel like you're burdened with having to go through every single policy and verify that you agree with it or not. Um, I think it's more of, you know, did we get this did we get this right? Or is there any big issues that you think we're going that were that are that that are that were missing that we didn't get? So, I I'm I'm hoping that we can have you kind of look at it from that perspective rather than I don't really feel like it's I I don't want to burden you with going through every single comment that we received

unless you feel like that's something you really want to dive into and do and and you can kind of provide us with with with that information. I I really just wanted your more your general reaction on where you think we are um in the plan. Um, and you know, if you have any concerns based on the input that we've received so far from everyone who's reviewed it. Um, and if not, I think you know, then we're probably ready to move into your public hearings and adoption. Um, if there's serious concerns, you know, we need to make some changes to the plan based on um, whatever you feel. Okay. Yeah,

I like that. I heard uh, let's talk about red flags and general impression. Um, I'm going to start with Miss Clelesac down there. Did you see anything? You uh because you sit on the transportation board, correct? Or I'm ask about committee committ. Yes. Public transportation. Sit on the transportation advisory committee.

That's not sorry that's but in your line of work because you're a very detailed and very analytical person from my perspective. Um do you have do you see anything red flags off the top that you'd like to discuss? Um, I guess I would say that my pri my primary concern with the way that this where we're at right now is that the crosswalk between the the Excel sheet with the crosswalk of what the policies were and what we're proposing, we still haven't seen it. I was really counting on that to kind of go through and and really dig into things. And so based on not having that, the comments that we got from the state were that were not addressed or and and I'm I'm not answering your question directly because you're fine.

I didn't focus on that because I was focusing on some other things because I didn't know where we were at in this process. And so

I focused on the materials that were presented for this meeting. And so the comments that weren't addressed that were presented by the state were what I was hoping we were going to have an opportunity or you know the the different comments that were part of this packet and either how things were addressed when they said that they were addressed or why why not if we're getting comments from the agency that has to approve our plan. um why did we not address them? Because those, you know, it just not it just saying not addressed doesn't give me a reason why because some of these to me seemed like they were pretty important. And one of those explanations about the the NHMP that makes sense. That makes total sense.

However, there's some other things that, you know, to me would be good highlights of conversation as to, you know, what are we going for what going forward? what is our policy going to be about um wetland setbacks and riparian zones and and things like that? I mean, what are we doing about that? And those are all things that were brought up and some of them weren't addressed. And so that yeah,

I think you bring up a good point as well from a public perspective. if uh if the public is going through this and and and we know all know we all know that all 7,400 residents are fervently watching this but if somebody has given a comment and it says it's not addressed I think that devalues the comment I would I I would actually I would agree with Kathy on that that you should have why wasn't this addressed well it wasn't addressed and not we don't have to go into too much great detail about it but it gives value to that just other than wow they aren't listening to my my thoughts my comments Um and then on the other thing I I would agree having that reviewing that Excel would would be great to have.

Yeah. No, I agree. And we can do that. I can go through and update those the you know why or why not. I hesitated to even put that in there frankly because I was worried you know because in some cases it it may just been a judgment call you know that may that you know that we have to make. In some cases you just you know it's like we we have already said this three times in three other ways or whatever it might be. Sure. And I and I and I also am I I I because these are public documents, I want to be sensitive in the way we respond. You know what I mean? So it's it's a balance there. But I I I think we can do that. We can I think we can go back through that comment sheet and and u kind of update maybe why decisions were made. Um and if we don't know, we can be honest and say we don't know why and maybe we should. Uh and then I think you're right, we we do need to provide that. It's not going to be too much different than from the last version in terms of, you know, what was what the current plan says and what the other one is. But I do think you

get the last version either. So, we haven't had any of those crosswalks of what it was and what it's going to be of the Excel, which also isn't something that's always done. I have to say that. And if I didn't tell you, we if I requested that the last time you were here and so we've been waiting for it and Okay. I mean, I was here virtually. I wasn't here in person, but it was something that you had said and I was excited. I apologize. I should have gotten that to you head ahead of the meeting. So, we will do that in short order cuz it's it shouldn't I mean it's not a lot of work to just dump the new ones in there. Focuses the conversation on what the the meat of the agree of the comp plan is.

Sounds good. Yeah. And I think that also leads to the conversation about that executive summary that just just lists that because all that's going to be is just those goals and policies by chapter which is super helpful from a staff perspective. So Brandon, can I ask a question? No. Yes, of course you can. Yeah. Um, so Scott, in regards to all the comments from DLCD and and uh the tribes, etc., etc., are you prepared to just tonight to just go down here and address these now? I mean, if you want to. I just don't know if that's the best use of our time. I mean, we Okay. We could if you want. There's not a whole lot. If if you feel like about 8 10 if you feel like that's

I don't know this is up to Brandon so I'm guess I'm putting it's up to the group. Um yeah so and let's pause that for real quick. Did you have any uh back to the general the questions general impression and red flags? Did you have any specific red flags that you were concerned about? No because uh I I did not. Little short answer. No. Okay, Mr. Rose. No. No. No. No, me. No, I didn't either. That's I'm I'm hoping that because I mean if there were I would you know we put a lot of work and thought into this for two years. So I'm glad but I want to get that out there because it's important because you're you're our sounding board before we take this to the big show.

So on on what we were presented I do have a a technical question. the individuals that are listed on here. Um, are those individuals is because they were on a board or uh council at the time of the the before it was approved or is this that list going to be revised afterwards? The list of uh in the front at the very front under the council, we can totally revise that. That was probably an older version. So, that's a good question, but it would be nice to acknowledge all those that worked on it over the past two years. So, I think if if if I'm telling me if I'm wrong, but I'd like to capture everyone who who's worked on it over 2-year period.

No, I I'm I'm not saying boot anybody off the list whatsoever. Um I I think there is a typo uh on on someone's name, so we'll submit that for if if that my question was twofold. If it wasn't going to change, then we need to fix the typo. If it was going to change, it wouldn't be a problem. So, okay. I think I would love to again if you do notice typos now is the time to let me know because as many eyes as we can find. So I appreciate even if we do change I'd like to to know that. So I think we if you find anything in there grammatical errors is I mean we've been through this three or four drafts but we continue to find things. So I appreciate that and I should be listed as former chair. Well, I don't that's I'm just saying.

Okay. We can do whatever you guys want, but yeah. No, I think that that came up I think a previous meeting is making sure that that that's um done done. Right. Right. Okay. Perfect. On uh thank you for that. Um and then does anybody have any objections to going through those 8 to 10 items while we're sitting here? I think that's I think that's great. No problem. Okay. What? Bring it. I'm sorry. What eight to 10 items? the items that she has that she asked about. Oh, let's see. If we're talking the comments from the DLD DC, she had some clarifications on if um if we're doing typos and corrections. Yeah. Are you going to be listing the this the comments from the state anywhere because there's at least one typo in one of the names. So

Oh, okay. I can fix that, too. There was a uh Yeah, the notes I'm not as worried about, but but good to know. Yeah, if you if we can I we should probably fix it just because it's out there. Yeah. And and that my my and my reason for asking that is because I know that um um Kevin Haidider is no longer on the commission, but um Sheamus McVeyy's uh name is misspelled on here. It's s e a s mus. I think I don't think that's how that's spelled. So that would be I will I'll we'll submit that for thanks for noticing. Mus. Yeah, but it's s e mus. Oh cesmus. Yes. So if if it's going to remain which is totally fine. It just needs to be that needs to be correct. Correct. So okay, go ahead and

Okay. So, from Meg Reid, uh, let's go down to this is under Oh, well, it says written comments, and that's what I had to look for. I presume it was 16 and 7 or 11 and 12. Um, she has uh it says, "Because of the interconnectedness between goals 16 and 17, I recommend moving the pieces related to goal 16 from chapter 11 to 12." And you said not addressed, but that's what we did address. So that that's a error in our notes. Okay. So that's why we did end up making two chapters is because of the we needed to separate them.

That's because I thought I read that and we've got a new map coming that's even more wonderful. And for clarification, you're going through the DLDC comments, correct? I'm sorry. You're going through the DLDC comments, correct? Yes. Uh the Meg Reed ones because there's two sets. The meg reads. Okay. Regarding policy page 108, policy 5.11, what is considered adequate? Uh this is reference to I think it's the setbacks. Yes, I could be totally wrong. It is okay. And it says something about on Kawaii. That's interesting. For an example on Kawaii for lots with depths less with

Yeah, she was giving an example that we could borrow one of their policies. Um the other option we thought there is we could you could define adequate or we could just be more specific about the actual number. The the hard part about specific about the actual number is just because it setbacks are typically not dealt with in a comprehensive plan. They're dealt with zoning code. It's a land. So that's pro. So, you know, it's one of those areas where how far do you want to go in your comp plan with making specific, you know, rules when you should be relying on your zoning code to uh provide specifics like setbacks.

So, should it read as per the seaside uh zoning code? I probably yes. I would caution that the you know especially when we're talking about the ocean shore or erosion or you know coastal mitigation references that that should be taken into account differently than a housing or building setback in a zoning code. It can it's just it's it's and that's up to you guys. If if you feel like we want to be very specific and pick a number, we can do that. um we just we decided not to and that's why we probably didn't address that and we we left it more vague and left it up to the the code piece itself. So just

but I think that's a good discussion point. I mean what do we what should what should we do about this? Do you want to have do you think it's important to have a number? Um do we want to use the Kawaii or the Maui example as as something that we could move forward? I mean that's what do we use in as we speak? Right now we have a set number based on very vague information in our comp plan. Uh the comp plan says the shoreline setback is measured from either the mean higher high water line or the line of non-awquatic vegetation. It doesn't specify where those designations were. Typically we use the mean higher high water line and it's a 20 foot set back off of that. And and what determines the the median line? Surveyor. That's what I figured.

It's a surveyed line. So surveyor will go out there and determine where that's at and then and then from there the setback's calculated. So yeah, again it's one of those situations where how prescriptive do we want to be in an overarching comprehensive plan where do we want to rely on, you know, state rules in your in your ordinance. So right now it does say that

for staff's ease of use. If you designated something such as the mean higher high water line and then determined your number of feet off of that as your set setback, whether that's 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, whatever the commission determines. Um, I will say if you go much beyond 20 or 30, you're going to start keeping properties from being able to be developed because of the lot sizes and lot coverage requirements. uh but it's a lot easier than the example given here for us to calculate or for um a property owner or surveyor to calculate. Uh these more complex formulas can certainly become more difficult to interpret and and determine. Well, I personally would refer to the zoning code because we can I mean if for whatever reason things change, you can alter the zoning code a little easier than the comp plan

and it's very sight specific, right? And project specific. So maybe something the comprehensive plan could determine is not necessarily quantifying the number of feet the setback should be, but how the setback is actually measured. That it's measured from the mean high water line. Exactly. rather than it's either this or that and you know I like that a way that it's measured

and then it's the the actual footage is then determined by the zoning that it it occurs in. Um but I think that having a an actual what it is that we're not hey it's so when so and so is in a bad mood we'll measure it off of this and when so they're in a you know when it's a new person we'll measure it off of something else doesn't make good policy. I agree and you maybe you have a new you know two two different planners in the same office and one interprets it a different way than the other. So I think that's a really good point. The standards need to be as clear and objective as possible. Agreed.

So in other cities, coastal cities, what got to know off the top of your head, Jeff, what's the most common? It changes. Uh what did Canon Beach just do? Did they just increase their wetland set back from like 5t to 25 ft or something?

Yeah, they did. Um and wetland boundaries change. Wetlands are are not, you know, static locations. Those can change. So that's why when you have a wetland delineation done, it's only good for 5 years. Then after that, it's void because those boundaries can change depending on what happens in our in our in our climate. So how do you measure that? What's the appropriate number? That's the million-dollar question that a lot of communities have been adjusting and trying to figure out based on their uh local wants and needs at the time. Like I said, we're right now we are a 20ft setback except for some places along the Nanakuman River estuary can go to 15 for parking lots and fill and structures and stuff, but more commonly it's 20 ft.

All right. So, it sounds like we need to define where the measurement starts. Where the measurement start. That's the key. Okay. Good. and just reference that and not necessarily the the definitive number because that's the zoning code, right? I think the zoning code can is okay to determine that. However, we have to have a definitive place of where it starts. So, it's not interpreted per occasion and per application. Awesome. This is exactly I love this. This is perfect. This is what I wanted to get tonight. So to to uh bring this to a a conclusion and maybe a decision, does the mean higher high water line sound like a good mark to start with? I think so. Especially if that's what we've been currently kind of defaulting to

that's what we've been using. Mhm. That's Yes, that's okay. And why have we been using that and not the other? That's a million-dollar question. Okay. Because it's le it's less less arbitrary than vegetative line, right? line of non-aquatic vegetation. You can see it, but it is somewhat arbitrary. You can physically see it if you look down over a bank where the aquatic vegetation starts, but again, that's up to one person's it changes and it's up to a a person's perspective on what that line looks like. Do we have any um

going to ask this question carefully? Um, do we have any uh impression as to how much that mean high water line has changed over the last 15 years? I do not have that information though. It does change though and we would we would rely on it on the latest we would whatever is the most up-to-date GIS layer is what we would use. So I think it's a consensus to use the meaner mean water line. Correct. Higher high water line might mean higher. Okay. So, does does that need to be that doesn't need to be motioned. That's just for discussion. Correct. Well, this is good feedback cuz then I can we can make some of these changes and address some of those comments that maybe were not addressed originally.

So, that'll help our staff out a lot just having a designated measuring point and then also when it comes time to talk about changes to our zoning ordinance, that's when the the quantifiable number can be discussed. Okay. But I will say I have no hard data as to why 20 foot was the magic number or why 5 feet was changed in Canon Beach to 25 ft or whatever they're at now, but I know that was just a recent discussion they had. I don't have hard data as to why those numbers were chosen. Okay. So, it's as a can any opposed? No. Okay. All right. Great. Yay. Great recommendation. Write it down. Got it. Your next one.

I'll watch the video. The next one is uh it regards to uh page 108 policy 512 the uh geologic hazard reports report standards uh and required for all dune management permit applications y yada yada yada um do you know what I'm refer yeah this is another one where um I didn't feel like it was necessary to put the requirements of a geologic hazard report in your comp plan so those requirements should be in your zoning regulations when Okay. for and then that outlines when you're when you require a geotech report. Correct.

Yeah. And it also specifies this information in our ford management plan which we've been working on trying to update as well. But so for me a comp plan should say update your comp your fordune management plan not have specifics not not list what it what the requirements currently are in your fordune management plan or be in compliance. be in comp. I think that right those words are important and not just having you know update it. Yeah, it should say we you know this comp plan and decision should be made in compliance with Yep. this plan and that plan and address because I don't

Yeah. Yeah. the geological hazards report standards may be referenced but I don't think that it's referenced in its entirety and I think that we've seen that sometimes the interpretation is not the complete geological standards it's some of the standards are being met but not all of them yeah it should as it's updated right we won't have to change it anytime

okay good just just for the commission's um information too we require geologic hazard reports on slopes 15% or greater or adjacent to. And there's Classip County Web Maps does have a a geologic hazard layer and if the properties within that layer, we require a geotechnical report as well. Um, and that's all part of our zoning ordinance. That's already in the zoning ordinance. Yay. And that's stricter. A lot of cities I work in are 20%. So you're more strict than others for requiring that at 15%. Just as a

Next one. Under chapter 11, natural resource preservation and Canacum River and the ocean along the seaside uh shoreline are both considered impaired and DEEQ's list of impaired waters. Their words, not mine. Okay. Uh they submit a yearly report called the integrated report on the surface water quality to EPA. Uh not sure if you want to include just wanted to highlight this

and you decided not to. We decided not to because that I just I didn't know how that related to the to the comp plan. I think it's it was kind of for me it was like a side note that we should be aware of, but I didn't know how we would address that report in the comp plan unless you Yeah. I I didn't know how how it would feed into a comp plan policy. I was, you know, I don't recall seeing anything in the zoning. I don't know where any uh that's any policy would be addressed and that's dealing with the DEEQ and the EPA. So yeah. Okay.

I mean I think that the previous comment of that talks about a conservation estuary and how the the regulatory classifications are tied to that. M um I to me what it sounds like is that that Meg was saying that the same type of statement should be made for an impaired uh waterway as well.

Okay. So I guess yeah I I want to capture what how what what the change should be to make sure that happens. Well, I mean, if we're addressing if we're saying that um there's a conservation estuary and reg and the regulations that go along with a conservation estuary versus one that isn't isn't labeled a conservation estuary or impaired waters and extra cautions that need to be uh carried through because of that labeling. Okay. Um should be referenced. So, we need to have a policy that addresses the impaired water specifically and how they're different. Yes. And that goes back to goal 16. Okay. We can look at a policy that addresses that.

Right. Just making sure that we're providing it the extra extra protections that it might might need because of being classified impaired or conservation. Good. I Good. We can look at that for sure. again on uh chapter 11 natural resource preservation policy 4.3A. Uh boy oh boy, it says here's what the goal here's what the goal says. We're consistent with the resource capabilities of the area and the purposes of this management unit. Uh the following may be allowed and it lists all these um y A through H. Um and it said not addressed. So I presume that you have referenced to that somewhere.

That was that that's comes out of the estuary management plan. Okay. So again, one of those things where I didn't want to continue to list every plans. Got it. That's fine. Okay. Okay. And then we have another map coming again, which is great. That's the coastal shorelines map. Yeah. So let me can I jump in on that one?

Please do. So, we're working with um state right now. Uh a lot of older comp plans just have like descriptions of their coastal inventory like word descriptions. We're trying to do a set of maps. So, the maps will include your shoreline uh line. It'll be your access points and they'll and with within those access points we have like existing uh potential future and things like needs uh some upkeep or whatever. So we've got some categories in there and I think there's a couple other different um well the eststerary eststerary categories are part of that mapping. There's anyway, I guess what I'm getting at is there's a series of maps that will be that we're going to include in this that will be your coastal inventory mapping and we're working with with the state. They have this this data that will embed in the comp plan as your coastal mapping inventory. So, it won't just be words this time.

That's wonderful. Yeah. Thank you. And I and I think that then also lends itself to having specific policies that address the different categories of Yeah. those of those inventories. Yes, for sure. On a side note to that, just how often should those maps be updated? Good question. I mean, the way that we're doing it is that that um the the state has this a data repository called the Coastal Atlas. It's actually really great and it has all that data available. And so, um that's kind of what they say, here's your starting point. And then they they allow jurisdictions to adjust it if if if necessary. We're not really going to adjust anything other than the access map

because that one we can we've identified some that were missing or or weren't categorized right. The the shoreline stuff we're just kind of relying on them to provide it. So I would say those maps get updated whenever the state updates their data. And you know, that wouldn't be a hard thing to do is to is to maybe have a policy in those inventory maps saying when when the state data is updated to update your your coastal inventory mapping as well or just or just reference that as your as those as the most current, you know, because we all change. Yes, definitely. Especially the coast.

Yep. Uh and then it's down at 59 a little bit further down. Are these mapped or inventoried somewhere that can be referenced? I think that's part of that and that's the estuary boundary. Yeah. And that's what we're working on mapping. Okay. And I Oh, that's the last Meg. Okay. And uh well, back to the comments from the other DLCD topic experts. Yeah.

Uh goal 11, infrastructure. Uh, I would encouraged them to amend policy 15, which allows the extension of the urban water service outside the city limits, but inside the UGB without annexation. It is not forbidden, but I think it's bad policy that it supports free riders in quotes and discourages annexation. So, that's a big one. and we deliberately decided to not change course on that because of the what the city is currently doing this already.

So, this is a good discussion. If you all feel like we should we should change that policy, we can. I'll jump in really quick, too. So, the city currently does extend water rights to properties outside of our city limits and outside of urban growth boundary. They're charged extra rates for that water supply. Um, and those decisions are made by the city council on a case- by case basis on whether or not water availability will be for that property or not. That's currently how it's operated. That's so so this this would change that that operation, right?

It would basically you would have a policy that would not allow it at all. and we felt that it was very very different and we didn't know if we wanted to try and you know push that wheelbarrow uphill if you so if you so to speak so it it from a state repres you know from a perspective of someone who's reviewing this I think that's a great comment in in practice it might not always be feasible but I think that's also part of what you're here to discuss and talk about because I bet this will come up at you know this may come up at the council level as well but Jeeoff can you just clarify you said the the city currently supplies water outside of the city and outside of the urban growth boundary. That's correct.

Which is an even more an even bigger layer than than what was being addressed in this. There's properties out Highway 26 that are extended our water service. But again, it's on a case-by case basis through the city council. So, they can certainly reject applications for that depending on our water supply uh capacity and and uh whether or not it's beneficial to the city and that but the city charges higher rates for it. So, then I'm confused about their free writers comment. I maybe they didn't understand

they may not they may not know our current process. Well, I mean, I think that the the reference is probably that there's a lot more costs that come along or other costs and expenses that being inside the urban growth boundary. I mean, inside city limits and part of the city rather than just the water expense and so, but getting But Jeff, maybe Jeff can chime in on this one. So, if I'm out on 26 and I don't have city water and I want it there, I have to pay for that to happen. Correct. If it's approved by the council. Yeah. So, if it's approved by the council, I pay for the project and I pay for the increase rate. So, there is no free writer.

And it depends on it depends on availability, too. So, if you've only got a a 2-in line that services a couple of properties, it may not be sufficient to service a third or a fourth property at what point it would get denied until that line's upgraded. And I my what I was saying is that not that they're not paying for their water,

but there's other things that come with being a property in the city versus not in the city as far as expenses are concerned is you know taxes or building code and you know those kinds of things are part of and that is what the free rider is referencing. Not that the water would be free or that there'd be a cost, but there's a part of being part of the city that you pay into the services that the city is providing that that's part of why you don't pay as much for your water. So, it's it's a different interpretation of the way you're interpreting free rider. He's not talking about they wouldn't be paying for water. It's the being part of the city that they're choosing. I don't want to follow your rules, but I want your water.

Yeah. I know what you mean. So maybe I can see why it wouldn't be addressed. The sleeping dogs lie. Well, this is I I I also want to say that this is not unique to Seaside. This came up recently in Manzanita. The same exact conversation came up and that the rates were higher and that so it's this is a a very normal situation for almost every city that I've worked in to be in. So in those cities, did they ever change the policy so that city water would not go to the people who previously had city water? I have not seen that. The discussion always comes up and the discussion always leads to, well, we should raise their rates. Just to be honest with you,

it's not an entitlement issue. They're not entitled to our water, which leaves it discretionary for the city council to make a case-by case determination depending on what public works says is available or not available, or if they just flat out don't want to do it, uh, the city council can say no. Yeah. Yep. Next onward.

Yep. So we'll 86 that um let's see not addressed it's ex exists in code Yahoo. Um and we are still under natural resources scenic and historic areas and open spaces policy 1.6 open space buffer areas shall provide to a separate uh to separate industrial areas from residential areas. This could be required landscape setbacks where industrial zones are adjacent to residential areas. Oops. Sorry, that's one that was addressing code.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Down 2.2. The city shall encourage the preservation of open spaces when considering future future development in the city. I mean, uh, don't we already? Yes. You Yes. There's there open space requirements as part of new developments, especially if you're doing subdivisions. you have and that's in code. Not in our subdivision code. No, not in your sub in our plan development code. There's open space requirements, but not in our sub code.

Okay. But again, that may be something that's again specific to your zoning code if you want to make if you want to require that. Um the policy would be to explore updating your subdivision code to require open space. You know, I'm just trying to put it in a policy language from in a plan, you know. rather than say by putting code into your comp plan. Yeah, don't put code in the comp plan. Brandon, any comment on that? No. Anybody else? Okay, Kathy, your eyes are rolling. Yeah, I mean I think that there is a way to address that more specifically in a comp plan that doesn't address just zoning codes, but you know, if there is

x amount of density being created in this area that x amount of open space should go with that and and whether that's a subdivision or uh a planned development, I don't think is the the formula piece there. I think it's if you're developing or redeveloping and you're creating and I think this goes to the density conversation. If there's that much density being created, there should also be some o open spaces that are allocated with that. Yeah. I believe our plan development ordinances currently require 20% of improved or unimproved open space. Yeah, the plan development does, but Right. Subdivision land partition ordinance does not have any of those requirements

because that's not building that's just chopping it up, right? And and it's specific code language that they have to meet specific standards. Another side note, too, we did a there's a rule of thumb for parks. This is different specific to parks, not open space, but um it's like I think it's thousand acres per I can't remember what the rule of thumb is, but you're well over

your uh parks acreage per thousand people already. So, one of there's a policy in there that talks about how many parks per people, acres of parks per people that we have in there. So, that does address the parks. Doesn't specifically address open space when you're by density. But you're right, there are comp plan policies that say if you know if you have a project proposed at X density, then you're you're required a certain percentage of open space. You can do it that way, but that would be project specific, not necessarily selling off a quarter acre, which is it would be project specific, but um

there would be a a density trigger as Kerik said. So you determine what that density trigger is and the percentage ratio of open space that would kick in at that point. And I I I don't know what those numbers would be. Plan plan development 20%. Um but there's no density trigger in a plan development other than plan developments should be over one acre. That's what the language reads. It's not it's not clear and objective. Should be over one acre

part of the comp plan. Um, and you know, it gives the commission discretion to review plan developments that are less than an acre with no real standards on what those thresholds are, but it could be something addressed in this comp plan that, you know, a certain density does trigger a certain amount of open space for all land divisions. Well, and and I think that looking at at seaside going into the future, there will be more density and it behooves us to put language in the comp plan that preserves some of our open spaces so that we don't become just one big block of buildings in certain areas with no open spaces. And the one park we have is the one that is here that everybody has to go to that there should be small open spaces that are community spaces whenever something is being built up.

So go ahead. So how would you define that? Would you say would you base it on X amount of density must have? So find a reference that somebody else has used. I don't have the numbers off the top of my head either. Um, but you know, when x amount of density is being created, similar to what our short-term rental type of policy was. If if there's x amount of density than in short-term rentals, then you need this. It's not the same. I'm not that's not a very good I get what you're saying. we can only have so much density of the short-term rentals here providing period that and that was in in that policy it was the percentages in the

you this density is created and therefore this much open space must be provided you're building this you have to then also add in this much open space. So typically like a a a units per acre would that would you so you'd say if you're producing a a project that produces 10 over 10 units per acre then you're required to have 10% open space. I'm making this up. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. I don't Yeah. But wouldn't that be in the zoning code rather than the comp plan? It it it could be in the it could be quantified in the zoning code.

Um I'm thinking more generically for the comp plan. I'm also thinking on a scale that we're going to see how how is this going to be implemented if

for example if the if the commission and the council uh determine that lot size requirements and higher density zone should be haved to 2500 square ft how do you provide open space on a development that's going from one unit to two units how do you how do you make that happen and and the only thing I can think of is by limiting footprint uh on those smaller lots build smaller houses create more yard area, less structure area. Um, I just don't know how else to implement it in a scale that we're going to see more likely than if we have a straight down the road 20 unit subdivision that we're requiring x amount of open spaces. How many 20-unit subdivisions are we going to see in our current urban growth boundary? I mean, and I think that it's something that could could apply to if you're creating four, let's jump to five, five or more housing units on one lot, you are required to provide this much open space to go go with it. So that we're not treading into the we're not putting undue restrictions on duplex and triplexes. And to me, quadplexes should be fit in there, too. We want to allow for those as much as possible. We don't want to create any undue restrictions on those. But once we're we're really going into the multif family unit developments, there should be some open spaces that are that are provided with any multif family

that's above a quad. I'm glad you brought this up because I'm going to come back to you in like a month with the middle housing code update work which addresses exactly that. But, you know, I and this is the fine line you walk with how prescriptive you want to be in an overarching comp plan versus your regulatory document, which is your zoning code. Because that that's where you start defining what multif family is. How many units is it? When does when do those rules kick in? And and I had the exact same thought you did, Jeff, in terms of it's it's easy to apply on vacant land

when you're doing a subdivision or a PUD. It's it's more difficult when you're doing redevelopment and infill because of existing conditions and especially if you're if you're looking at smaller lot development and allowing higher densities, finding that required open space sometimes will kill projects. So, it's a balance. You got to it's but but of course you want that open. I mean, I'm not arguing that you don't want it and don't need it. You definitely do. So, yeah, that's the tricky part. What about what about a generic statement stating that open space shall be provided uh for any development of more than five dwelling units and leave the quantifiable part to the zoning ordinance when we review those policies. Yeah.

Because you may want to change the amount of open space required depending on the zoning designation R1, R2, R3, RR. Yeah, denser spaces, less open space, more open space for less dense developments. I think that that I think that's that's fair. Okay. So, what's the magic number? Four, five, six. Well, five. Well, then when you say five, are you talking about little um tiny tiny houses on five dwelling units? Five dwelling units. And I think just period not regarding the size of the lot or property that they're on. That's I think that's getting too much into the weeds.

I know. I know. But I'm just saying you plop down five little ADU size and you're just not going to have a whole lot of I think that there's other regulations that also change at that five, which is why that five also is a good number. and and Commissioner Clelesix going on five and and as uh our consultant has stated, you know, that middle housing up to four units, those quad quadplexes, that's the that's kind of the sweet spot. That's going to be the sweet spot for Seaside to develop more housing is that infill with those smaller duplex, triplex, quadplex developments. So five is the trigger. Yeah. Right. Okay. Makes sense. Okay, cool. That's good.

Apply to five. Did you have something to add, Roger? And I'll I'll add to that, Commissioner Monttoa, that you start seeing developments with, you know, five small houses on it, that's just going to encourage five smaller houses instead of five large houses with no open space. The open space requirement will benefit that small community of of properties with more outdoor area. Those cottage clusters usually do have shared outdoor space is part of the attraction to them, which we're also going to get into with the the middle housing code too and make sure

Yeah, we'll have we'll have specific recommendations for cottage clusters and typically that's a certain size of shared open space that occurs to allow that density of cluster. So that's exactly the concept. Cool. That's great feedback. Next, let me guess goal statement one. Uh goals. Let's see. Um did you what did you ask me? Goal statement one is the next not addressed item.

Oh, this says goal six, air, water, and land resource quality. Uh chapter 11. Goal statement one. Thank you. Supports efforts to protect and improve air quality reducing uh exposure to toxic air pollutants that pose a health or safety risk. And we didn't address that for what reason? The comment underneath it was the list of policies for goal six should specifically describe the city's total maximum daily loads obligations for the Nanakam River and their load reduction plan. Oh, I'm not quite sure what that means.

I had to we had I had to look this up because I didn't know what it means either. And now I wish I remembered exactly what I what I did, but I I had the same reaction. And my I think my my our thinking was is that um we can't we how are we going to use a comp plan to enforce load restrictions? I didn't see a way for the and actually how the lo the load restriction was something to do with pollutants in the water by the way.

It was that was what it meant. it was the level of pollutants allowed to be in and they do measurements and they change throughout the year depending on how much water flow and how much pollutants are coming typically from farm farm use. Um so it's fertilizers and whatnot. So I just wasn't sure how we could address water pollutants and load and load readings in the comp plan. I didn't I I wasn't able to connect that other than you know other than a policy you I I didn't know how to how to connect the two. Isn't that governed by the EPA?

It would be. Yeah. I mean that's the whole reason they do the measurements is to make sure that they're not over over the over the required you know the load limits so to speak. So I didn't I I just I I thought it was too deep in the weeds to be able to address with a comp plan policy. So that's that was why well and this might be one of the areas where a more generic goal statement is appropriate to where it's taken on a case- by case basis and not necessarily something that's quantifiable that we don't necessarily have access to the data. I don't see these measurements. I was concerned with figuring out how to administer and what to do with those measurements based on the comp plan policy.

So I that's why I figured it it was not necessary. So um just to extrapolate from this my I just imagine that the comp plan would address a policy that we wouldn't allow any sort of development of industry or X in the rain in the area of the Nanakum river that would impact the the load levels. Yeah, exactly. Um you you could determined by the agency that determines the

well you could say something like that. You could say you know assess uh but see then then you my thought went to this too. It was like, well, you could have a policy that said assess development proposals based on their impacts to load levels in the in the river, which is would be fine, but then I was wondering then how does that apply to someone who comes into a project and how are you going to go figure those load levels out and are you going to make them go do that themselves? And I figured that that those were done through the state and the federal agencies and I I didn't want to tie those into the local level comp plan policy. Do do we have any industrial zones along actual zones along the river?

The storage I mean Avenue S is industrial and that's by the waterway. So I mean I think that I think that one of the things that is lacking in our comp plan now is actual words that tie us to state or federal policies. Okay? Because I think that there's other places that we currently don't reference it. we just say, you know, we don't address this and and and then there's state and federal policies that should be the overarching guidelines at the very least. I agree. And so in this type of situation, a generic statement that says because it gives us it gives us a standing to say no to somebody if we're like,

oh, you're going to put a I can't come up with an industry that that would impact this. But yeah, let me I I think this is good and I think I could probably come up with something that would something about compliance with load levels based on EP EPA regulations or something like that. You know, just something that ties it to

the practical side of it though is, you know, how do we as the staff that intakes these applications determine load levels and determine whether they're in compliance or not? It gets really difficult when we are asked to be the enforcers of all state and federal regulations and laws and something like this. If I get an application because it's going to have to apply to every project, every project that's adjacent to the waterway, they are going to have to determine the load level currently in the river and their impact. And I just don't know how feasible that is for them to do that because we can't pick and choose which ones we're going to say you have to provide us this report. We have to be consistent across the board.

Okay. Sim similar to how we require ODOT sign off on things in certain projects. This could be something that we acqui we we require the applicant to show that they right. But I believe aren't one of the you know I believe some of that is ingrained in state law though it that oh yeah the local communities are required to work with ODOT on certain right traffic. I think that that's what Amanda here is also saying that we also need to be in compliance with those state laws.

I don't think the state law here and I and if someone can correct me if I'm wrong please, but I don't think the state law here says the city shall implement this into their plans where the transportation system plan and some of the stuff with ODOT and traffic flow, it's a shall we have to implement it in our plan. I think in the in the individual department approval process is where that would lie. Not within a general is what you're saying. Correct.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean it so I'm going to bring this back to this specific example right here. Any application that comes in is going to have to provide us with this report if we put this as a policy. And I don't even know who to direct people to to go and get this type of report done. So whether it's a $400,000 small commercial project or a $30 million commercial project, every single project's going to be required to provide this. And if it's in the Nanakin River, if it's if it's adjacent to the Nanakin River. Yes.

So that's not that's not just that's remodels, that's new construction, that's new development, that's putting in a driveway, you know, all of those could have that impact. So where do we draw that line? How is it quantified? And um is this something the city gets involved in or would we leave this to the experts at the EPA and DEEQ to I think it's worth asking Amanda to to be more specifically if there's specific things because that's fair. Um she her wording was particular obligations is different than another softer words

and her wording also says should specifically describe the cities not shall. So I I'm curious if there's a state law that directs us towards this or if this is something that that's she would like us to see. I think reaching out to her last name is Puntton, not Putin. Sounds good. I think it's worth reaching out to her and clarifying that and maybe if necessary, you know, coming up with some uh more overarching that's not as specific as load levels, but Okay. Yep. All right. Next one. Next one. We are on to the Oregon Shore Surf Rider Foundation and Shnook Indian uh Nation Nanagam Watershed Council. There's more from DLCD.

Uh we addressed that one. The NHMP, correct? Address all hazards of the city the city faces through policies. Are you talking about from Marian? Yes. Yes. The earth. Uh, yes, that was the uh let's see. Yes, I'll what what what page are we on of this? The next one. It's on page two, but I think that was uh referred to by NHMT. And so, if we're following along on our iPads, we just went over goal six, goal statement one. The next page in that is chapter 11.

Chapter 11, natural resources and the environment. That's where we're at. Okay. Yes. And uh the first one integrate the city's uh NHMP that was addressed. You go down further and it says all hazards, excuse me, address all hazards uh the city faces through comp plan goals and policies and that had to do with the hazards and I thought we already had this discussion uh where they are uh that we weren't going to necessarily put in the full text but refer to the end. That was the idea. Yeah. Yes. And so that took care of Okay. I think the rest of um

the NH Great. Okay. And then we get to Oh, and there you got a kudos in there. It says bullet number one. This is great. I just want to keep your spirits up. Oh, little pat on the back here. Uh let me see. Oh, yes. And another kudos for the historic resources. That's addressed. Then we get down to um chapter 5, land use and urbanization suggestion out of policy 15 that directs growth away from potential landside landslide runout areas. And uh there's quite a few that follow underneath that that says not addressed.

We are at the bottom of page eight if you're on your iPad. And what about all of them on page seven? Did we skip over all of those? we did because that falls under the NHMP which we just um discussed earlier. Yeah. Okay. So, I think that Yeah. Go ahead. There's a difference between referring to the natural hazard mitigation plan that is the county's plan and having specific references in our city comp plan about some of the hazards that we face as a city. Sure. problem

and the mitigation policies that are involved with those are different than you know addressing that there these hazards that exist and we should make plans not to put people in harm's way. Yeah. And I think this the city has to adopt and has adopted the counties. So it's not just this county's plan, it's the counties and the city's mitigation plan. So um I don't know. I mean what what what's your recommendation there? You want to list you want to list the the No, not the whole hazard mitigation plan. I think that one of the things that one of the comments that she made that stood out to me was future actions for Seaside. Yeah.

So, we've got this county mitigation plan that we've adopted, but what actions should Seaside be following up with based on the that adopted plan. There's specifics in there to Seaside. They're specific to cities within that plan. So, you could pull those out of there. Um, yeah. I don't I didn't, you know, I I my preference was not to to list. I mean, we can do that. My preference would not to be to include all those again. That was my initial thought. I know that's vague, but um if there's specific things that if you want to list, we could we could go back through that.

This is referencing back to the NHMP. what what my my feelings are is that that they're wanting the NAH NHMP to specifically talk about these items. So, it wouldn't be for the comp plan. That'd be a discussion for for the No, the NHMP plan is a countywide plan. There's specifics there that that point to Seaside that Seaside should be addressing. some of those things that it's pointing at Seaside for to me should be part of the comp plan that Seaside's saying, not only are we adopting this wholesale, but we find these things important to our city and we're calling them out

as things that we need to be aware of as a city and involve and they need to be integrated into our our planning because reference to the comp to the NHMP plan is one thing, but you know, especially wildfire preparedness things and not you know and requirements for building in landslide hazard hazard zones or um flood areas there should be some sort of reference to how we as a city are addressing that city side will three three things while so you want to add you want to add policy specific to all the different the things that are

yeah I mean if the if it's called out in the NHMP plan as something that Seaside should be concerned about. Yeah. And how are we as a city addressing that as part of our plan? City of Seaside will abide by the and integrate the city's NHMP plan referenced here. You don't need to list out every single thing,

nor would we want to because as soon the NHMP is updated and changed, we adopt the generic NHMP. We we don't adopt every version of it. We adopt the NHMP as it's written at the time. So as it changes, then we don't have to continuously update our comp plan. Now, if you want specific rules in place for certain risk areas, then that can be integrated into the zoning code and development code. Zoning and development code, right? But I see what you're saying. Okay.

I guess what I would say is that I I wasn't aware that there was anything more specific that we needed to address for Seaside. there may be um that that we didn't that that was missed in the counties and the city's NHMP. So, I guess what I'd say is that if if you if you find those things, we can we should add we can we can and should add them. And if we want a specific policy about landslides, for example, that's not addressed well enough in the MH in in the plan, then that we're referencing that we should identify those. I just didn't know if there were any. I I think it's a bigger conversation for for you know that would have to be something that we definitely go through the entire NHMP's plan and say oh gosh it doesn't address this it doesn't address that then I think that we could talk about that not necessarily belonging in the comprehensive plan cuz we referenced it earlier that this you we can reference back to specific policies land use this this that and the other because those items are going to change we don't want to have to con consistently update the the comp plan. I I get I get the spirit of what you're saying. At the same time, I think it's it's too much into the weeds and very specific, but if we wanted if we saw a a hole or a gap in that plan, then we should definitely have that as a different another conversation outside of the comp.

I should I just ask them if they see any hole? I mean, because it's easy to if it's easy for someone reviewing this to to who knows if they looked at that MHMP and how and if it's specific, you know, it's it's easy when you do a quick review to say make sure that you do things specific to your city that might be outside of this. Okay. But unless we examine them deeper, so the county NHMP plan, yeah, is the county's NHMP plan. So they are taking the city stuff in broad strokes.

Sure. which is not the same as the city including more more specific things in their comp plan that are addressed in broad strokes in the in the NHMP. I agree with you, but when they do I've been involved in those NHMP plans at a county level in Toma County specifically and each city is involved in the development of that and each city has to adopt it and there's typically a section specific to each jurisdiction within the NHMP. So technically city staff should have been involved. I'm sure you were invol I don't know when the last one was done Jeeoff you may not been here. But you know city staff and that's another thing is these things are not updated. It's currently being updated.

It current and this is another thing with the eststerary plan. It's like we reference the esttoary plan over and over. That thing's 30 plus years old and needs to be updated, too. So, it's it's one of those things where it's like h how much of it? Anyway, I won't I won't keep talking about it, but you you see to me it you know, if you're taking a a broadstrokes plan and saying that's good enough. Yeah.

Yeah. I I don't think it needs to be integrated, but I think definitely saying the city shall review uh the NHMP the the the plan on a regular basis like like set set goals like every 5 years this plan should be reviewed and adopted as such but including all the language in the comprehens and and change the county's NHMP plan. But you just switched from county to city. The city doesn't have an NHMP plan. This says integrate the city's NHMP with the 2050 comprehensive plan, right? So,

if we don't have one, then this shouldn't be a discussion topic because then we jumped over to county. Well, the the city adopted the county's plan. It's everyone's plan. Yeah. Okay. So then we if the city doesn't have anything any control over it and it's the county's plan. That's why I'm No, we're not changing the NHMP plan. The the city should have references to specific natural hazards mitigation in their in our comp plan that are specific to us that show where are our main concerns. Well, I I have

how are we addressing them? I have a thought that might be might work, it might not, but it might be a policy to review like you could put a policy in the complant that says one of the next steps the city should do is review the NHMP and see if there's specific changes that that can be made to the you know to that that they can recommend you know or something like that where because part of the issue we're running into is that work hasn't been done

that we haven't gone through the that natural hazard mitigation plan and say what is what do we need is is there anything missing or do we need anything more specific to the city in the comp plan. So that could be a next step that you wouldn't have to necessarily address as part of the comp plan update and it could be a policy in in the comp plan to you know to uh assist in the update and make sure that specific needs of the city of Seaside are met through that updated process something like that. So it's not putting So you're not then putting all of I don't know. I just I worry that we're we're we're giving ourselves another set of of work to do to to to set that up. So I'm trying to figure out a way a middle ground. Yeah.

I don't know. Is that does that make sense to have some sort of policy that long? To me sounds better than just well we have we've adopted we're fine. Yeah. We're fine. Okay. Because we don't have any actions tied to it. I agree. The count we've got that's that was our action. We adopted their plan and that to me is not enough. I agree. The problem is we don't know those actions enough to put them in the plan. So, it feels like that's another exercise that that maybe the plan should recommend and I think we can come up with a policy that would work for that to examine that, you know, at a local level, look at your countywide and HMP and see if it fits and see if the city needs to make any recommendations. And we already have policies to be involved in the updates and to be in compliance with that. So, we're I feel like we're more than halfway there, just not all the way there,

right? onward. Mhm. Okay. On the same page, let's see, chapter five, land use and urbanization. Uh it says, "Suggestion out of policy uh 1.5 that directs growth away from potential landslide runoff areas." Mhm. Uh suggestion out of policy 16 that to the extent feasible directs growth away from the riverine riverine yeah riverine riverine riverine flood planes um meaning both the floodway and the and the flood fringe so those uh were not addressed are those addressed somewhere else

we didn't address them and I and the reason was is because it was it would be kind of vague and I felt like the the flood plane stuff is done through FEMA regul ations and guidelines. So I don't know how we have a policy that directs people away from that when they can legally do that if they go through the proper, you know, legal channels through FEMA. So I think I feel like we're already in a lot of ways there's a lot of policies that are directing people away from development flood planes and in landslide areas because of the other statements that are made. So I I I felt like we already had it covered

in other areas. And then uh down to chapter six, transportation. Let's see. Uh are there other ways the city could support evacuation for those with mobility challenges in a hazard event scenario? Could a policy be developed to address them? I said I I thought I thought there could. I I was not comfortable coming up with one on my own. And I felt like if if you if you feel like that's important. I'd like to discuss maybe a policy for that. Um I kind of also felt like a lot of those strategies are in place and are required for mobility issues are required when doing those evacuation planning anyway.

But I don't know. What do you all think? Do we are we missing something that big there or do you think we got we have it covered in other areas for evacuation planning with mobility? I personally haven't looked at our evacuation plan with that in mind. I don't know. Has anybody else? No. The uh I would say we would need to defer to the ADA and what that would what their they've got to have an emergency um uh not protocol, not necessarily procedures, but hey, we recommend that if you know if then this then that. Um, I don't think setting an ADA type,

you know what we might be able to do, this just came to my mind. Um, we we have policies specific to evacuation planning and making sure that's in place. It might just be as simple as adding a caveat in that policy to, you know, address mobility issues in that policy. So, we would add it to a current policy, but that's just a thought. So, I think that that needs to be looked at in a way much larger than we're than ADA because we're talking about seniors. We're talking about people that may not qualify under ADA guidelines, but we're talking about people that are going to need help evacuating. Yep.

And so that I don't know if this is the right place to address that, but it's certainly something that the city needs to be aware of and that we need to be addressing someplace that when we're developing evacuation and emergency plans that we're that we're developing them for everybody. I think that that's a fine. I think you just nailed the policy. I mean, that could be as simple as adding a policy like when when developing evacuation and plans, we're considering the needs of all people, specifically mobility people with mobility issues. So, I I think it's easy the easy way to fix this is to add a policy. Yeah. That that's that overarching. Um, if you're comfortable with that, I'm I'm fine with that if you're all happy with doing that. Um,

do we have anything uh under our emergency uh preparedness program that addresses that? I mean, Ann McBride would probably be the person to contact. I would be very surprised if it didn't mention something about mobility needs and that I I can't tell you off the top of my head and I believe we'll have somebody new in that position very soon. Ah, okay. I think that that's a it's a planning hole that exists in a lot of places that is not considered.

Um there's there's ADA that's considered. There's people that might move slower. There's people that might, you know, need to use devices, but how do you get people out that are bedbound and how do you get people out that are, you know, have medical devices that have to go with them? You know, those types of things is a there's a planning hole. Well, I'm sure like something like the hospital already has that in play. But yeah, as much as we're promoting equity in our comp plan, it would be even if it even if the policy refers to something else to for further information. It it probably should be addressed.

Well, the hospital might have a plan like that, but the hospital here in Seaside is not included in the NHMP plan. So, you know, there's that. Well, next. Yep. Okay. Uh something it says, "Add some text to this chapter about ODOT's designation of US 101 as a tier one seismic lifeline and policy 3.3 about working with ODOT to improve highway conditions for evacuation and recovery." So, I think we did add the language in the chapter, but I will double check on that. Okay. I don't know if we added a policy. I don't think we did.

And the next question right after says, could there be an evacuation route for bicyclists separate from pedestrian evacuation routes? And I thought that was very specific to an That's a TSP. Yeah, exactly. So, I didn't address that one. Uh, yeah, it says, is there is that something that could be worked into the bicycle trails being uh contemplated? Good idea. I don't know. I I feel like a lot of these comments are just someone thinking out loud, which is good. Yeah. Uh let's see. The next I think was a pretty What about chapter 8 public facilities in That's the next one. Oh, okay.

Uh let's see. Not applicable. Chapter 8, public facilities and infrastructure. Then we get down to Hey, you got a This is a terrific vision. Good. What about why is that? It says chapter 8 public facilities and infrastructure not why is there an A there? It says future infrastructure planning will be will emphasize water and wastewater resilience particularly in light of the city's dependence on the river for its portable water supply and you had written uh not applicable or not addressed. I don't remember why. So if you're if if we if you want to add that we can

because it then goes further to say seaside's water treatment and sewer systems will require ongoing modernization to meet state and federal standards to accommodate population growth. And similarly sol solid waste and storm water systems will will require proactive maintenance and upgrades to manage increasing volumes and protect environmental quality. Okay. But are they quoting the policy out of the comprehensive plan? Yeah, they're just writing the policy out of the I'm not sure what their question or response to that was, but anything the plan should reference these things as it states in there, but um the water system master plan, sewer system master plan, those are the plans that actually

they're already regulate these and they're both in the process of getting ready to be rewritten. I I actually think that the next um the next one down that says this is a terrific vision. I think it's referencing that because the comment the suggestion is support this vision what we just read uh with policies that address developing redundancy in the water and sewer systems as mentioned. In other words, they're just supporting the text that's already there. Okay. Maybe that's why we didn't address it. I don't remember. That sounds right. I think the next one, the suggestion, if I may.

Yeah, please. So uh support this vision with policies that address improvements in the serious said that would strengthen them against potential impacts of natural hazards such as floods, landslides run out, earthquakes, coastal erosion and tsunami. I think that had that would be up to the water department, right? Following all those public works. Yeah. So my question the both of all of these are saying where's the policies that support these visions? So are there the pol where's the policies that support those visions

support the vision with policies? Where's the policies? Well then they then he rec then he quoted the policies that were already there. There was that's just the that was just the first one. That first one was the the policy is seaside's water treatment and sewer system will require ongoing modernization to meet state and federal standards to accommodate population growth, adapt climate impacts, and to promote resilience. But again, that's not a policy, right? What policy would you have them write around doing exactly what we're supposed to do? Because it's already a directive. It's it's already in there. Mhm.

I mean, it says that will require ongoing and that's not up to those standards are not up to the city. Their standards are up to the state. Correct, Jeff? Yeah. I'm I'm getting to the policies in our plan. Yeah. For uh public facilities and infrastructure, there's 10 policies for goal statement one. uh two policies for goal statement two, one policy for goal statement two, uh 16 policies for goal statement three. So, there's a lot of policies there. I'm not sure what they're referencing in their comments.

Do any of the policies address improvements in the water system? Uh just keeps kicking me out of my spot. One second. think yeah I think there are policies that talk about you know making sure your water system supports future growth and and current needs and infrastructure and strengthen them and so it's the policies are already in there so I think I I hope I really hope so I can double check but I I can't imagine they wouldn't be so

okay I will double check I will double check to make sure that we didn't miss something and I I think that might be another reach back out and say did we miss something here in this comment Okay, I think the next one's the same. And then it talks about the NHMP mitigation actions again. Okay. Uh conduct seis conduct a seismic upgrading of water supply chains. U so that's another policy recommendation for the NH. We could add we could add something about seismic. I don't think we do have a policy about seismic upgrades for water specifically. water chains and infrastructure in the city is the whole sentence. Sorry, I cut that off at the end.

Okay. Is that something we should add potentially? What do you think? Thoughts? Okay. And those are the type of actions that I think perfect, you know, the NHMP point to that we should be addressing. Yeah. So, there we go. We're doing that at the same time. Got mentioned multiple times. And this is so funny too because you run into this too is there's so many policies in this plan and a lot of them overlap even though they're a different chapter. They say similar similar thing but in a different way. So it's it's tough.

Uh continue efforts. The next one is continue efforts to replace aged bridges with newer structures policy. Uh 3.7 addresses bridges that are required through annexation but that knows not those already within the city. I believe the city just had uh recently in the last couple years had a study done about the bridges and uh they were looking to put money into the bridges and this discovered that putting the money that they wanted to in the bridges was not feasible. Correct. A study was done to determine the effect of making all of our bridges seismically compliant and the amount of lives it would save in the event of a Cascadia uh subduction event versus vertical evacuation and the amount of lives would be saved.

That's right. I think it was like a hundred or something for the bridges and it was couple thousand or over a thousand for the vertical. Significant difference. Significant difference. Okay. Any questions about that one? That one's specific to um if there's if you notice it's specific to annexations. So policies already thing for annexation. They're not currently within the city. So I think whatever we're applying to, hey, if we're going to annex this area in and it includes a bridge, these things are required. Those should also be required to existing. Mhm.

So, is that something that you we should you think we should add in there in terms of make it not make it for all all bridges existing and bridges that would be annexed? I I would say if we're going to do that, I would I would vote for or suggest that it be uh more overarching about um updating infrastructure because bridges are part of infrastructure as well. So, I would say infrastructure including but not limited to D. I think so. It's more general seismic. Okay. Because they talk about seismic about the water system as well. That's true. We've gone on to the next one. So

I I I know but I'm saying instead of policy this policy this policy say polic the policy of the city of seaside is that uh to perform or I don't know the verbiage to perform seismic upgrades to infrastructure including water and sewer and this and this. Listen, I like that because it's a more overarching policy than it and it touches on all those infrastructure types. Okay. I think that's great. Uh I think we're on identify as areas where underground utilities may be appropriate. It says not addressed.

Yeah, I just didn't I I thought that was too specific for a comp plan too. That if you feel like that's everyone always wants that. Sometimes it's cost prohibitive. Sometimes it makes sense in some area, right? Not others. So,

I think that was actually one that I brought up as well during one of the meetings. Um the um I have we have hotels across Oregon and Washington in our my company I work that I work with and um Seaside has a lot of power outages. A lot of power power outages where we last year we had a couple days with some power glitches but we had an 18 period a time period of 18 hours with no power in seaside. little just a little over 18 for a couple, you know, areas. Um, we don't have that anywhere else where we have a hotel. I mean, Atoria doesn't have that. Lincoln City, Newport doesn't experience that. So, when I know that personally when I brought that up and other individuals brought it up at different meetings as well, I think it's an area of of conversation at some point and I think it's a direction the city should go. I don't necessarily know if it it should be in the I think going forward if language needed to be in there to say um that the uh your above ground utilities upon replacement should be put underground but I don't know if that's necessarily to be put in there but that's

yeah I mean a policy you could have a more general policy to encourage and or even incentivize underground in you know when appropriate or something like that you know we could have an overarching policy that would recommend, you know, when appropriate and financially feasible to install, you know, underground. Does that go in the same category as um dark sky regulations and those types of um uh well, yeah, you could

policies that the city might want. Jeff, do do any new new uh commercial or um developments, housing developments require underground power at this point? Yes. What about projects that are slated like I believe it's Avenue I look at you because you said Avenue S earlier. I believe Avenue S has a plan because Yes. Cuz when the storage units were brought to us, the city has a plan and they didn't have to do specific improvements to that stretch, the sidewalk. Yes. So when the city goes to do that road, facilities will be located underground. So that's already there.

That's that's in the plan when that plan materializes. Same with the continued remodel of Holiday from Broadway to um South Roosevelt. But is that a is that something that's somebody's judgment call right now or is that our comp plan policy? I believe there's polic I believe there's ordinances regarding that. I'd have to go and look. Okay. Uh to figure out where those are at, but I think there is ordinances. I know there's specific ordinance in the subdivision land partitioned ordinance that requires underground. But other um actions, I'd have to look to see if there's somewhere else in city code. You know, general, hey, this is we want this is something we see as on planned improvements.

Well, unfortunately, unless it's being uh you know, presented as a new project in in this case or an upgrade of a street, which a city has, you know, power over uh in a a private residential area, if you will, that's all up to the resident and Pacific Power. The city has no Sure. So then say in saying hey you got to put this underground no matter what.

Well the option is also to institute local improvement districts and at which point the residents of that district are taxed to the the point that those improvements can be made and at that point the whole streetscapes put uh up to current standards ADA compliant sidewalks asphalt and underground utilities. Then I would say more of a more of a general and uh statement would be something more along the lines of um as improvements are made in the city should be the city not should be it will be the city's goals to move utilities underground or some virgin

I think we can come up with a policy that says encourage explore you know incentivize some of that language you know um moving to underground utilities we still have the required sidewalks in there too Okay. In here. It's already in the ordinance. It's in the old comp plan. In the comp plan. Yeah. Yeah. That didn't come out. It didn't. The required sidewalks. The required sidewalks. It did not was not removed. That did not come out. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Taken out. We did. All right. Carry on, Brandon.

Yeah. Um, so we are bridges, areas, underground utilities. Evaluate the vulnerabilities of the water system. I think we just discussed that including the transmission main water pipes and dam the mitigate uh mitigate to ensure disaster resilience. Disaster resilience is not specifically mentioned as a desired outcome in the draft comp plan. Um so I I thought that the basically your water sewer plans would cover the main I didn't want to get to talk about specific lines in the comp plan.

Sure. There could be something that would talk about disaster mitigation, but again, I feel like it's covered elsewhere. And when they were just reviewing that chapter, they're probably right there. It didn't mention it specifically in the infrastructure chapter. Um, but I feel like we covered other other areas of the comp plan. All right. Uh, e relocate the EOC. Has this already been accomplished? Good question. What is I'm not sure why we'd relocate the EOC. the emergency operations command, correct? Yeah, the emergency operations center center. Yeah, we have no intention of relocating the EOC. It's established where it's at uh within the last four years.

Great. Uh that was up at the high school, isn't it? We don't typically discuss where it's at, but we don't talk about Bruno about it. Let me Kevin. Okay, this next one's a suggestion. A policy should be added or language should be added to the existing policies such as 2.1 3.1 especially 4.1 that minimizes the exposure of housing for vulner vulnerable populations to natural uh hazards. Example policy 4.1 encourages um you you did you have something to say? No.

Oh, sorry. Uh 4.1 encourages higher density residential development close to the city center. Such developments would not no doubt benefit vulnerable populations, but the area also is subjected to uh riverine flooding. Uh new policy and or additional language encouraging development that cannot be located away from hazard areas to be developed in ways that reduce a structures vulnerability to potential impacts from riverine flooding um or or whatever the subject subject hazard may be. would also reduce the risk to its residents and minimize difficulty in evacuating or risk of sheltering in place. That was a really long one.

Yeah, you got anything?

There's there's incorrect statements in there. Um, city center is not subject to riverine flooding. It's not the majority of our city center is not within a special flood hazard area. Especially the majority of the area that's already developed is not within the special flood hazard area. Uh, secondarily, if we're talking all natural hazards, and I I wish I could pull up a map quickly and show you, um, but in seaside, you're either in one of two areas, the tsunami inundation zone or the geologic hazard zone. So, you're never without being in a hazard zone, except for one small property about halfway up the hill on Broadway. There's about an acre of that property that is not an either. and that's the only place I found and it's a small spot on the map. So, I I I have some difficulty with this one because you're really having to weigh where do we build housing and where do we not build h housing? Uh if if you're saying we can't build housing in a hazard zone, whether it's tsunami inundation or geologic, then seaside should be where people don't live.

Uh because you're either in one or the other essentially. And the only other thing I would add to that is I think we did we do address vulner vulnerable populations in the housing chapter specifically. Okay. Not in this chapter. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Uh next one. Note there is a book entitled climate resilience for an aging nation by Danielle I remember this comment. Um thoughts on this comment. I I thought it was just a good recommendation. I didn't I didn't know how to how to you know how this was relevant to changing policies in the comp plan. Got it. Okay. I appreciated it, but it wasn't it didn't Yeah. Okay. Just a uh just a note then

available for $29.95. Plus yourself out. Uh next one suggestion. This chapter should al could also address the need for identifying or constructing mass sheltering facilities, a community lifeline element, including warming and cooling centers. Yes, the the city's already in the process of rewriting our emergency operation plan in conjunction with all the jurisdictions within Classic County. We're doing one EOP project. It's ongoing right now. Some of these things will be addressed in in that plan. Okay. And then chapter 12, coastal resources preservation. Please see chapter 4 suggestion.

Can we go back to the one before that? Can we make sure that we're referencing the EOP plan in our comp plan because it has it's not referenced anywhere. Okay. Is it is there's an existing one and it's just being updated. Is that right? Yeah, we have an existing one, but uh there's a I believe it's a a grantbacked program that is rewriting for continuity so that all the jurisdictions within Clatsup County are similar but specific to each jurisdiction. So each jurisdiction's participating in the rewrite for their specific area. Uh but it's to be part of the big uh bigger picture of an EOP. So again, you could actually just put a hyper if it digitally you can put a hyperlink to it.

I think that's smart. And I would say especially making sure that we have that referenced so that if there's um emergency management monies available if we don't have that referenced then we don't have that tie in okay to those funds. So that's another Yeah, I think we can have a policy like that just like the MHF MP plan. Good. Okay, Miss Monttero, you that was the end of my list here. That was a rather exhaustive more than eight or 10. Thank you. Oh, the uh that was great. I I think I appreciate the conversation. It helps me understand where you're coming from. Did you have specifics about the other the last

the um Oregon shores at all? Uh no, I didn't have anything specific. I was uh I had just highlighted the fact that they were certain things were not addressed and that that was okay. So if anybody else has something, please feel free to address it. Now I don't see this I don't see the specific question right now. Um my eyes are getting tired. Um but the I think it was Surf Rider brought up I think it was them. It might have been the Chinook uh brought up the question about the setbacks. Mhm.

Of the 25 and 50. Yeah. And so that wasn't addressed any place and I just wanted to make sure that we talked about that. Yeah, we didn't. And I think we talked about the the setbacks earlier when we started, right? No, we didn't. We talked we talked about talk about the but we didn't speak of a speak to a specific distance. Well, we talked about setbacks in reference to the ocean shore. Ocean shore. Yeah. But we didn't talk about it in any other context. So yes, we did. Yeah. I think that's an important conversation to have. It's been brought up at least twice. Okay. So, where you at on your notes so we can Yeah. I

Thank you. Roger. Would you read that? Would you like to read that, sir? 6.2. Is that what you said, Roger? Yes. Yes.

In policy 6.2, Two, it's necessary to clarify who is responsible for reviewing development adjacent to natural estuarian areas. As written, it is unclear whether this review is the responsibility of the city, county, or another agency. In addition, we we recommend the draft we commend the draft for recognizing the importance of additional buffers, setbacks, and other controls to protect estuary areas in policy 6.2. Um, this one says it was addressed. What was the question on it? Sorry. Well, it was it says that it was addressed, but how was it addressed? Because the there was a question of should it be 50 feet, should it be 25 ft, should and I think some place it actually said 15. So, how is it being addressed?

It's they they urged the city to uh set the minimum to 50 instead of 25. And and that's using the vegetated buffer, right? Not not the not the uh mid. No, that's you're not talking about ocean. You're talking All right. I believe I need this. So, this is estuary instead of ocean. It's Yeah, this is wetland biological habitat. Yeah. So, they want it to be 50 ft instead of the 25 ft. And so, it says this addressed. I would assume we changed it to 50. You changed it to 50. Okay. Okay. So, you took that suggestion. Yep. Excellent. So, where does the 50 ft start from? Thank you.

Yep. And that 50 ft starts from where the I want to confirm that. I'm trying to find it in the plan. I'm pretty sure we did change it to 50 because I didn't see there see any issue with changing it from 25 to 50. I didn't see how it was going to be negative to the they are quoting uh chapter six I believe and that's not correct. I'm trying to find it. Policy 6.2, goal six. Chapter 6 is transportation. What's going on? Chapter 12 is what it says. Chapter 12. Okay. In policy 5.3 of chapter 12.

Yeah, that's that's correct. It was changed to 50. So, it's policy Yeah. 6.2 page 46 of the comprehensive plan. 50 feet it is. And I didn't see like when we looked we we did a quick mapping it to that and didn't I didn't see any negative aspect from a development perspective and for a protection uh point of view it made sense. So sure. So then what since there's a whole set of four pages here that we haven't gone over and I know um uh Commissioner Cleles her your with your eyes glazing over I get it. Um question question there there's a lot and since we don't have the sidebyside also the sideby-side comparison yep

of my day right now would would the commission be amendable to doing a work session another work session later on at our set where we typically have our second um meeting for the month which we don't normally do in order to address the rest of the items as well as uh have time to review the excel sheet would that be appropriate Jeff to suggest that work. There's only two that haven't been addressed yet, but um Oh, only two on there. Mhm. Okay. Well, let's go through those two. You good with that, Kathy? Yeah. Okay. Let's knock out those two and then we can I'd like it. Yeah. Because I'll be in Pendleton for the 22nd. So, let's set a meeting for the 22nd. No, just kidding.

You can join us remotely. Go ahead. We need a quorum. Uh let's see. under goal six still to clarify these requirements uh regarding let's see I beg your pardon

we urge you to add another policy under goal statement six that explicitly requires development in structures to be designed to minimize climate vulnerabilities and I think that's what this is all referring to is climate vulnerabilities and at that particular statement you had written not addressed we thought this was outside the comp plan policy and is specific code language So I presume that goes for the one below it where it says to clarify these uh requirements. We recommend the uh adding the following definitions. Natural climate solution an activity that enhances and so on so forth.

So it's you you're looking at it as code specific. Yeah. I felt like we could encourage some of that through, you know, you through lead and there's all these different things you could do. I didn't know if we if we I I wasn't sure how we could apply a policy to to require that we could do it's really easy to put a policy in there that says encourage this, but what is that really going to do? I and I I I hate

ambiguity. We have so many of those polic not we but there are plans that I read have so many policies that that don't they don't produce any action and they just say a word and I felt like I didn't have a good enough policy to be able to write that was actionbased that would actually get us there. Not to mention I wasn't sure that I I get concerned about that those types of things. As much as I'm a proponent of doing them requiring them is not always going to be financially feasible for every project. So, you know, I I it's it's up to you guys, though. If you think we need something specific to, you know, uh understanding climate upgrades or when we're doing construction, that'd be that's fine. But I I just didn't know what to do with that one.

Well, I feel like we had sort of addressed this. We touched on it in our previous discussion about the policy we want about rebuilding infrastructure. when infrastructure is rebuilt that it's built rebuilt with resiliency hazard resiliency in mind. Um and um I think that um maybe we look at that with a sort of a um environmental environmental lens as well. Okay.

Um so that that could be wrapped into that same policy rather than yet another policy. But I think I think that that's what this is getting at is that they want resiliency and they want it to be, you know, we want to encourage environmentally sound practices where possible. Yep. Stronger language than that. Yeah. And I feel like we do that in several places throughout the plan. So yeah, but when we're talking about rebuilding and resiliency, not just resiliency as far as it's not going to fall down when it shakes, but also resiliency for for our planet going forward. Yep. Okay. That's it. That's it. Okay. Wonderful.

I think I know that was a lot of discussion and a lot of brain power, but it's it was very helpful for us to and I hope what I what I hope is that it gets you more comfortable with the policies when we dive in that deep. We missed one. Okay. Um goal four comments. It says not addressed from previous comments and discussions. We gathered that seaside is not interested in recognizing sole airship to the land to one tribe in the interest of alienating other tribes. Yes. And I don't want to get into that discussion. I know

but I do want to say I would like to make sure that we are addressing the need for consultation in collaboration with the tribes affected tribes without specific naming of either of the tribes. our processes. So, my concern was naming specific tribes because I I'm I'm on rulemaking committees and part of a lot of what I hear from the tribes is that you have to just allow all tribes to weigh in.

And so, that was my experience and I was very hesitant to name specific tribes and just I'd like to be more general and all-inclusive and say all tribes are welcome. Not to me, and I also want to say that there's a lot of new state laws with um rules for um land use rules where you have to confer with the tribes when you're doing development projects. So, I I feel like that's very well covered in a lot of ways. So, sure. Okay. If it's not specifically called out someplace, we should specifically Yep. That's it. Okay. Thank you so much for all your prep and your work on this and um we will wait for the next step. You're great. I appreciate it.

Uh okay. Uh planning commission and other agency comments. That's what I had on here. Anything? Uh there was one more agenda item, but it's something that can be uh pushed off to a later date. It's further talking about further discussion on that. um uh standard condition. So, I I'll leave it up to the commission if they want to have that discussion tonight or put that off. But before we move on, I want to get a little feedback real quick on what you want to see as the next step here. Do you want to see um us clean this up, get another draft, and come back and have the same discussion? Uh and include the uh we need to see the the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet. Spreadsheet. Yeah.

Uh do we think we can have this in month? Oh, yeah. I think Yeah. You guys want to do is update the policies based on what we heard tonight. I don't think it's a lot of work and then get you updated with what we discussed tonight. Um yeah, and I don't I don't know if if you're comfortable with that, you want to have another work session, you want to the other thing is you can go right into the public hearing with this next draft and if you're fine with it, you can, you know, move forward and make the recommendation or you can that public hearing to the next meeting. I I kind of just want I didn't

I think you should have grabbed the microphone, Scott. Thanks.

I I I I we've been at this a long time and I don't want to rush you, but I do feel like I want to get I want to get the adoption the formal adoption process going, but I don't want to push you. So, that the options would be another work session where you look at the next draft with a matrix or we can um do the pop-up notice with the current draft. The draft can change. Doesn't mean that's the final version. Then the states know, the state knows that we're now in formal adoption. We schedule the public hearing. We can do testimony on that. You can take have conversation about that and then make further edits to another draft. My my worry is that if we do another work session, then we're going to have to do another draft before we get to the um to the formal adoption. And we've already been through four drafts so far. So, it's up to you. Um I would I would encourage you to to that if we can get to the public hearing process, the sooner the better. Um, with the notification for public hearing, uh, does the draft that's in existence have to go out to the public?

Yeah, we put a draft out a draft. Okay. So, my concern with not getting not doing the updates that we discussed today would then bring the same questions and kind of delay the process of it. So, if I would say personal opinion, discussion from the commission is get that next draft but these these adjustments. Okay. get us the Excel. But once once that next draft is published, then I would say go ahead and and trigger the papa notice. Is pop what is it called? Yeah, papa Pa. After the next meeting, not after the next meeting. Once they change publish the draft,

give you the new draft with the matrix and issue that to you. Then we can use that version to to do the Papa notice and then go into the public hearing. So that would be before we get a chance to look at the crosswalk of the Excel. No, that's what he just said when he gets as soon as that's done and that's sent out to us as a planning commission. Yeah, we get that, but we haven't had an opportunity to discuss it and the papa notice goes out. But you'd have an opportunity to discuss it during during the first public hearing along with any other testimony you get from the public

and and no decision has to be made the night of hearing by the commission. Commission is just going to take public testimony. You could choose to make a decision that night. Yeah. Or you could choose to further this discussion, refine refine the draft based on what you get from the public and from what's here. And then we can go back and present another draft that would then go as the draft that the planning commission recommends to the city council. And we'll update the papa notice as these things happen with further documents and revisions. And we we keep we keep that updated in the system. So, it would just be a way to get the public hearing, take public testimony, and for you guys to have time to digest any public testimony as well as any further edits you may have.

So, you're talking about having the public hearing at the May meeting? No, we don't have We don't It would be far. We need 35 days at the minimum. Yeah. It wouldn't be May. June. It' probably be June. Yeah. And then you'd have a chance to see the matrix and the changes we made based on tonight. that would then be the public draft that we get comment on and that you can then have a conversation about. So, I like that because then it's not it's not just keeping the conversation the planning commission. It's then addressing any other public comment that comes in. So, hopefully that works. Just wanted to make sure we're clear on what the what we're what we're talking about and

just reiterate, we'll schedule the public hearing for June provided we can get a draft out to you guys in the next few weeks. Okay. Um, and we can have further discussion at the May meeting as well. And uh, and then again June public hearing and then you guys can make a decision on where you want to go from there. Is the commission amendable to that? I'm good with that. Thank you. With that? Okay. Awesome. Great. Um, and then on ordinance administration, uh, would the commission like to table the discussion of minor versus major modifications to a project to the May or June discussion? I move that we table the discussion of minor mod modifications.

I second until what date? Till Oh, you're not here in May. I'm not here in May. But that me being here doesn't mean anything. So you won't be Until the next meeting. Until the next meeting. Okay, I have a first. I have a second. All in favor? I I And no opposed. Okay. So, we'll go ahead and move that to the May meeting. Um, comments from city staff. I will just leave it general for you. I have nothing. I have nothing either. All right. Any comments from the commission?

Thank you, Scott. Thank you, Jeff. I know that you guys have put a lot of work into this. Appreciate the all the efforts. Kathy, um, was the density conversation on the previous unupdated conver updated agenda because I don't see it here and I thought that that was on there before, but maybe I'm imagining things that you're talking about the modifications. No, there was a density I thought there was a lot size density discussion on the agenda and that might have been a previous version of the agenda. I just remembered it wrong. Yeah, I don't remember. I don't remember that. That was something that was mentioned, but yeah. Okay, then.

So, that that will be a topic of discussion with the housing code updates. Yeah. Uh but I don't I swear I saw it on the not this one. Okie dokie then. It's all good. Commissioner Rose, no comments. Sorry. Nothing.

Nothing. Uh I only have two comments. Uh we do have two seats still open on the commission. Please uh reach out to individuals that you would like to recommend to be on the uh commission to go through the process. I know that we have um one applicant right now um that is uh interested in it. So um but so we anyways we still have two open and then again I will for the record I will be absent on the next meeting. I will be at a conference uh so I will not be on the call because our opening event is during this time period. Um, Commissioner Mitchell will be leading the discussion if there is one. Do we have anything so far?

Potentially, uh, we will have, uh, a land use hearing, but okay. Not not for sure yet. Okay. So, if anybody else is absent, we can't hold the meeting. Um, that is correct. We would need a quorum for the meeting. Yeah. So, four is the quorum, correct? Correct. Okay. Everybody better be here. Uh please let us know in advance if you are not able to uh to be here. Uh with that no other comments meetings adjourn.