[0:38] In progress,
[0:41] I call the regular meeting of the City
[0:42] of Ashland Planning Commission to order for June 9th, 2026.
[0:47] I will note that our meetings are available on Zoom
[0:49] and on RV tv.
[0:51] The public can find information on how
[0:53] to participate in planning commission meetings in our public
[0:56] notices, as well as directions on how
[0:59] to find the full meeting materials,
[1:01] applications, and staff reports.
[1:04] I note that we actually have seven
[1:05] of seven commissioners here tonight.
[1:07] Congratulations everybody. Staff announcements. Brandon,
[1:12] I have none.
[1:13] Thank you.
[1:14] Whoa. Okay, we have a consent agenda in front of us
[1:19] with approval of minutes for April 28th, May 12th
[1:23] and May 26th.
[1:25] Anybody have any questions or suggestions on the minutes?
[1:30] If not, I'll entertain a motion
[1:32] to approve the consent agenda.
[1:37] Move to approve consent agenda.
[1:39] Is there a second? Second.
[1:42] Wow. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.
[1:47] Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes public forum.
[1:54] We have a number of people in the audience
[1:56] that's really exciting.
[2:00] Let's see. I have five
[2:05] speaker requests form and they are all,
[2:16] well actually there's six.
[2:19] Five of them are for state that they're
[2:22] for the manufactured housing zoning.
[2:25] Nancy Wilson, did you wanna talk on manufactured housing
[2:29] or do you wanna talk on something else? No,
[2:31] I talk about manufactured Housing.
[2:33] Okay. We
[2:38] will move on to our,
[2:39] so is there anybody else in the audience?
[2:41] Is there anybody in the audience who wants to talk
[2:43] to us on something other than manufactured housing?
[2:48] Okay, come forward.
[2:59] I do. I see. I do.
[3:00] But there's a last
[3:03] chair order receipts.
[3:07] Okay. Okay.
[3:08] So nobody wants to talk
[3:10] to us on anything other than manufactured housing.
[3:13] Okay. We will move on to our hearing.
[3:17] We have a legislative public hearing in front of us.
[3:19] We're following the type three process tonight
[3:22] where the planning commission will hold a public hearing,
[3:25] take testimony and make a
[3:27] recommendation to the city council.
[3:30] We have our esteemed counselor here with us today. Tonight.
[3:34] The city of Ashland is the applicant
[3:36] and it is asking us to consider legislative amendments
[3:41] to the Ashland Municipal Code
[3:43] to establish a manufactured home park zone,
[3:47] an MPH zone and update development
[3:51] and design guide standards for manufactured housing
[3:55] for clear and objective standards,
[3:57] it's action PA dash L dash 2026 dash zero
[4:02] eight and it includes revisions to
[4:06] A MC
[4:07] 18 0 3 0 18 7 0
[4:15] and 18 8 0.
[4:19] It also inc, those, excuse me,
[4:20] those are revisions to those statutes.
[4:23] Updates to A MC 18,
[4:26] which is the our PSO standards
[4:30] and 18, which is definitions
[4:36] adoption of a new chapter,
[4:38] establishing manufacturing manufactured home park
[4:41] zone provisions, rezoning existing manufactured home parks
[4:46] to the proposed manufactured housing home park zone.
[4:51] And we have an ordinance amending chapter
[4:54] 10.6 0.116, establishing notice
[5:00] of sale and opportunity to purchase
[5:03] and relocation updates.
[5:09] So I will open the public hearing staff.
[5:13] Would you like to make a presentation?
[5:16] Thank you. Chair Commission.
[5:18] Tonight's staff is bringing forward a package
[5:20] of ordinance amendments implementing a priority action
[5:23] as identified in the city's housing production strategy,
[5:26] which was adopted by the city council in 2023.
[5:31] Specifically the preservation
[5:33] and modernization of manufactured home parks.
[5:36] So the manufactured home parks are an important part
[5:39] of Ashland's lower cost home ownership opportunities
[5:43] and housing stability within Ashland.
[5:46] However, the existing manufactured housing development
[5:51] standards have not been modified in over 30 years.
[5:55] And this project is intended to update those regulations
[5:59] both to comply with state law while complying
[6:02] or while creating a more effective tool for the
[6:06] and framework for park preservation and reinvestment.
[6:10] So the work has been supported through a grant
[6:11] through the Department of Land Conservation and Development
[6:15] and TLCD retained three J Consulting led by Scott
[6:21] Ragi and Journey Gehringer are joining us virtually
[6:24] to assist with the ordinance development
[6:26] and public engagement for this project.
[6:29] Their work's also been informed by the
[6:31] manufactured home park zone management advisory committee,
[6:35] which included park residents, housing professionals
[6:38] and other community stakeholders.
[6:42] We also, as you know, held the joint study session with the
[6:45] city's Housing and Human Services advisory committee,
[6:48] city Council and Planning Commission.
[6:51] And both the Planning commission and Housing
[6:52] and Human Services have had independent
[6:55] study sessions as well.
[6:57] So I wanted to outline The ordinance package really includes
[7:01] three primary components.
[7:03] First are as amendments
[7:05] to the city's manufactured housing development standards.
[7:08] And these changes incorporates state required updates
[7:12] including allowing additional housing types such
[7:15] as recreational vehicles
[7:16] and prefabricated units within manufactured home parks.
[7:21] The amendments also include changes intended
[7:25] to support park preservation
[7:27] and modernization, including flexibility
[7:30] for smaller housing units,
[7:32] relief from certain nonconformities
[7:35] or non-conforming situations for existing parks,
[7:38] and also providing limited allowances for
[7:42] park serving amenities such as clubhouses, office space
[7:46] or small commercial services primarily intended
[7:51] to support resident activity.
[7:54] Second item is that the establishment
[7:57] of a new manufactured home park zone
[8:00] and a corresponding comprehensive plan designation.
[8:03] So these new designations would be applied to
[8:07] existing manufactured home parks within the city
[8:09] and the urban growth boundary once they annex into the city,
[8:13] would be looked at for that manufactured home park zone.
[8:17] And the intent is that would better recognize
[8:19] that these communities as a distinct housing type
[8:22] and preserve them to
[8:24] continuously be manufactured home parks without
[8:28] the potential redevelopment under existing
[8:32] residential multifamily zoning.
[8:36] So the third is a separate ordinance is mending chapter 10
[8:41] of the municipal code to establish notice
[8:44] of sale requirements, opportunities for residents or
[8:48] or qu qualified entities to purchase
[8:51] and other tenant protections authorized under state law.
[8:55] I do want to note that in discussions
[8:58] with assistant city attorney Carmel ra,
[9:03] she is recommending further review
[9:05] because chapter 10 is
[9:07] outside the Ashland Land use Ordinance.
[9:09] I wanted to note that the planning commission is not
[9:13] required to make a formal recommendation on that section.
[9:16] However, the commission may provide recommendations
[9:20] or comments or recommended amendments, revisions,
[9:25] modifications for consideration
[9:27] by both the legal department and the city council.
[9:31] And so tonight, the planning commission's being asked
[9:34] to provide recommendations on all four ordinances
[9:37] and following your recommendations, they will be forwarded
[9:41] to the city council for first reading
[9:43] and review at a public hearing on June 16th, 2026.
[9:49] And with that introduction, I'll turn it over virtually
[9:53] to Scott and Journey for a brief overview
[9:55] of the proposed ordinance amendments.
[9:58] I would note that given the commission's prior study
[10:01] sessions and the extensive materials
[10:04] included in tonight's packet,
[10:06] their presentation will be focused on major changes
[10:09] and changes that occurred
[10:11] between the last time the planning commission saw it
[10:14] and currently, but provides an opportunity for questions
[10:18] before hearing testimony from the public.
[10:22] But if you have any questions of staff during or
[10:24] after their presentation,
[10:26] it's an opportunity for that as well.
[10:28] Thank you Scott.
[10:30] Great. Thank you Brandon and thank you chair
[10:34] and commission for having us tonight.
[10:36] It's a big night.
[10:38] This is the first formal meeting to adopt this
[10:41] new manufactured home park zone
[10:43] and updates are associated with it.
[10:45] We've been hard at work for, I don't know,
[10:48] 9, 10, 11 months now.
[10:49] So it's great to be in front of you all.
[10:51] And as part of this adoption process,
[10:53] I'm gonna share my screen
[10:54] and go through a brief presentation
[10:56] and as Brandon mentioned, we will have plenty of time
[10:58] for interaction and questions.
[11:04] Okay. Hopefully that works for all and we could see that.
[11:10] Yes. Perfect.
[11:12] I'll start with a quick project overview and I apologize
[11:15] but Brandon and I have si think similarly obviously.
[11:19] And so I will be doing a little bit of repetitiveness,
[11:22] but I don't think that ever hurts.
[11:25] Again, some of the project background, this was part
[11:28] of your housing production strategy,
[11:30] particularly strategy DG, which was to maintain quality
[11:34] and support preservation
[11:35] of existing manufactured home parks.
[11:37] It was also mentioned that DLCD grant was received from the
[11:41] state to help pay for this technical assistance work
[11:44] that we are doing as consultants working on
[11:46] behalf of the city of Ashland.
[11:48] And part of this really is the goal
[11:50] to set some new standard design standards
[11:51] for manufactured home parks for density, lot size, setbacks,
[11:55] utilities, and also to allow
[11:57] for potential more density in different types of units.
[12:00] So that's kind of the some background there.
[12:05] In terms of engagement, we did quite a bit,
[12:08] we already talked a little bit about this,
[12:09] but we had a advisory committee
[12:11] that met three times over the course
[12:13] of the project to give feedback.
[12:15] They were park residents, we had a whole host of different
[12:22] committee that gave us feedbacks feedback
[12:24] through, through that process.
[12:26] It was also mentioned that we had a joint work session
[12:30] with Housing and Human Services Committee as well
[12:33] as the planning commission and city council on January 27th.
[12:37] We've had code changes reviewed
[12:39] by the committee on March 11th, our,
[12:42] our internal project committee on March 11th, the Housing
[12:45] and Human Services Committee on April 23rd
[12:49] and the PC on April 28th.
[12:51] So we've really tried hard to keep everyone abreast of the,
[12:54] of what we've been doing
[12:55] as we've moved through the planning process.
[12:57] And I think that that's been to our advantage
[12:59] because I, I hope you all feel very comfortable with
[13:02] where we are now in terms of moving into adoption.
[13:07] An online open house is available on the city website site
[13:10] that also has all the work products and materials.
[13:13] So we've been trying to be very transparent with that
[13:15] and post all the products as we move through this update.
[13:21] The survey was published on the website.
[13:23] It was open for April 27th to May 31st.
[13:26] About 46 people responded to that survey.
[13:28] So we have some good results for that.
[13:29] And that's also a publicly made available document if y'all
[13:33] interested in taking a look closer at that summary.
[13:37] So in terms of the manufactured home park zone
[13:42] we're looking at, it's proposed
[13:43] for five existing manufactured housing communities.
[13:47] Just to, as a reminder, three
[13:49] of those are located within the city limits.
[13:50] That's wing spread, Tollen Creek
[13:53] and the Ashland Urban RV Park,
[13:55] which actually I just wanted to note.
[13:56] That's a 2 78 Idaho.
[13:59] We have actually re met recommended removal of that one
[14:02] but is still is shown up in this.
[14:03] So I just wanted to highlight that two
[14:06] of the others are located within the urban growth boundary
[14:10] but outside of the city limits.
[14:11] And that's Siski Village and Na Navu Park.
[14:15] So that's just a reminder of what those proposed
[14:18] manufactured home park zones are looking at.
[14:22] I wanted to highlight the code changes that were made
[14:26] between the last planning commission meeting.
[14:30] These are things that came up during that meeting
[14:32] that we decided to change.
[14:33] So first was just a statement.
[14:36] We had the words financial burden in there
[14:39] and we changed that to proportionate impact
[14:42] 'cause it's not always financial.
[14:43] So that was something that we wanted
[14:44] to be a little bit more broadened in terms of definition,
[14:48] we added childcare
[14:49] and residential facilities in the table under a MC 18.2
[14:53] 0.2030.
[14:56] And that is to a use table that allows the updated
[15:00] to allow both those childcare and residential facilities.
[15:03] We updated, if you all recall, there was a con, a lot
[15:06] of conversation about how many days we would have available
[15:09] for the opportunity to purchase based on that conversation.
[15:13] We did increase it from 120 to 180 days.
[15:17] We also updated the landscaping
[15:19] and lot coverage to reflect the city recommendations.
[15:22] Originally we had it I think at 60% coverage
[15:26] and we've increased that to 65 and 35% must be landscape.
[15:30] So those are some clarifications there
[15:33] and didn't change much,
[15:34] but wanted to make sure we got that updated.
[15:37] And then in the limitation sections under the phase
[15:39] compliance, we removed limitations.
[15:42] Approval under subsections shall not allow an increase
[15:46] and the number of manufacturing was legally existing at the
[15:49] time when development became non-conforming.
[15:52] So that's specific to those non-conforming uses
[15:55] that are currently in place.
[15:58] So those are the main things we changed
[15:59] between the last meeting and now.
[16:03] And I'm gonna go through these again
[16:05] because I know not everyone has maybe seen them
[16:09] or we could just go through a refresher.
[16:11] But these are the proposed code changes in more detail
[16:15] that are that, that we're proposing as part of this update.
[16:19] So 18.2 0.2030,
[16:23] we added manufactured home park zone to allow
[16:26] to the allowed uses by zone table.
[16:28] So that allowed uses table was updated.
[16:30] Again, we updated the childcare facilities
[16:32] to be permitted on land zoned for multi-family residential
[16:35] or institutional uses.
[16:37] And that's just to be in compliance with House bill 35 60.
[16:40] So that was an important update.
[16:41] So we are in compliance with state law.
[16:44] Another one we updated to be in compliance with state law
[16:47] was residential treatment facilities
[16:49] and residential homes that we permitted on land zone
[16:52] for residential commercial employment, industrial
[16:55] and public lands, excluding parks to comply
[16:59] with house bill 2005.
[17:03] Now moving on for 18.2 0.370,
[17:08] we revised the standards
[17:09] for manufactured homes on individual lots to comply
[17:11] with state require clear
[17:13] and objective standards to comply
[17:15] with more house bill 2 7 2 3 4 7
[17:18] and OS 1 97 a 0.400
[17:25] Again, moving on, this is 18.80.
[17:30] This one we had six different updates in.
[17:33] We revise the manufactured housing development standards
[17:35] to implement update clear and objective standards.
[17:37] I know you hear that a lot.
[17:39] That's a big push that all
[17:40] of our ordinances are clear and objective.
[17:43] We updated density dimensional
[17:45] and urban design standards
[17:46] to support higher density manufactured housing developments.
[17:50] We remove lot size standards
[17:52] and instead reference applicable building
[17:54] and fire code requirements.
[17:56] So instead of saying a lot needs to be a specific size,
[17:58] we just said you gotta meet building and fire codes
[18:01] and setbacks will be determined by them.
[18:04] We reise maximum lot coverage standards to allow up
[18:06] to 65%, which I mentioned already.
[18:09] Updated setback standards to reference applicable building
[18:12] and fire code separation requirements
[18:14] and allowed limited encroachments porches
[18:16] and decks were compliant with applicable codes.
[18:20] And finally we updated private streets
[18:21] and circulation standards, including turnaround requirements
[18:23] to be consistent with fire codes.
[18:25] So that was pretty important too.
[18:27] But we really relied on existing building codes
[18:29] and fire codes rather than trying
[18:30] to write new specific codes in the zoning ordinance.
[18:35] Moving on again with 18.2 0.3 0.180,
[18:40] we added permanent possession in walkways
[18:42] and a DA requirements.
[18:44] Updated landscaping standards didn't require a minimum area
[18:47] of 35%, which I just mentioned as well.
[18:51] Updated common open space and amenity standards.
[18:55] We added standards for community serving buildings.
[18:57] Brandon mentioned this, but included things like clubhouse
[19:00] and accessory uses that may be commercial
[19:06] to utilize and revised manufactured housing unit standards,
[19:10] including removal of minimum lot size, width
[19:12] and patio requirements
[19:14] and allowed smaller units under 500 square feet
[19:16] to count towards the density calculations at a reduced ratio
[19:20] and revised standards applicable
[19:22] to non-conforming max manufactured housing developments
[19:25] to allow phased or partial compliance approaches.
[19:27] So that was really important too
[19:29] because rather than making a non-conforming use
[19:34] come into compliance for the entire air park,
[19:38] we said if you can show that you're gonna do phased
[19:40] or partial compliance, we can allow that.
[19:44] Okay, 18.3 0.9020
[19:48] we revised performance standards
[19:50] and that was mentioned also.
[19:51] So your your PSO performance standards, we, we
[19:56] and manufactured housing developments
[19:57] to use util also utilize those performance standards when,
[20:02] when applicable.
[20:04] And then 18.3 9.030 we added reference
[20:09] within the PSA overlay applicable standards.
[20:12] So just a note there,
[20:16] 18.39040 revised outline plan procedures
[20:20] to exempt manufacture housing developments
[20:22] and cottage housing developments from certain
[20:25] plan approval submittal requirements.
[20:27] So this is a procedural thing that we needed to clean up
[20:30] to make sure that, that those types of procedures are
[20:35] requirements are met.
[20:39] 18.8050 was a revised the annexation
[20:44] standards to exempt manufactured home parks from,
[20:47] from residential annexation affordability requirements
[20:49] and allow manufactured housing developments up
[20:51] to 18 dwelling units per acre upon annexation.
[20:54] We had a lot of discussion about this at previous meeting,
[20:57] so I hope you all recall how we landed on
[20:59] that 18 unit per acre when it's annexed,
[21:01] but it makes a lot of sense and it,
[21:03] and it matches what currently is allowed in the city limits.
[21:09] Okay, 18.6 0.0 an addition
[21:13] and we add, we add
[21:15] and revised definitions related to housing.
[21:18] So these are the definitions section.
[21:20] So we included manufactured dwellings,
[21:22] prefabricated dwellings, manufactured dwelling parks,
[21:24] recreational vehicles, and proportionate impact.
[21:27] So these are all terms that were currently
[21:29] defined or needed.
[21:30] The definitions updated. So that was done in that section.
[21:34] And then in 10.116 we added a new chapter.
[21:38] So this is your new chapter that, that is specific
[21:41] to standards related to manufactured home park sale closure,
[21:45] confer conversion and tenant protection.
[21:47] So this was an important one.
[21:49] This was one of the big things
[21:50] that we worked with the committee on.
[21:52] And you know, the idea here is that it gives an opportunity
[21:55] to purchase with provisions and relocation assistance
[21:58] and standards so that you can have
[22:03] that protection in place if there is a sale.
[22:05] And there is first right of fu refusal for
[22:07] for the park residence.
[22:11] Okay. And finally, I just wanted to remind everyone
[22:13] that a big piece of this also was introducing
[22:15] that new MHP zone, which also means updating your map
[22:20] and comp plan designations as was mentioned.
[22:22] So I know in your packet this map was included, it kind
[22:27] of highlights, I don't know if you can see some
[22:28] of these areas, but this dark brown is a new, you could see
[22:32] where it's been applied on those
[22:35] existing manufactured home arcs.
[22:39] And finally, next steps,
[22:42] I'll just jump on that really quick.
[22:43] It's really talking about adoption.
[22:45] So the next steps in this if, if
[22:48] planning commission proceeds to, to recommend approval
[22:51] of these updates
[22:53] and changes, we'd move into a city council study session
[22:57] on the 15th of this month,
[23:00] and then the first city council public hearing,
[23:03] first reading on the 16th.
[23:06] And then next July 21st we'd,
[23:09] we'd look at the second reading at the council
[23:12] for formal final adoption
[23:14] and then we can move into questions and comments.
[23:16] And I'll stop sharing my screen now.
[23:19] Thank you for allowing me to give a presentation
[23:22] and hopefully we, we can follow up
[23:24] with any necessary conversation.
[23:27] Any commissioners have questions
[23:30] for our panelists?
[23:35] We'll be here all night if they come up.
[23:41] Susan Just wanted
[23:45] to check my understanding on the first set of changes
[23:51] that there were a couple of items there that were
[23:54] to update compliance with state law,
[23:59] but not specific to mobile home parks.
[24:01] Is that true that they're just being
[24:04] done as part of this process?
[24:07] Yes, that is true.
[24:08] So there's a few things that, you know, as we're doing this,
[24:11] we realize that it was, it was important
[24:14] that we make those changes now because we're doing this.
[24:17] So it was, we thought that, you know, for example,
[24:19] I think you're referring to the childcare facilities
[24:23] and residential facilities as well for residential homes,
[24:28] basically for your, your replying to those.
[24:31] So yeah, we, those are really code cleanups and we felt like
[24:35] because we're focused on housing
[24:36] and this was driven by your, your, your, your housing goals
[24:40] that made sense to do that as part of this process as well.
[24:43] Thanks for for asking that question.
[24:45] Yeah. And you can find those changes in the table.
[24:49] 18.2 0.2 0.030 uses allowed by zone.
[24:54] If you look at residential care facilities,
[24:57] we previously required a conditional use permit,
[25:01] but now they're permitted outright.
[25:03] And the same is true for childcare facilities.
[25:07] There were a number of zones in which we required a
[25:09] conditional use permit.
[25:12] And so that's an added planning process,
[25:14] including requirements for one
[25:16] and R one, 3.5, R two, R three,
[25:20] and rural residential.
[25:23] All would require a conditional use permit.
[25:25] But those have all been changed
[25:26] to be permitted outright in all residential zones.
[25:30] I would note that one area of that section
[25:33] of code on childcare facilities is state law does not
[25:36] require that the city make them outright permitted in single
[25:40] family R one zones.
[25:42] But that is the recommendation in this ordinance change.
[25:46] So that part is discretionary.
[25:53] Anybody else have any comments? Que questions?
[25:58] Okay, well thank you very much.
[26:02] Thank you. Okay, let's move on
[26:06] to public testimony.
[26:13] Okay. Jerry Berger,
[26:19] anywhere close to that, come over there to the,
[26:24] to the podium and state your name and address please.
[26:27] And you have five minutes.
[26:37] Jerry Berger.
[26:40] 2 2 5 3 Highway 99 North in Ashland.
[26:46] Thank you for entertaining this public comment
[26:51] and for doing what you do.
[26:56] Manufactured home parks provide an important source
[26:59] of naturally occurring affordable housing.
[27:04] Ashland's housing production strategy
[27:07] identifies the city's key housing priority
[27:09] and goal of providing a means for preserving
[27:13] and expanding low income housing units in the city
[27:17] and in the urban growth boundary.
[27:22] Although shortsighted and,
[27:25] and certain to fail ashland's goal
[27:28] and efforts to ensure affordable housing are noteworthy
[27:32] and to be commended, a higher percentage
[27:36] of low income housing
[27:38] and mobile homes reside in high risk, high
[27:42] risk flood zones compared to
[27:46] higher income properties.
[27:48] As a result, low income families are more vulnerable
[27:52] to high water events as compared to the general population.
[27:57] Global warming resulted in rising sea levels
[28:00] and increasing water vapor in the atmosphere is responsible
[28:05] for inland storms and atmospheric rivers.
[28:08] The likes this county,
[28:09] this country has not witnessed in several hundred years,
[28:15] these events contribute to a perfect storm insult
[28:18] to low income families
[28:20] and their precious financial resources.
[28:23] The result of acceler accelerating flooding events,
[28:27] property loss, chronic displacement
[28:29] and health hazards raising ranging from mold to drowning.
[28:36] Bottom line, low income housing faces
[28:39] compounding risks from floods
[28:42] as lower income neighborhoods are disproportionately located
[28:45] in or near Floodways.
[28:47] And floodplains said differently over time,
[28:53] the poor continue to get poorer.
[28:58] Within Ashland's urban growth boundary,
[29:01] two mobile home parks situated within the proposed new
[29:04] mobile home zoning district are further compromised
[29:08] by adverse risk to low income families
[29:12] resulting from poor decision making
[29:15] that resulted from the removal of flood floodway territories
[29:19] that enable flood waters
[29:21] to expand within the banks of Bear Creek.
[29:26] I am addressing the build out of the bicycle path
[29:30] of the Rogue Valley Greenway in 19 98, 1 year following the
[29:34] New Year's flood of 1997 that devastated Navu
[29:38] and Jackson Well Springs mobile home parks.
[29:43] The 70 plus units family dwelling units destroyed
[29:47] or negatively impacted by the high water event of 1997
[29:51] are in a more precarious situation today than they were
[29:55] at the time of the New Year's flood.
[29:58] A no rise analysis, a state
[30:00] and federal requirement, a FEMA requirement
[30:03] of construction projects performed within the floodway
[30:06] to ensure that flood waters remain in the channels
[30:09] of Bear Creek was not performed in the short term.
[30:14] The increasing inventory
[30:15] of low income houses in Ashland will claim,
[30:20] will claim by adopting the land use actions looks very good
[30:25] when in reality the number of low income houses
[30:28] that Ashland will lose, not if it floods,
[30:31] but when it floods, will be even more devastating
[30:35] to low income residents of Ashland and Jackson County.
[30:40] Until the illegal actions conducted in 1998 is corrected,
[30:45] the poor will continue to get poor
[30:47] and the property damage lost
[30:49] to flooding will become increasingly more devastating.
[30:53] Happily, there are solutions
[30:56] that will mitigate the perfect storm
[30:58] and greatly reduce the risk of flooding
[31:00] and damage to health and property.
[31:03] In fact, a mitigation project, that promo
[31:06] that protects affordable housing at this location, a goal
[31:10] of creating a new zoning district comes at a lower price tag
[31:15] than the amount recently spent on sidewalks
[31:18] and cross rock crossways crosswalks at this intersection
[31:22] and neighborhood sideways sidewalks.
[31:28] Also, it comes at a
[31:32] lower price tag than the money
[31:34] that ODOT has been spending on a string
[31:37] of small piecemeal projects over the decades.
[31:42] The question arises is Ashland
[31:44] and Jackson County looking for a quick fix
[31:47] or a long-term solution to housing, to a housing crisis
[31:51] that allows financially disadvantaged families
[31:54] to pick themselves up as opposed to being swept downstream.
[31:59] Thank you for your attention.
[32:02] Thank you very much.
[32:08] Rich roadie?
[32:13] No,
[32:28] Rich roadie.
[32:29] 1 24 Ohio. I've spoken before,
[32:32] but I'd like to say some words in support of this
[32:38] ordinance that you have before you.
[32:40] I just wanted to say that it's been a long time coming,
[32:43] it's been at least three years since the idea came down from
[32:47] Portland and people gathered from many
[32:52] of the mobile parks here to see what we could do.
[32:54] We took it to candidates that were running
[32:58] and we were convinced that a better way of
[33:02] of coming up with this was to go
[33:04] through the housing production strategy,
[33:06] a longer term process.
[33:08] But it, I think what we see today is a product of
[33:12] that longer term coming up with a quality product
[33:16] that we can all support the,
[33:20] going into the housing production strategy.
[33:23] It was rated the number one priority in the list of eight
[33:28] or nine housing production strategies that we adopted.
[33:32] And as I recall, it was adopted unanimously at all the
[33:36] stages that have gone through.
[33:39] So what you're seeing today is the product of
[33:44] the great work of fris group
[33:47] of people coming together from different mobile parks from
[33:51] the public and,
[33:53] and particularly the housing staff here at the city
[33:58] to come up with a really great product that I,
[34:03] I hope that you can support.
[34:04] So I, I would just only add a big thank you
[34:09] in advance for that work.
[34:12] Thank you to the FRI folks and thank you to Brandon
[34:16] and others that really have helped guide this.
[34:19] And a big thanks to the folks from
[34:23] different mobile parks that have kind of stuck through this
[34:27] to get it where we are.
[34:28] So I hope you'll pass it unanimously
[34:31] and we can take it to the city council with confidence.
[34:34] Thank you.
[34:37] Thank you very much.
[34:45] Deborah Stamp
[34:47] Stand please.
[34:58] Deborah Stampley from Wing Spread 3, 2, 1 Clay Street.
[35:03] Thank you. Thank you all.
[35:04] It's taken a lot of time and energy and this is my life.
[35:08] This is my sanctuary we're talking about.
[35:10] So I can't thank you enough.
[35:13] Everything is subject to change.
[35:16] It's been a long time coming.
[35:18] Some of the things that you proposed are a little hard
[35:21] to swallow, but on the other hand, I think
[35:26] that they're very reasonable to consider
[35:31] and we need to look at them.
[35:33] So my concern is, this is my nest egg.
[35:36] We are investors in some of the mobile home parks in most
[35:39] of them, and this is my nest egg
[35:42] and mobile's homes is sort of an antiquated term
[35:46] because they cannot be moved easily.
[35:50] And then where would we move them to?
[35:54] And it has been a win-win generally in wing spread for
[36:00] a balance between the owners and the managers
[36:03] and the renters.
[36:05] I've been there 20 years maybe I said.
[36:08] So again,
[36:11] the concern is our investment Now, the average sale
[36:15] of a home is $130,000.
[36:17] So it's not pocket change.
[36:20] And the reality
[36:26] of purchasing the park is just
[36:32] concerning even at 180 days.
[36:35] Thank you very much because large investment groups tend
[36:40] to outbid the locals.
[36:43] So again, just to state that
[36:45] and great work, I think it will all come to a reasonable
[36:51] position, a win-win for all of us.
[36:55] Thank you. Thank you very much.
[37:04] Peter Hoyt.
[37:16] Peter Hoyt, 3, 2, 1 Clay Street Space 25.
[37:22] Good evening and thank you for the opportunity
[37:24] to share my thoughts with you.
[37:27] I have lived here in the Rogue Valley for 38 years,
[37:32] 12 of that here in Ashland
[37:35] and the last seven in wing spread mobile home park.
[37:40] I'm 80 years old, I'm retired, I'm a veteran.
[37:45] As our many of my friends
[37:47] and neighbors who also live in wing spread.
[37:54] About 80% of my monthly budget is my social security check.
[38:00] I really couldn't live anywhere else in Ashland.
[38:04] I hear the term affordable housing
[38:08] bandied about quite a bit.
[38:10] There truly is no more affordable housing than living in a
[38:15] mobile home park,
[38:17] although, as Debra mentioned, that is an outdated term.
[38:21] They may have been mobile when they came in the gate,
[38:25] but once they've been put on a foundation
[38:27] and left to sit for years
[38:30] or decades, they start falling apart.
[38:33] And with luck, maybe one in 10
[38:38] of the homes in Wing spread
[38:40] could make it out the gate in one piece.
[38:43] Most of them, I'm afraid, would just be left behind
[38:47] to the bulldozers and the owners would get nothing for all
[38:51] of their time that they put into it.
[38:56] I believe passing this is very important
[39:01] to preserve what we have
[39:04] because without it, the land
[39:09] underneath our homes
[39:11] and they are homes is much more valuable if it's turned
[39:16] into stick-built condos or housing.
[39:20] So the sale of the park to somebody like that would mean
[39:25] most of the residents just have to pack their bags
[39:28] and leave without their homes.
[39:33] Th that's basically all I have to say on the matter.
[39:36] Thank you very much.
[39:38] Thank you very much.
[39:44] David Wright.
[39:55] Good evening. My name is Dave Wright.
[39:59] I am the agent for Wing Spread LLC,
[40:04] the ownership of Wing Spread Mobile Home Park,
[40:07] manufactured Home Park 3 21 Clay Street.
[40:11] And the general manager, Hank Hampton
[40:15] of Wing Spread LLC is not able to be here tonight,
[40:17] but wanted me to to come speak.
[40:20] He did submit a letter
[40:21] and he just wanted to make sure, I think that got put out
[40:24] to all the commission.
[40:26] If not, I'll leave it.
[40:28] I think By the way, the wing spread, LLC appreciates being
[40:34] the owners of Wing spread and have been for many years.
[40:37] The park is 65 years old,
[40:39] I believe they appreciate the residents
[40:41] and so it's been a good working relationship there.
[40:46] One thing that is concerning
[40:47] for the park owners they wanted me
[40:49] to communicate is the extending
[40:51] of the state statute on the first right
[40:53] of refusal period from the current state statute
[40:56] to 180 days now.
[40:59] And so the, the problem that they see with
[41:02] that is it could be harmful to the owner and residence if
[41:06] 'cause it would risk a potential sale.
[41:08] Some buyers aren't gonna wanna wait around for that,
[41:11] or if it's in escrow, that's a long escrow period
[41:14] before they would even know whether
[41:15] they have a chance to buy it.
[41:16] So that's a concern for the, for the owners.
[41:19] And you know, I think
[41:22] thinking if there's a financial hardship issue
[41:24] with a future park owner
[41:27] and they have to try and sell it
[41:30] and this maybe makes it more difficult to sell sell,
[41:33] that could end up forcing a closure
[41:35] of the park when they wouldn't wanna see that.
[41:39] So they would like to ask the commission
[41:41] to consider a more reasonable like 30, 60 days for a period
[41:45] of first right of refusal.
[41:46] And then something I think the ownership would like more
[41:49] clarity on, and maybe it's in the, in the code, is that
[41:52] since Wing spread and Tolman Creek appear to be the only two
[41:56] parks that are gonna be brought into this new zoning,
[42:00] it appears to automatically be non-conforming.
[42:02] And so what does that mean for the residents
[42:07] and the ownership and management going forward?
[42:11] If a, if a park home has to be pulled out
[42:13] and a new one put in, does that mean that it's gonna be set
[42:16] to these new standards?
[42:17] And if that doesn't, doesn't fit in in the space
[42:21] or the park the way it's set up that, you know, what does
[42:24] that mean for the park going forward?
[42:27] So those kind of things he'd like a little more clarity on
[42:30] as far as an a non-conforming park.
[42:34] With that, I appreciate your time and good evening.
[42:41] Thank you very much. Excuse me, I'm gonna take a break
[42:44] and I'm going to pull down those window shades because there
[42:50] Carrie,
[42:57] It's Carrie.
[42:58] It's one first one on the next bank. Yep. That one there.
[43:02] No, no, keep going.
[43:04] We'll do all of,
[43:05] Okay, thank you.
[43:18] Okay, Nancy Wilson.
[43:29] My name is Nancy Wilson.
[43:31] I live at Wing Spread Park at 3 21 Clay Street
[43:36] And I have lived there for 20 years, 21 years now.
[43:39] And so it's home and I am greatly invested in it
[43:44] and as Deborah said, it's, it's my nest egg.
[43:49] I am almost 73
[43:51] and hope to be able to stay there until I can't take care
[43:56] of myself anymore.
[43:58] If I needed to buy some kind of housing
[44:03] situation in Ashland, I would not be able to afford to.
[44:08] I think I'm too old to like rent a room in someone's house.
[44:13] I hope it doesn't come to that.
[44:18] I just want to say that if you can protect
[44:23] our homes by changing the zoning
[44:26] and trying to make sure that we continue to have
[44:30] affordable housing in Ashland,
[44:33] it would mean a lot to a lot of people.
[44:36] There's so much talk about creating affordable housing
[44:40] and mobile homes, manufactured homes I should say
[44:44] are really good homes
[44:48] and we feel really lucky to have ours.
[44:52] So that's it. Thank you very much.
[44:57] Thank you.
[45:10] David Allen,
[45:21] I am David Allen.
[45:22] I just wanna to thank Brandon Goldman.
[45:23] I met with him and sort of taking 2 78 Idaho recommending
[45:27] that it not be included in the manufacture home parks
[45:30] because of many different things.
[45:33] And I just wanna say thank you very much
[45:35] and I really appreciate you spending the time with me
[45:39] and trying to let me understand what was going on.
[45:41] Thank you.
[45:49] That was very nice. Thank you very much.
[45:55] Alan Roy,
[46:07] I am Alan Aykroyd.
[46:08] I live in Wings Spirit Mobile Home Park 3 21 Clay Street.
[46:12] First of all, I wanna thank City Council
[46:15] and all the advisory groups that put in so much time
[46:19] and effort into drafting this legislation.
[46:22] We really appreciate it as residents of mobile home parks
[46:26] because as has been amply demonstrated, we really don't have
[46:31] that many options to stay in Ashland.
[46:34] And indeed, if the park does become for sale,
[46:39] I think 180 days is actually not enough time
[46:44] to actually gather resident looking
[46:49] at their finances very carefully.
[46:51] And can they afford X amount divvied up among in,
[46:54] in wings spread at least among a hundred, you know, units
[46:57] or so to come up with the millions
[47:00] of dollars necessary in order to purchase the part.
[47:03] So I would actually lobby for a longer period
[47:07] of right of refusal.
[47:08] But we do appreciate, you know, what has been done thus far.
[47:13] I'm also very glad to hear that the owners are responding.
[47:17] I was not really sure exactly how much
[47:23] feedback has been given the committees by the owners,
[47:26] so I'm, I'm glad that they're actually thinking
[47:29] about it at the very least.
[47:31] And I just wonder if there's a formal forum as such
[47:36] for interaction between the owners and the city council
[47:41] and maybe even representatives
[47:43] of the mobile home parks themselves.
[47:46] I think that that discussion would be very valuable to have.
[47:50] I don't know the legal ramifications of what's being done.
[47:54] Obviously the city has legal right to
[47:58] do zoning as it sees fit, I'm assuming,
[48:01] but I don't know whether there's a legal aspect
[48:05] that might be disputed by the owners.
[48:08] I would like to be more informed about that.
[48:10] Also, I guess in conclusion, I'm just really grateful for
[48:15] the opportunity you're giving us to feel a bit more secure
[48:19] in our living spaces.
[48:21] And like I say, if it's suddenly got sold under our feet,
[48:25] you'd have a lot of homeless people basically on your hands.
[48:28] So it, it really is an important thing to us
[48:31] and to the community as a whole.
[48:33] And I guess the last thing I wanna say,
[48:35] and this really is the last, in addition to
[48:39] flooding aspects, the wildfire aspects are really
[48:42] of great concern to us in wing spread
[48:44] because we have over a hundred units and only one outlet.
[48:48] And I can just imagine if there was an emergency
[48:51] that required evacuation of the park,
[48:54] that it would be extremely difficult to get
[48:56] that many vehicles out onto Clay Street,
[48:59] where in addition there's a new development going on there
[49:02] also, as you may know.
[49:03] And it's just gonna be mayhem if we have
[49:06] to get everybody out in a timely manner.
[49:08] So I like that also to be known. Thank you very much.
[49:14] Thank you as well.
[49:19] Does anybody else wish to speak to the Planning Commission?
[49:23] Well, I'd like to thank all of you for being here
[49:25] and for coming forward and speaking to us, giving us,
[49:28] giving us your opinions.
[49:29] It's been very helpful.
[49:37] Does the commission have any questions to ask any
[49:40] of the speakers
[49:45] Chair?
[49:46] Yeah, sure.
[49:55] David Allen, we're in receipt of your letter.
[49:58] Could I just confirm that the date was for
[50:01] May 31st, 2026?
[50:04] Yes. Thank you.
[50:07] That's it. No, yeah, Thank you.
[50:10] No, I'm sure that's correct. Yeah.
[50:15] Anybody else? Why is that the,
[50:18] You had 2036 on there
[50:19] and I just wanted to correct the record so that we're,
[50:23] you know, we're still alive.
[50:26] I was born in three Six
[50:27] I, anyway.
[50:31] Thank you. It's 26. Yeah, thank you.
[50:36] Anybody else have any questions
[50:38] or points that discuss?
[50:41] Okay, then I will go ahead and close the public hearing
[50:45] and we will move on to deliberations.
[50:50] We have
[50:56] several ordinances in front of us.
[50:58] Anybody wanna start? What's your pleasure
[51:05] Chair?
[51:06] Can I suggest that we talk about each ordinance in turn
[51:09] Individually Rather than, you know, so just
[51:12] to keep the, some level of structure and Okay.
[51:15] Order to the conversation
[51:18] You wanna start?
[51:19] Okay. And so to that point,
[51:24] I guess I'll start at the top with 32 with ordinance,
[51:27] ordinance 3, 2, 9, 6.
[51:29] Okay. And this is the code revision
[51:33] dealing with manufactured home development or parks.
[51:39] And I want first to be
[51:43] sure about the meaning of some swing phrases here.
[51:46] And in particular, like a manufactured dwelling part got
[51:52] defined by HB 4 0 6 4.
[51:56] In fact, representative March put in a lot of work
[52:00] to add those definitions to state law
[52:02] and to ensure that a manufactured dwelling would include a
[52:05] prefabricated dwelling.
[52:08] I just wanna make sure that the policy
[52:10] as it's drafted here would reflect
[52:12] or be consistent with the intent of, of that bill
[52:18] and to ensure that any outdated
[52:22] or no longer useful
[52:25] language is excised from it.
[52:27] For example, I see in the
[52:30] revised definitions on total page 70
[52:32] that the manufactured housing development, quote unquote,
[52:37] would be excised from this proposed policy.
[52:40] Is that right?
[52:45] Yes. As presented, it's encapsulated in the new definition
[52:49] for manufactured dwelling park, which has any place
[52:52] where four or more manufactured dwellings,
[52:55] prefabricated dwellings are,
[52:57] recreational vehicles are located within 500 feet
[53:00] of one another on a lot, et cetera.
[53:03] So that was intended to capture those changes
[53:05] for prefabricated in RVs.
[53:08] I would note that the term manufactured housing development
[53:12] and manufactured home park are used in various ordinances.
[53:17] So for consistency, if the commission saw fit, we could
[53:22] recommend or should you recommend a modification
[53:25] of the manufactured park
[53:27] or manufactured dwelling park to recognize
[53:30] that manufactured home parks
[53:33] and manufactured housing development are
[53:35] synonyms for that term.
[53:37] And we could modify the definition so it's all inclusive.
[53:40] Great, Brandon, that makes an awful lot of sense to me
[53:42] because the different terms do occur at different places
[53:46] and it's not clear if they're harmonious or not.
[53:49] So if we could have a definition that equates them,
[53:51] that would be awesome because the manufactured housing
[53:53] development phrase also occurs in the table of allowed uses
[53:59] and in the section on applicability and in the findings
[54:02] and conclusions documents.
[54:03] So it is important to harmonize those.
[54:08] And the second thing
[54:10] that I have on this particular ordinance,
[54:12] and it's all I have deals with the phased compliance
[54:17] considerations that the consultant talked about upfront.
[54:22] And here I'm talking about page 32 of the draft ordinance.
[54:26] It's on total page 54 of our packet
[54:32] in, in the, it it's under the subheading G
[54:35] of non-conformance.
[54:38] And the phase compliance considerations we,
[54:40] we previously discussed is the consultant noted the use
[54:44] of a different criterion
[54:46] to inform conditional use permit review of an application
[54:52] to accomplish phase compliance in a
[54:54] manufactured dwelling park.
[54:56] And that that criterion
[54:58] that we talked about was financial hardship
[55:00] or financial burden.
[55:03] And that concept no longer occurs in this draft.
[55:08] Rather we have a new term of art
[55:12] that's introduced tonight,
[55:13] proportionate proportionate impact, which is defined
[55:17] on total page 70.
[55:19] And because it's newly introduced tonight, I hope that
[55:23] the consultant could please explain how the,
[55:28] you envision the proportionate impact concept would function
[55:31] in a conditional use permit review
[55:35] of a phase compliance application.
[55:42] Sure, I'll, I'll jump in.
[55:44] You know, the intent there was that some of the things that
[55:49] in terms a lot of conditional uses would are typically
[55:54] rely on the proof of financial burden.
[55:57] Now in some of these cases it may not be
[55:59] just financial burden.
[56:01] So the thought was that we could use a more
[56:06] overarching term that would allow for an argument to be made
[56:10] that there was a different burden that that might be just
[56:13] as, as as much of a hardship as financial.
[56:18] So, and it's more, I guess, a balanced approach.
[56:20] You know, it is kind of, and it's a way to objectively
[56:24] look at, at, at what that action or that phase would be.
[56:29] So I think the, the idea was literally to, to allow
[56:33] for more flexibility
[56:34] and the ability to, to make an argument for a hardship
[56:37] beyond just fin finances.
[56:39] So I hope that helps a little bit.
[56:42] If, if, if, if you need more, I could probably come up
[56:45] with something, but it,
[56:47] is there any other clarification in your question
[56:49] that might help me answer your question?
[56:53] Yes. Or does that help you at all with, with that without,
[56:57] I think it then intent was more flexibility for,
[57:00] for arguing hardship.
[57:01] Okay, fair enough. Thank you. And I appreciate that. Yeah.
[57:06] Our prior discussion about demonstrable fire,
[57:09] financial hardship criterion, the question
[57:14] that I had in my mind was how would that be applied
[57:17] from case to case and how do we make that objective?
[57:21] And it seems to me like the proportionate impact concept
[57:26] kind of takes a step toward objectivity, which is yeah,
[57:29] what we're hoping for here.
[57:32] But again, I'm, I'm wondering, you know, if,
[57:35] if anybody has an idea of how
[57:37] that might actually be applied in a CEP review,
[57:40] If I can give a hypothetical example based on a comment
[57:43] that we received from one of the park owners,
[57:46] if they had a unit
[57:47] that was located within required setbacks per the code
[57:51] and it needed to be removed
[57:52] and replaced in the same location, would
[57:55] that trigger a conditional use permit?
[57:58] I'd start by saying I think that the two trailer park
[58:00] or manufactured home parks within Ashland
[58:03] that we're discussing because the standards proposed are
[58:07] becoming less restrictive,
[58:09] that scenario would not likely come to pass.
[58:11] But in the hypothetical,
[58:13] if somebody was looking at locating,
[58:16] relocating a manufactured home
[58:18] that was removed in the same location
[58:21] and it violated setback requirements perhaps too close to
[58:26] the property line of an adjoining neighbor,
[58:28] I think the proportional impact is not just tried to cost
[58:32] because clearly there would not be a cost burden in terms
[58:36] of relocating it forward to avoid the setback,
[58:39] but there may be a continuity issue
[58:42] to have all the units in the, the same setback.
[58:45] And so I think an applicant for that could demonstrate that
[58:49] where the effect, not necessarily the cost
[58:52] or mitigation of an action is directly scaled
[58:55] to its cause ensuring fairness.
[58:57] And in that sense, a conditional use permit
[59:00] could be approved by noting that that it is appropriate
[59:05] to locate, locate it within the setback area,
[59:07] provided it to not compromise fire safety
[59:12] building code requirements.
[59:14] And it's avoids expanding
[59:16] or intensifying the nonconforming aspect, meaning
[59:19] that it wouldn't move even closer
[59:21] to the property line than the pre-existing unit was.
[59:24] So that would be a way, should a conditional use permit be
[59:27] triggered on a small scale that that would be evaluated.
[59:32] I think where we're envisioning this section isn't
[59:35] for those individual units, it's more on the lines of
[59:38] if an applicant wanted to put in a new egress
[59:43] and exit onto a street for wing spread for instance,
[59:48] they would not then be required
[59:49] to improve all the internal street system
[59:52] because they are improving public safety
[59:55] and it's proportional to the work that they're doing.
[59:59] So that's where the conditional use permit would allow for
[1:00:02] that as opposed to requiring strict compliance
[1:00:06] with the full standard of the code.
[1:00:07] And that goes to the intent
[1:00:09] that I think we established in the study session last time,
[1:00:12] to provide owners greater flexibility
[1:00:15] to accomplish efficient redevelopment.
[1:00:19] So as we discussed this a little bit further, I'm,
[1:00:22] I'm starting to, to smell what this is and
[1:00:25] and I appreciate your explaining it.
[1:00:28] You got something else? I'm good. Oh, okay.
[1:00:31] Would this, would what an owner a a park owner
[1:00:38] need to open their books to the city,
[1:00:40] like would've been necessary using a financial
[1:00:42] hardship standard
[1:00:44] Under the financial hardship standard?
[1:00:46] Yes. They'd have to demonstrate a financial hardship,
[1:00:50] I think in this because it has a, a key word
[1:00:54] or within the definition of proportionate impact,
[1:00:57] they could utilize cost as a justification
[1:01:01] for a proportionate impact claim,
[1:01:03] but they could also use the effect
[1:01:05] or mitigation of an action as alternatives.
[1:01:08] So it's not, and it's, or so it's one of those
[1:01:14] That's all. Okay.
[1:01:16] Just one quick follow up. Thank you.
[1:01:18] So I think this access to conditional use permits
[1:01:21] and this pathway to compliance for park owners
[1:01:25] to improve infrastructure
[1:01:26] and to make changes is one
[1:01:27] of the strongest aspects of this proposal.
[1:01:31] I think you raised a very good point about
[1:01:33] what are the qualifications
[1:01:35] for those conditional use permits
[1:01:38] having served on the subcommittee,
[1:01:40] I read the wing spread owner's letter carefully
[1:01:45] and they did cite a scenario which may
[1:01:50] apply and, and in their words that they,
[1:01:54] they made the economic claim
[1:01:55] that the park cannot afford an estimated $2 million
[1:01:58] to replace 60-year-old water and sewer systems.
[1:02:00] And that this zone removes the alternative
[1:02:03] of quote salvaging the land for other development.
[1:02:07] So hypothetically, I'm assuming they could come forward
[1:02:10] with some economic or financial justification
[1:02:13] and say at this point we don't have the $2 million
[1:02:16] for the water and sewer upgrades.
[1:02:19] When you look at that across 116 spaces,
[1:02:22] it's roughly $17,000 per space over nearly
[1:02:25] 50 years of ownership.
[1:02:27] A sinking fund reserve of just $8
[1:02:30] and 50 cents per space per month
[1:02:33] with balances earning the actual 50 year average risk free
[1:02:36] rate of about 4.2% on a three month UST bill
[1:02:40] compounded over these 600 months would have fully
[1:02:43] funded that replacement.
[1:02:45] So you could argue that this is well
[1:02:49] under 2% of a typical space rent,
[1:02:51] had reserves been invested at the 50 year average.
[1:02:54] And actually, if you look even further, this number falls
[1:02:58] below $5 per space per month.
[1:03:01] So this is not a problem with the ordinance,
[1:03:04] this is a problem, this is a management
[1:03:08] unfunded capital, capital obligation.
[1:03:12] It is reality for the park owner,
[1:03:15] but it is reality that could have been avoided.
[1:03:22] Thank you. That's good, Susan.
[1:03:27] So the term proportionate impact, does it have
[1:03:31] and does it have a,
[1:03:35] an existing legal meaning
[1:03:37] or is it a descriptive term that has been used here
[1:03:42] for the intents that have been described?
[1:03:45] It sounds like the latter, but just wanted to confirm that
[1:03:49] and then kind of a small thing.
[1:03:52] But on page 51, I believe that there's,
[1:03:58] it's kind of garbled a little bit.
[1:04:01] The I belongs under one
[1:04:06] and two would start halfway through that sentence, I think,
[1:04:09] I think the two belongs after the word public.
[1:04:12] Yeah, before the word Yeah. Conditional uses.
[1:04:16] Yeah. The, I belongs under the H
[1:04:18] Oh, we marked the same thing.
[1:04:23] It's the editing editor in me.
[1:04:28] So the answer to number one, my first question was
[1:04:32] that it's a descriptive term employed here
[1:04:36] That, that we define Yeah, it as a definition
[1:04:38] and it actually is a,
[1:04:40] it is technically a borrowed legal term.
[1:04:43] Okay. And actually it also is used sometimes in, in, in,
[1:04:47] in the courts for the protection of impacts
[1:04:50] for things like penalties that fit the crime, for example.
[1:04:53] So it's, it's not something new,
[1:04:56] but it's something that we felt we could utilize here
[1:04:58] to broaden the, again, the, the ability to make an argument
[1:05:02] to, for that impact to be proportional to,
[1:05:07] to the, basically it's,
[1:05:08] it's mitigation measures which match the severity
[1:05:11] of the project's impact, impact.
[1:05:13] It's the whole idea behind it. So it is, it is a wonky term.
[1:05:17] I get it. It was kind of new to us when we researched it,
[1:05:20] but we thought it really kind of fit the bill here for,
[1:05:24] you know, for, for allowing for, you know, that phased
[1:05:30] ability to bring the, the, the entire park into,
[1:05:35] you know, basically to, to, to allow that phase approach.
[1:05:39] Right. I mean, because, you know,
[1:05:41] certainly financial concerns are important,
[1:05:43] but they aren't the only thing when we're talking about,
[1:05:46] you know, built communities. So
[1:05:49] Ex Exactly.
[1:05:50] Thanks. Anybody help?
[1:05:55] Any other concerns with ordinance proposed ordinance 32 96?
[1:06:01] If not, we can move on
[1:06:02] to 39 97. Do you have anything?
[1:06:07] Yeah, just real, real quick.
[1:06:09] On 32 97, this is the one that
[1:06:14] has a map attached and it is this the,
[1:06:19] the zoning change or the comp plan change?
[1:06:21] This is the zoning change.
[1:06:23] Okay. This is the zoning change.
[1:06:24] So I noticed that the attached map that's on total page 74
[1:06:28] has upper pines
[1:06:30] and the Allen property is designated MHP within the city
[1:06:33] limits, but not Siski village, which I thought was curious.
[1:06:37] I'm wondering if that was on purpose
[1:06:38] Because it's not in the city.
[1:06:42] Siski village, It's outside.
[1:06:46] It is not in the city limits. It's in near
[1:06:48] road battery, not in the city.
[1:06:50] Okay, thank you. Thank you.
[1:06:51] So Upper Pines and Allen property, are those supposed
[1:06:54] to be designated as MHP here?
[1:06:56] So they are presently presented on the zoning map
[1:07:00] and we were recommending a staff that
[1:07:04] the planning commission could amend ordinance 3, 2, 9, 7
[1:07:08] to remove upper pines from the map
[1:07:11] and remove 2 78 Iowa Street from the map.
[1:07:16] And also in terms of the comprehensive plan map, 3, 2, 9, 8,
[1:07:21] ordinance 3, 2, 9, 8 correspondingly remove those
[1:07:25] properties from that map.
[1:07:29] Therefore, we would be adopting an, adopting the new zone
[1:07:32] for only two of the parks wing spread and Toman Creek.
[1:07:38] And then the comprehensive plan map would
[1:07:41] newly include when properties are annexed to include navu
[1:07:44] and SICU when they're annexed from the urban growth
[1:07:47] boundary into the city limits.
[1:07:49] And again, it was a prior recommendation
[1:07:51] of the planning commission not to include
[1:07:54] Jackson Wellsprings on that map for
[1:07:57] At all.
[1:07:58] Yeah, makes sense.
[1:08:00] Yeah, it does. And it answers a similar question
[1:08:03] that I had about the next ordinance,
[1:08:04] so I'll just hold off on that.
[1:08:06] Okay. You wanna move to the fourth ordinance? Okay.
[1:08:10] The, this one is the section
[1:08:13] chapter 10.116.
[1:08:15] Yeah. And this in my mind is the biggie
[1:08:20] that we have before us tonight.
[1:08:23] And we have this brand new correspondence from the assistant
[1:08:26] city attorney, which talks about a section
[1:08:30] of Oregon revised statutes
[1:08:32] that I had noticed too when I was researching it
[1:08:37] OS chapter 90, section six 60,
[1:08:41] limiting local government from enforcing regulations
[1:08:47] affecting manufactured dwelling part closures
[1:08:51] or partial closures.
[1:08:54] I I think that this potentially impacts the pieces here
[1:08:59] on relocation assistance and relocation planning.
[1:09:06] And I, I also agree that some additional clarification
[1:09:09] of the implementation details on those elements probably
[1:09:11] needs to be, you know,
[1:09:14] needs some refinement probably
[1:09:16] if we were to proceed with them.
[1:09:17] But I, I don't think that this section
[1:09:19] of the revised statute, six 60
[1:09:22] limits local government authority on issues
[1:09:24] that are not specifically triggered by a park closure.
[1:09:29] And Portland and Eugene both have manufactured HO housing
[1:09:33] ordinances that increase tenant rights above
[1:09:35] what is provided in state law.
[1:09:38] Therefore, I believe that we can proceed with the pieces
[1:09:42] here dealing with notice of sale
[1:09:44] and opportunity to purchase, possibly
[1:09:49] with the caveat about the, the notice period,
[1:09:52] which seems like the, the legal basis for that is
[1:09:58] unknown at this point,
[1:10:00] but if we don't do these pieces on tenant rights,
[1:10:02] then only the MHP zone would provide any sort
[1:10:06] of additional protection to that critical source
[1:10:10] of affordable housing.
[1:10:11] And I don't think the zone itself is enough.
[1:10:13] The tenant piece is critical.
[1:10:16] So I, I definitely think we should proceed with the notice
[1:10:19] of sale and tenant rights
[1:10:20] and the opportunity to purchase elements.
[1:10:24] And I, I have thoughts about each of those,
[1:10:27] but I, I don't wanna hog the mic.
[1:10:31] Anybody else have any questions?
[1:10:36] Okay, go for it. Hog the mic.
[1:10:39] Go for it. I'd, yeah, I'd like to hear, yeah, right,
[1:10:44] You're on A roll.
[1:10:45] Okay, so the, on the notice of sale
[1:10:47] and tenant rights piece, I'm looking
[1:10:52] in particular at subsection C,
[1:10:57] which is on page three of the draft ordinance 3, 3 0 6,
[1:11:02] it's total page 80
[1:11:08] And subsection C, which begins if a purchase
[1:11:13] and sale agreement is executed prior to delivering.
[1:11:17] Okay. I would feel better about this provision
[1:11:21] if we replace the word executed
[1:11:24] with the word tendered in order to accomplish three things.
[1:11:29] The first would be to distinguish a pending sale contract
[1:11:33] from a ratified or enforceable contract.
[1:11:37] The second thing it would do is to ensure
[1:11:39] that no sale contract is valid
[1:11:42] without meeting the notice requirements of subsection A.
[1:11:48] And third, it would avoid an inadvertent creation
[1:11:52] of an exception to the notice requirement.
[1:11:56] Right. If, if we use the word executed there, it, it implies
[1:12:00] that a contract exists
[1:12:03] and, you know, I I think it's better
[1:12:06] to use the word tendered, which suggests that it's,
[1:12:08] it's it's perspective
[1:12:13] and subject to the notice requirement.
[1:12:16] Okay. Anything else?
[1:12:20] Last thing on the, on, on the same page under the heading,
[1:12:24] opportunity to purchase
[1:12:29] in subsection A, the first clause
[1:12:34] following receipt of a notice of sale,
[1:12:38] that's a condition precedent receipt
[1:12:43] of a notice, which I don't think is necessary here.
[1:12:46] Rather, I think our intent is
[1:12:47] that any tenant organization would enjoy the rights
[1:12:50] articulated in this policy regardless of when it's organized
[1:12:56] or whether before or after a notice of sale
[1:12:59] and striking the condition precedent from
[1:13:01] subsection A would get there.
[1:13:04] So you're broadening it?
[1:13:05] Yeah. Yeah.
[1:13:07] I, I want subsection A to empower any tenant organization
[1:13:12] to approach the owner of a manufactured home park
[1:13:15] with a purchase offer
[1:13:17] to create a residentially owned park at any time.
[1:13:22] I would hesitate to limit residence organizing
[1:13:25] and purchasing a park where they lived
[1:13:27] to any particular circumstance,
[1:13:31] as would be the case if this condition precedent stays in
[1:13:33] place in subsection A.
[1:13:38] The only place where a condition event
[1:13:40] I think is appropriate is in subsection B below,
[1:13:46] you know, having to do with receipt
[1:13:47] or delivery of a notice of sale.
[1:13:49] I, I think subsection B is proposed is fine.
[1:13:54] And so,
[1:13:57] and that's the one, that's the part
[1:13:59] that has the 180 day notice that's causing some heartburn.
[1:14:02] Right. So I would like for an ability
[1:14:07] to cleanly distinguish A
[1:14:10] and B based on the absence
[1:14:13] or existence of a condition precedent having to do
[1:14:16] with the existence of a notice of sale.
[1:14:19] It would exist in B but not in a,
[1:14:22] Okay. That makes sense.
[1:14:23] That's all Makes sense
[1:14:26] to you
[1:14:28] Russell. Oh, Eric, sorry.
[1:14:32] Yeah, I'll stick with
[1:14:37] op opportunity to purchase.
[1:14:41] If a landlord wants to sell this property
[1:14:45] and he gives notice to the tenants,
[1:14:48] that should be sufficient.
[1:14:50] It, it should not be predicated toward,
[1:14:55] or I, I believe what you said is,
[1:14:58] if at any time the tenants wanna come forward
[1:15:00] and provide a sale agreement to a landlord, they have
[1:15:03] to review it under good faith.
[1:15:06] What if they don't wanna sell?
[1:15:08] Yeah. I mean this is all like following subsection A under
[1:15:12] the notice and sale and tenant rights, which is that, but,
[1:15:15] but the owner, the owner cannot make a final unconditional
[1:15:19] acceptance of any offer without first providing
[1:15:21] notice. Right. That's
[1:15:23] So, so they just need to give notice
[1:15:25] that they have an offer, they need to give notice
[1:15:27] that they intend to sell the property, put it on the market.
[1:15:30] I think it's, I think it's
[1:15:31] addressing two different things. Correct.
[1:15:33] And I think however you wanna phrase it,
[1:15:36] But I think it phrases both ways, right.
[1:15:37] Would be the same. Right.
[1:15:39] Whether they have a a, a tendered offer in front of them
[1:15:43] or whether they just intend to market it.
[1:15:45] I think the, the intent to market is part of state law.
[1:15:47] That's, that occurs in ORs chapter 90.
[1:15:52] Correct. So, but you said strike A out.
[1:15:55] So did, did you not say that we,
[1:15:57] we should just strike that whole section?
[1:15:59] No. Okay. Just follow my misunderstanding. No,
[1:16:02] That's my favorite part of it. Sub.
[1:16:04] Okay. The, the, the, okay. The
[1:16:07] Following receipt of a notice.
[1:16:09] Of a notice of sale.
[1:16:10] Of sale. Just take that out so that the tenants,
[1:16:13] it starts with tenants.
[1:16:14] Yeah. Starts with tenants
[1:16:16] and they can, group of tenants can come forward at any time.
[1:16:19] Well, what if, but what if
[1:16:20] the landlord doesn't wanna sell?
[1:16:24] He says no. And they, and
[1:16:26] They, I don't, I I don't, I don't think so.
[1:16:28] I mean, it b then qualifies the landlord
[1:16:32] to review it in good faith.
[1:16:34] The offer. I, why would we,
[1:16:39] why would we force upon a landlord a condition
[1:16:43] that they've not agreed to?
[1:16:45] I don't think B says that.
[1:16:46] I think B says that if the tenant organization comes forward
[1:16:51] after receiving a notice of sale, and they would,
[1:16:54] and the tenant folks wish to purchase the, the park,
[1:17:00] But we've taken out the notice of sale.
[1:17:01] Notice of sale at the beginning. Right. It'd have to come
[1:17:04] Out of both places.
[1:17:06] No, no, it doesn't. I don't think it does.
[1:17:09] So I think, I think under B,
[1:17:15] if the tenant comes forward, if the civil A, the
[1:17:19] landlord gives the tenant the notice of sale, notice
[1:17:23] that they wanna sell, and B,
[1:17:25] and then the tenant comes forward
[1:17:26] and says, yeah, we wanna organize
[1:17:28] and we wanna purchase this, then they go into negotiations.
[1:17:33] Whereas in a, I think there's, I think he's saying that the,
[1:17:39] the wording is that you can, you
[1:17:41] as a tenant organization can form, can, you can talk
[1:17:44] to your neighbor, you can talk
[1:17:46] to the rest of the people in the park.
[1:17:47] You can say, we wanna, we wanna research the idea
[1:17:50] of becoming a resident owned community.
[1:17:53] And we can do that at any time.
[1:17:56] Well, I agree with that. I mean, that, that's,
[1:17:58] people could do that at any time.
[1:17:59] But we're not, we're not changing the, the zoning,
[1:18:04] or we're not changing the planning action to say that you,
[1:18:08] that a a landlord then has to look at that
[1:18:12] and offer if you come forward with one.
[1:18:16] I mean, the, the purpose of, I thought the purpose
[1:18:18] of this is if a landlord wants
[1:18:20] to transact on their property, where there's, where,
[1:18:23] where there's a, a manufactured home zone that,
[1:18:28] that before, well he can, he
[1:18:32] or she could accept a purchase agreement
[1:18:36] and give the residents x amount of days notice.
[1:18:41] Or the other path is in the opportunity to purchase section.
[1:18:45] A landlord can give notice to all the residents that, Hey,
[1:18:50] I'm thinking about selling or I'm selling.
[1:18:52] You have your time to put together this organization.
[1:18:55] But under a, there's no requirement for
[1:18:59] the landlord to do anything.
[1:19:02] The landlord has to give, landlord has to give
[1:19:06] notice of sale.
[1:19:09] Not under a, currently under a Yes.
[1:19:14] With, with needs to purchase. We with the following.
[1:19:18] Well, if you keep this phrase in Yeah.
[1:19:21] Then, then the landlord is involved.
[1:19:24] But if you take it out
[1:19:25] and start with tenants,
[1:19:26] it's just saying the tenants can organize themselves,
[1:19:30] But the tenants can organize themselves anytime
[1:19:32] they want. We don't need to
[1:19:34] Say that in there. Yeah.
[1:19:35] I believe the intention of saying, following receipt
[1:19:38] of notice, it's kind of giving directions to the tenants.
[1:19:43] You, if you've been given notice Yeah.
[1:19:45] Then you, you are then you have this,
[1:19:47] you have this Right. That
[1:19:48] You could exercise and you got a
[1:19:49] window that you have to work in.
[1:19:50] Yeah. Whereas I think if, if you take out the, the
[1:19:54] initial phrase, they don't have that window to work under.
[1:19:58] They can, they can just, as you say, do
[1:20:01] organize themselves anytime.
[1:20:03] Well, they can. Yeah. I guess they
[1:20:04] could do that anytime though.
[1:20:06] Yeah. But aren't we gi,
[1:20:08] aren't we giving the tenants the right to purchase
[1:20:10] and we're giving, we're saying the landlord following has
[1:20:15] to give receipt of sale and the tenants then may organize
[1:20:18] or act through an eligible tenant organization cooperative
[1:20:21] or entity permitted under Oregon law to express
[1:20:25] interest in purchasing the manufacturing park
[1:20:28] or manufactured dwelling park.
[1:20:34] Yeah. I, I think we're, I think
[1:20:37] we're saying two different things.
[1:20:38] If we keep the phrase in, we're saying then
[1:20:41] what the tenants do to organize happens
[1:20:45] within a timeframe that is mandated by the rest of this
[1:20:50] section and some other laws here.
[1:20:55] So they've gotta, they've gotta get going and,
[1:20:58] and get active.
[1:21:00] But if we take out that phrase, then I think we're just,
[1:21:04] we're just stating the obvious
[1:21:05] that the tenants can organize anytime they want to.
[1:21:12] It doesn't give them a start time that I don't believe.
[1:21:14] No, it doesn't, it doesn't. Jeff. So just
[1:21:19] If you want, if you want me to take a quick crack at this,
[1:21:21] I, I understand the intent
[1:21:22] and I agree with Commissioner Liner here.
[1:21:24] I think I, what would concern me, and,
[1:21:26] and thank you for the opportunity to speak,
[1:21:28] 'cause I won't get this opportunity when we get a crack
[1:21:30] at it to talk to you all.
[1:21:33] If there were some place
[1:21:35] otherwise in the code that that added some sort
[1:21:38] of prohibition, then I would understand wanting to remove
[1:21:41] that language in order to make it as permissive as possible.
[1:21:45] But barring there is no prohibition from
[1:21:47] organizing at any time.
[1:21:49] All of this is all of that, that,
[1:21:51] that clause is just a clarification
[1:21:53] for the words that follow and be.
[1:21:56] So while I understand
[1:21:57] and I completely see where you're trying to go,
[1:22:00] I don't think that by removing it, you're adding any benefit
[1:22:03] because there isn't any other place that says that it is
[1:22:06] otherwise prohibited that they could organize any time.
[1:22:09] So to Commissioner Heron's point, all that, all
[1:22:12] that clause is doing, and a is clarifying exactly
[1:22:15] how B works, but organize anytime you want.
[1:22:19] And to, to Commissioner Herod's point,
[1:22:21] you could absolutely organize,
[1:22:22] you could absolutely say We'd like to purchase this.
[1:22:24] And the landlord that's not
[1:22:26] interesting in selling could say no.
[1:22:28] But if, if there was a section that basically said,
[1:22:32] you cannot do this
[1:22:34] unless there was a notice of sale,
[1:22:37] then I would be right there with you.
[1:22:38] Those are just my thoughts. Thank you, chair. You're
[1:22:40] Welcome Russell.
[1:22:46] Thanks. Chair Vener
[1:22:47] and Commissioner Lineer,
[1:22:49] really appreciate your input tonight.
[1:22:51] I think what you've added is
[1:22:56] the direction that this needs to go.
[1:22:59] I support the tenant protection intent,
[1:23:01] but the city attorney's handout raises enough legal
[1:23:03] uncertainty that I, I don't think we should
[1:23:06] recommend immediate adoption of chapter 10.116 tonight.
[1:23:11] My understanding is that Oregon law already regulates
[1:23:16] manufactured dwelling park closures and partial closures.
[1:23:19] And ORS 90.660 may limit local ordinances
[1:23:23] that regulate that same subject area.
[1:23:26] I'd rather recommend that the land use zoning package
[1:23:29] tonight and ask the counsel
[1:23:32] to give a chapter 10.116 additional legal reviews
[1:23:36] so we don't accidentally create a preemption problem,
[1:23:39] a property rights challenge or an unenforceable process.
[1:23:44] So you're suggesting that we just don't,
[1:23:47] we don't pass anything on this.
[1:23:49] We don't adopt anything on this particular ordinance.
[1:23:52] I think we should move it forward to counsel,
[1:23:55] but with the suggestion
[1:23:57] that it undergoes additional legal review.
[1:24:07] Thanks, commissioner Russell.
[1:24:09] I believe we had, did we have the organization in here?
[1:24:14] The Casa Casa?
[1:24:17] And we, we talked about this significantly,
[1:24:20] and I believe they said, you know, there is a example
[1:24:24] of 180 day requirement out there in Brookings
[1:24:29] or somewhere, I can't remember where, Eugene, maybe,
[1:24:32] but it has not been challenged
[1:24:34] and it could come with significant legal challenges
[1:24:37] and expose the city to some liability here if
[1:24:42] we put such a restriction
[1:24:45] on a landlord attempting to sell.
[1:24:48] And just to clarify what this time period is,
[1:24:52] is the time period says that the, the
[1:24:56] landlord basically has to not execute
[1:25:00] their sale agreement they have in hand,
[1:25:02] or the notice that they gave for x amount of days
[1:25:05] for the residents to put together an organization
[1:25:08] and make an offer that he or she in Goodwill has to review.
[1:25:13] And when we've had the Ca Casa person in here,
[1:25:16] we talked about dates,
[1:25:18] and I believe she said 120 days was longer than they've ever
[1:25:23] I think so ever practiced.
[1:25:25] So I feel if we, if we had to go forward,
[1:25:29] which I agree with you,
[1:25:30] I think we should have counsel review this.
[1:25:32] We've, we've gotten their legal opinion right here.
[1:25:36] If, if, if a group told us they could do it in 120 days
[1:25:40] and that was enough time, and we say, well,
[1:25:42] we're gonna make it 180 days, I think we're at legal,
[1:25:45] we're at legal risk for imposing undue hardship
[1:25:52] on a manufactured home developer.
[1:25:55] Also, too, when that 180 day
[1:25:58] or 120 day clock ticks, they can't close it.
[1:26:02] You know, they can't go to the, they can't go to the,
[1:26:05] they can't put a notice to the tenants.
[1:26:07] And the tenants say, you know what? We're not interested.
[1:26:09] It stays open because it says in here,
[1:26:11] any other nonprofit can come in and buy this.
[1:26:14] And I think that, that, that's a long, that's a long time
[1:26:19] for someone to keep a deal open
[1:26:22] and it not be executed, be it might not be worthy of it.
[1:26:27] So I, I support you.
[1:26:28] Either we table this or we get the number down so
[1:26:33] Well, so if we table it, then it basically goes away
[1:26:36] because counsel's gonna act on it.
[1:26:38] Correct. Next Monday, or initiate it next Monday.
[1:26:42] So to me, the, the alternative is then
[1:26:47] to change the days to 120.
[1:26:53] I mean, that's one alternative. I, you know, I
[1:26:56] I I want tenants to all have the rights,
[1:26:59] but not expose the city to
[1:27:02] Liability Liability.
[1:27:04] And, and, you know, counsel,
[1:27:08] assistant attorney Carmel has given us
[1:27:12] what her concerns are with this. So, right.
[1:27:14] So, so even if we adopt this tonight,
[1:27:16] if we re make a recommendation to pass this on
[1:27:19] in whatever form it's gonna go as a recommendation
[1:27:23] to counsel and this letter from her,
[1:27:26] this draft ordinance summary of correspondence
[1:27:30] page is gonna go with it.
[1:27:32] So counsel's gonna get an ordinance that we looked at
[1:27:38] a recommendation from the count from the city attorney
[1:27:41] to study it some more.
[1:27:43] And if I were counsel, I would study it some more. Russell.
[1:27:48] Yeah. Thanks for that Chair.
[1:27:49] Verner, I think the key here is what we need is additional
[1:27:52] city attorney review on this portion.
[1:27:57] Okay. We're not gonna get it tonight.
[1:27:58] And if we, if we wait,
[1:28:00] and if we, if we decide to wait tonight,
[1:28:03] we're not gonna get it at all
[1:28:04] because this ordinance is going forward.
[1:28:07] Yeah. Regardless Of what we do.
[1:28:09] And I think we move it forward.
[1:28:11] And then in that time,
[1:28:12] it receives the additional city attorney review. When is
[1:28:16] That?
[1:28:17] Before it, it gets to council.
[1:28:18] Well, yeah, Yeah.
[1:28:25] Right. Correct.
[1:28:29] If the commission recommended that the council
[1:28:32] or that the city attorney further review Chapter 10 is
[1:28:36] outlined in this correspondence summary.
[1:28:40] My expectation is the city attorney's
[1:28:41] office is gonna do that.
[1:28:44] In any event, for presentation to City Council
[1:28:47] and City Council on June 16th, which is the date
[1:28:51] of their public hearing on these ordinances, could at
[1:28:55] that time recommend that
[1:28:58] chapter 10.116
[1:29:00] or Ordinance 33 0 6, have further legal review
[1:29:05] and come back to counsel.
[1:29:07] I guess the question is whether the planning commission
[1:29:10] feels it's incumbent for it to come back
[1:29:12] to the Planning commission for review and evaluation.
[1:29:15] If you're able to provide recommendations
[1:29:17] for the elements within the ordinance
[1:29:19] that should be considered,
[1:29:25] Do we have the ability to ask that it come back us?
[1:29:29] You can make any re recommendation that you'd like.
[1:29:34] Okay.
[1:29:40] I had like to make a motion. Okay.
[1:29:45] I move that. The planning commission recommends city
[1:29:47] council adopt the proposed manufactured home park zone
[1:29:51] ordinance package
[1:29:52] for PA dash l dash 2026 dash
[1:29:56] 0 0 0 1 8,
[1:29:58] including ordinances 32 96, 32 97,
[1:30:03] and 32 98, together with the supported findings
[1:30:07] as recommended by staff
[1:30:09] and as amended on the record tonight, especially by
[1:30:13] Commissioner Lineer
[1:30:16] and further recommended
[1:30:17] that Ordinance 33 0 6 A MC chapter 10.16
[1:30:22] be forwarded to council with planning commission's comments,
[1:30:26] but receive additional city attorney review before adoption.
[1:30:31] And you're propos you're not proposing any change,
[1:30:35] any wording changes to 36 33 0 6
[1:30:40] such as we've been discussing?
[1:30:42] Not at this time, but I'm open
[1:30:45] to this motion being amended.
[1:30:48] Okay. Is there a second? Second.
[1:30:52] Okay. We have a motion. Motion and a second on the floor.
[1:30:57] Any discussion?
[1:31:06] Yeah, just one point of discussion.
[1:31:09] I, I'm basically supportive of the motion, you know,
[1:31:12] council's gonna get its crack at it,
[1:31:15] so let it be their problem.
[1:31:18] I, I personally wanted Proposed ordinance 33 0 6
[1:31:22] to be more protective of manufactured park
[1:31:26] of manufactured home park residence in the event
[1:31:29] of a park conversion or closure.
[1:31:31] But the state law doesn't allow us to do that.
[1:31:34] Therefore, I, I wanna strongly encourage all current
[1:31:38] and prospective residents of manufactured home parks
[1:31:42] to familiarize themselves with ORS chapter 90,
[1:31:46] especially section 6 45,
[1:31:49] that provides some resident protections generally,
[1:31:52] and a legal entitlement to compensation in the event
[1:31:56] of park conversion or closure.
[1:31:59] For that reason, I would feel very comfortable
[1:32:04] adopting code provisions that provide for tenant notice
[1:32:10] of a perspective park sale tenant opportunity
[1:32:13] to collectively own and purchase a park.
[1:32:16] And I think what's obvious to one person may not be
[1:32:20] so obvious to another.
[1:32:21] It's in the eye of the beholder
[1:32:22] and people are looking to this policy to define
[1:32:26] or describe their rights.
[1:32:31] I, I'm also supportive of the relocation standards
[1:32:33] and the relocation planning beds,
[1:32:35] but I do understand
[1:32:37] that we may be constricted here by state law.
[1:32:40] I'm, I'm thankful to everyone for the work
[1:32:43] to iron out these details.
[1:32:46] And I do want to note that the city
[1:32:48] of Eugene has a more exacting, onerous,
[1:32:51] and punitive ordinance
[1:32:53] regarding manufactured harm home park closure
[1:32:56] than what is proposed here.
[1:33:05] So Michael, are you confident that you have the motion?
[1:33:09] I will move to, I will need to review it. Okay, John,
[1:33:14] Thank you Chair.
[1:33:15] I just wanna make one quick clarification on the motion.
[1:33:17] So there is a recommended motion on pages 21
[1:33:20] and 22 of the packet this evening.
[1:33:23] And it does cite specifically the ordinance
[1:33:28] and the amendments to the municipal code.
[1:33:31] I think there's three bullets there
[1:33:32] that cover 32 96, 32, 97, 32, 98.
[1:33:38] Did you mention all that Russell?
[1:33:40] I'm just, yes, he did. Okay, great.
[1:33:41] All right. Thank you. And, and also 3, 3 0 6. Alright.
[1:33:44] Alright, great. Thank you. If I could have a point
[1:33:48] of clarification in terms of the motion indicated as
[1:33:52] to incorporate the recommendations of staff
[1:33:57] and essentially those included amending ordinance 3 2, 9 7
[1:34:01] and 3 2 9 8 to remove upper pines
[1:34:04] and 2 78 Idaho Street from the proposed
[1:34:08] manufactured home park zone.
[1:34:10] Also, I have note of amending the manufactured dwelling park
[1:34:15] definition to recognize manufactured home parks
[1:34:18] and manufactured housing developments as synonyms.
[1:34:23] And I'm curious if there were any others.
[1:34:25] But I, those are the two I made note of.
[1:34:31] I don't think so. Thank you. Thank you for that summary.
[1:34:36] And I'm not sure if I caught this, Brandon,
[1:34:38] but there was the exclusion
[1:34:39] of Jackson Well Springs from 32 98 as well. Correct.
[1:34:42] Thank you. Thank You.
[1:34:49] Okay. I think Susan
[1:34:55] is is there magic
[1:34:57] To the date of this appearing
[1:34:58] before the council next week?
[1:35:01] Are we working against a time clock or something
[1:35:05] For some of the elements?
[1:35:07] The childcare facilities we're hopeful
[1:35:09] to have them have first reading prior to July one.
[1:35:13] But the date is largely self-imposed in terms
[1:35:16] of review by counsel.
[1:35:19] It is the primary agenda item on that
[1:35:21] and has already been publicly noticed.
[1:35:27] I'm not entirely comfortable not having us look at this
[1:35:31] again, this particular section because it is so critical
[1:35:37] and you know, as Commissioner Leininger pointed out there,
[1:35:41] you know, could be things as in term, you know, as simple
[1:35:46] as wording changes.
[1:35:48] You know, there's the 180.
[1:35:51] There are things that we just received
[1:35:53] and try to read while we're in here
[1:35:55] trying to do other things.
[1:35:56] Right. Which is a little bit unfair.
[1:35:59] So I just wanted
[1:36:04] to raise that point in case we might want to
[1:36:10] adjust the motion or somehow
[1:36:15] provide an opportunity for us to speak to this section.
[1:36:18] Again, review and speak to this section
[1:36:20] before it goes to the council
[1:36:22] because I think we're doing everyone
[1:36:24] our best duty if we do that.
[1:36:32] I am just concerned about hanging things up in time.
[1:36:37] I mean, I know that there's no urgency necessarily,
[1:36:39] but it seems like this should move forward.
[1:36:44] I mean, we could always go to council and speak to two
[1:36:52] Or who knows, they may send it back to us.
[1:36:55] They may send it back to us for further review.
[1:37:00] They may. So that's what Susan's asking for, but
[1:37:03] She's asking for us to initiate that. Yeah.
[1:37:06] And I am not to be oppositional,
[1:37:10] but not sure that it's that valuable compared to
[1:37:16] moving things forward.
[1:37:20] Do you wanna make an amendment?
[1:37:23] I would like the, amend the motion to,
[1:37:29] I don't know how to put, make the right words for this
[1:37:32] not being the greatest parliamentarian in the
[1:37:34] world to proceed.
[1:37:36] To withdraw To withdraw 3 3 0 6 for further review
[1:37:40] by legal and the planning commission
[1:37:45] And bring back to Planning, planning
[1:37:46] Commission.
[1:37:47] The rest can proceed,
[1:37:48] but not 3, 3 0 6 without the legal
[1:37:53] review that we have requested as well
[1:37:55] as planning commission review.
[1:37:57] Okay. But I don't know why
[1:38:00] that wouldn't take more than why
[1:38:01] that would take more than a month,
[1:38:03] which doesn't seem like a whole lot in a process
[1:38:06] that's been going on for years.
[1:38:10] Okay. Let's see if there's a second of the motion.
[1:38:18] I will second the motion. Okay.
[1:38:22] So we vote on the amendment first
[1:38:24] and then we vote on the main motion.
[1:38:28] So Russell,
[1:38:32] Can I speak to the amendment?
[1:38:34] Sure. I just, something about me says like, I want
[1:38:38] to get some form
[1:38:39] of protections like towards the finish line
[1:38:42] sooner rather than later.
[1:38:44] That this is gonna continue working itself out between now
[1:38:47] and then, I think in a positive way,
[1:38:50] but if we don't send it in that direction,
[1:38:53] then it just gets hung up in space and time.
[1:38:56] And I would like to see it move forward.
[1:39:03] I would also say to comment that
[1:39:06] council's gonna do what they're gonna do.
[1:39:08] So they don't always take our advice, which is,
[1:39:12] you know, part of it.
[1:39:13] But we at least we'd be on the record saying that we,
[1:39:18] we, we brought coun counsel in
[1:39:21] to discuss this further on your motion.
[1:39:24] Can I ask a question? Would it be just moving it one month
[1:39:28] or would we require council to come in?
[1:39:32] Not city council, council to come in and, yeah.
[1:39:35] And to debate the, the finer points of this
[1:39:39] because it, it doesn't pass some paper back and forth.
[1:39:43] There's no more questions are gonna come up.
[1:39:45] So I didn't know if there was
[1:39:48] an option in your motion for that.
[1:39:54] Well, as I said, I'm certainly all in
[1:39:56] favor for timeliness.
[1:39:58] I
[1:40:00] What do you foresee, Brandon?
[1:40:02] What do you foresee as the timeline?
[1:40:05] If, if Susan's motion is adopted,
[1:40:09] If the motion is adopted, it would be presented
[1:40:13] to city council and they're also being presented all
[1:40:16] for ordinances for consideration.
[1:40:18] But they'll have your recommendation to remand
[1:40:21] that ordinance to the planning
[1:40:22] commission for further review.
[1:40:25] I unfortunately can't speak for legal counsel as
[1:40:27] to when they would be able to meet
[1:40:31] with the planning commission and deliberate
[1:40:33] and factor in your comments at this point.
[1:40:36] I do anticipate legal counsel will be
[1:40:39] reviewing this ordinance between now and June 16th
[1:40:42] and may have recommendations to present
[1:40:45] to counsel that evening.
[1:40:48] So I also can't speak for counsel as to whether they would
[1:40:52] accept that motion and not move forward on 33 0 6
[1:40:58] or some fashion of it,
[1:41:04] Which How to, how to put this the right way.
[1:41:07] So Councilor Herrin's, commissioner Herrin's comment meant
[1:41:13] is true in either regard
[1:41:15] and I just see merit in a,
[1:41:20] in an amendment that strengthens the
[1:41:25] concern that we have about taking particular care
[1:41:29] with this section because there are, you know,
[1:41:34] several things that have been discussed here.
[1:41:37] And in terms of potential changes, again late,
[1:41:42] you know, we appreciate everyone's efforts,
[1:41:44] but haven't had full time probably to consider all of this.
[1:41:48] And, and because of the, you know, the importance
[1:41:52] of getting it right with the number of days.
[1:41:56] Okay. So I agree with you,
[1:41:58] but I, I suggest a vote the other way to agree with you.
[1:42:04] Okay, so your motion is,
[1:42:11] let me make sure I understand your motion.
[1:42:12] Your motion is to send ordinance
[1:42:17] 3 3 0 6 with the package forward to counsel
[1:42:21] with a recommendation that counsel not look at it
[1:42:26] and send it back for planning commission to
[1:42:31] continue its review and incorporate a city attorney review.
[1:42:38] So you wanna send it forward with the package as opposed to
[1:42:44] not making, not sending it forward.
[1:42:46] Now,
[1:42:50] is it, so even if
[1:42:51] You don't mean not look at it literally.
[1:42:56] Well, yeah, I was thinking counsel, I was trying
[1:42:59] to figure out whether you were meaning that counsel
[1:43:03] would not look at it as part of the package.
[1:43:07] This, but counsel's gonna look at it.
[1:43:10] It is publicly noticed to be presented
[1:43:12] to counsel on June, June 16th.
[1:43:14] Okay. And so it will be part of their application
[1:43:18] or a part of their packet materials.
[1:43:20] However, they'll also have the recommendation from this body
[1:43:23] and can act on that recommendation.
[1:43:26] Okay. To clarify, so I understand the motion, would it
[1:43:32] basically be saying we want this back from the council?
[1:43:36] Okay.
[1:43:42] Okay. So let's vote on the motion.
[1:43:46] The amendment. Sorry amendment.
[1:43:48] Michael, you vote on the motion first?
[1:43:49] No, the amendment first and then the motion.
[1:43:52] Michael, would you do the roll call?
[1:43:57] Commissioner Phillips?
[1:43:59] No. Commissioner Kerrin?
[1:44:02] No. Commissioner Herron? No.
[1:44:07] Commissioner McCracken?
[1:44:10] Yes. Commissioner Leininger? No. Commissioner Moore?
[1:44:15] No. Chair Vernor?
[1:44:17] No. Okay.
[1:44:21] So we have our main motion UNAM amended.
[1:44:28] Are we ready to vote on that? Okay.
[1:44:31] Michael, we call the roll
[1:44:34] Commissioner Phillips.
[1:44:37] Yes. Commissioner Kerrin?
[1:44:39] Yes. Commissioner Herron? Yes.
[1:44:42] Commissioner McCracken. Jenn?
[1:44:47] Whoa. Yes.
[1:44:51] Commissioner Leidinger? Yes. Commissioner
[1:44:54] Mar?
[1:44:55] Yes. Chair Werner?
[1:44:56] Yes. Okay.
[1:44:58] So the package of a, of motion of ordinances goes forward
[1:45:02] to the council
[1:45:07] and we are done with this issue.
[1:45:10] Okay. So we have move on to next item on our agenda.
[1:45:13] Open discussion. Anybody have a topic for open discussion?
[1:45:19] Can I ask a quick question chair? Sure, go for it.
[1:45:21] Que question for staff. Brandon,
[1:45:27] I'm, I'm wondering if there's any update on the
[1:45:29] transportation plan revision with the OOC contract?
[1:45:33] Yes, there's a kickoff meeting
[1:45:35] for a project management team that was scheduled for,
[1:45:40] I'm not remembering the exact date,
[1:45:41] but near the end of this month.
[1:45:42] June 29th, 10:00 AM Thank you. So, so that is the kickoff.
[1:45:48] That's encouraging. Thank you.
[1:45:50] Is that, is that open to the public? No. Okay.
[1:45:54] What does that entail? So the project management team
[1:45:58] includes myself, Scott Flurry, the consultants
[1:46:01] that were selected for the project.
[1:46:04] And the kickoff meeting is typically to look at an outline
[1:46:07] of project deliverables and timelines
[1:46:11] and reach concurrence on those things.
[1:46:13] So it's mostly administrative.
[1:46:15] Can we, can we know who was selected for the consultants?
[1:46:20] We will. I'll provide that back to you.
[1:46:21] I'm not recalling their name unless you remember.
[1:46:26] I'd be better to check. Yeah,
[1:46:28] I have a name in mine, but I'd
[1:46:30] Like to make sure.
[1:46:31] Yeah. And again, this is a project that is primarily funded
[1:46:34] by the Oregon Department of Transportation,
[1:46:37] although city will have a contribution to it.
[1:46:40] So the ODOT
[1:46:42] and engineering division both worked collaboratively
[1:46:45] to select the consultant team.
[1:46:47] What's the expectation on timing? How long will it
[1:46:50] Be?
[1:46:51] That will be one of the results
[1:46:51] of the project kickoff meeting
[1:46:54] to outline the scope of timeline.
[1:46:56] Okay. Thank you Brandon.
[1:47:00] And is there a motion to adjourn?
[1:47:05] Move to adjourn. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.
[1:47:10] We are adjourned. I.