Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Interim Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pacific council adopts interim official control after brief public hearing
Summary
The City of Pacific adopted Ordinance 2026-2123 (Interim Official Control Renewal No. 2) on June 8, 2026, in a 4–2 vote after three residents voiced opposition and requested exemptions or a town meeting.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Interim Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The City of Pacific City Council adopted Ordinance 2026-2123 (Interim Official Control Renewal No. 2) on June 8, 2026, after a continued public hearing and a roll call vote that passed 4–2.
Mayor Kave opened the continued public hearing on AB26-033b at 6:02 p.m. and allowed members of the public to speak. Robert Smith spoke in opposition to renewing the interim control and urged the council to convene a town meeting to solicit broader public input. Gail Bennett opposed the renewal and asked that two parcels she owns be exempted from the interim control. Vasiliy Strizheus also opposed the ordinance and requested parcel exemptions, saying he did not think commercial property should go in the affected area.
After the hearing closed at 6:10 p.m., Council Member Helms moved to approve the ordinance. The council approved Ordinance 2026-2123 on a roll call vote: Ayes — Helms, Jackson, Putnam, Kerry Garberding; Nays — Petersen, Katie Garberding; Absent — Boles. The ordinance renewal therefore took effect per the council action.
The hearing record shows public opposition focused on two related requests: exemptions for specific parcels and additional public engagement through a town meeting. The transcript contains no indication that the council granted the exemption requests or scheduled additional public meetings on the ordinance during this session.
The renewal is an interim land‑use control; staff and council did not provide additional details in the meeting about changes to uses, effective dates, or affected parcels beyond what was discussed in public comment. Further administrative or legal details (such as the ordinance effective date or appeal process) were not specified in the meeting record and were not addressed during the hearing.
The council moved on to other business after adopting the ordinance.
