Okay, I think we're ready to go ahead and start the meeting.

Great.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Bang my virtual gavel calling to order the meeting of the Lake Oswego Planning Commission for Monday, July 27th, 2026 at 6 30 p.m.

hosting this meeting virtually today.

Michelle, can you or Christina please call roll?

Not sure who's in charge of that.

Chair Najak.

Here.

Vice Chair Bruce.

Here.

Commissioner Avishan.

Commissioner Guinea.

Here.

Commissioner Call.

Here.

Commissioner Sly.

Here.

Commissioner Twing.

Commissioner Twing.

Okay, we see him on the screen.

So Councilor Verdick.

Here.

Thank you very much.

Speaking of counselor verdict, next up, we have item number three, City Council update.

Counselor Verdick, do you have anything to share with us?

I think we were in the process of doing interviews for the city manager.

So that's been taking up.

We've been most of last week.

Last week at our meeting, we had an update on e-bikes and how the city could maybe what our code should look like around e-bikes, make sure that our code also is in line with what the state has.

So that was a big uh study session that we had.

And then we also had um the tree code.

So and I think you're all familiar with that.

So uh nice job, uh Director Namonalu for that.

I think those are the key items.

And then we do have neighborhood night out next uh Tuesday.

So I hope you guys are joining your neighborhoods for that.

Great, thank you very much.

Next on our agenda is item number four, approval of the prior meeting minutes from July 13th, 2026.

Open the floor to any uh additions or changes or motion to approve.

I would like to make a motion to approve the minutes as written.

Thank you.

Do I hear a second?

I'll second that.

Thank you very much.

All in favor to move to approve the meeting minutes for July 13th, 2026 as written, please say aye.

All right.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Hearing none.

And all abstain.

Thank you very much.

Chair Najak.

Uh, just as a point of order, I I'm not sure if Commissioner Swing was participated in that vote, so maybe we could confirm whether he participated.

Commissioner Twing, are you there?

It doesn't look like he's there, so I just want to for the record that he didn't uh participate in that vote.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate that.

All right, next up, um, agenda item number five.

We have public comment for items that are not on tonight's agenda.

Do we have anyone signed up for public comment?

We do not have anyone signed up for public comment.

Great, thank you.

Number six, commission for citizen involvement, general updates.

We do have a postcard that I have open.

Let me grab it and read it out to folks.

Um, so this is Lakewood neighborhood national night out at our prior meeting.

We got uh several other of these notices for the neighborhood night out as well.

This one is for Lakewood, um, August 4th, 2026 from 630 to 8.

Join us at the corner of Lakewood and Middle Crest, come together with friends, family, and neighbors for an evening of fun ice cream treats and community spirit.

Let's celebrate what makes Lakewood special and we hope to see you there.

It says if you uh need more information to email the neighborhood chair, Lakewood LF at gmail.com or go to the website Lakewood Oswego.com.

Which brings us to tonight's item number seven, our update on the housing needs and production.

Do we have anyone signed up for public comment uh for this item?

We do not have anyone signed up for comment.

Thank you very much.

That moves us to the housing needs and production update, PP 22-0005 to receive a staff update on the proposed approach to comply with the new state requirements related to the middle housing bill under House Bill 2138 adopted 2025.

And our staff coordinator is Eric Olson, long range planning manager.

Eric, if give the floor to you.

All right, thank you, Chair Najak.

Um, I guess just before I get started, it looks like um Commissioner Twing has his hand up.

Um are you able to uh speak using the Zoom function, Jim.

Just see your hand up, but that's all I can really see right now.

So um yeah, I don't know if you want to say something related to before, but I we we just can't hear anything from your square, but we can see that you're here.

So um, yeah, I don't know if you can work with maybe Christina Michelle to try to figure out.

Um but yeah, apologies for that, uh, Commissioner Twing, but I guess I'll just go ahead and get started.

Um I am here too, as uh Chair Najak mentioned, just give you all an update on what we plan to do as a city to comply with requirements that um apply to us under state House Bill 2138.

So that's a bill that was actually passed last year in 2025.

Um, but it's uh sort of implementation deadlines in terms of what cities need to do to comply, um, start on January 1st, 2027, and some of them also take effect on January 1st, 2028.

Um so that's just something to note there.

Um, so there's you know, there's a few things that we've known about for a little bit now, but haven't talked about in too much detail.

So I think we presented these um to you, you know, a little bit at the last uh work session that we held with you all related to the annual code amendments, and we talked a little bit about some of the code amendments we had been proposing um partially in order to comply with House Bill 2138 by the deadline um of this coming January 1st, 2027.

Um so I just want to talk a little bit about the bill as a whole and what is in it and what we intend to do as a city to comply just with um all the other pieces that are involved in in uh what House Bill 2000 or I'm sorry, House Bill 2138 um entails.

So um I just want to know it looks like uh Commissioner Avishon is here now.

So um glad to see you, uh Commissioner Avish.

Thanks.

Um matter of procedure there.

I just want to know that you're here, but good to see you.

Um yeah, I guess I'll just know I don't have a um presentation or anything, so I'm just gonna be talking at you tonight.

Um, just giving you a brief summary of what I uh included in the staff report.

Um, but yeah, essentially, as I mentioned, you know, House Bill 2138 was passed during the 2025 legislative session at um the Oregon legislature.

It was a big legislative session session.

There was a lot of legislature being considered and a lot that ended up being passed.

Um, I want to say there was like hundreds of different bills being considered, um, and a lot of those ended up going through.

And a lot of those ended up going through I did put together an attachment that tries to summarize kind of what applies to us and what we're proposing to do to comply.

And so, you know, I guess I'll just go over that attachment really, because I think that's the bulk of what I wanted to cover here.

So yeah, I guess I'll start out a lot of um what Houseville 2138 is intended to cover was with respect to middle housing.

Um that's something that I think for those commissioners that weren't kind of a long um this ride with us back when we originally adopted legislation to comply with the state's middle housing rules.

Um, we were required by the state um to adopt uh code essentially that um allowed um basically in all areas where single family zones or where single family residential housing was allowed.

We also had to allow um what are called duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes.

So the idea being um single family home structure, something that looks like that, but that would contain two, three, or four units.

Duplex would have two units, triplex would have three, quadplex would have four, but it would be within one structure.

Uh, you know, those units would uh share um walls and be eight attached, so there'd be attached configurations allowed um at that point, as well as other middle housing types that were allowed at that time included cottage clusters as well as townhouses.

So these are all allowed within our single family residential zones currently in the city of Lake Oswego.

Um it's been uh I think four or five years now since we've allowed those.

Um it was 2022, I guess.

So it's been about four years since we've been allowing those types.

And we haven't seen a lot of them come to pass really.

Um, we've just seen uh some of our first cottage clusters come in in the city and still sort of struggle on the market.

Um, but uh I would just point out um that you know the state has been, you know, essentially through this bill, they want to um make the proposed rules for cottage clusters a little bit more flexible.

So um what they had originally proposed, I think a lot of folks thought were were pretty flexible actually.

Um they had some requirements for orientation standards, standards where the cottages had to be facing either inwards towards um a common courtyard um or towards the street.

So there was you know certain percentages of the units within cottage clusters, which are detached um housing units, I guess detached, not attached units between um five and eight units is how we decided to define those as a city.

Um we had to allow up to eight units on the same lots where we allowed single family residential um homes.

So pretty big change as you could imagine.

But um, you know, the design standards were written such that they were supposed to kind of mitigate any potential adverse impacts on design character, but they were still pretty flexible.

So I I guess in short, uh other types of housing, so duplexes, triplexes, and um quadplexes were uh, you know, the idea was that they were um to be forced within the same envelope as a single family home, more or less, that we would have the same zoning regulations, same front setback, side setback, setback plane, all of those things.

Um, the same regulations that we would apply to single family structures would still apply to duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes.

The individual units, of course, would have to be smaller to fit within that envelope, but that was the idea.

Um, when it comes to cottage clusters, however, it was different because that would not have worked.

So basically, the state mandated that the cottage cluster standards that we have now and their 10-foot setbacks on all sides, more or less, with those um orientation requirements.

There are other requirements that are um in our code as well that meet the state's minimum requirements that have to do with uh, you know, uh accessibility and pathways and parking things like that.

Um, there are a number of standards that are specific to cottage clusters, um, but for the most part, they need to have a common common courtyard, they need to have be oriented in a certain fashion and they need to have circulation paths for um folks to be able to get around.

Um, but they are relatively flexible.

Um we also uh in Lake Aswego, we adopted um some standards that allow for um a minimum average size for cottage clusters, and we went went ahead and adopted those.

So I just wanted to put that forward before I start talking about some of the changes that the state is proposing for cottage clusters.

So what the state wants to do here is really allow for not just detached configurations of cottage clusters, but to allow some of those clusters or some of those units rather to be attached to one another.

So that is different than what we would allow under our current code.

Under the current code for cottage clusters, there is a 900 square foot limitation or a maximum for the footprint.

So that's not floor area.

You can have more than one story, but in terms of the footprint of the building, it's only allowed to be up to 900 square foot currently.

They want to be more flexible, and they say that it should be a small footprint or floor area requirement.

That is very vague.

And they're going to basically develop and refine what that means through additional rulemaking.

There's a lot of changes that could, you know, kind of be added to what I just talked about for cottage clusters, cottage clusters, but for the most part, there will be rulemaking that will codify those things by January 1st, 2028.

So all the cottage cluster related changes we need to implement by January 1st, 2028.

That's kind of the last set of changes that we're required to do for the state for this bill.

For our purposes here in the city, we are proposing to incorporate that into our code audit and amendments work.

So we hope to have the details on that rulemaking before that project's over and to incorporate that into the code amendments that we end up including for those recommendations as a part of the code audit.

So some pretty big changes to the cottage cluster regulations.

But some changes actually to the definition of duplex, triplex, and quadplex that actually kind of blur the lines between cottage clusters and you know other types of middle housing, particularly these new what we're calling detached plexes.

So as I mentioned, we currently allow for these attached configurations, sort of two, three or four units within single family envelope, if you will.

But as we learned about at our last uh work session with Ellen about the 2026 code amendments, um we will be required by January 1st, 2027, so pretty soon, um, to allow uh detached configurations for duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes.

Um as we mentioned during that update and talked about a little bit, we do intend to adopt code that would allow for those configurations as a part of our annual code amendments this year.

Um that is going to be actually the next meeting that the planning commission will have on September 15th.

Um we'll have a hearing on those annual code amendments for 2026 that will include um those changes that would allow for detached configurations in addition to attached configurations.

Um the idea being that we would then uh again wait for the state's rulemaking process to play out with respect to cottage clusters.

It's also going to talk about some of those detached plex configurations and the types of rulemaking for siting and design standards, um, sort of the parameters, um, the uh you know, sort of sidebars of what we're allowed to do in terms of um regulating those types of housing.

Um the state will have a lot more detail on that um in the coming year or so.

So we then incorporate or we plan to incorporate um the additional changes to what we allow for that siting and design for detached plexus in addition to cottage clusters um by January 1st, 2028 as a part of the code audit and amendments project.

So kind of a two-step approach there, but really just the basic minimum compliance approach right now because the state doesn't know what will actually end up being compliant.

Um, and it would be uh unwise to go through and adopt something and spend a lot of time coming up with citing and design standards that we do not uh know or have any confidence whatsoever will meet the state standards.

Um so that's how we propose to go forth and comply with that particular piece of this law with the detached plexus.

But you know, I think it's just worth considering that this is a really big change to middle housing and particularly, you know, the sort of form of middle housing that we see in the city.

Um there could be some benefits from this though, too.

There could be some sort of opportunities for this to be a little bit more in character, actually, of what we see in in the city.

Um so there could be ways that we regulate this or incentivize things that are actually more in character and what we want to see um in our neighborhoods.

So just something to consider, particularly with the sort of smaller units and those detached structures.

Um all right, just moving forward, some other middle housing changes.

Um, this is one that we actually don't have to um do much about with our code right now, but um basically uh there's some smaller changes that you know we they kind of change the definition of where middle housing needs to be allowed um instead of on each uh or it used to be uh required an area zone for residential use that allows detached single unit dwellings.

Now it's on each lot or parcel.

So it's a bit of a um nuanced change, but we believe that the CDC currently complies.

Um that's kind of how we interpreted it already.

Um but moving forward, um, yeah, I think uh this is uh another one where we believe um we comply with this for the most part, although there are some again, there's some nuance here, but um basically we need to allow middle housing to be added to um existing housing on a lot, um, including as a single, you know, if there's a single unit dwelling that's currently on a lot, we need to allow for middle housing to be added as you know, either um another single unit dwelling on that lot or a single unit dwelling in an ADU or as a duplex and different kind of configurations.

Um so we don't really know that there's anything on our in our code currently that would prevent that as long as we go through and adopt those changes that would allow for detached plexus.

Um, this would be something we would need to require or we would need to comply with by January 1st of next year again.

Um so as long as we make those changes as part of the annual code amendments for 2026, um, we think we will continue we'll comply with this.

We already do allow for things like cottage clusters to be developed on a lot or parcel with an existing um you know, existing unit on it.

So we we do kind of allow for those detached configurations to preserve existing structures and allow those to be incorporated into something like a cottage cluster, but um because the sort of detached configurations are becoming more flexible, we are going to need to allow those in more flexible configurations.

Um so that actually could be an opportunity to preserve more um, you know, uh older housing existing structures while we're actually seeing more development occur.

Um, and that's something that we could potentially look at ways to incentivize as being something that could you know be a benefit for the city when this type of development occurs.

Another thing really to middle housing is um really the a limitation, a new limitation on the um ability of local governments to require a traffic impact analysis or really attribute an exaction based on traffic impacts for middle housing.

Um basically we can still uh require a system development charge or a fee in lieu variance charge or um you know, basically development requirements specific to the lot or parcel or its frontage, like right-of-way dedications and frontage improvements, but we can't do a traffic impact analysis or an exaction based on traffic impacts.

So, you know, it's it's a bit uh sweeping, I guess, in the way it's written written, but it doesn't in the way it's written, actually apply to developments um with well, it only applies rather to developments of more than 12 units.

Um so it's really um something where those developments wouldn't have really um triggered anything in terms of um traffic analysis anyway.

Um, the way that we would do our analysis um wouldn't really have impacted anything of um, you know, basically anything of less than 12 units, regardless.

So um it's really not much of a change, more or less.

So I think um uh basically it, you know, there's an exaction for these larger developments, and because of that, it basically, you know, we can still require traffic impact analysis for larger developments, which is the only thing that we would do now.

We would only apply them to those larger developments currently.

Uh in terms of there's actually a few more uh provisions related to uh affordable and accessible bonuses for middle housing.

So they went through and defined accessible unit um more specifically to um refer to sort of the highest threshold of like the most accessible type of accessible ANSI or ANSI um accessible unit.

Um it you know establishes really um solid percentages for affordable units.

Um I think basically for the purposes of this bonus, though, it's 120% of area median income or AMI or below for 10 years.

And basically if middle housing includes one or more accessible or affordable units.

So the way that I just define those.

So accessible is NCA, affordable is 120% of median income.

If it includes one or more of those types of units, you can get a bonus unit.

So for duplexes and triplexes, you can get one additional unit.

So you could go from a duplex to a triplex or a triplex to a quadplex for a quadplex townhouse or a cottage cluster, you could get up to two additional units.

So you could get a pretty decent bonus.

Generally speaking, the amount of units you can actually fit on the lot is the upper threshold.

So we don't really see this as being something that would be too beneficial for development, but it is something that, you know, if somebody does come in and say, you know, I want to go through the expense of adding an affordable or accessible unit to my development.

I want to get this bonus unit, we will have to um provide it to them.

Um we propose to comply with this by essentially just implementing the state statute.

We do that for a number of other things.

Um it can be easier sometimes and more beneficial than actually including it in our own code because the state, you know, can make changes to their actual statutes and the ORS itself.

So we can go back and continue to reference that and might sort of evolve over time um without having to, you know, make changes within our own code.

Um and they might end up you know repealing it or changing their policy as well.

So you know, we can kind of make our own decisions as to whether or not we want to um have that.

So if the city does want to say, you know, regardless of what the state does, we want to have that in our code, that might make sense to adopt it in our code.

Um, and if we only want to say, you know, we think that this, you know, we're we're just gonna kind of go along with what the state is requiring us to do, but we don't think this is a great idea.

Um, it might not make sense to include it in our code.

So um, you know, I think for now because the unlikeliness of this actually being beneficial within the city, we were proposing just to implement the state statute.

And similarly, I think um, yeah, there's other kind of um, you know, we we would have to theoretically allow for some uh I guess conventional increases to developable floor area, height or density um when it comes to allowing this additional sort of uh density.

So I think you know, if they did want to increase the number of units, um, and they were running up to, well, I can't fit this on the lot, theoretically, they could come and ask for, you know, they could say, I want to go higher, I want to build um closer to the setback line, I want to um you know have you know less separation between units, whatever it might be, um, you know, I think that would be something that we would have to allow.

It is very kind of squishy language there.

Um, but yeah, I guess that's that is uh something that could happen.

Um but again, I we don't really see people running into that limitation very often.

So I don't really see this being super viable or or desirable rather for a developer, but it it could be something that's I have a question.

When you say you don't see people running into this limitation, um so you're saying that like when you see proposals, they just have they're never over that like eight units.

Yeah, folks aren't coming to us saying like, oh, I really want to put more units in my development and I'm just having a hard time getting there necessarily.

I think it's you know, if anything, we're we will present them with um you know the possibilities for what they can do on their site, but um, you know, it's it's not super common that they can't fit the units because of the zoning, I guess, um, or or the you know, the density allowance is not being you know enough.

So that eight units is generally more than what people have an appetite for, I would say.

Yeah, because I wonder if like, you know, if part of it is just the lot sizes that people have been looking at so far.

If we had if someone had a larger lot, they'd be looking at more units, or like it could even be constraints like um how much parking is feasible for the site.

I know I'm always constrained by parking and not actually able to maximize density.

Yeah, yeah, you know, I to me, you know, it seems like uh there are probably certain size lots where maybe this makes sense, but it almost just kind of is blending between middle housing and multifamily and just kind of getting into that gray area where maybe just multifamily has sort of um you know uh efficiencies of scale and whatnot that make a little bit more sense for folks that you know that are going into like the six plus unit world in Lake Aswego at least, right?

Um, but yeah, you know, I think it's you know, you you you probably have more insight to this than I do, but uh yeah, because it's also sort of like uh this size of project is also just a sort of different class of like financing and investor all together.

It's not really like a institutional class investment, it's more of like a infill developer type of thing.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Well, regardless, I mean, we'll we'll see.

I'm kind of just you know, putting my finger in the wind and saying we don't see we don't hear much about this right now, that doesn't mean that things can't change and that the market won't kind of begin to explore this type of thing with that bonus being um available to them.

Um so and it will be available.

I think we're just proposing, you know, to not necessarily place it within our code.

Um, but that is you know, a question.

So I think you know, we certainly explore that if something or folks think that's advisable.

Yeah, I know for me generally, more units on a lot means uh better financials.

So I'd be curious if um, you know, having that the income restriction on that, if you would really have to actually run the numbers on it case by case to know if it is worth the additional cost of construction to have more income if it was uh restricted.

It's interesting.

Yeah, and I don't know how much it costs to do like an accessible unit either, like the NCA, especially being like a pretty high standard uh yeah, or like what you know, design or site amenities would have to give to fit an additional unit too that might otherwise uh impact the desirability of the development as a whole.

Yeah, I mean, I think you know, the fact that you can get up to eight units, I you know, I could really just see that being pretty desirable in and of itself, especially if you can do attached cottage clusters, um, or units at least within a cottage cluster and get a little more flexible there and not just be limited to those small footprints.

Um, you know, I think that um anyway, that that might be something that becomes more desirable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I mean, given the uh density of Lake Bosch Vegas, how much we're gonna be able to use all these changes.

There will be other than foot here, the development or redevelopment would be a lot happening.

Well, I mean, it would be infill, most likely.

Um, you know, and we see a lot of infill.

Like I said, we've seen cottage clusters already, right?

Um, in first edition in particular, and also in um McVay South Shore.

Um, we've seen a development there already, and we've seen some duplexes and triplexes here and there.

Um not a ton, um, but they're they're out there.

Um, you know, they're you know, I think these ones because they're as Rachel was our chair Nojak was just pointing out, um, they are more appropriate for infill.

You know, this is middle housing, it's not this big, you know, you have a big juicy site and it makes sense for a big development with multi-family and mixed use and all that kind of stuff, like we'd think about for foothills, you know, this would be more, you know, 10,000, you know, yeah, maybe six thousand, seven thousand to ten thousand square foot lots or um somewhere in that remote range where um the zoning wouldn't allow for multifamily to begin with, right?

Um, and you know, a developer might say, you know, I could make more money if I have more units.

So I don't want to do a single family because I might be able to sell a nice single family, you know, house here for a couple million dollars.

Um, or I could sell, you know, a couple uh units in a duplex for one and a half million dollars, or I could sell um a couple different cottage clusters for who knows, you know.

I think it, you know, I I'm just throwing out numbers, but you know, a little bit less than a million dollars each or or whatever it might be.

So I think there's a calculus where it might make sense to put more units on there, but I think the market is still trying to figure out what makes sense and what this you know, what the market actually wants, um, what sort of combination of density and size and parking availability, you know, actually works um for folks.

And I think, you know, duplex is probably a good uh, you know, a good sort of barometer.

I think you might be able to say, yeah, I think especially duplexes that act more like single family.

You have one entrance facing, you know, maybe it's on a corner, right?

And maybe one entrance faces a street one way and the other faces the other street the other, and they're kind of separate.

Um, you could probably get a decent amount of return on that.

Um, but you know, I I think there's a lot of nuance and limitations on what you can do there.

So I think that's kind of what we're running into.

But you know, I think the state is finding um that developers want a lot more flexibility, and that's what essentially this bill is all about.

Um, and I think uh yeah, I think there's a lot of things that we're still learning, I think along the way that will, you know, just naturally produce more housing, even absent these rules.

So I think you know, the development community is still adjusting and finding out what works and proformas that they can replicate throughout the region, you know, and that um that is a big part of you know the market kind of adjusting to this new reality.

Um, so you know, there's a lot to kind of figure out here still about what works and what doesn't, but um, you know, I think there's a lot of desire for the market to be able to do that, I guess, independent of what cities might want to regulate.

Any other questions?

All right, I'll get back into this list here.

Um that really is a good segue actually to this next uh point um on covenants, conditions, and restrictions.

So this is probably out of all the things in the bill, um, the one that will make the biggest impact.

So um Household 2138, this actually took impact right when it was passed.

Um and I think it was July of last year.

Um, yeah, July 17th of last year.

Um, it basically retroactively voided any um private restriction.

Um we call them C C and Rs or covenants conditions and restrictions.

Um governing documents that you often find in homeowners associations um in particular, but they often go along with just they can be tied to a property absent HOA as well.

Um, but any C C and R provisions that might unreasonably restrict middle housing or accessory dwelling units are now retroactively voided.

Um that was something that was not the case when the the state originally um required uh communities to go through and allow middle housing to be constructed.

They said you can't do that moving forward, you can't void it, you know, moving forward, you have to allow it, but those that exist previously can remain in place, and so that was actually a big um reason that a lot of folks were you know not as concerned about it in their neighborhoods is because they thought, oh, you know, I live in an HOA or a planned development where there's a lot of um C C and Rs that you know will restrict this.

And so, you know, there's always the ability for folks to change those independently, like the city doesn't manage or hold or control those private agreements.

Um, so those can be changed.

So there was never really any pure guarantee there.

Um, but now the state has come through and actually made a sweeping change that says those are actually record retroactively voided.

Um just want to point that out that actually unlocks a ton of potential that was not previously there in terms of if we're to go through our existing residential neighborhoods and think about what type of development could be unlocked for middle housing.

This really um changes the game there a little bit um for just the geography that we're looking at.

So um just want to make that clear.

Uh no changes to our code are needed for this and no changes really um by the city at all, because this isn't really something that we are involved with.

But when it comes to private transactions, this is a pretty big game changer.

Um there's some other changes related to middle housing land divisions that I'll go over with you.

Um essentially middle housing land divisions.

Um, I think we touched on this a bit during our last uh work session, but they're intended really to be um a mechanism to separate middle housing into individual lots for purchase to be bought and sold.

Um, so the idea is not that they're like a subdivision where you're taking an existing lot and dividing it up to be um to increase the development potential.

The idea is that a middle housing land division is really just taking uh something like a quadplex and you know, taking um the four different parcels of the four different units and creating a parcel for each unit.

Um so taking what you can already do on underlying lot um that's already been done and just kind of um making it into separate parcels for for purchase and you know, sale and whatnot on the private market.

Uh so basically there were a lot of somewhat confusing requirements that were in the state statute for this previously that um this bill went through and clarified.

Um essentially um it allows existing units to be um on a water parcel with one or more units, like they don't have to have separate uh wastewater or wastewater utilities, which was previously specified that you had to have separate um wastewater.

Um we are authorized to require it, but it's the state doesn't require it.

So there's just a lot of things that cause um conflict in the state statute that are changed per the um input from local governments to make these things run a little bit more smoothly.

Um essentially we uh have to allow uh middle housing land division after, before or concurrently with a building permit.

Um yeah, um it's all relatively technical getting into kind of building permit processes.

So I won't talk too much about this.

Um, but yeah, it does kind of help us and give us a little bit more flexibility there.

Um yeah, I think um I would just point out that we currently um similar to some of the things I mentioned previously, comply with middle housing land division requirements at the state level by directly applying state statute.

Um that's again helpful almost exactly for things like this, where the state goes through and clarifies things and changes things and tweaks them so that we don't have to do the exact same thing in our code.

Um so that can be helpful, at least in this case it is.

Um yeah, I think um essentially uh we could go through and adopt some new provisions as part of the uh code audit project.

Um they are working on model code that could help and sort of improve some of these things, but um, there could be some benefits to not doing that.

So we'll talk about it as part of that project, but we might not actually recommend um incorporating this into our actual code.

And it might make sense to continue to just apply the state statute for middle housing land divisions.

Um and the last thing I really wanted to touch base on was um with respect to process for expedited land divisions.

Um basically uh this is really about uh yeah, the procedural requirements, um, saying that basically local governments cannot hold a hearing or allow any third party to intervene or or oppose an expedited land division.

And um only an applicant can appeal an expedited land division.

So um basically um, you know, it's it's something that is about process, it's about process related primarily to that middle housing land division um and the expedited process for that.

Um so it's you know, it's pretty outside of the realm of what we would have in our code.

It would be something that we would administer just again directly based on state statute, but it's a pretty major process change.

Um, you know, again, it's uh kind of unclear what it means to say that we cannot allow any third party to oppose the application.

Um it's pretty broad language that we're not exactly clear what that means, but um, you know, I think uh basically they are just trying to cement in place the idea that these types of applications are really um pretty routine, are just supposed to allow for the you know purchase uh and sort of marketability of these individual units for you know um to be bought and sold.

So that there should be no kind of need for um, you know, additional uh debate on these things that would just be an obstructionist tactic, basically, if it were, I think is the idea.

So um anyway, that is uh the sort of last change that I just wanted to talk about.

That doesn't again require um any major changes to our code, um, but something that we will be implementing through the state statute.

And that's really it.

Um I covered a lot, and I'm sorry if it was a little meandering.

I know that there was um you know I I guess I'm trying to step back a little bit and talk a little bit about middle housing in general for folks that might not have been around when we adopted that because it's not the most obvious term in terms of what that means and um the state has its own specific definitions for that.

So it's really, you know, we've been on this road of the state adopting new legislation that um gives us new requirements that we need to comply with as a city for you know four or five years now.

So it's just kind of it's been a continuous process for us now for some time.

So for folks that are new to this I apologize if we just talk about it like it's been just one long thing that we've all been doing together.

So please don't hesitate to ask questions and let us know if we're saying you know anything that sounds like gotta leave up to you all.

Commissioner Guinea I have one question is there is summary summarizes all these some of these changes some of the changes yeah yeah there's summaries that I included as attachments to the uh materials that we sent out for the meeting so I tried to try to make my own attachment that has a really clean summary of everything that affects us here in Lake Oswego so that's probably the best one to use but um sorry Commissioner Guinea was Henrius's hand here.

Hey thanks um and apologies to you and director Nomonalu I didn't I didn't send this question ahead of time it's pretty high level so if you just want to kind of riff on the first thing that comes to mind or that we're going to talk a lot about this in subsequent meetings but I'm just curious of all the provisions the ones we talked about tonight in House Bill 2138 the ones we didn't get to um kind of in in your professional opinion like what are the areas that stand out to you that give the city the most meaningful local discretion like where do you see um the biggest opportunities you know that that this is going to give us for more housing that stays you know in the character of the neighborhoods well maybe I I hope that I I might be misunderstanding the question but um because what we see from the state coming down is they're taking away our discretion um that that has been sort of the what's been happening in the bills that have been happening in the last you know as um uh Eric noted five to six years um and they're also now taking away the ability for citizens to provide input so um we we all we did was talk all Eric did was talk about HP 2138 but we have other bills uh HP 4037 that was passed just a few months ago that limits our ability to provide notice on clear and objective applications for residential development and only allows applicants to appeal.

So the trend is that you know they're taking away local decision making authority over our land use regulations.

And there's another bill HB21 2258 where they're doing doing rulemaking now that I find extremely alarming in terms of what it is that they're they're proposing that really kind of takes away our local um authority over zoning.

So but in that when we do apply when we do um our code amendments to comply with state law we are going to try to um exert our local authority as much as possible to maintain our standards because that is a really important here in Lake Oswego.

There's a reason why we have the codes that we have and we recognize that there's a lot of history behind them.

And while we do think there are opportunities for improvement and for simplification that we certainly have plenty of opportunities for that you know none of us want to throw out our code you know we we have a standard for development here for this community and it's and it's worked very well for us and we we certainly don't want to lose that.

So again I'm not sure that I'm answering your question but um but that's the that's the trend from the state is every legislative session we see them just chipping away at um our local zoning authority.

No that's that was perfect.

That's where I was going with this and just how long it takes to turn the ship of city codes and I mean it's just feels like we're just gearing up to be continually reacting to you know this is incredibly staff intensive time intensive confusing to the community members process to comply with the state and then we don't know what's going to change in 24 months 36 months again not even time to measure some of the metrics that you and Eric have talked about like oh is this working in in getting us closer to our goals yeah and it's really unfortunate because we we go out there you know four years ago we adopt a bunch of code and we talk we have committees we have this big sort of community effort and we say you know this is what we understand to be the case um cottage clusters are going to look like this and this is the code that we're gonna have for cottage clusters and they're you know um going to have certain sort functions and we understand that you know for instance they're not going to have d or attached you know units included in the cottage cluster or they're not going to um you know uh we're not going to have D

We have committees, we have this big sort of community effort, and we say, you know, this is what we understand to be the case.

Um, cottage clusters are gonna look like this, and this is the code that we're gonna have for cottage clusters, and they're you know, um, gonna have certain sort of functions, and we understand that you know, for instance, they're not gonna have d or attached, you know, units included in the cottage cluster, or they're not going to um, you know, uh, we're not going to have detached triplexes or whatever, whatever it might be.

They have a certain expectation about what things are going to look like.

And you know, even with the C CRs, that was something that was, you know, folks felt good hearing that uh for what you know, whatever that's worth.

But you know, that's folks were concerned, and that was one of the things that led them to be less concerned.

And now, you know, after that conversation's over and folks, you know, got through that and you know, built a little bit of trust with them through that process.

The state comes back and kind of removes all that and all that trust is gone, and we have to go back and do this process all over again.

And you know, it's going to be um a lot more difficult this time around, I think, because of that.

Um so just uh, you know, just unfortunately that's that is the case.

I guess I just wanted to respond to your question though, Commissioner Guinea, and like a little bit more um, you know, I I guess I I do see there being some opportunities for us to shape this a little bit as a city um through incentivizing things, and I I do think there are a lot of requirements that we're asked to do by the state.

Um and you know, I I do think that um that is obviously as as we've been talking about for quite a while now, and as Director Monolou pointed out, is quite restrictive and does rein us in in terms of zoning and what we're allowed to do.

But um, you know, I do think that there are some opportunities there.

You know, I think um if the state's saying, hey, you know, we have to allow these detached units.

There are um, you know, that that does break up the mass of a large building that can have some positive design outcomes.

And we think about places like Evergreen, where they have pretty small lots, they have pretty small sort of um uh at least in certain parts of Evergreen, they have pretty small um single family kind of uh fabric there.

Um, there could be a lot of interesting sort of design features that we could incentivize that would be um positive outcomes, I think that would add to the character of that neighborhood.

So I think um there could be some opportunities to pursue things of that nature, and I think um accessibility is another really big one where that's something that you know maybe it wouldn't be the character, but we can um incentivize things like accessibility um or the types of units that we want to see for our housing needs, but also you know, I think we can um try to shape a lot of what we're seeing by incentivizing, you know, the things that we want to see the most, I suppose, um if that makes sense.

And I think it you know it's a little bit complicated to talk about what that looks like right now.

Um, but uh, you know, I think there could be some folks that that you know are are upset about kind of the idea of detached um units that um you know, if we do regulate them in a certain way, depending on what the state lets us do, um, we we could see some really um some contextual designs that are like consistent with sort of like the worker cottages or like the smaller kind of historical um development patterns in Lake Aswego.

Um, so it's just something to think about.

Um, you know, we we didn't always have these large McMansions in Lake Espiego, and this might be a way to kind of honor that.

There's a lot to go over though today.

Any other questions that folks might have?

So yeah, the state requiring all these changes, but does not uh provide any soldier funding or anything.

Yes and no.

Yeah, go ahead, Eric.

If you want to I would say um, you know, that that's not necessarily the case.

They they are giving us a grant, particularly for you know, our rezoning for housing project right now.

They do have grants available.

We could have pursued a grant for the code audit project, but there's a bigger grant that we were able to get from Metro.

Um, so they don't, you know, they they do have funding available.

I would say it's it's not great and needs to be improved.

And I've given comments to them up to that effect that you know, if they are serious about this work, then there needs to be a lot more funding for that work.

Um, but yeah, they're they're trying.

But you know, I think for the most part, there's um, yeah, I think uh the biggest criticism I personally would make is that there's a ton of infrastructure investment needed to support adding density, particularly the infill density that they're referring to.

Um that is unfunded.

And um, they don't they're they're basically putting that on on cities with this, you know, kind of talking about no traffic impact analysis type of um uh legislation.

So I think that is one thing where I think there's a huge need for that type of investment.

Yeah.

Yes, but none not even close to enough, yeah.

All right, any further questions for this work session.

Just wanted to um since we're on the topic of housing and affordability, reiterate for um our new commissioners as well as older ones that um if you have questions about the ins and outs of affordable housing, what is AMI, what is affordable?

Um, please reach out to me.

I'm happy to be a resource and uh share my knowledge with folks.

Moving on um in the agenda, we go to item number eight, other business.

I don't have any other business at this moment.

Okay.

Anything from our other commissioners that anyone would like to bring up.

Hearing nothing, that brings us to number nine schedule review.

All right.

Um, so yeah, as I mentioned, our next meeting is actually September 15th.

Um, that's when we'll have um essentially just the next uh meeting will be a hearing on the annual code amendments, um 2026 code amendments with Ellen Davis.

Um so we have a re a recess during the month of August, so we don't have uh any meetings during August.

Um that's not typical, but um, you know, we will at least make up for that with um a lot of meetings this coming fall.

So lots going on in the fall, um, including uh additional work sessions on the rezoning, um the code audit and foothills.

So you'll get all that before the end of October.

Um so uh don't worry about that.

We do have um uh I think a few changes to the the list, but it is similar to what we had last time.

But um, for the most part, um yeah, just wanted to make sure you're all aware that September 15th is our next meeting date.

Um, Commissioner Call.

Yeah, so uh just to clarify, is it September 15th or September 14th?

Oh gosh is it's still Monday or am I saying I think you may just miss 14th.

I'm so sorry.

Yeah, I have I have the 15th in my head.

I'm so sorry.

It's um the 14th.

Um that's a date for foothills that I keep on talking about because we were thinking about our CAC meeting on that day.

So sorry about that.

Thank goodness.

I'm trying to do this off the top of my head without actually looking at the schedule.

So that's the type of thing that could happen when I'm doing that.

Apologies.

Um, but yes, that is it's a bit of an odd day because we actually have um for whatever reason, um it never happens like this, but for whatever reason in September, we have a uh planning commission meeting on a Monday and city council meeting the Tuesday after.

Um they're usually on different weeks.

So I just wanted to give you a quick update.

Um, counselor verdict had mentioned that the tree code uh regulation amendments did uh pass with the council uh at their meeting on July 21st.

And I just wanted to let you all know that they did adopt the recommendation uh put forward by the planning commission.

So uh just wanted to report that out and also just thank you for those of you who are involved with that.

Just really appreciate your involvement in the work sessions and providing guidance on that project.

Uh it the uh findings are scheduled for adoption on September 1st, and we expect the amendments to go into effect in early October.

So thank you all very much for your participation and your guidance during that project.

Thank you, Jessica.

I know Tree Code uh really brings everyone out of the woodwork around here, and it can be uh it could be a stressful time for staff.

So thank you all for your hard work on that.

Yeah, I should have mentioned actually House Bill 2138 also included uh requirements about clear and objective tree code requirements.

So um Jessica's tree code project was also in response to House Bill 2138.

And HB4037, three months before we were uh set to adopt it.

But uh yeah, so we were able to comply with two state mandates with that one.

But who knows what they'll change next.

Very true.

Well, thank you, everyone.

Um, with that, our meeting is adjourned.

See you all in September.

Thank you.

Thank you.

September 14th.

Thanks, everyone.

Bye.