[0:00] Here we go.

[0:15] Good morning, commissioners and members of the public. Thank you so much for taking the time to be with us this morning.

[0:24] It is July 22, 23, 2021, land conservation and development commission meeting.

[0:34] My name is Esther Johnson and I am the Commission Assistance.

[0:39] This meeting is being recorded and is life-training through grannicus.

[0:45] The link is available on our meeting page.

[0:49] If you intend to testify, please sign up using the public sign-up form on the meeting

[0:55] materials but site so that we have your name in the queue.

[0:59] Participants will be in listen only mode until they are called on to testify.

[1:06] If you are on the phone and would like to testify, please press star 9 and that will

[1:13] notify me and add you to the queue.

[1:16] With that, I would like to introduce Chair Robin McArthur.

[1:21] Thank you Ms. Johnson.

[1:22] I'm Robin McArthur.

[1:23] I'm Chair of the Land Conservation and Development Commission and as Ms. Johnson mentioned,

[1:28] I'm Gabbling in the July 2021 meeting of this said commission.

[1:35] Welcome everybody. Welcome commissioners. Welcome department staff and all those other folks that are listening in today.

[1:43] I think I'll just ask Esther to start off by calling the roles. So folks on video will know who is here today in the way of commissioners.

[1:53] Yes, Vice Chair Haloba.

[1:58] Yeah.

[1:59] Commissioner Warren.

[2:03] Here.

[2:03] Commissioner Lee Lack.

[2:05] Here.

[2:07] Commissioner Sandival.

[2:09] Here.

[2:11] Commissioner Jacobson.

[2:19] I don't see Commissioner Jacobson.

[2:23] I can.

[2:24] I will.

[2:24] I do have an e-mail so I will be sending her resending the link and also Commissioner

[2:34] Pairmines.

[2:38] Commissioner and Pairmines will be joining us intermittently and last but not least,

[2:44] Chair McArthur. Thank you. And I want to welcome back Commissioner Sondeval. We haven't seen you

[2:52] for a few meetings. You were on a health leave and we are just really tickled to have you back,

[2:56] especially for the topics that were going to review today would really encourage your input and

[3:02] recorded that. I have not heard from Commissioner Jacobson but Commissioner

[3:07] Paramine and I spoke and she is going to focus on portions of tomorrow's meeting. I

[3:13] don't believe she's going to sign in today. She'll be there for the climate friendly

[3:17] role-making discussion as well as the diversity equity and inclusion discussion

[3:22] tomorrow morning and early afternoon. So welcome everybody. I think at this point I wanted to

[3:31] really have special things as usual for DL City staff for making today happen. Again you do a

[3:38] fantastic job and we have all sorts of folks that work really hard sort of behind the scenes as well

[3:44] as in front when you'll see people talking today staff members and everyone's just on the terrific job

[3:50] to get us here today.

[3:52] So thanks to everyone.

[3:54] And Ms. Taylor will be doing the formal timekeeping.

[3:57] She's going to one of those behind the scenes folks.

[3:59] It keeps us in line.

[4:00] So thank you for that.

[4:02] At this point, I'd like to ask Commissioner Lee Lack

[4:06] if you would be willing to read the land acknowledgement.

[4:10] Thank you, Chair MacArthur.

[4:11] I'm certainly pleased to do so.

[4:13] I'd like to acknowledge the many tribes and bands

[4:15] who call Oregon their ancestral territory

[4:18] and honor the ongoing relationship between the land, plants, animals, and people indigenous

[4:23] to this place we now call Oregon. We recognize the continued sovereignty of the nine

[4:29] federally recognized tribes who have ties to this place and thank them for continuing to teach us

[4:35] how we might all be here together. Thank you, Commissioner. A couple of housekeeping matters.

[4:43] I wanted to remind folks about the score card, which is Esther sent in your packet.

[4:50] I think it was a couple of weeks ago, and that is a really great way for you to provide

[4:55] feedback to staff directly about the content of the presentation.

[5:00] And the staff reports, and it is very much a useful tool for staff to be guided by that input. So please fill those out. And then, at this point, I think I can just call it, hopefully, commissioners have had a chance to look at the agenda. And I'd like to ask for a motion to approve today and tomorrow's agenda.

[5:26] So move. Commissioner Lee Lack, do I have a second?

[5:31] Second.

[5:32] Great.

[5:33] Commissioner Warren.

[5:36] Okay.

[5:36] Esther, you want to call the roll?

[5:38] Yes.

[5:39] And Commissioner.

[5:41] Jickinson has joined us.

[5:43] Oh, great.

[5:44] Hi.

[5:46] Okay.

[5:47] Commissioner, stand of all.

[5:49] All right.

[5:50] Commissioner Warren.

[5:53] Hi.

[5:54] Commissioner Lee Lack.

[5:56] Hi.

[5:57] Commissioner.

[6:00] Jacobson. I heard the motion. I.

[6:03] Vice chair. Hello, but.

[6:05] Hi. Chair McArthur. I.

[6:08] The agenda is approved and we can go on and move on to item number two, which is the directors report.

[6:16] And as Jim is getting ready to do his report.

[6:20] I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the passing of Henry Richmond.

[6:24] I don't know if you've seen the articles near Argonian, or if you know much about Mr. Richmond,

[6:30] but he was the founder of thousands of Oregon, and he leaves in a really critically important legacy to Oregon,

[6:38] and is much credited with really focusing on growth management and the protection of

[6:44] the natural resources of this state. Yeah, and extensive resumes, as you can probably read in

[6:51] those articles and not only in the State of Oregon,

[6:54] which she was passionate about,

[6:55] but across the country,

[6:56] he helped with growth management issues.

[6:59] And so I just want to acknowledge his contribution

[7:02] in general, but in particular to the work

[7:05] that we do here at the Commission.

[7:08] And I think it's sort of appropriate in a way

[7:10] that we think about the kinds of topics

[7:12] we're discussing today.

[7:13] It really is a continuation of his legacy.

[7:15] We talk about housing and transportation,

[7:17] climate change and creating communities that

[7:22] to build communities that are more inclusive of

[7:25] and array of folks.

[7:27] I think that is a tribute to him.

[7:30] So I just wanted to say those things and then

[7:33] turn it over to Director Rue.

[7:37] Thank you, Chair MacArthur.

[7:41] I think I'll start actually by acknowledging

[7:46] somebody else among us who recently left us and that is Jennifer Donnelly. Jennifer died

[7:59] this last mid-spring from cancer at a very young age, far, far too soon. Many of you knew Jennifer

[8:14] as one of our two metro-region mole reps, she's appeared in front of this commission,

[8:24] probably before most of the current commissioners joined us, but she was particularly active

[8:31] in the metro-urban in rural reserves, conversation, and other conversations related to the

[8:46] Jennifer was an extraordinary person. She was an extraordinary regional rep for DLCD, but her talents and abilities went far beyond that to being a really critical member of the Hood River community for many years.

[9:05] Some of us, both present and past staff and Chairman Carthor went to her memorial service this last early summer.

[9:16] And we heard a lot about it, Jennifer, that we probably didn't even know in terms of the things that she did outside of work for her community and should be extraordinarily missed.

[9:32] So with that, I want to turn to the director's report itself.

[9:38] It's in front of you.

[9:40] I'm sure you all committed it to memorization.

[9:43] So I'm not going to go through it by line by line word by word.

[9:48] But I do want to point out a couple of things.

[9:52] And the first thing also that is actually not in your director's report

[9:57] is to introduce you to our...

[10:00] New Human Resources Manager. There you are, Taylor, Sergeant Free. This is Taylor's fourth day on the job. She keeps coming back.

[10:12] We're thrilled. She promised me this morning that she'll be here tomorrow and maybe Monday.

[10:19] As you all know, just a brief note about Katie Lehi.

[10:24] Katie, who was Taylor's predecessor, worked tirelessly for us for about three years plus,

[10:35] but I think COVID and a young family and a lot of other pressures forced her to retire

[10:43] or to to resign. She left us in the middle of May.

[10:50] Kirsten Green, our deputy, others have worked really hard.

[10:57] And it has paid off. We have this extraordinary young woman Taylor joining us this week.

[11:03] Taylor comes to us from the city of Wilsonville.

[11:07] And we're thrilled. She's going to be wonderful. She is wonderful.

[11:11] So, Taylor, do you want to say a few words about yourself?

[11:16] Thank you, Director Rue, Chair MacArthur and Vice Chair Hologa and other members of the Commission.

[11:22] I am so grateful for this opportunity to not only serve the DLCD team, but you as well.

[11:30] As Jim mentioned, I counted my most recent experience

[11:35] has been seven years with the City of Bolsonaro in HR,

[11:38] but I am so very excited to support the mission

[11:45] and the principles of this agency,

[11:47] and I'm just so very excited to be here,

[11:49] and it's wonderful to meet all of you.

[11:52] Well, Aston, see you.

[11:53] Welcome.

[11:54] I had the opportunity to talk to you a little bit

[11:56] a couple days ago in the prep meeting,

[11:58] So I don't know if any of commissioners want to say anything or have any kind of questions for

[12:07] so anyone have any questions for our new HR director.

[12:16] Seeing none, I think it's just a collective welcome. We're really pleased to have you here.

[12:20] It's a big shoes to fill, but it sounds like you're going to do that and then some so welcome.

[12:25] Thank you so much.

[12:29] Okay, moving on to the director's report itself,

[12:38] I give item A, actually that obviously the first item.

[12:45] Pucks about legislative and budget update, and we're going to hear more about that later today from Palmer and Emma.

[12:51] But what I want to do is talk a little bit about the enterprise-wide environment for budget.

[13:02] And that of course is directly related to the legislature because they're in the ones that create the budget for the buy-in.

[13:11] To say that it was extraordinary is an understatement in every possible way, as you all know, the entire session from mid-January through, I think they left on Saturday the 26th of June.

[13:32] So for five and a half months, they worked remotely and they had to figure it out and they did.

[13:41] But it was fairly tension-filled and for those people who worked more closely, like I think at Palmer,

[13:49] I think it was quite unlike anything they've ever seen.

[13:53] And part of it was related to, I think, surprises from COVID.

[14:03] The first surprise being that while this state was shut down for, and remains for the most part, shut down, for 18 months or so.

[14:16] General Fund revenues never really dipped. In fact, they remained higher than people expected or predicted.

[14:27] Which is sort of amazing given the fact that for a little while we were in double digit unemployment.

[14:36] But what that meant was that instead of having a budget shortfall there was in fact a surplus.

[14:45] I think some people are probably still trying to figure out how much of a surplus whether or not it triggers the so-called kicker.

[14:54] But there's a chance that it will.

[15:00] General fund money continuing to come in. There was also the American Recovery Act, I forgot part of that, American Recovery Protection Act, I guess, ARPA, with an enormous amount of federal money that was being pumped into state coffers across the nation in Oregon was certainly no exception.

[15:27] What that means is that during the session, in particularly in the last week of the session,

[15:38] the budget writers, in the ways in means committee, where we're spending money at a pretty amazing rate.

[15:50] Because this relates to what you're going to hear about a little bit more later, and that is our hiring practices and our budget.

[16:02] Not only did we get everything that we asked for in the governor's recommended budget, but we got some additional money.

[16:10] money that helped us refill the hole.

[16:14] So again, you remember that in September now 10 months ago,

[16:20] we took a cut that given the late stage in the biennium,

[16:26] was effectively a 30 plus percent cut

[16:30] for the remaining nine or so months of the biennium.

[16:35] That means that several people were on rotations

[16:39] We lost a couple of people and so we were not only able to hire all of those people back,

[16:48] but we got somewhere in the range of 9 or 10 new positions on top of those that we were able to fill.

[16:59] So going back to Taylor, Taylor doesn't get a day off. She doesn't even get time off until all those

[17:08] positions are filled and she's already working on it really hard, but we're going to have

[17:15] some new programs and new positions, but to talk about that hiring within the context

[17:23] of the Enterprise, there are some 1500 plus new positions across the Enterprise. So Forestry

[17:34] gets 100 new people. Water resources gets 60 new people to work on water projects and water conservation projects.

[17:46] I don't know how many new people at DQ, but they have several very large climate related programs.

[17:55] And that is true across as they say the enterprise. So there's going to be a lot of hiring going on everywhere

[18:02] where in state government and that of course these there's going to be some competition for

[18:08] us. We've been extraordinarily blessed by the quality of people that have joined us in the last

[18:16] few years. It has raised our hopes and expectations and again it's going to be Taylor's job to

[18:23] make sure that nobody gets disappointed, but there'll be a lot of new people just to set the context

[18:31] going all the way back to the Great Recession in 8 through 10.

[18:37] In our 2011 budget, the agency took a 25 to 30% reduction.

[18:49] Our employee count was somewhere in the low 50s.

[18:55] If we hire everybody soon that we're able to will be in the mid 70s and our budget will be just a little under twice what it was in the 1113 budget.

[19:12] And so we've recovered recovered well and I think that the future looks terrific.

[19:20] So any questions,

[19:26] Mr. Haley, I'd like to just mic my question as my employer as experienced just an extraordinary decline in the number of applicants for positions.

[19:39] I mean, as I tend to 15% of what we would normally receive and I'm just curious if you have any indication of whether you'll be able to fill those positions on the first round or to make require a bit more.

[19:52] marketing or I'm just curious with your confidence in filling those positions just given you're like you said the demand

[20:03] Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Lee Lack, and the short answer is I don't know. We are the chief financial

[20:13] office for the state is still sorting through where all of that money went. We have a really good idea,

[20:21] we know what the positions are, but we have not yet in a couple of exceptions. We have

[20:29] be good to solicit applicants.

[20:33] We have job announcements out, but we haven't really had

[20:37] the opportunity yet to evaluate those.

[20:41] We're looking for that friendly three-regional reps for

[20:46] Eastern Oregon for the Midland Valley and for Metro.

[20:52] And so somebody fortunately probably Esther has put up a list of some of the people that we're looking for.

[21:02] But we're trying to fill those three regional reps off of the same announcement and it has not yet closed.

[21:10] So if it's a little early, but you're quite right.

[21:14] There's a lot of demand for work.

[21:17] It's one of the things that that we hope will mitigate that shortage, perhaps immediately in front of us, is that we're looking at work in a new way.

[21:32] We are working with Department of Administrative Services to figure out how we can continue to employ and perhaps attract new people.

[21:42] who don't necessarily even live in the state of Oregon.

[21:46] Now that's not gonna work for regional reps

[21:48] because it requires a really good working knowledge

[21:52] of parts of the state of Oregon.

[21:54] But perhaps some of our other planning positions

[21:59] or some of our other positions will come

[22:05] from a much wider net that will be able to cast

[22:08] that that goes outside of the state.

[22:13] In fact, we're going to have a couple of people.

[22:16] And we have had over the course of the last 17 months.

[22:21] A couple of people who have been working.

[22:24] Obviously, everybody's been working remotely,

[22:26] but some of those people have been working outside of Oregon.

[22:29] And here's the new hand up.

[22:31] So please.

[22:34] And we can't hear you.

[22:36] Hi.

[22:40] Okay, so I'll just really speak up.

[22:49] I can share Vice Chair.

[22:52] I love members of the commission.

[22:54] Director of this is Kirsten Green and deputy director and

[22:58] Esther, thank you for putting up that full list of

[23:08] Commissioner Lee that kindly you know you sort of alluded to what takes you know special marketing beyond the norm and yes to all the above.

[23:18] So we really if it's okay with commissioners all recent that the.

[23:23] The note the news release and also.

[23:27] I might catch you on LinkedIn and share with you.

[23:30] Well, my LinkedIn post, so if you're able to amplify that in any way to your networks, we're very grateful.

[23:38] It will be a competitive environment, but as Director Ruiz said, I think, you know, we feel the agency has a lot of to offer in terms of the quality of the work, the challenges, the flexibility, and of course the mission and the ability to work with you all.

[23:51] So, thanks in advance for helping us get that word out.

[23:55] The current post things do close.

[23:57] We've extended it for additional push.

[23:59] The applicants where the pool was relatively

[24:01] sound from an early look, but we just wanted to make sure

[24:05] that over summer time everyone had plenty of chance.

[24:07] So we've extended that to July 31st.

[24:10] So today I'll email everyone that passed through these

[24:13] from our website, but also share it with you on LinkedIn

[24:16] if I can find you.

[24:17] And you accept my app.

[24:19] great idea.

[24:24] Okay, I don't want to take up a lot more time because what I like about this

[24:29] most is when you all ask questions and I do want to have some conversation. I'm obviously

[24:36] not going to go through the full director's report. It's 11 pages in length and then there

[24:44] that listing at the end of the open hires. I do want to mention just very briefly one item

[24:53] that is on page 11, a pellet, a pellet, a court opinions.

[25:00] Those of you, it may not have been anybody, but Robin.

[25:07] On you, ladies.

[25:08] On you, ladies.

[25:09] Yes, thank you.

[25:10] Both of you were with us two years ago when we were in Condon.

[25:17] And we heard from the council for housing land advocates about

[25:28] some issues related to hiring in Metro.

[25:33] And you see that we have a two paragraph overview

[25:38] of a decision by the appellate court.

[25:41] Council shipsea advises us that this is not quite ready

[25:45] for prime time.

[25:46] And so we'll talk a little bit more about it

[25:49] at the September meeting.

[25:52] But you see that we do have a preliminary text on page 11. Other than that, I'm not going to bother to go through any of the rest of the report.

[26:07] I do want to just talk very briefly about the other issue that is front of mind right now,

[26:17] other than COVID-19, that of course is wildfire.

[26:21] The entire state, frankly, the entire nation at this point is suffering because of the wildfires

[26:30] in the West.

[26:32] I don't know if any of you have seen some of the photos from New York City, but we are

[26:41] clearly contributing to a serious decrease in air quality throughout the nation to

[26:49] say nothing of the direct effects here.

[26:53] Paramah Carthar actually had a fire not too far from her home in Lyle, Washington,

[26:58] unfortunately, it was was controlled early. As far as I know, the bootleg fire is now at 400,000

[27:08] to acres of growing. And there are several other fires of real concern. The sister's been

[27:15] areas seems to get hit every year. And so, however, it is you think of the divine, however you choose

[27:24] to to converse with the divine if you do it's time for some intercessions because there are a lot of people that are really struggling and really hurting.

[27:36] And part of that of course brings us back to where we were in September of last year and you will have in front of you today.

[27:47] I think is that at the end of the day-to-day, a topic that you held over from your last

[27:54] meeting, and that is DLCD's, what was he emergency rule making to respond, to land need

[28:03] for cities that were so hard to particularly in the road valley. And again, I just want to

[28:11] make mention of all of the work that Stewart did to respond to Commissioner Warren, let me be more formal to respond to the fires in his community working almost literally 24 hours a day to try to help people find food and shelter and some sense of solace.

[28:38] So it's affected us all.

[28:41] It will continue to, but in case anybody is still in doubt,

[28:50] we have a warming climate and it is having catastrophic effects.

[28:54] And so we will be talking about that a little bit more in the day as I had.

[28:59] I'm going to stop and see if anybody else has any questions.

[29:04] Thank you.

[29:05] Thank you, Director Rue, questions about anything in the report or what Dr. Rue just said.

[29:16] Don't not seeing any. I do, I just, sorry chair.

[29:23] I just have a more open end question. It might be very easy to answer.

[29:30] As we do kind of these mitigation planning around fire and hazards, et cetera, I don't know if this is even a thing.

[29:40] So I feel a little weird asking, is there like a map of these lab directors?

[29:45] Is there a map of the state that shows like areas that are susceptible to fire because of their like history of not yet having a fire in a long time or something?

[29:57] I was just curious how...

[30:00] No one thinks about the state and kind of potential for this hazard overall.

[30:07] Well, I think that's a great question to Mr. Hullova. And the short answer is yes. There are hazards maps.

[30:18] And if you would like us to, we can share that during we can do a report on that. I think it makes a ton of sense.

[30:28] There's certainly our hazard maps related to tsunami and the land slide, but a key portion of a major piece of wildfire legislation seeks to do exactly that.

[30:48] Yes, there are certainly county and more local maps.

[30:52] I would guess there's been a compilation at a state level, but it's not good enough, and the place

[31:00] obviously that people are most concerned about, is that so-called wild land urban interface.

[31:08] One of the things that this agency and this program has sought to do now for, well, 48 years since

[31:18] in 1973 is to very carefully distinguish between what are urban uses and what are rural uses

[31:29] and to try not to mix those things. But of course, there are now 56 or 7 kind of what most people would call urban uses that are outright allowed in rural ends.

[31:43] There are across this state, structures, homes that are enforced in areas, and so a big part of that wildfire legislation is to try to prevent further movement of structures and residences into forest lands in wildfire prone areas.

[32:08] And then make sure that we're doing everything we can to provide protective space around those places that are there today.

[32:18] So it's a very big conversation, particularly among natural resources agencies, certainly this agency, department of forestry and county governments across the state.

[32:30] So it's not a silly question, not really.

[32:33] Thank you. That's a great question and a commissioner sound of all you at your hand up.

[32:39] Yes, thank you. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes, sir. Okay, great. Great. So first of all,

[32:46] I'm happy to be back with you all. So I had a kind of a question and comment for the director related to

[32:54] affordable housing. So as you know, I sit on the housing stability council for the state.

[32:59] And for the Oregon Housing and Community Service as agency, we received a historic investment of almost $900 million from the state, about 600 million of that is going to be for affordable housing, about 65 millions for a home ownership.

[33:23] And in the ages, he's been doing a great job around really focusing on issues of racial equity.

[33:32] In fact, we filter almost all of our decisions around racial equity issues.

[33:39] But something that we really haven't been doing is focusing on climate change issues.

[33:44] And to me, those things go together.

[33:48] And so, I know there was talk in the past about having the state,

[33:56] the housing stability

[33:56] council meet with our commission to figure out ways where we can kind of jointly work together.

[34:04] So, for example, creating a affordable housing investments in the inner core of cities instead of just

[34:13] in the fringes and so forth. So it's kind of really linking equity, climate issues, environmental issues,

[34:21] around land use and affordable housing. And so my question is, is there still an interest in

[34:26] that director? And yeah, it's one of your thoughts on that.

[34:34] Well, thank you, Commissioner Sandevol.

[34:37] I have 10 minutes left by looking at the clock and I can talk about this for hours. So

[34:43] how try to keep it short into the point.

[34:48] But you're exactly correct.

[34:51] And when we talk tomorrow morning about

[34:54] climate-friendly and equitable communities,

[34:58] it is in...

[35:00] Our opinion that intersection where climate equity, housing costs, transportation costs, housing

[35:09] choice and affordability, transportation, choice all come together and to your point

[35:19] without being critical because we know that there is a difference in land costs within

[35:29] an urban area but I come to the city of Salem every day and there are a significant

[35:38] number of new apartment construction sites across the city. And so we're adding to the housing

[35:47] supply. But again to your point, it tends to be when we talk about affordable housing on the

[35:54] fringes of communities because lands a little bit less expensive there than it is in city courts.

[36:02] I think Commissioner Haloma has a particular interest in thinking about how to bring some affordable housing closer in.

[36:13] It certainly is the absolute center point of how we think about transportation and housing.

[36:20] And that is that if we're going to have that full choice of both, it really needs to be in the center of communities,

[36:29] where there's access to all of the things that people need for their daily lives, jobs and school or stores, as well as affordable housing and transportation options.

[36:43] To go just one point further, the state, working with Department of Housing and Community Services and NDLCD and others, building codes division and others,

[36:58] That did a pilot program two or three years ago, where we took a look at the costs of affordable housing across the state.

[37:10] And it's not used to most of you, but it costs more to build affordable housing that you can make in revenues to pay down the debt.

[37:21] There's a delta that the market cannot seem to address, and the only place to address that

[37:29] is through the programs that you've just talked about, $600 million for a public money

[37:35] to try to close that gap, and make it possible for the private sector to build some of the

[37:51] So the final point is, I would do just about anything to support your effort to get the two agencies together because, unfortunately, I agree with you, the climate issues, particularly related to transportation, cost to a household or not just housing, but housing plus transportation.

[38:16] And it doesn't do you a lot of good to have

[38:19] on the affordable apartment if you have to have a couple of cars

[38:23] and keep them fueled up with three and a half dollar gasoline.

[38:30] That's not affordability.

[38:33] So yes, yes, and yes, to all of the above,

[38:37] we'll be there with bells on.

[38:41] Thank you for the question Commissioner Sondeval and and for your and director for your

[38:48] eloquent response. I'd like to actually record that I guess this meeting is recorded

[38:52] because it's a very good description of the connection between our work and other agency work relative to

[39:01] focus. And so I think we'll talk about that more certainly on Friday morning and the context of the climate

[39:09] friendly or well-making effort. But I would agree with Commissioner Sondival as a

[39:14] sounds like you do to direct a road that maybe you and he and I can get together and

[39:19] the right staff get together and kind of think through a strategy for approaching housing

[39:24] and services as well as the commission on these topics.

[39:29] Here. Yeah, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner. Hello, I do have one additional comment

[39:36] but go ahead please.

[39:37] While you're talking director, it just made me think of two important things that can help with

[39:44] location of a formal housing issues in relation to transportation and climate, and one of them

[39:50] is kind of the role of city and county and metro owned land, which I know we had talked about

[39:58] a bill that just got passed to sort of map.

[40:00] Out, and not just them, actually, all the other agencies that only end, because a lot of that land, I think, is located within, you know, urban cores.

[40:10] And then also the role of density. I've noticed, I don't know if it's a pattern, but I feel like if notice like some affordable housing projects don't max out the density and I understand the reasons why.

[40:23] uh, financially and otherwise, but um, it's one of those kind of lost opportunity costs or

[40:30] something when you don't max out, um, an urban core density with, with housing, then you're

[40:36] sort of shifting, uh, that additional affordable housing that's needed to eventually, you know,

[40:42] the fringes. So kind of that role of, uh, density and, uh, what, what cities can play with with,

[40:49] regard to what land they owned.

[40:53] Yeah, thank you commissioner. Again, going back to the rule making that we did and continue to work on for house bills 2001 and 2003.

[41:03] And the intersect with the transportation planning role, which you'll hear about more tomorrow.

[41:09] Is this whole notion of

[41:13] removing density restrictions, removing where we can height restrictions, removing requirements for parking, so that we can, in fact, have more people, fewer cars, in more concentrated locations, particularly around heavily used transportation corridors.

[41:37] But the one additional thing I wanted to say

[41:40] and I have three minutes to do it is to remind you

[41:44] of some other interagency work that we're doing.

[41:48] In fact, last week, the four directors of DEQ

[41:54] Department of Energy, ODOT, and ourselves got together

[41:58] for our monthly meeting, and we talked about a new source

[42:03] of revenue because we need money

[42:06] and we need money soon to start building out our transportation and housing networks.

[42:15] DQ is doing a limited version of what used to be called cap and trade, but there is a new

[42:24] requirement to cap the emissions of a certain class of so-called stationary sources.

[42:32] And that those emissions are putting a price on carbon, and they're putting that price at the so-called social cost of carbon,

[42:43] which is higher than what the market is trading at these days.

[42:47] The long and the short of it is that when that rule making is done in January of December, perhaps in this year,

[42:56] And when it takes effect shortly after that, sources across the state, but particularly in metro areas,

[43:06] will be forced to buy allowances to either continue or spend that money alternatively to reduce emissions.

[43:16] But Director Whitman told us last week that they could be generating $100 million a year for allowance sales.

[43:24] And there's an opportunity, we haven't worked out the details yet, but there's an opportunity

[43:31] to perhaps put some of that money into reducing emissions from transportation and focusing

[43:42] housing and transportation at the center of cities instead of on the fringes.

[43:47] So more to come, but we're thinking I think in the right direction and I think actually making some progress.

[43:57] So thank you again.

[43:59] Thank you, Jim, and again, thanks for all the great questions from commissioners.

[44:04] It really seems like this mini day agenda item perhaps in September would be the appropriate time to kind of capture all these different funding sources and kind of think about

[44:17] the idea of a focused state and local investment to really maximise the overall goals of affordable housing, accessible transportation, climate change, equity and diversity.

[44:31] And we can start that conversation perhaps in September.

[44:34] So let's think about that as we debrief next week from.

[44:38] And if I may, I said the last one was the last one.

[44:41] This one really will be the last one.

[44:44] I would just ask you to bookmark a conversation

[44:50] that Chair MacArthur and I had this last week

[44:54] when we talk about climate-friendly and equitable

[44:57] communities tomorrow morning.

[45:00] Here and I met with the chair of the ozone, ozone transportation commission. That's going back 20 years in my life. The Oregon Transportation Commission, and Chris Rickler, the director of ODOT, the four of us met to try to figure out if there was a way to look at some transportation money to help us implement the transportation commission.

[45:30] planning rule. And the long and the short of that is we've got a commitment from both OTC,

[45:37] Chair Van Brockland and Director Strickler to try to find some money. In fact, they've already

[45:42] identified some buckets of money that may be appropriate. It's not a lot. When you look at the scale of

[45:51] the need, but they suggested to us that there is probably somewhere in the range of 50 to 80 million

[45:59] that we could begin to tap over the course of the next few years to implement some of these

[46:06] transportation options that we'll talk about tomorrow. Okay, I'm done.

[46:12] Thank you, Jim. I appreciate that. I really appreciate your efforts and the efforts of the

[46:18] entire department to kind of do all this great coordination work among other agencies. And so

[46:23] we as a commission need to make sure we support that and help continue that work. Just a

[46:28] I don't know, to as part of the director's report, Jim, we'll talk more about the budget

[46:35] specifics on Friday morning, but Jim gave a brief summary of what's happened with the department

[46:42] over the past year, and it's probably about a year ago in August that got the call from Jim

[46:48] that there were going to be pretty severe budget cuts at the department, and Carol Bolvat and

[46:54] director and deputy director and others really turn their cells themselves inside out to make sure

[47:00] the budget work to the extent that it could given the really incredible gouge in our budget.

[47:07] And fast forward today, where director Rue is describing how much resource we have. And he attributes

[47:17] that to the increase in budget resources at the state writ large had, but I really want to reflect

[47:23] for a moment on the fact that it really comes back to the agency's great work that we've been

[47:30] doing over the past couple of years in housing, in transportation, and other things.

[47:36] You know, just because there's an extra part of money the legislature has a hand on and can

[47:41] go out doesn't mean that money comes to agencies necessarily and in the past it hasn't come to our

[47:48] agencies and it doesn't come to agencies that the legislature feels is not producing what they want.

[47:55] And I think the reason one of the reasons that we had have so much more resource now

[48:00] to carry on the great work that we've started is because of the great work of director Ru,

[48:05] deputy director, green, polymer, and Emma just amazing face with the legislature

[48:11] and has really told the story. And again, all the great work of the housing team,

[48:16] the all the various folks climate and everything else. So it is a moment to celebrate. So we're

[48:22] just going to do a little celebration here. Thank you. And team, it's just important. I took a while

[48:29] to figure out how to tie these balloons. I haven't done it since I was seven, but you get the idea

[48:34] that I want to celebrate staff and as commission, because as I listen to the conversation,

[48:39] it excites me so much to think of how activists this commission is and how many talents you bring

[48:45] to the stable. So anyway, with that.

[48:49] Just back at you, Chair, your involvement in the work that we do and your contributions

[48:58] because of your experience in state and local government has just been absolutely central

[49:06] to anything that we've been able to achieve. And that goes for all of you, but Robin,

[49:12] new and particular when it comes to transportation stuff, you've forgotten more about this stuff

[49:19] than most of us will ever know. So thank you. That is extremely kind. You're welcome. I appreciate

[49:24] that very much. So with that, let's go on and hear from a guest three members of the public

[49:34] public comment is an opportunity for folks to comment on non-agenda items. I'm going to give each

[49:41] person three minutes to speak. And the first person up is Joe Levazite. And he

[49:50] from the Portland Audubon Society. And Mr. Levazite sent written testimony.

[49:55] You may not have actually received it yet. I mean, Esther sent it this morning.

[49:59] but it's...

[50:00] There is a written testimony in there if you want to focus on that commissioners, but welcome Mr.

[50:05] Mebesite.

[50:07] Thank you, Chair, my doctor, and commission members, can you all hear me?

[50:12] Yes.

[50:13] Great.

[50:13] Yeah, I just sent that testimony in our actually a pre-detailed comment letter in last night's

[50:20] It'll take you a while.

[50:21] I'll go through that.

[50:22] Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today.

[50:25] Again, my name is Julie Mebesite and staff scientist at Portland Audubon.

[50:28] And today I'm representing several organizations and individuals that submitted rocky habitat designation proposals for eight sites to DLCD during the first round of invited public proposals this past December, which subsequently went through the pilot evaluation process this past spring.

[50:47] If you recall, myself and Dr. Larry Bash provide a testimony to you all on this issue,

[50:53] I want you to have a strategy update back in April, and today I want to give you a quick

[50:59] update regarding this process and specifically what the group I'm representing said they

[51:03] have has been up to. Since the Ocean Policy Advisory Council decision to recommend two of

[51:10] the proposals for designation and the place six of the proposals in continuing consultation

[51:14] in back in May, OPEC tasked DLCD with updating the Rocky Habitat Management Strategy,

[51:21] proposal evaluation section of the strategy that's specific that section E and

[51:26] Appendix C of the Strategy, and DLCD staff have since provided a survey for organizations

[51:32] and individuals engaged in this process to complete and have set up a workshop for next week

[51:37] July 29th.

[51:38] Our group has been busy developing our own recommendation to DLCD on how to improve the

[51:43] like proposal process and evaluation based on our experiences and lessons learned from the

[51:49] initial pilot round. And we have submitted those detailed recommendations to DLCD staff.

[51:55] Yesterday as well as you all in the commission, which I just mentioned at the start, it includes

[52:00] three pieces. The first part is a flow chart that outlines our recommended proposal submission

[52:06] and evaluation process kind of at the higher level. And then corresponding with that we have a second

[52:12] Addendum to that comment which is a narrative document that contains specific details for each component of the process and finally we have an example weighted scoring matrix.

[52:22] If you recall, we are encouraging staff to use a more objective way to evaluate the proposals and one way of doing that would be using a scoring matrix.

[52:33] We hope our detailed recommendation package will be helpful to DLCD staff developing a

[52:39] proposal submission evaluation process which will be much improved in the efficient

[52:43] process that minimizes the subjectivity and will work well for such a different proposal

[52:47] rounds. We have been invited by DLCD staff to provide an overview of our recommendations

[52:52] at the upcoming July 29 workshop. We're looking forward to this opportunity and the

[52:57] subsequent interaction with DLCD staff to work cooperatively to develop an evaluation process

[53:02] that will be successful.

[53:03] So thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony

[53:05] and some important process

[53:06] to help better manage and protect our state's iconic

[53:09] coastal rocky habitats.

[53:11] And I'd be happy to answer questions if you're ready.

[53:13] Thank you.

[53:14] Thank you.

[53:15] Did perfectly, thank you.

[53:18] Great job.

[53:19] Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Leads,

[53:25] I'm not seeing any.

[53:28] Thank you so much.

[53:29] I know you testified in March as well.

[53:31] And really appreciate you and your agency being involved

[53:33] in this work and I understand that there is a meeting next week in the 29th of the rocky habitat

[53:39] of its rules advisory committee or workshop or whatever but I believe that's a great opportunity

[53:45] to go into the specifics. I saw there's several attachments to your letter and it's a lot to work

[53:50] through here obviously but I think you'll be able to have a chance next week and then I believe that

[53:56] the topic is back on our agenda in September so we'll have the benefit of hearing how that meeting

[54:01] and went relative to your work and others.

[54:04] So thank you.

[54:05] Thank you.

[54:07] Great, second person signed up to testify today

[54:11] is Dennis Rie.

[54:13] I believe I'm pronouncing your name correctly.

[54:15] If I didn't please correct me and I apologize in advance.

[54:19] Chair, Chair MacArthur, this is Esther.

[54:22] I just have a message for those in our attendee view

[54:27] if you could rename yourself an identifier

[54:31] is I cannot locate Mr. Rae.

[54:33] Oh, Rae, excuse me. Okay.

[54:45] We do have Ms. Sarah Wright with us.

[54:49] I will attempt to contact Mr. Rae behind the scenes.

[54:53] Great. Thank you for that quick change.

[54:56] And so Mr. Rae, we will try to get...

[54:58] Esther will try to get a hold of you to make sure that you...

[55:00] We'll turn it now to Sarah Wright from the Oregon Environmental Council. Welcome.

[55:07] Thank you. Good morning, Chair MacArthur and members of the Commission. I'm Sarah Wright, Transportation Program Director with Oregon Environmental Council.

[55:15] We're in an extraordinary moment for leadership in land use and transportation. We're still reckoning with the human cost of the intense heat wave in June.

[55:23] We're facing an already grim wildfire season and unrelenting drought in the west.

[55:27] Climate change is here. It is destabilizing our daily lives in our communities and

[55:32] costing the state in time resources and lives. Either we reduce greenhouse gas emissions

[55:37] or we continue to suffer increasing impacts from climate change that will devastate vulnerable

[55:41] communities for a dramatic change in our daily lives and threaten our state and local economies.

[55:47] Fortunately, the package of actions that will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions

[55:50] and transportation in land use is not a sacrifice. It is an investment in the stability and

[55:54] success of our present and future economy, and it can make our communities more affordable,

[55:59] safer, healthier, and more equitable, more efficient, and more economically responsible.

[56:03] Oregon Environmental Council, and more than 20 other organizations submitted a letter to the

[56:07] Oregon Transportation Commission last week, asking them to make a different choice to address

[56:12] the climate crisis with the clarity and urgency that our future requires. I'm here today asking you

[56:17] the same thing. The land use and transportation system that we have today is not inevitable,

[56:21] It is a choice. The past choices of commissioners have brought us to where we are, and your

[56:27] choice is now, we'll shape the future ahead of us. This is critically important because right

[56:31] now, every day, jurisdictions and agencies across the state under the current land use and

[56:36] transportation rules are making choices that will lock us into increasing greenhouse gas emissions

[56:41] decades or more into the future. These choices, to avoid upzoning and closing neighborhoods,

[56:46] to expand instead of adding density, to require parking, to refuse to allocate right away

[56:51] for people walking, biking and taking transit,

[56:53] to build interchanges and road capacity

[56:55] to support more driving and more sprawl,

[56:57] are perpetuating a pattern that has brought us

[56:59] to this moment in the climate crisis.

[57:01] They're making those choices for a lot of reasons.

[57:04] Habit, fear, a version to short-term political discomfort

[57:07] and belief that real change is impossible.

[57:10] Choosing a different path will require decision-makers

[57:12] and staff at all levels to completely change

[57:14] their approach to the choices at hand.

[57:16] Your role is to support, require, and persuade.

[57:19] This agency and this commission do really good work.

[57:23] We're asking you to push further beyond the constraints of incrementalism that we can no longer afford.

[57:28] We have to change everything because everything is changing regardless.

[57:32] The only choice you really have when it comes down to it is to let Oregon be overtaken by change,

[57:37] which we know will be best survive by the most affluent and privileged among us,

[57:41] or to take immediate bold action to mitigate and adapt to the change so we all come through this together.

[57:46] Every choice you make at this commission is about the future, that's the nature of the work.

[57:51] We know what the future holds if we keep propping up the status quo system or if we settle for incremental change.

[57:56] We can't wait for additional revenue or direction from above.

[58:00] We have to start now with what we have and go as big as possible.

[58:04] Please address every choice you face with the urgency that this moment costs for.

[58:08] Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

[58:10] Thank you, Ms. Wright. Appreciate that. And if you haven't planned to do so, you may

[58:15] want to listen in on Friday morning, Friday morning when we take up our climate

[58:20] friendly and equitable communities, real-naking process, which we intend to adopt by

[58:25] March. I would actually, I don't think I see a copy in our packets of the letter you sent

[58:30] to the Oregon Transportation Commission. I don't know if it's the same. If it's the same,

[58:34] what you just said, that's one thing. But if it's something in addition to that, perhaps

[58:38] You can get that to Esther, Johnson,

[58:40] Archimission, staff person, and then she can get it out

[58:44] to the commissioners.

[58:45] I'd like to see that letter from you from the coal coalition.

[58:49] Any questions from commissioners for Ms. Wright?

[58:56] Seeing none, thank you.

[59:00] And I'll Esther, I'll ask Esther, maybe I had a chance

[59:03] to connect with Mr. Ray.

[59:05] I have not.

[59:06] Okay, well, we will go ahead, I guess close the public comment period if there's no one

[59:14] else signed up to testify and move straight into item, agenda item number four, which is

[59:23] the ocean-fronting public road protection and rule-making initiative quite the mouthful, but

[59:28] we'll learn what all that means in a moment. I'm going to turn it over. I believe that Patty

[59:32] know initially to introduce the topic, and then Meg Reid is that correct letter of things.

[59:44] And MacArthur, members of the Commission, this is Patty Snow,

[59:46] Ocean and Coastal Services Division Manager. Please to introduce Meg Reid, she's our Coastal

[59:51] Specialist, who will be providing an overview of rulemaking that we are intended to initiate.

[59:59] So, I'll have no further questions.

[1:00:02] Thank you. Thank you, Patty. Good morning. Chair MacArthur, Vice Chair Hlova and Members of the Commission. Thank you for having me. My name is

[1:00:11] Meg Reid and I'm the Coastal Shore Specialist in the Ocean and Coastal Services Division of DLCD. I work directly with local

[1:00:19] governments throughout the Oregon Coast, as well as state and federal agencies on coastal processes and hazards topics,

[1:00:26] specific to land use and specifically work under goal seven areas natural to subject natural hazards and 18 beaches and dunes.

[1:00:36] So today I'm here to talk with you to ask for you to initiate role-making on a topic that we're calling oceanfronting public road protection, which is a mouthful.

[1:00:47] But I will hopefully that will make more sense as we go through this presentation.

[1:00:52] So, just to start out, just to give an outline of what I'll be talking about, I wanted to give a little bit of a background and overview on statewide goalie team first and get into some ocean shoreline management challenges that many of you have maybe heard about over the past winter in particular.

[1:01:10] and then talk about a focus group that we convened in 2019 around specific provisions of

[1:01:19] Golieteen that directly led to the proposed rulemaking that we're asking you about today and then

[1:01:26] ask for your initiation. So to start, statewide planning goal 18 is one of the four coastal goals,

[1:01:34] It's focused on that coastal strip, the beach and do in land form areas, and it's really meant to protect the beach environment and the development that occurs in that sort in in order for it to be appropriate development in this very dynamic area.

[1:01:50] The Oregon coast has one of the most energetic and dynamic winter wave climates in the world.

[1:01:55] So it is a very challenging environment, which is why it is important to have provision such as these to guide development decisions.

[1:02:04] So the goal has three main provisions. One is about prohibition areas.

[1:02:10] So areas that are prohibited from development of residential, commercial and industrial structures.

[1:02:16] And that would be, as you could imagine, the most dynamic areas. So the beach itself.

[1:02:20] and then four dunes and other areas that are subject to ocean flooding and over and undercutting.

[1:02:29] Then there's a provision about dune grading requirements, and so that is a practice where homeowners are on the ocean front actually lower the height of the dunes that are in front of them to improve ocean views.

[1:02:42] When the goal was first established in the 70s, the commission actually prohibited

[1:02:48] doing grading from occurring, but homeowners were doing it anyway.

[1:02:52] And so the commission came back together in the 80s to come up with a set of standards

[1:02:57] to allow doing grading to occur, to not detriment its protective abilities.

[1:03:04] And so there are some pretty restrictive requirements around doing grading, and there

[1:03:08] only six student management plans on the Oregon Coast,

[1:03:11] which are on the central and northern coasts.

[1:03:14] Then the last main provision is about beach

[1:03:16] for unprotective structure limitations

[1:03:18] and beach for protective structures

[1:03:20] or shoreline armoring are things like rip wrap

[1:03:23] and sea walls that are measures that are meant to mitigate

[1:03:26] the hazards of coastal erosion on private property.

[1:03:30] And that's really what this rule making

[1:03:31] will be about and so this will be the main focus

[1:03:35] of the rest of my talk.

[1:03:37] And so to get a little bit more into the specifics of that provision, it was put in place to really limit and really prohibit the amount of armoring on the Oregon coast.

[1:03:49] So the provisions as beachfront protective structures are only allowed where development existed on January 1, 1977.

[1:03:56] and as defined in the goal development means houses,

[1:04:00] commercial, commercial and industrial buildings,

[1:04:03] and vacant, but improved subdivision lots,

[1:04:06] meaning they had to have roads and utilities

[1:04:07] still a lot at the time. So this was sort of a grand fathering

[1:04:11] clause that at the time the policy was written and put into place,

[1:04:16] we were prohibiting the expansion of armoring moving forward,

[1:04:19] but allowing this grandfathering clause for those

[1:04:22] and development decisions that had already been made.

[1:04:27] And really, there are a few main reasons to limit armory on the coast.

[1:04:32] It does have some negative challenges.

[1:04:35] So we know that one of the treasures of Oregon is the public beach

[1:04:39] and having access to the public beach.

[1:04:42] Shoreline Armoring fixes the shoreline in place.

[1:04:45] And so that can prevent beach access north to south over time.

[1:04:50] as you have water levels rising and the shoreline is staying in place

[1:04:53] then you're narrowing the public beach. It also traps sediment behind it. So there's a

[1:05:00] Natural cycle of sediment being eroded and then it created over time in our systems along the beach.

[1:05:08] And the sea walls and rocks can limit the amount of sediment that's getting into the system.

[1:05:14] And there also have some aesthetic challenges people don't really like the way they look on the beach and disrupting the natural system.

[1:05:22] And they're disrupting that linkage between the coastal environment and the upland environment.

[1:05:29] So this policy kind of breaks down lots into the eligible areas, those that were developed as a 77 and the in eligible areas, those were developed after that point.

[1:05:43] And our department led an effort to inventory the entire coast of areas that are eligible and areas that are not eligible.

[1:05:51] And that is publicly accessible information that is on our coastal Atlas, and it's called Ocean

[1:05:57] Shores Viewer.

[1:05:58] You can see a screenshot here, and the green tax slots are eligible, and the red top

[1:06:04] tax slots are in-eligible.

[1:06:06] There's also some other hazard layers that can be viewed at the same time on the viewer to

[1:06:11] help people look at this information with some other types of data like flood maps, and

[1:06:17] the tsunami in addition zones.

[1:06:19] It's important to note that this inventory has not been officially adopted by any local jurisdictions yet, although they have the option.

[1:06:29] The permits for showing protective structures, because they usually end up being on the public beach in some way,

[1:06:36] actually have to be permitted through Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, because they have authority over the ocean shore.

[1:06:42] But they have a land use compatibility statement on their permits which is signed by the local jurisdiction and they're the ones who ultimately make that determination of eligibility on that land use compatibility statement.

[1:06:55] But they do rely pretty heavily on this inventory, at least at first, for their eligibility determinations.

[1:07:04] Now, some things have come up in the practice of this provision by practitioners in the field

[1:07:11] over time. And so this circle around the inventory is one of them, which is areas that are

[1:07:17] ineligible surrounded by areas that are eligible, can sometimes cause some problems.

[1:07:23] Shoreline Armoring is most effective when it can be done in a straight, continuous line.

[1:07:28] So when you have sort of edge effects that can increase localized scour at those areas

[1:07:34] and lower the beach and continue to exacerbate the erosion problem for those areas that

[1:07:40] are ineligible. So that can be problematic in the practice of this on the ground.

[1:07:49] I wanted

[1:07:49] to talk a little bit broadly, so okay we have this provision. What does that mean on the ground?

[1:07:53] How has it impacted our coastal environment since that policy was put into place in

[1:07:59] 1777. So I have some statistics about drawing an armoring on the organ coast. So first we have about

[1:08:07] 22.7 miles of our coastline is currently armored, which is about 6% of the overall coastline

[1:08:14] and that is pretty low compared to many other coastal states such as California or Massachusetts,

[1:08:21] which have a lot more armoring. This graphic that you see on the right hand side that shows

[1:08:26] the center points of all existing structures by county, and you can see they're really cluster in Lincoln till and look into some extent

[1:08:35] flats of counties. And that's not very surprising. So 90s, 2% of the armoring is located in those counties. And that's because they're the most highly developed on the coast compared to our southern counties

[1:08:47] of Pooze and Curry and Lane and Douglas on the coastal sections. Especially in those areas,

[1:08:54] there is a lot of public land on the oceanfront, so areas that just can't be developed anyway.

[1:09:00] So it's really where people are that the armoring tends to occur.

[1:09:06] The good news is that 84% of the coast is not eligible for armoring under current policies,

[1:09:11] so that's also a pretty big chunk of the coastline that just will never be able to be armored

[1:09:15] if our current policy is stay in place, but there is still a lot of potential for

[1:09:21] armory, so eligible and unarmored lots account for about 42 miles of the coastline,

[1:09:28] so that would significantly increase the amount of armory on our shoreline if all of

[1:09:32] those lots were to become armored over time.

[1:09:37] So I didn't mention one of the challenges that we

[1:09:39] have with this policy, those ineligible versus eligible parcels being close in close proximity to

[1:09:45] other and there's certainly are some other challenges that we have seen as well and this is

[1:09:50] particularly challenging as we continue to feel the impacts of sea level rise and climate change,

[1:09:57] where we have higher total water levels.

[1:10:00] Water reaching the back of the beach more often causing more erosion and more flooding, mostly in the

[1:10:07] estuary and areas, but on the outer coast erosion is the bigger issue. And we see that narrowing

[1:10:14] of the public beach, as I mentioned before, and areas that are just experiencing more erosion

[1:10:20] problems at higher levels. And this one of those reasons is because we expect to have more

[1:10:26] Minio events with climate change and El Niño's tend to have pretty erosive qualities on on the

[1:10:32] Oregon coast. So I wanted to mention just a few of those and then get more into the rule-making

[1:10:38] because that is one area in which we can address some of the problems that are happening.

[1:10:46] So one of the main challenges is what to do about ineligible homes. So those areas that were developed

[1:10:52] after 1977, but are still experiencing high levels of erosion. So this photograph many of you may

[1:10:59] have seen already it was an Oregonian article earlier this winter. This is Lincoln Beach in

[1:11:06] Lincoln County, in this particular home was built after the 1977 development date and is experiencing

[1:11:12] very severe erosion. There's four lots in this particular area that are all not eligible for the same

[1:11:19] reasons, and they are currently seeking, as Commissioner Jacobson probably knows, a goal exception

[1:11:26] to goalie team, shoreline armoring provision right now through the comprehensive plan process

[1:11:32] and the local government exception process. So that's one option, but that would of course

[1:11:37] result in more armoring if these properties are approved for goal exception. So what other options

[1:11:45] do they have and what responsibility does or agency or others have for these private properties

[1:11:53] and what to do about them. One option that's not very popular right now is a FEMA buyout option

[1:12:00] where and it's a voluntary program. So if homeowner would have to voluntarily agree to give up

[1:12:06] their property, FEMA can pay for 75% of the market value and then that structure is removed to

[1:12:12] man told and the lot is put back to open space. This can be a good option but most communities

[1:12:19] don't want to go there because it is voluntary and most people don't want to go through that.

[1:12:26] And the other is that it's a reimbursement program and so the local government has to pay the money

[1:12:33] upfront and then they get reimbursed and the process can take a very long time one to five years

[1:12:40] to go through completion.

[1:12:42] And so it can be a very challenging option.

[1:12:45] There is a tactic called managed retreat,

[1:12:48] which may be some of you have heard before,

[1:12:50] which is they planned retreat from the coastline.

[1:12:54] There have been a few examples around the country

[1:12:56] and around the world.

[1:12:57] But again, it's not always a very popular idea,

[1:13:02] but if you don't plan for managed retreat,

[1:13:05] you may have unmanaged retreat.

[1:13:08] And so it is a very important tactic

[1:13:10] that we want to continue to explore and perhaps might need policy and funding changes to occur.

[1:13:19] One thing that we are doing right now is creating a sea level rise planning guide that's targeted

[1:13:25] to coastal land use planners. Myself and Chris Shirley are working on this effort with others at

[1:13:32] DLCD and local governments. And we anticipate this being the first of an upcoming resilience series

[1:13:38] to provide resources to our coastal land use planners on how they can address the impacts of

[1:13:45] not only climate change, but also catastrophic hazards such as the capacity of subduction zone

[1:13:52] earthquake and tsunami. So the planning guide we're working on it now, we are developing a

[1:13:58] silverized study area. So areas that our local governments can expect to be impacted by sea level

[1:14:03] and then provide a process to walk through.

[1:14:06] What are the assets and people that are in those areas?

[1:14:09] How exposed and sensitive are they to the impacts of civil rights?

[1:14:14] And then provide a catalog of adaptation strategies that they might consider

[1:14:18] to try to adapt to those impacts moving forward?

[1:14:22] We hope to have an initial draft to our local government partners

[1:14:26] by October of this year and then collecting together a feedback

[1:14:30] from it to see how we can revise and improve this guide as needed.

[1:14:36] There are many resources out there, but they're all sort of tailored to the different environments

[1:14:41] of those areas, and the Oregon Coast will experience the rise in a different way that some of

[1:14:46] our other coastal states. So it is important to be able to create this tailored resource to not only

[1:14:51] our specific coastal environment, but also our regulatory framework that exists now.

[1:14:58] So that's what we're hoping.

[1:15:00] To do and and doing as we speak, then I'll turn to a little bit of what we've done just recently to move us forward through the rulemaking process.

[1:15:11] So in 2019 we convened a group that we called the goal 18 pre 1977 development focus group.

[1:15:17] It was a group of stakeholders that we brought together with a purpose of exploring the equity and consistency of the shoreline armoring provision and that

[1:15:26] date limitation on on the goal about January 1, 1977. And these were to address some of these issues

[1:15:35] that have come up in practice by people who are implementing this on the ground. We discussed

[1:15:40] four main concepts, and I won't talk about all of them, but one of them is relevant here,

[1:15:45] because it directly led to the rulemaking initiation that we're here for today. And that's about

[1:15:51] public infrastructure and facilities built prior to 1977 and in particular Highway 101.

[1:15:58] And that's because, as the goal is currently written, public infrastructure is not eligible

[1:16:03] for shoreline armoring regardless of development date.

[1:16:07] So that means roads, sewer and water lines, campgrounds, parks, lighthouses, and things

[1:16:16] of that nature.

[1:16:17] So the group convened to think about this is this something that should be included in the definition of development are these areas, especially those that were developed before 1977 should they be allowed to armor as a mitigation tactic or do they have to do something else.

[1:16:36] And so, after deliberation and discussion on this topic, the group did decide to recommend to move forward with this idea.

[1:16:44] We discussed many options for tackling this through policy, one of which was a goal 18 amendment.

[1:16:50] This has been tried before specific to Highway 101, which was built in the 1960s, so well before the 1977 cut-off date.

[1:17:00] with an in collaboration with ODOT. There wasn't a amendment to try to include Highway 101 in

[1:17:07] goal 18 as eligible for armoring, but it ultimately failed when it first came to LCDC because of

[1:17:13] public opposition. So we could try a goal amendment, but I rule making effort to create a specific

[1:17:20] reasons exception through the goal to exception process was decided as a compromised approach.

[1:17:27] something that would be potentially more streamlined for us to approach through rulemaking,

[1:17:34] while it doesn't guarantee an outcome for entities such as ODOT, for getting armoring,

[1:17:40] and at least provides a more direct pathway to get a local goal exception.

[1:17:46] And then the local government can ultimately be the deciding factor of whether that stretch of highway

[1:17:52] or road then can become eligible for armoring.

[1:17:58] I wanted to ask if you could repeat the statement you said, I was trying to catch you when you said it.

[1:18:05] You said we decided to, and it was a long statement, and I missed.

[1:18:09] Oh, sorry. Yeah. I think was it about not going through a goal amendment?

[1:18:15] Yes. Okay.

[1:18:16] Yes, so the group considered multiple policy options, the goal amendment was ultimately decided not to go through because doing a goal amendment is along process and can sometimes result in an outcome that is different from what you want in the first place and we did try to do that in 2002 in collaboration with ODOT and the process ultimately failed.

[1:18:43] because of public opposition to adding Highway 101 to the definition of development for areas that are eligible for shoreline armoring.

[1:18:54] And so I think after that you said so we decided to do what around.

[1:18:58] Oh, create a specific goal exception through the goal to exception process to create a area that says.

[1:19:10] public roads that are ocean-fronting would be eligible for shoreline armoring, but a local

[1:19:17] governmental exception would still need to be taken in order to get to that point.

[1:19:23] And I will go into that a little bit more detail to you, hopefully.

[1:19:27] Yeah, that will make sense.

[1:19:29] We did take this to policy team after the group concluded in 2019 and it was approved

[1:19:35] for role-making.

[1:19:36] and so there were a few other rulemaking as you all know rulemaking has been pretty busy at DLCD

[1:19:42] and so this is the point at which we hope to bring this one to you.

[1:19:49] So this ocean-fronting

[1:19:51] public road protection is really it's mostly about highway 101 but there also can be other public roads

[1:19:57] that are ocean-fronting that might be counted.

[1:20:00] And if they were developed before 1977, they would be included in this specific reasons exception that we're looking to move forward.

[1:20:11] There are some sections of Highway 101 that you can imagine are very much on the ocean and very prone to erosion or flooding and landslides.

[1:20:20] This is an area that is particularly dynamic in it's just north of Newport, that's called

[1:20:28] Mulak Beach, and that really beach state park is just nearby, it has an active landslide

[1:20:34] on the landward side and active coastal erosion happening from the seward side, so it is

[1:20:40] a very challenging area, and Oda has done many different studies to see what kinds of approaches

[1:20:47] might work to help mitigate at least the erosion side of things and because of the steepness

[1:20:53] of the beach and the high bluffs, something like rip wrap or shoreline armory of some sort

[1:20:58] would be the best approach for them so they don't go too far out into the public beach with

[1:21:03] other types of solutions. There are times in which the solution could be to reroute the road

[1:21:10] completely. But in some cases that could be going into landslide terrain, the coastal hills

[1:21:18] and coast range can be challenging to work in as well and zone forest land and other challenges

[1:21:26] with re-rooting the road. They have been doing some studies when they tried to do the goal

[1:21:33] amendment attempt in 2002, they estimated about 20 miles of of Highway 101 would be prone to erosion

[1:21:41] and might want to move forward with shoreline protection. They're in the process of doing

[1:21:46] more specific studies right now to really drill down to which areas are the most susceptible

[1:21:52] and how much of the coastline would that really be. And so I anticipated it would be less than 20 miles

[1:21:59] and potentially much less than 20 lines.

[1:22:02] They're doing that now and we hope to have the final results

[1:22:05] and the end of this year.

[1:22:08] So the concept, which we're asking you to initiate now

[1:22:13] and hope would be effective in March of 2022,

[1:22:17] is to create a specific reasons exception in the OIRs

[1:22:22] for the goal to exception process for public roads

[1:22:25] constructed prior to January 1, 1977.

[1:22:29] We're the language, of course, will be ironed out with a rule advisory committee, but one of the things that we want to be cognizant of is roads that are truly part of a transportation network and not say dead ends at the end of that just go and dead end at the ocean front.

[1:22:47] not trying to protect those areas with more armoring. It's really about areas that are

[1:22:53] parallel to the ocean shore and are used for transportation purposes.

[1:22:59] So the outcome of having this reasons exception would be specific guidance to local

[1:23:03] governments for these specific facilities. The exceptions would ultimately be adopted into a local

[1:23:09] comprehensive plan if the local government decided that the reasons were compelling enough for this.

[1:23:16] And if you utilize it will result in more shoreline

[1:23:19] armoring in discrete areas for transportation protection.

[1:23:23] So it is a trade-off to protect the highway 101

[1:23:28] and other types of important facilities,

[1:23:31] highway facilities, or protecting the public beach.

[1:23:35] So there is a balancing to be made to be had

[1:23:37] and this specific reasons exception if it is used

[1:23:41] will result in more armoring than we currently allow.

[1:23:47] So we would like to have a rules advisory committee to help guide this work.

[1:23:52] This would be people who live work or have an interest in the Oregon coast and the

[1:23:56] priority interests that we have identified are here in the screen and I won't go through

[1:24:00] them all.

[1:24:01] They're also in the staff report and we're doing an open record recruitment right now with

[1:24:05] an application on DLCD's website.

[1:24:08] We've had about 10 applications come in so far and the application deadline is the end of July

[1:24:14] so next week. We hope to have people who are intersecting with this transportation and

[1:24:23] armoring topics such as coastal recreation, public transportation, environmental groups,

[1:24:29] and so on. So this is something if you have any ideas or interests that you'd like to see added,

[1:24:37] please let me know or if you have context in any of these areas who could be good representatives,

[1:24:42] that would be great to know as well.

[1:24:46] So just to give you an overview of the timeline,

[1:24:49] we're proposing to start

[1:24:51] rulemaking here in July and have the

[1:24:54] rack recruitment then have the

[1:24:56] rack meetings in the fall

[1:24:58] and development of

[1:25:00] Finalization of that rule language. Then come back to LCDC for the first public hearing in January of 2022. Have a geographic hearing somewhere on the coast in February of 2022. And then come back to LCDC for adoption and the rule to become effective in March of 2022. So there's our proposed timeline.

[1:25:20] So

[1:25:23] I think that's it for me, but I'm happy to take questions about this item and then ask for you to

[1:25:32] initiate the role-making. Thank you. Thank you. That was just really an excellent presentation and I

[1:25:39] very much appreciate it. I'm sure my fellow commissioners do as well. To summarize, I think what you

[1:25:46] the broad description of the problem, which was really helpful, but that summarized kind of what

[1:25:52] is before the commission today. Staff is asking for us to initiate role-making to allow for

[1:26:01] an exception process for public roads that were in place built before 1977. So it's not. We're not

[1:26:10] focusing today. You can certainly ask questions about private property and that sort of thing

[1:26:14] that's appropriate, but in terms of what we are intending to do today, what we're being asked to do

[1:26:20] is to consider initiating real-making for that specific area of exception process. So with that,

[1:26:27] I'd like to move up to questions, and I'm sure there is somebody that wants to speak, but I might

[1:26:33] just turn to Commissioner Jacobson. Initially, I think you're want to be able to have your hands up,

[1:26:37] but being a person that lives and works on the coast,

[1:26:42] please, let us know what your thoughts are.

[1:26:45] Yeah, thank you.

[1:26:46] I have a whole bunch of little sticky notes here

[1:26:48] with comments to say, but I first wanted to say,

[1:26:51] I'm just so glad there's a bit of sarcasm there

[1:26:55] that my county could provide you with such excellent example

[1:26:58] photos to be used in your presentation.

[1:27:01] So I, you're welcome.

[1:27:05] Yes, lots of issues, those same issues that we're dealing with as well.

[1:27:13] I'm interested in note that this isn't really a big issue for the coast, not just in Lincoln County, but in other places as well.

[1:27:20] And it's going to be bigger and bigger, just like wildfires and the more sea level rise we have means more shoreline erosion.

[1:27:27] You know, I just want to make a note especially when we talk about roads.

[1:27:31] Some of these things, you know, there's kind of signs that you have that Schwerlin's going to go.

[1:27:39] And other times, there's not.

[1:27:42] You know, we have had situations here and we can count anywhere we have Schwerlin erosion happen.

[1:27:49] Schwerlin erosion slash the landslide at some point it kind of becomes difficult to know what exactly is happening there.

[1:27:56] But we've had that happen with cars actively and transit and cars ending up on the beach and down in the slide.

[1:28:04] So a lot of times there isn't, you know, necessarily a huge warning that this is going to happen.

[1:28:10] About 15 years ago, we had a huge slide going over Cape Fau, whether with several cars involved.

[1:28:17] And so there is a safety issue component, you know, to this discussion as well.

[1:28:24] You know, I generally not fan of shoreline armoring because it just creates issues in another spot.

[1:28:34] But I do feel like we should least include the conversations and roads in our discussions around armoring.

[1:28:43] Because again, like I said, there is sort of a safety component there.

[1:28:46] There's also not been a discussion at this data federal level about providing the resources to

[1:28:53] really rebuild all of this infrastructure somewhere else.

[1:28:56] So with the lack of that not being on the table, you sort of have to address the facts that

[1:29:01] large sections of 101 have been and are going to continue to keep sliding out on us.

[1:29:09] on the new Lack Beach photo, is a really nice example, that road has been rebuilt and I'm sure

[1:29:16] all of you are smart enough to imagine what might happen here. Next 10 years with the new section

[1:29:21] of road, that was built. It's probably going to go as well. And in fact, when you drive over it,

[1:29:28] you can see the old section of road laying right next to it. That has gone and that's probably

[1:29:34] the fate of the new ones.

[1:29:37] So, you know, a lot of these issues are just going to be continuing

[1:29:40] in that 101 corridor, you know, to your point that we want to protect certain

[1:29:46] roads, but not roads that kind of don't go anywhere, or that just kind of dead

[1:29:51] in.

[1:29:52] That 101 infrastructure is really critical to the coast.

[1:29:57] You know, there's a lot of communities where that that's

[1:29:59] Really?

[1:30:00] Way of connection between up and down the county is one, one, one, one, there isn't consistent back roads or something that go from one community to the other.

[1:30:11] So, just the point that I think it's important to include that those roads and our discussions, even though I'm generally not a fan of armoring, so I realize that needs more armoring might happen.

[1:30:22] I still think that we have to at least include that when we talk about on armoring.

[1:30:29] Thanks.

[1:30:30] Thank you.

[1:30:32] Commissioner Lee Lack.

[1:30:36] Thank you, Chair MacArthur.

[1:30:39] A couple of comments.

[1:30:40] First, make your presentations are always just exceptional.

[1:30:43] They're so good.

[1:30:44] They're so clear.

[1:30:45] And I so appreciate the background.

[1:30:47] And I've heard you present many, many times.

[1:30:49] And this was excellent again as well.

[1:30:52] I also really appreciate including the pre-97 development focus group that that report and not

[1:30:57] studied to provide context, which is something I haven't had a lot of familiarity with.

[1:31:03] I'm probably going to have just kind of three quick questions. One is I saw the list of the interests

[1:31:08] on the rack and our tribes also included or targeted or invited to, I just didn't see tribes listed

[1:31:15] specifically. That's, I'll just get all, I'll ask all three of my questions. That's my first question.

[1:31:19] And my second question, reading the staff report and you mentioned there's about 20 miles that may be eligible and maybe it's a bit less than that.

[1:31:28] And then you also mentioned that there's up to 42 miles that are eligible under the 42 miles.

[1:31:34] Are these 20 miles included in the 42 or are they in addition to the 42?

[1:31:39] I'm just curious.

[1:31:41] And then my third and last question is just not my familiarity with our commission conducting geographic hearings.

[1:31:48] is that just one commissioner or is that the full commission I'm just curious. So thank you very much great job again, and I guess my last comment I just have to say this. I really like the exception process.

[1:32:00] Because it's a very high bar, it's very specific. There's an opportunity for public input. So that's coming from my planning background. I think it's the right approach. Thank you.

[1:32:11] Thank you, Commissioner Narelli, like. Yes, great questions. The tribes were all sent to

[1:32:18] letter asking if they wanted to do consultation on this role-making. I think we sent those

[1:32:23] in March or April. As far as I know, we have not heard back from any of them to do a more

[1:32:29] specific consultation. We have not necessarily reached out in the rural advisory committee capacity.

[1:32:38] I know in the past they have not wanted to necessarily be a part of that, but sometimes staff

[1:32:45] working for the tribes might be interested in coming on that level. So that's something that we could

[1:32:51] potentially try as another avenue for engagement.

[1:32:57] The mileage question, yes, that's a great question.

[1:32:59] So the 42 miles they mentioned that still eligible and not armored is just for private property

[1:33:05] under the current rule. So the 20 miles for Highway 101 would be additional to that so 62 miles,

[1:33:12] potentially of feature armoring. So not insignificant, but also not a huge amount as well.

[1:33:22] And the geographic hearing, yes, I believe that's a requirement for the coastal goals.

[1:33:27] specifically, I could be wrong on that, but from what I understand is the LCDC, the commission

[1:33:35] does not need to be at that hearing. There's a hearings officer, usually a coastal staff member,

[1:33:41] who would be there in the room to accept comment on that rulemaking, and then we would provide

[1:33:46] that back to the commission.

[1:33:50] Thank you. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Warren.

[1:34:00] Yeah, thank you for the wonderful presentation and definitely an important topic.

[1:34:05] I'm definitely one of those people who doesn't like armoring, but also sees that it's probably necessary at this point in time instead of just moving full communities.

[1:34:15] So my question is really more around a few of the basics.

[1:34:20] So the first one is why only look at infrastructure that was built before 1977 when there's plenty of infrastructure, I'm sure that

[1:34:28] is built after that date and then the other one is how effective is

[1:34:34] armering against tsunamis because if we're looking at you know major roadways

[1:34:37] which are the primary evacuation routes for a lot of these communities does the

[1:34:44] armory and actually help to protect those roadways? Thank you.

[1:34:52] Thank you Commissioner

[1:34:53] on me one first. So it is not.

[1:35:01] Effective, in mitigating against tsunami hazards. In fact, when we've looked at what happened in 2011 in Japan, when they

[1:35:12] experienced their major earthquake in tsunami, which we expect would be a similar situation to what we can expect here, that such things as

[1:35:20] rip wrap rocks or sea walls and things like that they could actually have the potential to become

[1:35:25] projectiles in a tsunami situation because the hydrologic forces are just so powerful so they

[1:35:32] can just lift them up and bring them in the water and they can run into other things. And so that

[1:35:39] generally there's not very much that can mitigate against tsunami hazards other than building above

[1:35:47] level and having very strong engineering and then, as you mentioned, horizontal evacuation. So

[1:35:53] just getting out of harm's way as quickly as possible to high ground. So generally, we don't

[1:35:58] think about that in terms of shoreline armoring because there's just no way to engineer it to

[1:36:02] that standard without potentially creating an entire C wall against the entire organ coast and

[1:36:09] it would be very massive and it would just be too much, I think, for what we want to see.

[1:36:14] So then the second question is about infrastructure, why did we only look at 1977, well, initially with the goal 18 focus group, we called it as you could see the kind of silly name, but the pre-1977 development focus group. So our task was really to think about the policy as it was written with that 1977 cut off date for armoring and if it missed out on some other things that may be intended to protect.

[1:36:43] but didn't quite do in the language.

[1:36:46] And so that's kind of why we focused on that cut-off date.

[1:36:50] And so sort of trying to keep with the intention

[1:36:52] of the original policy.

[1:36:54] And really, because ultimately, a lot of the focus

[1:36:57] remembers we're focusing as you all have sort of pointed out.

[1:37:01] Hi, we want to one, being such an important asset

[1:37:03] to the communities, a safety project.

[1:37:09] That ended up being the focus of the group

[1:37:12] was this particular asset,

[1:37:15] and that it is actually built before 1987.

[1:37:17] So it was sort of an easy thing to do.

[1:37:20] We did find that when we looked into other facilities,

[1:37:22] it was really difficult to find development date

[1:37:24] of other types of infrastructure.

[1:37:27] So if we did want to go broader,

[1:37:30] it probably would have to not have that development date cut off.

[1:37:33] So if we wanted to allow the protection

[1:37:35] of other types of facilities, then it would probably

[1:37:37] would have to be anything, because it is really difficult

[1:37:40] to find the development date of most infrastructure.

[1:37:43] But at this point, I think we're just

[1:37:45] wanted to focus on roads, especially highway 101.

[1:37:47] But if there is interest in looking further,

[1:37:50] a field, then that would be something we could consider.

[1:37:53] Thank you.

[1:37:54] This is a quick follow-up on that too.

[1:37:56] So the entire one-in-one was built before 1977.

[1:37:59] So if we were to go this route, it wouldn't exclude certain sections.

[1:38:02] Correct.

[1:38:03] Great, thank you.

[1:38:07] Yeah.

[1:38:08] And I appreciate the questions and your answer, Meg.

[1:38:15] We're, I think staff was focusing on the pre-1977 again for the reasons that Meg just described.

[1:38:24] We're not trying to create a whole new rule in a way.

[1:38:27] We're sort of, in essence, amending an existing rule that didn't previously include public roads specifically.

[1:38:35] So, it's a much broader conversation and to me, sort of a nose on the tent if we change that date because then all the other development, private development that might have happened post-1970, there might be an advocacy out there for including those as well.

[1:38:55] So I would encourage fellow commissioners to focus on the date and the charge in front of us.

[1:39:04] I personally would not be prepared to do role-making today on this particular topic if we change that day.

[1:39:12] So anyway, that's just my thought.

[1:39:14] So other commissioners have comments or follow up questions.

[1:39:23] Doesn't look like it.

[1:39:25] And I don't, I'll can I should take up some, did you want to do just a note?

[1:39:30] I think we've talked about this previously in commission meetings, but as we discuss

[1:39:35] resuming in-person meetings, just to note that I think when we get everyone out to the

[1:39:41] coast, we really should go and see some of these sites in person.

[1:39:45] I think that would really be helpful to everybody as well as seeing the new Marine Studies

[1:39:51] initiative building, which is a tsunami safe building that was built in South Beach here in Lincoln County.

[1:39:57] I think seeing that as well as some of these slides.

[1:40:00] And person would be helpful. So just to note, to do that, when we're able to.

[1:40:05] That's an excellent point, and I don't think Jim covered this in his director's report. And I still think

[1:40:10] there is staff is trying to figure out when we actually can meet in person.

[1:40:14] I think we're, well, I'm hopeful of September for the commission meeting in person.

[1:40:19] But that meeting would definitely be in Salem. But we have talked staff and a couple of us have talked about the idea meeting

[1:40:27] in at the coast somewhere in November meeting or perhaps January.

[1:40:32] So yes, it's timely and we need to get there

[1:40:34] and see these kinds of things.

[1:40:36] So thank you for the invitation.

[1:40:37] I was just going to say if you meet,

[1:40:39] if we meet on the coast in January,

[1:40:41] you might be able to see some shoreline erosion happening

[1:40:44] in person while you are here.

[1:40:46] That's kind of the season for it.

[1:40:49] I'm a little bit in mind.

[1:40:50] Thank you.

[1:40:53] Commissioner Jacobson, I just want to thank you

[1:40:55] of the EV Chargers at the New Coastal Studies Program?

[1:40:59] Yeah, that's great.

[1:41:01] Jim has been out there, obviously.

[1:41:04] That's great.

[1:41:06] So we don't, I believe in less I need to update my list here.

[1:41:12] Nobody signed up for public testimony on this topic.

[1:41:15] Is that correct, Esther?

[1:41:20] So, but, okay, thanks.

[1:41:22] I heard kind of one specific, and that was maybe perhaps some targeted outreach to the tribes.

[1:41:36] I think the other comments of commissioners, I believe were answered by Meg.

[1:41:43] Yeah, so is there other considerations?

[1:41:46] And the reason I'm kind of trying to capture these is because, generally, when we initiate

[1:41:50] role-making, we think about sort of a one-page communicate that goes between us and the

[1:41:57] rack.

[1:41:58] And, obviously, through staff to the rack, and it's a charge to the committee.

[1:42:06] And we did that.

[1:42:07] It was a pretty extensive charge that we all initiated for the climate work.

[1:42:11] I don't, if you remember that, in very extensive conversation, I think it was last July,

[1:42:14] And put some side bars on it and basically describe what we were not going to do as well as what we were going to do.

[1:42:21] And I think those are important parameters for this effort as well, not obviously as extensive as the climate work, this is relatively straightforward.

[1:42:29] So I had encouraged staff to think about bringing back to us a one page or in September that clarifies that they would go ahead and initiate rule making with that with those considerations.

[1:42:39] And so that the one consideration is to really do some outreach to staff to to the tribes

[1:42:44] to see if we could include their perspective in this discussion.

[1:42:49] Are there other items, considerations, commissioners, would like staff to consider staff

[1:42:55] and the right to consider in this particular role-making?

[1:43:00] It looks like Vice, I mean, Deputy Director Green has her hand up.

[1:43:07] I made sure my character, thank you, Vice Chair and members of the Commission.

[1:43:11] Meg, if you don't mind putting back up your slide with the motion, and then also, there's sort of the heart of the charge in there.

[1:43:19] So I thought maybe we could land on that just for a moment, and then when you cut, so you'll know specifically what you're initiating with the outcomes will be.

[1:43:27] Meg has a really good slide on that to just a few slides back,

[1:43:33] Meg.

[1:43:33] a bit of my flipping backwards in your presentation. Thank you all. One more. There you go.

[1:43:40] So there you go. If you can, there you go. So here's really the heart of the charge.

[1:43:50] And so Chairman Carthage, your point, we've we've enveloped this into a charter.

[1:43:56] For the committee, and then bring that back to you in September.

[1:44:02] And if you'd like to make it put the motion back up, so the commissioners could film

[1:44:07] a move if they wished.

[1:44:09] Thanks, Mike.

[1:44:10] Great.

[1:44:11] And then I had a question, so in my correct in assuming that, let's say, a public entity goes

[1:44:20] through a goals, exception, reasons, process to fortify their role, let's say so, dot.

[1:44:27] As part of that analysis does the applicant have to demonstrate what potential impact there might be on private property in that area as a result of the bolstering of the shoreline in that particular location.

[1:44:46] Yes, I think that one of the criteria under the reasons exception pathway does talk about reducing adverse impacts to surrounding properties.

[1:45:00] I can't remember the exact criteria, but yeah, I think it's in there. And then I would also mention that even though it's not captured in the exception process necessarily then they still have to get a permit through organ parks and recreation department and they have their own set of criteria and it does have

[1:45:17] many of those kinds of things in there, such as impacts to the public

[1:45:20] speech, impacts to other property, and also in alternatives analysis.

[1:45:26] So, could you do something else here instead to mitigate the problem?

[1:45:31] And so, they have the burden of proof to show, like, why rip rap is the only solution in this case.

[1:45:38] Thank you.

[1:45:39] And then I have another kind of consideration.

[1:45:42] I want to thank Mr. Jacobson for raising the issue of the life line,

[1:45:45] what I want being a lifeline for many things,

[1:45:49] but especially during emergency.

[1:45:51] And then I was listening to your response,

[1:45:53] Meg, to Commissioner Warren's question about well,

[1:45:56] if there's a big one, the bolstering and in that area,

[1:46:00] the new area as well as other areas is not going to hold up.

[1:46:03] So I think of this really as given global warming

[1:46:07] and the fact that C levels are rising to me,

[1:46:10] I think of this as an important thing to proceed

[1:46:13] with rulemaking on. But I also think of it as a pretty temporary fix. And it really, I mean,

[1:46:21] yes, obviously is expensive to reroute roads, but given that lifeline that Commissioner

[1:46:27] Jacobson really helped me understand, you know, there's a real need to step in and really encourage

[1:46:33] the relevant agencies to start thinking if they haven't already, they might be start thinking about

[1:46:39] what rerouting might look like as part of this whole effort. So any other final questions for

[1:46:49] staff before we entertain a motion? If I just make a comment off of your comment, chair.

[1:46:56] Please. Yeah, I mean, I would just say the rerouting thing. I mean, in some regards,

[1:47:01] it doesn't need to happen. We've had some coastal highways going east recently, like Highway 20,

[1:47:07] Which was rerouted that had a lot of erosion issues and stuff, but I don't think there's ever going to be

[1:47:15] a clear rerouting of 101 because, especially on the coast because you have to go around headlands.

[1:47:22] Any time you go around the headland, you're going to have some kind of erosion or landslide risk.

[1:47:28] headlines are very difficult. Back in the day when 101 was actually built by the civilian

[1:47:32] incarceration corpse, the CCC, I mean, they just took dynamite and blew portions of the

[1:47:38] road and paid that. Which we don't do now, but also that red was not necessarily built

[1:47:45] for sustainability with erosion of those types of things happening. So, you know, while I agree

[1:47:51] that I think there's money needed from state and federal government to start looking at some

[1:47:55] these issues. There's also portions of highway 101 would see level rise even without a

[1:48:01] erosion just won't be here, but this be under water without the erosion going in through

[1:48:06] Salashan and Lincoln County is one of those places. So we do need that help, but there's always

[1:48:12] going to be risks of coastal roads period moving forward. So I think in summer guard, rewroteing

[1:48:21] one thing that doesn't even have discussion and money, but we're always going to be problem-solving.

[1:48:27] I think here on the coast when it comes to road, we're not going to buy ourselves out of that.

[1:48:31] So just to note on that.

[1:48:34] You know, great points. I really appreciate that even more ways to come to the coast and really see

[1:48:38] these in person and get our our heads around it all the issues that you face.

[1:48:45] Okay, I don't see any other commissioners with hands up to ask questions or to comment.

[1:48:53] So I'd like to ask the commissioner to offer a motion.

[1:49:02] I move the commission initiate real making an authorized director to appoint a real making advisory committee consistent with the recommendations in the staff report.

[1:49:11] Thank you, is there a second?

[1:49:12] I'll second.

[1:49:15] We should really lack seconds.

[1:49:17] Thank you.

[1:49:17] Motion and second.

[1:49:18] The motions on the table.

[1:49:20] Miss Johnson.

[1:49:21] Please call the roll.

[1:49:23] Vice chair.

[1:49:24] Hello.

[1:49:25] All right.

[1:49:27] Commissioner.

[1:49:28] Jacobson.

[1:49:29] I.

[1:49:30] Commissioner.

[1:49:31] Stand of all.

[1:49:33] I.

[1:49:33] Commissioner.

[1:49:34] Lee Lack.

[1:49:35] I.

[1:49:36] Commissioner.

[1:49:37] Warren.

[1:49:38] I.

[1:49:39] Chair.

[1:49:40] My.

[1:49:40] there. I and I wanted to know that Commissioner

[1:49:43] Paramine has an excused absence and so the motion

[1:49:47] passes unanimously of those present. Thank you

[1:49:51] Meg. Thanks everyone for the discussion and we're

[1:49:55] going to go into a break now and I know that staff wants

[1:49:58] to really honor the...

[1:50:00] So it's going to be a nice long break. I don't think we need to come back and for the legislative update until 1045. So I will honor that time frame that is in people's schedules. See you in a little bit.

[1:50:17] Hello. The time is 1045 AM for those of you tuning in online. Hello.

[1:50:27] Agenda item 5 2021 legislative update will be presented next.

[1:50:34] Chair MacArthur, you have a forum.

[1:50:38] Thank you, Esther. I appreciate that and welcome to our amazing legislative team.

[1:50:44] Palmer Mason and Emma Land, and I don't know if you had tuned in earlier, but these balloons were for you as well.

[1:50:53] So take it away and tell us about budget stuff as well as all the other great things that happens during the session.

[1:51:02] Great. Thank you very much for the balloons.

[1:51:05] Let me get my screen up to share presentation.

[1:51:16] Everybody can see the presentation.

[1:51:17] Yes. Great. Okay. Well, good morning, Chair MacArthur, by Chair Hlova and Commissioner

[1:51:25] Members. For the record, my name is Emma Land. I'm the legislative coordinator here at

[1:51:30] TLCD and I'm also joined with my policy counterpart Palmer Mason. We're going to give you an update

[1:51:40] a recap essentially of the 2021 legislative session.

[1:51:48] So, to get you started, just a quick agenda,

[1:51:51] we're going to do kind of a high-level recap of the legislative session.

[1:51:57] I've been having the passels been most of our presentation discussing the high priority bills

[1:52:02] and then of course we'll have a discussion in questions from commission members.

[1:52:07] So,

[1:52:12] the legislative session, it started on January 19th and it ended on June 26th, that was

[1:52:18] one day before the Constitutional and state. Several primary issues that really kind of took

[1:52:26] the main focus. Obviously, of course, the most important one is the state's 2021-23

[1:52:32] by any old budget. We will touch on DLCDs of proof budget here shortly and then I know of

[1:52:40] course later today you'll get more in-depth overview from Carol.

[1:52:46] Other items so the legislature

[1:52:47] was focused on a variety of COVID-19 response and relief work. On top of that there was of course major

[1:52:55] focus on the wildfire issues, kind of two categories of recovery from the 2020 fire season,

[1:53:04] and then of course mitigation for future planning. And Palmer is going to get into details of

[1:53:11] the wildfire legislation and TLCD's role when we run through the fiery bills because we definitely

[1:53:16] have a role. And then lastly, there was a lot of much needed attention focused on racial justice and

[1:53:25] pretty much spans almost every legislative committee I can think of in some way and we'll touch on a couple bills that are that fall into that kind of area.

[1:53:41] So let's talk about budget real quick. I think Homer's actually going to start us off with Senate Bill 5530, which is agencies budget bill.

[1:53:52] Yes, thank you, Emma, and good morning, Chair MacArthur and members of the Commission.

[1:53:58] So, Palmer Mason, Senior Policy Advisor at the LCD, and before I get started,

[1:54:03] Chairman MacArthur, I want to thank you for your very kind words about the efforts of

[1:54:07] the M&I, the session, really appreciate that recognition.

[1:54:11] So, let me turn to Senate Bill 5530, as Emma said, it was the agency's basic budget bill.

[1:54:20] Director Ru talked about how historic the budget is for DLCD going into this biennium and that is certainly true.

[1:54:29] I will quickly start before I jump into the policy option packages by saying that we have roughly 65 positions, which is the director indicated the historic increase over time.

[1:54:44] almost $30 million budget, which again is substantially larger than we've seen, and in addition

[1:54:56] to the policy option packages, the legislature restorts so cuts that we're in the...

[1:55:00] Governor's recommended budget. So we got back $500,000 in general grant money. And then we got back a couple

[1:55:08] of positions, including the mid-malamment, value, regional rep position. So some good things happened

[1:55:15] even before we get to the policy option packages. So these policy option packages are the budget

[1:55:20] requests. They were largely in the Governor's recommended budget in the legislature funded what

[1:55:26] the governor asked for. So policy option package 1, 10, the housing, policy option package

[1:55:34] makes permanent the six positions that we got in the last by any. And that's a major victory.

[1:55:40] It's an indication by the legislature of the importance of housing and the importance of our

[1:55:45] housing program to addressing housing supply and housing choice. And it does is the chair indicated

[1:55:52] earlier reflect the very good work that we have done around House Bill 2001 and House Bill 2003.

[1:56:00] That includes, in addition to the staffing, it includes two and a half million dollars

[1:56:05] for grants to local governments and moving on to policy option package 11 and the climate change adaptation

[1:56:16] package. I think this is another instance where the legislature recognized the work that the agency's

[1:56:21] doing. The work here is of course the coordination across the enterprise to develop a governance

[1:56:30] structure and a framework for addressing climate change adaptation in state programs and policies.

[1:56:38] So this policy after package permanently funds are coordinator position, climate adaptation

[1:56:45] coordinator position and moves that funding from federal funding the general fund and then it

[1:56:49] provides money for a statewide vulnerability assessment, which will be focused on communities

[1:56:55] and equities to try to identify where we are most vulnerable from the effects of climate

[1:57:01] change.

[1:57:02] Moving on to Pop 112, this is of course the climate change mitigation pop, this is intended

[1:57:09] to support our work in the climate-friendly and equitable community rulemaking.

[1:57:14] It includes one position, it is a limited duration position, and about three quarters of a million dollars to support the local governments who will largely be our more urban and suburban areas as they do the scenario planning and other things expected under that rule.

[1:57:32] Then what was a surprise to us, but a fortuitous one given the Senate Bill 762 that we're going to talk about later, which is the wildfire on the bus bill director room mentioned that in his comments.

[1:57:44] Prop 113, this was a pop that came to the commission last summer, but was not included in the governor's recommended budget, but the legislature solved it to fund it and it is a obviously a law fire reduction.

[1:57:57] policy option package, which includes one permanent position, which was also a surprise.

[1:58:04] When we were looking at this earlier, we had a limited duration position, but the legislature

[1:58:08] actually made this a permanent planter position that will coordinate our work, and really

[1:58:16] maybe start to build a wildfire, a dedicated wildfire reduction program at the department.

[1:58:21] This policy option package will be tied into Senate Bill.

[1:58:24] Some 62 as I mentioned and we can talk about that more later.

[1:58:28] So I think that covers what I was going to talk about, I think Emma was going to take up the conversation with package 90.

[1:58:35] Yeah, so package 90.

[1:58:39] The governor's recommended budget included package 90, which had two pieces.

[1:58:44] is the first one is 100,000, sorry,

[1:58:48] that's not 101 million dollars.

[1:58:50] For DLCD to identify equity strategies

[1:58:54] to increase resiliency in the rural transportation system.

[1:59:00] This portion of the package was funded

[1:59:03] and we're beginning the process of collaborating

[1:59:06] with the Department of Transportation

[1:59:07] on our proposal to provide direct technical and financial assistance

[1:59:13] to rural communities with transportation, disadvantaged populations.

[1:59:21] And the second piece of it was the $800,000 that had a focus on environmental justice

[1:59:29] and land use.

[1:59:31] You'll see here, it's a child-sized, highlighted in orange.

[1:59:35] Unfortunately, this piece of the package was not funded, and DLCDs approved budget.

[1:59:40] So, you may remember this funding was kind of tied to House Bill 2488, which related to updating our state-wide

[1:59:48] language planning goals. And I'll give you an update on that bill on the next slide when we move to the priority legislation.

[1:59:57] So, with that, I'll pop over to this.

[2:00:00] This other bill that we have House Bill 5,06. So this bill is the end of session budget bill, which is also commonly referred to as the Christmas tree bill, which you've probably heard as mentioned.

[2:00:14] And this building included two appropriations to DLCD related to housing.

[2:00:21] So, the first included $2 million for housing grants.

[2:00:25] So, DLCD will be able to use this money to give technical assistance to local governments,

[2:00:31] cities, and populations below 10,000, and basically for planning and capacity building.

[2:00:37] And then the second portion of it is roughly 1.5 million and it's related to continuing

[2:00:45] the work from Office of the 2003 around the regional housing needs analysis.

[2:00:51] And this appropriations linked to a budget note that provides specific direction to the agency on

[2:00:57] how to use the funds. So it has deal CD consulting with Oregon Housing and Community Services.

[2:01:04] We have to provide reports to the legislature.

[2:01:09] One is a preliminary report.

[2:01:11] Do and February of 2022.

[2:01:13] And then the final one is due in December of 2022.

[2:01:17] Biscuits report reporting on efforts to develop an actual legislative proposal to incorporate

[2:01:24] a regional housing needs analysis into state-level planning processes.

[2:01:29] And so it's broken out a bit, one point three of that is for conducting this work, and then what's also really great is that there's funding for permanent grants coordinator position.

[2:01:44] And the staff report has more detail.

[2:01:48] I'm sorry Emma, I was wondering if you could talk about what that permanent grants coordinator person would do if you have an incident.

[2:01:55] Yeah, I believe that this position is going to focus on getting assistance to our

[2:02:02] planning services division for FEMA grants. Do I have that right?

[2:02:10] I'm going to have this correct.

[2:02:18] Can I also add here, Chair McArthur, one thing I wanted to add about $1.3 million

[2:02:26] the intervention that also includes money to try to look at some data gaps that we have in

[2:02:33] our current housing projection process. So one of the assessments that we undertook in

[2:02:40] House Bill 2003 was to look at the methodology that Oregon Housing and Community Services

[2:02:45] develops around regional housing needs analysis. And their methodology did much more to look

[2:02:52] at the housing needs of specific priority populations around race,

[2:02:57] ethnicity, disability, things like that.

[2:03:02] And one of the observations that we made in the legislative report we provided this year was that

[2:03:07] there really should be more funding to try to disaggregate at the data that we use for population

[2:03:14] forecast the needs of those type of priority population. So there is money. I'm happy to say in

[2:03:19] 1.3 million, I think it's roughly to the tune of $400,000 to try to work with the population

[2:03:27] and research center at the Portland State University to develop that type of data.

[2:03:33] And it would also include some data for trying to understand the housing needs for tribal nations.

[2:03:41] Great, that's helpful. And Palmer, that is separate from there's additional money for

[2:03:47] an inventory of available land for development in general, not just housing, or is this

[2:03:54] that one in the same?

[2:03:56] It's the chair McArthur, good question, it's not quite the same. There is a piece of legislation

[2:04:00] that we'll talk about later. I think this is what you're referring to, House Bill 2918,

[2:04:05] it requires that a part of the set up an inventory for surplus public lands, but it's not limited

[2:04:13] housing that there's not really an inventory of housing lands in this $1.3 million dollars.

[2:04:20] It's to look at the question of regional housing approach, which, yes, as we work through that

[2:04:28] could look at a buildable lands inventory as a part of that analysis, but it doesn't call out

[2:04:34] a specific inventory standalone inventory. So I'm not sure I actually answer your question.

[2:04:38] You did actually beautifully. Thank you. I understand.

[2:04:46] Yeah.

[2:04:47] Well, the only thing I was going to mention is that there are more details on, you know, exactly what we're envisioning for this, this money in the software.

[2:04:57] So all switch over here.

[2:05:00] To our priority bills, this image that you are pretty familiar with now, it's a list of our priority bills kind of building on our last update that we gave in nay.

[2:05:14] So a quick note I mentioned before the italicized items in orange did not end up passing, so we'll touch base on some of those.

[2:05:22] I can get started with climate and liquidity, like not a worry here, so I already touched

[2:05:29] space on the package 90, falling out the 800,000 for environmental justice and land use that

[2:05:38] had a connection to hospital 2480. So, my priority was a bill that was proposed by the environmental

[2:05:46] community went through many iterations. It started with focus on directing

[2:05:52] commission to adopt a new statewide planning goal 20 that would address climate,

[2:05:58] equity, and environmental justice. The latest version became narrower in scope and it

[2:06:05] would have directed commission to amend our planning goal 1 related to citizen involvement to

[2:06:12] appropriate equity, climate justice, and environmental justice practices.

[2:06:17] I also would have had commission reading the goal.

[2:06:22] And essentially, the bill was providing direction for that $800,000 in funding that was identified

[2:06:26] in the governor's recommended budget.

[2:06:30] Again, unfortunately, well, this bill didn't pass and make it through the legislative process.

[2:06:35] The agency, as well as a number of stakeholders, really support this concept and the need to incorporate equity into the land use process, the other goals.

[2:06:46] So we are exploring what opportunities or pathways might actually be available to figure out how we can make some changes to bold one, whether it happens this by an am or in the future.

[2:06:59] So this is not the end of the conversation, I guess is what I'm saying.

[2:07:05] And so Senate Bill 286, that's the next one in this category, and fortunately, this

[2:07:10] still did not pass either.

[2:07:12] This was the governor's bill that related to environmental justice, and one of the main

[2:07:18] pieces of it was that it would have changed the environmental justice task force to counsel.

[2:07:24] It eventually kind of the piece that I wanted to focus on was that it would have directed

[2:07:29] Oregon also authority and Department of Environmental Quality to develop an equity and mapping tool

[2:07:37] to evaluate equity concerns for the state's natural resources agencies, which of course would include us.

[2:07:45] And since the bill didn't pass, the governor's office is currently looking at what next steps

[2:07:50] would actually be taken to address the mapping tool. And DLCD has been involved in these preliminary

[2:07:57] conversations. I know that Director Roo has been actively involved in the conversations.

[2:08:04] Not to put you on the spot, but if there's anything that you do want to say about it,

[2:08:07] you're welcome to or else we can just move right on over to wildfires.

[2:08:11] No, thanks Emma. So to Emma's point, there are at least five or six agencies across the enterprise

[2:08:23] who are incorporating equity into their main mission,

[2:08:29] regardless of what it is.

[2:08:31] So obviously, Oregon Health Authority, DEQ, ODOT,

[2:08:36] ourselves, housing and community services.

[2:08:39] There's just a range of agencies who are looking at a so-called equity map

[2:08:47] to identify priority populations,

[2:08:53] do something called story maps that integrate text into GIS,

[2:08:59] so that you begin to tell a story about where people are,

[2:09:04] what their particular needs are and what the solutions to those needs might be.

[2:09:10] Because we did not get the money,

[2:09:13] because DQ did not get the money and yet the need persists we have now met once last week with

[2:09:21] the governor's office and all of the above-named agencies to try to figure out how we're going

[2:09:28] to share the load and coming up with a base map that agencies will then be able to build off

[2:09:37] to meet their own particular needs. We're meeting again this coming Monday trying to figure out

[2:09:43] if we can pool some resources, maybe pull some work from the state of Washington. Washington

[2:09:52] has what's called a health disparities map. That might become the foundation upon which we build.

[2:10:00] Then specific applications. The law in the short of it is, we all need it, and we're pretty determined to figure out a way to make it happen. Thanks, Emma.

[2:10:12] Yeah, thanks.

[2:10:15] So if there are many questions about that, I'm going to hand it over to Palmer to tackle well spares.

[2:10:20] I have a question actually, a chair.

[2:10:24] Mission assigned of all?

[2:10:26] Yeah, so would go one, I'm wondering if the focus was just to add, you know,

[2:10:38] outreach to communities of color.

[2:10:41] Because that's not mentioned at all, either go.

[2:10:45] And not kind of bad that climate justice and environmental justice issues, I'm wondering if that would be the first of all, I would say that that's critical that we do that, that's something that's ridiculous, that's not there at the current moment.

[2:11:05] And I guess the other kind of common question being if we separated those two things,

[2:11:13] usually I have to keep to combine those two things.

[2:11:16] But I guess here I'm saying is just to get something involved when

[2:11:21] that mentions, you know, doing a particular outreach to communities of color.

[2:11:27] I wonder your thoughts on that?

[2:11:32] I mean I personally agree as well.

[2:11:34] I think it's a huge priority for us to acknowledge that

[2:11:39] hopefully is not mentioned in goal one at all.

[2:11:44] We don't have measures in place to really encourage

[2:11:49] not just access, but participation,

[2:11:52] understanding, meeting people where they're at,

[2:11:55] whether it's communities of color,

[2:11:57] people with disabilities, people that are not English

[2:12:00] as their first language, things like that.

[2:12:02] you know, there's some big thing he to be done and I think that that was kind of what

[2:12:08] agents you wanted to focus on was that while climate justice and environmental justice are

[2:12:13] very important to and we do kind of need to figure out how we can think about those topics

[2:12:19] as well. The first piece is really just this foundation of participating in the land use process.

[2:12:26] The only thing I would add to Emma's comment is Commissioner Santeval, just a reminder,

[2:12:34] goal one is largely direction to local governments about how they conduct their planning

[2:12:42] business and to Emma and your point to focus on communities that have been left out of the process

[2:12:53] historically, and to make sure that we are going to them in their communities and hearing directly

[2:13:04] about their specific needs to correct these historical inequities. So you're exactly right.

[2:13:15] You know, Palmer and Emma can probably speak more to this than I. But my sense is we started off with

[2:13:23] climate goal. And then some groups really wanted to address equity. And I think that

[2:13:33] my term, my opinion, the bill management process came off the rails, somewhere along the line.

[2:13:41] And unfortunately, we didn't get up, we didn't end up with either one. And that's why I think it's

[2:13:48] critical for us to bring this back up and frankly have a little bit more direct management with the governor's office in moving it forward.

[2:13:58] Again, my personal opinion editorial.

[2:14:02] So, if I might, this is Palmer, Chair MacArthur, so I agree with Jim's comment, director

[2:14:10] Bruce comment, that the agency is probably going to have to lead more on this conversation

[2:14:16] than we were able to do, so this session, although I do want to say perhaps it's somewhat

[2:14:27] So, serving, but I do want to acknowledge we invested a great deal of time with the Department

[2:14:31] staff and the Department as a whole in this effort to try to move not only in hospitals

[2:14:38] 2488, but also the money that to the credit of the government's office, they provided

[2:14:43] in the government's recommended budget.

[2:14:47] But Jim, our director of the ruse, right, I think there was an initial aspiration or intent to try to move a bill that was really much broader than vote.

[2:15:00] One, an equity, including climate, and the Bill of Conversations started late. This was a type of bill that

[2:15:08] should have been talked about before session began, and that did not happen. So despite making

[2:15:14] really, really, circulate in efforts, we couldn't really move this. By going forward, I think

[2:15:20] DLCD and the Commission will have to really engage as Director Russo as a governor's office about

[2:15:26] coming forward with, and this is my main point,

[2:15:28] with the resources to do this work.

[2:15:32] We spent so much time talking about the legislation,

[2:15:34] and that would have been important,

[2:15:36] and ideal to had it passed.

[2:15:38] But what I think it's lost in the conversation

[2:15:40] is, and what's really needed,

[2:15:42] is the money to hire the staff,

[2:15:44] to do the engagement, to do that outreach,

[2:15:47] to if we're gonna rewrite the goal,

[2:15:49] which isn't by the way the only option that we have,

[2:15:51] but if we're gonna rewrite the goal,

[2:15:54] go through the 10 public hearings and all the other extra processes that are required to rewrite a goal.

[2:16:02] So that I think is, you know, my take away commissioner, son of ball, is it's finding the money to do the work that has in my mind,

[2:16:11] in my opinion, the B-dolose important objective and that would be best served by having the governor's recommended budget,

[2:16:17] Once again, ask the legislature for the money and then having a strategy to work with

[2:16:24] not only the governor's office, but other stakeholders to try to have the legislature agree.

[2:16:30] Thank you. Paul, we're vice-chair, Hallova.

[2:16:38] You may be unneed.

[2:16:43] Okay, can you hear me now? Yes. Yeah, I had switched my audio. I agree with everything everyone said.

[2:16:49] My question is, is there could we change the the name of goal one, just do that and what would be the process for just just doing that?

[2:17:01] Understanding, I believe in all the things that we actually need to do to the goal.

[2:17:08] My understanding, yeah, yeah, my understanding is that if we wanted to change the name of the goal, it would still have to go through this kind of public hearing process.

[2:17:19] So, if that were the case, then you know, we might as well make the other changes too.

[2:17:25] Yeah, I get it.

[2:17:26] Thank you.

[2:17:27] I hope I go ahead.

[2:17:29] I cut somebody off, I think.

[2:17:31] No, go ahead, Palmer, and then I have a comment.

[2:17:32] And there's somebody else.

[2:17:33] There's a question.

[2:17:34] But go ahead.

[2:17:35] Well, since we're having this discussion, I think we would all agree,

[2:17:39] rewriting the goal would be the best approach.

[2:17:41] But I just want to lay out to the commission.

[2:17:43] It's not the only option there is to make some substantive changes

[2:17:46] and go on. The Department could go forward with a rulemaking. Again, we need the resources to support

[2:17:52] that rulemaking, but we could go through a rulemaking, it would certainly be an involved rulemaking,

[2:17:58] a complex rulemaking, but it wouldn't necessarily involve the process of the 10-experience and the

[2:18:03] other analysis that are required for a goal rewrite. So there are other avenues if we want to move

[2:18:10] forward on this issue and bringing goal on, you know, out of the 1970s and more and to this day and age.

[2:18:22] I think you had a clarifying question about that. The goal language in my correct that it that the goal language itself is in statute along with the other statewide

[2:18:33] clinicals, that's in statute so that would require going to, if we want to amend the language of the goal, that would require going to the legislature.

[2:18:42] No commissioner.

[2:18:45] Their chair excuse me.

[2:18:46] This is fun again.

[2:18:48] The goal language itself is not in statute.

[2:18:50] It is rule language and it does require going through the rule making process.

[2:18:55] What what Emma was referring to is the statute's dictate how the commission can go about a

[2:19:01] ending updating or creating new goals.

[2:19:05] And that's the process that she was talking about

[2:19:07] with the 10 extra hearings.

[2:19:08] There's other analysis that we're required to do.

[2:19:11] It adds time and steps to the effort

[2:19:15] to update any of the goals.

[2:19:18] Great.

[2:19:19] Thank you.

[2:19:20] Appreciate that commissioner.

[2:19:21] We'll need a lap.

[2:19:23] Thank you, Chair MacArthur.

[2:19:24] I'll just, just one brief comment is,

[2:19:27] I, so genuinely appreciate the department's determination

[2:19:31] to address this issue in some way with funding,

[2:19:36] because it's essential for the climate-friendly

[2:19:39] and equitable communities work to be implemented.

[2:19:43] And these are all connected.

[2:19:45] So I just, I really appreciate your determination to complete it.

[2:19:48] And I'll just say, the other comment, I'll just say it now

[2:19:50] because I work with Palmer and Emma so much

[2:19:52] during the legislative session and after as I always do.

[2:19:56] And you guys just do a phenomenal job.

[2:19:58] And thank you so much.

[2:19:58] to show responsibility.

[2:20:00] We need to planners around the state so helpful and professional. Thank you.

[2:20:06] Thank you.

[2:20:07] Yeah, thanks.

[2:20:09] Deputy Director Green, you want to say something?

[2:20:11] If I may term a curther of Vice Chair and Commissioners, here's some here.

[2:20:15] I'm just two points. One, to amplify Commissioner Lee Lacks comment on the climate-friendly

[2:20:22] and equitable communities rule making. I think Commissioner Sandovali would please to know that

[2:20:27] Um, within that rule in Commissioner Warren and Commissioner Lee that I think leads on so that we'll

[2:20:31] making effort. There is a mini process embedded that I think is a great model for both

[2:20:38] spatial equity analysis and compelling communities to have community-based conversations with

[2:20:43] ready populations in effect of areas. So there's a very shiny diamond in that rule that is going

[2:20:50] to help help um, illuminate our way towards a larger effort and we'll be sort of a pilot process.

[2:20:55] So you'll hear from lead planners on that,

[2:21:00] Bill Holmes-Derman and team later in this commission agenda.

[2:21:04] The second point is about that your new citizens

[2:21:08] involvement advisory commission.

[2:21:12] You will recall, and Commissioner Sandwell, I'm sorry,

[2:21:14] this happened where you were out,

[2:21:15] but you have an amazing new CIAAC.

[2:21:18] A very diverse representative,

[2:21:21] citizens involvement advisory committee.

[2:21:23] And that name is actually all, that is,

[2:21:25] statute, so we can't get away without a satisfactory change that's also possible, but I would

[2:21:31] offer in addition to in respecting Paul Rengim's good guidance about really, really

[2:21:38] resourcing this effort necessarily to do it correctly. This would be a major turning for the

[2:21:44] state to improve sort of guidance and requirements around community engagement. But I would just say,

[2:21:51] Please expect to see this on the policy agenda.

[2:21:54] Sadie will be speaking to that and then Sadie and Palmer.

[2:21:57] The policy office will be bringing that

[2:21:59] public draft policy agenda to you in September.

[2:22:01] Right now of course it's unfended,

[2:22:03] but you can hear how you call it down,

[2:22:05] how committed this staff are the issue of Palmer himself

[2:22:07] personally spent dozens, if not hundreds of hours

[2:22:10] on this issue during this session.

[2:22:12] So we will make progress with your support.

[2:22:16] It'll be probably a low level stoping initially

[2:22:19] with that CIEC.

[2:22:21] So you can have that amazing resource of the CIEC to begin to work on this effort.

[2:22:28] You have a CIEC that's interested in any of them applied, knowing that this would

[2:22:31] possibly be work they'd be doing.

[2:22:34] So I would just suggest not to forget that CIEC is a resource as we look through those options

[2:22:38] that Palmer mentioned, getting ready for the governor's recommended budget and a legislative request.

[2:22:43] But I think even in doing this scoping, we can have some good conversations about what

[2:22:48] the options are and how to accomplish these goals.

[2:22:50] Thank you. Thank you, Kirsten. That's a really good reminder of that great group that we met at the March meeting.

[2:22:58] So, or they guess I've seen you the main meeting.

[2:23:00] And I do think we need a conversation about this in an intend to have a conversation about this in the context of the policy agenda.

[2:23:08] I'm wondering if we can consider that asking the decision involved in advisory committee to scope out short term and longer term.

[2:23:23] response because the longer term might very well be going to the legislature and getting money for a robust rule making effort and things like that.

[2:23:31] A short term effort might be something like issuing best practices.

[2:23:36] Not that we can require that because it's not actually rule making, but if we if we need resources to get to rule making.

[2:23:41] I would encourage that CIAC to think about short term options so we can hit the ground running and lay the ground work for some of the engagement that has to happen in everything we're doing now and not have to wait for a couple years and we can talk offline to see if that's even appropriate to have that community do that, but we just think we need to, I don't want to wait for more years so we might get money or a year until we might get money if there's, if there's some things we can do now.

[2:24:12] So I don't see anyone else wanting to comment on this particular aspect, but I'm thanks for raising the issue, it's really an important issue and I think we should schedule more time for discussion on this perhaps with a couple of the CIAC members in September.

[2:24:35] Okay,

[2:24:38] I will move on to wildfires.

[2:24:41] So, yes, so let's do that.

[2:24:43] Palmer again here.

[2:24:46] Well, I don't need to really say it to the commission.

[2:24:48] You all talked about it earlier when director Rue,

[2:24:51] that how much the wildfires of last year have galvanized action,

[2:24:55] including action in the legislature,

[2:24:57] and it led to Senate Bill.

[2:25:01] 662. It was one of the last pieces of legislation, at least major legislation, to be negotiated by a legislature.

[2:25:09] And while I think the feeling in the Capitol was always that something would pass, there were moments when we weren't quite so sure.

[2:25:17] But the legislature did deliver on this omnibus bill. It touches many facets of wildfire suppression, mitigation and prevention.

[2:25:27] I'm going to really try to focus mostly on the land use piece, which is section 11 of the bill,

[2:25:33] part that's most relevant to us, although I'm going to mention work by forestry and that

[2:25:37] apartment or the Office of State Farm Marshall as well. So section 11 directs that apartment

[2:25:47] to present a legislative report back to the legislature as of October 1 of next year. So October 1,

[2:25:54] 22 that broadly speaking requires the department to recommend how to incorporate wildfire risk mapping into the statewide planning program and local comprehensive plans and zoning codes.

[2:26:13] We are also directed to look at how wildfire risk minimization could be incorporated into those same programs.

[2:26:23] And in addition to asking us to look at those policy issues of wild virus mapping and wild

[2:26:30] virus minimization, we're also asked to look at the appropriate level or adequate level

[2:26:36] of state and local resources to implement that work.

[2:26:41] So there's a financial component to the legislative report as well.

[2:26:48] One step that was added in the bill is a review of the department's report by a new

[2:26:55] entity in the governor's office.

[2:26:57] It's the wildfire program coordination advisory council.

[2:27:01] I think I have that right.

[2:27:03] And which will be led by a new position in the governor's office of a wildfire program coordinator.

[2:27:10] They have an opportunity by December of next year to make additional recommendations on land use.

[2:27:16] following the issuance of our report.

[2:27:20] So all of that will lead to a robust conversation

[2:27:23] in the next long session at the Capitol.

[2:27:26] So the 2023 session about what kind of policies,

[2:27:32] the legislature wants to see around land use and wildfires

[2:27:36] and what kind of resources will be needed

[2:27:40] to support changes at the LCD and any other state agencies

[2:27:44] as well as local governments.

[2:27:47] There's a whole lot more I could say about this bill,

[2:27:50] but I wanted to focus on that part most importantly.

[2:27:55] I would mention though that work by the Department of Forestry

[2:27:58] around defining the Wildland Urban Interface,

[2:28:02] the Louis that you all talked a little bit about,

[2:28:04] what director Ru is a key step,

[2:28:06] and that is happening here very shortly in the next couple of months

[2:28:10] by the Department of Forestry.

[2:28:11] we will be participating in that rule-making advisory process and then forestry will develop the state

[2:28:21] wildfire risk maps which will have five categories of risk and that mapping will be done as a

[2:28:29] June next year and will be central to the land use recommendations that we make in October.

[2:28:36] Also, I would mention the Office of State Fire Marshall is developing and it's a shift of responsibility from the Department of Forestry to the Office of State Fire Marshall.

[2:28:48] I would say a complete shift. There's Office of State Fire Marshall has had some responsibility for defining and protecting structures through the use of defensible space requirements.

[2:28:57] But really, the legislature may policy shift to turn that, basically, over to the office state farm hospital and in the role that the Department of Forestry had in that, and they will develop a new role as a December of next year, December 22, that will outline those statewide defense space requirements, and that will be another huge issue that will influence what legislative recommendations we will be making the timings a little off.

[2:29:27] their work is final after our report goes in but hopefully we'll have enough of an idea about

[2:29:34] where that's headed and what kind of nexus land use could should have that issue to have

[2:29:39] a set of recommendations for the legislature to debate the following January.

[2:29:47] Then there I will mention and I did mention briefly again the policy option package 113 we were

[2:29:52] grateful to see the legislature upon this. This was actually not something that was in the

[2:29:56] I'm just recommended by it, but again, it includes a permanent position.

[2:30:00] To support the work that I just talked about, this legislative report and our efforts to support the Department of Forestry and the Office of State Farm, Marshall and their work.

[2:30:11] So I'll stop and see if there are any questions. This is a pretty important piece of legislation.

[2:30:24] Thanks, Palmer. Any questions from commissioners on wildfire legislation?

[2:30:29] Chair McArthur, yeah, thank you, I just state that whoever you hire for that position for the

[2:30:36] wildfire position may be a regular at Association of Oregon counties and finding directors

[2:30:41] meetings just given the interaction with counties and on the implementation and the rules,

[2:30:46] so much coordination to make sure it's implemented as intended.

[2:30:55] Thanks, Frank. There aren't any other questions. I'll move on to some of the other bills.

[2:31:01] These other two bills fall in the category of, I call wildfire rebuild bills, helping people

[2:31:09] who were affected by last summer's wildfires, rebuild their communities, their businesses

[2:31:16] and their homes. I'll start with House Bill 289. This is an optional process for property

[2:31:24] honors to rebuild both residential and non-residential structures, they don't need to avail themselves

[2:31:32] of this bill, they can go through the existing permitting process, but this is intended to be a

[2:31:37] streamlined process to allow those fire impact communities to rebuild essentially what they had before.

[2:31:47] There are some limitations on how much people could expand, say a residential dwelling or where

[2:31:54] they could relocate that dwelling on the parcel, but it's largely intended to help people rebuild

[2:32:02] what they had. We do, we were able to work after quite a bit of effort to make sure that when

[2:32:09] people rebuild structures that they do follow current and even updated federal floodplain regulations

[2:32:19] and so that communities can maintain the participation

[2:32:21] of the National Flood Insurance Program.

[2:32:25] So there aren't any questions on that bill

[2:32:28] I'll move on to Senate Bill 405.

[2:32:31] Basically, Senate Bill 405, again, focusing on the communities

[2:32:35] who are impacted by the fires last summer,

[2:32:37] is a bill that states that while a emergency order

[2:32:43] federal state or local was in place around the wildfires

[2:32:46] that had some limitation on a non-conforming use,

[2:32:50] that non-conforming uses not legally considered abandoned

[2:32:54] or interrupted.

[2:32:55] And it would allow that property under

[2:32:57] to continue that non-conforming use without any effects

[2:33:02] beyond, once the order is ended.

[2:33:09] If there aren't any questions on those,

[2:33:10] I guess, Emily, we move on to housing.

[2:33:12] Well, I have a couple questions.

[2:33:15] Why have one question?

[2:33:15] And so on the, I think it was House Bill 2289, the idea of rebuilding makes a lot of sense

[2:33:26] for those folks.

[2:33:29] If a home is currently outside of an urban growth boundary,

[2:33:38] does the law still apply?

[2:33:39] They go ahead and go ahead and they can build that even if it was a non-conforming use.

[2:33:42] Maybe I missed your description of that. I apologize.

[2:33:49] I'll say this chair of my god third. First of all, there's no limitation on whether the these are structures inside or outside the UGB.

[2:33:59] So if you had a dwelling that was in one of those wildfire impacted communities with some caveats which I'll talk about in a moment or a non-residential structure,

[2:34:09] you can rebuild again without regard to the UGB.

[2:34:13] The question is whether, if it's a non-residential structure,

[2:34:17] was it previously allowed or did it predate the land-use rules?

[2:34:22] If it falls in those categories, it can largely be rebuilt.

[2:34:28] If it's a dwelling, it can be restored or rebuilt.

[2:34:34] If it was authorized by a building permit or some other legal approval,

[2:34:38] or the structure was assessed as of July 1, 2021. So going back roughly 20 years. If you

[2:34:51] fell in either of those categories, you could largely rebuild what you had. Okay thank you

[2:34:58] That's helpful. I appreciate it.

[2:35:00] Thank you for your questions for Paul Marthink. Deputy Director Green, you had your hand up earlier, and I made it.

[2:35:08] Okay.

[2:35:09] Let's start things if it was hanging out there. It was an important, sorry. Thanks to Mr. McArthur.

[2:35:13] Let's thank you. Paul, what's the one to housing in Emma?

[2:35:20] All right. Actually, I think, Palmer is going to...

[2:35:23] Yeah, I think I start these, you're not sorry.

[2:35:25] No, you're good.

[2:35:27] Yeah, yeah. So we've talked quite a bit about Houseville 2006.

[2:35:31] So, but a brief recap, this is a bill that was a priority of speaker co-tech.

[2:35:36] This is a bill that requires local governments to grant approval for emergency housing shelters

[2:35:44] in their communities.

[2:35:47] There are some limitations, or some limitations.

[2:35:50] There are some criteria that the shelter has to meet in order to be able to use this statute

[2:35:57] and be granted the approvals.

[2:35:59] There are certain requirements around the facilities that are available, the fact that

[2:36:08] it cannot be in an area that's affected by natural hazards unless it is built to those regulations.

[2:36:15] It does have to be within an urban growth boundary or in an area's own rural residential,

[2:36:21] can't be outside of those areas.

[2:36:23] And so there's some other requirements like that, but it largely allows those who provide emergency

[2:36:32] shelter to people experiencing homelessness to get the approval to build their facilities.

[2:36:40] And I'll just kind of go through these bills and if there's questions, you can either stop

[2:36:44] as I go, or we'll be taking that the end.

[2:36:46] So moving on to House Bill 2160, you all recall over the last couple of sessions.

[2:36:55] The legislature has allowed a couple of specific cities, mainly bend and see red men to be

[2:37:02] granted an additional 50 acres beyond their UGB to allow for mostly affordable housing.

[2:37:09] That's not entirely 100% of affordable housing development.

[2:37:12] But it's mostly centered around affordable housing as a pilot project approach to looking at whether that does really encourage more affordable housing and how that will work out in terms of our other resource values and things.

[2:37:28] That legislation which came in 2016 in the commission approved over time applications for those two cities.

[2:37:37] This bill here, Hospital 2160, adds the city of Pendleton to that list of pilot projects cities.

[2:37:43] The city of Pendleton will have to come with an application to the commission.

[2:37:48] But in theory it allows the city of Pendleton to be approved for their own 50 acre expansion.

[2:37:55] Moving on to House Bill 3155, this is a bill that makes clear that our metro cities actually have to do the housing needs analysis updates that were required as of House Bill 2003 in 2019 and once those are done and they show a need that those communities will adopt housing production strategies.

[2:38:19] There were some carryover old language about what Metro's responsibilities were

[2:38:25] Metro Regional Governor's responsibilities, so it wasn't clear at least, you know, 100%

[2:38:31] fashion that those Metro cities actually had to follow through on those H&A updates and

[2:38:36] housing pressure strategies, so we worked with Metro, several cities including the city of

[2:38:41] Portland, Hillsborough, to clarify that Metro cities would indeed do that.

[2:38:48] Another thing that we were able to add to this legislation that was a priority of the

[2:38:53] department is we wanted to make it clear in statute that cities under 10,000, which right now

[2:39:00] are not required to do housing needs and else to update or housing production strategies that

[2:39:06] they could at their options, it's not required, but at their option they could do those things.

[2:39:11] And by putting this in statute as an option, we made it clear now that the department can fund, again, if the city's options work by smaller cities to do H&A updates and housing production strategies and we felt like this is important.

[2:39:29] I know something the commission knows but we felt like we needed to make the case of legislature that smaller cities are experiencing housing shortages too.

[2:39:36] And they need those tools and they really need that funding from the department.

[2:39:41] So we were successful in making that change in statute and thinking that up with the funding.

[2:39:47] So we will be able to support now smaller cities and those efforts.

[2:39:51] House Bill 3261 is a bill that passed that requires cities to approve the conversion of hotels.

[2:40:00] e-mails and motels to either emergency shelters or to affordable housing units. It doesn't require an expansion of the footprint of the structure of the hotel motel, but it does allow the property owner to change the number of units within the structure.

[2:40:19] There are some limitations, these are only within urban growth boundaries, and the structure

[2:40:26] does have to meet the standards for protection against natural hazards.

[2:40:33] So I think Emma, your covering that you've already talked about, house bill 5,000 and 6,

[2:40:39] but I don't know if you wanted to add anything.

[2:40:42] Yeah, I don't have anything to add.

[2:40:44] I mean, it's just here, you know, so we can see all of the housing work.

[2:40:49] But I can, I can talk about some of the Senate bill eight.

[2:40:54] This, we've discussed this bill before.

[2:40:58] It was brought forth by a Senate President Courtney,

[2:41:02] and it's a bill that essentially restricts local governments

[2:41:06] from denying or limiting approval of affordable housing projects.

[2:41:13] There are some stipulations there,

[2:41:15] so that it restricts development on land

[2:41:19] that's zone for industrial use to properties

[2:41:22] that are either publicly owned and adjacent to lands

[2:41:27] that are either residential or school uses.

[2:41:31] And also prohibits any affordable housing development

[2:41:33] on lands that are designated as heavy industrial use.

[2:41:39] So that's kind of the basics of it.

[2:41:41] You'll probably also hear about this bill

[2:41:43] from city on the next agenda item regarding

[2:41:46] kind of forming rulemaking.

[2:41:50] So, any questions about that one?

[2:41:54] Thank you.

[2:41:55] Any questions about housing for commissioners?

[2:42:00] I think for sure a little bit.

[2:42:02] Yeah, yeah, she may be on mute.

[2:42:05] Vice Chair.

[2:42:07] When I go from my headset to my computer, sorry.

[2:42:11] I had a question on the Senate bill eight.

[2:42:13] I was concerned at first when I had read about it, particularly with the industrial lands and the need for industrial land preservation in many cases.

[2:42:25] So I was happy to hear those kind of qualifiers that you mentioned.

[2:42:28] I guess the question is, once housing goes in those spots, does it then kind of start to encroach because you say, like, now we've made housing.

[2:42:38] And now that not next to it, we'll say, and now I'm adjacent to residential.

[2:42:42] So I can have housing, and now I'm adjacent and it just kind of erodes the industrial zoning.

[2:42:47] I was just curious if anybody has any thoughts on that.

[2:42:54] Go ahead.

[2:42:55] Go ahead, you know.

[2:42:57] I think it's a great question.

[2:42:59] I guess when Emma was about to say, we did, we did participate a little bit in this bill.

[2:43:06] We made some clarifying changes.

[2:43:08] But we didn't as an agency engage a lot on the policy side and that is a legitimate policy issue.

[2:43:16] You raised there. The bill doesn't prohibit local governments from trying to address maybe through

[2:43:24] citing criteria and other things, like the effect that more residential structures

[2:43:31] of budding industrial in my half. So there's some latitude for local governments to look at that,

[2:43:39] but those encroachment issues, that could be a problem, you know, a certain counties, particularly.

[2:43:46] Yeah, and I'll tell you where my concern comes from. I think having industrial in close proximity

[2:43:52] to downtowns to affordable housing is really important, especially if we're talking about

[2:44:01] citing affordable housing in climate-friendly areas. A lot of times these industrial areas are also

[2:44:06] in those areas, and so the idea of kind of getting rid of all your core industrial land essentially

[2:44:13] pushes those jobs more or more low wage jobs out, causing a commute issue, and so retaining

[2:44:23] that kind of connection between lower wage jobs and housing and transit, I think is important

[2:44:29] for climate and then also for lowering the cost of the actual affordability for people of

[2:44:36] income. So I'm always like a big proponent of industrial land preservation for that reason.

[2:44:46] Yeah, all good points. Other commissioners.

[2:44:54] I forgot to mention a lot of those industrial

[2:44:56] lands are really enticing to the market rate developers.

[2:45:00] And I feel there could be some kind of moves made where it's like, oh, we have 20% of our uses are affordable. Can we redevelop these choice industrial lands? And that it'll be sort of like a back behind the doorway of taking over those lands for other purposes by using a kind of affordable, affordable housing as kind of a smoke screen or something to that effect. So I just thought I should say all those concerns in relation to this.

[2:45:29] Yeah, very, very good thoughts.

[2:45:33] I have a question about how spill, I think it's 2016 to one that allows Pendleton to pursue an application for affordable housing under a pilot project.

[2:45:44] Is that the one?

[2:45:46] So, I was around quite a while ago when the legislature compelled us to do a role-making on the pilot to begin with.

[2:45:55] that PIV initially was for one community.

[2:45:58] And then the next session, we added another community.

[2:46:01] And then now this session, another community,

[2:46:04] two legislative action is being added.

[2:46:07] And it might very well be that there

[2:46:09] was really good results from all of those.

[2:46:12] I would like to have a conversation not now,

[2:46:14] but perhaps in September, or just perhaps just with you know,

[2:46:17] policy staff and the legislative stuff.

[2:46:22] I kind of wondered that's the right tool.

[2:46:25] So since this is going to be happening, I suspect, in the regular basis, with this particular

[2:46:30] piece of legislation, and then we're making on our part.

[2:46:35] I just kind of wonder about that.

[2:46:37] The mechanics of that is sort of creates halves and have not, so for the example of like

[2:46:41] Pendleton had resources to go to legislature and connections to the legislature and

[2:46:47] afford them this opportunity.

[2:46:48] And it might be very well produced good housing, so I'm not objecting to the idea.

[2:46:52] But what about those smaller communities that might want to use the tool, but don't have the connection with the legislature and the money to pursue that to be able to do that?

[2:47:01] So I'm just kind of wondering if we should be thinking about longer term, how we might modify if this is an effective tool and just really producing middle income housing in areas that we need to be.

[2:47:15] Is there a way for us to modify our rules to just allow for that and give us the ability to put side bars and on it and not have the legislature keep reaching in and giving us specific examples of what we should be doing.

[2:47:31] Anyway, just so if you thought.

[2:47:34] And chair.

[2:47:35] Yes.

[2:47:35] My concern, which is similar to the one before, it's hacked onto this issue, is that, you know, the urban growth boundary gets expanded with this idea. Oh, we're providing affordable housing and like what percentage of that land is actually affordable housing and using the idea of affordable housing is kind of a way to cover what might, I'm not saying that these cases are like that, but, you know, market rate developers wanting to do market rate housing and

[2:48:03] on developed land versus increasing density in urban cores, which I think we all agree, that's where we have to go.

[2:48:10] So there has to be some pressures to cause one to decide to redevelop an urban core.

[2:48:17] And if we make it easy, not to, then developers, I know, we always take the faculty's resistance.

[2:48:24] And so I can find my chair to to vice chair.

[2:48:31] Hello, this point.

[2:48:33] If you remember the bend housing affordable housing proposal that you approved as a result

[2:48:41] of special legislation, it was on the French.

[2:48:46] I don't know exactly where the the penultense site is.

[2:48:53] But this came out of this flurry,

[2:48:57] came out of some initial legislation

[2:48:59] that a rep start from the Rogue Valley proposed back

[2:49:04] and probably 17 specifically to take advantage

[2:49:10] of lower land prices on the fringe

[2:49:14] or even outside of the UGB.

[2:49:18] So this is a really important issue for two reasons.

[2:49:23] The legislature should not be seen as the state's planning commission to approve these one-off or two-off kinds of projects.

[2:49:35] And secondly, to Vice Chair Hullova's point, we're potentially getting housing in the exactly the wrong place.

[2:49:47] Yeah.

[2:49:49] Yeah.

[2:49:50] Chairman Garza, this is Palmer.

[2:49:51] Yes.

[2:49:51] We can work with Director Ruin, Deputy Director Green, and...

[2:50:00] Public Audent Howard, Community Services Planning, Community Services Division, Manager to bring back a presentation in September, because this is really a question more for that division than the policy office, where we're happy to participate in the conversation and we certainly can share the legislative perspective on this issue.

[2:50:23] And I'll just make the comment that this won't be surprised, I think,

[2:50:27] to anybody on the commission, because housing is an existential crisis,

[2:50:31] at least that's how the legislature sees it.

[2:50:33] They will not resist the impulse to do the things that we're talking about.

[2:50:38] So the more that we can think about, you know,

[2:50:42] trying to at least engage the conversation around when it might make sense for

[2:50:47] our UGB expansions for housing and I wouldn't love it to just support a housing.

[2:50:54] It might be helpful for us to be thinking about that, because the legislature has

[2:50:58] kind of continued to step into this role.

[2:51:01] They just, there's too much of, as they perceive in a need at the local level.

[2:51:07] Yeah.

[2:51:08] Excellent points, Father.

[2:51:10] We should probably continue on with our, with energy resource lands and coasts, so I'm sorry,

[2:51:15] we took so much time in the first ones.

[2:51:16] but they're all really interesting topics.

[2:51:20] Yeah, we can definitely be quick on these next ones.

[2:51:25] For energy, hospital 2109, you were all familiar with this was Jill City's bill that provided

[2:51:32] a fix so that counties won't need reimbursement for measure 56 notices related to renewable

[2:51:39] energy facilities.

[2:51:40] The one thing I'll just say is that this past without any issues or concerns from any legislators

[2:51:47] Honestly, it was a really good example of good government work to avoid unnecessary spending. So yeah

[2:51:54] So yeah, I'll leave it at that for that one and I'll let all my touch

[2:51:59] Yeah, so house bill 25 20 is

[2:52:02] And as indicated the bills in our under ones that did not pass so this one didn't pass this was a bill that would have directed the commission

[2:52:10] to adopt a rule, specifying the reasons for granting exceptions for renewable energy facilities

[2:52:18] in those lands which would really have been outside of UGB where our current goals and rules

[2:52:25] don't allow the siding of those type of facilities. And this was a product of, I was really an

[2:52:33] I'll turn it that developed out of conversations with several legislators and the renewable

[2:52:40] energy industry as well as the long, as well as the other key stakeholders like the Oregon

[2:52:46] Farm Bureau and a thousand friends and the Association of Oregon counties to revising

[2:52:51] goal 13 to address the siding of renewable energy facilities.

[2:52:57] Building pass, as I said, but this issue of the status of goal 13 and how it, you know,

[2:53:05] the renewable energy industry, we are able to need to be updated to reflect more in-state

[2:53:10] production of renewable energy and how you balance that with the resource values and try to honor

[2:53:17] our planning process is going to be an ongoing conversation.

[2:53:19] So, this was the first salvo and what will be a long, long conversation, and I guess I'll

[2:53:27] sleep at that.

[2:53:29] Thank you, Commissioner Jacobs and you had your hand up.

[2:53:36] If I did, that was a complete accident.

[2:53:38] Sorry about that.

[2:53:39] Okay, thank you.

[2:53:41] So, I continue on with energy your resourceland.

[2:53:47] Great.

[2:53:49] Senate Bill 3 and anyone, this is another one that we'll get mentioned in the next agenda item.

[2:53:53] I'm starting to inform you we're making, this is a bill that will allow counties to authorize

[2:54:00] accessory dwelling units or 80 use on rural residential lands. There's definitely a number

[2:54:09] of stipulations in this bill, including the units can't be built until the statewide wildfire

[2:54:18] risk map has been completed. That's, you know, what Palmer mentioned in Sen. 762. I believe

[2:54:25] the date for that is June 2022.

[2:54:30] There's also some prohibitions that ADUs can't be used for

[2:54:33] vacation rentals. It has to be within a certain distance of the primary home. But the main

[2:54:41] lines to address wildfire risk concerns. There are some stipulations in the bill that

[2:54:49] counties have to ensure that there's adequate access to these units for wildfire mitigation

[2:54:55] in evacuation efforts and dispensable space.

[2:55:00] You'll break standards with consultation with the local fire protection service district providers.

[2:55:08] And there's also some provisions to protect the working, working farm force lands in terms of steps.

[2:55:20] So this is a bill that we were to really closely with Commissioner Lee Lackon and

[2:55:27] Yeah, any questions on that one?

[2:55:32] I don't see anyone.

[2:55:37] All right, well then I'll take a Senate Bill 16.

[2:55:41] This was a bill that in the area of the eastern Oregon border economic development region,

[2:55:48] which sits on the border between Idaho and the state of Oregon,

[2:55:53] allows for up to 200 acres of exclusive farm use land to be used for residential purposes.

[2:56:05] So, the residential development, it does have some limitations on the type of properties

[2:56:10] that can be converted from a farm and ranch use to residential use, first of all, can't be

[2:56:18] value farmland or properties that include class 1, 2, and 3 soils and if and when parcel

[2:56:29] is rezone for residential use, the property owner has to file a restrictive covenant with

[2:56:39] the county not to sue adjacent farm and ranch operations and there does have to be adequate

[2:56:47] infrastructure to serve the development out there. This was a pretty controversial bill

[2:56:54] or a number of reasons and that the argument about setting a further precedent to build

[2:57:01] outside of where we normally want to see residential development. Those in Eastern Oregon argued that

[2:57:08] this particular farmland either largely wasn't irrigated or isn't as high value and productive as others

[2:57:17] and they have a real housing need they argued because of the people choosing to live in Idaho

[2:57:23] as opposed to living in Oregon. And at the end of the day, this bill is one of the bills that I think

[2:57:29] was important for democratic leadership to try to manage the session with the Republicans.

[2:57:36] So in the end, it did pass. I think some folks have raised the possibility of a veto by the governor,

[2:57:46] But I, we've heard nothing from the governor's office about that, so I really, I can't say what their thought is.

[2:57:59] All right, I guess, you know, we can probably move on to the Crystal Bill.

[2:58:02] Great. Yeah.

[2:58:04] House Bill 26 is zero three.

[2:58:06] This is a bill that relates to undersea cables and the placent of those cables.

[2:58:11] So this bill has the ocean policy advisory council, consulting with DLCD and the Department of State Lands,

[2:58:20] and local and tribal governments to review and provide amendments to the Part 4 of the territorial

[2:58:28] sea plan related to the placement of undersea cables. And GLCD's role, we would be leading

[2:58:36] a study of the permitting process, other planning, regulatory considerations. And what's good to

[2:58:45] note about this is that we received funding to complete this work and that actually includes

[2:58:49] limited duration position to support the efforts.

[2:58:57] So, Chair MacArthur, I knew we are very short

[2:59:00] on time. We included a couple of related bills based on my share. Hello of us. The last

[2:59:11] presentation about talking about some legislation is connected in some way to DLCD work. If you

[2:59:19] would like, I can run 30s pretty quickly and just give brief one liners. I don't really want to push in on the time too much, so just wanted to check in with you.

[2:59:29] Yeah, I appreciate that Emma. I think we should go ahead because my studio hall of I asked for this.

[2:59:34] Um, the idea was, um, vice-chair hall of it was asking for what the, what other legislation passed

[2:59:41] that in other than effects, other agencies, but that might affect our portfolio.

[2:59:46] So, I think we should go with those really quickly, and then if we need more conversation on the

[2:59:51] implementation of those and the coordination of those, uh, those actions relative to hours,

[2:59:58] I think we can have that conversation in.

[3:00:00] And just a quick note, chair, we're already 10 minutes over time. So we're cutting into our lunch with this conversation.

[3:00:10] Yes, so what made you. Sorry, guys. If we could just go through quickly and that'd be great.

[3:00:16] Yeah, happy to. All right. So hospital 3040. I wanted to mention this. This is a bill that directs organ housing community services to conduct a pretty comprehensive study of system

[3:00:29] development charges, SDCs, they would be consulting with us and several other state agencies

[3:00:36] to do this work. Very quickly, SDFV, if there are one-time bees that help pay for infrastructure

[3:00:44] that's required for new developments. So things like parks, transportation, wastewater, water

[3:00:50] systems, that kind of thing. So basically the scope of the setting includes the role of SDCs and their

[3:00:57] and the history of the charges and the impacts of the overall housing costs.

[3:01:07] So we'll be involved in that effort with them.

[3:01:12] I'll move on to the next one, Senate Bill 458.

[3:01:15] This has related to the division of property for new middle housing.

[3:01:20] So there are conditions under which local governments must allow for the division of property for new middle housing development.

[3:01:29] And it applies to properties that are in residential zones, in attorneys or cities that are within

[3:01:36] metropolitan service districts, as well as cities with a population of 25,000 or greater.

[3:01:43] And then also cities outside those metropolitan service districts with populations between 10 and 20.

[3:01:53] And you'll see you might be able to provide technical assistance funding from that $2 million

[3:01:58] and housing grants that I mentioned earlier in house $5,000,000 for some of this that may be happening.

[3:02:10] And then the last one that I've put here under housing is Senate Bill 79.

[3:02:16] This is also related to housing and community services.

[3:02:22] Basically, this is a bill that expands the home ownership assistance account,

[3:02:28] to include grants and technical assistance for organizations working to increase access

[3:02:35] for low income individuals and people of color for home ownership.

[3:02:40] And OHCS Housing and Community Services has two prioritized organizations that offer culturally

[3:02:50] specific counseling that provide down payment assistance and maintain partnerships with financial

[3:02:56] institutions. So this is a pretty important change for that home ownership assistance account.

[3:03:05] And we'll definitely just clarify for everyone that organizing community services, they're going to release a really comprehensive report on probably over 500 different bills that they tracked this session.

[3:03:21] That's coming later in the fall just because they're trying to put it all together and I'm more than happy to send that out to all commissioners once it is completed.

[3:03:31] there is obviously such an access for housing in chair. I just want to make a comment that

[3:03:38] like that S Senate Bill 79, it seems like one of the ones that should be added to our housing

[3:03:43] production strategies spreadsheet under financial assistance or one of those categories that we had.

[3:03:51] So that that is a tool that would be under that. There, I feel like Senate Bill four,

[3:03:57] If I made, I don't know the details, but it seems like that will just change the nature of land

[3:04:01] division. So that's not really a housing production strategy, but it's good to know because

[3:04:05] I've had a lot of not a lot. I've had experience on the disconnect between zoning and land

[3:04:10] division and it has big implications to how housing is produced. So that's that's kind of a big deal

[3:04:16] in the background, hopefully. And then everybody's interested in what comes out of that. I'm sure how

[3:04:23] It's about 30 40 and it's more like a get your popcorn and, you know, let's see what they say.

[3:04:32] Thank you. Why don't we go on to the final one on energy.

[3:04:36] Okay, last bill. I wanted to mention hospital 21 or 2021.

[3:04:42] Deal city wasn't directly involved with this, but it was a very hot topic of the session.

[3:04:47] And I can certainly see implications for land use.

[3:04:50] It's known as the 100% clean energy for all bill, so it's a broad range of targets, programs.

[3:05:00] Customs, studies all related to the clean electricity grid, but the main takeaway would be that, basically, all, investor-owned utilities and electricity service providers will have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are associated with electricity to 80% emissions by 2030, and then ultimate in any 200% by 2040.

[3:05:26] So that effectively would require a mission free electricity by 2040.

[3:05:35] So there's a lot in that bill, I won't go into it now, but if you are interested, I can send you some resources from the Department of Energy.

[3:05:43] But I did just want to mention it because there is implications for land use with renewable energy.

[3:05:49] There's a huge occasion for land use, and so I think we should probably talk about that further in September.

[3:05:59] Thank you both Palmer and Emma. We do have one person that signed up for public comment that's Jonathan Harker from the Oregon American Planning Association.

[3:06:10] I want to make sure he has a chance to speak before we adjourn for lunch.

[3:06:15] So, Jonathan, welcome.

[3:06:24] Dream in it.

[3:06:24] I guess, whoops.

[3:06:25] What happened there?

[3:06:27] We still hear you.

[3:06:29] Okay.

[3:06:29] I just can't see you.

[3:06:31] Oh, why do you see me?

[3:06:34] I guess there's a number of going on.

[3:06:37] So, well, I guess it's good afternoon.

[3:06:40] Chair MacArthur, Commission members, and department staff.

[3:06:45] So, for the record, I'm Jonathan Harker,

[3:06:47] retired city planner, most of my career,

[3:06:49] with the City of Russian. As you mentioned, I'm currently sharing a climate subcommittee

[3:06:55] of the Oregon APA chapters, the legislative and policy advisory committee. And I wanted to

[3:07:02] comment on item C1 and Mr. Mason staff report, the package 90, House Bill 2488. And I hope

[3:07:11] you'll be kind with me in my remarks because my primary remarks are in response to the

[3:07:21] report and

[3:07:25] and and I would say that I was really heartened with the conversation that took place during the the oral report this morning in terms of both the knowledge men of the importance of addressing

[3:07:39] goal one and the importance of addressing climate and the commitment to do to take action on those.

[3:07:47] So I'm just going to kind of give you a little bit of my take on the House Bill 2488 and package 90 during the session.

[3:07:57] So House Bill 2488, when it was introduced, we're going to direct LCDC to update the state by planning goals.

[3:08:05] to address climate equity and political participation in environmental justice in the land

[3:08:11] used and playing decisions. And that came from two legislative concepts. One that was

[3:08:17] drafted by beyond top six, a nonprofit and based in Eugene, and the double NCWAP chapter

[3:08:26] of Eugene Springfield, and Portland. That one really had the focus on the environmental justice,

[3:08:32] but it also covered the climate pieces.

[3:08:36] The second one was on behalf of Steve Shell,

[3:08:39] a retired land destroyer who was the first LCDC chair.

[3:08:44] That really focused on the more on the climate part,

[3:08:47] but these two were put together.

[3:08:50] That energy spill had four major four chief sponsors,

[3:08:54] two from each chambers,

[3:08:55] as well as 13 regular sponsors,

[3:08:59] many of those from the BIPOC caucus.

[3:09:02] OAPA was supportive of House Bill 24 ADA. It's aligned with our adopted legislative priorities,

[3:09:09] both the support legislation that address climate change by amending the statewide goals

[3:09:14] or by adding a new goal, and also supporting legislation that address racial

[3:09:19] equality by mending goal one to explicitly advance anti-racism and elevate the voices of

[3:09:26] and other traditionally underrepresented communities.

[3:09:30] As with many bills, this was through with funding.

[3:09:35] That's what package 90 came into to play.

[3:09:38] And I would comment that the Kudos for Mr. Mason and Miss Land are really, really well-deserved.

[3:09:48] I was part of a group that worked with them to create a new set of amendments

[3:09:56] the dash tool amendments that would have.

[3:10:02] Required LCDC2 adopt a new goal 20, and the goal 20 would have been addressed climate change, and it was going to address the equity and environmental justice issues.

[3:10:15] And Emma and Palmer just spent a lot of time working on those things.

[3:10:21] There was a, again, the dash 2s.

[3:10:25] There were two hearings for the bills.

[3:10:27] The first hearing generated lot of support for a wide variety of parties.

[3:10:35] That was mostly on the introduction because the dash 2 managed by not been posted yet.

[3:10:40] The second hearing was on the dash 2.

[3:10:41] That also generated a lot of support.

[3:10:44] Well, EPA provided written testimonies and supported both of those effort,

[3:10:49] I testified as part of an invited panel on the first hearing.

[3:10:55] Unfortunately, a few days before the work session,

[3:11:01] the, the, the, the, the house legislated sponsor

[3:11:03] measure or chase sponsors and beyond toxic swir informed, and this is second hand for me.

[3:11:09] I was not at the meeting that the bill was going to be pulled.

[3:11:15] And, and what I was told is because climate is a trigger word,

[3:11:23] but there was some

[3:11:24] controlling, frankly, and the bill was re-trapped out of the new amendment, the dash sevens

[3:11:28] which addressed the goal one.

[3:11:30] If I might interrupt this for a moment, you're out of time, and I'm really important, but perhaps

[3:11:38] you could take a couple of sentences or a paragraph and summarize what you need to say,

[3:11:43] So we kind of hear it. I don't, I don't think I will.

[3:11:47] And so I'll just say, so, so, you know,

[3:11:51] go one need to be addressed,

[3:11:55] the bill did pass out

[3:11:57] out of committee on a bipartisan vote,

[3:11:59] I mean, on a partisan vote. And what I want to,

[3:12:03] and then, and also I wanted to say that there were senators

[3:12:07] and House representatives who voted against DLCG's budget

[3:12:13] because the packet 90 wasn't in the budget.

[3:12:18] They did that after they knew the bill, but after the budget was passed.

[3:12:22] I'm saying all these things because I wanted to emphasize that I think there's a lot of momentum.

[3:12:31] And I was part of to see that the commission and the department went and moved forward with this.

[3:12:39] I was going to encourage you to do such and want to say that, you know, OAPA and myself can be there to help.

[3:12:48] So I guess that's kind of where I was getting at. I think it's important that we do up to go one.

[3:12:54] I think it's important that we address climate either by a, probably by a goal 20 and maybe those are two different efforts.

[3:13:04] I guess that's what I guess I got confused. I guess that when the numbers were started to come counting down on me, I hadn't realized that's what was happening.

[3:13:11] Thank you.

[3:13:12] Yeah.

[3:13:12] So thank you.

[3:13:13] Yeah.

[3:13:14] I, yes.

[3:13:15] So I thought I had mentioned you had three minutes, but perhaps I wasn't very clear.

[3:13:18] Anyway, thank you very much.

[3:13:20] Obviously, if you were to had tuned in earlier, you heard the level of interest the commissioners

[3:13:24] have about to talk about, obviously, you described.

[3:13:27] So thank you for your interest as well.

[3:13:29] And we look forward to collaborating with you on those in the future.

[3:13:33] And at this point, we are going to take our lunch break.

[3:13:39] I think to remain on schedule, we should in fact return at 1245, I apologize for being shorter than it would have been, but I kind of need to keep on schedule because there's some things at the end of the day we need to get to.

[3:13:53] So let's we'll see you all at, thanks again to Emma and Palmer.

[3:13:57] Really appreciate that.

[3:13:58] Sir, to cut off the kudos short.

[3:14:00] But let's go ahead and reconvene it 1245.

[3:14:05] Thank you.

[3:14:06] Recording stopped.

[3:14:11] Welcome back from lunch. The time is 12.45. The next agenda item is item 6. 2021. 2023.

[3:14:21] Performing rulemaking policy agenda. Chair, my car third, you have. Let's check. You have a

[3:14:31] quorum. Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And welcome, Sadie. And just by a way of

[3:14:37] introduction to this agenda item as well as agenda item number seven, which

[3:14:42] state is going to cover both, and she will go into more detail, but just to

[3:14:46] kind of frame it. So we have this policy agenda, commission department policy

[3:14:50] agenda. There's basically three parts to it that I know of anyway, two of

[3:14:56] are really sort of legislatively initiated or direct.

[3:15:00] And so the first agenda item and the final piece is stuff that we think is a really important to do regardless of whether another body compels us to do it or not.

[3:15:11] So the first part is agenda item number six, and that's conforming rule making, and that's where the legislature gives us pretty specific language that we, a statutory language that we then need to put into our rules to make them consistent.

[3:15:26] a city will talk about that first, the second part of our policy agenda is a list of topics

[3:15:33] or agenda of or role-making that they want us to pursue.

[3:15:38] And then as I mentioned a third part of our policy agenda is stuff that we look across the horizon

[3:15:43] and realize it's really important to do on our own.

[3:15:47] So with that, Sadie, take it away.

[3:15:50] Thank you, Chair MacArthur, and thank you for that introduction for the record.

[3:15:54] city-carnie communications manager and policy analyst with the Department of Land Conservation and Development.

[3:16:02] And I'm going to get started over here.

[3:16:06] It's always a pleasure to be with you.

[3:16:08] I'm going to try to share my screen here and let's just see if this works on the first try.

[3:16:13] Can you all see this PowerPoint presentation over here?

[3:16:15] Great. Thank you for letting me know.

[3:16:19] So, as Chairman Carthre indicated, I'm going to be presenting on agenda topics 6 and 7 today,

[3:16:26] which as she also shared the commission are two of three overall elements for the policy agenda.

[3:16:32] So, it's the conforming and the legislatively directed work that came from the 2021 legislative session.

[3:16:39] By way of background, every two years, DLCD develops a new policy agenda after the long session when the state's biennial budget is set.

[3:16:47] And the policy agenda is typically updated mid by NAM after the short legislative session that occurs in the even number of years.

[3:16:57] And so when you see this full package of policy agenda when it comes before you in September,

[3:17:03] and it'll have the elements that we're talking about today, conforming in legislative work.

[3:17:08] It'll also have ongoing work that has carried over from previous policy agendas.

[3:17:12] So stuff that is very long term, or we haven't gotten to a conclusion on so the housing

[3:17:17] work would be an example of that, and it will include what Chair MacArthur was referencing

[3:17:24] with the sort of that look across the horizon, the agency, and issues.

[3:17:29] And then there's one other item that will be included in the policy agenda, and this is issues

[3:17:36] that the department recognizes the perennial importance of,

[3:17:42] but either due to agency resources or lack of staff

[3:17:45] or lack of time, we just don't have the capacity to address.

[3:17:49] So an example that I'll give you is non-resource lands.

[3:17:52] You'll see that come up on our September policy agenda,

[3:17:57] not that we believe we'll have the agency capacity to address it

[3:18:00] in the two years, but just because we want our stakeholders

[3:18:02] or commissioners interested parties and others to know,

[3:18:05] we haven't forgotten about this, we recognize that they're important.

[3:18:12] In previous years,

[3:18:13] the department has presented the policy agenda all at once, and this year we have broken it into

[3:18:19] some different pieces, and I think it makes a lot of sense for us to do it this way.

[3:18:25] For a couple of reasons, number one, it is important that we initiate our conforming

[3:18:30] role-making process pretty right away. A lot of our legislation that passes in a legislative

[3:18:38] session has an effective date of the first of the year, so that would be January 1, 2022.

[3:18:44] In order for us to hold the public hearings in a timely fashion and get the notices in front

[3:18:49] of the Secretary of State, we really need to initiate that role-making pretty shortly after the

[3:18:53] session concludes in order to have our rules be effective when the legislation is effective.

[3:18:59] And the other piece to present the legislatively directed work alongside of it is there's some really time sensitive elements in particular this session so we may not do it every way that session.

[3:19:13] But but this year we are and then finally agency initiatives which are kind of a a bigger look and require more internal discussion following the the legislative session really take some time to develop.

[3:19:25] So this gives us time to put that internal staff work into creating other thoughtful package for you guys to review

[3:19:32] in September, hopefully for adoption in November.

[3:19:36] And just as kind of a high level, when I think about the policy agenda, I think of it as kind of a

[3:19:42] playbook for commissioners of what you're going to see at your commission meetings over the coming months,

[3:19:49] you know the next year or two years. And that said, I think there's a caveat in the staff report

[3:19:55] and I'll sort of say it again here.

[3:19:57] We know that not everything is going to be included in the...

[3:20:00] There's emergency things that come up that need to be addressed right away by the department. You know that because you're doing the emergency rule making for wildfire right now.

[3:20:10] And so the policy agenda is not intended to preclude other things for being addressed in a policy manner by the agency, but it's a way for us to get your feedback for us to get public feedback and for us to kind of set a plan for our workload and path over the coming two years.

[3:20:28] So with that, I'm going to move on to my next slide here.

[3:20:33] So first is the conforming rule making.

[3:20:36] And before I get into that,

[3:20:39] I'd like to review the timeline with commissioners,

[3:20:41] but just to remind you,

[3:20:43] conforming rule make things do not require the department to interpret

[3:20:47] anything that was recently enacted by statute

[3:20:50] and can be sort of implemented directly into our rules.

[3:20:54] So, we don't, we don't need a rule-making advisory committee, we don't really even need to do much interpretation at a staff level, we just need to identify the rule that needs to be updated, insert the appropriate language and sort of get it filed in all the right places.

[3:21:13] So, one thing I wanted to mention here is that even though are conforming role-making's sort of fit very tidally interval and don't require that interpretation or involvement, I just want to recognize that there is a workload impact for the agency.

[3:21:39] And specifically, I think she's on this call, Cassaria Taylor, her roles coordinator is required

[3:21:46] to follow the Administrative Procedures Act for the State of Oregon, which includes

[3:21:51] finding the rules with the Secretary of State, setting the public hearing dates, posting

[3:21:56] information online, making sure that all of those sort of procedures are followed to get

[3:22:03] this appropriately implemented in rules.

[3:22:05] Well, while we don't see a lot of it in front of Commission, you know, with the exception of today, there's a lot of work that goes on in the background and that regard and I just want to call that out for Commissioners because it does impact our ability to do other things.

[3:22:21] So that's that I'm going to move on to our timeline.

[3:22:27] So you're getting a presentation today.

[3:22:30] Your next commission meeting is in September.

[3:22:34] At that meeting we will present you with a draft a complete.

[3:22:37] We hope draft policy agenda.

[3:22:41] And commission will receive public comment on it.

[3:22:44] We will very much appreciate any commissioner comments on both today.

[3:22:49] But in particular, in September, when we have a more substantive policy agenda to review and after that meeting our public comment period begins and we have kind of a large broadcast we coordinate with the citizen involvement advisory committee in how to best accomplish that public notice of that work and opportunity to comment and that runs from the 27th of September to the 14th of October and the timing of that is kind of

[3:23:19] dependent on when we need to have incorporated comments in order to get them into an updated

[3:23:25] staff report and bring them back in front of you for the November meeting. And at the November

[3:23:30] meeting, we will incorporate commission comments. We will call out public comments. We will

[3:23:36] coordinate with staff in sort of reviewing and incorporating comments as appropriate. And we'll

[3:23:42] bring an updated policy agenda for the commission, including a record of the public comment

[3:23:48] that was submitted to the department and then at the November Commission meeting, we anticipate that the Commission would adopt the biennial policy agenda and then in January.

[3:24:04] Our conforming rulemaking has been completed.

[3:24:07] that legislation that becomes effective the first of the year is supported in rule in our

[3:24:14] rules and we've got our policy agenda in place for the next two years.

[3:24:20] If commissioners have ideas or comments on things we should definitely make sure to include

[3:24:30] it's specifically in that public outreach process. I'd be very interested to hear them.

[3:24:37] I can sort of wait until the end. You can offer your comments now. You can send them

[3:24:41] by email. I just want to make sure that that is the best process. It can be. So that's one

[3:24:49] place where I would specifically invite comment if you had it.

[3:24:56] So I will kick off this portion,

[3:25:00] This is our conforming rulemaking. I think I've said all of this already once. I do want to call out for the commission that there is an error in my staff report. And that is the inclusion of Senate Bill 19 as needed as as needing conforming rulemaking for the department.

[3:25:18] It does not. It requires agency involvement, but the amendment that was adopted in the enrolled version is not one that requires conforming role making simply sort of department coordination. So I apologize for the error and we will have it corrected in the in the policy agenda moving forward. But I just wanted to bring your attention back.

[3:25:43] And I want to, you may recognize this theme in the slides from Emma Lam's work on your legislative updates.

[3:25:53] I thought I would kind of stick with it so that maybe it helped you track the legislation as it moved through the legislative process into our policy agenda.

[3:26:02] And then it kind of excuse me, Lam's on our plate as, as work to do.

[3:26:06] I'm not going to spend, you may make some time up in these presentations because I know there has been a really substantive discussion of these different policy pieces in the legislative update that you had just before your lunch break.

[3:26:23] Palmer and Emma are also here to answer any kind of particular questions that made you thought of over lunch.

[3:26:30] But I'm just going to kind of hit at a high level.

[3:26:33] These rule-making and sort of remind you what they are as we go through the conforming.

[3:26:42] So House Bill 3155 requires cities over 10,000 in the metro area to conduct housing needs analysis and allows small cities smaller than 10,000.

[3:26:53] 1000 to conduct housing needs analysis and therefore let's those smaller cities become eligible

[3:27:00] for DLCD technical assistance. Palmer presented this in some detail. So if there's not a lot

[3:27:06] of question, I'll just cruise or if there's not any questions, I'll cruise through the rest of these

[3:27:11] housing-related bills. Next is Senate Bill E, which restricts local governments from denying or

[3:27:19] limiting the approval of affordable housing applications in commercial or industrial zones.

[3:27:25] I think Commissioner Huluva had some questions on this and Emma presented it in the legislative

[3:27:30] wrap up. And then finally Senate Bill 548 is the division of property for middle housing.

[3:27:39] So those are the three conforming rule making so we have under housing as you can see from the

[3:27:44] slide, the pieces of legislation that did pass under climate inequity and wildfires, energy

[3:27:49] and coastal, etc. don't have anything that fits into the conforming role-making category,

[3:27:55] but we do have it in housing and resource lands. So moving on to the resource lands pieces,

[3:28:02] Senate Bill 391, I think Palmer discussed this with you, is allowing accessory dwelling units

[3:28:08] in rural residential zones with some conditions. And Senate Bill 16 is the Eastern Oregon housing

[3:28:17] bill that allows counties to partition and rezone up to 200 acres of land from EFU to

[3:28:24] residential use without taking a goal exception.

[3:28:29] So, any questions on these items, I do have a

[3:28:35] bit more in depth slides on the legislative we directed work and I don't if there aren't any questions

[3:28:42] we can just move on to the motion.

[3:28:47] Questions about the conforming we're making that

[3:28:51] say just when over and say thank you for using the same format that and Palmer started it

[3:28:56] really helps me a lot just brilliant ideas of things. I'm so glad. Good.

[3:29:05] So seeing no hands up

[3:29:07] about the conforming, and we did have a really good conversation earlier, so I think we

[3:29:11] paved the way for a shorter conversation now. And just to be clear about what this

[3:29:16] motion is, all this motion does is adopt the portfolio of work that staff will need to do

[3:29:27] on the conforming rulemaking. The staff will then come back to us at various times,

[3:29:34] that we all know in the end of the year,

[3:29:36] to actually have us adopt the specific piece

[3:29:38] of rule, a change, and in separate actions

[3:29:42] for each of those topics.

[3:29:46] So, that is, that is in part correct.

[3:29:49] I believe that when we present the conforming rule making

[3:29:52] because there is not a lot of interpretation,

[3:29:55] well, excuse me, there's not any interpretation

[3:29:57] that needs to be done by the department.

[3:29:59] We present,

[3:30:00] As a package, and it's usually sort of routine business. I think for the commission, just sort of opening close those public hearings and move them through

[3:30:09] Caesarea or anyone else that is more familiar with kind of the fine tuning on that process could perhaps speak to it as well.

[3:30:18] But my understanding is you won't see these items as standalone policy discussions moving forward because they're conforming.

[3:30:26] All of the stuff that is larger where there is room for us to interpret, what has been adopted in statute. Yes, we, we, we are very sure to involve the commission in those conversations.

[3:30:38] I think I think I think I'm sorry. I should weigh in maybe I'm thinking of all those conforming rule of all of those that work that Gordon brought to us the litany of different things that he brought to us last year, so maybe that was something different.

[3:30:51] but just to be so I should be clear, then, what is the answer?

[3:30:55] Do we act on each separate language change or is it just a bundle, just curious?

[3:31:04] Chair, Vice Chair, hello, but we'll probably take them in bundles, similar to what we did last year,

[3:31:11] where we took some rural, some urban, some housing, and bundled them together.

[3:31:16] That's probably the way that we'll do it again this year.

[3:31:19] It'll just depend on which divisions are being affected by the rules.

[3:31:25] That's kind of how we spread it out.

[3:31:28] Thanks very much for the clarification.

[3:31:30] Appreciate that.

[3:31:31] As area.

[3:31:33] Okay.

[3:31:33] Any other comments or questions before we entertain a motion,

[3:31:43] seeing no hands up, we want to

[3:31:47] my colleagues if you're willing to offer an emotion?

[3:31:51] I moved the commission to adopt the conforming real making policy agenda for 2021 through 2023.

[3:31:59] Second, the motion.

[3:32:01] Thank you.

[3:32:01] We have a motion and a second.

[3:32:03] Esther, would you call for role?

[3:32:06] I.

[3:32:07] Hello, but.

[3:32:08] All right.

[3:32:09] Commissioner.

[3:32:10] Stand of all.

[3:32:11] All right.

[3:32:12] Commissioner.

[3:32:14] Jacobson.

[3:32:15] I.

[3:32:16] Commissioner.

[3:32:16] Lee Lack.

[3:32:19] Chair.

[3:32:19] card there. I and the motion passes unanimously with the commissioners present commissioner

[3:32:26] appear mine hasn't excused absence. Thanks everyone. So you're right, we might make up some time

[3:32:32] here or Sadie. So take it away for the next agenda item. All right, I'm happy to do so. Thank you.

[3:32:40] So the next agenda item is our legislative leave directed work. So these are items that

[3:32:47] requires the department to interpret recently adopted statute from a policy perspective before we can implement the legislation or they may require commitment of agency resources and or participation in in the process somewhere.

[3:33:03] for legislative lead directed work, DLCD staff,

[3:33:07] relies upon work groups, advisory committees,

[3:33:10] community engagement, public comment periods,

[3:33:13] and coordination with the Commission,

[3:33:16] citizen involvement advisory committee.

[3:33:19] And that helps us inform our work

[3:33:22] as we move towards implementation of these policy items.

[3:33:27] For this particular policy agenda,

[3:33:30] there are also some time sensitive items,

[3:33:32] I mentioned that at the front end of my presentation, included in the legislative leave-directed work,

[3:33:38] and this is one of the important reasons that we wanted to get this portion of the policy agenda

[3:33:43] in front of the commission today. In hopes that we could adopt it and the department could have

[3:33:50] commissioner comment and feedback on how we advance in this legislative leave-directed work.

[3:33:55] And I'll speak to that specifically when we get that particular element. But if any of you are thinking

[3:34:00] that it might be the wildfire on a bus legislation that Hummer discussed already taking place.

[3:34:07] You'd be right. So moving on from this slide,

[3:34:17] I think I've covered all of this.

[3:34:20] So again, you'll note a familiar theme here. Under climate and equity, package 90,

[3:34:29] Pop 1-11 and Pop 1-12, Palmer and Emma have spoken to the cops in their presentation, so I won't be addressing them specifically here.

[3:34:40] 7-62, Senate Bill 7-62, under wildfire and Pop 1-13, which is sort of sort of essential to the carrying out the work of 7-62.

[3:34:54] Under housing, House Bill 2160, 29-18.

[3:35:00] And 5,000, six, nothing under energy or resource lands. And finally, the under seat cables issue were for coastal.

[3:35:12] So we have talked of, well, you, you have discussed these at length and quite recently, me move on to my next slide. And I think we can be pretty high level in summary in our discussion. Again, if you do have any questions, feel free to bring them up now. And if I'm not able to answer them.

[3:35:31] then I know Palmer or Emma would be happy to you just talked about this. This is House Bill 2160,

[3:35:40] the Affordable Housing Pilot Project for the City of Pendleton. That Pendleton proposal will be

[3:35:46] submitted to the Commission by June 30 of 2023. And Chair McMurder, I think you were pretty close.

[3:35:54] I can't represent you or somebody else that said like 2017 for $479, I couldn't believe it. It's

[3:36:00] I couldn't believe I was that long ago, but that was then further amended you right by I think it was like 20, 2, 30, 6 or 23, 36, you know, 2 years later and here we are seeing it again.

[3:36:11] So I think the commission is right to sort of point to this is an issue that is becoming more of a routine planning practice of the legislature and something to be mindful of as we move forward.

[3:36:29] Next is the chair?

[3:36:31] Yes.

[3:36:33] I didn't know if you knew and is what percentage of that housing has to be affordable.

[3:36:40] Sort of, do you know?

[3:36:43] I don't know.

[3:36:44] I'm off the top of my head.

[3:36:47] I think in 2016, I probably had a fair idea,

[3:36:50] but we can certainly check into the requirements of the legislation back to you.

[3:36:55] Thank you.

[3:36:57] So if I might, this is Palmer, I think I can answer that question.

[3:37:00] A little city can confirm later if I'm correct.

[3:37:03] I think by sure, hello, it's about 30%.

[3:37:09] Yeah, it should be affordable housing.

[3:37:11] There are some other requirements in the rulemaking around the other

[3:37:16] development that happens, but I think it's roughly around 30 or 40%.

[3:37:21] Yeah, you think if it was called a affordable housing pilot project,

[3:37:24] could be 51 percent.

[3:37:27] That's a fair argument, yes.

[3:37:31] Otherwise, it's, yeah, market rate housing

[3:37:34] with a splash of affordable housing by the project.

[3:37:39] Well put.

[3:37:42] Any other questions or comments on House Bill 2160?

[3:37:49] All right, thank you, Vice Chair.

[3:37:51] Hello, Bob.

[3:37:51] So moving on to House Bill 2603, which is the undersea cables, sort of rulemaking and study.

[3:38:03] I don't pretend to know a lot about this issue, but I do know that it requires review of the territorial sea plan.

[3:38:10] Related to the placement of the undersea cables and that OPAC will make recommendations to the commission by September of 2023 on this issue.

[3:38:21] And that we have a staff position, I believe that's limited duration that comes along with the passage of this legislation.

[3:38:33] Okay, if I don't see any questions, we can move on to House Bill 2918, which is the surplus property issue requiring local governments to identify surplus properties of counties and cities, but then additionally requiring cities with surplus property to assess it for development of affordable housing.

[3:38:53] and charging DLCD with developing and maintaining an online database that's available to the public.

[3:39:00] And you know, that's a project that Rachel Smith is working on out of information services.

[3:39:05] So as always, I have a strong confidence in its success.

[3:39:13] And then, please, that's that one for a second.

[3:39:16] So, I know in commission meeting a couple of days ago, I sure hello, and I raised some

[3:39:25] thoughts.

[3:39:26] I had some thoughts about this, and maybe it wasn't fully that context, maybe it was something else.

[3:39:30] But the idea of, I know that there is a prescription, the kind of data is prescribed that has to be reported on.

[3:39:37] the idea of putting additional information that might be useful as it's used to use it in a

[3:39:46] right way. We've talked a little bit about that. Do you want to elaborate on what your thoughts

[3:39:50] were about this year?

[3:39:54] Yeah, I mean, one of the things we talked about was this climate-friendly

[3:40:00] I'm blanking on the term areas. Is that right? Climate-friendly areas.

[3:40:05] And maybe there's like, you know, if you have different criteria, one of them is this in a climate-friendly area.

[3:40:12] And just making sure to link it to transportation and climate goals, not that they just kind of exist as sites that don't have any layers to other things that we're working on if that makes sense.

[3:40:26] So I think that was a question, and then also to get some insight, I believe in California, they have a whole division dedicated to doing this type of work. And so maybe getting some insight from other other government agencies on things that they wish they had or didn't have, you know, we're starting this scratch gives us an ability to kind of collect really good data and to do it, do it right.

[3:40:55] Thank you, Chair MacArthur, and Vice Chair Holova.

[3:40:57] My understanding is that based on your comments, staff is aware of those issues and planning to sort of take them into consideration as we implement this work.

[3:41:08] So I appreciate you bringing it up.

[3:41:11] Yeah, and something I just thought of, I was thinking of this after Director Ruth was saying something I thought of more thoughts.

[3:41:17] And you know, I wanted to bring this up again, one of the reasons I believe that some certain sites, let's say dedicated to affordable housing that I've seen haven't been built out so their full density have been because of limitations and funding.

[3:41:31] And desire to kind of distribute that funding across either different sites, different communities, different developed, you know, affordable housing developers, whatever the case may be.

[3:41:39] And I know those are very complex and I'm not even going to pretend to comment on that process,

[3:41:46] but it appears that there should be some sort of layering that says we're going to prioritize

[3:41:54] building out max density in these affordable housing sites in climate-friendly areas, but

[3:42:00] obviously that has to be paired with the money to actually make it happen. You can't say build out your

[3:42:05] and then nobody's there to fill the gap for that money.

[3:42:09] So that could be a potential linkage between these kind of surplus

[3:42:13] properties that are in climate-friendly areas

[3:42:16] that the funding could be paired with that to max out the density,

[3:42:19] kind of hit all those different points.

[3:42:23] Thank you.

[3:42:25] Deputy Director Green had a comment and then Commissioner Lee Lack.

[3:42:30] Thanks.

[3:42:30] I think Sadie actually answered it, but my hand down really quick, but to Vice Chair's current point here about the coordination Rachel Smith, kind of vice CIO and information resources manager is heading up this data project, but as we know it's a lot more than data.

[3:42:54] So, she knows that Vice-Chair Helova has agreed to take a look at this at the Criterate

[3:43:01] Early on that we're looking at with Ethan and Gordon, and then also Vice-Chair to loop

[3:43:07] in that contact from the State of California to Oxford for advice.

[3:43:10] So, thank you for your guidance on this.

[3:43:12] It is so incredibly important as an opportunity,

[3:43:20] the maxing out of the density I've been

[3:43:22] You've brought up earlier to have an emailing with Gordon and Kevin on that as well, so I don't know if they're listening. I don't see them on the call right now, but we'll continue to follow up that is a sort of a housing production strategy linked to this policy if and as we're able. Thank you.

[3:43:37] James Kirsten, Commissioner Lee Lack?

[3:43:40] I thank you. And I so I assume, Chairman Carter, I assume that the requires local

[3:43:44] governments to identify surplus property by recall correctly. This refers to publicly owned

[3:43:49] property. So the surplus property is, and I've seen Sadie Saker had confirmed me not,

[3:43:54] which is great. I think it's just going to be very important to have property managers,

[3:44:00] like county property managers involved in this. Just because there are a lot of different

[3:44:05] classifications of what property is. Some of those that are in tax foreclosure are designated

[3:44:11] differently than those that local governments have acquired through other means and maybe utilize

[3:44:16] different purposes and I know we're always coordinating with our legal council on. How do we

[3:44:21] classify it? What is it designated for? And then just so that we're clear and for local governments

[3:44:26] can make sure that we're providing the correct information for the database going forward. That's

[3:44:33] kind of one piece, the other piece, just with maximizing density, gosh, Mr.

[3:44:37] or Vice Chair, Halibut.

[3:44:38] And that is such an important issue.

[3:44:39] I've worked in so many places where the best projects are proposed and I'll just say

[3:44:43] that they're just beaten down by the neighbors, the local government, acquiesces, and they're

[3:44:48] all underbuilt.

[3:44:51] And yeah, it's just such a big issue.

[3:44:54] I appreciate your raising in.

[3:44:55] Thanks.

[3:44:56] These are excellent points, Nick, about who to engage the local.

[3:45:00] I'd love to get the right information, so very much appreciate that input. Commissioner Jacobson.

[3:45:07] Yeah, well, my first comment was going to be what Commissioner Lee Lack just said about including

[3:45:13] property managers for local jurisdictions, and both looking at this and reading the material provided.

[3:45:20] Is this including tax for closed property?

[3:45:26] So, if I might share a MacArthur, this is Palmer, I may be able to answer that.

[3:45:33] So, the bill is specific about what surplus property is.

[3:45:38] It's a piece of property in which the local government holds title through a deed or another legal instrument.

[3:45:46] So, that wouldn't involve, for instance, leases or even options to buy.

[3:45:51] those kind of things. It's actually where the real property is held through, like I say,

[3:45:57] a V, or other legal instrument, tax foreclosed. That's really beyond my understanding. Perhaps

[3:46:02] Steve Shift, you could answer that. I don't know in those pieces that the local governments,

[3:46:07] I think there's a process for the local government takes title to the property. It doesn't happen

[3:46:12] automatically. So I may depend on where the property is in the process.

[3:46:18] Yeah, that's it. Thank you. That helps. It's about a seven-year process from when you stop

[3:46:21] paying taxes. So when we would take title, but we do eventually take titles. So that it sounds like

[3:46:27] this actually could include that. It'd be curious what Steve's thought as well.

[3:46:34] But

[3:46:34] if it does include tax for closures, then I mean, all the more important to get local property managers

[3:46:42] involved. And I would say that there's a lot of rules we have to follow around text for closed

[3:46:48] property already. We can't add value to the property, for example. Also, I don't know how all

[3:46:56] county departments work, but a lot of them work. The only money we have to clean up properties,

[3:47:02] because a lot of properties we get are environmental hazards, they have tires, they have a

[3:47:11] removed. The only way we have those monies to clean up those properties is by selling other properties.

[3:47:20] And so it's kind of a self-generating revenue in order for that department to be able to keep cleaning things up.

[3:47:28] So, it's tricky to have to necessarily put all that into a affordable housing or taking it off our inventory potentially because that's how we're able to clean property up.

[3:47:38] And we've had some doosies in this county as well that we've had to deal with tax

[3:47:43] for closed junkyards and that kind of stuff, which have just been nightmares.

[3:47:48] This additional thing I just wanted a little bit into the weeds, but I think it's something

[3:47:52] that's actually aware of is the big issue with tax for closed property that we've had

[3:47:58] recently and we've gifted the last year several available lots to some nonprofit partners

[3:48:06] to do affordable housing, there's very specific reasons you can give tax for a post property

[3:48:11] away.

[3:48:12] But affordable housing is one of those reasons, and we have done that very recently.

[3:48:17] A couple of them went to habitat for humanity and all of those entities as well as private

[3:48:24] buyers are having a very difficult time with title insurance.

[3:48:28] To the point that habitat is at this point not able to actually build on those, because

[3:48:34] title insurance problems. So just to note that sounds really great, but there is kind of some

[3:48:41] stuff in the weeds that needs to be worked through, I guess.

[3:48:49] Yeah, all good points. It makes me

[3:48:52] why the question comes to my mind then, with this inventory, is it just a point in time inventory

[3:48:59] or is it a living one where in fact new information becomes available and somebody in two years

[3:49:07] now would be able to know the current status of various properties? Do you know the answer that

[3:49:12] Palmer? Tom is a very good question, Chair McArthur, and as you point out it builds on the questions

[3:49:19] by the other commissioners, we have some discretion to sort through that. The legislation is pretty

[3:49:27] broad or maybe not broad at the right way where it gives the department a lot of discretion

[3:49:32] to decide what the template looks like that goes out to local garments when they submit an

[3:49:40] identify information around these surplus properties and it doesn't say that the database

[3:49:46] should be updated but I think that's implied because every couple years we send this request

[3:49:55] out or actually rather the burden is on the government's, but we'll vote for the government's,

[3:49:59] rather, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or.

[3:50:00] So, provide us information on, like, a two-year cycle to the on annual cycle, and then we

[3:50:07] report to the legislative transfer to your cycle and remembering the bill that are now as I speak.

[3:50:11] But it allows for the opportunity for updating, and we can make this a form that's very

[3:50:20] sparse, and has just a few key details, or we can make it more detailed. And the one thing I will

[3:50:26] say is that the legislation is very clear that a department is not going to do any independent

[3:50:31] verification of the information. We are relying on the honor system. So whatever local

[3:50:35] governments provide to us, we're going to assume that face value is correct. And the reason we

[3:50:42] wrote the legislation that way is that those sponsors intent was not to have a database that was

[3:50:51] certainly the most robust, but as you said, Chair McArthur, it was a starting point to allow people interested in acquiring that property to go to the county or the city and have a discussion.

[3:51:04] Around whether it made sense to be gifted that property or for them to purchase it from the local government.

[3:51:10] And in that conversation, they could talk about things like clean up and do diligence and title insurance and all that could be part of the negotiation around the property.

[3:51:18] So we were really kind of, this database is a clearing house, a place for people to look because we made it easy. It's all in one place. But the level of data is something we control barren mind though. We're going to rely on the honor system for for that data.

[3:51:36] Very helpful Palmer. Thank you.

[3:51:39] any other commissioners have questions about 2019?

[3:51:46] Not seeing any hands.

[3:51:48] Sadie, you can move on. All right. Thank you, Chair MacArthur.

[3:51:52] Something against my slide here.

[3:51:56] There we go. You've already talked quite a bit about this piece

[3:52:00] of legislation. Senate Bill 762 is the world for omnibus legislation for the state of Oregon.

[3:52:06] It requires a lot of coordination between the agencies that are included and probably some

[3:52:16] coordination with agencies that are not specifically named in the bill.

[3:52:21] DLCDE is required in the legislation to provide .15FTE, so that's six hours a week, to support

[3:52:28] the new wildfire advisory council and state wildfire program director out of the governor's

[3:52:33] office.

[3:52:34] DLCD also got one new permanent FTE to support the wildfire work, and I think we anticipate hiring someone to that position in fall, late fall, perhaps of 2021.

[3:52:49] And then by October 1st, 2022, DLCD is required to report to the legislature on the elements that are in the bill,

[3:53:01] which I can sort of read through again,

[3:53:03] if it would be helpful to remind folks

[3:53:06] that the places where the statewide land

[3:53:09] is planning program and local comprehensive plans

[3:53:12] and zoning codes need update in order to coordinate

[3:53:16] a wildfire risk map and minimize wildfire risk.

[3:53:20] And as Palmer pointed out in the discussion earlier,

[3:53:24] it also asks DLCD to report on the appropriate level

[3:53:28] of state and local resources,

[3:53:29] is so funding needed for effective implementation.

[3:53:32] So state would be, you know,

[3:53:34] if we needed additional staff at DLCD

[3:53:37] to support local governments implementing this.

[3:53:40] But it certainly is a high priority item.

[3:53:42] I think for the state and for the legislature this past session.

[3:53:49] And that is, I think, let me just check my notes here

[3:53:52] to make sure I didn't miss anything.

[3:53:56] No, I do, I will say that in a coordination meeting

[3:54:01] a few weeks ago, we know the commission will get several updates on this and we think that perhaps

[3:54:08] as early as July, next year, so a year from now, you would be seeing a draft version of this

[3:54:14] report to the legislature, because before it goes to them, we of course want your input,

[3:54:19] but then in addition to that, we will need to do a public process and then coordinate with the

[3:54:25] wildfire programs director, that position is tasked with sort of overall implementation of all the

[3:54:32] different elements in Senate Bill 762. So a big job. Any questions on this?

[3:54:44] I don't see anyone with their hand up, say hi.

[3:54:50] I'm going to talk to you pretty extensively about package 90, which is focused on rural transportation

[3:54:57] and equity, DLCD received one note.

[3:55:00] and dollars to support this work, and that is a position and then also local grant funding to help identify equity

[3:55:10] driven strategies that will increase the possibility of smaller communities around Oregon receiving

[3:55:16] O. Grant funds through their funding cycles with an emphasis on transportation choices and in particular active modes.

[3:55:24] So that would be cycling, cycling, walking, and accessing transit, as opposed to using

[3:55:32] the vehicles to travel.

[3:55:36] And then finally, one for just one second, I'm sorry.

[3:55:42] So is there anything in the legislation that sort of directs or suggests and activities in

[3:55:49] the part of ODOT for this?

[3:55:50] I mean, I'm just curious because I mean, if the way it reads is that we get money to help locals apply for a fellow state agency dollars and which I think it's great, that's wonderful, but if the other state agency isn't sort of compelled to act on those in a certain way, how does that work?

[3:56:12] I'm not sure. I have the answer for you, Chair MacArthur, but perhaps someone else could speak to that.

[3:56:18] Did you term a curther?

[3:56:20] Please.

[3:56:21] If you don't mind.

[3:56:22] So, Kirsten Green here.

[3:56:26] This was, this concept was developed in, in, in absolute partnership with ODOT.

[3:56:31] And I'm at a piece in the climate office.

[3:56:34] And Karen, Chris Will, who leaves the active transportation program there.

[3:56:38] So, they're parallel professionals over ODOT leading large groups of staff and large amounts of funding.

[3:56:43] So the governors, this actually was just a note in the governor's budget, it was half a sentence, I think, and came from the racial justice council without any definition, so we floated a few concepts around work with the mayor and the streeter in the governor's office and asked the local planners, community base organizations and others about what would be beneficial for real transportation equity, we started out actually looking as well at green at electrification.

[3:57:13] But since there's so much activity on that we really landed on this idea, since ODOT is the main funder, you know, carries the bulk of the funds for any investment in state transportation,

[3:57:27] that, and folks in, you know, planners and, and lack of planners city administrators and others in rural Oregon, don't necessarily have the capacity to be accessing ODOT dollars all the time and particularly with kind of new protocols around equity engagement and safety.

[3:57:43] We created this idea together and it will be the idea that this staff personal will be housed in the

[3:57:51] in the transportation and growth management program, which is co-managed with ODOT.

[3:57:55] So thanks for the question.

[3:57:56] It's probably enough for now.

[3:57:58] Yeah.

[3:57:58] Very much.

[3:57:59] I appreciate the answer.

[3:58:00] Commissioner Sondival, you have your hand up.

[3:58:07] You might be unneed.

[3:58:10] Yeah.

[3:58:10] I works.

[3:58:11] Thank you.

[3:58:13] So a lot of, when I think about rural equity and related to racial kind of justice issues,

[3:58:21] I think about public transportation and a lot of rural communities don't even have public transportation systems.

[3:58:29] So I wonder what would be other ways of kind of operationalizing racial justice?

[3:58:35] I understand the process and outreach, but it's there. Is there other tangible ways of how this is going to be operationalized?

[3:58:49] Chair McArthur.

[3:58:51] Chair McArthur.

[3:58:51] Commissioner Sandewell, thanks for the question.

[3:58:55] So, as I was talking to a planner who we all know in respect in Baker County, has very initially tried to

[3:59:05] this term means for people what it could mean. She described a gap in a sidewalk that was

[3:59:11] leading to a social services building that she has seen people mothers and strollers trying

[3:59:17] to reach in this local estate highway. So just gaps inside walks even commissioner sandables are

[3:59:23] getting and getting in line for funding, you know, odots and federal highway funding to, you know,

[3:59:29] federal funding to to close those walking and biking, safe routes, gaps to the people can access,

[3:59:34] You know folks experiencing low income or disabilities can access services that they need without having to get into a car.

[3:59:42] I hope that helps in with the recognition of course that there really isn't transit most of our active, you know, regular routes and most of our Oregon.

[3:59:51] Help that help.

[3:59:52] So something like, something like safe routes to schools.

[3:59:56] Yes.

[3:59:56] So, okay.

[3:59:58] Yes.

[4:00:00] I see the analogy.

[4:00:03] Thank you. Any other questions about this one before say it goes on to the final. I think the final topic.

[4:00:11] Commissioner Jacobson.

[4:00:12] Commissioner Jacobson.

[4:00:13] Thanks. Just to kind of bridge two things together.

[4:00:19] And also, because this is about climate inequity.

[4:00:22] And as we've talked previously, both in this meeting and in other meetings that as we go through climate change,

[4:00:27] we're going to see different types of disturbances, including, you know, more fire and more intense fire

[4:00:32] as one example,

[4:00:36] you know, I think as you look at rural transportation equity, you need to also

[4:00:40] start looking at that through a disaster mitigation perspective as well. For example, we had our

[4:00:50] echo mountain fire up in Otis about a year ago from now getting people out of that community,

[4:00:57] which is not part of our rural transportation infrastructure. Lincoln City has been out of

[4:01:02] This was incredibly difficult, because many people did not have working vehicles and everybody

[4:01:06] had more people living on their property or their family and fit.

[4:01:10] And the vehicle or didn't have gas money or those types of things, so there was just

[4:01:16] a lot of issues.

[4:01:17] There was also issues with transporting people that were on hospice care and needed not just wheelchair

[4:01:23] accessible, but accessible lands and those kinds of things.

[4:01:27] And so I just would say that I think you also need to think about the type of emergencies

[4:01:33] that we're likely going to be dealing with here as we go forward and there certainly

[4:01:39] is a lot of gaps in the sidewalk, so to speak, metaphorical gaps in the sidewalk when

[4:01:47] we go through those issues.

[4:01:49] Really excellent points.

[4:01:51] I was wondering if some of those topics could be taken up in the wildlife or wildlife

[4:01:56] your work. We have a coordinator and these are just really valuable questions and in suggestions.

[4:02:05] So I don't think it's underna- and may be very well-being a portion of this, but I think it goes across

[4:02:10] this particular funding source and perhaps as in other parts of our work program.

[4:02:18] I'm curious if I may just acknowledge Commissioner J. Constance Point.

[4:02:22] Um, that was actually one of the, one of the issues that, um, Amanda Peats, who was climate

[4:02:29] office director of Nauvin elevated ODOT, um, main ideas for this funding actually was disaster

[4:02:35] evacuation routes because it was coming so close after the fires and Karen, Chris, Karen,

[4:02:41] the, our other partner in this that ODOT kind of oversees the bus, um, the state transportation

[4:02:47] funds for a real transportation infrastructure. It was notable how the deployment of even buses

[4:02:54] through the aftermath of the fires was critical. So I just wanted to let you know that Odot

[4:03:01] is really interested in this well. Thanks for bringing it up. I grabbed my folder and made your note.

[4:03:06] So as we head into sloping this position in the work program in the coming weeks,

[4:03:10] you've helped us bring that back to the fourth. Thank you.

[4:03:13] Thanks, Kirsten.

[4:03:17] Okay, and next, take it away, Sadie.

[4:03:21] Next time.

[4:03:22] Thank you, Commissioner Jacobson, for those comments.

[4:03:24] And I will say, safe evacuation is specifically called out in Senate Bill 762 as an issue for DLC to DLCD to look at and report on to the legislatures.

[4:03:35] So I think there's definitely some crossover and an access there.

[4:03:40] I really appreciate the comments.

[4:03:42] Finally, we have House Bill 5,06, which is the end-of-session budget bill, came to us with some funding for regional housing needs analysis.

[4:03:57] $1.3 million in funding to support the work, including one full-time employee, and the work addresses

[4:04:06] housing needs projections related to priority populations and has Yale CD working in partnership

[4:04:13] with Oregon Housing and Community Services.

[4:04:18] Any questions that I'm about to give you back an hour

[4:04:21] And you're gay.

[4:04:24] That teaser.

[4:04:30] And I'm also happy before or after the motion to take any questions about next steps

[4:04:38] or the public involvement process, commissioner involvement process, kind of what we do

[4:04:44] from here in terms of shaping the policy agenda and what opportunities are there.

[4:04:49] But again, this is coming to you as kind of a full draft

[4:04:54] in September.

[4:04:56] When I think we will have a more robust conversation

[4:04:59] week.

[4:05:00] There will be a lot of ideas, a lot more ideas that will be soliciting your input on.

[4:05:06] Yeah, and I think I'd like to have that conversation then once we kind of frame it.

[4:05:12] So, I don't see any other hands up on this. And so I think you've covered all the items. Thank you for moving to the motion.

[4:05:22] I believe I see Commissioner Lee Lackford, his hand up, heard my introduction chair. Thank you.

[4:05:27] Yeah, thank you, Chair MacArthur, so I was just going to ask in terms of preparing for the September policy agenda discussion.

[4:05:35] I don't want to say to you, but the organization began to reach out to stakeholder organizations and people involved.

[4:05:44] Does that whole process begin soon to gather public input or LLC or AOC or all the different community-based organizations or all kinds of feedback?

[4:05:57] Does that process begin soon for the September discussion, or does that happen before the November discussion?

[4:06:03] Thank you for the question, Chairman Carter, Commissioner Lee Lack, we have kind of an official window when we are really pushing out the information and that starts right after the next commission meeting when we have solicited your feedback and gotten the kind of a first round of public comment.

[4:06:22] So the 27th of September to the 14th of October.

[4:06:26] But the materials that will be included in the September staff report

[4:06:32] are available online two weeks in advance.

[4:06:34] That's usually what leads to that first round of public comment.

[4:06:38] So it's not unusual for us when presenting

[4:06:41] to commission with this kind of full draft policy agenda

[4:06:45] to have already received letters of comment

[4:06:49] and to receive some spoken public comment

[4:06:52] on the item at that time, you know, and then we'll take commissioner feedback on the items

[4:06:58] there in and we'll of course continue to welcome that throughout the process. But then from the

[4:07:04] the 27th of September to the 14th of October, we sit down in advance of those states with our

[4:07:11] citizen involvement advisory committee review our outreach plan with them asked that they

[4:07:16] form and improve our outreach plan if they have any new ideas. And then we sort of get that

[4:07:23] information in front of the people, the community-based organizations, the membership organizations,

[4:07:32] like the Farm Bureau and AOC and LOC, all these different groups that we know have an interest

[4:07:40] in the work and outcomes. And I feel like that group gets broader as our work seems to take

[4:07:47] a shift away from resource lands focused to really begin to address some of the urbanization

[4:07:54] issues. So I would not be surprised to see pretty robust public comment on our policy agenda.

[4:08:02] And that's one of the reasons that we have the public comment window closing on the

[4:08:09] 14th of October is so we have time to incorporate it into the staff report and the policy agenda, as we move forward for commission adoption in November.

[4:08:21] Any follow up questions, Nick.

[4:08:26] And from, do you know, so, so unlike the conforming rule making where here's the language department make that language work.

[4:08:35] we know that. Unlike that, the legislative, we directed policy agenda. I'm assuming that some

[4:08:43] of that work requires racks, is that correct? It was a volunteer committee and it's so

[4:08:49] how many or am I wrong about that?

[4:08:54] I'm just going to look over and I guess the reason I ask

[4:09:00] is to really kind of understand more commissionally

[4:09:04] lacks question and point at that if in fact some of that work

[4:09:07] requires a rule committee then that would all in addition to

[4:09:12] everything you've described in terms of outreach on the broad

[4:09:14] priorities and how we spend our time there would be other

[4:09:18] opportunities to include a broader array of stakeholders in the

[4:09:22] actual process of evolving the language.

[4:09:26] Thank you for the question, Chair MacArthur.

[4:09:29] You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only piece of legislation in the legislative

[4:09:37] way directed policy work this time that requires an advisory committee is the undersea

[4:09:43] cables and that advisory committee will be open.

[4:09:47] The other items we may, I don't think that the surplus properties because it is a database

[4:09:55] will require an advisory committee in its creation.

[4:10:00] One that I would be a little fuzzy on because House Bill 2160, which is the city of Pendleton's UGB expansion, is pretty prescribed.

[4:10:13] It does require work and presentation to the commission, but there's not a lot of interpretation for us to do with staff.

[4:10:20] And then finally, 762, the omnibus wildfire legislation, again, that's something that we will include a lot of public feedback and engagement in our process of developing the report that will be submitted to the legislature and we will bring it to the commission.

[4:10:39] But it's not a rule-making practice, and there's no rules that will be promulgated, and so we can sort of inform you on the process, but it won't use an advisory committee.

[4:10:52] Yeah, this is Palmer, I might add, I think CED is correct about everything she said.

[4:10:58] I would say with the House Bill 2019, so that's the surplus landfill.

[4:11:04] I think we might as we develop the template, ask AOC and LSE and maybe you said Commissioner

[4:11:10] Lee Lack, there's maybe a property manager's association.

[4:11:13] We might reach out to some of those groups just to get some input, but it won't be a rule-making

[4:11:19] process.

[4:11:20] And then cities right on Senate Bill 762, there will certainly be a lot of public comment and stakeholder engagement.

[4:11:28] We don't know yet where that will be, won't be a rule-making advisory committee, but we might put together some groups of technical experts to think about how wildfire risk mapping could get integrated into land use planning, as well as a group of more policy oriented representatives from the different groups.

[4:11:49] and the different organizations that have an interest,

[4:11:53] but we are still scoping that project out.

[4:11:57] That's helpful.

[4:11:59] And so when the poll of the large policy agenda

[4:12:03] comes back to us for consideration,

[4:12:07] initially in September with proposed adoption November,

[4:12:10] I think in the past, staff has done a nice job

[4:12:13] of describing who column describing the amount of time

[4:12:18] that our energy and resource is really that are needed for each of these efforts.

[4:12:23] I don't know if you'll be at that point at that time.

[4:12:26] But also maybe adds a little description of just like what you've said,

[4:12:30] some rise kind of the point you've said about the public outreach or engagement,

[4:12:33] whatever that might be for right size, obviously, for the effort.

[4:12:37] So that we are able to see that I think it's useful,

[4:12:42] especially as we're thinking about equity and other kinds of things

[4:12:44] to understand what processes are being used to engage folks in what kinds of topics.

[4:12:55] That's great.

[4:12:55] Yes, I think that the chart that we've used or table and we usually have a couple different

[4:13:01] charts, more of a timeline, a game chart, and then we kind of have a more narrative-based

[4:13:06] chart.

[4:13:07] That information will be on there, including also what key staff will be focused on each of these

[4:13:16] initiatives, whether that's conforming role making legislative directed or on agency initiatives.

[4:13:24] Great. Thank you. Appreciate that. So it brings us back unless there are any other

[4:13:28] commission questions that brings us back to the motion and someone is going to offer that motion

[4:13:38] up and perhaps get a second we can move on. Sure. I'm happy to make the motion. Thank you.

[4:13:45] I move the commission to approve the placement of the Legislative Related Policy

[4:13:50] items under the 2021-2021-23 policy agenda.

[4:13:58] Thank you, a second.

[4:14:01] A second.

[4:14:03] Thanks, Vice Chair.

[4:14:04] Hello, a second in the motion, made by Commissioner Lee Lack.

[4:14:09] Esther, would you call the roll?

[4:14:13] Yes.

[4:14:14] Commissioner, sand of all.

[4:14:17] Commissioner Warren.

[4:14:20] I. Commissioner Jacobson.

[4:14:27] Maybe I'm mute.

[4:14:32] Sorry about that. I had a rogue mouth.

[4:14:34] I. Commissioner Lee Lack.

[4:14:37] I.

[4:14:38] Vice chair.

[4:14:39] Hello.

[4:14:40] Hi.

[4:14:41] Chair McArthur.

[4:14:42] I.

[4:14:43] Thank you.

[4:14:44] Esther.

[4:14:44] The motion passes unanimously with commissioner's presence.

[4:14:48] And commissioner.

[4:14:49] Paramine has an excuse of absence.

[4:14:52] Thank you, Sadie. Excellent job. Nice summary. And the whole team. Really good work. Thank you, Chair.

[4:14:58] MacArthur, I look forward.

[4:15:02] So,

[4:15:05] we have a little bit of time. I had initially, I was texting staff to see if we can move up to days, agenda items, so that we can end a little earlier today. That's not going to work relative to some other constraints.

[4:15:18] So, I think we're going to go ahead and put the commission business topic, which is item number 10.

[4:15:25] And we'll just move to that. That was originally scheduled for tomorrow morning. Then what that means is we would start the climate work at 830 and give us more time for that.

[4:15:35] Um, rather than start at nine. So, uh, we'll move commission business for now.

[4:15:42] Reef time. And then I think we'll be back on schedule.

[4:15:47] So thanks everyone who texted me with your thoughts about how to do that. I appreciate it.

[4:15:52] So commission business. Uh, important thing to focus on first is the, um, the budget and

[4:16:00] management subcommittee report, which is attached to that agenda item.

[4:16:07] And Carol Bovett has a much deserved date off today,

[4:16:11] normally you're used to seeing her, but we have her very

[4:16:14] competent assistant, and that's for sure.

[4:16:19] So I am just going to turn it over to you if I should make sure

[4:16:24] you're ready because we did kind of switch things around.

[4:16:26] I think you were alerted to this change.

[4:16:28] I am ready.

[4:16:31] Well, Corbot, take it away.

[4:16:32] Thank you.

[4:16:33] Excuse me.

[4:16:34] I'm sorry.

[4:16:34] This is Mr. Chairman Carthor.

[4:16:36] I just wanted to add that we do not have public comment for agenda items.

[4:16:41] Six and seven.

[4:16:43] Great.

[4:16:43] Thank you.

[4:16:44] I didn't see that on my list.

[4:16:45] I should have asked you.

[4:16:46] Okay.

[4:16:46] Thank you.

[4:16:47] Thank you.

[4:16:50] Well, thank you, Chair.

[4:16:51] My Carthor, Vice Chair.

[4:16:52] And the rest of the commissioners is really nice.

[4:16:55] I'm happy to get a chance to see you kind of face to face and get a chance to present to you today in Carol's absence.

[4:17:03] Since I haven't done this before, I'm not exactly sure on the process. So Esther, I'm going to ask you, should I share my screen with the budget or you're going to.

[4:17:10] Okay, thank you.

[4:17:14] We did present a few days ago to the subcommittee and Vice Chair Helova asked for a couple things.

[4:17:22] one is just table you see before you just to show you the vacancies we have. Earlier you can see one is filled our human resources analyst and tailoring him at earlier.

[4:17:35] She's going to have her hands full the next few months. So these are the positions we currently have open sorted out into positions that we're already existing.

[4:17:44] And the new positions that we received during the biennium that we've had a lot of information presenting on already today.

[4:17:54] So seven, it's equally divided, seven in each category of existing and news.

[4:17:58] We have four of those currently posted and the management has come up with pretty aggressive but doable schedule to try and get these filled over the next two to three months.

[4:18:11] Is there any questions in the matter if we can go to the next slide on the budget?

[4:18:14] I think you can move on.

[4:18:20] Oh, I'm sorry, Michelle.

[4:18:21] This is Esther.

[4:18:22] Is it safe?

[4:18:23] Yes.

[4:18:24] OK.

[4:18:24] Should I put pull up the budget report?

[4:18:27] That would be great.

[4:18:28] Thank you.

[4:18:30] This is going to stop.

[4:18:35] OK.

[4:18:36] So again, you've seen a lot of this information presented here.

[4:18:40] It's a very quick table showing the different bills.

[4:18:45] We've got four different bills that are funding us this by NM.

[4:18:48] Our usual budget bill, the so-called Christmas tree bill that gave us quite a bit of extra money in general funds mostly for grants and a couple of positions.

[4:19:00] One permanent and one limited duration to help manage a lot of that grant money coming in.

[4:19:06] And then our two smaller bills, the undersea cable bill and the IT IT project to come up with a system to track

[4:19:16] state agencies, a surplus real property.

[4:19:19] So that did not come with a position,

[4:19:21] but came with some funding to build that.

[4:19:23] And as of this morning,

[4:19:24] that had not been signed by the governor yet.

[4:19:28] And the reason I bring that up is as the next piece,

[4:19:32] by Shera Hlovo was asking about kind of a breakout

[4:19:35] of the programs and operational versus different kinds

[4:19:39] of breakouts pictorially,

[4:19:41] hopefully maybe in some pie charts.

[4:19:43] And we are now in the process

[4:19:45] over the next couple of weeks of taking all these little line items that make up this funding

[4:19:50] and entering it into the state budget system so that we have our reporting structure in place

[4:19:56] for the state level. So we will be presenting some...

[4:20:00] More detailed information after we have that entered and all reconciled in the September meeting.

[4:20:07] And then Carol put together this really nice table here for the past few biannians showing you

[4:20:13] the funds and the positions as they've gone up and down over time. So you can see we've not really doubled in the past 10 years, but getting close to that.

[4:20:26] And a good five plus million more than last by NM, which would be about a between 15, 18% increase,

[4:20:34] with some more positions, some are LD, couple of permanent, and the big celebration of getting

[4:20:39] all those housing LD positions permanent now.

[4:20:45] Another breakout of the policy option packages that

[4:20:47] have been discussed today with their amounts and the positions that come with them. And a little bit

[4:20:54] information on the undersea cable project and the development of that tracker for the real property,

[4:21:04] surplus real property. And then here is the little is a very high level breakout of our funds

[4:21:10] we received in that end of session or Christmas tree bill.

[4:21:16] So you've seen all this information presented.

[4:21:17] This is just a super compact way. We'll be getting you some more details so you can see that

[4:21:23] September and I'm open for any questions, anybody has any?

[4:21:29] Thank you, Rachelle. Questions?

[4:21:35] I don't see any hands up, partly because Jim talked about it, and then we talked about it again under the legislative piece.

[4:21:44] So I think commissioners have said a lot, and I want to thank you for jumping in and taking this for Carol,

[4:21:54] But also for the effort that you and Carol went through over the past year to sort of keep the lights on at the agency given the huge budget cuts that we had faced and had to make as of last September October, I understand you and Carol worked really hard to make sure that we did as little as possible did as much as possible on reducing funds and other categories to support staff.

[4:22:21] And so thanks for that effort.

[4:22:23] And then now we're in this wonderful situation

[4:22:25] where perhaps you can build things up a little bit.

[4:22:28] So I know it's, you don't often thank the budget folks,

[4:22:31] but they don't want to do their magic behind the scenes.

[4:22:33] So thank you.

[4:22:34] We like being in the background anyway, sir.

[4:22:37] Thank you all for your work and thanks

[4:22:38] for the opportunity to present today.

[4:22:41] Great.

[4:22:42] Well, having no more questions, we want to thank you for that.

[4:22:47] And under Commission Business, I wanted to mention,

[4:22:50] I think I've mentioned it before, but reiterate that your mind's last commission meeting is

[4:22:57] in September, you really hope to have that meeting in person for a lot of reasons, but for

[4:23:02] one reason we could actually celebrate her in person, which would be nice. And I know that Jim and

[4:23:09] others are working on finding the right person to take her place on the commission and fill out

[4:23:16] that complementive of kind of interest in responsibilities that she currently brings.

[4:23:22] So I don't know if you have anything to add to that jam on what's happening or not, but.

[4:23:28] Not a lot, just a little bit.

[4:23:32] Excuse me.

[4:23:35] We've tried to have a alignment valley farmer represented.

[4:23:43] Katie was not exactly that because she doesn't live on the farm anymore, but she came out

[4:23:52] of Department of Ag. She's worked in food systems, and she comes from a very well-established,

[4:23:59] multi-generational family farm in the Jervus Woodburn area. And so my real focus is to try to find

[4:24:09] somebody who is a working farmer. We haven't had that directly represented for a little while

[4:24:18] and it's a critical part of the program and so I continue to look and I'm going to be in touch

[4:24:24] with Department of Ag and others. I have a couple of ideas but my first idea was rendered unavailable

[4:24:35] last week and so I'm just going to keep poking around.

[4:24:40] Thanks, Jim, appreciate that.

[4:24:42] And if I may, I know Esther's in charge of all of this, but since we are running 50-ish minutes

[4:24:51] early. I wonder if John could do his presentation before we move to the house.

[4:25:02] Well, I think we, I could certainly talk to Esther. I was texting her about that I think we're going to be on schedule and take our break between two, oh, no, we're not two, three, it's not only two. Well, I don't think can we start, John. You're thinking, starting, haven't been finishing up later?

[4:25:19] Well, I don't know. I know that the city of Sandy is time-bound, but since you had spent

[4:25:27] a fair bit of time talking about the wildfire rulemaking, I was wondering if we could possibly

[4:25:35] squeeze it in before picking up the city of Sandy at 245. I mean, we're 15 minutes early.

[4:25:43] You're yes totally get that and that would be delight if John. I see his his wolf or his a bear there

[4:25:52] That could speak to us. I think that's his up. This is what it's a dog

[4:25:59] I am here just give me give me give me like 30 seconds if that's okay

[4:26:06] Yes, you have 30 seconds and Jim's gonna tell jokes. No, I thought that was a bear. That is a huge dog

[4:26:14] Good chair, my car.

[4:26:16] With the scheduled break at 230 and City of Sandy scheduled for 245, we would have about 30 minutes for John to present perhaps half of his presentation, or if if it's a timely presentation, perhaps we can finish it in 30 minutes.

[4:26:40] That's, that's going to be a challenge to John. So let's just say that John's going to get it done in 35 minutes.

[4:26:49] I think it's a challenge, but I also, I wonder, I know, I know the city of Sandy was invited for a certain time and I appreciate that I wonder if we could

[4:26:56] push that back 15 minutes or up, I guess, as the way it would work.

[4:27:01] And maybe have that agenda item start 15 minutes later just to give us a little more leeway.

[4:27:05] I am goofing around a little bit with the break, too,

[4:27:08] and I apologize for folks who had planned to do things

[4:27:10] with kids or whatever during that time frame,

[4:27:13] but let's go ahead with John and we can do with it.

[4:27:19] And it feels like it's too rush.

[4:27:21] We can continue it to later, apologies for that.

[4:27:24] But if we can't get it done, as Jim said,

[4:27:27] we talked a lot about this in May.

[4:27:31] We were very close to adoption,

[4:27:32] but there was just one either issue we wanted to look at and that was the goal 14 process.

[4:27:38] So, John, take it away. So, thank you, Chair MacArthur and Vice Chair Hello, I'm John Jennings.

[4:27:46] I'm the Department of Community Service Specialist. Thank you.

[4:27:49] It's happening from Reverend Oregon. I'm going to share my screen. I hope.

[4:28:00] I'm going to try this again, please bear with me.

[4:28:06] I got a little flat footed.

[4:28:08] Yeah, go ahead.

[4:28:09] I'm sorry about that.

[4:28:13] Let's see here.

[4:28:13] I want to be able to try

[4:28:20] this.

[4:28:23] Okay.

[4:28:23] Are you able to see that?

[4:28:26] Yes, we are.

[4:28:27] If you are.

[4:28:29] When I'd like to apologize, my son's working in the market

[4:28:32] and had left the dog inside, and so he is disappointed with that situation.

[4:28:38] So he may express that disappointment, that's the route to the right of him here.

[4:28:43] So I apologize in advance, but I'd like to do this kind of sale through the power point.

[4:28:49] And then we can look at the draft language or not.

[4:28:55] But as you recall, and some of those we were done to, so I'll try to, I'll try to move swiftly.

[4:29:00] We're really looking at demanding six administrative rules.

[4:29:04] Five of those rules, I believe we settled last time.

[4:29:08] So it's exactly what I'm really going to focus only on the division of 14 parts.

[4:29:12] Again, these rules apply to an appropriate fees.

[4:29:16] You know, they've visible towns, but they're, or cities, but they're not.

[4:29:21] They don't have their own municipal government.

[4:29:22] This is O'Dell in Pittsburgh County.

[4:29:24] Royal residential areas, which, again, are rural areas that have these features of an

[4:29:28] overhead, and an protected integral three or four, four slans. That's a beautiful shot from the

[4:29:36] part of four to three, a foreign land, which is also a beautiful shot of some, I believe,

[4:29:41] a CN health county credit gives you part of agriculture. And so this is kind of a summary of

[4:29:47] our items and on the left hand side, the direct land use opportunities for those five divisions

[4:29:55] that I think that I think would cover really speak to county's being able to direct.

[4:30:00] I apply provisions to have opportunities for temporary residents and campgrounds, storage, what's left is to talk a little bit more about honing the dual-14 exception to use.

[4:30:14] That would be a complex of plan and minutes that would be available in a way that's not available right now.

[4:30:22] really quickly I thought it might be a whole maybe not maybe can you see this, but I want

[4:30:27] to try to do just very quickly sort of identify some differences on the on the far left

[4:30:35] hand side and the kind of reddish color rest of the color is the language in statewide planning

[4:30:40] go to pertaining to exceptions and that language is further refined and implemented through

[4:30:47] administrative rule. So, where the language in goal 2 says, for example, local government may adopt

[4:30:55] an executive to the goal in, and then it was on talk about meeting following standards.

[4:31:02] The language in division 14 right now, which we're looking at,

[4:31:07] generally, and interpret that curious through it with free discretionary types of tests. So,

[4:31:14] talks about, for example, in the bottom, you don't know if you can see that, if it really

[4:31:22] would go to or met by showing the proposed urban development cannot be accommodated in or through

[4:31:27] expansion of existing urban growth boundaries. And so on and so forth. So that's a pretty

[4:31:33] discretionary test that requires a lot of evidence and judgment on the part of the decision

[4:31:37] bankers, by comparison, the rule would be looking at adopting today that, you know, it's a special

[4:31:45] type of reasons exception in both 14, specifically for temporary naturals after living

[4:31:53] sheltering, and it's really tied to their being losses due to wildfire, and those losses

[4:32:00] being recognized through executive orders by the governor and that instead of applying

[4:32:09] very discretionary tests that we tried to make it more clear and objective. So for example,

[4:32:14] rather than showing that it can't be reasonably accommodated so on and so forth, we're saying

[4:32:20] the commission would be declaring that that provision is satisfied because, for example here in the

[4:32:27] last box and the right hand side, the applicant is a tribe or a public agency and the area.

[4:32:37] Going to the pretty quickly, I know, but the area is within an area identified in executive order, if you're by the governor.

[4:32:45] So we really reduced that highly discretionary tests to something that's more clear and objective and can be identified more swiftly.

[4:32:55] So we've really kind of provided, I would call it a turn key type of exception opportunity.

[4:33:01] And in addition to the turn key means all you have to do is open the door and it's everything's ready.

[4:33:07] We've really kind of really kind of creating that sort of pathway for this special opportunity.

[4:33:15] As before, we're really looking at a temporary urban development outside of urban growth boundaries nearby but outside.

[4:33:22] And we're really wanting to provide efficient response, allowing enabling applicants, and jurisdictions to act quickly.

[4:33:34] And officially, you know, get tied to the governance disaster declarations.

[4:33:40] You have to come up to be a public agency.

[4:33:41] You know, we believe that we'll safeguard against any sort of mischief.

[4:33:46] Not that that would necessarily happen, but I think that would help.

[4:33:48] and also that this needs to be moved.

[4:33:51] It's removed when it's done longer necessary.

[4:33:54] So,

[4:33:57] the items that we went through and spoke to last time,

[4:34:02] last hearing in May was that we revised some language

[4:34:06] choices.

[4:34:07] You'll recall we shifted from interim housing to just really

[4:34:11] relying on some sheltering, to avoid confusion

[4:34:14] between the needed housing conversation and anything else,

[4:34:17] building what was sheltering. Same thing, me, the same thing. We've made sure of that. The cities

[4:34:23] were looking to have a room grow found. You first, you know, we thought that was a reasonable

[4:34:27] thing for them to do. Now, it's not as far as you is as a build-able anti-inventory or something

[4:34:31] like that, but we're walking to look first. A removal plan is required so that the applicant would

[4:34:37] present the county with their plan for removing things when it's not underneath it. And we provided

[4:34:45] some direction for implementation with regard to overlays on how the actual implementing

[4:34:50] ordinance or instrument would put function and offer the relief from the timeframes and the

[4:34:58] I've hoped you acknowledge me.

[4:35:00] Notice, requirements. We, you, we help them out in the, the 35 day timeframe is, is waves. So it gives, you know, allow, allow us a little more swiftness in terms of, in terms of application.

[4:35:13] And I think we've heard from the submission of which we, we worked hard to address, I think

[4:35:20] we got a pretty good job at that last time was proper recognition of tribal nations.

[4:35:26] And we can talk a bit more about what that means, but really to make sure that tribes

[4:35:32] were able as public agencies to represent communities.

[4:35:38] And then second, second, they are not second in importance, but also that tribes have the same opportunity to pursue these types of approvals.

[4:35:49] We necessary for the residents.

[4:35:54] We complimented the Employee Ordnance Language with requirements that the competent plan also specifies that these are of a limited duration to all the five years.

[4:36:04] And identifies that these lands where they accept and has been taken are not elevated in their status or included in our majority boundary.

[4:36:14] Those two items were pretty important to some of our stakeholders.

[4:36:17] And I know you heard directly about that from Greg Holmes, a thousandth of Oregon.

[4:36:22] And then we've got some miscellaneous corrections that we've done.

[4:36:26] We think we've improved upon the items regarding the tribes, tribal nations.

[4:36:32] Again, in the draft that you received, included the language that really, really identified

[4:36:39] tribe as being among that category of a public agency that may represent a city, this

[4:36:45] was really the, what we heard from Mr. Jacobson, with regard to their expansion, but it was

[4:36:49] Lincoln City in a, in a, in a less tribe, with that tribe really stepped up and, and was able

[4:36:54] to willing to partner with with folks.

[4:36:58] And that was just like our mayorals founders, this rule wouldn't bear on that.

[4:37:01] That was necessary.

[4:37:03] But should their beat after arrangement, desired, in the future, we've got that covered.

[4:37:10] Also, should there ever be a circumstance where there's a wildfire that destroys homes

[4:37:18] on trust lands, let's say a community, let's just see a warm spring to order, for example,

[4:37:24] which is the base of operations for the federal graduates of the Warnspans Union Reservation.

[4:37:32] If that were to suffer a wildfire damage and the only reasonable place, the best place to shelter the victims of that wildfire was on lands outside of the trust status on lands governed by Jefferson County,

[4:37:47] to say, and subject to land use rules, then we've ensured that the tribe could make an application

[4:37:55] to that county, just as any other city or county or other publications you could do.

[4:38:00] In our outreach to do the threat subsequent outreach and request for consultation,

[4:38:07] we heard a little bit back, understandably with tight time frame, everybody is really

[4:38:17] fires right now as we speak and treat talk best. But we did your back was, hey, you know,

[4:38:21] it would be great if we could feel confidence that, you know, archeological resources weren't

[4:38:25] going to be disturbed. And so what we did is to the treat them where they're inventory,

[4:38:35] where we have archeological resources inventory and their local conflicts of plan,

[4:38:40] similar in the way we decided to treat wildlife habitats and hazard areas for these purposes,

[4:38:46] which you just say, those land would be off-limits.

[4:38:50] You know, lands, their properties that have an inventory,

[4:38:54] archeological resource on them,

[4:38:56] are not candidates for this special type of exception process.

[4:39:00] Furthermore, we had a language that we really kind of borrowed from

[4:39:07] a real some of you made.

[4:39:08] You know, if you will remember it, that the youth camp will

[4:39:11] several years ago, which basically said that

[4:39:15] It's a restrainment of the existing law.

[4:39:17] It's not a creation of a new authority.

[4:39:19] There's a entire body of statutes that

[4:39:21] describes what just to happen when there's inadvertent discovery

[4:39:27] of archeological resources.

[4:39:29] And so we've placed that in the rule too.

[4:39:33] We've just kind of wanted to kind of elevate that

[4:39:34] understanding and make sure.

[4:39:37] But it was aware that if you accidentally

[4:39:39] or inadvertently discover archeological resources,

[4:39:43] those human remains or something else. You're going to follow the law. You're going to follow

[4:39:50] the legal protocols. The accomplished plan piece, as I mentioned earlier, we've really

[4:39:56] and complementage what we have already put in the production.

[4:40:00] So there would be a documentation in the local conference of plan that also identified that these are temporary, and that they, the exception of, validity would not exceed the period of five years.

[4:40:17] The food here would be just through this line with the private rule, a breath rule.

[4:40:23] But it basically just says that taking a reason except to under this provision,

[4:40:29] you know, this not elevate these lands in the hierarchy,

[4:40:34] or inclusion in the general boundary, that's identified in the existing state law,

[4:40:40] or S197, and then when in the 1798.

[4:40:44] I think that that's not safe enough, they couldn't be, but they didn't be on their own merit, right?

[4:40:51] It would be if they really, if a city is going through the expansion and identifies these properties

[4:40:58] as being the best locations, that's fine, but they don't, they're not artificially

[4:41:06] rationed up to, that's the genetic manner of the letter, letter.

[4:41:10] Finally, we had to miscellaneous, maybe miscellaneous is too soft at the term, but there was

[4:41:17] just some general corrections that I didn't get involved with here, but we did rearrange some

[4:41:25] language beginning to clarify that these temporary facilities are four rather than assigned

[4:41:33] to the victims of the natural disaster.

[4:41:35] I believe it may have been Mr. Jake is going to, again, that said, you know, a sign to you, that's

[4:41:42] that's a little bit heavy handed and it was what we're trying for.

[4:41:47] So we wanted to capture that and then we also clarified the dissociative infrastructure, you know,

[4:41:54] must also be removed.

[4:41:55] So if there's a sewer line that's run out of water line, that needs to be removed to just as everything else does.

[4:42:01] one that one of the uses is retired and all needed.

[4:42:05] So, with that, we're recommending that you receive a hotel

[4:42:11] on your staff or staff's boss or that public guest morning.

[4:42:15] So far as I know, we've got one letter from Greg Holmes,

[4:42:21] the advent of Oregon supporting.

[4:42:22] The revisions are much of everything else I know,

[4:42:24] but it's here.

[4:42:26] I know Commissioner Lee Lack and his diligent outreach

[4:42:29] should kind of play and record this as sort of a couple things back, which I can cover, although

[4:42:35] I don't know if there's a part of the official record or not, I suppose we mentioned

[4:42:37] them they are. And then I really like to see a, you know, the discussion focused on, on division,

[4:42:43] this division, 14 seconds, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0. I really think that's how we have left, and I think

[4:42:49] we've sewn it up. And then ultimately, I would, we would recommend that the commission adopt

[4:42:56] of these revisions today, and we provided a recommended motion, which, you know, basically

[4:43:07] we said, you know, we're doping this, is recommended by the Department, and highlights

[4:43:12] the attachment to the staff of course as well as the items that I just covered with you.

[4:43:19] So, I'm going to pause there for a moment and take a breath and let those give me questions.

[4:43:27] And then at the Commission's plan, if you can, I can share at the actual text of that division.

[4:43:35] And we can go through it to see how things fit together and where they're at.

[4:43:41] Or you can move into into discussion.

[4:43:44] Whatever you prefer.

[4:43:46] Yeah.

[4:43:46] Thank you.

[4:43:47] You did a really nice presentation.

[4:43:50] And I think on the points that I remember taking the city we're discussed and we go I will let's just open up to questions from commissioners and then go from there commissioners

[4:44:11] commissioners.

[4:44:13] Jacobson.

[4:44:14] Well, not so much a question, but I just wanted to say I feel very hurt.

[4:44:18] So thank you for taking all the comments from last meeting and integrating those.

[4:44:22] I really appreciate that.

[4:44:25] Of course.

[4:44:26] My question, Jacobson.

[4:44:27] Thank you.

[4:44:29] Commissioner Leleck, do you since you've been working extensively on this and your other

[4:44:34] with your other hat, as well as feeding information to this process, what is your thought

[4:44:40] about we are with this role-making.

[4:44:44] Well, thank you, Chair McArthur and I'm sorry if I jumped ahead of Commissioner Warren there.

[4:44:49] As another directly impacted county from 2020, John has just nailed it.

[4:44:56] And I've really done all I can throughout this process is John mentioned.

[4:45:01] Continuing to forward his emails with the draft rules and really pushing my colleagues to review them and to provide comments so that everybody will have read them and can provide informed comments.

[4:45:13] They were a few comments, John, and I talked about it, and I don't know that they are formally a part of the record. I don't know that they would have added anything to it.

[4:45:20] that John did mention. I completely support the rules as as drafted now. I can just tell you

[4:45:27] living here in in abandoned and in the shoots county, I'll go outside and we don't have any

[4:45:31] smoke at all today, but it's it's very windy and we are just on edge and and to have rules like this

[4:45:39] in place, at least gives us some comfort that there's an ability to respond when we need to. It's

[4:45:50] And one of the, I did check with John just to confirm, as I had received some questions, and this was that the rule John that you just mentioned is 60 zero zero four zero zero four zero four zero, 14 A the temporary residential uses.

[4:46:08] In conjunction with the dwelling that existed or had received, et cetera, they can only be

[4:46:14] allowed located outside of a flood for geological area or wildfire hazard areas, as I

[4:46:20] identify the adoptive comprehensive plan, to the extent practicable.

[4:46:24] And this was important because those of us that central Oregon realized and recognized that

[4:46:29] it's very, very likely that our entire region will be extreme wildfire hazard.

[4:46:33] And without the extent, to the extent practicable, we might not be able to house anybody outside of these wildfire hazard areas.

[4:46:42] So John confirmed that that language is intentional so that we may find areas to house residents in compliance with the new rules.

[4:46:54] So that's very, very important as well. So I've heard strong support from counties otherwise of the rules as proposed.

[4:47:02] I do hope regarding the tribalists, you know, I think that that's, we've also addressed that.

[4:47:08] I do hope that at work plan item, policy agenda going forward is we can help some of those counties with the goal 18 ancestral sites help like help them identify and figure out a way to identify those sites going forward as we discussed many months ago and everybody's been so busy that we haven't been able to get back to it now.

[4:47:24] But hopefully that's just a kind of a placeholder, we can get to that in the next policy agenda.

[4:47:29] So long-winded, lots of comments.

[4:47:31] Thank you very much, great work, John.

[4:47:34] Thank you, Commissioner Warren.

[4:47:39] Yeah, just that, though, their commissioners.

[4:47:40] Thanks, John, I think you've done a fantastic job with this.

[4:47:43] And I'm glad we're revisited, and again,

[4:47:45] versus just kind of rushing ahead in the last meeting.

[4:47:48] My questions really around division 22.

[4:47:54] And that would be lines 32 through 36.

[4:47:58] And I'm just wondering here, why we have a limitation

[4:48:00] to, you know, a single manufacturer dwelling, or two yards or five recreational vehicles, I mean,

[4:48:08] I just am thinking about these unincorporated lands in the Rogue Valley, and we have a lot of them,

[4:48:14] and a lot of them did burn. And if they were trying, you know, if we're going to identify those lands

[4:48:19] as a potential place for interim housing, why are we limiting it to say five recreational vehicles?

[4:48:27] I just wanted to thank you

[4:48:36] there.

[4:48:36] John, you're on mute.

[4:48:37] I apologize, Chairman Carthor.

[4:48:41] I was on mute accidentally there.

[4:48:43] So it's a question mark.

[4:48:45] The thinking there was was that these would be more.

[4:48:51] This is a more robust opportunity for having

[4:48:57] having associated with it with a home,

[4:48:59] van would be available in rural residential lands

[4:49:02] or resource lands.

[4:49:04] And in furthermore, we felt that the big ticket item

[4:49:09] for non-cooperated communities was the surgery fort,

[4:49:17] but the provision for re-entrum,

[4:49:20] and not inter-pousing,

[4:49:21] but there is a provision that basically allows

[4:49:24] for a high level of housing similar similar to what's available for urban growth foundies

[4:49:35] that would we suspected would would feel that gap. If you bear with me for just a moment

[4:49:43] more, I might try to find that a little embarrassed that I didn't have a ball ready conditional

[4:49:52] how the incomparation. So is the term there? So the

[4:50:00] The reasoning there is that again, the temporary, temporary, residential to use, in conjunction with the dwelling, allows for these items, for many faster homes,

[4:50:20] the year to recreational vehicles, which is elevated, which is more than you can do in conjunction.

[4:50:27] And again, we're assuming this is a, you know, a lot, you know, private water parcel, so in conjunction with that existing well and residing on that probably is a fairly small piece of property, you can have these items.

[4:50:43] But that the, again, the kind of a big ticket item would be the traditional, the transitional housing accommodations, which are aligned to believe 3738 on page 12 and line 1 and 2 on page 13, which is, which is very expansive. Now, we decided to statute there.

[4:51:06] we didn't include all the statutory language, but that's pretty broad.

[4:51:11] If we can look at that if that's helpful, but our belief is that the larger piece,

[4:51:20] you know, should unaccorpore to communities really be a good candidate for

[4:51:26] the sheltering activities that would be able to fall into that.

[4:51:33] Any follow-up questions, Commissioner Warren?

[4:51:36] Now, thank you, I'm just thinking about these uncorporate communities and trying to keep people close to home.

[4:51:44] So if half of the uncorporate communities were going to burn, where does that half of the population go?

[4:51:50] And white cities are a prime example down here, but pretty large uncorporate cities.

[4:51:55] I don't know if population wise, but 5,000.

[4:51:57] And so if half of their homes burnt to about

[4:52:00] at least 2,500 people without shelter.

[4:52:03] So I get the idea of, you know,

[4:52:06] to hopefully send them into, you know,

[4:52:10] urban growth boundary sort of a sheltering scenario.

[4:52:14] But I'm wondering if we want to limit the ability

[4:52:18] of for these communities to kind of

[4:52:20] try to keep those folks closer to home, if possible.

[4:52:24] So, so, so, Chair MacArthur is fixing a more ice-type degree entirely.

[4:52:28] We have we have really deliberately written these rules with with with that notion

[4:52:33] mind.

[4:52:33] You know, one of the key people close to home, and so I would say that there's there's a kind

[4:52:41] of collateral opportunities there.

[4:52:43] One was, is one we just talked about in the 22 rule, which has to do with other corporate

[4:52:47] communities.

[4:52:48] But they're also provisioned in this rule.

[4:52:49] That being a division of 14 rule, which does include

[4:52:54] unincorporated communities as similar.

[4:52:58] And I think that's not the same as, but similar

[4:53:00] to urban growth boundaries, to be able to have

[4:53:04] a county of approval for an exception in their proximity

[4:53:09] to to be just that, to have that, how that arrangements should

[4:53:13] that unincorporated community be the suffers, the hazard,

[4:53:18] the disaster, there is the ability for the county to prove interim sheltering through this

[4:53:28] division or team rule in their proximity to keep them right there.

[4:53:34] Great, thank you very much. I understand now.

[4:53:37] Chairman Kaiser, can I just provide one quick response?

[4:53:42] Mr. Ward, I completely agree and I just think about the sheets County 50,000 plus rural residents,

[4:53:47] sisters in the pine. I mean, we could easily have the exact same issue. The reason I'm comfortable with the rule as it as it is, as I've seen how quickly the LCD has responded in this issue. And the fact that it's in rule and not in statute that our commission will have the ability to work with agency staff to to amend it should we find ourselves in the situation. So I just to share with you why I'm comfortable with it written as it is.

[4:54:13] That's helpful for me as well. Thank you.

[4:54:18] Other commissioners, questions about the rule, the draft rule.

[4:54:26] I just have a question. I know that one of the reasons that we did not act on this in May were the good comments from commissioners.

[4:54:35] But also I believe thousand friends testified and had some concerns.

[4:54:39] I don't know if it was Mary Kyle was there but Greg Holmes was.

[4:54:43] And so I know that I just got a text from Esther that he has some, he's not here to give public to a verbal testimony, but he submitted a letter.

[4:54:53] Is it possible if you have a copy of that, John, to read that letter to us, so we know that.

[4:55:00] I want to read that into the record because we don't have that in front of us. And we change the time around. I don't know if that inconvenience to him and he wanted to testify. I don't know if that situation is. So I want to make sure that we hear his comments. Can either you or Esther read that letter for us?

[4:55:20] So let's like, Professor has put that up there. Thank you very much.

[4:55:27] And so, so there we are. And I can read it or read it or you guys can.

[4:55:33] Oh, I can. So, so, Cherna. So, yeah.

[4:55:42] So I believe the, believe the, believe the bottom line here is that they,

[4:55:46] thousands of friends appreciate the work and, and we did have conversations as, uh,

[4:55:54] which led to kind of helping us understand what might be useful.

[4:55:59] And I believe that I believe this letter says that they agree

[4:56:05] and are occupient and would recommend

[4:56:08] that the commission would adopt.

[4:56:12] Great, that's very useful, John. Thank you.

[4:56:15] And so I really like it.

[4:56:21] Okay, I don't think we have to go line

[4:56:22] by line with draft language, the language

[4:56:24] was included in the packet materials.

[4:56:27] So I'm assuming folks have read that.

[4:56:30] So why don't you put the motion up on the thank you? You're so quick. Appreciate that.

[4:56:38] If commissioners feel so inclined, it would one of you offer a motion.

[4:56:49] I'm truly happy to do it again, unless when my colleagues prefers to do so.

[4:56:56] Okay.

[4:56:57] Okay. Thank you commissioner.

[4:56:59] I move the commission to adopt amendments to OAR chapter 60 divisions 4, 6, 11, 14, 22, and 33 as recommended by the department as attachments to the staff report dated July 8, 2021 and further refined through the staff presentation that today's hearing.

[4:57:17] Thank you, is there a second.

[4:57:23] All second, sir.

[4:57:25] Thank you, and because, sorry, it is your money that I should do a call for public comment, I had actual and I can do that right now verbally.

[4:57:32] I had texted Esther before and she said nobody had signed up.

[4:57:36] The only thing we had in the record was this letter from Greg Holmes.

[4:57:40] That's why I had him read it.

[4:57:41] Because sorry, you think that sufficient or should I do something else?

[4:57:46] I just wanted to give the opportunity for anyone in the attendee.

[4:57:49] If they wanted to testify.

[4:57:51] Thank you. Good point.

[4:57:53] Anyone out there, I want to testify on this before we take a vote.

[4:58:01] No one is raised their hand.

[4:58:02] Thank you. I really appreciate that procedural. I think I didn't I missed so thanks

[4:58:08] Well, we have a motion and a second

[4:58:12] Esther would you call the role? Yes, vice chair. Hello,va. Hi

[4:58:18] Commissioner Jacobson.

[4:58:24] Hi

[4:58:24] Commissioner sandable

[4:58:28] Commissioner Lee Lack. I

[4:58:31] Commissioner Warren. I

[4:58:34] Chair McArthur. I, the motion passes unanimously with all commissioners present except for

[4:58:42] a commissioner, a pair of mine who has an excused absence. And I think that we should

[4:58:48] celebrate Jim, he seems to be the timing God, because we got done at 230, and so we're on

[4:58:54] that schedule for... You totally rock, John. Now you could do it, Doug.

[4:59:00] Well, I thank you, thank you, Chair McMurder, and Director Reo, and I felt I didn't

[4:59:04] get a rise to that challenge.

[4:59:07] So hopefully, I want to thank you, I want to thank all the commissioners very much, I really

[4:59:13] want to thank Esther and Sheria and Deputy Director Green, you know, and of course, our managers

[4:59:21] Gordon Howard, thank everybody, and I'll go ahead and, and, and, and Teria, thank you very

[4:59:26] much.

[4:59:27] Well, carry on take that dog out for a walk with you. Okay. Thanks everyone. We will take a break and return at 245 and we are back on schedule

[4:59:41] recording stopped.

[4:59:56] Welcome back recording in progress.

[5:00:00] Welcome back. The time is 245. We are returning from our afternoon break. The next agenda item is item 8, reporting and monitoring of middle housing compliance.

[5:00:17] City of staff. City of Sandy staff has also joined us and Chairman Carter, you have a

[5:00:29] quorum. Thank you, Esther. Welcome back. Everybody from the break, Mrs. Me. Let's just jump into

[5:00:36] this really important topic. This is a reminder of the commission because this work in housing

[5:00:41] is so important to us. We had asked for regular briefing times on each agenda on various aspects of

[5:00:49] our middle housing initiative and today we get an update from staff but in particular staff wanted

[5:00:57] to bring sort of some real life experience to how this role work happens on the ground or being

[5:01:03] processed on the ground so we want to welcome the city of Sandy as well but I will turn it over

[5:01:08] to eat and I think initially to give intros and then Robert will dive in a details.

[5:01:15] Thank you, Chairman Carthor. Good afternoon. Commission.

[5:01:20] Like, Chairman Carthor mentioned today is just really kind of a follow up on the

[5:01:24] our standing agenda item for updating the commission and others on the implementation of

[5:01:30] past 50,0001 and middle housing codes in particular across the state. And I'm really going to

[5:01:37] And this presentation over to Robert, who's going to give a general review of how the medium

[5:01:42] cities implementation has come and gone.

[5:01:46] Now that that deadline has elapsed on June 30th this year.

[5:01:51] So without further ado, Robert, please.

[5:01:55] All right.

[5:01:55] Thank you, Ethan.

[5:01:56] Chair MacArthur.

[5:01:58] Vice Chair, hello, the members of the commission.

[5:02:00] My name is Robert Manslollo.

[5:02:01] I'm a housing planner with the LCD, and I am here today to give you an update on the House

[5:02:07] So 2001 implementation,

[5:02:12] and that is our desire.com is to update the commission on the implementation so far.

[5:02:19] So some requirements of 2001, just in case we've forgotten, medium cities had to update their codes to allow for dueplexes in on lots and parcels that require single family detached by June 3, 2021.

[5:02:37] large cities have an extra year out to 2022 to allow for higher middle housing types,

[5:02:43] triplex quadplex, townhouses, cottage clusters, as well as dueplexes in areas that alone

[5:02:49] that allow for single family detach. And then we also have the infrastructure based time

[5:02:55] extension request. Medium cities had to apply by December 31st 2020 and for large cities the deadline

[5:03:03] address passed and that was June 30th, 2021.

[5:03:09] And so some updates that we're going to go through today,

[5:03:11] we have some website updates that we've made. The open forums, we're continuing with those.

[5:03:17] And then I want to give an update on the 2021 to 2021 to 2023 grant funding that we received.

[5:03:25] And then local government support, we're going to be hearing from the city of Sandy,

[5:03:29] Kelly O'Neill, who is the Development Services Director,

[5:03:35] and so for website updates, we always do some general updates of documents.

[5:03:39] There's an FAQ up there that we update every time we have an open forum.

[5:03:45] We add questions and responses to that document.

[5:03:49] We've also added some guidance documents.

[5:03:51] There is a little feature called an accordion that has guidance documents within it.

[5:03:58] If you're on the House Bill 2001 web page, you'll see a quick links accordion feature with a little plus next to it.

[5:04:06] If you hit that plus, it opens up and shows documents that are in that feature.

[5:04:13] So we also added one for guidance documents so that feature is there.

[5:04:17] The documents are still yet to be uploaded, so if you go to that part and you don't see any documents

[5:04:23] That is correct. There are no documents in there quite yet. That will be happening later today in tomorrow

[5:04:29] And then we also have this city progress tracker

[5:04:33] Let me show you an example of that here. This is the large city progress tracker. So what we're doing is

[5:04:40] We're following the city the compliance date

[5:04:42] grant type either a direct grant or if the city wanted a deal CD consultant provided.

[5:04:49] We have that there product type.

[5:04:52] This is the 2001 side.

[5:04:54] So this is all either code assistance or the infrastructure time extension.

[5:05:00] The 2003 will have bare different products, housing needs analysis, housing implementation plan, so forth.

[5:05:09] And then for the post acknowledgement plan amendment status, so far we haven't had any submitted for large cities.

[5:05:19] I actually think one came in this week, so this is not quite up to date but we did receive quite a few planning assistance grant requests from these large cities.

[5:05:31] So that was large city. This is medium city. As you can see in the Papa draft code review,

[5:05:39] there are quite a few effective, which is great, because that means that the medium city

[5:05:44] made code changes, submitted those code changes to us for review.

[5:05:52] And we didn't have any comments on them, so they were adopted by their local city council

[5:05:57] and at this point they are effective and there are a few cities in here can be central point

[5:06:04] and claim a false. Those cities are elected to use the model code.

[5:06:09] Claim a false temporarily until they can get staffing and resources together to tackle this project

[5:06:16] themselves. And then the city of Roseberg, who we heard from at the last meeting,

[5:06:22] there's have been adopted and they're going to be effective on the 28th. So next Wednesday.

[5:06:27] the new code changes will be effective.

[5:06:35] Moving into the open forums, we are continuing the

[5:06:37] monthly open forums. The latest one in July had to be postponed a week because of the observance

[5:06:44] of the July 4th holiday and these are on the first Monday of every month and the questions that

[5:06:50] we receive and the responses that we give to these questions are all incorporated into an FAQ document

[5:06:56] that we keep on our website and the format for these meetings, they are typically 90 minutes and we usually go the full 90 minutes, including follow up from any previous meetings.

[5:07:11] So we will usually open with a brief presentation from staff to hit on some items that maybe needed to follow up from the previous month.

[5:07:19] And then the rest of the time is dedicated to question and answer from people in the meetings.

[5:07:26] And these meetings are open to large and medium city representatives, consultants.

[5:07:33] Some advocacy groups have been to these meetings.

[5:07:36] So really any of the groups that were in the in the real making process and still want to keep up on what's going on.

[5:07:45] They're invited to these open forums.

[5:07:48] And then the written responses are sent out to the participants for reference, and we also do record these meetings.

[5:07:58] So for the Ibtres, the large city deadline was June 30th, 2021.

[5:08:04] And Forest Grove was the only large city to submit an application.

[5:08:08] And they did that on the 30th.

[5:08:11] So now staff has 30 days to team the city's application complete.

[5:08:14] And then following that, there is a 21 day public comment period where the application will be posted to our website and public comment period is for 21 days.

[5:08:27] And then staff has 120 days to review the application and give a decision as to approve approve with conditions or deny.

[5:08:37] And that is within that 120 days. That has to be done.

[5:08:44] So getting into the 2021-2021-23 grant funding cycle, that deadline for large cities is fast approaching June 30, 2022 for large cities to comply with the rules for middle housing.

[5:09:01] And we wanted to begin this application process as early as possible.

[5:09:05] So we actually started early with sending out materials just so we can jump start the process for cities.

[5:09:19] And the legislature approved funding for this program for two and a half million dollars for the twenty one twenty three

[5:09:26] and this will go towards planning assistance for both

[5:09:30] House Bill 2001 and 2003 combined.

[5:09:34] If you remember last time,

[5:09:37] Defunding was separated out between the two 2001 and 2003 this time.

[5:09:41] It is a lump sum that can be used for both.

[5:09:45] And there was also a passage of House Bill,

[5:09:46] 566, and that provided an additional $2 million

[5:09:50] for technical support and capacity building for cities

[5:09:54] working to increase housing choice and housing affordability. So we see this really as sort of

[5:10:00] The strengthening goal 10 for for us to help cities with with complying with goal 10 and we are

[5:10:09] hopeful that some of this money will go to fund housing planning efforts in small cities across the state.

[5:10:19] And some of the products that the funding is available for large cities, it is the development code updates to allow for middle housing.

[5:10:28] And for the 2000 House Bill 2003 side, this is available for housing needs analysis, housing production strategy, and housing implementation plans, and also with the passage of House Bill 35, the legislature approved expanding funding for those three products, two cities with populations less than 10,000 previously it started at that 10,000 population level.

[5:10:56] But now these products are available for small cities under 10,000, which is great, because we've heard from some smaller cities that they are interested in these.

[5:11:08] And the expected timeline.

[5:11:11] Again, we started early with the RFI process.

[5:11:14] We wanted to get an idea from cities throughout the state what type of funding they were looking for and what type of product they were.

[5:11:23] They wanted to do this time around.

[5:11:26] So we started that early. We started that in May, that RFI process ended the 31st of May.

[5:11:33] And then once we had an idea of the cities that wanted some type of funding for a project,

[5:11:41] we sent them a formal application.

[5:11:44] And we sent that out early June, and cities had until the 30th to get that back to us.

[5:11:51] And now in July, we are reviewing those applications, and we anticipate award decisions.

[5:11:58] We should get that done by the end of July 31st.

[5:12:02] And then August is contracting with IGA, MOU development.

[5:12:08] Funding will likely be delivered to DLCD in August, and then by September 1st, we want to kick

[5:12:15] off these projects for code compliance, mainly hospital 2001.

[5:12:20] The hospital 2003 timeline may be a little longer for the LCD provided consultants if the RFP process is opened.

[5:12:29] So we have a little longer of a timeline with the hospital 2003.

[5:12:33] But for 2001, we really want to get this kicked off as soon as possible.

[5:12:39] And then I want to focus in on these applications.

[5:12:42] So in May the RFP process, we wanted to hear from cities who was interested.

[5:12:47] We received 75 applications from 45 jurisdictions, so some jurisdictions did have a few different products that they wanted to get funding for.

[5:12:59] And then, of those 75 applications, when we sent out the formal application, we received 55 applications from 40 jurisdictions.

[5:13:08] So, not all of them came back with a formal application, but a fair amounted, and then the breakdown of that is 16 of those were related to hospital 2001, so code compliance, and then 39 of those related to hospital 2003 with housing needs analysis, housing implementation plans, and the other 2003 products.

[5:13:32] And then as I said earlier, July, we are in the middle of the application review, and we expect to have those decisions awarded fairly soon.

[5:13:45] And then local support. This is going back to the 2019-21 Bionium.

[5:13:50] So the LCD funded 33 grant applications for 29 jurisdictions. So again, some jurisdictions had more than one product.

[5:14:00] And of the 18 or 18 of the 21 medium cities that submitted POPA notice to require changes all but one are effective.

[5:14:10] And then those remaining three as I mentioned earlier will use the model code until they are able to implement the minimum compliance if they wish or they can just keep keep with the model code.

[5:14:25] And as I said, three cities haven't adopted the model code, and then Baker City, they didn't reach 10,000 population until December of 2020.

[5:14:35] So they have until December of 2021 to comply, but they have their final hearing, their final city council hearing on August 25th.

[5:14:44] So they're moving right along with this process and they should finish up well within that year.

[5:14:53] And I

[5:14:56] was going to wait till the end, but we couldn't admit it.

[5:15:00] I forget.

[5:15:02] Do you have any insight on the ones that chose to use the Model Code versus not any insight on that?

[5:15:10] How to keep it more out of curiosity?

[5:15:12] Yeah, thank you for that. Jim MacArthur, face to your logo. It was really, I think it came down to the cities

[5:15:18] that chose the Model Code. They didn't have the capacity to do this project. Whether that be resources,

[5:15:27] is either staff or money.

[5:15:30] They didn't have the resources to really tackle the project.

[5:15:34] I think a few of them will in the future.

[5:15:39] They will look to make these changes more

[5:15:42] in line with Division of 46 rather than just the model code.

[5:15:46] But for right now, they've chosen to just adopt the model code.

[5:15:54] Thank you.

[5:15:56] Tim McArthur and Vice Chair, I love that this is Ethan.

[5:15:58] I just wanted to chime in on there.

[5:16:00] And I think the city of Columbus Falls and central points

[5:16:04] are kind of actively looking for resources

[5:16:07] to complete that task of going through their local process

[5:16:12] to determine, you know, as the model code right,

[5:16:14] do we go with the minimum compliance standards?

[5:16:16] And then I think the city of Canbe is taking a little bit

[5:16:18] more of a, you know, we're okay with the model code approach

[5:16:22] at this point in time.

[5:16:23] And if they are able to kind of get the additional resources,

[5:16:26] is then do it, but they're not actively seeking that out.

[5:16:29] At least that's my understanding.

[5:16:31] Last point, I had conversations with our cities.

[5:16:36] Thank you.

[5:16:38] Thank you, Ethan.

[5:16:41] OK, sorry about that.

[5:16:43] So getting back to another part of the previous biennium

[5:16:46] during the rulemaking duplex configuration

[5:16:50] was a big topic for medium cities and large cities.

[5:16:55] Initially, we proposed having a duplex to find

[5:16:58] as to attach to units.

[5:16:59] We heard from the committee, several representatives on the committee, that we should look into having duplexes as detached configuration.

[5:17:11] Number one, because some cities already allow that and it works well for them.

[5:17:15] But number two, it just provides more opportunity for duplex construction.

[5:17:22] So of the 21 medium cities subject to hospital 2001, six of them shows to allow only attached

[5:17:29] dueplexes while 15 shows to allow them in any configuration, either attached or detached.

[5:17:36] So this was an interesting piece of information that we found.

[5:17:41] It's really interesting and it's great that staff and commission members recognize the need

[5:17:48] to make that a broader definition,

[5:17:52] because obviously more than a majority of the communities

[5:17:56] that you did to do it shows the broader definition.

[5:18:00] So thanks to you guys for thinking about that.

[5:18:03] Yes, thank you, Chair.

[5:18:05] All right, and now we are going to turn it over

[5:18:07] to Mr. Kelly O'Neill, development services director

[5:18:11] with the City of Sandy to give his presentation.

[5:18:15] Thank you, Robert.

[5:18:16] me share my screen here and bring up my PowerPoint presentation.

[5:18:25] It's a very brief one and I'm

[5:18:26] just going to go through it and then mainly turn it over for questions that you might have

[5:18:30] made up hopefully I can answer. So first of all thank you commission for having me today and

[5:18:38] thank you for DLCD staff or the invite to come and speak before you. You know being a small town

[5:18:45] planning director, I find a lot of value in the state taking the time to hear our experiences

[5:18:53] and so I really appreciate this opportunity.

[5:18:58] So just jumping right into it, I wanted to first thank the project manager on this, Emily

[5:19:03] Maharg, who's the senior planner for the City of Sandy.

[5:19:06] She can join us today, but she helped me prepare this slide show and she did a lot of the

[5:19:10] heavy lifting with the coaching just.

[5:19:12] And then I would like to also give some thanks to Ethan Sean and the late Jennifer Donnelly.

[5:19:20] They were all very helpful during this project and all very helpful in saving us time

[5:19:27] and money through going through our turnies office for some questions that they handled pretty

[5:19:31] quickly and then also just for support during the different public hearings and being willing

[5:19:36] to come and present to our commission and city council and instead of just taking the evenings off,

[5:19:45] they were very dedicated and helpful in that regard. So I just want to show my appreciation to them.

[5:19:51] So a little about me. I work for the city of Sandy's for about 10 years now. I've been in my current

[5:19:56] position for about four-and-a-half.

[5:19:59] And...

[5:20:00] The previous to that I worked with the City of Climate Falls and the City of Coburg.

[5:20:06] So I've had about 16 years of organ land use planning at this point.

[5:20:10] I'm a native Oregonian, born and raised in Central Oregon.

[5:20:14] And I earn my bachelor's and master's degree both at the University of Oregon.

[5:20:19] So go to ducks, for any of the people out there that are duck fans.

[5:20:23] And then, for the past 10 years, my wife and I have raised our three boys in Sandy, so we're very rooted in this community and there's pluses and minuses for the hatch being a planning director in the town that you also live in, but just a little bit about myself.

[5:20:41] And then a little bit about Sandy, it's about 50 minutes right now from downtown Portland when there's not a lot of traffic, it goes up to about an hour and 20 minutes when there is.

[5:20:50] and then pretty consistently we're about 35 to 40 minutes from Mount Hood. So, you know, it's

[5:20:57] it's a city where most of your prior where it's situated in that we're a thin close proximity to Portland

[5:21:03] but also close proximity to outdoors. And so that brings both benefits and challenges. There's

[5:21:11] a lot of people in town that like being located next to a large metropolitan area.

[5:21:20] There's a

[5:21:20] can easily commute to the metropolitan area but they have no desire to go to the metropolitan area

[5:21:25] besides for work. So it is a very interesting town to work in. We have population of

[5:21:31] about 12,000 people right now and it's growing rather significantly for a population rate increase

[5:21:38] as we only had about 9,500 or 10 years ago. So percentage wise it's a pretty fast growing community.

[5:21:45] We did a housing needs analysis in 2015 and based on that, we expanded our UGB by about

[5:21:52] five or six hundred acres in 2017 and that would, I worked closely with Ms.

[5:21:59] Honley and Mr. Howard with DLCD. We did that project all in house, but they, again, DLCD

[5:22:07] staff was phenomenal and it was really beneficial for us to work closely with them to get

[5:22:12] acknowledged as quickly as possible. And just since you guys were talking about

[5:22:17] hospital 2003, I think we're due to our next housing needs analysis and then the

[5:22:23] housing production analysis by 2024. So we'll be applying for one of those grants in

[5:22:28] the near future. So a little background on the code adoption, we did some education of

[5:22:35] the public, although in a smaller town like this it's very hit or miss when the

[5:22:39] public gets involved in planning.

[5:22:42] As you can probably imagine, it's usually based around actual development proposals, which

[5:22:48] is unfortunate.

[5:22:48] We don't hear from the public nearly as much on code proposals, which that's where they

[5:22:53] can have more influence.

[5:22:55] And it's unfortunate because by the time you get a development, especially for residential

[5:23:01] housing, there's very little the city can do to satisfy some of the concerns from the residents.

[5:23:07] So we really always encourage people to get involved

[5:23:10] more at the code stage when we're rewriting code,

[5:23:13] but we don't really get a lot of input, usually.

[5:23:16] We modified 10 code chapters in our development code,

[5:23:19] which when we started the process,

[5:23:21] we thought there was only about six.

[5:23:23] We needed to modify, but then we started digging deeper,

[5:23:25] and we found more references to two pluses or adios.

[5:23:29] And so it became a much larger project than we anticipated.

[5:23:33] When we first set off on the project,

[5:23:35] We didn't apply for any deal-city grant assistance because we felt that we could handle it easy in-house.

[5:23:41] Then once we started taking through the HP 2001 code requirements and through our code ourselves

[5:23:49] We realized we should have applied for a grant because it was a much larger project than we anticipated

[5:23:54] We ended up having one planning commission work session and a hearing and then council we had a few hearings plus

[5:24:01] another hearing to adopt the amendments. And then they became effective on June 16th. So

[5:24:07] not only did we meet the deadline of the end of June, but we also had the actual code amendments

[5:24:13] applied before the end of June. So we were kind of had the curb there, I think.

[5:24:19] Some of the primary house bill 2001 code concerns for, and I think this would have been consistent

[5:24:25] across any medium city in Oregon. I've worked for, you know, two cities that qualify as medium

[5:24:30] cities in the state of Oregon, and then one that would be a smaller city. But one of the

[5:24:36] most common concerns you always hear with development is vehicles and having enough parking.

[5:24:42] And I think that really comes down to people in smaller towns, choose to locate in smaller

[5:24:47] towns, partially because there are lots or usually a little bit larger. They have more available

[5:24:52] parking spaces. A lot of people also have recreational vehicles and the ATDs and different things.

[5:24:58] that was

[5:25:00] This was actually probably the biggest concern we heard with HP 2001 from our elected officials, the planning commission and the public.

[5:25:09] And then the other concerns we heard were more around lot size and density concerns. There's a lot of concerns that that I heard from our local politicians that there's a lot of, and I'll talk about this more on the next slide, but a lot of their home roll authority decision making is being taken away.

[5:25:25] So that was kind of brought up a lot, and they feel like they're being forced to put more units on the same amount of land.

[5:25:33] So I'll talk about that more a minute.

[5:25:36] And then the last really, the last really big concern that they had, that they had some confusion over,

[5:25:42] and I admittedly the first presentation or two that Emily and myself did,

[5:25:48] we probably didn't do as good of a job we could of.

[5:25:50] So we kind of learned from that.

[5:25:51] And it's really describing what is legislative required as opposed to discretionary.

[5:25:59] So I think that was a learning curve for our local staff here that really just

[5:26:05] telling them what the state's requiring and being very upfront and making it very obvious

[5:26:10] to them and then letting them know like Robert mentioned, do we have to allow both detached

[5:26:16] and a attached duplexes or do they have decisions based on that.

[5:26:22] So I think that was one of the most important things that we took away from it.

[5:26:25] That next time when we go to pass code changes that are from the state that will make sure to lead off with that more.

[5:26:33] And then kind of the lessons learned, which I was kind of already starting into there.

[5:26:37] But I think the biggest lesson for Sandy at least, and I would say when I worked for climate falls,

[5:26:42] it was probably something similar, is don't compare the smaller city to anywhere else.

[5:26:47] They like to be kind of known as you know the city of Sandy whether it's true or not a lot of the people here

[5:26:53] Like it to be known that 30 unique and they don't want to be compared to other cities

[5:26:58] So I know that at one point there was a map share that showed historic trends

[5:27:04] Related to redlining and other

[5:27:07] Unfortunate events that happened in our history that made segregation and things possible in the city of Portland

[5:27:13] And I know that the feedback immediately from our city council was that, well, we're not the city of Portland, this didn't happen here.

[5:27:21] And so I think finding ways to express some of the historic trends or concerns is always a great idea.

[5:27:30] But I think showing maps of like the city of Portland or any larger metropolitan areas, it typically rubs the local, local elected officials the wrong way.

[5:27:39] So I think we would say way more than that in the future.

[5:27:44] One of the other big things that I already touched upon a little bit

[5:27:46] but is their homoral authority.

[5:27:48] So a lot of smaller towns.

[5:27:50] And in my tenure in Sandy, this has always been the case.

[5:27:53] The elected officials, not staff is much,

[5:27:55] but the elected officials feel like legislative rules

[5:27:59] passed by the state of Oregon kind of take away

[5:28:02] from their local decision-making space.

[5:28:05] And so if you were to go back and listen to the hearings

[5:28:09] before the City Council, I think at all three of them, you'll hear this, that the State of

[5:28:15] Oregon should keep out of the city of Sandy, and they shouldn't be making rules that

[5:28:20] then we have to adopt. So, not saying that I personally do that or not, but it's something

[5:28:26] that you commonly hear from elected officials. I think especially in smaller communities where

[5:28:30] they feel like, they should be under different rules than the larger metropolitan areas,

[5:28:38] even though we're right by Portland.

[5:28:41] Another thing that was brought up,

[5:28:43] nobody stated this, but I know this was a concern,

[5:28:48] and it never really occurred to me,

[5:28:50] but kind of campaign objectives for newly elected officials.

[5:28:53] We had three new city counselors that just were appointed in January,

[5:28:58] and two of them ran on kind of a slow growth policy.

[5:29:04] They wanted, you know, they kind of ran on the idea that they were getting elected partially to try to slow growth in Sandy since we are like the third fastest burying city per capital over the last 20 years in Oregon.

[5:29:18] And so they kind of ran on a platform opposing that.

[5:29:23] And then I think for them, it was then a hurdle for them that then within six months of being elected and then serving on the council, they were adopting code changes that were increasing potentially density.

[5:29:37] So for them, I know for at least two of those people, it was a very difficult pill to swallow, that they ran on this platform of slowing growth, decreasing density.

[5:29:47] and then within six months there was a house bill that they had to adopt that potentially

[5:29:53] has the effect of increasing density. So that was interesting. Another lesson learned is the device.

[5:30:00] Oppositions, public comments, and politics, as you're all aware, there's so

[5:30:02] President Nowt is, it's so much worse than 16 years ago, and I started in local

[5:30:06] government in Oregon, and it enters the decision space at every meeting,

[5:30:12] almost, and especially when there's a house bill that they're adopting.

[5:30:19] It's an easy way to kind of poke the bear, and kind of say, well, I was never in

[5:30:23] favor this. And I don't really care what the state of Oregon's telling us to do.

[5:30:28] I don't want to do it.

[5:30:29] So that definitely entered into some of the decisions based not only with HP 2001, but with

[5:30:35] other decisions from the last 10 years as politics become more divisive.

[5:30:43] And then my other takeaway that I would recommend to anybody around the state is work

[5:30:46] with the LCD staff.

[5:30:48] You know, they're the experts, they're knowledgeable, they're always willing to help.

[5:30:52] And I sometimes think, in other jurisdictions, I work in that the planning directors or the

[5:31:00] different people within those cities were, you know, they're very good professionals,

[5:31:04] but I don't think they took advantage of getting input and working with the LCD stock

[5:31:08] closely enough.

[5:31:09] And I think what that ends up doing is you don't fully understand and you're not as immersed

[5:31:14] as a local planner.

[5:31:15] And so reaching out to them and just getting their feedback and input constantly, I think,

[5:31:19] very helpful. And then so that's end of my slide show, so I don't know if I'm turning it to

[5:31:28] over to chair MacArthur or Robert, but I'll take any questions. Yeah, that was an excellent

[5:31:36] presentation. I really appreciate it being so thorough about everything, not just in mechanics,

[5:31:42] but the politics and all that kind of thing. It's really a wonderful glimpse into your world,

[5:31:47] But I suspect that world plays out across the state.

[5:31:50] So it's very helpful.

[5:31:52] I have a question.

[5:31:53] I was wondering what your thoughts are now

[5:31:55] that the dots that and good we're getting adopted.

[5:31:59] What is your sense of how that will play out?

[5:32:03] Do you think there'll be a rapid increase in dueplexes,

[5:32:07] or just in certain neighborhoods,

[5:32:09] or what kind of, what do you anticipate

[5:32:12] as people go forth and develop their property,

[5:32:15] perhaps differently than they were able

[5:32:17] before. Yeah, so that's such a good question. And it's something that I got from our planning

[5:32:23] commission and elected officials. And I think there was a number that the state was anticipating

[5:32:28] about 3% of houses that would, and correct me from wrong anybody. But I, I believe somebody told me

[5:32:35] there was a projection that about 3% of lots of traditional bill to single-family homes would be

[5:32:43] doplexes instead, go into the future. And you know, I think that number is accurate. If anything

[5:32:47] in Sandy, I think it'll be higher than that. I don't know about conversion of existing houses to

[5:32:54] doplexes. I think I think in Sandy, at least for the next couple of years, that won't happen very often.

[5:32:59] But I am getting a lot of interest from developers that have approved subdivisions that they're

[5:33:05] already saying, you know, maybe a fourth or fifth of lots that they were going to put in in single family homes

[5:33:10] will now most likely be due flexes. So I don't know if that will play out or not, but that's what

[5:33:16] I'm hearing from the local development community is that they were pretty excited with the passing of

[5:33:20] HP. Thank you. Thank you. Other commissioners, do you have questions for Mr. O'Neill?

[5:33:33] I

[5:33:33] ask Mr. O'Neill for being so candid with us on a previous city council. So I understand,

[5:33:42] you know, being on the other side of the dice, but it's always great. I think especially for,

[5:33:47] You know, this commission to hear staffs, I don't want to say straws, but what you have to work with with your city council, because it's a big job.

[5:33:56] So, thanks for doing it. And just a random question.

[5:34:00] Did you feel like your city council was trying to kind of undermine this in any way, you know, where they where they really are, you know, starkly opposed to it and then did you have to explain to them that this is kind of what they have to do or how to that play out.

[5:34:15] Yeah, I think some city council members and over my tenure and government like to

[5:34:23] grandstand a little bit, so they like to kind of take the opportunity to kind of say what's

[5:34:30] on their mind.

[5:34:31] And so a little bit of that happened, and even one of the city council members, that council

[5:34:36] member even said, you know, right before they even made the comments, they said, I know

[5:34:40] have to pass this, but I want to get this off my chest. And so there was definitely some

[5:34:45] of that going on. But, you know, by and large, our council was very, they understood that it

[5:34:55] had to be passed. And so that's why I said that they really wanted to know what their decisions

[5:34:59] space was.

[5:35:00] But they, you know, they never, I never heard from one of them that they were saying, oh, that's the way this or let's not try to adopt this and just use the model code.

[5:35:09] They very well understood that it hadn't be adopted. So that was a relief for staff.

[5:35:16] Because if that wouldn't have happened, then we would have had to learn what the model code says.

[5:35:20] And I don't know if I actually don't know what it says, so.

[5:35:23] I totally get that advice to you all over.

[5:35:28] Yes.

[5:35:28] Thank you.

[5:35:29] I wanted to thank you for giving us so much insight.

[5:35:32] It's interesting having been on the other side.

[5:35:35] You know, talking about this so much about what you think people will say or not say or what will be the topics to actually hear what they are.

[5:35:41] So I wanted to thank you for presenting that.

[5:35:44] I think they were just two comments I wanted to talk about.

[5:35:46] One was, I like how you said, kind of that required versus allowed discussion and having people understand that. I think we had we struggled with that even in the rack where it was saying that the city wouldn't require the developer to make this certain amount of parking let's say, but the developer could make more if they wanted to, right.

[5:36:08] And that whole required versus allowed really gives that kind of market flexibility that you will see developers like it and it tunes it more to like what's feasible financially and etc. if it's if it's needed or not needed.

[5:36:26] I think the other one that you gave it was interesting was the idea of using other people's cities histories to tell a story with regard to Portland and redlining.

[5:36:37] And it just made me think, you know, every city has its own history with regard to discrimination,

[5:36:43] especially racial discrimination.

[5:36:45] And it probably would be beneficial for every city to kind of see, well, what happened in our city.

[5:36:51] And that might actually be a harder thing to deal with.

[5:36:55] I think it's easier to say that they were, it was been over there, right, not us.

[5:37:00] And even if there wasn't public like redlining or banking regulations,

[5:37:05] Well, even if there wasn't public like city or governmental there's always been private discriminatory practices and there's always been lending banking discriminatory practices and so

[5:37:19] attuning that understanding for your particular local actually will result in better outcomes because it will actually identify what are the problems in your community.

[5:37:28] So I thought that was a good lesson in thinking about, about that. Thank you.

[5:37:37] Thank you, Vice Chair.

[5:37:40] Other commissioners have questions?

[5:37:43] Comments?

[5:37:44] I have a comment chair.

[5:37:48] Yeah.

[5:37:50] Well, I mean, first of all, I want to second with Vice Chair just said about different

[5:37:56] different market-based kind of discriminatory practices.

[5:38:00] So I wanted to learn more about,

[5:38:03] I think whether rationales for passing this policy

[5:38:09] was to try to kind of diversify single-family housing,

[5:38:15] make it more, out of multi-cultural

[5:38:19] and the multi-ethnic and so forth.

[5:38:22] So I'm just wondering about kind of the racial ethnic dynamics

[5:38:25] of your city. Maybe if you could talk a little bit about, you know, the demographics of your

[5:38:32] town, do you feel like there was some sort of like some of the pushback might have been related

[5:38:44] to, you know, underlying issues of racism and so forth. So yeah, I'm just curious about that.

[5:38:51] Thank you. Sure. I'll try to answer that the best I can.

[5:38:54] Since I live in town, and since I've seen the census numbers, I haven't seen obviously the 2020 census numbers.

[5:39:02] But I do know that the, the Latino population in Sandy is definitely increasing.

[5:39:10] I think it's over the last 20 years about double work.

[5:39:14] I think it's tripled actually.

[5:39:16] Unfortunately, though, besides that, we're not seeing a lot of other

[5:39:24] minority groups

[5:39:26] choosing to locate insanity, so it is predominantly Caucasian, and I haven't really

[5:39:32] seen that trend in changing much since I've worked here in the ten years with the exception

[5:39:37] of an increase in Latino population.

[5:39:41] I don't really know if any of the hesitancy to the house bill or any state-mandaged

[5:39:49] changes would be or are related to racism, per se.

[5:39:54] However, I do hear a lot of comments and you know, they're public.

[5:40:00] We get a lot of feedback and comments when there's multi-family housing proposed in Sandy that it's going to bring in those people and low income people and crime and different comments like that.

[5:40:16] And typically when I when I see personally comments like that, whether they're expressly intended to be racist or not, to me, it's definitely a concern.

[5:40:26] So, you know, I didn't hear anything like that from our elected officials, but I do know from some citizens in our town whenever we get multi-family housing proposals, and I'm assuming, you know, when we start getting some more due-plex proposals, this will most likely do the same thing, is that there is a big opposition for it because a lot of people like to claim that it will have property values and introduces crime, so, which statistically speaking, I've never seen a study that proves either one of those things.

[5:40:55] So I don't know where they're getting this information from.

[5:40:59] But so yeah, I think at the very least,

[5:41:01] there's definitely bias that's being introduced when there's

[5:41:06] multi-tell me housing proposals in most likely,

[5:41:08] even HP 2000 won.

[5:41:11] Yeah. Okay. Thank you, thank you, Mr.

[5:41:12] Only on that, it's very helpful.

[5:41:15] It's good. I mean, I totally agree with you that

[5:41:17] different historical kind of context is different, right?

[5:41:22] And different counts.

[5:41:23] So it's really good to hear and kind of have,

[5:41:26] and have your really honest assessment of those issues,

[5:41:30] sometimes they're hard to just speak to.

[5:41:32] So, thank you.

[5:41:34] Yeah. And I really appreciate the question,

[5:41:36] Commissioner Sundovall and the answer, it reinforces in my mind that we did the right thing

[5:41:43] and the legislature did the right thing, we did the right thing by in these rules in place.

[5:41:53] Other

[5:41:56] commissioners, not seeing any of us, I'm sorry Commissioner Azizek.

[5:42:00] Oh, I was kind of delayed by response there. I really appreciate it. I always, I just really appreciate

[5:42:07] hearing from small towns about how the rules are implemented

[5:42:10] and your experience is an I appreciate, you know,

[5:42:13] Sandy's not Portland and the pine is not bent.

[5:42:17] Why do I hear that every single day?

[5:42:19] And I just wonder if you might actually experience

[5:42:24] more just, you know, smaller, affluent households,

[5:42:29] moving the can work remotely outside of Portland

[5:42:32] that want access to Mount Hood and the cascades

[5:42:35] and the recreational amenities.

[5:42:37] It could actually end up attracting people just with the smaller households.

[5:42:42] Maybe a little bit less expensive attached.

[5:42:44] I just any thoughts on that on being a little Zoom town and some of those potential impacts.

[5:42:50] I mean, I certainly, but yeah, no, I think that's a very common.

[5:42:53] I certainly think that's a possibility.

[5:42:56] I know I think there's more cities looking to do it, but we were one of the first,

[5:42:59] if not the first in Oregon to the city has its own broadband infrastructure standing at and we

[5:43:06] run that. And so we have, I think, at least about a year ago, the lowest prices in the state of

[5:43:13] Oregon for gig fiber. So, and even for the fiber, I have a mine house, it's like $4199 a month.

[5:43:22] And I think the comparison of Portland's like $110 a month, I believe, for the same speed.

[5:43:27] So, yeah, I definitely think the city of Sandy has a competitive advantage for having people that are zoom

[5:43:34] commuters that might have to go into Portland one or two days a week, and then it's very close to the outdoors.

[5:43:40] And I think a lot of that advantage has to do with RGA graphical location, but then also with the internet speeds that we have in town right now.

[5:43:48] And I do want to comment on your bend is, or a little pine is not bend, comment on it. Yeah, what I grew up in the pine.

[5:43:54] So I think the difference between like a lapine or climate

[5:43:59] falls or I also worked in is there's not as much,

[5:44:03] there's more poverty, more income issues

[5:44:06] in both of those communities, whereas in Sandy,

[5:44:09] they're just, I mean, not on the same level

[5:44:12] that you don't want in those communities face.

[5:44:15] So it is interesting living in all three of them

[5:44:17] and being a native or a guardian.

[5:44:18] They all have kind of similar, like elected officials,

[5:44:21] have the same kind of similar thought process,

[5:44:23] I believe in those small towns, but the actual obstacles and things that we face in Sandy are

[5:44:29] not nearly as dire as other communities I've lived in in Oregon. That's definitely true.

[5:44:36] You know, and you've also made your downtown really attractive. There was at one point, probably 30 years

[5:44:42] ago now, but I used to a long time ago go up and ski on hood to go into that area.

[5:44:48] It just seemed like there was, there was no there there. And in fact, there was a period of time

[5:44:55] During the last 30 years, early on, maybe 20 years ago,

[5:44:58] that it seemed like at some point.

[5:45:00] That sort of the big box retail because of 26 affording the kind of easy and easy out and big spaces. Big box retail located outside of your downtown. And there was a real opportunity or chance that that might go via the direction and there wouldn't ever be there there. But I think the work you've done and probably some of your predecessors, I think there is a real community in the downtown area. So good on you for that.

[5:45:26] I appreciate about the vacuum.

[5:45:32] So seeing no more questions on this, thank you, Mr. Neil, very, very much, wonderful conversation.

[5:45:37] As other commissioners have said, it really helps us so much to hear from local folks who are actually doing this work on the ground.

[5:45:44] It helps us understand the work we've done to date, but also informs the next real making effort that we have.

[5:45:50] So thanks very much.

[5:45:53] Thank all of you and have a great weekend.

[5:45:55] you to back to Robert.

[5:45:58] Yeah, thank you, Chairman Carthor.

[5:46:00] And thank you, Kelly.

[5:46:01] I don't have any more slides,

[5:46:03] but I am available for questions from the commission.

[5:46:08] I don't have any questions.

[5:46:10] I'll ask my colleagues of that in a sec,

[5:46:12] but I just, I'm just really continue to be amazed

[5:46:16] at the housing team and impressed.

[5:46:19] Just, I, we said earlier,

[5:46:21] I don't know if you were online,

[5:46:22] we said earlier talking about the commission or the department budget

[5:46:25] that really the work that the entire team, you and Ethan and the entire team and that it's not just the housing team but all the folks that work with you in department.

[5:46:34] The way you did the rulemaking, the rules themselves, the outreach, these forums that you provide monthly just to make sure people understand this.

[5:46:44] That just takes an enormous amount of resource.

[5:46:48] And it's such it's so exciting to think that you're doing that work and I know it's it's cumbersome, but it's so important because I think perhaps in the old old days we used to adopt a role in move on partly because we were busy.

[5:47:01] But I'm just really excited about this model. We may not be able to reproduce this model in every single we're making effort. This is a grand model that you guys have a perfect is so thanks for that.

[5:47:14] Thank you, Chairman Carthor. We appreciate it.

[5:47:18] And yeah, the open forums, I think, was a great idea.

[5:47:22] I think Ethan brought that up. It's a great idea because we,

[5:47:27] even though a lot of the, well, the rule making is done.

[5:47:30] A lot of the implementation from medium cities is done.

[5:47:34] We still get to hear feedback on how it went.

[5:47:38] How it's going after the rules are effective.

[5:47:40] And a lot of the large cities, some of the obstacles that they're still facing.

[5:47:47] So yeah, the Open of Forum has been great for continued feedback.

[5:47:55] Thanks, Robert.

[5:47:56] Any other questions, comments from commissioners?

[5:48:00] Do you see any?

[5:48:03] Well, great high note to end on.

[5:48:05] Thanks, everyone.

[5:48:06] And oh, there's no public comment.

[5:48:08] Thank you for that.

[5:48:09] I'm so bad at that.

[5:48:12] Thank you.

[5:48:12] I need all sorts of prompts.

[5:48:13] It's not because I don't like public involvement, I really do, but I kind of get going toward the end of the conversation.

[5:48:20] So thanks for their reminder. We will adjourn for the night, and we convened tomorrow morning at 830 and start the climate work.

[5:48:32] So thanks, everyone. Great day.

[5:48:38] Thank you.

[5:48:40] Recording stuff.

July 22-23, 2021 LCDC Meeting (Day 1)

Agenda

Transcript