All right.

Good evening.

I'd like to call to order the Lake Oswego Planning Commission meeting for Monday, July 13th.

Let's start with the call to order.

Okay.

Chair Nashok.

Here.

Vice Chair Bruce.

Here.

Commissioner Abishon.

Commissioner Call.

Here.

Commissioner Guinea.

Here.

Commissioner Sly.

Here.

Commissioner Twing.

And Council Liaison Rachel Verdict is not with us tonight.

Great.

Thank you.

Brings us to our next item of business is our approval of minutes.

We have two different minutes today.

First up is the meeting minutes from June 8th, 2026.

Do I hear a motion to approve or any amendments for the minutes?

I will make a motion to approve the June 8th meeting minutes.

Thank you, Commissioner Guinea.

Do I have a second?

I would second the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Bruce.

All in favor of the motion to pass the meeting minutes from June 8th as written.

Please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstain.

Hearing none.

Thank you.

Next up is the meeting minutes for June 22nd.

Do I hear any amendments to the minutes or a motion to approve the minutes is written?

I'd move to approve the minutes as written.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

All second.

Thank you.

All those who move to approve the meeting minutes from June 22nd, 2026 as written, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Hearing no nays, no abstentions.

Thank you, everyone.

Do we have anyone Iris signed up for uh public comment tonight for items not on the agenda?

Or I'm sorry, Christina.

We don't have Iris anymore.

I'm just so used to it.

Then tonight.

Thank you very much.

Um, and then we have our commission for citizen involvement general updates.

We've got a couple of these.

We have the Evergreen Neighborhood Association National Night Out Block Party is Tuesday, August 4th from 6 to 8 at Evergreen Park, third and Evergreen.

Family friendly fun and games, get to know your neighbors.

It is potluck style, so bring a chair or a potluck dish if you would like to join.

Our second one is for the event Bridging the Canal National Night Out celebration hosted by the Bryant and Blue Heron neighborhoods.

Tuesday, August 4th at Lakeridge Middle School from 6 to 8.

And it is a free family barbecue with everything provided by the local business, pine shed ribs and barbecue.

So time to socialize, meet local first responders, and get emergency ready.

Um, looks like this is just a duplicate of the first one.

Great.

Um so it is a duplicate.

Associated with that event.

So there's we probably got it twice because there's QNAs.

Both of these stay hosted by Brian Bluehaired neighborhoods.

Yeah, it's it's all the same information.

Yeah, I think we might have two flyers that went to two different neighborhoods, but the same event.

Oh, I see, because it's the Bryant and Blue Heron neighborhoods.

Okay.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you for clarifying a joint neighborhood celebration for the same event.

Um moving on to item number six, our work session.

But before we get into that, um, I'd like to acknowledge our new commissioners that are here with us.

Um first planning commission meeting, I believe, or is it the second first one, right?

No, this is our first.

First what?

Great.

Thank you very much for serving, and we are excited to have you both here.

6.1.

Our work session for tonight is the code audit and amendments for housing and business work session number three, PP 25-0002.

That is an update for our code object project and a request for a volunteer as Planning Commission liaison to the technical advisory committee.

We have Evan Fredsted here presenting.

Thank you, Evan.

Thank you, Chair and Najak.

It works great.

Yeah, so I'll be providing an update from our last work session, which was in August of last year.

So it's been it's been 11 months.

A lot has happened.

But because I know we have two new commissioners, I'm gonna go over some of the background first, and it's been a while.

All right, so the code audit project was identified as part of the economic development and housing production strategy with the need for more in-depth comprehensive analysis of the community development code, and is supported by city council initiatives as 2026 says begin a comprehensive review of the community development code to identify barriers to housing production and economic development and implement code amendments to address those barriers.

So as part of the code audit projects, there's also the rezoning for housing project, which I think a lot of you are aware of.

Um those kind of work in tandem.

So in order to address the city's initiatives to implement the housing production strategy, a rezoning for housing project will work together with the code audit project to increase the supply of housing and address the city's housing needs.

The two projects also support the city's economic development goals as identified in the economic development strategy, and then identifying ways to remove barriers to business growth and provide more housing options for local employees.

The purpose of the code audit project is to address city regulations and development review processes in the community development code to make housing construction and business development more predictable and efficient.

It is focused on identifying unnecessary code barriers and evaluating how permitting can be simplified.

The project will also provide recommendations for how regulations can better support housing, ensure compliance with new state housing mandates, and support economic development while maintaining community standards.

The rezoning for housing project addresses where housing can grow in our commercial and mixed-use districts to address the land deficit identified by the housing needs analysis.

The two main objectives are listed there.

Um identify more housing, where housing should grow and improving the community development code to promote housing construction and business development.

So since our last work session, a lot has happened.

We received $306,000 in November, and then two higher consultants.

That's just for consultant fees, not for staff fees or anything like that.

It took a while to get the intergovernmental agreement executed.

That was finally signed in February 2026.

The request for proposals went out in February.

Um we had four proposals that were submitted for the consultants and staff conducted interviews with the top two consultants.

Ultimately, 3JA consultant received the highest score and was selected in May.

So that leaves us to the our project team.

So it's myself, um, the community development director and long-range planning manager here and 3J consulting.

The project manager is Lee Ollie Good.

And what we're currently working on.

So since the project kicked off in May, we're in the what we call the initiation phase.

Uh the first task is to conduct research and analysis for a background report that will be completed by the end of the month.

The background report will clarify key issues and areas of focus that the code audit and amendments should address after reviewing the comprehensive plan, housing needs analysis, housing production strategy, and economic development strategy.

The background report will also identify conflicts and amendments needing to comply with state law.

So all the state mandates that we're required to do in the next couple of years.

This project will implement.

I guess we'll we'll discuss all those.

So we at this time 3J consulting conducted staff interviews.

So it was a staff interviews with with planning, building, economic development, and engineering department, as well as representative from the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce to identify key issues that should be addressed as part of the audit.

Next step is to conduct interviews with different stakeholders in local housing and business communities and neighborhood groups to gather input regarding the barriers to housing and economic development in the community development code, city processes, and other issues that impact timely efficient and predictable permitting.

3J consulting is in the process of drafting a public involvement strategy that will help guide the project overall.

This will be completed by the end of September.

The community engagement process will include open houses, stakeholder interviews, community surveys, and online communications, such as social media posts, web updates, press releases.

The next PC work session we'll we'll have on this project will be September 28th, and we'll by that time the background report will be done.

We'll talk about that.

The stakeholder interviews, the summaries will be ready, and the draft public involvement strategy will at least be ready by then.

And we can we'll have more to talk talk about next time.

We'll actually have some some documents to give you and stab just more of a background, which we've have done so far.

And we'll also in the process of creating a technical advisory committee, which is formed to help direct technical work on the project.

So TAC will be comprised of city staff and representatives from the planning commission.

So one from the planning commission, one from the development review commission, one from the city council, um, represented from the Department of Land Conservation and Development, that DLCD, one from Metro, one from Chamber of Commerce, and some representatives from the community development from people like builders and contractors and things like that.

So the first stack meeting will be in September.

Um they'll be on a recurring basis about every other month or so.

There should be at least six of them, but the the schedule is not set yet.

The last meeting will be in September of 2027 to review the work products and provide input to the project team.

So, yes, we are requesting a volunteer from the commission.

Um if you want to talk about it, we can.

Um, what just happened with the DRC, they just emailed me.

So whoever wanted to volunteer, can they you can just email me and we'll we'll um hopefully we get more in one and we can select that way and I can just respond via email and that way no one has to fight it out over a public, you know, on online here.

Does that sound okay to everybody?

Unless you wanted to discuss it.

If you have questions for me about what the technical advisory committee entails, okay.

So the overall process.

So, as I said, we're in the the initiation phase now.

So the project is two phases.

So we have the code audit, and then we have to draft code amendments.

So we're in the initiation phase now.

The next is to perform the code audit.

That work will officially start in October.

And that the when the draft audit report is complete, we will take that to city council to planning commission, um, the TAC and the general public.

That will list so the the draft report in general will list all the specific places in the community development code that will require updates in order to be compliant with the existing state law and those that were recently passed in the legislative session, and an outline of the CDC standards or procedures that have the effect of discouraging housing through unreasonable costs and delays, identifying specific areas in the CDC that will be streamlined, clarified, and amended amended for greater effectiveness, including potential zone districts and overlay consolidation and simplification of the development standards or processes.

Next is the final audit report.

Um this includes revisions that reflect input learned from staff and the TAC and public outreach as part of the draft code phase.

The final audit report will include recommendations on the type of changes to implement the solutions identified.

The final audit report will also be presented to city council, the PC TAC, and open houses.

And then we get into the amendment phase.

So the first step is to draft code amendments, and this reflects the findings and recommendations that are identified in the final audit report.

And the consultant and staff will prepare these together.

And we'll also this phase will present to city council, the PC, the TAC.

We just keep going, it's like every three months basically.

We'll come back to you, is what's going to happen.

And the last phase is to adopt the code amendments.

So this is very similar to what we do with our annual code amendment process that Ellen here will talk about next.

One PC work session and a public hearing where we'll make recommendations to the council, and then it goes to city council for final amendment.

But hopefully when all that is said and done, here's the tentative schedule.

It will be hopefully the end of 2027 when the final code amendments are passed.

It could be maybe January.

There's a couple months in there in 2028 for compliance with the Metro audit, Metro grant for the audit project.

And but yeah, our goal is to finish at the end of 2027.

And that concludes my update.

Thank you.

I've got a question.

For the the general project at the whole whole project together, and this may be early in the process, but we get to 20 end of 2027.

Um what metrics are you thinking about for evaluating you know, was the was the project a success and and you know, reduced construction time or reduce code confusion or movement towards city go city council goals or kind of what what metrics are you thinking about to evaluate if the project you know success of the project.

We haven't established like exact metrics for like numbers, but I mean some of the ways you can do that is yeah, review times, process and review times for for building permits or land use applications.

I think one thing we'll definitely do is just take the total number of words in the development code now and see if we reduce those.

That's one thing they did with the streamlining project that which was done about 10 years ago.

Um, but I think that's it's part of what we hire the consultants to do.

And they'll so they're gonna come with the background report and then the the draft audit report will have recommendations, and that's that should be in there.

Like how would we measure if this project is successful?

At least that's what we would expect.

Great, thank you.

Any further questions before we move on.

All right.

I would just, I guess, add one thing to what um Evan was mentioning is that um we'll actually have to eventually report back to DLCD about our sort of anticipated impact, you know, what what we think um the anticipated impact of this action will be on our overall housing goals and um unlike the rezoning, it'll probably be a little bit harder to quantify um these changes and their sort of or overall impact on our ability to meet our housing needs, but that is something that we are required to do, and we will sort of um be tasked with next year.

Um so um yeah, we will ask the consultants to do that, and then hopefully they do a good enough job that it's easy enough for us to uh regurgitate that back to the state.

Yeah, and I would also add that you know we're required to report our housing data every year um to show how much um housing housing we're producing as a city.

When we when you make code changes, it's not like instantly then everything just starts ramping up.

I mean, there's so many complicated, I mean, the the financing is actually a bigger, and the the state of the economy actually has a bigger impact on on the amount of housing being built.

Um so uh yeah, so we will be able to we will continue measure from year to year, and after we make the code changes, you know, I we'll we'll try to establish some some metrics where we can see potentially having um reduced timelines for um approving housing.

That would be a metric that we could look at.

Um, and of course the number of housing units because that is something we're already could tracking and we'll continue to track in the future.

Can you do mind turning on your uh mic, your microphone so people can hear on the recording?

Um I saw in the second foil the objective of the study, but it was very general.

Maybe it'd be more yeah, housing and economic development to do what exactly with housing and economic development can maybe a little bit more specific, what the objectives of the whole thing is.

Yeah, I think you know, I I would just mention I think that side we were trying to explain a little bit more high level because we've been having a hard time just kind of giving that high-level explanation.

So we're trying to avoid at least on that side getting into the details.

But um, yeah, I guess I'd let Evan answer that if you want me to answer that.

I can take a stab though.

I mean it's the simplest form is to remove the barriers in our code.

So I guess if I start from kind of the beginning, so we do annual code amendments, which Ellen talked about next every year, which address some low-level things, and it's kind of like to fix some of the code issues we we see.

But we haven't done a major code rewrite in a long time.

It's been over 20 years, really.

We did a re-org and we did a streamlining process, but we haven't looked at the code holistically to identify what works and what doesn't.

And the whole the core of it, that's what we're we're gonna try to do.

We're gonna try to identify the things that don't work, the things that maybe are a barrier, prevent some housing from being built, or from businesses going in from stuff like that.

And that's what the consultants are tasked to do.

Um how we do that, I think there's different ways to do that.

But overall, it's just really to take out a holistic look at the code for the first time in a long time.

So again, uh I'm sorry to be enforced on again.

Reviewing the code, uh okay.

If it's break it, I'm I buy into that philosophy.

But what fool.

Why would we review and the code?

Well, I think um, you know, I I I can speak to a number of things, you know.

I think um, as Evan mentioned in the earlier slides, you know, this was originally identified as part of a council effort um related to economic development.

So there was an identified issue where you know um folks were having um either um, you know, long permitting processes that were you know a hindrance to their project, or they complained about the permitting processes being too complex, code being too complex in particular.

Um so that was identified in particular as a barrier to um business development.

Of course, businesses come in and do housing development as well.

Um, but you know, there was uh uh you know an ask, I think at that point to do that broader look, and it was pretty open ended.

I think we hear a lot about the code being complex here in Lake Oswego and not necessarily friendly to development.

And so this is something we've been hearing a lot throughout the years.

Um we have identified a number of different things that could sort of be streamlined, but um, you know, that's something that we try to do internally through this more annual process.

It's always good to have a consultant in and actually take a look at the code and recommend to us hey, you know, you're trying to uh attack this this way.

Other cities might take a different approach that's more streamlined that we could implement um instead.

Um so really trying to get that outside perspective as opposed to just our inside kind of you know in the weeds um maintenance type of amendments that we usually come up with.

But um, so anyway, I guess first thing is that it was really techno economic development.

That was kind of in the um on the back burner for a bit um because it was a large project.

Um but then we start doing our housing production work and identified that we could be looking at code barriers specifically to the development of housing that can get in the way.

And so um a number of those are identified in the housing production strategy.

Um, but things like height limits in particular or restrictive lot coverages in certain areas, or um, you know, even just complex uh processes, you know, and uh we have a lot of overlay districts that have extremely complex codes that have a lot of sort of different um nuance related to adjacent properties and um you know that kind of make it really hard for not only you know a prospective developer, a property owner to come in and understand what they can actually do with their property, but also even staff has a hard time sort of wading through these things and being able to kind of give good guidance really to these folks.

So um a lot of it is just kind of acknowledging that those um issues have been there and that we want to come and come back and address those.

Um, and they are complicated, so it's hard to just like easily explain because we want to uh approach this for a number of different um from enough number of different angles, but uh yeah, I think you know, really that's uh intended to simplify something that we've long acknowledged is very complicated and has only gotten really more complicated, I would say, over time.

So and I think I can make a very simple um example of of what we what we're trying to uh accomplish here.

So when I first started working at the city in 2001, I was just an assistant planner, and one of my jobs was to review building permits.

And at that time, I reviewed three standards.

So when a building permit came in, I made sure that the height was met, the setbacks were met, and lot coverage, and that was it.

Now we're here in 2026, and over time we have adopted more and more standards to the code, and many for good reason.

I'm not suggesting we need to go back to three standards.

However, now we have a six-page checklist that that and it's front and back and it's dense when you look at it.

I mean, it's really quite impressive when you see it in terms of the detail and the amount of work that goes into reviewing all of these permits.

And we have one staff person that their only job is to review building permits.

And when I was here, when that was my job, I did that plus five other things were my primary um um duties.

So you can see our c our code has just gotten a lot of complexity over time.

So this is a comprehensive review to look at that complexity, see where we can cut back on things that are really not achieving what we're trying to achieve, but still maintaining our community values because we recognize that these standards are important and they're there for a reason.

But there's probably some fat we can cut from there.

And that's going to help reduce costs in terms of the complexity for those who are building housing, and also uh reduce timelines for review, and that can be really killers to projects.

We always hear from our builders and developers that time is money, and the longer this it takes to go through these processes, the more expensive it is to build housing and the more uncertainty that they have.

So those are sort of the primary things we want to address.

But I'm sorry, you were going to say something else as well.

Uh I'm I guess I'm saying everything I've heard, it's all about improving the codes, making them more efficient.

But we're presenting it as housing and economic development program.

So I suppose the objective is to provide more and better prized housing opportunities and improve economic uh development.

And one of the avenues we have or obstacles for those two we have found or need an inefficiency of the codes, and this is to address that.

So are we gonna do other things toward those two objectives?

Or this is absolutely.

Yeah, I think um, you know, this gets back to again that one of those first slides where um you know this is really stemming from the economic development strategy that was adopted 2022, I think it was, and um it's I think it might have been refined recently, but we're still working on that.

Um, but there are a number of strategies in our economic development strategy.

It's not just one strategy, right?

Um, you know, that um are identified there.

So it's a holistic uh plan for us to um you know proceed with economic development and remove barriers for business and and housing or business specifically within the city.

Um and then going to the housing production strategy.

That's something that we actually developed a housing needs analysis in 2023, and this is all required by the state under their new kind of framework for housing planning.

Um, but uh we actually developed a large document that outlines very um specific types of housing needs, whether it be by income, whether it be by other types of um you know, housing unit characteristics um and what we lack here in the city and what we need to make more of.

So um, you know, we sort of went and did that analysis and then developed a housing production strategy to try to address those specific needs.

Um that housing production strategy has 13 different individual strategies within it.

Um, number one on that housing production strategy is the code audit.

Uh, number two is the rezoning for for housing project, which we mentioned is as a related initiative because it's you know, this is looking at how to more efficiently produce housing, the other one is looking at ways to um overall increase our housing capacity and how where sort of um housing should be located.

Okay.

Um so anyway, that this is a really big part of our housing production strategy.

Um I think you know, we still haven't identified all the different ways that it could remove barriers, but that's kind of part of what the consultant is is here to do.

Similarly, the same goals for the economic development.

Absolutely, yeah.

And I think um, yeah, I I am more of an expert on the HPS because I worked on those, but hopefully somebody else can talk a little bit more about the economic development strategy as well.

But um lots of other approaches that were taking there.

Um and yeah, this is just one uh opportunity to you know make a difference when it comes to business activity and businesses being able to um operate here in the city.

Thank you.

Do you uh reach out to the different neighborhood associations of like us weigho as you're going through a process?

Absolutely, yeah.

We we are in frequent contact with them.

We we emailed that uh list of NAHs on a very regular basis, including for all of our planning commission meetings and all of our task force meetings and um you know all the different sort of steps of these projects that we take.

Yeah, as I was mentioning my my presentation.

So the next step is to conduct like focus groups and stakeholder interviews.

And the neighborhood chairs will be a part of that.

Um and neighborhood representatives, maybe like HOA people.

We haven't solidified that list yet, but yeah, that's the next step is to reach out to them.

We also have multiple output houses that they can participate in, and there's multiple steps where people can comment and participate.

And staff will be bringing the um public involvement strategy to the commission for comment before finalizing at um this fall.

Yeah, that's correct.

So you will have an opportunity to weigh on it.

But yeah, public input is an incredibly important part of this, um, including vetting out um uh some of the concepts um before we make changes to the code, and this commission will play an incredibly important role.

We're gonna come to you and um uh for a lot of that uh feedback and um uh before we make any proposed recommendations to change the code.

I think this will all make more sense in our next work session in September because we'll actually have documents to give you.

We'll have the background report which will say why we need to do this and more like what needs to be what needs to be fixed.

It's gonna be it'll become more evident as time goes on with the project.

Right now it's more theoretical, I guess, but more to come, I think is what I'm trying to say.

Any further questions or comments.

Great.

Thank you so much, Evan, for your presentation.

Thank you.

Moving on to work session 6.2.

We get two work sessions in one evening.

Semi-annual code amendments, which were referenced earlier.

Work session one, LU 26-0019.

We will receive an introduction and review of the proposed amendments and ask clarifying our background questions prior to conducting our public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for September 14th.

Great, we've got it on the calendar.

Staff coordinator is Ellen Davis, senior planner.

Thank you, Ellen.

Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Ellen Davis.

I am a senior planner for the city.

Tonight I will be discussing the annual 2026 code amendments, which generally focus on relatively simple and time-sensitive amendments identified by staff compared to the more complex questions being tackled in the broader code audit project that was just discussed.

This year's annual code amendment project is a little different than usual because it also contains a state-mandated change effective at the end of this calendar year, leading to a shorter timeline than usual.

This is a tentative schedule to meet that January 1st deadline.

Following this schedule, the next time we would meet for this project would be a public hearing in September, followed by adoption of findings, which will include a recommendation to the city council to approve, modify, or deny the proposed amendments.

The package would then move to a city council public hearing in November.

When the city council adopts an ordinance, it is effective after 30 days, or the council could establish a date certain, such as January 1, 2027 in this case.

Followed by a discussion of the proposed policy amendments, which may generate more discussion.

The first item on the list is going to be removal of a section of code that was added during the COVID-19 pandemic to allow construction of covered outdoor restaurant seating.

This allowance hasn't been used a single time and specifically references the COVID-19 pandemic.

Item two would remove conflicts between a requirement in three of our design districts that currently require an 18-inch minimum eave depth for townhouses.

This conflicts with the building code's 12-inch maximum that is the allowed Eve depth for townhouses that share a common wall.

So just removing conflicts between our code and the building code.

Item number three would clarify that accessory structures like storage buildings are not required to provide a primary entrance in that walkways to an accessory structure's entrance are not required in the Southwest Overlay district.

Item number four would clarify that the sensitive lands code's progressive mitigation steps apply to impacts or intrusion into any portion of a riparian protection district, including the protected riparian area, which is already part of the district's definition.

Item five staff has consistently allowed projections into both the street front and the street side yard setback plane for corner lots.

This amendment would clarify that projections into both types of street setback plane are allowed.

Item six has been withdrawn.

We'll be keeping the existing language as is for our six front porch railings.

For item seven, this proposal will improve the legibility of the list of applicable zones and clarify that garage appearance and location standards are limited to single family and middle housing residential uses.

For item eight, we would correct the number of units referenced for multi-family residential development, which should be five consistent with the definition of multifamily development.

Item nine, um, the state of Oregon eliminated minimum parking requirements a few years ago.

This item will remove a reference to required parking that was missed before.

For item 10, currently the lighting standards applicable to public functions and parks and natural area zones are formatted in a confusing way.

This proposal would fix the numbering to make it clearer which types of lighting are exempt from review and which are regulated.

For number 10 or number 11, I'm sorry.

Um, we would include the term boat garage in the definition of boat house.

And the intent of that would be to better align with the building code's definitions, which refer to boat garages to make that clear that that's what we're talking about.

For item 12, this proposal would simplify the list of applicable residential zones for clarity.

Uh item 13 would add a definition for the term top of bank, which is already shown graphically in the code.

For item 14, we would update the definition for retaining walls to better align with the building code and reduce ambiguity.

That's the end of those maintenance amendments.

I'm going to pause here for any questions or clarification that I've on anything have discussed so far before we move on to policy items.

Any questions?

COVID time.

Oh, could could you use the microphone?

Yes.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Um the uh COVID time code additions to the outside.

If it is working, why would we tend to uh that code section actually hasn't been used?

It hasn't been implemented a single time by a single business since it was put into place.

It's also expired.

Yeah, okay well it had a um a sunset date, I think written in.

So any other questions.

The parking requirement elimination came up in the uh the other day at the foothill.

Um is that the uh no parking required?

That seems like where would people park in?

Um, well, um, it's not necessarily that there's no parking just because there's no parking required, it's just that the city isn't telling developers how much parking to provide they're making the decision of how much parking to provide.

So there is still really an expectation that developers will provide parking in a suburban area like this in order to just make their development hash out financially.

Um, of course, that's not required though.

So that is something that we did to comply with state law that was passed um back a couple years ago, the climate-friendly and equitable communities um legislation.

So we um, you know, as of I think it was 2024, um, went through and adopted standards that removed minimum parking requirements citywide.

There was a few other things that we did as part of that effort.

But um I would definitely encourage you to take a look at some of the background information on that that I sent to you after the orientation, which um there's a lot of um sort of a backstory there, but um, you know, we were given some different options for compliance by the state, and um the city council ultimately and the planning commission um opted to um take a simpler approach and just remove the the parking requirements because there were other kind of um adverse uh potential outcomes from the other options as well.

So and um, yeah, I guess that's a good point, Jessica.

That is also a part of our housing production strategy.

So it's another important sort of tool that makes it easier for particularly um affordable housing developers and developers that have slimmer margins to be able to make their uh developments a little bit more feasible financially.

Basically, that you know, we're not sort of saying no, you have to have this amount of space for this exact many parking spaces based on some formula.

Often those formulas are kind of um you know dated back to the 60s and and have no relevance in today's um sort of modern um trip generation and things like that.

Um so yeah, it's really just more allowing that to be catered more to the developer on the developer by development by development basis rather.

But um, yeah, uh also taking credit um for that for our HPS as well.

Any other questions on the maintenance amendments?

One of many state mandates that you'll be hearing about um in just a moment as well and probably throughout the the uh tenure of you being a commissioner here.

So, I'll move along to our policy amendments.

So these next three amendments involve policy considerations.

Staff requests the commission's input on the scope of the amendments, any alternatives where available, or if any additional research or information would be helpful for the next meeting.

For policy item one, I would like to provide a little bit of background.

Um, middle housing land divisions do not divide land for development purposes.

They only divide land for ownership purposes, and they are generally only requested after the building permits have already been approved.

For this reason, there are no potential issues or conflicts that would be addressed through a neighborhood meeting before a middle housing land division application is filed, which is the purpose of the neighborhood meeting for all of our other application types that require a neighborhood meeting.

Furthermore, a neighborhood meeting could lead to frustration for attendees because recent state laws limit the city's ability to provide notice for this type of application, prohibit consideration of public comments, and only allow the applicant to appeal the decision.

That is very different from the original intent of the neighborhood meeting and how it fits into the process for other application types that do not that do allow public notice, public comments, and public hearing.

This amendment would codify current practice.

For the second policy item, we would address enclosure of an existing non-conforming carport into a garage with walls and a garage door, as shown in the visual here.

The applications currently, these applications currently require a major variance, which requires a public hearing before the development review commission.

Typically, the DRC sees around two of these applications a year.

This project type has a limited scope and impact since it is adding walls and a garage door to an existing carport in the same location, sometimes with a small expansion for usability for modern vehicles.

The requirement for a public hearing adds a lot of time and some additional expense for the applicant.

Typically, for one of these applications that moves as quickly as it can through our process, the major variance takes approximately five and a half to six months, and it can take longer.

The minor variance process, on the other hand, can take as little as two months with a high quality submittal and a responsive applicant.

The minor variance process still requires public notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the site and to the neighborhood association and all abutting neighborhood associations, as well as posting of a notice sign on the property.

Public comments are accepted and are a major consideration in one of the criteria applicable to minor variances.

In a minor variance, staff makes a tentative decision and provide a staff report explaining the reasoning and evidence for the decision, which is then sent to all notice recipients.

Staff's tentative decision can be appealed to a public hearing before the development review commission, but if no appeal is submitted, the decision is final, allowing the property owner to submit for building permits and move forward with their project.

The question for this item to this commission is whether existing carport to garage conversions could be processed as a minor variance rather than going through the major variance process.

And for policy three, I will also provide some uh extensive background.

For our last amendment of the evening, um, House Bill 2138 required local governments to expand middle housing allowances and provide more flexibility for the siting and configuration of middle housing.

One component of House Bill 2138 that is required to go into effect by January 1st, 2027, allows both attached and detached duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes.

As explained in the memo, the state is still working on administrative rulemaking to establish the siting and design standards for these detached plexus.

Because we must allow detach plexes beginning on January 1st, but administrative rules have not been established yet.

Staff recommends taking a simple compliance approach for the interim between January 1, 2027 and January 1st, 2028, to retain our current requirements for PLEX units that are voluntarily attached while still allowing configuration flexibility for detached units as required by the state.

This strategy complies with state law but minimizes the changes to our code for now, allowing the city more time to develop siting and design standards for detached plexes once the state has provided their parameters.

I will note that there may be other related minor code changes that may be included for the commission's consideration as part of this project.

We haven't identified any of those at this time.

There are also other items related to compliance with state laws that become effective January 1st, 2027, such as bonus requirements for accessible or affordable units that will be applied directly through the ORS for the next year while the broader code audit project continues.

And I will ask that you please provide feedback for preparation of the public hearing draft on the proposed code amendments, including any research or other information that will assist in review and consideration of these amendments.

But that is the end of my presentation.

Thank you.

I'm ready for any questions or feedback.

And I just wanted to add really quick, Alan, that um on the question of like other things that we have to do to comply with House Bill 2138.

I am going to be presenting you all with an update at our next meeting, the second meeting in July about the various ways we intend to comply with that bill.

So I can give you a lot more background at our next meeting on what's in there and what all we're planning to do to comply.

But happy to answer any questions that you might have right now as well.

Okay.

So I have uh the first proposed policy amendment here.

Um this was talking about middle housing land divisions, which again are not partitions or subdivisions for development purposes.

These are land divisions for ownership purposes.

Um, they do not change the development potential of a site.

They um act a bit more like condominiums.

Uh, they are different, but um I a bit more like condominiums than a traditional subdivision.

Um, and this proposal would remove the requirement to hold a neighborhood meeting prior to submitting a middle housing land division.

There are any questions about this.

Just to clarify, that's because the the building's already been constructed or it's already been permitted the envelope, the footprint's not changing at this point.

We're simply talking about the ownership.

It's simply talking about the ownership.

Um the applications we've received of this type so far have all been uh, as far as I know, have all been received at a point that the building permit has gone through all of the review, um, like we were discussing with the very long checklist of ensuring that everything is correct before they even submit for this application.

Um, developers do not want to go through this process multiple times, so they want to make sure that the wall isn't moving before they put in ownership wall or line there.

Um so that is the purpose for a purpose for getting rid of the neighborhood meeting for this project, is that the project is is already essentially uh left the the barnyard gate.

And so um it's a little late in the process, and there's no real ability for the public to comment or change anything about the outcome on this process.

Um that is um very different than how neighborhood meetings work in most other contexts in this city, and it might be misleading if people come to those neighborhood meetings with a very different expectation than what is actually allowed by state law.

Thank you.

I just um as a reminder, these types of um uh middle housing uh just middle housing entails duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, and townhouses.

Um, they're all allowed as of right, basically.

You are allowed to construct those without going through a special land use approval, but you would need a land use approval, what we call a middle housing land uh division if you wanted to separate the units just for individual sale, as Ellen has been explaining.

Um, you know, there's no sort of um, you know, it it's most similar to a condo division, but it has to go through the city, and so there's different process involved.

So we're tempting to streamline it just given that it is really not about sort of the bill form.

Um that you know, the the question is less about that and more about ownership, where the property line is going to go, etc.

Okay, any more uh discussion on this one, or should I move on?

Okay, I will move on.

Item number two for enclosure of an existing non-conforming car port.

Um, as I had mentioned before, we do get about two of these per year on average at the development review commission.

Um, the example that I have shown here is a project that I did last year.

Um, so we have an existing non-conforming car port that would not be allowed today, but has existed, it was built prior to today's standards.

And in order to enclose that existing car port to turn it into a garage, every applicant who wants to do that has to go through a major variance process, which does have a much longer time frame.

It's required to go to a public hearing, it has a slightly higher cost.

Um considering that these types of applications are taking an existing structure that is already used for vehicle parking that already exists, and essentially they are just adding a garage door, adding walls, in some cases, expanding the existing carport.

Again, these carports were typically constructed a long time ago, so they don't necessarily meet today's standards.

Um, this is also one of my projects I took to the development and review commission earlier this year.

Um, in this case, the carport uh was expanded by four feet in width, and a garage door was added on the front in order to actually truly fit two cars in it comfortably and be able to open the car doors without dinging your your car doors inside of your garage.

Um so that is the scope of this type of application where we're taking an existing carport and converting it to an enclosed garage, um, which is why staff has identified this as a potential code amendment to look into a minor variance process, which again still allows public involvement, public input.

Um the staff decision can be appealed to a public hearing, but is not required to go to a public hearing from the start.

So the difference between major and minor requirement, minor requirement, you do whatever you want with the existing infrastructure.

Major would be expanding, add in additional infrastructure.

What would make it major?

Um so in this case, I we haven't come up with a very specific proposal yet.

But I think um I at least was envisioning allowing small expansions of an existing footprint uh to still go under a minor variance track.

Um if we do move forward with this amendment, uh, if the commission is interested, um, a major variance would be if you want to construct an entirely new garage that is located in front of the uh main house, which is not currently allowed by today's garage appearance and location standards.

So that could be an example of a major variance that would have to go to a public hearing, as opposed to if you have an existing structure that you're just enclosing.

So the example you use expanding by two feet, that would be a minor that I would propose that that would be a minor uh variance in this scenario.

That's the kind of feedback that we would like to hear from the commission that maybe we need to establish clear parameters because we haven't come to you with any code concepts.

This is right now just a you know, should we tackle this?

And if so, what kind of code concepts would we like would you like us to bring forward?

Because I agree, probably if you expand it by 50%, that's probably not a minor variance material.

But um, but if you have some feedback or guidance on what you think staff should focus on, that would be helpful to us.

And that is, you know, somewhat of a similar uh metric that we use for other minor variances is you know, expansion by a certain percentage.

Is it 15% that we use?

I always think about it.

20% usually.

Yeah.

So that's kind of a standard that we have.

So if it's beyond 20%, then it's no longer minor for expansion um of uh various structures or you know, I don't know, when when it comes to you know variances to setbacks, it's more complicated than that.

But um, that is something that we use for for that sort of threshold between minor and major.

So um, yeah, would would this commission be interested in um something like a a 20% uh uh cutoff for the minor variance process um similar to some of our other minor variances that we already have in place for setbacks or things like that, um just to make sure that um there's a clear line of what would be a minor variance process as opposed to a major variance process.

That will be defined as we go forward.

Yeah.

Yes.

Okay.

I saw some heads nodding.

So I'll move forward in that direction.

Thank you.

No comment.

We'll just assume general agreement.

Um so if if you feel differently, please let your voice be heard.

Yeah.

Um I support moving this to the minor variants just to our DRC has a lot on their plates at times and being able to lighten their load where we can, I think is valuable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, and the last item is uh one of the the bigger items.

Um, but this uh gave a lot of background.

Um, but this is ultimately a requirement that we need to allow detached plexes by January 1st.

Um there is no way to avoid that.

Um so in preparation for that, because we have this broader code audit project going on that we do expect to be finished ideally by the end of uh 2027.

Um this would this is kind of a stopgap measure to make as few changes as possible to our existing code to allow detached plexes, but keep everything that we currently have for attached plexes.

Um this is just uh more of a band-aid amendment to get us through that one year while we're working while the state finishes their rulemaking process so that we know what sighting and design requirements were even allowed to place on detached plexus before we go down that that pathway of really getting into the weeds of exactly what these look like.

Um this is more of a uh as as little change as possible to get us by until we have a more comprehensive change in place.

I don't know if uh if Eric uh if you wanted to add anything to that or if I would just say as as Ellen mentioned, there is um you know another um sort of parallel rulemaking process.

It's a bit of a different um, or it's a bit of a difficult rather uh timing scenario that the state has placed us in where we have to comply with this sort of base provision of allowing these types of structures um in uh by January 1st, 2027, but they're not gonna do rulemaking that establishes what the sighting and design standards are going to be until January 1st of 2028.

So that is going to be quite complicated for us.

You know, hopefully we'll get some sort of advanced notice about what that could look like.

I think you know, there's um there is a likelihood or at least a possibility that we don't even have the answers before the code audit project might be finished.

So it might have to kind of spin off at some point.

But um for the most part, we are hoping to get the guidance that we need at some point from the state.

Um, but the way that the bill was structured is actually in the bill itself, what these deadlines would be.

And so that's been a question that we've had since the very beginning is like what so what are you hoping to accomplish with this sort of um phasing of how we unveil these requirements?

Um they just need time, but that's I think um, you know, because it's in the bill, because it's stated in the actual bill itself, it's definitely limited flexibility for how they could implement it.

Um could we define detachedplex and how that differs from townhomes or cottage clusters?

I'm only familiar with an attached duplex, triplex, fourplex.

Yeah.

Um difference is that townhouses do have to share common walls.

Um that is one definition that is not changing is that a townhouse cannot be detached.

A townhouse does have to be attached, um, and they are individual units that are on their own uh lot, and that is a uh development lot that is created through a subdivision process as opposed to the middle housing land divisions we were talking about earlier.

So that is one thing that makes townhouses different.

Um cottage clusters are detached, and there's a requirement for them to be detached by a minimum of 10 feet right now.

That is actually going to change January 1st, 2028.

That is also in House Bill 2138.

Um cottage clusters starting January 1st, 2028 will be allowed to be attached.

Um, so you could attach two of the cottages if you want to.

Again, we don't know exactly what that is going to look like yet because the state hasn't done rulemaking for that yet.

Um, but attached cottages will be coming, but for now, cottages have to be 10 feet apart.

There are other um very specific requirements for cottages requiring um where the cottage is fronting, um, having common courtyards, there are configuration requirements.

Um that is one other difference with cottages.

And then with uh currently we have attached duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, as you'd mentioned.

Um, I think many of us are familiar with these.

The state has provided um in the their model code or kind of some some draft uh graphics that we've provided here, um, showing some potential examples of what a detached duplex could look like of having two housing units on one site that are not attached to each other, but still act um as uh uh dwelling units on one lot.

So they are still essentially a duplex from the idea of having two units on a lot, um, but they do not share a common wall.

Uh the the state again has not provided rulemaking, so we don't know if there's a minimum distance or maximum distance between units.

We don't know if that is something that will even be allowed to implement in the future.

Um but for now we do we require at least 25% of shared common walls or floors if a duplex, for instance, is stacked uh vertically.

Um we have a minimum requirement for shared uh components.

Um if a the way that staff is currently proposing this amendment, um, with the as least as little change as possible to our current code would keep that requirement for attached units to share at least 25% of their attachment, um, but would allow the flexibility that if a developer wanted to do detached plexus, they could detach them.

But if they're going to be attached, they have to meet today's uh definitions and requirements.

So that is our attempt to make things as simple as possible for now as we're trying to figure out what is coming down the pipe at us.

Um we also have an example shown here of detached quadplexes.

I think that this at some point might look similar to a cottage cluster, but one difference is that cottage clusters have specific requirements for common courtyards and um uh orientation requirements for cottages, which would not apply to a quadplex, at least as far as I know so far.

Again, we don't know what the state is gonna give us.

Yeah, I guess I would mention, yeah, we currently for cottage clusters um have a minimum of five um cottages per cluster that we allow.

So this would allow sort of cottage cluster-like configurations for two, three, and four units.

Um the similarity um, you know, uh this would be more similar though to a duplex in that it would have to fit within the established zoning envelope of a whatever district it's being located within, similar to any single family house or duplex, triplex, quadplex.

Whereas with cottage clusters, they actually have their own special unique envelope, 10 feet of um setback on all sides as opposed to whatever the underlying zone might be here in Lake Oswego, it's usually a larger front and back setback than 10 feet in some of the lower density residential districts at least.

So that's uh a large uh difference, I would say.

So it's kind of like smaller cottage clusters, they have to fit within the zoning envelope, but they don't have as many other orientation requirements or requirements for a common courtyard, um, things like that, um, but a little bit less flexibility to go to the property lines as well.

I think this really illustrates the complexity of our code.

You're probably your head is probably spinning with us talking about all these different requirements that we have, different types of housing, et cetera.

And you know, um uh uh Eric is going to be providing an update he mentioned to you on our uh state housing requirements, and it's very complicated.

And the problem that's happened over the last couple of years is that they implement uh some legislation, we start working on it, and then the next legislation session, they introduce something that affects the prior one that we're still working on.

And so our strategy here is to make the minimum amount of changes that we can that's required by law, knowing that there's more coming down the pipeline.

We just don't want to create more problems later by trying to change more of the code, which is why we're trying to take a minimalist approach here.

Are these uniform across the state of Oregon, or is this typical to only Lake Oswego and nowhere else?

This is this requirement is going to apply to um all metro area cities.

There are slightly different requirements when you are talking about um areas that are outside of the metro and more rural areas, but in the metro region, these these are all apply to all the cities.

Is one difference between something like a townhouse and a detached plex that townhouses have like an individual deed or tax lot, and these detached plexes can have multiple on a single tax lot?

Yeah, that's yeah, sorry.

If you're correct that um townhouses will have a different tax slot for each of the townhouses.

Yet another difference is that townhouses have to have frontage on a public street as opposed to with a quadplex as shown in this uh graphic, um, has four townhouses that are do not all have frontage on the public street.

So that is another difference between four units any detached quadplex or attached quadplex versus a townhouse project.

But it would almost imply in a way that a townhouse may be more common to be owner-occupied.

They don't have to be, but a detached plex, if you have three units that are detached on a single lot, probably the owner is not occupying all three of those.

So two may be rental properties, for example.

Is that a that could be the case?

That could be the case, or um they could do a middle housing land division and sell off each plex individually.

So a separate owner could live in an owner-occupied unit in each of those plex units, too.

Or it could be all renters.

Also, yeah.

It's confusing.

Yeah.

It does.

Yeah, and I think that's that's part of the issue here is that we all have a very like commonly understood understanding of what a duplex is, what a triplex is, what a quadplex is.

And when you start talking about breaking it apart and you know, detaching the individual units, it really starts to look and feel like something that we don't associate with those terms, right?

So I think um, yeah, that's another sort of hurdle for us here as we try to learn how to talk about this.

Um, you know, I think uh yeah, there's some cool possibilities here.

This is something that we actually, when we went through our original adoption of uh code to comply with middle housing standards, our middle housing code advisory committee that we established at that time, um, actually did recommend doing this.

They thought that this was actually a really good opportunity.

Um, in particular, there was some folks that thought that this was a good opportunity for to create more accessible units that um you know, I'm not sure that they need to be detached necessarily to make that happen, but um, you know, at least having more flexibility to allow these configurations for uh developments of less than five units could lead to more accessible units for smaller developments, with the idea being that these detached units um would be more accessible, they'd be on the ground floor and have um a little more of that um sort of single family feel that I think folks uh might be wanting, but also, you know, um I think folks just associate elevators or things that have multiple stories with not being accessible when that's not necessarily true, but you know, that and uh without getting into those details, I will just say there are a number of reasons that uh the committee did favor uh detached plexus.

But you know, that and without getting into those details, I will just say there are a number of reasons that uh the committee did favor uh detached plexus.

So um it's been kind of a best practice for some time that now the state is saying actually um this best practice is now a requirement.

So one thing about the let's say fourplex and then one piece of lot.

So do they eventually become full tax lots or who pays how they don't have to, um, but they could um but you know they would have to have A, B, C, D or something like that associated with them, like you would uh, you know, apartment complex or a smaller unit, but they don't necessarily have to be their own tax lots, like it might be more akin to you know, when you see stacked units that don't necessarily have their own quote unquote tax lots, but there's different ownership, et cetera.

So that was that was my big question for the night.

And Ellen answered it and Eric promised to answer more of it uh at a future meeting.

But yeah, for the policy amendments uh that are driven by state law, where does the city have flexibility, local discretion, um, or where are we just implementing mandatory requirements uh in the context of the band-aid of of the fact that this is still very much a work in progress.

Um so yeah, thanks for the conversation on this.

Thank you.

Yeah, um definitely um going to have the opportunity to discuss that more.

But if you have any you know interim questions, happy to address those too.

Um but yeah, I think uh we really, you know, we we could sort of dive into a whole effort to say we're gonna come up with our own citing and design um standards for detached plexus because we think that's important, but we just have no idea where the state's going to land and we might get to a place where either those are not valid or you know invalidated, or we have to apply state statute directly or something funky like that.

Um so in either case, we're gonna have to adopt new ones once they do develop the rules.

So um we just want to sort of bite our time and um also acknowledge just how much else we have to do to comply with state law um sort of concurrently and how many other large projects are kind of um oriented towards that too.

So this amendment would be to allow for these detached housing units, correct?

Yes.

Right, yeah.

Once they're allowed, and we don't have the state providing the rulemaking yet.

What happens once you have someone who's up, you know, submitting an application for doing such of these units?

What what happens at that point?

I I can take that question.

Um so somebody would come in with a building permit after January 1st of this next year, and we will uh apply our current codes that we have in place for any residential um single family or middle housing that would be built on that lot.

So we would apply the same setbacks, the same lot coverage requirements, the same height requirements.

We would apply to a single family house or to an attached duplex.

Um, and we will just go through our building checklist as we keep mentioning and review that application.

And we will not require those units to be attached, though.

That will be the one change, is that they will be allowed to be detached, but they'll still need to meet setbacks from the exterior property lines.

They will still need to meet the maximum amount of the property that can be covered with structures.

Um they will still need to meet maximum floor area requirements.

So all of the standards that apply to the site will still apply.

But instead of um being attached, they they would simply be detached in whatever way that the builder proposed in their building permit plans that we were reviewing.

Are there certain things that would not be applicable for I mean, I assume these would be smaller units than possibly a single family home that's encompassing an entire lot?

Um things that would be conflicting at all.

Well, I think that's that's a good question.

I mean, if you're talking about potentially simplifying standards for these, like there that might make some sense given that they are different than single family, but you know, for for now, you know, what kind of the long-standing um uh principle that we've tried to apply to middle housing is applying the same envelope and zoning standards as single family housing.

So that's we're trying to be consistent with that here.

Um, but you know, I think particularly with, you know, there's a lot of use in the code of you know, primary, when you talk about primary entrances or primary structure or primary roof form or something.

So um, you know, I think there are some terminology that I'm sure once we start applying this, we'll say, oh, that's funky, we're gonna have to revisit that.

Um but I you know, I think we again want to take that on as part of that code amendment process and think about how can we make this simpler for the applicants, um, you know, uh basically that are going to be building these.

And when it comes to these, you know, does this meet our housing need?

Is this something that we do want to promote?

And if if so, what can we do to simplify that process and encourage this?

Um, so I think there's a lot of different questions there, but um, yeah, you know, I think in particular we have need for smaller um housing unit sizes.

Um so that's one particular housing need that this could accomplish or help us address.

And I'll also mention if there are any specific issues with the code that we run into between now and September that I'm like, hey, we really need to address this one thing, I might bring that back and put that in the code amendment package for this next round.

If there is anything that's a really specific fix that we can identify and have that ready to go.

Um but I I am thinking that once we do see these, um, we might identify problems that we didn't see uh uh ahead of time.

It's a little harder to think through every possible development scenario.

Um and it sometimes we don't uh uh sometimes it's when the rubber meets the road is when we really see how uh something works or doesn't work in a configuration that we didn't even think about before.

So if we do identify any changes that we can make ahead of time, I'll bring those to the next uh public hearing.

Um but if we don't identify any of those issues, I think we'll do our best to muddle through together uh with the developer and with help from the uh state of Oregon has an office that can assist us with some of those questions if if they can.

Um but I think we'll we'll all just do our best, and hopefully that will lead to a better uh uh long-term code solution once we know what that looks like for these detachplexes.

Um interesting, you know.

I've heard folks that are really supportive of this idea, and then there's other folks that think it's so similar to single family, and it's kind of like cheating or something.

But one thing that we are seeing very, very strongly, and there's studies that kind of show this is that middle housing developers uh are really still trying to create products that kind of look like single family housing, just smaller.

Um so this is something that they they're um asking for and want to be constructing.

So to the extent that that's consistent with our neighborhood character, that could be something that actually fits in quite well here in Lake Aswego and does help meet our housing goals.

Um but yeah, it is something that um you know I think DLCD want to do to respond to that uh, you know, whatever the market is is pushing, um, whatever for whatever reason the market is pushing in that direction.

And so they want it to be responsive.

Thank you very much.

Any further questions.

All right, Ellen, thank you for the presentation.

Item number seven, other business.

If anyone has any open items.

I guess I would just mention um that we did get uh volunteer for the library site reuse task force.

So thank you, um, our new commissioner Avishan.

Um, Avishon is going to be the liaison for the library site reuse task force.

Um so just wanted to kind of close that loop and let folks know.

And of course, a reminder that we are looking for a volunteer for Evans code audit uh TAC as well.

Um just email him if you're interested.

So yeah.

All right, anyone else for new business.

Okay, seeing none, item eight, schedule review.

All right, so had a little bit of a last minute change here.

So you received um uh schedules with today's date that were created um very uh shortly before the meeting here.

Um so a few changes.

Um, you know, obviously uh we held our meeting today on the 13th, but our second meeting in July, I'm still planning to give you all that update as I discussed earlier on um just the overall sort of framework for House Bill 2138 and what we need to comply with and how that relates to our housing production strategy work.

Um I will um though give you a heads up that our meeting for August 10th has been um or the work session needs to be postponed, basically.

So I don't have anything else scheduled for August 10th.

We may have to have an August recess similar to what the city council does.

Um, but I um am leaving that at least open in case something pops up, but I'm assuming that we'll probably have to cancel that.

And we will um be canceling the meeting on August 24th as well.

So looking like an August recess for for the commission, but we have a very uh busy fall, um, as you can see here with uh hearing that would be our first meeting in September on September 14th for Ellen's code amendment project.

Um so that should um be a good enough update for us all.

But um I will keep you, of course, updated on the 10th and um we'll confirm um whether we are holding a meeting as as soon as I can.

Great.

Thank you so much.

With that, we are adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.