Good evening, folks.

I'd like to call to order the Planning Commission meeting for this evening, September 8th, 2025.

Iris, would you please call the roll?

Mitchell.

Here.

Narjak is absent.

Marina?

Here.

Here.

Fly?

Here.

Twing?

James.

Or Bruce.

Here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number three on tonight's agenda is approval of the minutes that were transmitted to the commissioners of our last meeting from August 25th, 2025.

As I said, those minutes were distributed to the commissioners beforehand.

Does anyone have any comments, questions, or proposed edits to those?

Seeing none, do we have a motion?

Motion to approve the minutes.

We have a second.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed or abstentions?

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Okay, that moves us on to item number four on tonight's agenda.

Uh public comment.

The purpose of the public comment is to allow community members to raise issues regarding items that are not on tonight's agenda.

Iris, do we have anyone here to raise an issue?

No.

Thank you.

Okay.

Item number five, the commission for citizen involvement, the general updates.

I have one here, postcard, the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association General Meeting.

The meeting will be held Thursday, September 18th, 2025, some 7 p.m.

to 9 p.m.

And this will be at the Lake Grove Presbyterian Church in the go through the Sunset Drive entrance in the courtyard room.

On the agenda is neighborhood neighborhood input, election of officers and directors, directors, structure and activities, and current issues of importance to the Lake Grove neighborhood.

Again, that is Thursday, September 18th from 7 to 9 p.m.

Okay that takes us on to item number 6.1 on the tonight's agenda, and we have a public hearing tonight.

This is on uh the fair housing policy and education.

It is LU 25 000 one.

Um and it is a request from the City of Lincoln Swiggle for amendments to complete neighborhoods and housing chapter of the comprehensive plan.

I'm gonna ask the city attorney to uh state the rules and procedures for tonight's hearing.

Uh thank you, Chair Mitchell, members of the commission.

Uh because I'm a familiar face, if you'll allow me a moment to introduce myself.

My name is Chris Crane.

I work for the firm of Beerie Elsner and Hammond.

We are a small uh government or small firm that specializes exclusively in representing local governments.

And I have 30 years experience uh in the Oregon land use planning program, having worked for the legislature, private developers, and for the last 20 years with Barry and Ellisner advising cities, counties, and special districts.

Um happy to chat with folks offline afterwards if anybody wants more information, but that's the thumbnail.

Um for tonight, the uh hearing, this is the time set for the hearing on uh as the chair mentioned, the fair housing policy and education LU 25-0001.

This is a legislative decision, which generally speaking is a policy decision within the general discretion of the city.

Um the planning commission's job is to review the legislative proposal and make a recommendation to the city council.

The hearing uh tonight will begin with a staff presentation, followed by testimony from the public if there is any.

Uh if somebody signs online, I suppose we'll hear about it.

We apparently Iris says there's nobody online.

Um I'm gonna skip the portions of the script then about time limits because we don't have anybody testifying.

Um at this point then I would just ask the commission if anyone has any conflict of interest in this pro that this proposal presents.

Seeing none, then we will proceed to the staff report.

Mr.

Olson.

Thank you, Mr.

Crane.

And as um as has been discussed, we are here to conduct a public hearing on uh a comprehensive plan amendment related to affirmatively furthering fair housing.

I do have a brief staff presentation um before we move forward with the hearing.

So just uh to kind of step back a little bit and just talk about what is fair housing.

Um it was you know sort of enacted following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

back in 1968 during the civil rights era.

Generally speaking, it's intended to uh protect individuals and protect classes from housing discrimination.

In Oregon, those classes include race, color, national origin, religion, disability, sexual orientation, sex, including pregnancy, gender identity, age, and marital status.

So that's a federal law.

Of course, it also included provisions specifically regarding affirmatively furthering fair housing, so not just kind of preventing discrimination, but going further to take actions to ensure that discrimination does not occur.

So this includes prohibiting land use regulations, restrictive covenants or conditional or special use permits that would limit housing choice based on protected class status.

So essentially those land use decisions and practices are not allowed to result in a disparate impact on a group of persons or create increase, reinforce or perpetuate segregated housing patterns because of that protected class status.

Really, you know, I think the the sort of simplest way to explain it is that AFFH, that's not even a helpful acronym.

Affirmatively furthering FAIR housing really means that we have to consider sort of the location of housing, that that's just as important of a factor to us as you know how much housing we're talking about here, and really to take a look at uh existing patterns of segregation and um you know displacement to a degree, and also to identify investments that would disrupt those patterns to the extent that we can.

Um so really it's a little bit more of a proactive approach as opposed to just the compliance with the Fair Housing Act.

Um in Oregon, of course, we have um additional laws at the state level that are intended to sort of implement uh affirmatively furthering fair housing within the state, and those go further than the federal provisions, is I'm sure we're um very familiar with at the planning commission here.

Um we have statewide planning goal 10 um that really kind of uh you know has been around for quite a while, but is uh general requirement for the state to be producing the right quantities and types of housing that actually fit the needs of current Oregonians and residents of the state, and that that should be central to the decision making process for land use in local jurisdictions.

Um sort of important way that this has been implemented more recently, as this is what we're the most familiar with here at the planning commission, um, is to uh require cities to both complete a housing needs analysis and prepare a housing production strategy to address the needs identified in that housing needs analysis.

So I just want to point this out that that's really a component in the first place of how the city is already sort of working to affirmatively further fair housing.

We are complying with these state rules that are um kind of above and beyond what the minimum federal requirement would be.

Um so, of course, we adopted our housing needs analysis here in Lake Oswego back in 2023, and we adopted our housing production strategy last year in November, and that was just approved in April of this year.

Um so, really, you know, it just to kind of step back and remind you that you know the entire purpose of that housing production strategy was to really promote um uh the sort of equitable outcomes as related to housing and as well as fair um you know, fair outcomes, I guess, in addition to sort of production piece.

So it did include a contextualized housing needs analysis that really went into a lot of detail on that particular front.

So if you look at the implementation timeline within the housing production strategy, there's 13 different strategies.

We're talking right now about fair housing policy and education, which was listed as strategy 13.

Um kind of coming full circle.

Um we're uh complying with fair housing through our HPS, which also includes more fair housing.

Um, as you can see, uh we are identifying that, at least um in the HPS.

We identified to complete that work by um 2026 by the end of 2026.

So we're a little bit ahead of track there.

Um, but you know, I think uh we wanted to take this on early because it is an important lens which uh we should be using to guide and sort of an analyze future decision making related to the HPS.

So we thought this was really important to get out of the way up front.

So a little bit more about the strategy as it's described in the housing production strategy.

Um, really, you know, there's two components here.

There's both the policy and an education component.

What we're talking about today is primarily just that policy component to amend the Lake Oswego comprehensive plan to make affirmatively furthering fair housing official city policy, and to take other actions to promote fair housing education.

So we had a little bit longer or a good amount longer of a time frame for the education piece.

Um we've already sort of begun that education component with presentations of the planning commission and I believe January of this year, so it was a little while back from the Fair Housing Council of Oregon, as well as a relatively recent presentation from another representative from the Fair Housing Council of Oregon to City Council in early August.

So that those pieces are, you know, at least like in their very early stages, but the policy uh sort of implementation and amendment is what we're talking about today.

Just a few things that I would know about the fair housing strategy.

Um we are eventually going to be required by the next uh HA and HPS cycle to conduct our own analysis of impediments to fair housing.

So that was one of the uh implementation actions that was identified in the HPS that um we are now going to be required to do.

So just a note on that.

Um, I think we have some ideas on educational um efforts that we could be doing sort of on an ongoing basis here at the city, and so that will continue to take place regardless of uh this amendment.

Uh just to talk a little bit about the sort of anticipated benefits and burdens from this policy.

We you know, we don't necessarily expect this to have a massive impact immediately.

You know, this is an amendment to add a policy to our comprehensive plan.

It will sort of help the city make the case when a project does better advance um fair housing or affirmatively further fair housing.

We do have an opportunity through the inclusion of this policy in the comprehensive plan to uh expand on that in the planning commission findings, which is similar to what you actually saw for this project.

You know, we go through and um make findings as to whether the proposed amendment is compliant with our community development code and comprehensive plan.

So it really gives us an opportunity to expand on that and uh sort of analyze that and consider that, I guess, for all the applications that we process here at the planning commission.

So as you can see, that's probably not gonna have a huge uh impact in terms of housing production itself, but it does kind of again provide that lens that is really important that we continue to utilize sort of throughout the rest of the process.

Um so you know, it's uh a way to formalize and demonstrate the city's commitment to fair housing goals and um helps to fill facilitate a better understanding of those issues within the community.

No really um burdens on priority properly populations are anticipated with this.

Um but again, it's not exactly expected to have a huge massive impact immediately.

Um, and you know, any sort of impacts would probably be in the longer term, but again, we thought we did feel it was important to sort of forefront this work.

So that gets me to the actual amendment that we've proposed.

Um this is again within the complete neighborhoods and housing chapter of the comprehensive plan.

Um, and specifically the policies related to housing choice and affordability.

You can see there are already four policies that the comprehensive plan already contains.

Our proposal or the proposal we're considering today would add a fifth, uh, policy B5, and I'll just read that out loud to sort of formalize that for the record.

Um, and the policy is to employ strategies to affirmatively further fair housing by fostering inclusive communities, overcoming disparities in access to community amenities, enhancing housing choice for populations including, but not limited to people in classes protected under federal and state or state and federal fair housing regulations.

Um I had modified that to attempt to respond to direction from the planning commission at our last meeting to specify that the um policy doesn't just apply to federal classes, but fair housing sort of looks or protected classes uh rather that you know fair housing looks um more broadly at um impacts on a variety of different populations.

So I attempted to capture that, but um you know it's the first time you've seen it since that uh discussion.

So you know, I'm curious to hear if I if I landed the uh the plane accordingly here.

Um but um yeah, otherwise I think we've talked about quite a bit of this at previous work sessions, so I don't want to go into too incredibly much detail.

Um that really concludes the bulk of my presentation.

I will say um, you know, in terms of next steps, ideally um we'd be coming back in a couple of weeks at our meeting on September 22nd to adopt findings.

Um, it would then go to city council for a public hearing on November 4th, and um ultimately we would be adopted through the findings on a November 18th of this year.

Of course, with the education piece, there's a lot more to come through 2028, um, but we anticipate continuing work on that on an ongoing basis.

Um so that is the conclusion to the presentation, and please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you so much, Eric.

Appreciate you running us through it.

Um I know when we last talked about it, we had um comments uh that were pretty particular to the to the language.

Um so I wanted to ask the commissioners if anyone had any uh questions about the staff report.

We we don't deliberate yet, we're gonna deliver it in a second, but we can ask questions or sort of talks amongst ourselves about uh the way Eric landed the plane as he put it.

I think the language looks good.

I I mean I'm curious how are you gonna measure whether we're effectively um affirmatively furthering fair housing?

Is there are there measurements that we can apply?

You know, as as with any of these findings, it's not exactly well, not all findings, I guess, but with most of the findings that you'll see, these aren't really qualitative, or they're more qualitative than quantitative.

Yeah.

Um so you know, to the extent that we can specifically talk about um elements of fair housing, which is what I tried to sort of parse out in this definition or in this proposed policy, you know, to the extent that we're fostering inclusive communities, we can talk about that in a qualitative sense to the extent that we're overcoming disparities in access to amenities, we can talk about that.

Um, it really depends on what you know the specific action that we're talking about, of course.

Um, but you know, I think this is something that is not necessarily quantitative in nature.

You know, we can kind of check the box on how much we're doing and try to do as much as possible when it comes to fair housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing.

But um, you know, I think it would be a pretty robust analysis to really go into depth and do like uh some type of quantitative analysis, and that's not really what this is intended to do.

Um, you know, I think we will start getting into the details of what you know uh potential.

I'm not sure if this looks like quantification of fair housing or not, but um with that analysis of impediments to fair housing, I think we'll have a good sense of where we're at and what we could be doing as a city to um better, you know, sort of formalize these commitments and better, you know, affirmatively further fair housing in a in a broad sense.

So um we will have an avenue to have that conversation sort of more specifically through the creation of that sort of analysis of impediments document.

Um but yeah, that's it's more qualitative in nature is my general answer.

Sorry.

Oh, personally.

I don't think legally that there is any issue here.

I mean, most of us have we have risen to the point where we recognize what fair housing is legally and so forth.

Um it seems to me, and uh this is a citywide matter in terms of what you want your town to be like.

It's obvious in Lake Oswego, if you're gonna move here, you gotta have a lot of money to buy the property that you're gonna live on.

And so there's a real effort.

There's an honest effort I can see here that's going on to find property and reduce the cost of housing and so forth.

But eventually the way things go, even that will go up in cost.

So there you could you could argue all day long about the fairness of that, but that that seems to be just a matter of life as far as the country goes.

But it seems like to me, as as time goes on here, it's gonna be up to the city to say to itself, how can we progress with a constant rise in the cost of housing here?

Uh this issue over the Lake Grove School, for example, is a classic example of of something that is building towards uh conflict over those that principle.

What do you want?

You want your kids to be able to live in an area where the cost of living is lower and therefore have a school in that area, or are you gonna actually go to take that school out of there and vault the cost of living and the cost of sending your kids to another school uh sky high?

Those are the kind of decisions it seems to me that are that are facing us in the future.

And uh it just seems like to me, this is the city has to make a decision as to how we're going to progress here and maintain ourselves as a city if we get an exclusive population with no children here for one thing.

Absolutely.

You know, I think um you know, this is part of I think the city deciding to be proactive about that and to take strategies within the purview of what we can do as a city.

Of course, as a city, we don't necessarily have the capacity or ability to change the market and sort of you know dictate prices or anything of that nature.

You know, the private market will likely continue to be relatively um high in cost here for you know uh for the foreseeable future.

Um but that doesn't mean that the city should not be taking as much action as we can to say we acknowledge that.

Um, you know, I think we need to take some additional steps to make sure that this is a little bit more um open and that there are more options in the for the you know opportunities that we have to actually provide those opportunities um to other folks to to you know be able to afford to live here.

Um so you know, I think that's just one part of it though.

You know, when we talk about um, you know, inclusive communities or overcoming disparities in access, you know.

I think we're talking more about things that the city could do, you know, and weighing sort of the actions that the city is proposing to take against this policy and making sure that you know when the city does take action to rezone an area like Foothills, a larger neighborhood, where we will be making decisions about the level of density and making decisions about affordable housing, specific to access, specific to amenities, specific to um you know, a lot of things that sort of overlap with this, we will have an opportunity to um you know review whether or not the city is advancing that policy.

Um so this isn't the actual work that needs to be done, but this is one step where we can at least say, you know, we have an opportunity, regardless of what the proposed action is, is take a step back and say, okay, is this the right you know decision for the community when it comes to this particular um you know the idea of affirmatively furthering fair housing and you know fostering more equitable or inclusive communities?

So I think that's really the value here is to provide a little bit more of a realm for discussion around that, but also to sort of um you know memorialize that in these staff reports in ways that we can sort of continue to reference moving forward.

Um but this is something that we don't have right now in our in our code.

A lot of cities around um the region, you know, have these as we kind of reviewed earlier in the process.

You know, a lot of them, you know, even though it is required from a state and federal level, do take initiative as a city to take, you know, um to to propose policies and sort of take the initial or take additional steps to conduct analysis related to fair housing when they do process the decision.

Do you do you run into resistance against some of these things that are seeking to, you know, uh, I mean, there are like for uh a system of fair housing, I'll put that in quotes.

Yeah, I mean, I think you know, the housing production strategy is generally our strategy, and this is just one of many strategies that we're talking about with that.

And so, you know, we're very familiar with that, and you know, I think depending on the strategy, um, you know, we'll probably meet more resistance on some than others.

This one um we have not heard any resistance to lack of an existing plan the reason for that those need developments happening in like palisades.

I remember how like going on a tour there and um the residents, the actual um the um association coming together to complain about some of those developments.

Or there were developers were buying up those ranch style homes and building up these like 5,000 square foot mansions.

So are you asking?

Will this help?

Well, to avoid that or it sounded to me like the residents really didn't have a voice, nobody really listened to them.

Nothing was done.

They're still happening.

Well, there were state regulations ultimately that precluded that work from happening.

So unfortunately, I I'm not sure how you got that message, but I apologize if that's you know, kind of what you've heard.

Um, but it was you know, state regulations specifically that made it so that we could not do any of the changes that they were proposing at that time.

And that's why the proposed overlay was not moved forward with.

Um, and I guess I would also mention that Pal Seeds does have a neighborhood plan.

They have adopted one as a as a neighborhoodwide sort of planning document.

Um I think we could talk at length about whether or not that is affirmatively furthering fair housing in that particular case.

Um so I won't go into that too much.

But um, yeah, just want to want to clear that up in terms of the palisades neighborhood overlay.

It was it was not that they weren't being heard, it was that we could not do anything about their concerns, unfortunately, because we're limited in what we can approve on on the state level.

Okay.

Yeah, that's an unfortunate that that's being said.

Right.

Yeah.

Brian, who's been patiently waiting to get in today's question.

Sorry.

Thank you, Chair.

Oh no, uh, just want to make a comment real quick um on uh quantitative measurements for affirmatively fair furthering fair housing.

Um, a strategy for affirmatively fair furthering fair housing is education and what education can look like is often is landlord recruitment campaigns.

And in a community like ours that has a low vacancy rate and a low vacancy for uh rental apartments, uh there are landlords who would rent to veterans, foster youth, uh domestic violence survivors, things like that, uh, but for lack of education of oh, we have a county housing authority and we have uh this you know staff in municipal governments that will work with landlords in filling their units uh with folks that are coming, not just with rental assistance, but all sorts of the wraparound services that go with that.

So we can measure uh recruitment campaigns and their impact on vacancy and things like that.

So thanks.

Absolutely.

Yeah, I think when it comes to the educational pieces here, there are a lot of opportunities to be quantifying this along the way.

Um, absolutely adopting a policy such as this create legal risks for the city.

For example, someone comes along and says this you know, this decision did not affirmatively further fair housing, and I object because I've been negatively impacted by it.

I I don't see how this policy would relate to that.

You know, I think they could all always make a fair housing complaint.

Um, and that's a system where you know the things are set up to allow folks to be able to make those complaints.

Um, you know, in terms of passing this policy, this policy would further our compliance with it.

So I I don't think that you know, be because we're already um bound to federal and state regulations when it comes to this particular matter.

Um we're not necessarily doing anything that we're not already required to do by adopting this policy, but we're more demonstrating our commitment to fair housing and saying yes, we will do this, you know, when it comes to the policy, a qualitative analysis when we do make land use decisions.

Um so I would see this as limiting our risk, if anything.

I of course I'm not a lawyer, so Mr.

Crane, if you have any uh opinions on that.

Uh thank you.

Um yes, he's exactly right.

The city is presently in compliance with all federal laws regarding housing, including fair housing.

So there's no risk exposure under federal law.

Um the reason you're doing this is there's a state statute that was enacted recently that requires every city above a certain size to have a housing production strategy, and your housing production strategy has to address how the city's going to affirmatively further fair housing.

So this allows you to um be remain firmly in compliance with state law.

Um but there's no federal exposure.

Does that answer your question?

In a way, I just wonder if somebody comes along and says I had a project that was gonna you know affirmatively further fair housing and it got denied, and your policy says you have to do this.

So I'm just wondering what benefits we get from adopting the policy then.

So it it the policy it's a policy, right?

So it informs the regulatory environment you said.

So a housing project is a development project that will be subject to your development code.

So the real question is how does your development code affirmatively further fair housing by including things like cottage clusters, for example, and other sorts of smaller, more affordable housing.

Um whether the developer of that chooses to make those available to people of limited means is up to the developer, but the city will have met its burden.

Thank you.

Um just want to quickly follow up on the sort of quantification question.

Um I just for some reason this did not occur to me when you asked this question initially, but our entire housing needs analysis and housing production strategy exercise is really uh, you know, where we have these midpoint reports and sort of annual um reporting that's required for that.

So that's really where the rubber hits the road in terms of um you know what we're doing as a city to affirmatively further fair housing.

You know, I think when you it's not really detached from any of the policies that we've adopted in the HPS, all of those are intended to improve this outcome.

Um so that strategy, you know, we we are required to go in and you know look at our progress, look at what type of um housing production we've uh you know been spurring with all these actions, sort of in total, um, sort of uh just taking that moment to uh you know conduct that internal um and again, this isn't just internal because we're gonna we're gonna be giving it to DLCD and they'll have to sign off on this, of course.

But um there are a lot of monitoring and sort of um progress check-ins as a as related to that process that I think really formalize that in a more meaningful way than we would with um you know trying to do our own sort of um policy-related quantitative analysis, I guess, um, like we would do for something like um, you know, I guess our our goal 10 findings when we have an annexation, we say we're adding X next acres to the city, and there is some type of quantitative analysis showing how we're furthering those goals.

I guess that's what I'm talking about.

That doesn't necessarily fit in with what we're talking about here, although maybe maybe in some cases.

But you know, I think when it comes to ways to measure it, there are there is a robust system at the state level to do that right now.

Sorry.

Commissioners, any other thoughts or questions about the staff report?

We're still going to deliberate, so we can go back and forth about the language here, but Eric.

Okay.

I think according to my script next, we would ask if anyone has signed up to testify, but I think we already covered that, correct?

There's nobody here to testify either in person or virtually.

Okay.

All right.

So with that, the public hearing is now closed, and the planning commission uh will begin its deliberations.

Um Mr.

Crane, let me know if I get anything wrong.

But uh, you know, we we essentially have three three options.

I I think we can you know uh adopt it as it's written, we can uh vote to adopt it, but with revisions that we've discussed, or we can uh vote not not to adopt that adopted and present it.

So uh those are really the three options we should be looking at when we uh take this to a motion.

So uh deliberations um again like to hear from the commissioners if anyone has any comments about this provoke proposed revisions or a statement that we don't want to do it.

Well, with regard to this, I you know my view is that eventually the city's gonna have to develop uh a vision that is acceptable to the entire community, and this is a good start for right here.

That's my view.

Thanks, Jim.

I second the comments from Commissioner Twing.

I agree.

Unless anyone else anyone else has comments or concerns that they want to do, then uh I think we're at a point where we ask for a motion.

And again, the mo the what we'd be looking for is either a motion uh to tentatively approve the proposal um as written, as it's written, and direct the staff to prepare.

We always get this wrong findings, conclusions, and in order to bring back to us at the next meeting for approval.

Or we can have a motion to tentatively approve the proposal with revisions, but I don't think that's an option because nobody had suggested revisions.

Um, or we can have a motion to uh not approve uh the the uh the proposal as written.

So with that, anybody want to make a motion.

I move that we approve the proposal for the fair housing policy and education as written.

Okay.

I second that.

Okay, we have a second, and I think we have to do a formal roll.

Iris, were you yeah.

Mitchell?

Yes.

Yes.

Any?

Yes.

Yes.

Twing.

Yes.

Ruth.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Motion passes.

Okay.

And I think that that means that in the next meeting we'll have a written findings, conclusions, and an order.

Um, and we will um you know approve that, and then it'll go to the as a recommendation to the city council.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's correct.

Thanks.

Moving on to item number seven, other on the tonight's agenda, other business.

No other business.

Not tonight.

Item number eight, schedule review.

I suppose the other business will be to talk about the schedule because there have been a number of changes.

Um, so I just want to go through those all with you.

Um, I'd say that the biggest change is that we are going to hold off on the hearing for the home occupation standards.

We realize that the last time we talked with y'all, um, we actually got direction to make some pretty significant changes in terms of allowing um a farm stand in all residential zones in particular.

So we just want to make sure that that was um run by council, I guess, before we uh move forward with this.

So that's something we just kind of took a step back and realize all right, that's a pretty big change.

We we want to make sure they're comfortable with that before we move forward.

So that's kind of where that's coming from.

Um so with that being said, I'll just go over the schedule for the next month or two.

On September 22nd, we will have a work session on the rezoning for housing project, which is uh major part, probably the most um quantifiable uh portion of our housing production strategy.

So we'll start talking a little bit about where things are at with that project.

Um, and we'll discuss uh adopting findings for the um hearing that we conducted tonight.

October 13th is when we were going to conduct the hearing on the uh home occupation standards, but because that's been postponed, we are going to just go ahead and cancel that meeting.

So that does mean that we do have a little bit more on the agenda for some other meetings, but um that's kind of the the way that shook out.

Um so on October 27th, um, we will be talking um, well, I think this is another important addition to the the uh schedule here.

There's actually a quasi-judicial um map amendment um uh zoning map and comprehensive plan map amendment application that we received for a rezone from uh basically R3 slash OC or um the office commercial zone to um an R0 zone.

So that is proposed for 4,000 cruiseway place.

Um we um are processing that different, that's a quasi-judicial application, so that's actually something we receive from a private applicant.

That's something we haven't seen at the planning commission, at least in my tenure.

So it'll be a little bit of a first time for many of us, I think.

Um, but that would be you know a proposal that we will weigh against criteria in the development code as well as criteria in the comprehensive plan.

So that'll be uh interesting.

Um, well, at least it will be a little bit more specific.

It we'll we'll talk a little bit more about the development code than usual, but still um, you know, sort of look at applicable policies, et cetera.

But we are kind of going more into DRC territory in a general sense with that hearing.

So um just something to be mindful of.

Um the way that these applications work, um, we are putting together a staff report right now as soon as we can, but um, we have much limited, uh more limited sort of time windows to be able to put that together for you.

So um we will distribute that as soon as we can.

Um, and that will be noticed at least formally on the 22nd of September.

Um so anyway, um that will be sort of an active rezoning application for uh specific site, just a couple um properties on that site.

So that's what we call a quasi quasi-judicial um amendment and hearing.

So with that um being said, we will also on that day um have a work session on uh mandatory adjustments uh through Senate Bill 1537, which we've talked about at the planning commission previously, um, but staff um or actually uh planning manager Johanna Hasty will come in and talk to you about the recent approval of the city's application for an exemption to Senate Bill 1537's mandatory adjustments, and there is a lot of specificity and sort of nuance to that.

So she'll go over that with you all on the 27th.

Um and then I'll just talk about November 10th really briefly.

We do have our second work session on the tree regulation amendments.

Um thank you, Commissioner Twing, for volunteering to be a part of the focus group that Jessica's putting together for that work.

Um, but yeah, we will have a work session at the planning commission on November 10th, in addition to consideration of findings for the 4,000 cruiseway place rezoning project.

Um so that takes us out a couple months at least.

Okay, thank you so much, Eric.

And with that, we're adjourned.