[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6618698,"mediaKeyId","3102522-ec1ccdc160fefb048701d6951e152316","parentId",3102522,"title","Deputy city attorney briefs Oregon City planning commissioners on land-use procedures, burden of proof and housing rules","audioSeconds",3570,"startMs",1628000,"endMs",5198000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3102522-ec1ccdc160fefb048701d6951e152316&start=1628&end=5198","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3102522-ec1ccdc160fefb048701d6951e152316/thumbnail_1628000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6618698/Oregon-City/Clackamas-County/Oregon/Deputy-city-attorney-briefs-Oregon-City-planning-commissioners-on-land-use-procedures-burden-of-proof-and-housing-rules","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6618698-48164dd7266108a803631d5f959fa3eb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167791&Signature=XzzZ7PIZaMXeX3SpTEwNbGVmR~HRDtKsD2yb~wXxa34pEhd3NEKJ61x4BQIeLxL-8YtZ~HOzREuwZi5J8wXY56iG9eIXwMObCyOSJLBby8PlkvEGjgVAkWXEbK~JfCADtvRsJuzi5wPyFTNf-~V3wu4emiomThaWLYj8QfqOgKM4Yu7YhKOPnFEmeJwWW8hXXbe-q40ueJymftf2IrP4kDiHtYR5ThJ7C8PBm2HtmbLPycsGSsTRQQsR9ktNkxz18f40eOwwuEB6zMzKiY6HvSQC-X1CKgHpWYG2hMSwOXyLnSuDHRE-QQDBtj21krXdh1aoXBdjrVNR7qtoY5mixA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Oregon, OR","date","2025-03-24T23:55:59.12Z","article","Deputy City Attorney Carrie Richter gave the planning commission its annual legal training on Feb. 24, reviewing Oregon’s statewide land-use framework, the difference between legislative and quasi-judicial decision-making, and several procedural rules that apply to development applications.

Richter summarized the state framework and its local implementation: “In Oregon, we have a statewide planning program,” she said, and noted Senate Bill 100 and the Oregon Revised Statutes set the requirement that local governments adopt comprehensive plans and implement statewide planning goals. She described Metro’s role as the regional government that establishes the urban growth boundary and noted how layers of federal, state and regional rules feed into local code and decision-making.

Richter outlined the two broad decision types commissioners will encounter: legislative (long-range planning, city-initiated code or plan changes — final decision by the City Commission) and quasi-judicial (applicant-initiated development review, decided under adopted approval criteria, with public notice/hearing and appeal rights). She explained the common procedural sequence for discretionary (Type 3) reviews: pre-application and neighborhood meetings (when required), a completeness review (staff has 30 days to decide), the 120-day decision clock that begins once an application is deemed complete, notice and a staff report available seven days before the hearing, a public hearing where the applicant and opponents present evidence, and post-hearing procedures for leaving the record open.

On the application timeline and deadlines, Richter said the local government generally has 120 days to take final action after an application is deemed complete; a failure to act can expose the city to a mandamus action in circuit court. The transcript records Richter’s explanation that the city has 30 days to determine completeness, applicants have 180 days to respond to an incompleteness notice, and applicants control the decision timeline (they may extend the 120-day clock or elect not to). Commissioners also clarified time limits in local code: staff noted that land-use approvals expire in three years if no building permit has been issued, and a related building-permit issuance requirement is five years.

Richter emphasized key hearing rules: the applicant bears the burden of proof and gets the first and last word in presentation; decision-makers must base decisions only on evidence in the record and must disclose any ex parte contacts, conflicts of interest or bias at the hearing. She said ex parte contacts with planning staff are not treated the same as private ex parte contacts, and recommended commissioners forward any outside materials they encountered to staff so the materials can be added to the record.

On standards and criteria, Richter explained the “fixed goalpost” rule: when an application is filed and deemed complete under the statutory timelines, only the standards in effect at that time generally apply to that application, even if the city later changes its code. She also reviewed housing-specific rules coming from state law: standards, conditions and procedures affecting housing must be “clear and objective” where required; local standards that have the effect (in themselves or cumulatively) of discouraging needed housing by imposing unreasonable cost or delay can be challenged; and the new Housing Accountability and Production Office (HAPO) provides a state enforcement path for disputes about how jurisdictions process housing applications.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about the fixed goalpost rule, the completeness review clock (starts when the application fee is paid), ex parte contacts and the limits on conditions of approval (rough proportionality for exactions). Richter advised commissioners to ask questions during hearings — not only during deliberations — so that interpretations of discretionary criteria are raised while the record is open and the applicant has an opportunity to respond.

The training closed with practical reminders about government ethics, public records and public meetings law; Richter reminded commissioners that meeting-related notes and communications about city business can be public records and to direct official communications through city systems to preserve records.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Deputy City Attorney Carrie Richter gave the planning commission its annual legal training on Feb. 24, reviewing Oregon’s statewide land-use framework and key procedural rules for hearings and applications.","taxTitle","Oregon City, Clackamas County, Oregon","taxId",53937,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6618703,"Oregon City planning commission reviews 2024 annual report, sets April 2 presentation to city commission",840,615000,1455000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3102522-ec1ccdc160fefb048701d6951e152316&start=615&end=1455","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3102522-ec1ccdc160fefb048701d6951e152316/thumbnail_615000.jpg","/articles/6618703/Oregon-City/Clackamas-County/Oregon/Oregon-City-planning-commission-reviews-2024-annual-report-sets-April-2-presentation-to-city-commission","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6618703-98bbb8a51bf16143984a72dd7b1e2e01/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167791&Signature=n~h~yli-qTI-bF06OEKkhXbJiKL1JW2d47GHQIcSzViSE6WiYNlg0fx2QVzv43pC8DNicGspIqOkWkSTUZOGR9cb8ip0TjqBKtYHuNujkoL2xWZtCr9FC6t9G3ysdi9Z7VHscbDF5ZI5NXy38vmdJ4oDgBVD8JF8Q3vaLdKnRvj-E8FICS6d-Kg3WPD215YLINUXrgkaaO266OtUx~nIa9kYmOg0UqczKIAGv1rKwRjKJxmdDWZit59DlHMYl48un242o31i6VpPbZIm~EAhwg3F3ggYjnDTV0jVSdfSldisjmlMqmJ97uMM438KMC5E8Kxieo-e1hVmY~A4grM8wA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Oregon City Planning Commission reviewed its 2024 annual report on Feb. 24 and agreed to present the summary to the City Commission on April 2.

Planning department staff member Aquila Hirdravitch told commissioners the annual report recounts the commission’s 2024 activities and the work plan; she said, “Essentially, we got a grant from Metro to do a study of this area,” referring to the Thimble Creek industrial site readiness project along Beaver Creek Road. Hirdravitch also said she would “request either Chair SB or Vice Chair Dole to be there to help present the annual report.”

The report groups the commission’s 2024 work into presentations, discussion topics and action items. Presentations last year included a legal training, a historical land-use review, an overview of NPDES and MS4 stormwater programs, the McLaughlin Boulevard enhancement project, and updates on housing affordability from representatives of the Clackamas County Housing Authority and Northwest Housing Alternatives.

Action items listed in the report included a code amendment to allow RV parks as an accessory use specifically at Clackamas Park, the Maple Lane Road annexation with a zone change, a transportation system plan amendment to incorporate the McLaughlin Boulevard enhancement project, minor amendments to the city’s erosion and sediment control chapter, a parking adjustment request for a middle-housing triplex, a master plan for Sport Craft Landing Marina, and a code interpretation and nonconforming use review for Lithia’s Subaru.

Hirdravitch highlighted the commission’s extended review of the Park Place concept plan code amendments: the commission discussed the topic from May through August over seven meetings, held two public hearings, and recommended approval to the City Commission; the staff report notes those amendments were ultimately approved at the end of 2024 and into early 2025.

For work-plan items the commission prioritized two project areas to continue: the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities work (parking and related parking/transit questions) and the Thimble Creek industrial site readiness project. Hirdravitch said the Thimble Creek project, which is west of Beaver Creek Road and backs up to the college north of the high school, is a Metro-funded study to identify barriers to employment-land development and what the city could do to incentivize development.

Commissioners discussed interest in the Seventh Street and Molalla Avenue corridor as an economic-development focus; staff said ideas are preliminary and may be pursued further after the city commission finalizes its budget and goals. Staff also noted a March 10 planning commission meeting will present a Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) update on public engagement and next steps.

Votes at a glance: the commission approved the Jan. 27, 2025 meeting minutes. The minutes approval motion passed with a recorded vote of LaSalle—yes; Schlagenhofer—yes; Stoll—yes; Meineck—abstain; Laws—yes; Vice Chair Dole—yes; Chair Paul Espie—yes. Outcome: approved.

The commission agreed to take the annual report to the City Commission on April 2 and asked staff to coordinate which commission officers will join the presentation.","Planning staff summarized the commission's 2024 activities, highlighted ongoing projects including the Thimble Creek industrial site readiness study and Park Place code amendments, and scheduled an April 2 presentation to the city commission. The planning commission approved its January minutes and discussed follow-up steps for work-plan items.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Deputy city attorney briefs Oregon City planning commissioners on land-use procedures, burden of proof and housing rules

Oregon City planning commission reviews 2024 annual report, sets April 2 presentation to city commission