Of course I got Windows update now.

Recording in progress.

All right, good evening, and welcome to the January 26, 2026 Twalton City Council work session.

First of mine, our first item on our agenda tonight is clear and objective code update.

It'll be led by Teresa Monteballo and Madeline Nelson.

Welcome, Teresa and Madeline.

Great, thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Madeline Nelson.

I'm a planner with the city of Tualeton, and I'm joined by Teresa Montalvo, our planning manager.

And we're returning to work session tonight to follow up on the clear and objective code update that we introduced to you back at a work session in November.

So as a brief review of tonight's agenda, we'll first start by reviewing the purpose of this project and then reviewing the background.

We'll briefly discuss on the project timeline.

We'll also provide an overview of the code audit that has been completed since the last time that we met.

So just kind of to flow for this meeting, we're going to go through the entire presentation and then loop around to the policy questions at the end.

So as a refresher, this is a project to audit and update the Twilalton Development Code to meet Oregon Revised Statutes 197A.400.

Through a state grant, we have partnered with consulting group MIG or MIG as our project consultant.

So the ORS requires that local governments regulate housing development using clear and objective standards.

These standards are intended to reduce barriers, uncertainty, delay, and cost to housing development, and in theory support local housing needs.

So clear and objective standards use terms and measurements that provide consistent interpretation.

Whether that be interpreted by city staff, consultants, developers, homeowners.

The point is that there should be no you need to utilize discretion when using clear and objective standards.

State law does allow local governments to offer a discretionary review path as an alternative to the clear and objective pathway, but the clear and objective standards do need to be in place.

Through some previous code updates, the Twalton Development Code does have language that reflects clear and objective standards related to residential housing.

These are just now some additional requirements that mandate this update.

So this slide provides an example of some discretionary language that was actually flagged in the recent code audit.

So an example of discretionary language says a private main entry area must be provided as a private extension of each dwelling.

So in this example, the keyword there is private, which could be subjective.

So what makes a main entry area private could be up to the interpretation of who's reviewing it.

So through this project, we're going to start to utilize the clear and objective language, like on the right, which states for ground floor dwelling units, a main entry area must be recessed at least five feet.

So whoever's reviewing that application can see that numeric value of five feet, and that's specific, measurable, and enforceable.

So that's kind of the brief refresher over what the clear and objective code project update is.

Are there any questions on what is clear and objective code?

Okay, awesome.

Um so since we've reviewed the purpose of the project, the slide highlights the remaining timeline.

So at this point, uh the project consultant has performed an initial code audit and code concepts.

We met with planning commission last week to obtain feedback on the policy questions and then our meeting with council tonight to seek your input to inform the direction for the rest of our code update.

We've also heard feedback from both council and planning commission on your desire to have stakeholder engagement throughout this process.

So since our last meeting, staff has compiled a group of local developers and consultants to provide feedback on the draft code language once we have that available.

And that group will help us test the feasibility of the proposed language.

And then looking at the adoption timeline, we're aiming towards the end of the calendar year for formal adoption.

So as I previously mentioned, the project consultant has conducted an audit of the Twalton Development Code, and that identified sections of our code that are not conforming to clear and objective standards related to residential housing.

A copy of that code audit summary is available in your packet materials.

And then the coming slides, we're gonna walk through some of the frequent flyers of issues and themes that were highlighted in that audit.

So our first identified issue involves conditional use permit requirements.

So there's some zones that allow certain housing types to only be permitted through a conditional use permit process.

So for example, retirement housing and multifamily housing require an applicant to obtain a conditional use permit in the low density, low density residential zone.

So the issue with this practice is that the conditional use permit criteria requires discretion.

So essentially, if a housing type is allowed in a zone, it must have a clear and objective approval pathway.

The next issue dives into the development review language.

And most sections of the code development standards have a numeric value.

However, the audit identified a couple of sections that have code language that states as determined through the architectural review process.

So this language requires staff to use discretion when determining the setbacks in this particular example.

So our pathways forward would just be to establish clear and objective language in these instances and allow for deviation through an optional discretionary review.

Another issue arises with discretionary or undefined language.

Some building design standards use terms such as decorative features, which again could be open to interpretation.

And then the simple solution here would just be to refine this vocabulary vocabulary throughout the code to match our current practices.

The last issue we want to highlight are the access management standards found in Twalton Development Code Chapter 75.

So some of our access management standards allow discretion by the city manager.

For instance, there's some examples of repeat phrases that say the city manager may restrict, and this style of code can create uncertainty for applicants for their property to know if they would be subject to those restrictions or not.

So throughout this review, we will be modifying these sections to eliminate this style of language.

Alrighty, so we're going to move into some discussion items.

As I said at the beginning of the presentation, we're just going to move through all of the policy concepts and questions and then give you a brief summary of what the planning commission responded in to these policy questions and then loop around for your input and recommendations.

Alrighty, so to kick us off, this chart shows review pathways currently within the Tualet and Development Code.

The current TDC provides both a clear and objective pathway and a discretion path discretionary pathway for land use divisions and most residential architectural reviews.

As you can see at the bottom, the multifamily architectural review kind of splits the difference where it has code standards that are clear and objective and discretionary, so it's not falling into either one of those pathways.

In the code audit presentation and in the summary, you may hear the phrase two-track system.

And this graphics kind of what that refers to, which is referring to the two review options an applicant might have when submitting a land use application.

For example, if we had an applicant come in who wants to build a single family architecture build a single family home through a single family architectural review, they could choose to do the clear and objective pathway, which is a type one land use review.

It's the staff level decision, and that would just be following the clear and objective standards for a single family home.

The applicant would also have the opportunity if they choose not to do the clear and objective pathway to choose the discretionary track.

The discretionary track is a little bit bigger of a lift.

It's a type two land use application, so that requires them to have a pre-application meeting, host a neighborhood developer meeting, and requires public notice.

And it's just a little bit longer of a timeline.

So most architectural review applications for housing have chosen to do the clear and objective track to date just because it's a lot larger of a lift to do the discretionary path.

And then as I previously noted, multifamily right now isn't following either of those tracks, so that's one of the policy questions we're gonna have for you this evening.

So as an alternative to those two pathways you were just shown, another potential option would be a single set of clear and objective approval criteria for each application type with an opportunity to maintain flexibility through an adjustment process, which other jurisdictions are currently utilizing.

The TDC currently offers a variance for alternatives to the code, but a variance usually requires a hardship to be demonstrated on the site and generally also requires a hearing.

So an adjustment process would be a more timely staff level decision.

And that leads us into our first policy question of the evening, which asks should the Twalt and Development Code be revised from that two-track system, again referring to the clear and objective path or discretionary path for certain application types to a single set of development standards with opportunities for flexibility.

Our consultant highlighted the following pros and cons to this particular approach.

Some of the pros being this avoids the all or nothing approach.

It limits uncertainty while also offering flexibility where desired.

Some of the cons stated is that this is going to require the city to create a new procedure type.

So we don't currently have the adjustment process written into our code.

So this would require new approval criteria, new purpose statements throughout the code.

And that might not be fully feasible under the scope of the project, but that's something that we can speak more with our consultant on and get kind of a clearer path moving forward should we choose this option.

So dependent on the answer to policy question one, policy question two then asks if retaining the two-track approach should a new two-track system of standards and guidelines be crafted for multifamily housing.

So if we think back to that chart, multifamily didn't fall into either the clear and objective pathway or the discretionary pathway.

It kind of splits the difference.

So the project team needs to ensure all standards are clear and objective or establish a parallel track of clear and objective standards and discretionary guidelines.

And then continuing the discussion regarding multifamily housing and then looping in retirement housing.

So as previously mentioned, the audit highlighted that in the low density residential zone, multifamily structures and retirement facilities require a conditional use permit.

A housing type cannot have a discretionary path such as a conditional use permit.

So just as another quick note on this slide, when we're discussing retirement housing facility, we're just effectively considering a multifamily age restricted structure.

So not congregate care or assisted living, which is something that we're gonna have to redefine in this code audit as right now that's all looped together under our definitions.

So the policy question coming from this issue is should the 12th and development code be revised to allow certain multifamily and retirement housing developments by right?

And by right, that could also include some density limitations or size limitations, or should they be prohibited in the lower density residential zones.

So if the recommendation is to maintain the multifamily and retirement housing types in the lower density zones, some restrictions or limitations that could be placed on the site are kind of outlined in this menu on the screen.

As I previously mentioned, that could be density limitations, that could be size limitations.

And we can walk through this slide in greater detail if that's a path that the council would like to explore.

Or alternatively, you could recommend prohibiting multifamily housing in the low density residential zone, with the reminder that middle housing options are still available in the RL zone.

So as we previously mentioned, this presentation was provided to the planning commission at last Wednesday's meeting, so on the 21st.

You also have a memorandum in your packet that summarizes the planning commission's discussions and conclusions.

In summary to the policy questions posed, the planning commission was supportive of exploring the staff level adjustment process as an alternative to the variance process.

The planning commission also recognized the limits related to the provided grant through DLCD with this project.

The PC expressed interest in developing an adjustment process rather than creating new multifamily specific guidelines.

They did note some concerns about changing the two-track system at this time, given that the discretionary path is rarely used.

The commission indicated a preference for a phased approach to introducing the adjustment process, focusing first on the multifamily development rather than revising the entire two-track system at once.

And through that, the conclusion was to consider focusing on adjustment process for the multifamily development for now, with the option to expand it to other development types at a later date.

And then to policy question three, the planning commission supported regulating multifamily retirement housing in the same manner as general multifamily development.

They expressed interest in size and density limits to help maintain the neighborhood scale.

The commission expressed interest in allowing retirement housing options through incentives or other mechanisms that would not functionally increase the overall density or scale.

And the commission raised concerns about allowing multifamily or retirement housing in the RL zone.

They noted that existing middle housing policies already permitted in that zone should be fully utilized before introducing additional options.

So in conclusion of policy three, the planning commission does not want to add multifamily or retirement housing by right in the RL zone within this project.

And through that option, that would effectively prohibit those uses within the RL zone.

The commission is interested in revisiting broader zoning and retirement housing strategies in a future more comprehensive planning process.

So with that, that concludes our presentation for the evening.

I really want to open up the floor to our council regarding the policy questions posed.

We're just kind of wondering if you concur with planning commission's recommendations, have differing opinions or any questions for staff at this time.

All right.

So general questions first, please.

Okay.

Bridget I was curious.

Can we go back to the slide about um the approach that's not often used?

The is it the discretionary track?

Can you give me an example of some of a use of the discretionary track that we've seen in the last decade or something?

So in the last four years that I've worked here, I have not seen the discretionary track utilized for an architectural review project.

Fortunately, our online records for our e-tracket software don't go back more than like 2015.

So I would say rarely, if ever utilized.

Okay.

So there's no examples of somebody that like is it's a complicated prop property or ask that they would want to go through step by step.

I don't know.

Okay, and then can we go back to the multi unit approval?

Um with how many with how many each approval was for how many units?

Oh, ABC thing.

The two four, yeah.

I guess I'm not looking for that one.

Like there was one that said how many units, living units each multifamily had examples of the limits.

Yeah, I don't think there's any.

So this was the menu of options.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um I guess my other question I have is just insight into the conversation around retirement homes just because we have such a aging population issue and lack of um housing for retirees from the review board.

From the planning commission.

Yeah, from the plan.

Sorry.

Do you want to take it or I can do it?

Okay.

Um, yeah, so I think they they also saw the broader umbrella of we're gonna have a demand for additional senior housing in a variety of forms.

Um, and I think that's probably something to keep in our sites and something we should talk about.

In the scope of this discussion, um, we are just talking about any house multifamily housing that might say 55 and above and be limited just to that.

Um, and the planning commission did feel like after a lot of robust discussion back and forth, there was a really good discussion where they landed was um as one of the slides says is basically regulating those units that are maybe 55 and over in the same manner that you would multifamily housing as far as where they would be allowed.

Um they didn't say they should be more permissive than other types of multifamily, nor did they say they should be more restrictive.

So basically saying wherever if we're going to open up the low density residential to multifamily, then that would bring in that age-restricted multifamily as well.

Okay.

And then when we did the um plan back gardens, did we we opened up the low density residential for that?

So I believe Plan Back Gardens was a zone change.

It's high-end city residential is the zoning designation for that property.

Okay.

So this is just talking about RL or low density residential zones, so like single family.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Yeah.

Council Pratt.

I'm going to start with really basic, and I think I know it, but um multifamily versus middle, multifamily, like where does do condos to fourplexes fit in uh middle housing and then apartments generally speaking fall into multifamily or what is the distinction?

Yeah, I mean I think you and you can correct you know you correct me how you've applied it, but the metric would be five or more units is when we're starting to talk about multifamily.

Okay, so to get I guess I'm a little confused here.

So basically you're saying um conditional use permits will no longer be allowed.

Is that what I'm hearing?

This is one of the options is in that low density residential right now.

The code has um if you want to do apartments in that zone, it does say you could go through a conditional use process.

I did a quick, you know, I'm still learning your process, but I did a quick search of track it to see what uh if we have CU applications in for multifamily back to 2020, and we haven't had any um but there is that allowance there today, and so the question would be um whether we allow it but clear and objective, so it's it's allowed by right if they meet certain standards, or we just take that out of the allowance area.

But right now we we allow the we have to allow the multifamily per the state, right?

We don't have to allow it in low density residency.

No, I don't mean multi-family, I meant um affordable, sorry, how middle housing.

Middle.

We have to allow the middle housing and low density.

Correct.

So I I mean my concern is there's certain there might be certain properties where this is appropriate and other ones where it's not, and there's it seems like there's no discretion for the future councils to make that decision.

In the are you talking about the scope of multifamily and whether it would be appropriate in the well, yeah, like multifamily, like if we're in the low density, like um I'm just saying like that's why the conditional use got to me because um a lot of places people wouldn't want it, but there might be a certain property where it would be appropriate, but there's it seems like there's no discretion to allow for that.

Not outside of this well, if you take that path to to not allow it by right, yeah, the other path would be is it appropriate to rezone the property to something more dense?

So it would be a zoning change.

Okay.

So um and that was discussed not to, but that was something that the planning commission wrestled with too and discussed and said maybe that would be the way in the future.

And to that slide, um Madeline was saying that something to explore in the future, maybe there's some sites that because of what's happened around them, kind of lend themselves to maybe they should be a higher zone and allow multifamily, and that would be the path to do that.

So it would be a I'm just thinking that conditional use was the only route, so that makes sense.

So if we did allow it, then what would that mean?

It could go anywhere in do you want to put the policy to like put the other that policy question?

Um so if you want to allow it by right, um, what Madeline was talking about, um Yeah, I think that one there's a there's a couple of ways you could kind of slice it to say we're gonna allow it, but we're gonna heavily constrain it to say it'll look just like what you could do with middle housing.

Okay.

Um and that's what the planning commission wrestled with and where they started to say, okay, maybe let's regulate it and so it'll look just like a quadplex or something on a property that they could do today in low density.

Um but as their conversation evolved, I think they realized that that that really by that wouldn't really be achieving uh the goal, and it would kind of be disingenuous in a way to open it up to allow it, but then really heavily restrict it.

Um and so that's where they ended up with maybe we don't open the low density.

I think we have wise people in the planning commission.

It was a very good conversation.

Uh both sides.

Okay.

I just want Councillor Gonzalez.

Yeah, Council Gonzalez.

So thank you for this.

Um it it could be quite confusing.

What component in this in these policies adds more work to the planning department?

What adds more time and labor?

I think we maybe we take it in chunks.

So if going back to the first policy question of the two tracks.

No one's really utilizing the discretionary tract.

So as you heard with the planning commission say, like, well, if it's not broke, we could just let it hang out there.

What would take more time and effort of staff is if someone wanted to do a variance, that's a that's a heavier lift.

Um what will take more time is to develop an adjustment process once that process is in place, that likely wouldn't be a super heavy lift.

It's it's a similar application that a lot of the jurisdictions around have is an adjustment process.

Um I don't I I think either path, there will be certainly a lot of initial work on the outset to break from the two-track process and go through the adjustment process.

A lot of that code work, a lot of that learning, a lot of that developing a new review type once it's in place.

Um there would not be ongoing added planning department work.

How much time?

How much time does it take from the initial application to when they finally have a response on how they can move forward?

How much time is the average taking?

For a residential?

Uh for each one of the components, residential and multifamily.

Okay.

Um if we're looking at a single family residential home, if you're following the clear and objective track, that's generally reviewed in about 30 to 30 days.

If you're going the discretionary track, that requires you to first come in and have a pre-application meeting where we're gonna walk through the entire process.

Then it'll be on the applicant team to notice and host a neighborhood developer meeting, and they have to provide two weeks mailed notice that that meeting is occurring.

Then once they have all their materials together, they can submit to the city, and we have a 30-day completeness review period.

Then once the application is deemed complete, we have a 60-day review window, and then if they're agreed to the conditions of approval, we can grant it at that time.

Yeah.

So it's kind of a large difference between the clear and objective path and the discretionary, which is why historically most applicants will choose the simpler track to approval.

I get concerned because the cost of a developer is floating all that, all those dollars while the city is deciding, you know, which people would just go the easy the easiest path of resistance, which is just no discretionary track.

And we're trying to remove those barriers.

We're trying to remove this long long process that government takes to decide on anything, right?

Um the developers floating all that cost percent cost eventually carries over to the housing.

And with our aging population, which is a huge number coming, um, I would I would I would want to make this easier, less red tape.

Um removing the language city manager discretion is uh I'm very favorable for that because obviously that would add a ton of lack of a better word politically, get that out of the way.

When we don't want people to be going after our city manager because it's up to her decision when we are trying to define the easiest pathway for okay.

Well, thank you.

Thank you.

Council Brooks.

I'm sorry, I'm still confused on the multi-families.

I'm just kind of in residential, it's like there's commercial is over five units.

And then um residential ownership is usually up to four units.

So I'm trying to understand where like where the planning language and then the real estate language is why it's divergent and why we would want to do that.

Wouldn't it be easier for people to be using the common language that they're using as their moving through real estate processes?

I'm gonna try.

Let's see.

I think I think for our purposes here, we we know the middle housing, which is that duplex, triplex, quadplex.

For most intents and purposes, when we're talking multifamily, we're gonna be looking at apartment complexes.

So commercial, residential.

It would be the commercial permit, you're like when you talked about a building permit type, it would be a commercial building permit type.

Okay in the planners, planner ease.

I know we have a lot of different tracks.

Um yeah, if you're it for the purposes here, when you we're talking multi-family, I would think more of a you know, apartment complex.

Yeah.

Because that's where I kind of I'm c confused with the multi-units that are more traditionally considered just residential, um, two and four units.

Um or putting an ADU on your property.

Um I'm just wondering, I I'm not quite understanding.

Is that all clumped together in for low density?

Because I feel like that's what they're the state's kind of requiring that.

Right.

Yeah.

So the middle housing, which is what the state calls it, um, and they are requiring so in anywhere you allow a single family home, yes.

You have to allow a duplex, triplex, quadplex.

Um so that's yes.

So when we talk about single, like single family zone, it has to allow all those so okay, because that's how I think of multi-units too.

So it's just like how are we doing this?

There's a lot of it.

And I'm just curious around those definitions, like is there an easier way?

Because middle housing is seems like a um not the measurable term, you know, it seems like a uh sort of a euphemism for a goal, a political goal instead of a multi-unit residential versus a multi-unit commercial building.

I can see I definitely can see your point.

I think it's we're just kind of keeping pace where the state law has called it, and I I I I would I would caution interjecting a different definition because it is something that's being used in all jurisdictions in all cities in the state.

Um I recognize it could be a little bit misleading to maybe a layperson.

Um that's where we have to do our job to make sure we everybody understands the meaning of middle housing in this context and in planning.

But um but I think we should have a lot of people.

I would love to see it operationalized just so that people that are builders and aren't used to state policy could just like have the definition in front of them and not have it be confusing because there's been problems with some communities doing different numbers and then they have to get different types of professionals in and because they're just making up their own terms, and then it turns into a big mess.

And it's happened in different places across the country.

So I would really like us to be concrete in our definitions.

Thanks.

Council Hillier.

Thank you, Mayor.

So I did have just a quick question on page 10.

You were talking about um just uh uh uh the architectural review process of the um objectives.

And I wondered back when you mentioned that you're gonna bring together a group of community members or business members to review it, if you would ensure that you have people from the architectural review board that are on that as community members, or have you already probably thought of that?

I'm thinking of a few business owners and folks on that.

We do have a member from the architectural review board who has agreed to be on our focus group team.

So we're excited to have them.

Um and then everyone else on the group are a mix of local consultants and developers who work frequently in Twilighton, so they're familiar with our code and hopefully will be able to really help us make sure our code's gonna be aligning to something that they can actually work with on their projects.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

And I also I I'm I'm guessing that there wasn't a need for the committee, the architectural review board in general to have looked at these things since things go to the planning commission first, or do you think that could have been a wise move or was it so the architectural review board, it's gonna be kind of interesting to see their role moving forward with residential housing because again we're trying to remove discretion.

Um but we will still be taking type three, like industrial and commercial projects to the architectural review board.

We just kind of got to feel out how uh residential reviews may or may not be going before the architectural review board.

Okay, thank you.

And then I'm gonna can I go into the policy now since I think we're there.

I just got one quick question.

Okay, there we go.

Sorry.

So obviously based on your research, the two-track system, no one's availing themselves of the conditional use track.

And going with what Councillor Gonzalez was saying, my question is when you get into this process of adjustments and modifications.

What's the difference between that and a conditional use in terms of process?

Because I know a lot of mayors are very, very nervous of applications going through that only require staff approval.

And something like a senior housing apartment complex in a residential zone.

You know, if that's a staff review and a staff approval, we're gonna hear about it.

And so w what are you seeing?

How is would that process work?

Is what's the level of approval?

And would a developer even take that option again?

Because it seems that's more a riskier process, just like conditional uses.

Sure.

Uh to do all this adjustment and modifications, trying to get through that, get it through staff, and then if it has to go to uh public hearing, that's more risk versus just saying I'm just going to do the clearing objective.

Right.

Well, separating it out, just to make sure I understand from the multifamily portion and the things we're asking you tonight would be either it's in the low density residential as a buy right use.

Right.

Or it's not.

Right.

So it's not really an adjustment to get it there.

It would just be.

Sure.

So yeah.

So if we have like if we go to two-track and how adjustments typically there's a lot of ways to slice it, but some communities do it where they have uh a minor adjustment and a major adjustment.

And what it's typically used for is let's say you have a slew of clear and objective standards for a residential home.

One of those objectives is you have to have, I'm just gonna pick something.

You have to have 20 percent glazing on the flow facade.

Um an adjustment could be sought to say, well, I've got this really cool design, but I can only be at 17 percent.

Um so I'll go and and depending on how you identify minor adjustment versus major, we'll say like these minor ones, maybe you can deviate 15, 20 percent.

That would be a staff level decision.

Um how we process it in the city, we can take a look at the path, but that would be a staff level decision.

Um anything above a certain threshold, then would have to kick it over to perhaps then uh a hearing process.

That's one way.

I know that's the way uh Hillsboro does it.

Um it's pretty consistent on the way Portland does it as well.

Um but the the advantage of the adjustment process if you're gonna look for one from a developer is I know I have to meet all these things, and I'm gonna get a permit.

I have just one discrete item that I want to see if I can tweak, and I'll ask for just that.

It's presuming everything else is staying as is, they don't have a risk of not getting approved for all the other elements of their design.

It's just that one bit, and then we would have to build in approval criteria.

Um generally it's saying that approval criteria is generally linked to whatever the purpose of the standard you're changing.

So glazing, we'd have to say the reason why we're gonna have 20 percent windows is to blah blah blah.

They would have to make the case to say we're meeting the intent of that standard with this design that is generally in keeping, it's extra fancy, but it has a little bit less windows, is staff saying it's in keeping with the neighborhood.

That would be the one time you could have that discretion then.

Right.

Okay, with that.

So we're on policy question one, so counselor Hillier?

That was kind of similar to my question and and based on understanding when things rose to different levels, and so that that got to the heart of my question.

Thank you, Mayor.

So on policy question one, uh, what's the discussion here?

Uh again, remind what did the planning commission recommend on this?

Mayor, I do have a question on the general side.

I apologize.

I know you look over this way.

I I uh the difference between multifamily is four units commercial is five, correct?

Units?

Multifamily, well, I think that's from a permit perspective, but yeah, from a planning perspective, anything over four would be multifamily.

On the I would be curious to know to bring in a bank or because they they lend on different living criteria when it's four units as soon as it goes to five, it's a whole different commercial product services.

So I would be interested to see with how that that service industry who lends the money would feel about this.

And have you sought those opinions or those thoughts from them on uh on the architectural review if that's even a possibility on whether they should be allowed in low density residential?

Well, on how they lend, because typically a lot of people have lenders involved with this in four units versus five, and how difficult would it be?

We have not done any of that type of of research because I think we were trying to just basically focus.

We're not really changing anything other than where that permissibility would be in the low density.

Um we have not.

Thank you.

All right.

So planning commission remind us what they said.

So their conclusion was to consider focusing an adjustment process for multifamily development for now with the option to expand it to other development types at a later date.

So they are essentially saying to maintain the two-track system for all of those options except for multi-family where they want to kind of test run what the single set of clear and objective options would be with that adjustment process in lieu of the orange discretionary track.

So single family or excuse me, multi-family would just be on their own.

They would be off this chart.

Yeah.

So they basically on policy question one said yes, maintain a two-track system, then shot the policy question number two about how to apply that to multifamily housing.

Essentially, yes.

So how do people feel about that?

Our discussion on that.

Council President Pratt and Council Brooks.

I mean, this is would be a huge undertaking to change all of this, I am assuming.

So was it the idea that let's start with one thing and I mean what was the reasoning for starting with multifamily only?

Yeah, I I think what what I kind of heard, and and I'll let you chime in as well.

But yeah, I think it it was it was kind of that.

I think there was an element of we do have a certain scope that we would have to go back with our consultant and and suss out and maybe staff will do some of that work that's not in our current scope now if we're gonna do the adjustment route.

Um we haven't explored all of that yet.

Um so I think that was part of it.

Um I think there was a feeling of uh understanding that yes, we have this discretionary tract, it's not being used.

It's probably a little bit of fat, if you will, in the code, because it's not getting us anything, but it's also not hindering development.

Um so I think that was part of it, and then um what you would what you would do is just take the multifamily regs you have now, take out the few words that are discretionary, make it clear and objective, and then we can kind of pilot this adjustment process just for multi-family.

Okay.

I like that.

Okay.

Council Brooks.

Um I don't have any problems with that.

Um I guess my only question I had two questions.

One for the discretionary tract.

Do you do we ever see the potential for either like new innovative products that we would include in something that was being built?

Or um a way because of the changes in the state around timing, a way to slow down if both the builder and the city were in agreement.

Would that be a way to flex?

I'm not sure I'm appreciating fully your question.

I mean, applicants can extend the timeline if they choose to now.

Um if they're gonna go through like the discretionary path if they wanted to do something unique and work it out.

Um I'm not sure.

I'm just I was just trying to think of uses for it and future uses that maybe would come up.

And then we have a changing landscape with timelines and also with innovative um products like for um like sustainable short right, different things that might take longer even for the city.

Like, does it really meet this criteria?

Is it gonna blow up the street?

You know, stuff like that.

I think I think you have to keep to go to go to your innovative point.

We don't know what's going to come down the pike for housing and what designs are gonna come up.

That's why I think we need one of the many reasons you need to have whether you keep the discretionary path or you do this adjustment, which is a relief valve to say I'm gonna do something a little bit different or a little bit creative.

So they have to have one or the other.

Yeah.

Um, you know, it's just really that's what kind of coming back from here.

It's not being used today.

Could it be used in the future because something new and innovative that doesn't fit in our code?

Possibly.

Um, or could they have an adjustment test?

Okay.

So that answers that.

And then my other one is just uh I still think it's confusing to call do you know, multifamily, just multifamily.

Um, when you have duplex, triplexes and quadplexes in townhouses.

So I think that further defining that would make me really happy if we're really trying to go for clarity.

Yeah, I agree.

Definitely we can update our charts moving forward to kind of just have those parameters of what is multifamily, just as an additional reference.

Because why would people not?

Yeah, right there.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

All right.

So I'm seeing we're okay, we're going we're okay with the planning commission's decision or recommendation on policy question number one, which then brings us to policy question number two.

And again, they recommended what on policy question number two.

So their discussion kind of lumped both policy questions together in one, so their response to this is to create a single set of clear and objective standards for multifamily and then pilot the adjustment process.

Just for multi-family.

Just for multi-family, not touching the two pathways for the all of the other development or land division.

Right.

Discussion.

Questions?

Support.

Okay.

I see.

See some thumbs up.

Okay.

All right.

I'll write that thumbs up.

So then going to do we have to get into what was there on options A1, A2, A3.

Did they dive into that?

Well, yeah.

So that yes.

Okay.

That's going to flow into our three.

Three.

Um but I can just highlight their conclusion on policy question three first.

Okay.

So again, this is asking if the Twalton development code should be revised to allow multifamily and retirement housing.

Again, retirement housing is just multi-family with an age restriction.

Yeah.

Yes.

Um by right, whether that be with the limitations that are on that menu in the next slide, or should they be prohibited in the lower density residential zones.

And the planning commission concluded that they do not want to add multifamily and retirement housing by right, so effectively prohibiting those housing types in the RL zone with the caveat that they want to revisit this topic with broader zoning and retirement housing strategies, whether that be rezoning properties to better fit these needs, and a future more comprehensive planning process, so not including it in this project.

Okay.

Council Pratt.

So I'm reading this that if you allow the retirement multifamily, you also have to allow the other types of multifamily.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, I I personally have heard loud and clear from our people in these zones that that's not what they prefer.

Other questions, uh the comments.

Council Brooks.

Um I appreciate this as well.

I very much see the need for um commercial multi-use.

And uh but um I think part of the reason that we have these zones is to make sure that the plumbing works and the streets are taken care of and that we want to be mindful as we move forward in solving really complicated problems that have happened over a long period of time.

Um so I appreciate the um the thoughtful deliberation of the um the not the architectural report the planning commission.

Who I love the planning commission, thank you for all your work.

All right.

So do we concur with the planning commission's recommendations on this or clarification?

Okay.

So is this either or I'm sorry, I I kind of overheard a little bit of what you um is this either or or both?

Like I was kind of confused.

Is it both or not?

So it's all or nothing.

Yeah.

Okay.

I guess what I with I think with limitations, right?

Because where it's twisted me, I think where you might be thinking, I'm assuming, is you know, I'm hearing from our senior community about senior housing, senior apartments, and that would it be such a bad thing if there was a senior apartment complex in a residential zone close to where the grandkids are and stuff like that.

But then you have the pushback from the neighbors who don't want that, you know, because a lot of higher density in a so you got that.

Okay.

Okay.

But then we have the option to rezone if needed.

It would become and I mean we've just had discussions, not that we're that we want to put this near transit in the downtown core and areas where there it's just more accessible.

I like the option of um rezoning because that would uh it would be by project or by what's going on within the community.

Okay.

And did they part of their recommendation was to study this again, right?

Look senior housing and this kind of thing into the future.

Yeah.

How can fold it?

Because again, you you mentioned it.

We're hearing more and more need for senior housing.

Marquee is it in town.

Yeah.

Um, what is the availability of possibility to get more here?

Um do we want to put it inside of a low density residential zone, or do we want to rezone?

Um that and planning commission, I think address it was saying, let's not touch this now.

Let's do the conditional use for this kind of use, but not allow it in residential.

Correct.

And the planning commission also asked us to reach when we meet with our stakeholder group to ask what the demand would be for retirement housing of these types and how they could see that throughout the city.

Yeah.

Um so hopefully they can provide us some feedback on if there's demand from builders.

I there's demand from seniors.

Absolutely.

All right.

So we're okay with all the planning commission's recommendations.

Okay.

Great.

Well, thank you very much for this discussion.

Our next steps, as I mentioned, we're going to plan to be back in the late spring, early summer with actual draft code amendments for your review.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

All right.

So that brings us to our agenda review, city manager's report and our round table.

Any questions or concerns on items on the consent tonight?

TryMet.

TriMet?

There's something that's expecting the TriMet.

I must have an old agenda then.

Okay.

All right.

It's just part of Council Communications.

Yeah, it's in Council Communications.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

No problem.

So who's Councillor Gonzalez is up for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Councilor Brooks has asked to do uh the proclamation tonight.

Uh any concerns with the uh consent agenda.

All right.

I'll then go ahead and start the uh round table and we'll start with city manager's report.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh a couple of things.

Um just I I know you all know this.

Um the fire at Twalton Community Park yesterday that um uh affected uh the rustic shelter, very sad.

Um and we've those of us that have lived here a long time have had activities there, and uh it's just um it's uh super unfortunate.

So um we'll begin the process of um turning it into our insurance and um looking at the next steps on that.

Um I attended the Clean Water Advisory Commission meeting.

I'm the um city's rep on that.

It was on um January 14th.

Um they reviewed their state and legislative um state and federal legislative agendas and we reviewed the CWS budget and um there is good discussion about um what the rate increases will be um coming up and um I took the opportunity to dig in about um keeping the rates um low to non-exist the rate increases uh low and they have a very healthy reserve and um so anyway I I I felt good about going through that budget and then they discussed the status of their forensic audit, which had come out.

That was one of the recommendations that came out from the entire uh process um resolution in order that the board um had them uh the board adopted that they um move forward with the number of of um actions.

So I f I feel um good as a manage as a city manager representing this the cities in Washington County that they are following up on those recommendations of the forensic audit and uh are making taking appropriate action.

Uh the council advance on the 17th was very productive.

Thank you for your time and your commitment and your engagement.

We'll plan to have it in front of you uh the draft um priorities and actions um on February 9th to finalize.

Uh believe it or not, budget season is starting.

Uh we had our internal budget kickoff on January 20th, and uh we're moving forward um with the direction from the council advance and um and and and other things.

And so you know it feels like we just finished, but here we are.

Uh saw several of you at Jackie Conan's retirement reception last week.

Um we're certainly going to miss her.

We're in the final stages of that of that hiring.

Um we're gonna get somebody really good.

We'll never be able to replace Jackie, but we're gonna hire um a volunteer coordinator that is gonna um be great.

Um we're participating with Washington County on the update of the natural hazard mitigation plan.

So um moving forward with that, right?

That's Rachel and her team.

Um we're going out to bid for construction of the linear park in in Basalt Creek.

That's that um strip next to Plan Bet Gardens in between Plan Beck Gardens and Autumn Sunrise.

That's exciting.

That was paid for by ARPA dollars, or that is paid for by Arbor dollars.

One for $6,800 and the other for $25,000 for network monitoring equipment.

That'll be on your agenda for approval in a in a future agenda.

So thank you.

Councillor Gonzalez.

I have no updates.

Thank you.

All right.

Council Brooks.

Hi everybody.

I'm part of, I don't know if people know, but I'm uh vice chair of the titanium committee for the chamber, and we had our monthly meeting and got updates on all the upcoming events.

Some things that you the council might want to know about is that we are doing a happy hour on uh the first and third Thursdays, one over at Ancestry and the other at Twelton Station.

So if you're interested, come on by there, and then um our own um Donna will be doing the Pearlow Uminar.

I'm gonna have to come late because I'll be doing the um grant reviews for the PAB, but I will be there and encourage anybody that's interested.

I'm sure it's gonna be a really good yeah, this Thursday.

Um, and I think they were on 2 30.

Yeah, we had to move it up a little bit, so it's a little earlier than it was 2 32.

We have to be out of there by five, so I think probably they end at 4 30 or something.

Um, and they usually have beer and some you know, whatever snacks.

I was at the um regional water providers executive committee meeting, and we um took a look at the budget that we'll be presenting to the regional water providers um general meeting.

Um so if approved, one nice thing about it would well, we'll see if it gets approved, and then I'll talk about it.

Um it was nice to see everybody at the advance.

I thought it was um very well done and loved that we moved through the material quickly and that we worked really well as a team.

Um I think it's visible improvements, and I really appreciate working with our council.

Um I just want to also say happy Martin Luther King Day to everybody, um, which was um January 19th.

I personally love reading um what he wrote and am proud to know some of the people that he worked with.

Um I went to a webinar on Tuesday, January 20th, um, called it opportunity for all, increasing employment for people with disabilities.

Um they had a lot of different ideas from different cities.

This is put on by the NLC.

There's some money available for because I mean we really have to think about this, you know, that some people probably won't qualify for their disability um benefits.

Um, and so how can we as a city um support um people's the gap between um work and non-work for people that can work?

Um also just being more aware of the needs of people with disabilities, so that's a lot of really what the conversation is about.

Not we obviously don't determine um who can work, and that's all I'm gonna say about that.

Um, and then we were we met as the arts advisory committee in person, which was really nice, and got down to some final um selections on the new traffic box wraps.

Um we approved some of the um grant awards that we do, small grant awards, as well as um we do a recognition awards.

So we went through those decisions.

It was a very busy good meeting, and I think people will be excited.

The next step for us is we'll take a little bus tour so that the art makes sense in locations from some of the final pieces.

And then um met with the mayor, it was a good meeting.

Um and Maria's Mexican restaurant's really good.

Rosie's I'm sorry, Rosie's.

Mary, I wish she owns it.

Uh-huh.

Which is right.

And then, sorry, and then um, I'm thinking of a little place I used to go to.

And then I was stopped in at I didn't see everybody, but I after the dentist, I stopped in at Jackie's party, which was really nice.

And I'm so grateful for her work and the support she also gave to the nonprofit, the Twelton Sustainability Network when we were doing that.

And the continuation of the Earth Day things that she's done since oh, and then I met with an artist that I met at the Explore Twalton Valley open house.

And she's done work that I think would be interesting.

She does work with leadership groups and then has also done work with putting help putting together storylines and advertising with actually with PGE to reach diverse communities and to talk about sustainability.

Counselor Sacco.

Thank you.

So I also um attended the advance with all of you on January 17th.

Um and I feel really good about the new priorities that we discussed.

Um that there'll be additional discussion on.

Um, and I'm just really confident in our efforts to continue our priorities that are currently underway.

Um I also wanted to um to recognize Martin Luther King um day and um mention that we had a gathering here in Twalleton, and I wanted to thank um Chris Paul for coordinating that.

Um and I also wanted to mention publicly my support for Chris's effort.

Um, and I want to call on other community leaders um to seek understanding um in times where there isn't always understanding um instead of bringing people down, and I think that community leaders um need to unite um our differences uh versus um exacerbating them.

Um and I do have an ask uh for uh the council tonight uh for the transgender day of visibility proclamation.

Um I want to propose that we add a transj transgender day of visibility proclamation to one of the March agendas.

Um we approved this proclamation last year and the idea committee.

Um three of them are here tonight um in support.

Um and I would I would also like to see it continue in 26.

Um there was a question last meeting about why we would not combine Pride Proclamation and Transgender Day of Visibility.

Um these are two very different things.

So I just wanted to clarify um that Pride Month is in June and is a broad month-long celebration for the entire LGBTQIA plus community focus on celebrating the community and learning about the history specifically that uh 1969 Stonewall riots which took place in June, which is why Pride Month is in June.

Um, whereas Transgender Day of Visibility Um, which is March uh 31st, is a specific single-day event spoke uh focused on celebrating the accomplishments, resilience, and existence of transgender people, specifically aiming to counter negative narratives, um, and these negative narratives have been highlighted in recent years, creating an creating unsafe spaces for our transgender community members.

So it's vital that they are seen, heard, and accepted for who they are.

Um so I'm hoping that I think I need three others will join um with me in support of the Transgender Day of Visibility Proclamation in March.

To have it in March or did you say it was in June?

Uh no, pride's in June.

Okay, okay, I'm tracking now.

Yeah, yeah.

All right.

So wait, you have my support.

Okay.

All right.

Two, three, four.

Yep.

Thank you very much.

Council Hillier.

Uh I have nothing formal that I attended.

Okay.

Councilor Reyes.

Um, yes, I attended a liquor meeting on Tuesday.

Um, we talked about the parking, uh, the public parking here in the downtown area.

So one of the things that we talked about was there's gonna be some um I guess salient, um they're gonna fix some of our our parking cracks, and um they're gonna so from so you're gonna see some of these different kinds of like activities in that area where they're gonna start fixing a lot of the um just the parking in within our community, but mostly uh I think it was the parking, uh I say I they say blue lot, so if you see the blue lot, that's gonna be they're gonna do some work and repairs around there.

Also we talked about um the budget that's coming up pretty soon.

We want some of the current budget and things that we kind of just um how we're using those funds that were the the fees that we're collecting from those businesses for that um those parkings that we have available uh in the um in the core area.

We talked about the changes of the parking sign, so it's gonna go from this to this.

So um just uh we we're pretty excited about that too.

So um we talked about different things of you know, floods, flood zones in the area where you know what's what can we do in the future to make sure that we mitigate or try to mitigate something there because it is it takes a lot of parking spaces when all that area is flooded and their clients, especially if they're like older or they have ADA they need ADA parking, they have to go and park somewhere else.

So those are just kind of the conversations we had, and our next meeting um is coming up in April, I believe.

So yeah, thank you.

Oh, that sounds so exciting.

Um the 14th, I had um a C4 Metro meeting, and I got basically the same TriMet presentation that the mayor talked about last time, just skewed a little towards Clackamas County.

Um I want to give a shout out to Mayor O'Neill of Wilsonville for um talking about the 96 cuts and how they'll affect both our communities, especially Plan Back Gardens for us.

And then um I had a big question because on the map they show um because the 76 line won't be extended, and they show where all those people won't get lift services out towards in the Stafford area and the edge of our town, and you know they gave the spiel about 0.5%, but those are people that don't have other options, so that was my big concern I expressed to them.

Um then the council advance and Jackie Conan's party were great, and then um I did meet with Amber too, and um I'll have to say my first impression is you made a great pick.

So Amanda, I'm sorry, I don't know why I have Amber in my head, but Amanda, yeah, she was just really receptive and really knew our area and the issues we're dealing with.

She had done our homework, so I'm really um grateful for that.

And then um my last thing is um a discussion um the mayor put together this morning with um our surrounding cities, but I'm gonna let him discuss that.

Okay.

Um I say I also met with Amanda.

Yep.

She's been making around.

All right.

So uh as Councillor Hillier and Council Reyes were mentioning, in your packet, there is a letter drafted through the TriMet Board of Directors uh that has a signal block of the Towalta City Council.

Uh I just I'm looking for approval that uh you're you're good with this letter and that staff can send this off to TriMet.

Uh as you're aware, I sent the letter also out and TriMet got back to me within two hours after receiving my letter.

Uh Sherlin, Valerie, and I, Council Pratt, and I are meeting with uh the general manager Sam DeSue on Wednesday night to discuss the letter.

Uh but uh looking for approval of this letter to be sent out uh as an additional letter to TriMet and to the board to let them know uh how toalton feels about these service cuts.

Everyone good with the letter?

I have to on the 96 cuts, just add something about um plan back gardens and how our residents are relying at like a sentence.

Not sure how to word that's out, but got that mic.

Right.

Thumbs up, thumbs up.

All right, that's good.

Uh as counselor Pratt just mentioned, there was a meeting that convened this morning of representatives from Lake Aswego, West Lynn, Sherwood, and Twalton.

And the discussion was uh about the impacts of the TriMet service cuts on our four cities.

A proposal was put forward about possibly funding a feasibility study to look at the possibility of creating a next generation transit district that meets the needs of suburban cities through better use of technology, greater flexibility of getting people around based on where jobs and people need to go versus continuing on a plan that relies on large buses on fixed routes on schedules.

Uh all four cities are very excited about participating in the study.

The ask would be that we designate some money, perhaps 30 to 40,000 dollars in our next budget to help pave for this feasibility study.

I'm proud to say that Sherilyn has volunteered to lead the effort with city managers to put this forward about this study.

What we're envisioning is that this study will better better inform us of you know what the costs, what the possibilities are, what's out there that would better serve to our community.

You know, we have a lot of payroll dollars scoring towards transit that people are either not using or unable to use or find inefficient.

So maybe this study can help us better inform on how we can do that.

Uh that's not to preclude working with TriMet on the results of this or working with SMART.

Uh but we have to have a better solution for our residents.

Um we can't see buses disappearing, especially on Boonsurre Road.

Uh so my ask here tonight is that I you know, in uh conjunction with one of those items we put on a work plan for 2026 is to give Sherlin the guidance that you know, please do earmark that that dollar amount and please support her effort uh to look at this feasibility study done by the four cities.

Everyone okay with that.

Not any heads, thumbs up, Bridget, yes.

Council Hillier.

Did you really volunteer?

I didn't volunteer.

I did volunteer.

Um to be uh a lead to to bring people together, bring the cities together and look at scoping, schedule, budget for a feasibility study.

Um for you know uh what does the future look like for transit in this sub-region for the suburbs?

Um I it will require uh we presume it will require a request for proposal, and we'll scope that and send that out.

Probably with your your input, we can bring that forward.

But also ultimately it will require an intergovernmental agreement between these cities because we'll be sharing costs.

So that will also come before you as well.

Remember, we did this for the tolling study with West Lynn.

So I just would like to request that there's uh youth voice on that for kids that are trying to get around the community.

We're seeing a huge impact.

So I just I don't know what sort of I know we're talking about financial and at the city level right now, and there are a whole lot of kids falling through the cracks right now to get to jobs like there's so many things.

So I just really want to raise that youth voice up for this.

All right.

Uh thank you for that.

And in the last couple of minutes, I'll make this quick.

Uh went to JPAC meeting that uh JPAC was interesting meeting because there was a couple of citizen comments, resident comments about the cost runs on the interstate bridge project.

Um it's a lot of folks are big getting a little sticker shock on how much this bridge is gonna cost the region and is even a possibility now with uh both states in a budget deficit.

Uh the ODOC gave an update on the Rose Quarter update, uh the rose quarter changes.

They are proceeding with those fixes on around the rose quarter.

Uh they're looking to deliver phase 1A by 2026, deliver phase one B by 2027, knowing that the OTC is going to be really looking at them in terms of cost and questions about funding.

Make sure they deliver this on time on budget.

Uh ODOC gave their capital improvement project plan, which we've seen before, whether they want to get done in the next 15 years.

Uh the attended Senator Merkley's open house in Beaverton.

It literally was standing room only, uh PACT.

Um, so it was great to have him in the community uh answering questions to residents.

Uh at the MMC, uh, we got a pretty good quick and dirty update on what to expect on this legislative session.

Uh there'll be three things basically they're predicting uh them being thorn run.

Uh it's all gonna be about budget, revenue, and transportation for this legislative session.

They have a $63 million shortfall they have to plug into.

They also have to deal with uh do they disconnect from the federal tax form because Oregon is going to stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars if they don't disconnect from the federal tax form.

There's talk of a sales tax.

Uh and there's also talk of the state doing some serious economic development, investing now in so we have uh future revenue for the state in terms of taxes.

I mentioned, I think last city council meeting, uh, the Oregon Jobs Act.

It has a number, it's LC 237.

It will become Senate Bill 1586, and this is a uh economic development uh proposal put forth by represent uh Senator Solomon on behalf of Hillsboro for uh high technology land use for uh industrial development.

Uh uh part of it is land use in Hillsborough, but there's also parts about uh research and development tax credits, everything that helped our uh chip related industries uh prosper here in the region.

And finally, in the last minute, our favorite agency, OGEC.

Um there was an update on that that a food fix is coming in the short session for city councils.

Uh but they're kicking the can down the road about public meetings and serial meetings.

There'll be a small fix in 26, but a commitment to deal with it in 27.

So nothing's gonna happen there, and that's it.

So I'll go ahead and uh close this work session.

We'll take if anyone need a bio break.

Okay, we'll kick back in at 705 for our regular city council meeting.

So you're in five minutes.