[0:05] Oh, I'd like to call to order this
[0:07] meeting of housing authority of the city
[0:10] of Salem for Monday, September 28th. If
[0:13] the recorder would please call the role.
[0:17] >> Commissioner Tyen,
[0:18] >> present.
[0:19] >> Commissioner Matthews,
[0:21] >> here.
[0:22] >> Vice Chair Gwyn,
[0:24] >> here.
[0:26] >> Present.
[0:28] Commissioner Bane,
[0:32] Commissioner Nordike here,
[0:35] Commissioner Barney here. Chair Nishioa,
[0:44] » you're muted, chair.
[0:49] » Thank you. I'm here.
[0:53] And would everyone rise for the pledge
[0:55] of allegiance?
[1:02] the United States of America and to the
[1:05] republic for which it stands. One nation
[1:09] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[1:12] justice for all.
[1:27] So, moving on. Um, there are no
[1:30] additions or deletions to our agenda. Do
[1:32] we have anyone signed up for public
[1:34] comment?
[1:37] Mr. Mark Wig, please. You have three
[1:41] minutes.
[1:54] Okay, thanks. Yeah. What brings me
[1:57] tonight is uh again chasing campers out
[2:00] of Wallace and no place for them to go.
[2:03] And um but I didn't know whether the
[2:07] counselors knew that um the city owns 20
[2:12] acres next to Wallace Marine Park that
[2:15] they bought for Marine Drive and it
[2:17] includes four homes, 7,500 square ft of
[2:20] homes and 20 acres [clears throat] and
[2:24] that road was only going to need like
[2:26] four acres of that. And I talked to uh
[2:30] DJ Vincent who said he would be able to
[2:34] turn that into housing for a lot of
[2:37] people
[2:38] relatively shortly, you know, in a quick
[2:41] amount of time. But I didn't know
[2:43] whether the, you know, it would be nice
[2:45] if council encouraged the city to let's
[2:49] investigate using that land.
[2:54] And um the other thing is um in doing
[2:59] that because it's 20 acres uh the city
[3:03] could also pass that and uh something
[3:06] like Eugene and Portland have done that
[3:09] allow a trailer to be parked and lived
[3:11] in on private land and uh so that would
[3:15] be good one too. Anyway,
[3:20] >> thank you for your testimony.
[3:26] So, moving on to our consent calendar.
[3:31] >> I'll make a motion to approve the
[3:33] consent calendar.
[3:34] >> Second.
[3:36] >> We have a motion and a second.
[3:39] >> Uh the consent calendar this evening
[3:41] consists of minutes uh from the August
[3:44] 24th, 2026
[3:46] uh Salem Housing Authority meeting. Uh
[3:49] there's no action items on the consent
[3:51] calendar. There's resolution for the
[3:53] adoption of the fiscal year 2026 2027
[3:56] housing authority operating budget and
[3:59] HUD certification. And that's the end of
[4:01] the consent calendar.
[4:04] >> Anyone have any questions?
[4:07] Will the recorder please call the role?
[4:10] >> Vice Chair Gwen.
[4:12] >> I.
[4:14] >> Commissioner Brown.
[4:15] >> I.
[4:16] >> Commissioner Bang absent. Commissioner
[4:19] Nordike. I
[4:22] >> Commissioner Vney.
[4:23] >> I
[4:24] >> Commissioner Tyen.
[4:25] >> I
[4:26] >> Commissioner Matthews.
[4:27] >> I
[4:28] >> Chair Nishoka.
[4:30] >> I
[4:34] » There are no public hearings, no special
[4:37] orders of business. We do have an
[4:39] information report.
[4:41] Is that you, Nicole? Welcome.
[4:49] Good evening. I'm Nicole Yuse. I'm the
[4:51] director director of housing for Salem
[4:54] Housing Authority. And tonight, um
[4:56] you'll see in our program management
[4:58] report, we had a wonderful event in
[5:01] August for uh back to school uh shop
[5:04] with a cop. Um many of our littlest
[5:07] residents were outfitted completely
[5:09] through collaboration with law
[5:11] enforcement partners and we greatly
[5:12] appreciate that continued partnership.
[5:15] Um, also in that information, we're
[5:17] excited to announce that we have been
[5:19] released from short sal short shortfall
[5:21] status from the from HUD. Um, we have
[5:24] our official notification. Um, that's
[5:28] pretty unheard of to be able to complete
[5:30] a shortfall process with HUD within less
[5:32] than a year's time. So, we're excited to
[5:34] be able to start releasing vouchers back
[5:36] into the community slowly. That doesn't
[5:39] mean that we have an abundance of
[5:40] vouchers to get out open and out on the
[5:42] streets. means we're very carefully
[5:44] monitoring our aotment and our available
[5:47] budget each month and working with
[5:49] partners and partnerships to continue to get some additional out there. Um,
[5:54] for those of you who don't know, we were
[5:57] uh provided uh notification that uh the
[6:00] 10 uh fostering youth initiative
[6:03] vouchers that we had applied for have
[6:05] been uh provided to Salem Housing
[6:07] Authority and so we're quickly turned
[6:08] around and applied for five more. So,
[6:11] we've built a partnership with ODHS, uh,
[6:13] Oregon Department of Human Services,
[6:15] Church at the Park, and, um, uh, the
[6:19] Pulk Family Resource Center, uh, to help
[6:22] us provide wraparound supportive
[6:24] services for young adults aged 18 to 24.
[6:28] So, we're excited to get that going and
[6:30] add and supply more for our young adult
[6:32] community in Salem.
[6:34] That also comes with $7,500 in
[6:37] additional admin fees um to our agency.
[6:40] We have supplied out $3.17 million into
[6:43] the community in the last month for
[6:45] housing choice voucher payments and
[6:47] we're still very carefully monitoring um
[6:50] rent reasonleness to keep our uh like I
[6:52] said keep us out of shortfall and
[6:54] continue to be out of shortfall
[6:56] hopefully into 2027. Uh that means out
[6:59] of uh 3,300 vouchers, we are only right
[7:02] now at 3,030 that we can uh provide
[7:06] assistance to. So uh every rent
[7:09] reasonableist, every rent increase that
[7:11] is coming through the agency is being
[7:12] carefully monitored and reviewed each
[7:15] one independently. Um and we're also
[7:18] seeing more and more rents out there on
[7:20] the market. So we're seeing more rentals
[7:22] come open in various uh zip codes. Uh so
[7:25] our landlord navigator was very busy.
[7:27] She was up to 90 referrals this month
[7:29] and so that's uh quite a few different
[7:31] uh cases that she's working and doing a
[7:34] great job. I wanted to uh we don't often
[7:37] talk about our mechanic team and I
[7:39] wanted to just point out that uh we had
[7:41] a HUD inspection uh this past month with
[7:45] uh Southair Apartments and we received a
[7:48] comment that we don't always get from
[7:49] HUD and I just wanted to pass this along
[7:51] because this really shows the commitment
[7:53] to that the team provides on our
[7:56] properties. Um they said what an amazing
[7:59] job your team did with Inspire REAC
[8:01] inspections. you had just a few uh life
[8:04] safety issues identified. Even though
[8:07] your score will not be released for some
[8:09] time, it's definitely going to be high.
[8:11] Thank you for the care you continue to
[8:13] demonstrate toward your tenants and
[8:15] community, your group is an example for
[8:17] others to follow. There is nothing
[8:19] further you need to do at this time. So,
[8:22] that mechanic really um you can tell
[8:25] that he has a lot of care and ownership
[8:27] in his property. So, wanted to pass that
[8:29] along to show that we uh really try to
[8:32] go above and beyond and make sure that
[8:34] our uh apartment complexes throughout
[8:36] town are always good neighbors for the
[8:38] rest of the community and those who live
[8:40] there. And I'm happy to answer any
[8:42] questions.
[8:46] » Thank you um Director Youths as always
[8:48] for your report. I should have said this
[8:50] while we were um considering your budget
[8:52] during the consent calendar, but I just
[8:55] um want to acknowledge and appreciate
[8:57] the executive summary that your team put
[8:59] together for your budget is very helpful
[9:01] to see that that that topline number to
[9:04] be able to share with the community. So,
[9:06] first off, thank you for that. Um and
[9:08] then I wanted to ask you a question. And
[9:11] I think in some ways you've already
[9:12] answered it and it's a topic we've
[9:14] discussed in the past, but um I'm
[9:17] responding to reporting that I've heard
[9:19] up in Portland that they might have as
[9:21] many as 2,200
[9:25] um unused affordable apartments in the
[9:28] Portland area because of rent
[9:30] compression.
[9:31] >> And so I'm curious if you can just speak
[9:33] to that. Is that your understanding? And
[9:36] can you talk a little bit about Salem's
[9:38] rental market compared to Portland's and
[9:40] whether we have that coming in our
[9:42] future or if it's something we can
[9:44] actively manage?
[9:45] >> I think that's a really great question.
[9:47] What we're seeing in Portland is a
[9:49] little different than what we're seeing
[9:50] in the Salem market. I don't know the
[9:52] exact number of affordable units, but I
[9:54] do know um that I've heard various
[9:57] different numbers anywhere from 900 to
[9:59] 2,000 um out there. There are various
[10:02] different levels of affordable housing
[10:04] and I think that needs to be also
[10:06] distinguished is that a lot of times it
[10:09] gets clumped together as affordable
[10:10] housing even though some may believe
[10:13] that's subsidized housing and that isn't
[10:16] the always the case. Affordable housing
[10:19] um they actually set your rents based on
[10:22] an area. It's usually a year or two
[10:24] behind the scale. So what we saw what
[10:26] we're seeing happen in Portland is that
[10:29] the rents for affordable housing and
[10:31] what a lot of those affordable housing
[10:32] developers are requesting is now where
[10:35] we're seeing the private market starting
[10:37] to drop rents to and it's made it to be
[10:40] where that compression stands. And so
[10:44] when you're talking about trying to get
[10:46] an apartment and quickly get into an
[10:48] apartment, low-income housing tax
[10:50] credits have a what we like to call
[10:52] almost a mortgage amount of paperwork
[10:54] required to get through the door. And so
[10:57] there's individuals that will uh choose
[10:59] a private market that doesn't have all
[11:01] the regulatory requirements if it means
[11:04] there's a 20 to50 maybe $70 uh
[11:07] difference in the rents. We're closely
[11:10] monitoring that and of course I'd be
[11:12] happy to bring that back if we believe
[11:13] that this market may be headed into that
[11:16] same area, but we haven't had any
[11:18] indication that we've hit that point
[11:20] here in Salem.
[11:21] >> Okay, thank you for that.
[11:25] » Go ahead.
[11:27] >> Uh so kind of with that idea, I know
[11:30] that a lot of the subsidized projects
[11:31] that we do, some of them are 60% AMI,
[11:33] which are obviously a much lower rent
[11:35] amount, but a lot of them are 80% AMI.
[11:38] And so where is the impression is like
[11:41] okay then that must be that they're
[11:43] paying 80% of what the market is or
[11:45] whatever it might be even though that's
[11:46] not really the calculation that's done.
[11:47] It's based on their income. It's 80% of
[11:49] the overall median area median income. I
[11:51] guess my question is is when do we know
[11:53] right now or maybe this is something you
[11:54] have to bring back for someone that's
[11:56] making 80 or that for a project that's
[11:58] at 80% AMI rent. Where is that at
[12:01] comparison right now to our market rent?
[12:06] Do you have a better idea?
[12:08] >> I would say it's probably closer to the
[12:10] payment standards for the section 8
[12:12] voucher program. Um, so
[12:15] let's say it's a two-bedroom, one bath
[12:20] in South Salem. I believe we're upwards
[12:23] of 16 about 15 to,600 a month in uh what
[12:27] the fair market rent can handle. So 80%
[12:30] is going to be right pretty close to our
[12:32] fair market rents. So, our 80%
[12:35] subsidized units are equaling out about
[12:37] where our fair market is right now.
[12:38] Okay, good. Thank you.
[12:40] >> And I will say that we there's I should
[12:43] also say that we're seeing what we're
[12:44] seeing in the affordable housing market
[12:46] too is not only a compression on the
[12:48] rents, but we're also seeing a
[12:49] compression on the area median incomes.
[12:52] So, uh, some of those units are sitting
[12:55] vacant because it's very challenging to
[12:58] hit 60% of below, um, working with maybe
[13:02] a double household income. Uh, even with
[13:06] a standardized working at home like
[13:08] let's say Home Depot or, uh, Amazon or
[13:10] something, the two person household,
[13:13] maybe with two or three children in it,
[13:15] then they still are over income. So
[13:18] we're really seeing that people are just
[13:19] above that 60% or they're well below and
[13:23] they need to be subsidized. So there's a
[13:25] little bit of a gap in the area median
[13:28] incomes that's also become very
[13:29] challenging and that's why we're also
[13:31] working for towards partnerships and
[13:33] what's called workforce housing the 80%
[13:36] um because that actually allows that
[13:38] little bit more uh income into the
[13:40] household for those two uh household
[13:44] earners that to be able to qualify for
[13:46] affordable housing.
[13:51] » Anyone else?
[13:54] Nicole, oh, go ahead.
[13:56] >> I would just like to follow up, you
[13:58] know, um, as we look at things like our
[14:01] housing production strategy. Um, at one
[14:04] of our previous meetings, we were
[14:06] talking about using the bond funds
[14:09] towards um, housing projects as we use
[14:12] the federal funds that come through
[14:13] housing projects. I just really value
[14:16] you and your your team staff perspective
[14:18] on this and how if we can get just a
[14:22] little bit more ahead of these issues,
[14:25] then we're maybe have some strategy in
[14:28] place to to stay ahead of compression
[14:30] like this.
[14:31] >> Um I think all of us on the housing
[14:34] authority and on the council really want
[14:36] to make sure that every dime that we
[14:38] spend on affordable housing people can
[14:40] actually use and not have it sit vacant.
[14:43] So to the extent that you've got
[14:46] perspective on these markets as they
[14:48] shift over the next 12 months um 18
[14:51] months, it's really valuable to bring
[14:52] that back to us. So thank you.
[14:54] >> Absolutely.
[14:56] >> And I wanted to say although you kind of
[14:59] skipped over it, I think the being
[15:03] called out for doing a great job by HUD,
[15:06] that's huge. Um no, it really is. I
[15:09] mean, usually they're like, "Check the
[15:11] box, you're okay." or or but for them to
[15:15] take that extra time to acknowledge what
[15:19] a great job you guys are doing speaks
[15:21] volumes I think. So, thank you so much.
[15:24] >> It's definitely a nice change. I've been
[15:25] here 24 years and it's not very often
[15:27] you get that comment.
[15:28] >> Yeah, absolutely.
[15:32] Was there a presentation too
[15:35] or
[15:37] >> on the budget? But if there's no
[15:38] >> Okay. Did anyone have any questions on
[15:41] the budget presentation?
[15:45] >> And were you were you good?
[15:49] >> Yes, I'm good.
[15:51] >> Oh, did you have a question?
[15:54] >> Are we going to look at the budget or we
[15:55] just is Was it part of the consent
[15:57] calendar? It was
[15:58] >> my
[16:01] perfect.
[16:03] >> Okay. So if that is all I think we are
[16:05] adjourned.
[16:06] >> Thank you.
[16:57] I'd like to call to order this meeting
[16:58] of Salem City Council for
[17:01] Monday, September 28th, 2026. Will the
[17:04] recorder please call the role?
[17:07] >> Councelor Tyen,
[17:08] >> present.
[17:09] >> Councelor Mishoka
[17:11] >> here. Councelor Matthews
[17:13] >> here.
[17:13] >> Councelor Gwen
[17:15] >> here.
[17:16] >> Councelor Brown
[17:17] >> present.
[17:18] >> Councelor Bang absent. Councelor Nordike
[17:21] >> here. Councelor Vney
[17:23] >> here. Mayor Julie Hoy
[17:25] >> here. All right. Uh, chair prom,
[17:30] do we have any additions or deletions to
[17:32] the agenda?
[17:34] >> We do have an addition item 4.2.
[17:40] Um, it's a presentation
[17:45] on the um, I'm sorry, the public hearing
[17:49] letter this evening.
[17:54] And we have some written testimony. 4.1.
[17:59] » All right. Thank you.
[18:02] Can we have a motion?
[18:06] >> I move approval of the additions and
[18:09] deletions to the agenda.
[18:11] >> Second.
[18:13] >> We have a motion and a second.
[18:22] Give us just one moment.
[18:26] >> Okay, great. Will the recorder please
[18:27] call the role?
[18:29] >> Councelor Nishioa
[18:34] » I.
[18:35] >> Councelor Matthews
[18:36] >> I.
[18:37] >> Councelor Gwyn
[18:38] >> I.
[18:38] >> Councelor Brown
[18:40] >> I.
[18:40] >> Councelor Bang absent. Councelor Nordai.
[18:43] >> I.
[18:44] >> Councelor Vney.
[18:45] >> I.
[18:46] >> Councelor Tyen. I,
[18:47] >> Mayor Julie Hoy,
[18:49] >> I. Okay, we're moving on to council and
[18:51] city manager comment. Does anyone have
[18:53] anything they'd like to share?
[18:56] >> Councelor Nordic, go ahead. Thank you so
[18:58] much. Good evening, folks. I just want
[19:00] to let you know that I am continuing
[19:03] with my monthly garbage cleanup
[19:05] projects. These are held second Fridays
[19:08] 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. And we change
[19:11] the location every time because we want
[19:13] to change and really share in that
[19:15] spirit of volunteerism around the city
[19:17] and ensure that not just one part of
[19:19] town is getting the additional support.
[19:22] So for the month of October, our garbage
[19:25] cleanup will be located at Fiser Road
[19:28] Park and that is located at 4350
[19:31] Fiser Road Northeast. That is in Ward 5.
[19:35] this time. Very excited to travel out to
[19:38] that area. Anyone is welcome. You don't
[19:41] have to live in Northeast Salem, but if
[19:43] you would like to be a part of that, you
[19:45] are welcome to attend. As always, we do
[19:47] have an RSVP link because we want to
[19:50] know if you're coming. If we know you're
[19:52] coming, we'll have enough donuts.
[19:55] Deliberate pause there while you linger
[19:57] over which one you'll want. Is it the
[19:59] Bearclaw? Is it the apple? You'll just
[20:02] have to RSVP to ensure we have enough
[20:04] food. Of course. Uh but also we want to
[20:07] make sure we have enough safety vests,
[20:09] uh garbage bags, sterile gloves, the
[20:12] pickers, all those things to ensure that
[20:14] we have a fun but also a very safe
[20:17] experience. So if you would like to
[20:19] RSVP, please visit my Facebook page and
[20:22] click the events tab. I've also pinned
[20:25] this event to the top of my profile to
[20:27] make it easy to find. So, one more time,
[20:29] that is Friday, October 9, 8 to 10:00
[20:31] a.m. This time we are going to Fiser
[20:35] Road Park, 4350 Fischer Road, and I hope
[20:38] to see you there. Thank you so much.
[20:42] >> Anyone else? Uh, Councelor Tyan, go
[20:44] ahead.
[20:45] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, first, uh,
[20:47] since we, uh, last met in session, um,
[20:50] some of our neighbors were able to
[20:53] celebrate the 50th anniversary of the
[20:55] Grant Neighborhood Association and the
[20:57] Highland Neighborhood Association with a
[20:59] very fun uh, park at Broadway Commons on
[21:02] Broadway. Um, and it was a great event
[21:07] with uh, musicians and a bouncy house.
[21:11] And I was joined there by fellow
[21:13] counselor, Dr. Dr. Irvin Brown. Uh we
[21:16] had a very nice afternoon and I really
[21:19] want to acknowledge the work of uh the
[21:21] Highland Neighborhood Association, the
[21:24] leadership of that board. Um Ryan and
[21:26] Holly and Seline and Cat uh from the
[21:29] Grant Neighborhood Association put in a
[21:31] lot of hours for that celebration. Uh
[21:34] those neighborhood associations have
[21:35] done an amazing amount of work, amazing
[21:38] amount of work over the last 50 years.
[21:40] So it was very fun to celebrate. also of
[21:43] course want to acknowledge uh our
[21:45] wonderful neighborhood uh coordinator
[21:47] Irma at the city who also of course
[21:49] helps with many of these events. Um
[21:52] indeed the other thing I wanted to
[21:54] remark on today is um I was doing some
[21:59] shopping for internet service at my
[22:02] house and of course this intersects with
[22:04] an issue that has uh dominated the
[22:07] inboxes of ward one and ward 2
[22:10] especially I believe as we've um as a
[22:13] council approved um folks to use the
[22:16] city's right of way to do fiber optic
[22:18] buildouts and I just wanted to uh
[22:22] without you know naming any of the
[22:24] companies um I I got a call from a
[22:26] constituent this last week and she just
[22:30] asked me point and blank she's like why
[22:32] are you doing this you know why why
[22:36] and I really thought about it um we have
[22:38] an interest in improving broadband
[22:41] across our city but I work from home and
[22:44] I depend on uh internet service in order
[22:47] to do my job and internet service has
[22:50] become something that's vital to living
[22:53] in the modern age. And I would say about
[22:56] four years ago, there was only one way
[22:59] to get internet service in our
[23:00] community. And it was not cheap. Um
[23:03] internet isn't cheap to begin with, but
[23:05] um it was well I looked at our last bill
[23:07] and it was well over $110 a month just
[23:10] for the high-speed internet. Um, I was
[23:14] able about a year ago to use uh to use
[23:18] fiber from one company and that cost
[23:20] went down to $100 a month. And just this
[23:23] week I looked again um to the two new
[23:26] installers coming into our community.
[23:28] I'm not endorsing them. I'm not going to
[23:29] use their names, but one of them offered
[23:32] twice the speed for $80 and another one
[23:35] offered three times the speed that I
[23:36] have right now for $70.
[23:39] And so there's not many things where the
[23:42] cost of it is going down, but because
[23:45] we've been able to um offer and get into
[23:49] an agreement with these companies, what
[23:52] did cost my family $110 a month uh three
[23:56] years ago could cost my family $70 a
[24:00] month starting next month. And so I just
[24:03] want to when we have the ability to say
[24:05] we've made decisions that increase the
[24:08] market and the ability for people to pay
[24:11] less for an essential service like the
[24:13] internet. I think it's something that we
[24:15] should acknowledge. It's not fun to have
[24:17] your city your street ripped up. I know
[24:20] that people have had very difficult
[24:22] times with it. Um, but in the end, I
[24:24] think it's a positive to our city and to
[24:26] our community that people could be
[24:28] paying, you know, upwards of 30 to 40%
[24:30] less for their internet service today
[24:32] than they were four years ago. So, I
[24:35] just wanted to share the output of that
[24:37] conversation with the community as a
[24:38] whole. Thank you, Mayor.
[24:41] >> A little piece of good news. Thank you,
[24:43] Councelor Tyan. Anyone else?
[24:47] >> Um, a point of clarification. When you
[24:49] and Dr. Brown met, was it in the bouncy
[24:52] house? or
[24:54] >> yes,
[24:55] >> the bouncy house bouncer would not have
[24:57] let us both there. Let's just be clear.
[25:00] >> Dr. Brown refused to take his shoes off,
[25:01] I'll bet. But that's okay.
[25:04] >> Um,
[25:06] moving on. I do want to acknowledge the
[25:08] fact that the mayor of Pendleton is not
[25:10] in the room, uh, McKenna McDonald, but
[25:13] she is in Salem, and we met up this
[25:16] afternoon for, um, a little a a really
[25:19] in-depth discussion at TJ Maxx, and um,
[25:23] she's just doing a really great job.
[25:25] She's served their community for 12
[25:27] years, and I just wanted to take a
[25:29] moment to acknowledge her and uh, her
[25:31] work there in Pendleton. So, all right.
[25:35] Um [clears throat] if nothing further,
[25:37] councelor Nishoka, did you have
[25:38] anything?
[25:40] Nope. Okay. Um then we will move on to
[25:43] proclamations and it's my honor to
[25:46] present the first proclamation which is
[25:48] for National Senior Center Month. I'd
[25:51] like to call to the stage, please, uh,
[25:53] Lannne Watson, Friends of Center 50
[25:56] Plus, President Sylvia Machado, South
[25:59] Salem Senior's President, Douglas Meyer,
[26:03] South Salem Board Member, and John
[26:05] Hughes, chair of Center 50 Plus Advisory
[26:08] Commission.
[26:30] It's John.
[26:32] >> Okay. John Hughes is not present with us
[26:34] tonight. Acknowledging Marilyn uh Daily
[26:36] Blair out there uh in the audience. So I
[26:40] will let you hold this so you can read
[26:42] along with me.
[26:48] Whereas the city of Salem is home to
[26:50] tens of thousands of older adults whose
[26:52] wisdom, experience, volunteerism, and
[26:55] lifelong contributions help make our
[26:58] community strong and vibrant. And
[27:00] whereas Salem's senior centers are
[27:02] welcoming places where older adults can
[27:04] remain active, engaged, independent, and
[27:07] connected. And whereas senior centers
[27:10] support healthy aging through education,
[27:12] wellness and fitness, lifelong learning,
[27:15] social and volunteer opportunities,
[27:17] creative arts, supportive services, and
[27:20] resources that promote physical, mental
[27:22] and emotional well-being. And whereas
[27:25] our senior centers help reduce
[27:27] loneliness and social isolization,
[27:30] isolation rather, significant public
[27:32] health concerns that affect the health
[27:34] and quality of life of older adults. And
[27:37] whereas senior centers strengthen Salem
[27:40] by fostering friendships, connecting
[27:42] generations, supporting caregivers,
[27:44] encouraging civic participation, and
[27:47] contributing th thousands of volunteer
[27:49] hours each year. And whereas Salem's
[27:52] senior centers are committed to serving
[27:54] people of all backgrounds with dignity,
[27:56] respect, compassion, and opportunities
[27:59] for meaningful engagement. Now
[28:01] therefore, I, Julie Hoy, mayor of the
[28:04] city of Salem, do hereby proclaim
[28:06] October 2026 as National Senior Center
[28:09] Month in the city of Salem, recognizing
[28:12] the invaluable contributions of Salem's
[28:15] senior centers and their dedicated
[28:17] staff, volunteers, members, community
[28:20] partners, and supporters. I [snorts]
[28:22] encourage all residents to celebrate the
[28:24] important role senior centers play in
[28:26] enriching lives, strengthening
[28:28] neighborhoods, promoting healthy aging,
[28:30] and building a more connected and
[28:32] compassionate Salem. Dated this 28th day
[28:35] of September, 2026.
[28:37] Thank you.
[28:40] [applause]
[28:44] On behalf of South Salem Senior Center,
[28:47] I'd like to thank the mayor and the city
[28:49] council for this proclamation.
[28:53] I want to add to that it is an honor and
[28:56] a privilege for everyone in the senior
[28:59] community, not only South Salem Senior
[29:01] Center and those participating in the
[29:04] other senior center, not only here but
[29:07] in other cities nearby, but for everyone
[29:10] in the community. We would want to
[29:12] extend the opportunity to please when
[29:14] you get a moment and you have the desire
[29:16] and your body is willing, stop by at the
[29:19] senior center. We would love to see you
[29:20] and say hi.
[29:23] Did you want to add something?
[29:24] >> No, just thank you so much, mayor and
[29:27] council. We really appreciate your being
[29:29] behind us and it's a wonderful, place.
[29:34] >> Thank you. We are with you and I should
[29:36] be showing up there. Frankly, I've
[29:38] earned it. So, [laughter]
[29:42] >> yeah. Thank you. Let's line up up front
[29:43] here for a picture if that's okay.
[30:21] Thank you, Madam Mayor.
[30:25] I have the pleasure of uh our second
[30:29] proclamation. Um I'd like to welcome to
[30:31] the stage our uh planning director Lisa
[30:34] Anderson Ogulvie and select staff
[30:46] All right, here they come.
[30:57] You did it for most of the year. It's
[30:59] good you can be here. [laughter]
[31:02] All right. What a crew. Um well, whereas
[31:06] thoughtful community planning helps
[31:08] guide change in cities, towns, rural
[31:11] areas, and suburbs and creates ways for
[31:14] residents to participate in decisions
[31:16] that shape the future of their
[31:17] community. And whereas the full value of
[31:20] planning is realized when elected
[31:22] leaders and community members are
[31:24] informed, engaged, and committed to
[31:27] highquality plans and effective
[31:29] implementation.
[31:30] And whereas the American Planning
[31:32] Association recognizes National
[31:34] Community Planning Month as a time to
[31:36] celebrate the importance of planning and
[31:38] the role it plays in strengthening
[31:40] communities. And whereas planners
[31:43] advance the public interest by taking a
[31:45] long-term communitywide view, supporting
[31:49] places that are safer, more resilient,
[31:51] more equitable, and more economically
[31:53] vibrant. And whereas City of Salem
[31:56] planners support the community's vision
[31:59] by helping ensure that growth and
[32:01] changes to the built environment are
[32:03] coordinated, intentional, and aligned
[32:05] with its adopted goals. And now,
[32:08] therefore, on behalf of Julie Hoy, mayor
[32:10] of the city of Salem, we do proclaim
[32:12] October 2026 as National Community
[32:15] Planning Month in the city of Salem. And
[32:18] we commend the city's professional staff
[32:21] and the dedicated volunteers who serve
[32:22] on the Salem Planning Commission for
[32:25] their contributions to our community
[32:27] dated this 28th day of September, 2026.
[32:30] Let's give our planners a hand.
[32:31] [applause]
[32:34] Thank you.
[32:37] Uh thank you to Madame Mayor and the
[32:39] council. We really appreciate it. Um
[32:41] this is not all the planning staff. Not
[32:43] everybody could make it tonight, but we
[32:44] have planners from community planning
[32:46] and development, public works, and
[32:47] community services. Um, so you have
[32:49] planners all across the city that work
[32:51] on land use, transportation, housing,
[32:52] natural resources, all kinds of fun
[32:54] stuff like that. Um, October is planning
[32:57] month, and we wanted to take a moment to
[32:58] invite you to our planning event. We're
[33:00] having our fifth annual Planner Palooa,
[33:02] um, which is a lot of fun. Uh, we're
[33:04] going to have it on October 8th. It's on
[33:05] the screen behind us, from 4:30 to 6:00
[33:07] at Chicha Brewing. It's a casual event.
[33:10] Um, there'll be food, there'll be door
[33:12] prizes. Um, and you can come by and chat
[33:14] with planners. You can ask us about
[33:15] specific projects or just chat about
[33:17] planning and Salem and growth in
[33:20] general. And we're happy to talk to you.
[33:22] Um, and yeah, super casual and it's a
[33:24] lot of fun. So, we hope everybody,
[33:26] including the council, uh, feels free to
[33:28] stop by. Thank you very much.
[33:30] >> Okay, why don't you guys hold here for a
[33:31] photo?
[33:45] » [applause]
[34:01] » I've been to the planning palooa and um
[34:04] it's fun. It's like having a bunch of
[34:06] planning nerds in the room that you can
[34:08] ask all kinds of questions to. Super
[34:11] great. Um, and they know how to party. I
[34:14] will say that. Um, I am going am
[34:18] privileged to present um or to let
[34:21] everybody know about an award that was
[34:23] received uh in for the excellence in
[34:26] planning, the large city award. Uh Jeff
[34:30] Johnson, please. uh City of Salem
[34:32] natural resource planner and committee
[34:34] members uh Rob Ramck,
[34:38] planning manager three and Jen Mongalo,
[34:42] consultant with Streetscape
[34:44] Environmental. Thanks for being here.
[34:48] I'll hand you this
[34:51] and then I get to read this. Come on in.
[34:54] The Oregon chapter of the American
[34:56] Planning Association awarded the Mento
[34:58] Island Conservation Area Land Management
[35:00] Plan 2025 to 30 2035 and Jeffrey
[35:04] Johnson, City of Salem Natural Resource
[35:06] Planner with the Excellence in Planning
[35:08] Award in the large city category. The
[35:11] planning project was led by Jeff and
[35:13] with consultant support from Jen Mongalo
[35:16] with Streamscape, Streamscape
[35:18] Environmental, and Stuart Meyers with
[35:20] Mason, Bruce, and Gerard. This long time
[35:24] long-term management plan is for 307
[35:27] acres of urban conservation are within
[35:29] Mento Brown Island Park and seeks to
[35:31] outline strategies and projects focused
[35:33] on integrating ecological sciences,
[35:36] management needs, regulatory
[35:37] requirements, and community input. It
[35:40] showcases how our planners and the city
[35:42] of Salem are doing remarkable awarding
[35:44] awardw worthy work with our residents.
[35:47] Efforts like these make Salem a great
[35:49] place to live, work, and play. both for
[35:52] our residents today and for those who
[35:54] will call Salem home into the future.
[35:57] This plan in particular exemplifies
[36:00] innovative, collaborative, and adaptive
[36:02] natural resource management that
[36:04] balances ecological restoration with
[36:06] community access and stewardship.
[36:08] Building on a decade of work, this land
[36:10] management plan integrates new
[36:12] scientific data, legal commitments, and
[36:14] community values to ensure the long-term
[36:17] protection and enhancement of this vital
[36:19] 307 acre urban conservation area. The
[36:22] city has more than 90 parks in its
[36:24] portfolio with Mento Brown being one of
[36:26] the most welltraveled and well-loved. We
[36:29] love it, too. Would you like to thank
[36:32] some remarks?
[36:33] >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um, a plan like
[36:36] this doesn't come together with just one
[36:38] or two or even three people. It was a
[36:40] very large group of people and a large
[36:42] uh number of city staff that were
[36:44] involved. Um, former staff including Dr.
[36:47] Robert Chandler, uh, Matt Johnston, uh,
[36:50] as well as current staff including
[36:52] Kathleen Swarm, um, Michael Medina who
[36:56] did a lot of the mapping and other
[36:57] things, Rob uh, Romanac here, as well as
[37:00] Milin Davis, our urban forester. We also
[37:03] had collaboration with US Fish and
[37:05] Wildlife Service, Oregon Department of
[37:07] Fish and Wildlife, Department of
[37:09] Environmental Quality, uh NRCS,
[37:13] uh we had local environmental groups
[37:15] involved included say including Salem
[37:16] Ottabon, the Glen Gib Glenn Gibson
[37:19] Watershed Council, uh as well as others.
[37:22] and uh having all those experts and
[37:24] everyone involved really was key to
[37:27] making sure that we developed a plan
[37:29] that allowed us to balance having this
[37:32] beautiful park and having users be able
[37:34] to use it with the conservation values
[37:37] that the that the park was set up for.
[37:39] So, uh thank you, Madame Mayor, and
[37:41] everyone else. We're very grateful to be
[37:43] able to work with such a beautiful park
[37:45] system.
[37:45] >> Congratulations to you. [applause]
[37:48] Let's take a picture.
[37:54] Where's our photographer? Here he comes.
[38:30] It is time to move on to public comment.
[38:34] >> We have no one signed up except for the
[38:38] online person.
[38:39] >> Okay,
[38:41] we have one person signed up online
[38:44] under item two.
[38:50] » No.
[38:59] This is public eight or item eight.
[39:01] >> Okay, never mind. So, no one's
[39:04] >> Okay, we have no one signed up under
[39:06] item two. So, in that case
[39:09] that we are moving on to the consent
[39:13] calendar. Uh pro Tim chair
[39:17] uh
[39:18] >> I move approval of the I move approval
[39:20] of the consent calendar with the
[39:22] exception of 3.3.1
[39:25] which was pulled by the mayor.
[39:30] » Second.
[39:31] >> Thank you. We have a motion and a second
[39:32] by Tyen counselor to the motion.
[39:35] So, the consent calendar for this
[39:37] evening consists of our September 14th
[39:40] draft city council minutes and our
[39:43] September 21st draft city council
[39:45] minutes. And that concludes our consent
[39:48] calendar.
[39:49] >> Thank you. Any comment or questions?
[39:52] >> All right. Will the recorder please call
[39:54] the role?
[39:55] >> Councelor Matthews, I.
[39:58] >> Councelor Gwen,
[39:59] >> I. Councelor Brown,
[40:01] >> I.
[40:02] >> Councelor Bang, absent. Councelor
[40:03] Nordike
[40:04] >> I.
[40:05] >> Councelor Vney
[40:07] >> I.
[40:07] >> Councelor Tyen
[40:09] >> I.
[40:10] >> Councelor Nishioa
[40:12] >> I.
[40:12] >> Mayor Julie Hoy
[40:14] >> I. All right. We are moving on now to uh
[40:18] item 4.1.
[40:22] Salem City Council will now conduct a
[40:24] public hearing on ordinance bill number
[40:26] 1426 to consider establishing a
[40:29] designated speed of 20 mph on local
[40:31] residential streets and collector
[40:33] streets with less than 2,000 average
[40:35] annual daily traffic testimony arguments
[40:38] and evidence. Um
[40:40] I guess there is no evidence in this
[40:42] case. The hearing will be conducted with
[40:43] the staff presentation first followed by
[40:45] testimony from interested persons and
[40:48] testimony is limited to three minutes
[40:49] per person. Thank you.
[40:52] All right, I'll go ahead and open the
[40:54] public hearing. Go right ahead.
[40:56] >> Good evening, mayor and city councilors.
[40:58] My name is Hayden Dinger. I'm a
[40:59] transportation planner in the public
[41:00] works department.
[41:03] Um, I'd like to begin briefly with a
[41:05] legislative and administrative history
[41:07] of the 20th plenty initiative. Um, three
[41:10] main highlights um or four main
[41:13] highlights. Uh beginning in 2019, the
[41:14] Oregon State Legislature um adopted RS
[41:17] 810.180, which granted authority local
[41:20] jurisdictions to lower speed limits to
[41:21] 20 mph in residential areas by
[41:23] ordinance. In February of 2022, the city
[41:26] or the city council directed staff to
[41:28] create an implementation plan for a 20
[41:30] is plenty program, which then led to
[41:32] June of 2023 where city council
[41:34] authorized staff to apply for um safe
[41:37] streets and roads for all funding and
[41:39] then to enter an agreement with US DOT
[41:41] to accept accept those funds to develop
[41:43] both a safety action plan and implement
[41:45] 20th money. The city was awarded that
[41:47] grant in September of 2023. It was a
[41:49] $2.8 million grant. And since then,
[41:51] we've been in a um series of contract
[41:53] negotiations and agreements as well as
[41:55] the preliminary design. Um which is
[41:57] leading us to where we are at today.
[42:01] Um just briefly, uh why 20 mph? I'm not
[42:04] going to hit on all of these, but I'm
[42:05] going to touch on a few. Um first,
[42:07] increased safety for pedestrians. Um
[42:09] small speed changes have a significant
[42:11] impact on pedestrian outcomes in a
[42:13] crash. um at 25 or at 20 miles an hour,
[42:16] a pedestrian involved in an accident has
[42:18] 93% chance of survival. Whereas at 25
[42:21] miles an hour, that speed drops or that
[42:23] percentage of survival drops to about
[42:24] 75%.
[42:26] Um in addition to uh just outcomes on
[42:28] pedestrians involved in crashes, um in
[42:30] other cities, we've seen that a 20 mph
[42:34] um speed limit program leads to
[42:36] reduction in crashes and severity of
[42:37] those crashes. In Madison, Wisconsin, a
[42:40] pilot 20 m perph speed limit program led
[42:42] to a 40% reduction in crashes and
[42:44] contributed to an almost 60% decrease in
[42:46] crash fatalities um between 20 and 2024.
[42:50] In addition to increased safety for
[42:51] pedestrians, um we've seen that it
[42:53] reduces excessive speeding defined by
[42:55] defined as speeding over 5 miles per
[42:57] hour over the speed limit. Um Portland
[43:00] uh was one of the first cities in Oregon
[43:02] to implement a 20 plenty program and um
[43:05] they saw the greatest impact on
[43:06] excessive speeding in their city. Um led
[43:08] to an almost 50% reduction in speeding
[43:10] at both 30 mph and 35 mph. It's a pretty
[43:14] cost-effective measure. Um we're able to
[43:16] implement this citywide. We've got a map
[43:18] here in just a little bit, but we're
[43:19] able to implement 20 is plenty citywide
[43:21] um at a significantly reduced um cost
[43:24] compared to other traffic calming
[43:25] measures that we currently use such as
[43:26] speed bumps or speed cushions or radar
[43:28] feedback signs. I do want to be clear
[43:30] that this is just one tool in our
[43:32] toolbox to reduce um traffic fatalities.
[43:34] We are going to continue using some of
[43:36] those other tools, but this is one that
[43:37] we're able to implement citywide at a
[43:39] reduced cost.
[43:41] And then finally, I'd like to uh speak
[43:43] to uh traffic enforcement. We've seen
[43:45] 20th plenty and other cities work
[43:46] without increased enforcement. Um,
[43:49] specifically Portland when they rolled
[43:50] out their 20th pro 20th plenty program
[43:53] rolled it out as more of a marketing
[43:54] campaign and the change in speed.
[43:56] >> Excuse me for interrupting. Could you
[43:57] just slow down just a little bit with
[43:59] the translators struggling to keep up?
[44:00] >> No worries.
[44:01] >> Thanks a lot.
[44:02] >> Um,
[44:03] back to the additional enforcement
[44:05] piece. When Portland rolled out their
[44:07] 20th plenty program, they rolled it out
[44:10] um as a marketing and lowered speed
[44:12] limit um program as opposed to a program
[44:14] that also had an increased traffic
[44:16] enforcement component. And they still
[44:18] saw those reduced speed limits that I
[44:19] mentioned earlier. Um Salem Police
[44:21] Department uh has a limited ability to
[44:24] uh increase traffic enforcement. As I'm
[44:26] sure we're all aware, they are operating
[44:28] um with the resources that they have
[44:29] available. They will continue to monitor
[44:31] and manage traffic enforcement using
[44:33] their existing policies and processes. I
[44:35] do also want to briefly mention that the
[44:38] grant the city was awarded through Safe
[44:39] Streets and Roads for All also included
[44:41] $200,000 for more traffic calming
[44:43] equipment that will be managed by the
[44:45] Salem Police Department.
[44:49] Speaking to the location selection
[44:51] process, um approximately 3,000 signs
[44:54] will be installed on all local
[44:56] residential streets and collector
[44:57] streets with fewer than 2,000 average
[44:59] annual daily traffic. Those signs will
[45:02] be installed on city-owned poles when
[45:04] possible. And then in terms of sign
[45:06] frequency, um signs will generally be
[45:08] placed near intersections and then again
[45:11] at regular intervals along the street to
[45:13] ensure visibility and make sure that
[45:15] drivers are aware of the reduced speed
[45:17] limit.
[45:19] Um little bit more about location and
[45:22] scope of implementation. If you look to
[45:24] the left there, you'll see kind of a
[45:26] breakdown by ward as far as how many
[45:28] signs will be installed in each ward. As
[45:30] I mentioned earlier, it's approximately
[45:32] 3,000 signs citywide. In addition to
[45:35] those 3,000 speed limit signs, we'll
[45:37] also be installing 13 radar feedback
[45:39] signs to help drivers monitor their own
[45:41] speeds on these streets with reduced
[45:43] speed limits. The red or the radar
[45:45] feedback signs are represented on the
[45:47] that map by the little yellow dots that
[45:48] you're seeing.
[45:50] Um installation is anticipated to begin
[45:52] in early 2027 and will take about a year
[45:55] to complete. Um there'll be a geographic
[45:57] installation pattern, the exact phasing
[46:00] of which hasn't been determined yet.
[46:01] We're working on getting a contractor on
[46:03] board to do the installation of these
[46:04] signs and once that contractor is on
[46:06] board, we'll develop a phasing pattern
[46:08] that is the most efficient for them. Um,
[46:11] I do want to just point out this is a
[46:12] pretty complete blanketing of the city
[46:14] as you can see with a couple of
[46:16] exceptions. Um, first you'll notice that
[46:18] there will be no 20 mph speed signs
[46:20] downtown. Um, downtown is not classified
[46:23] as a residence district which affects
[46:25] our ability to use RS810.180
[46:28] to reduce the speed limits. Um, I will
[46:31] say that the public works department is
[46:32] currently finalizing um, recommendations
[46:35] for a downtown bicycle and pedestrian
[46:37] safety study that's going to be focused
[46:39] on improving bike and pedestrian safety,
[46:41] including through reducing vehicle
[46:43] speeds using signal timing in the
[46:44] downtown core. I also want to point out,
[46:47] you'll notice in the eastern half of
[46:48] Salem, the parts that are not within
[46:50] city limits are not receiving 20 mph
[46:52] signs. We have um you know worked with
[46:55] our colleagues over at Marian County and
[46:56] they've indicated that they are going to
[46:58] evaluate how our program goes within
[47:00] city limits before determining if they
[47:02] would also like to roll that out in the
[47:04] um county parts of the city of Salem.
[47:09] Speaking to the public engagement
[47:10] process so far, um the transportation
[47:13] planning unit uh attends community
[47:15] events pretty regularly to both explain
[47:18] ongoing projects and answer any
[47:19] questions that the community has about
[47:21] transportation. you see kind of a brief
[47:23] summary in front of you of some of the
[47:24] events that we've been to so far this
[47:26] year and discuss 20 is plenty at.
[47:29] Um I want to point out just a few
[47:31] quickly. The um quarterly neighborhood
[47:33] association chair meeting is something
[47:35] that we attended in January to discuss
[47:37] 20 is plenty at and then also we had
[47:39] staff discuss 20 is plenty at um earlier
[47:41] this week. I also want to point out the
[47:44] safe streets for all action plan open
[47:45] houses in June. As part of the safe
[47:48] streets for all action plan, we hosted a
[47:50] series of three open houses in June in
[47:52] different parts of the city at center 50
[47:53] plus, the West Salem library branch, and
[47:56] then the main library branch here just
[47:58] um south of downtown. And at those open
[48:00] house events, we had specific stations
[48:02] dedicated to 20th plenty. I'll also say
[48:05] that the transportation planning unit
[48:07] will continue to discuss open houses
[48:09] with neighborhood or um continue to
[48:10] discuss 2020 plenty with neighborhood
[48:12] associations and community groups at all
[48:14] events that we attend. Um moving
[48:16] forward, we're preparing sort of an
[48:18] outreach blitz here over the next few
[48:19] months to discuss a series of projects
[48:21] with the community including projects
[48:23] from the neighborhood traffic management
[48:24] plan and projects from the 2022 safety
[48:26] and livability bond. Um and so we'll be
[48:29] sharing 2020 information with all the
[48:31] neighborhood associations we tend as
[48:32] part of that. In addition to that
[48:34] outreach, we'll be reaching out to all
[48:35] neighborhood associations and just
[48:36] volunteering to attend if they would
[48:38] like to discuss 20 is plenty in more
[48:40] depth. Finally, I want to draw your
[48:42] attention to the very end of this slide
[48:44] um on the far right. In October, we're
[48:46] planning on beginning a focused
[48:48] pre-eployment campaign to ensure that
[48:49] the public is well informed of this
[48:51] change before it hits the street.
[48:55] That pre-eployment campaign is going to
[48:57] be focused on um a lot of material
[48:59] distribution, yard signs, postcards,
[49:01] stickers, business cards, things along
[49:03] those lines to make sure that we get in
[49:05] front of people and they're aware. We'll
[49:06] also be executing a social media
[49:08] campaign through our City of Salem
[49:10] social media channels. We're currently
[49:12] evaluating the possibility of also
[49:14] utilizing paid social media
[49:15] advertisements to help reach folks who
[49:17] might not be following our social media
[49:18] channels. Um those paid advertisements
[49:21] would also be funded through the grant
[49:22] we received from the US DOT. And then
[49:24] finally, we will also be including this
[49:26] information in e newswsletter
[49:28] distribution that goes out to the
[49:29] community on a regular basis.
[49:33] In terms of evaluation and monitoring,
[49:36] um we are continually in the public
[49:38] works department collecting information
[49:40] on traffic speeds throughout the city.
[49:42] We'll once the signs are deployed about
[49:44] 12 to 18 months post we'll be doing
[49:46] another evaluation and comparing the
[49:47] speeds um post deployment to the speeds
[49:49] that we saw pre-eployment we are going
[49:51] to prioritize evaluation for corridors
[49:53] near pedestrian generators. So that's
[49:55] things like parks, schools, public
[49:57] transit um to compare that data to data
[50:00] that's already been collected before the
[50:01] signs were deployed. We'll also be
[50:03] evaluating crash patterns including
[50:05] frequency and severity on corridors that
[50:07] have the speed changes.
[50:10] As far as the staff recommendation is
[50:12] concerned, um the staff recommends that
[50:14] we establish the 20 mph speed limit and
[50:16] advance ordinance bill number 14-26 to
[50:18] second reading for passage
[50:23] questions now and if you all have any
[50:25] questions I'd be happy to take those
[50:27] now.
[50:28] >> Thank you. Anyone have question? I saw
[50:31] councelor Nordike first.
[50:34] >> Thank you miss so much for the
[50:36] presentation. One of your slides
[50:38] discussed scope of implementation
[50:40] and it showed that uh there was a pretty
[50:44] decent spread of signs across all eight
[50:46] wards. However, while ward one has a
[50:50] high of 468 signs, ward 6 is proposed to
[50:55] have just 231 signs. Is that because
[50:58] there are less residential less road
[51:01] types that meet the criteria?
[51:03] >> Correct. um all of the the streets in
[51:05] town that are either local residential
[51:06] streets or collector streets with a um
[51:08] documented volume of less than 280 ADT
[51:11] will be receiving the signs. It's um the
[51:13] changes the variation between ward is
[51:15] exclusively related to the number of
[51:18] streets that are um meeting those
[51:20] criteria.
[51:25] » Councelor Brown.
[51:26] >> Yes. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Thank you for
[51:28] the presentation. Great job. Um,
[51:31] you said going forward you're going to
[51:33] be looking at crash patterns. Correct.
[51:35] >> Correct.
[51:37] >> Were Were there was there any any data
[51:39] prior to,
[51:42] you know, locating the places where
[51:43] you're going to put the 20th pling
[51:46] >> in and um for clarification, you mean
[51:49] did we review crash patterns to
[51:50] determine which streets we would be
[51:52] placing the signs on?
[51:53] >> Yeah. Prior
[51:54] >> not so much. Again, the criteria for the
[51:56] sign placement is based in that O
[51:58] RS810.180,
[51:59] which is not related to crash patterns
[52:01] as much as street classification and
[52:02] use. One thing that we do see often in
[52:05] the city is that the majority of our
[52:07] fatal and serious injury crashes for
[52:09] pedestrians in particular occur on our
[52:11] major arterial roadways. Um, we are
[52:13] developing the transportation safety
[52:15] action plan at this time and that plan
[52:17] will have strategies to address some of
[52:19] the serious injuries and fatalities that
[52:21] we see on higher classification
[52:22] roadways. This 20 is plenty initiative
[52:24] is really just focused on those local
[52:26] residential streets and the low volume
[52:28] collector streets.
[52:29] >> So you will be back again to share with
[52:31] us the data that you receive once you
[52:33] finish your work.
[52:34] >> Yeah, absolutely. We can do that. Um
[52:36] again, it'll probably be 12 to 18 months
[52:38] after the total sign deployment is
[52:39] complete. We want to make sure that
[52:40] drivers have a chance to recognize,
[52:42] understand, and respond to the change
[52:44] before we collect data again. But we can
[52:45] absolutely bring that data back to you
[52:47] and tell you what we've what we found.
[52:49] Got
[52:49] >> it. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor.
[52:51] Councelor
[52:54] Nordike,
[52:55] >> thank you. Another question I had,
[52:57] congratulations of course on getting the
[53:00] $2.8 million in grant funding. Um, what
[53:04] is the total budget for installing all
[53:05] these signs? Does is 2.8 million half of
[53:08] it? I'm just kind of curious if we have
[53:10] enough money to put all these signs up.
[53:12] >> Yeah. So, in the grant application um in
[53:15] the budget breakdown, in our grant
[53:16] agreement with the US DOT, we budgeted
[53:18] about $2 million for construction of the
[53:20] signs. Additional parts of that funding
[53:23] um that aren't going to construction are
[53:24] going to the engineering design that has
[53:26] already occurred, going to the
[53:27] evaluation and outreach pieces, the
[53:29] development of the transportation safety
[53:31] action plan, the equipment that will be
[53:33] managed by Salem Police Department, but
[53:34] the construction piece is um we're
[53:36] estimating about $2 million for
[53:37] construction.
[53:40] >> May I continue, mayor?
[53:41] >> Yes. Go ahead. So, in other words, it
[53:43] sounds like you budgeted enough and that
[53:45] 08 will help you with contingencies and
[53:47] things like that
[53:48] >> in other parts of the the the grant
[53:51] covered several pieces. Um, so a lot of
[53:53] that the a lot of the stuff that exceeds
[53:54] the $2 million count is going to other
[53:57] parts of that grant agreement um in
[53:59] addition to the signs. The signs are
[54:00] kind of one big piece, but one piece of
[54:03] multiple of that grant agreement,
[54:04] >> right? They're not going to appear by
[54:06] themselves on on the post, are they? Uh
[54:09] also, um in your legislative timeline,
[54:12] you mentioned that the adoption of the
[54:15] statewide law that grants authority to
[54:18] governments like ours to lower speed
[54:20] limits was adopted in 2019. You
[54:23] mentioned Portland. I'm just curious how
[54:25] many other cities are following through
[54:27] with this 20 is plenty initiative or
[54:30] other sort of uh lowering of speed
[54:32] limits to 20 m hour since the state law
[54:35] passed. I don't have the number of total
[54:37] Oregon cities that have adopted this
[54:39] initiative off the top of my head, but
[54:40] quickly um Portland has adopted 2020
[54:42] plenty as well as Eugene. Tiger is in
[54:44] the process of rolling out a 20 is
[54:46] plenty initiative. Believe Silverton has
[54:48] also done something similar or similar
[54:49] on their low volume streets.
[54:52] Oh, and Lake Oiggo.
[54:58] » Councelor Barney. Thank you very much,
[55:00] Mayor. And thank you, Councelor Nordike.
[55:04] asked a number of my questions.
[55:06] Um, I was curious though, how do you
[55:09] collect the vehicle speed data?
[55:11] >> Um, we have a team of traffic techs who
[55:13] go out and place equipment on the
[55:15] roadway to to measure vehicle speeds.
[55:17] They do it one of two ways. Either
[55:18] through what we call hose counts where
[55:20] they lay rubber hoses across the roadway
[55:22] and when the vehicle hits it, it shoots
[55:24] a puff of air into a machine that tracks
[55:27] that puff of air and then uses it to
[55:28] monitor um, vehicle speeds and volumes.
[55:30] We also do radar counts on some of our
[55:32] larger volume um roadways or our larger
[55:35] classification roadways. Um but yeah,
[55:37] internal staff.
[55:39] >> Can I ask a couple more? No, that's
[55:41] great. I really appreciate the uh
[55:43] datadriven
[55:45] design elements here because then we can
[55:47] really tell uh you know what a
[55:50] difference it's making.
[55:52] So this is uh the funding was federal
[55:56] funding,
[55:56] >> correct? So, are there cities all around
[55:59] the country implementing this?
[56:02] >> There are cities all around the country
[56:03] that are implementing um 20 is plenty
[56:05] coast to coast. Um I can't speak to how
[56:07] many of them are using specifically safe
[56:09] streets and roads for all funding
[56:11] through US DOT to do so. Um but yes,
[56:14] it's being implemented all over the
[56:16] country.
[56:17] >> Okay. I'm just thinking about the
[56:19] benefits of the increased safety, saving
[56:21] lives, saving fewer crashes, etc.
[56:25] um any benefits like auto insurance
[56:27] discounts?
[56:29] >> That's a great question that I don't
[56:31] have an answer to. Um we'd have happy to
[56:33] look into that and get back to you with
[56:34] it, but I don't know off the top of my
[56:35] head.
[56:36] >> Well, maybe not yet, but definitely
[56:38] would be uh something to think about.
[56:42] Thank you,
[56:45] » Councelor Matthews.
[56:48] Yeah, I wanted to ask, so I know you
[56:51] mentioned that at the 25 miles per hour
[56:53] there was, and I may get these not quite
[56:55] right, but it was about a 20 75% chance
[56:57] of survival. Uh, but with a 20 m per
[56:59] hour, it's about a 95% chance of
[57:00] survival with a pedestrian versus
[57:02] vehicle accident. What percentage I know
[57:05] that kind of the big push for this is
[57:07] obviously we one of our objective is to
[57:09] reduce the overall amount of pedestrian
[57:11] deaths that we have. Um what percentage
[57:13] of the pedestrian deaths do we have
[57:15] actually happened at the current speed
[57:18] limit that we were at that they weren't
[57:19] that no speeding was involved
[57:25] » because obviously if they're speeding it
[57:27] wouldn't be necessarily applicable the
[57:29] what the actual
[57:30] >> yeah I um so like I said we are
[57:32] currently developing that transportation
[57:34] safety action plan and part of what
[57:35] we're doing with that is looking at
[57:37] crash patterns and the different types
[57:38] of factors that affect um crashes and
[57:40] lead to a greater proport portion of
[57:42] fatal and serious injury crashes. I
[57:44] don't know off the top of my head on
[57:45] Salem streets how many crashes fatal or
[57:47] serious injury crashes have speed as a
[57:50] one of the causing factors. I will say
[57:53] that we um see much less um fatal and
[57:57] serious injury crashes on our local
[57:59] roads on our lower volume local roads
[58:01] currently. That is largely due to um
[58:04] slower speeds on local roads currently
[58:06] at 25 mph as compared to our major
[58:08] arterials. But in terms of how many
[58:10] fatal and serious injury crashes are
[58:13] tied to excessive vehicle speeds, I
[58:15] don't have that number off the top of my
[58:16] head.
[58:17] >> Okay. So, a majority of our our crashes
[58:20] that have happened pedestrian versus vehicle have not actually
[58:23] happened on these residential streets.
[58:25] >> So, this won't actually have an impact
[58:26] necessarily on that specifically.
[58:28] >> Not necessarily on that specifically.
[58:29] Um, again, it's um as as I mentioned
[58:32] earlier, we're not assuming that the 20
[58:34] or not we're not under the impression
[58:35] that 20 is plenty is going to be the the
[58:38] silver bullet. so to speak, that's going
[58:39] to eliminate um fatal and serious injury
[58:42] crashes. This is one component of the
[58:43] broader transportation safety action
[58:45] plan initiative and vision zero
[58:46] initiative and one tool in a broader toolbox that we'll
[58:51] continue to implement tools from um in
[58:53] areas as it's appropriate. The 20 is
[58:55] plenty initiative really is just
[58:56] something that we can do very broadly at
[58:58] a significantly reduced cost compared to
[59:00] some other more involved um treatments.
[59:03] >> Gotcha. Yeah, mayor. And then did we
[59:07] have any data? I know you mentioned
[59:08] Portland already has kind of gone
[59:09] through the 20 is plenty. I was trying
[59:11] to look for some data on what their
[59:13] statistics have seen of people actually
[59:15] that change their habits and their
[59:16] patterns to reduce from 25 down to 20.
[59:20] And it looked like it was around a half
[59:21] a percent of people actually make that
[59:23] adjustment in their behavior patterns.
[59:24] And so I guess for that then it gives me
[59:26] concern. I know that part of this
[59:27] presentation is is that it we don't have
[59:29] any additional funding for additional
[59:30] enforcement. We aren't intending to put
[59:32] additional enforcement dollars with the
[59:34] exception of a few uh $200,000 that's
[59:36] going towards some reader boards and
[59:38] everything else. But I guess my one of
[59:40] my concerns with this is reality and
[59:42] expectation, right? So, there's an
[59:44] expectation from citizens now that are
[59:47] unhappy about speeding that we're going
[59:49] to see a reduction in in actual speeders
[59:50] and then we're going to see people drop
[59:52] their speed down to 20 and if we don't
[59:54] then we're going to have enforcement.
[59:56] But it doesn't really sound like that's
[59:57] exactly the case. And so, have you heard
[59:59] of Portland having any issues with that
[1:00:01] with kind of expectation of citizens
[1:00:02] where this 20 is going to make a
[1:00:04] difference and yet not really seeing it
[1:00:05] in the behavior and not seeing it in the
[1:00:07] increased enforcement either?
[1:00:09] >> Yeah. Um, so one fortunate thing about
[1:00:11] Portland having rolled this out in the
[1:00:13] past, um, they actually received
[1:00:14] authorization from the Oregon State
[1:00:15] Legislature to do this earlier than any
[1:00:17] other city. So, they've been some
[1:00:19] studies done, most um, recently one by
[1:00:20] Portland State. That study by Portland
[1:00:22] State um found that you're correct.
[1:00:24] There was um a small reduction in speeds
[1:00:26] that were about 25 miles an hour where
[1:00:28] they saw the greatest reduction in
[1:00:30] speeds were vehicles that were already
[1:00:31] traveling well in excess of the 25 mph
[1:00:33] speed limit. Um specifically that study
[1:00:35] from Portland State found that the
[1:00:37] estimated ch change in odds of observing
[1:00:39] speed thresholds. So how likely it is
[1:00:40] that you would see a car driving that
[1:00:42] fast. Um greater than 30 mph fell by
[1:00:44] about 33.6% 6% and then greater than 35
[1:00:47] mph. The odds that you would see a
[1:00:49] vehicle traveling that quickly fell by
[1:00:51] 49.6%.
[1:00:52] So they didn't see a huge reduction in
[1:00:54] speeds right at that 25 mph speed limit
[1:00:56] where they saw the greatest impact was
[1:00:57] vehicles that were traveling well in
[1:00:59] excess of that already.
[1:01:01] >> Did they say like a percentage of people
[1:01:02] that actually is that are hitting those
[1:01:04] levels? Like is it 1% of people or 100
[1:01:06] or 50% of people are traveling at that
[1:01:08] kind of speed? Um I don't have those
[1:01:10] numbers right in front of me in terms of
[1:01:12] what they actually pulled like the raw
[1:01:14] data that they pulled and what those
[1:01:15] numbers look like. Um but it's obviously
[1:01:17] we we anticipate that there is a in hope
[1:01:20] right that there's a very small number
[1:01:22] of drivers that are traveling in excess
[1:01:24] of 5 or 10 miles an hour of the speed
[1:01:25] limit. It's certainly not the majority
[1:01:27] but this program um at a statewide level
[1:01:30] at least has seen the most efficacy in
[1:01:32] those folks who are traveling well in
[1:01:33] excess of the speed limit even if it's a
[1:01:35] smaller um proportion of them compared
[1:01:37] to those that are traveling the speed
[1:01:38] limit. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I think
[1:01:40] obviously I think that 20 is plenty I
[1:01:42] think is actually a really good premise
[1:01:44] and I think that from just a I actually
[1:01:46] agree that 20 is plenty especially in a
[1:01:48] residential area. I do have concern like
[1:01:50] I say just that we're setting oursel a
[1:01:52] little bit up for failure because we
[1:01:53] have no enforcement dollars going into
[1:01:55] this. We are not allocating additional
[1:01:57] enforcement dollars and we already know
[1:01:58] that we're struggling with with that
[1:02:00] aspect. And so as we invest $2.8 8
[1:02:03] million and I get their federal grants.
[1:02:04] They're not our specific tax dollars
[1:02:06] that we've specifically collected. But
[1:02:08] as we don't increase a police
[1:02:10] enforcement budget to kind of offset, we
[1:02:12] set oursel up a little bit for failure
[1:02:14] because there's going to be in my
[1:02:16] opinion a potential offset of where
[1:02:18] citizens are upset because we've reduced
[1:02:21] the speed but we aren't actually
[1:02:22] enforcing the speed. Uh and so I guess
[1:02:24] that's my my one hesitation. Uh, while I
[1:02:27] agree that 20 is plenty, I'm concerned
[1:02:29] that we're setting oursel up for failure
[1:02:30] by not having additional um resources go
[1:02:32] into to enforcement.
[1:02:36] » Anyone else? Oh, councelor Brown.
[1:02:38] >> Thanks, Madam Mayor. So, um, to follow
[1:02:42] councelor Matthews's thinking, well,
[1:02:44] somewhat um, somewhat. So, you mentioned
[1:02:49] earlier 3,000 signs, right? 3,000 signs.
[1:02:53] And can you share with us what does that
[1:02:57] look like our partnership with Salem
[1:02:59] Kaiser because I know obviously 20 is
[1:03:03] going to be what they would prefer right
[1:03:05] because that's the law. Uh what are we
[1:03:07] doing when it comes to just our
[1:03:08] partnership with them
[1:03:09] >> and for clarification you mean
[1:03:11] specifically our partnership with um
[1:03:13] Kaiser
[1:03:15] >> the school district Thank you. Yeah,
[1:03:17] because we go well. It's kind of twofold
[1:03:20] because
[1:03:20] >> it's Salem and Kaiser and so I'm I'm
[1:03:23] assuming that we're going to have signs
[1:03:25] also in Kaiser, but I'm not sure.
[1:03:28] >> Yeah. So, we don't have obviously
[1:03:30] jurisdiction to change speed limits in
[1:03:32] Kaiser. Um, I'm not aware of a whole lot
[1:03:34] of specific conversations with the city
[1:03:36] of Kaiser's public works department
[1:03:38] regarding how willing they would be to
[1:03:40] engage with this, but I would imagine
[1:03:42] that it would probably echo what we've
[1:03:43] heard from Marian County where it's we
[1:03:45] want to see what it looks like and how
[1:03:47] the impact it has before we evaluate if
[1:03:49] that's something that we would like to
[1:03:50] roll out as well. Um, I'm not sure if I
[1:03:53] don't think I'm speaking to your
[1:03:54] question about the school district.
[1:03:55] >> Well, you got the second question, but
[1:03:56] now it's the first one for the school
[1:03:58] district. Are we working with them?
[1:03:59] Also, when it like you're going to go
[1:04:01] around to all the neighborhood
[1:04:02] associations, you're just going to, you
[1:04:04] know, do a marketing campaign. Are they
[1:04:06] a part of the strategy to reach out with
[1:04:08] them?
[1:04:09] >> They're not they haven't been explicitly
[1:04:11] involved in the in the strategy to leers
[1:04:13] with them, but incorporating them. Oh,
[1:04:15] never mind. I'm getting I'm getting the
[1:04:16] nudge. One second.
[1:04:18] >> Caral, city traffic engineer. Um, this
[1:04:21] RS isn't changing the speed limit in
[1:04:22] school zones specifically if that's what
[1:04:24] you're asking about. So now we will
[1:04:27] still have our uh school zone flashers
[1:04:29] that come on with the 20 mile per hour
[1:04:31] sign when children are present. Um but
[1:04:34] the speed limit on that street will just
[1:04:35] be 20 m hour all the time. So we'll just
[1:04:38] essentially be calling more attention to
[1:04:40] it during those school zone hours. Got
[1:04:42] it.
[1:04:42] >> But no changes to the actual school
[1:04:44] speed zone limit as part of this OS.
[1:04:47] >> Got it. and he may have shared this what
[1:04:50] was was there data in regards to how
[1:04:51] many deaths we have had
[1:04:55] >> in what time frame
[1:04:57] >> uh this past year
[1:04:58] >> in the past year I think we had eight
[1:05:00] traffic fatalities I that's a spitball
[1:05:04] um we can check really quickly but again
[1:05:06] I want to be clear um to to councelor
[1:05:08] Matthew's point that the majority of the
[1:05:10] fatalities we see are not on our local
[1:05:12] residential roads we tend to see more
[1:05:14] traffic fatalities particularly um
[1:05:16] pedestrian versus vehicle fatalities on
[1:05:19] higher order streets. Um our major
[1:05:21] collector or our major arterials in
[1:05:22] particular where speeds are
[1:05:24] significantly higher and typically you
[1:05:26] know le less pedestrian facilities, less
[1:05:28] awareness of pedestrians in the roadway,
[1:05:29] those sorts of pieces.
[1:05:30] >> Got it. And one final thought I have and
[1:05:32] it may be for the acting city manager.
[1:05:35] So, Councelor Matthews mentioned about,
[1:05:37] you know, we could be setting ourselves
[1:05:38] up because we don't have enough funds
[1:05:41] when it comes to supporting our first
[1:05:43] responders, when it comes to catching
[1:05:44] those folks who want to go, you know, 30
[1:05:46] and a 20. Does this fall under the
[1:05:49] strategic plan when it comes to, you
[1:05:52] know, crime prevent all the good work
[1:05:53] we're doing in United Northeast? I'm
[1:05:55] assuming it does.
[1:06:00] » Council Brown, yes, you're correct. I
[1:06:01] mean, that's one element of public
[1:06:03] safety that can be considered. Okay.
[1:06:05] Thank you. Thank you.
[1:06:10] » Anyone else right now?
[1:06:13] Okay. I think we will move on then to
[1:06:15] public comment.
[1:06:17] Don't go too far. We'll be back with
[1:06:19] questions.
[1:06:20] Um, okay. I will call two names at once.
[1:06:24] Please come forward to the podium. Make
[1:06:26] sure the button is pressed and the green
[1:06:27] lights on. Uh, please state your address
[1:06:30] or your award for the record and your
[1:06:32] name. Melissa Lang Bacho and Ray
[1:06:35] Quizenberry.
[1:06:44] Hi uh mayor, counselors, and neighbors.
[1:06:47] My name is Melissa Lang Vacho. I am a
[1:06:50] Salem resident in the Fight Neighborhood
[1:06:52] District. I'm here in support of uh the
[1:06:58] 20 is plenty initiative uh to lower
[1:07:00] speed limit from 25 miles per hour to 20
[1:07:03] in residential neighborhoods. My
[1:07:06] comments essentially are reiterating
[1:07:07] much of the staff presentation, so
[1:07:09] forgive me for the repetitiveness. Um,
[1:07:12] studies have reflected that current
[1:07:14] vehicle designs are safe for persons
[1:07:17] inside of of the vehicles, but are
[1:07:19] pretty deadly to vulnerable road users
[1:07:22] like pedestrians and bicyclists like
[1:07:24] myself
[1:07:25] um outside of the vehicle. In our own
[1:07:27] community, the city has made efforts to
[1:07:29] improve conditions for drivers, which
[1:07:32] has shown results in uh the traffic
[1:07:34] safety data. Improvements haven't shown
[1:07:37] the same results for pedestrians and
[1:07:39] cyclists. In 2025, there were 10 traffic
[1:07:42] fatalities. Seven of those were
[1:07:44] pedestrians and cyclists. The
[1:07:46] survivability of a crash uh with a motor
[1:07:49] vehicle increases with lower speeds. For
[1:07:52] pedestrians, there's a really high
[1:07:53] likelihood of survival when speeds are
[1:07:56] less than 20 20 mph. Uh reduced speeds
[1:07:59] also allow for more time for drivers to
[1:08:01] react to unexpected hazards and people
[1:08:04] uh to avoid collisions. As a bicyclist,
[1:08:06] a helmet can't uh save me from getting
[1:08:09] hit by a driver, but better
[1:08:10] infrastructure, slower speeds, and
[1:08:12] education can. Our neighborhood streets
[1:08:15] are not a place for speeding their
[1:08:17] community spaces, and we should take
[1:08:19] steps to ensure the safety of the users
[1:08:22] and the animals that live in our
[1:08:23] neighborhoods with us. I urge you to
[1:08:25] take this important step to help improve
[1:08:27] our community safety and support uh the
[1:08:30] lower speed limits throughout the city
[1:08:32] and not just in the neighborhoods.
[1:08:34] Thanks.
[1:08:36] Thank you for your testimony. Ray
[1:08:38] Quizenberry and Ian Davidson.
[1:08:44] » Hi, my name is Ray Quisenberry. I live
[1:08:46] in Ward One. I think most of the things
[1:08:48] I wanted to say have already been said
[1:08:50] tonight at the staff presentation. So,
[1:08:52] I'm just going to make this brief. Um,
[1:08:55] I'm speaking obviously in support of
[1:08:57] 20th Planning. And I want to thank the
[1:08:59] city staff for all the work they've done
[1:09:01] and for what you guys have done, too,
[1:09:02] and voting for this. Um, and there was
[1:09:05] an article in the Sunday paper that I
[1:09:08] was really appreciative of talking about
[1:09:09] 20 is plenty. It gave a lot of this
[1:09:11] detail also. So again, I don't really
[1:09:14] want to repeat what everyone has just
[1:09:15] said, but I did want to say that not
[1:09:18] only is this good for all types of
[1:09:20] active transportation, not just walking,
[1:09:22] but biking and skateboarding and
[1:09:25] everything else that goes on in in my
[1:09:27] neighborhood anyway. But it's also good
[1:09:29] for cars. I live in the Grant
[1:09:32] neighborhood. the streets are narrow.
[1:09:34] Um, cars are parked all the way to the
[1:09:36] intersection and it's hard to see around
[1:09:39] the corner often and so have a little
[1:09:42] bit more reaction time would be a big
[1:09:43] boon to people that live in these tight
[1:09:46] neighborhoods
[1:09:48] in my neighborhood and probably lots of
[1:09:51] neighborhoods. I have seen more families
[1:09:54] with strollers and kids out in the last
[1:09:56] few years than I have in almost the 30
[1:09:59] years I've lived in the Grant
[1:10:00] neighborhood. It's really amazing and
[1:10:03] really heartwarming. Uh, I want to keep
[1:10:04] these families safe and I want to keep
[1:10:07] these kids safe as they get older and go
[1:10:09] out on their own and they decide they're
[1:10:11] going to ride their bike or they're
[1:10:12] going to go down the street on a
[1:10:13] skateboard and do what kids do. So, I
[1:10:17] appreciate it and I want to thank um
[1:10:20] thank the city and thank for for making Salem safer for everyone.
[1:10:26] Thank you.
[1:10:28] for your testimony, Ian
[1:10:30] Davidson and Susie Davidson.
[1:10:37] Good evening, Mayor Hoy, members of the
[1:10:39] Salem City Council. My name is Ian
[1:10:41] Davidson. I live in the unincorporated
[1:10:43] portions of Salem um in the Four Corners
[1:10:46] area. However, I represent members in
[1:10:49] East Salem. I serve on the Chariots
[1:10:51] board and the vice president on that
[1:10:52] board, your public transit provider. Um
[1:10:55] I am speaking as an individual member of
[1:10:58] the board. I do not speak for the board
[1:11:00] uh officially and I come to you to urge
[1:11:03] you to support the 2020 plenty
[1:11:05] initiative and pass this ordinance
[1:11:07] specifically uh for our bus riders
[1:11:09] because the moment that they step off of
[1:11:11] a bus they become either a pedestrian or
[1:11:14] a bicyclist or as transportation
[1:11:17] professionals call it a vulnerable road
[1:11:19] user. So they are at greater risk for uh
[1:11:23] either a fatality or serious injury when
[1:11:25] a crash were to occur. And so for that
[1:11:27] reason, I strongly urge you to support
[1:11:31] passage of this ordinance. Um by
[1:11:34] lowering speeds on our neighborhood
[1:11:36] streets, riders will be able to walk or
[1:11:38] bike to their bus from their bus to
[1:11:40] their final destinations with greater
[1:11:42] safety and greater confidence. Um, as
[1:11:45] you have heard,
[1:11:48] there are many wise and uh, credible
[1:11:51] reasons to do this. Um, I will just add
[1:11:54] that because of the support of this body
[1:11:56] from several years ago, we have now seen
[1:11:58] a significant increase in riders 18 and
[1:12:01] younger ride the bus. And so we have a a
[1:12:05] staggering amount of youth riding the
[1:12:07] bus. And so I would urge you to also
[1:12:09] support this ordinance for them as well.
[1:12:11] As the father of two of those bus
[1:12:13] riders, two of those students in the
[1:12:15] Salem Kaiser public school system, I
[1:12:17] would also speak to you as a father to
[1:12:19] please pass this ordinance. This
[1:12:21] ordinance by no means is a panacea.
[1:12:23] However, it is one step forward towards
[1:12:25] making our community safer, more
[1:12:28] livable. So, thank you very much. I look
[1:12:30] forward to working with you on future
[1:12:31] safety interventions. Thank you.
[1:12:34] >> Thank you for your testimony, Susie
[1:12:36] Davidson and Evan Manville.
[1:12:46] Mayor Hoy and Sizzy City counselors, my
[1:12:50] name is Susie Davidson and I am a fifth
[1:12:52] grader at Grant Community School. I hope
[1:12:55] you will vote to support reducing
[1:12:58] neighborhood limit uh speed limits. I
[1:13:01] want to lower speed limits because once
[1:13:04] while walking in a crosswalk to the Boys
[1:13:07] and Girls Club, I was almost hit by a
[1:13:09] speeding car.
[1:13:12] Also, people need
[1:13:14] um people speed in my neighborhood even
[1:13:18] though kids play there. This is
[1:13:20] dangerous. Please support voting
[1:13:24] the speed limit for the safety of future
[1:13:27] generations. Thank you.
[1:13:30] for your testimony.
[1:13:35] » Evan Manville.
[1:13:38] [clears throat]
[1:13:40] Thank you, Susie. That's a hard act to
[1:13:42] follow. Uh Evan Manville, for the
[1:13:44] record, W two. Um I serve on the
[1:13:48] steering committee of Salem Bike Vision,
[1:13:50] and we're in support of this. Uh we're a
[1:13:52] group that works to make uh Salem safer
[1:13:54] and more welcoming for people who who
[1:13:56] bike or are interested in biking. And we
[1:13:59] support this effort because the number
[1:14:00] one reason people don't bike, they say,
[1:14:03] is because safety. They're concerned
[1:14:04] about safety. And this would take a
[1:14:07] small step towards making it safer to
[1:14:09] bike in our community.
[1:14:12] America is particularly bad at traffic
[1:14:14] safety. And we might not realize that,
[1:14:16] but the odds of getting killed in
[1:14:19] traffic drop in half when you cross the
[1:14:21] Canadian border.
[1:14:23] The best countries in the world have a
[1:14:25] traffic fatality rate a fifth or a sixth
[1:14:28] of ours. This is a an American
[1:14:32] uh problem. Uh
[1:14:35] traffic is one of the leading killers of
[1:14:36] Americans aged 3 through 35.
[1:14:40] We are really fetishizing speeding
[1:14:43] traffic at the expense of our neighbors
[1:14:45] and our youth and our lives.
[1:14:47] Uh we're dedicating our largest public
[1:14:50] space, which is our roads, uh to become
[1:14:53] a raceway instead of a place that
[1:14:55] neighbors can chat, kids can play,
[1:14:57] people can walk and bike, and people can
[1:14:59] drive at reasonable speeds.
[1:15:02] It doesn't have to be this way.
[1:15:07] » [clears throat]
[1:15:08] >> So these other countries mainly have
[1:15:10] lower they do a lot of things to make it
[1:15:13] safer but one of the main things they do
[1:15:14] is they treat the laws of physics like
[1:15:17] they actually exist and they tackle
[1:15:19] speeds. Uh so this is one thing staff
[1:15:21] covered it very well. Uh I appreciate
[1:15:24] all the work that the city council and
[1:15:26] the staff have done over the years to
[1:15:27] nudge our traffic speeds down. uh
[1:15:30] traffic engineer Cara Hall success in
[1:15:32] South Liberty most recently um their
[1:15:35] work on this uh and we're not going to
[1:15:37] pretend that everyone's going to go 20
[1:15:38] miles an hour. You're correct. Um but
[1:15:41] even if it's a marginal thing, it could
[1:15:43] move a life to a death, a serious injury
[1:15:46] to a near miss. And that marginal person
[1:15:49] could be me or you or our kids or our
[1:15:52] neighbors kids. And uh really really
[1:15:55] want to support this. The last thing I
[1:15:57] want to say is I I hope this is positive
[1:16:00] velocitization. For those who don't
[1:16:01] know, velocitization is kind of when
[1:16:03] you're driving on the highway, you don't
[1:16:04] realize you've been traveling really
[1:16:05] fast. You get off the highway and you
[1:16:07] don't realize how fast you're traveling.
[1:16:08] I'm hoping that by setting neighborhood
[1:16:10] speed slow, we'll start our travel at a
[1:16:12] reasonable speed. When we get on those
[1:16:14] more dangerous main roads, we'll go a
[1:16:16] more reasonable speed as well. So, it'll
[1:16:18] kind of ingrain safe traveling um in our
[1:16:21] daily habits. So, thank you for your
[1:16:24] consideration. Thank you for your
[1:16:25] service to the city. Thanks for the
[1:16:26] countless hours I know you all put um in
[1:16:29] serving the city on council and uh
[1:16:32] appreciate your support. Thank you.
[1:16:36] >> All right. Thank you. That is it for
[1:16:38] public testimony. Does anyone have any
[1:16:41] further questions for staff?
[1:16:45] I have one question I did not send ahead
[1:16:47] of time because I didn't think of it
[1:16:49] till tonight. How what is the basis for
[1:16:51] the 2,000 average daily
[1:16:56] travelers?
[1:16:58] >> Yeah. Um annual average daily traffic.
[1:17:01] It's a mouthful. Um so that's actually
[1:17:03] based in OS 810.180
[1:17:06] subsection 10. Um within OS 810.180,
[1:17:10] there are a variety of subsections
[1:17:11] granting authority to jurisdictions to
[1:17:13] lower speed limits under a variety of
[1:17:15] circumstances. This ordinance is chiefly
[1:17:18] based under subsection 11 um which
[1:17:21] grants uh cities the authority to lower
[1:17:23] speed limits by up to 10 miles per hour
[1:17:25] in residence districts. So that's
[1:17:27] chiefly what we're basing on. However,
[1:17:29] under subsection 10, there is a
[1:17:31] different qualification criteria that
[1:17:32] uses those lower that 2000 benchmark as
[1:17:35] the benchmark for a low volume collector
[1:17:38] street. So even though we're not
[1:17:39] necessarily using that as the RS B,
[1:17:42] we're not using that piece of the RS as
[1:17:44] the basis. We did borrow that um to make
[1:17:47] the definition of a low volume
[1:17:48] collector.
[1:17:51] >> Councelor Barney, thank you. Go ahead.
[1:17:53] >> Oh, thank you very much. You know, in
[1:17:55] looking at the map, number one, thank
[1:17:57] you so much for putting the radar things
[1:17:59] on Burley Hill because that's kind of a
[1:18:02] speedway. Uh but another road that runs
[1:18:05] parallel with Burley Hill is Kingwood.
[1:18:08] And Kingwood is not getting any signs at
[1:18:11] all. So
[1:18:14] is traffic I mean is there that much
[1:18:16] traffic on Kingwood to not require the
[1:18:19] stop sign I mean the uh 20 mph signs
[1:18:23] there.
[1:18:25] >> I don't have the volume data in front of
[1:18:27] me. Oh I
[1:18:31] >> looked at that one.
[1:18:33] >> Oh yeah. Um
[1:18:34] >> over the
[1:18:35] >> Okay. So on Kingwood the volumes are
[1:18:37] over 2,000. One piece that I will just
[1:18:39] kind of mention tied to that, we don't
[1:18:41] necessarily have authoritative count
[1:18:44] data on every street across the city.
[1:18:46] So, one thing that we are aware of is
[1:18:48] there might be a collector or two that
[1:18:50] we've missed and when we go out and
[1:18:51] collect data on it, we're going to
[1:18:52] realize, oh, this meets the benchmark to
[1:18:54] have the reduced speed limit. And we're
[1:18:56] planning on addressing those through the
[1:18:58] neighborhood traffic management plan,
[1:19:00] which already is something we use to
[1:19:02] address traffic calming on our
[1:19:03] neighborhood streets or through our
[1:19:05] internal sign crews. If there's if we
[1:19:07] come across any where we realize after
[1:19:09] collecting new data that it meets the
[1:19:10] criteria, we'll address those through
[1:19:12] our internal sign crews rather through
[1:19:13] than this larger grant process.
[1:19:22] I'm a visual person. Are these signs
[1:19:24] constructed? Are they waiting to be put
[1:19:27] up or not built yet?
[1:19:29] >> I don't I don't believe that they're constructed in like I don't
[1:19:32] think we got them in a warehouse
[1:19:33] somewhere at this point. I'm actually
[1:19:35] not the um delivery that we have a
[1:19:37] different um gentleman in the public
[1:19:38] works engineering department who's
[1:19:40] managing the actual like nuts and bolts
[1:19:42] delivery of sign installation. Um, so
[1:19:46] you know,
[1:19:48] >> Julie Hansen, transportation planning
[1:19:50] manager. I just wanted to say that
[1:19:51] because of the large amount of signs, we
[1:19:54] are putting this out to contract. So, a
[1:19:56] consultant contractor will be producing
[1:19:58] the signs and installing them. um for
[1:20:01] the things that uh Hayden mentioned like
[1:20:05] if we have to go go back and add a
[1:20:07] street that's something that our sign
[1:20:09] shop can do because they do produce
[1:20:12] signs and install them just not at this
[1:20:14] scale at one time
[1:20:17] >> and I have a followup if you don't mind
[1:20:20] um I wonder if the uh how that roll out
[1:20:24] will happen if it happens is it do they
[1:20:28] take a section of the city at a time
[1:20:30] Yeah. Um Hayden mentioned earlier that
[1:20:33] might have glossed over a bit, but we
[1:20:35] expect this to take um about a year from
[1:20:38] the time we start. And when we put that
[1:20:41] contract out to bid, we will be working
[1:20:43] with the contractor to develop a
[1:20:46] schedule so it's rolled out
[1:20:47] geographically, you know, so that we can
[1:20:50] take our public education campaign and
[1:20:53] sort of it's like, okay, we're starting
[1:20:55] in ward whatever or whatever
[1:20:57] neighborhood association and roll it out
[1:20:59] that way. So, it's not yet determined.
[1:21:03] >> Councelor Brown.
[1:21:04] >> Thanks, Madam Mayor. So, um, uh, manager
[1:21:07] Julie, you just mentioned that there is
[1:21:09] going to be a contractor for this. So,
[1:21:11] there will be an RFP process.
[1:21:17] There'll be a contract will be put out
[1:21:19] for a bid
[1:21:21] and and I'm [laughter] I'm not sure if
[1:21:24] I'm using the right words, so I'm just
[1:21:26] you're fine. Leave it up to me. Um, so, so with that process, I'm going to
[1:21:31] assume that we as the counselors, we
[1:21:33] will find out, uh, the results of the
[1:21:35] RFP process later on down the road.
[1:21:38] Director, I'm assuming. Got it.
[1:21:40] >> Um, yes, the nodding heads.
[1:21:43] >> Got it. Got it. Okay. Thank you.
[1:21:47] Anyone else,
[1:21:51] Councelor Nishioa? No.
[1:21:54] Okay. Thank you everyone for the
[1:21:56] presentation and thank you to those who
[1:21:58] showed up to testify tonight. [snorts]
[1:22:02] Go ahead and close the hearing and then
[1:22:04] councelor uh prom chairwin.
[1:22:10] I move staff recommendation to establish
[1:22:13] 20 mph speed limits on local residential
[1:22:15] streets and collector streets with less
[1:22:18] than 2,000 average annual daily traffic
[1:22:21] and advanced ordinance bill number 14-26
[1:22:24] to second reading for passage.
[1:22:27] >> Second.
[1:22:29] We have a motion and I believe I heard a
[1:22:31] second from Matthews. Was it Nordike
[1:22:34] first? Okay, Nordike. Thank you. Uh any
[1:22:37] discussion?
[1:22:41] » Yeah, Councelor Tigan.
[1:22:42] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um
[1:22:45] uh looking forward to voting yes on
[1:22:47] this. Uh really appreciate the staff's
[1:22:50] uh commitment to taking this um all the
[1:22:53] way through the process and getting the
[1:22:55] grant support to um bring this uh to the
[1:23:00] city and do it at a cost that is shared
[1:23:03] by other levels of government that share
[1:23:04] our commitment to making our streets
[1:23:06] safer. Um and I really appreciate the
[1:23:08] public testimony this evening uh from my
[1:23:11] neighbors and uh classmates of my
[1:23:13] children um and fellow bus riders. Um, I
[1:23:17] think uh we really do have an
[1:23:19] opportunity to make an impact here. And I just really want to note what our
[1:23:25] uh uh staff member Hayden said was that,
[1:23:29] you know, the biggest change actually
[1:23:30] doesn't happen between 25 and 20, but
[1:23:32] maybe between 35 and 30 or between 35
[1:23:36] and 25. I think we all know by human
[1:23:38] nature, u a speed limit of 30 mph feels
[1:23:42] like a permission to go 10% faster. And
[1:23:45] so every uh reduction we can put on the
[1:23:48] road means a reduction in those speeds
[1:23:50] and those speeds are safer. So um
[1:23:53] [snorts] really appreciate everyone's
[1:23:54] work to bring this vote to us and very
[1:23:56] much looking forward to supporting it.
[1:24:00] » Councelor Vney, go ahead.
[1:24:03] >> I just uh thank you councelor Tyen for
[1:24:05] saying that. I agree. Um and especially
[1:24:08] as we see our density increasing and
[1:24:12] more and more vehicles on the road, you
[1:24:14] know, in hopefully this will encourage
[1:24:16] more and more people to walk and ride
[1:24:19] cycle and the strollers and kids of
[1:24:21] course. I know I myself um do not feel
[1:24:26] comfortable riding a bike around a lot
[1:24:29] of our city. Um, cars go really fast and
[1:24:33] I don't think they really look that
[1:24:36] closely for folks on bikes. So,
[1:24:39] personally and for our city and
[1:24:41] everybody, I really appreciate this
[1:24:43] coming forward.
[1:24:47] Anyone else?
[1:24:49] I would just like to acknowledge those
[1:24:51] who did write in in opposition to this.
[1:24:55] Pretty much every one of them mentioned
[1:24:57] enforcement.
[1:24:59] And so I want to make a a alongside
[1:25:02] commitment um to increasing our public
[1:25:05] safety by bringing uh more officers into
[1:25:10] our communities so we can do more to
[1:25:12] further protect our communities. So
[1:25:15] thank you. Anything further
[1:25:18] councelor Matthews?
[1:25:21] >> Well and I kind of said my piece I guess
[1:25:23] a little earlier than I was supposed to.
[1:25:24] That was question time. I end up going
[1:25:25] into more thought time. But I just kind
[1:25:28] of want to reiterate a similar thing to
[1:25:30] what you're saying, mayor, is I think we
[1:25:33] open oursel up for a real concern of not
[1:25:35] being able to actually enforce what we
[1:25:37] are saying we're going to do. And you
[1:25:39] know, Oregon, Salem, we don't have a law
[1:25:42] creation problem. We have a law
[1:25:44] enforcement problem because we don't
[1:25:45] have enough resources to do it. And so I
[1:25:47] feel like this is a little bit walking
[1:25:48] us down a road where we're creating
[1:25:50] another another rule that ultimately we
[1:25:52] don't have the resource to necessarily
[1:25:53] enforce. But um but from a general
[1:25:56] principle, I think that 20 is plenty.
[1:25:58] And so I'll vote in favor of it knowing
[1:26:00] that there may be an outcome on the
[1:26:01] backside that ends up being um
[1:26:04] detrimental is the wrong word, but ends
[1:26:06] up being uh an issue that we have to
[1:26:08] deal with. So
[1:26:11] >> councelor Barney,
[1:26:13] >> thank you. I just wanted to add on I
[1:26:15] believe it's up to all of us to enforce
[1:26:18] it ourselves and set the example. And I
[1:26:21] think that'll be the strongest
[1:26:22] enforcement tool we have if we can
[1:26:24] encourage
[1:26:26] people to stick to that speed limit.
[1:26:29] Thanks,
[1:26:30] >> Councelor Matthews.
[1:26:32] >> What I just heard is councelor Vney is
[1:26:33] okay with spike strips just in your
[1:26:35] neighborhoods. Just throw them out.
[1:26:37] >> Just kidding. I'm just joking.
[1:26:42] » That was a joke.
[1:26:44] >> Yeah. Anyone else?
[1:26:46] >> First meeting.
[1:26:47] >> Yeah.
[1:26:47] >> Okay.
[1:26:49] Seeing nothing further, um will the
[1:26:51] recorder please call the role.
[1:26:53] >> Councelor Gwyn
[1:26:56] >> I.
[1:26:57] >> Councelor Brown
[1:26:58] >> I.
[1:27:00] >> Councelor Bang absent. Councelor Nordike
[1:27:02] >> I.
[1:27:03] >> Councelor Vney
[1:27:04] >> I.
[1:27:05] >> Councelor Tyen
[1:27:06] >> I.
[1:27:07] >> Councelor Nishioa
[1:27:10] >> I.
[1:27:11] >> Councelor Matthews
[1:27:12] >> I.
[1:27:13] >> Mayor Julie Hoy
[1:27:14] >> I. Motion passes.
[1:27:18] All right. Um, Susie Susie Davidson,
[1:27:21] before you leave, I have something for
[1:27:23] you.
[1:27:32] » Can I get a free gift? Can I get a
[1:27:34] present?
[1:27:36] >> You're with me. Isn't that enough?
[1:27:40] >> I want a present.
[1:27:43] Oh, that's a nice picture.
[1:27:52] Can I be a part of the planning
[1:27:53] committee?
[1:27:58] » All right. Um, we are going to go
[1:28:02] backwards just a little bit because
[1:28:03] someone had intended to sign up under
[1:28:05] item two for testimony and we want to
[1:28:08] give them an opportunity to speak uh
[1:28:10] right now and that person's name is
[1:28:12] Katherine Dobbler. Dobbler.
[1:28:15] Okay, please come forward and thank you
[1:28:18] for your patience.
[1:28:23] Thank you. Katie Doer Ward 2. I'm here
[1:28:26] with a center 50 plus strategic plan
[1:28:28] update. Thank you, mayor and counselors
[1:28:30] for tonight's proclamation. It's a
[1:28:32] meaningful recognition of the role
[1:28:33] seniors play across the Wamut Valley and
[1:28:36] it aligns directly with the work our
[1:28:37] strategic plan is built around. Over the
[1:28:40] past several months, the commission has
[1:28:41] been updating that plan to look 25 years
[1:28:43] ahead, positioning Center 50 Plus to
[1:28:46] serve a fast growing population in a
[1:28:48] truly age friendly community. Oregon is
[1:28:50] now one of only 11 states where
[1:28:53] residents 65 and older outnumber
[1:28:55] children under 18, a first in our
[1:28:57] state's history. Meeting that shift
[1:28:59] means aligning with the broader senior
[1:29:01] services network, not duplicating it.
[1:29:03] Center 50 Plus has spent 50 years as a
[1:29:05] leader and convenor in this space and
[1:29:08] those participants let us stretch
[1:29:09] limited resources further while avoiding
[1:29:11] overlap with the other organizations
[1:29:14] serving older adults here. This is also
[1:29:16] National Senior Center Month and it's a
[1:29:18] fitting moment to recognize what senior
[1:29:20] centers bring to the valley. Connection,
[1:29:23] wellness, and a hub that keeps people
[1:29:25] engaged as they age. We'll bring the
[1:29:27] full updated strategic plan back to
[1:29:29] council on October 26th as a
[1:29:32] presentation. And so we'd ask that the
[1:29:33] agenda allow for a bit more time than
[1:29:35] usual that evening. Thanks again for
[1:29:37] tonight's proclamation and your
[1:29:38] continued support.
[1:29:40] >> Thank you so much for your testimony and
[1:29:42] thanks again for your patience.
[1:29:44] >> Yeah.
[1:29:46] Okay.
[1:29:49] We are moving on to item 4.2.
[1:29:54] Salem City Council will now conduct a
[1:29:55] public hearing to consider the appeal of
[1:29:57] the Salem Planning Commission's decision
[1:29:59] denying the minor comprehensive plan map
[1:30:01] amendment, neighborhood plan map
[1:30:03] amendment, and zone change case number
[1:30:06] CPC NPC ZC26 for property located at
[1:30:10] 1505 Front Street Northeast. The
[1:30:14] applicable criteria to the decision are
[1:30:16] for the minor comprehensive plan map
[1:30:18] amendment SRC64.025E2
[1:30:21] 025E2
[1:30:23] and for the quasi judicial zone change
[1:30:26] 265.005E.
[1:30:30] Testimony, arguments, and evidence must
[1:30:32] be directed toward the applicable
[1:30:34] criteria or other criteria which the
[1:30:36] person believes to apply to the
[1:30:37] decision. Failure to raise an issue
[1:30:41] prior to the close of the public hearing
[1:30:42] in person or in writing or failure to
[1:30:45] provide statements or evidence with
[1:30:47] sufficient specificity to provide the
[1:30:49] parties and the city council an
[1:30:50] opportunity to respond to the issue
[1:30:52] precludes precludes appeal to the land
[1:30:55] use board of appeals on that issue. A
[1:30:57] similar failure to raise constitutional
[1:31:00] issues related to proposed conditions of
[1:31:02] approval precludes an action for damages
[1:31:04] in circuit court. The hearing will be conducted with the staff
[1:31:08] presentation first followed by testimony
[1:31:11] from the following. The applicant along
[1:31:14] with the applicant's representatives are
[1:31:16] limited to a total of 10 minutes.
[1:31:18] Affected neighborhood associations are
[1:31:20] limited to five minutes per association.
[1:31:23] Other interested parties are limited to
[1:31:24] three minutes. And the applicant's
[1:31:26] rebuttal is limited to five minutes and
[1:31:28] is limited to matters which were
[1:31:30] introduced during the public hearing.
[1:31:32] Thank you.
[1:31:34] >> Thank you. Welcome and go right ahead.
[1:31:36] >> Good evening, Mayor Hoy, members of the
[1:31:38] council. Bryce Bishop with the Salem
[1:31:40] Planning Division and I'm here tonight
[1:31:42] to present the appeal of the
[1:31:43] comprehensive plan change, neighborhood
[1:31:45] plan change, and zone change for
[1:31:46] property located at 1505 Front Street
[1:31:49] Northeast.
[1:31:50] So, uh, the first slide here is the
[1:31:52] location of the property. As you can
[1:31:54] see, it's located to the north of the
[1:31:56] downtown on Front Street along the Wamtt
[1:31:58] River.
[1:32:00] Uh the property is uh here shown uh in
[1:32:04] the white outlined uh boxed area. Uh it
[1:32:06] is located on at 1505 Front Street and
[1:32:10] it is in an area uh that is
[1:32:12] characterized by uh several minor
[1:32:14] arterials including uh Front Street,
[1:32:16] Hood Street and Market Street and those
[1:32:17] are the streets identified in blue and
[1:32:20] then also two major arterials,
[1:32:21] Commercial Street and Liberty Street as
[1:32:23] part of the couplet there. And the white
[1:32:25] dash line that you'll see on the screen
[1:32:27] is a railroad line. Uh and so the
[1:32:30] Portland and Western Railroad uh which
[1:32:32] is operated by uh owned by BNSF but
[1:32:34] operated by uh uh Portland and Western
[1:32:36] operates along this area I'm sure you're
[1:32:39] familiar with and there is a railroad uh
[1:32:41] sighting along the property uh for this
[1:32:43] railroad line.
[1:32:45] So in terms of the comprehensive plan
[1:32:47] designation for the property, it's
[1:32:48] designated river oriented mixeduse on
[1:32:50] the comprehensive plan map and it's been
[1:32:53] designated uh with that designation from
[1:32:55] at least 1979. So, it's been in place
[1:32:57] for a long period of time. Uh, when we
[1:33:00] did the R Salem process, which was the
[1:33:02] multi-year uh, you know, process to
[1:33:04] update the city's comprehensive plan and
[1:33:06] associated zoning uh, comp plan changes
[1:33:09] and, uh, and some text amendments. Uh,
[1:33:11] we did not change the designation of
[1:33:13] this property because, uh, based on its
[1:33:15] location uh, along the river near the
[1:33:18] downtown, we felt it was appropriate and
[1:33:20] there was no need to change it. But
[1:33:21] there was an issue where the zoning was
[1:33:23] in conflict with that comprehensive plan
[1:33:25] designation. And as you can see by the
[1:33:28] zoning, oh, sorry, jumped ahead. Uh, so
[1:33:31] it's river orientated mixed use on the
[1:33:32] comprehensive plan map. In terms of the
[1:33:34] neighborhood plan map, because there's
[1:33:36] also a neighborhood plan map change with
[1:33:38] this proposal, it is also designated
[1:33:40] river oriented mixeduse as kind of shown
[1:33:42] by the light uh blue area on the screen
[1:33:44] there. So there's a a small river
[1:33:46] oriented mixeduse district in the grant
[1:33:48] neighborhood plan and then there's other
[1:33:50] areas for wholesale manufacturing but
[1:33:52] this is specifically river oriented and
[1:33:53] the neighborhood plan has specific
[1:33:55] policies for commercial mixeduse uh
[1:33:58] residential types of development
[1:33:59] patterns occurring in in this area and
[1:34:01] access to the river. In terms of the
[1:34:04] zoning of the property uh it was changed
[1:34:06] in 2002 with our Salem. went from IC
[1:34:09] industrial commercial to uh river
[1:34:11] oriented or MUR which is uh mixeduse
[1:34:14] riverfront and that was selected for the
[1:34:17] property because uh the mixeduse
[1:34:19] riverfront zone was created as a zone to
[1:34:22] uh specifically promote uh access to the
[1:34:25] Wamtt River through pedestrian
[1:34:26] connections to and along it uh mixed
[1:34:28] uses with residential and commercial uh
[1:34:31] buildings that are up next to the street
[1:34:33] uh and a pedestrian friendly
[1:34:34] environment. And so because we had this
[1:34:36] conflict between the comp plan and the
[1:34:38] zoning, we decided through our Salem it
[1:34:40] was appropriate to change that uh zone
[1:34:42] uh to MUR to to implement fully the
[1:34:46] mixeduse uh river or mixed use
[1:34:48] comprehensive plan designation. Uh the
[1:34:50] proposal tonight not only seeks to
[1:34:52] change the comprehensive plan map of the
[1:34:54] subject property for to industrial
[1:34:55] commercial but also the zoning map to
[1:34:57] industrial commercial uh to to implement
[1:35:00] that
[1:35:02] in terms of the the context of the
[1:35:04] surrounding area. It is on an edge or a
[1:35:06] transition area as you can see to the
[1:35:08] south to the west and to the southeast
[1:35:10] we have MUR zoning and to the north and
[1:35:14] to the east and to the uh northeast
[1:35:16] there is an enclave of industrial
[1:35:18] general IG zone which is the gray area
[1:35:21] on the map as well as uh other IC zoned
[1:35:24] area which is the lighter purple uh
[1:35:26] areas and that industrial kind of
[1:35:28] enclave area is characterized by
[1:35:30] warehouse buildings and industrial uses.
[1:35:32] Uh there is uh to immediately to the
[1:35:35] west of the subject property across the
[1:35:37] vacated water street uh the Wamut
[1:35:39] Landing Apartments and those also uh go
[1:35:41] two tax slots to the north. So if you go
[1:35:43] immediately to the west of the the
[1:35:45] outlined white property that those are
[1:35:47] apartments and then to the two tax lots
[1:35:49] to the north those are also part of that
[1:35:51] complex. So it's in an area where it's
[1:35:53] next to residential but it is also next
[1:35:55] to industrial uses to the north.
[1:35:58] And uh the property of course based on
[1:36:00] its proximity to the river is uh adj not
[1:36:03] within but adjacent to the Wamtt
[1:36:05] greenway overlay zone uh which is in place uh to protect the
[1:36:10] scenic and natural qualities of the
[1:36:12] Wamtt River.
[1:36:14] So in terms of the existing conditions
[1:36:16] of the property itself, it's 1.43 acres.
[1:36:19] It's it's flat uh you know it's a flat
[1:36:21] site. There aren't any trees uh wetlands
[1:36:24] or waterways present. Uh the site is can
[1:36:26] be seen by the aerial photo is you know
[1:36:28] fully developed with structures and
[1:36:30] paving uh so there aren't any natural
[1:36:32] resources issues there. Uh there is an
[1:36:34] access easement across the west abuing
[1:36:37] the western side of the property and
[1:36:38] that is over the vacated rideway of
[1:36:40] water street that was uh you know uh
[1:36:42] vacated you know in the early 1900s uh
[1:36:45] because of it wasn't used but there was
[1:36:47] an easement that was retained for
[1:36:48] access. Uh existing uses in the building
[1:36:51] include uh retail sales, uh building and
[1:36:54] ground services and construction
[1:36:56] contracting, general manufacturing and
[1:36:58] indust and industrial services. And
[1:37:00] those are accommodate or those are
[1:37:01] provided by uh you know a few different
[1:37:04] businesses that are kind of related to
[1:37:06] each other. Uh dealing with fireplace uh
[1:37:09] sales uh chimney repair and then also
[1:37:11] they do industrial services like sand
[1:37:13] blasting, powder coating of metal
[1:37:15] products.
[1:37:17] In terms of here's a bird's eye view
[1:37:19] looking to the northwest. Uh the
[1:37:21] property again is outlined in the in
[1:37:23] white there. So you can see to the left
[1:37:26] or to the southwest is the the the the
[1:37:29] grass field. That's the former Tur
[1:37:31] brother site. Uh you know not the
[1:37:33] grassfield area but you know the tax lot
[1:37:35] to the south of that. That is where uh
[1:37:37] the Canary the Canary site is proposed
[1:37:40] and it has land use approval for the the
[1:37:42] mixeduse development. Uh three uh
[1:37:44] six-story mixeduse buildings. Uh you can
[1:37:46] see the Wamut Landing apartments to the to the top there. And then you
[1:37:51] have the existing warehouse buildings to
[1:37:53] the east and to the north. And then
[1:37:56] here's just another view looking from
[1:37:58] the other direction looking to the
[1:38:00] southwest uh where you have kind of the
[1:38:03] just another perspective.
[1:38:07] So in terms of the applicant's appeal,
[1:38:09] this was heard by the planning
[1:38:10] commission in uh May and June. There was
[1:38:12] an initial hearing and that was
[1:38:13] continued till June 9th. uh the planning
[1:38:16] commission uh based on the proceedings
[1:38:18] that occurred prior to this uh they
[1:38:20] voted to uh deny the application based
[1:38:22] on uh staff's recommendation and the
[1:38:24] approval criteria. Uh on July 1st after
[1:38:27] the decision was issued on uh June 9th,
[1:38:29] there was an appeal that was filed by
[1:38:31] the applicant. Uh that uh the city
[1:38:34] council hearing for the appeal was
[1:38:36] originally scheduled for August 24th. Uh
[1:38:38] but prior to the hearing on August 20th,
[1:38:40] there was a a letter that was received
[1:38:42] from the applicant or and and the
[1:38:44] appellant in this case requesting that
[1:38:46] the hearing be continued till tonight in
[1:38:48] order to allow staff and the applicant
[1:38:50] some additional time to see if there's
[1:38:52] any potential way that uh conditions of
[1:38:54] approval could be, you know, agreed
[1:38:55] upon. that would, you know, allow the
[1:38:57] comp plan zone change to be approved
[1:38:58] while meeting their needs and also uh
[1:39:01] trying to maintain the long-term uh
[1:39:02] vision for the property is embodied by
[1:39:04] the mixeduse riverfront comp plan
[1:39:06] designation and the mur zoning. Uh the
[1:39:08] appeal submitted by the applicant
[1:39:10] contends that the planning commission
[1:39:11] decision uh aired by uh incorrectly
[1:39:14] evaluating the approval criteria. Their
[1:39:16] position is that it does of course meet
[1:39:18] the the approval criteria and that the
[1:39:20] planning commission decision it
[1:39:22] incorrectly evaluated those and their
[1:39:24] decision of denial was unwarranted.
[1:39:27] So in terms of the approval criteria
[1:39:29] themselves, uh there are two sets. One
[1:39:31] for the comprehensive plan map amendment
[1:39:33] and neighborhood plan map amendment and
[1:39:35] then the other for uh the zone change,
[1:39:37] uh as identified in the planning
[1:39:39] commission decision and uh summarized in
[1:39:42] the staff report for the council meeting
[1:39:44] this evening and in staff's responses to
[1:39:46] the applicant's appeal, staff still
[1:39:48] feels that the application, you know,
[1:39:50] doesn't meet all of the applicable
[1:39:51] criteria for both the comprehensive plan
[1:39:53] map amendment and zone change. Uh, one
[1:39:55] of those and I'll identify the some of
[1:39:58] the criteria that we feel aren't met by
[1:39:59] the application in the next couple
[1:40:01] slides here. But the first one is
[1:40:02] whether or not it can be made a finding
[1:40:04] can be made that the proposed
[1:40:06] designation uh both the comp plan map
[1:40:08] amendment and zone are equally or better
[1:40:10] suited for the property than the
[1:40:11] existing MUR zoning and uh the decision
[1:40:15] of the planning commission and you know
[1:40:16] and staff's you know analysis of the
[1:40:18] criteria does not we do not believe it
[1:40:21] meets that uh because the proposed IC
[1:40:23] designation for both the comp plan and
[1:40:25] the zoning uh doesn't align with the
[1:40:28] long-term vision for the property that
[1:40:30] has that has been in place for many many
[1:40:32] years since at least 1979 as the
[1:40:34] property being designated river oriented
[1:40:36] mixed use and and all that comes along
[1:40:38] with that in terms of access to the
[1:40:40] river pedestrian friendly environment
[1:40:42] and uh in in a way that kind of extends
[1:40:44] the the downtown to the north. Uh the IC
[1:40:47] zone allows a wide variety of uses uh
[1:40:50] beyond what the MUR zone currently
[1:40:52] allows and there aren't uh very many
[1:40:54] standards in the IC zone that would
[1:40:56] ensure that the development any
[1:40:58] development or future redevelopment that
[1:41:00] occurred in the property would occur in
[1:41:01] a manner that achieves that that vision.
[1:41:04] Uh and then if we the zone change were
[1:41:08] approved to IC it would allow those you
[1:41:10] know uses and development standards be
[1:41:12] to be locked in for years to come.
[1:41:14] Whereas right now we're at a position
[1:41:16] where our Salem was passed in 2022. We
[1:41:19] adopted this new zoning, you know,
[1:41:20] scheme for this area to recognize the
[1:41:22] long-standing comp plan. And if we were
[1:41:24] to now change it back to IC, it would
[1:41:27] essentially allow that building to be
[1:41:29] used for IC uses for many years to come
[1:41:32] and and not allow the property to
[1:41:34] transition to like what we're seeing
[1:41:35] with the redevelopment of the of the U
[1:41:37] former True Brothers Canary site to the
[1:41:39] south with urban style dense dense
[1:41:42] mixeduse residential development. Uh and
[1:41:45] then there's also a slight issue with
[1:41:48] that easement that is along the west
[1:41:49] side of the property. uh we have a
[1:41:51] long-standing planning commission uh
[1:41:53] code interpretation that access to a use
[1:41:56] is uh considered a part of the use and
[1:41:59] so you can't cross one zone to get to
[1:42:01] another zone if the zone you're crossing
[1:42:03] is not if the zone that you're trying to
[1:42:05] get to isn't doesn't allow the use that
[1:42:07] you're trying to cross. So long story
[1:42:08] short, if the property itself were to
[1:42:10] change to IC, there would still be MUR
[1:42:13] zoning on that easement, you know, to
[1:42:14] the west. And so therefore, there would
[1:42:16] be the potential that zoning or uses
[1:42:19] that would be allowed in the IC zone if
[1:42:20] it were approved couldn't use the the
[1:42:23] easement anymore because the zone that
[1:42:26] the the use that's allowed in the IC
[1:42:27] zone isn't allowed in MUR zone. And the
[1:42:29] alley uh essentially it's like an alley
[1:42:31] along the west there. Some of the uses
[1:42:33] in the building use that for their
[1:42:35] access. So, it's not an insurmountable
[1:42:37] issue. They could reconfigure the
[1:42:38] fencing on the site and take access to
[1:42:40] the public streets to the north or
[1:42:42] south, but it does create an issue where
[1:42:44] uh if the zoning of the site has changed
[1:42:46] to uh IC and you have this MUR zone that
[1:42:49] is remaining to the west, certain uses
[1:42:51] that they might want to do on that IC
[1:42:53] zone property couldn't cross that
[1:42:55] remaining strip of land that zoned MUR.
[1:42:59] Uh, another criteria that we didn't feel
[1:43:01] that was met with the application and
[1:43:03] the planning commission found that it
[1:43:04] didn't where the proposal has to meet
[1:43:06] all the applicable goals and policies of
[1:43:08] the comprehensive plan and the
[1:43:10] neighborhood plan. And so uh the intent
[1:43:13] of the river and mixed use designation
[1:43:14] is to promote a a dense uh mix of
[1:43:17] residential and commercial uses that
[1:43:19] take advantage to their to the proximity
[1:43:22] to the river and the scenic views that
[1:43:23] it offers. Uh it is also intended to
[1:43:26] promote pedestrian friendly development
[1:43:27] that extends an active and envir
[1:43:29] inviting uh pedestrian friendly
[1:43:31] environment from the from the downtown.
[1:43:33] Uh and then there's also a handful of
[1:43:36] neighborhood plan policies in the grant
[1:43:37] neighborhood plan uh that the proposal
[1:43:39] would be you know counter to based on
[1:43:41] its proximity to the river. And then the
[1:43:44] final uh policy that we feel or the
[1:43:46] final criteria that we feel wouldn't be
[1:43:48] met by the proposal is that it doesn't
[1:43:50] really represent that the proposed
[1:43:51] designations don't represent the the
[1:43:53] logical urbanization of the land. Uh we
[1:43:56] feel that the logical urbanization of
[1:43:57] the land was established in our Salem
[1:43:59] with the MUR zoning and which implements
[1:44:01] that long-standing mixeduse uh uh river
[1:44:04] and mixeduse comp plan designation. And
[1:44:06] so to change it away from that to IC in
[1:44:10] the comp plan and IC with the zone, it
[1:44:12] would kind of be counter to that and it
[1:44:14] doesn't represent the the long-term
[1:44:16] vision that the city has established
[1:44:17] through the through the you know several
[1:44:19] year process of uh our Salem to get that
[1:44:22] implemented.
[1:44:26] uh in terms of other other long-term
[1:44:28] envision and investment things that are
[1:44:29] occurring in this area that aligns with
[1:44:31] the this property being appropriate as
[1:44:33] MUR and not IC include again our Salem
[1:44:36] vision. It's located in a climate
[1:44:38] walkable climate friendly and walkable
[1:44:40] mixeduse area as required by state law
[1:44:42] as you can see by the it's at the very
[1:44:44] kind of north end of that area. The
[1:44:46] climate friendly walkable mixeduse area
[1:44:47] is the the the dark outlined area. The
[1:44:50] red star is a subject property. So, it
[1:44:52] is in that climate friendly, walkable,
[1:44:53] mixeduse area that we're required to
[1:44:55] designate uh by the state. Uh there was
[1:44:57] a $2.7 million raise uh federal raise
[1:45:00] grant that was approved uh for you know
[1:45:03] planning and in preliminary engineering
[1:45:05] design along Front Street to address the
[1:45:08] railroad in relation to the traffic
[1:45:10] lanes and in relation to bike bicycle
[1:45:13] you infrastructure and pedestrian
[1:45:15] access. So, you know, there is a lot of,
[1:45:18] you know, interest and in planning and
[1:45:20] study for this area to support
[1:45:22] pedestrian friendly walkable mixeduse
[1:45:24] environment. And then another example of
[1:45:25] that is the the proposed uh uh North
[1:45:28] Waterfront URA URRA that you know you're aware of and there was a public
[1:45:32] hearing on a few meetings ago. Um and
[1:45:35] again this is an area where we want to
[1:45:37] under the urban renewal area want to try
[1:45:38] to minimize blight uh promote
[1:45:41] redevelopment and investment and uh
[1:45:43] having zoning that would be aligned with
[1:45:45] the you know the MUR zone fulfills that
[1:45:49] and uh achieves those purposes of
[1:45:51] promoting
[1:45:53] an attractive inviting environment near
[1:45:55] the river
[1:45:57] and then also there is the uh sorry
[1:46:00] there is the uh the massive you know uh
[1:46:02] redevelopment of the true brother
[1:46:04] scanner site to the south of the
[1:46:05] property. If that comes to fruition, it
[1:46:07] represents three six-story mixeduse
[1:46:09] buildings with 382 units with ground
[1:46:11] floor commercial, uh, rooftop gardens, a
[1:46:15] trail along the WAMIC Greenway there.
[1:46:17] And so this is the the culmination of
[1:46:19] what, you know, the zoning is trying to
[1:46:21] achieve, you know, for this area. And to
[1:46:23] have uh IC zone come in and allow uses
[1:46:27] and development standards that could be
[1:46:28] contrary to that and allow that to be in
[1:46:30] place for years to come, uh, could be
[1:46:33] discouraging to that. um to that effort
[1:46:35] and evolution over time as things
[1:46:37] evolve. So uh as provided in the written
[1:46:41] the additional written statement
[1:46:42] provided by the applicant uh or the
[1:46:44] appellent this evening uh there is there
[1:46:46] is uh discussion of meetings that were
[1:46:48] held between the applicant and staff and
[1:46:50] as I indicated there were there have
[1:46:51] been meetings both at the planning
[1:46:53] commission level when the planning
[1:46:54] commission directed staff uh to uh go
[1:46:58] away from the first hearing and then
[1:46:59] meet to find out if there's again a way
[1:47:01] that we can come to consensus and try to
[1:47:02] condition it to limit uses and maybe
[1:47:05] establish different development
[1:47:06] standards for the site that could allow
[1:47:09] recommendation of approval. Uh we did
[1:47:11] that and we came to the planning
[1:47:13] commission at the June 9th hearing with
[1:47:15] a alternative based on that uh based on
[1:47:17] that the meetings we had that identified
[1:47:20] uh a list of uses that could be applied
[1:47:22] you know to to the property as well as
[1:47:25] uh recommendation that that MUR zone
[1:47:27] development standards you know could be
[1:47:29] applied. That was you know that was
[1:47:31] based on a recommendation of the
[1:47:32] planning commission to to to see if we
[1:47:34] could do that. that was done at the
[1:47:36] hearing on June 9th at the planning
[1:47:37] commission. Testimony was received from
[1:47:39] a representative of of the Wamtt Landing
[1:47:41] Apartments that expressed concern about,
[1:47:44] you know, trying to condition the
[1:47:46] decision in a manner uh that would allow
[1:47:48] it to be approved because uh they
[1:47:51] essentially felt that conditions can't
[1:47:52] if if the proposal can't meet the
[1:47:54] criteria on its face, then you really
[1:47:56] can't condition it to an extent to meet
[1:47:58] it. And so, uh, based on that, uh, the testimony were received at the
[1:48:03] hearing and further consideration, uh,
[1:48:06] we did have additional conversations
[1:48:08] with the applicant to see if we could
[1:48:09] come to an agreement, but we haven't
[1:48:11] weren't able to do that. And so, uh, we
[1:48:13] feel that any conditions that would need
[1:48:16] to be put on the property in order to
[1:48:18] both, uh, provide the applicant the
[1:48:20] flexibility that they're looking for in
[1:48:22] use, but then also ensure that
[1:48:25] development standards are in place to
[1:48:28] result in, you know, buildings being up
[1:48:30] to the street, you know, you know,
[1:48:32] ground ground floor windows, weather
[1:48:34] protection in the form of canopies and
[1:48:36] awnings, everything you want to see in a
[1:48:37] pedestrian-friendly, attractive
[1:48:38] district. uh we it would essentially
[1:48:41] create a new zone and then it becomes a
[1:48:44] question of if you have to condition the
[1:48:46] zone so extensively uh to apply
[1:48:49] development standards from the MUR zone
[1:48:51] and to uh you know limit uses to like if
[1:48:54] they were the these uses are only
[1:48:56] allowed in the existing building in the
[1:48:58] IC zone then any new development could
[1:49:00] have you know only these uses it gets to
[1:49:02] a point it's like how can you how can
[1:49:03] you make a finding that the that a zone
[1:49:05] change that the proposed IC zone is
[1:49:07] equal or better meeting the intent of
[1:49:09] the MU zone if you have to condition it
[1:49:11] so extensively that it doesn't even look
[1:49:13] like the IC zone that they're asking for
[1:49:14] essentially. So, uh we're at the
[1:49:16] position of you know because of the
[1:49:18] level of conditions that would be
[1:49:19] required uh we don't think we can go
[1:49:21] that far and we haven't typically done
[1:49:23] that with other zone changes in the
[1:49:25] past.
[1:49:26] Uh the MUR zone does and was
[1:49:28] specifically intended to provide
[1:49:30] flexibility uh for existing development
[1:49:32] and existing uses. Uh it it recognizes
[1:49:36] that by establishing what are called
[1:49:37] continued uses and continued
[1:49:39] development. Uh and then it also has as
[1:49:41] mentioned standards for you know
[1:49:43] minimizing building setbacks from the
[1:49:44] street. Provision of minimum percentages
[1:49:46] of ground flooror windows facing the
[1:49:48] street to pro promote that active
[1:49:50] inviting pedestrian environment. Uh
[1:49:52] having entrances of buildings that face
[1:49:54] the street having weather protection
[1:49:55] over the sidewalks so it's an inviting
[1:49:57] place to walk. and then requiring
[1:49:59] parking to be to the side or to the rear
[1:50:01] of buildings and not between the
[1:50:03] building between the building and the
[1:50:04] street. And then if you compare that to
[1:50:06] the IC zone, there is really only a a
[1:50:09] minimum setback of 5T from the street.
[1:50:11] There are no standards for parking
[1:50:13] location, no uh window requirements, no
[1:50:16] uh pedestrian, you know, uh uh awnings
[1:50:19] or canopy requirements. And so it just
[1:50:21] doesn't, you know, achieve that same
[1:50:23] level of uh urban design that's
[1:50:25] envisioned in this area.
[1:50:28] uh the flexibility that is offered uh in
[1:50:31] the MUR zone through the continued use
[1:50:33] and continued development uh uh concepts
[1:50:35] that are built into the zone allow
[1:50:37] existing buildings to be uh expanded,
[1:50:40] enlarged or rebuilt. And the standards
[1:50:43] are the standards of the zone that apply
[1:50:45] are specifically tailored to the amount
[1:50:47] of change you're making to the to the
[1:50:49] facade of the building facing the
[1:50:50] primary street. And primary street in
[1:50:52] the zone means the street that's a
[1:50:54] collector, an arterial or a collector.
[1:50:56] In this case, it's Front Street. So, if
[1:50:58] you're doing a minor alteration in
[1:51:00] addition to a building affecting less
[1:51:01] than 20% of the facade facing the
[1:51:03] street, there's no standards that that
[1:51:05] apply to that. If you're doing a major
[1:51:07] alteration in addition uh that affects
[1:51:09] 20 to 60% of the facade facing the
[1:51:11] street, you can either choose three of
[1:51:13] the pedestrian oriented design standards
[1:51:14] to comply with in the zone, or you can
[1:51:17] just minimize your uh non-conformance
[1:51:19] with the applicable standards based on
[1:51:21] what you're changing on the facade. If
[1:51:23] you're doing substantial alterations or
[1:51:25] redevelopment, you know, over 60% of the
[1:51:27] facade or totally rebuilding the site,
[1:51:29] then you know, the the all the standards
[1:51:31] would come into play for a full
[1:51:33] rebuilding. And then if you're doing
[1:51:34] just a big change to the building that's
[1:51:37] over 60% of the facade, you'd have to
[1:51:40] comply with all the applicable, you
[1:51:41] know, standards of the zone. So there's
[1:51:44] flexibility in terms of how the
[1:51:46] standards apply. And then in terms of
[1:51:47] the use, any use that existed in the
[1:51:49] building on uh August 24th, 2022, which
[1:51:52] was when the zone was applied to the
[1:51:54] property, those can those can stay and
[1:51:56] can continue. And unlike a
[1:51:57] non-conforming use, uh the use uh in the
[1:52:01] building can be expanded, altered, or
[1:52:03] enlarged. If the building burns down, it
[1:52:06] can be reestablished, you know, and that
[1:52:07] use can still go on. A typical
[1:52:09] non-conforming use is if it if it's in a
[1:52:11] building that burns down, you lose your
[1:52:12] non-conforming status and only the
[1:52:15] allowed uses in the zone can be, you
[1:52:17] know, go forward. In this case, it's a
[1:52:19] continued use. The uses can stay uh and
[1:52:22] the only thing that would cancel or or
[1:52:24] uh disqualify the use from its continued
[1:52:26] use status status is if it changes from
[1:52:29] the continued use to a use that's
[1:52:30] allowed in the zone. So, for instance,
[1:52:32] here in the building, we have
[1:52:34] essentially three continued uses based
[1:52:36] on what's there today. Uh that's
[1:52:38] building and ground services in
[1:52:39] construction contracting, general
[1:52:41] manufacturing or in industrial services.
[1:52:44] So if if one of those if a if the
[1:52:46] general manufacturing space in the
[1:52:48] building you know changed to retail it
[1:52:50] retail was a permitted use and so
[1:52:52] therefore you couldn't go back to
[1:52:53] general manufacturing but those uses can
[1:52:55] continue. They can expand inside the
[1:52:57] existing building uh you know today
[1:52:59] without you know without any issue. Uh
[1:53:01] so it does provide flexibility in terms
[1:53:03] of allowing existing uses to continue
[1:53:05] and it also allows as shown on the
[1:53:07] screen new general manufacturing and new
[1:53:10] general wholesaling if there are some
[1:53:12] size limits. Uh you can't have more than
[1:53:15] 10,000 square foot of floor area or 50%
[1:53:18] of the total floor area whichever is
[1:53:19] greater for those uses. But it does
[1:53:21] allow even for new uh general
[1:53:23] manufacturing and general wholesaling um
[1:53:26] outside of continued uh use.
[1:53:30] Uh in terms of testimony received uh
[1:53:32] both during the initial public hearing
[1:53:33] at the planning commission and prior to
[1:53:35] this evening's meeting uh no comments
[1:53:38] were received from the grant
[1:53:38] neighborhood association which is of
[1:53:40] course the neighborhood association
[1:53:42] properties within. Uh we did receive you
[1:53:44] know comments at the planning commission
[1:53:46] uh from one of the tenants of the
[1:53:47] building that obviously expressed
[1:53:49] support for the the change to IC. Uh
[1:53:51] those uses in that building could still
[1:53:54] continue and would still continue under
[1:53:55] the proposed uh MUR zone. Uh but then
[1:53:58] there are remaining comments expressed
[1:54:00] that by mainly from the Wamtt uh landing
[1:54:03] apartments to the west about uh the fact
[1:54:05] that there is multif family next to this
[1:54:07] property the IC zone would allow you
[1:54:10] know a lot more uses that currently
[1:54:12] wouldn't be allowed in the MUR zone.
[1:54:13] Those uses could be incompatible in
[1:54:15] terms of hours of operation noise you
[1:54:17] know and all the things that would go
[1:54:18] along with industrial uses next to
[1:54:20] residential. And also there is concern
[1:54:22] about the going from MUR back to IC
[1:54:25] would be kind of going backwards on the
[1:54:27] vision that was established under R
[1:54:29] Salem. And you do have an item
[1:54:31] additional item of testimony. There was
[1:54:32] an addition from the Wamtt Landing
[1:54:34] Apartments again expressing u you know
[1:54:37] concern about the change and going to MU
[1:54:40] uh or IC wanting it to stay MUR and
[1:54:42] suggested that possibly a building such
[1:54:44] as this could be a great place for like
[1:54:46] a boutique uh rock climbing or indoor
[1:54:48] physical fitness facility uh which there
[1:54:51] isn't you know a lot aren't a lot of
[1:54:52] those in you know in this area of the
[1:54:53] Salem right now.
[1:54:56] So based upon that uh staff would
[1:54:58] recommend uh our staff feels that the
[1:55:00] planning commission decision obviously
[1:55:01] is based on the criteria and uh and and
[1:55:04] meets the and was based on the criteria
[1:55:06] and is relevant. Uh we recommend that
[1:55:08] the planning uh the council adopt the
[1:55:10] facts and findings of the report and
[1:55:11] affirm the planning commission decision.
[1:55:14] >> Thank you.
[1:55:18] » Does anyone have questions of staff?
[1:55:22] >> Councelor Brown here.
[1:55:25] Mr. Bishop. Right.
[1:55:27] >> Yep.
[1:55:28] >> First off, I want to say um I I don't
[1:55:31] know about the rest of the counselors,
[1:55:32] but I'm just impressed with your level
[1:55:34] of knowledge when it comes to planning
[1:55:37] this. So, thank you. Thank you for just,
[1:55:40] you know, having all that in your head
[1:55:42] because it's better you to have it than
[1:55:43] me.
[1:55:46] [snorts] Way better. So, in a nutshell, the planning
[1:55:51] commission said no and you want us to
[1:55:53] say no. Correct.
[1:55:56] >> In a nutshell. So, let let me go back to
[1:55:58] the actual site itself. I was reading
[1:56:00] some of the correspondence between you
[1:56:02] and what's her name? Is it Margaret?
[1:56:05] >> Yes.
[1:56:05] >> You guys have become good friends.
[1:56:06] >> Yeah. Margaret's Yes. [snorts]
[1:56:09] >> I use that term loosely. So, so
[1:56:12] >> Margaret Margaret is very great to work
[1:56:14] with.
[1:56:15] >> Who who works with her?
[1:56:16] >> Margaret's very great. She'll be
[1:56:17] presenting shortly.
[1:56:18] >> Oh, okay. Got it. Got it. Thank you for
[1:56:21] letting me know that. That way I don't
[1:56:22] say stuff that I shouldn't say. Um,
[1:56:25] what's that? Madam Mayor,
[1:56:28] I've heard you now. Um, so my question
[1:56:31] to you is
[1:56:34] you mentioned and you showed us the
[1:56:35] picture that there's still, you know,
[1:56:38] the whole Canary project, but to my
[1:56:40] understanding that's kind of like turned
[1:56:42] on his head because we're not exactly
[1:56:44] sure if that's actually going to move
[1:56:46] forward. Correct.
[1:56:48] >> Uh, yeah. Well, yeah, that's correct. it
[1:56:50] still has land use entitlement. You
[1:56:52] know, they have their WAMIC greenway
[1:56:53] permit, their subdivision, their
[1:56:55] adjustments and everything approved. And
[1:56:57] so, it's just waiting for uh you know, a
[1:57:00] person to come along and you know, have
[1:57:02] that
[1:57:04] and take advantage of that land use
[1:57:05] approval. You know, it's still valid.
[1:57:07] You know, it's still a land use
[1:57:08] approval. So, there is the potential
[1:57:09] still for that to to go forward. And and
[1:57:12] the plan is whoever develops this plot
[1:57:15] of land, this property is that it would
[1:57:18] fall in sync with the vision that we
[1:57:19] already have out for the Canary project,
[1:57:21] right?
[1:57:22] >> Yeah. Uh you mean for the subject
[1:57:23] property?
[1:57:24] >> Yeah, that that that would be the idea.
[1:57:26] And you know, the MUR zone, as I
[1:57:28] mentioned, you know, it does allow, you
[1:57:29] know, again, those any existing use that
[1:57:31] was established when the zone was was
[1:57:33] first approved for the property that
[1:57:34] they can continue. And so that includes
[1:57:36] those three uses in manufacturing,
[1:57:38] building and ground services and
[1:57:40] industrial services. So that building,
[1:57:42] you know, they could have a new, you
[1:57:44] know, manufacturer come in there and
[1:57:45] utilize the space in that building, you
[1:57:47] know, is and if they're not proposing to
[1:57:49] like make any changes to the exterior of
[1:57:50] the building, which, you know, it's not
[1:57:52] likely, you know, that they necessarily
[1:57:54] would, there wouldn't need to be any,
[1:57:56] you know, any any any issue. you know
[1:57:59] even they wouldn't even need to get a
[1:58:00] site plan reviewer view if it's if it's
[1:58:01] going from you know one type of
[1:58:03] manufacturing to another type of
[1:58:05] manufacturing different user
[1:58:07] >> um you know so there is that flexibility
[1:58:09] and we and staff has felt that if it
[1:58:11] were to change you know to IC it doesn't
[1:58:14] have the standards that the MUR zone has
[1:58:16] and then the uses that uh it it allows
[1:58:19] uses like warehousing and distribution
[1:58:20] self-service storage um you know
[1:58:23] industrial services which can include
[1:58:25] welding and lots of kind of impactful
[1:58:27] things um you know So those would be
[1:58:29] there essentially could be long-term you
[1:58:31] know so if somebody wanted to come down
[1:58:33] and tear that building down and then
[1:58:34] come in and build many warehouses or you
[1:58:36] know warehousing and distribution you
[1:58:38] know that would be that could be here
[1:58:39] for you know decades to come.
[1:58:42] >> So so you can go from IC to MU you can
[1:58:45] go back and forth
[1:58:46] >> uh uh uh no the zone if uh if right now they're going from MUR to IC
[1:58:53] through a zone change process. If we
[1:58:55] were to go back to MUR, it would require
[1:58:57] another zone change in the future
[1:58:59] >> and we don't want that.
[1:59:00] >> No, because you know the RCM process,
[1:59:02] you know, is extensive and you know it
[1:59:05] would and it matches the comp plan
[1:59:07] designation that's been in place for
[1:59:08] years and years and years and it aligns
[1:59:10] with kind of the city's long range
[1:59:12] vision and and all the different efforts
[1:59:14] with the URRA, the walkable mixeduse
[1:59:16] area and the other efforts that we're
[1:59:18] trying to see change in this area or
[1:59:20] trying to use to implement change in
[1:59:21] this area.
[1:59:22] >> Got it. in your opening presentation,
[1:59:24] you know, you mentioned and you showed
[1:59:25] us slides about um you know, the train
[1:59:27] that runs through there. [clears throat]
[1:59:30] >> Uh did they have any input to say about
[1:59:32] this?
[1:59:33] >> Uh you know, we we uh we do provide
[1:59:35] notice to the rail railway all property
[1:59:37] owners within, you know, 250 ft. Um you
[1:59:40] know, they uh
[1:59:42] >> even even on the Canary project, you
[1:59:44] know, they you know, they we they're
[1:59:46] engaged through a separate mechanism
[1:59:47] like through a di railroad diagnostic.
[1:59:50] They, you know, rarely, they did not
[1:59:52] comment. We didn't get any comments and it's not and it's not uncommon to
[1:59:56] not get comments from them. Yeah.
[1:59:58] >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. I have the
[2:00:00] floor, Madame Mayor.
[2:00:01] >> Thank you, sir. Councelor Tigan.
[2:00:02] >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, Mr.
[2:00:04] Bishop, thank you. I I wonder if we
[2:00:06] could talk a little bit more. You sort
[2:00:08] of mentioned it in passing towards the
[2:00:09] end of your um towards the end of your
[2:00:12] presentation, but about um time of
[2:00:16] operations, noise, that sort of thing.
[2:00:19] when when say um you know general
[2:00:23] manufacturing is allowed in IC are there
[2:00:28] limits on when an industrial application
[2:00:32] could be used? So like let's say
[2:00:34] someone's manufacturing dog food like um
[2:00:37] could they operate 24 hours a day if
[2:00:40] it's in a IC or are there limitations to
[2:00:43] when they can operate?
[2:00:44] >> No, we don't have limit we don't have
[2:00:45] hours of operation that would
[2:00:47] specifically apply. We do have a noise
[2:00:49] ordinance though that limits the amount
[2:00:51] of industrial noise that could be
[2:00:52] generated to like noise sensitive
[2:00:54] receiving which would be like churches,
[2:00:56] schools, residences and things like
[2:00:57] that. It's 55 during the day, 55 dBA and
[2:01:00] then 50 dBA during the night. But you
[2:01:03] know that you know there is no like you
[2:01:05] can only operate or you can only
[2:01:06] manufacture your dog food till 10:00
[2:01:08] every night. There's there isn't a limit
[2:01:10] like that.
[2:01:10] >> I mean I shouldn't I shouldn't have said
[2:01:12] dog food. I mean like
[2:01:13] >> or vegan sandwiches. I don't it doesn't
[2:01:16] matter. just [laughter] that I'm just
[2:01:17] talking about like the you know types of
[2:01:19] manufacturer
[2:01:21] >> that can go on for one two or three
[2:01:23] shifts that it's just sort of a a
[2:01:26] constant 24 hours a day
[2:01:28] >> like like would have been with can like
[2:01:29] a canery site years you know
[2:01:31] >> but the the mur um designation does
[2:01:34] allow some um manufacturing if they
[2:01:38] follow that 50% rule and the retail
[2:01:40] rule. So
[2:01:42] >> someone's making cutting boards and
[2:01:44] they're selling them in their cutting
[2:01:45] board shop. That would be one way you
[2:01:48] could do it. Could they make cutting
[2:01:49] boards all night long?
[2:01:51] >> Yeah, [snorts] they could. Yeah, we in
[2:01:52] Even in the MUR zone, we don't have an
[2:01:54] hours of operation standard.
[2:01:56] >> Okay.
[2:01:56] >> So,
[2:01:57] >> but fair enough. They have to be under
[2:01:59] 10,000 ft and sell it in the building.
[2:02:02] >> Yeah.
[2:02:02] >> Okay. Thank you. Um, that's the only
[2:02:04] question I have for right now.
[2:02:07] Councelor Matthews,
[2:02:09] >> I'll be totally honest with you. That
[2:02:10] presentation felt a little like a punch
[2:02:12] in the face with that amount of
[2:02:13] information. So, I'm still kind of like
[2:02:15] reeling off of that. So, uh, so I'm
[2:02:17] still getting my thoughts together, but
[2:02:18] I do have a couple questions. Mostly to
[2:02:20] make sure I just understand the history
[2:02:22] a little bit better because it was just
[2:02:24] a lot to take in at one time. Um, so
[2:02:26] originally this was zoned IC.
[2:02:28] >> Mhm.
[2:02:28] >> And then through the Salem plan in 2023,
[2:02:31] we reszoned it to uh MUR, right?
[2:02:34] >> Yeah. 2022. Yeah. Our Salem. Y all
[2:02:36] right. And so so originally it was zoned
[2:02:39] IC. Now I guess my first question I know
[2:02:41] that you said on I think it was June 9th
[2:02:43] at the planning commission meeting you
[2:02:44] guys had gone back with a proposal to
[2:02:46] the planning commission to have the
[2:02:48] current zoning but with some conditional
[2:02:50] use allowed that things and yeah
[2:02:52] >> and some neighboring properties had some
[2:02:54] concern with that based on the amount of
[2:02:55] conditions you'd be allowing. Y
[2:02:57] >> were those conditions both agreed by the
[2:02:59] city and the applicant that those would
[2:03:01] have been an acceptable outcome?
[2:03:03] >> I I don't know if they would. Well, I I
[2:03:06] don't know. It's hard to No, I guess.
[2:03:08] Yeah, it it was a good fa It was a good
[2:03:11] faith effort to try to like identify,
[2:03:12] you know, something as as directed by
[2:03:14] the planning commission, but staff still
[2:03:15] had hesitation about, you know, having
[2:03:17] uses like warehousing and distribution
[2:03:19] and self-service storage just being, you
[2:03:21] know, permitted. you know, those were
[2:03:24] identified as, you know, kept in that
[2:03:26] original use list because not looking at
[2:03:30] the specific uses that existed on the
[2:03:33] day that the ordinance was or that the
[2:03:34] zoning was applied to the property, but
[2:03:36] looking at permitting history uh for the
[2:03:38] property going years and years back,
[2:03:40] what had been in that building in the
[2:03:41] past, there was, you know, like
[2:03:42] warehousing uses and things like that.
[2:03:44] So, you know, we had, you know, put
[2:03:46] those in there. But you know upon
[2:03:48] hearing the hearing the concern you know
[2:03:49] about how it would impact properties to
[2:03:51] the west the residential properties and
[2:03:53] then you know kind of I guess you know
[2:03:55] yeah you know evolving more in terms of
[2:03:58] yeah thinking well yeah that is there
[2:03:59] there's an issue there that you know and
[2:04:01] we don't want to see those type of uses
[2:04:03] there long term and then the
[2:04:04] conversation kind of evolved into later
[2:04:06] after the planning commission in the
[2:04:08] meetings you know that we had sub
[2:04:10] subsequent to this hearing tonight or
[2:04:11] prior to this hearing tonight uh could
[2:04:13] you condition the zone change in a way
[2:04:15] that would say only these uses are
[2:04:18] allowed in the existing building and
[2:04:20] then any redevelopment of the site uh
[2:04:23] you would only get this you know set of
[2:04:25] uses and we have never we have never
[2:04:28] conditioned a zone change to to that
[2:04:30] extent before it's always been like you
[2:04:31] know apply some standards from another
[2:04:33] zone you know sometime you know and it's
[2:04:35] not common you know ideally you you just
[2:04:37] want to approve a zone change and have
[2:04:38] it just approved rather than having
[2:04:40] these conditions that are embedded
[2:04:41] because you have to you know it's if
[2:04:44] you're looking to buy the property You
[2:04:46] can't just look at the property zoning
[2:04:47] and know what know what you can do. You
[2:04:48] have to you know call staff and find out
[2:04:51] if there are conditions of approval.
[2:04:52] Then you have to get the document and
[2:04:53] see what they are. So it's not ideal to
[2:04:55] have you know conditions like that. But
[2:04:57] we have it has been done in the past but
[2:04:58] we felt the conditions that would be
[2:05:00] necessary in this case to to meet the
[2:05:02] applicant's needs and the m vision. We
[2:05:05] felt that it was it it was going far it
[2:05:07] was going beyond what we've ever done in
[2:05:09] the past and we couldn't do it.
[2:05:11] And then for I I think you answered this
[2:05:14] just actually a second ago, but I I want
[2:05:15] to clarify. So I know you said that the
[2:05:18] they would continue to be able to use
[2:05:19] the property in its current capacity in
[2:05:21] the current way um in its current use so
[2:05:24] long as the same and I want to clarify
[2:05:27] is it business that's there or industry
[2:05:29] is there? Yeah, it doesn't m if you know
[2:05:31] if you're manufacturing widgets or man
[2:05:33] manufacturing cameras, you know, general
[2:05:35] manufacturing that's the use and so that
[2:05:38] it's the it's the gender manufacturing
[2:05:40] that is a continued use, not like the
[2:05:42] business itself that's doing it.
[2:05:43] >> Okay? And it wouldn't matter if as long
[2:05:45] as there was no other use. So even if
[2:05:46] the current manufacturer shut down and
[2:05:48] there was a two-year gap between another
[2:05:50] manufacturer going in, as long as there
[2:05:51] was no business that related activities
[2:05:54] that happened in the
[2:05:54] >> Right. Yeah. If if it if it shut down
[2:05:56] for a year and then somebody came in and
[2:05:57] did a they did a change of use and they
[2:05:59] did an office, then that would terminate
[2:06:01] it. But if it just sat vacant, it was
[2:06:03] industrial, nobody was in it for two
[2:06:05] years, another manufacturer comes in,
[2:06:08] yeah, there's it that's fine. They they
[2:06:10] wouldn't even need a change of use
[2:06:11] because it was manufacturing in the past
[2:06:13] and to be manufacturing, you know, with
[2:06:15] its new use.
[2:06:16] >> Last question. So, you mentioned that
[2:06:18] Wamut Landing apartments were the ones
[2:06:19] that had the biggest concern and so I
[2:06:22] looked it It looks like they were built
[2:06:24] in 1991 and so this would have been
[2:06:26] zoned uh IC during that time and all the
[2:06:29] way up until 2022. So did we have a
[2:06:30] whole bunch of complaints from residents
[2:06:32] around or from them that they had a
[2:06:34] issues with noise at late?
[2:06:36] >> Not to my not to my not not to my
[2:06:37] knowledge that there has been any you
[2:06:39] know we haven't had a lot of complaints
[2:06:41] about that. I don't believe.
[2:06:42] >> Okay. But but I will say though, you
[2:06:44] know, the comp plan is, you know, the
[2:06:45] comp plan's been MU MUR for a long time
[2:06:47] and the zoning was IC for a long time
[2:06:49] until uh until R Salem, but we just
[2:06:52] changed the zoning to match the comp
[2:06:53] plan.
[2:06:54] >> Okay. Okay. Thank you.
[2:06:55] >> So there is a dis there is a disconnect
[2:06:57] for many years between the two.
[2:06:59] Councelor Quinn.
[2:07:02] >> So I'm trying to understand um I'm
[2:07:06] looking at your design. It was
[2:07:08] designated river oriented mixed use
[2:07:11] clear back in 1979, right?
[2:07:13] >> No change for R Salem. Yet it says that
[2:07:16] it's IC. So if it was [snorts] zoned icy
[2:07:21] then but within that
[2:07:25] river oriented mixed use
[2:07:28] area.
[2:07:28] >> Yeah.
[2:07:30] >> According to the neighborhood plan
[2:07:32] adopted by city council in 1983.
[2:07:36] How would that affect
[2:07:39] the uses?
[2:07:41] >> Well that's a comp plan zone conflict
[2:07:44] you know. So when you have an MUR
[2:07:45] designation and a uh and an IC zone,
[2:07:48] yeah, those are um yeah, generally the
[2:07:51] comp plan and the zoning need to be lock
[2:07:53] step like single family residential
[2:07:55] implements single family residential
[2:07:56] zoning. RS and residential agriculture
[2:07:58] zoning some earth multif family in this
[2:08:00] case I guess we might have looked at it
[2:08:03] as the river oriented mixed use
[2:08:04] designation might have been more of a
[2:08:07] you know a zone that implemented or a
[2:08:09] comp plan designation that imp
[2:08:10] implemented maybe more than just a you
[2:08:13] know because before our Salem we didn't
[2:08:15] have an MUR zone mixed us superfront
[2:08:18] zone we had of course CB central
[2:08:20] business district we had and in this
[2:08:22] area we had you know commercial office
[2:08:24] in a lot of places uh And then there was
[2:08:27] RH multif family high-rise residential.
[2:08:29] And then there was also an o overlay
[2:08:31] zone that we had. We had the riverfront
[2:08:32] high density residential overlay zone
[2:08:34] and the and the mixeduse overlay zone uh
[2:08:37] that applied in this area. So because of
[2:08:39] the the base zoning with an overlay
[2:08:42] zone, you know, we we probably looked at
[2:08:44] it like it was fine. It was close enough
[2:08:46] to implement the the ROM designation,
[2:08:48] but when we did our Salem, this is, you
[2:08:50] know, we're cleaning it up. you know, we
[2:08:52] see all these desperate zones that are
[2:08:55] designated ROM on the comp plan. We
[2:08:58] needed we wanted to create a you know
[2:09:00] one you know a simpler zone rather than
[2:09:02] having you know several or a couple
[2:09:04] different overlay zones and this and
[2:09:06] have an overlay zone or a zone that was
[2:09:08] specifically intended to achieve what
[2:09:10] the MUR designation is in trying to do
[2:09:13] in terms of pedestrian friendly access
[2:09:15] to river and so you know so I guess it
[2:09:17] was it was a conflict you know potenti
[2:09:19] it was a conflict between the two but it
[2:09:22] was one that u it wasn't as glaring as
[2:09:24] if you had a property that was zoned
[2:09:25] commercial retail for instance and it
[2:09:27] was designated multif family on the comp
[2:09:29] plan. It was a less of a glaring
[2:09:31] conflict, you know, because the perhaps
[2:09:34] the ambiguity that might have been
[2:09:35] associated with the zones that implement
[2:09:37] the ROM designation.
[2:09:40] I don't know. I don't know if that
[2:09:41] helps.
[2:09:43] >> Go ahead. So, I have another question,
[2:09:46] but it's not related to that. So, the
[2:09:47] grassy field to [clears throat] the
[2:09:49] south of that, that's part of the Truent
[2:09:53] Brothers property. The
[2:09:55] >> Yep. Correct.
[2:09:56] >> And
[2:09:57] South of that there's a building. Is
[2:10:00] that part of that Truit Brothers
[2:10:04] property as well or
[2:10:05] >> all you know from the grassy field all
[2:10:07] the way down to the Mil Creek? That's
[2:10:09] the True Brothers.
[2:10:10] >> All of that will be hopefully
[2:10:15] >> that beautiful.
[2:10:16] >> I have another slide here. Let me go
[2:10:18] back to that
[2:10:19] >> kind of shows that
[2:10:21] >> so the grassy field if you look at the
[2:10:23] slide on the screen the three buildings
[2:10:25] those are the s those are the southern
[2:10:26] twothirds of the site the northern third
[2:10:28] is kind of the grassy field and there's
[2:10:30] like a parking lot so you know that the
[2:10:32] mixeduse development doesn't take up the
[2:10:34] whole uh true brothers property
[2:10:36] >> perfect thank you councelor Matthews
[2:10:42] » so so generally speaking um
[2:10:46] does an zone or does the MUR zone have
[2:10:49] more value? So, like when we're looking
[2:10:50] at the actual assessed value of these
[2:10:52] properties and the change that you know
[2:10:55] ultimately we created with from Salem's
[2:10:57] plan, um did we devalue a property here
[2:11:01] a little bit or did we increase the
[2:11:03] value? Well, I'm not a property
[2:11:06] appraiser, you know, but when I guess if
[2:11:08] you're just looking at I can speak to
[2:11:10] land use, okay, you look at the two
[2:11:11] zones, our MU zone allows, you know,
[2:11:14] fewer zone fewer uses than the IC zone
[2:11:16] does.
[2:11:17] >> Okay.
[2:11:23] » Councelor Brown.
[2:11:26] >> Thanks, Madam Mayor. M Mr. Bishop. So, I
[2:11:28] need some help, please,
[2:11:31] about a lot of things, but we're going
[2:11:32] to stick to this and stay on task. Um,
[2:11:36] I'm trying to reconcile something that's
[2:11:37] in the notes, and I'm referring to u the
[2:11:41] conversation that you are having with
[2:11:44] Margaret and there are two things I want
[2:11:47] to read if that's okay with you. So, one
[2:11:50] of the things that she says in her
[2:11:52] conclusion, the applicant hopes the city
[2:11:55] council will correct the planning
[2:11:57] commission's errors and find a practical
[2:12:00] solution dot dot dot dot. And then she
[2:12:04] also says, "These attempts at a
[2:12:06] compromise include offers." Well, you
[2:12:09] know, let me hold off on that. Um,
[2:12:12] the mistakes of the planning commission.
[2:12:15] Can you enlighten us a little bit more
[2:12:17] on what mistakes that she's referring
[2:12:19] to?
[2:12:20] >> Well, if you look Yeah. So, if you look
[2:12:22] at the uh plan the applicants or
[2:12:24] appellants uh statement from uh the
[2:12:27] original appeal statement,
[2:12:29] >> uh the errors that they assigned to the
[2:12:31] planning commission's findings uh
[2:12:33] include uh in terms of like analyzing
[2:12:35] the property in terms of whether the new
[2:12:38] zone is equal or better than the
[2:12:39] existing zone. uh they they focus on you
[2:12:42] know the planning commission and staff
[2:12:44] you know improperly essentially uh you
[2:12:47] know didn't consider or didn't evaluate
[2:12:49] the building as it sits today on the
[2:12:51] ground you know a industrial warehouse
[2:12:53] building next to a railroad line with a
[2:12:55] railroad spur you know that goes next to
[2:12:57] it and
[2:12:59] >> is that a mistake though
[2:13:01] >> uh no staff's you know staff's position
[2:13:03] was when you look at the criteria you
[2:13:05] know is you know is the zone and
[2:13:06] designation are they equal or better
[2:13:08] suited does it result in a logical
[2:13:09] urbanization of the land. We don't feel
[2:13:11] that, you know, the IC zone meets those
[2:13:14] criteria. We feel that the logical
[2:13:15] urbanization of the land is the the MUR
[2:13:18] zone because it's based on the work that
[2:13:20] was done on our Salem and all the other
[2:13:22] things that are going on with the
[2:13:23] investments from the raise grant and the
[2:13:25] new water urban renewal area. All these
[2:13:26] things going are going together to like
[2:13:29] try to promote change in this area
[2:13:30] towards this vision. you know, the
[2:13:32] property north of the downtown next to
[2:13:34] the river, you know, you know,
[2:13:35] attractive pedestrian friendly
[2:13:37] environment, paths along the river, you
[2:13:39] know, the waterfront and all of that. Uh
[2:13:41] but you know yeah a lot of their
[2:13:43] argument you know in terms of the
[2:13:44] planning commission decision was it was
[2:13:46] looking too much at like future vision
[2:13:48] you know and and and and what this what
[2:13:50] the city wants to you know achieve in
[2:13:52] this area as opposed to the on the
[2:13:54] ground realities of hey we have this
[2:13:56] industrial building is again an extra
[2:13:58] railroad spur uh you know and this MUR
[2:14:01] zone really doesn't
[2:14:02] >> and and that's this is my final question
[2:14:04] just just for clarity hopefully
[2:14:06] [clears throat] it's my final question
[2:14:07] but see is that is that part that you
[2:14:09] said you said that they
[2:14:12] that there was some mistake in their
[2:14:14] future planning, how they saw it, how
[2:14:16] it's going to be.
[2:14:17] >> Well, they they they felt that that the staff and the planning commission
[2:14:21] incorrectly focused on future
[2:14:24] >> and they shouldn't. That's what they're
[2:14:26] >> Yeah. They're saying that it should, you
[2:14:27] know, in order to to meet the criteria,
[2:14:28] it's based on an analysis of how the
[2:14:30] zone how the proposed zone relates to
[2:14:32] the building as it sits today,
[2:14:34] >> not in terms of like, you know, what the long-term vision for the property
[2:14:38] is. Have we been in a situation like
[2:14:40] this before in the city?
[2:14:43] >> Uh, you know, I guess anytime where
[2:14:46] there's a, you know, there's a
[2:14:47] >> one this big though.
[2:14:48] >> Uh, uh, there there's there's there's
[2:14:51] situations in the past where, you know,
[2:14:53] planning, you know, where there's a
[2:14:54] hearing body that makes a a decision
[2:14:56] that it gets appealed and there's a a
[2:14:58] disagreement between the applicant and
[2:15:00] staff.
[2:15:00] >> So, is it more of a disagreement or did
[2:15:02] we really make some mistakes?
[2:15:04] >> No. St. You know, we you know, our
[2:15:06] decision our our findings is that the
[2:15:07] planning commission decision is
[2:15:08] relevant. It meets the criteria. You
[2:15:10] know, there our our our decision was
[2:15:13] based on was a correct analysis of the
[2:15:15] criteria and there wasn't a mistake in
[2:15:16] the application of the criteria.
[2:15:18] >> Okay. You have the floor, Madame Mayor.
[2:15:20] >> Councelor Tigan.
[2:15:21] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think I just
[2:15:22] want to follow up on this specifically.
[2:15:25] So, and maybe building on Dr. Brown's
[2:15:29] question. Um,
[2:15:32] is the error that's contended by the
[2:15:36] applicant a matter of subjective opinion
[2:15:40] that it meets the criteria and
[2:15:43] reasonable people can disagree about
[2:15:44] that or is the error uh an objective
[2:15:50] fact that the planning commission
[2:15:52] somehow missed and has tainted their
[2:15:54] decision?
[2:15:55] >> No, it's the latter. It's it's you know
[2:15:57] this is a you know uh land use decision.
[2:16:00] It involves policy and legal judgment
[2:16:02] and application of criteria and so um
[2:16:05] yeah it's not it's not an objective you
[2:16:08] know failing. It's it's of it's it's a
[2:16:11] question of I guess application of the
[2:16:13] criteria.
[2:16:14] >> Okay. So subjective.
[2:16:16] >> Yeah. Right.
[2:16:16] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:16:20] » Councelor Brown.
[2:16:21] >> Subjective. Yes. So, I'm going to read
[2:16:24] to you this statement, and I need you to
[2:16:26] just connect the dots for me, please.
[2:16:29] These attempts at compromise include
[2:16:31] offers to voluntarily limit the
[2:16:34] activities typically allowed within the
[2:16:37] IC zone to ensure consistency with
[2:16:40] future MUR developments in the vicinity.
[2:16:44] So, so that particular statement
[2:16:48] if you're going to do something
[2:16:51] shall we say willfully and in this
[2:16:54] situation I'm trying to track how the
[2:16:58] planners who who who have denied this
[2:17:00] request basically I'm trying to connect
[2:17:03] the dots with
[2:17:05] there's an attempt to have a compromise
[2:17:08] but it doesn't look like there's more of
[2:17:11] a give in from the city. It looks like
[2:17:14] the applicant is trying to meet us
[2:17:16] halfway, but we have drawn a line in the
[2:17:18] sand that we're not going to cross over.
[2:17:20] >> And the reason, you know, the reason
[2:17:22] we've I think come to that point is that
[2:17:25] the con the level of conditioning the
[2:17:27] zone change to because essentially, you
[2:17:30] know, the base question is I want to go
[2:17:32] from this zone to another zone.
[2:17:34] >> Is this new zone is it better for the
[2:17:37] property than the than the existing
[2:17:38] zone? And so if in order to get to from
[2:17:40] A to B, we have to condition it such
[2:17:42] that you don't get the uses well you
[2:17:45] don't get all the uses in the in the
[2:17:47] proposed zone. You also the development
[2:17:50] standards of the proposed zone. You
[2:17:51] don't get those. You're going to have to
[2:17:53] go with the MUR zone. You it becomes a
[2:17:56] point it's a question of like how can
[2:17:58] you approve zone change you know because
[2:18:01] it's like it's not even IC zone anymore.
[2:18:03] It's like a totally different zone.
[2:18:04] >> Right. Okay. You the floor madam mayor.
[2:18:07] >> Thank you Mr. Bishop.
[2:18:10] >> Councelor Brown, please continue. Just
[2:18:12] kidding. [laughter]
[2:18:14] >> Okay,
[2:18:14] >> Mr. No, I'm joking.
[2:18:16] >> Um, [snorts] anyone else questions for
[2:18:17] staff at this point?
[2:18:20] Okay, then we will move on. Um, we do
[2:18:22] have the [clears throat] appellent
[2:18:26] applicant Lauren Bulman
[2:18:32] >> and Margaret Gandervo.
[2:18:38] Good evening. My name is Margaret
[2:18:39] Gandervo. I'm the attorney for the
[2:18:41] applicant. I'll be speaking on his
[2:18:43] behalf this evening unless you have
[2:18:45] particular factual questions about the
[2:18:47] history of the property or kind of the
[2:18:50] current uses. Um my address for notice
[2:18:53] purposes is 250 Church Street, Sweet 200
[2:18:56] Salem, Oregon 97301.
[2:18:59] Um the owner of the property is the
[2:19:01] Eleanor M. Bokeman Trust, which is
[2:19:07] Lauren is the trustee of that trust. And
[2:19:09] so we just want to emphasize due to some
[2:19:11] comments earlier that this is a local
[2:19:14] Salem family who is committed to the the
[2:19:18] community who's owned this property for
[2:19:20] 27 years under the pre-existing zoning,
[2:19:23] the current zoning, and moving forward.
[2:19:27] This is an application that is focused
[2:19:30] on building a productive business and
[2:19:34] maintaining property value and an
[2:19:36] ongoing investment in the community.
[2:19:39] The applicant has approached this
[2:19:41] application and engaged in the land use
[2:19:44] process as a totality from a
[2:19:46] collaborative posture. We've come to
[2:19:48] staff numerous times. We've reached out
[2:19:51] to neighboring property owners. Our
[2:19:54] focus is finding a path forward that
[2:19:56] leaves space for the city's vision for
[2:19:59] the future of this area while also
[2:20:01] balancing pretty strident economic
[2:20:04] realities that have led to a lack of
[2:20:07] development in the area coupled with
[2:20:10] challenging economic outlooks for
[2:20:12] businesses in all sectors. Over the past
[2:20:15] few years, the applicant has spent time
[2:20:19] marketing the property, trying to get
[2:20:21] other tenants to fill in existing
[2:20:25] vacancies within the property. And over
[2:20:27] the past 3 years since the change in
[2:20:29] zoning, we've had one offer. And because
[2:20:32] of the continuing use kind of dynamic
[2:20:37] within the code, that offer was
[2:20:39] withdrawn without any meaningful ability
[2:20:43] to fill that vacant space. So, while we
[2:20:46] appreciate that staff's position is that
[2:20:48] there is flexibility, the practicality
[2:20:50] of that flexibility, when you are faced
[2:20:53] with a tenant who's trying to figure out
[2:20:56] whether or not they can move into this
[2:20:58] space and occupy it with the purpose
[2:21:01] that they're intending is not as clear
[2:21:03] as I think staff would like us to
[2:21:06] believe.
[2:21:08] Um,
[2:21:10] as staff mentioned, the applicant's
[2:21:12] position is that we are asking you to
[2:21:15] evaluate the physical characteristics of
[2:21:17] the property as it is currently
[2:21:19] developed along with the existing uses
[2:21:21] in the vicinity, the industrial
[2:21:24] commercial designation to the north and
[2:21:26] the IC zone is equally or better suited
[2:21:30] um whether the IC zone is equally or
[2:21:33] better suited for the property. This is
[2:21:35] the plain language that's implemented in
[2:21:38] the code. And our point of view
[2:21:40] regarding the error that we alleged both
[2:21:43] in our appellent statement in our most
[2:21:45] recent hearing memo is that the focus of
[2:21:48] that analysis should be on the property
[2:21:52] and the imple and the zone that you're
[2:21:55] changing into. So when you're looking at
[2:21:58] the analysis of the comprehensive plan,
[2:22:01] you're looking at the implementing zone,
[2:22:03] the implementing goals as a whole, all
[2:22:06] of the Salem comprehensive plan, not
[2:22:08] just the river oriented mixeduse
[2:22:11] designation goals. When you look at the
[2:22:14] Salem comprehensive plan as a whole,
[2:22:16] there are goals that are out of
[2:22:19] necessity because of a variety of
[2:22:21] different land uses in tension with each
[2:22:24] other. So having an opinion that you
[2:22:29] have to show compliance with every
[2:22:31] single
[2:22:32] implementing goal isn't typically the structure that we look at a zone
[2:22:38] change in when evaluating whether or not
[2:22:40] you're meeting the applicable
[2:22:43] comprehensive plans and goals. So that's
[2:22:46] kind of the dichotomy where we disagree
[2:22:48] with staff and while it is a subjective
[2:22:52] interpretation that is something that is
[2:22:55] well defined in the law and we've
[2:22:57] provided you with the authority that
[2:23:00] supports our position that you are able
[2:23:03] to move forward with making these
[2:23:06] interpretations and then subsequently
[2:23:10] applying reasonable conditions of
[2:23:12] approval that are clear and feasible in
[2:23:17] their implementation and we've provided
[2:23:20] those to you as well. Um it looks like
[2:23:23] my presentation isn't starting on the f
[2:23:26] the first page so I'm just going to
[2:23:28] adjust it slightly. There we go.
[2:23:32] Um, one thing I wanted to point out in
[2:23:36] kind of the maps that Bryce brought up
[2:23:38] is that when you're looking at the
[2:23:41] zoning map and the subject property is
[2:23:44] starred there,
[2:23:46] our property
[2:23:48] kind of juts out into what was
[2:23:52] originally more of a swoop down for
[2:23:55] industrial general zoning under the
[2:23:57] previous zoning construct. The reason
[2:24:00] that we're requesting a comprehensive
[2:24:02] plan change as a component of this
[2:24:04] application is because since we're
[2:24:07] moving back to the industrial an
[2:24:10] industrial class zone, we're it was
[2:24:13] previously industrial general. We're
[2:24:15] moving to a less um intensive industrial
[2:24:19] commercial.
[2:24:21] You have to retroactive. You can't you
[2:24:25] can't maintain the existing
[2:24:27] comprehensive plan designation while
[2:24:30] just switching the zone. When you are
[2:24:32] doing a zone change, you have to change
[2:24:36] the comprehensive plan along with that
[2:24:38] zone change because they want you to
[2:24:42] have a kind of conformity between the
[2:24:44] comprehensive plan and the zoning
[2:24:46] designation. So if we could, we would
[2:24:50] leave the the existing river oriented
[2:24:54] mixeduse designation. We can't. So we're
[2:24:57] requesting a change to both the
[2:24:59] comprehensive plan, the kind of
[2:25:02] neighborhood plan amendments and then
[2:25:04] the zone change is one consolidated
[2:25:06] application because that's the way that
[2:25:08] the code is structured.
[2:25:10] Um, we also wanted to provide some
[2:25:13] additional imagery of the surrounding
[2:25:16] area so you can kind of see what the
[2:25:19] existing construct looks like. This is
[2:25:23] taken from Front Street and it's along
[2:25:26] the eastern face of the property. This
[2:25:29] is where the railroad spur is and those
[2:25:31] industrial tanks from the railroad serve
[2:25:34] the industrial properties to the north.
[2:25:37] So regardless of whether this property
[2:25:39] is going to be MUR or if it moves to IC,
[2:25:44] those hazardous components will remain
[2:25:46] on site there. It's just by virtue of
[2:25:49] the railroad and the rail spur and where
[2:25:51] it is if you want kind of continuous
[2:25:54] limitations on that. You would have to
[2:25:56] change the properties to the north as
[2:25:59] well, which wasn't part of the R Salem
[2:26:02] construct.
[2:26:04] This is a picture kind of of the space
[2:26:08] between the tanks and the existing
[2:26:10] building. Again, that's where the tracks
[2:26:13] go. There's not an ability to change
[2:26:16] that. So, when we talk about
[2:26:17] pedestrianoriented
[2:26:19] facilities and development in this area,
[2:26:22] what we're really talking about is the
[2:26:24] area between Wamtt Landing Partner um
[2:26:28] properties and the existing property in
[2:26:31] the vacated water street.
[2:26:35] This is a picture that is facing the
[2:26:38] entrance into Wamut Landing and it just
[2:26:40] shows that again the properties to the
[2:26:43] north are significantly
[2:26:47] developed and currently used as
[2:26:50] industrial general uses. This is an
[2:26:53] industrial area and um the kind of
[2:26:57] exception is this area where the
[2:27:00] property interfaces with Wamtt Landing
[2:27:03] and um my client's property which is at
[2:27:06] the very end of the street and kind of
[2:27:09] the position that you're taking the um
[2:27:12] picture north. You can see that there's
[2:27:15] already some residential there's already
[2:27:17] some buffering with landscaping and kind
[2:27:21] of landscaping strips along that area.
[2:27:23] And this area is
[2:27:26] it's kind of a residential street that
[2:27:29] has industrial uses that go over the top
[2:27:33] of it. Um
[2:27:35] there was some comments in the original
[2:27:38] staff report about this property or this street being substandard and upon
[2:27:44] development that would have to be
[2:27:46] addressed if there is future development
[2:27:48] and those standards are triggered the
[2:27:51] applicant would bring the property up to
[2:27:53] standard there.
[2:27:55] Um,
[2:27:58] finally, the applicant's proposal is
[2:28:00] that we apply two conditions of
[2:28:02] approval, which are not anywhere near
[2:28:06] the number of conditions of approval
[2:28:07] that you often see in land use
[2:28:10] applications. What we are proposing is
[2:28:13] that you apply the MUR standards so that
[2:28:16] in the future, if development happens,
[2:28:18] it's consistent with the MUR zoned
[2:28:21] properties to the south. The second is
[2:28:23] that you restrict the ising IC zone uses
[2:28:27] so that there's compatibility there.
[2:28:30] Again, we've provided legal basis for
[2:28:32] making this determination and our
[2:28:35] classifications are proposed to limit
[2:28:38] conflicts between the property and the
[2:28:41] lame landing property.
[2:28:44] >> Thank you.
[2:28:52] Sorry, I'm out of time. So, do I get to
[2:28:55] answer questions?
[2:28:56] >> Yes, you do.
[2:28:57] >> Does anyone have questions?
[2:29:03] » Councelor Barney.
[2:29:05] >> Uh, I was curious because this property
[2:29:08] has been in the family for years. Why
[2:29:10] was this not brought up when we were
[2:29:12] doing the R Salem in 2022? Um the
[2:29:17] settler of the trust was on hospice
[2:29:19] during the hour sale process. So
[2:29:23] obviously the family was kind of
[2:29:25] otherwise occupied. This isn't an owner
[2:29:27] occupied building. So notices went to
[2:29:29] the tenants and
[2:29:33] if the timing had better been better, we
[2:29:35] would have responded at that time, but
[2:29:38] we missed it. And fortunately, the land
[2:29:42] development code allows for changes at
[2:29:45] any time provided you can meet the
[2:29:47] applicable criteria. So we're not
[2:29:49] challenging the R Salem decision, but we
[2:29:51] are saying there's flexibility in the
[2:29:54] code for a reason. We're entitled now to
[2:29:56] come back and ask for a change. We've
[2:29:59] demonstrated that the property equally
[2:30:01] or better meets the intent of the new
[2:30:04] zone and that's what we're relying on.
[2:30:10] >> Councelor Matthews,
[2:30:13] >> uh, this is not a question for you. So,
[2:30:15] I wanted to declare a potential conflict
[2:30:17] only because um you mentioned that you
[2:30:20] guys are attempting to lease the
[2:30:21] property or something along those lines
[2:30:23] and I'm a real estate broker in the area
[2:30:25] and so I just want to put that out
[2:30:27] there. I don't think it creates an
[2:30:28] actual conflict of interest because I
[2:30:30] don't have any connection to this
[2:30:30] particular property.
[2:30:33] >> Thank you, Councelor Matthews. Councelor
[2:30:35] Brown.
[2:30:36] >> Thanks, [snorts] Madame Mayor. I'll only
[2:30:38] have only got 35 questions, so you're
[2:30:40] good. [laughter]
[2:30:41] Um, so, so, Miss Margaret, you know, I I
[2:30:45] read all the, you know, the emails back
[2:30:47] and forth. Obviously, we we know where
[2:30:49] your stance is on this.
[2:30:51] >> I would just say I also think that
[2:30:53] planning is lovely people.
[2:30:55] >> Ain't that nice, Mr. Bishop? You guys
[2:30:58] are lovely people [laughter]
[2:31:00] regardless of what you told me earlier.
[2:31:01] No, I'm joking. I'm only joking. Um so so with this particular property um
[2:31:09] you mentioned that the family there was
[2:31:10] a member in in hospice and so that's the
[2:31:12] reason it couldn't come to the city
[2:31:14] early on and now there's this vision to change this probably from what it is
[2:31:20] to something greater and can you share
[2:31:23] with us a little bit about what that
[2:31:25] something greater is
[2:31:27] >> well I think what we've tried to
[2:31:29] emphasize in our materials is that the
[2:31:32] reality reality here is that the
[2:31:34] riverfront mix oriented use and all of
[2:31:37] the proposed development in it is visioning. It's something that our
[2:31:43] community wants and I I think that my
[2:31:46] client would agree that that would be a
[2:31:47] good use of those properties, but the
[2:31:51] Trip Brother property has been on the
[2:31:52] market for over 10 years. And I think
[2:31:56] we're all aware that
[2:31:59] if that project is to actually
[2:32:01] meaningfully move forward, there has to
[2:32:04] be a substantial amount of investment
[2:32:06] behind it. And given the realities of
[2:32:08] the economy right now and the interest
[2:32:10] in redevelopment
[2:32:12] in this area, looking at downtown and
[2:32:16] all of the constraints around that,
[2:32:19] I think the question before you is if
[2:32:22] the applicant is proposing a reasonable
[2:32:24] path forward with these conditions
[2:32:28] and
[2:32:29] the IC zone allows for an overlap in
[2:32:33] development that would allow for
[2:32:37] a consistent development of this
[2:32:39] property.
[2:32:41] Are you going to require my client to
[2:32:44] change their uses now when we've come to
[2:32:48] the city with an application that meets
[2:32:51] all of the applicable approval criteria
[2:32:54] for a project that could have developed
[2:32:57] over the past 30 years and hasn't?
[2:33:01] >> So, that's a question. I don't think
[2:33:03] it's rhetorical, but it sounds like a
[2:33:05] question that the city attorney has to
[2:33:06] answer
[2:33:08] >> or not.
[2:33:12] » The applicant's position is you're the
[2:33:13] decision maker here. You have the
[2:33:15] discretion to decide what is the correct
[2:33:19] path forward for the city.
[2:33:23] » Thank you,
[2:33:27] » Councelor Tyan. Go ahead.
[2:33:28] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, thank you
[2:33:30] for your testimony. Appreciate it. And I
[2:33:32] I'll give you the same opportunity to
[2:33:34] answer the question that I asked the
[2:33:36] city planner. Do you think that the the
[2:33:39] planning commission's error was uh of
[2:33:43] subjective nature? Um something that
[2:33:47] honest people can disagree about or was
[2:33:49] it uh factual in nature, something
[2:33:52] objective?
[2:33:55] » I would say
[2:33:57] I agree with Bryce. It is a subjective
[2:34:00] determination. is the application of of
[2:34:03] the law to the facts. I think it's a
[2:34:07] misinterpretation
[2:34:08] of
[2:34:10] what the planning commission was being
[2:34:12] asked to do and what and a
[2:34:15] misunderstanding of what the planning
[2:34:17] commission's authority was in that
[2:34:21] venue.
[2:34:24] » Thank you, Madam Mayor. Okay. Um I I
[2:34:26] appreciate your response. Um you
[2:34:29] mentioned in your testimony that over
[2:34:31] the last three years since um R Salem
[2:34:34] was enacted, maybe there was one um
[2:34:39] serious potential um new tenant for the
[2:34:43] building. Do you have information about
[2:34:46] uh what the nature of the tenants
[2:34:48] business was that would have been done
[2:34:49] in the building and did it connect to
[2:34:52] the um existing uses that are currently
[2:34:55] underway in the building?
[2:34:58] Lauren, do you want to respond to that?
[2:35:00] Do you know what the type of use was?
[2:35:07] » Excuse me. Could you please come forward
[2:35:08] to the microphone for us? Thank you. And
[2:35:11] just state your name for the record if
[2:35:12] you would.
[2:35:17] » My name is Lauren Beckman. I am the
[2:35:19] trustee for the Elellanar M. Beckman
[2:35:21] Trust.
[2:35:23] um the person that was looking at
[2:35:27] leasing the facility
[2:35:30] um inquired of the building because of
[2:35:33] the Coldwell Banker sign out front and
[2:35:36] when they were told it was MUR that it
[2:35:38] was no longer IG which it was originally
[2:35:41] industrial general which is heavy
[2:35:43] industry
[2:35:45] um that was it they just had no further
[2:35:48] questions and we had no other contact.
[2:35:50] [clears throat]
[2:35:51] Okay. Thank you.
[2:35:54] >> Thank you for that. Yeah. Councelor
[2:35:56] Brown.
[2:35:57] >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. So, so Miss
[2:35:59] Margaret, and this is probably for Mr.
[2:36:01] Bishop also. So, th this area, um, we
[2:36:05] know it it doesn't look the best, right?
[2:36:08] And I say that because it's in my
[2:36:10] backyard. I travel. I'm on that road
[2:36:13] multiple times throughout the day. And
[2:36:15] so, I pass it. I I ride through it on my
[2:36:17] bicycle. I jog through it. So, I know
[2:36:18] the area fairly well. And I would love
[2:36:21] to see something, you know, something
[2:36:22] take place there. So, so I guess my
[2:36:25] question, you know, to you and also Mr.
[2:36:27] Bishop, where where is the happy medium?
[2:36:29] Because I'm trying to find one. Um I'm
[2:36:33] trying to find one, right? I'm I'm
[2:36:34] looking through all the notes, but I'm
[2:36:36] trying to find a happy medium because I
[2:36:38] understand, you know, the zone changes.
[2:36:40] I get all of that. Um if we say no, if
[2:36:43] we stay the way that things are, that
[2:36:46] area stays the way that it is. It
[2:36:48] doesn't change,
[2:36:50] right? It stays the same. And if the
[2:36:52] countering project does not come to
[2:36:54] fruition, everything over there stays
[2:36:56] the same. And so you have a part of our
[2:37:00] community, I'm going to use the word
[2:37:02] blight. Some people may not like that,
[2:37:04] but it's it's not an attractive area.
[2:37:06] And so, how can we find a happy medium
[2:37:09] between the applicant and the city?
[2:37:13] I don't know who can answer that, but
[2:37:15] that's that's what Dr. Brian is asking.
[2:37:16] Where's the happy medium?
[2:37:20] >> Our response would be we're trying to
[2:37:22] find that. Um I think that we've been
[2:37:24] open. We've been kind of asking for
[2:37:29] feedback about what things need to come
[2:37:32] off, what things could be added on.
[2:37:34] We've um we've provided what we believe
[2:37:37] is the happy medium here. And I would
[2:37:41] agree with your kind of
[2:37:44] conceptualization of that area. I think
[2:37:46] what we heard in the URRA
[2:37:49] presentation last time this was before
[2:37:52] you when we requested a continuence was
[2:37:54] that this area is experiencing blight.
[2:37:58] And the reality for my client is that if
[2:38:01] you
[2:38:02] don't allow us to change and expand the
[2:38:05] existing uses that we're allowed to do,
[2:38:08] our feeling is that this property will
[2:38:11] remain partially vacant and if we lose
[2:38:14] our existing tenant, it will be fully
[2:38:17] vacant and we don't see a viable path
[2:38:20] forward for releasing it.
[2:38:23] >> Thank you.
[2:38:28] your rebuttal.
[2:38:31] » Now, councelor Tigan, you want to go
[2:38:33] ahead with a question for
[2:38:35] >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um I was
[2:38:39] going through the um Miss Ganderville,
[2:38:42] your um the email that you sent today
[2:38:46] and you have attached to a sort of
[2:38:49] suggested changes to the um IC code or
[2:38:54] I'm sorry the I uh section 551 for the
[2:38:57] IC zone.
[2:38:59] >> Um striking out certain uses essentially
[2:39:03] maybe plotting the middle ground that
[2:39:05] Dr. Brown mentions. How did you go about
[2:39:07] deciding which uses were appropriate,
[2:39:10] what should be conditional, what should
[2:39:12] be um permitted, that sort of thing.
[2:39:14] >> Yeah. So, our approach was largely based
[2:39:18] on conversations with the city and in
[2:39:20] response to the opposition at the
[2:39:21] planning commission. So, what we did was
[2:39:24] we pulled uses that we felt were largely
[2:39:28] inconsistent with any residential use
[2:39:30] just on its face. So, um I think
[2:39:33] firearms was mentioned earlier on. That
[2:39:36] was something that we pulled out. There
[2:39:38] are like aviation facilities probably
[2:39:42] not happening here. Um
[2:39:46] so, kind of those ones that seemed
[2:39:48] plainly incompatible and unfeasible, I
[2:39:50] those are unlikely to develop on this
[2:39:53] property anyways just due to its size
[2:39:55] and location, but we pulled those out.
[2:39:57] um where there was particular concern
[2:40:00] raised by Wamut Landing agricultural
[2:40:04] uses um some of the more intensive kind
[2:40:09] of industrial uses we eliminated those
[2:40:11] as well.
[2:40:13] Where we moved to conditional uses was
[2:40:17] areas where we feel like the use either
[2:40:21] could be or could be made compatible
[2:40:24] with the area through the conditional
[2:40:26] use permit process. And the reason that
[2:40:29] we feel the conditional use permitting
[2:40:31] process is a better path forward than
[2:40:34] kind of the existing continuing use
[2:40:37] construct is that it provides a process
[2:40:40] and certainty for a particular applicant
[2:40:43] in response to its particular use on a
[2:40:46] particular property. And that allows
[2:40:50] both city review to look at the proposed
[2:40:53] use, the proposed development at the
[2:40:55] time, and say,
[2:40:57] I see what you're doing here. As a
[2:41:00] condition of approval for this use, we
[2:41:03] would like you to
[2:41:06] make sure that any noise is mitigated by
[2:41:08] adding additional soundproofing.
[2:41:10] And you would do a noise test and you
[2:41:12] would show that you are adequately
[2:41:14] mitigating that. And so that particular
[2:41:18] process is already in the code. And we
[2:41:21] felt like for industrial services where
[2:41:24] there may be some uses that are
[2:41:26] compatible,
[2:41:28] but it likely makes sense to allow for
[2:41:32] more regulatory approval in that
[2:41:34] particular setting. That's where we move
[2:41:36] to a conditional use. Um, we also kind
[2:41:40] of looked for overlap between the MUR
[2:41:42] zone and the IC zone and tried to just
[2:41:45] kind of look at what would be consistent
[2:41:48] based on uses that are permitted. And
[2:41:51] that's where some of the items that are
[2:41:53] within the general manufacturing
[2:41:55] component are struck out because we felt
[2:41:57] like there might be some just
[2:42:00] unintentional inconsistency created
[2:42:02] there.
[2:42:03] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:42:04] >> Yeah.
[2:42:07] >> Anyone else? Not at the moment.
[2:42:09] >> Not at the moment. Okay. Um Oh, go
[2:42:13] ahead, Councelor Barney.
[2:42:15] >> Uh this is probably just more uh
[2:42:17] procedural. Um are we going to get a
[2:42:19] chance to ask staff questions again if
[2:42:22] we wish? Okay.
[2:42:26] » Go ahead, Councelor Gwen.
[2:42:29] >> I just wanted to declare the same
[2:42:31] potential conflict because I'm a real
[2:42:33] estate broker. Although in 35 years I
[2:42:36] have never done a commercial deal, but
[2:42:38] I'm only saying it to air on the side of
[2:42:41] caution. So [laughter]
[2:42:45] it's like six degrees of separation.
[2:42:47] Thank you, Margaret. I really appreciate
[2:42:49] it. And don't go anywhere.
[2:42:51] >> Um, we also have an attorney for the
[2:42:54] opponent, Dean Altterman.
[2:42:56] Please come forward. The green there
[2:42:59] buttons already pushed, so you're good.
[2:43:01] And I understand you will have three
[2:43:02] minutes.
[2:43:04] Thank you, madame mayor and members of
[2:43:06] the city council. My name is Dean
[2:43:07] Alterman. My address is 805 Southwest
[2:43:10] Broadway, sweet 1580, Portland 97205.
[2:43:13] I'm here on behalf of Willan Landing
[2:43:15] Apartments 89, the owner of the
[2:43:17] adjoining property. Uh first, in short,
[2:43:20] uh we agree with the staff report. Uh we
[2:43:23] ask that you affirm the planning
[2:43:25] commission. Uh we have two specific
[2:43:28] issues. Out of the many things we
[2:43:30] touched on in our written material,
[2:43:31] there are two that I would like to talk
[2:43:32] about. One is a specific criterion for
[2:43:35] in the plan amendment. It's 64025
[2:43:39] sub 2 sub [clears throat] A sub I. The
[2:43:43] applicant has suggested that criterion
[2:43:45] is is the zone better suited for the is
[2:43:49] the comp plan, sorry, better suited for
[2:43:51] the property than the current zoning.
[2:43:53] But that's not actually what the
[2:43:55] criterion says. uh staff discusses it on
[2:43:57] pages 10 and 11 of the packet. Uh and
[2:44:00] I'll quote from that. This approval
[2:44:02] criterion requires the applicant to
[2:44:04] demonstrate that the proposed minor
[2:44:06] comprehensive plan map amendment is
[2:44:09] justified based on and this is the key
[2:44:11] word based on an alteration
[2:44:14] in the social, economic or demographic
[2:44:16] patterns of the nearby vicinity
[2:44:18] resulting in the current designation no
[2:44:20] longer being appropriate. You could find
[2:44:22] for the applicant on that point only if
[2:44:24] you find that the area is changing
[2:44:27] toward industrial use and away from
[2:44:30] mixeduse residential that it's changing
[2:44:32] away from the water and toward
[2:44:34] industrial use. That's the opposite of
[2:44:36] what you found and what you aspired to
[2:44:40] when you adopted the Salem plan a couple
[2:44:43] of years ago. uh if at all you can find
[2:44:46] on the facts that this area is changing
[2:44:49] toward residential toward mixed use but
[2:44:52] you simply don't have any facts to
[2:44:54] suggest it's changing toward industrial
[2:44:56] on that ground alone uh the application
[2:44:59] for a plan map amendment fails
[2:45:03] the other point I'd like to discuss one
[2:45:06] of the zone change criteria uh uh code
[2:45:10] 265.005 005
[2:45:13] sub e sub one sub a sub3 that is a lot
[2:45:17] of subs. Um and now we start getting
[2:45:20] into equally or better suited. Is the
[2:45:23] proposed zone equally or better suited
[2:45:25] to the property than the current zone?
[2:45:27] And here staff discusses this on page 26
[2:45:31] and 27 of the staff report.
[2:45:34] here. [snorts] The problem is that
[2:45:36] easement is that Water Street doesn't
[2:45:39] run along the west side of this
[2:45:40] property. A shared private easement runs
[2:45:43] along the side and half of that is zoned
[2:45:46] MUA. Uh, as you have heard from staff,
[2:45:50] if somebody were to propose uh an IC use
[2:45:53] on this property that used that used
[2:45:56] [clears throat] water street extension
[2:45:57] for access, that access would have to be
[2:45:59] entirely on the east half of Water
[2:46:03] Street on the part of that easement that
[2:46:05] the applicant owns. The applicant
[2:46:08] couldn't use the west part. For those
[2:46:10] reasons, uh, we ask that you
[2:46:13] >> Thank you. Your time is expired. Thank
[2:46:14] you for your testimony.
[2:46:15] >> Any questions? Is anyone have any
[2:46:17] questions for Attorney Alterman?
[2:46:23] Okay, thank you very much.
[2:46:26] Um, we
[2:46:28] all I can hear is Miss Margaret in my
[2:46:30] head right now.
[2:46:32] >> Before we get to rebuttal, let's have
[2:46:33] questions of staff.
[2:46:34] >> Okay, before rebuttal, we'll have
[2:46:36] questions of staff.
[2:46:38] Anyone? Go ahead, Councelor Matthew.
[2:46:43] after the signage.
[2:46:45] >> Okay, give me one moment.
[2:46:47] >> Okay, please come forward. You'll have
[2:46:49] three minutes.
[2:46:51] >> Please state your name and your address
[2:46:53] for the record.
[2:46:54] >> My name is Melody Canoyer. For this
[2:46:57] purpose, my address is 1657 Water
[2:46:59] Street, Wamit Landing Apartments. I
[2:47:02] lived at Wamut Landing Apartments from
[2:47:04] 2002 through 2016. And I want to talk
[2:47:08] about disperate impact of the tenants
[2:47:11] that were in those buildings. So what um
[2:47:14] you guys were talking about, you know,
[2:47:17] are the residents complaining? Yes. To
[2:47:19] us as the representatives of Wamut
[2:47:21] Landing, but what could we do about it?
[2:47:23] We would call code compliance and they'd
[2:47:25] say they were there before you. Sorry.
[2:47:27] while I lived in number 37, which in the
[2:47:30] picture by the applicant shows cars
[2:47:33] parked on our property in my back window
[2:47:36] with their exhaust going in my back
[2:47:38] window with my three-year-old at the
[2:47:40] time. Nothing I could do about that.
[2:47:43] They would drive through our grass and
[2:47:46] then I planted trees. They would run
[2:47:47] them over. Finally, most of them have
[2:47:49] grown enough where we have a little bit
[2:47:51] of gap, but they have not historically
[2:47:55] been great tenants. I had no clue who
[2:47:57] the ownership was. I had no idea on how
[2:48:00] to go look that up when I was the
[2:48:01] apartment manager. So, historically, I
[2:48:05] have not been able to take my children
[2:48:07] outside of those gates. I couldn't walk
[2:48:09] to the Elenor. I couldn't walk to
[2:48:10] Riverfront Park. We had to drive
[2:48:13] everywhere. There were trucks. There
[2:48:15] were cars. Even if the building owners
[2:48:19] put
[2:48:20] rules for the tenants of the building,
[2:48:23] that doesn't stop the cars. That doesn't
[2:48:24] stop the traffic. That doesn't stop the
[2:48:26] impact of the noise to Want Landing who
[2:48:29] already have to deal with the paint
[2:48:31] people consistently
[2:48:33] dropping their paint all over the ground
[2:48:35] and not following OSHA rules. This is
[2:48:39] continuous. If you look at the history
[2:48:41] of our complaints over and over and
[2:48:44] over, it has been a thing
[2:48:48] since 1979. I was born in 78, so I know
[2:48:51] it's 47 years. You guys have planned the
[2:48:54] beginning of what was going to be the
[2:48:56] riverfront project. And in 2016, I got
[2:48:58] moved to Southwalk. The Southwalk
[2:49:00] project also has a train nearby. We have
[2:49:03] no problems having mixed use right up
[2:49:06] next to the train. It was wonderful. We
[2:49:08] made it work. The train goes past Wamut
[2:49:10] Landing, too. I lived along that train
[2:49:11] for almost 30 years.
[2:49:14] I was able to walk my children downtown
[2:49:16] because we had bikeways and pathways and
[2:49:18] all those things. We could go to
[2:49:18] restaurants. We could go to movies. We
[2:49:20] could do all of the things we couldn't
[2:49:21] do at Wamut Landing which were promised
[2:49:24] to us from 1979. I remember being in
[2:49:27] downtown 365 committees where we talked
[2:49:29] about what we were going to do with the
[2:49:31] north side. I talked to our ownership of
[2:49:33] Wamut Landing even though I wasn't there
[2:49:35] anymore but still worked for the
[2:49:36] company. I still I still work for the
[2:49:40] company as a whole and telling them hey
[2:49:42] this is what's coming. This is what
[2:49:43] we're looking forward to. I recognize
[2:49:45] that the Canary project if it continues
[2:49:47] is still a competition but it's not
[2:49:50] because it's success for us all of what
[2:49:52] we're going to do in the future. I would
[2:49:54] like to see that we continue on with
[2:49:56] that vision and I'm sorry that one
[2:49:59] building who hasn't followed the rules
[2:50:03] is Thank you.
[2:50:05] >> Thank you for your testimony.
[2:50:07] >> Any questions?
[2:50:10] No. Okay.
[2:50:14] staff. Any questions for staff?
[2:50:19] Councelor Barney,
[2:50:22] thank you very much. Uh, wow, so much
[2:50:25] good information. I really appreciate
[2:50:26] it. Let me look at my questions here.
[2:50:29] Okay,
[2:50:32] I have a couple of questions about the
[2:50:34] two different types of zoning. Okay,
[2:50:37] [snorts] how are the environmental
[2:50:39] restrictions different between the two?
[2:50:43] Well, in terms of the base zones
[2:50:45] themselves, they don't have specific,
[2:50:47] you know, envir environmental standards
[2:50:49] for tree protection, wetlands, those are
[2:50:51] in different chapters of the code that
[2:50:53] apply generally to to to the resources
[2:50:56] themselves and not aren't tied to the
[2:50:57] zones. There are a few of our industrial
[2:50:59] zones that specifically require that you
[2:51:01] have to meet DEQ standards and permits
[2:51:03] for all approvals, but uh these zones
[2:51:06] don't have that. And so the IC zone and
[2:51:08] the and the MUR zone it's just setbacks
[2:51:10] height you know pedestrianoriented
[2:51:11] development standards and then of course
[2:51:14] then you have to comply with 808 our
[2:51:15] tree preservation ordinance 809 our
[2:51:17] wetlands ordinance and uh you know A10
[2:51:19] or landslide ordinance and then there's
[2:51:21] other you know state you know laws you
[2:51:23] know and um for you know pollutants and
[2:51:25] air and emissions and air quality that
[2:51:28] go beyond you know the zones themselves.
[2:51:31] So the zones really don't have a lot to
[2:51:33] have a big difference in terms of
[2:51:34] environmental things other than if
[2:51:36] you're talking about the environment in
[2:51:38] terms of the built environment u you
[2:51:40] know and how buildings interact with the
[2:51:42] public right of way there's big
[2:51:44] differences in terms of that you know
[2:51:46] height and lot coverage but in terms of
[2:51:48] like environmental in terms of trees you
[2:51:50] know water resources they uh they don't
[2:51:54] really get too much into those specific
[2:51:55] issues. It's the other chapters of the
[2:51:57] code that do that.
[2:52:00] >> Okay. Um, and the reason I'm asking is I
[2:52:03] was looking at pages 11 and 12 in the uh
[2:52:07] oh, let's see the staff report from
[2:52:09] August and it says uh the IC industrial
[2:52:13] commercial zoning proposed by the
[2:52:14] applicant would allow a wide variety
[2:52:16] commercial and industrial uses. A change
[2:52:19] of the property's comprehensive plan,
[2:52:22] whatever, to industrial and zoning would
[2:52:24] make it possible for uses such as data
[2:52:26] center facilities,
[2:52:28] motor vehicle sales, motor vehicles that
[2:52:31] leak, etc. Whole bunch of things. And so
[2:52:34] that's my environmental question and how
[2:52:38] that ties in. So those are allowed uses
[2:52:40] of this.
[2:52:41] >> Yeah.
[2:52:42] >> If it gets changed,
[2:52:44] >> but there's no control of the
[2:52:46] environmental aspect of it. That's
[2:52:48] different in terms of
[2:52:49] >> if there were no conditions uh limiting
[2:52:51] the use. Now what the applicants have
[2:52:53] presented is a and their conditions
[2:52:55] would to be to to restrict you know
[2:52:57] motor vehicle uses you data centers
[2:52:59] wouldn't be on the list of allowed uses.
[2:53:01] So those they're proposing to eliminate
[2:53:03] those. Uh if if the if the icy zone was
[2:53:06] just approved as it is yeah all of those
[2:53:08] uses could you know be there as
[2:53:10] indicated in the the staff report. And
[2:53:12] that's, you know, why, you know,
[2:53:14] obviously just a a straight zone change
[2:53:16] to IC is, you know, during the in the
[2:53:19] planning commission's uh decision and staff's recommendation, that would
[2:53:23] not be appropriate. And so if there if
[2:53:26] there were to be any change to IC, it
[2:53:28] would need to, you know, there needs to
[2:53:30] be sideboards on it, you know, to
[2:53:31] protect against those type types of
[2:53:33] impacts. Uh but we felt that the the
[2:53:36] sideboards were were just there's too
[2:53:38] many that were needed in order to fit
[2:53:41] the zone to the area and we feel that
[2:53:44] the existing MUR zone provides
[2:53:46] flexibility and fulfills that vision and
[2:53:49] so the zone change isn't necessary.
[2:53:53] >> Okay. Okay, I tend to agree with you
[2:53:54] that the way it exists right now, there
[2:53:57] is that flexibility from the uses that
[2:54:00] are the continued uses that are going on
[2:54:02] that provide a you know quite a range.
[2:54:05] Um and this area just because it was an
[2:54:08] industrial area before doesn't need mean
[2:54:11] it needs to stay that way. I look at
[2:54:12] Riverfront Park and the changes
[2:54:15] that occurred over over time and what it
[2:54:18] looks like now. um you know it doesn't
[2:54:20] have to remain an industrial area. So um
[2:54:24] where am I? I'm looking for my question
[2:54:26] here.
[2:54:32] Yeah, the fact that the any kind of a
[2:54:34] change really isn't compatible with the
[2:54:36] long range plan for that area concerns
[2:54:38] me. Um thank you for the information. I
[2:54:41] don't have any other questions.
[2:54:44] Councelor Matthews,
[2:54:48] » I just wanted to ask about the easement
[2:54:50] access part. Um, so you mentioned in in
[2:54:52] your presentation, I think the opponent
[2:54:54] mentioned it as well. I couldn't tell.
[2:54:56] Was the easement access zoning
[2:54:58] restriction where the two zones need to
[2:54:59] be the same traditionally.
[2:55:01] Is that actually part of our code that needs to happen or has that just
[2:55:04] been a practice that has been kind of
[2:55:06] consistent but not necessarily actually
[2:55:08] our code? It's been a code
[2:55:10] interpretation uh that's been you know
[2:55:12] in in the form of a formal
[2:55:13] interpretation a couple times and backed
[2:55:15] by city attorneys going back years and it's kind of a fun fundamental
[2:55:19] question of what you know what is the
[2:55:21] use of a property and then the things
[2:55:23] that go along with the use of the
[2:55:24] property. So parking you know driveways
[2:55:27] those are all part of the use of the
[2:55:28] property. though if you have a zone that
[2:55:30] let's say allowed industrial services in
[2:55:33] the IC zone if this were to change to IC u IC uh industrial service use and
[2:55:40] now they they need to drive along that
[2:55:42] easement and cross that MUR zone MUR
[2:55:44] zone doesn't allow industrial services
[2:55:46] so because the access the driveways the
[2:55:49] parking all of that associated with the
[2:55:50] use is has been interpreted and you know
[2:55:53] through formal code interpretations you
[2:55:55] know in the in the past and those are
[2:55:57] binding you know under the code any a
[2:55:58] formal interpretation is binding on
[2:56:00] subsequent interpretations unless a new
[2:56:01] interpretation is issued uh by the
[2:56:03] council or you know the the authority
[2:56:05] that has under the code that has the
[2:56:07] authority to issue those interpretations
[2:56:09] then uh uh then yeah you couldn't cross
[2:56:13] the MUR zone to get to your industrial
[2:56:15] service use because the MUR zone doesn't
[2:56:17] allow industrial services and but like I
[2:56:20] said though there's you know that's only
[2:56:22] the west side it does the property has
[2:56:23] frontage on on two three well you know
[2:56:27] two streets and then a front with a
[2:56:28] railroad, you know, on one side, but,
[2:56:30] you know, there could be physical
[2:56:32] changes to the site to maybe get a
[2:56:34] driveway in off of the one of the public
[2:56:36] streets rather than needing to. That
[2:56:38] could takes that would take some
[2:56:39] maneuvering and changing of the site a
[2:56:40] little bit, but it wouldn't be like a
[2:56:43] Yeah, you can't get access at all to the
[2:56:45] property because of that.
[2:56:46] And then um city attorney, I don't this
[2:56:49] might be more of a question for you, but
[2:56:51] the opponent kind of brought something
[2:56:53] up which was essentially, and I'm going
[2:56:54] to butcher the actual correct verbiage,
[2:56:57] but essentially it sounded like in order
[2:56:59] for there to be actually something that
[2:57:01] qualifies for the u applicant to I guess
[2:57:04] approve their appeal, there'd have to be
[2:57:06] some change in the area. Is that the
[2:57:09] understanding?
[2:57:12] >> That's correct. can and Bryce can speak
[2:57:14] to this as well, but one of the criteria
[2:57:15] I believe for the zone changes there was
[2:57:17] a there's a change in characteristics of
[2:57:20] the area and I think the the applicant
[2:57:23] can speak for themselves on that, but I I think the the opponent is saying
[2:57:27] basically there hasn't been any change
[2:57:29] that the the only change has been the move toward residential use and
[2:57:34] mixed use as opposed to toward
[2:57:37] industrial use.
[2:57:39] >> I I would add one thing real quick, you
[2:57:40] know. So if you look at the criteria
[2:57:42] under 6425 sub 2A, you know, it gives
[2:57:45] three three options, you know, and it
[2:57:47] says that the minor comprehensive plan
[2:57:49] map amendment is justified based on the
[2:57:50] existence of one of the following and
[2:57:52] one is alterations in circumstances.
[2:57:55] Another is equal or better suited
[2:57:57] designation and the third is conflict
[2:57:59] between the comp plan and zoning. So,
[2:58:01] uh, the one that the the opponent
[2:58:03] identified was, you know, I1, which was
[2:58:06] there's an alteration in circumstances,
[2:58:08] and they were saying that, well, you
[2:58:09] know, our Salem was the alteration of
[2:58:11] circumstances. There hasn't been a push
[2:58:12] to have more industrial in this area. It
[2:58:14] was the change was that that's just one
[2:58:17] of them that they can they can select
[2:58:18] from, you know, it doesn't have to meet
[2:58:20] all of them.
[2:58:21] >> Yeah.
[2:58:22] >> Okay. That that helps me to understand
[2:58:23] kind of at least like what the Yeah.
[2:58:25] what the argument is
[2:58:28] and I don't know if this matters or not
[2:58:29] but does like the fact that the Canary
[2:58:31] project has kind of been put on hold for
[2:58:32] the moment or that [clears throat] we
[2:58:34] weren't able to pass the do those also
[2:58:36] kind of fit within those that guideline
[2:58:38] or is that kind of separate from this?
[2:58:41] >> It's it's those are just items of
[2:58:42] evidence in terms of the kind of what
[2:58:44] we're trying to do to achieve the change
[2:58:46] in the area. I you know I think it's you
[2:58:48] know it's MUR zoning I I it doesn't
[2:58:52] change the I think we still think MUR
[2:58:54] zoning is the most appropriate based on
[2:58:56] the criteria in this in this case
[2:58:58] >> but like failure of doing that so far
[2:59:00] has that doesn't actually indicate
[2:59:02] anything
[2:59:02] >> failure of the of the
[2:59:04] >> of being able to accomplish that like
[2:59:06] with the cran
[2:59:07] >> of of the you know of how it well u it
[2:59:11] doesn't
[2:59:11] >> dependent upon with this body I suppose
[2:59:13] that's what
[2:59:14] >> you know and and that's a very big it's
[2:59:15] a very big scale you Could something
[2:59:17] come in, you know, without like three
[2:59:19] mixed use building, sixtory, you know,
[2:59:21] could you just have a, you know, like a
[2:59:22] tax slot with a a modest, you know,
[2:59:25] three-story building with ground floor
[2:59:26] commercial that, you know, certainly
[2:59:28] would maybe be easier to to bite off
[2:59:30] than a than a wholesale redevelopment
[2:59:32] like the Canary site kind of, honestly.
[2:59:34] >> Got it. Thank you,
[2:59:40] » Councelor Brown.
[2:59:42] >> Oh, I thought Council G had a question.
[2:59:44] Nope. Um, Mr. Bishop, thank you again.
[2:59:47] Um,
[2:59:48] so I think I know the answer to this
[2:59:50] question, but I don't I don't want to
[2:59:51] trust my own answer. I I want to trust
[2:59:53] yours. You mentioned earlier that there
[2:59:55] would be um use the word sideboards.
[2:59:59] There'd be two there'd be too many
[3:00:01] sideboards that we would have to
[3:00:02] basically, you know, put in play to
[3:00:04] allow this to happen. Um,
[3:00:08] have we had to add that many sideboards
[3:00:11] to possible proposals before? Well, if
[3:00:16] you if you would uh well uh not not to
[3:00:19] the extent that we have like for
[3:00:22] instance in the Fairview Industrial Park
[3:00:24] area, we've had it was IBC zoning, you
[3:00:26] know, for many years and IBC zoning was
[3:00:28] looked at as restrictive
[3:00:30] >> and uh there were series of comp plan
[3:00:32] zone changes where most of that IBC
[3:00:34] district, you know, was changed to
[3:00:35] industrial commercial and you know, as
[3:00:38] part of the approval of those comp plan
[3:00:40] zone changes, they uh applied the
[3:00:43] development standards of the IC IBC zone
[3:00:45] because there's better landscaping, you
[3:00:47] know, because IBC is industrial business
[3:00:49] park campus. It's, you know, it has it
[3:00:52] looks better. It's nicer and, you know,
[3:00:54] just better than what the icy zone would
[3:00:56] you'd get with the IC zone. And so we
[3:00:58] have done that in the past where we
[3:00:59] apply development standards from the
[3:01:02] zone that was going from to the new zone
[3:01:04] and and adopted a a restricted list of uses. Now, what's different in this
[3:01:09] case from staff's perspective is when we
[3:01:12] look at the list of uses, if you if you
[3:01:14] look at those in terms of uh what is
[3:01:16] proposed by the applicant in their
[3:01:18] testimony tonight, in their latest
[3:01:20] testimony, uh yes, they have they've
[3:01:22] proposed industrial services to be
[3:01:24] conditional uh and manufacturing to be
[3:01:27] uh permitted in some and then, you know,
[3:01:29] conditional for the remainder. But then
[3:01:31] it also allows, you know, building
[3:01:33] ground services in construction
[3:01:34] contracting, uh,
[3:01:37] warehousing and distribution,
[3:01:38] self-service storage. Those are all, you
[3:01:40] know, outright permitted uses. So what
[3:01:42] could happen, you know, is if somebody
[3:01:44] buys the property and they look at that
[3:01:46] warehouse building and they think, uh,
[3:01:48] doesn't work for us. We want to raise
[3:01:49] it. We want to build new. You could now
[3:01:51] have under, if this zone were approved,
[3:01:53] a, you know, a warehousing and
[3:01:55] distribution facility or a self-service
[3:01:57] storage, a bunch of, you know, you know,
[3:01:59] many, many warehouses on that property,
[3:02:01] brand new development, you know, for
[3:02:03] years to come. And that would, you know,
[3:02:06] and and that would take property, you
[3:02:08] know, out from possibly transitioning
[3:02:10] into something, but we want to see to
[3:02:11] like it's probably firmly in place. if
[3:02:14] you're going to redevelop the side and
[3:02:15] do, you know, a warehousing building, a
[3:02:18] brand new warehousing building, it's not
[3:02:20] going anywhere anytime soon, you know.
[3:02:21] So, you know, we I guess uh that, you
[3:02:27] know, previously when we had discussions
[3:02:28] with the applicant and all candidness,
[3:02:29] we, you know, an ability to say, "Here's
[3:02:33] uses that you only get in the existing
[3:02:35] building. If you're going to redevelop a
[3:02:37] site, here's the uses that you would get
[3:02:40] for redevelopment only. And those would
[3:02:42] be in line with the MUR. If we if there
[3:02:44] was the ability to do something like
[3:02:45] that, you know, that would be I you
[3:02:48] know, better than allowing like some of
[3:02:50] these uses just outright permitted,
[3:02:51] >> but that was not a part of
[3:02:53] >> but we've never gone that far. We've
[3:02:54] never we've never conditioned a decision
[3:02:56] that to that extent before.
[3:02:59] >> Again, it's making like a brand new zone
[3:03:01] that doesn't that that doesn't exist.
[3:03:03] And then it kind of circles back to the
[3:03:04] question if you have to condition that
[3:03:06] zone so intensively how can you make it
[3:03:09] how can you say that it's equal or
[3:03:10] better suited or or it's you know so
[3:03:13] that argument
[3:03:16] >> uh Mr. Bishop, thank you. I know there's
[3:03:17] another question somewhere, Madame
[3:03:19] Mayor, but I can't seem to find it at
[3:03:20] the moment.
[3:03:22] >> Anyone?
[3:03:23] >> Oh, yeah. I guess there Yeah, they're they're pointing out to me.
[3:03:25] There's a couple things I want to
[3:03:26] correct for the record. Uh, in terms of
[3:03:28] the notice, uh, we for our Salem
[3:03:31] process, notice goes to the property
[3:03:32] owners as required, not not to the
[3:03:34] current tenants. So, it would have went
[3:03:36] to the actual, you know, owner, not not
[3:03:37] the tenant of the building. So, the
[3:03:39] owner would have, you know, gotten that
[3:03:41] notice. And then in terms of the uh the
[3:03:43] property was not zoned IG. It was IC in
[3:03:45] the past and then it you know and then
[3:03:48] it was then this would be going back to
[3:03:49] IC. It wasn't general industrial.
[3:03:53] >> Councelor Brown.
[3:03:54] >> Um I want to read something. I want to
[3:03:56] read something and it's something that I
[3:03:58] think Miss Margaret it's I think it's
[3:04:00] from you or it could be a member of our
[3:04:03] staff but either way I just want to read
[3:04:04] this Mr. Bishop and and there's going to
[3:04:07] be a question here and the question is
[3:04:09] going to be just help me make sense of
[3:04:10] this. Um so this is what it says. It
[3:04:13] says the this is there's not a page
[3:04:15] number. Yeah, it's on page six just in
[3:04:17] case of the if my colleagues wanted to
[3:04:20] see it. So in this middle paragraph,
[3:04:23] this is what it says. It says the
[3:04:25] continue use provision under SRC blank
[3:04:29] only applies to uses which existed and
[3:04:32] were established on the property as of
[3:04:35] August of 2022.
[3:04:37] It does not apply to any historical uses
[3:04:40] of the property. And as noted by staff,
[3:04:44] once a use is terminated and replaced
[3:04:47] with a use allowed within the zone, the
[3:04:50] continued use cannot be brought back.
[3:04:54] That's pretty standard across the board
[3:04:56] >> for this. Yeah, that's what a continued
[3:04:58] use is, you know, in this zone.
[3:05:00] >> Yes,
[3:05:00] >> for this. But is that a continued
[3:05:02] practice?
[3:05:03] >> We we we have different approaches, you
[3:05:05] know, to, you know, in in zones where we
[3:05:09] there's one mechanism when you change a
[3:05:10] zone or or amend a code, you could just
[3:05:12] make it non-conforming. You know, like
[3:05:14] use was allowed, you got your news your
[3:05:16] different zone, you were there, the
[3:05:18] zone, the use isn't allowed anymore,
[3:05:19] you're just non-conforming. And our
[3:05:20] non-conforming chapter would say if the
[3:05:22] building burns down or it's damaged to
[3:05:25] the extent that the cost of rebuilding
[3:05:26] and exceeds 60% of the cost of building
[3:05:28] a new the use terminates and you're out
[3:05:31] of luck. You don't get a you know you
[3:05:32] don't get to reestablish that use where
[3:05:34] in order to uh to be to be flexible
[3:05:38] recognize existing conditions and try to
[3:05:39] promote incremental change over time
[3:05:41] toward because we understand that it's
[3:05:43] hard to you know you can't there has to
[3:05:46] be some ability to transition from point
[3:05:48] A to a future point. We we add these
[3:05:51] oftentimes either continued use and
[3:05:53] continue development provisions and
[3:05:55] they've evolved in the code over time
[3:05:56] you know from what they used to be in
[3:05:58] the code and then how they were in the
[3:06:00] during the UDC original UDC to how they
[3:06:02] are now in some of these new zones but
[3:06:04] the concept is the same you know the use
[3:06:07] can continue you know the building that
[3:06:09] the that the use is dependent upon can
[3:06:11] be altered enlarged or rebuilt you know
[3:06:13] if it's destroyed and if it sits and if
[3:06:15] it goes vacant for any period of time as
[3:06:17] long as another use doesn't come in
[3:06:18] there that's allowed they can come back
[3:06:20] in with that previous use and and put it
[3:06:22] back in,
[3:06:23] >> you know. So that is that is AC pretty
[3:06:25] much across the board for how we're
[3:06:26] dealing with continued uses.
[3:06:28] >> Okay. Thank you, sir. Madame Mayor, are
[3:06:29] you the floor?
[3:06:30] >> Oh, can I ununice would like to Unice
[3:06:32] Kim would like to speak real quick?
[3:06:34] That's okay.
[3:06:37] >> Is there any question?
[3:06:38] >> Are you responding to Go right ahead?
[3:06:40] >> Uh, good evening. Ununice Kim, senior
[3:06:43] manager of strategic initiatives and
[3:06:45] engagement. Um, I just wanted to add on
[3:06:48] to what Bryce was saying. I think there
[3:06:50] was a question around the happy medium
[3:06:51] and kind of continued uses. And you
[3:06:54] know, when we did the R Salem project,
[3:06:55] we did extensive outreach across the
[3:06:57] community to really understand what the
[3:06:59] future of this area should be, could be
[3:07:00] based on the community's vision. And we
[3:07:03] understood during that project that this
[3:07:05] area is an area in transition or could
[3:07:08] be transitioning or would need to
[3:07:10] transition to get to that vision. Um so
[3:07:13] while we did extensive extensive
[3:07:15] engagement in the community we also did
[3:07:17] targeted engagement whether it was
[3:07:19] working with property owners businesses
[3:07:20] the chamber and this mur zone was
[3:07:23] created during that process it was a
[3:07:26] heavily discussed and negotiated zone
[3:07:28] that's why you see this flexibility
[3:07:30] because it's trying to recognize that
[3:07:32] this area is transitioning. So the idea
[3:07:33] of the continued uses came into this
[3:07:35] zone and the idea of having allowing
[3:07:37] some retail or some manufacturing and
[3:07:40] some wholesale, you know, it's
[3:07:41] restricted to the 10,000 square ft. It's
[3:07:44] restricted to having some retail and
[3:07:46] those are specifically put into that
[3:07:48] zone when that zone was created because
[3:07:50] we recognized when we were working with
[3:07:51] the chamber and others this that this
[3:07:53] area is not going to just change
[3:07:55] overnight and to to keep it viable for
[3:07:57] what buildings are there today and but
[3:08:00] still allow it to transition over time.
[3:08:02] there was a lot of provisions put into
[3:08:03] this MUR zone and so that was uh at the
[3:08:07] time our happy medium for that zone that
[3:08:09] was created.
[3:08:12] » Mr. City Attorney, did you have
[3:08:14] something?
[3:08:16] >> Councelor Brown,
[3:08:17] >> thank you. Uh Madame Mayor, thank you
[3:08:21] for that clarity, the historical
[3:08:22] knowledge. And would it be fair to say
[3:08:25] that since a lot of that work was
[3:08:27] deliberately done what four years ago,
[3:08:31] there was intentionality to make sure
[3:08:33] that
[3:08:36] we create something that's going to fit
[3:08:38] in with the vision that we want to have.
[3:08:40] Would that be fair?
[3:08:41] >> Correct. And would it be fair to say
[3:08:44] that the direction that this applicant
[3:08:47] would like that property to go does not
[3:08:51] fit within the vision that we have.
[3:08:54] >> It would be going back to what it was
[3:08:55] before the vision was established.
[3:08:56] >> That's what I thought. Thank you, Madam
[3:08:59] Mayor.
[3:09:05] » I do have a question. Oh, would you get
[3:09:07] five minutes? Yes, please come. Go right
[3:09:10] ahead. Did you have another question
[3:09:12] before I start? No,
[3:09:13] >> no, go right ahead.
[3:09:16] >> Again, Margaret Gandervo, attorney for
[3:09:18] the applicant. Regarding the criteria
[3:09:21] that Dean brought up, I just want to
[3:09:23] emphasize that there are three
[3:09:25] alternative criteria. You can choose any
[3:09:28] one of the three. We provided findings
[3:09:31] for all three, but we do satisfy the
[3:09:35] applicable approval criteria for equally
[3:09:37] better, which is one of the three
[3:09:39] alternatives. Um, regarding the
[3:09:42] testimony from the former assistant
[3:09:46] property manager,
[3:09:47] >> property manager, um, it sounds like
[3:09:50] some of that was the property to the
[3:09:52] north of us. We don't have a paint
[3:09:54] person who is an existing tenant. And
[3:09:58] then I also wanted to specify that for
[3:10:00] the easement while there is an existing
[3:10:02] easement there is additional space
[3:10:04] within that framework too to provide
[3:10:06] access there. So upon if there were to
[3:10:09] be redevelopment or a change in use that
[3:10:11] required access from that access
[3:10:14] easement again we have other access
[3:10:16] points we would be able to modify the
[3:10:20] fence line there to provide the
[3:10:22] additional width that would be needed.
[3:10:24] Um,
[3:10:26] I also wanted to flag again because this
[3:10:29] came up in the south block discussion,
[3:10:33] the kind of interaction between
[3:10:36] pedestrians and the railroad.
[3:10:39] This the south block area is actually a
[3:10:42] pretty good demonstration of how the
[3:10:44] railroad kind of is in charge of what
[3:10:47] happens in its right of way. There is
[3:10:50] supposed to be a pedestrian connection
[3:10:51] across the tracks by South Block to
[3:10:54] provide access to Riverfront Park and
[3:10:57] that doesn't exist because the railroad
[3:10:59] won't allow it to. So when we're looking
[3:11:02] at kind of the redevelopment of this
[3:11:04] area and pedestrianoriented
[3:11:07] facilities, that railroad is going to be
[3:11:10] a barrier to that if they choose to be.
[3:11:12] and the city doesn't have the ability to
[3:11:14] force them to change their structure to
[3:11:18] meet some of these goals. Um,
[3:11:22] I also just wanted to emphasize that in
[3:11:25] response to Ununice's comments there,
[3:11:30] that process was in-depth and intensive
[3:11:33] and we don't discount that. But again,
[3:11:36] the code provides flexibility through a
[3:11:40] zone change process to allow corrections
[3:11:43] where a property owner believes that
[3:11:45] mistakes have been made. Criteria is set
[3:11:48] out and we have demonstrated with
[3:11:51] sufficient evidence in the record that
[3:11:53] we meet the applicable approval
[3:11:55] criteria. We're coming with these
[3:11:58] additional limitations on usage as a
[3:12:01] good faith effort to respond to concerns
[3:12:04] that the city has raised above the
[3:12:06] criteria that we believe have already
[3:12:08] been satisfied. And so in that posture,
[3:12:11] these additional limitations are
[3:12:13] something that the applicant is offering
[3:12:15] to the city as a path forward. Um,
[3:12:19] finally, I just want to emphasize that
[3:12:22] while the MUR does provide some
[3:12:26] flexibility, the IC is also positioned
[3:12:29] in the code as a as a zone for
[3:12:32] transition. It provides buffering
[3:12:35] between less intensive uses and
[3:12:37] industrial uses, which if you remember
[3:12:39] the map that we had earlier, those
[3:12:41] industrial general uses are kind of in
[3:12:46] need of a buffer, which our property
[3:12:48] could provide as a less intensive use to
[3:12:51] then step down into the MUR zone. And
[3:12:54] there would be consistency in
[3:12:56] residential uses and many of the mixed
[3:12:58] uses that are permitted in the MUR zone
[3:13:01] for redevelopment of this property.
[3:13:05] Changing from MUR to IC doesn't lock in
[3:13:09] only industrial uses. It allows for a
[3:13:12] transition like the one that Ununice is
[3:13:15] describing in her testimony.
[3:13:18] Um, with that, I think I'm done for this
[3:13:20] evening. Thank you for
[3:13:23] um your time. We appreciate it.
[3:13:25] >> Thank you. Does anyone have questions?
[3:13:26] Councelor Matthews,
[3:13:30] >> can I ask just from the applicant's
[3:13:31] perspective at this point, do you feel
[3:13:33] that there is fully an impass at this
[3:13:35] point that there's not really a middle I
[3:13:37] know you guys presented a a proposal. I
[3:13:39] think you guys have probably already
[3:13:40] presented that previously and so do you
[3:13:43] feel at this point that there is an
[3:13:44] impass that there's not a middle ground
[3:13:46] that can be found prior to a final
[3:13:48] decision here tonight with this hearing?
[3:13:50] No, we're open to a discussion. I think
[3:13:53] Bryce mentioned the existing building
[3:13:56] construct. We had provided a red line
[3:13:59] including that. I think that's probably
[3:14:01] in the emails. Um it so we're open to
[3:14:06] finding a path forward here. If further
[3:14:08] discussion is needed, we're open to
[3:14:10] that. We just have we feel that staff's
[3:14:13] position is
[3:14:15] this is beyond what they're willing to
[3:14:17] look at. And so we're coming to you as
[3:14:20] the decision makers and asking you to
[3:14:22] make a decision.
[3:14:28] » I would like Go ahead.
[3:14:30] >> No, go ahead.
[3:14:31] >> I would like to ask or make a point
[3:14:34] maybe. Um when this was all going down
[3:14:37] and the switch was made and R Salem was
[3:14:39] considered and it became MU 3 um
[3:14:45] the property owner was on hospice
[3:14:48] so notification might have been sent but
[3:14:50] it's possible it wasn't received.
[3:14:52] >> Oh I'm sure. Yeah. We're not questioning
[3:14:55] whether notice was sent appropriately.
[3:14:58] >> Yeah. Um, first of all, I have a
[3:15:01] compassion for that moment and want to
[3:15:05] be considerate of, you know, a personal
[3:15:09] situation. I know from my own personal
[3:15:12] experience that the project um, uh, at
[3:15:16] the Canery is slow
[3:15:19] to come. It doesn't mean that I don't
[3:15:21] want a whole bunch of really wonderful
[3:15:23] things down on the riverfront. Um, but
[3:15:25] it seems that we're tying the hands of
[3:15:26] the property owner to not be able to try
[3:15:30] to do more with that property.
[3:15:32] Personally, I've also become familiar
[3:15:34] with easements that seem to belong to no
[3:15:37] one and and sometimes just don't aren't
[3:15:40] helpful. And maybe there's something
[3:15:42] that we can work out about that. I don't
[3:15:44] know. So, that's it's more uh amenable
[3:15:48] to the prop the uh apartment living, you
[3:15:51] know. I'm not sure about that. Um, but I
[3:15:55] also am aware that, you know, like
[3:15:58] Maiden, Oregon left town this week. The
[3:16:01] capital city doesn't have a Maiden,
[3:16:02] Oregon store anymore. And that's
[3:16:05] frustrating to me to have all this
[3:16:06] vacancy and this inability to move
[3:16:09] because we've created a plan that
[3:16:12] encompasses an area and this particular
[3:16:14] property is is the end of that area. And
[3:16:18] I I also noticed in the staff report the
[3:16:20] map that showed the walkable area that
[3:16:23] sort of includes this piece of property.
[3:16:26] It seemed to me that if if this body
[3:16:28] were to decide or y'all were to come to
[3:16:31] an agreement of some kind to um afford
[3:16:34] this opportunity that that could that
[3:16:36] jog could just be made around your
[3:16:38] property on the bottom end um rather
[3:16:41] than including it. just just my
[3:16:44] observations simply put. I am not a land
[3:16:46] use person. Um but those are just my
[3:16:50] sentiments around this topic. So I
[3:16:52] wanted to make that known and just uh I
[3:16:56] don't know if you had anything to say to
[3:16:57] any of that or not.
[3:16:59] >> Um Lauren would like to respond if
[3:17:02] that's okay.
[3:17:03] >> Okay.
[3:17:05] Yeah.
[3:17:09] Clearly, I'm I'm no legal mind, but I I
[3:17:12] look at this uh from a purely practical
[3:17:16] approach.
[3:17:17] Um our concern is the building as it
[3:17:21] stands in no way can meet the new code
[3:17:25] of the MUR zoning and we're not opposed
[3:17:28] to the MUR zoning.
[3:17:31] The issue is how can we use the building
[3:17:35] as it exists today
[3:17:38] as opposed to not being able to use it
[3:17:40] for 5 years, maybe it's 20 years, we
[3:17:43] don't know.
[3:17:46] Um, so the basics of this to me that are
[3:17:50] common sense is there's there's no
[3:17:53] boundary on the east side of the
[3:17:55] building. It's railroad tracks. the
[3:17:57] railroad track. The boundary of the
[3:17:58] railroad tracks is the side of the
[3:18:00] building.
[3:18:01] On the south side is truck docks, truck
[3:18:04] high docks,
[3:18:06] and on the north side is truck high
[3:18:08] docks. On the west side, there's no need
[3:18:12] for truck traffic. In a perfect world, I
[3:18:15] know there's there's implications for
[3:18:16] zoning and stuff that create issues. I
[3:18:19] wouldn't care if that street was
[3:18:21] restricted from truck traffic
[3:18:22] completely.
[3:18:24] there's no use for heavy traffic being
[3:18:26] on the road between us and the apartment
[3:18:28] complex.
[3:18:31] Um, so for me, and one of the things
[3:18:33] that we did talk about was the idea of
[3:18:36] trying to figure out a way that says as
[3:18:38] long as the building exists as it is
[3:18:41] that it would have continued uses.
[3:18:45] That's real basic, just continued uses
[3:18:47] as long as the building exists the way
[3:18:49] it is. If the building is reconstructed,
[3:18:53] by all means, we I don't have any
[3:18:55] opposition to that being
[3:18:58] MUR in the future. That's not that's not
[3:19:02] the goal. The goal is to maintain the
[3:19:04] use of the building as it stands today.
[3:19:07] And that's my interpretation although
[3:19:09] it's not legal that when they evaluate
[3:19:12] this property it's based on the existing
[3:19:16] property how it fits MUR.
[3:19:20] Uh if we put a limitation to that that
[3:19:22] says look if the building is
[3:19:23] reconstructed it needs to be
[3:19:24] reconstructed based on the guidelines
[3:19:26] for MUR.
[3:19:28] That's fine but we can't give it a
[3:19:31] setback off the railroad tracks without
[3:19:34] demolishing the building.
[3:19:37] So if you try to sell the property and
[3:19:40] somebody's looking at the value of the
[3:19:41] property and they have to all of a
[3:19:44] sudden make it mur they got to demolish
[3:19:45] the building. So not only do you lose
[3:19:47] the value of the property as it exists
[3:19:49] now and its ability to earn rent but
[3:19:52] then you add to the cost of demolishing
[3:19:54] the property and rebuilding it. I mean
[3:19:57] we've cut the value of the property down
[3:19:59] to 20% of its value.
[3:20:02] And so for us and for me is managing the
[3:20:05] trust. This is a huge loss or could be a
[3:20:07] huge loss financially for the trust.
[3:20:10] >> Okay. Thank you so much. I appreciate
[3:20:13] your response.
[3:20:14] >> Thank you.
[3:20:15] >> All of it.
[3:20:16] >> Thank you.
[3:20:17] >> Just a procedural question for Margaret.
[3:20:19] Do you want to uh take advantage of your
[3:20:21] seven days for final written argument?
[3:20:27] Um,
[3:20:29] as in keep the hearing open or close the
[3:20:32] hearing,
[3:20:33] keep the record open for seven days.
[3:20:39] >> Just at this point, all I'm asking is if
[3:20:41] you want seven days to make your final
[3:20:42] written argument, if you'd like to keep
[3:20:44] the record open for new evidence and
[3:20:46] rebuttal evidence and then your written
[3:20:47] argument, we can do that as well. Um I
[3:20:50] think our the applicants
[3:20:54] if city council is directing staff and
[3:20:57] the applicant to communicate further
[3:20:59] about this we would be willing to have
[3:21:01] that discussion. We don't need
[3:21:03] additional time for a written response
[3:21:05] if that's not the direction.
[3:21:09] >> Okay. So I understand you there may be
[3:21:11] an opportunity for staff and you to
[3:21:13] continue discussions but absent that you
[3:21:15] you're not requesting additional time.
[3:21:18] Correct.
[3:21:18] >> Okay. Thank you.
[3:21:26] » Okay. Uh we have some questions for
[3:21:27] staff apparently. Go ahead, councelor
[3:21:29] Matthews.
[3:21:31] >> Well, I think the question is really
[3:21:32] just the same question I asked to the
[3:21:33] applicant. And so, do you feel that this
[3:21:35] is fully an impass that there is no
[3:21:37] middle ground that can be found at this
[3:21:38] point and that a final decision should
[3:21:39] be made here tonight?
[3:21:42] [clears throat]
[3:21:50] Bryce wants hi Lee Anderson, your
[3:21:51] planning administrator. Um, we have met
[3:21:54] with the applicant numerous times,
[3:21:56] probably on and off. Ununice worked with
[3:21:58] their attorney maybe a year before they
[3:22:01] even applied, going through what was
[3:22:03] allowed in the zone, offering written
[3:22:05] letters to explain how the zone works.
[3:22:08] We had a pre-application conference with
[3:22:10] them.
[3:22:12] We were called to court over the meeting
[3:22:14] of the pre-application conference due to
[3:22:15] a a lawsuit. Like we've had many
[3:22:18] conversations with them. So I don't I
[3:22:22] think Bryce has pretty much explained
[3:22:23] that we we don't see a way to craft
[3:22:26] conditions which is what a compromise
[3:22:28] would be, right? We don't see a way to
[3:22:30] craft conditions to meet the criteria.
[3:22:33] It's within the council's purview
[3:22:36] to disagree with that and, you know,
[3:22:38] accept what they've proposed or some
[3:22:41] other version of a condition if the zone
[3:22:44] change were to be approved or no
[3:22:45] conditions, right? That's within the
[3:22:47] purview of the of the council. Um, you
[3:22:51] know, we've tried it's, you know,
[3:22:52] they've been very, you know, nice
[3:22:54] meetings and, um, you know, we've
[3:22:56] bounced a lot of ideas off each other,
[3:22:57] but we just, I don't see that we see a
[3:23:00] way that we can do that through
[3:23:01] conditions and say that we think it
[3:23:03] meets the criteria.
[3:23:06] >> Okay.
[3:23:07] I'd like to ask I just for clarification
[3:23:11] and you the city are operating under the
[3:23:15] confines restrictions boundaries of the
[3:23:18] um our Salem plan.
[3:23:22] >> Um I'm not sure that I would say
[3:23:23] restrictions. You know we are operating
[3:23:26] under the confines of the approval
[3:23:27] criteria for this application. Um, and
[3:23:30] so that requires us to weigh the current
[3:23:33] zoning against the proposed zoning and
[3:23:36] that criteria of does it equally or
[3:23:37] better.
[3:23:38] >> Right. Basically, you guys are doing
[3:23:40] what you were directed by city council
[3:23:42] to do.
[3:23:43] >> Absolutely. Our Salem was adopted by
[3:23:44] city council and the zone was
[3:23:46] implemented through the council. Yes.
[3:23:47] >> Okay. Thank you.
[3:23:48] >> Thank you.
[3:23:55] So, at this point, you you haven't
[3:23:57] received a request to keep the record
[3:23:58] open or for final written argument. So,
[3:24:00] you can go ahead and close the hearing
[3:24:02] and begin deliberations with the motion
[3:24:05] from the council president or excuse me,
[3:24:07] from councelor Tyen.
[3:24:11] » Hearing's closed. Go right ahead, sir.
[3:24:13] Uh, I move that we affirm the planning
[3:24:15] commission's decision denying minor
[3:24:17] comprehensive plan map amendment,
[3:24:18] neighborhood map plan amendment and zone
[3:24:21] change for case number CPC- NPC-Z26-02.
[3:24:28] » Second
[3:24:30] motion and a second by Gwyn. Councelor,
[3:24:32] anything to your motion?
[3:24:33] >> Yeah, thank you, Madame Mayor. Um, I
[3:24:35] appreciate the uh responsibility as the
[3:24:38] W1 uh city councelor to bring um the
[3:24:41] motion to the floor after the public
[3:24:44] hearing. Um, I as folks on the city
[3:24:48] council probably know, I was the Grant
[3:24:50] Neighborhood uh land use chair during uh
[3:24:52] our Salem. Um was very active in this u
[3:24:56] visioning of this part of the city as as
[3:24:58] part of our Salem. Um, I don't just
[3:25:02] bring the motion because I um am sitting
[3:25:05] in the seat, but I I do believe that we
[3:25:07] should affirm uh the planning
[3:25:09] commission's uh decision to deny this
[3:25:12] request. It's not easy because we know
[3:25:14] that there's a property owner who feels
[3:25:16] that they weren't um don't have every
[3:25:19] tool in the toolbox to use this property
[3:25:21] the way that they want. But I think the
[3:25:23] staff has gone above and beyond both as
[3:25:26] we constructed our Salem as you heard
[3:25:28] tonight from Ununice um and uh in
[3:25:33] interactions with the applicant to
[3:25:35] really try and maintain their continued
[3:25:37] use as long as they can. Um but I think
[3:25:41] we also know as a city that we have a
[3:25:43] different vision for this part of the
[3:25:46] city. Um yes the Trouett brothers um
[3:25:50] proposal has run into difficult times
[3:25:53] but it is emblematic of what we want to
[3:25:56] see happen near the river in our city.
[3:26:00] And I think the um the most important
[3:26:03] part here is that we have to hold two
[3:26:05] things to be true at once, right? is
[3:26:07] that this applicant can still use this
[3:26:10] parcel the way that they have used it um
[3:26:13] for many years. And there could be a
[3:26:16] time 20 years from now when the most
[3:26:19] advantageous thing to do with this
[3:26:21] property is knock this building down and
[3:26:24] build a six-story apartment building.
[3:26:26] And that could be the future that we
[3:26:28] manifest in the north riverfront. And
[3:26:32] we're doing a lot as a council to try
[3:26:33] and make that happen. Um, and whether
[3:26:36] that's um helping someone um I'm sorry,
[3:26:41] putting together a urban renewal area to
[3:26:44] impress upon the importance of the
[3:26:46] development. Um I I think it's really to
[3:26:50] me very important that we um maintain
[3:26:53] the vision that we outlined in R Salem
[3:26:56] at the same time allowing this property
[3:26:58] owner to continue the use that they have
[3:27:00] um as long as uh they meet the criteria
[3:27:02] for continued use. Anyone
[3:27:07] else? Councelor Brown,
[3:27:11] » did you have something? Councelor
[3:27:12] Nordike?
[3:27:13] >> Yes, I do. Thank you. I too will be
[3:27:15] supporting the motion. There are several
[3:27:17] reasons that I think some of them have
[3:27:19] already been articulated. I also wanted
[3:27:22] to go back to one of the comments that
[3:27:23] councelor Barney pointed out that this
[3:27:26] reszoning
[3:27:27] would permit not just
[3:27:30] expanded industrial uses, but it could
[3:27:33] potentially allow other zonable uses
[3:27:35] that are something I'm not the least bit
[3:27:38] interested in doing. For example, let me
[3:27:41] see, I lost my place in the 149page
[3:27:44] document. There it is. Quote, "A change
[3:27:47] of the property's comprehensive plan
[3:27:49] designation to industrial, commercial,
[3:27:52] and zoning to IC would make it possible
[3:27:54] for uses such as data center facilities,
[3:27:57] motor vehicle sales, motor vehicle
[3:27:59] service, manufactured dwelling and
[3:28:01] trailer sales. It goes on and on. Firing
[3:28:04] ranges, industrial services,
[3:28:08] uh power generation facilities, fuel
[3:28:11] dealers, recycling depots, solid waste
[3:28:13] transfer stations.
[3:28:15] Absolutely not.
[3:28:18] So I and again as
[3:28:21] councelor Tigan pointed out this is not
[3:28:23] a restriction on their current use. I
[3:28:25] was on council when we created the our
[3:28:27] Salem. It was a huge [snorts] amount of
[3:28:30] work led by Ununice Kim and many staff
[3:28:32] folk. Um this is not just a vision. This
[3:28:36] is our future and I'm not interested in
[3:28:40] setting all that work aside despite the
[3:28:43] valiant efforts of council. So, and I
[3:28:45] appreciate everything that you're saying
[3:28:47] and everything you coming from. We've
[3:28:49] listened very carefully. You've answered
[3:28:51] every question we could think of for the
[3:28:53] last hour plus, but at this point, I am
[3:28:56] prepared to vote yes on the motion.
[3:28:59] Thank you,
[3:29:01] Councelor Brown.
[3:29:02] >> Thanks, Madame Mayor. Um,
[3:29:06] not going to lie, this one is hard for
[3:29:08] me. Um, but I want to say it's only hard
[3:29:11] because this is an area
[3:29:14] that we all know needs some work. It it
[3:29:17] needs it needs a lot of love. It needs
[3:29:21] somebody that got can write some big
[3:29:23] bucks to change things in that area. Uh,
[3:29:26] we need a lot. And
[3:29:29] if you want to see what blight looks
[3:29:32] like, obviously you can drive over there
[3:29:35] or you can drive in Northeast Salem.
[3:29:37] Hello somebody.
[3:29:40] Because you can see what happens when
[3:29:42] you do have things that are available
[3:29:44] but yet we don't make the changes we
[3:29:47] need
[3:29:49] to bring the changes we want to see. So
[3:29:51] this is hard for me. Uh but I also want
[3:29:54] to reflect on the work that uh the
[3:29:57] planning team has done. Uh because I
[3:30:00] watched you all four years ago do this
[3:30:03] work um with fidelity. I watched and it
[3:30:09] saddens me a little bit or rather a lot
[3:30:12] that we are um I'm gonna take a word
[3:30:15] from councelor Matthews that we are at
[3:30:16] an impass. We we don't have a happy
[3:30:19] medium and it doesn't
[3:30:22] it looks like we could possibly find
[3:30:24] one, but it's going to require some
[3:30:26] changes. And and I too I agree. I don't
[3:30:29] want to see, you know, us bring this
[3:30:32] building forward and then all of a
[3:30:34] sudden somebody wants to put something
[3:30:36] in there that we don't want to see, aka
[3:30:38] a data center. Uh but let alone Oregon
[3:30:41] has almost 150 of those, but we won't
[3:30:44] have that conversation tonight. Um it
[3:30:47] just saddens me because we want to see
[3:30:49] something different in that area. We
[3:30:52] want to see it. And so this one is hard
[3:30:53] for me because like I said, it's in my
[3:30:55] backyard. It's not in my ward, but it is
[3:30:57] in my backyard. It just saddens me that
[3:30:59] we are at a position between the city
[3:31:01] and the applicant that we cannot find um
[3:31:03] we can't find a happy medium. That's the
[3:31:06] part that disappoints me that we cannot
[3:31:08] find a place where we can figure out get
[3:31:12] all the smart people in one room to
[3:31:14] figure out what we can do um that folks
[3:31:17] can benefit from. And I realize that I
[3:31:20] may be u the solo in that area um but
[3:31:24] I'm used to being solo so I'm not too
[3:31:26] worried about that. uh yield the floor.
[3:31:30] >> Councelor Tigan.
[3:31:31] >> Thank you. I just want to as a point of
[3:31:33] clarification and beha and on behalf of
[3:31:36] the applicant who already knows I'm not
[3:31:38] in support of their um application but
[3:31:42] they offered today as as you know part
[3:31:45] of the um
[3:31:48] uh
[3:31:50] materials that we received that they
[3:31:52] would not um what they offered to us was
[3:31:56] to not build data centers there was to
[3:31:58] not do motor vehicles. So they're not saying that they want to
[3:32:03] have the full rights of IC. So I just
[3:32:06] want to make that clear. However, I do
[3:32:08] think just I I have reviewed the list
[3:32:11] and I do think the things that they um
[3:32:14] remain on the list for future use in
[3:32:18] term including industrial and
[3:32:19] institutional food service contractors,
[3:32:22] general food manufacturing
[3:32:24] um uh and then conditional manufacturing
[3:32:27] activities on things like a tannery um
[3:32:30] rubber and plastic footwear
[3:32:32] manufacturing. those things. Even if
[3:32:35] they don't, even if they've agreed not
[3:32:37] to build a data center, they're great.
[3:32:38] But there's still things that are on
[3:32:40] this list that I find incompatible with
[3:32:42] what we're trying to achieve there. So,
[3:32:43] I want to give them their due credit for
[3:32:45] bringing us a proposal. And I also want
[3:32:47] to acknowledge that it it still doesn't
[3:32:49] meet my belief of what this should be.
[3:32:53] >> Councelor Matthews.
[3:32:56] Well, I I want to assure councelor Brown
[3:32:59] that he is not solo on the
[3:33:00] disappointment in not being able to find
[3:33:02] a middle ground or at least continue to
[3:33:03] attempt to find a middle ground. Um I
[3:33:07] think it's a very hard situation to know
[3:33:09] that the city's decision to change the
[3:33:12] zoning is what adjusted this for this
[3:33:14] property owner. That's a hard pill to
[3:33:16] swallow to know that the city's
[3:33:18] decisions, even though they may be
[3:33:20] aspirational and in the future
[3:33:22] beneficial, undeniably or I should maybe
[3:33:24] undeniably a strong word, apparently
[3:33:27] seem to have a negative impact on a
[3:33:29] property owner that is in our city. And
[3:33:31] so to know that that's the outcome,
[3:33:33] especially when that property owner,
[3:33:34] previous property owner was in hospice
[3:33:36] at the time when the notices went out,
[3:33:37] that's a very hard reality to have to
[3:33:39] sit with. Um, I also want to acknowledge
[3:33:42] similar to councelor Tyan that the
[3:33:44] applicant seems to be fully ready to
[3:33:46] find a middle ground and even submitted
[3:33:48] an entire proposal cutting out most of
[3:33:51] the I guess more undesirable things from
[3:33:55] um the current propo or the current uh
[3:33:58] IG or IC zoning allowances that were
[3:34:02] mentioned before such as fire ranges or
[3:34:04] firearm ranges and data centers. Um, and
[3:34:07] so I think that's really important. I'll
[3:34:10] also speak to the other side. I also
[3:34:12] recognize that if development does
[3:34:14] actually happen, which is a big if
[3:34:16] because at this moment we have seen no
[3:34:18] actual ability to make that happen. Um,
[3:34:21] if that does happen, I don't want this
[3:34:23] to be the one building that gets stuck
[3:34:25] without being developed because we've
[3:34:27] allowed a decision here tonight and you
[3:34:29] get this beautiful development around it
[3:34:31] and you have one building that is the
[3:34:32] hold out. Um, which is why again I wish
[3:34:36] that we as a city were not sticking our
[3:34:38] foot in the ground so hard to say that
[3:34:40] we will not at this point do not feel
[3:34:42] like there is a middle ground to be
[3:34:43] found because clearly the applicant
[3:34:45] hasn't put their foot in the ground. I
[3:34:46] think this is a little bit on us as a
[3:34:48] city to be saying that we don't feel
[3:34:50] that over the next x amount of time it
[3:34:52] sounds like there's a 7-day ability to
[3:34:54] make that happen. Uh that we should
[3:34:56] continue that conversation. And so if
[3:34:59] that's where we are, um
[3:35:02] again, I don't it's a very tough one for
[3:35:04] me because I recognize the risk of
[3:35:07] having a property that may not be
[3:35:09] developed in the way we want in the
[3:35:10] future. But um I also recognize that um
[3:35:15] sometimes even though it may not be what
[3:35:17] the future we want, sometimes right's
[3:35:18] just right. So
[3:35:22] Dan Aches, city attorney, just
[3:35:23] responding to councelor Matthews
[3:35:24] comments. So, if council can, you know,
[3:35:27] counselor can propose a substitute
[3:35:29] motion to have staff work with the
[3:35:32] applicant to continue those discussions.
[3:35:34] I think as you heard Bryce and Lisa say,
[3:35:36] they have met multiple times. Um, they
[3:35:38] haven't been able to get to yes. I
[3:35:40] think, you know, some of the comments
[3:35:42] that Bryce made about, you know, there
[3:35:43] there's it's not just a matter of
[3:35:45] getting to the right list of uses. It's
[3:35:47] just the incompatibility with the with
[3:35:50] those uses with the the the existing
[3:35:53] zone and whether it comports with the
[3:35:55] vision that's in the comp plan for this
[3:35:57] area and this property. But, you know,
[3:36:00] that's council's uh decision. So, if
[3:36:02] council would like staff and the
[3:36:03] applicant to continue that discussion,
[3:36:06] uh you're welcome to propose that
[3:36:07] motion. There is no 7-day limitation. It
[3:36:09] was just that was a specific question on
[3:36:12] final written argument. So you can
[3:36:13] always uh continue deliberations and
[3:36:16] direct staff to have those discussions.
[3:36:25] » Councelor Vney,
[3:36:26] >> thank you very much.
[3:36:30] Good discussion. I can certainly see the
[3:36:33] applicant's need to be able to broaden
[3:36:36] the uses so that it's a more marketable
[3:36:39] piece of property, but it it doesn't
[3:36:41] align with the the vision. So, um I
[3:36:44] think about the conditions and the work
[3:36:46] you've done on trying to come up with
[3:36:48] things that work, but conditions can't
[3:36:51] cover everything. And I think that's
[3:36:53] what um
[3:36:56] yeah, I think that's uh what I'm not
[3:36:59] comfortable with because this place is
[3:37:02] very close to the Wamut number one.
[3:37:06] Um and also in the industrial commercial
[3:37:10] zone, I don't believe any kind of
[3:37:12] housing is allowed at all.
[3:37:15] And that's definitely
[3:37:23] Bryce Bishop, City of Salem. In regards
[3:37:25] to that question, the IC zone does allow
[3:37:27] housing uh in a mixeduse building, you
[3:37:29] know, so you could have multif family in
[3:37:30] a mixeduse building, three family and
[3:37:32] four family in a mixeduse building. Uh
[3:37:35] but it doesn't allow housing as broadly
[3:37:36] as the MUR. In the MUR zone, you could
[3:37:38] just have multif family without having
[3:37:40] it needing to be in a mixeduse building.
[3:37:46] » Thank you for that clarification. I
[3:37:48] appreciate it. So, we couldn't just put
[3:37:49] a there couldn't be an apartment
[3:37:51] building or something there. It would
[3:37:53] have to be a mixeduse thing. That's what
[3:37:54] you said. Okay. Okay. Well, the current
[3:37:57] zoning has flexibility, and to me, it's
[3:38:00] a compromise right now between the old
[3:38:03] use and the new vision. I just really
[3:38:06] appreciate the flexibility. So, I'm
[3:38:08] going to be supporting Councelor Tyen's
[3:38:12] motion. Um,
[3:38:14] [snorts] but I it's it's a difficult
[3:38:16] decision. Thank you.
[3:38:19] Bryce, did you have something to add or
[3:38:21] councelor Matthews? Go ahead.
[3:38:24] >> Oh, sorry, Councelor Gwen.
[3:38:27] >> I wanted to say thank you to city staff.
[3:38:30] Um, one of the concerns that I have
[3:38:34] expressed in the past is sometimes it
[3:38:36] feels like we're always a no, no, no.
[3:38:39] But it sounds like you guys have done
[3:38:41] everything you can to get to yes with
[3:38:44] the applicant. So, while it is a a tough
[3:38:48] decision for me, um I also want to
[3:38:51] recognize before I continue um the hard
[3:38:55] work that our planning commission um
[3:38:58] puts in and I most of you know I do
[3:39:01] watch the planning commission meetings
[3:39:04] and um they are very thoughtful in their
[3:39:08] decision making and they spend a lot of
[3:39:11] time combing through. We don't have some
[3:39:15] of some of the folks on that on our
[3:39:16] planning commission know the code almost
[3:39:19] as well as you guys do. They're
[3:39:22] phenomenal. Um so I it it's hard for me
[3:39:25] then to
[3:39:27] when they it's hard for me to go against
[3:39:31] them um when I I feel like you guys
[3:39:36] clearly have all worked very hard to come to a compromise. So, I'll be
[3:39:42] supporting the motion.
[3:39:45] >> Anyone else?
[3:39:49] » Go ahead, Councelor Matthews.
[3:39:51] >> City attorney, you can tell me if this
[3:39:53] is not allowed to ask another question
[3:39:54] of staff.
[3:39:58] » You can ask questions of staff. We just
[3:39:59] can't provide new evidence in our
[3:40:01] response.
[3:40:03] >> Could you repeat the what compromises
[3:40:07] were proposed by the city? I know that I
[3:40:10] know that we've seen compromises
[3:40:11] proposed by the applicant in the in the
[3:40:13] actual packet. And I know you mentioned
[3:40:14] you guys have met a lot that I didn't
[3:40:16] hear the compromises that were proposed
[3:40:18] by the city
[3:40:21] » or actually I did I just I need them
[3:40:23] repeated so that it's not new. So, in in
[3:40:25] trying not to introduce new evidence to
[3:40:27] the record, uh there is the uh the June
[3:40:30] 9th staff report u which most of most of
[3:40:35] what the applicants uh recommended use
[3:40:39] list is based upon is that foundational
[3:40:43] list of uses that was presented at the
[3:40:45] planning commission at their June 9th uh
[3:40:46] public hearing which is in the record.
[3:40:49] uh what uh um yeah then but then so that
[3:40:55] was kind of our you know staff's I guess
[3:40:57] biggest compromise in terms of okay this
[3:40:59] is that this is something that for the
[3:41:01] planning commission to consider uh then
[3:41:03] we had the testimony that was in
[3:41:05] opposition uh from the well I'm at
[3:41:07] landing apartments and then uh looking
[3:41:10] at the impacts of having you know
[3:41:14] certain uses that were identified on
[3:41:16] that original list you know like I
[3:41:18] mentioned Earl earlier building and
[3:41:19] ground services, general wholesaling,
[3:41:21] warehousing and distribution and
[3:41:22] self-service storage as out just
[3:41:23] outright permitted without having any
[3:41:25] limitations on them in terms of being
[3:41:29] able to be established in a brand new
[3:41:30] building, a brand new development. Uh,
[3:41:33] you know, staff feels that that is
[3:41:35] um, you know, that has the potential for
[3:41:37] like you mentioned everything if
[3:41:39] everything around it developed and you
[3:41:40] had the like a warehousing building that
[3:41:42] comes in brand new build and now it's
[3:41:44] there for 50 years and everything else around it has changed. that was you
[3:41:49] know staffed here but so I guess our
[3:41:50] compromise was the uh original list that
[3:41:55] we presented to the planning commission
[3:41:57] and then and further discussions there
[3:41:59] was the discussion of limiting use per
[3:42:02] building you know existing building
[3:42:04] versus new development but again like I
[3:42:06] said previously we didn't think that
[3:42:07] could be conditioned in the manner to do
[3:42:09] that
[3:42:11] >> so just so I I'm make sure I'm correct
[3:42:13] on this so originally it sounds like the
[3:42:15] proposal that the applicants brought
[3:42:17] forward now is very similar to what was
[3:42:18] kind of the original compromise that was
[3:42:20] being proposed, but we've pulled away
[3:42:22] from that compromise based on public
[3:42:25] testimony. Is I am I?
[3:42:27] >> Yeah, it it was it it was it was a list
[3:42:29] of uses that was presented based on
[3:42:31] direction from the planning commission
[3:42:32] to see if we can meet with the applicant
[3:42:33] to come up with a you know a set of you
[3:42:36] know set of conditions.
[3:42:38] >> Okay.
[3:42:41] and and we didn't have a we didn't have
[3:42:43] agreement at on the list at that time,
[3:42:45] you know, at the planning commission.
[3:42:54] Um, I don't know if this will go through
[3:42:56] or not, but I think I'd like to propose
[3:42:58] a substitute motion.
[3:43:00] I'd like to Do I need to Can I say the
[3:43:03] substitute motion? Uh, I'd like to
[3:43:04] promote propose a substitute motion that
[3:43:06] we direct staff to go back to the
[3:43:09] applicant and attempt to find a middle
[3:43:11] ground one more time uh, prior to us
[3:43:13] making a decision this final hearing.
[3:43:18] » I'm going to second that for discussion.
[3:43:21] >> We have a motion and a second by Gwyn.
[3:43:24] >> Councelor to the motion. I think what I
[3:43:28] just heard and and what I think is
[3:43:29] really important here is that we have at
[3:43:31] one time we had at least a proposed
[3:43:33] potential compromise and I understand
[3:43:36] that maybe that in the end isn't the
[3:43:37] right compromise. I'm not saying that
[3:43:39] the list that uh has been proposed by
[3:43:41] the applicant is the list that I'm
[3:43:43] comfortable with either. Um,
[3:43:46] but my hope is again that cooler heads
[3:43:50] will prevail here and the smarter people
[3:43:52] will get in the room again and be able
[3:43:54] to find that middle ground that that
[3:43:56] still works for everybody uh before we
[3:43:58] harm a property owner in our city again.
[3:44:00] And so, um, so yeah, that's the reason
[3:44:03] I'm making the the motion uh is to hope
[3:44:06] that they can kind of work together to
[3:44:07] find a middle ground that's reasonable.
[3:44:10] >> Thank you, counselor.
[3:44:12] Any discussion?
[3:44:15] Yes, Councelor Brown.
[3:44:17] >> Thanks, Madam Mayor. Um, I appreciate
[3:44:19] the discussion and I just want to
[3:44:21] acknowledge a couple of things. I want
[3:44:22] to acknowledge that
[3:44:24] the planning um committee and also the
[3:44:28] planning team. I want to say that your work is does not go unnoticed,
[3:44:33] right? This is been a long conversation
[3:44:36] tonight, but it's been a you put a lot
[3:44:39] of work and time in this throughout the
[3:44:40] years, especially going back to 2022. I get that. Um
[3:44:47] I also understand that, you know, when
[3:44:49] notices were sent out, we heard tonight
[3:44:51] that um you know, someone was in
[3:44:54] hospice. So obviously, you know, as
[3:44:56] Madame Mayor said, there's a there's a
[3:44:58] reason to be uh there's a need and a
[3:45:00] reason to be compassionate. I get that.
[3:45:02] Also,
[3:45:08] the struggle for me, as I said before,
[3:45:10] and I'll say it again, the struggle for
[3:45:12] me is that when we drive through parts
[3:45:15] of our city and we have a vision for it,
[3:45:20] um, and we can get very excited and just
[3:45:25] over the top for what it could be. And I
[3:45:28] I'm all about that. I just know we're
[3:45:30] not there yet. And when opportunities
[3:45:33] come our way and we don't take hold of
[3:45:35] them,
[3:45:38] neighbors are left to deal with that
[3:45:40] decision. Also,
[3:45:42] as I said before, this one is hard for
[3:45:44] me because I and I don't know what a
[3:45:46] happy medium is going to look like. I'm
[3:45:48] the one that threw that word in there.
[3:45:49] So, you can blame Irvin. Blame me. So,
[3:45:52] when you get in your cards tonight, you
[3:45:53] be like that that dang Dr. Brown, he had
[3:45:55] to ask bring this up. Um, because I am
[3:45:59] looking for a happy medium. I am looking
[3:46:00] for the opportunity to see that whole
[3:46:03] street look different than what it does
[3:46:05] now. Um I I'm looking for, you know,
[3:46:09] folks to be able to, you know, be in
[3:46:10] those apartments back there and find a
[3:46:13] way that you can because I was surprised
[3:46:15] those apartments even back there when I
[3:46:17] moved in this area six years ago to find
[3:46:19] out that somebody had the audacity and
[3:46:21] the willingness to live back there where
[3:46:24] the train is. I was just like I was
[3:46:26] saying a prayer for y'all because that
[3:46:28] is a no joke area. you got to be
[3:46:30] prepared to live over there. Um, but I
[3:46:33] do hope I am optimistic that if there is
[3:46:37] a happy medium, then yes, but if we come
[3:46:39] back to the same place and we find out,
[3:46:42] hey, we just got to shake hands and go
[3:46:44] our separate ways, we'll have to deal
[3:46:46] with that, too. So, I appreciate uh the
[3:46:49] original motion by councelor Tyan. I
[3:46:52] also appreciate the amended motion by uh
[3:46:54] councelor Matthews. I yield the floor.
[3:46:57] Any
[3:47:00] other comment?
[3:47:02] Uh, councelor Gwyn.
[3:47:06] >> So, I just want to say I can always
[3:47:08] support a win-win. So, if I mean I
[3:47:11] certainly could support a compromise if
[3:47:14] one can be had. So, I would support the
[3:47:18] motion. Councelor Tyan.
[3:47:20] >> Yeah, I don't I'm not sure at this point
[3:47:22] I see the parties coming together, but
[3:47:24] I'll definitely support the motion to
[3:47:25] give it one more try.
[3:47:28] Thank you. Anyone else?
[3:47:33] So, we have a motion and a sec. We have
[3:47:34] a substitute motion and a second. Will
[3:47:36] the recorder please call the role?
[3:47:40] >> Councelor Brown.
[3:47:42] >> I.
[3:47:43] >> Councelor Bang is absent. Councelor
[3:47:45] Nordike.
[3:47:46] >> I.
[3:47:47] >> Councelor Vney.
[3:47:48] >> I.
[3:47:50] >> Councelor Tyen.
[3:47:51] >> I.
[3:47:52] >> Councelor Nishioa.
[3:47:55] >> I.
[3:47:56] Councelor Matthews
[3:47:58] >> I.
[3:47:58] >> Councelor Gwen
[3:48:00] >> I.
[3:48:00] >> Mayor Julie Hoy I. That motion passes.
[3:48:05] All right. Um 10 minutes.
[3:48:08] >> No, we can't. We need to take a short
[3:48:10] break.
[3:48:10] >> We're going to take a short break and
[3:48:12] then But first, should we add some time
[3:48:13] to the clock, sir?
[3:48:15] >> Yes, please. Half hour.
[3:48:16] >> 10:30. Let's say 10.
[3:48:18] >> I move to extend our meeting till 10:30.
[3:48:21] >> Second.
[3:48:22] >> We have a motion and a second by Tyan.
[3:48:24] Um, anyone opposed?
[3:48:26] Nope. Okay. Five minutes.
[3:48:30] » No, the hearing has been closed.
[3:54:47] We're going to get started.
[3:54:50] >> Thank you. We're coming back together
[3:54:52] and the city attorney has a little
[3:54:53] matter of business to take care of.
[3:54:56] >> So, uh, we in conferring with staff and
[3:54:58] the and the parties on that public
[3:55:00] hearing, we need a motion to reopen the
[3:55:03] public hearing and continue it to
[3:55:05] October 12th.
[3:55:07] >> Um, so moved.
[3:55:10] Second.
[3:55:11] >> We have a motion by Mayor Hoy and a
[3:55:13] second by Councelor Matthews. Anything
[3:55:16] to the motion? No. Let's just do this.
[3:55:19] Um, will the recorder please call the
[3:55:20] role?
[3:55:22] >> Councelor Bang absent. Councelor Nordike
[3:55:25] >> I.
[3:55:26] >> Councelor Vney.
[3:55:28] >> I.
[3:55:29] >> Councelor Tyen.
[3:55:30] >> I.
[3:55:31] >> Councelor Nishioa.
[3:55:33] >> I.
[3:55:34] >> Councelor Matthews.
[3:55:35] >> Hi.
[3:55:37] >> Councelor Gwyn. I
[3:55:39] >> councelor Brown
[3:55:40] >> I
[3:55:40] >> Mayor Julie Hoy
[3:55:42] >> I Okay, that motion passes and now we
[3:55:46] are moving on.
[3:55:48] >> Let's track
[3:55:51] to special orders of business.
[3:55:57] No, we do.
[3:55:59] >> It's the Yeah, the poll of 3.3.
[3:56:02] Is it 3.3.1?
[3:56:05] >> Um, which becomes item 5.1, I believe.
[3:56:11] >> Check me on that, Dan. Is that right?
[3:56:13] >> That's correct. Mayor,
[3:56:14] >> thank you very much, city recorder. Um,
[3:56:18] I will
[3:56:21] move um that the Ward
[3:56:25] 2 and 8 budget committee positions be
[3:56:28] declared open and that the remaining
[3:56:30] recommendations in item 3.3.1 be
[3:56:33] approved.
[3:56:36] » Second motion and a second by Gwyn.
[3:56:40] And to speak to the motion, I will add,
[3:56:44] I pulled this item because I believe the
[3:56:46] full council should have an opportunity
[3:56:47] to decide whether we simply reappoint
[3:56:51] the incumbent to another the incumbents
[3:56:54] to another three-year term or open the
[3:56:57] ward 2 and 8 budget committee seats and
[3:57:01] consider the residents who have
[3:57:02] expressed an interest in serving.
[3:57:05] We already have applications from W 2
[3:57:08] and W 8 RE residents under the
[3:57:10] reappointment process before us tonight.
[3:57:13] Those applicants will not be considered
[3:57:15] if council simply concurs with the
[3:57:17] recommendation to reappoint the
[3:57:18] incumbents.
[3:57:20] I understand that traditionally when a
[3:57:22] budget committee member is willing to
[3:57:24] serve another term, we have often
[3:57:26] reappointed that person. But I don't
[3:57:28] believe that tradition by itself should
[3:57:30] determine an appointment. In fact, our
[3:57:34] council rules expressly give us a
[3:57:35] choice. They provide that when an
[3:57:38] incumbent seeks reappointment, the
[3:57:40] position may either be reappointed or
[3:57:42] declared open. And if the position is
[3:57:44] opened, the incumbent is not excluded
[3:57:47] from consideration. That's the process I
[3:57:50] would prefer.
[3:57:51] There are other W 2 and 8 residents who
[3:57:54] have taken the time to apply and
[3:57:56] expressed a willingness to serve their
[3:57:58] city. I don't think those applications
[3:58:01] should effectively be shut out simply
[3:58:04] because we've traditionally reappointed
[3:58:06] an incumbent who is willing to continue.
[3:58:10] The bud the budget committee has an
[3:58:12] important responsibility involving the
[3:58:14] people's money and the core services our
[3:58:16] community depends upon.
[3:58:18] Opening these positions gives us an
[3:58:21] opportunity to consider different
[3:58:22] experiences, professional backgrounds,
[3:58:25] and approaches to that work.
[3:58:27] I would like all of the applicants to be
[3:58:30] considered and would like to consider
[3:58:32] interviewing all applicants before ma uh
[3:58:37] before making
[3:58:39] an additional three-year appointment.
[3:58:42] For those reasons, I move that the ward
[3:58:45] 2 and 8 budget committee positions be
[3:58:47] declared open and that the remaining
[3:58:49] recommendations in item 3.3.1
[3:58:53] be approved.
[3:58:54] Any
[3:58:56] discussion,
[3:58:59] Councelor Nordic?
[3:59:01] >> Absolutely. I will be voting in
[3:59:03] opposition to this, mayor, for reasons
[3:59:05] we've already discussed,
[3:59:07] but I'll reiterate it now. For those of
[3:59:09] you who didn't watch the board and
[3:59:12] appointments committee meeting where we
[3:59:13] discussed this, we had a very long
[3:59:15] conversation about this.
[3:59:17] is not about tradition.
[3:59:21] This is about the fact that we have two
[3:59:24] budget committee members who have
[3:59:25] faithfully attended the meetings, who've
[3:59:28] shown up, done the homework, done
[3:59:31] everything we have asked of them, and
[3:59:32] have participated and been very vocal
[3:59:35] about their positions on budget
[3:59:37] committee
[3:59:40] and the practice
[3:59:42] of appointments to committees, whether
[3:59:45] it's budget committee or literally any
[3:59:49] other border committee. committee that
[3:59:51] this body oversees is that if you have a
[3:59:54] member in good standing who wants to
[3:59:56] renew and continue serving,
[3:59:59] you don't say no just because you
[4:00:03] disagree with them or because you think
[4:00:05] there might be somebody better out
[4:00:06] there. It's beyond rude. It's
[4:00:10] disrespectful.
[4:00:11] It sends the message that we don't care
[4:00:14] that you've shown up. We don't care that
[4:00:16] you've demonstrated the experience and
[4:00:18] the expertise and the stick with itness
[4:00:21] that it takes to come to hours of budget
[4:00:24] committee meetings or spra meetings or
[4:00:28] planning commission meetings. No,
[4:00:33] these two individuals have worked
[4:00:35] extremely hard to represent their wards
[4:00:37] and they've done so with integrity. And
[4:00:39] I personally don't agree with everything
[4:00:41] that they've done on budget committee.
[4:00:43] But that is not a basis by which to not
[4:00:45] allow them to continue. And the
[4:00:48] additional members did not apply until
[4:00:50] you insisted that others apply because
[4:00:53] you didn't like the list in front of
[4:00:55] you.
[4:00:57] And that's the honest truth.
[4:01:00] The reality is we have reappointed
[4:01:02] budget committee members before. We have
[4:01:05] reappointed countless members before.
[4:01:08] But these two gentlemen have done
[4:01:10] everything we've asked to them. And it
[4:01:12] sends a message, the wrong message that
[4:01:18] sure, we'll point you to this board, but
[4:01:21] if we don't like it or if we think there
[4:01:23] might be a bigger better deal out there,
[4:01:27] we are not going to renew your term of
[4:01:29] service. And we try so hard to promote a
[4:01:32] spirit of volunteerism in this
[4:01:34] community. We work so hard to get anyone
[4:01:37] to apply for these positions and
[4:01:39] sometimes it's like pulling teeth
[4:01:41] finding people who will not just apply
[4:01:44] but meet the qualifications
[4:01:46] and then the real work begins. Do they
[4:01:49] actually come to the meetings?
[4:01:52] Do they actually participate? And in
[4:01:54] both cases
[4:01:56] we can unequivocally say yes that both
[4:01:59] Mr. Guyire and Mr. Manville have shown
[4:02:02] up and participated with integrity and
[4:02:04] have leaned into the budget committee
[4:02:06] work which is the most important work
[4:02:08] that we do at a committee level because
[4:02:10] it informs the perspective on government
[4:02:13] itself and where our priorities truly
[4:02:16] lie because if it's not in the budget it
[4:02:18] doesn't exist. So I respectfully
[4:02:21] disagree with that process.
[4:02:23] I think we need to keep politics out of
[4:02:27] the budget committee process. If we have
[4:02:29] two individuals who've done the work and
[4:02:31] are ready to renew for one more term,
[4:02:35] then they should be allowed to do that
[4:02:37] regardless of what their votes have
[4:02:39] looked like in a budget committee
[4:02:41] meeting, regardless of their politics.
[4:02:44] That's irrelevant. Like, and I just
[4:02:47] think it sets a very wrong precedent. I
[4:02:50] think we should open nominations for
[4:02:52] positions when there is no incumbent in
[4:02:54] good standing. But other than that, I
[4:02:57] think it's a slap in the face to someone
[4:02:58] who has decided to step up and serve and
[4:03:01] spend all of their time voluntarily with
[4:03:03] us oftentimes late late into the
[4:03:05] midnight hours. So, I vehemently
[4:03:07] disagree with this motion in this last
[4:03:09] ditch effort to get these two men kicked
[4:03:11] off of the budget committee.
[4:03:16] » Anyone else? Councelor Barney.
[4:03:20] >> Thank you, Councelor Nordike. I watched
[4:03:23] the recording about 1:00 in the morning,
[4:03:26] I don't know, a few days ago. Um,
[4:03:30] and following uh at the discussion, you
[4:03:33] know, there was nothing that indicated,
[4:03:36] nothing seen, read, heard anything
[4:03:38] against either applicant that would
[4:03:41] constitute a reason not to support their
[4:03:44] reappointment.
[4:03:46] And I know them personally. We I know
[4:03:48] we've served on the budget committee
[4:03:50] with them, etc. They represent their
[4:03:52] wards and uh I will not be supporting
[4:03:56] this motion.
[4:04:01] » Anyone else? Councelor Matthews.
[4:04:05] >> I mean I will point out that the reason
[4:04:07] we have the relication in the first
[4:04:09] place is to see this process play out.
[4:04:11] So it felt like there was a little bit
[4:04:12] of mudslinging happening on why the
[4:04:14] motion came forward. And the reality is the reason the motion is even allowed
[4:04:20] to come forward is because our process
[4:04:21] exists for this to happen. And so the I guess I struggle a little bit with the
[4:04:25] politics playing out right here in this
[4:04:27] room um where we're mudslinging as to
[4:04:30] why this motion's coming forward. I I
[4:04:32] mentioned in the committee meeting
[4:04:34] myself that I actually don't like our particular policy on this where we
[4:04:38] evaluate the applicant without
[4:04:42] acknowledging that any other applicants
[4:04:43] even exist. I think that's somewhat of a
[4:04:47] archaic policy simply because
[4:04:49] tradition's been there, it seems like a
[4:04:50] bad bad reason to keep it going. And so
[4:04:53] I feel like in this scenario and in
[4:04:55] every scenario on every committee, not
[4:04:58] just budget committee, we should every
[4:05:00] single time that an applicant comes up
[4:05:02] for reappoint be evaluating all
[4:05:04] applicants in the pool at that time. The
[4:05:06] citizens are consistently asking us
[4:05:08] always to have the best candidate. Does
[4:05:11] likely the best candidate mean the
[4:05:13] person that's already educated in this
[4:05:14] area, that's already been doing the
[4:05:15] work? Almost exclusively, that will
[4:05:18] probably be true. However, it is also
[4:05:21] our job to do our due diligence every
[4:05:24] time. And so, the idea that we would say
[4:05:26] screw our due diligence. We're just
[4:05:28] going to take the traditional route, I
[4:05:30] think is a bad policy that we have. And
[4:05:33] that's why I'll be voting in favor of
[4:05:35] tonight. Simply because if I had my
[4:05:37] choice, we'd be changing the policy on
[4:05:38] every one of these tonight. So that
[4:05:40] every single time that a reappointment
[4:05:42] came up in every single committee, it
[4:05:44] wasn't this politically used thing that
[4:05:47] it's become tonight. But it's just
[4:05:49] standard practice that everybody gets
[4:05:50] evaluated. That's how [snorts] it is
[4:05:53] everywhere else. When you have to
[4:05:54] reapply for your job, you reapply
[4:05:56] against everyone else. And so I don't
[4:05:59] know. I feel like it's being used
[4:06:00] tonight and that's not the intent I
[4:06:03] don't think.
[4:06:06] >> Thank you, Councelor Mat Matthews.
[4:06:08] Certainly not the intent by me. Um,
[4:06:11] this is not a matter of whether or not
[4:06:13] Mr. Manville or Mr. Guyire is are
[4:06:16] qualified. It's about we have we had
[4:06:19] other applicants. People can apply
[4:06:21] throughout the year. I think that they
[4:06:23] should should be able to be considered.
[4:06:24] It was in the uh budget committee and uh
[4:06:27] commission's meeting that um we were
[4:06:30] made aware that you cannot consider
[4:06:33] those applications until the seat is
[4:06:36] declared open and that can't happen
[4:06:39] without a moment like this when you have
[4:06:42] incumbents sitting. So that's why I
[4:06:45] brought this forward so that we could
[4:06:47] consider um the other applicants. So
[4:06:50] councelor uh councelor Brown,
[4:06:52] >> you can call me councelor Matthews. I'll
[4:06:53] still answer. I just have a better tan.
[4:06:58] Um anyways, back to what's at stake
[4:07:01] here. And this is this is another tough
[4:07:04] one. Here we go. Um
[4:07:08] because my mind goes back to
[4:07:11] the last meeting we had about um folks
[4:07:15] wanting to serve. That takes me back to
[4:07:17] January. And if you can remember how
[4:07:19] that played out, uh, here we are again
[4:07:21] discussing
[4:07:23] who can be on a board or commission. And
[4:07:25] I would agree with councelor Matthews.
[4:07:27] There's a part of me that says yes, it
[4:07:30] would be need to revamp um, you know,
[4:07:35] the selection of voting process. I
[4:07:36] totally get that. I also totally
[4:07:39] understand where councelor Nordike is
[4:07:40] coming from because when I was on the
[4:07:43] budget committee um you know no one from
[4:07:47] W five was even on it when I originally
[4:07:49] applied and then I also know that I I I
[4:07:52] reapplied and I don't think I don't
[4:07:55] think I was up against anyone because I
[4:07:56] was just reappointed and so I totally
[4:07:59] see the point that that you're making.
[4:08:00] So, I'm kind of like in the middle here
[4:08:02] again because um yes, these folks have
[4:08:07] done their job uh really well and also
[4:08:10] as Madame Mayer had said, there are
[4:08:11] other people out there that may also
[4:08:15] want to apply, but you can't really give
[4:08:17] those folks a chance if someone is in
[4:08:18] that seat. So, it's a it's like a
[4:08:21] juxaposition. We're in a interesting
[4:08:23] place here. Um unless Mr. city attorney
[4:08:27] can speak light to this and and iron out
[4:08:29] any detail that I don't see. Am I
[4:08:31] missing anything, Mr. City Attorney?
[4:08:35] >> Councelor, no. As as the mayor stated
[4:08:37] that the rules allow for uh uh an
[4:08:40] incumbent to be either reappointed or
[4:08:42] the position to be cleared open. So,
[4:08:44] that's council's choice.
[4:08:46] >> Okay. Thank you for bringing um the
[4:08:48] motion, Madame Mayor, and I definitely
[4:08:50] appreciate um the sentiments behind it.
[4:08:53] Um Council Nordike and Councelor
[4:08:55] Matthews. So, thank you both. I yield
[4:08:56] the floor.
[4:08:59] >> Councelor Quinn,
[4:09:02] >> I struggle with this one for a couple of
[4:09:04] reasons. Um, you know, we do on one hand
[4:09:08] we have tradition.
[4:09:10] um budget committee in particular one
[4:09:13] and planning commission two. Those are
[4:09:15] the two um commissions or and committee
[4:09:20] that we
[4:09:22] for the most part um do interviews for.
[4:09:26] They both take a lot of technical
[4:09:29] knowledge. So it's a three-year
[4:09:32] appointment I'm pretty sure on on budget
[4:09:34] committee. And I feel like that it it
[4:09:38] takes at least a year to even get
[4:09:40] acclimated with the process and to
[4:09:43] understand
[4:09:45] um how our budgets work.
[4:09:49] So yeah, I'm I'm mixed on it. Um I also
[4:09:53] know personally one of the one of the
[4:09:56] applicants um
[4:09:59] and I think that he's done a great job
[4:10:02] on on budget committee and so Yeah. So,
[4:10:05] I don't know what I'm going to do,
[4:10:07] honestly.
[4:10:10] » Anyone else?
[4:10:12] >> Madame Mayor, I appreciate the motion.
[4:10:14] Um, I'll I'll vote against it, but I um
[4:10:17] because I feel like the the folks who
[4:10:19] applied for this as incumbents
[4:10:22] applied under that framework. And I
[4:10:26] would, to Matthew's point, be interested
[4:10:28] in reconsidering how we do this,
[4:10:31] especially for the planning commission
[4:10:33] and the budget committee. We if you're
[4:10:35] on one of those commissions or that
[4:10:37] committee, that's the only one you can
[4:10:38] be on. Um we really ask people to
[4:10:40] dedicate their time. Um I think uh I
[4:10:45] don't play a role in committee
[4:10:46] appointments. I don't have that that
[4:10:48] role in my uh that arrow on my quiver.
[4:10:51] Um but
[4:10:53] we know that these are deliberations
[4:10:55] that matter in terms of the work that we
[4:10:57] asked them to do. So, I I appreciate the
[4:11:00] tenor of the motion in terms of wanting
[4:11:02] to make sure we have the best people
[4:11:04] available and I think we should consider
[4:11:06] that change in the future.
[4:11:10] >> Thank you, Councelor Tigan. It truly is
[4:11:12] the intent. You know, we we want people
[4:11:15] to want to be involved and those are
[4:11:17] that's a three-year commitment and
[4:11:19] that's a good long time. And when the
[4:11:21] opportunity arises to be able to apply
[4:11:24] because it may become open, um it's good
[4:11:27] to be able to accept those applications.
[4:11:30] And when we don't declare the seat open,
[4:11:34] those people who have stepped forward
[4:11:36] with an interest in helping their city
[4:11:39] for three-year commitment aren't able to
[4:11:42] be considered. So
[4:11:45] that's the whole reason I brought this
[4:11:47] forward.
[4:11:48] nothing about the other things that were
[4:11:51] iterated earlier.
[4:11:54] So, thank you for understanding.
[4:11:58] Yeah, councelor Vney.
[4:12:00] >> Thank you. Um, did this topic come up
[4:12:03] when we were
[4:12:05] talk well when the committee was talking
[4:12:08] about revising all the rules? I was just
[4:12:10] curious
[4:12:13] >> as I remember it, not this particular
[4:12:14] topic, but um city attorney, you might
[4:12:17] have recollection.
[4:12:19] >> Councelor Matthews,
[4:12:20] >> I was going to say to my understanding
[4:12:22] or my remembering, no. Uh the when we
[4:12:25] learned about this or when I learned
[4:12:26] about this was during our committee
[4:12:27] meeting uh in the board's commitment or
[4:12:29] boards and committees appointments
[4:12:31] committee. And so that's when I learned
[4:12:32] about this policy that existed where you
[4:12:35] can't or shouldn't uh review
[4:12:38] applications that have been received
[4:12:40] prior to singularly reviewing the uh
[4:12:45] applicant that's in place and opening
[4:12:47] the position so you can review all three
[4:12:49] or however many there are. And so I
[4:12:52] think that that right there is the is
[4:12:54] the crux of like I say a policy problem
[4:12:56] that we have because in my mind every
[4:12:58] single time we should be evaluating all
[4:13:00] applications. So,
[4:13:04] >> anyone else?
[4:13:06] Okay, seeing nothing further further,
[4:13:08] will the recorder please call the role?
[4:13:11] >> Councelor Nordike,
[4:13:12] >> nay.
[4:13:14] >> Councelor Vney,
[4:13:16] >> nay.
[4:13:17] >> Councelor Tyen,
[4:13:18] >> nay.
[4:13:20] >> Councelor Nishioa,
[4:13:22] >> nay.
[4:13:24] >> Councelor Matthews,
[4:13:25] >> I.
[4:13:27] >> Councelor Gwen,
[4:13:29] >> nay.
[4:13:31] Councelor Brown.
[4:13:35] » Nay.
[4:13:37] >> Councelor Bang.
[4:13:40] >> It's absent. Excuse me. And Mayor Julie
[4:13:42] Hoy. I motion fails.
[4:13:46] >> We still need a motion on this item.
[4:13:49] >> Say again.
[4:13:49] >> We still need a motion on this item.
[4:13:51] That was a substitute motion. So you can
[4:13:53] make a motion to do the appointment.
[4:13:55] >> What was a substitute motion?
[4:13:58] I move to appoint uh all committee
[4:14:01] appointment members uh as proposed in
[4:14:04] the original agenda.
[4:14:06] >> Second.
[4:14:07] >> Motion and a second by Tyan.
[4:14:11] >> Counselor. Anything to the motion?
[4:14:13] >> Nothing added.
[4:14:18] » Okay. Will the recorder please call the
[4:14:20] role?
[4:14:21] >> Councelor Vney.
[4:14:23] >> I. Councelor Tyen. I
[4:14:27] >> councelor Nishioa
[4:14:29] >> I
[4:14:31] >> councelor Matthews
[4:14:32] >> I
[4:14:33] >> councelor Gwen
[4:14:34] >> I
[4:14:36] >> councelor Brown
[4:14:37] >> I
[4:14:38] >> councelor Vang is absent councelor
[4:14:39] Nordike
[4:14:40] >> I
[4:14:41] >> mayor Julie Hoy
[4:14:42] >> nay motion passes
[4:14:47] all right we are moving on to
[4:14:48] information reports
[4:14:50] um item 6.1 just stop me if there's
[4:14:53] something you need to add a summary of
[4:14:55] Public input from the first data center
[4:14:57] town hall.
[4:15:00] Item 6.2, purchases approved
[4:15:02] administratively from August 1st, 2026
[4:15:04] through August 31st, 2026.
[4:15:07] 6.3, conditional use permit for
[4:15:09] short-term rental within an existing
[4:15:11] single family dwelling located at 5971
[4:15:14] Legacy Street Southeast. 6.4, Municipal
[4:15:17] Energy Master Plan.
[4:15:20] Seeing nothing, we're moving on to item
[4:15:22] seven, ordinances. We have no first
[4:15:23] reading, no second reading. We do have
[4:15:25] folks signed up for uh public comment.
[4:15:28] I'll read two names at a time. Please
[4:15:30] come forward. Um and the green button or
[4:15:33] the buttons already been pushed. Uh
[4:15:35] you'll have three minutes to speak.
[4:15:37] Calling Melinda Yoast and Terry Finch.
[4:15:42] >> Okay. Calling Terry Finch and Bonnie
[4:15:43] Sims.
[4:15:59] Thank you, Mayor Hoy, and council
[4:16:03] members. My name is Terry Finch. I live
[4:16:05] in Ward One.
[4:16:07] Uh, [sighs and gasps] a few weeks ago
[4:16:09] during my walk along Mil Creek next to
[4:16:13] North Salem High School, a young boy
[4:16:16] under the age of 14 approached me on his
[4:16:20] bicycle and cautioned me against going
[4:16:22] toward the bridge next to the railroad
[4:16:26] tracks.
[4:16:28] And there's a map there for that. Um, he
[4:16:32] told me he saw a group of people putting
[4:16:34] needles in their arms and smoking
[4:16:37] something with with aluminum foil.
[4:16:43] This is what he found.
[4:16:45] I explained to the boy that I'm familiar
[4:16:48] with the area and we decided to continue
[4:16:50] walking. He stayed with me out of
[4:16:53] concern and I found the whole situation
[4:16:55] heartbreaking. Watching this child made
[4:16:58] me think of my granddaughter. I would
[4:17:00] never want her to be exposed to this
[4:17:03] kind of activity.
[4:17:05] Fortunately, Salem police officer Kevin
[4:17:08] Rodriguez happened to arrive around the
[4:17:11] same time and move the group away from
[4:17:14] the area, but the group simply moved to
[4:17:18] the sidewalk next to Safeway.
[4:17:21] The fact is that the no barrier
[4:17:24] micro shelter nearby does not permit
[4:17:28] illegal drug or alcohol use on the
[4:17:31] premises. So some of the shelter guests
[4:17:36] who are still in the throws of their
[4:17:38] addiction proceed to use illegal drugs
[4:17:41] and alcohol along the Safeway sidewalk
[4:17:46] next to North Salem High School.
[4:17:49] um in front of neighbors homes,
[4:17:52] apartments, and businesses.
[4:17:55] [snorts]
[4:17:59] But here's a fact. On any given school
[4:18:02] day, students at North Salem High School
[4:18:05] and Parish Middle School meet a variety
[4:18:08] of deeply troubling encounters. The
[4:18:11] children walk past illegal drug use,
[4:18:15] public intoxication,
[4:18:17] people experiencing drug induced
[4:18:19] psychosis,
[4:18:21] illegal drug sales, drug paraphernalia,
[4:18:24] disorderly conduct, heaps of trash,
[4:18:28] human waste, loitering,
[4:18:31] vulgar language, threats of violence,
[4:18:34] just to name a few. All of these health
[4:18:36] and safety concerns are present along
[4:18:39] the border of two schools less than
[4:18:42] 1,000 ft from a no barrier shelter. So
[4:18:46] it begs the question, do the school
[4:18:49] children northeast Salem matter?
[4:19:09] Thank you.
[4:19:12] >> Thank you for your testimony. Bonnie
[4:19:14] Sims and Lynn Takata.
[4:19:19] » Oh, Bonnie, could you hold for just one
[4:19:21] moment? Could you just maybe let 10:45?
[4:19:24] >> I move we extend the meeting until
[4:19:26] 10:45.
[4:19:27] >> Second.
[4:19:28] >> Motion in a second by Matthews. Anyone
[4:19:31] opposed?
[4:19:32] Okay. Thank you for your patience. Go
[4:19:34] right ahead.
[4:19:37] » Thank you and for appreciate you letting
[4:19:40] me speak tonight. My name is Bonnie
[4:19:41] Sims. I own a home in Ward One and I
[4:19:44] grew up in South Salem. As an adult, I
[4:19:47] have lived across the West and traveled
[4:19:49] extensively to as far away as the Middle
[4:19:52] East, Africa, South America, and I've
[4:19:54] always bragged about my hometown being
[4:19:56] safe, welcoming, and beautiful. That
[4:19:59] reputation is now at risk, and I'm
[4:20:01] asking you to help protect it. I moved
[4:20:03] back here three years ago to care for my
[4:20:05] aging mother. As a retired primary care
[4:20:07] provider, I spent decades treating
[4:20:10] patients, including many with mental
[4:20:12] health and substance use conditions. I
[4:20:14] also volunteered at a clinic focused on
[4:20:16] helping the homeless population. So, I
[4:20:19] recognize those struggles when I see
[4:20:20] them on our city streets. The city has
[4:20:23] real resources for our homeless
[4:20:24] neighbors. But in this neighborhood
[4:20:27] around the village of of Hope Shelter on
[4:20:30] Center Street, the problem has grown,
[4:20:33] not improved. That shelter opened during
[4:20:36] COVID as a temporary emergency housing,
[4:20:39] a goodfaith decision made under
[4:20:41] extraordinary circumstances. It has
[4:20:43] since transitioned from a typical 30-day
[4:20:45] shortstay shelter to long-term free
[4:20:48] housing with meals and the longest wait
[4:20:51] list in our area. and it now draws far
[4:20:54] more people to the surrounding streets
[4:20:55] and along the train tracks than it can
[4:20:57] house. Along with them has come unhoused
[4:21:00] camping litter and drug paraphernelia
[4:21:03] along the sidewalks. And this matters
[4:21:05] because of what surrounds that shelter.
[4:21:08] It sits next to the only grocery store
[4:21:11] serving that community, a store many
[4:21:13] elderly, longtime residents depend on
[4:21:16] because they can't easily travel
[4:21:17] farther. I stopped shopping there myself
[4:21:20] after a man approached me and asked me
[4:21:22] to buy him cigarettes and alcohol. I was
[4:21:25] afraid of what he might do with my
[4:21:26] answer, but I said no. And fortunately,
[4:21:29] nothing happened. But because of that, I
[4:21:31] don't feel safe in that area any longer.
[4:21:34] If shoplifting, aggressive panhandling,
[4:21:36] and loitering keep rising, that store
[4:21:39] may not be able to stay open, and our
[4:21:41] elderly neighbors will lose their only
[4:21:43] nearby option. The shelter is also
[4:21:46] closed to several schools and children
[4:21:48] see drug use and unpredictable behavior on along their
[4:21:53] route to school. Both younger students
[4:21:55] walking and high schoolers walking to
[4:21:57] Safeway during lunch. That should not be
[4:22:00] a normal part of growing up here in
[4:22:02] Salem. The shelter promised the city
[4:22:04] that they would enact a curfew, control
[4:22:07] litter, and be generally be a good
[4:22:09] neighbor. And they have refused to
[4:22:12] actually keep these promises.
[4:22:15] I want to be clear, people experiencing
[4:22:17] homelessness deserve our compassion, our
[4:22:19] resources, and our help. But this
[4:22:22] struggling
[4:22:24] um community should not be at the
[4:22:27] expense of the others in the
[4:22:29] neighborhood. The Village of Hope on
[4:22:31] Center Street surrounded by all these uh
[4:22:35] students and aging residents and the
[4:22:37] only grocery store in the area. Uh
[4:22:40] >> thank you for your testimony. I'm sorry
[4:22:42] your time's expired.
[4:22:45] Lynn Takata and Tom Roman.
[4:22:55] » Thank you. My name is Len Takata and I
[4:22:57] live in Ward One. The Center Street
[4:22:59] Safeway is a critical business for
[4:23:01] downtown in Northeast Salem. It's
[4:23:04] Salem's only full service grocery store
[4:23:06] within about a mile radius which serves
[4:23:10] 16,000 residents. Neighbors, businesses,
[4:23:15] and other organizations are increasingly
[4:23:17] concerned about safety, crime, drug use,
[4:23:20] drug paraphernalia
[4:23:22] near the store. I'm here to advocate for
[4:23:25] additional and continued help with
[4:23:27] public safety around that store. The
[4:23:31] Salem Police Department, Clean Salem,
[4:23:33] Fire Department, and Public Works have
[4:23:35] all made a recent difference, especially
[4:23:38] in the last week, by making the
[4:23:41] sidewalks around the store safer and
[4:23:43] more accessible.
[4:23:45] Three drug arrests have been made in the
[4:23:47] last two weeks, as well as a truckload
[4:23:50] of trash being removed. We're grateful
[4:23:53] for that. Why is this store a critical
[4:23:56] asset? This is an economically
[4:23:58] challenged area. And it is a social
[4:24:01] equity issue. According to the Safeway
[4:24:04] staff, most customers do walk to the
[4:24:07] store. Many are elderly, poor, disabled,
[4:24:10] and do not have vehicles or another
[4:24:13] option to buy groceries.
[4:24:16] In addition to the 16,000 residents
[4:24:18] within about a mile of the store,
[4:24:20] Safeway employs about 120 staff, most
[4:24:24] that live in the neighborhood and walk
[4:24:26] to work.
[4:24:28] So, unfortunately, we understand
[4:24:31] the store may be losing significant
[4:24:34] revenue recently, putting it at risk for
[4:24:36] potential closure. The impact of losing
[4:24:39] the store would be tragic. Challenges to
[4:24:42] the store include the area around the
[4:24:44] store attracting
[4:24:46] [snorts]
[4:24:47] uh people from outside the neighborhood
[4:24:48] looking for illegal drugs. Recently, a
[4:24:51] car stopped saying
[4:24:53] by Safeway saying, "Where can I buy some
[4:24:55] meth?" And uh that's happens a lot. The
[4:25:00] store has apparently encountered more
[4:25:02] shoplifting in recent years. Drug use is
[4:25:05] common and unfortunately includes people
[4:25:08] being drawn to the area as well as some
[4:25:13] current and former residents of the
[4:25:15] village of hope.
[4:25:18] Some neighbors do not feel safe walking
[4:25:20] to the store as sidewalks can be blocked
[4:25:22] by people, tents, loose dogs, as well as
[4:25:26] seeing nas axes and IV drug use and and
[4:25:29] indecent exposure recently, which we
[4:25:32] have a photograph of. Children at North
[4:25:35] Salem High School, the most economically
[4:25:37] challenged high school in Salem, deserve
[4:25:40] better and should not have to witness
[4:25:43] drug use. Neither should young children,
[4:25:46] families, and customers. In closing, we
[4:25:48] ask the city to please help protect this
[4:25:50] essential community.
[4:25:52] >> Lynn, thank you for your testimony. I'm
[4:25:54] sorry your time is expired.
[4:25:59] » Thank you. All right. Uh Tom Rolman and
[4:26:04] Ron Sturba.
[4:26:09] » Good evening, commissioners. Uh, I'm uh
[4:26:12] glad to be here and waiting for my
[4:26:15] slides to show up.
[4:26:21] Okay, there we go. Uh, as people have
[4:26:24] mentioned, this is the Village of Hope
[4:26:26] shelter across from center uh the
[4:26:28] Safeway on Center Street, right next to
[4:26:30] the railroad tracks. Uh, there's about
[4:26:32] 13 to 15,000 vehicles per day going past
[4:26:36] this area. So when it was put in in
[4:26:39] 2022, it was recognized as a terrible
[4:26:42] location for a shelter that has people
[4:26:44] with drug addiction, alcoholism, mental
[4:26:47] health issues, and it was only put in
[4:26:51] because of the pandemic lockdown where
[4:26:54] we were trying to prevent the spread of
[4:26:55] COVID throughout the city. We thought it
[4:26:58] was going to go away when the emergency
[4:27:00] ended and the lockdown ended, but it
[4:27:02] stayed. Uh, I was working out of town as
[4:27:05] an essential worker. So, I came back
[4:27:08] more recently and saw that the shelter
[4:27:10] was still there. And in December, I
[4:27:12] noticed that this temporary and portable
[4:27:14] facility, which it was approved as, uh,
[4:27:18] was pouring slabs and pouring concrete
[4:27:20] walkways. So, those are not temporary
[4:27:23] and portable structures. So, I started
[4:27:26] looking into how did this get licensed?
[4:27:28] Why are these changes being made? And
[4:27:31] it's a very complicated process. So I've
[4:27:33] spent about six months collecting data
[4:27:35] on this. I have a tremendous amount of
[4:27:37] data that explains the funding
[4:27:40] uh the applicable rules that should be
[4:27:43] applied and some of those that u I have
[4:27:47] been asking why we are not following the
[4:27:50] Salem revised code that was put in place
[4:27:52] in 2022. Uh I have not gotten a
[4:27:55] satisfactory answer for. So I want to
[4:27:57] bring that to the council's attention
[4:27:59] here. Um,
[4:28:02] and
[4:28:04] we have tried to communicate with Church
[4:28:06] of the Park to try to get some things
[4:28:07] changed to try to make it a better area
[4:28:10] both for the residents and for the
[4:28:12] guests inside the shelter.
[4:28:15] We uh uh have some commitments that were
[4:28:18] made in the original contracts that the
[4:28:20] city issued where they con were
[4:28:22] committed to being a good neighbor. They
[4:28:25] said they were going to have a safety
[4:28:26] and security team on staff present at
[4:28:29] all times. and that they're going to do
[4:28:31] perimeter walks around the facility and
[4:28:34] uh if somebody's sleeping there or not
[4:28:36] supposed to be there, they're supposed
[4:28:37] to move on. Uh those are not going on.
[4:28:40] That's process is not occurring. Uh we
[4:28:43] asked the city to send a letter which
[4:28:45] they did to the church's park and these
[4:28:48] were some of the responses we got back.
[4:28:51] Uh the reason for a curfew is that
[4:28:54] village of hope guests and all unhouse
[4:28:56] people engage in criminal activity. that
[4:28:58] was never stated. Uh the Church of the
[4:29:00] Park uh is supposed to be a drug-free
[4:29:02] area. U they say that uh you can't smoke
[4:29:07] and do substances on the property. They
[4:29:10] just want you to go out into the
[4:29:12] neighborhood to the schools and places
[4:29:13] like that.
[4:29:15] This is the area we're talking about.
[4:29:17] Ideas are areas where crime is occurring
[4:29:20] and panhandling. And I'm going to be out
[4:29:22] of time here.
[4:29:24] >> Thank you.
[4:29:25] >> Yes. Thank you for your testimony.
[4:29:31] I believe um excuse me Tom uh Dr. Brown
[4:29:35] has a question for you.
[4:29:38] >> Mr. Tom, it's just about that data.
[4:29:40] Would you mind sharing that data with
[4:29:42] the city quarter? The data that you
[4:29:44] have.
[4:29:45] >> Uh it's a large volume of data.
[4:29:49] >> Oh, it's it's not this, it's this.
[4:29:50] >> No, it's significant.
[4:29:53] >> Okay.
[4:29:53] >> Do you have it on a thumb drive or?
[4:29:55] >> Uh no.
[4:29:56] >> Okay. Okay. I'm just trying to find a
[4:29:57] way to get access so we could just see
[4:30:00] that.
[4:30:00] >> I'm trying to find somebody to discuss
[4:30:02] the issue with that's intelligent and
[4:30:05] able to uh be familiar with what rules
[4:30:08] they're supposed to be following. Is it
[4:30:10] city codes? Is it the state requirements
[4:30:14] and I believe there's a
[4:30:15] misinterpretation by the staff on
[4:30:18] whether they're still supposed to be
[4:30:19] following the rules that were put in
[4:30:21] place during CO.
[4:30:22] >> Okay. Well, hopefully we'll find someone
[4:30:24] that can reach out to you. we can sit
[4:30:25] down and have a discussion. That'd be
[4:30:27] great. Thank you.
[4:30:28] >> Mr. Roman, have you had a discussion
[4:30:30] with um Gretchian Bennett?
[4:30:32] >> Director Bennett. We speak frequently.
[4:30:34] >> Okay.
[4:30:34] >> And she directs me to other people to
[4:30:36] try to get uh details that she may not
[4:30:38] have, but she has been involved with the
[4:30:39] shelters for quite some time. She has a
[4:30:41] good history of what's going on.
[4:30:43] >> And I started by asking her two simple
[4:30:46] questions. Uh one, who's funding the
[4:30:48] shelter? And when is it uh scheduled to
[4:30:51] close? Mhm.
[4:30:52] >> I did not get an answer uh to either one
[4:30:55] of those, so that's why I had to start
[4:30:56] digging into it.
[4:30:57] >> Okay. Thank you very much for being here
[4:30:59] tonight, and I I intend to have a
[4:31:01] conversation with Gretchen about this.
[4:31:03] Thank you.
[4:31:05] >> All right, Ron Sturba.
[4:31:16] » Press that button one more time.
[4:31:19] >> There you go.
[4:31:21] Sorry.
[4:31:23] Uh, mayor and then consils. Thank you.
[4:31:29] Uh, I have a picture that I got from
[4:31:33] neighborhood
[4:31:35] the uh
[4:31:38] the sidewalk is really bad. and that's
[4:31:43] uh and next to Mary Craig Park on 20th
[4:31:48] Street and two residents have really big
[4:31:56] concern concerns for this and I can say
[4:32:01] I uh live four block four blocks away
[4:32:06] and I I can't w walk on a um uh scooter
[4:32:13] or anything.
[4:32:15] And then the other side on 20th 21st
[4:32:19] Street at Schmecha
[4:32:23] there is no sign that says stop.
[4:32:28] So se from 17th
[4:32:32] on Schmecka to 24orth
[4:32:38] there is no sign anywhere
[4:32:41] at the park and the people when I went
[4:32:46] to the group of a people uh we were
[4:32:49] talking about their uh
[4:32:53] um talking the speed limit in a s as a
[4:33:02] gentleman came back with a vehicle about
[4:33:06] 40 miles an hour and I'm going wow
[4:33:11] we got to put a sign up at 21st and she
[4:33:18] two more signs and uh I would I thank
[4:33:23] you for your time for
[4:33:27] uh
[4:33:29] getting this getting this getting
[4:33:35] sorry.
[4:33:35] >> Thank you, Mr. Serba. You're doing just
[4:33:37] fine. And uh perhaps Director Martin
[4:33:40] could maybe gather the address for that
[4:33:43] particular spot and
[4:33:44] >> Okay.
[4:33:45] >> Thank you very much.
[4:33:47] >> Thank you. Take good care.
[4:33:58] All right. Um, if nothing further, we
[4:34:01] are journ Oh, time out.
[4:34:03] >> Oh, one online. That's right. Thank you
[4:34:05] so much, Rob. We have Ben Fryback. Um,
[4:34:11] please go ahead whenever you're ready,
[4:34:13] Ben.
[4:34:14] >> Awesome. Uh, thank you, Mayor Hoy. I'm
[4:34:16] Ben Fryback, president of Ward One. Uh
[4:34:19] today I wanted to talk to you about
[4:34:21] SCATS, our uh regional NO. Every
[4:34:24] community uh 50,000 or more is required
[4:34:27] to have one for federal laws led by a
[4:34:29] group of electeds in the policy
[4:34:31] committee that steer federal
[4:34:33] transportation dollars for use inside of
[4:34:35] the boundary. Similar to the UGB myang
[4:34:38] is our representative. These dollars are
[4:34:41] used to fund several uh transportation
[4:34:43] safety projects in Salem like the
[4:34:45] traffic signal at Rackcliffe Drive on
[4:34:47] South Commercial uh the Miguel Chris
[4:34:49] Street project, the turn lane near
[4:34:52] Winkco on Hillpicker Street and safe
[4:34:55] pedestrian crossings all over the city.
[4:34:57] On April 26th of 2024, our MO voted to
[4:35:02] add Almsville to the policy committee
[4:35:04] along with adding an additional vote for
[4:35:06] Salem. Uh this is after several
[4:35:09] individuals from Salem, including Mayor
[4:35:11] Hoy, Chris Hoy, and Council Phillips
[4:35:13] pointed out that addingville would
[4:35:15] further widen the disparity between
[4:35:17] representation a resident of Armsville
[4:35:20] might receive as opposed to a resident
[4:35:21] of Salem. At the next meeting, Marian
[4:35:24] County had the vote tossed because they
[4:35:26] claimed that it didn't follow Robert's
[4:35:28] rules of order. Since then, councelor
[4:35:30] Maybang, our representative, has been
[4:35:32] trying to continue this work as our
[4:35:34] representative at the MO to ensure
[4:35:37] Salem's residents are properly
[4:35:38] represented. Non-aggenda item was
[4:35:40] brought up in August to have staff work
[4:35:43] towards adding Ensville without an extra
[4:35:45] vote from Salem and it was passed.
[4:35:47] Councelor Vang was absent on vacation
[4:35:49] and Mayor Julie Hoy was in her place and
[4:35:51] voted yes. At this next meeting, when
[4:35:54] Julie Hoy subi substituted for councelor
[4:35:58] Vang again, she voted to approve draft
[4:36:00] language that would add Ensville to this
[4:36:01] body with no extra representation at the
[4:36:03] policy committee. The amount of
[4:36:05] representation has on such an
[4:36:07] influential body is already
[4:36:08] disproportional. Added one Ensil
[4:36:11] resident would have the voice of 44
[4:36:13] Salem residents. One Turner resident
[4:36:15] already speaks for 88 Salem maners.
[4:36:18] Marian County has opposed the idea of
[4:36:20] mediation or proportional representation
[4:36:22] or simply adding an extra vote for
[4:36:24] Salem.
[4:36:25] has 65% of the population and 70%
[4:36:29] of the regional sign regionally
[4:36:31] significant roadways in the MO's
[4:36:33] boundary, but we only receive 47% of the
[4:36:36] dollars that are obligated to to cities
[4:36:39] and counties. Further weakening Salen's
[4:36:42] voice on this body makes it harder for
[4:36:44] the city to fight for transportation
[4:36:46] safety dollars. Our residents deserve
[4:36:48] approval of the draft language,
[4:36:51] basically what Julie Hoy voted on, um
[4:36:54] requires unanimous consent, so approving
[4:36:56] the draft, um from all policy committee
[4:36:59] members, including the city. I strongly
[4:37:00] oppose any signing of agreement that
[4:37:02] disenfranchises my ability and my city's
[4:37:05] ability to get federal transportation
[4:37:06] dollars and um this would delay
[4:37:09] necessary transportation safety projects
[4:37:11] in my neighborhood. this council should
[4:37:14] um and direct should not and direct
[4:37:17] staff to not.
[4:37:19] >> Thank you for your testimony.
[4:37:22] >> Um and just in in brief response to
[4:37:26] that, this the goal in being at that
[4:37:30] meeting was to advise that group that we
[4:37:33] would be we would have the opportunity
[4:37:35] to bring this topic to council, which
[4:37:37] has not happened um since it became
[4:37:39] issue in April of 2024. So my goal is to
[4:37:43] bring it to this body so we can uh form
[4:37:46] consensus and return to that body for
[4:37:48] our opinion. So thank you.
[4:37:52] >> All right. Seeing nothing further, we
[4:37:54] are journed.