1
00:00:22,635 --> 00:00:23,885
Recording in progress.

2
00:00:36,765 --> 00:00:39,885
I call the regular. I call the regular meeting

3
00:00:39,885 --> 00:00:42,245
of the City of Ashland Planning Commission to order

4
00:00:42,385 --> 00:00:44,885
for August 11th, 2026.

5
00:00:45,685 --> 00:00:47,925
I will note that our meetings are available on Zoom

6
00:00:48,145 --> 00:00:49,445
and RVTV.

7
00:00:50,185 --> 00:00:52,205
The public can find information on how

8
00:00:52,205 --> 00:00:54,125
to participate in planning commission meetings

9
00:00:55,145 --> 00:00:58,405
in our public notices, as well as directions on how

10
00:00:58,405 --> 00:01:00,205
to find the full meeting materials,

11
00:01:00,765 --> 00:01:02,645
applications, and staff reports.

12
00:01:04,125 --> 00:01:06,565
I do note that we have five of the seven members here,

13
00:01:07,225 --> 00:01:10,845
so we do have a quorum staff announcements.

14
00:01:10,845 --> 00:01:11,845
Brandon,

15
00:01:14,845 --> 00:01:16,165
I don't have any staff announcements

16
00:01:16,235 --> 00:01:17,245
this evening. Thank you.

17
00:01:17,865 --> 00:01:22,045
Oh well. Okay. And consent agenda.

18
00:01:22,145 --> 00:01:25,125
We have approval of minutes for July 14th.

19
00:01:25,495 --> 00:01:28,885
Would somebody like to move adoption of the consent agenda?

20
00:01:30,075 --> 00:01:31,925
Move to adopt consent agenda.

21
00:01:32,305 --> 00:01:35,045
Is there a second? Second Move to seconded

22
00:01:35,045 --> 00:01:36,405
to adopt the consent agenda.

23
00:01:36,505 --> 00:01:38,765
All those in favor? Yes. Aye.

24
00:01:39,225 --> 00:01:42,205
Aye. Aye.

25
00:01:43,675 --> 00:01:46,685
Okay. Motion pass public forum.

26
00:01:47,905 --> 00:01:50,925
If you wish to speak on an issue that is not on the agenda,

27
00:01:51,265 --> 00:01:55,205
please fill out the pink speaker's form in the back on the

28
00:01:55,205 --> 00:01:59,325
side and give it to Michael and he will bring it to me.

29
00:02:00,965 --> 00:02:04,085
I will acknowledge that we did get a letter from Joseph

30
00:02:04,625 --> 00:02:08,685
Ka Kaf Kath dated August 6th.

31
00:02:10,175 --> 00:02:15,005
Thank you. Concerning a request for comprehensive study.

32
00:02:15,005 --> 00:02:18,045
Comprehensive plans, comprehensive study on urban growth,

33
00:02:18,315 --> 00:02:21,445
climate change, and urban heat island effect.

34
00:02:23,015 --> 00:02:25,445
Would any of the commissioners like to discuss the letter

35
00:02:25,545 --> 00:02:27,685
or do you wanna put it off till open

36
00:02:27,735 --> 00:02:29,085
discussion at the end of the meeting?

37
00:02:30,905 --> 00:02:33,805
Or do you wanna wait and have further contact with him?

38
00:02:34,445 --> 00:02:37,565
I would like him to come in and talk to us about it. Okay.

39
00:02:37,665 --> 00:02:38,665
But that's me.

40
00:02:42,595 --> 00:02:43,885
Yeah, it, it's a new item.

41
00:02:44,285 --> 00:02:47,645
I would love to have that conversation later.

42
00:02:48,235 --> 00:02:50,605
Okay. Okay.

43
00:02:50,785 --> 00:02:53,125
We will move on to our legislative

44
00:02:53,145 --> 00:02:54,685
or type two public hearings.

45
00:02:57,745 --> 00:03:01,285
The first is a type three pub, excuse me, type three

46
00:03:01,345 --> 00:03:03,685
or legislative public hearings type.

47
00:03:03,865 --> 00:03:07,525
The first is a type three public hearing on code Amendment

48
00:03:08,275 --> 00:03:12,845
regarding variances for driveways for flag lots.

49
00:03:13,475 --> 00:03:18,045
This is planning action PA dash L dash 2026 dash

50
00:03:18,515 --> 00:03:22,445
0 0 20 and the applicant is the city of Ashland.

51
00:03:23,385 --> 00:03:26,725
The request is to amend a MC

52
00:03:27,325 --> 00:03:31,405
18.5060 variances

53
00:03:31,425 --> 00:03:36,245
for flag lots to allow variances of greater than 18% grade

54
00:03:36,625 --> 00:03:38,565
for flag lots created as legal.

55
00:03:39,155 --> 00:03:40,645
Lots of record prior to

56
00:03:41,725 --> 00:03:44,405
1997 when the city adopted its hillside

57
00:03:44,405 --> 00:03:45,485
development standards.

58
00:03:46,515 --> 00:03:51,365
Currently a MC 18.5 0.3 0.060 allows

59
00:03:51,365 --> 00:03:54,965
grades on flag lots up to 15%

60
00:03:55,465 --> 00:03:57,565
and variances up to 18%.

61
00:03:58,745 --> 00:04:00,885
As mentioned, the applicant is the City

62
00:04:00,885 --> 00:04:02,485
of Ashland Ordinance.

63
00:04:02,765 --> 00:04:06,245
References are 18 6 0

64
00:04:06,865 --> 00:04:09,085
and the request is to make a recommendation on Code

65
00:04:09,085 --> 00:04:10,925
Amendment to the city council.

66
00:04:12,035 --> 00:04:16,045
Because this is a legislative hearing, we do not need

67
00:04:16,045 --> 00:04:18,685
to ask about ex parte contact or site visits.

68
00:04:19,605 --> 00:04:21,365
I will acknowledge written public comments

69
00:04:22,005 --> 00:04:24,565
the planning commission has received from,

70
00:04:25,665 --> 00:04:28,125
and my apologies for mispronouncing your name

71
00:04:29,345 --> 00:04:30,525
in the future if I do.

72
00:04:31,925 --> 00:04:36,125
Eugenia, Andrea, Nova Lynn and Karen Eisenberg.

73
00:04:36,465 --> 00:04:37,725
We got two letters from them.

74
00:04:38,385 --> 00:04:41,525
Pamela McLaughlin, McLaughlin, Kent McLaughlin,

75
00:04:42,035 --> 00:04:44,805
William h Sherlock, and Zach Tke.

76
00:04:45,405 --> 00:04:47,925
Attorneys for Lynn and Karen Eisenberg and Kent.

77
00:04:47,925 --> 00:04:52,405
And Pamela McLaughlin. Catherine Ellison, md.

78
00:04:52,575 --> 00:04:53,885
We've got two letters from her.

79
00:04:54,595 --> 00:04:57,365
Doug Douglas r and Linda G. Smith.

80
00:04:57,505 --> 00:04:59,205
We also got two letters from them.

81
00:04:59,905 --> 00:05:02,805
Carrie Tain, Susan Suzanne

82
00:05:03,145 --> 00:05:06,725
and Ed McBride, Robert Hilton, John

83
00:05:06,725 --> 00:05:11,685
and Stephanie Bullock, Amy Gunter, Robert and Susan Hutton.

84
00:05:12,215 --> 00:05:14,805
Cindy Pier, Ronald A. Parker.

85
00:05:14,985 --> 00:05:19,845
And Pamela Braun Parker, Kurt Chappelle, David

86
00:05:20,915 --> 00:05:22,925
Aler, Jim McCarthy,

87
00:05:24,945 --> 00:05:28,165
Nadine Lefkowitz, Jay Reek

88
00:05:28,345 --> 00:05:30,205
and Sarah Samma.

89
00:05:31,515 --> 00:05:35,085
Troy Brown Jr. Steve Rouse Rogue Advocates.

90
00:05:35,835 --> 00:05:40,445
John Clozel Dee and Rob Collins and Margaret Young.

91
00:05:41,225 --> 00:05:43,485
So thank you all for taking the time to write to us.

92
00:05:46,095 --> 00:05:48,765
We'll now have a staff presentation. Derek, you wanna

93
00:05:49,055 --> 00:05:50,055
Thank you Chair Burner.

94
00:05:50,145 --> 00:05:52,405
Go ahead. The legislative action

95
00:05:52,405 --> 00:05:54,605
before you tonight is a proposal to amend

96
00:05:55,245 --> 00:05:59,285
the Asheville Municipal Code section 18 5 3 0 6 oh F

97
00:05:59,985 --> 00:06:03,685
to address access constraints on certain preexisting lots

98
00:06:03,915 --> 00:06:06,885
created prior to the 1997 Hillside ordinance.

99
00:06:08,025 --> 00:06:11,325
Our existing code limits new flag drive grades to 15%

100
00:06:11,755 --> 00:06:14,405
with a variance up to 18% possible

101
00:06:14,625 --> 00:06:16,725
for a 200 foot cumulative limit.

102
00:06:17,395 --> 00:06:20,765
Some legally created lots predate those standards

103
00:06:20,765 --> 00:06:22,645
and may have no feasible driveway alignment

104
00:06:23,035 --> 00:06:26,405
that can meet the current code limits the proposed amendment

105
00:06:26,425 --> 00:06:29,885
before you would create a narrowly defined variance process

106
00:06:30,105 --> 00:06:33,165
rather than simply automatically approving deeper driveways.

107
00:06:34,145 --> 00:06:36,965
The proposals being presented separately from Senate

108
00:06:36,965 --> 00:06:38,045
Bill 9 74.

109
00:06:38,465 --> 00:06:42,405
You initially saw it in study sessions alongside 9 74,

110
00:06:42,405 --> 00:06:43,885
but it is being presented separately

111
00:06:44,525 --> 00:06:48,445
from the 9 74 implemented implementation package so

112
00:06:48,445 --> 00:06:51,165
that this as a local policy choice can be considered

113
00:06:51,525 --> 00:06:54,445
independently and should you want to look at it further,

114
00:06:55,395 --> 00:06:58,525
looking at it further won't delay 9 74 which is subject,

115
00:06:58,835 --> 00:07:03,685
subject to some state timelines in terms

116
00:07:03,685 --> 00:07:06,885
of why an amendment is needed again in 1997,

117
00:07:06,945 --> 00:07:09,285
the city adopted the Hillside Development standards

118
00:07:09,285 --> 00:07:11,085
through Ordinance 28 0 8.

119
00:07:13,035 --> 00:07:16,845
Here 30 years later, our current code has

120
00:07:17,415 --> 00:07:20,605
limitation on new flag drives at 15% maximum

121
00:07:21,195 --> 00:07:24,045
with a variance allowing them to go up to 18%.

122
00:07:24,505 --> 00:07:27,085
But some lots that were in existence prior to

123
00:07:27,085 --> 00:07:31,165
that 1997 hillside ordinance can't reach a buildable area

124
00:07:31,195 --> 00:07:35,165
with a driveway without exceeding 18% because of topography.

125
00:07:35,945 --> 00:07:38,605
In April of this year, the land use Board

126
00:07:38,605 --> 00:07:42,085
of appeals remanded a city decision approving a driveway

127
00:07:42,085 --> 00:07:44,325
grade variance that went above 18%.

128
00:07:44,785 --> 00:07:46,925
The land use Board of Appeals concluded

129
00:07:46,925 --> 00:07:50,245
that the current wording in the land use ordinance doesn't

130
00:07:50,245 --> 00:07:54,245
authorize any variance above 18% under any circumstances.

131
00:07:54,985 --> 00:07:58,565
The issue is therefore code limitation affecting a class

132
00:07:58,625 --> 00:08:02,005
of pre 97 hillside lots, not a request

133
00:08:02,005 --> 00:08:03,805
to approve one particular property.

134
00:08:06,905 --> 00:08:09,845
So in terms of what the ordinance adoption would change

135
00:08:10,985 --> 00:08:14,365
in terms of newly created lots, there would be no change.

136
00:08:14,585 --> 00:08:17,045
The existing 15% maximum grade

137
00:08:17,505 --> 00:08:20,845
and the allowance for a variance up to 18% would remain.

138
00:08:21,265 --> 00:08:24,685
And that standard in the code is for platting of new lots.

139
00:08:24,705 --> 00:08:27,725
So in order to create a new lot, you have to demonstrate

140
00:08:27,725 --> 00:08:29,765
that you have a driveway meeting the standards.

141
00:08:30,305 --> 00:08:33,325
But for pre 1997, legal lots of record

142
00:08:34,365 --> 00:08:35,685
a variance could be allowed

143
00:08:35,685 --> 00:08:40,085
to exceed 18% only when topography makes a compliant

144
00:08:40,365 --> 00:08:43,245
driveway to a buildable area on the lot impossible.

145
00:08:44,315 --> 00:08:46,765
Each property would have to independently apply

146
00:08:46,785 --> 00:08:48,885
for a variance with adoption of

147
00:08:48,885 --> 00:08:51,165
and the adoption of the ordinance does not approve any

148
00:08:51,485 --> 00:08:52,525
specific proposals.

149
00:08:53,825 --> 00:08:56,885
Relief is limited to the minimum deviation necessary

150
00:08:57,465 --> 00:08:58,525
to provide access

151
00:08:59,065 --> 00:09:00,405
and the applicant would need

152
00:09:00,405 --> 00:09:03,965
to satisfy all the variance criteria in AMC 1855

153
00:09:05,435 --> 00:09:06,565
Fire department review

154
00:09:06,565 --> 00:09:08,805
for fire code compliance would still be required.

155
00:09:11,105 --> 00:09:13,765
The fire code requirements remain independent.

156
00:09:14,995 --> 00:09:18,085
Flag drives are still considered a flag app Fire apparatus

157
00:09:18,105 --> 00:09:21,925
access road under AMC 18 5 3 0 6 oh I

158
00:09:22,725 --> 00:09:24,405
a land use variance doesn't modify

159
00:09:24,585 --> 00:09:27,045
or waive any Oregon fire code requirements.

160
00:09:27,665 --> 00:09:30,085
The fire code review considers more than grade.

161
00:09:30,145 --> 00:09:32,885
It also looks at length width, vertical clearance

162
00:09:33,265 --> 00:09:34,525
and surface composition.

163
00:09:34,985 --> 00:09:37,685
And the fire code official retains independent authority

164
00:09:37,745 --> 00:09:40,285
to approve steeper grades were allowed

165
00:09:40,665 --> 00:09:43,085
and to require alternative protection measures

166
00:09:43,945 --> 00:09:45,285
to support those steeper grades.

167
00:09:45,905 --> 00:09:48,165
Any driveway approved through the land use various process

168
00:09:48,675 --> 00:09:51,845
must still receive all required fire code approvals

169
00:09:51,845 --> 00:09:53,325
before development could proceed.

170
00:09:54,025 --> 00:09:55,125
And in your file is,

171
00:09:55,225 --> 00:09:56,405
or in your packet is included,

172
00:09:56,485 --> 00:10:00,245
a memo from the Deputy Fire Chief Mark Shea in support

173
00:10:00,345 --> 00:10:02,085
of the proposed language.

174
00:10:02,385 --> 00:10:04,205
And Mark is available to answer any questions

175
00:10:04,205 --> 00:10:05,725
that you might have tonight.

176
00:10:08,025 --> 00:10:11,685
In terms of the specific amendment language, the the section

177
00:10:11,785 --> 00:10:15,205
as amended would read new flag drive grades shall not exceed

178
00:10:15,205 --> 00:10:16,805
a maximum grade of 15%.

179
00:10:17,395 --> 00:10:19,685
Variances may be granted for new flag drives

180
00:10:20,425 --> 00:10:23,845
for grades in excess of 15%, but no greater than 18%.

181
00:10:24,605 --> 00:10:25,765
Provided that the cumulative length

182
00:10:25,765 --> 00:10:27,725
of such variances across multiple sections

183
00:10:27,965 --> 00:10:31,925
of the flag drive does not exceed 200 feet variances may be

184
00:10:31,925 --> 00:10:34,125
granted for grades in excess of 18%.

185
00:10:34,505 --> 00:10:36,805
For driveways serving legal, lots of record

186
00:10:36,805 --> 00:10:38,685
that were created before the effective date

187
00:10:39,025 --> 00:10:42,485
of the Hillside Development Standards in ordinance number

188
00:10:42,485 --> 00:10:45,485
28 0 8 adopted December 3rd, 1997,

189
00:10:46,095 --> 00:10:48,085
where the applicant demonstrates that due

190
00:10:48,085 --> 00:10:49,325
to topographic constraints,

191
00:10:49,945 --> 00:10:52,845
no driveway alignment meeting the maximum grade standards

192
00:10:52,845 --> 00:10:55,085
of this subsection can provide vehicular access

193
00:10:55,465 --> 00:10:56,965
to a buildable area of the lot.

194
00:10:57,885 --> 00:11:00,125
Driveway is approved under such a variance would remain

195
00:11:00,125 --> 00:11:02,405
subject to the fire apparatus access requirement

196
00:11:02,405 --> 00:11:05,805
of the Oregon Fire Code, including any approval required

197
00:11:05,805 --> 00:11:07,085
by the fire code official.

198
00:11:07,635 --> 00:11:10,365
Such variances should be required to meet all criteria

199
00:11:10,365 --> 00:11:14,645
of approval in chapter 18.55 variances.

200
00:11:17,665 --> 00:11:20,925
In looking at this issue, we started looking at lots

201
00:11:20,925 --> 00:11:23,365
through the buildable lands inventory that were vacant

202
00:11:24,145 --> 00:11:25,965
and on steeply sloped land.

203
00:11:26,515 --> 00:11:30,965
74 of those lots which are not super visible in this map,

204
00:11:31,705 --> 00:11:36,085
but 74 of those lots shown in green here were considered

205
00:11:36,085 --> 00:11:39,685
as potential ultimately 13 of them in red,

206
00:11:39,695 --> 00:11:41,005
which are shown here

207
00:11:44,065 --> 00:11:46,325
and primarily over here.

208
00:11:46,385 --> 00:11:48,525
But there's also a list of tax lots

209
00:11:48,525 --> 00:11:50,205
and addresses in your packet

210
00:11:51,275 --> 00:11:54,365
that were based on GIS data likely

211
00:11:54,425 --> 00:11:57,525
to have drives greater than 1550 feet in length

212
00:11:57,545 --> 00:11:59,445
and be subject to flag drive standards

213
00:11:59,775 --> 00:12:02,685
where an issue may come up Under this, this section

214
00:12:04,665 --> 00:12:07,365
we just reiterate, this is not based on any development

215
00:12:07,525 --> 00:12:10,605
proposals for these lots, it's just looking at the GIS data

216
00:12:11,145 --> 00:12:14,405
and the fact that there's not an easy driveway placement

217
00:12:14,405 --> 00:12:16,805
that would serve a house on the lots that's likely

218
00:12:16,825 --> 00:12:18,085
to be less than 50 feet.

219
00:12:18,105 --> 00:12:21,525
So it's assumed these would have drive greater than 50 feet

220
00:12:21,525 --> 00:12:24,965
and the grades would potentially necessitate a variance

221
00:12:24,965 --> 00:12:25,925
because of driveway grade

222
00:12:29,805 --> 00:12:30,285
Planning commission.

223
00:12:30,405 --> 00:12:32,885
And city council previously reviewed the con, this concept

224
00:12:32,945 --> 00:12:35,165
during initial discussions along

225
00:12:35,165 --> 00:12:38,085
with the implementation package for Senate Bill 9 74.

226
00:12:38,515 --> 00:12:41,205
That was in study sessions back in April and May.

227
00:12:41,705 --> 00:12:44,685
And the city council reviewed this the same material on

228
00:12:44,685 --> 00:12:49,245
June 1st as proposed ordinance 33 0 9 has been

229
00:12:49,245 --> 00:12:51,445
separated to allow this local policy

230
00:12:51,505 --> 00:12:54,285
to be considered independently the amendments

231
00:12:54,285 --> 00:12:56,565
to type three legislative land use ordinance amendment

232
00:12:56,565 --> 00:12:58,885
requiring planning commission recommendation to the council.

233
00:12:59,545 --> 00:13:02,085
And the next step following a recommendation from you

234
00:13:02,085 --> 00:13:03,605
tonight would be a public hearing

235
00:13:04,025 --> 00:13:05,325
and first reading of an ordinance

236
00:13:05,325 --> 00:13:07,525
that the council on September 15th,

237
00:13:09,635 --> 00:13:12,165
I've got a suggested motion here based on a staff

238
00:13:12,165 --> 00:13:14,885
recommendation would be that the planning commission

239
00:13:15,445 --> 00:13:17,485
recommend that the city council approve the proposed draft

240
00:13:17,485 --> 00:13:20,125
ordinance with the language shown here.

241
00:13:22,425 --> 00:13:23,925
I'd be happy to answer any questions you'll have.

242
00:13:23,965 --> 00:13:27,125
I also have Deputy Chief Mark Shea here as well

243
00:13:27,125 --> 00:13:30,245
as Carmels Iran from the city attorney's office if you

244
00:13:30,245 --> 00:13:31,285
have questions for either of them.

245
00:13:33,725 --> 00:13:35,085
I just have a language question.

246
00:13:36,465 --> 00:13:39,525
So it says New lots,

247
00:13:40,785 --> 00:13:42,965
it seems like instead of new lots

248
00:13:42,965 --> 00:13:44,645
or as well as new lots you could say,

249
00:13:44,745 --> 00:13:46,005
and those created sense.

250
00:13:46,025 --> 00:13:48,165
So it immediately references the data

251
00:13:48,165 --> 00:13:51,485
of the Hillside ordinance so that it kind

252
00:13:51,485 --> 00:13:53,085
of immediately limits.

253
00:13:55,005 --> 00:13:56,965
'cause there was, in all of the comments we got,

254
00:13:56,965 --> 00:13:58,565
it seemed like there was some confusion

255
00:13:58,565 --> 00:14:01,445
that were opening the door to people doing this without,

256
00:14:02,505 --> 00:14:06,885
you know, and so, and maybe it's to just,

257
00:14:07,465 --> 00:14:10,005
and it's a limited ordinance.

258
00:14:10,065 --> 00:14:13,485
So is there a way to limit its app applicability

259
00:14:13,825 --> 00:14:15,765
to those lots that it affects?

260
00:14:16,305 --> 00:14:17,565
So period.

261
00:14:19,145 --> 00:14:23,005
And I think that the language is intended, the section

262
00:14:23,005 --> 00:14:25,805
that we're changing actually applies to lots proposed

263
00:14:26,185 --> 00:14:28,005
to be created and this

264
00:14:28,105 --> 00:14:30,765
and the actual requirement is before plat.

265
00:14:31,385 --> 00:14:34,725
So you are talking about new lots that are not

266
00:14:34,745 --> 00:14:36,045
yet platted. Yeah,

267
00:14:36,045 --> 00:14:38,605
But we are actually talking about lots that already exist.

268
00:14:38,675 --> 00:14:40,165
Yeah. And that's what we're trying to, I mean

269
00:14:41,315 --> 00:14:42,885
what we're trying to bring in is the fact

270
00:14:42,885 --> 00:14:46,765
that we're applying as Luba decision

271
00:14:48,495 --> 00:14:52,245
would read out, you're applying a standard to PLA a lot

272
00:14:52,265 --> 00:14:53,565
for lots that already exist.

273
00:14:54,345 --> 00:14:56,045
So trying to make clear that.

274
00:14:56,625 --> 00:15:00,405
So I still don't, maybe I wasn't clear

275
00:15:00,405 --> 00:15:01,605
what I was saying is okay

276
00:15:05,415 --> 00:15:07,075
and maybe there isn't another way to do it.

277
00:15:07,195 --> 00:15:11,235
I mean really it's not, well

278
00:15:13,065 --> 00:15:14,755
it's not a new ordinance on its own.

279
00:15:18,405 --> 00:15:20,465
It just seems like it needs to be clearer

280
00:15:20,465 --> 00:15:23,665
that it only affects those 13 locks somehow.

281
00:15:24,015 --> 00:15:26,305
Yeah, as drafted there's a couple changes

282
00:15:26,405 --> 00:15:28,345
for the commission to be considerate of

283
00:15:29,245 --> 00:15:31,745
one the new at the beginning of the section isn't

284
00:15:31,745 --> 00:15:33,945
for new lots, it's for a new flag drive

285
00:15:35,845 --> 00:15:38,065
for new flag drives and they could be installed on

286
00:15:38,465 --> 00:15:40,065
existing lots.

287
00:15:40,085 --> 00:15:41,945
Or if somebody were to partition a property

288
00:15:42,005 --> 00:15:45,065
to create a new lot, that flag drive would be subject

289
00:15:45,085 --> 00:15:47,905
to the 15 to 18% maximum.

290
00:15:48,515 --> 00:15:49,625
There is another section

291
00:15:49,625 --> 00:15:52,425
that talks about the cumulative leave length of

292
00:15:53,065 --> 00:15:54,945
driveway variances across multiple sections.

293
00:15:55,205 --> 00:15:57,345
I'm just bringing this up 'cause we didn't cover it in the

294
00:15:57,345 --> 00:15:59,145
presentation that was reviewed

295
00:15:59,245 --> 00:16:02,585
and approved ultimately as a prior planning action

296
00:16:03,085 --> 00:16:06,305
as an interpretation of the multiple sections.

297
00:16:06,525 --> 00:16:10,065
So long as the cumulatively didn't extend over 200 feet.

298
00:16:10,365 --> 00:16:15,065
But by establishing that the 15% is a maximum with up to 18%

299
00:16:15,645 --> 00:16:19,665
for all new flag drives that would apply to any property

300
00:16:19,935 --> 00:16:22,185
that is not subject to the following provision,

301
00:16:22,555 --> 00:16:25,985
which is granted in excess of 18%.

302
00:16:26,045 --> 00:16:28,225
And that is limited for lots that were created

303
00:16:28,885 --> 00:16:31,545
before December 1st, 1997.

304
00:16:32,685 --> 00:16:34,345
Why wouldn't it just be its own section?

305
00:16:35,505 --> 00:16:36,905
I mean like if you've got section F,

306
00:16:37,245 --> 00:16:39,705
why wouldn't it just be its own statement?

307
00:16:40,805 --> 00:16:44,145
It could be, it could state new flag drive shall not

308
00:16:44,145 --> 00:16:46,105
exceed 15% up to 18%,

309
00:16:47,045 --> 00:16:49,105
but you'd still have to say with the following exceptions

310
00:16:49,165 --> 00:16:51,105
and then provide that exception

311
00:16:51,165 --> 00:16:53,465
and it is embedded in the same paragraph.

312
00:16:53,525 --> 00:16:56,745
But that is a potential modification.

313
00:16:56,745 --> 00:17:01,025
I'm just trying to respond to my understanding of

314
00:17:01,065 --> 00:17:04,065
what people's issues, I mean what their issues were,

315
00:17:04,065 --> 00:17:07,505
which is that there's this, it feels fuzzy,

316
00:17:09,785 --> 00:17:13,245
it seemed like, I mean that's what I was picking up

317
00:17:15,065 --> 00:17:17,165
and there's a fear that it will get applied in other places

318
00:17:17,305 --> 00:17:21,285
and people will do what they, you know, try to get variances

319
00:17:21,385 --> 00:17:23,965
for doing something different than what this is about.

320
00:17:25,425 --> 00:17:28,725
So that's all I'm done.

321
00:17:32,545 --> 00:17:33,545
Go ahead.

322
00:17:34,105 --> 00:17:37,045
Thanks Chair Vernor and thanks Derek for the presentation.

323
00:17:37,835 --> 00:17:39,325
Just a quick question here.

324
00:17:39,645 --> 00:17:41,805
The staff report says that any relief

325
00:17:41,855 --> 00:17:43,805
above 18% would be limited

326
00:17:44,025 --> 00:17:47,005
to the minimum deviation necessary.

327
00:17:47,865 --> 00:17:50,405
And I don't see that phrase in the actual ordinance.

328
00:17:50,585 --> 00:17:53,285
Is it in the general variance criteria

329
00:17:54,025 --> 00:17:58,005
or should we perhaps consider adding it to this language?

330
00:18:02,475 --> 00:18:04,245
Just rereading the wording here?

331
00:18:05,035 --> 00:18:06,045
Yeah, I don't think it's in the

332
00:18:06,045 --> 00:18:07,325
ordinance language for this section.

333
00:18:07,645 --> 00:18:11,685
I believe that's in the variance chapter 18.5 0.5,

334
00:18:12,015 --> 00:18:14,925
which this would be subject to. But I'm gonna pull that

335
00:18:14,925 --> 00:18:15,925
Up.

336
00:18:15,925 --> 00:18:19,085
And while you're looking at at for existing language,

337
00:18:20,785 --> 00:18:25,325
I'm, I, I think that there ought to be some reference to a

338
00:18:27,325 --> 00:18:30,325
licensed geological tech geological engineers report

339
00:18:30,835 --> 00:18:35,645
that shows reasonable feasibility of what's being proposed

340
00:18:36,145 --> 00:18:38,805
so that we know that somebody with some credentials

341
00:18:39,505 --> 00:18:40,605
has actually looked at it

342
00:18:40,705 --> 00:18:45,525
and said, yeah, it can be done at 16%.

343
00:18:45,525 --> 00:18:48,685
At 18% or 19% or 20%.

344
00:18:48,705 --> 00:18:51,165
It doesn't need to be 25%.

345
00:18:52,385 --> 00:18:54,275
Yeah, there is a requirement

346
00:18:54,335 --> 00:18:56,835
for physical environmental constraints permit

347
00:18:56,975 --> 00:18:59,395
for any development, including the development of driveways

348
00:18:59,665 --> 00:19:04,075
that cross over slopes greater than 25% natural grade.

349
00:19:04,695 --> 00:19:07,835
And so a driveway that was being proposed across

350
00:19:08,835 --> 00:19:11,675
hillside lands that are considered severe slopes

351
00:19:12,175 --> 00:19:15,915
or 25 plus would be required to have

352
00:19:15,935 --> 00:19:17,995
to a technical report currently.

353
00:19:18,325 --> 00:19:19,675
Right. But but that, but

354
00:19:19,675 --> 00:19:21,915
Not in this section, again, it's not repeating

355
00:19:21,915 --> 00:19:24,715
requirements under the physical environmental constraints

356
00:19:24,715 --> 00:19:28,395
which go into the step backs for the retaining walls.

357
00:19:28,395 --> 00:19:31,315
There's quite a bit of detail in that section for

358
00:19:31,935 --> 00:19:34,315
any cut into constraints

359
00:19:34,485 --> 00:19:37,155
slips in that chapter.

360
00:19:38,785 --> 00:19:41,755
Okay. But I guess I'd like to see some indication that,

361
00:19:42,105 --> 00:19:45,595
that the flag lot would have

362
00:19:47,215 --> 00:19:50,715
direct consideration by

363
00:19:51,915 --> 00:19:52,995
a geotech engineer.

364
00:19:56,215 --> 00:20:00,515
Can you reference it back to the, to the part of the code,

365
00:20:00,785 --> 00:20:03,355
part of the hillside ordinance that talks about a geotech

366
00:20:15,045 --> 00:20:17,105
And Russell, just to further respond to your question,

367
00:20:17,145 --> 00:20:20,265
I think it says no driveway alignment meeting the maximum

368
00:20:20,315 --> 00:20:21,985
grade standards can provide vehicular

369
00:20:21,985 --> 00:20:23,265
access to a buildable area.

370
00:20:23,695 --> 00:20:26,825
Then the variance criteria say minimum necessary

371
00:20:26,845 --> 00:20:28,105
to alleviate the difficulty.

372
00:20:28,965 --> 00:20:31,225
Thanks. But we, You could always make

373
00:20:31,225 --> 00:20:32,665
that more explicit, but I think it's,

374
00:20:32,695 --> 00:20:34,305
it's covered between the two. Yeah,

375
00:20:35,175 --> 00:20:36,175
Fantastic.

376
00:20:36,185 --> 00:20:40,025
I think if it's in the bro broader section then

377
00:20:40,025 --> 00:20:41,345
that, that makes sense.

378
00:20:43,085 --> 00:20:45,465
Can I ask a few other questions here real quick? Go ahead.

379
00:20:45,465 --> 00:20:50,045
Okay. There is public

380
00:20:50,485 --> 00:20:54,125
testimony concerning comprehensive plan policy 49.

381
00:20:55,385 --> 00:20:59,205
Can you explain why Ordinance 33 0 9 is consistent

382
00:20:59,205 --> 00:21:02,125
with our wildfire and emergency access policies?

383
00:21:06,325 --> 00:21:08,405
I could stipulate that all our current wildfire

384
00:21:08,405 --> 00:21:12,325
development standards, including construction

385
00:21:12,325 --> 00:21:15,885
of the building, the ignition resistant materials, fuels,

386
00:21:16,205 --> 00:21:19,165
general fuels requirements, the any

387
00:21:19,165 --> 00:21:22,005
of these properties will be in the wildfire overlay zone

388
00:21:22,005 --> 00:21:25,045
and all be required to meet those requirements.

389
00:21:25,455 --> 00:21:29,605
Again, fire marshal, I'm sorry Mark Shay,

390
00:21:29,745 --> 00:21:31,685
our fire marshal can speak to

391
00:21:32,405 --> 00:21:35,165
other code requirements in terms of the driveway grade

392
00:21:35,545 --> 00:21:37,805
and how those get applied at the point of building permits.

393
00:21:39,575 --> 00:21:40,325
Thank you very much.

394
00:21:45,275 --> 00:21:47,485
Good evening. Yeah, just to add on to

395
00:21:48,475 --> 00:21:52,645
what Brandon was saying, we're gonna, we'll evaluate the

396
00:21:53,445 --> 00:21:55,205
driveway through the organ fire code

397
00:21:56,045 --> 00:21:57,565
specifically is chapters five

398
00:21:57,785 --> 00:22:01,725
and Appendix D, which regulate fire apparatus access.

399
00:22:03,145 --> 00:22:06,405
In addition to grade we'll be looking at composition of

400
00:22:06,945 --> 00:22:11,165
the surface vertical clearance overall length

401
00:22:12,625 --> 00:22:16,965
and apparatus parking, all factors that

402
00:22:17,115 --> 00:22:19,885
that I'll look at in evaluating

403
00:22:20,805 --> 00:22:22,285
a driveway or a a flag road.

404
00:22:26,535 --> 00:22:28,885
Thank you Deputy Chief Shay,

405
00:22:28,905 --> 00:22:30,245
and while I have you up here,

406
00:22:30,565 --> 00:22:33,045
do you mind if I ask you a few other questions? Yeah,

407
00:22:33,045 --> 00:22:34,045
Nope, go ahead.

408
00:22:34,045 --> 00:22:38,165
Okay, fantastic. So if we don't put an absolute maximum

409
00:22:38,255 --> 00:22:39,805
grade in the land use ordinance,

410
00:22:40,595 --> 00:22:44,565
what happens when somebody proposes 20%, 24%

411
00:22:44,705 --> 00:22:46,285
or something even steeper?

412
00:22:46,555 --> 00:22:48,765
What factors would cause you to say no

413
00:22:48,985 --> 00:22:51,485
and what types of mitigation make a steeper

414
00:22:51,765 --> 00:22:53,085
driveway acceptable?

415
00:22:55,185 --> 00:22:59,325
So factors that might cause me to say no

416
00:23:00,135 --> 00:23:02,525
might be length, overall length of the driveway

417
00:23:03,585 --> 00:23:06,925
or an inability to provide a fire apparatus

418
00:23:07,605 --> 00:23:11,125
parking area within 150 feet of the structure.

419
00:23:12,425 --> 00:23:16,285
If there are circumstances that arise that

420
00:23:17,665 --> 00:23:20,685
we cannot meet the fire department apparatus access

421
00:23:20,845 --> 00:23:24,445
requirements through Appendix D, the Oregon Fire Code,

422
00:23:25,345 --> 00:23:27,045
I'm authorized to look at the uniform

423
00:23:27,045 --> 00:23:28,605
alternate construction standard.

424
00:23:29,505 --> 00:23:33,005
And what that allows us to do is to enact

425
00:23:35,245 --> 00:23:37,325
a variance in construction standard.

426
00:23:37,945 --> 00:23:40,325
The most commonly used in Ashland is

427
00:23:40,925 --> 00:23:42,365
a residential sprinkler system.

428
00:23:42,665 --> 00:23:45,605
And I work in conjunction with the building official to

429
00:23:46,785 --> 00:23:50,685
ensure that that's completed in the project.

430
00:23:53,465 --> 00:23:57,085
Go ahead. Do you know offhand

431
00:23:57,155 --> 00:24:00,525
what a maximum slope is that a firetruck could get access

432
00:24:00,545 --> 00:24:04,645
to a fire, a work area?

433
00:24:04,995 --> 00:24:08,565
Like what's your maximum driveway slope for a hundred feet?

434
00:24:09,575 --> 00:24:12,485
Right. The, the code tells us 10%.

435
00:24:12,745 --> 00:24:17,045
We know realistically in Ashland there's a lot of roadways

436
00:24:17,045 --> 00:24:19,245
and driveways that are, that are well beyond that.

437
00:24:19,435 --> 00:24:24,245
Sure. I don't have the precise number as

438
00:24:25,185 --> 00:24:28,325
we have different models of fire engine, so

439
00:24:29,105 --> 00:24:32,085
we might have one that's a bit more restrictive than

440
00:24:32,475 --> 00:24:33,485
Yeah, than another.

441
00:24:33,875 --> 00:24:35,325
Yeah, a lot of these comments refer

442
00:24:35,325 --> 00:24:36,805
to one specific fire engine

443
00:24:36,805 --> 00:24:38,285
and I assume that's the large one

444
00:24:38,285 --> 00:24:40,285
that you wouldn't be using in hillside

445
00:24:40,305 --> 00:24:44,405
anyway. Thank you.

446
00:24:45,025 --> 00:24:48,845
So, so is the, is the large one,

447
00:24:50,425 --> 00:24:53,285
is that more restrictive than the, than the smaller ones?

448
00:24:53,625 --> 00:24:56,165
And would the smaller ones be used on hillsides?

449
00:24:57,115 --> 00:25:00,605
Correct. The, the larger fire engine would be more

450
00:25:00,605 --> 00:25:02,605
restrictive on a steeper grade

451
00:25:03,785 --> 00:25:06,805
and we are going to

452
00:25:07,815 --> 00:25:10,565
alter our response based on the incident type

453
00:25:11,345 --> 00:25:15,045
and sometimes the geography of the area

454
00:25:15,665 --> 00:25:18,165
and as well as weather conditions.

455
00:25:18,745 --> 00:25:21,405
So for example, if it's snowy

456
00:25:21,405 --> 00:25:26,005
and icy, we're gonna take a more nimble agile vehicle

457
00:25:26,425 --> 00:25:29,805
in that instance as opposed to like the big fire engine

458
00:25:29,805 --> 00:25:31,005
that you see driving around town.

459
00:25:35,195 --> 00:25:36,845
Okay, thank you.

460
00:25:37,875 --> 00:25:40,085
Just one more quick question, would you,

461
00:25:41,985 --> 00:25:42,985
Oh sorry.

462
00:25:42,985 --> 00:25:45,765
No, no, no, go ahead. Let, we'll let Russell finish

463
00:25:45,785 --> 00:25:48,485
and then John can a ask his question.

464
00:25:49,075 --> 00:25:51,525
Okay. Sorry John, I'm gonna jump over you here.

465
00:25:52,935 --> 00:25:56,125
Would you recommend that we put a maximum length

466
00:25:56,305 --> 00:25:58,965
or a maximum grade in this ordinance?

467
00:26:01,405 --> 00:26:02,565
I, I don't recommend that

468
00:26:02,565 --> 00:26:06,685
because the fire code gives authority

469
00:26:06,705 --> 00:26:09,085
to the fire code official to be more restrictive.

470
00:26:09,785 --> 00:26:13,445
So regardless really of what the ordinance says,

471
00:26:13,625 --> 00:26:16,005
the fire code supersedes that

472
00:26:16,025 --> 00:26:17,805
and the fire code official has the ability

473
00:26:17,865 --> 00:26:19,045
to to supersede that.

474
00:26:20,095 --> 00:26:24,765
Thank you very much. So even if we

475
00:26:24,835 --> 00:26:27,965
said on an, on an application it can only be

476
00:26:28,625 --> 00:26:33,165
no more than 25%, you're saying you could go over that and

477
00:26:33,165 --> 00:26:34,445
and allow 30%,

478
00:26:36,625 --> 00:26:40,325
We could go over that with collaboration

479
00:26:40,325 --> 00:26:42,885
between planning building

480
00:26:44,425 --> 00:26:45,425
And the fire chief.

481
00:26:49,165 --> 00:26:53,365
I have a question for potentially you, what if

482
00:26:54,835 --> 00:26:56,845
there's a pre-existing lot of record

483
00:26:57,345 --> 00:27:02,165
and all of the proposed flag drives to get

484
00:27:02,165 --> 00:27:06,445
to that buildable area are rejected, what happens?

485
00:27:10,465 --> 00:27:11,975
Sorry, could you repeat again? So you're

486
00:27:11,975 --> 00:27:12,975
Saying Sure.

487
00:27:12,975 --> 00:27:15,575
I'm saying what if there is a piece of preexisting lot

488
00:27:15,755 --> 00:27:18,335
that's, you know, pre hillside ordinance, so it's a lot

489
00:27:18,335 --> 00:27:23,095
of record and none of the proposals are viable

490
00:27:23,915 --> 00:27:25,375
for planning or for fire.

491
00:27:25,955 --> 00:27:28,375
So basically have a lot that's not developable.

492
00:27:28,425 --> 00:27:30,175
Whose responsibility is that?

493
00:27:31,775 --> 00:27:34,745
From a fire Perspective? No, from a city perspective.

494
00:27:35,575 --> 00:27:37,545
Like in the sense of I Have a lot

495
00:27:38,145 --> 00:27:39,545
Building restriction Between fire

496
00:27:39,685 --> 00:27:41,945
and planning, they won't let me develop it.

497
00:27:43,345 --> 00:27:45,515
Yeah, I mean that, I think that would go into the Nolan

498
00:27:45,685 --> 00:27:48,435
Dolan question that doesn't help me.

499
00:27:48,455 --> 00:27:51,275
I'm sorry. It,

500
00:27:51,535 --> 00:27:54,275
it would go into probably a fact specific

501
00:27:54,835 --> 00:27:55,835
analysis into Nolan

502
00:27:55,835 --> 00:27:57,675
and Dolan, which you might be familiar with,

503
00:27:57,815 --> 00:28:00,995
is like a proportionality restriction when it comes

504
00:28:01,015 --> 00:28:05,355
to a government's ability to have land use restrictions

505
00:28:05,855 --> 00:28:08,315
or similar kind of regulation

506
00:28:09,335 --> 00:28:10,675
and it has to be proportionate

507
00:28:11,015 --> 00:28:12,635
to the public health and safety.

508
00:28:12,695 --> 00:28:17,235
And so that would be a fact specific question in that,

509
00:28:17,575 --> 00:28:21,475
in that strain of legal argument is probably is my first,

510
00:28:21,575 --> 00:28:23,555
is kind of my on the cuff direction. Yeah,

511
00:28:23,555 --> 00:28:25,115
I'm sorry, I don't really understand that answer.

512
00:28:27,555 --> 00:28:32,175
I have a lot between fire safety and planning.

513
00:28:32,405 --> 00:28:35,335
It's not, it's deemed that it's not developable

514
00:28:35,335 --> 00:28:37,095
because there's no viable way to get to

515
00:28:37,095 --> 00:28:41,095
that building envelope even though that lot was pre-loaded.

516
00:28:45,145 --> 00:28:48,005
So whose responsibility is it?

517
00:28:48,075 --> 00:28:51,485
Does it become a taking or does it become like

518
00:28:51,515 --> 00:28:53,445
what happens in that consequence

519
00:28:53,445 --> 00:28:55,085
and saying it's a percentage?

520
00:28:55,245 --> 00:28:57,205
I just don't get what you're saying to me. I'm sorry

521
00:28:57,725 --> 00:28:59,885
E Well that that's it.

522
00:28:59,905 --> 00:29:02,805
You would have to look at it as a taking

523
00:29:03,345 --> 00:29:05,445
and you'd have to look at each case in a fact

524
00:29:05,465 --> 00:29:06,645
by case by case basis.

525
00:29:06,665 --> 00:29:08,405
Oh yeah, of course it's an individual situation.

526
00:29:08,425 --> 00:29:12,085
I'm not saying that it's a blanket at all. Okay. I just

527
00:29:12,085 --> 00:29:13,085
Wonder.

528
00:29:13,085 --> 00:29:13,525
But but that's it, it's a taking

529
00:29:13,825 --> 00:29:15,805
and then I was, I probably apologies,

530
00:29:16,005 --> 00:29:17,885
I probably went too far into the weeds for what

531
00:29:17,885 --> 00:29:20,325
that would look like, but it would be a form of a,

532
00:29:20,505 --> 00:29:23,805
of a taking is the que is how we would look at it

533
00:29:24,505 --> 00:29:25,505
And thank you.

534
00:29:25,505 --> 00:29:28,405
And so then the property owner would be responsible for

535
00:29:30,215 --> 00:29:32,645
doing some sort of appeal or, or legal challenge.

536
00:29:33,035 --> 00:29:37,205
Yeah, Because in effect the city was saying

537
00:29:38,595 --> 00:29:43,165
even though we say your lot is pre pre 1997

538
00:29:43,505 --> 00:29:46,205
and is therefore billable, it really isn't.

539
00:29:46,555 --> 00:29:47,555
Yeah,

540
00:29:50,315 --> 00:29:52,605
Yeah, Yeah.

541
00:29:52,835 --> 00:29:55,365
Okay. And, and again, case by case

542
00:29:55,365 --> 00:29:58,005
but in general it'd be in the takings realm.

543
00:29:59,515 --> 00:30:02,765
Okay. John, commissioner Mar, commissioner Mar.

544
00:30:04,175 --> 00:30:06,645
Thank you Chair Barner. Can you hear me okay?

545
00:30:06,955 --> 00:30:10,285
Yeah, Yeah. Thank you for the presentation.

546
00:30:11,405 --> 00:30:12,885
I have I guess a related question.

547
00:30:12,985 --> 00:30:17,765
So is a lot deemed buildable if it is not accessible

548
00:30:18,025 --> 00:30:20,645
by a driveway, is it still deemed buildable?

549
00:30:20,645 --> 00:30:24,205
In other words, you have an area to park outside

550
00:30:24,225 --> 00:30:25,685
of the perimeter of the lot

551
00:30:25,945 --> 00:30:28,165
and can access the, still access the lot.

552
00:30:29,545 --> 00:30:30,685
Is that deemed buildable?

553
00:30:33,265 --> 00:30:36,485
So, you know, I obviously vehicular access

554
00:30:36,705 --> 00:30:41,045
to a property is customarily of one of the prerequisites

555
00:30:41,045 --> 00:30:43,005
for development of a house single family.

556
00:30:43,805 --> 00:30:45,005
There are other housing types

557
00:30:45,075 --> 00:30:47,765
that don't have parking associated with them,

558
00:30:48,865 --> 00:30:51,445
but those would not likely be built on hillside lands.

559
00:30:52,025 --> 00:30:56,645
So I, I did want to note that the, you know, the,

560
00:30:57,355 --> 00:31:00,085
your question in terms of our buildable lands inventory,

561
00:31:00,185 --> 00:31:03,605
the assessment of lots, if there was a lot

562
00:31:03,605 --> 00:31:06,605
that was entirely landlocked that had no access,

563
00:31:07,345 --> 00:31:09,885
no platted access in the form of a flag lot

564
00:31:10,105 --> 00:31:14,525
and no direct street frontage, the buildable lands inventory

565
00:31:15,065 --> 00:31:17,005
likely would've been identifying

566
00:31:17,005 --> 00:31:18,485
that property as unbuildable.

567
00:31:19,745 --> 00:31:23,085
But the 13 lots in question that we're bringing forth

568
00:31:23,625 --> 00:31:25,565
for consideration by the commission this evening

569
00:31:26,265 --> 00:31:29,765
all are legally created lots that do have

570
00:31:31,115 --> 00:31:33,285
platted access to a public street.

571
00:31:33,825 --> 00:31:37,565
And as such would have the opportunity for vehicular access

572
00:31:38,345 --> 00:31:41,285
if the land use regulations were not restrictive

573
00:31:41,665 --> 00:31:44,725
to the degree that a driveway which could

574
00:31:44,725 --> 00:31:47,925
otherwise be installed not be installed due to lack of a

575
00:31:48,435 --> 00:31:50,205
opportunity to apply for

576
00:31:50,845 --> 00:31:52,885
a variance addressing the minimum unique

577
00:31:53,225 --> 00:31:56,605
or unusual circumstances that apply to those properties.

578
00:31:58,065 --> 00:32:01,125
The, what this ordinance doesn't do is authorize

579
00:32:01,785 --> 00:32:03,285
the creation of new lots

580
00:32:03,345 --> 00:32:06,245
or new flag drives serving

581
00:32:07,615 --> 00:32:08,725
newly created lots.

582
00:32:09,185 --> 00:32:12,245
And so the ordinance amendment presented doesn't

583
00:32:13,325 --> 00:32:15,605
increase the number of potential dwellings

584
00:32:15,625 --> 00:32:17,285
beyond what's currently existing

585
00:32:18,645 --> 00:32:22,125
dependent on constrained access beyond the closed

586
00:32:22,185 --> 00:32:25,605
or diminishing class of pre 1997.

587
00:32:26,235 --> 00:32:29,245
Lots of records. So those are a, a fixed number

588
00:32:29,745 --> 00:32:32,485
and would be diminishing over time as they're developed

589
00:32:32,975 --> 00:32:34,205
until some point in the future

590
00:32:34,825 --> 00:32:36,285
the ordinance amendment presented

591
00:32:36,285 --> 00:32:38,845
to you this evening would no longer be relevant

592
00:32:38,845 --> 00:32:41,925
because all of those pre 1997 lots

593
00:32:42,295 --> 00:32:43,485
would have been developed.

594
00:32:46,065 --> 00:32:48,565
Got it. I just have one quick follow up to that.

595
00:32:48,985 --> 00:32:53,525
So, so in the case of let's just say a cottage cluster

596
00:32:53,525 --> 00:32:55,165
that had a pedestrian easement

597
00:32:55,385 --> 00:32:57,325
and it was on a steep slope, that

598
00:32:57,325 --> 00:32:58,845
that would still be buildable.

599
00:32:58,845 --> 00:33:01,925
Let's just say it didn't even violate the 18% grade

600
00:33:02,135 --> 00:33:03,205
still buildable lot.

601
00:33:03,595 --> 00:33:05,325
There's ways to get to that lot.

602
00:33:05,345 --> 00:33:06,645
That's what I'm trying to qualify

603
00:33:07,725 --> 00:33:08,925
For vehicular access.

604
00:33:09,525 --> 00:33:12,325
You, we'd also also have to look at fire apparatus access

605
00:33:12,825 --> 00:33:14,725
of course for that cottage housing development,

606
00:33:14,725 --> 00:33:17,365
which typically doubles his vehicular access.

607
00:33:18,185 --> 00:33:21,485
Yep, that makes sense. Okay, so I, I equate this

608
00:33:21,505 --> 00:33:26,165
to legislation that allows vintage automobiles owners

609
00:33:26,665 --> 00:33:28,245
to exceed pollution

610
00:33:31,765 --> 00:33:35,565
emission standards simply as a matter of fact

611
00:33:35,905 --> 00:33:39,005
of their inability to install a catalytic converter.

612
00:33:39,865 --> 00:33:44,725
So I'm trying to understand the rationale for allowing this

613
00:33:45,315 --> 00:33:48,485
exception for these older quote buildable lots.

614
00:33:51,145 --> 00:33:53,965
And I just want to understand the planning

615
00:33:55,765 --> 00:33:56,765
hypothesis behind that

616
00:33:56,765 --> 00:33:58,485
because I believe it's probably be

617
00:33:59,595 --> 00:34:01,925
justified based on housing production.

618
00:34:02,625 --> 00:34:05,965
Is that true primarily to support housing production

619
00:34:05,965 --> 00:34:07,645
or is there an equity argument there too?

620
00:34:08,325 --> 00:34:10,165
I think there's both an equity argument

621
00:34:10,265 --> 00:34:13,925
and a housing production, a argument that the, you know,

622
00:34:13,925 --> 00:34:16,085
the grade standards that we're talking about is have

623
00:34:16,405 --> 00:34:19,205
historically been applied when new lots are created.

624
00:34:19,205 --> 00:34:21,605
That's why it's under the partition chapter.

625
00:34:22,345 --> 00:34:24,685
But these are cases that aren't subject to partition.

626
00:34:24,785 --> 00:34:27,165
But with the Luba recent ruling,

627
00:34:27,425 --> 00:34:29,765
it was incumbent upon the city to see if

628
00:34:29,765 --> 00:34:32,045
that was a change in circumstance for

629
00:34:33,525 --> 00:34:35,325
existing properties within the city.

630
00:34:35,505 --> 00:34:38,645
And you're noting the housing production strategy

631
00:34:38,705 --> 00:34:41,045
and our housing capacity analysis,

632
00:34:41,365 --> 00:34:44,165
although in the context of the entire city, 13

633
00:34:44,915 --> 00:34:49,525
lots seems rather small, those are opportunities

634
00:34:49,745 --> 00:34:52,925
for additional housing, which our buildable lands inventory

635
00:34:53,245 --> 00:34:55,805
demonstrated all of those lots were needed in order

636
00:34:55,805 --> 00:34:57,325
to accommodate our future growth.

637
00:34:58,945 --> 00:35:00,045
But further I do think

638
00:35:00,045 --> 00:35:03,245
that there is a equity issue if there was a land use

639
00:35:03,245 --> 00:35:06,645
regulation that was passed by the city subsequent

640
00:35:06,645 --> 00:35:08,405
to the creation of the, the lots

641
00:35:08,955 --> 00:35:10,805
that subsequently precluded the

642
00:35:10,805 --> 00:35:12,085
development of those properties.

643
00:35:12,805 --> 00:35:15,205
I think that does in a sense,

644
00:35:15,225 --> 00:35:18,365
disenfranchise those property owners from due use

645
00:35:18,365 --> 00:35:21,245
of their property and that could potentially trigger

646
00:35:21,245 --> 00:35:22,365
that takings argument,

647
00:35:22,815 --> 00:35:26,205
which would be a fact based individual assessment on each

648
00:35:26,265 --> 00:35:27,525
lot of what they could do

649
00:35:27,995 --> 00:35:29,885
with their property if it can't be developed

650
00:35:29,905 --> 00:35:33,085
as was originally allowable before the code was adopted.

651
00:35:34,995 --> 00:35:36,585
Great, thank you. Thank you chair.

652
00:35:37,185 --> 00:35:41,605
You're welcome. So how do you get old lots

653
00:35:42,945 --> 00:35:47,045
to come into modern conformance so that they are

654
00:35:47,915 --> 00:35:49,685
treated the same way?

655
00:35:49,875 --> 00:35:52,725
Current lots are in terms of

656
00:35:55,625 --> 00:36:00,185
wildfire access, anything else

657
00:36:02,635 --> 00:36:04,785
Where they can meet current requirements?

658
00:36:04,935 --> 00:36:06,265
They would be subject to those

659
00:36:06,285 --> 00:36:09,065
and would have to, that's why we reduced the number

660
00:36:09,065 --> 00:36:13,505
of 74 lots that were pre-existing vacant lots down to 13

661
00:36:13,505 --> 00:36:17,945
because we, without a site by site assessment,

662
00:36:18,125 --> 00:36:20,465
but looking at the GIS data determined

663
00:36:20,575 --> 00:36:22,065
that they likely could comply

664
00:36:22,065 --> 00:36:25,145
with the maximum driveway grade of 15%

665
00:36:25,645 --> 00:36:27,785
and not an excess of 18 with the variance.

666
00:36:28,605 --> 00:36:31,265
So like the adoption of the hillside, I'm sorry,

667
00:36:31,325 --> 00:36:34,865
the wildfire overlay, all lots are now subject to that.

668
00:36:35,285 --> 00:36:37,545
So even these older lots, even though they were created

669
00:36:37,545 --> 00:36:40,585
before that ordinance, they can put in fuel breaks

670
00:36:40,845 --> 00:36:43,545
and provide general fuel management on site

671
00:36:43,545 --> 00:36:46,025
and so they'll be subject to that requirement.

672
00:36:46,465 --> 00:36:50,385
I think in the variance proceedings, the term that was

673
00:36:51,315 --> 00:36:54,865
being discussed earlier in terms of what the code says

674
00:36:55,565 --> 00:36:56,985
it states the minimum is,

675
00:36:57,085 --> 00:36:58,945
or the variance is the minimum necessary

676
00:36:59,365 --> 00:37:00,385
to address the special

677
00:37:00,405 --> 00:37:03,025
or unique physical circumstances related

678
00:37:03,085 --> 00:37:04,185
to the subject's site.

679
00:37:04,605 --> 00:37:07,505
So an applicant in applying for a variance would have

680
00:37:07,505 --> 00:37:09,985
to demonstrate that the existing natural grade

681
00:37:10,725 --> 00:37:15,025
is a unique physical circumstance that they cannot

682
00:37:15,025 --> 00:37:17,025
otherwise address

683
00:37:17,325 --> 00:37:21,145
and under the limits of the code, if their

684
00:37:21,665 --> 00:37:23,225
engineer says they can do a driveway

685
00:37:23,495 --> 00:37:27,305
that meets the 18% grade or 15% grade

686
00:37:27,765 --> 00:37:30,025
and not require a variance, that would be the path

687
00:37:30,025 --> 00:37:31,265
that they would need to take.

688
00:37:32,855 --> 00:37:36,115
And so we're relying on their, their engineer

689
00:37:38,755 --> 00:37:40,095
to give us that information,

690
00:37:42,115 --> 00:37:43,615
You know, essentially their application,

691
00:37:43,795 --> 00:37:45,695
the burden on the applicant to demonstrate

692
00:37:45,695 --> 00:37:46,895
that it's necessary.

693
00:37:49,435 --> 00:37:52,775
Go ahead. I would say that anybody that was trying

694
00:37:52,795 --> 00:37:56,855
to develop a flag lot would go to whatever ends they needed

695
00:37:56,915 --> 00:37:59,975
to, to get under to get 18 or under.

696
00:38:00,125 --> 00:38:04,255
It's not like it's a prize to get a steeper driveway.

697
00:38:11,715 --> 00:38:13,455
Go ahead chair. Thank you Chair.

698
00:38:15,055 --> 00:38:16,615
I, I wanna follow up on the questions

699
00:38:16,615 --> 00:38:17,775
that have been asked about the equity

700
00:38:17,775 --> 00:38:18,815
and due process issues.

701
00:38:18,915 --> 00:38:20,535
But first I want to thank you Derek,

702
00:38:20,715 --> 00:38:22,815
for providing the geographic information

703
00:38:25,035 --> 00:38:27,255
on existing lots of records that were created

704
00:38:27,275 --> 00:38:30,415
before adoption of the 1997 hillside standards, the 13

705
00:38:30,415 --> 00:38:34,895
or four 14 or so, that, that list is really helpful.

706
00:38:35,075 --> 00:38:37,525
It's what we needed to discuss this.

707
00:38:37,865 --> 00:38:42,005
And I I'm wondering, just as a quick clarification,

708
00:38:42,075 --> 00:38:45,445
does the city database of real estate property information

709
00:38:46,555 --> 00:38:47,725
include the purchase

710
00:38:47,785 --> 00:38:52,485
or transfer date showing when each current owner

711
00:38:53,465 --> 00:38:55,885
obtain or obtained or took possession of their lot?

712
00:38:58,315 --> 00:39:01,525
City data doesn't include that, but the county records do.

713
00:39:01,665 --> 00:39:03,045
So we have access to all

714
00:39:03,045 --> 00:39:04,605
that information through the Jackson County.

715
00:39:05,075 --> 00:39:07,405
Cool. So we know based on

716
00:39:07,405 --> 00:39:10,725
that information when an owner would've been noticed

717
00:39:11,145 --> 00:39:14,045
of the existence of those hillside standards.

718
00:39:14,045 --> 00:39:18,165
Right. Whether, whether their possession predated

719
00:39:19,125 --> 00:39:21,445
adoption of the standards or whether the possession occurred

720
00:39:21,615 --> 00:39:22,885
after the standards.

721
00:39:22,885 --> 00:39:24,285
Right. Right. Cool.

722
00:39:24,545 --> 00:39:26,245
So the follow up question that I want

723
00:39:26,245 --> 00:39:30,885
to ask about the equity consideration is,

724
00:39:31,615 --> 00:39:35,885
given that it's a, it's a fact specific inquiry,

725
00:39:37,975 --> 00:39:41,485
would one of the relevant factors in a due process claim

726
00:39:41,485 --> 00:39:44,445
that might create civil liability to the city in the form

727
00:39:44,445 --> 00:39:48,645
of taking, would one of those factors be

728
00:39:49,255 --> 00:39:51,365
owner notice of the existence

729
00:39:51,665 --> 00:39:54,165
of potentially restrictive hillside standards?

730
00:40:02,055 --> 00:40:03,465
Yeah, I mean I haven't researched

731
00:40:03,465 --> 00:40:05,945
that question specifically to this case.

732
00:40:06,225 --> 00:40:10,025
I mean, I do know as a, as a bit of a segue,

733
00:40:12,495 --> 00:40:16,585
even looking at some of the manufactured home case law that

734
00:40:18,175 --> 00:40:22,105
like there, there, there was one case as an example where

735
00:40:24,175 --> 00:40:27,545
someone was buying a manufactured home park

736
00:40:28,775 --> 00:40:31,345
with the rule in place with a kind of, with

737
00:40:31,345 --> 00:40:33,545
that had a more restrictive use,

738
00:40:33,695 --> 00:40:35,545
like a tenant favorable restrictive use

739
00:40:36,685 --> 00:40:41,385
and the court found that that person was on notice and

740
00:40:41,735 --> 00:40:44,145
because of that there was no problem with it.

741
00:40:44,645 --> 00:40:47,425
So I think there would probably be a similar analysis.

742
00:40:47,895 --> 00:40:49,865
Yeah, that sounds like an analogous situation

743
00:40:50,455 --> 00:40:51,865
That would, that would be

744
00:40:51,865 --> 00:40:53,425
how I would imagine it would play

745
00:40:53,425 --> 00:40:54,425
Out.

746
00:40:54,425 --> 00:40:55,145
Yeah. Thank you very much for that.

747
00:40:55,685 --> 00:40:59,265
You know, it it, I think it goes to the question about what,

748
00:40:59,295 --> 00:41:02,665
what happens when you have a pre 1997 lot and

749
00:41:02,665 --> 00:41:05,905
because of this Luba decision and

750
00:41:05,905 --> 00:41:07,425
because we didn't change the

751
00:41:07,425 --> 00:41:09,705
ordinance, you can't develop it.

752
00:41:09,765 --> 00:41:11,505
Or even if we do develop the ordinance,

753
00:41:11,525 --> 00:41:12,665
you still can't develop it.

754
00:41:13,285 --> 00:41:15,185
Can can I ask you a question? Sure.

755
00:41:15,605 --> 00:41:19,585
So you're basically saying that it's, if I own one

756
00:41:19,585 --> 00:41:23,665
of those lots and it's pre 1997 when I sell it,

757
00:41:23,665 --> 00:41:25,425
then it no longer is developable

758
00:41:25,425 --> 00:41:27,225
and I should have known better if I bought it.

759
00:41:27,765 --> 00:41:30,545
That's kind of where I'm getting at with the notice thing.

760
00:41:30,775 --> 00:41:34,405
Yeah. Yeah. The, the date of purchase or transfer

761
00:41:34,405 --> 00:41:36,005
or possession is relevant here. No,

762
00:41:36,005 --> 00:41:37,565
It's still a taking because then you're telling

763
00:41:37,565 --> 00:41:40,085
that person that owns it already that they can't sell

764
00:41:40,085 --> 00:41:41,085
It.

765
00:41:41,085 --> 00:41:42,965
Well it's relevant but it's not necessarily dispositive.

766
00:41:43,085 --> 00:41:45,485
I think as we just discussed, it's gonna be a fact

767
00:41:45,545 --> 00:41:50,005
by factual, you know, weighing of factors on in each case.

768
00:41:50,705 --> 00:41:52,525
But I, I see the potential

769
00:41:52,545 --> 00:41:54,605
for taking this claim is what I'm trying to say.

770
00:41:55,585 --> 00:41:59,085
I'm also saying that I think there might be a limited set

771
00:41:59,085 --> 00:42:00,205
of factual circumstances

772
00:42:00,255 --> 00:42:02,765
where such a claim would be successful against the city.

773
00:42:02,955 --> 00:42:05,805
Okay. And that that limited universe

774
00:42:05,985 --> 00:42:08,045
of potentially successful taking claims

775
00:42:08,935 --> 00:42:13,525
might actually be limited to those lots

776
00:42:13,785 --> 00:42:16,925
of record preexisting the hillside standards

777
00:42:16,925 --> 00:42:18,045
that were possessed

778
00:42:18,145 --> 00:42:21,485
or obtained by their current owner prior

779
00:42:21,505 --> 00:42:22,765
to adoption of the standards.

780
00:42:24,705 --> 00:42:26,125
We can talk about it in deliberation,

781
00:42:26,125 --> 00:42:29,405
but that's just kind of the thrust in my question here.

782
00:42:31,025 --> 00:42:34,925
So let, let me shift gears just real quick.

783
00:42:35,605 --> 00:42:36,965
I I only have two more questions.

784
00:42:40,195 --> 00:42:43,125
Just to be clear, the proposed ordinance would not by itself

785
00:42:44,335 --> 00:42:45,645
authorized construction

786
00:42:45,645 --> 00:42:48,565
of any new driveway on any flag bot, is that correct?

787
00:42:49,345 --> 00:42:50,525
That's correct. Okay.

788
00:42:50,545 --> 00:42:52,525
And even if the city adopts the ordinance,

789
00:42:52,525 --> 00:42:55,685
the fire code official still has independent review

790
00:42:55,685 --> 00:42:59,085
and approval authority on any such driveway? Right?

791
00:42:59,295 --> 00:43:02,765
Right. And we adopt the ordinance approve of variance.

792
00:43:02,865 --> 00:43:05,965
The fire code official still has review authority

793
00:43:06,195 --> 00:43:09,645
independent of that variance to say, yeah, the city said,

794
00:43:10,005 --> 00:43:12,365
planning said you could do 20%,

795
00:43:12,865 --> 00:43:15,085
but based on conditions you can't.

796
00:43:15,945 --> 00:43:17,685
Mm. And there are a lot of different factors

797
00:43:17,685 --> 00:43:19,645
besides driveway grade that you're looking at, right?

798
00:43:20,785 --> 00:43:23,205
That's correct. Okay, thank you very much.

799
00:43:29,305 --> 00:43:32,685
Any other questions? Okay,

800
00:43:32,965 --> 00:43:34,405
I have just one more. Sure, go ahead.

801
00:43:34,835 --> 00:43:36,565
Okay, just one more quick question, Derek.

802
00:43:38,145 --> 00:43:40,565
Public testimony raised an allegation

803
00:43:41,395 --> 00:43:45,725
that the required 35 day DLCD notice was not provided.

804
00:43:46,465 --> 00:43:48,125
Can staff or the city attorney

805
00:43:49,035 --> 00:43:51,325
confirm whether the required notice was

806
00:43:51,645 --> 00:43:54,045
provided for the record?

807
00:43:55,225 --> 00:43:59,685
So 35 day notice to DLCD was provided in June.

808
00:43:59,885 --> 00:44:02,845
I don't remember the specific date, but it was

809
00:44:03,085 --> 00:44:06,525
provided again, we had this group with Senate Bill 9 74.

810
00:44:07,105 --> 00:44:10,365
We subsequently chose to separate them.

811
00:44:10,585 --> 00:44:13,085
So again, 9 74 could move forward independently.

812
00:44:13,375 --> 00:44:15,725
There are now two distinct ordinances

813
00:44:16,105 --> 00:44:18,525
and we've notified the state subsequently

814
00:44:18,915 --> 00:44:21,885
with approval from our regional rep from DLCD

815
00:44:22,225 --> 00:44:23,925
to keep them under that original notice,

816
00:44:24,385 --> 00:44:26,925
but provide the separate details which have been

817
00:44:27,125 --> 00:44:28,205
provided to DLCD.

818
00:44:28,775 --> 00:44:29,885
Thank you Derek. Yep.

819
00:44:34,115 --> 00:44:36,685
Yeah, John, you're Commissioner Mar,

820
00:44:36,685 --> 00:44:38,205
you're, and then thank you.

821
00:44:39,075 --> 00:44:40,365
Yeah, thank you Chair. I'll be quick.

822
00:44:40,765 --> 00:44:42,445
I just wanna clarify, so these variances,

823
00:44:42,445 --> 00:44:45,365
this is would be type one, they've been administrative

824
00:44:45,585 --> 00:44:47,965
by staff or they would come before planning,

825
00:44:51,905 --> 00:44:54,205
It would be a case by case assessment in terms

826
00:44:54,205 --> 00:44:57,965
of the physical environmental constraint review, I do think

827
00:44:57,965 --> 00:45:02,565
that a, you know, for instance, 25% grade variance

828
00:45:03,655 --> 00:45:06,765
would be not a clear and objective approval.

829
00:45:07,305 --> 00:45:10,565
And so could be scheduled before the commission.

830
00:45:11,255 --> 00:45:14,685
Derek, his planning manager may be able to answer as well.

831
00:45:15,265 --> 00:45:18,165
The only thing I'm not sure is with changes to state law,

832
00:45:18,165 --> 00:45:20,565
residential applications including variances

833
00:45:21,225 --> 00:45:23,925
are becoming an administrative approval even if they would

834
00:45:23,925 --> 00:45:25,165
otherwise have been a type two.

835
00:45:26,185 --> 00:45:27,765
So I think there's a chance

836
00:45:27,765 --> 00:45:29,445
with the direction state law's going,

837
00:45:30,275 --> 00:45:32,485
that any residential applications are likely

838
00:45:32,545 --> 00:45:34,325
to be administrative approvals,

839
00:45:34,785 --> 00:45:37,485
But they could be called up In some cases

840
00:45:39,155 --> 00:45:43,725
Only, only only on appeal by the applicant, not

841
00:45:43,745 --> 00:45:45,605
by a resident, not by name.

842
00:45:46,235 --> 00:45:50,765
Yeah. House bill 40 37 limits appeals on clear

843
00:45:50,765 --> 00:45:53,245
and object, clear and objective housing applications

844
00:45:53,385 --> 00:45:55,245
to the applicant only.

845
00:45:55,785 --> 00:45:58,645
And that may be a determination point in terms

846
00:45:58,645 --> 00:46:01,085
of whether a variance falls under clear and objective.

847
00:46:09,315 --> 00:46:11,125
Okay. So let's move on

848
00:46:11,145 --> 00:46:13,885
to the public comment portion of the meeting.

849
00:46:14,625 --> 00:46:17,725
And I have a number of

850
00:46:18,435 --> 00:46:22,845
speaker requests and there are several people here on Zoom.

851
00:46:23,425 --> 00:46:25,165
So let's take the Zoom people first.

852
00:46:28,055 --> 00:46:32,805
David ler? No. No. Okay. Jay Re

853
00:46:34,805 --> 00:46:38,365
I don't see that Jay himself is, but Sarah is available

854
00:46:38,625 --> 00:46:41,525
and they said they, they speak together.

855
00:46:41,665 --> 00:46:43,085
So I'll know Sarah, the

856
00:46:43,085 --> 00:46:44,085
Analyst.

857
00:46:44,085 --> 00:46:44,085
Okay.

858
00:46:48,945 --> 00:46:52,685
Can you make it so that we can see John and Sarah?

859
00:46:53,865 --> 00:46:55,645
Ah, thank you. Thank you.

860
00:46:59,375 --> 00:47:00,845
Sarah, would you like to speak?

861
00:47:01,145 --> 00:47:02,445
Hi, this is Sarah.

862
00:47:02,985 --> 00:47:05,285
Jay is actually going to speak on our behalf.

863
00:47:05,505 --> 00:47:09,045
We are unfortunately not in the same location, so

864
00:47:09,685 --> 00:47:11,165
I will yield my time to Jay.

865
00:47:12,035 --> 00:47:14,165
Okay. Jay, please speak up.

866
00:47:23,775 --> 00:47:25,555
We don't see Jay on, on our screen.

867
00:47:26,615 --> 00:47:28,555
He is, he's still muted.

868
00:47:28,555 --> 00:47:30,365
He said, said he, he texted

869
00:47:30,425 --> 00:47:32,405
and said he is still muted. So I think can

870
00:47:32,405 --> 00:47:35,085
You provide his, can you provide his username

871
00:47:35,465 --> 00:47:37,005
so he can be promoted to panelist?

872
00:47:37,625 --> 00:47:40,005
We have One, I think it's jr.

873
00:47:41,625 --> 00:47:44,365
We don't have a JR. We have one that is just iPad.

874
00:47:45,345 --> 00:47:49,125
Oh, that's probably J. Sorry.

875
00:48:07,765 --> 00:48:11,425
Can you hear me now? Yes, can you,

876
00:48:11,785 --> 00:48:12,785
Technology working.

877
00:48:13,045 --> 00:48:16,105
Can you, could you show yourself, turn on your camera.

878
00:48:16,845 --> 00:48:19,745
You know what, I don't have video available to me.

879
00:48:21,065 --> 00:48:22,145
I don't have enough bandwidth.

880
00:48:22,685 --> 00:48:24,105
Can you state your name for the record?

881
00:48:25,005 --> 00:48:28,705
You bet. This is Jay Reek from two 30 Strawberry Lane.

882
00:48:29,975 --> 00:48:32,225
Okay, thank you very much. Please go ahead.

883
00:48:32,725 --> 00:48:34,745
You have, thank you. You have three minutes.

884
00:48:35,915 --> 00:48:36,745
Great, thank you.

885
00:48:45,815 --> 00:48:48,785
Okay, we submitted written comments as you saw in opposition

886
00:48:48,965 --> 00:48:50,785
to this ordinance,

887
00:48:51,245 --> 00:48:52,625
and I thank the commissioners for reading

888
00:48:52,625 --> 00:48:54,385
through the comments and the supporting documents.

889
00:48:55,205 --> 00:48:57,945
If you haven't had a chance to do so, we'd encourage you

890
00:48:57,945 --> 00:48:59,425
to do so before making a decision.

891
00:48:59,485 --> 00:49:03,545
And there's been some good deliberation so far as,

892
00:49:04,245 --> 00:49:07,985
as we stated in our comments, the proposed changes are not

893
00:49:08,505 --> 00:49:12,065
mandated by state law and are inconsistent with state law.

894
00:49:12,785 --> 00:49:14,305
Local jurisdictions are charged

895
00:49:14,305 --> 00:49:16,425
with adopting either the state fire code

896
00:49:16,685 --> 00:49:18,945
or a local fire code that is equal to

897
00:49:19,045 --> 00:49:22,185
or more stringent than the protections in the state

898
00:49:22,185 --> 00:49:23,265
fire code standards.

899
00:49:23,735 --> 00:49:26,185
This proposal is less stringent than State code.

900
00:49:27,525 --> 00:49:29,185
The proposal is also inconsistent

901
00:49:29,185 --> 00:49:32,185
with Ashton Comprehensive Plan in 1997.

902
00:49:32,365 --> 00:49:33,425
The city council wrote

903
00:49:33,425 --> 00:49:35,825
that the Hillside development standards are quote

904
00:49:36,525 --> 00:49:38,865
in compliance with the comprehensive plan

905
00:49:38,925 --> 00:49:42,385
and that the comprehensive plan contains specific policies

906
00:49:42,405 --> 00:49:45,225
and provisions which provide the basis for this ordinance.

907
00:49:46,375 --> 00:49:48,585
Exempting Hillside lots from the well-crafted

908
00:49:48,585 --> 00:49:51,505
and longstanding safety-oriented hillside ordinance is

909
00:49:51,505 --> 00:49:53,985
clearly inconsistent with the Ashland Comprehensive plan

910
00:49:54,325 --> 00:49:56,025
and dangerous for our community.

911
00:49:56,785 --> 00:49:58,345
Parenthetically, I'll mention that

912
00:49:58,985 --> 00:50:01,545
Hillside Standards development identified

913
00:50:01,545 --> 00:50:04,465
that it would actually adversely affect 33 properties,

914
00:50:04,525 --> 00:50:07,585
and yet the city council in nine seven still decided

915
00:50:07,615 --> 00:50:09,145
that the benefit to the community

916
00:50:09,145 --> 00:50:12,065
and the safety to the community was worthwhile

917
00:50:12,085 --> 00:50:13,505
to make that difficult decision.

918
00:50:15,095 --> 00:50:18,145
Also, the proposed flag driveway code is internally

919
00:50:18,225 --> 00:50:19,945
inconsistent at the same time

920
00:50:20,785 --> 00:50:24,065
allowing grades steeper than 18% on some flag lots

921
00:50:24,325 --> 00:50:28,085
and prohibiting grades steeper than 18% on other fly lot.

922
00:50:28,705 --> 00:50:30,925
How can this be safe in one instance and not in another?

923
00:50:31,425 --> 00:50:32,925
The Oregon State Fire Code has already

924
00:50:32,925 --> 00:50:34,245
established that it's not safe.

925
00:50:36,845 --> 00:50:41,805
Additionally, the ordinance is not related to the SB 9 74

926
00:50:41,805 --> 00:50:44,085
and is not required by the Senate bill of the state.

927
00:50:45,045 --> 00:50:46,965
As mentioned earlier, the minutes from the Planning

928
00:50:46,965 --> 00:50:50,805
Commission study session in May indicated this amendment was

929
00:50:50,805 --> 00:50:52,325
presented to the commissioners as part

930
00:50:52,325 --> 00:50:55,005
of the legislative changes because of SB 9 74.

931
00:50:55,545 --> 00:50:57,965
And as noted in the May 26th staff memo

932
00:50:58,065 --> 00:51:00,085
to the commission in today's minutes

933
00:51:00,945 --> 00:51:04,085
or meeting materials, the proposal is not

934
00:51:05,035 --> 00:51:06,685
because of SP 74,

935
00:51:06,685 --> 00:51:10,165
but is in response to the Lula remand of the specific

936
00:51:11,195 --> 00:51:15,525
application PAT three 2020 4 0 0 5 3.

937
00:51:17,115 --> 00:51:19,205
Finally, if this proposal is adopted,

938
00:51:20,045 --> 00:51:21,565
Ashland will be an extreme outlier

939
00:51:21,585 --> 00:51:24,485
for fire safety regulations and building codes in Oregon.

940
00:51:25,025 --> 00:51:27,285
We will be seen as reckless with our regulations

941
00:51:27,305 --> 00:51:30,445
and codes, especially if a tragedy or accident should occur

942
00:51:30,445 --> 00:51:32,325
because of exceedingly steep driveway.

943
00:51:33,145 --> 00:51:35,045
We ask you tonight to deliberate

944
00:51:35,065 --> 00:51:36,725
and make your decision in the interest

945
00:51:36,725 --> 00:51:38,925
of Ashton's values in our broader citizenry.

946
00:51:39,425 --> 00:51:41,485
We ask you to recommit to policies

947
00:51:41,485 --> 00:51:43,245
and codes that we all abide by.

948
00:51:43,785 --> 00:51:45,245
And to protect us and our town,

949
00:51:45,585 --> 00:51:47,245
please reject the proposed amendment

950
00:51:47,305 --> 00:51:49,165
to the flag drive grave regulation.

951
00:51:49,375 --> 00:51:50,375
Thank you.

952
00:51:51,215 --> 00:51:55,685
Thank you very much. Emil

953
00:51:56,155 --> 00:51:58,685
Sand Osky, is he available?

954
00:51:59,515 --> 00:51:59,805
He's,

955
00:52:11,505 --> 00:52:12,685
Yes. Hello, can you hear me all right?

956
00:52:12,985 --> 00:52:15,405
Yes. You're Emil Kovski.

957
00:52:15,905 --> 00:52:17,685
Yes, my name's Emil Sadowski. Oh,

958
00:52:17,865 --> 00:52:19,325
You have three minutes. Go ahead.

959
00:52:20,095 --> 00:52:22,205
Thank you. And yeah, thank you for the time

960
00:52:22,265 --> 00:52:24,565
and for reviewing our written comments.

961
00:52:24,705 --> 00:52:26,725
I'm here, be here. Excuse me.

962
00:52:26,785 --> 00:52:29,165
I'm an attorney here appearing on behalf of Kenton,

963
00:52:29,425 --> 00:52:30,525
Pamela McLaughlin.

964
00:52:31,025 --> 00:52:32,965
We did submit written comments and so I appreciate the time

965
00:52:32,965 --> 00:52:36,125
that you've taken to look those over here

966
00:52:36,125 --> 00:52:39,325
to speak in opposition of the planning action.

967
00:52:39,745 --> 00:52:42,365
The proposed variance event caters solely

968
00:52:42,425 --> 00:52:44,605
to an elite landowner who knew

969
00:52:44,605 --> 00:52:46,485
or should have known prior to their purchase

970
00:52:46,485 --> 00:52:49,045
of the vacant property that the driveway would not comply

971
00:52:49,045 --> 00:52:50,645
with maximum grade variances.

972
00:52:51,555 --> 00:52:54,365
This was sub subject. I heard some of this discussion,

973
00:52:54,365 --> 00:52:56,005
your deliberation, and I think that's a,

974
00:52:56,005 --> 00:52:57,445
it is a reasonable thing to consider.

975
00:52:58,185 --> 00:53:00,645
It is a breach of the public trust

976
00:53:00,985 --> 00:53:02,685
to annihilate a strict health

977
00:53:02,685 --> 00:53:04,085
and safety limitation merely

978
00:53:04,085 --> 00:53:05,805
to appease a single wealthy landowner.

979
00:53:06,745 --> 00:53:07,845
The fire danger in Oregon

980
00:53:07,905 --> 00:53:09,765
and especially in southern Oregon, increases every year

981
00:53:09,765 --> 00:53:12,565
and it's reaching extreme levels like Spokane,

982
00:53:13,485 --> 00:53:15,205
Ashland Dentists Watershed is a tinderbox

983
00:53:15,345 --> 00:53:16,885
and yet your staff is now proposing

984
00:53:16,885 --> 00:53:19,165
that you loosen the standards for providing safe fire

985
00:53:19,185 --> 00:53:21,205
and emergency access to hillside properties.

986
00:53:22,715 --> 00:53:25,685
Nothing in SD 9 74 requires changes

987
00:53:25,705 --> 00:53:27,085
to the driveway grade standards

988
00:53:27,345 --> 00:53:30,885
and expressly exclude standards related to fire ingress,

989
00:53:31,165 --> 00:53:34,245
egress public health or safety and natural hazards.

990
00:53:34,585 --> 00:53:35,725
So there's no justification

991
00:53:35,725 --> 00:53:39,045
for relaxing the flag drive grade limits under SB 9 74.

992
00:53:40,035 --> 00:53:42,645
This proposal would eliminate the 18% grade cap

993
00:53:42,645 --> 00:53:43,765
for existing lots.

994
00:53:44,515 --> 00:53:46,405
Cons, contrary to current

995
00:53:47,125 --> 00:53:49,165
Ashland land use ordinance is interpreted by Luba

996
00:53:49,305 --> 00:53:51,365
and enabled driveway grades far beyond

997
00:53:51,365 --> 00:53:54,085
what existence variance, variance framework allows.

998
00:53:54,725 --> 00:53:57,525
I also wanna point out that this would make Ashland a

999
00:53:57,635 --> 00:54:01,605
extreme outlier as far as the the grades that it allows

1000
00:54:03,195 --> 00:54:06,005
Because flag drives are treated as fire apparatus,

1001
00:54:06,005 --> 00:54:08,645
access roads, and the Oregon Fire Code limits such roads

1002
00:54:08,645 --> 00:54:09,685
to 10% grade.

1003
00:54:10,185 --> 00:54:11,965
The amendment is wholly inconsistent

1004
00:54:12,195 --> 00:54:13,925
with adopted fire code regulations

1005
00:54:14,385 --> 00:54:16,165
and would undermine emergency access.

1006
00:54:16,865 --> 00:54:19,565
It also conflicts with the Ashland Comprehensive Plan

1007
00:54:19,565 --> 00:54:22,605
and the 2025 Community Wildfire Protection Plan,

1008
00:54:22,735 --> 00:54:25,205
which both prioritize adequate ingress

1009
00:54:25,205 --> 00:54:27,765
and egress evacuation capacity

1010
00:54:27,945 --> 00:54:30,045
and consistent wildfire resilience measures.

1011
00:54:30,045 --> 00:54:34,125
In light of the city's recent wildfire experience, CAPA

1012
00:54:36,275 --> 00:54:37,845
steeper grades would heighten erosion

1013
00:54:37,985 --> 00:54:39,285
and slope stability risks

1014
00:54:39,585 --> 00:54:42,285
and make Ashland an outlier among Oregon jurisdictions

1015
00:54:42,285 --> 00:54:45,405
that almost universally cap driveway grades around 10

1016
00:54:45,405 --> 00:54:48,245
to 18% only with strict safeguards.

1017
00:54:48,835 --> 00:54:50,445
Accordingly, the commission should reject

1018
00:54:50,445 --> 00:54:51,565
the proposed variance amendment.

1019
00:54:52,335 --> 00:54:53,365
Thank you for taking the time.

1020
00:54:54,955 --> 00:54:55,985
Thank you very much.

1021
00:54:57,735 --> 00:55:00,705
Okay, we're moving on to in-person speakers.

1022
00:55:01,385 --> 00:55:03,905
We have Carrie Maston.

1023
00:55:13,235 --> 00:55:14,385
Thank you. You have three

1024
00:55:14,385 --> 00:55:15,385
Minutes.

1025
00:55:15,385 --> 00:55:19,745
Oh, thank you. Oh, I'm new at this. So be patient.

1026
00:55:21,665 --> 00:55:25,545
I live at 2, 2 7 granite. Actually, I inherited the home.

1027
00:55:25,565 --> 00:55:27,385
My parents lived there for 35 years

1028
00:55:28,125 --> 00:55:33,105
and the property that I believe is, you know,

1029
00:55:33,525 --> 00:55:36,705
the impetus for this whole thing is 2 31 granite.

1030
00:55:37,325 --> 00:55:40,545
And when I heard that an exception was

1031
00:55:41,675 --> 00:55:45,145
being considered for the flag drive,

1032
00:55:45,585 --> 00:55:46,705
I just couldn't believe it

1033
00:55:46,705 --> 00:55:50,185
because as a retired teacher, I believe in following rules

1034
00:55:50,565 --> 00:55:53,865
and keeping the rules and you make one exception

1035
00:55:54,245 --> 00:55:57,665
and you open it up to other

1036
00:55:58,515 --> 00:55:59,825
exceptions for everybody.

1037
00:56:00,125 --> 00:56:02,865
But what I

1038
00:56:03,535 --> 00:56:07,905
feel is in this discussion is

1039
00:56:08,945 --> 00:56:12,705
I, it reeks of entitlement and it reeks of favoritism

1040
00:56:13,805 --> 00:56:18,585
and the entitlement seems to come thinking

1041
00:56:18,585 --> 00:56:21,465
that Ashland, we are so special

1042
00:56:22,815 --> 00:56:26,285
that we can go against Oregon State law

1043
00:56:26,835 --> 00:56:29,845
regarding the flight, well, we're too special, we don't have

1044
00:56:29,845 --> 00:56:31,125
to follow the Oregon law.

1045
00:56:31,705 --> 00:56:34,525
And that I just, that just feels like entitlement to me.

1046
00:56:34,745 --> 00:56:37,565
And in terms of favoritism, if I,

1047
00:56:39,505 --> 00:56:41,445
you know, just a regular old person came

1048
00:56:41,565 --> 00:56:45,405
and asked for this exception, you would probably say no.

1049
00:56:45,505 --> 00:56:48,965
And I feel like this, I agree with the person who just spoke

1050
00:56:48,965 --> 00:56:52,645
that this does seem like you are spending a lot

1051
00:56:52,945 --> 00:56:54,205
of time on this issue

1052
00:56:54,355 --> 00:56:57,925
because of one wealthy landowner who knew

1053
00:56:58,145 --> 00:57:03,125
before he bought the property that this

1054
00:57:04,295 --> 00:57:08,245
there was the flag drive regulation limiting

1055
00:57:09,425 --> 00:57:13,645
the grade to 15% and 18% as a variance.

1056
00:57:14,585 --> 00:57:19,365
And, and sorry,

1057
00:57:19,585 --> 00:57:23,565
and I just,

1058
00:57:25,085 --> 00:57:26,965
I appreciate this discussion.

1059
00:57:27,125 --> 00:57:31,205
I appreciate the way that you are very calm when you speak

1060
00:57:31,425 --> 00:57:32,725
and polite to each other.

1061
00:57:33,385 --> 00:57:37,245
And thank you for letting me have the opportunity to speak.

1062
00:57:38,065 --> 00:57:40,645
And I had one other point, and I can't even remember.

1063
00:57:41,065 --> 00:57:43,805
Oh, I know. If you're gonna make an exception to a role,

1064
00:57:44,225 --> 00:57:46,125
it has to benefit everyone.

1065
00:57:47,425 --> 00:57:50,205
It has to benefit everyone in the community and you,

1066
00:57:50,345 --> 00:57:54,125
and it can't just benefit a few families.

1067
00:57:54,465 --> 00:57:58,205
And in this case you're talking about 13 lots,

1068
00:57:58,935 --> 00:58:00,965
which is JA drop in the bucket.

1069
00:58:02,145 --> 00:58:04,685
And really you're only talking about one lot

1070
00:58:05,545 --> 00:58:07,405
and oh, I hear, oh, I have 20 seconds.

1071
00:58:08,065 --> 00:58:13,005
The neighbors have offered to buy this back from the divorce

1072
00:58:14,795 --> 00:58:17,885
from, for the price they paid plus 10% so

1073
00:58:17,885 --> 00:58:19,285
that it can be an open space.

1074
00:58:19,825 --> 00:58:21,445
So that was, to answer your question,

1075
00:58:21,445 --> 00:58:22,765
Carrie, what can be done?

1076
00:58:22,905 --> 00:58:26,085
The neighbors can get together by the, by the land back

1077
00:58:26,085 --> 00:58:27,125
and make an open space.

1078
00:58:27,595 --> 00:58:29,565
Okay, thanks. Maybe next time I'll be less nervous.

1079
00:58:29,685 --> 00:58:30,685
I hope so. Thank you.

1080
00:58:32,615 --> 00:58:35,525
Thank you very much. You did well.

1081
00:58:36,335 --> 00:58:39,205
Steve Rouse from Rogue Associate Advocates.

1082
00:58:49,185 --> 00:58:50,425
Good evening and thank you for the

1083
00:58:50,425 --> 00:58:51,705
opportunity to speak tonight.

1084
00:58:52,385 --> 00:58:53,545
My name is Steve Rouse, I'm the

1085
00:58:53,545 --> 00:58:54,705
president of Rogue Advocates.

1086
00:58:54,705 --> 00:58:58,825
We're a nonprofit 5 0 1 C3 land use advocacy group.

1087
00:58:59,485 --> 00:59:04,105
And this driveway flag lot thing has caught our attention.

1088
00:59:04,865 --> 00:59:05,905
I submitted written comments

1089
00:59:05,925 --> 00:59:07,225
and I'm gonna deviate from those

1090
00:59:08,125 --> 00:59:11,345
and talk more about the lucid discussion you guys had

1091
00:59:11,985 --> 00:59:14,145
previously, specifically on the taking issue.

1092
00:59:15,015 --> 00:59:19,625
Clearly if a lot was owned prior to 1997,

1093
00:59:19,735 --> 00:59:21,330
that owner still owns the lot.

1094
00:59:21,875 --> 00:59:23,645
They could have a taking issue,

1095
00:59:26,705 --> 00:59:29,285
but it's been 30 years, so how many

1096
00:59:29,285 --> 00:59:30,405
of those people are, are around?

1097
00:59:30,685 --> 00:59:32,685
Derek said that they, they could find that out

1098
00:59:32,705 --> 00:59:34,525
and I think that would be relevant information

1099
00:59:34,825 --> 00:59:37,045
to make your decision if that, if it turns on

1100
00:59:37,045 --> 00:59:40,005
that the driveway issue is definitely a slippery slope.

1101
00:59:40,155 --> 00:59:41,245
More so in the winter time

1102
00:59:41,265 --> 00:59:43,005
and snow, rain,

1103
00:59:43,825 --> 00:59:46,645
I'm not too worried about the fire chief getting his rigs up

1104
00:59:46,645 --> 00:59:48,165
the up the up the hill.

1105
00:59:48,625 --> 00:59:51,005
I'm more concerned about them careening down the hill.

1106
00:59:51,065 --> 00:59:54,405
If you've all driven down, try driving down the blast part

1107
00:59:54,405 --> 00:59:58,685
of strawberry, a 24 degree slope,

1108
00:59:59,705 --> 01:00:02,085
dry pavement, it is, you're standing on the brake.

1109
01:00:02,195 --> 01:00:05,405
It's brutal. But I think the,

1110
01:00:05,565 --> 01:00:07,725
I think the taking issue is very relevant

1111
01:00:08,145 --> 01:00:12,405
and honestly by introducing this change,

1112
01:00:12,705 --> 01:00:14,845
you're opening yourself up to more taking.

1113
01:00:15,315 --> 01:00:19,445
Because if you don't put a steepness

1114
01:00:20,575 --> 01:00:23,525
limit on the criteria

1115
01:00:23,745 --> 01:00:28,605
and you don't put a a what is the, oh, a driveway length

1116
01:00:30,785 --> 01:00:34,245
And, and the city decides that they can't build, well

1117
01:00:35,025 --> 01:00:36,445
you're taking from them

1118
01:00:36,445 --> 01:00:39,285
because there's no clear criteria you have

1119
01:00:39,285 --> 01:00:41,245
to have right now the existing code says if you,

1120
01:00:41,245 --> 01:00:43,965
if it's more than 200 feet steeper than 18%,

1121
01:00:44,105 --> 01:00:47,085
you can't get a variance clear cut, no taking issue.

1122
01:00:47,145 --> 01:00:50,685
You're opening yourself up to more by introducing this kind

1123
01:00:50,685 --> 01:00:54,845
of complicated language on 13 lots.

1124
01:00:54,845 --> 01:00:56,565
And it may not even be 13 lots.

1125
01:00:56,565 --> 01:01:00,125
We don't know specifically if those lots are developable

1126
01:01:01,755 --> 01:01:04,765
with a sweeping driveway that would not exceed 18%.

1127
01:01:05,745 --> 01:01:10,485
And finally, you, I I believe this would be in violation

1128
01:01:10,485 --> 01:01:12,405
of their existing comp plan

1129
01:01:13,335 --> 01:01:17,605
under the environmental resources section policy 49

1130
01:01:18,065 --> 01:01:19,165
states and I quote,

1131
01:01:19,875 --> 01:01:22,645
require more than one ingress egress route

1132
01:01:22,705 --> 01:01:25,165
or road widths wide enough

1133
01:01:25,165 --> 01:01:27,245
to accommodate incoming fire apparatus

1134
01:01:27,245 --> 01:01:29,485
and evacuating residents simultaneously

1135
01:01:30,505 --> 01:01:32,125
in an emergency situation.

1136
01:01:32,705 --> 01:01:35,565
Now I'm aware that the, the, the flag lot that's going up

1137
01:01:35,565 --> 01:01:39,085
to the specific lot in question in that Luba appeal.

1138
01:01:40,115 --> 01:01:44,325
There's, there's, there's, it's not wide enough.

1139
01:01:45,665 --> 01:01:47,725
And to create a road that is wide enough

1140
01:01:47,725 --> 01:01:50,565
to create two-way traffic, that's

1141
01:01:52,405 --> 01:01:53,605
a tough, tough one.

1142
01:01:54,145 --> 01:01:57,245
So anyway, in conclusion, the pros proposed code revision,

1143
01:01:57,305 --> 01:02:02,085
weaken safety protections for life first responders and,

1144
01:02:02,305 --> 01:02:04,645
and the wildland suburban interface.

1145
01:02:05,175 --> 01:02:06,175
Thank you very much.

1146
01:02:07,335 --> 01:02:08,485
Thank you very much.

1147
01:02:10,355 --> 01:02:12,285
That concludes all the people that I know

1148
01:02:12,285 --> 01:02:13,325
of that wish to speak.

1149
01:02:13,915 --> 01:02:16,125
Does anybody else wish to speak to the planning commission?

1150
01:02:26,775 --> 01:02:29,235
Seeing no one? I will ask if the planning

1151
01:02:29,235 --> 01:02:30,355
commission has any questions.

1152
01:02:34,475 --> 01:02:36,235
I I have a question for the Deputy City attorney.

1153
01:02:36,465 --> 01:02:40,275
When at,

1154
01:02:40,545 --> 01:02:44,115
when the 1997 Hillside standards got adopted by the city,

1155
01:02:47,415 --> 01:02:48,675
did that trigger the statute

1156
01:02:48,695 --> 01:02:50,995
of limitations on a potential takings claim

1157
01:02:51,135 --> 01:02:53,595
or would it be city approval

1158
01:02:53,615 --> 01:02:56,995
or denial of, of a land use application under

1159
01:02:56,995 --> 01:02:58,275
the applying the standards?

1160
01:02:59,625 --> 01:03:02,435
Yeah, I mean that might be a little too specific for me

1161
01:03:02,435 --> 01:03:03,795
to answer off the cuff.

1162
01:03:03,915 --> 01:03:04,995
I mean, I think when I,

1163
01:03:05,455 --> 01:03:08,595
but I will answer your question a little bit more broadly in

1164
01:03:08,595 --> 01:03:11,955
the sense that I, I don't have any issues

1165
01:03:12,065 --> 01:03:14,995
with this ordinance and in part

1166
01:03:14,995 --> 01:03:18,955
because like the, the taking would be for the properties

1167
01:03:18,975 --> 01:03:21,195
who would, who would, who otherwise,

1168
01:03:21,255 --> 01:03:24,795
and when they, when they purchased it,

1169
01:03:25,855 --> 01:03:26,995
didn't have the restriction

1170
01:03:26,995 --> 01:03:28,755
and then all, all of a sudden suddenly do.

1171
01:03:29,335 --> 01:03:32,955
But this allows for, for

1172
01:03:34,005 --> 01:03:36,115
those properties to still be developed.

1173
01:03:36,575 --> 01:03:39,355
So to me, like that's actually kind of a not risky space

1174
01:03:39,355 --> 01:03:42,395
because that land is not encumbered.

1175
01:03:42,775 --> 01:03:45,155
And then furthermore, it's sort of actually balanced

1176
01:03:45,505 --> 01:03:49,395
with the public safety, with the public safety

1177
01:03:51,515 --> 01:03:53,235
concerns, with fire, with fire.

1178
01:03:53,415 --> 01:03:56,315
And then also kind of in line with the comprehen,

1179
01:03:56,475 --> 01:03:59,555
I actually find it in line with the comprehensive plan sort

1180
01:03:59,555 --> 01:04:03,955
of in line with the goals of Senate bill 9 74

1181
01:04:03,975 --> 01:04:05,715
and that it allows for,

1182
01:04:06,215 --> 01:04:09,995
and that it, it kind of finds a sweet spot of accommodating

1183
01:04:09,995 --> 01:04:14,035
for public health with fire and prevent

1184
01:04:14,135 --> 01:04:16,475
and allowing for more buildable land.

1185
01:04:17,015 --> 01:04:19,435
So that's kind of my general assessment.

1186
01:04:19,675 --> 01:04:24,635
I have some more specific notes, mainly in the

1187
01:04:25,475 --> 01:04:30,315
language of it says That

1188
01:04:30,495 --> 01:04:32,915
it will work within the fire code

1189
01:04:33,495 --> 01:04:36,715
and to quote driveways approved under such a,

1190
01:04:36,905 --> 01:04:38,835
such a variance remain subject

1191
01:04:39,335 --> 01:04:41,835
to the fire apparatus access requirements

1192
01:04:41,975 --> 01:04:46,755
of the Oregon Fire Code, including any approval required

1193
01:04:46,815 --> 01:04:50,475
by the fire code official who's going to a bot, which,

1194
01:04:50,775 --> 01:04:54,435
you know, as we hear from from Mark Shea,

1195
01:04:54,585 --> 01:04:57,155
they're gonna be looking at the, at the fire code.

1196
01:04:57,415 --> 01:04:58,435
So to me that's the,

1197
01:04:58,595 --> 01:05:00,355
a cross reference that'll incorporate

1198
01:05:00,375 --> 01:05:01,515
all the fire restrictions.

1199
01:05:03,375 --> 01:05:06,275
Oh, in, in terms of that safe space that you defined,

1200
01:05:08,325 --> 01:05:11,955
would, would the, the fact of owner notice

1201
01:05:12,055 --> 01:05:14,555
of the standards be a relevant factor in defining the

1202
01:05:14,555 --> 01:05:15,595
scope of that safe space?

1203
01:05:16,735 --> 01:05:18,285
So, sorry, safe space,

1204
01:05:18,385 --> 01:05:20,085
Can you, I mean, just really kind of repeating a question

1205
01:05:20,165 --> 01:05:21,805
I asked before, but it's relevant here.

1206
01:05:22,575 --> 01:05:26,525
Would, would the, the the timing of owner notice

1207
01:05:26,665 --> 01:05:28,925
of these potentially restrictive standards, would

1208
01:05:28,925 --> 01:05:31,365
that be a relevant factor in defining the scope of

1209
01:05:31,365 --> 01:05:34,525
that safe space where property owner couldn't

1210
01:05:34,525 --> 01:05:35,605
sue the city for taking?

1211
01:05:36,315 --> 01:05:38,205
Yeah, I guess I, I guess I might need you

1212
01:05:38,205 --> 01:05:39,725
to clarify like on what side,

1213
01:05:39,925 --> 01:05:44,205
'cause I think I've heard, I guess I've heard sort of a 360

1214
01:05:44,805 --> 01:05:48,325
response for, I mean I've heard some comments of

1215
01:05:51,625 --> 01:05:55,485
so restrictive as in the city's not allowing development

1216
01:05:55,555 --> 01:05:56,685
Restriction or Restriction.

1217
01:05:56,685 --> 01:05:57,965
Well, I'm just talking about the Hillside standards

1218
01:05:58,075 --> 01:06:00,805
generally and the driveway grade standards specifically.

1219
01:06:01,755 --> 01:06:04,125
Okay. I might for the hillside stand

1220
01:06:05,545 --> 01:06:08,365
for Hillside standards question specific, I might turn

1221
01:06:08,365 --> 01:06:10,965
to the, to comm to help me out with that one.

1222
01:06:12,945 --> 01:06:16,885
So I think I understand the gist of your question in terms

1223
01:06:16,945 --> 01:06:18,605
of, if we go back in time

1224
01:06:18,605 --> 01:06:22,085
to 1997 when the Hillside ordinance was adopted,

1225
01:06:22,845 --> 01:06:25,765
I would note that the grade standards subsequent to

1226
01:06:25,765 --> 01:06:28,085
that period have historically been applied

1227
01:06:28,785 --> 01:06:30,685
at a time when new lots are created.

1228
01:06:31,385 --> 01:06:34,925
So properties within the hillside area subsequent to 1997

1229
01:06:35,595 --> 01:06:36,845
were they to be partitioned

1230
01:06:36,845 --> 01:06:40,765
or subdivided, the grade standards are

1231
01:06:41,835 --> 01:06:44,605
have to be demonstrated before final plat is signed.

1232
01:06:44,985 --> 01:06:47,525
And that's the code that went into place in 1997.

1233
01:06:48,265 --> 01:06:51,005
So lots that were created prior to 1997,

1234
01:06:51,775 --> 01:06:54,125
there is no standard that they were held to

1235
01:06:54,435 --> 01:06:58,645
because no plat had subsequently been required.

1236
01:06:59,465 --> 01:07:04,405
So essentially when those prior lots,

1237
01:07:04,405 --> 01:07:06,485
no maximum driveway grade applied

1238
01:07:07,385 --> 01:07:11,725
and of on some of those lots, the terrain is steep enough

1239
01:07:12,355 --> 01:07:16,565
that no driveway alignment meeting the criteria

1240
01:07:17,135 --> 01:07:19,485
cited under the flag partition chapter

1241
01:07:19,545 --> 01:07:21,605
for flag drives could be met.

1242
01:07:22,185 --> 01:07:25,085
So again, I think historically we've allowed development

1243
01:07:25,865 --> 01:07:27,205
on driveways that,

1244
01:07:27,425 --> 01:07:30,805
or on preexisting lots with steep driveways.

1245
01:07:32,145 --> 01:07:34,645
So that this was really tested with the current

1246
01:07:35,515 --> 01:07:38,005
land use application that went to Luba, where they found

1247
01:07:38,005 --> 01:07:40,685
that just as this body and had,

1248
01:07:40,685 --> 01:07:43,485
and the city council had approved a driveway

1249
01:07:44,075 --> 01:07:48,365
that exceeded 18% slope based on it being a preexisting lot

1250
01:07:48,365 --> 01:07:51,845
of record Luba found that that wasn't supported by the code.

1251
01:07:52,505 --> 01:07:55,805
So your question is, at this point in time,

1252
01:07:56,985 --> 01:07:58,485
are those property owners on notice

1253
01:07:58,555 --> 01:07:59,885
that if we don't make a change,

1254
01:08:00,345 --> 01:08:03,765
the circumstances have changed due to L'S recent ruling?

1255
01:08:03,955 --> 01:08:07,805
Well, let me clarify because the Luba re ruling said

1256
01:08:07,835 --> 01:08:09,765
that the relevant standard

1257
01:08:09,765 --> 01:08:12,285
that you're talking about always has been that way

1258
01:08:12,745 --> 01:08:14,325
and has been since its adoption

1259
01:08:14,675 --> 01:08:16,525
that the city's interpretation

1260
01:08:16,525 --> 01:08:18,325
of it was inconsistent with the code.

1261
01:08:19,385 --> 01:08:22,565
And so my question relates to the code itself

1262
01:08:22,585 --> 01:08:26,485
and not to the city's interpretation, but I mean it, it may,

1263
01:08:26,505 --> 01:08:28,925
and maybe we won't reach a clear answer on this tonight.

1264
01:08:29,035 --> 01:08:30,525
It's totally okay. I would, you know,

1265
01:08:31,585 --> 01:08:34,125
but I do think, you know, these are, these are important,

1266
01:08:34,625 --> 01:08:35,805
you know, considerations here

1267
01:08:35,805 --> 01:08:37,765
and I I appreciate you talking them through with me.

1268
01:08:43,515 --> 01:08:46,925
Okay. I will go ahead and close the public hearing

1269
01:08:49,145 --> 01:08:50,925
unless you see a reason to keep it open.

1270
01:08:58,995 --> 01:09:02,655
Public hearing's closed, the record's closed,

1271
01:09:04,035 --> 01:09:05,495
we are into deliberations.

1272
01:09:10,555 --> 01:09:11,535
What's your pleasure?

1273
01:09:17,325 --> 01:09:21,815
More questions of the city attorney or Chief Shea?

1274
01:09:23,145 --> 01:09:23,855
Chief Shea.

1275
01:09:28,205 --> 01:09:31,055
Yeah. So,

1276
01:09:31,595 --> 01:09:35,255
and this is not supposed to feel

1277
01:09:36,205 --> 01:09:38,375
contentious or whatever the right word would be,

1278
01:09:39,475 --> 01:09:44,215
but how, and, and it's,

1279
01:09:44,395 --> 01:09:45,695
and I don't know if you can answer this.

1280
01:09:46,035 --> 01:09:50,535
So my experience

1281
01:09:51,945 --> 01:09:52,485
is that

1282
01:09:57,175 --> 01:10:01,625
fire tries its best to facilitate what people need

1283
01:10:01,885 --> 01:10:03,585
and planning does the same.

1284
01:10:03,685 --> 01:10:07,625
And when there's these difficult projects, people, you know,

1285
01:10:07,625 --> 01:10:09,785
we end up working together to try to make things work

1286
01:10:09,965 --> 01:10:12,825
for the landowner and for fire safety.

1287
01:10:16,405 --> 01:10:20,985
How, I don't know if this is a fair question,

1288
01:10:21,005 --> 01:10:22,025
but how would it, you know,

1289
01:10:22,025 --> 01:10:25,065
how would you go about saying no to somebody

1290
01:10:29,405 --> 01:10:30,465
Saying no to somebody?

1291
01:10:31,305 --> 01:10:34,345
I would, I would start with obviously evaluating the,

1292
01:10:34,605 --> 01:10:35,865
the project and the criteria.

1293
01:10:38,405 --> 01:10:41,105
If I made the determination that it was outside of

1294
01:10:43,045 --> 01:10:46,105
the requirements of the code, beyond what we could

1295
01:10:48,895 --> 01:10:52,465
make any kind of contingencies

1296
01:10:52,605 --> 01:10:56,145
or al alternatives to, I'd speak with the fire chief,

1297
01:10:56,605 --> 01:10:58,305
let him know that it was my opinion

1298
01:10:58,335 --> 01:11:00,585
that we cannot provide adequate service

1299
01:11:01,165 --> 01:11:03,225
to the proposed building.

1300
01:11:04,405 --> 01:11:07,065
And then I would also speak with planning staff

1301
01:11:07,725 --> 01:11:12,465
and explain my reasonings for

1302
01:11:13,225 --> 01:11:15,085
not being able to provide that service.

1303
01:11:16,625 --> 01:11:19,125
You know, it, it is, it's a careful evaluation

1304
01:11:19,505 --> 01:11:21,485
and the goal is

1305
01:11:21,705 --> 01:11:24,685
to provide safe housing.

1306
01:11:26,385 --> 01:11:28,885
If we just cannot do that, then we cannot do that.

1307
01:11:29,475 --> 01:11:31,685
Okay. So you, I know I,

1308
01:11:31,885 --> 01:11:34,245
I know it's totally not a real situation,

1309
01:11:34,345 --> 01:11:35,765
but I'm just, I'm just curious

1310
01:11:36,425 --> 01:11:38,005
if you would feel comfortable doing that.

1311
01:11:38,675 --> 01:11:39,925
Yeah. Okay. Yes.

1312
01:11:42,065 --> 01:11:44,485
So things that would mitigate your decision are

1313
01:11:47,375 --> 01:11:48,725
pools for a water source

1314
01:11:51,985 --> 01:11:56,645
gravel or more, more grade on the driveway,

1315
01:11:58,665 --> 01:12:02,605
paving the driveway versus having it be gravel, things like

1316
01:12:02,605 --> 01:12:03,605
That.

1317
01:12:03,605 --> 01:12:06,845
Yeah. Tho, tho those could all be factors in addition to

1318
01:12:09,445 --> 01:12:13,205
a residential sprinkler system in addition to additional

1319
01:12:14,485 --> 01:12:16,965
wildfire hardening of the property, meaning

1320
01:12:17,755 --> 01:12:19,325
more vegetation management

1321
01:12:20,705 --> 01:12:25,685
or alternative parking areas

1322
01:12:25,905 --> 01:12:30,325
for fire departments where maybe the properties able,

1323
01:12:30,375 --> 01:12:31,925
we're able to design the property

1324
01:12:31,925 --> 01:12:34,685
where we don't necessarily utilize the driveway,

1325
01:12:34,705 --> 01:12:38,005
but we have an alternative way to access the building

1326
01:12:38,035 --> 01:12:41,325
with hose lines to be able to look at alternatives that way.

1327
01:12:42,755 --> 01:12:45,405
Okay. So if the driveway is the flag lots here,

1328
01:12:46,165 --> 01:12:50,985
it's going up, you would consider whether

1329
01:12:51,005 --> 01:12:55,665
you could go, there are houses in front, so if you could go

1330
01:12:55,665 --> 01:12:59,025
around the house and get access that way.

1331
01:12:59,515 --> 01:13:02,705
Right. Of, of course it's, it's a hypothetical situation,

1332
01:13:04,005 --> 01:13:07,705
but if there is a way through the planning process

1333
01:13:08,015 --> 01:13:11,625
that we can safely park a fire engine

1334
01:13:11,965 --> 01:13:14,905
and still reach that house within 150 feet,

1335
01:13:15,895 --> 01:13:18,065
potentially longer if it has a sprinkler system

1336
01:13:19,045 --> 01:13:22,225
or a greater distance, if it has a sprinkler system, then I,

1337
01:13:22,305 --> 01:13:26,745
I would look at that as a potential acceptable alternative.

1338
01:13:28,125 --> 01:13:30,865
So you don't, you

1339
01:13:30,865 --> 01:13:33,145
therefore you don't need two access points,

1340
01:13:34,685 --> 01:13:36,105
You know, per the fire code.

1341
01:13:36,105 --> 01:13:38,825
You don't need two access points for one single home

1342
01:13:39,445 --> 01:13:44,345
on a property, or if it's a flag lot, if it's two

1343
01:13:44,345 --> 01:13:48,625
to three homes, you don't need an additional access point.

1344
01:13:49,695 --> 01:13:54,025
Okay. Okay. Thank you.

1345
01:13:55,685 --> 01:13:59,425
I'm gonna switch for a second. Sorry, I'm just taking over

1346
01:13:59,425 --> 01:14:00,145
Here. No, go, go

1347
01:14:00,145 --> 01:14:01,145
For it.

1348
01:14:01,145 --> 01:14:04,105
That quote about two an egress

1349
01:14:04,535 --> 01:14:07,705
that would allow two vehicles to go past each other, is

1350
01:14:07,705 --> 01:14:10,585
that part of the code that is actually in subdivision rather

1351
01:14:10,615 --> 01:14:11,925
than in single family?

1352
01:14:12,235 --> 01:14:13,845
Yeah. Oh, the section that he's referring

1353
01:14:13,845 --> 01:14:18,125
to is in the comprehensive plan that relates to having

1354
01:14:19,655 --> 01:14:21,765
roads that have multiple points of ingress and

1355
01:14:22,245 --> 01:14:23,245
Egress roads, not Driveways.

1356
01:14:23,605 --> 01:14:27,645
I think it does say both roads and access. So it's,

1357
01:14:27,835 --> 01:14:32,005
It's implemented through the subdivision chapters in terms

1358
01:14:32,065 --> 01:14:33,845
of, of multi-family development

1359
01:14:33,845 --> 01:14:36,285
with over 250 average vehicle trips per day

1360
01:14:36,675 --> 01:14:38,045
require a second access

1361
01:14:38,045 --> 01:14:39,045
Point.

1362
01:14:39,045 --> 01:14:40,205
So it's not driveways to a single family

1363
01:14:40,205 --> 01:14:41,205
Home.

1364
01:14:41,205 --> 01:14:42,805
It's not flag drives that are, by definition only able

1365
01:14:42,805 --> 01:14:44,245
to have one access point. Thank

1366
01:14:44,245 --> 01:14:45,245
You.

1367
01:15:04,625 --> 01:15:07,205
And thank you. I didn't mean to put you on the spot.

1368
01:15:15,015 --> 01:15:17,245
Shall we talk about the actual language

1369
01:15:17,315 --> 01:15:19,325
that is going into this ordinance?

1370
01:15:27,525 --> 01:15:29,205
I think there were some concerns about,

1371
01:15:33,765 --> 01:15:35,385
You know, my whole thing was just so

1372
01:15:35,385 --> 01:15:37,385
that the community at large feels

1373
01:15:37,385 --> 01:15:40,305
that there's actual specificity towards those lots.

1374
01:15:41,365 --> 01:15:43,985
So that's why I was bringing it up earlier. Yeah.

1375
01:15:43,985 --> 01:15:47,945
It's like, okay, it is just about those lots.

1376
01:15:48,325 --> 01:15:51,385
So how do we change the language so that

1377
01:15:51,385 --> 01:15:52,785
that is absolutely clear.

1378
01:15:53,165 --> 01:15:54,745
And I don't know if there is a way to do that,

1379
01:15:54,965 --> 01:15:57,265
but that's why I was, what I was getting at.

1380
01:15:57,695 --> 01:15:59,185
Well, it's good, good goal.

1381
01:16:07,835 --> 01:16:10,315
I still think there should be a maximum slope on it.

1382
01:16:10,795 --> 01:16:11,835
I mean, I don't really,

1383
01:16:17,995 --> 01:16:18,995
I, I agree with you.

1384
01:16:18,995 --> 01:16:23,475
I don't feel comfortable just saying anything. Fire

1385
01:16:23,505 --> 01:16:24,675
Code will rule the day.

1386
01:16:24,835 --> 01:16:28,315
I mean, I don't wanna put that on the fire department even.

1387
01:16:28,555 --> 01:16:29,555
I think that there's,

1388
01:16:30,855 --> 01:16:32,715
and I don't know enough about it to say

1389
01:16:32,715 --> 01:16:33,755
what that slip should be.

1390
01:16:33,775 --> 01:16:36,395
So I don't know that we can make a decision on that.

1391
01:16:36,575 --> 01:16:41,315
But there's

1392
01:16:41,325 --> 01:16:44,435
parts of town that in my four wheel drive

1393
01:16:44,975 --> 01:16:47,555
in the snow I can't get to.

1394
01:16:47,895 --> 01:16:49,435
And I've, you know, and I drive.

1395
01:16:49,655 --> 01:16:52,635
I'm, I'm a, I'm kind of a wild driver. I'll go anywhere.

1396
01:16:53,575 --> 01:16:58,315
So I think there are limits to what is viable,

1397
01:16:58,705 --> 01:17:02,755
even if there's ways to, you know, I just think we need

1398
01:17:02,755 --> 01:17:07,395
to set some, and I think we need to do a little more work on

1399
01:17:07,395 --> 01:17:09,485
that, I guess is my point.

1400
01:17:12,715 --> 01:17:16,165
Okay. To provide safety if there's more than one house

1401
01:17:16,225 --> 01:17:18,965
on that driveway, which there will be.

1402
01:17:19,235 --> 01:17:22,245
Correct. It's not just a driveway to, to,

1403
01:17:22,905 --> 01:17:24,565
in this case, to 2 31.

1404
01:17:26,345 --> 01:17:29,045
Are there more, does that driveway that they're going

1405
01:17:29,045 --> 01:17:32,485
to use access more than just their house? No,

1406
01:17:33,385 --> 01:17:34,385
It doesn't.

1407
01:17:34,385 --> 01:17:37,845
No. The flag lot that is part of the Luba decision

1408
01:17:38,355 --> 01:17:39,565
only goes to one lot.

1409
01:17:40,035 --> 01:17:43,125
It's, it's part of a joint driveway Right.

1410
01:17:43,155 --> 01:17:44,165
With the house next door.

1411
01:17:45,185 --> 01:17:48,085
But it doesn't, but the flag lot takes off after

1412
01:17:48,195 --> 01:17:49,195
That.

1413
01:17:49,195 --> 01:17:51,845
But if so, the flag,

1414
01:17:51,985 --> 01:17:53,325
and I'm sorry, I don't know more about it.

1415
01:17:53,385 --> 01:17:56,085
So if the, once you take off from that driveway, that's

1416
01:17:56,085 --> 01:17:58,885
where it becomes over 18%. So

1417
01:17:59,405 --> 01:18:01,085
I will note that, again, try not

1418
01:18:01,085 --> 01:18:03,925
to talk about a specific land use action that may come

1419
01:18:03,925 --> 01:18:06,085
before the committee on remand.

1420
01:18:06,315 --> 01:18:07,325
Okay. Or commission.

1421
01:18:07,345 --> 01:18:11,325
But there are a number of properties that are accessed off

1422
01:18:11,325 --> 01:18:13,765
of preexisting flag lots

1423
01:18:13,955 --> 01:18:16,965
that are fully improved in which those flag drives

1424
01:18:17,625 --> 01:18:22,485
exceed 18% slope, some affecting the 13 lots

1425
01:18:22,485 --> 01:18:25,125
that we're talking about that would be accessed off

1426
01:18:25,125 --> 01:18:28,685
of shared driveways and which multiple are serviced

1427
01:18:28,685 --> 01:18:29,685
Offset.

1428
01:18:29,685 --> 01:18:31,685
So that's where the question of communities

1429
01:18:32,235 --> 01:18:33,645
wide safety comes in.

1430
01:18:33,665 --> 01:18:35,365
If it's just accessing one house

1431
01:18:35,365 --> 01:18:37,805
and those people want to, you know, whoever wants to

1432
01:18:39,275 --> 01:18:40,725
kill themselves, it's fine.

1433
01:18:43,295 --> 01:18:45,125
Relatively fine. Sorry.

1434
01:18:45,825 --> 01:18:48,285
But I think that one of the points that one of the

1435
01:18:51,255 --> 01:18:54,845
commenters brought up is that, you know, you do end up in a,

1436
01:18:54,865 --> 01:18:57,045
or maybe it was in or written comments,

1437
01:18:59,225 --> 01:19:02,685
it becomes more of an issue if you're accessing more than

1438
01:19:02,745 --> 01:19:05,765
one home off of that property

1439
01:19:05,905 --> 01:19:09,085
and for some reason a car spins out or goes sideways

1440
01:19:09,305 --> 01:19:10,565
and then you don't have access,

1441
01:19:10,905 --> 01:19:12,285
or you can't, you can't get out.

1442
01:19:13,175 --> 01:19:17,045
Right. I I probably should clarify that every legal lot

1443
01:19:17,045 --> 01:19:19,605
of record that can accommodate a single family home

1444
01:19:20,135 --> 01:19:21,325
under both Oregon

1445
01:19:21,545 --> 01:19:23,005
and Ashland land use law

1446
01:19:23,745 --> 01:19:25,605
can have two dwellings on those homes.

1447
01:19:25,785 --> 01:19:29,205
So even on those 13 subject properties that have,

1448
01:19:29,985 --> 01:19:32,325
can be developed as one dwelling, they could also develop

1449
01:19:32,325 --> 01:19:33,925
with an accessory dwelling

1450
01:19:33,925 --> 01:19:34,925
Unit.

1451
01:19:34,925 --> 01:19:35,125
But it's one, but it's one owner.

1452
01:19:35,515 --> 01:19:38,525
Yeah. And what this ordinance doesn't do is newly create

1453
01:19:38,525 --> 01:19:41,325
opportunities for the creation of new lots

1454
01:19:41,955 --> 01:19:45,605
with multiple owners serviced off of a flag drive.

1455
01:19:46,485 --> 01:19:49,405
Because any new lot created would still be subject to the

1456
01:19:50,035 --> 01:19:52,845
15% maximum or up to 18 with a variance.

1457
01:20:06,275 --> 01:20:10,525
Okay. So as I see it, we can, we can work on the wording

1458
01:20:12,305 --> 01:20:15,245
in this proposal.

1459
01:20:18,815 --> 01:20:22,195
One option is to continue this to our

1460
01:20:26,255 --> 01:20:29,675
our hour, hour, hour next meeting on

1461
01:20:33,975 --> 01:20:37,235
August 25th, 25th.

1462
01:20:38,375 --> 01:20:41,435
And think about how you want the wording to,

1463
01:20:42,095 --> 01:20:43,555
to go.

1464
01:20:44,545 --> 01:20:46,395
Come back then and make suggestions

1465
01:20:47,215 --> 01:20:48,995
and adopt something then,

1466
01:20:53,855 --> 01:20:55,955
or I suppose we, you just go with it the way it is.

1467
01:20:57,035 --> 01:20:59,075
I won't be here on 20, whoops. Sorry.

1468
01:21:00,955 --> 01:21:04,335
I'd like to make a motion. Oh, John, sorry.

1469
01:21:05,285 --> 01:21:07,455
Yeah. Can I make a motion Please?

1470
01:21:09,235 --> 01:21:11,615
I'd like to make a motion that we reject

1471
01:21:11,725 --> 01:21:14,695
this code amendment.

1472
01:21:18,605 --> 01:21:20,255
Okay. I hadn't considered that option,

1473
01:21:20,255 --> 01:21:22,495
but it's an, it's definitely an option.

1474
01:21:23,195 --> 01:21:24,195
Is there a second?

1475
01:21:28,355 --> 01:21:30,215
Second for purposes of discussion.

1476
01:21:31,325 --> 01:21:34,135
Okay. It's been moved and seconded to just reject,

1477
01:21:35,835 --> 01:21:38,695
excuse me, to reject this proposed

1478
01:21:42,485 --> 01:21:45,855
code change discussion.

1479
01:21:46,805 --> 01:21:48,935
John, do you wanna talk about why you're making the motion?

1480
01:21:50,005 --> 01:21:54,135
Sure. And I, I think that the testimonial

1481
01:21:54,165 --> 01:21:57,135
that we heard tonight was very thoughtful.

1482
01:21:57,495 --> 01:21:59,135
I think it was very complete,

1483
01:21:59,675 --> 01:22:04,295
and I think it was very comprehensive in

1484
01:22:04,935 --> 01:22:09,455
referencing our code vis-a-vis

1485
01:22:10,185 --> 01:22:14,095
state law vis-a-vis the city of Ashland's comprehensive plan

1486
01:22:14,795 --> 01:22:17,135
and vis-a-vis the city

1487
01:22:17,215 --> 01:22:21,775
of Ashland's 2025 community wildfire protection plan.

1488
01:22:24,295 --> 01:22:28,535
I think it's, it's important to also consider

1489
01:22:30,355 --> 01:22:32,415
in looking at safety

1490
01:22:32,875 --> 01:22:37,135
and legality of increasing

1491
01:22:38,615 --> 01:22:39,855
driveway slope standards,

1492
01:22:40,485 --> 01:22:42,855
what serves the greatest good of the community.

1493
01:22:43,235 --> 01:22:46,135
And I would ask you all to really think about

1494
01:22:46,845 --> 01:22:50,375
does the modification from 18% to 20,

1495
01:22:50,675 --> 01:22:52,815
or god forbid 24,

1496
01:22:54,035 --> 01:22:58,695
really serve the greatest good when these, you know,

1497
01:23:00,135 --> 01:23:05,015
relative minority number of legacy pre 1997 lots

1498
01:23:06,265 --> 01:23:10,605
are predominantly on long steep, narrow winding shared

1499
01:23:11,235 --> 01:23:15,805
flag drives where there are many residents

1500
01:23:16,645 --> 01:23:21,125
impacted by that driveway slope

1501
01:23:21,385 --> 01:23:22,445
and by that development.

1502
01:23:23,685 --> 01:23:28,105
And so for those reasons, I don't see why we would increase

1503
01:23:28,245 --> 01:23:31,425
or make an exception for such a small number

1504
01:23:31,765 --> 01:23:34,505
of steep wooded hillside lots

1505
01:23:36,185 --> 01:23:37,845
beyond 18%.

1506
01:23:38,505 --> 01:23:42,845
It doesn't seem practical, I guess. So that's my rationale.

1507
01:23:48,595 --> 01:23:53,145
Thank you. My rationale for seconding, the motion is

1508
01:23:54,405 --> 01:23:58,665
out, out of a desire to try to get to a more clear

1509
01:23:58,665 --> 01:24:01,465
and objective standard that might apply to these variance

1510
01:24:02,495 --> 01:24:05,665
reviews, leaving it open-ended.

1511
01:24:05,745 --> 01:24:08,465
I, I, I, I think it makes sense, the comment

1512
01:24:08,535 --> 01:24:10,705
that we might actually be opening ourselves up

1513
01:24:10,725 --> 01:24:13,265
to a taking claim by leaving it that way.

1514
01:24:14,525 --> 01:24:18,265
So maybe we could, you know,

1515
01:24:18,505 --> 01:24:22,825
a ask staff to come back with some,

1516
01:24:25,175 --> 01:24:28,505
some different language based on whatever more feedback we

1517
01:24:28,505 --> 01:24:30,465
can offer them before the next business meeting

1518
01:24:31,725 --> 01:24:33,425
to address the clear and objective problem.

1519
01:24:34,965 --> 01:24:35,985
And also

1520
01:24:36,045 --> 01:24:39,665
to possibly address another alternative concept here,

1521
01:24:39,715 --> 01:24:43,865
which is to limit the scope of the,

1522
01:24:44,125 --> 01:24:48,905
of availability of the proposed variance to certain lots

1523
01:24:49,365 --> 01:24:53,425
of record predating adoption of the standard

1524
01:24:54,485 --> 01:24:58,185
at issue where the owner

1525
01:24:59,885 --> 01:25:03,665
either purchased or took possession of the affected lot

1526
01:25:04,005 --> 01:25:05,505
before adoption of the standard.

1527
01:25:07,345 --> 01:25:10,225
I, we've talked about some

1528
01:25:10,225 --> 01:25:12,585
of the potential due process issues here,

1529
01:25:12,645 --> 01:25:16,625
but I, it's not totally clear to me based on that discussion

1530
01:25:16,895 --> 01:25:18,545
that we, that we found an answer.

1531
01:25:19,205 --> 01:25:20,305
So you're talking about,

1532
01:25:20,355 --> 01:25:24,185
about identifying the lots individually, lots individually

1533
01:25:24,205 --> 01:25:27,185
by date of purchase or, or, you know, yeah.

1534
01:25:27,965 --> 01:25:31,025
You know, because one of the commenters is totally right

1535
01:25:31,095 --> 01:25:35,385
that any property owner who purchased their lot

1536
01:25:36,675 --> 01:25:39,185
after adoption of these city standards knew

1537
01:25:39,525 --> 01:25:41,665
or should have known about the standards

1538
01:25:41,665 --> 01:25:43,745
and how that might, might affect buildability.

1539
01:25:44,925 --> 01:25:48,425
So providing a, a, you know, it, I hesitate

1540
01:25:48,425 --> 01:25:49,585
to call it a blanket exemption

1541
01:25:49,585 --> 01:25:51,225
because it's not, it's pretty targeted,

1542
01:25:51,765 --> 01:25:56,065
but maybe the scope is even bigger than it actually needs

1543
01:25:56,065 --> 01:25:57,945
to be as proposed here.

1544
01:25:58,965 --> 01:26:01,665
And if we don't limit the availability of a variance

1545
01:26:02,045 --> 01:26:03,805
to lots obtained by current owners

1546
01:26:05,945 --> 01:26:07,485
before city adoption of the standard,

1547
01:26:07,485 --> 01:26:09,925
then maybe we are greasing the skids for development

1548
01:26:09,955 --> 01:26:10,965
otherwise would,

1549
01:26:12,305 --> 01:26:13,965
or development that would undermine the

1550
01:26:13,965 --> 01:26:15,045
purpose of these standards.

1551
01:26:16,305 --> 01:26:20,605
So, you know, my, my second is not to say

1552
01:26:21,585 --> 01:26:23,685
no to the proposed ordinance,

1553
01:26:23,745 --> 01:26:25,805
but it is to ask for some,

1554
01:26:25,915 --> 01:26:27,685
some further consideration and study.

1555
01:26:29,395 --> 01:26:32,445
Okay. So hearing that we have a motion on the floor,

1556
01:26:35,705 --> 01:26:37,475
Michael, will you go ahead and call a roll?

1557
01:26:39,055 --> 01:26:43,515
And the motion is to reject the proposal.

1558
01:26:46,205 --> 01:26:48,985
Oh, sorry. Commissioner Maher.

1559
01:26:52,485 --> 01:26:54,465
Aye. Commissioner Phillips

1560
01:26:57,365 --> 01:26:58,365
Aye.

1561
01:26:58,365 --> 01:27:02,105
Commissioner Kerrin Aye.

1562
01:27:02,905 --> 01:27:04,225
Commissioner Leininger?

1563
01:27:04,965 --> 01:27:09,585
Yes. Chair burner. Yeah. Aye. Okay.

1564
01:27:09,765 --> 01:27:11,105
The motion is unanimous.

1565
01:27:11,365 --> 01:27:13,705
We have rejected the proposal

1566
01:27:14,645 --> 01:27:18,665
in the, in the staff report.

1567
01:27:19,445 --> 01:27:22,985
So we could either,

1568
01:27:24,405 --> 01:27:26,665
we can, we can let that go to the council

1569
01:27:27,045 --> 01:27:31,905
or if you want to take up commissioner line's

1570
01:27:32,775 --> 01:27:36,585
idea of maybe working

1571
01:27:36,655 --> 01:27:40,545
with this a little more in terms of the language, we could

1572
01:27:42,585 --> 01:27:45,905
continue this meeting to the 25th and do that.

1573
01:27:46,645 --> 01:27:50,745
Or if you'd rather just, if you, if you want to go ahead

1574
01:27:50,745 --> 01:27:52,745
and give this to counsel now,

1575
01:27:52,765 --> 01:27:54,145
we can do that as well. Chair.

1576
01:27:54,145 --> 01:27:56,385
Can I make a motion Sure.

1577
01:27:57,645 --> 01:27:59,105
To continue this hearing

1578
01:27:59,165 --> 01:28:00,585
to our next business meeting date?

1579
01:28:00,585 --> 01:28:01,585
Certain.

1580
01:28:02,815 --> 01:28:04,225
Okay. For the Purpose of, we

1581
01:28:04,225 --> 01:28:05,705
Move the, the hearing's closed

1582
01:28:05,805 --> 01:28:07,385
so there be continued deliberations.

1583
01:28:07,605 --> 01:28:09,705
I'm sorry, that's my mistake. No, no. But continued

1584
01:28:09,705 --> 01:28:11,945
Deliberations, But to continue deliberations be

1585
01:28:11,945 --> 01:28:14,345
August the next meeting, fifth meeting with the idea of

1586
01:28:15,085 --> 01:28:18,025
having us and staff work on language

1587
01:28:18,935 --> 01:28:20,825
that might incorporate what we've heard tonight.

1588
01:28:21,285 --> 01:28:22,505
Yes. Okay.

1589
01:28:24,405 --> 01:28:25,545
Is there a second? I'll second that.

1590
01:28:25,885 --> 01:28:27,185
Oh, okay. It's been moved

1591
01:28:27,185 --> 01:28:31,905
and seconded to continue deliberations

1592
01:28:32,245 --> 01:28:33,585
to August 25th

1593
01:28:34,685 --> 01:28:39,065
and to work on, I the have staff work on some language

1594
01:28:39,165 --> 01:28:41,145
and have all of us think about language.

1595
01:28:43,285 --> 01:28:43,505
And

1596
01:28:49,925 --> 01:28:51,185
is there a discussion on the motion?

1597
01:28:52,065 --> 01:28:54,145
I would interject on the motion in

1598
01:28:54,145 --> 01:28:57,905
that if the committee commission is gonna be evaluating new

1599
01:28:58,185 --> 01:29:01,530
language, that the hearing should be continued to, to allow

1600
01:29:01,785 --> 01:29:02,805
for members of the public

1601
01:29:02,865 --> 01:29:05,325
to comment on the new language provided.

1602
01:29:05,865 --> 01:29:08,405
So although you've closed the public record at this time,

1603
01:29:09,905 --> 01:29:11,525
if, if new information is gonna be

1604
01:29:11,765 --> 01:29:14,325
provided to the commission for consideration, you should

1605
01:29:14,925 --> 01:29:18,045
anticipate reopening the public record so

1606
01:29:18,045 --> 01:29:20,005
that people can provide comments on that amendment.

1607
01:29:20,795 --> 01:29:23,605
Just, I think you should reopen the hearing now

1608
01:29:23,605 --> 01:29:26,885
and continue it rather than going to a date

1609
01:29:26,895 --> 01:29:29,805
after the hearing is closed and creating a noticing issue.

1610
01:29:30,115 --> 01:29:31,965
Yeah. Yeah. So we can

1611
01:29:31,965 --> 01:29:34,125
I withdraw the motion and or,

1612
01:29:34,225 --> 01:29:36,805
or else reframe it as what Derek just said.

1613
01:29:38,715 --> 01:29:41,085
Okay. So your motion is to

1614
01:29:42,555 --> 01:29:45,405
have us reopen the hearing and the record tonight

1615
01:29:45,905 --> 01:29:50,525
and have the hearing and record continued to August 25th so

1616
01:29:50,525 --> 01:29:54,605
that we can do some,

1617
01:29:54,995 --> 01:29:58,925
some individual thinking about language

1618
01:29:58,985 --> 01:30:00,445
and have staff think about language

1619
01:30:01,825 --> 01:30:03,085
in anticipation of that meeting.

1620
01:30:03,465 --> 01:30:07,725
Yes. At 7:00 PM At 7:00 PM

1621
01:30:08,275 --> 01:30:09,445
here in the council chambers.

1622
01:30:10,745 --> 01:30:12,045
Can I make amendment to that?

1623
01:30:12,475 --> 01:30:14,005
Sure. That,

1624
01:30:15,065 --> 01:30:17,005
and I'm not sure exactly how we would word this,

1625
01:30:17,065 --> 01:30:21,885
but it would be helpful to have the list of purchase dates

1626
01:30:22,355 --> 01:30:25,445
that was referenced earlier in the meeting so that we know

1627
01:30:25,575 --> 01:30:28,205
where these lots fall within their vintage.

1628
01:30:31,425 --> 01:30:34,285
You have to also look at inheritance

1629
01:30:34,545 --> 01:30:37,565
and if things pass from Yeah, things pass

1630
01:30:37,565 --> 01:30:39,165
through inheritance and change names.

1631
01:30:39,235 --> 01:30:41,485
There's still the original purchase date

1632
01:30:41,485 --> 01:30:42,605
as far as I'm concerned.

1633
01:30:42,705 --> 01:30:44,925
And I don't know what the legality of that is, but

1634
01:30:46,805 --> 01:30:48,005
I just wanna make sure that we have the data

1635
01:30:48,005 --> 01:30:50,045
that we need if we're going to deliberate.

1636
01:30:50,905 --> 01:30:53,085
Yes. Good idea. Yeah.

1637
01:30:53,715 --> 01:30:57,805
Okay. So Commissioner Lineer made the motion, commissioner

1638
01:30:58,345 --> 01:30:59,525
Mar seconded

1639
01:31:00,755 --> 01:31:05,575
with the amendment, with the add-on.

1640
01:31:06,245 --> 01:31:09,635
Correct. And I'm good with the add-on.

1641
01:31:11,225 --> 01:31:14,115
Okay. So is everybody clear about what we're voting on?

1642
01:31:16,175 --> 01:31:19,715
No, sir. Okay.

1643
01:31:20,845 --> 01:31:22,155
Let's vote on the motion. Michael,

1644
01:31:22,205 --> 01:31:23,595
could you do the roll call?

1645
01:31:29,395 --> 01:31:30,675
Commissioner Mar

1646
01:31:33,715 --> 01:31:35,975
Da Commissioner Phillips?

1647
01:31:36,675 --> 01:31:41,055
Yes. Commissioner Kerrin? Yes. Commissioner Leininger? Yes.

1648
01:31:41,745 --> 01:31:44,975
Chair Werner? Yes. Okay.

1649
01:31:44,975 --> 01:31:47,175
Motion passed unanimously.

1650
01:31:47,875 --> 01:31:50,175
So I will reopen

1651
01:31:52,275 --> 01:31:55,575
the public hearing on the variance

1652
01:31:57,505 --> 01:32:01,925
issue and reopen the record on the variance issues.

1653
01:32:03,465 --> 01:32:07,885
And then I will continue the, the hearing to,

1654
01:32:08,625 --> 01:32:11,845
to our next meeting of August 25th, 7:00 PM

1655
01:32:12,435 --> 01:32:13,565
here in the council chambers

1656
01:32:14,225 --> 01:32:18,845
for further discussion on wording based on

1657
01:32:18,845 --> 01:32:22,705
what we've heard tonight and new,

1658
01:32:22,925 --> 01:32:25,825
new input from staff.

1659
01:32:30,735 --> 01:32:31,825
Everybody satisfied?

1660
01:32:36,175 --> 01:32:40,985
Okay. So continue.

1661
01:32:44,895 --> 01:32:47,825
Okay. It's 8 31.

1662
01:32:49,535 --> 01:32:53,305
This finishes up what we're gonna be doing on the first

1663
01:32:54,535 --> 01:32:56,145
type three public hearing tonight.

1664
01:32:56,765 --> 01:32:58,665
We still have a second public hearing

1665
01:33:00,005 --> 01:33:02,385
on another set of code amendments.

1666
01:33:03,595 --> 01:33:04,745
Would anybody like a break?

1667
01:33:06,055 --> 01:33:10,305
Okay, let's take a six minute break.

1668
01:33:10,645 --> 01:33:14,585
2 8 37.

1669
01:33:19,405 --> 01:33:19,625
So,

1670
01:40:55,395 --> 01:40:56,205
okay, we're gonna,

1671
01:40:57,085 --> 01:40:59,035
We're gonna reconvene after our recess

1672
01:41:00,055 --> 01:41:03,155
and we will look at a second Type three public hearing

1673
01:41:04,015 --> 01:41:07,155
on code amendments in response to recent state legislation.

1674
01:41:08,065 --> 01:41:11,675
This is a request for planning action PA dash L dash

1675
01:41:11,975 --> 01:41:16,115
2026 dash 0 0 0 19

1676
01:41:16,815 --> 01:41:21,155
to amend sections of the A MC to implement Senate bill 9 74

1677
01:41:21,985 --> 01:41:26,715
from 2025, house bill 2138,

1678
01:41:27,265 --> 01:41:28,435
also from 2025

1679
01:41:29,295 --> 01:41:34,195
and House bill 30, 30, 40 37 from 2026.

1680
01:41:36,095 --> 01:41:39,075
The Ashland Municipal Code sections to be addressed are

1681
01:41:40,235 --> 01:41:44,675
a MC 18 AMC 18

1682
01:41:47,335 --> 01:41:48,475
oh AMC

1683
01:41:52,595 --> 01:41:57,235
A M C3 AMC

1684
01:41:57,515 --> 01:42:01,195
18 oh A MC

1685
01:42:01,435 --> 01:42:05,115
18:00 AM C3

1686
01:42:07,905 --> 01:42:11,115
four oh a MC 18

1687
01:42:13,055 --> 01:42:14,835
oh a MC 18

1688
01:42:17,975 --> 01:42:19,275
and a MC 18.

1689
01:42:22,945 --> 01:42:25,195
This is again, a request for the planning commission

1690
01:42:25,195 --> 01:42:27,315
to make a recommendation to the city council.

1691
01:42:28,095 --> 01:42:31,715
And these actions will impact housing application approvals

1692
01:42:32,135 --> 01:42:34,595
and public involvement with the applications.

1693
01:42:35,495 --> 01:42:37,875
And it's my understanding that, that these are before us

1694
01:42:37,875 --> 01:42:40,475
because the state law mandates them.

1695
01:42:44,945 --> 01:42:48,355
Because this is a legislative public hearing, we do not need

1696
01:42:48,355 --> 01:42:52,115
to ask about ex parte cont contact or site visits.

1697
01:42:52,915 --> 01:42:54,515
I will acknowledge one public comment

1698
01:42:54,545 --> 01:42:57,795
that we did receive in writing a letter from Steve Rouse,

1699
01:42:57,905 --> 01:42:59,595
president of Rogue Advocates.

1700
01:43:00,515 --> 01:43:01,795
I will open the public hearing

1701
01:43:05,805 --> 01:43:06,875
Staff presentation.

1702
01:43:07,335 --> 01:43:09,635
We have Brandon in front of us to today, tonight.

1703
01:43:10,935 --> 01:43:14,995
So thank you. The amendments that are presented

1704
01:43:14,995 --> 01:43:17,235
before you this evening are part of an iterative process

1705
01:43:17,325 --> 01:43:20,035
where we became before the planning Commission

1706
01:43:20,615 --> 01:43:24,715
at study sessions on April 14th and May 26th.

1707
01:43:25,335 --> 01:43:28,195
And the city council was briefed on the legislation

1708
01:43:28,255 --> 01:43:31,435
and the proposed local approach at its study session

1709
01:43:32,055 --> 01:43:34,195
on June 1st, 2026.

1710
01:43:34,895 --> 01:43:36,115
So as such, you're familiar

1711
01:43:36,115 --> 01:43:38,115
with the ordinance changes in terms of,

1712
01:43:38,975 --> 01:43:41,355
but this is the first time you're seeing it in draft

1713
01:43:41,355 --> 01:43:44,875
ordinance format, which outlines the recommendations

1714
01:43:44,905 --> 01:43:48,595
that were provided to staff at those prior study sessions.

1715
01:43:48,655 --> 01:43:51,645
And I'm gonna go over those briefly in a few slides.

1716
01:43:52,745 --> 01:43:56,045
As chair veer noted, this is in relation to implementing

1717
01:43:56,725 --> 01:44:01,445
Senate bill 9 74 portions of House Bill 2038

1718
01:44:01,745 --> 01:44:04,445
as well as House Bill 40 37.

1719
01:44:05,705 --> 01:44:08,645
And I'll go through each of those bills in a moment.

1720
01:44:09,425 --> 01:44:12,765
But essentially the ordinance amendments across the board

1721
01:44:12,865 --> 01:44:15,725
are intended by the state legislature to

1722
01:44:16,335 --> 01:44:19,725
streamline residential development review so

1723
01:44:19,725 --> 01:44:23,485
that more qualifying applications are processes typed.

1724
01:44:23,505 --> 01:44:24,885
One, administrative reviews

1725
01:44:26,025 --> 01:44:28,005
and public hearings only occur

1726
01:44:28,515 --> 01:44:30,005
when permitted through an appeal.

1727
01:44:30,105 --> 01:44:34,445
And I'll touch on 40 37 and its implications on that.

1728
01:44:34,995 --> 01:44:39,565
Essentially the ordinances also expand housing

1729
01:44:39,565 --> 01:44:41,205
opportunities by codifying

1730
01:44:42,325 --> 01:44:45,765
single room occupancy standards within our local code

1731
01:44:46,905 --> 01:44:48,765
in compliance with the state law.

1732
01:44:49,735 --> 01:44:52,765
Those code of requirements have to be adopted by communities

1733
01:44:52,765 --> 01:44:54,685
by January 1st, 2027.

1734
01:44:55,385 --> 01:44:58,365
So the city of Ashland would be doing those in advance of

1735
01:44:58,365 --> 01:44:59,365
that requirement.

1736
01:45:00,285 --> 01:45:02,085
I should note that some of the other requirements

1737
01:45:02,105 --> 01:45:04,925
of Senate Bill 9 74

1738
01:45:06,825 --> 01:45:11,085
and 40 37 are already in effect under state law.

1739
01:45:11,625 --> 01:45:16,085
And so applications that come in can apply state law

1740
01:45:16,265 --> 01:45:18,765
for their approval under those clear

1741
01:45:18,765 --> 01:45:19,885
and objective standards.

1742
01:45:20,745 --> 01:45:25,085
So essentially this also amendments would align our local

1743
01:45:25,485 --> 01:45:29,645
procedures for notice appeals residential design standards

1744
01:45:30,505 --> 01:45:33,245
and clear and housing clear and objective housing review.

1745
01:45:33,685 --> 01:45:35,925
I should note we have a separate project underway

1746
01:45:35,925 --> 01:45:38,085
with Rogue Valley Council of Governments,

1747
01:45:38,085 --> 01:45:41,765
which is doing an audit of Ashland's land use code to see

1748
01:45:42,045 --> 01:45:43,805
where, and not just Ashlands

1749
01:45:43,805 --> 01:45:46,685
but most jurisdictions within the valley as to what

1750
01:45:47,325 --> 01:45:49,245
standards are clear and objective for housing

1751
01:45:49,345 --> 01:45:51,685
and are going to be MA making recommended changes

1752
01:45:52,425 --> 01:45:54,845
for each community to address those standards.

1753
01:45:55,545 --> 01:45:57,125
So there will be more following on that

1754
01:45:59,005 --> 01:46:01,645
specifically in terms of 9 74.

1755
01:46:02,585 --> 01:46:04,405
It does, as I noted, change a number

1756
01:46:04,545 --> 01:46:07,485
of the initial decisions of the city to be administrative.

1757
01:46:08,755 --> 01:46:12,165
Establishes that housing developments that are clear

1758
01:46:12,165 --> 01:46:15,365
and objective do not have a quasi-judicial hearing

1759
01:46:15,365 --> 01:46:17,205
before the initial decision.

1760
01:46:18,625 --> 01:46:21,605
It changes the notice requirements in our current code are

1761
01:46:21,605 --> 01:46:25,005
200 feet to property owners within 200 feet.

1762
01:46:25,205 --> 01:46:29,405
Neighborhood organizations, it limits that to

1763
01:46:30,005 --> 01:46:31,405
property owners within a hundred feet

1764
01:46:32,285 --> 01:46:34,805
and does not provide for notices to other organizations.

1765
01:46:34,905 --> 01:46:36,925
So that amendment has been

1766
01:46:37,165 --> 01:46:41,445
provided, it does retain a 14 day written comment period

1767
01:46:41,545 --> 01:46:45,005
by which somebody receiving the notice can provide comment

1768
01:46:45,105 --> 01:46:48,965
to city staff on the action for consideration in making

1769
01:46:49,765 --> 01:46:51,085
a decision on the proposal.

1770
01:46:52,825 --> 01:46:55,125
The city staff would issue a written decision

1771
01:46:56,395 --> 01:46:57,765
with findings essentially.

1772
01:46:58,065 --> 01:47:00,205
And I would say

1773
01:47:00,205 --> 01:47:03,165
that planning commission hearings under 9 74

1774
01:47:03,705 --> 01:47:08,005
do remain available for appeal, but only on non-clear

1775
01:47:08,005 --> 01:47:09,845
and objective housing applications.

1776
01:47:10,625 --> 01:47:14,205
So in the case that there is a conditional use permit

1777
01:47:14,505 --> 01:47:18,845
or a application for a commercial mixed use development

1778
01:47:18,845 --> 01:47:21,925
or commercial developments which are not housing related,

1779
01:47:21,925 --> 01:47:25,285
those would still be actions that could be reviewed

1780
01:47:25,285 --> 01:47:28,285
by the planning commission either at a initial hearing

1781
01:47:28,465 --> 01:47:30,365
or upon appeal. Yes,

1782
01:47:31,145 --> 01:47:33,725
But it, but it also requires that those

1783
01:47:33,745 --> 01:47:36,605
who are appealing are only the property, the applicants

1784
01:47:37,215 --> 01:47:39,565
Under the scenarios that I just outlined

1785
01:47:39,565 --> 01:47:42,325
where it's not a clear and objective housing application.

1786
01:47:43,115 --> 01:47:45,325
Anybody can appeal those. Right, right.

1787
01:47:45,345 --> 01:47:47,005
But, but, but if it is a clear

1788
01:47:47,005 --> 01:47:48,565
and objective housing application,

1789
01:47:48,585 --> 01:47:50,165
the decision is made by staff.

1790
01:47:50,825 --> 01:47:54,205
At which point, if that is to be appealed, the only

1791
01:47:54,795 --> 01:47:56,485
potential app appellant under

1792
01:47:57,415 --> 01:48:00,125
house bill 40 37 is the applicant.

1793
01:48:00,905 --> 01:48:04,125
So it would eliminate the opportunity for neighbor appeals

1794
01:48:05,105 --> 01:48:07,605
or any of those impacted parties within a hundred feet

1795
01:48:07,605 --> 01:48:10,125
of the development to file an appeal at the local

1796
01:48:10,625 --> 01:48:11,725
or before Luba.

1797
01:48:12,225 --> 01:48:15,645
The land use Board of Appeals is also restricted under 40 37

1798
01:48:16,105 --> 01:48:17,125
to only the applicant.

1799
01:48:21,705 --> 01:48:23,885
So this gets a little bit into some of the details,

1800
01:48:24,145 --> 01:48:25,685
but I wanted to note

1801
01:48:25,685 --> 01:48:28,285
that currently we require a two step process

1802
01:48:28,625 --> 01:48:31,765
for subdivisions of 10 lots

1803
01:48:31,765 --> 01:48:33,125
or greater than 10 lots,

1804
01:48:33,765 --> 01:48:37,045
which would be an outline plan presented be prior to

1805
01:48:37,705 --> 01:48:38,765
and getting approval.

1806
01:48:39,065 --> 01:48:40,885
And then subsequent to that an out,

1807
01:48:41,105 --> 01:48:42,285
I'm sorry, an outline plan.

1808
01:48:42,665 --> 01:48:45,565
And once that's approved, submitting a final plan concurrent

1809
01:48:45,565 --> 01:48:50,285
with that outline plan under ordinance 3 3 0 7,

1810
01:48:50,865 --> 01:48:53,925
the outline plan and final plan could be submitted

1811
01:48:53,925 --> 01:48:56,365
simultaneously up to 20 units.

1812
01:48:56,425 --> 01:48:58,645
And that was part of the direction that we received

1813
01:48:59,405 --> 01:49:02,765
from the planning commission of the review threshold raised

1814
01:49:02,785 --> 01:49:06,285
to 20 or more lots classification

1815
01:49:06,305 --> 01:49:08,925
of qualifying variances as type one actions

1816
01:49:10,465 --> 01:49:11,965
and retention of the existing.

1817
01:49:12,805 --> 01:49:15,325
I should note that the retention of the existing zone change

1818
01:49:17,225 --> 01:49:19,845
and annexation 9 74 requires that those

1819
01:49:20,705 --> 01:49:23,845
be approved administratively as well for upzoning

1820
01:49:23,845 --> 01:49:25,045
for increased residential.

1821
01:49:25,595 --> 01:49:28,605
This body as well as the city council at the study sessions

1822
01:49:29,565 --> 01:49:31,965
recognized conflict within state law.

1823
01:49:32,005 --> 01:49:34,165
I think I have a slide on that further, so I'm jumping ahead

1824
01:49:34,505 --> 01:49:37,965
of myself so we'll come back to that.

1825
01:49:39,345 --> 01:49:43,965
So the Senate bill also states that for developments

1826
01:49:44,025 --> 01:49:45,845
of greater than 20 units

1827
01:49:45,905 --> 01:49:48,725
or more for one in two family developments,

1828
01:49:48,835 --> 01:49:52,285
that residential STA design standards cannot be applied.

1829
01:49:52,755 --> 01:49:55,005
When we discussed this with the planning commission,

1830
01:49:55,665 --> 01:49:56,685
it was acknowledged

1831
01:49:56,685 --> 01:50:01,205
that Senate Bill 9 74 included a sunset date for that design

1832
01:50:02,865 --> 01:50:07,485
design standard exemption of January 1st, 2033.

1833
01:50:07,665 --> 01:50:10,085
And so the draft ordinance that's provided

1834
01:50:10,085 --> 01:50:12,965
before you actually embeds that in the ordinance to ensure

1835
01:50:13,435 --> 01:50:15,205
that it is not a persistent change,

1836
01:50:15,265 --> 01:50:20,085
but one that would have to be reevaluated in 2032

1837
01:50:20,625 --> 01:50:22,685
to ensure that it either continues

1838
01:50:22,745 --> 01:50:25,885
or does sunset locally as well.

1839
01:50:30,155 --> 01:50:34,735
So single room occupancy house bill 2138 established

1840
01:50:35,495 --> 01:50:38,975
specific requirements that were largely taken from the state

1841
01:50:38,975 --> 01:50:40,735
code and put into our local code.

1842
01:50:41,635 --> 01:50:44,775
It allows for up to six single

1843
01:50:45,405 --> 01:50:48,455
room occupancy units on any lots allowing

1844
01:50:48,495 --> 01:50:49,935
detached single family housing.

1845
01:50:50,755 --> 01:50:53,735
It allows in multifamily zones a density increase

1846
01:50:53,755 --> 01:50:56,055
of three times the maximum density.

1847
01:50:56,315 --> 01:51:00,055
So in an R three zone lot we allow 20 units per acre.

1848
01:51:00,305 --> 01:51:03,975
Those would typically be apartment complexes, you know,

1849
01:51:03,975 --> 01:51:06,575
studio one bedroom to three bedroom units.

1850
01:51:06,915 --> 01:51:10,255
If they are proposed as SROs, then they could increase that

1851
01:51:10,515 --> 01:51:12,055
to 60 units per acre.

1852
01:51:13,315 --> 01:51:16,735
It establishes local single room occupancy standards and we

1853
01:51:17,095 --> 01:51:18,455
provided definitions,

1854
01:51:19,605 --> 01:51:22,575
most notably it goes into some detail in terms of

1855
01:51:23,065 --> 01:51:24,975
where the state law stipulated

1856
01:51:25,045 --> 01:51:28,495
that single room occupancy units were those that

1857
01:51:29,075 --> 01:51:30,335
had shared facilities.

1858
01:51:31,035 --> 01:51:33,295
So the ordinance presented this evening,

1859
01:51:33,355 --> 01:51:36,695
and I do have a modification I'll show in a bit,

1860
01:51:37,195 --> 01:51:39,695
are intended to state that if a

1861
01:51:40,455 --> 01:51:44,735
single room occupancy development had a shared kitchen,

1862
01:51:45,035 --> 01:51:47,175
all the individual units could share that kitchen.

1863
01:51:47,685 --> 01:51:51,815
They could have private bathrooms. The inverse is also true.

1864
01:51:51,815 --> 01:51:54,295
They could have shared restrooms and private kitchens,

1865
01:51:54,755 --> 01:51:56,575
but what they can't have is both the kitchen

1866
01:51:57,275 --> 01:51:59,935
and a bathroom within a singular unit.

1867
01:52:01,155 --> 01:52:03,455
And it'd be considered a single room occupancy

1868
01:52:03,645 --> 01:52:08,495
because that is defacto and apartment at that point and is.

1869
01:52:09,115 --> 01:52:11,495
So we update the applicable land use tables

1870
01:52:11,495 --> 01:52:14,495
to permit them in the residential zones.

1871
01:52:16,435 --> 01:52:21,295
And I'll jump to Senate bill 40 37 housing applications.

1872
01:52:21,425 --> 01:52:24,055
Again, these are state mandated

1873
01:52:24,055 --> 01:52:25,615
changes to the hearing process.

1874
01:52:26,495 --> 01:52:28,975
I did touch on these on the introduction in terms of

1875
01:52:30,415 --> 01:52:32,815
specifically for housing applications that are subject

1876
01:52:32,875 --> 01:52:34,415
to clear and objective standards.

1877
01:52:34,945 --> 01:52:36,935
Those are a type one administrative review.

1878
01:52:37,115 --> 01:52:38,775
No public hearing notice

1879
01:52:38,875 --> 01:52:40,935
to property owners within a hundred feet.

1880
01:52:41,955 --> 01:52:43,655
And written comments can be

1881
01:52:43,895 --> 01:52:46,365
provided during that 14 day period prior to

1882
01:52:46,985 --> 01:52:48,605
the initial decision by staff.

1883
01:52:50,065 --> 01:52:53,205
And only the applicant may appeal the planning commission

1884
01:52:53,425 --> 01:52:54,845
appeal to the planning commission

1885
01:52:54,845 --> 01:52:57,245
and only the applicant may appeal to Luba.

1886
01:52:57,245 --> 01:52:59,205
And this is what we're touching on earlier,

1887
01:53:00,055 --> 01:53:03,045
again related specifically to those housing projects.

1888
01:53:05,345 --> 01:53:07,165
So zone changes in annexation.

1889
01:53:07,705 --> 01:53:10,925
So we do deviate from Senate Bill 9 74 in this case

1890
01:53:11,115 --> 01:53:14,925
that Senate 9 9 74 does allow certain residential zone

1891
01:53:14,925 --> 01:53:16,285
changes in annexations

1892
01:53:16,945 --> 01:53:19,285
to be processed administratively without a public hearing.

1893
01:53:19,755 --> 01:53:23,725
However, we reviewed state law that has yet to be modified

1894
01:53:24,105 --> 01:53:28,685
as part of 9 74, that it states

1895
01:53:28,685 --> 01:53:30,725
that legislative actions including

1896
01:53:32,725 --> 01:53:35,205
a zoning action would have to be adopted by ordinance.

1897
01:53:35,545 --> 01:53:38,085
It stipulates that an ordinance requires a public hearing

1898
01:53:38,825 --> 01:53:40,685
and that a public hearing,

1899
01:53:41,845 --> 01:53:44,845
a council action on land use legislative

1900
01:53:44,845 --> 01:53:45,965
changes as required.

1901
01:53:46,225 --> 01:53:47,405
And that is a public hearing.

1902
01:53:47,625 --> 01:53:52,205
So we're not amending ashland's existing zone change

1903
01:53:52,485 --> 01:53:54,885
procedures or annexation procedures.

1904
01:53:55,775 --> 01:53:58,605
Again, retaining the existing public process

1905
01:53:59,505 --> 01:54:01,045
and hearing process for council

1906
01:54:01,625 --> 01:54:03,085
and planning commission on those.

1907
01:54:04,485 --> 01:54:05,765
I should note that if

1908
01:54:05,765 --> 01:54:08,725
through the legislative process the legislature does further

1909
01:54:09,175 --> 01:54:11,245
rulemaking and makes modifications

1910
01:54:11,305 --> 01:54:14,685
and clarifies this question, then we could be coming back

1911
01:54:14,685 --> 01:54:19,085
for a legislative amendment that addresses

1912
01:54:19,085 --> 01:54:20,205
that resolved conflict

1913
01:54:20,665 --> 01:54:24,245
or if implemented under state law it would supersede our law

1914
01:54:24,245 --> 01:54:26,765
and that an applicant could apply under those standards.

1915
01:54:30,825 --> 01:54:35,245
So I thought I had provided a recommended change.

1916
01:54:35,725 --> 01:54:38,205
I think maybe I did modify this

1917
01:54:39,425 --> 01:54:41,605
on a separate computer prior to coming forward.

1918
01:54:42,195 --> 01:54:46,085
Essentially I can read it into the record for consideration

1919
01:54:46,785 --> 01:54:48,805
on the single room occupancy standard.

1920
01:54:54,505 --> 01:54:58,005
The, lemme open up the code reference.

1921
01:54:58,065 --> 01:55:01,205
If you look at section

1922
01:55:03,035 --> 01:55:06,285
section 12 of the ordinance 33 0 7.

1923
01:55:11,785 --> 01:55:13,805
I'm sorry, it's not section 12, that's definitions.

1924
01:55:17,245 --> 01:55:18,605
I didn't install it. So,

1925
01:55:24,385 --> 01:55:28,445
so it's under section three that the

1926
01:55:29,165 --> 01:55:31,725
section 18.2 0.5

1927
01:55:32,545 --> 01:55:36,765
100 single room occupancies, section B one,

1928
01:55:37,755 --> 01:55:39,525
essentially it establishes

1929
01:55:39,625 --> 01:55:41,925
how single room occupancies are permitted.

1930
01:55:46,685 --> 01:55:49,805
It's not that section, sorry, it's section B five

1931
01:55:50,415 --> 01:55:52,485
where it states sanitary

1932
01:55:52,485 --> 01:55:55,325
and food, food preparation facility conditions.

1933
01:55:55,355 --> 01:55:59,085
This is a suggested amendment to address potential confusion

1934
01:55:59,515 --> 01:56:04,445
between sections A and B, C and D.

1935
01:56:04,905 --> 01:56:08,325
So a states every unit must have access

1936
01:56:08,345 --> 01:56:10,005
to both sanitary facilities

1937
01:56:10,005 --> 01:56:13,645
and food preparation facilities, which may be

1938
01:56:13,885 --> 01:56:15,165
provided within their unit

1939
01:56:15,305 --> 01:56:19,885
or as shared facilities taken a loan that could indicate

1940
01:56:20,085 --> 01:56:22,885
that a unit could have both a kitchen

1941
01:56:23,145 --> 01:56:25,125
and a bathroom.

1942
01:56:25,425 --> 01:56:28,525
And so the request would be to amend it to

1943
01:56:29,375 --> 01:56:31,485
after the comma following facilities

1944
01:56:32,105 --> 01:56:35,485
to conclude the sentence with every unit must have access

1945
01:56:35,485 --> 01:56:38,845
to both sanitary facilities and food preparation facilities.

1946
01:56:39,265 --> 01:56:43,805
Period striking, which may be provided within the unit

1947
01:56:43,985 --> 01:56:46,805
or as shared facilities largely

1948
01:56:46,805 --> 01:56:49,645
because it is covered under B

1949
01:56:49,645 --> 01:56:51,925
that stipulates an SRO unit

1950
01:56:52,465 --> 01:56:55,125
may include private sanitary facilities

1951
01:56:55,225 --> 01:56:59,525
or private food prepar preparation facilities, but not both.

1952
01:57:00,745 --> 01:57:02,885
And also D, which stipulates

1953
01:57:03,485 --> 01:57:06,485
a unit containing both private sanitary facilities

1954
01:57:06,945 --> 01:57:10,565
and private food preparation facilities is a dwelling unit,

1955
01:57:10,985 --> 01:57:13,805
not an S-O-R-S-O-S-R-O unit.

1956
01:57:14,845 --> 01:57:16,965
Such unit does not count towards the minimum number

1957
01:57:16,965 --> 01:57:19,485
of SRR units and is subject to the density

1958
01:57:19,625 --> 01:57:20,725
and development standards,

1959
01:57:20,955 --> 01:57:23,365
otherwise applicable to dwelling units in the zone.

1960
01:57:23,865 --> 01:57:27,525
So again, with that singular half sentence strikeout,

1961
01:57:27,725 --> 01:57:30,325
I think it clarifies the confusion

1962
01:57:30,325 --> 01:57:32,925
that the word may was introducing.

1963
01:57:34,065 --> 01:57:37,245
And with that, I do have the staff recommended motion

1964
01:57:38,285 --> 01:57:40,445
that the planning commission recommended the city council

1965
01:57:40,515 --> 01:57:44,405
approve proposed draft ordinance 33 0 7,

1966
01:57:45,165 --> 01:57:48,285
provide the title to it as presented in the staff report.

1967
01:57:48,285 --> 01:57:51,685
And this is a public hearing, I'm not seeing an audience

1968
01:57:51,685 --> 01:57:55,205
behind us, but if anybody was here to speak,

1969
01:57:55,285 --> 01:57:57,885
I could step aside and take questions.

1970
01:57:58,355 --> 01:58:01,245
Okay. We do have one member

1971
01:58:01,245 --> 01:58:02,965
of the audience would you like to speak?

1972
01:58:04,435 --> 01:58:06,045
Okay then.

1973
01:58:06,225 --> 01:58:08,165
So I'm available for questions. Yeah, questions

1974
01:58:08,165 --> 01:58:12,765
For Brandon Chair.

1975
01:58:12,845 --> 01:58:14,605
I have questions. Oh, sure, go ahead. Thank you.

1976
01:58:22,575 --> 01:58:26,875
HB 4 0 3 7 mandates that only clear

1977
01:58:26,875 --> 01:58:29,115
and objective standards, conditions,

1978
01:58:29,295 --> 01:58:32,635
and procedures can apply to review

1979
01:58:32,635 --> 01:58:34,275
of a housing development application.

1980
01:58:34,275 --> 01:58:35,275
Is that right?

1981
01:58:35,975 --> 01:58:40,795
Yes. Okay. That makes it a, a limited land use decision

1982
01:58:41,775 --> 01:58:46,685
under OS 1 97 is, is that basically accurate?

1983
01:58:48,545 --> 01:58:50,445
Yes. Okay.

1984
01:58:51,545 --> 01:58:54,765
And and that new law also limits the availability of notice

1985
01:58:54,785 --> 01:58:57,565
and appeal applications, right?

1986
01:58:57,705 --> 01:58:59,565
Or there's an appeal on such applications.

1987
01:58:59,585 --> 01:59:01,005
But does it say,

1988
01:59:01,025 --> 01:59:02,445
who makes a decision on a housing

1989
01:59:02,445 --> 01:59:04,125
application to approve or deny?

1990
01:59:05,785 --> 01:59:09,045
It says that it shall be it, I believe it states

1991
01:59:09,045 --> 01:59:10,365
that it shall be an adminis,

1992
01:59:10,505 --> 01:59:12,165
the initial decision shall be made.

1993
01:59:12,945 --> 01:59:14,685
It doesn't necessarily say planning commission,

1994
01:59:14,685 --> 01:59:15,765
but a hearing can't be held,

1995
01:59:16,525 --> 01:59:17,565
A hearing can't be held.

1996
01:59:17,645 --> 01:59:21,005
Correct. Right. So we're, we're we're simpatico on that.

1997
01:59:21,015 --> 01:59:23,285
Right. But it doesn't say whether it's staff

1998
01:59:23,385 --> 01:59:24,685
or commission, does it?

1999
01:59:26,745 --> 01:59:28,685
I'm don't believe so. Okay.

2000
01:59:28,865 --> 01:59:30,525
And I looks like you're reading the

2001
01:59:31,595 --> 01:59:34,925
Yeah, well so I mean, like, I, I'm, I, let me back up.

2002
01:59:35,025 --> 01:59:38,765
I'm not trying to really is is just that I've,

2003
01:59:38,835 --> 01:59:41,565
I've attempted to read deeply into these new laws Yeah.

2004
01:59:41,585 --> 01:59:44,885
And into our code and into the Unamended

2005
01:59:45,765 --> 01:59:48,765
Oregon revised statutes comprising Oregon land use law.

2006
01:59:49,225 --> 01:59:52,205
And so I'm trying to gain clarity on what these bills do,

2007
01:59:52,435 --> 01:59:56,645
what they don't do, and what, if any decision space remains

2008
01:59:56,645 --> 01:59:58,325
to the city about how to implement them

2009
01:59:58,905 --> 02:00:01,485
and consistent with the home rule provisions

2010
02:00:02,025 --> 02:00:04,125
of the Oregon Constitution Article 11.

2011
02:00:05,105 --> 02:00:08,005
And so just, I, I need to rifle

2012
02:00:08,005 --> 02:00:10,725
through a few more questions just for clar clarity's sake

2013
02:00:10,745 --> 02:00:12,845
before we get into discussion.

2014
02:00:18,755 --> 02:00:22,845
Does SB 9 47, wait, no, sorry,

2015
02:00:22,845 --> 02:00:23,885
we we covered that one.

2016
02:00:24,825 --> 02:00:28,245
Do do any of the new housing laws change the chapter

2017
02:00:28,425 --> 02:00:32,045
of the Oregon revised statutes 2, 2 7 that

2018
02:00:32,695 --> 02:00:34,085
authorized this commission

2019
02:00:35,055 --> 02:00:36,995
and that, you know,

2020
02:00:37,185 --> 02:00:39,395
establish procedures for its decision making?

2021
02:00:40,495 --> 02:00:43,035
No. Those procedures for when the planning commission has

2022
02:00:43,075 --> 02:00:45,995
a hearing before it would still be subject to 2, 2 7 Right.

2023
02:00:45,995 --> 02:00:47,075
Rules and requirements. Right.

2024
02:00:47,075 --> 02:00:49,235
And there, there is a authority in 2, 2 7 Right.

2025
02:00:49,415 --> 02:00:51,075
For a commission to make a,

2026
02:00:51,235 --> 02:00:52,475
a decision on a land use

2027
02:00:52,475 --> 02:00:53,915
application without a public hearing.

2028
02:00:53,915 --> 02:00:54,915
Right.

2029
02:00:56,615 --> 02:00:59,795
I'm not familiar with that having been done. So, okay,

2030
02:00:59,795 --> 02:01:03,915
Well that's auroras 2 2 7 1 75 subsection 10.

2031
02:01:04,145 --> 02:01:08,195
Okay. Okay. So reading the new state housing laws

2032
02:01:08,555 --> 02:01:13,475
together with the unamended parts of state land use law,

2033
02:01:15,055 --> 02:01:19,515
can the city council decide in this proposed ordinance to

2034
02:01:20,115 --> 02:01:22,315
continue vesting authority in the planning commission

2035
02:01:22,895 --> 02:01:25,115
to make an initial decision to approve

2036
02:01:25,295 --> 02:01:29,035
or deny a qualifying residential housing application

2037
02:01:29,775 --> 02:01:34,015
as a limited land use decision following the procedures

2038
02:01:34,015 --> 02:01:36,095
of RS 1 97 and 2 2 7?

2039
02:01:37,825 --> 02:01:40,325
I, you know, I will have to defer to legal counsel

2040
02:01:40,545 --> 02:01:43,405
and whether upon review you can make such a

2041
02:01:43,405 --> 02:01:44,805
recommendation to the city council.

2042
02:01:44,905 --> 02:01:47,925
And if they wanted to investigate that further,

2043
02:01:47,955 --> 02:01:52,525
that would take further legal research to ensure, presuming

2044
02:01:52,525 --> 02:01:54,725
that they do have that authority, then

2045
02:01:54,725 --> 02:01:58,125
that would be an amendment to 3 3 0 7 is presented

2046
02:01:58,505 --> 02:02:00,605
to change the procedures

2047
02:02:00,705 --> 02:02:03,045
to establish a planning commission hearing,

2048
02:02:03,875 --> 02:02:07,205
non-hearing process by which the planning commission could

2049
02:02:07,205 --> 02:02:10,525
be the initial decision maker on those applications.

2050
02:02:13,805 --> 02:02:18,125
Anything that, Yeah, that, that,

2051
02:02:18,545 --> 02:02:21,885
that's probably too specific of an, an, of a question for me

2052
02:02:21,885 --> 02:02:23,125
to answer off the fly.

2053
02:02:23,635 --> 02:02:25,285
Yeah. But I'm happy to follow up.

2054
02:02:25,525 --> 02:02:27,925
I I'm sorry I didn't preview the question earlier. I mean,

2055
02:02:27,925 --> 02:02:29,365
There's, there's totally, It's the flavor

2056
02:02:29,365 --> 02:02:30,725
of an ambush. I get it. No, I'm,

2057
02:02:30,725 --> 02:02:32,565
I'm happy to, happy to follow up though.

2058
02:02:33,205 --> 02:02:34,325
Okay, cool. Thank you.

2059
02:02:35,065 --> 02:02:39,085
So just last, has any other Oregon City

2060
02:02:39,595 --> 02:02:43,205
enacted in ordinance like this vesting in administrative

2061
02:02:43,255 --> 02:02:44,565
staff, the sole authority

2062
02:02:44,625 --> 02:02:47,605
to make an initial decision on a residential housing

2063
02:02:47,605 --> 02:02:50,405
application or of other cities taking another approach?

2064
02:02:51,585 --> 02:02:54,285
And I'm gonna look to Derek if you're aware, I'm not aware

2065
02:02:54,385 --> 02:02:58,045
of cities are all scrambling to enact

2066
02:02:58,595 --> 02:03:01,685
9 74, 43 0 7, and 2138.

2067
02:03:02,745 --> 02:03:06,885
And as such, we are seeing applications come in saying

2068
02:03:06,885 --> 02:03:09,405
that they're currently under state law

2069
02:03:10,635 --> 02:03:14,925
requiring an initial decision from staff exclusive

2070
02:03:14,925 --> 02:03:16,725
of a hearing process because they're

2071
02:03:16,725 --> 02:03:17,805
not required to have one.

2072
02:03:18,185 --> 02:03:19,925
And that was implemented in effect

2073
02:03:19,945 --> 02:03:23,405
by the state legislature on July 1st, 2026.

2074
02:03:24,185 --> 02:03:28,965
So essentially that staff decision making process is already

2075
02:03:29,065 --> 02:03:31,765
vested for applications that are coming in.

2076
02:03:32,305 --> 02:03:36,085
We were trying to codify it through this adoption process,

2077
02:03:36,905 --> 02:03:38,245
but if the Planning commission

2078
02:03:38,245 --> 02:03:42,405
and city council modified that to have a different structure

2079
02:03:43,435 --> 02:03:47,485
that we'll check to see the, whether that's permissible. I,

2080
02:03:47,755 --> 02:03:51,285
Okay, so, so what's the actual source of authority for

2081
02:03:53,715 --> 02:03:57,365
that kind of decision being made by administrative staff

2082
02:03:58,145 --> 02:04:00,485
and not referring it to the commission?

2083
02:04:00,705 --> 02:04:01,725
Is it in

2084
02:04:02,425 --> 02:04:06,165
1 97, 180 5 little six?

2085
02:04:06,505 --> 02:04:09,365
Or is it somewhere else? I, you know,

2086
02:04:09,665 --> 02:04:11,565
I'd say it's in house bill 40 37

2087
02:04:11,705 --> 02:04:13,565
and the language provided in that.

2088
02:04:13,565 --> 02:04:16,365
However, Derek,

2089
02:04:17,315 --> 02:04:20,445
What I would say, kind of both last question in this,

2090
02:04:21,025 --> 02:04:22,325
as far as other Oregon cities,

2091
02:04:22,385 --> 02:04:25,725
I'm not sure cities in the region have gotten together

2092
02:04:25,865 --> 02:04:27,565
and discussed 9 74.

2093
02:04:28,065 --> 02:04:31,045
And I think the approach we've brought to you for 9 74

2094
02:04:31,585 --> 02:04:34,365
is similar to the approach other cities in the region are

2095
02:04:34,365 --> 02:04:36,205
taking specifically Medford,

2096
02:04:37,925 --> 02:04:39,885
I don't know if any of them have adopted that.

2097
02:04:40,445 --> 02:04:44,085
I think 40 37 frankly came as a surprise to cities.

2098
02:04:45,155 --> 02:04:46,605
City of Medford reached out to us

2099
02:04:46,625 --> 02:04:48,405
and said, did we know anything about it?

2100
02:04:48,865 --> 02:04:51,285
And we went back and looked at the legislative update from

2101
02:04:51,365 --> 02:04:53,405
DLCD and it was sort

2102
02:04:53,405 --> 02:04:56,685
of a sentence in a broader paragraph about urban reserves

2103
02:04:56,945 --> 02:04:59,125
saying that it was making some procedural changes

2104
02:04:59,185 --> 02:05:01,325
to the handling of residential applications

2105
02:05:02,105 --> 02:05:06,125
and very much in my mind, downplayed the magnitude

2106
02:05:06,125 --> 02:05:07,485
of the changes that were required.

2107
02:05:08,145 --> 02:05:11,285
So I I don't know of any other cities that were either aware

2108
02:05:11,285 --> 02:05:13,405
of it or have made changes to this point.

2109
02:05:15,835 --> 02:05:17,405
Yeah, I will, I will echo

2110
02:05:17,405 --> 02:05:21,445
that also in city attorney circles is that there is,

2111
02:05:21,895 --> 02:05:24,685
there has also sort of been a scramble to

2112
02:05:26,185 --> 02:05:29,605
put together legislation and local ordinances that'll comply

2113
02:05:30,505 --> 02:05:32,485
and there hasn't quite been consensus.

2114
02:05:32,585 --> 02:05:35,165
So from what I've seen,

2115
02:05:35,865 --> 02:05:37,645
Thanks very much everybody.

2116
02:05:41,215 --> 02:05:42,445
Those are all the questions I have.

2117
02:05:42,795 --> 02:05:46,915
Okay. So if we ask staff

2118
02:05:47,135 --> 02:05:50,195
to pursue figuring out whether we can

2119
02:05:50,535 --> 02:05:54,755
and whether the planning commission can

2120
02:05:54,755 --> 02:05:59,405
administratively make a deci make an administrative decision

2121
02:05:59,745 --> 02:06:02,965
on applications, new applications that come forward,

2122
02:06:04,545 --> 02:06:08,525
that's gonna take us continuing the hearing

2123
02:06:10,745 --> 02:06:13,165
to a date certain so that we have time for staff

2124
02:06:13,265 --> 02:06:14,805
to do the research.

2125
02:06:17,205 --> 02:06:19,925
I, I certainly would be in favor

2126
02:06:19,985 --> 02:06:21,485
of a continuance for that purpose.

2127
02:06:21,925 --> 02:06:24,365
I also think that if it is possible

2128
02:06:24,385 --> 02:06:29,125
to remedy my concerns about the

2129
02:06:29,655 --> 02:06:34,245
drift of land use decision making authority

2130
02:06:34,475 --> 02:06:37,845
from the chartered commission to administrative staff

2131
02:06:41,355 --> 02:06:42,765
with a simple strike

2132
02:06:42,765 --> 02:06:45,445
and replace amendment to one line

2133
02:06:46,265 --> 02:06:51,165
of this draft ordinance under section 10,

2134
02:06:52,745 --> 02:06:56,965
I'm, I'm happy to, to offer that motion for discussion if,

2135
02:06:57,065 --> 02:06:58,725
if it folks are interested.

2136
02:06:59,685 --> 02:07:02,285
Otherwise, continuing sounds like a great idea to me.

2137
02:07:04,035 --> 02:07:09,005
Okay. So what are you, what is the, the one change

2138
02:07:09,005 --> 02:07:12,645
that you would suggest to allow planning commission

2139
02:07:12,645 --> 02:07:16,445
to be the non-hearing decision maker?

2140
02:07:19,305 --> 02:07:23,245
Not mo not so moving simply to float it.

2141
02:07:24,705 --> 02:07:29,685
It would be to adjust the language.

2142
02:07:31,195 --> 02:07:34,525
Okay. With reference to our packet, here's where it is

2143
02:07:38,065 --> 02:07:40,485
on page eight of the draft ordinance

2144
02:07:40,745 --> 02:07:42,205
and that's total page 60

2145
02:07:45,105 --> 02:07:46,765
at the very bottom of that page.

2146
02:07:53,635 --> 02:07:55,005
This is under the heading

2147
02:07:57,635 --> 02:08:01,565
chapter 18.5 0.1, 0.050

2148
02:08:02,365 --> 02:08:03,485
C one.

2149
02:08:06,545 --> 02:08:08,605
I'm sorry, you said page total page 60.

2150
02:08:09,665 --> 02:08:13,805
Yes, I have total page 60 10 of 10 of

2151
02:08:13,805 --> 02:08:17,685
11 8 8 of

2152
02:08:17,685 --> 02:08:18,925
11, page eight of 11.

2153
02:08:28,595 --> 02:08:30,725
Okay. And that, that paragraph

2154
02:08:30,825 --> 02:08:34,085
as drafted ends in a four line

2155
02:08:34,595 --> 02:08:37,125
bold underlined sentence.

2156
02:08:37,835 --> 02:08:38,965
Correct? Right.

2157
02:08:39,355 --> 02:08:43,365
That effectively means that applications

2158
02:08:43,365 --> 02:08:46,325
for housing development are limited land use decisions

2159
02:08:47,465 --> 02:08:50,325
and shall not be referred to the planning commission

2160
02:08:50,325 --> 02:08:53,725
for review and decision under either

2161
02:08:54,585 --> 02:08:57,245
of the relevant subsections of the land use assortments

2162
02:08:57,875 --> 02:09:01,325
affecting respectively type one review

2163
02:09:02,025 --> 02:09:03,165
and type two review.

2164
02:09:03,705 --> 02:09:08,005
In neither case, will the planning commission review

2165
02:09:08,525 --> 02:09:11,165
a housing application not under type one

2166
02:09:11,225 --> 02:09:12,365
and not under type two.

2167
02:09:12,545 --> 02:09:15,165
That's what this is saying. Okay. Okay.

2168
02:09:15,785 --> 02:09:19,005
And what I propose is to just

2169
02:09:20,815 --> 02:09:23,765
tweak that language a little bit by removing the word not

2170
02:09:26,715 --> 02:09:31,205
from that last sentence, to say that these applications

2171
02:09:32,455 --> 02:09:35,565
shall be referred to the planning commission

2172
02:09:36,255 --> 02:09:37,805
under type one procedure

2173
02:09:39,505 --> 02:09:42,045
and shall not be referred

2174
02:09:42,045 --> 02:09:44,085
to the planning commission under type two procedure,

2175
02:09:44,085 --> 02:09:46,285
which comes with all the trimmings of a public hearing.

2176
02:09:46,465 --> 02:09:50,765
And under RS 1 97

2177
02:09:54,095 --> 02:09:55,095
Chair.

2178
02:09:55,945 --> 02:09:58,645
Yes, John, go ahead. Just offer comment.

2179
02:09:59,355 --> 02:10:04,285
Sure. So this is, I think the second

2180
02:10:04,385 --> 02:10:07,925
or third round that we've looked at this state legislation

2181
02:10:09,025 --> 02:10:12,685
and I, I appreciate the due diligence

2182
02:10:12,715 --> 02:10:16,685
that my fellow commissioner has paid to this,

2183
02:10:17,065 --> 02:10:19,325
but I think it's important to recognize that this

2184
02:10:22,815 --> 02:10:27,445
constraint on the use of type three hearings

2185
02:10:28,065 --> 02:10:31,885
is pre, was precisely one of the driving

2186
02:10:33,975 --> 02:10:37,085
principles behind some of this legislation.

2187
02:10:38,385 --> 02:10:42,685
And so to take that out is to sort of, I would argue,

2188
02:10:43,195 --> 02:10:47,085
undermine the core rationale for this in the first place.

2189
02:10:48,835 --> 02:10:51,925
It's, the goal is to move applications quicker

2190
02:10:52,665 --> 02:10:56,085
and to rely on the deep expertise of our staff

2191
02:10:57,625 --> 02:11:02,045
and enable them to lend

2192
02:11:02,065 --> 02:11:03,765
as much value as possible,

2193
02:11:04,445 --> 02:11:06,485
maximize value in housing production.

2194
02:11:07,225 --> 02:11:09,465
So that's my point of view.

2195
02:11:11,175 --> 02:11:13,745
Okay, thank you. So

2196
02:11:17,405 --> 02:11:19,545
are you not concerned that, well,

2197
02:11:19,545 --> 02:11:21,545
so I'm coming at it from goal one,

2198
02:11:21,795 --> 02:11:23,145
which is public engagement.

2199
02:11:23,805 --> 02:11:25,225
So I think the planning commission,

2200
02:11:28,705 --> 02:11:32,195
because we have open meetings, is gonna have the potential

2201
02:11:32,215 --> 02:11:32,795
for more

2202
02:11:36,885 --> 02:11:39,185
public engagement to come to the meetings

2203
02:11:39,185 --> 02:11:43,545
and hear what we're doing or watch us on RVTV.

2204
02:11:44,725 --> 02:11:48,905
And that's,

2205
02:11:48,965 --> 02:11:50,585
and so I think what,

2206
02:11:50,585 --> 02:11:52,585
what I'm hearing Commissioner Lineer say

2207
02:11:53,225 --> 02:11:54,665
actually sounds good to me.

2208
02:11:58,565 --> 02:12:01,825
Do you, and but obviously you don't think so, so,

2209
02:12:02,935 --> 02:12:04,905
Well I, you know, I'm not sure there's an,

2210
02:12:05,645 --> 02:12:07,425
and an objectively correct answer.

2211
02:12:07,765 --> 02:12:10,345
I'm just saying that the spirit of this legislation

2212
02:12:10,345 --> 02:12:12,625
that came out of Salem is precisely

2213
02:12:12,685 --> 02:12:14,825
to accelerate the approval of housing.

2214
02:12:15,525 --> 02:12:19,225
And so one of the ways you do that is by limiting the number

2215
02:12:19,405 --> 02:12:22,025
of type two and type three hearings

2216
02:12:22,885 --> 02:12:25,105
and relying more on staff

2217
02:12:25,205 --> 02:12:27,665
and administrative decision making in order

2218
02:12:27,685 --> 02:12:30,745
to speed approvals. That's all I'm saying.

2219
02:12:31,335 --> 02:12:35,945
Yeah. And so I'm, I'm understanding the legislation to, to

2220
02:12:37,255 --> 02:12:41,105
take away type two and type three hearings for housing.

2221
02:12:42,005 --> 02:12:46,265
And what I think what I'm understanding Commissioner Lineer

2222
02:12:46,265 --> 02:12:49,625
to be saying is he's got a way for the planning commission

2223
02:12:49,725 --> 02:12:51,765
to review

2224
02:12:51,785 --> 02:12:55,325
and approve housing

2225
02:12:56,045 --> 02:12:58,485
applications that are now type one.

2226
02:13:01,505 --> 02:13:02,505
Is That true?

2227
02:13:02,505 --> 02:13:03,405
Yeah, I mean the,

2228
02:13:04,825 --> 02:13:08,365
and I I'm really grateful that our land use code gets us

2229
02:13:08,585 --> 02:13:11,405
to a type one procedure on all

2230
02:13:11,405 --> 02:13:12,805
of the qualifying applications.

2231
02:13:12,835 --> 02:13:15,485
That the code is there to catch this state mandate

2232
02:13:16,225 --> 02:13:18,005
in an orderly way.

2233
02:13:19,045 --> 02:13:20,965
However, our existing type one procedure

2234
02:13:22,585 --> 02:13:26,605
allows staff advisor referral of, of such matters

2235
02:13:26,705 --> 02:13:27,885
to the planning commission

2236
02:13:28,505 --> 02:13:31,965
and the, the section of

2237
02:13:33,525 --> 02:13:36,725
ORS that's revised by these laws

2238
02:13:37,295 --> 02:13:41,125
leave undisturbed the local government prerogative

2239
02:13:41,145 --> 02:13:43,085
to establish approval procedure.

2240
02:13:44,705 --> 02:13:48,445
And for the record I'm talking about chapter 1 97,

2241
02:13:48,685 --> 02:13:52,285
a section 400 subsection four C

2242
02:13:54,185 --> 02:13:58,085
and I, I, I hear you, John, about the purpose

2243
02:13:58,145 --> 02:14:00,925
of the legislation and not wanting to undermine that.

2244
02:14:03,425 --> 02:14:04,525
I'm completely supportive

2245
02:14:04,525 --> 02:14:05,885
of the purpose of the, of the bill.

2246
02:14:05,885 --> 02:14:09,285
However, I'm aware that these laws

2247
02:14:10,415 --> 02:14:12,445
leave undisturbed that local prerogative

2248
02:14:12,445 --> 02:14:13,445
that I just discussed

2249
02:14:14,315 --> 02:14:18,965
because that's how we implement section 11

2250
02:14:18,965 --> 02:14:21,725
of the Oregon Constitution providing for home rule.

2251
02:14:22,145 --> 02:14:25,685
And where the legislature does not unambiguously say

2252
02:14:26,715 --> 02:14:30,045
that administrative staff has to issue these decisions,

2253
02:14:30,645 --> 02:14:35,365
I think we would be remiss to interpret it that way.

2254
02:14:36,825 --> 02:14:38,885
The, the state preemption

2255
02:14:40,105 --> 02:14:41,965
is predicated on the impossibility

2256
02:14:42,065 --> 02:14:45,845
of implementing a state mandate in a city ordinance.

2257
02:14:46,745 --> 02:14:49,565
If we can do both at the same time, there is no preemption

2258
02:14:51,545 --> 02:14:56,325
and I think these laws reserve for the city

2259
02:14:57,105 --> 02:15:01,805
the decision space to review these qualifying applications

2260
02:15:02,385 --> 02:15:06,765
in a type one procedure by the planning commission

2261
02:15:08,025 --> 02:15:10,605
if, and in so far as we want it to,

2262
02:15:16,035 --> 02:15:16,525
Brandon.

2263
02:15:16,995 --> 02:15:18,605
Yeah, I do want to note that the section

2264
02:15:18,605 --> 02:15:21,645
that you're referring to amending has to do

2265
02:15:21,645 --> 02:15:24,245
with the type one applications, which I know you're aware

2266
02:15:24,875 --> 02:15:27,725
that the, the vast majority

2267
02:15:27,725 --> 02:15:30,245
of type one applications are currently staff

2268
02:15:30,245 --> 02:15:33,885
administratively approved on the rare exception, staff will

2269
02:15:36,065 --> 02:15:38,565
advise that the a particular application come

2270
02:15:38,565 --> 02:15:40,285
to the planning commission for review.

2271
02:15:40,575 --> 02:15:42,965
Under the current rule, the section

2272
02:15:42,995 --> 02:15:46,525
that you are looking at amending was stipulating that

2273
02:15:46,795 --> 02:15:49,645
that could no longer be done for housing applications that

2274
02:15:50,265 --> 02:15:51,325
are subject to clear

2275
02:15:51,325 --> 02:15:53,885
and objective standards, conditions and procedures.

2276
02:15:54,725 --> 02:15:57,205
However, by removing the word not

2277
02:15:57,825 --> 02:16:02,445
and stipulating that all such applications for clear

2278
02:16:02,445 --> 02:16:04,605
and objective housing shall be referred

2279
02:16:04,605 --> 02:16:06,245
to the planning commission for review,

2280
02:16:06,835 --> 02:16:11,365
it's a new requirement that is not presently the case for,

2281
02:16:11,815 --> 02:16:14,965
again, that type one planning actions that are

2282
02:16:15,675 --> 02:16:17,885
typically administered by staff.

2283
02:16:18,745 --> 02:16:22,405
So it shifts the review authority from staff

2284
02:16:22,825 --> 02:16:26,845
for type one actions such as a minor land partition

2285
02:16:27,385 --> 02:16:30,085
or the development of three units

2286
02:16:30,385 --> 02:16:34,245
or a duplex on a property to be a

2287
02:16:35,285 --> 02:16:39,045
planning commission review and decision without hearing.

2288
02:16:39,705 --> 02:16:41,085
And my concern is, is

2289
02:16:41,085 --> 02:16:43,405
that noting a planning commission meeting

2290
02:16:44,295 --> 02:16:46,965
would also engender those people

2291
02:16:46,965 --> 02:16:49,045
that receive notice an expectation

2292
02:16:49,045 --> 02:16:52,205
that they're providing public comment at a hearing,

2293
02:16:52,615 --> 02:16:53,805
which would not be the case

2294
02:16:54,725 --> 02:16:56,445
because a hearing would be precluded.

2295
02:16:56,575 --> 02:17:00,165
Right. So again, it's in instituting a new requirement

2296
02:17:00,165 --> 02:17:02,765
that's not in our current code to be,

2297
02:17:02,795 --> 02:17:04,845
have a greater review requirement.

2298
02:17:05,585 --> 02:17:07,605
If you presume that presenting

2299
02:17:07,605 --> 02:17:10,125
before the planning commission is a greater review

2300
02:17:10,125 --> 02:17:11,165
than before staff.

2301
02:17:11,225 --> 02:17:13,685
But again, we'd both be applying the same clear

2302
02:17:13,685 --> 02:17:14,765
and objective standards.

2303
02:17:16,385 --> 02:17:19,285
And so I just wanted that to be clear for the commission

2304
02:17:19,285 --> 02:17:23,885
of what's being contemplated is a wholesale change in terms

2305
02:17:23,905 --> 02:17:28,365
of how type one actions for housing are processed.

2306
02:17:29,015 --> 02:17:31,125
Those are really important brand points.

2307
02:17:31,125 --> 02:17:34,765
Brandon, thank you. And they,

2308
02:17:35,755 --> 02:17:38,605
they make me want to kind of refine

2309
02:17:40,825 --> 02:17:42,205
how it, how it is that I'm trying

2310
02:17:42,205 --> 02:17:43,805
to communicate my intent here.

2311
02:17:45,545 --> 02:17:47,405
You know, I, I don't want the planning commission

2312
02:17:47,405 --> 02:17:51,325
to take on every decision of the city

2313
02:17:51,545 --> 02:17:52,965
for housing applications

2314
02:17:53,075 --> 02:17:56,925
that ordinarily would be a ministerial matter of staff

2315
02:17:57,585 --> 02:18:00,685
or ordinarily would processed

2316
02:18:00,685 --> 02:18:03,325
as a type one without referral to the commission.

2317
02:18:03,425 --> 02:18:06,085
My concern really is about the applications

2318
02:18:06,085 --> 02:18:08,445
that we ordinarily would process

2319
02:18:08,625 --> 02:18:11,885
as a type two and

2320
02:18:12,515 --> 02:18:15,005
Such as the PSO, such as the PSO

2321
02:18:15,005 --> 02:18:16,245
and the related variances.

2322
02:18:17,035 --> 02:18:20,085
Yeah. And if,

2323
02:18:20,265 --> 02:18:23,325
if we only think about it in those terms,

2324
02:18:24,115 --> 02:18:28,845
then I think the striking the word not in

2325
02:18:28,845 --> 02:18:31,285
that relevant sentence becomes a little bit more reasonable

2326
02:18:32,485 --> 02:18:35,645
because it would just say that instead of type two

2327
02:18:37,965 --> 02:18:42,325
PSO and variance reviews,

2328
02:18:43,505 --> 02:18:45,125
we would do them on the type one

2329
02:18:45,125 --> 02:18:46,485
procedure without a public hearing.

2330
02:18:49,415 --> 02:18:50,595
But taking public comment

2331
02:18:51,225 --> 02:18:53,595
with whatever notice an appeal is allowed

2332
02:18:55,715 --> 02:18:56,735
the same as staff would do.

2333
02:18:57,845 --> 02:19:00,295
Okay. So while we're thinking of that, we also need

2334
02:19:00,295 --> 02:19:03,215
to be cognizant of nine 30 is approaching

2335
02:19:03,355 --> 02:19:04,895
and our, that's our witching hour.

2336
02:19:05,515 --> 02:19:06,815
So we can have a motion

2337
02:19:06,915 --> 02:19:09,335
to continue this meeting for half an hour.

2338
02:19:12,035 --> 02:19:13,895
Yes. I did want to note that this is scheduled

2339
02:19:13,895 --> 02:19:16,295
for the council on August 18th.

2340
02:19:17,195 --> 02:19:20,815
So any kind of recommendation from this body that's going

2341
02:19:20,815 --> 02:19:23,615
before counsel should be provided this evening.

2342
02:19:23,975 --> 02:19:26,775
A continuance would

2343
02:19:26,775 --> 02:19:28,765
Essentially be forwarding a recommendation to council

2344
02:19:28,795 --> 02:19:32,125
that the planning commission had not completed the review

2345
02:19:32,125 --> 02:19:34,085
and therefore we would present that

2346
02:19:34,085 --> 02:19:35,725
to the council as your recommendation.

2347
02:19:39,545 --> 02:19:42,045
And can I just add one further thought to this idea

2348
02:19:42,045 --> 02:19:44,325
that I'm, I'm floating and have not yet proposed a motion

2349
02:19:44,385 --> 02:19:46,645
for which is,

2350
02:19:46,645 --> 02:19:49,005
and it's an important point, which is that the type one

2351
02:19:49,005 --> 02:19:52,685
and review proceeding that

2352
02:19:53,665 --> 02:19:58,045
I'm proposing for the planning commission would be according

2353
02:19:58,105 --> 02:19:59,645
to the procedures of

2354
02:20:00,325 --> 02:20:02,765
a limited land use decision under state law,

2355
02:20:03,145 --> 02:20:07,485
that's chapter 1 97, section 1 95

2356
02:20:08,185 --> 02:20:09,845
and the relevant section

2357
02:20:09,865 --> 02:20:13,365
of planning commission decision making under OS 2 27.

2358
02:20:14,015 --> 02:20:16,085
Those are kinda important qualifications,

2359
02:20:16,185 --> 02:20:20,205
but they, that enables this kind of type one review

2360
02:20:20,625 --> 02:20:23,725
to meet the requirements of these new housing laws

2361
02:20:24,265 --> 02:20:27,965
and of Oregon land use law read together

2362
02:20:29,815 --> 02:20:32,845
while preserving the home rule authority of the city

2363
02:20:32,845 --> 02:20:34,885
of Ashland to make

2364
02:20:35,515 --> 02:20:38,005
land use development decisions within its own community.

2365
02:20:45,725 --> 02:20:47,575
Okay. So it's clear to me this is gonna

2366
02:20:47,575 --> 02:20:48,775
take more than 10 minutes.

2367
02:20:52,355 --> 02:20:55,495
Do I have a motion to continue this meeting

2368
02:20:55,675 --> 02:20:57,055
for another half hour?

2369
02:21:02,845 --> 02:21:04,025
Thanks Chair Vernor.

2370
02:21:04,305 --> 02:21:07,905
I moved to extend the meeting 30 minutes to 9:30 PM

2371
02:21:08,885 --> 02:21:11,185
To 10 10 Oh to 10:00 PM

2372
02:21:12,885 --> 02:21:13,885
Is there a second?

2373
02:21:13,885 --> 02:21:14,745
Second. Okay.

2374
02:21:14,745 --> 02:21:16,545
As moved to seconded that we continue the meeting

2375
02:21:16,605 --> 02:21:20,865
to 10 o'clock or as soon as we get done with discussion.

2376
02:21:21,525 --> 02:21:26,185
And is there all those in favor? Yes. Aye.

2377
02:21:26,965 --> 02:21:28,545
Yes. Aye.

2378
02:21:30,645 --> 02:21:33,705
All those opposed I'll sitting here.

2379
02:21:34,935 --> 02:21:36,865
Okay. Four to one.

2380
02:21:37,725 --> 02:21:42,665
So we have until 10 o'clock or sooner if we get it done.

2381
02:21:43,325 --> 02:21:45,785
So now you're proposing to

2382
02:21:51,675 --> 02:21:55,185
write some write, amend this language so that

2383
02:21:56,925 --> 02:22:01,825
the, the new type one decisions

2384
02:22:02,585 --> 02:22:04,025
I-E-P-S-O

2385
02:22:04,405 --> 02:22:09,105
and variances would not, would,

2386
02:22:09,105 --> 02:22:12,665
would go to planning commission for non-hearing review

2387
02:22:18,115 --> 02:22:21,135
Absent, sorry, go absent

2388
02:22:21,195 --> 02:22:23,695
and appeal, isn't that correct? Absent and appeal?

2389
02:22:23,805 --> 02:22:25,485
Yeah. Yeah.

2390
02:22:25,705 --> 02:22:26,965
And then, and they would,

2391
02:22:27,685 --> 02:22:29,525
I guess they'd also come to us with an appeal.

2392
02:22:31,035 --> 02:22:32,525
Well we could structure it, you know,

2393
02:22:32,525 --> 02:22:34,365
however we want with respect to appeal.

2394
02:22:34,485 --> 02:22:35,725
I don't really care who hears it,

2395
02:22:35,725 --> 02:22:37,165
whether it's the planning commission under

2396
02:22:38,125 --> 02:22:41,605
a de novo public hearing with evidence and testimony

2397
02:22:41,625 --> 02:22:43,005
or whether that's done by the counsel.

2398
02:22:43,845 --> 02:22:46,565
I personally don't care. What I want is

2399
02:22:46,565 --> 02:22:49,165
for the planning commission to make those initial decisions.

2400
02:22:51,945 --> 02:22:53,685
Can, can I get a couple questions in

2401
02:22:53,685 --> 02:22:55,085
before we get to discussion?

2402
02:22:55,315 --> 02:22:56,315
Sure.

2403
02:22:57,305 --> 02:22:59,005
Is that, so let me, let me close the public hearing

2404
02:23:00,195 --> 02:23:02,885
Well Before we get to discussion though of staff

2405
02:23:03,265 --> 02:23:04,765
before the public hearings close.

2406
02:23:04,875 --> 02:23:07,885
Okay. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead Chair Burner.

2407
02:23:08,515 --> 02:23:13,245
Brandon, if I may, it sounds like to me

2408
02:23:13,245 --> 02:23:16,525
that state law caps notice that a hundred feet

2409
02:23:16,585 --> 02:23:19,605
for qualifying clear and objective housing applications,

2410
02:23:19,865 --> 02:23:23,045
but it looks like we're reducing the notice radius

2411
02:23:23,105 --> 02:23:25,285
of all type ones to a hundred feet.

2412
02:23:27,065 --> 02:23:30,845
Is it possible to preserve the 200 foot notice

2413
02:23:31,485 --> 02:23:32,845
where state law still allows

2414
02:23:33,385 --> 02:23:34,485
It is possible.

2415
02:23:34,545 --> 02:23:37,085
So this, I probably should have highlighted as a

2416
02:23:37,855 --> 02:23:39,285
local decision change

2417
02:23:39,365 --> 02:23:42,245
that the planning commission can consider in the city

2418
02:23:42,245 --> 02:23:46,365
council staff are recommending the shift to 100 foot notice

2419
02:23:46,545 --> 02:23:51,485
as a universal standard in order to ensure that our review

2420
02:23:51,485 --> 02:23:55,685
of applications does not inadvertently reduce notice to,

2421
02:23:56,825 --> 02:23:58,965
if something could have a 200 foot notice.

2422
02:23:59,225 --> 02:24:02,365
We can alway, we could, we cannot notice 200 feet

2423
02:24:02,745 --> 02:24:04,445
for a housing application

2424
02:24:05,905 --> 02:24:08,165
and we didn't want to have a disparate standard for

2425
02:24:08,785 --> 02:24:10,405
non housing related projects.

2426
02:24:11,085 --> 02:24:12,845
But again, it is something that we could incorporate.

2427
02:24:14,955 --> 02:24:18,805
Yeah. Yeah. I think in my opinion, I would like notice

2428
02:24:18,945 --> 02:24:21,165
to go to 200 feet where it's still allowed.

2429
02:24:21,645 --> 02:24:25,285
I think, you know, people want to have feedback

2430
02:24:25,345 --> 02:24:27,005
and know what's going on around them.

2431
02:24:27,305 --> 02:24:28,845
And so I would like to look at that.

2432
02:24:30,065 --> 02:24:32,805
My, my second question here, since we're moving quick

2433
02:24:33,785 --> 02:24:38,485
at the May 26th study session, we talked about this

2434
02:24:39,085 --> 02:24:41,325
PSO outline, final plan threshold.

2435
02:24:41,945 --> 02:24:45,405
And it was my memory that we'd settled on 12

2436
02:24:46,035 --> 02:24:47,165
lots rather than 20

2437
02:24:47,165 --> 02:24:50,325
because 12 lots was in alignment with the cottage standards.

2438
02:24:50,985 --> 02:24:54,885
And I believe somehow we've lost that in translation

2439
02:24:54,945 --> 02:24:56,565
to tonight where we're back at 20.

2440
02:24:56,865 --> 02:24:58,605
And so I wanted to bring that point up

2441
02:24:58,605 --> 02:24:59,605
As well.

2442
02:24:59,605 --> 02:25:02,085
Yeah, I believe that might have been a review consideration

2443
02:25:02,115 --> 02:25:03,325
also before city council,

2444
02:25:03,425 --> 02:25:05,925
but we can look back if this committee wants

2445
02:25:05,925 --> 02:25:09,125
to recommend a 12 level threshold as part of tonight's,

2446
02:25:09,125 --> 02:25:11,605
we can forward that as part of your recommendation

2447
02:25:11,725 --> 02:25:13,485
for council's consideration.

2448
02:25:13,835 --> 02:25:15,285
Fantastic. Thank you very much.

2449
02:25:22,705 --> 02:25:25,765
And that's all from me. Chair Brenner. Okay. Thank you.

2450
02:25:25,975 --> 02:25:26,685
Thank you Russell.

2451
02:25:32,375 --> 02:25:33,505
Okay, so

2452
02:25:34,835 --> 02:25:37,185
Chair, Go ahead.

2453
02:25:37,235 --> 02:25:39,305
Sorry, I just have one quick question for Brandon.

2454
02:25:40,025 --> 02:25:42,305
Brandon, thank you for your presentation.

2455
02:25:42,595 --> 02:25:43,825
Thank you Chair burner.

2456
02:25:45,445 --> 02:25:46,785
So you

2457
02:25:46,785 --> 02:25:49,745
and your team have been working diligently on interpreting

2458
02:25:49,745 --> 02:25:52,545
the state code to incorporate into our

2459
02:25:53,295 --> 02:25:54,905
land use code.

2460
02:25:55,405 --> 02:26:00,305
So what are the re repercussions of not following

2461
02:26:00,485 --> 02:26:04,465
to the best of our ability, the direction

2462
02:26:04,845 --> 02:26:07,505
of these state laws?

2463
02:26:09,885 --> 02:26:13,505
So a couple repercussions I think an applicant can apply

2464
02:26:13,505 --> 02:26:16,825
under the state law and if our code does not align with

2465
02:26:16,825 --> 02:26:20,105
that, still make that application a repercussion.

2466
02:26:20,105 --> 02:26:22,745
If we apply law that is inconsistent with the state,

2467
02:26:23,685 --> 02:26:25,545
an applicant could appeal that decision

2468
02:26:26,805 --> 02:26:31,745
to the land use board of appeals or to circuit court.

2469
02:26:31,905 --> 02:26:36,705
I presume. Other repercussions would essentially

2470
02:26:36,765 --> 02:26:39,025
be that the ordinance,

2471
02:26:39,025 --> 02:26:42,225
when we present this in its final format to the Department

2472
02:26:42,225 --> 02:26:43,625
of Land Conservation

2473
02:26:43,625 --> 02:26:45,705
and Development, they will review it

2474
02:26:45,705 --> 02:26:47,305
for consistency with state law.

2475
02:26:48,285 --> 02:26:50,105
You know, obviously your your review body,

2476
02:26:50,125 --> 02:26:51,225
the council's review body,

2477
02:26:51,225 --> 02:26:53,985
but the state also reviews all legislative changes

2478
02:26:54,565 --> 02:26:58,465
in land use and acknowledges them when received.

2479
02:26:58,605 --> 02:27:01,505
So ideally if we are incorporating something

2480
02:27:01,505 --> 02:27:04,425
that is in violation of state law, they would catch it

2481
02:27:04,605 --> 02:27:06,625
and provide back comment that we need

2482
02:27:06,625 --> 02:27:08,425
to amend to be in alignment.

2483
02:27:09,955 --> 02:27:11,785
Thank you Brandon. That was my understanding.

2484
02:27:12,325 --> 02:27:14,105
Can I make a motion chair burner?

2485
02:27:14,455 --> 02:27:15,505
Sure, go ahead.

2486
02:27:16,585 --> 02:27:18,425
I move that the planning commission recommend

2487
02:27:18,425 --> 02:27:20,105
that the city council approve first reading

2488
02:27:20,125 --> 02:27:23,945
of ordinances number 3 3 0 7 titled an ordinance related

2489
02:27:23,965 --> 02:27:26,305
to supporting housing production through streamlined review

2490
02:27:26,305 --> 02:27:28,865
of residential development applications implementing Senate

2491
02:27:28,865 --> 02:27:33,185
bill 9 74 House bill 2138, house bill 4 0 3 7

2492
02:27:33,895 --> 02:27:37,705
mending A MC 18 2 3

2493
02:27:38,825 --> 02:27:42,425
A MC 18 2 5 9 A MC

2494
02:27:42,705 --> 02:27:47,425
18 3 4 4 C 18 3 5 0 5 oh C

2495
02:27:47,625 --> 02:27:51,425
18 3 500 A MC

2496
02:27:52,025 --> 02:27:53,345
1839 Oak

2497
02:27:54,695 --> 02:27:58,745
0:00 AM C 18 5 1 0 1 0

2498
02:27:59,265 --> 02:28:02,545
A MC 18 5 1 0 5 0 C

2499
02:28:03,265 --> 02:28:08,105
18 5 5 0 3 0 and a MC 18 61 0 3 0

2500
02:28:10,565 --> 02:28:14,105
and adding a new subsection a MC 18 2 5 100

2501
02:28:14,245 --> 02:28:16,025
as presented in the staff report and attachment.

2502
02:28:19,295 --> 02:28:21,365
Okay. So you're not including the

2503
02:28:23,345 --> 02:28:27,405
200 foot notice for existing for

2504
02:28:28,445 --> 02:28:32,445
non-affected type one decisions and and the 12 unit and

2505
02:28:32,445 --> 02:28:34,445
The 12 including the 200 foot notice

2506
02:28:34,785 --> 02:28:38,125
for non-affected units and the 12 unit threshold.

2507
02:28:41,505 --> 02:28:41,925
Second.

2508
02:28:50,775 --> 02:28:53,625
Okay. Is there, we have a second.

2509
02:28:53,685 --> 02:28:54,705
We have a motion and a second.

2510
02:28:55,485 --> 02:28:58,065
Is this time for discussion on the motion? This

2511
02:28:58,065 --> 02:29:00,185
Is absolutely this time For discussion.

2512
02:29:00,185 --> 02:29:01,985
May I interject here? Sure. Re go.

2513
02:29:01,995 --> 02:29:06,665
Thank you very much, commissioner Mayor.

2514
02:29:06,775 --> 02:29:09,985
Just to ask, is this incorporating any of the

2515
02:29:12,915 --> 02:29:14,665
stuff that was brought up earlier about

2516
02:29:16,595 --> 02:29:20,905
processing type one applications that used to be type two

2517
02:29:21,935 --> 02:29:23,465
through the planning Commission?

2518
02:29:24,535 --> 02:29:26,105
This is just for clarification

2519
02:29:26,465 --> 02:29:31,145
'cause I was having a hard time with hearing the motion.

2520
02:29:35,405 --> 02:29:38,135
Yeah, thank you. Sorry. I apologize if it was a

2521
02:29:38,135 --> 02:29:39,175
little muddled or rushed.

2522
02:29:40,275 --> 02:29:44,695
So given Brandon's commentary on the implications

2523
02:29:44,755 --> 02:29:49,375
of deviating from state law, I'm recommending that we,

2524
02:29:52,165 --> 02:29:56,215
that we pursue the suggested motion with

2525
02:29:56,925 --> 02:30:00,615
limited modifications, which have already been discussed

2526
02:30:03,275 --> 02:30:07,615
to the best of our ability in adhering with the spirit

2527
02:30:07,795 --> 02:30:11,015
and language of what the state has intended

2528
02:30:11,395 --> 02:30:12,415
for municipalities.

2529
02:30:12,835 --> 02:30:14,015
That's my recommendation.

2530
02:30:15,025 --> 02:30:16,335
Thank you, commissioner. Mayor.

2531
02:30:16,685 --> 02:30:17,855
Okay, so I'm not clear,

2532
02:30:19,755 --> 02:30:24,095
do you wanna include commissioner ER's proposed,

2533
02:30:25,975 --> 02:30:28,265
keep the planning commission involved in type

2534
02:30:28,285 --> 02:30:29,545
one decisions or

2535
02:30:30,265 --> 02:30:33,425
I structure the motion to, to be as conservative

2536
02:30:33,425 --> 02:30:37,705
as possible given the specific

2537
02:30:39,025 --> 02:30:41,505
response received from the head of planning,

2538
02:30:43,155 --> 02:30:45,425
Which Means I guess that's a no, a no. Yeah,

2539
02:30:45,535 --> 02:30:47,265
That means, Yeah, that's a no.

2540
02:30:48,215 --> 02:30:52,255
Okay. Okay.

2541
02:30:52,555 --> 02:30:54,695
So is everybody clear

2542
02:30:56,765 --> 02:30:57,915
about what the motion is?

2543
02:31:00,285 --> 02:31:02,755
Chair, may I please offer an amendment to the motion?

2544
02:31:03,065 --> 02:31:04,475
Sure. Thank you.

2545
02:31:10,075 --> 02:31:12,795
I move to amend the pending motion

2546
02:31:15,985 --> 02:31:18,315
with regard to a MC

2547
02:31:19,085 --> 02:31:22,645
18.51050

2548
02:31:24,045 --> 02:31:25,045
C one

2549
02:31:29,125 --> 02:31:31,685
decision as follows

2550
02:31:35,625 --> 02:31:38,485
by first striking the word not

2551
02:31:41,635 --> 02:31:43,405
from the last sentence of that section.

2552
02:31:46,305 --> 02:31:49,645
Second by adding a period

2553
02:31:50,815 --> 02:31:53,605
after the phrase this subsection.

2554
02:31:56,185 --> 02:31:57,645
So that's the end of the sentence.

2555
02:32:00,505 --> 02:32:03,325
And third, by striking the phrase

2556
02:32:04,865 --> 02:32:06,005
or subsection

2557
02:32:06,845 --> 02:32:11,685
18.50 C two,

2558
02:32:16,095 --> 02:32:18,095
I further move to add that the end

2559
02:32:18,095 --> 02:32:21,495
of the same sub subsection on decision

2560
02:32:23,005 --> 02:32:25,255
include the following sentence, an application

2561
02:32:25,515 --> 02:32:28,535
for development of housing that is subject to a clear

2562
02:32:28,595 --> 02:32:30,975
and objective standards, conditions

2563
02:32:31,075 --> 02:32:34,615
and procedures pursuant to ORS 1 97.

2564
02:32:34,895 --> 02:32:38,295
A section 400 subsection one

2565
02:32:39,865 --> 02:32:43,095
shall not be referred to the planning commission for review

2566
02:32:43,435 --> 02:32:47,015
and decision under subsection 18.5 0.1

2567
02:32:47,385 --> 02:32:49,135
0.050 C

2568
02:32:49,435 --> 02:32:52,495
two end of amendment.

2569
02:32:57,405 --> 02:32:59,455
Okay. I didn't quite get all that but

2570
02:33:04,715 --> 02:33:05,785
we'll try it anyway.

2571
02:33:05,885 --> 02:33:07,625
So you're amending the motion

2572
02:33:10,565 --> 02:33:12,425
to reframe the motion to say

2573
02:33:14,695 --> 02:33:16,855
planning commission will is able to

2574
02:33:21,255 --> 02:33:25,345
hear type one decisions that are not public hearings

2575
02:33:27,085 --> 02:33:31,155
for PSOs and variances.

2576
02:33:31,825 --> 02:33:34,515
Yeah, it, it would ensure that the planning commission

2577
02:33:35,205 --> 02:33:39,435
could initially decide

2578
02:33:40,355 --> 02:33:45,075
a qualifying application using the limited

2579
02:33:45,505 --> 02:33:47,915
land use decision procedures

2580
02:33:50,575 --> 02:33:52,435
of Oregon land use law,

2581
02:33:54,715 --> 02:33:57,675
specifically ORS 1 97 0.195

2582
02:33:58,575 --> 02:34:03,075
and OS 2, 27 0.1 75, subsection 10.

2583
02:34:05,015 --> 02:34:09,395
It recognizes the ambiguity regarding the

2584
02:34:10,835 --> 02:34:14,675
decision approval procedure in state law.

2585
02:34:14,995 --> 02:34:18,125
I have a different interpretation than my colleague about

2586
02:34:18,125 --> 02:34:19,685
what the legislature intended

2587
02:34:20,475 --> 02:34:23,805
because the legislature left in place,

2588
02:34:25,625 --> 02:34:30,365
all of that Oregon law that I've discussed tonight.

2589
02:34:31,185 --> 02:34:35,725
And I think the intent of the legislature is to

2590
02:34:40,815 --> 02:34:44,205
allow a city to reserve

2591
02:34:44,225 --> 02:34:47,445
to itself whatever decision space is not specifically

2592
02:34:47,515 --> 02:34:51,165
preempted by unambiguous commands of the legislation.

2593
02:34:52,145 --> 02:34:53,285
And this is a way

2594
02:34:53,285 --> 02:34:55,405
that we can keep the planning commission in business.

2595
02:34:57,235 --> 02:34:59,045
Okay. Is there a second to the motion?

2596
02:35:02,795 --> 02:35:04,965
I'll second for the sake of discussion.

2597
02:35:05,755 --> 02:35:09,685
Okay. It's been moved and seconded for the amendment.

2598
02:35:10,785 --> 02:35:12,525
And the amendment takes precedent.

2599
02:35:12,625 --> 02:35:14,365
So we'll vote on the amendment first.

2600
02:35:16,385 --> 02:35:19,115
Is everybody clear what we're voting on?

2601
02:35:22,145 --> 02:35:23,635
Okay, Michael, we,

2602
02:35:24,395 --> 02:35:28,155
I think real quick we have a Were you gonna say something,

2603
02:35:28,615 --> 02:35:29,615
Carrie?

2604
02:35:29,615 --> 02:35:32,435
At this point I don't even know how to question it really.

2605
02:35:32,835 --> 02:35:35,355
I mean, so I was, and then I'm like, no.

2606
02:35:35,665 --> 02:35:37,595
Okay. Thank you.

2607
02:35:37,975 --> 02:35:39,435
Yes. Okay.

2608
02:35:39,735 --> 02:35:42,155
So we're gonna take a vote on the amendment first.

2609
02:35:44,435 --> 02:35:45,555
Michael, we call the roll

2610
02:35:46,475 --> 02:35:46,595
I

2611
02:35:51,475 --> 02:35:52,675
Commissioner Maher?

2612
02:35:55,185 --> 02:35:57,205
No. Commissioner Phillips?

2613
02:35:58,785 --> 02:36:01,085
No. Commissioner King Caren?

2614
02:36:02,225 --> 02:36:03,805
No. Commissioner

2615
02:36:03,805 --> 02:36:04,805
Leininger?

2616
02:36:04,985 --> 02:36:06,885
Yes. Chair Werner?

2617
02:36:07,105 --> 02:36:10,205
Yes. Okay. Split vote.

2618
02:36:10,295 --> 02:36:14,565
3, 2, 2. Motion fails.

2619
02:36:17,505 --> 02:36:18,765
So we're onto the main motion,

2620
02:36:21,935 --> 02:36:23,925
which is as said, as

2621
02:36:25,915 --> 02:36:28,805
presented in our staff report on page nine of nine,

2622
02:36:28,815 --> 02:36:30,085
total number 47.

2623
02:36:30,795 --> 02:36:32,845
With the addition of the 200 foot

2624
02:36:33,925 --> 02:36:37,565
additional notice requirements for applications that,

2625
02:36:37,635 --> 02:36:40,885
that are not covered by this, these changes.

2626
02:36:42,025 --> 02:36:44,325
And for the 12 unit limit

2627
02:36:44,425 --> 02:36:48,005
to PSOs.

2628
02:36:51,435 --> 02:36:54,725
Everybody clear? Okay.

2629
02:36:55,835 --> 02:36:57,125
Michael, will you call the roll

2630
02:37:04,125 --> 02:37:05,445
Commissioner Moore?

2631
02:37:07,065 --> 02:37:08,965
Yes. Commissioner Phillips?

2632
02:37:09,585 --> 02:37:11,925
Yes. Commissioner Kerrin? Yes.

2633
02:37:12,165 --> 02:37:13,845
Commissioner Leininger? Yes.

2634
02:37:14,455 --> 02:37:19,245
Chair Werner? Yes. Okay. Motion was unanimously adopted.

2635
02:37:20,345 --> 02:37:22,645
So we have a motion

2636
02:37:22,945 --> 02:37:26,445
or a recommendation to send a council now on this

2637
02:37:27,335 --> 02:37:28,405
batch of changes.

2638
02:37:33,695 --> 02:37:35,685
Thank you all for your hard work tonight

2639
02:37:37,665 --> 02:37:42,085
and we're now on to open discussion.

2640
02:37:42,345 --> 02:37:42,805
Is there

2641
02:37:46,465 --> 02:37:48,125
any, go ahead. I

2642
02:37:48,125 --> 02:37:50,325
Would just like to, I mean, I'm really appreciative

2643
02:37:50,385 --> 02:37:54,045
of your deep dive and I just,

2644
02:37:57,015 --> 02:37:59,395
and I appreciate the, the intent.

2645
02:38:02,475 --> 02:38:04,075
I just wanna say that. Thank you.

2646
02:38:08,745 --> 02:38:11,075
Okay. So under open discussion,

2647
02:38:12,335 --> 02:38:15,315
we have the letter that came

2648
02:38:15,415 --> 02:38:17,515
before us from

2649
02:38:21,015 --> 02:38:22,355
Joseph Calf

2650
02:38:23,415 --> 02:38:24,415
Cal.

2651
02:38:25,015 --> 02:38:26,595
And I think, as I recall,

2652
02:38:26,935 --> 02:38:30,075
the interest was actually in having him come to discuss that

2653
02:38:30,735 --> 02:38:33,155
It seemed this letter was pretty succinct

2654
02:38:33,495 --> 02:38:36,035
and I, I don't know

2655
02:38:36,095 --> 02:38:39,635
how we would really consider it without him bringing forth

2656
02:38:39,665 --> 02:38:40,755
what he wants to talk about.

2657
02:38:41,945 --> 02:38:44,155
Okay. That's good rationale.

2658
02:38:44,255 --> 02:38:47,475
Can we ask staff to invite him to come

2659
02:38:47,495 --> 02:38:49,435
to the August 25th meeting?

2660
02:38:50,895 --> 02:38:52,995
We can if Okay.

2661
02:38:55,175 --> 02:38:58,475
Is the other question I had under open business is,

2662
02:38:58,575 --> 02:39:01,475
do you have any, have you thought any more about

2663
02:39:01,475 --> 02:39:02,515
the planning commission retreat?

2664
02:39:02,535 --> 02:39:06,635
And if so, do you have any questions or not?

2665
02:39:07,935 --> 02:39:11,155
No. I think last we talked that it would be ill advised

2666
02:39:11,175 --> 02:39:15,155
to do it in the summer and looking at fall, so

2667
02:39:15,845 --> 02:39:18,795
we'll come back to you with some dates.

2668
02:39:18,845 --> 02:39:20,555
Sorry, I don't have those this evening. Okay,

2669
02:39:20,855 --> 02:39:21,855
No problem.

2670
02:39:21,855 --> 02:39:23,035
Someone Tonight suggests

2671
02:39:23,035 --> 02:39:24,835
that we invite the water master here

2672
02:39:24,995 --> 02:39:26,235
to talk about water rights.

2673
02:39:28,225 --> 02:39:32,275
What You want one of us

2674
02:39:32,375 --> 02:39:34,315
to, to invite? I just,

2675
02:39:34,495 --> 02:39:35,495
I'm sorry.

2676
02:39:35,495 --> 02:39:38,555
I thought I heard that. No. Okay. Maybe not.

2677
02:39:40,625 --> 02:39:44,715
Okay. Is there a motion

2678
02:39:44,715 --> 02:39:47,635
to adjourn 20 minutes early,

2679
02:39:47,875 --> 02:39:49,715
I move to adjourn. Second. Second.

2680
02:39:50,585 --> 02:39:52,915
Move to second. And all those in favor of adjourning? Yes.

2681
02:39:53,215 --> 02:39:54,515
Aye. Aye.

2682
02:39:55,365 --> 02:39:58,515
Thank you John very much for continuing to participate.

2683
02:39:59,975 --> 02:40:00,915
Thanks for having me.