Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. I'll call the December 10 Planning Commission meeting to order at 06:01PM. Can I get a roll call?

Chair Nicole Hendrix. Here. Ron Heberlein. Here. Matt Constantine.

Here.

Andrew Carr. Here. Jana Samanova. Here. Jennifer Willard.

Thank you. Alright. Thanks. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Alright. Moving forward to citizen input. Oh, and we're joined by commissioner Willard

for the record.

Moving on to citizen input. So this is the time that citizens have the opportunity to address the planning commission regarding any item is not already scheduled for a formal public hearing or public work session tonight. Therefore, if any member of the audience, either here in city hall or via Zoom, would like to speak about any other matter of concern, please raise your hand or send a message to the recorder using the Zoom chat function so that we may hear from you now. If you have not already, please fill out a testimony card and give it to the clerk. Also, please state your name and address for the record or state that your address is as provided on the testimony card. Please come to forward to the podium if when you are called forward or unmute yourself on Zoom when the clerk requests. Is there anyone that would like to testify at this time?

If you are online and would like to testify, please raise your hand now. I am not seeing any hands raised.

Alrighty. Thank you. Then we're gonna proceed to the consideration of the 11/12/2025 planning commission minutes. Those were previously distributed. Are there any corrections to the minutes?

Seeing none, the minutes are approved as distributed. Okay. And then we're gonna move to our work session item. So for the housing statutory compliance part one discussion, this work session is a chance for the planning commission to gain additional understanding of and provide guidance on ongoing legislative projects prior to a public hearing. As a courtesy, the planning commission will, as time permits, allow for a limited public comment on the topic after staff have presented their report for the commission's purpose of continuing to understand the project. However, it should be noted that this is not a public hearing, and any participants are encouraged to participate in a future public hearing for legal standing purposes. And I'll go ahead and hand it over to the city team to present, what they've prepared for the work session.

Alright. Good evening, commissioners, and chair Hendrix. Let me pull up my presentation here real quickly, and we'll get started.

Introduce myself really quickly.

Yeah. Sure. Okay. Hi.

Good evening, Planning Commission. My name is Heather Austin. I've been helping your staff with, the project this evening, the analysis of the development code. I'm with three j Consulting. We do a lot of code work throughout the state, so here to support your staff this evening and help with any questions you have.

Alright. And I am Kim Rebold, senior planner with the city, and I'm going to walk through a presentation for you tonight about the project and, with the goal of, giving you some background information, and then we'll have some discussion at the end to get some of your input as we move forward. This is called the housing statutory compliance project, and that is in large part because much of what we're doing in this work has to do with, legislation that was passed during the 2025 work legislative session by the state of Oregon. So this is in two parts, responding primarily to two different pieces of legislation. The first part is what our focus will be on tonight at the work session.

This part is a little more procedural in nature. The second part of the project, which we will begin after we do this first part in mid twenty twenty six, will focus more on updates to some of our development standards related to middle housing as well as some other related changes that respond to a different piece of legislation. So our objectives tonight are explaining to you why we're doing this project and what a lot of the requirements that we'll be working with are. And in addition to that, explaining how this could impact our current lane use application process for development review and how we're gonna work in some of the recommendations we made earlier this year as part of our housing production strategy. To do that, we will, after providing you with some background, present the results of a code audit that Heather and three Jay worked on with us that really we hope will serve as a basis for understanding what we need to change in our process and what other we options we have to ensure the best fit for how we wanna have our lane use process for residential development moving forward.

And then we'll conclude tonight by getting your input on some specific items, which we've outlined in the staff report to inform the work we will be doing to amend the development code in 2026. So just a little bit about the scope of this first part of the project. What we have here on the screen are the actions that came out of the city's housing production strategy. This document wasn't too many months ago that you all helped review and make recommendations on this, but the city adopted the housing production strategy in June. This document included different actions that the city would pursue over the course of the next six years to help ensure that the city's identified housing needs are met.

And I've just realized in looking at the slide that one of the actions is cut off. There's actually five planning work program actions here, but what's important is the highlighted action here, which is action c. And that action in the housing production strategy directed the city to look at, consider shifting some of its residential land use review processes to an administrative review, which means a review, and decision that is done at a staff level, subject to additional call up or appeal by a hearing board. And we had planned to start that work in our timeline kind of in the middle of the six year period. However, around the same time that we were finalizing the housing production strategy, bills were coming out of the legislature fast and furious.

And one of these bills that ended up being passed into law was senate bill nine seventy four. This is a multipart bill that does a few different things, but for the purposes of our work in this project, one of the things the key thing that it requires is for certain types of residential development applications to be reviewed through what is essentially an administrative review process, generally consistent with, although not quite the same as our current class two administrative review process. And that has to essentially, we have to comply with those requirements by July 1. So we are moving up action c and looking at how we can take those recommendations from the housing production strategy and kind of work with the requirements we have from this piece of legislation to ensure that we are still reviewing residential land use applications in a customer service friendly way. So we don't want it to be too onerous or confusing to applicants.

Likewise, we wanna maintain public access in the process and maintain the transparency that we've had over our history here in Wilsonville in reviewing land use applications. And so that is what we seek to do with this phase of the work. Just a quick slide here on project schedule. We kicked this project off in a couple months ago in the fall. We briefed city council on the project just to give them some background on what it was that we were gonna be looking at knowing that we would be coming back to them with some more detailed analysis, which is where we're at right now.

We will be presenting that information to you and also to city council next Monday at a work session, but we've got a pretty aggressive timeline here to meet that statutory deadline. So from here, we're gonna be hoping to get your feedback on some questions we have about how to move forward with the goal of coming back to you in March with draft development code amendments. Now I will say as we move forward in our discussion tonight that, you know, we might not solve every policy question we have, and that's okay. There might be some outstanding questions that we wanna research a little further, or, you know, maybe we've got a couple of options that we wanna think about them a little more, and that's fine. We just wanna have a general sense of where we're going with the process so that we know how to construct our development code amendments.

So the goal then would be to have a public hearing before you all in April so that adoption hearings can happen with council in May so that this process is effective in our development code by the time the statutory requirement is in place. So before we get into the code analysis, I just wanna refresh the planning commission on our land use review process. I know because you deal with more policy based legislative actions, you're not always as tied into the nuts and bolts of this work with the exception of the few prior DRB members who we have on the commission. This might look a little more familiar to you, but I wanna make sure we're all operating from the same baseline level of understanding. So with a lane use application, and so this could be an application for new development or modifications to development, sign permits, they they all go through what we call our lane use review process, generally classified into three different categories.

The first category is our class one administrative review. So when you see administrative review, that is a staff level review and decision. So in a class one, these are kinda these are things that are pretty pretty much verifying compliance with plans that have already been adopted. So very, very minor modifications to a development project underway. Things like a signed permit that is consistent with a prior approval, things like the type a tree removal permits that we have.

These are things that they come in. We do not have a public notice period because the decision that is being made is considered ministerial. And what that means is that, you know, it's really kinda yes or no. Does this meet the standard? Doesn't.

There's no discretion exercised in making that decision. And so these decisions are issued. There is typically not a staff report that goes along with these, and these decisions are only appealable by the applicant. So they cannot be called up to the DRB or appealed by another party that is not the applicant. Our class two administrative review process, which I would say probably comprises the bulk of land use applications we get here at the city.

These are decisions that are issued by the planning director after a public notice period, and that is a mailed public notice to residents or property owners, specifically within a certain radius of the application site. That public notice period is ten days. Comments are received, and then the information that we have is taken, and a decision is issued at a staff level. Notification of that decision is sent out to our DRB boards, and those decisions can be either appealed to or called up by the DRB. And so these are typically things where we're looking at clear and objective standards.

So there's still not a ton of discretion used in making the decision, but it might be something that isn't necessarily, entirely consistent with a previously approved plan. I will say that clear and objective standards are really kinda key here in looking at what we're reviewing under this process. And I will note too that, you know, this is mostly used for modifications to plans. The modification threshold is pretty low in terms of eligible activities on a site. So for instance, if you've got a commercial project and they wanna build a storage room or they wanna, you know, expand and build a new entry, and if that is more than 1,250 square feet, it is no longer eligible under our current standards to be a class two review.

There's a couple of other triggers as well based on-site area disturbed or changed, but that you know, it's much more narrow in scope with one exception that I'll talk about in a minute. And then the final classification is class three, quasi judicial review. This is typically applications that are going to the DRB for a public hearing. This has historically been every application for new development within the city. You you go to a public hearing.

That decision is made by the DRB after a public hearing with a couple of exceptions for application types where the decision is actually made by city council, in which case that is a recommendation made by DRB. These applications can be appealed by applicants by parties withstanding, or they can be called up by city council as well. They do have a public notice period associated with them, and so you have the public notice, you have the public hearing, and then a decision is made. So the one exception that I mentioned in terms of class two is within our Coffee Creek design overlay district. These were changes made to the city's development code in 2018, and what this did was enable a process for a class two staff level review for applications for new development within this area meeting the clear and objective standards of the development code that was also simultaneously adopted for this area.

The notion here being that there was some master planning that was done. There was an expectation set by the city as as to what the city wanted development to look like here, so development code standards were adopted in line with what that vision was. And so the notion being that if you have an application and it's meeting all of the standards that are clearly defined in the code, and even though this is outside of the city, if you have an annexation request, we know it's gonna be industrial on the comp plan map. We know what the zoning is gonna be. So is there a way we can, you know, speed up the process and create a little more predictability?

And so what was adopted here was a process whereby anything meeting the standards was approved, reviewed, and approved administratively with annexation and zone map amendment requests that would otherwise be approved by city council going straight to city council. And so I describe this because looking at what we have to change in the code, this area could serve as a possible framework for how we might might wanna approach it. And so with that, I'm gonna pause for a moment before we go into the code memo and see if there are any questions.

No one's here. Okay. Alright. Seeing none.

And I'm gonna take my water break here.

Yep. Take take a water break.

Okay. So this next slide, we're not gonna focus too much on this in our discussion, but these are what we've deemed in our initial analysis to be required changes to our process under senate bill nine seventy four. This is based on, the work that we've done in assessing our code. I'm gonna get another drink of water here. Hold on.

Do you

want me to jump in for just a couple minutes

or few? Go ahead,

Heather. Yeah.

And and I'm very hoarse too. I'm just returning from Nevada from really dry weather, so we're gonna do our best here, but we'll just tag team as we go along. So the the, audit that we provided has some action items, which are the city should do these things and some consider items, which is the city could do these things. So items here on this slide are your should do items to comply with state law. So the new changes from s b nine seven four include zoning map map amendments that increase residential density.

There's a little bit of ambiguity at the state level about what that exactly means, but we think we can address that with a code amendment. Your plan development review process right now has a stage one and stage two built into it. Both of those are going before your development review board. So both of those would need to be moved over to that class two, administrative review. And then the same thing is any variances and waivers to residential development standards.

So if those are currently being heard by your development review board, those would also need to switch over to your type two review. And then the other piece that is the should rather than the could is the time frame for a class two administrative review public hearing or a public period to provide public notice. And right now, it's a ten day for your class two administrative reviews, and that would need to increase to fourteen days to comply with that state law.

Yeah. And the other thing I'll mention here too, so we've assessed the we've done our own assessment of the statute. We've consulted with miss Gyle Hinman, the city attorney, about some of her thoughts. We will be continuing to do that as we develop the code amendments. There is also an office at the state level called the housing accountability and production office.

They are a fairly new office, kind of an collaboration between DLCD and the building codes division of the state, tasked specifically to look at residential development and residential development processes. They have published guidance on how they believe some of the statutory language should be applied. And so I will say that our initial work has taken those pieces into account. You know, that being said, there there's and that guidance has a lot of consult your attorney in it. So I think as we get into the nuts and bolts of the actual amendments themselves and if there are any questions you have, those are certainly things that we are going to work on further with her.

So now we're gonna get to the coulds. And there's, I think, kind of five key pieces here, if I'm remembering right, that I wanna walk through. We will hold time for discussion of these at the end. I I I suspect that some of them might lead to more discussion than others. I do wanna make sure we don't get bogged down in each individual one, but I do wanna talk about and make sure we have your feedback on all of them.

So the first item is the annexation process. And so this is not anything that is addressed by senate bill nine seventy four. However, our housing production strategy and talking about looking at an administrative review process, you know, does include this as one element of that. We've in our assessment, and I I used this image on your screen to illustrate the area of her residential development that at least in the somewhat near future will be the subject of annexation requests in Frog Pond. There's really a couple different paths.

You know, right now, you go to DRB and then you go DRB makes a recommendation to counsel. If consistent with the housing production strategy action, if we wanted to look at how we can kind of simplify the process a bit. One option would be to offer an expedited hearing process similar to what we do in Coffee Creek because, essentially, you have a similar situation here where you have an area that has been thoroughly master planned, and so the zoning, comp plan comp plan categorization has already been applied. And so, really, the annexation is the act of bringing it into the city boundary and ensuring that the development that's proposed is meeting the goals of the master plan. And so that's really the exact same situation that we had in Coffee Creek.

So that's one option. Another option would be a process whereby that is established by Metro, the regional government, and it's an expedited decision procedure for qualified applications. And what that means is essentially and please correct me if I'm wrong, Heather. You if you have a 100% of the property owners signing on to the annexation petition as well as 50% of the electors, and what that is is anybody who lives in the area that is a registered voter. If you have all of those signatures on your petition, it's a process whereby that can be reviewed and processed without a public hearing. So I think that's

right. Not the right. Great. So

so it's two different choices, and they're not necessarily, you know, one or the other. In in looking at these, our initial recommendation would be to adopt the expedite expedited hearing process similar to Coffee Creek for a couple of reasons. One, I think we're we're looking at ways that we cannot create too many different procedures and practices in the city. We we're trying to keep as much as we can things kinda consistent with processes we've already established. And so we have an established process for annexation already in Coffee Creek that's pretty similar.

The metro decision procedure is an option. However, you it's possible we could get a development that doesn't qualify for that, and we, you know, have no choice, can't really use it. And so we just thought from an administrative perspective that going with something we've already done seemed most reasonable, and so that would be our recommendation at this point. The next topic is comprehensive plan map amendments. And this one's interesting because going back to the slide I just had, Frog Pond, we've applied a comprehensive plan map designation.

So any development application there that's being annexed does not need a comprehensive plan map amendment. A comprehensive plan map amendment in the city of Wilsonville is only really gonna happen in more of an infill situation within the city, and so I used this map to illustrate an area where we've had these before. This is the Renaissance At Canyon Creek area. This used to be initially before you before development happened here, it was a larger lot subdivision, and you can see there's still lots there that are from the original plat of the area. But there were development applications a little over twenty years ago that started in this area that kind of on a piece by piece basis sought a change in the comprehensive plan map designation.

We think it's a pretty limited applicability of where we might see comprehensive plan map amendments related to development applications for residential development within the city. Right now, this is a process in state statute that does require a public hearing, so there is no option for us to consider something administrative. And so what that means then is, you know, do you send it straight to city council, or does it really benefit from having input from a land use body in the city to help support that recommendation being made to city council? I would note that, you know, in the past, there have been detailed findings that need to be made to support this type of comprehensive plan map change because unlike a master planned area where we have a sense of what the density will be or what the uses will be, In in an infill situation like this, we don't have that. So there is a higher level of discretion and, therefore, a need for more detailed findings.

So because of that, our initial recommendation is to retain the existing hearing process for this type of application because it would provide the most public access and public deliberation of a more discretionary type of lane use decision. The next category here is just what I'll call other applications. These are applications that are not directly identified in senate bill nine seventy four. However, they are applications that are typically a part of a residential land use development application. So site design review, which is really the piece that looks at not so much design of individual homes because we do not review those through site design review, but it looks at elements like open spaces and parks and street trees.

Then we also have the tentative subdivision plat, which is the process whereby the individual lots are created, as well as most often a type c tree removal and preservation plan where tree removal is proposed with development. And so our recommendation here is that to best implement action c and really try to maintain consistency in a process that we would recommend for residential development that these be reviewed as consolidated application package through the class two process along with the initial plan development applications that are required to be reviewed administratively by senate bill nine seventy four. These are, you know, typically, again, for residential development more often than not, it's a clear and objective standard that we're applying. And, otherwise, we're gonna end up in a in a situation where you have one set of applications being reviewed administratively and one decision issued and then a separate set of applications for the same project, having another staff report and another decision process, which does not seem to be as customer service friendly. The next aspect is mailed notifications, and I specifically say the mailed notifications because this is the piece that is related to the development code.

I I think there are other conversations we might wanna have about notifications in general that aren't necessarily tied to what is required in the development code. But I've noted here on this slide what we currently require for a DRB public hearing, what we currently do versus what we currently do for a class two administrative review. In both cases, we have that 250 foot notice radius. The timelines are slightly different. You have to have at least twenty days before a quasi judicial hearing for your mailed notice for DRB, whereas right now, the comment date is comment period is ten days, but as we mentioned, that really needs to be fourteen days.

In both cases, the notices of decision are sent to a review body. In the case of the staff level review, that notice of decision is sent to DRB. In the case of the DRB hearing, that notice of decision is sent to city council with both of those bodies then having a call up ability. We also what's different about our current process for DRB applications is that we do a site posting, although it's not required by stat state statute, we do that. And then we also public published the information about the staff report and any associated exhibits and information on the city's website for DRB hearings.

Again, that is not a requirement other than the staff report piece of that and exhibits, but just other information, making it available is something we do for DRB. So our recommendation as it relates to the development code is to change the mailed notice radius to a 100 feet because that is actually the statutory requirement for everything. And in my conversations with the city attorney, you know, making sure we have consistency helps reduce legal risk that can come when you have differing radiuses or if you use the incorrect radius, that can expose the city to procedural errors when it comes to somebody who might appeal a decision. The other piece, and this is reflected in the memo, is that the intent of a class two process that uses clear and objective standards is really kind of verifying compliance. And, I think this came up when we talked about this during the housing production strategy that one of the challenges we have with DRB hearings for items with clear and objective standards is that feeling of you might hear testimony from a nearby resident or property owner.

And, you know, it might be a great idea, but, also, if the application is meeting the clear and objective standards in the code, there's really nothing the city can do to compel that applicant to make changes because they have an application that complies. And so in many respects, the notice radius that is used for these processes is reflective of that. And so that's our recommendation here. I do think as well we are open to ideas for kinda knowing that some of these applications do have to utilize a class to review, what ideas we would have for other pieces of public awareness that maybe don't get tied into the development code amendments specifically. And the last item I have is about the land use review board rules in the city.

Historically, since at least the late nineteen nineties when the current structure was adopted by the city, there have been very discreet and distinct roles for the planning commission and the DRB. The planning commission reviews legislative items, and so these are things like development code text amendments, comprehensive plan text amendments, large area amendments to the zone map or a comprehensive plan map, adoption of master plans, things of that nature. Whereas the DRB has its purview has really been lane use applications serving in that role as a judge as to whether or not an application meets the standards or doesn't meet the standards. The DRB does not make policy in making those decisions, and so those rules have been very separate historically. This graphic we have is just a snapshot of applications we've received since 2020, and when I say received, received and moved forward through the process, so not anything that was withdrawn.

And it's about one quarter of the applications that are residential in nature and would be affected and essentially taken out of the DRB's purview. And that is if we didn't make any other changes to things like thresholds for class two review because sometimes the DRB does hear items, and it's, you know, not new development. It's minor changes, but changes that triggered that threshold. And in thinking about our options moving forward, one of the things we wanna be mindful of and one of the things we've just observed as staff is really being mindful of the time and commitment that our community members have in serving in these volunteer roles on a board. Application volume does ebb and flow, and it's affected by things like where development's happening in the city or what the market is doing.

So some years have been busier, some years are not. I went back today just out of curiosity because we've canceled a lot of DRB meetings this year, and I found that we only had two hearings and decisions the across both boards the entire year. So and that's not to say that that volume is gonna remain. I sure hope it doesn't. But, you know, it's it's an indicator that, you know, we we put up we all put time and investment in training and learning, and we wanna make sure that that time is being used.

You know? It's it's a value to everybody involved. And so I think as we see it, knowing that these changes are coming, it feels like potentially two DRB boards to maintain that in light of these changes might be a lot. There are a couple options, and so one would just keep a single DRB board and keep that board as being the entity reviewing the quasi judicial hearings like we do now, and that would include any appeals that would be made to land use land use applications under that class two process. Another option would be to would be to eliminate the DRB altogether and use the planning commission for all land use decisions.

And while that is a departure from the city's past practice, at least over the past twenty five to thirty years, it is an option that's used by many communities in the state. And so our recommendation we honestly don't don't know what is best, and this is where where we wanna hear from people. We do think that one of these two approaches makes sense. Your input will be helpful. I think the city council, when we talk to them next week, will really appreciate what you have to say about this.

And so, you know, I certainly I feel like this is one of those where we're probably not coming out of the surround of work sessions with a clear recommendation, but we wanna hear opinions so that we can weigh approaches moving forward. And so with that, we've made it to the discussion questions really around what do you think about these recommendations and, you know, if you don't have a, you know, a specific thought, is there additional information that's helpful for you when we come back next time? If you do have any comments on the administrative review thresholds, that's helpful for us to consider because we do have to change them for residential development, so we're opening it up anyway. And then if as you saw on the slide when we talked about the schedule, we do have some public outreach programmed in there for the early part of next year. I think we we don't exactly know what form that's gonna take, but we wanna know your thoughts on what type of input would best assist you in making final recommendations.

And so that is all I have. Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation, and there's there's a lot of pieces packed into this. So I think maybe the way, I'm recommending we approach it is if you could go back a couple slides to the beginning, the annexation slide, we could talk about that and then move forward, recognizing we do have quite a few. So just keeping that in mind as we discuss each item, and then we can end with the the other two questions about, yeah, the thresholds if it comes up or public comment. So Sounds great. Okay. So looking to planning commissioners for any questions for staff or initial thoughts around the annexation recommendation? The options there. Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah.

Well, first off, Kim, thank you. The report is easy for me to follow, and it helps bring me up to speed and follow along. So that's great. And I really like the recommendations. That's helpful to understand your perspective. You're the experts in the field. So that's been fantastic. If we're just talking about the annexation part, I think using that Coffee Creek process makes sense. It's consistent. We have a track record. It seems to work, and it seems to be consistent with expediting housing production and the process. So I like that approach, as it relates to annexation. So that's it for me.

Great. Thanks. Who wanna go down the line? Let's do it.

It's up to

you. Yeah. I'm curious.

I wanna hear what it wants. Okay. So on the annexation, would the expedited hearing process be contingent on whether the land is master planned?

I mean, we could write it that way. Metro's process would not is probably agnostic to that.

K.

But that would be something, I think, if we offered that, we could probably add our own eligibility criteria.

I would also add in just thinking through the logistics of this is that any land annexing will have to be added to the urban growth boundary, and therefore, it would require that it be concept planned and master planned.

Is there any chance that that requirement would change in the future? And the reason why I ask is I like the idea of we have a clear plan for how it's going to be done, and we're not just bringing land in with no clear context for what it's gonna be used for, that's that's what my thoughts are.

There would have to be a lot of unraveling of both state and regional requirements and statute. Now we've had a very active state legislature in the past five years, So I can probably I can't say anything definitively, but it would require you would have to change, like, regional urban growth boundary processes and annexations. I don't see a way with the established urban and rural reserve system that we have in the metro region for that happening. But, I mean, that's some we can note that and think about the different implications of Yeah. Including or not including that language and spend some more time thinking about that.

Yeah. I'm not hard over on it, but it's an interesting I just wanna make sure that we're thoughtful about bringing land in. So other than that, I'm good with it.

Okay. I am supportive of oh, my screen went black. Sorry. It's back. Okay. I'm definitely supportive of the staff recommendation for the expedited hearing process similar to Coffee Creek. That way, we just have consistent, processes that we're applying, that'll help people navigate things a little easier.

Yeah. I'm the same. I I think expedited that with the Coffee Creek is great. One one clarification I had, this is just for residential, or is it any annexation that would be consistent with the

This is just for residential development.

Okay.

So. Because we're not. Because we're recommending an expedited hearing process like what's in Coffee Creek. And not doing the metro. Procedure. Is ours more specific than metros, or is there a chance that Metro is gonna override anything that we say?

Tell me that you

tell me.

Yeah. So, excuse me, the metro expedited decision procedure has those requirements about the number of landowners and the voters, and then they don't have specific requirements similar to having a hearing or not. You they have, like, post the notice on the site, but the their the metro requirements for annexation still apply to Wilsonville as far as the criteria, but not the procedure of the expedited decision. So I guess the metro code 3 0.09 has annexation, and it has a a a small paragraph about how to do an expedited one. The rest still applies to Wilsonville.

Okay. Alright. Yeah. And then would this require a new class? So we've got class one, two, and three. Would this require a different class for these reviews?

It essentially would still be a council decision. And

are we gonna have to change class one to account for this?

No. I I so any decision that even though we don't refer it to this to it this way, typically, it's known in kind of the statewide parlance as being, like, a type four decision, which is essentially a decision made by the city council. So the way it's written for Coffee Creek into the development code right now under section 4.7, which is annexations, It it essentially has a carve out for applications within Coffee Creek that meet the master plan. So we'd probably just amend that language, but it would just go straight to counsel.

Okay. So would we amend the because this would become citywide.

It's under the scope of this project, it would really just be for residential development. But in effect

residential citywide. So then the Coffee Creek language would become superfluous. So do we take it out of the Coffee Creek if it's

We'll have to look at those specifics when we draft the code. We'll make sure we will do it in a way that doesn't inadvertently add the ability to do this in areas not intended for it.

Okay. Otherwise, I'm in favor of the expedited hearing process.

Out of curiosity, I haven't gone to a DRB meeting. How much involvement is there from public in those meetings? There's not very much in our meetings. So I'm just curious.

It depends. I would say our observation, where we have the most involvement tends to be applications, sometimes residential, sometimes not, but applications where there are surrounding neighbors.

Mhmm.

So less often for industrial development because they're not surrounding residential neighbors. But when we've had some of the more infill type applications haven't so much in Frog Pond West, but, you know, I could use as an example when the school came in. You had a development that had been approved adjacent to it. So the people who participated in that hearing just had questions about things related to the interface between their where they lived, their neighborhood, and the new development. So that's probably most common.

Okay. So people would still have a chance to come and ask their questions in the city council meetings related to this when the decisions are being made. So city council would still be able to take those questions or comments into consideration. For the annexation process. For the annexation.

But the scope is limited to the annexation and not so much details of the development proposal itself. Okay.

Alright. With all the questions asked and answered, it makes sense to me. So, yeah, I agree with this recommendation.

Great. Can we move on to the next section on the amendment? Yeah. Comprehensive plan and map amendments. Do we wanna do you wanna start? And we can or I don't wanna we don't have to keep going down the line.

If Boss. Dictate.

That's right. Commissioner Seminovitz, do you have anything that you wanna?

This one, I I'm good to retain the existing hearing process. Yeah. As

am I because of its limited scope. Same.

Me as well.

I agree.

Okay.

Yeah. I'm I'm good too. Uh-huh.

Okay. Awesome. Next slide, please. Okay. So for other applications, the staff recommendation to review as consolidated application package through the class two administrative review process. Thoughts here from the commissioners or questions too. Do you wanna start, commissioner Hepburn?

Sure. So just clarification. So assuming we still have a DRB, this class two process would still allow for a DRB appeal slash call up. If there was something of concern, DRB could still say, hey. We wanna talk about this. Is that correct?

I there's a nuance here that I just wanna there's a lot of nuances here. Mhmm. Senate bill nine seventy four for the applications that are not on the screen, so the stage one, stage two, and zone map amendment, if that is included. Those cannot be called up by the DRB. They can be appealed by the DRB.

Now the site design review, the subdivision plat, and the type c plan are not subject to nine seventy four. And this is kind of a a you know, how how in the weeds do we wanna get with this? But, technically, those could still be called up. Mhmm. Now that will have to be explained in a very clear way when the decision is issued. Somebody can appeal any of those things, but it's the call up provision that is affected by September.

Okay. I think I'm okay with it. I I like the idea of if there's something that that looks sideways that the DRB has the opportunity to say something about it. So as long as that provision's still there, which it seems like it is, I'm okay.

Other reactions? Yeah.

I just had a question. So the proposal here is to shift to a class two administrative review process. That's what we're proposing.

Correct.

And it's consistent with with these with the with the related plan development applications as you say.

Correct. So to use the Coffee Creek example, this would be the Coffee Creek process.

Oh, got it.

Because you you typically have their different application types, but Wilsonville historically consolidates everything. But we technically have a choice here, so we just wanna make that right choice.

Yeah. I'm I'm supportive of the proposal. It makes sense. Thank you. Okay.

I suspect if you were to go back and look at all the decisions all all of the cases that came in before the DRB of this variety, I would imagine the vast majority, if not a 100% of them, agreed with the with the staff recommendation. So, after having been on the DRB and and going through that process, yeah, I agree with your recommendation.

I am curious if our class two administrative review has to be modified for s b nine seventy four in any way, shape, or form.

I think we're just I don't know that the process does. Because if if you change the whole process, you would or at least for qualifying applications, you would remove the ability for the DRB or whatever board to call those up. And I don't I mean, that that's a question. You know, is that something that we want to take away? But I think we're just gonna have to be clear in how we draft the language as to, you know, cert a certain subset of applications cannot be called up.

And so that that's where we're gonna need your extra eye come March when we have draft development code amendments to make sure we've captured that nuance.

Because in our should slide, we had we were moving stage one, stage two zone map variance and waivers to a class two. And and that Mhmm. Did have the ability to be reviewed by DRB or called up by DRB, and now these are also gonna be class two, but they they will also fit into that same categorization?

So I think what we'll have to figure out what the most straightforward way is. It probably was an overgeneralization to explicitly just say class two. It's like a class two with an asterisk Okay.

Class two a. For Okay.

For those items on the the should slide.

Okay. The should. Yeah. Okay.

If I can just jump into on, page 26 of the packet, when we talk about that piece, we say remove call up from class two parentheses, at least for residential projects. So for those projects on the first slide, we do have to remove that call up ability. But for these, we could retain the call up ability.

Okay. Yes. Okay. Makes sense. Alright.

Sorry. Commissioner Carr and, chair, if I may. I would also just know, I think Kim mentioned this a bit, but, we have always, in the city of Wilsonville, retained kind of a process by which we process everything altogether. Part of that is also because we take almost everything to the development review board. And so as we think about what might we wanna call up and can versus what we can't and what really needs to be more of a staff administrative process.

It is also something that we can consider in terms of are there certain applications where staging it makes more sense, just so that you know you get kind of that administrative decision, and then you have these other applications that can be reviewed that are based on that decision and, in some ways easier to make. That's how sometimes it functions in other cities. There are a lot of cities that have more of, a sequential application process. We've never moved that way because I do think it it's you can review everything altogether, typically, and so that provides an efficiency and a service to our customers and our applicants. And I think if we can retain that, it might be beneficial, but I just wanna kinda put that out on the table is that if as we're talking through these different considerations and that makes sense, especially when it comes to maybe a specific application type, but, you know, we can talk about that.

I do I do agree with the recommendation of the having these as a class two. I'm I'm with Ron in that I still want there in some cases to be the ability for if the DRB still exists for the I guess if the DRB doesn't exist, it would be the Planning Commission anyway. So for that decision to be reviewed.

Alright. Commissioner Semenova, did you have anything on this?

I don't have anything to add. No. But the recommendation makes sense to package it all together. Okay.

Sounds good. And I'm supportive of the staff recommendation and do appreciate the, yeah, the sentiment just to have that public review if needed. Yeah. Alright. Mailed notification. So the recommendation is change mail notice radius to a 100 feet consistent with statutory requirements. Reactions or questions on this one? Commissioner Carr, do wanna start?

I found it interesting that we wanna make it smaller. Right. I'm I'm okay with it if we have to I mean, the state is saying 100 feet makes sense, then why do we make it need it bigger? But living in the state my entire life, I'm surprised by them making it a smaller radius. But, yeah, I'm in agreement.

Go for it.

Mhmm. I wish the other one would change. I feel like the notifications should go to larger distance. Yeah. That's that's my perspective. Okay.

Yeah. I'm fine with the recommendation here.

Commissioner Eberlein, you wanna go?

Yeah. I struggle with this one. You know, the for me, the concept of of 250 feet gives the opportunity for public input, more directed you know, we're we're giving them an opportunity to say, hey. Something's happening around you. If you choose to be informed, great. If you don't, alright. And a 100 feet isn't very big, so I would be okay with keeping it at 250 feet. If there's a significant amount of administrative burden that that places on there or significant legal risk. I'll look at miss Gal Heimann's placard for that one. Significant legal risk, I would be okay with bringing it down to a 100.

But my preference would be to leave it at two fifty where we can just to ensure that we give as much opportunity for public knowledge as possible.

Thank you.

I had questions too originally, but Kim, you answered them in the presentation. You said to be consistent with other areas and the reduced legal risk. So I understand from the administrative standpoint on how to manage that. It becomes difficult if it's different. So I'm okay with a 100 feet. It's consistent with state law, and so I I would I would agree with your recommendation.

My reaction my initial reaction is I do. I don't like to see it dwindling the opportunity for people to know about, something happening near them to, yeah, get get limited. So my first reaction was prefer to keep the 250 feet. I do understand that we wanna be, yeah, consistent, not just with the state, but just other processes. So if we're picking and choosing how what distances for different things, I could see where that could get us into some trouble.

I also wonder what if the statutory requirement changes again. There's a lot of movement at the state around housing, and so I'm just curious. I don't know if when we word some of these things and get to that phase, if it's do we say a 100 feet, or do we just say consistent with statutory requirements? And I don't know if that's not helpful for those reading, then they have to look up what that is, but just to think about, yeah, how to navigate that. It but I I do kinda lean more towards I I prefer the 250 feet, which it sounds like, you know, three of us kinda prefer that and three of us. So we'll see what counts. Remind me.

Is the 100 feet to is this for residential only or any class two, or hearing notification? Sorry.

So it's for, in state statute, it's actually for anything that would apply to the city. So quasi judicial hearings Okay. Things that are called limited lane use decisions, are it's essentially a process that's consistent with our class two, and then what is in this statute as well.

Did the state give us any indication of why it was it's only a 100 I mean, 100 feet in a neighborhood is only three houses. Yeah. Yeah. So I why did the state they had to have some logic. Not that they would tell us, but

So my understanding is the 100 feet has been established in state law for a while and that the city of Wilsonville has chosen to exceed that historically. The issue we now face is that senate bill 97 nine seventy four is more prescriptive in saying that it can't be more than 100. Is that accurate?

It doesn't say that it can't be more. It just says a 100 feet.

So it's going like, so senate bill nine seventy four is, like, pulling back on the prior Oregon statutory statement, and so it's starting to feel like the state is pushing to a 100 feet. And then if we're gonna do it for one type, then it be does become an administrative problem to have different distances. And it does open us up, especially if there's, like, an an appeal, that would be maybe beyond that 100 feet. It opens up whether or not they really should have been notified, and could be an issue that's included within, like, the argument that goes before Luba that the city wasn't following state notification procedures, which then just creates an administrative opportunity for the appeal, not just a substantive reason for the appeal. And that's where these things start to unravel.

So as as we talk to our city attorney, if she says 250 is fine and we won't have problems with the state, I'm fine with two fifty. But if our city attorney recommends that we adhere to what the state is saying, not demanding, but is saying strongly, then I think we should follow that guideline. So I'm I'm still in favor of a two fifty, but if it's gonna cause us problems down the road, we should acquiesce, I guess.

I I did have a conversation with her about it. It's not that we can't keep two fifty, and and perhaps this is something we'll we'll get council's feedback too. I mean, obviously, our report out to them is gonna be it's mixed. What do you think? But the one thing she noted is where cities and where there is LUBA case law to back this up is when you start in being inconsistent with what the requirements are, whether or not that's either the state's requirement or let's say the state has a requirement and you think that's what it is, but then the city says something else and then you're not following your own procedures, that that has been used as grounds to invalidate a city's decision.

And so there is legal risk. I think probably the highest priority would be to keep consistency across our processes with whatever is chosen. And I I think we can be based on your feedback and what feedback we get from counsel. We'll revisit that before, you know, this is something we can come back to in March if we need to.

I'd rather not give somebody more reason to appeal this to Mhmm. To the state. So, I mean, if if Amanda feels comfortable with us saying two fifty and not having to worry about appeals right and left, then I'm I would prefer the two fifty. I think it's again, I'm shocked that the state has yeah. That's only three houses. Right? You're not even talking about your all of your neighbors. It seems pretty small.

Commissioner Heberlein, did you have a comment?

Yeah. I I I mean, if if we can be consistent across the board at 250 feet and that passes legal muster, let's do that. You know, it I look at it from from the lens of what would the rest of of our city residents think if we're arbitrarily arbitrarily put that in quotes for anybody who's listening. Arbitrarily reducing it from 250 down to a 100 isn't the way that I would expect most of our neighbors to be happy with. So if we have the opportunity to keep it at 250 and be compliant with the intent of the laws and not give legal risk, let's do that.

And maybe this conversation also feeds into I think one of the final questions was about, like, public awareness or I I can't remember what the but maybe that's another conversation of, well, if it's not if it if we wanna be legally more safe, risk adverse, maybe there's other ways to communicate things out, than a male to notice to consider. So okay. Do you have you I think you got feedback,

so I I don't

know if it was really clear.

But

Yeah. It's it's clear. Okay. So the last one is around, the, yeah, land use review, board roles. So there wasn't really a recommendation. It was more of, like, maybe we should have a conversation and see kinda where where we're leaning on whether we keep one of the development review boards for the judicial hearings or if that's something that maybe the planning commission should consider taking on. So I don't does anyone have any first thoughts

on this?

Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Carr?

So in keeping with separation of government, I like the idea of still having a DRB because the planning commission kinda builds the rules and the DRB applies them. So I kinda like that separation. Even though you could accomplish it in in two different meetings. And I think many of us have been on a DRB, but I still like that separation.

Yeah. I like the keeping of one DRB because the DRB is a great conduit for future planning commissioners, which have proven to be future city councilors. And so I I think it's a great vehicle to get more people engaged, but not too many that they're idle. But and and exposing them to the the way the city works.

That's helpful here. I'm gonna share some thoughts because yeah. I'm trying to think of my my experience on development review board, and then if the workload gets even less or if we just have one, if that's still even less. Making sure I don't feel like we're just if this is something that can be administrative or can be handled by another role, making sure that they feel empowered and that the work they're doing is important. And so I don't know.

I just sometimes in DRB felt like, okay. Well, this feels clear and objective, so why am I needing to review it? But and then kind of along the same lines, with planning commission, if we're setting some of that policy and then we have to come back and see how that policy plays out, I think could also help inform us in making better policy to see how things so I just thought it would be an interesting, like, oh, and we hear and see things play out anyway, so I still think that can happen with two separate. But that was kinda my first thought was, like, oh, that would be interesting to have to deal with the things that you, set set in place. So some some thoughts. Commissioner Heberlein, do you have

Yeah. I I think from I like keeping a DRB as long as there's enough work to support it. That's my my key thing for that. If there's enough work to support it, I think it's good from a public engagement perspective. It gives more people the opportunity to participate. And as long as we're not struggling to get participation and there's enough work, have a DRB. I think it's great.

Commissioner Seminova? Yeah.

Has has the DRB board weighed in on this at all, or is this the first time that's being proposed?

They have not. One of the recommendations we got from our last council meeting was as part of our public outreach to reach out and potentially have a work session with DRB. So we likely will as part of the outreach.

Just out

of curiosity. That would be helpful. Yeah. How do they feel about it? Yes.

That's what I would like to know.

But how would we feel about it? So so let's let's like, we will have we already have full meetings. We usually have at least an hour and a half, but often many hours. And so this would add to that. And and would you be able to support that? I think that would be a valuable feedback for the city.

How much would it add?

Most likely, it'd be a second meeting in the

Oh, can you turn your mic on when you Thank you.

Yep. Most likely, it'd be a second meeting. So I don't know if they try to combine the two

Yeah. So would you together because I Supporting a second meeting would be difficult for me.

Yeah. The volume of work that I had when I was on the DRB, there's no way it could have been done. But we had Fred Meyer and a couple other really big things going on, but the volume of work. I think we had a and b busy Mhmm. All the time when when I was on the ERB.

When I when I was on the ERB, we weren't that busy, but it did but you you know, you did have to do pre work. You had to I had to go drive a bike, go walk the sites, really understand them. And so it was more than just meeting time. Correct. And doing that on top of the planning commission preparation and other meetings, I think it would be a lasting a lot of a planning commissioner.

That's a good point. Thank you.

That's a really good point. Yeah.

Because preparing for this meeting is not yeah.

Did you wanna add anything?

Just I think the proposal to keep one DRB is a measured approach. You're using real data. You've looked at that over the last few years. I think this is changing a lot. And I think reducing it from two to one is appropriate and seems to be based on what actually is happening. And then we can reassess this as things develop. So I I I I would support having one. I

think we've got yeah. Cleared. That went faster than that. Well, that's great. Okay. Any other let's see. So updates to the administrative administrative review thresholds for other uses that should be considered. Can you can you reframe? Just what does this really get at?

So, essentially

So I

have to pick this threshold.

So so, like, a numerical threshold. So right now, I'll just a generic example Thank you. Industrial building that exists with an approved development plan. If the industrial building wants to add a some kind of accessory space onto its building or anywhere on its site and that space is less than 1,250 square feet, it can go through a class g process. But the minute it is 1,500 square feet, it doesn't matter how large the site is, it's going to DRB for review and approval.

And so in light of the fact that I think we wanted to pose the question because in light of the fact that you're now taking much more potentially substantive applications and reviewing them through a class two, and we're thinking about things like board composition and workload. And we know that if it's a multifamily building that exceeds that threshold for an a change that that can't go through a class or that would have to go through a class two, you know, do we wanna think about the impact of that on other existing developments or alternatively keep it as is for now?

Where did this twelve fifty come from? That seems really, I really mean, like, 1,237 square feet. Right? So like

I've asked myself that question many times.

Don't know. I think it's just been in the code for a really long time. Interesting.

Like, this is totally it's totally random. I'd what's the impact if we change this threshold? I mean, what happens if we change it to 1,500? What does that do? Just more items would go through an administrative review and less through a class two.

Yeah. And I wouldn't say, like, that that difference is all that great. I mean, where we have been in situations and there's another threshold that's in the code, although it's kind of been invalidated with the new parking standards. But there was a 10 space threshold where if you added or removed 10 spaces, you went to DRB. And, you know, now that we don't have minimum parking, we don't look at that one the same way, but you know?

And there's a lot of work that goes into that, and then the DRB would kinda be like, oh, okay. It's just adding 15 spaces. Okay. So it's the same thing where we sometimes have applications where it's like an accessory building on the site or it's 2,000 square feet on a 80,000 square foot building. And I know that's kind of a, you know, a sliding scale. You can't have a one size fits all approach for everything. But, you know, I think one of the questions we would have is, is it a numerical standard? Is there something there's a difference between new new development. You know, is it a percentage? Is it, you know, is there a different threshold maybe? Or maybe not. I don't know.

But I mean, could could you do it so this is this would be applicable to industrial and residential?

And commercial. Yep.

So could you do it a a percentage what I'm trying to say is, you know, a 2,000 square foot house and I'm putting a 1,250 square foot addition is much different than putting a 1,250 square foot addition on a thousand square foot building. Right? So can you make it a a component of both the square footage and a percentage? Because I think what we're trying to do here, if I'm anticipating this, is have less that goes through because of additions that should be easily applied to an administrative review. Is that what we're Yeah. That's thresholds?

That's the question. You know? I think just kind of fundamentally, if you're taking what is inherently more substantive

Right.

And putting that through a class two process. Are we creating inequities? It it's really kind of that. Obviously, I think there's still a lot of the city that we don't have commercial and industrial standards that are as clear and objective as they are in Coffee Creek, and so you you wouldn't wanna say, oh, all new development is class two when we don't have the same level of standards. But, you know, I think it really got us thinking when we were, you know, wondering about these much smaller types of reviews that don't have a ton of discretion because they are existing development. Maybe they generate some additional trips. It depends. But, you know

because I think I think this came up I think this came up once in the DRB where they were adding a garbage and recycling repository onto a commercial building

Mhmm.

Or industrial building or something. And it was and the DRB reviewed it. It was, I guess, silly is what I would say, that it was reviewed by by the DRB. That could have easily been done by an administrative review, but it probably was above that twelve fifty.

Mhmm.

So I'm in favor of a percent with a, like, twelve fifty minimum. I really wish you could explain the twelve fifty to me, but we'll maybe we'll say that was Blaze's creativity. So,

yeah, maybe exploring that option further with some maybe, like, examples or just some more options there. Any other thoughts on that front?

Yeah. If the city feels like it would, reduce the burden on your staff, you know, and it isn't I'm I think we should consider it.

Mhmm. Yeah.

Commissioner Heberlin?

Yeah. I I I agree with with considering it, and and I'll defer to staff judgment on on whether it's just a hard percentage or some more complicated formula or something. But if twelve fifty doesn't have any basis in historical knowledge, get rid of it.

Alright. And then the last question, I misremembered what it was about community input, but it was just what will best assist you in final recommendations about these updates. Sounds like we'll maybe hear from development review board members on their kind of opinions on the the two options there. And then any other input? Seeing? Nos? I always

I always kinda crave when what are the what are the other communities surrounding us doing? Like, you know, are we are we wildly out of whack with our sister, communities or not? And it's there's something I've always craved that we don't do a lot of.

If I may, could you be more specific about that? Is that in terms of getting community input or, like, their land use processes?

Their their response to some of these state mandates. How are they Oh. Handling them? Yeah.

I haven't spoken to all my partners, but I have spoken to some of them. And there's already a lot of variety in terms of how cities process applications. So we are one of a few cities, I would say, in the region who still process the majority through a board. Yeah. With the changes to for clear and objective standards when that occurred, many more cities moved to an administrative process for more application types than we have.

And so I think we feel a little bit more pressure to get nine seventy four the changes that we need to to comply with ninety seventy four in before the deadline because we're at a higher risk because so many of our processes are not in alignment with it. But another city, that I've spoken with, they think that the vast majority, if not all of their processes, already essentially comply with nine seventy four. And so from that perspective, it's not nearly as big of a project or as big of a conversation in that city. So, it's kind of across the board, I would say. And then some other cities are have less staff, weren't necessarily paying as close of attention, during the legislative process.

We have a great government affairs team and a lot of communication that occurs inside this building. So and I try to stay in tune, with the LOC to make sure I'm following the bills. And so I think that there were definitely some folks who are coming at it later in the process as well, and they're still trying to figure it out. So it's kind of a mix.

Well, and to your kind of later point, just, with being proactive of following bills in the session, and I know we have a short session coming up, which usually is just more technical or not not as much, typically, than the long session. But I do wonder just with how much of our work has been around a lot of, you know, making sure that we're meeting state regulations and stuff. Mhmm. What can we anticipate, you know, for the next year, or what's coming up in the legislative session? So in terms of bringing it back to the question of community input, I also just wanna hear from our, you know, state representatives and senators of when they're talking through these things, are they collaborating with cities to see how these really impact or how they have, a lot of changes in a short amount of time?

So things I'm curious about. Yeah. Okay. Well, given that, I think you have what you need.

I think so. I very we we all very much appreciate your input. This is super helpful, and I know city council will appreciate it when we present it next So thank you.

Yeah. No problem. Thank you. Given we're behind on schedule, and I I don't see anyone in person for public comment. I'm not and then, checking with staff to see if anyone is online before I take quite a bit of time to read public comment,

scripts. I do have one person online. Please raise your hand if you are planning to speak.

I see no hands raised.

Okay. Seeing that there's no one interested in giving public comment, then I'm gonna continue on to informational, session, section of our agenda, and I believe we have one item from our planning director.

Yes. Thank you, chair Hendrix. So as we close out the night tonight and we close out twenty twenty five, I just wanna finish with a few words for a couple of our commissioners whose last meeting is tonight. And I was gonna check-in with you to make sure I could announce it. But that is, both commissioner Willard and commissioner Heberlein.

I serving one's community is one of the most overlooked, but also one of the most generous things that, and gifts that somebody can give. Time is precious, and our community volunteers give of their time to better the greater good of the city that they live in and the people who live around them. And so on behalf of the Wilsonville community, I wanna thank you both, for the generous contribution of your time and acknowledge everything that you've done, over many years, not just your planning commission volunteer service. Jennifer, I first met you when you were on the development review board, and then a few later years later, you got to join our planning commission, which was very exciting. I have always really appreciated your knowledge construction and corporate decision making.

I feel like that has helped keep a lot of the decisions that we make in mind in terms of how our making sure that we're being business friendly and that we're thinking about that perspective in the community and being rooted in market realities and not being too strict with some of the regulations we might set. But then also pushing forward recommendations, that also didn't damper the city's aspirations because you still maintained an aspirational mindset for the community that you lived in. And that was both from an economic development perspective, but also in promoting housing that is more affordable for the people who live here. You're so smart, positive, thoughtful, and you have a great laugh. I've really been grateful for all the time that you've put into your service here, in supporting planning growth and development in Wilsonville on both the DRB and PC, and that I hope someday you find your way back to Wilsonville, and you'll always be welcome at this dais.

Thank you.

Commissioner Haberlein, when I started, I met you on the frog pod west task force shortly after, you joined the town center task force and then the planning commission. And, you have essentially been involved in every major planning project and legislative decision that I've been since I joined the city eleven years ago, so we share a record. I have appreciated your preparedness and your attention to detail in ways that may not have been the way that us planners think. Your empathy, and always remaining focused on the people that we're trying to serve has also been one of your strongest assets and something I've appreciated. And, so you've been able to move from that detailed perspective also to the big picture and really advocate for recommendations that you thought would make a difference in people's lives.

So thank you also for supporting planning growth and development in Wilsonville for full terms on both the DRB and PC. You've exhausted all your years. I can say that I've reviewed the language, and after a break, you can come back if you want. Just putting that out there. So, anyways, I've really enjoyed working with you, and I do hope we get the opportunity again someday.

And Yeah.

And we do have, some cookies in in the back, and so I wanna make sure everybody sticks around and socializes a little bit and has

a treat. Thank you for sharing that, and I'll I'll hand it over to you both if you wanna share anything or and, I mean, you you spoke you speak so eloquently. And I just wanna say I've really enjoyed working with you both and getting to know you, and I know that I'll see you around, outside of planning commission sometime, I'm sure. And, yeah, you're just great great planning commissioners, and we'll miss you a lot. And this will be very weird in January to have, you know, two two really great great folks, not joining us. So, anyways, I don't know who

wants to do you wanna say anything?

Sure. Yeah. I I will say, oh, it's been a hell of a run. Yeah. January 2015 was when I started with DRBA. Oh my gosh. And then February 2018 with the planning commission. I am

How many meetings? How many hours? Like, do you the stats?

Oh, god. I know.

I probably should have, but I'm a poor engineer for not having that. I will say I've been blessed to have so many great DRB members, planning commissioners, to go through this process with. The level of of support has been fantastic. You know, the the people have been the reason why I've stayed. And for staff, I wouldn't have done this without you guys.

You guys are awesome. I mean, you guys have made this this city what it is. You know, we're here coming in once a month trying to give our feedback, but you guys are here every day. And the work the effort you put in, the rest of the city doesn't always see that. So I wanna make sure that you guys know that you guys are rock stars. Mhmm. And I wouldn't have done this for ten plus years without you guys. So thank you. Yeah.

I I agree. You know, I joined I I I remember I put in my application, because of the twenty sixteen election, and I thought, I need to get involved. I'm I'm gonna start local. So so it it actually helped me so much feel more connected to my community and feel like I was contributing doing my part. And, yeah, you know, when thinking about the staff, you know, you guys have had so little turnover.

None that I can think of. And the work that you guys put in helping explain it to us that aren't that aren't policy savvy has been really helpful. So, you know, what I found that over the years is now I can I can have intelligent conversations with my community members, and I can explain to them, you know, why some of these decisions are made or why things aren't what they are, and I can advocate for the city? And so have my husband and I take a walk every night after dinner, half the time, I'm like, no. But you don't understand. And I practice my arguments on him first. But it has been it has been a wonderful experience, and so I will miss this city and I will miss the staff and all of this, the the board for sure. Thank you so

much. Other commissioners?

Yeah. I'd like to say, yeah, thank you to both of you. I know I've worked with thank both of you in the past, And yeah, appreciate everything that you've done. You you make it fun. Right? And and like Ron says, it's the it's the people. I mean, what what what keeps coming keeps me volunteering is knowing that I'm in a community that I love. The staff loves the community as well and the people on the commissions obviously do. So I the the community, you know, I haven't lived in a whole lot of communities in my years, but this has been the best community that I've spent my time in and people like Ron and Jennifer that make it what it is. So appreciate all your efforts.

Yeah. You guys are gonna be sorely missed. Yeah. Sorely missed. I've learned so much from both of you. As as, you know, for the first time being a volunteer, all the questions that you ask and just hearing how your minds think through these things, it's been eye opening. And, yeah, I'll definitely miss all all the things you have to contribute. Yeah. It's been really great to get to know you. And, hopefully, we can do a lot. I know that

we're Hopefully, we'll be able do. Yeah. I don't know.

It feels like we're losing a big part of the team. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. It is an interesting transition. Right? Because we had Dan leave and then Sam and now you two. So it is a we're in a big shift right now. So Yeah.

We gotta hold it down, folks.

Hold it down. We we gotta hang it.

That's just so hot. Yeah.

It's okay. It'll be great. It will be great. Next year will be great. Both forever.

Vote to to, elect Nicole

as No.

Oh my god. I

was gonna say not. Right.

Do not do that right now.

You will do that. Okay. But so noted. She does not wanna be chair. However, you didn't wanna be chair last time. You but you have done such an amazing job.

Alright. Okay. So Thank you. This is not about my the chair role. Alright. So with that, I think we're gonna I think we're on to the next item, which is to adjourn the meeting. So we've completed all our scheduled agenda items. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

I'll move

to

adjourn.

Second. Beautiful. Thank you. The

meeting is

adjourned at 07:31PM. Thanks.