Good evening, folks.

I'd like to call to order the Planning Commission meeting of today, November 24th, 2025.

Christina, would you please call the call take the roll?

Chair Mitchell.

Here.

Vice Chair Don Shark is not here yet.

Commissioner Modeno.

Here.

Commissioner Guinea.

Here.

Commissioner Schlei.

Here.

Commissioner Tween.

Here.

And Commissioner Bruce is also absent.

Thank you.

Item number three on tonight's agenda is the public comment section section.

The purpose of the public comment is allowed to community members to present information or raise an issue for items not on tonight's agenda.

Christina, do we have anyone?

We do.

Diane Cassidy.

Good evening.

I have I have some handouts for the commission.

Who do I give it to the question?

I think check is the green uh thing on the microphone working right in front of you.

Green square.

There's a red button.

Do I push it?

Yeah, push it and then turn to green.

Actually, I think you can hear me.

Okay.

My name is Diane Cassidy.

I live on Ren Street in Lake Oswego in the Blue Heron neighborhood.

I've been a resident of Lake Iceweg for about 50 years, and I am a I have for the last 25 years been the an owner of commercial property, both office and apartment complexes, mostly in the Clackamas County, but some in Washington County also.

Currently I um and the owner of I've sold most and own an office complex in the Tiger Triangle.

I'm here today because uh about your this body's um position as the commission for citizen involvement.

The I didn't hear about the cruise way proposed zone change until November 5th when I just happened to pick up a newspaper telling about the public hearing that had already occurred.

I would have liked to have been informed of that.

I would have liked to have known and testified about that.

Um but unfortunately Blue Heron isn't on the list of neighboring website.

I mean, when neighboring communities, I am on the board of directors for the neighborhood association, but again, we were not um close enough to be included.

A zone change with the magnitude of impact that this could have on Lake Oswego should not be considered as a mere code, excuse me, I guess a mere comprehensive map amendment.

It has been downsized and minimized to such a degree that citizen involvement has been basically penciled out.

It's been the minimal, it's been minimized to the point where um let's see, uh, where the just the magnitude of the potential that this could bring is um doesn't reflect what the comprehensive plan that we all work so hard for for over several years.

Uh back in 2013, our efforts are just meaningless, and the plan itself can be just torn up and thrown away if this sort of thing is allowed to happen.

This kind of um application should be treated as a whole that includes the entire city because the implications are so broad.

It changed it will change the entire nature of the city with an R0 zone.

This one property can accommodate up to given the the applicants um estimates from 600 to, and if you change the size of the units, maybe 800 units of housing.

Um but we don't know what their plans are because this has been separated from a development plan altogether.

This is just the map amendment.

And so the details and the real full um impacts of how it's going to affect Lake Grove, how it's going to affect the citizens, how it's going to affect the entire city.

Um just haven't been examined.

They have the city planning staff has basically given this a rubber stamp as far as compliance.

And um even the applicant themselves have not told the truth about why they want to do it.

They say that the plan, the property is not performing well.

When I went over there last week and talked to some of the occupants, they said that the places have been the landlord has been not renewing leases for quite some time.

The place is virtually empty.

You cannot empty out a place like that without it taking a couple of years because that's the way leases are staggered.

There has to be some plan in place for them to not be collecting any money.

Um, and they must have some kind of confidence that their plan for redevelopment or at least for a zone change which will raise the value of the land will be accepted.

That's very troubling to me.

It means that they know something that the citizens don't, that the citizens haven't been involved in the planning from the start, as is required by the state.

Um Ms.

Kessy, if I could cut you off for one second apologies.

I I'm supposed to limit it to three minutes, but I just I wanted to say one thing.

We have a continuation of that particular hearing on the land use application.

Oh, I did not.

And I believe the date is December 8th.

Now, what I don't know is if we can sit still within the time frame to sign up to testify at that hearing.

That that is closer testimony.

The record for that hearing was closed.

I think it uh the the last uh final written argument for the applicant was due last Monday, and so the record is technically closed.

Yeah, and if the record is closed, I mean anyone is allowed to provide um public comments at any public uh council meeting or planning commission meeting, but uh we have to advise you all not to unfortunately take into consideration any public comments that you receive after the record's been closed.

Okay.

You have to advise them that what they can't they can't take into account anything I'm saying here because it's been taken after the the record.

All right, well then page two.

You you can you can um testify at the council meeting when that when because this will be.

This is the December 8th meeting you're talking about.

Or no, the planning commission will make a recommendation to the city council, and unfortunately that record is closed, but you are still able when that when it when the hearing goes to the city council, which I believe is scheduled for February 3rd, you will be able to testify at that time.

Well, then let me skip to page two where I am making a formal complaint to the Commission for Citizen Involvement about the woefully inadequate citizen involvement that has accompanied the zone change request and its reduction to a mere map amendment that further degrades the level of public involvement.

This zone quest should be denied outright or at least postponed until the formal evaluation of all zoning in the city has been done.

So this is my time to complain about citizen involvement that should have occurred at a much grander scale, and the fact that this was minimized to a mere map amendment when it didn't have to be.

And when it the think of three to four windward apartment complexes being placed on that one property and how that might impact the area.

Thank you, Ms.

Cassidy.

And you're responsible for making sure citizens are involved from the start.

Thank you so much for coming down tonight.

Thank you.

Okay, uh, Christine.

I assume no nobody else to uh present items not on tonight's agenda.

Okay, okay.

That will take us to item number four, uh general updates from the commission for citizen involvement.

I have one uh postcard here for the Evergreen uh neighbor neighborhood uh folks, the Evergreen Neighborhood Association's emergency preparedness committee is asking the Evergreen neighbors to take a short survey to help determine their readiness and resilience.

Um if you go to the Evergreen Neighborhood Association website, there is a link uh to the survey.

Um, and you may have received flyers.

So please do please do that.

And that will take us to item uh number 5.1 on tonight's agenda.

This is a public hearing.

We have a public hearing for the home occupation standards.

The number is LU 25-0002.

And I'm going to turn it over to the city attorney to state the meeting procedure to the public.

Thank you, Chair.

Now is the time set for the public hearing on home occupation standards, LU 25-0002, a development code text amendment.

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

The Planning Commission will review the legislative proposal and make a recommendation to the City Council.

Although a legislative decision may be discretionary, it must also comply with any applicable state law as well as any applicable statewide planning goal or administrative rule adopted pursuant to RS Chapter 197 or 197A.

A legislative amendment to the community development code must also comply with any applicable provision of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan.

The public hearing process will begin with a presentation by staff.

Testimony will then be received from the public.

Individuals will be allowed up to five minutes.

Recognized neighborhood associations, homeowner associations, government agencies, or other incorporated public interest organizations will be allowed up to 10 minutes.

The time limits, excuse me, will not include time taken by questions from the commission or responses to such questions.

Testimony by attorneys, representatives, goodness, and witnesses on behalf of or which are part of the presentation by a person shall be counted within that person's time limit.

Any person in attendance may cede his or her time for testimony to another person, but in no case shall any person's testimony be increased to greater than 10 minutes.

At this point, um does any commissioner uh wish to declare a potential or actual conflict of interest.

No.

Okay, seeing none, and because this is a legislative uh hearing, we do not have to declare any ex parte uh contacts or bias.

So the chair will now take the hearing proceedings from here.

Thank you.

And I will turn it over to uh staff.

I believe we have the staff coordinator, Mr.

McNamy will take us through the staff report.

Thank you.

And good evening.

Uh, this is a public hearing regarding a proposed update to the community development code regarding home-based businesses.

Uh, tonight I'll talk the commission through the proposed changes and staff's recommendation.

Uh the city also received written testimony uh in regard to a proposed limit on the number of customers or clients permitted to visit urban agriculture businesses.

So I'll discuss that on the relevant slide.

Uh so to start, let's talk about the process so far.

Uh the commission has held three work sessions and city council has held two study sessions.

At the commission's first work session in January, we discussed possible concepts for replacing an existing zoning requirement for home-based businesses, otherwise called home occupations, that is neither clear or objective with measurable clear standards.

After that discussion, staff sent a survey to every home occupation owner licensed with the city to better understand their needs and level of understanding of existing requirements and proposed new concepts.

The results of the survey were discussed with the commission in April.

As part of the survey and other feedback received, staff identified a potential need to create a new uh urban or a new agriculture use, which was discussed with the commission in June, along with refinements to the proposed home occupation code.

Out of this process, uh staff is presenting draft code amendments to the commission that make the changes listed on the screen regarding home occupations.

I'll discuss each of these in more detail in the following slides.

Since we've already discussed a lot of these concepts before, we'll keep the discussion higher level, uh, but we can look at the proposed amendments themselves if the commission has technical questions.

So the first change is to remove an existing zoning requirement for home occupations.

This is subcriterion one in the existing list of use specific regulations for home-based businesses.

It says that a home occupation can't alter the residential character of the neighborhood or infringe on the right of nearby residents to the peaceful enjoyment of the neighborhood.

As we've discussed previously, this requirement is vague and subjective, which makes it difficult to understand and enforce the limits of a home occupation.

The proposal is to replace this requirement with standards that are more measurable and objective so that everyone understands what is expected of a home-based business.

The proposed amendments would create a new classification system for home occupations.

The purpose would be to apply additional regulations to types of home occupations that typically have a greater impact on the surrounding neighborhood.

There would be three types, A, B, and C.

Type A businesses would not have customers coming to the site of the business, while type B businesses may have customers or clients at the site.

Type C businesses would be short-term rentals, which already have their own set of additional regulations in the home occupation code.

For all home-based businesses, the proposed amendments include a limit on hazardous substances in amounts greater than what would typically be found in a home.

Regulations on hazardous substances are not substantially present in city ordinances, sort of ordinances.

I think I mispronounced that twice.

It's okay, I'll move on.

Since they are primarily regulated at the state or federal levels.

This has made it challenging in some circumstances for code enforcement staff to enforce on home businesses that have excessive amounts of hazardous substances.

Adding this limit would give them clear code to point to in these situations.

Over the course of this process, we've discussed a few ways of potentially regulating noise or other nuisances, which can be a problem with certain home occupations.

Oh, I am one side ahead, I'm sorry.

So ultimately, based on feedback from the commission and code enforcement staff, the proposal is to include new code that would reference existing city ordinances that cover nuisance restrictions.

The existing rules should be sufficient to cover potential nuisances created by home-based businesses, and they already apply today.

Adding the reference will simply make it clear where the nuisance regulations are to anyone looking for rules specific to home occupations, and serve as a reminder that the rules apply to those businesses.

The proposed code would also include a limitation on commercial vehicles parked off the subject property.

A home-based business would only be allowed to have one vehicle with commercial markings parked off the property within 300 feet of the business at one time.

As you might remember from previous discussions, the code is written specifically so that it applies only to vehicles that have clear markings that associate it with the home-based business.

That's based on feedback from code enforcement that it would be challenging to enforce on unmarked vehicles.

The proposed code would not include any restrictions on the number of marked commercial vehicles allowed on the site of the business, which is based on feedback from city council.

For types of businesses that involve visits from clients or customers, or type B businesses.

The proposed code includes a limitation on the number of clients or customers allowed at one time.

Based on feedback from the survey and the commission, the limit has been set at eight people at a time.

Previously, we've talked about why it's better for code enforcement to regulate the clients and their associated impacts this way.

It's much easier for code enforcement to count the number of people present at one time than to keep track of people coming and going over the course of a day, for example.

Also for type B businesses, the proposed amendments include two options for how to handle outdoor activity associated with a home occupation.

The planning commission will be asked to recommend one of these options to city council.

Option one would allow for small instructional classes with sizes of six people or less.

The second option would be to ban outdoor activity entirely, which is consistent with existing internal policy.

Under the first option, no more than two sessions per day would be allowed and no more than six per week.

Hours of operation would be limited to between 9 a.m.

and 7 p.m., and outdoor classes would not be allowed on Sundays or public holidays.

The use of outdoor space for commercial events, rentals, parties, weddings, performances, markets, or other commercial gatherings would not be allowed.

Council feedback has resulted in some changes to these requirements since the last time the commission saw them.

The number of clients allowed has been changed from eight to six based on council feedback that eight people outside at one time would have too much of an impact when done regularly as part of a business.

At the work session in June, the commission instructed staff to remove a proposed restriction on Sunday activity, which was removed before the council study session in October, but the council asked staff to add a restriction on Sundays.

Regardless of which option is selected, the code allows home occupation owners to perform tasks outside that don't involve clients or customers.

Under state law, daycare and adult care centers are exempt from specific use regulations in residential zones.

The proposed amendments would add language to make it clear where to find relevant state law or administrative rules and serve as a reminder that those uses are exempt from the specific use rules for home occupations.

Separate from the changes to the specific use regulations for home occupations.

The proposed amendments would create a new land use called urban agriculture, which would be permitted in the R10 and R15 residential zones.

This is proposed as a result of feedback from the survey that identified this as a unique use with needs and impacts that were different from a typical home occupation.

The use would allow for crop production and sales as well as tastings or serving of food.

It would only be allowed on properties over an acre in size.

And the agriculture use itself would be limited to 20,000 square feet in size or 35% of the area of the lot, whichever was smaller.

There would be a limit on the number of clients or customers permitted at one time, currently proposed to be 10.

Hours of operation for tastings and servings could be any time between 7 a.m.

and 8 p.m.

And they could happen on a maximum of 45 days per calendar year or slightly less than once per week.

As well.

Based on council feedback, amendments that would have allowed farm stands to operate in residential zones were removed.

The council felt that the impact of farm stands would have been too great on residential neighborhoods, especially since seasonal stands like Christmas tree sales are allowed as part of the farm stand use.

As I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, we have received written testimony about the number of clients permitted at one time for the proposed urban agriculture use.

The owner of a business that would be newly classified as urban agriculture wrote to tell us that because of the way their business operates, uh their opinion is that they need the limit to be raised to up to 30 people at one time.

To provide context to this discussion, staff originally proposed a limit of 30 clients or customers at a time, uh directly based on feedback from the survey.

At the city council study session in October, they raised concerns that 30 customers at a time could have too large of an impact on residential areas.

So after staff received that feedback, we reached out to this business owner to understand if the limit could be lowered without impacting their existing business operations.

Um after that conversation, staff was of the understanding that a limit of 10 customers would accommodate the needs of their business while being responsive to the council's concerns.

However, the testimony provided by the business owner today suggests that this limit may pose an issue for this specific business.

That being said, uh staff's recommendation is to send a recommendation of approval to the city council for these proposed amendments to the Lake Oswego Community Development Code.

Assuming the commission comes to recommendation tonight, this item would come back at uh your next meeting on December 8th for findings, uh, after which it is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing with the city council on January 20th, 2026.

Uh that concludes my presentation.

I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Michael.

Really appreciate that.

Uh commissioners, we can ask questions of Mr.

McNamy about the report and the and the findings.

Um I do have I do have a question or two, but I'll defer to my colleagues at first.

I've got a question.

Uh thanks, great presentation.

Is there any path forward that would allow a business, you know?

Let's say we we go down a uh uh come to a decision that limits clients to a certain number of clients.

Is there any path forward for waivers to the city for specific events, days, times, activities, things like that that would expand that cap at a limited duration?

Uh there's nothing in the code as it's written.

Um certain events might not be considered business activity depending on what they are.

Um but uh yeah, as it's written right now, we don't have a provision that would allow for that.

I thought I saw somewhere that there is an exception for once a year that they can do that.

No.

We allow special events permits.

Um so someone can do a special event of certain types.

They're very specific in our code.

And so if they were to have those certain types of activity on the site, then they could, but not for regular business activity.

There's no um waiver for for that type of an activity.

That's part of the regular business.

You couldn't get a waiver for like three months in a row or something.

Um Michael, am I correct?

I know we got one uh written testimony here.

Is that the only written testimony that we received in advance of the hearing?

Yes.

Okay.

So we have not received any written testimony.

I think there may be speakers to that uh will testify orally here, but we've not received any written testimony like in favor of of these laws.

Uh no formal written testimony, no.

Okay.

Um the urban out agricultural look sort of the new use.

Um is there anything in the current code um restricting or covering this urban agriculture use right now?

Other than the generic blank uh blanket statement that we're trying to take away the residential character of the neighborhood.

Uh sorry.

Is there anything regulating the urban agriculture use as we're now going to propose it's a new category with findings?

But if I'm gonna use the winery as the example because that's the one in front of us.

Is there anything regulating that right now?

Well, it's currently being regulated as a home occupation.

Okay, just based under that one generic blanket statement.

Yes.

Got it.

And in the report on page, I think it's four, when we're talking about the specific standards for urban agriculture and making them more restrictive, then I think the original proposal was up to 70 calendar days per year and 30 customers, and then afterwards we changed it to 45 and 10.

But the report says based on feedback from existing businesses, staff lowered the allowances to 45 calendar days and 10.

Um that what was the feedback from existing businesses?

So perhaps I could have been phrased a little better.

Uh so we lowered it based on feedback from council, but we contacted existing really as one existing business.

Um to get an understanding of whether that would impact their operations.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Um yeah, I was trying to see if was there a consensus among existing businesses that wanted that were in favor of this and wanted it lower and um got it.

That's what I was trying to get at.

Okay.

Thank you.

Those are my questions.

Um and I also do I am realizing that I left something out of that slide, which is urban agriculture would be permitted as a conditional use.

So that's kind of an important uh detail.

Um, and the existing business uh or any existing business that would be classified that way would be grandfathered in um per the code.

So unless I chose to expand.

Uh commissioners, any other questions uh about the staff report before we get into testimony.

Okay.

I think if I have my procedure correct, I think the uh next one will go up and I'll ask Christina has anyone signed up to testify in person or virtually.

Yes.

Uh we have a first Sam Ho.

Come on up.

Hello.

Hello.

Thank you for coming down tonight.

Yeah, thanks.

Appreciate you guys being here doing work.

Um, I just have a couple thoughts.

Um, I have two registered businesses.

And like us, we go sorry.

I apologize.

Could you just state your name and your address for the Sam Hall, uh, two grouse.

Um, so I have two businesses and a nonprofit that I run out of my home.

And there's some considerations I want you guys to think about when you're doing this.

I did the survey that when you guys sent it out, I filled stuff out, but it wasn't necessarily friendly enough for all considerations.

And that's kind of what I want to put in your brains a little bit.

Because I see the need to take away or to bind some businesses and what they're doing from home.

I understand that.

I understand rules are good.

I'm a rule follower, I like them.

But I think when you take things away, there's things to consider is what are you offering some of these businesses as you take some of their rights away.

And for Lake Oswego for me, having businesses here, I don't see any privileges given to the businesses that are registered in Lake Uswego as you're taking things away from them, such as I have no market privileges to get my business in this market.

And there are a lot of people that come here on the weekends not from here.

I have lived here for over six years.

I have called every year.

I can't get in, there's no space for me, but there's people driving 30, 40 miles to come in here and sell their stuff.

So if you're gonna start binding people, you might want to start claiming some space and just hold it for people that are from here.

Likewise, um, pop-up space in the city.

I would love for my business to be in a store.

I can't get one.

There's not enough storefronts.

I'm a seasonal business.

My primary business is the holiday business.

This is my busiest time of the year.

I can't even get my merchandise here, but I'm going to Frankfurt, Germany, to Christmas World, where they want to see my stuff.

But I can't get like a swigos stores to look at it because there's nothing in place to assist me in doing that.

Um likewise grants.

I'm registered as a minority business here, and I've come in several times because you have great workers that work in this building who are like, oh, you're the minority business.

We used to have grants, and we're gonna get you some stuff, and they I ask them questions, and there's nobody for them to get the answers from.

So I look at all that and just want to remind you that as you take things away for those of us who are here who are trying to build our businesses, be part of the community, find us a path to get out of our homes.

Because there isn't one.

There is no path for me not to work at home.

Your marked vehicles uh ordinance, I think is great, but you've left it open.

Is that a magnet?

I have a magnet I can throw on any car I have that makes it a business car, or is that a permanent marking?

Because people can have six cars that they're using for business and use the magnets, and you're not gonna be able to stop them from parking six cars.

So that's something I think you've missed for consideration.

Um and then agricultural licenses.

I'm a little concerned when I hear you start talking about getting into the agricultural uh limitations, because for my business, I have to have an agricultural license.

And I'm afraid you're gonna come and start telling me I can't have it where I live because I don't have an acre.

But to do floral flowers, I have to have an agricultural license to buy at the flower market.

So don't think that one word just mess agricultural means I'm gonna grow a farm.

Because there's some of us who have to have that license just to even purchase product for clients.

So there's things like that I think the the committee um should consider that not only what's the impact on how we binding, but if we are gonna bind people, or how do we get more Lake Oswego people more fluent and more seen in what you're doing?

Because I I get the work, I get what you're doing, I understand why you're doing it, but I'm nervous that you're gonna come and you're gonna bind me into a place where I can't have my three licenses out of my same home, or I can't do my work because I have to have a license to get materials to do my work, and I'm gonna get caught up in something that has nothing to do with me.

Any questions?

That's all I got for you.

I get it, but there's some things you're missing, and I just want to bring that to your attention to think a little further outside the box.

But a pop-up space for the city or something would be tremendous.

Um, a seven-time holiday award-winning designer, and I can't get my stuff seen in this little haven we have here, just so you know.

Okay.

Thank you so much for your testimony tonight.

Your time.

Yep, appreciate it.

Okay, Christina, is there anyone else signed up to testify?

Yes.

Um Brian Craig, do you want to add it?

No, okay.

Um Diane Cassidy.

While I'm here, um, I know they um I think I know the winery you were talking about and having a conversation with the owner last week.

Um I'm concerned that um his operation is in jeopardy just because uh even though there's never been a complaint about the operations on his property, and that I'm not and I'm concerned that bureaucrats sitting in a about in a building and trying to make up some rules, don't have the first hit idea what it takes for every single business to be profitable to operate and to know what I mean.

They're all unique.

I mean, he's got some unique uh needs, and um I know the winery has some unique needs, and and limiting the number of customers at one time or the frequency that people can come to your place.

Um that's um it might as well just you know toss his whole endeavor for the last how many decades out the window.

That's that's wrong, you know, and and especially um since nobody's ever complained.

There's been plenty of parking, it nothing, it doesn't bother anybody, there's no noise.

Um I fully want, I mean, I want to live in a neighborhood that is residential.

And if somebody puts out a a stand and wants to sell their excess tomatoes, I'm fine with that.

I don't know if I'd be so fine with uh chickens or um livestock or a marijuana grow in my neighbor's backyard.

So I don't know how any of that sort of stuff is limited, but I just don't know.

And I know I understand the idea of having rules that are objective and fair to everyone and very clear.

But this is an area that's um it's so unique, it's unique to the individual that you really only can talk about what goes on outside the the environment and say, okay, as long as they're not disturbing your neighbor or your neighbor, and maybe you can have a um some kind of a um a code that would allow some things as long as the neighbors signed off on it, maybe have a bad neighbor, but you know, so many within so many feet of your residence.

Um, you know, that could say, yeah, we like it, you know, we approve or but grandfather in some of the ones that are existing, and certainly have a place where people like this gentleman can come and explain what their business is all about and how the city can help, not restrict, because this city is so good at restricting things that it's um it's hard.

It's hard to, you know, the big thumb of government um just needs to let up a while.

That's it.

And I don't want any chickens next to me.

Thank you, Miss Cassidy.

Appreciate your time.

Okay.

Christina, is that it for testimony?

Okay.

Okay.

I believe that will bring us to uh closing the public hearing uh after testimony has been concluded.

So the public hearing is now closed, and the planning commission will begin its deliberation.

There is no public comment permitted uh during the deliberation uh process.

Uh commissioners.

We can take a vote, we can talk about it, we can ask questions.

At some point, we'll need a motion.

Who wants to start question?

Is there a way to, you know how adult care homes and um daycares they're exempt because of other requirements that they have?

Is there a way to write that in for other businesses that come in and apply for a business license if they're already, if they already have restrictions of some other kind, uh like was it Mr.

Hall that was mentioning he's already got certain requirements that he has to meet in order to sell his products or services.

I'm not sure quite sure if I understand the question, but um just to get at that specific comment um about uh the classification of urban agriculture.

We have a specific definition of what urban agricultural agriculture means in the code, and it doesn't sound like from the description of um of his business that that would qualify as urban agriculture.

So I don't I don't anticipate that we're going to you know find that because he has is required to have an agricultural license because of selling flowers and that type of thing, that that would then make him uh be defined as an urban agricultural use.

That doesn't that isn't included in the definition.

Uh so I I don't see that as being uh an issue here, but I again I'm not sure if I quite understood what your question is.

Uh also just to add to that, um, I think perhaps what I was hearing from you as well is the you're saying um there's additional statutory restrictions or requirements on um various types of uh you know uh activity.

Different industries, uh different industries exactly locally.

And so um, you know, so for example, you were giving the example of uh certain types of uses are you know, we can't restrict and they're outright permitted.

Um those restrictions are separate from your local development code and they'll apply outside of the context of your development code, right?

So getting um, you know, statutory permits or licenses, uh, those will always be required required regardless of what's in our code, right?

So that's a whole different process.

Well, my point is as opposed to setting more restrictions to writing in more flexibility for those businesses that are already so regulated.

Yeah.

And I guess those those requirements that we're referring to are more around how the business operates, at least usually, right?

Um, regarding you know, getting a license, you know, maybe uh certain ongoing activities to keep that license, whereas these restrictions are regarding their activity and their um their location within your city limits.

And yeah, as much or as little restriction as you want to place on that is up to you all.

Um I think it's just a recommendation that it be clear and objective in order to comply with state law.

So thank you.

Um to speak to just like the idea of the exemption from land use restrictions and citing restrictions for daycare, for instance, that I think you were alluding to.

Um, you know, to the extent that we know about those exemptions, we're going to um we typically try to align our code with that.

So we do reference that just so local folks that are implementing the code here, understand that that state exemption is in place.

Um, but you know, we're not uh, you know, I think the sort of uh proposal that you made um to uh make sure that any exemption would continue to apply, you know, I think it was already pointed out that that would be the case, uh whether or not it's stated in our code or not.

If there is a state exemption for a particular business that would ultimately you know not be um you know, sort of uh preempted by our code, if that makes sense.

So um, yeah, it's hard to sort of think of all of the different um exemptions that could exist.

We try to incorporate that into what we're proposing tonight, but um, you know, there's no need to have it in our code, it's more for streamlining and you know consistency reasons.

Right.

So I think this was answered, but just to make sure that um I understand fully businesses would not be grandfathered in.

So if you had a permit and you've had a license for years, again, referencing the winery, um, they just would not have their license renewed when it came up if if it didn't meet the criteria.

And there's no mechanism to challenge that if we changed rules that restrict their use, even though it was conforming for 20 years or whatever the time frame is.

Yeah, that's the reason why we were separating this urban agricultural use out from a home occupation and uh making it a conditional accessory use to a residential use.

Um that will take care of that so that they still have to get a business license, but they don't have to get a home occupation approval every year.

I think if my memory serves me correct, we've had I think three three work sessions on this one.

I know we've talked about this one, and I don't I feel and commissioners disagree with me, like we've sort of not there hasn't been alignment on this one, in my opinion across the board.

And then I think every time we come back after a city council meeting on it, um we may even have less less alignment based on the on the direction that city council has been pursuing.

So I'll go out and say it.

I'm I I'm not in favor of this, and and I haven't been from from the beginning.

I understand the ambiguity around the current code.

I understand the concerns from code enforcement on wanting to not have this nebulous concept of residential character.

Um but throughout our work sessions and throughout our hearing.

And I just felt like we're just doing way too much for a concern that's not coming from the neighbor, the neighborhood and the citizens and the of Lake Oswego.

Um and I really haven't felt that's there, and not to diminish code enforcement's code enforcement who, you know, uh it's obviously the day job to go in there and make sure we're doing that correctly, but um I feel like we've sort of pulled numbers out of a hat almost.

Um it's just it's just too much.

I mean, if we were if it were a little more narrowly tailored, maybe um in terms of let's create the three categories or let's uh let's make an express reference to the nuisance laws that are already in the city's code.

Like I could be on board with something like that, but this creating a new boundary, having the winery tell us they want 30 when we only had 10.

I just I just feel like we're we're creating too much and um we're creating restrictions that are going to apply to folks that we never intended it to apply for.

So I get city council has said otherwise, and I and obviously city council are elected officials and they will they will make the decision, but I think coming from me, I'm I'm gonna not vote on recommending recommending this um as it's written, certainly as it's written.

I love that.

Will you make a motion?

Well, well, let's make sure everyone is is has thoughts.

I want to make sure everyone gets it out there.

Yeah.

Yeah, I would I would second that along the same thing.

I think we're creating a bunch of restrictions and not understanding the unintended consequences of the restrictions.

And I don't want to tell some small business owner that they can't run the business that they've already been running that they haven't had complaints about because we arbitrarily made up some numbers or some rules.

So again, I like I agree we need some more uniformity in the code, but I don't want to overly restrict economic activities and based on criteria and that we don't fully understand how the implications and impacts on some of these small businesses.

So I think there should be some rules, but I don't agree with what is written.

Jim, you have a great yeah, well said.

And I think I think staff has done a great job.

This is not uh indictment on staff is not hit the points and come back, and we've talked about it.

I understand staff has to also go in the direction that city council has directed, and I think that's what you all have done.

Um I don't think I've ever had where I felt the commission was going the opposite direction of the way city council feels.

So I feel like we might be might be here.

I appreciate your work on this, but I'm also gonna vote against it.

Against the restrictions.

I think the only thing I'd say is if we do feel maybe there should be some restrictions.

Do we want to try to think of that?

But we've had three work sessions and we really haven't, you know.

I don't starting from scratch is probably not not the way not the way to go.

So unless there's any other comments or questions, then somebody can make a motion.

Well, can we agree that the creating the what is it?

The what is it called again?

The uh urban urban agriculture.

Yes, the urban agriculture.

Um I guess um permit.

That's it's a new use, correct?

It's a new use.

Oh, sorry.

That is a use that's only necessary because of our other proposed amendments.

Right.

Yeah, right.

So um there's no need if they're if we're not going to introduce new restrictions, there's no need to create a new use category there.

Okay.

Thanks for the clarification.

I also just want to clarify just so you're aware that currently our policy is we allow no outdoor use.

So that's what what will continue if we don't change our our our standard.

So I just want you to be aware of that.

We do not allow any outdoor use for uh business activity right now.

But it sounds like council is opposed to outdoor use anyway.

Yeah, that was one of the options, and they they they wanted to see both of the options move forward.

So I don't know which one they would have gone with, but I just wanted you to be aware of that.

Can I ask?

Technically, we don't allow it, but it's not strictly enforced.

I mean, I might not be a fair question to ask at the public hearing, but there were two choices.

Can you go back to the slide with the recommendations?

It's a complete complaint-based enforcement system.

Yeah.

And I I think that's sort of again recognizing the it's hard to enforce the complaint when the rules are written ambiguously, but I I mean I do think, and I think some of the points were made.

Um when we're not having heavy complaints from neighbors, you know, why are we restricting the use?

So we only have these two options.

Well, that's just on the type B restriction.

There's an extra restriction for type B businesses for outdoor use, and those are the two options.

So it's one component as part of the the Yeah, we tried to make it easy in case you had differing you know ideas about this, so we presented options, but it can be modified in whichever way you can explain.

As long as it's not so substantive that we'd have to renot it.

And referencing the uh the nuisance code, I assume in there there's um like noise hours similar to this nine to seven kind of criteria than currently.

No, they were different on the other one.

Uh good evening, Bill Yumblatt with the senior code enforcement specialist.

Um in reference to the question about noise.

So there's actually two sections.

One is very broad.

It says any loud or disturbing no unnecessary noise is uh illegal noise.

Um and we don't use decibel levels uh to determine illegal noise.

And so then there's another section that talks about specific noise prohibitions, which goes through and does a laundry list of examples of illegal noise, uh, but there are no time uh requirements in the code.

There are um typically um after 10 p.m.

and prior to 7 a.m.

is is a time that uh police department has used, and so code enforcement is also used that as times to where if you're gonna be generating a noise um you you need to have a good reason why it needs to occur during that time period, and it can occur after seven and before ten.

Is that helpful?

Okay, commissioners we can continue to deliberate as much as as much as we want.

That's certainly I'm not trying to rush anyone.

But if we don't have any other comments or questions, then we need to make a motion.

I don't think the chair is allowed to make the motion.

Is the chair allowed to make the motion?

No.

I don't like either option.

What's that?

Either of these options.

Well, again, here are here are choices.

We we move to recommend to city council the proposed recommendations from staff as they're currently written, all of the whole the whole thing.

As presented.

I think maybe we can keep both options in the recommendation, or we pick one of the options for the agriculture type B use.

I'm not sure what the proper procedure would be for that.

I would recommend recommending one of the options.

One of the options, okay.

So we we propose recommending the staff recommendations um as written and choose which option under that specific agriculture use um scenario.

We two, we uh recommend to go to city council with some changes.

I think we're allowed to do that.

Some tweaks or changes, or three, we reject it.

Recommend not council deny.

Yeah, yeah.

So those are options.

To recommend that the council not approve the staff report as presented.

Not approve this land use decision, this text amendment.

Yeah, I'm hesitant to throw like the baby out with the bathwater though, because I feel like there are a few good points in here that would be worth keeping.

Um, but reject the whole thing, but I don't want to again like poo-poo the work that has been done because there is some valuable stuff in here.

So I don't know if we want to go through it point by point or if that's gonna be a pain.

Is there anything that we all agree on?

I think it would I think we should go through it point by point.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um I think Michael stop me.

The way I'm gonna go through it is just on the sort of the recommendation, the numbered recommendations, like and go through that point by point because I feel like that's the easiest way to do this.

Okay.

I do also have the um if you want it, I do have the code itself ready to look at.

So if you want to go through it that way, you can.

Okay.

Maybe we'll use that as the supplement, but the these um 74 pages.

This is the sum these are like the some the summary of it.

So one, delete subsection one, which states that a home occupation can't alter the the standard is unclear, right?

So the first recommendation really is to just delete delete that language.

Um let's come back to that because that's really the overall point of everything.

Uh two, class the we're gonna recommendation is to classify home occupations into three types, A, B, and C, and allow the city to tailor regulations to those type of home occupations that have a larger potential impact on neighborhood properties.

So type A businesses would now be ones that don't bring customers to the home.

Type B businesses would be ones that involve customers to the site, and which will have a few additional um points here later, and then type C is short-term rentals, which currently subject to home occupation regulations regulations with their own set of standards.

So point two would be allow creating these three uh these three types.

And I'm good with that.

Yeah, I'm in favor of that as well.

Brian, Jim.

I don't think anyone's nobody really has a problem with the creating the three um the three uh standards, the three types.

I think we can get into the regulation of B is really where we're gonna have the disagreement.

All right, number three, add a requirement that hazardous subsidence beyond consumer qualities are quantities, excuse me, are not allowed.

While hazardous substances are regulated at the state level, adding a regulation to the city's home occupation standards would make it possible to prohibit a home occupation from storing and using an amount of hazardous substance that is greater than the typical household limit.

I agree to that.

Yes, is there any definition for what a hazardous substance is here?

I mean, can we have some if there is one?

Could you just it I think it's listed in the code?

Right.

Yeah, specifically uh yes, there's a definition I don't know it off the top of my head, and it's not part of the presentation, but there is a definition in our code that um a hazardous it's pretty standard throughout most cities.

Are we when we say great it's the the the proposed statute would say greater than household quantities?

Like it would be say something along those lines.

I know we have to just go to the any substance listed or described as hazardous in ORS chapter 453 is not permitted at the property where the business occurs, except that consumer quantities are allowed.

Consumer quantities of hazardous substances are packaged and distributed in a form intended or suitable for sale through retail sales outlets for consumption by individuals for purposes of personal care and household use.

Yeah, we can't sorry.

Sorry, if there's just me here, I'm just gonna say that we can take the time if you have a big class.

We can't I have multiple.

We can't we can't take your testimony.

I understand where you're it's just this definition, it doesn't cover that.

You just cover artisans for anything.

Yeah, see, I I understand where he's coming from.

I my concern would be like I did somebody developing photos, uh studio through retail sales outlets.

I mean, if you're doing anything and you're buying it like a wholesale quantity of something, it doesn't necessarily mean it's inherently dangerous.

So this is one of those ones I feel like we're like unnecessarily pigeon holding potential businesses into a rule that there needs to be some sort of limits with stuff, but not I mean, I think this is unintended consequences potentially for this one.

If we didn't adopt this right now, it's just the state code on regulation of hazardous materials that would apply.

State law.

No.

Yeah, so that that's a good question.

I don't know that we have the answer for our fire department regulates storage of some like flammable materials and tries to ensure that they're uh safely stored.

Um but that's that's the only thing I'm aware of.

And is the fire department regulating that based on state law?

Since we I don't think we have a regulation of hazardous materials in our city code.

Right.

I I yes, I think so.

I I don't know for sure, but as you said, there's nothing in our regulations about how to how to regulate it.

And it does look like the definition does reference state law as well.

So that would track, uh, but it is a little bit broader as well.

It includes yeah.

That's a that's that's exactly my line of inquiry.

Are we we're trying to close the gap to get like a little bit broader than state law, like somewhere we're regulating somewhere here, state law is up here versus having no sort of no regulation whatsoever, which is the current regulation on a city level.

Yeah, I don't agree with Jeremy a little bit.

Mr.

Please, please, please, please, please.

Thanks.

I'm gonna leave because I'll tell you what, this is the problem with the survey.

You didn't come to the businesses and say, come in here, we know you're doing this kind of work.

Tell us what you need.

And that's what we're doing.

Just have to follow procedure.

I'm sorry.

Yep.

Thank you.

I get it.

I told you I'm a rule follower, but this is the problem.

This right here is the problem.

Let's take a vote on this hazardous materials one since we're going through these one by one.

Yeah, I would say no.

That's mine.

I say no to the state regulations.

You say yes.

Yes.

Right?

No.

No.

Jim?

No.

Okay.

Okay.

Number four was add a reference to the city's existing public nuisance rules to make it clear they apply.

I'm on board with that.

I think they they do apply already.

And we're just making it clear.

Anyone have an opposition to that?

No.

Okay.

The the one vehicle at a time.

Um requirement that only one vehicle but with visible company or commercial markings is allowed to be parked within 300 feet of the property where the home occupation is located.

As you know, we recently eliminated all off-street parking requirements is the effort to comply with the CFEC program.

Uh so our uh the city is limited in its ability to regulate.

Um I think if I recall when we discussed this one at a few work sessions, and I think that's the way it's written.

A home occupor or a business with home occupation is allowed to park as many commercial vehicles as they want on their property.

There's no regulation against that.

This is limiting um parking off the street to one.

And I think some of the examples we may have talked about was like a shift, like the beginning of the shift, like 10 trucks come in and park, and then they doll out their assignments and and then they go.

I think that might have been one of the the uh the exhibits.

So no, the the problem I have with these fine tuning restrictions are is that uh I can't tell whether or not this is a problem or not.

Or is it one that's a foreseeable problem or not?

And if there's what what's the evidence, we're just kind of looking at these things generally speaking.

And when we get to the point where we're trying to adjust people and their things without any kind of description of what is really at stake here.

I I can't make anything out of any of these fine tuned restrictions.

That's my problem.

Yeah.

Yeah, I'd say, I mean, I think it's hard to fine-tune because you can never estimate all of the con unintended consequences of any action you take, right?

Um on on the flip side, you know, code enforcement has given testimony that it is very difficult to enforce code uh when it's written so so ambiguously.

Um but I I'm I'm I'm obviously I lean in your camp.

And that's why I prompt from my opinion, that's why I prompted my questions in the very beginning, which was nobody came in favor of like do of doing this.

There was no there was no testimony from the public saying, yeah, we got you know, businesses running wild and and residential properties, they're parking 50 commercial vehicles on the street, and it's a problem, right?

It it was hard to understand uh really the justification for getting so detailed and the way in the way we're regulating it without having all of this.

I would have liked to have people who have complained about the neighborhood, the neighbor running a gym class outside with 10.

I would have liked that neighbor to come to this hearing and be like, I support this, let me give you the testimony as to why having exercise classes outside at 8 a.m.

has been a problem for me, right?

And so absent of that, it's really hard for me to be particular of whether we should have one commercial vehicle or three.

I don't I don't want to get into that.

Uh it's it's hard, uh in my personal opinion.

I'm gonna get off my soapbox because I've been talking about it.

No, I just um I just want to c continue to remind folks that the existing system is a lot more like all-encompassing than what we're proposing.

Um so I you know it's a subjective criteria that's complaint-based enforcement.

What we're proposing is um, you know, potentially you know, more flexible, particularly with outdoor activity, for instance.

So we're not going into add a bunch of restrictions that don't exist.

We're just kind of explaining them and and enumerating them here.

So I just I I want to make it clear we're not here to like clamping down and tighten down the restrictions.

We're here to just make them more clear and understandable.

Um, I think that's probably why you didn't get that testimony because it's not really the intent of the project is not to clamp down and sort of enforce neighborhood character more strictly.

It sounds like that's how it's coming across to the business community though.

At least the general.

Yeah, I think there's some yeah, there's some um understanding that you know, about the current regulations that when you actually spell them out and write them down on paper, um people start, you know, having a lot more thoughts and opinions on what should or should not be allowed.

Of course, they're not aware of all the things that happen and the folks that do receive um you know uh sort of complaints or um you know, potentially you know, issue fines or something like that for enforcement, they don't see that necessarily in how difficult it can be, particularly in like a court case to actually make an argument about what has happened and whether or not that is within our standards or not within our standards and how that should sort of play out.

So this is really about the functionality of that clear and object or that sort of non-clear and objective standard, being able to actually um enforce it with um more than just kind of our our um extremely kind and helpful code enforcement officer and and his expertise and precedent um experience.

So I think we're trying to, you know, sort of start to write this down on paper as opposed to just kind of um deferring to um folks for sort of a subjective interpretation that then has to go to court or has to be justified further and further and further, and that's where we've run into issues.

So Eric, currently you can't park commercial vehicles on the street.

No, that's not that's not what I said, but I think that there could be um uh you know, but I don't know, I guess code enforcement officer Youngblood, has there been any um violations related to cars parked in the street related to a home occupation?

Uh no violations because it's not not restrictive.

But I mean it's captured within that neighborhood character, um, you know, sort of but I would I I would like to to say also that you know the first step in in looking at this was uh you know, the code enforcement staff sat down with these guys and said, here are issues that people complain about repeatedly as part of a home occupation.

So they're not they just didn't get pulled out of thin air.

They're they're tied to complaints that that we receive.

Now it's not a whole lot of complaints, you know, it's a handful of complaints.

But when these do go sideways, um it's a tremendous disruption uh to the neighborhood, and there is not um a good method currently to do enforcement on them.

So in the absence of code, you have a complaint.

What's the process?

They take it to you, and then what do you do with it?

Well, we look at look for evidence uh that because we have to find a code that they're not complying with, correct?

So the code that we have for home occupations, because it's typically noise complaints, okay, but it's not a complaint.

The noise complaint that they have is during the day, so it's not something that typically qualifies as a nuisance noise complaint.

Um it has to do with the business that's occurring at the house and typically outside.

Um you know, it typically oftentimes involves lots that are flag lots.

So there may be three or four backyards that back up to this one business's backyard.

Um I understand that it's a that it's very difficult to write something that applies to all of these different conditions that we have across the city.

Um it's you know code enforcement staff certainly support what's before you today, but mostly for the reason that it's something that we can find evidence that yes, you comply, they comply with this, or no, they don't comply.

So it's not the number itself, it's just having a number that we have you know, we put out there or that is in the code that says this is acceptable, this is not.

It doesn't sound just like an arbitrary decision on your part.

It's an an actual code that you can go back to.

Well, trying to to you know present evidence to a judge that the um you know, neighborhood, uh I forget the words, but the you know, that there's not the it's not a compatible uh the use is not compatible with the neighborhood.

Right.

You you need us to start with something, okay.

So what is compatible?

Okay, we don't have a definition for for those.

So um it's and what one of the things we encourage folks to do is if to get this resolved, certainly if it goes to court is to come in and testify, right?

So the judge needs to hear it from different different folks, not just from uh from myself or my co-worker.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Youngwood.

Eric, it seems to me when you say this isn't this is just like clarifying restrictions that are already in place.

Like I don't see it that way personally.

And I use the commercial parking example.

There's no prohibition on parking now, except if it changes the alteration of uh, you know, the care residential neighborhood of the character, uh character, right?

But right now, if you had three commercial vehicles on a street and nobody complained, that wouldn't be restricted, right?

And what we're proposing right now is a one commercial vehicle cap on parking on the street.

So that is more restrictive than it currently is.

And I think the other one is the for type B businesses, eight eight clients on the premises at a time, I think is one of them, Michael.

Right now there's no prohibition on the number, right?

Correct on a home occupation inside on the limited amount of client clients.

Yes, that's correct.

Correct.

No, no, no prohibition.

So the proposal of eight limit is more more restrictive, right?

So I I understand it's not there are a lot of restrictions that are in place that are just not, you know, are hard to enforce, but they're there, but I do think this is more restrictive than the than the current practice.

Yeah, I I guess my point is just that you know those things, you know, again, we've spent a lot of staff time on this.

That's really my concern.

We're we're trying to develop a proposal that makes sense and can be enforced.

Um, and we've spent a lot of time trying to talk about what is the appropriate level of how many cars should be parked, how many um, you know, how many clients, et cetera, those those limitations.

So if you're concerned about where we're landing with those, you know, we could adjust those numbers, those figures.

More commercial vehicles should be allowed to be parked off the property.

Maybe we just don't limit commercial vehicles.

You know, that's fine.

I mean, I think we can make those changes, but I I just want to point out that reverting to our existing standard might not necessarily, you know, I I do think that there are elements here where we actually are enumerating, you know, sort of exactly what the city does.

We tried to define those, it can be difficult in terms of what is and is not in force, but if we're not landing on exactly where we need to land, that can be adjusted.

Um, you know, I I just kind of wanted to point that out.

And I think um, you know, again, maybe this is too limit limiting.

So if that's the case, then would you limit it less, or would do you think it's just better to go with that subjective criteria?

I think that's kind of the question here.

Sure.

Um, so you know, we're trying to land at a reasonable place.

I think in some ways it is actually a lot more, it does offer more flexibility, particularly for outdoor businesses.

Um, there's some other ones where I guess we probably landed a little bit differently, but you know, our we're trying to triangulate here.

So we're we're open to suggestions, and we've been trying to trying to get them from folks, and um it's really hard to dial in on a specific number as we've all noted.

Yeah, I appreciate that to the extent I made it feel like we weren't appreciative of that apologize.

Apologies.

I mean, I I think, and again, I think we've had our work sessions where we've sort of been like we're not we don't really know what the a reasonable number should be.

And I but I believe city council in their hearings are saying the be more restrictive, right?

So I think staff has been put in that position, you ultimately have to carry out what we think city council is gonna recommend, right?

So I guess my question for you is it like is it better?

Is city council gonna if we say our recommendation is the city council not to recommend as written, but city council says this is great, thank you, staff.

This is exactly what we wanted.

We're gonna disregard the planning commission and we're gonna vote it.

Like, does that should that happen?

Maybe that's what should happen, instead of us going back on trying to like find a middle ground on limitations that we all feel uneasy about.

Well, I mean, the the council, I mean, the reason why we have the planning commission, right, is that you all are doing this great work and making recommendations um to the council that um and you kind of dive more deeply into it before it it comes to the council in general.

So I I think that if you are going to make a different recommendation to the council, you can do that.

I mean, you're not you're you're allowed to do that as as a body.

Um, and you can specify why you believe that this is the is the right recommendation, and the council will consider that.

And ultimately it is their decision, and they may or may not agree with you all, but um, but it's your recommendation.

Um we're simply telling you what the council, what the feedback is that we received from them.

Um and they did uh land more restrictive than this commission did previously.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think you know, obviously, an outright rejection, um, you know, or just recommending disapproval.

Um, you might not have as much of a voice to say, well, if you do, you know, we we really think that this standard is important and you should adjust the standard, et cetera.

Yeah, it you could have a little bit more of a voice on the changes that you think are appropriate if you did make a recommendation of some type to approve, but it's of course up to you.

But that that's just kind of in in the way that this is an advisory body, if that is the recommendation, there might be a little bit more, you know, uh there could be uh eventual agreement if you took that approach, potentially or at least it would land a little bit closer to the middle, I guess this is more.

I think for me, you know, if you're living in a society that's run amok, then you can step in and supervise people to to make clear what you won't endure.

But I don't have that feeling about this city to the point where I feel as though we ought to supervise this down to you know a flying toothed comb.

I just don't see it.

I'll just sum up my thoughts.

I'm of this uh one through eight here.

I'm concerned about three and six, the possible unintended consequences on traded sector small businesses, entrepreneurs, stuff like that.

Um and all and then kind of with that number seven, you know, I I would support like number seven option one, because I wouldn't in the same concern for small businesses and entrepreneurs, I wouldn't want a blanket outdoor ban on outdoor activity yoga classes, stuff like that, in the absence of zero complaints or concerns that have come before this group, and I haven't been present for the previous work session, so acknowledging that as well, but that's my thoughts.

Right.

I guess I would just add, I'm not sure council's alignment is in alignment on this either.

So, you know, your your recommendation might sway some folks.

Yeah, I agree.

The only thing I would might disagree with is the outdoor one.

I'd honestly prefer a blanket outdoor one, just because you start setting limits on who and what and when and how many, and I I think it's just easier to say no for everybody.

They're more likely, I feel like outdoor activities are more likely to impact neighbors and surrounding properties as well.

If you have a home business that can you can do your activities inside your home that's different, um it starts.

I just think it opens a big can of things potentially.

So it would be easier just to have a blanket no.

And we've not had we have the blanket note currently, so it's not like it's going to impact anything new by changing it.

Yeah, it was the opposite.

I was like a 10-person yoga class on a Sunday is like let's what are we what are we regulating that for?

Uh I I I keep going back to the noise like nuisance and the no and the nuisance code, which is outside our purview.

But like, can this be cat can what we're look what we're trying to achieve, which is loud, noisy, harmful, impacting neighboring properties.

Can that be achieved by altering the nuisance code, which is not our purview?

Um, and that's a whole different can of worms that I'm not suggesting we open up, but that's where I keep going back to.

I'd still stick with the outdoor no.

You get you're gonna have those traffic from the people, you're gonna have those cars from that.

You know, if I'm in my backyard, I don't want to listen to Namaste and I don't care if it's a yoga class or if it's a Pilates class or whatever.

I feel outdoors, it's just too much can go on, but that's just my thought.

Yep.

Thanks, Chairman.

Uh do we want to keep going through individually?

I I mean I think.

Well, we did that was sort of seven, right?

Uh we're almost done, although it sounds like it may be a waste of time for us to be doing this anyway.

So I think the qu the question really for statel, like is it better for us to try to reach to your point, like if we're regulating but we don't feel comfortable with where we're landing to try to adjust and have a recommendation to city council.

It's your point, like that gives us a seat, like our voices heard, uh, maybe a little bit more as opposed to just a blanket we don't recommend.

Um, or is it just better now for us to say that we don't we're so misaligned on everything, like let's not let's recommend to not approve that we feel council decide.

That we feel it's too restrictive on businesses.

I mean, that's a totally reasonable recommendation to make.

I I wouldn't I wouldn't say otherwise.

I just if somebody felt strongly about like the 10-person maximum or whatever, you wouldn't necessarily be able to weigh in on those specifics if you just recommend a disapproval.

But again, that might not be you know the hill you want to die on, or yeah, that's the terrible um metaphor, but anyway, that you know it it's strategy decision on your part.

Um, or we could try to develop something that is more like what you are looking for and bring that back to you and delay this even further.

So, yeah, it's it's up to you.

You know, again, we're trying to triangulate between council playing commission sort of code enforcement needs to land on a you know happy medium here.

So if more work is needed, then that's something we can consider as well.

Um I like that recommendation that we work on this a little massage it a little more.

It seems like that might be difficult to accomplish this evening.

Um just continue it.

Yeah, I think it's more work for you.

Sorry.

Yeah, exactly.

I feel bad.

I guess probably what we do is like withdraw this application and then resubmit an application in the future.

Or or we could just continue the hearing.

Yeah, or but you would we would have to renotice if we were to change it substantively, I guess, and we'd want to know kind of what where you want to go.

So yes, we could obviously continue the hearing, but you would have to decide, you know, without the benefit of like a work session or something like that in between.

Um you'd have to make up your mind at the date of that continued hearing.

So you know, I there's no timeline for this, I guess is my point.

Like there's no due date, there's no state mandate.

So we're doing this based on council direction, and we haven't been, it's not like a council goal necessarily.

It's something that we are you know fulfilling based on what we've been told to do from them, but there's no huge priority to get this done right away.

Well, I mean, that that may be a good thing in this way.

This would give more businesses the opportunity to come in and you know speak their peace.

And maybe we can take our direction from there and include those in our recommendations.

It's just getting people here.

I was excited to finally see people here.

You must have missed the last hearing.

Yeah, the last time I was who is in here.

Um I the surveys were again, I'm not a home business in Lake Asuito, so I'd say this with like a grain of salt or a huge grain of salt.

The surveys were pretty comprehensive, and we got results, and like we're I I read I read the results, right?

So I I do feel um the public was given the chance to to opine.

Um or the businesses were given a chance to opine based on surveys.

Um again, uh yes, I wish more people had come here and been like, yes, I've been complaining about the the this uh my neighbors doing this on their property, and here's my chance to really show my support for for the for uh this proposed code amendment.

So I mean, where is the chamber of commerce?

They should be here.

Well, again, that the idea is not to clamp down and make it harder to do home occupations.

So I think you know, i if if it is about where we're landing and you think that where we're landing doesn't reflect actual use patterns, and maybe we need to go back and talk to home-based occupation owners to get a better understanding of their needs and make sure that we're not going to restrict them.

I I don't know what that looks like, but you know, it it wouldn't happen immediately.

I'll just put it that way.

If we are going to revisit this.

But let's let's let's make the hard decision.

Do we do we think that there is some um compromise that we bad word, but compromise that we as commissioners can get to where we would vote a recommendation uh to to approve, and those things would look like instead of pro prohibiting more than one commercial vehicle, are we saying five commercial vehicles, right?

Like if if we're a lot or eight people at a time in the in-home business versus oh make it 20, right?

If we if we all decide like we can be comfortable with some number, we just think it's too restrictive at this point, then I think it's worth that.

If we are, and maybe Jim, I don't want to speak for you, but if we are like philosophically like I don't want to impose restrictions right now, again there might already be there, but I don't want to do any of this, then that's a difference.

That's a different conversation.

And then it's not worth, in my opinion, like coming back.

Well, I could go with that if you brought some evidence in here, you know, that demanded action.

We haven't heard anything like that.

That's the problem for me.

Well, except for the couple of people tonight.

Well, I think he's talking about more restricted.

Oh, more restrictive on the other side.

Okay.

Yeah, I don't want to come back and argue about three vehicles versus five vehicles, or I don't I don't feel like I'm qualified to say that three is good or one is good or whatever.

I just I mean, if we had to make a simple notion, it would be that we would uh I don't know, approve limited approval of some of these things and then not approve some of the restrictive ones, but I don't know if that's a that's an option.

I mean, I don't want to make code enforcement's job more difficult.

Some of it needs to be refined, but I don't think we're the body that needs to put hard limits on these things.

a simple notion it would be that we would uh I don't know approve limited approval of some of these things and then not approve some of the restrictive ones but I don't know if that's a that's an option I mean I don't want to make code enforcement's job more difficult some of it needs to be refined but I don't think we're the body that needs to put hard limits on these things so I can promote propose a motion to advance this but striking three five and six to pick can come to some consensus on option one or option two for number seven striking three five and six and then coming to a consensus on seven oh we didn't talk about eight by the way child care homes and adult foster homes are exempt from the regulations under state law I think it's just clarifying that's clarifying nobody has a problem with that right okay so striking three five and six and then us this making a decision on seven soven I'm opposed to outdoor you're pro what is the rest of the council pro outdoor you're pro outdoor okay that would make me seven one seven a seven a and then eight of courses structurally in the point I second oh didn't you just make a motion oh but I didn't uh I think we're just talking about the motion yeah through so it's striking three five and six and then you want to decide seven right one seven seven a one and you're for seven a two but you're also would be on board with something striking three three five and six absolutely okay actually I'm okay with three well you're just complicating it well because the fire department already does a lot and and there's state regulations that people need to follow and so businesses and that's I mean that's what I do I'm the director of a small business development center and so I work with this all the time people that start a business from their home they understand what they can and cannot do and in order for them to get a business license there are certain requirements they have to meet so they already know does that's why I propose to strike three for exactly what you're saying.

Well and so like this gentleman was saying today it's like you're not taking into into consideration all of these other exceptions three no because three we have striking three means it's the state law and that like it's clear it's state law that's what we're doing.

You're right and we're not adding a little bit more we're all saying yes and which one were you for option and seven option one seven eight one jim what are you thinking with striking three what was it again three five and six and then on seven Jim with outdoor there's an option one which is there is some we allow it but we regulate people the amount of people in the times or be an outright ban on act outdoor activity tied to a home occupation I you know when you when you're adjusting these different categories is this the thing that comes to mind to me is that the elements of due process of law mean that people know and have been given an opportunity to comply and if they don't then that they know the the consequences of that many of these things that we have talked about tonight and that this is the last category that you're talking about is the same sort of situation and I just don't see why this is helpful.

I I don't see how this in any way shape or form is going to notify and give the average person an understanding what's going on here because I we haven't heard any evidence of you know a gross areas of misconduct in these various categories that we're looking at here.

So because seven Bans all outright all like outdoor activity outright and then so it sounds like you're for seven a one which would be less regulation on outdoor activity or it would be allowed basically A allows it and B doesn't allow it I think you have to allow something I don't see any reason to in to negate some activity here unless like say again bring me some evidence to show why that is needed we went through this in April we went through the same kind of thing when we came through and it was it was just about as vague then as it is now and I haven't seen uh when I left here I thought are we are we trying to adjust people in in in every aspect of their lives so that

I don't see any reason to negate some activity here unless, like, say again, bring me some evidence to show why that is needed.

We went through this in April.

We went through the same kind of thing when we came through.

And it was it was just about as vague then as it is now.

And I haven't seen uh when I left here, I thought, are we are we trying to adjust people in and in every aspect of their lives so that there's no conduct left for them to decide upon themselves whether they're reasonable or not and an option one?

It says six the the staff report says limited to six clients.

Was that changed to ten?

Can you run us through that, Michael?

Like what is the yes?

So um when we discussed it in June, I think I we were proposing the same um as inside, so eight.

And when we discussed it with the council in October, they felt that that was that would have too much of an impact.

Um if it was regular part of part of regular business activities, and so they suggested that we adjust it down.

They didn't give us the specific number of six, um, but they that was kind of where we landed based on their feedback.

And then the agricultural use is entirely separate, and as drafted right now, that's 10.

Yes, and then all the other requirements like greater than an acre, but 10.

Correct.

And we have one written testimony from a vineyard uh winery that provides testimony that said they need they would prefer it to be 30.

Yes.

And then the question on grandfathering, and I know we talked about it, but can you clarify?

Is that winery would that win only be grandfathered if it in fact was came out as 10?

So it would be grandfathered from having to get a conditional use.

Um, but it would still have to comply with the new requirements.

So they would only be they would be limited at 10.

We haven't we haven't talked about the agricultural use one either, to be honest.

I mean, we we have not in our listing right here.

So we have delete five and seven.

These two are on the same page.

Jeremy's on the same page except for seven, he's on option two.

Jim is I think Jim, I think you're coming down as like no recommendation.

I don't want to speak for you.

Well, I would say option one as opposed to option two.

If you if you had to pick, you would pick option one.

Make a proposal and I'll get on board.

What's that?

I said make a proposal and I'll get on board.

Um, this is not the outdoor activity is not the hill I want to die on either.

I mean, well, I think you can my only comment would be is like this the same thing with anything else.

The six seems arbitrary.

I don't know where they came up with that number, but or there's two sessions a day and six per week.

I mean, uh, all of it seems arbitrary, right?

That's why no seems easier, but since it's currently no, but if someone will vote for yay to eliminate the other options that we talked about the number comes from the complaints, there's no outdoor activity currently allowed.

But from the complaints that code enforcement has received from outdoor activity that has no code to cover it.

But that should be easy.

There's no act of outdoor activity allowed.

So that should be easy to enforce.

Right, which is why why we're having these conversations, because there was nothing in place, and now they want something in place.

So you want you want code because there really is nothing to fall back on if there is a complaint.

Is technically prohibited right now.

Is that correct?

Yes, because of the uh because of the city manager.

So if you know, if you look at our our code otherwise, it did it does allow outdoor uh activity, but there was no limit on what you could do, and we had you know, folks that were renting out their swimming pools through an app and and having you know 30, 40 kids come over at a time multiple times a week.

So that's really what drove um uh the mark the the moratorium, if that's the right word.

Oh so currently in place the prohibition is a city manager moratorium, like yeah, it's a staff policy, yeah, more or less.

Because there is nothing.

That's how it's been interpreted because of the subjective standards of policy.

The code is so open-ended.

Okay, and so we made an interpretation that it disturbs the again, my keyboard.

Oh, a residential character of the neighborhood.

There you go.

Uh to have an outdoor activity.

That's that's the that's the current interpretation and our policy.

But it's not stated in code, so that's the thing is that the public doesn't understand that.

Okay, that being clarified, I could get more on board with option one.

I thought it was already blanket banned.

I didn't realize that they arbitrarily banned it.

So we want to touch what we're talking, calling option 10 right now, the urban agriculture limits on yeah.

I'm uncomfortable with with this 30, 10 back to 30 for this particular business that doesn't have any complaints against it.

What's the solution?

Is the solution to move it to 30?

Is the solution to move it to 50?

Is the solution to not have a limit?

Not have a limit.

I I have a recommendation if you don't mind sure.

Yeah, please.

So one of the things that you could, this is a conditional use.

So someone has to get a conditional use permit in order to um to have this as an accessory use.

And you could say that the maximum number of clients are established as part of the conditional use uh permit, and that way the applicant can provide evidence.

I can accommodate space party.

I could accommodate 40.

I could accommodate whatever that is based on, you know, again, it could be open-ended what those parameters are.

I have X number of parking spaces, I can do a shuttle, whatever it is that they can do.

And then that way you can be more flexible without coming up with a number, but you're going through this discretionary process that allows people to submit testimony, they can submit their evidence, and then ultimately the permit get they can decide based on the evidence in the record what is appropriate for that site and that particular use.

I like that.

I don't know about Eric's question and questioning face.

What are you wondering?

I was just thinking about um, yeah, you know, we're we're we're we're wanting to create some more clear and objective standards through this exercise.

If we're if we have more flexibility, I I was just thinking going through the internal process of thinking this is conditional permit anyway, so that's probably okay.

It's my thinking face, I guess.

It's not supposed to be a clear and objective, like this is what you gotta do thing, it's more conditional.

Right.

Here's what I would do if I were not chair.

I would make it sounds like there's a consensus for at least three on a path, and I would make a motion for it, and then let the other two decide how they want.

Because if we have three, it it passes, right?

Three.

So to get us all out of here, I would I would do that if if I were if I were allowed to okay, Mr.

Chair.

I'll make a motion to propose this as written, but striking three, five, and six, and recommending seven A option one and then they on agricultural use to conditional use permits.

Decide in the conditional use permit.

So that I know we said that in artfully, but everyone got got what we meant, right?

I second that.

Okay, let's take a vote, Christina.

Okay, Mitra.

Uh no.

More no yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Doing yes.

Carries?

Passes four to one.

We go back to my way off script here.

Um so it's a passes and uh commissioners discuss motion, called the roll.

Okay.

I think the city attorney is supposed to state that there's this is a tentative decision of the PC, and we'll state the date.

Yeah, I don't know if the Yes.

Um, I can state that.

So thanks.

The vote was only a preliminary decision concerning the commission's recommendation.

The final decision on the recommendation will be made upon the adoption of a written order on December 8th, 2025 at 6:30.

This recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for review.

Thank you.

And thank you, Commissioners, for like really thoughtful discussion.

And staff, thank you for taking us through this.

This has been a long journey.

Um and you know, speaking on behalf of myself.

Honestly, it was like you did a wonderful job.

And my holes were nothing to do with the way um you compiled and brought the information to us.

For me, thank you.

Okay.

Well, we I'm sure everyone wants to go home.

Item number six, other business.

Do we have any other business?

Item number um item number seven, schedule review.

All right, so coming up at our next meeting, as we just uh mentioned, you know, we will have um the consideration of findings to um you know move that forward, move forward to your recommendation to the city council based on tonight's hearing.

Um so for the home occupation standards, we'll have the findings.

Um we'll have a work session from Ms.

Monolou here on our proposed regulations um our proposed amendments to our tree regulations, so really about our tree regulation work.

And we'll also have the continued hearing for 4,000 cruiseway place, um, which um you've been receiving some correspondence here and there with some additional testimony from the public as well as um you know the applicant's final argument, etc.

So um you'll also be receiving a staff report on that, but um you know that officially the the hearing was continued until the 8th of December on that.

Um so you know, you've been receiving some correspondence on that, so hopefully that's not a surprise.

Um so yeah, that's all we have for December.

We don't meet twice in December, so their next meetings would be in January.

Um, you know, ideally at that point we'd be in a position to adopt findings for 4,000 cruiseway place, as well as um you'll be receiving a uh presentation from myself and our consultant team for the foothills um plan update work, and we'll be talking specifically about opportunities and constraints in the area and just talking about kind of existing conditions and um all of the um interesting details about the work that we're doing over there and and what's there really currently right now and what we can capitalize upon and what some constraints are that exist.

So um we'll get into a little bit more discussion of that on the 12th of January, our first meeting there, and then on the 26th, um all we have scheduled for that right now is a work plan review.

So just talk talking about um our proposed work plan as a planning commission for 2026 to help fulfill city council goals, and that brings us through January.

Right.

Thank you, Eric.

Uh and I would just I'll plug, I would recommend to the commissioners let's read the findings for this hearing ahead of time so that when we get here on the eighth, they're gonna be here on the eighth.

I think um we can everyone's comfortable with the changes because there was a lot, it was kind of dense the conversation, so there should be some changes.

So let's try to because there's a lot on the agenda for the eighth, so let's try to come prepared to say thank you.

Okay.

Um I think that's it.

Adjourned.