City Council - Regular Meeting

PM, and welcome to the April 21 city council work session. Thanks to all of you for being here. Tonight, we're gonna get a legislative update from our government affairs person, director, Ariel Nelson. But before then, I just wanna let you know that, councilor Alcare will be attending online, and then counselor Ann Brie will be coming a little late. So just so you all know that. Ravi, do you have anything else? No. That's it. Thanks, Mayor. Ariel, take it away.

Alright. Thanks, everyone. Ariel Nelson here, your government relations manager, with a post legislative session update. I'll give just a second for the slides to load. These slides will look very familiar. It's essentially the same framework that I presented last time I was before you in a work session, which is mid February for a mid session update. And so now we have the after action report. And so this is and this is largely focused around the city's, legislative priorities with a little bit more context on some of the major themes from session. So similar structure again to what you've seen before. Happy to take questions throughout.

So just a reminder that this was a short legislative session, which we have every even number of years, very fast fast paced for legislation. So one addition on this slide, the actual date of adjournment of signee die for the legislature, their constitutional deadline was March 8, and the legislature adjourned on Friday, March 6 at 04:18PM. So these are the major themes we've talked about before in session. As you know, coming into the session, lawmakers faced a dual budget challenge. So they had a roughly $750,000,000 shortfall in the general fund driven primarily by the passage of the federal h r one bill and which had a major impact to Oregon revenues.

And then a separate approximately $300,000,000 gap at Oregon Department of Transportation that was left unresolved after Republicans referred the twenty twenty five transportation package, namely the the fees in the package to the ballots. So legislative leadership, in this case, the partying power of democrats, closed this gap. They were succeeded in doing that, primarily by disconnecting portions of Oregon's tax code from select federal position, federal provisions. So as a reminder, Oregon's tax code automatically connects to the federal tax code. And when the HR one passed, there was some major shortfalls because Oregon's code neared the federal.

So, they passed senate bill 15 o seven, which disconnected strategically from pieces of the federal tax code and generated about 311,000,000 for the general fund. Shortly after that bill passed, Republicans announced their intention to refer the measure to voters. They also saw, saw an improved revenue forecast in session, so that helped the shortage, the shortfall. And then they were also able to make some modest spending trends through agency budgets, largely through keeping vacant positions open, reducing agency supply budgets, and so they were able to cover the remainder of the budget shortfall. Any questions on that?

So there were two key transportation funding bills this session, next major theme. As you know, the transportation package, that passed, in the 2025 special session, was referred. Major components of that, the revenue raising measures, were referred to the ballot. And so the legislature introduced senate bill fifteen ninety nine, which moved the election date for the ballot measure referral from the November general election to the May primary. Shortly after this was senate bill fifteen ninety nine, shortly after that passed, Republican representative and gubernatorial candidate, Ed Deal, announced his intention to seek a judicial order blocking the bill from taking effect on constitutional grounds.

This was probably the most politically charged, bill in debate, this session. And then, I think it was March 11 a few weeks ago, a Marion County judge declined to block the May election, so it is gonna go forward on that ballot. The other major transportation bill was senate bill 16 o one, which addressed, some additional transportation funding shortfall through ODOT vacancy savings. It also, closed the gap by redirecting federal funds. They redirected federal funds.

Sorry. And then the rest was backfilled by reallocating funds from some statewide programs, some of which come to local communities, things like pedestrian safety programs, seismic retrofits, rail projects, and vehicle electrification funds to shore up the state road maintenance and preservation. This provides a path forward for ODOT until we expect the legislature to take up a new funding package in the next 2027 legislative session. Of course, this does not address local city and county funding needs not met by the current state highway fund revenues. And lawmakers and transportation officials acknowledge the fix is not sustainable, the bill that passed.

We need long term revenue solutions. So we expect that conversation to continue. Last month, also, governor Kotak announced she would convene a transportation work group to develop a framework for a comprehensive package in 2027. So we'll be watching that. This session, the other major themes, of course, saw significant legislative action on both economic development and ICE response, which I will cover in the next slides.

We'll get into more detail. And all told, though, we saw the session three zero four bills introduced. Part of major reason for that is there are bill limit limitations in the short session. Of those, a 153 bills or measures passed, the legislature. However, it's actually a 152 that made it into law because, notably, the governor just vetoed house bill forty one seventy seven, which made updates and clarifications to, ethics serial meetings laws.

And so, well, we can we can do more than that if there's questions on that one. But that was the bill the only bill she vetoed this session. She also, bills can go into law without the governor's signature or with her signature and of the bill she signed. She did include, a signing letter with the federal disconnect bill that I mentioned, Senate Bill 15 o seven due to concerns raised by, some of the business community about impacts of some of the changes made there. So she acknowledged those concerns and kind of made a commitment to look into them and make potential changes in 2027.

Any questions before I move on to the, city's priorities? Alright. So just a quick reminder, we have three state priorities, federal immigration enforcement response, economic development, and housing production and homelessness response. So under federal immigration enforcement response, I don't have to explain to you all. Oregon communities, across the state were in crisis as legislators were turning to Salem.

The local conversation was happening here and in a number of communities. So there are, more significant impacts on immigrant communities, and so we saw, large push from Democrats. It was a pretty partisan effort. It wasn't bipartisan in this case, to introduce a suite of bills pushing back on federal immigration enforcement and and federal immigration policy. Those bills sought to clarify the obligations of institutions from schools to hospitals when interacting with federal agents and to establish procedural safeguards around access to private areas of certain facilities, address concerns about masked and unidentified federal agents operating in Oregon.

Had some of those earlier today in town.

So, Hillsborough, as you know

Mister Brown, I'm gonna ask you not to speak during the work session. If you wanna make a comment, you can you can make the comments in the city council meeting. So

as you know, Hillsborough's priority was about supporting legislation to sync to strengthen the state's Sanctuary Promise Act, including but not limited to funding support. I'll kind of touch on the highlights. Funding support for families and small businesses that are impacted by increased immigration enforcement. We call that increased rent and utility assistance, similar supports the city had put out at the local level. The legislature did not approve funding for rent, utility, or small business support. However, it did direct $10,000,000 toward immigration defense and refugee assistance. I think this is notable considering, we went into the to the session with, in this budget cut scenario and with budget authors, budget co chairs saying, you know, no new funding, no asks. So, well

bunch of reactionary stuff.

Mr. Brown, if you speak again, I will ask you to leave. Thank you very much. Please continue, Ariel.

And the other another priority, from Hillsborough was legislation to strengthen state laws related to technology, data sharing, public records to protect sensitive information, and strengthen that Sanctuary Promise Act. So we saw three bills pass. Senate Bill fifteen sixteen limits how law enforcement collects, uses, and shares automatic license plate readers, ALPRs, and provides required terms for contracts with vendors in terms of, tightening, data sharing, and it creates a private right of action for vendor misuse of data, like in violation of the state law. There's also a bill that protects personal data from being sold or shared for immigration enforcement purposes, backing down on data brokers. And they also passed a bill to strengthen anti discrimination protections, to help immigrants work access courts interact with law enforcement without fear.

And last, we saw two bills focused on, requiring law enforcement to be clearly identified, limit the use of masking. So, we probably engaged most directly with House Bill 4,138, which expands statewide law enforcement visibility standards and limits masking. And another bill also increased transparency and accountability for federal and out of state law enforcement operating in Oregon, kind of getting into where where, agencies are acting with nonjudicial warrants and and trying to place some safeguards around that.

I have a question around that. You have one too. Councilor Sinclair, go ahead.

Thank you, Ariel, for the information. Is it possible to get an itemized list of all the sanctuary of promise acts that were passed so that it's easy access for the public?

Yeah. So I forgot to mention at the front, the legislative report. The full list report is in your council materials, and it and it covers every bill that we tracked, not just the ones I highlighted here. So you'll see that full list under the immigration section.

Thank you.

Yeah. You bet.

Ariel, the the big issue that I see with with all of this is that we can put out whatever we want as a as a city or a county or a state, but we have trouble enforcing it to federal agencies because we don't have authority over them. Was there any conversation around that?

There was. You know, it was there was a lot of recognition and discussion of of the federal supremacy clause. I think that legislators recognized that and felt they had to do at least something in their lawmaking legislative capacity. I think there is also an understanding that we've been most expect effective. We, the state, through the attorney general's office and other legal action, whether it's from a city, a local government, or the state. So, just they're gonna, you know, throw everything at the wall, hope it sticks, at least have the laws on the books. I think the council had a conversation earlier on at the local level about, you know, we can at least document violations and at some point hold hold violators responsible. But

Okay. But but there's still the supremacy clause issue.

Yeah. I think there's a similar frustration that has been felt at the local level.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Alright.

So next, we'll turn to economic development. I've highlighted the Oregon Jobs Act, which was obviously the city's major, priority under this topic this session. The legislative report, I'll mention again, includes a number of bills related to economic development, which the majority of the bills that passed largely study the issue or stand up workforce, work groups, excuse me, or add funding to agencies to to work on issues. There were really only two significant economic development bills this session. The Oregon Jobs Act, which I think you're quite familiar with at this point, was championed by a broad coalition of supporters, but ultimately, of course, did not pass this session.

And the other bill was governor Kotak's economic development bill, House Bill forty eighty four. There were some similarities between the two bills. Both bills addressed issues with slow state permit processes and Oregon's lackluster economic development insect incentives, and, like, in terms of competitiveness with other states. The Jobs Act, of course, took on the issue of lack of industrial land supply while the governor's legislation focused on Oregon's dramatically underfunded industrial site readiness program. And her bill made updates to the enterprise zone program.

Of course, house bill eight forty eighty four did pass. It, was received $15,000,000. She had proposed 40,000,000, originally, but 15,000,000 was included, for industrial site readiness. And then the bill also included a late stage amendment that placed a two year moratorium on data center eligibility for enterprise zones. Any questions before I move

on? And

the last priority, housing production and homelessness response. This was, largely successful this session noting also noting that, there weren't particularly controversial or major policies at play like there have been on housing. There's been a huge housing focus in previous sessions. But Hillsborough supported, several bills that did pass, defending state investments in housing production, housing related infrastructure, rent assistance, and shelter capacity in the budget cut environment was a was a priority for us and for a lot of cities and partners. So senate bill fifty seven zero one passed.

So that's the state bonding bill, and it importantly included $100,000,000 in general obligation bonds for the development of affordable rental housing. And, so $75,000,000 of that was for the development of rental housing, and $25,000,000, was is focused on preserving existing affordable housing. So that's important infusion, that goes out through the state housing agency available to communities like Hillsborough to support affordable housing projects. We also prioritized, seeking improvement and renewal of existing local option tools, policies, and programs. House Bill 4,037 passed.

This was a very technical bill that largely, kind of made incremental updates to a bunch of the major housing legislation that passed in previous sessions. There were also some pieces of the bill that had been introduced that would have been really difficult to implement in concert with all the other, changes. And so Hillsboro worked in coalition with other cities, with the League of Oregon cities, and got the bill to a place where we felt, being able to support it. And then last, the city supported legislation to improve access and implementation for the onetime urban growth boundary amendment tool that the legislature had established in 2024. So house bill forty thirty five passed.

Hillsborough had participated in a legislative work group ahead of session to help inform this bill. It updates the state's program. Again, it allows cities a onetime urban growth boundary expansion for housing if cities meet certain criteria. The bill that had passed in 2024 was, too restrictive. There was only maybe two cities that were able apply for it. So it's been broadened a little bit, in terms of how cities demonstrate housing need to apply for the program, to use the tool. So more cities will now be able eligible to use the program, including Hillsborough. That will be a local decision, a local conversation whether or not to pursue that. So that's that is everything I've covered for legislative

Just councilor case. Sorry.

That metro helps with that one. Right? The UGB stuff, did I make that up?

No. I mean, normal, we typically go through a metro process for the BPB expansion. This is kind of not with the the state likes to use the word notwithstanding. It's outside that process Okay. Applied to the LCD.

Got

it. Okay. Thank you.

Metro plays a role in terms of how it impacts their process, and they coordinate inside of it, but it's a it's a state tool.

Councilor Sinclair? So when you say one time tool, is this kinda like, you know, with s b four, when you get right at a one time?

It's it's similar but different. Calculated. Yeah. So the s b four was an executive authority. This is statutory. So I can get you the the details. I think DLC will probably have to update their materials, but, essentially, a city would apply through DLC and provide notice that they're going to do this, and there's a limited it's it's not a regular land use process that would normally go through public hearing and notice and appeal. It's a it's a more limited

And it outlines the criteria to meet standards.

Yeah. And it's onetime. So this program has a sunset ten years from passage, so in 2034, I think. And so a city can only use the tool one time in that ten year period, and then it sunsets, and it's no longer on the books.

Thank you.

And

that that's that's the end

of my presentation. Again, focused on the priorities. The full report is in your materials, if you wanna read about many, many more bills than this, and I'm always happy to answer questions if you have questions about other legislation that passed or may not have passed.

Could I, throw you a little bit of a curveball, Ariel? Would you mind just giving them a a really quick, summary of the governor's Prosperity Council and the the, task force on data centers just so that they're aware of kinda what's going there.

Yeah. And I'm happy if it's okay, Ravi. There's a number of things that we're tracking in what we call the interim period. And there was kind of a flurry of activity after a session ended that felt a little unusual. It felt really busy. But this is typically where things kind of quiet down, and we start to see a number of legislative or governor directed or agency work groups, task forces. Sometimes a bill directs them. This works. Sometimes a legislator will just convene something. We've got a few that the governor has stood up, as Robbie mentioned.

So the main the ones that are on my list that are current we're currently tracking are the governor's Prosperity Council, which she had announced going into session. They are meeting regularly, doing listening sessions around the state, and are expected to make recommendations, to the governor, I believe, June on In June 30, Stu. Yeah. June 30 on direction, policies she can take to improve Oregon's economic development and economic climate. So that process is underway.

It's a little hard to track. The meetings are largely not public meetings, but they have done some extensive outreach with, and taken in lots of surveys, facilitated groups. Again, they're traveling around the state. So, we'll be tracking in what to see what comes out of that effort. The governor also stood up a data center advisory council, which has been holding monthly meetings, from a variety of, sources, stakeholders, entities, about data centers, kind of fact finding.

And they're also going to, they're charged to make recommendations to the governor, by, I believe, October, although it sounds like they may be actually coming out a bit earlier in July June or July with their recommendations for the governor. Hillsborough presented last month. They had asked for questions about impacts on water supply. So that was a presentation. And this week's or this month is at the end of this week, the presentation will be on land use.

And so, Dan Diaz will be presenting there, and we can get those links to you all, to have access to those. But they're all public meetings, and we can make sure you get access to those websites. So that's ongoing. They're also expected to look at energy, look at, they've, you know, kind of heard what the, you know, revenue impacts, economic development impacts at the local level, environmental impacts. So they're they're taking a a range of testimony.

I also mentioned the governor's transportation work group is starting to get underway. Representative, Gamba, a former, Steve Milwaukee mayor and representative, is also leading a work group related to energy facility siding in the land use system. We'll get underway. The governor also, issued an executive order, a couple months back also around energy facility siding and his charge for state agencies with looking at removing barriers to siding renewable energy, to help meet the state's, climate goals. So agencies like DLCD, Department of Energy are expected to put out recommendations and work plans.

I mentioned let's see. So, yeah, that's that's what we're tracking. We also, monitor and participate in the League of Oregon City's policy committee process, so that is underway. That is how the League of Oregon City sets their legislative agenda for the next two years. So it will be their agenda for 2027, and we'll carry into the short session.

So, I think councilor Salgado is on the telecom and broadband committee, and Dan Diaz is serving on both the the community development committee and the tax finance and economic development committee. But they have representation from all corners of the state, all sides cities, and kind of put forward a slate of priorities to recommend that goes out to each city. So I think, typically, I I'll usually email it out to you all and kind of get your feedback on how you wanna rank the the priorities under each policy area and usually the top, I don't know, five to 10 depending on the year and what the issues are, take, inform what the league's legislative agenda is going forward.

Counselor Sargado?

Yeah. On the sorry. Forgot the name of the the number of the bill. The one that detached us from the HR one tax incentives.

15 o seven.

Is the depreciation incentive the only item that that's touching, or are there other incentives that weren't listed?

So that was, I think, the one that got the most pushback and items that moved forward. I'd have to go look into the details. There were some other notable changes, but I can I can send you more more information on the bill follow-up with you and also the governor's signing letter if you're

asking that?

That'd be great. Thanks.

Any other questions? Thanks for taking us through that, Ariel. Appreciate it.

Thanks for the questions.

Oh, counselor Case. I'm sorry.

You're all good.

Okay. We mentioned this at the beginning, the OGEC updates and then the governor. Can you walk us through that? Like Sure.

Do we

still no clarity on how we can engage?

So I think there were a total and, Chad, you can correct me. I think there's three bills that were that passed the legislative the legislature this session. One had to do with, we call it, the hot dog rule. They all kind of stem from OJEC's interpretation of existing statute, newer newer legislation. And so there's clarity around when when cities can provide, like, potluck food and things like that.

There's some clarity around some other pieces. And and the one that had a really, you know, really deep work group through representative actually led the work group on all these bills. And the one that the governor vetoed, House Bill forty one seventy seven, provided clarity on serial meetings laws and ethics rules. And despite a, you know, a pretty, intensive work group process, including participation from the governor's office, there there were some concerns raised kind of at the end of the legislative process from, journalists, that this was the bill was creating a loophole despite, all of the attorneys participating, explaining what the legal case law said and how this was not creating a loophole. It's just clarifying and allowing, elected officials to receive information and have conversations, without you know?

But still but still preventing them from deliberating in private or, you know, reaching a decision not in a public meeting. And, unfortunately, you know, the governor with had pressure from journalists and editorial boards, to veto the bill, and so she did. I think we're hoping to see, the commitment from her to a recognition that there's clarity still needed, clarification still needed, in this law. And so, hopefully, there's some work to be done in 2027.

Any other questions? Ravi, you got anything else? No? Okay. Work session is adjourned. Thank you very much, Ariel, for the briefing. We will, have our city council meeting that starts at seven in, Main Auditorium. Thanks, everybody. Good evening, and welcome to the April 21 city council meeting. You made it. And before we get started, I'd like to

This meeting is being recorded.

Before we get started, if you want to, please feel free to join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, Thank you. May I please have a roll call?

Mayor Pace? Here. Councilor Harris? Here. Councilor Anbury? Here. Councilor Salgado?

Here.

Councilor Case? Here. Councilor Sinclair? Here. Councilor Alcair?

Here.

Thank you for those of you in the audience just so know councilor Alcair is attending the meeting online just so you know. Our first item item two is presentations and appointments and I will come down to the podium there and I'll be reading a proclamation about the missing and murdered indigenous persons awareness day which is May 5. Joining me at the podium today is jeanette harrison the director of the native performing arts network and she has some of her colleagues joining her. Jeanette do want to introduce them as well?

We have Marisa Sanchez, who's the operations manager at Native Performing Arts Network. Alex Hollis, is the managing director of advanced gender equity in the arts. And Taya Dixon who is a company member at Bag and Baggage Productions.

Thanks so much, Jeanette. I'd now like to read the proclamation. Whereas, the enduring impact of colonization and historically oppressive policies are closely linked to increased violence against American Indian and Alaska native peoples, including indigenous women, girls, and two spirit relatives, and whereas indigenous women, girls, men, boys, LGBTQI plus two spirit transgender and gender nonconforming people face heightened risk of murder, sexual assault, human trafficking, exploitation, and abduction, suffering from disproportionate visibility and delayed justice, and whereas ongoing systemic racism and the legacy of colonization have exacerbated poverty, homelessness, incarceration, and violence disproportionately affecting American Indian and Alaska native communities compared to their non indigenous counterparts. And whereas Hillsborough is committed to addressing the root causes and systemic obstacles contributing to this persistent crisis, aiming to mitigate violence against indigenous peoples, and whereas Hillsborough recognizes missing and murdered indigenous persons awareness day, and joins tribal, local, regional, and national entities, organizations, advocates, families, and survivors commemorating the lives of those lost or missing, and whereas to increase awareness and demonstrate solidarity on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons Awareness Day, residents of the city of Hillsborough are encouraged to wear red. Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Beach Pace, mayor of the city of Hillsborough, Oregon, do hereby proclaim 05/05/2026 as missing and murdered indigenous persons awareness day.

And to increase awareness and demonstrate solidarity, residents of the city Hillsborough are encouraged to wear red on this day. Thank you. Please, yeah, go ahead. I'd now like to invite Jeanette Harrison up to say a few words about May 5 and some actions you can take. Thank you. Oh, and here's the proclamation. Yes. Thank you very much.

Mayor Beach, Pace, and the city council, and also the city staff who made this happen. The whole impetus for this action today is because the Native Performing Arts Network last year, we realized that of the works that our native youth were creating in our arts education program, short films, plays, monologues, 75% of those projects that our kids were creating dealt with missing and murdered indigenous women in some way, shape, or form. 75% of our kids. This this topic is top of mind for them, and yet in the mainstream society, it's practically invisible. So we as adults have a responsibility to our youth to not just hold this, but to take action and change it so that they do not have to carry this forward.

Despite the fact that seventy five percent of our youth have this at the have this issue at the top of their minds, ninety five percent of native women who go missing do not make the national news. In the urban institute the urban Indian Institute of Health's study, where they tried to track data to get a better idea of just how prevalent this issue was in urban communities where the majority of native people live, only 40% of police departments across the country bothered to respond to the survey. So we still do not have a clear idea of the the the depths of this crisis. However, what we can share is that in some communities, native women face rates of murder that are more than 10 times higher than national average. So I thank the city of Hillsborough for taking action and raising awareness and visibility for this crisis.

Awareness and visibility is just the first step, and we encourage you to take a first step with our city of Hillsborough by joining us on May 5 for the National Day of Theater Readings for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Relatives. My colleagues will pass out some postcards about that reading that will take place just a couple blocks from here at 350 East Main Street at Bag and Baggage. It is a an award winning product an award winning play that has not yet had a production. It's called I is for invisible by Cherokee playwright Delana Studee. And we hope that you'll join us and, learn more about this issue.

And also, it's a heavy issue, but native families deal with it with laughter, with joy, with coming together in community, and holding this issue together. Please join us in carrying this weight. Please join us in the joy. Please join us in the love. Please join us in the community. And help us make this weight a little less heavy for our children. Thank you.

Do you want to take

a photo? Oh, great. You guys.

Moving to item three public comment. Persons wishing to speak will be recognized at this time. If you are here in person and wish to provide public comment not related to item 8.1, please fill out a yellow card and hand it to the city recorder. Those wishing to speak on item 8.1 should fill out a blue card, and you will be called during the public hearing for item 8.1. Just to be clear, if you 8.1 is regarding Saint John the Baptist Church.

So if you wanna comment on something other than that, please fill out a yellow card. And if you wanna comment on the issue with the church or or what's coming before us with the church, fill out a blue card and give it to Aubrey Meniere Aubrey Meniere right over here, our deputy city recorder. When I call on you, please join us here at the table and speak into the microphone so those on Zoom can also hear your comments. We have a translation tool which allows community members to speak in their own language. And this city recorder can display the translation on screen.

We have zero people registered to speak virtually, and the deadline to register has now passed. If you are unable to sign up to speak prior to the deadline, you are always welcome to email your comments to the city council at any time of day. This is called public comment because it's time dedicated for you to inform the City Council about your views. Comments will be limited to three minutes. Before we start on public comments, just want to let you know that there was some federal agency action today in the city of Hillsborough, and it was a DEA action, and I just, you know, if you're here to speak on that, the DEA put out a statement, and it said that today the DEA Portland District Office served two federal narcotics warrants in Hillsboro, Oregon, resulting in arrests, and apparently they seized 3.8 kilos of methamphetamine.

So, if you're here to speak on that, you of course can still do that, but I just wanted to acknowledge that we are aware that DEA was operating here today. All right, so we'll begin hearing from Denise Van Domlin and Brown Wildfire. So please come up and Denise you can take one area, one desk, And Brown Wildfire, you can take the other desk. And as a reminder, you have three minutes to speak. And Denise, you can go first and just press that center button until the microphone turns green.

When the microphone is green, then we can all hear you and the people on Zoom can hear you as well. And your timer is up there. Thanks so much.

Good evening mayor pace and counsel good to see you all again. I would like to ask you to please allow item 5.2 regarding my request for the new street name exceptions on the Van Domelen Acres subdivision to please be postponed and added into the next Council meeting May 5 agenda. I only recently was made aware of this new staff recommended action on your memo for you to consider after calling in for an update since I was told I would be kept informed upon the staff last minute unexpectedly withdrawing the item in the February 17 council meeting since I didn' understand why and what was happening all of a sudden. As a result I' needing more time please to evaluate and get more information by speaking with staff with questions to fully understand in order to adequately be prepared upon presenting to counsel. Simone has kindly squeezed me in to speak briefly between her appointments yesterday and this afternoon which I greatly appreciate.

There are still questions and clarifications I have to be addressed and discussed further. I sincerely would appreciate if you would please grant this request to move this item forward a couple of weeks to include in the agenda for next council meeting on May 5. Thank you for your understanding.

Thank you. Turning to brown wildfire. Mister Brown, you have three minutes. Next speaker is Elijah Radford and Jacob Roloff. Elijah Radford and Jacob Roloff, you can come up.

And then on deck we have Shiloh Larin or Larin. So Elijah you can go first and just press that center button when the mic turns green you have three minutes.

Hello counsel my name is Elijah and I have come forward to voice my concern regarding resolution twenty nine sixteen. I don' believe you have negotiated well with pge and if passed this resolution will continue to let pge push costs on to the residents of Hillsborough. The staff report summarizes resolution 20 nine-sixteen as supplemental terms related specifically to vegetation management relocation payment provisions and indemnification with PGE. I would like to focus on the payment provisions. The staff report says that PGE pays a franchise fee of 3.5% of their gross revenues generated in the city.

The term franchise fee is going to be replaced with something like right of way usage fee and this will generate $17,700,000 this year for the city. This sounds nice until you search around on pge's website and see their schedule seven fifty document which shows that schedule seven aka residential customers are charged 4.806¢ per kilowatt hour as a franchise fee recovery rate contained in distribution charges. So, means when you look at your bill and see a distribution charge of $50 you should realize that 69% of that charge is PGE passing the franchise fee on to the customers for $35 $34 for every 50. And, I believe this resolution will allow PGE in the city to keep the status quo under the under a new name if not completely hide the costs they are passing on to the consumer. If you read the resolution section six subsection a states the payment imposed by this subsection shall be considered an operating expense of PGE and shall not be itemized or billed separately to consumers within the city.

The staff report recommends passing this resolution. The staff also admits that quote no outside engagement was conducted the supplemental agreement is an agreement between the city and pge Why wouldn't the city want to be involved with the people who live in said city? Maybe because the people in city would say the franchise r w o usage fee rate recovery should be paid by big users like data centers. Why not push back further against p g e? This is not an agreement between the city and a grocery store or the city and a mcdonald's.

This is an agreement between the city and a monopoly that the consumers who live in that city have to pay. We have no other option but to use PGE and we are not being consulted. This is a five year agreement in the middle of the biggest electricity and processing power boom in the history of the world. I urge you to vote against passage resolution until the community is given a chance participate in such a serious matter. Finally, because of PGE's business model and executive compensation is tied to the expansion of data centers, at least the city should really like actually recoup the money with a better deal, and not just pass the cost on to the consumers, and then sell it to us like you raised $17,000,000 from PGE. You didn't. Thank you.

Next up is Jacob Roloff. Shiloh, you can come up and take the other seat. Thank you. Jacob, just press that center button, and you have three minutes.

Good evening. My name is Jacob Roloff. Following Eli's general points, I don't think Resolution 2,916 should be adopted based on the lack of public comment on the deal that was made. The low rate of 3.5% as franchise fee on revenue compared to Prineville which charges 5% and Prineville has far fewer data centers as well as a small smaller industrial base. And also I I think you should oppose it based on the PG and E billing residents on the back end trying to recover this fee.

I think council should definitely pursue a privilege tax which is an option to get to that 5% and the city should attempt to prohibit utilities from recollecting these fees from residents. Even with the flat rate that PG and E charges heavy users on top of their regular and recovery rates, those charges don't seem to bring residential rates down somehow and PG and E ends up double dipping for profit. Residential rates raised again just this last April 1. Relatively, this franchise fee or right away fee generates a lot of money for the city, but it also relatively raises residential bills and this recovery fee ends up being a significant portion, as Eli mentioned, of the distribution charge on our bills. Over 2,200 people have signed the petition for a data center moratorium in Washington County, and I think the power question is one of the main issues that need to be figured out.

That's why people are so hot about that, and certainly if this moratorium becomes some sort of policy. On the note of data centers and and local funds, I think last year it was proposed that council look into a computer and peripherals tax which is modeled after a similar program in Virginia which yielded 895,000,000 in a single county. I don't think the city should enter into a five year agreement on these terms without a public hearing and more equitable energy cost distribution. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Shiloh. Shiloh, press that center button there. Great. And you have three minutes. Oh, wait. Let us restart. There you go. Now you're all set.

Alright. Hello, Hillsborough City Council, mayor Pace. Legal name is shiloh lorraine I was born as Charlene Maria howling in Federal Way Washington in 1987 to an immigrant father who was a military MP who became the owner of a grocery store that I worked at from age 12. And a white Christian nationalist mother who homeschooled me and did not believe in evolution or let me have any interaction without anybody except for anybody in the church who were sexually assaulting me since the age of four and beating me to try and turn me into a woman. I have a long story but most recently I came here against my will after being a hate crime out of Bellingham Washington.

April 14 I started speaking to bellingham city council including mayor kim lund about hopefully making Bellingham Washington a destination for thousands of queer and transgender people to come to their college in North Washington across the border from Canada to become a sanctuary city. I' got to tell you right now it did not. On June 25 I had a medical emergency I' disabled and have been considered too disabled to work since July 2023 after experiencing distressing injuries which I have yet to recover from. I tried to go to peace health St. Joe's Hospital which is run by a religious organization as is all medical organizations in Whatcom County.

On June 25 with two witnesses from the organization trans survival I was advocating for trans sanctuary city with in Bellingham Washington I was turned away by the hospital and promptly arrested by police, assaulted and beaten and placed in restraints for over six hours before they even knew why I was there or my name. Then on August 10 my roommate who had been stalking me, a vicious cruel woman who said she was a child a child of God called the police on me and I was put in jail and thrown out of my home and separated from my companion animal and had every single thing that I had built and made as including computers with of white supremacist movements and activists all around the country trying to escape transphobia. I have been homeless without a stove, without my companion animal, and without a fridge for eight months. PPB stole my car on September 11 and then placed me in inpatient. I have been an inpatient or domestically violence for the last

two You have three minutes and your three minutes is up.

Thank you. I would like to give you some documentation if somebody from your city could get in contact with me it would be greatly helpful.

Okay. That's all? Yeah? Okay. Alright. Moving to item four, the consent agenda. The items on the consent agenda are normally considered in a single motion. Any item may be removed for a separate consideration upon request by any member of council. Is there a request to remove any items for separate consideration? Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved case. Thank you. Do I have a second?

Second ann marie.

Thank you. Is there any discussion? Okay. May we please have a roll call.

Councilor Salgado.

Aye.

Harris. Sinclair. Aye. Anbury. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

No.

We have a majority the motion passes. Moving to item 5.1 consider finance committee's recommendation to approve the guaranteed maximum price for the construction of the Hillsborough Police Department headquarters project and any necessary change orders, amendments or appropriation transfers not to exceed the full funding authorization. Before I ask for a motion on this item, staff will give a presentation.

Mayor, I will kick us off on this one tonight for the first few slides. Mark if you could pull up the power point. Just

a little

bit of context this has been a project that has been underway for seven or eight years at this point. It has been a Council priority for many years and we' very excited to bring it to the Council tonight to get to this point. Our goal tonight is to get approval from the City Council on the guaranteed maximum price as the mayor mentioned working with swindleton builders.

For those folks waiting online, we're just having a little bit of tech difficulties, so we're we're on it. Just hold tight.

Thanks mark if you go to the next slide. Again our goal tonight is to get approval for the guaranteed maximum price with swindleton builders the amount not to exceed $73,400,000 mark if you go to the next slide. Some context here. Currently as you' all aware we have several meetings on this but I want to make sure we're sharing the context. So currently, there's two precincts with the Hillsborough Police Department.

The first is the West Precinct, which is on 10th Avenue. That was a converted grocery store a couple of decades ago. It served its purpose well, but it's been outgrown for several years now. And the East Precinct is over off of Cornell as well. So this is actually an opportunity to merge both precincts into the new headquarters where you can see up on the map, which is just kind of North West of the Hillsborough Airport.

Next slide. So the other thing I wanted to chat really quickly about is we recognize the importance of that block specifically in our downtown area and along Avenida Diaz. And so we as you all know, have been working with our Avenida Diaz Coordinating Committee for about five years now. We've also talked about this with them because we know that this will impact that corridor significantly. So we appreciate all of their input on this and we know that as we build this new headquarters and figure out what to do with that block, we want to make sure that the public understands that we will continue to maintain some type of police presence downtown.

That's incredibly important and we are exploring many ways to do that. You can see here kind of the timeline that we spent working with them and we purchased this property back in 2022 and our staff have done a great job working through the process to get to this point. This next is a map on the next slide shows where this is located again zoomed in just Northwest of the airport this has great access from both East West and North South both on Evergreen and on 25th Avenue. With that I' going to turn the rest of it over to chief Coleman.

Good evening mayor and council members thank you for having us here tonight. I'm proud to report to the council that over the last two years city staff, our architectural design team at DLR Group, and our preconstruction services team at Swinnerton and Timberlab have leaned directly into these design themes that you see projected in front of you. Those themes are equity, operational resilience, operational efficiency and functionality, wellness and human health, and community connectivity. In some, these guiding principles have shaped the design of a building that vastly improves the experience of community members who need police services, improves the safety of its occupants over current facilities, and supports the core public safety responsibilities of this of city services. It provides an atmosphere of calm and professionalism for those who conduct business, hold meetings, and most importantly, seek support in the midst of a crisis.

From the studs, the new headquarters will support rapidly emerging technology and law enforcement. And over many years, HPD intends to strategically deploy technology that prevents crime, protects infrastructure from criminal activity, accelerates both officer response and investigative outcomes, and which reduces the lethality of critical incidents. Every current member of the police department Chief,

if you don't mind. Mister Brown wildfire, in the last meeting, you interrupted us twice. If you interrupt us again

I'm saying matters more than what I say. Got it. Yeah. I'll say

If you interrupt us again, you will be asked to leave. Oh, no. You are on you are on notice. Alright? If you interrupt us again, you'll be asked to leave. Chief please continue.

Every current member of the department has spent the majority of their career in facilities that have met basic needs and admirably on part of those people that designed it However, the utilitarian construction, lack of windows, and placement in a dense urban area with no safety buffer zone has led to real threats to personal safety and to unhealthy a unhealthy mental state, which is comprised of continuous vigilance. By contrast, the new headquarters will bring the beauty of the Northwest in as a counterbalance to the demanding nature of the work being done. It features a location with existing natural boundaries, a design with abundant windows, and the extensive use of natural building materials, highlighted primarily by mass timber. These elements will combine to make safety and security both physically tangible and psychologically reassuring at the same time for all people who use, work, and have need of the facility. The planned use of timber as a primary structural component with its regional availability and processing infrastructure has in many ways become the cornerstone of this process and the key design themes by reducing building weight overall, meeting seismic resiliency standards, naturalizing the aesthetics of the building.

I'll just go over that last part again.

Thank you, Steve.

The last use of the planned use of timber as a primary structural component with its regional availability and processing infrastructure has in many ways become the cornerstone of the key design themes that I'm touching on right now by reducing building weight, meeting seismic resiliency standards, naturalizing aesthetics, and contributing to the cost consciousness measures. The themes that have truly centered where we are today are those themes of truly center where we are today and we believe this project will be uniquely Heraldsboro and it will be a point of civic pride.

Sean before you speak could you identify yourself for the record?

Yes. Evening council mayor pace. I'm Sean Morrison Hillsborough Public Works I'm responsible for the project delivery side of this. I'm gonna walk you through some exciting renderings of the facility that we're going to start building this summer. Here, there's a view looking southeast from the natural area up front you can see the public plaza and behind that the one stair the one story portion of the facility there is the community room and then the rest of the facility behind that.

Next slide please. Next here is the main entry plaza on the public side of the facility. Down the corridor you can see the actual main entrance on your right side is another shot into the community room. Here we've got some landscaping and flat work that's been positioned to enhance the the security the secure feeling of the of the Plaza here. Next slide here's another look at the public outdoor area you'll there'll probably be some seating out here in an area for the public to flow out between here and the community room that you' looking into.

Here are some renderings of the interior spaces the furniture and paint colors might change but this is generally the look and feel of the interior spaces here. Break room, some of the office area, the community room. And I'm going to hand it off to Chief Pullman.

Thank you Sean. We just wanted to bring to your attention we absolutely went through best efforts to find a cost effective way to make use of the full parcel. As many of you know it is bisected by a wetland and flood plain, and it became financially unfeasible to develop training and large evidence storage capacity on that same site. So with very early analysis, it seems like it would be more feasible to do those things at another location. The reason we need those is that all facilities that the department either is in control of right now or enters into user agreements with our in the long term very unstable as far as availability moving into the future.

And the department and the city would like to secure those important areas that you know make us all safer all the training that both the department the state and the community members feel that officers are in need of, rightfully so. That needs a place to happen. That needs a place to be delivered and to keep the community safe by having the best trained officers in the state of Oregon. We also, as I touched on, we have need for large evidence storage. To a large degree, we don't control how long we're to keep that evidence.

It's usually dictated to us by the prosecuting authority. And so, sometimes, well, all the time vehicles are the primary, what primarily makes up this large evidence storage, and we have some vehicles that we have had to hold on to for a couple decades now. So we just wanted to bring to your attention that the site that the headquarters is being built on, that will not financially, in a responsible way, be able to house these entities, and that will be an ongoing future project. We also wanted to bring your attention, we do know that we're moving to a whole new area of the city, that community members are not familiar with the police being stationed there, but we have longstanding relationships with the communities that we have serviced indirectly where our facilities have been located, and that we have every intention of you know both staying in those communities and making it convenient for our officers to stay out in those communities rather than having to come back to our police headquarters which will be in the northern section of the city. So our friends at the Hillsborough Fire Department have built us a space that many of you saw on the grand opening for us to stay out there in about the most extreme distance from where the new headquarters is planned.

We will stay in the downtown area. We have multiple specialty squads like our bike squad, our community impact team, and our community engagement officers that this is their primary area of operation. We want a home base for them so they can stay in the community. We do currently do training at a former public work site on Maple Street. So that kind of hits the Western side of the city. And then we have secured, and from our friends at the Family Peace Center, also new office space where officers can drop in twenty four seven, and again, stay out in the field in that part of the city.

Quick question, chief. Just to be clear, the East Center will be at the FPC, the Family Peace Center, and the current East Precinct will be closed?

Yes, mayor. That is not a city owned property. Yep. It's leased so we'll that lease is scheduled for end of life in succession with moving into the new headquarters. Thank you.

Okay. So I'm going go over the project schedule here. Robbie showed you some timeline of some of the historical work that we've construction partners, Swinnerton Builders, have received all of the subcontractor bids and put the guaranteed maximum price together, which you see is $73,400,000 We are still doing a little bit of work to continue to bring that price down through value engineering exercise. Our target is to get it closer to $73,000,000 but we've certainly we're certainly at our maximum and won't go any higher than that. Pending approval tonight, next month, we' we' do a small mobilization.

You' start to see some job trailers and fencing show up on the site. And then June is really our official groundbreaking month. We' start the the deep utility work, a lot of the site clearing work, have our groundbreaking ceremony. And then we will be doing a lot of the site work throughout the summer, and then start going vertical hopefully this fall winter. And then we intend to wrap the project up at the end of next calendar year targeting move in in December 27 or January 2028.

Here' a high level breakdown of the funding and the overall budget so our funding is 95,000,000 which came in the form of bond proceeds and strategic investments. And on the left side is the breakdown of our budget, which also totals 95,000,000. So in that $95,000,000 number, we have our direct construction cost, which is basically the guaranteed maximum price. And then the $21,600,000 number is all of our indirect costs, like which would pay for our design, permitting fees, our land acquisition and then we are also carrying contingency on our side of the project.

Sean, if I could interrupt you really quick right there. Just wanted to call attention to that last slide really quick. We often get questions in Hillsborough about why we place such a focus on economic development. I think it's really important to clarify that this type of project is actually being done without having to raise taxes on our community. That's really important because most communities in the State Of Oregon, in order to build a new facility or a new fire station, new police headquarters, you actually have to go out and get a bond and actually raise people's taxes. This is being done without having to do that. I just wanted to thank the many councils and the current council and everybody that has actually put us in this situation where we can afford this type of facility without increasing the tax burden on our residents. Thank you, Robbie.

I appreciate you saying that. I know that Tigard is considering a brand new bond to pay for their police headquarters. And so, thank you for bringing that up.

We are here tonight to ask for approval of the GMP that we presented. Have time for questions or we can move on to approval of the agenda item.

Any questions for Sean, the Chief, or Robbie? You so much.

Jennifer L.

Care, I have a comment.

Go ahead. Thank you.

So thanks for the presentation on this project. And I just want to say I'm encouraged by the space and that it could be an opportunity for community members to come in and have engagement with the police, learn, about some police processes, and possibly get updates to, public safety throughout our city. I am encouraged by that. Thanks.

Thank you, Councilor Rolker. Any other questions or comments? Excellent. Okay. Do I have a motion? I We need a drum roll because we have been working on this for so long. Do I have a motion to approve item 5.1? So moved case. Do I have a second? Second handbury. Is there any discussion? May we please have a roll call.

Councilor Alcair. Aye. Councilor Case. Aye. Councilor Anbury. Aye. Councilor Sinclair. Aye. Councilor harris?

Aye.

Councilor salvato?

Aye.

The motion passes. Thank you very much. Moving to item 5.2 consider declining a community member's request to approve the addition of two new names to the city's asset name database. And just to be clear, this was commented on by Denise Van Domlin earlier tonight. I wanted to that comment with this item. Do I have a motion? Councilor embery do I have a motion?

Yes.

Do I have a second?

Second Sinclair.

Second Sinclair is there any discussion?

Thank you. If I may. Sorry.

Please. Yes. Go ahead. Shouldn't wait till you recognize me. No. It's okay. Councilor Harris, go ahead.

I have a question for city manager Hammond on this. So I was looking at resolution twenty seven forty five, which is the policy on this and looking at naming there's two sections here. One says, somewhere in here I'm looking for it, but it says ultimately the city council has the has the authority to name after a person. Earlier, it says

Do do you mind moving to my

Sorry. Yes. Sorry. So it says city council has the has the authority to name after a person. It also says under naming under individual sorry.

Section four, it says that where there is an intention to name a city asset after an individual, city staff shall conduct a thorough review into the individual and deem them as an appropriate namesake. So the question is, does the council indicate an intention to name somebody and then refers it to city staff to do an investigation into their into the individual or do does the city staff do a thorough review into the individual and then give it to city council as part of their decision to name an asset?

Councilor harris it' a great question. This is the first time something like this has come to the city this is a fairly new policy and just acknowledging what the community member mentioned earlier it is certainly an area we need to improve on. I would suggest that if the Council did want to move forward with naming it after an individual and staff can do that process and make sure there' no concerns there' been nothing identified that causes concerns specifically about the individual that has come up at this point so there is not a concern there. For staff it was more the idea of setting a precedence of naming things after individuals based on community requests that is why the recommendation came up to decline.

And just so you know, councilor Harris, previous to this request in front of different councils, we've had requests come up of people asking for us to name alleys or streets after family members. Where this all started.

I agree I' thinking the mechanics of this honestly is that if our decisions to be informed by a thorough review by city staff that needs to be done before we make this decision versus we can't make a decision to name it and then give it to city staff. There may but does the city but but then it says, you know, if there's an intent to name somebody after which indicates the city Council has taken some indication at least that we would like to name it after somebody so you are not just always doing reviews for people. So, I am just considering the mechanics, the correct mechanics, not just for this, but going forward. Because how how do we do this and the way this is written I just was just unsure and the fact that it's this is the initial time would be the time to get some clarity on the actual mechanical process of this because for instance, if city staff doesn't have to do a thorough review of the individual, then we could make the decision now. But, if they have to do it because it has to be done before we make a decision, that's another issue.

It also says the city manager then makes the recommendation and the fact that we have a motion before us declining it, even though it's maybe not specific, your recommendation is not to check not to name it, not to approve this name change. So, I get I get that one. But, sort of chicken and egg thing on the review versus the council decision.

I would just add again there are several parts of this policy that just frankly need to be rewritten. It's on our project right now this is a good example because there is some confusion about that process. Did you want to add anything?

Actually just added. Simone Brooks assistant city manager. What we have discovered and you may recall from the last community engagement we did when we collected names that what was brought to our attention by a number of community members is that there were significant number of names that were named after individuals and so we were asked to take those names back. Obviously we have had some other things on our plate as a city since that occurred and so we have not had an opportunity to review those names that already exist so that is to city manager hammonds point that is still in the works and so we have not had an opportunity to review this name.

Thank you and we have had a lot of information on the individual through testimony pretty in-depth testimony here. I know that I will acknowledge that that that we do have some quite a bit of information. For me, was more like I'd like to make sure we have the proper process here so that the public is well informed. The pending name request as well as future name request. That's the only reason I raised that issue.

Okay. Any other discussion? Yes. Councilor Case and then councilor Ambere.

I think for me the concern is that we seem to change the rules halfway through so there' a street named after the mother and so the request is also named a street after the father and then the rules kind of changed in the middle of that and so I don' know if we need more time or just more clarity on this change and the timing is unfortunate but I would be willing to do a postponement if there' just more clarity we can bring or research needs to be done.

Land use is not my area of expertise but perhaps you can speak to the hills where municipal code issue around the subdivision and how we ended up having to separate those two issues.

The record Chad Jacobs from the city attorney' office. As you know the city' laws are structured in various ways you have the charter which is like the city' constitution you have the municipal code which are ordinances which are laws and then you have resolutions which implement the charter and implement the laws. So what we have when we're just talking about is a resolution. It's sort of the lowest tier that we have. In addition, we also have provisions of the code, which are outlined in the staff memo, that dictate how certain streets are named.

And so that law, an ordinance, preempts any language in a resolution. So we first have to comply with that ordinance. The ordinance in question basically dictates that certain streets, north and South Streets, have to follow the numbering system, the the grid system that we have in Hillsborough. So even if the council wanted to, by resolution, say, we'd like to name the street after an individual, we couldn't do so without going back and amending the municipal code because that resolution that you're talking about passing has to be consistent with the city ordinance which is which is a law. So one of the issues here is that there' two streets in this proposed subdivision one of them by law has to be named a number.

So we can' actually name both streets using names as opposed to numbers. And so then it becomes the the second question then becomes, what can we name one of the other streets after after a person or using beaver which was the other proposal. And the municipal code also has language in it says that the decision about the actual street name and approval of the street name is vested with the city manager. The authority to that is given to the city manager. Now you as the council can change that.

You have every ability to amend the code and but you'd have to do that by ordinance. You can't do that via resolution because again the resolution has to be consistent with the ordinance. So what you can do if you want to is you can approve names that go on to the list and the city maintains a list that Simon was just talking about and we have a list of eligible street names. And so when people are want to do a subdivision or other sort of you know the plan development where they're going to name a street, they can pick off that list and say here's street names that I'd like to use. The city manager's office then reviews that as part of the process and says yes those are all eligible.

That street hasn't been taken. It doesn't have to be a number street. You know, everything is consistent with the code and gives that final approval. So the council's rule under our current system is that you approve names that go on the list, and the city manager actually approves the actual naming of the street. And so that' the process we have now. Again, you' the city council if you desire to change that we can do that we just have to change it by ordinance. Have to go through the legislative process to make that change. We can' do it just by passing a resolution saying we want to name the street Chad Jacobs Street, for example. Not that I'ninety lobbying for anything, but you know.\ Sure.

Thanks, Chad. Councilor Embrey, your question.\ Thank you.

I have a comment and then a suggestion. So, yes, this is a new process for us and timing has been unfortunate for this. I would like to suggest a way forward, which would be if we could suggest that Be Verb be put in that list for future consideration. I understand that the current subdivision timing doesn' allow that but if we could put Beaver in that list, then in the future it might be selected for a for a street name. That' my suggestion.

Do want to clarify so that there isn' confusion. We just don' have a timeline for when a name would be considered. I just want to be clear that that could take three months, it could take five months, and so the we're unclear about what the deadline is. So I just want to make sure that that's clear.

And so what you're saying, Simone, correct me if I'm wrong, is that even if we get the name on the list, that name could not necessarily be ascribed to the street that the person is asking it to be ascribed to.

If I understand councilor Anne Burry, she's asking us to add it to kind of a list outside of the list that's with these other individual names and names that were not approved and go through the review process. And we don't have a timeline for that review process before coming back to counsel with a list of names for you to review. Becomes a little circular.

Okay, great. All right, counselor Sargado.

Yeah, what does the timeline look like on needing to name this street? Like, how much time do we have to figure this out?

That is an excellent question. Unfortunately, the person I need in the office is actually out until Monday to clarify there's a developer timeline and then there's a city timeline. And I won't know the difference between those two timelines until Monday.

Okay. Well, I'd like to suggest we just postpone it until Yes. We get that

I second that.

Okay. Well, yeah, we already have a motion going on. Right? No. It's okay. I appreciate you all speaking up. So we have a so backing up a little bit, we were considering the declination of a community member's request to approve the addition of two new names to the city asset name database. We had a motion and a second. And then we had a discussion. Good job. And then we're gonna have a roll call. And we have to move forward to that roll call unless somebody pulls their motion back. Is that correct, Chad?

Correct.

Yeah. The people who made the motion if you would like to rescind those motions you can do that. Going to pause here. I' going to move forward with a roll call. I please have a roll call?

Councilor alcair?

No.

Councilor case? No. Councilor and very aye. Councilor Sinclair

no.

Councilor Harris. Councilor Salgado.

Okay. We need a majority to have this motion pass and we do not have it. The motion does not pass.

So,

say again?

Counselor Sargado, do you want to make the second motion? The motion you were gonna make of postponing? Is that what

Oh, yeah. I moved to postpone the decision on this until we figure out what the timeline looks like. Okay. Naming the street.

Can I get a second on that?

Sinclair second.

Alright. So we have a motion to postpone the decision and we have a second on that. Is there any discussion?

Yes. This is out here. I wanna have a discussion. I think it's important if we're gonna go forward with a process that we can figure something out where it involves community engagement. So maybe we need to create a committee or an advisory, a group to be able to talk with us and that we're not the city isn't making decisions about street names on their own.

Okay. Any other comments?

Sorry. Two comments. Go

ahead. Councilor Harris.

I think we have a straight naming process that involves the community, but also postponing the decision, but we've made a decision on this. I guess can we move to revisit it or how do Chad, how would we go about doing this? Because it sounds like we made a decision on this particular matter. So would that be a reconsideration for two weeks? Or what would we do?

So as I understand it, the issue before the council is a request to add two names, Wally and Beaver, to the street name list. That decision has not been made so staff recommended declining that offer there was a motion on that which just failed and now there' a motion to postpone the decision on the request until staff as I understand the motion until staff has had time to review the name Wally to determine whether or not it should go on the list and provide you with information.

So they have not been declined so they are still potentially pending and no decision is being made on them at this point?

Correct.

Got it thank you.

To clarify the motion was to figure out the timeline of when we need to name the street before we make the decision.

So not for staff to do the research on Wally but just to come back with a timeline on when the street needs to be named.

So that we can decide how to proceed with it because we need to figure out how much time we have to figure because it that could determine what the conversation looks like.

Great thank you for that clarification.

I please have a roll call?

Councilor Salgado?

Aye.

Councilor Harris?

Aye.

Councilor Sinclair? Aye. Councilor Anbury? Aye. Councilor case? Aye. Councilor Alcair?

Aye.

That motion passes to pause until we get more further information. Thank you very much. Moving to item 5.3, consider thank you assistant city manager Simone Brooks. Moving to item 5.3, consider finance committee's recommendation to adopt a resolution granting portland general electric a supplemental franchise agreement resolution number 2916 is available. Do I have a motion to adopt resolution number 2916?

So moved Sinclair.

Thank you do I have a second?

Saldado seconds.

Any discussion? Councilor Sinclair.

I would like to ask that we move this agenda item to May 5 so that we can further engage with the public and dive deeper into understanding what the point 5% fee as an operation expense that cannot be itemized to further understand why that'92s not itemized so that the public has clear understanding of rates as they expand due to infrastructure expansion. And to further understand the agreement itself of it not authorizing or conditioning any new infrastructure investments. I like to recommend that we move it to May 5.

Councilor Sinclair you made a motion to approve this? No to go forward made a motion to go forward so we can have discussion. I thought you made a motion to yes? Who made the motions?

I made the motion to move forward. We have to have that discussion.

I seconded thinking you were making the motion to approve. I'

going to say this again. Before us was finance committees recommendation to adopt a resolution granting pge a supplemental franchise agreement resolution 2916 and you made the motion to move forward with that. Then councilor sergado seconded that.

Bring it on the table. We will have discussion then move forward.

That' great. Was confused that you made a motion to move forward and now you' saying not. I see what' saying. I

understand what' saying but I would like this Council to consider taking this off of the agenda. I know that' confusing the process.

You' saying let' go and then you' saying let' not go.

I' saying let' go forward with discussion and so if I'

done this wrong then so be it. Your motion is there and we have a second on it.

I was seconding thinking that she was approving it. Want to pull back my second.

Mayor yes

if I could interrupt please I think the easiest path forward here is to allow councilor Sinclair to rescind her motion and then make a new motion to postpone this item to May 5 Then she can see if there is a second for that and if there is then you can have a discussion about that motion.

So let' go in order. Councilor Sargado, are you resending your second? Yes. Okay. Councilor Sinclair, are you resending your motion? Yes. Okay. Before this Council, was considered finance committee' s recommendation to adopt a resolution granting portland general electric supplemental franchise agreement resolution 2916 is available. Is there any motion for that?

So I got a motion to approve.

Okay. So we have a motion from councilor Salgado. Councilor Case is seconded. Is there any discussion?

I think that

Councilor Elcare.

I think that we are not being transparent enough about this. Our city staff understand this. We have been given information about this, but I don't know if the general public understands this. I know that we have given out information, but I think this is a pretty significant vote that I think should involve more public engagement. So I agree with postponing it, and I am hopeful that there's gonna be some effort to try to get community members more involved in this vote. Thanks.

Thank you, councilor Olkare. Is there any other discussion? Yes. Councilor Sargado?

So just to be clear I made a motion to approve and then we have a second and now we're discussing the vote. Right? Yes. So just want to say a couple of things. I I have tried to dig into understanding the business model of investor owned utilities, it's very complicated, very complex, way out of my area of expertise. So this is an area that I really rely on the expertise of our staff to really inform us and I I really do have a lot of confidence in what I'm reading. I reviewed the documents nothing stands out as a red flag of further concerns this is why I choose to move forward in approving this contract.

Thank you councilor so got them are there any other comments? Think from the councilor case

we talked about this at the finance committee last week and we currently are and and correct me when I' wrong here which will happen pretty soon but we have a 3.5% we' been running without a contract with them.

Can we talk about

the issue if we don' have a contract? Let' start there.

I can quickly provide a summary Andrew Bartlett same manager' office for the record. The city back about a decade ago transitioned away from negotiated franchise agreements to a license based system to manage our right of way. In that ordinance what we did do was reserve city council' ability to grant franchise agreements but the intent was for those to clarify and enhance terms that maybe aren' addressed or that the utility can' work under in our code. PG has requested that we consider a supplemental franchise agreement which is what' in front of you tonight. As far as the fee goes franchise agreement and our code and license system really just kind of set terms for the relationship between the city and the utility and how they operate in the right of way.

The city doesn' have any rate authority over pge. As we talked about the 3.5% franchise fee that is really something that is built into pge's rate case that is discussed at the Oregon public utilities commission. This supplemental agreement does is the language that is in the agreement around the right of way fee or franchise fee and privilege tax I believe directly pulled from pgs previous franchise agreement and it outlines that pg will pay for its use of the right of way and it also reserves the city' ability to administer or pass a privilege tax against the utility. I think the reason that we wanted to include this language in the supplemental agreement and ypg requested that is most utilities pay in arrears so they pay us quarterly and it' based on the business activity that they have done in the previous calendar quarter. Going back historically PG has had a number of franchise agreements with the city and as far back as I could find records of PG is always paying in advance and that payment in advance is based on the prior year's gross revenue.

So they wanted to recognize that in supplemental agreement just because they didn't want to end up switching to paying in arrears and it would kind be an accounting mess where we would have we'd we'd basically have to forego a year of revenue from PG, which, you know, in discussing that with finance committee wasn't really something the city was in a position to do. So that's that's kind of what what's in this as far as the is the right of way fee payment or I guess franchise fee payment in in this case.

If I could add as well just a really important clarification here. The three and a half percent that we're talking about is the same three and a half percent that we've had for decades on the books. Is not a new fee this is a it is kind of the base. I think almost every city within Oregon or or in PGE's area that is the base that is what everybody charges. There are some cities that charge more than that so you' see in staff report and other places you see some cities charge as high as five.

A warning of that if we were to raise that that impacts everybody right? That' why have always kept it at 3.5% as opposed to some of our neighboring cities that have gone up to 5%. That' why the 3.5% is is no change we' not recommending a change this is just putting into the new supplemental agreement as Andrew mentioned it is in there because of how it' when they pay us it' not anything to do with the actual rates.

Thank you Robby and Andrew. Councilor and then Councilor Sinclair. I

think what myself or even we see testimony today also I think the concern is in the area of AI there' expansion that is potential in the future and we don' know what those expansions are and this is not itemized on our residents utility bills so they can' people are on fixed incomes people are having a hard time making things meet everything' going up. When we see we just had a 5% increase and correct me if I'm wrong this still has the 3.5% baked in even though we went for almost two years without an agreement correct?

Yeah that' correct the previous franchise agreement did have a provision that continued payment of the franchise fee if the agreement went into state of being expired which it did.

I still again I' going to ask that we go forward in taking this off the agenda and moving forward for deeper discussion with the public. We' in a transitional era due to AI and it may not look the way it used to look with utilities even though this is something we' done for many years what are the guarantees of this not shifting and inadvertently having cost indirectly be paid by our residents.

Okay. Did you have an answer, Andrew?

It's a little again, I don't know that this is the mechanism to kind of, you know, flush out what those costs are. Again, that that's more a function of the of the PUC. This is really kind of providing protections for the city to ensure that PG is doing work in accordance with what our code says. You know, it doesn't commit PG to any any infrastructure expansions or it doesn't require them to provide us with a list of all their upcoming projects. This is really just kind of outlining the process in which they will operate within the city so making sure that we have protections like you know them getting permits before they do work then relocating when the city has projects those pieces.

Is really just more our working relationship and formalizing that. To your point we can certainly bring this back and have more discussion if needed around this item.

Councilor I wonder if I could add a little more clarity to what Andrew mentioned. The action in front of you today is memorializing the way we work with PG and I right of way and those terms are in here. The discussion around whether we should be charging more or should we be charging different classes of customers and all that, that is something we can have later. I would just caution on not taking action on this specific franchise agreement because there is a risk of not having these terms identified and granted it is a risk we have lived with for a little bit of time but that doesn't preclude us adopting this does not preclude us from having that second conversation. In fact, it provides some more clarity on things like the privilege tax which allows us to then say, okay, we've adopted something in this franchise agreement that says we can just reiterating that we can impose a privilege tax.

So when we do that in the future, this is just strengthening that language.

Okay. Councilor Silgado.

I'm glad you mentioned privilege tax because I was going to ask about that. What does that look like for us? What triggers it? What are things that is it triggered by the counsel, by staff, is it economic indicators?

It's a decision by counsel and that again, this just points that out even more firmer because we're allowed to do that based on Oregon law. So this again just reiterates that we can do that. There are just certain terms that we're agreeing to with PGE. So for example, if we do implement one and that's the counsel's decision, we have to give them ninety days notice. That' just for them to be able to implement that on their bills. That can be a future discussion should you choose to do that.

Again we can implement that after this. Councilor Harris?

A couple of questions. I noticed in the staff report it talks about how under HMC 9.48 the city is converting to right away licenses rather than franchise fees. PG is the last price franchise fee but then you talk about this will be a new franchise agreement is is that just a jargon issue for me or am I understanding that are we still going be doing franchise is not right away licenses

we have every utility except for pg has now come into the right away license system I would say that the reference to franchises still probably exist it' just historically what agreements between utilities and cities have been called. And it's really hard to kind of break the habit of calling things a franchise fee. Guess technically it would be a right away usage fee going forward.

So that's that's what we're talking about?

Yeah. It's not

they're not being treated differently than No.

They functionally would be the same. Okay. The label is would be different.

Okay. And

am Harris, I maybe just to provide more clarity for the entire council, PGE will also be submitting a right away use license, and this is a supplemental franchise agreement that accompanies the license.

I just wanted to make sure that this was actually a right away license. We're changing to that, not a franchise, and it sounds like that is correct. We would just use the older nomenclature for this particular report. Is that accurate?

Yes that's accurate. So

if I just jump in I'm sorry Andrew it's it's not a 100% accurate I just want to reiterate what Raheem just said. So everyone including PG and E will have a license under 9.48. 9.48 allows the city and utility to say there are certain provisions of 9.48 that don' really work for the type of utility that we have or the type of situation that we' in so we can supplement the code language in 9.48 with a supplemental franchise So what's before you is a supplement to 9.48 that just says here are some unique terms that only apply to p g e because the way the code is written just doesn't work for p g e specifically for example with the with the franchise fee because the way it's been calculated all these years, the city didn't want to go a year without getting a franchise fee payment. So we have that language that's different for PGE than it is for everyone else under the code.

So they are they will be applying for will be granted a right of way under the code. And in addition, this supplemental is actually described as a franchise agreement.

Yeah. You got supplemental franchise agreement that just supplements the language in the code.

Alright. I got it. That's not confusing.

Okay.

And the other thing is I'm assuming that if we raise this rate from 3.5 to higher rate, that number would be used by PG for their rate setting in the future and that would simply largely be passed on to the provider of the customers?

Chad, jump in if I get this wrong but they would not use any rate above 3.5% in their rate setting anything that the council elected to do above the 3.5% would be passed through directly as an itemized line item on bills.

Correct. That's what I'm saying. We did would be passed through legally. They could legally pass this through to the customer which would in effect be a flat rate increase on everybody in Hillsborough.

Yeah, exactly. Sorry I thought you meant in their rate case. You' correct.

Thank you.

A question I have is more than anything is understanding. I want the public to be able to understand when they easily look on their utility bills that there' an item line and they can see if there' a franchise fee or would it be called a Hillsborough licensing fee?

We could probably work with the utility on the verbiage but yes usually it's framed as a city license tax, city license fee something along those lines. It might say city privilege tax in this case if we were to take action.

Yeah and to clarify that my understanding is when other cities that for example that have gone up to 5%, that additional 1.5% has to be called out on the bill. We don't do that and so it's not called out for Hillsborough customers. A 3.5% is is baked into the base rate the PGE charges. And so that's That is the state that the public utilities commission if we as a city decided to charge more then it would be called a privilege tax. Would be specifically spelled out on the PGE bill for customers.

We don't know how we are approaching that. We have to say yes first to this with the licensing agreement to further talk about the privilege?

No. That'92s a completely separate conversation. What'92s before you tonight has nothing to do with the rates. The council ever wants to talk about a privilege tax then we would have a completely different conversation about that. That' not what tonight is the 3.5% has been in there for decades there' no change that' being made to that it' just in there because that' what is included in the rate already any changes the Council wants to make would have to be done in the future separate from this.

Councilor Sinclair One of the things you mentioned about was making sure the customers knew what we were doing today. I think that could be done as a follow-up based on the post counsel action about what did we actually adopt versus not. Just to provide more clarity on the action we're taking today, which is again back to Robbie's point that we're just continuing to charge the same franchise fee to PGE and we can let the public know that. If we ever do get into a conversation about increasing the French adding a privilege tax which would then increase that total fee that could be a more robust community engagement process because then we are increasing fees.

Councilor Ambereen?

I had a question. Clarification, if in the future we decide we want to set a privilege tax because right now we don' have one. You' saying that will directly go to our residents? PGA would pass it? Just directly? 3.5% they don' pass but anything above they pass directly?

Yeah. The 3.5% is just built into their base rate case and the PUC kind of recognizes that as just a normal operating expense for the utility.

Okay. And if we were going to go and we can go up to five because of what the commission has said?

Yeah up to five I believe there's been a few cities that haven't done the full point 5% some have done you know fractional percentages to fund certain programmatic elements they want to take on but yes up to five is what we could do but we don't have to go all the way to

correct. Yes yes okay all right thank you.

Councilor Solgado. I think you

just answered my question so privilege taxes are just normal part of the franchise agreements or is this new?

Privilege tax would be in addition to the franchise agreement so that'd be a separate action.

So the privilege tax is part of it's baked into the agreement. So my question is no? Okay. There's a point of clarification for us.

Privilege tax is nothing to do with what we're talking about today. We're not talking about rates. Not talking about making any increases. The City Council has that ability if at some point you want to. For example, the City of Beaverton has they've gone up to 5%. It's an additional 1.5% privilege tax. That is not what we're talking about today. Ours is the 3.5% that every city has that' within the PGE service area that' been the same for decades there' no change to that. The only reason the privilege tax came up is someone asked a question about it but there' nothing in this that would preclude the council from eventually doing a privilege tax or anything along those lines. The privilege tax is

a tool that the state allows the cities to

use? Correct.

Something that the city could do if you chose to do it that' not what we' talking about tonight there' no privilege tax that' being considered right now. I

apologize I had this conversation with staff during the finance committee and due to the extensive packet this week I neglected to request my questions and the staff feedback be shared with counsel before the meeting for this particular item. I' sorry this is just about three point five percent and zero interest in doing anything beyond the bare minimum there so and raising any more anything than we need to so maybe as a follow-up to this we could pass those notes along to staff to make sure that you' the council that you can see that conversation and those numbers. Apologies for that confusion that

some of us got. The last question I had why did we go for almost two years without having agreement if this is business as usual?

Not ideal obviously part of it is this is the first time we received a request for supplemental agreement from utilities so we didn' have a process really laid out to grant it. When PG initially had requested this supplemental agreement it pretty close to the expiration of their existing agreement. That added a little bit of delay just kind of figuring out how we would move forward with their request. And then we entered into negotiations so what you have before you denied is much more limited in terms than what was initially proposed. Then I would say the other factor in addition to just kind of the normal negotiation timelines is there was changeover a staff that kind of slowed down the process on this.

There is just kind of a couple of different combinations of items that caused delays in getting an agreement to a place where staff felt ready to bring it to counsel.

Okay. You good? Okay. All right. So, just to review, we're on Item 5.3, considering Finance Committee's recommendation to adopt a resolution granting PGE a supplemental franchise agreement. And this is resolution number two nine one six. We had a motion, we have a second, and we've had a discussion. May I please have a roll call?

Councilor Alcair?

I agree. Yes. Provided that we're not raising interest rates and that we have opportunity to talk and engage with public.

Counsel case? Aye. Ambery? Aye. Counsel Sinclair?

Abstaining I would like further conversation and the public to be further engaged on this item.

Councilor Harris? Aye. Councilor Salgado?

Aye. Resolution number 2916 is adopted. Moving to item 5.4, zone change one-twenty six. Consider adopting an order excuse me, zone change one-twenty six Hall. Consider adopting an order for an owner initiated zone change from R7 to MR1 on a lot approximately 0.21 acres in size. Order number 32 is available. Do I have a motion to adopt order number 32?

Here are so moves.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Second case. Is there any discussion? May I please have a roll call?

Councilor Ambry? Aye. Councilor Salgado?

Aye.

Councilor Sinclair? Aye. Councilor Alcair? Aye. Councilor case? Aye. Councilor harris?

Aye. Thank you. The motion is adopted excuse me order number 32 is adopted. Moving to item seven ordinances first reading 7.1 Hillsborough comprehensive plan amendment zero zero one dash two six tsp update consider the planning commission's recommendation to adopt an ordinance approving a Hillsborough comprehensive plan amendment to incorporate updates to the transportation systems plan, ordinance number six five one five is available. Do I have a motion to approve the first reading of ordinance number six five one five?

Harris so moves.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Second case. Is there any discussion? May I please have a roll call?

Councilor Harris?

Aye.

Councilor Salgado?

Aye.

Councilor case? Aye. Councilor Alcair?

Aye.

Councilor Sinclair? Aye. Councilor Ambry? Aye.

Thank you. The first reading of ordinance number 6,515 passes the second reading and consideration of final adoption of the ordinance will be May 5. Moving to item 7.2 annexation of SoHai Central Risewell Homes, consider adopting excuse me, consider approving an ordinance for an annexation of six parcels approximately 45.88 in size into the city limits with the zone change. Ordinance number six five one two is available. Do I have a motion to adopt ordinance six five one two?

Harris so moves.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Second case. Thank you. Is there any discussion?

May I please have a roll call.

Councilor Sinclair? Aye. Councilor alcair?

Aye.

Councilor harris? Aye. Councilor case? Aye. Councilor Ambrey? Aye. Councilor Salgado?

Aye. Thank you. Ordinance number six five one two is adopted. We're gonna move on to public hearings item 8.1. However, because we've been going for an hour and a half, we're going to take a ten minute break, and we'll be come back at 08:40 to start on item 8.1. Thank you very much. So we'll recess for ten minutes and come back at 08:40.

The recording has stopped.

For your patience. We're gonna continue on with item eight, public hearings. Specifically, item 8.1, appeal 002Dash25, Saint John the Baptist Church. Consider the Planning Commission's approval of case file number CUDash006Dash24, Saint John the Baptist Church, and the appeal from the appellant, who is also the applicant, requesting the decision to be overturned. Item number 34 is available.

We'll now move into the public hearing. If you are here in person and wish to receive a notice of decision, please provide your contact information on the sign in sheet in the back of the room. Aubrey, the sign in sheet is there? It's over there. Okay.

Thank you. If you are attending virtually and you wish to receive a notice of decision, please email your contact information to the following email address, counsel@hillsboroughoregon.gov. And just so everybody knows, COUNCIL is c o u n c I l. If you are here in person and wish to provide testimony in support or opposition to this matter, please fill out a blue card and give it to the deputy city recorder right over there, Aubrey Bruner. And be sure to mark if you are speaking in favor of or in opposition to the appeal.

You can also be neutral if you wish. But if you did not pre register, please listen. Hang on a second. Yeah. Please fill out the card whether you're in opposition or not, and then we can call on you at the appropriate time.

If you are attending virtually and wish to speak but did not pre register, please listen for when I call for Zoom hands in support and Zoom hands in opposition. I will open the de novo public hearing regarding an appeal on item c u dash zero zero six dash two four Saint John the Baptist Church. Counselors, do I have a motion to set the presentation times for the appellant at fifteen minutes for the initial presentation and fifteen minutes for the rebuttal? So moved the case. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Harris. Is there any discussion? May we have a roll call?

Councilor Salgado?

Aye.

Councilor Sinclair? Aye. Councilor Harris?

Aye.

Councilor case? Aye. Councilor inbrey? Aye. Councilor Alcair?

Aye.

Thank you. What that means is the appellant will have fifteen minutes to initial presentation and then there will be a rebuttal of fifteen minutes. Mark, could you please share the ORS video?

All public testimony and evidence submitted must refer to applicable approval criteria which are listed in the staff report or other land use regulations or criteria you believe may apply to the city.

Any testimony or written evidence needs to be specific and detailed so the city can understand and respond to each criteria or issue discussed in the testimony.

Failure to raise an issue before the record closes prevents an appeal to the land use

committed

court. Court.

To court.

Criteria will be responded to prior to the closing of the record.

Thank you, Mark. Just for clarity, the motion passed. Fifteen minutes for the presentation, fifteen minutes for rebuttal. I just wanna be clear that the motion passed. And we were required to show that video before hearing such as this. We also have, just so everybody knows, we have city attorney Ashley Dugle, who will now provide an overview of the order of events, explain the legal standards, and ask the council about conflicts, ex parte, and bias. Ashley?

Thank you, mayor, and good evening. Ashley Dugil from the city attorney's office for the record. Tonight, counsel is hearing an appeal of a quasi judicial land use decision unlike in legislative hearings where personal opinion may come into play quasi judicial rulings must be grounded in the relevant code and if the application meets the code the council must approve it. The hearing will proceed as follows after the preliminary legal matters staff will make a presentation followed by the applicant then anyone who wishes to testify will be given the opportunity. Finally, there will be time for rebuttal by the applicant.

At the end of the public hearing, council will either continue the hearing to a date and time certain, or else close the hearing conduct deliberations and reach a final decision on this appeal. The applicant has the burden of proving that the application is consistent with the city of hillsborough's community development code comprehensive plan and any applicable municipal code provision. The criteria that must be addressed in this hearing are set forth in the staff report. As the city council is sitting quasi judicially any testimony argument or evidence that speakers give us must be directed at these criteria or at some other criteria in the code or comprehensive plan which you believe should apply to this decision. Only those who have provided testimony to the city council in person or in writing will have standing to appeal this item to the land use board of appeals.

If you have provided written testimony or previous oral testimony to the commission, you do not need to read your written testimony or repeat previous oral testimony. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to allow the commission and the city council and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the land use board of appeals based on that issue. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues related to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the city or its designee to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. So now I will ask members of the council if you have any bias appearance of bias, ex parte contacts, or conflicts of interest which you wish to disclose. Before I ask that doe, do any members of the council have any questions about any of those three items that I just mentioned?

What those are or generally what you should or should not disclose?

Okay. Miss Ambry?

No. I don't have a question. Just No questions.

Perfect.

Okay. Then I'll move on to ask, do any members of the council wish to declare a potential or actual conflict of interest or bias or have questions about the meaning of these terms? Seeing seeing none, do any members oh.

Did you have one? Yes. Councilor Ameren?

Yes. So just earlier in the year in January I did at a social gathering ask one of the planning commissioners how they were doing and this case was mentioned we had maybe a twenty second conversation before both of us realized this might come to counsel and we stopped. Just kind of wanted to let let you know.

Perfect. And you feel that you can nevertheless reach an impartial decision on this? I believe so. Yes. Okay. Perfect. I would also wish to ask any members of the city council wish to report any site visits or ex parte contacts? I' seeing shaking heads so I will take that as no.

We do have someone online so I want to make sure they' included. Are they still online? Is councilor Alcare still online?

Yes. I'm here. I have no ex parte contacts.

Thank you. Perfect. Thank you, mayor.

Does any member of the audience wish to challenge the jurisdiction of the city council to hear this matter or the impartiality or ex parte disclosures of any member of the city council? Okay. I'm hearing none. And, is there anyone online by any chance who has raised their hand or would wish to indicate their desire to challenge these items? Seeing none. Thank you. That concludes the legal matters.

Thank you, Ashley. I'll now invite Ruth Klein, our senior planner with the planning division, to provide any updates and their presentation. And just before Ruth starts, we'll hear her whole presentation, and then if we have any questions, you'll be able to answer those questions however when her presentation is done. Thank you.

Good evening, counsel. You have before you an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision for Saint John the Baptist Church CUDash006Dash24 is the case file number for this project. So first I want to orient you to where this site is. This is a Google aerial photo because it shows the most recent construction activity that is actually currently occupied now just East of the Amberglenn Park those are four blocks of four and five story apartment buildings. Just slightly east of that is more apartment buildings that are slightly lower and have a townhouse design to them.

And then you shift over into a green area that is heavily forested and if you see a house roofline that is slightly closer to Walker Road and just North of Arcadia by Alta, which is identified on that map. That is the house that is part of the site plan for the Walker Road church school and cemetery project.

Just for clarity, can we have that circle or have mark put his

Does this have a pointer on it,

Mark? Yeah.

It does? Alright. Let's see if it it's not

I'm

not seeing any laser come out of it.

Laser doesn't come out.

Oh, okay.

If you could direct Mark where to put

the cursor.

Mark, that mouse that you had, can you make it yep. Perfect. Right over that mouse.

Right there. Thank you.

The mouse by the house. And then the Bronson Creek corridor, you can see that label down at the southern edge of the aerial. It continues up through that lighter green corridor all the way out to Walker Road up to the other side of Walker Road up towards Magnolia Meadows. My my arrow is also not working.

That's okay. But is Mark pointing it out properly?

Oh, you're still doing pointing stuff? Yes.

Yeah.

All right. Is everybody pretty comfortable on the aerial and where we're located for the site?

Yes. Thanks, Mark.

Now we can go back to the other issue of my clicker doesn't work. You maybe make it go forward? Okay. So this location off of Walker Road, you'll hear testimony tonight about the church's current location, which is also on Walker Road. So I just wanna make sure that there's not any confusion there.

There's gonna be conversation about the site over on Walker Road, is in Beaverton, roughly across the street from the Nike campus. But this particular area on Walker Road is a little around 5.96 acres in size. It's in the Amber Glen plan district which you saw in that previous aerial photo. There are two zones for that site, Urban Center Office Research And Urban Center Research Park. Urban Center means an area that has development standards for higher intensity of uses and also more urban characteristics as far as being pedestrian oriented, having more multimodal resources.

The Urban Center Research Park is down in the southwestern portion of the site where the wetlands are located and really doesn't have a bearing on this application because that's a non developable area. The uses for this is a church that was approved for three fifty attendees, K through eight school of 70 students, daycare of 30 children, and a cemetery which you can see on the southern portion of the site. That red line that you see on the site plan that bisects through the parking lot was part of a last minute conversation just prior to the close of the public hearing at the Planning Commission level. They revised the location of the cemetery to put it on the southern portion of the site. It was a topic of a lot of concern by their surrounding neighborhood as far as the visual impact of it.

The red line there shows that they are going to shift the parking lot 50 feet back from the front property line. That setback there is a reflection of one of several standards that you'92re going to see tonight as far as promoting an urban center and an urban environment. That particular code requirement is encouraging buildings to be up adjacent to the street, not parking lots, and that's what you're seeing reflected there. This is a zoomed in visual to help you orient on the church itself. There's the driveway access off of Walker Road.

The western edge of the building is the primary entrance for the building, and that northern portion of the site where you can see two trees, Mark, if you wanna circle that, it's right above the word Greek Orthodox Church. That is to orient you that elevation in the top left corner, if you can see the two trees in the nook. Those are the same two trees on the north side of that elevation there. Does that make sense to everyone? Right next.

So the project approved the in addition to what was mentioned before, they also approved the removal of the significant natural resource overlay on the site. There is a concurrent natural resource permit application that is going to move forward once this process is concluded. And that will deal with the details of payment and fee in lieu for removal of the natural resource. The project also approved the removal of a little over 200 trees for the the construction of this activity here. So what you are deciding tonight is whether or not you support the Planning Commission's decision.

The Planning Commission is the board that reviews land use applications that are elevated to a quasi judicial process. That means that there's additional discretion in their review. Staff level decisions are more checkbox black and white decisions. And the applicant is requesting that the conditions of approval that were opposed by the planning commission be removed. The timeline note here is something that is special to land use decisions.

We have a state requirement that a decision has to be made within one hundred and twenty days. The applicant can extend that, but it's at their discretion, not at the city's discretion. So we would either need to make a decision tonight or request an extension from the applicant, And as we move more through the process, you know, you'll flesh out whether that's needed or not. So, the only reason that this project went to the Planning Commission is they requested for major adjustments to the code language. These are all adjustments that are specific to the Amberglen plan districts design intentions to create a more intense urban environment.

If they were minor adjustments, they'd get reviewed at the staff level or no adjustments that would be reviewed at the staff level. So, the four major adjustments requested were the primary entrance orientation. It' oriented to the west rather than onto Walker Road. The building frontage is not extending along the majority of the site. It's more focused on just one portion of it where the church is located, the primary church building.

The window transparency. That is a requirement of, again, an urban design requirement so that when you have buildings along the frontage of the street, there's windows there for that interaction for pedestrians to create a safe and welcoming environment that encourages pedestrian use. And the last is the floor area ratio. That is a fancy equation that boils down to we want you to build to a certain intensity on the site. So for example, you could have one large one story building that covers the whole site, just hypothetically, or a four story building that only covers a quarter of the site.

That's kind of how floor area works. You can either build up or build out. Here are the standards here in more detail. And when an applicant requests a major adjustment to a design standard, they are required by our code to propose something in return in exchange for the public. The code is designed to meet the goals of the community and so when a project is proposed that doesn't meet those stated community goals for the Amber Glen Plan District in particular in this case, the planning commission has that balance and discretion of figuring out what would be an appropriate exchange for that.

It's very often more of an art than a science. It's why they have that level of expertise and why it goes to the public hearing process and why our planning commission has that sense of they've seen multiple applications asking for major adjustments and start to get that feel of what is appropriate in that particular context of whatever major adjustment is being requested. There was not a lot of information you may have seen in the original appeal application. It was a few sentences there. The what we've parsed apart from that is that the appellant, who is also the applicant, feels that the Planning Commission misconstrued the major adjustment criteria, and that the Planning Commission also misconstrued what public benefits were appropriate based on those major adjustments that they requested.

And then lastly, that the requirement of the trail, again, this is a slight assumption because there wasn't a lot of detail there. Both the requirement for an easement as well as the requirement for the construction improvements are both disproportionate under the Fifth Amendment. We received late this afternoon, you know, a 53 page packet from the applicant with a lot of information. Staff took a quick scan of it, it arrived late, so we're not able to provide an in-depth analysis of it. When they went to the Planning Commission, they proposed these options as their public benefits and argued that these would be sufficient to mitigate for the four major adjustments that they requested.

The architecture of the church, which is a which is a Byzantine style building, the tree preservation of the trees that remain on the site, the community services, and the native landscaping. The Planning Commission heard a lot of testimony over three different meetings regarding this and had an in-depth deliberation about whether or not these constituted public benefits. So the conversation regarding, I'm gonna work from bottom up, The native landscaping, that's actually already a requirement within the Amber Glen plan district, and it's not, therefore, a public benefit. It's just a code requirement. The tree preservation did come up as a conversation item, but really didn't get traction once that conversation headed towards what sort of protective easements could be provided for those trees to ensure they weren't removed, as well as, there wasn't yet a level of detail as far as whether some trees would survive construction activity.

There were some large trees that hopefully will survive the construction of the parking lot around them, but there wasn't that certainty there yet. So, in the end, there wasn't any commitment to tree preservation. Community services, there was some discussion as far as the types of community services that a religious organization provides, but it did not get into the depth of discussing what would be above and beyond that would be a public benefit. And then lastly, the architecture. This was probably the most in-depth of the discussion points.

It was something where there was a there was conversation about, can a building that does have features that are above and beyond what, other buildings have, can that become a public benefit when it's a privately owned structure and the property owner maintains the rights to access that building, alter that building, demolish that building. And it didn't have the same weight for the planning commission the way that a public trail easement can be conditioned and monitored and enforced. One of the core discussion points was if we are going to have a trail as a public benefit, what makes the most sense from, again, getting back to that weighing of four major adjustments being requested, what is the appropriate compensation for that, to the public? There was discussion about the type of trail off-site. Could it be constructed on?

What is the type of level of service, flat surface of the trail? Was it easy to construct that trail? What were the estimated engineering costs? And then lastly, how can they protect the applicant for any potential cost overruns? The planning commission was very invested in making sure that because we were only dealing with generalized numbers based on trail construction and not any specific estimate, how to protect the applicant against any cost overruns.

The church's larger objection to this, which, you will likely hear tonight, is that they feel that any trail related improvement should not be required. Part of that discussion is the constitutional framework around the nexus of the connection between the development impacts and what the city requires for those development impacts, and then the scope of the requirement and the scope of the development's impacts. So, the trail, it's important when you're thinking this through, think about the on-site trail easement as separate from the on-site trail construction and the off-site trail construction. The on-site trail easement, staff has made findings that they are proportional and there is a nexus there to require an easement. The public benefit comes with the on-site construction of the trail and the off-site construction of the trail.

Both of those have caps with reimbursement being established if there's any sort of cost overruns. The supplemental staff report that was sent out to the city council on Monday included information on the estimated pedestrian demand for that area. It's a estimated demand that is based on the category of a church and a school. So you have multiple studies that are done across The United States, and those averages of all these different sort of unique situations result in numbers that are used by transportation engineers to give estimates of when, what peak hours might be, might look like. This is a conservative estimate because it excludes bicycles, the daycare, the church's midweek services, the future basement conversion anticipated to become more classrooms and office space, as well as off peak hours, which is, for example, when there isn't a church service or school isn't in session.

This information is something that is relatively new to the world of transportation planning engineering. It is gradually moving away from being vehicle focused and moving towards pedestrian and bike focused, but they're still in their infancy, and there's limited amounts of data, but this is based off of that limited data. The Amberglen Plan District encourages through its design pedestrian and bicycle usage. There are wider sidewalks than normal, wider planter strips than normal to encourage that buffer between pedestrians and traffic. The urban design requirements to make walking along these streets, exciting and pleasant.

There's cycle tracks and bicycle lanes at a higher level of development than elsewhere in the city, and then there's extensive on-site and on street and off street trail network. As this area matures over time, and you can see that happening from the aerial photo, there's only going to be an increase in pedestrian and bicycle trips through the area.

We

received during the, public hearing, the planning commission heard testimony, in that highlighted the walkability of the site, and that it was an area that was one of the amenities that made it appealing to the applicant. There was no competing pedestrian trip data or traffic analysis at any of those public hearings, but that information supplied this afternoon did have some data in it. We haven't looked at that in-depth quite yet. This is a visual to give you a sense of where we're landing on the spectrum and that distance between the city's decision via the Planning Commission and where the appellant feels that we're at. So the planning commission has the discretion to decide how strictly they are going to interpret the development code regulations.

And there's a spectrum on there where you become so strict that you exceed your authority, or you become so lax that you completely ignore all of the regulations. The Planning Commission's decision lies towards that lower end of the spectrum there as far as the flexibility for where the trail is located, the caps and protections for on- off-site trail costs, and the four major adjustments only resulting in these two public benefits. The appellant, just you know, this is just an estimate, feels that there is extreme violations as far as constitutionality.

And, Ruth, just to be clear, the Goldilocks zone means it's just right. Is that I'm I'm not trying to make a joke. I just wanna make sure that everybody

understands made that. That up. Okay. Mhmm.

It works.

There is legal support and has the planning commission, when they're making their decision, received legal review and input from our city council. Sorry, our council with an s e l on the end, not counselors. And there was an agreement that there this is a very legally defensible decision and that it was had both a nexus and proportionality. So the decision tonight is whether you are going to up hold the planning commission's decision and deliberate as far as whether they applied the community development code. That's the CDC correctly.

That's where these rules originate from. Whether you agree with the discretion that they exercised in accommodating the applicant's design constraints and design preferences, and whether you agree with the Planning Commission's decision that these conditions regarding the trail easement and the trail on and off-site construction requirements is legally defensible. Right now, staff and the staff and counsel believe that the record does support that decision. So I am not here on my own tonight. I also have Joseph Oth.

He's the principal transportation engineer in our transportation planning division and is available if you have any questions regarding transportation studies. And I have Lori DeVoe, who's a project manager with our parks department, who can talk to you about how trails are typically constructed in the cities and what the norms might be for those. Ashley has introduced herself as our city council support for tonight.

Thank you Ruth does council have any questions for staff? I have one. Counselor case.

For the the four adjustments that they requested and the Grand Floor window transparency request how often do churches and religious institutions ask for that request is this kind of in line with what we see another or

there's there's kind of two answers to that. The first is that it is a request that would likely have come from the majority of any religious denomination that was to be located in this area. This zone is not intended for this type of use. It's intended for higher intensity uses. That' why there' the major adjustment language in our code to accommodate these unique circumstances.

Councilor Anvary?

I have a couple of questions. The first one is my understanding is that the sdcs are going to cover the on-site trail construction. Up to right. Okay. And if there is any extra that our parks department would Okay. So are we is the applicant being asked to do the construction? And and is that the problem? Because they're not being asked for more money than they would have paid because it's it's the SDCs.

Mhmm. They'll probably be able to speak to that the best. My understanding from my communications with them is there is not a strong desire to have the trail on the property at all. It's not something that they feel is an amenity. And then there's also the burden of managing the construction of the trail on-site and off-site, and they don't wanna take on that burden. Even if they're reimbursed by it, there's still a project management burden.

Got Got it. And my other question is when this land was bought by them, were the Amberglen District standards in place already?

Yes. They had been in place for probably close to a decade. We also had many conversations with the applicant as far as the constraints and adjustments that would be needed on this property prior to them purchasing it. Were very clear that this there's a mismatch between the goals of the zone and their goals of how they want to develop the site.

All right. Thank you.

Councilor Solgado.

Do you know how long that site has been empty or undeveloped?

I don't know. There's a single family home there and I don' know how long it was on the market before it was purchased.

Thank you. Trying to get this closer

I forgot to do that last time. Did the city give any weight for public benefit to the architecture of the building?

During deliberation they definitely did. There was one commissioner in particular who felt strongly that even visually, even without any sort of public protection for that architecture, it's something that was pleasing. But it was not sufficient as the only public benefit and these additional items were needed.

Because I read the appellant's letter to us and it did seem to me under twelve point five zero point nine two zero it does indicate that architecture can be a public benefit. It should be considered a public benefit, I believe, or maybe can. Maybe it's conditional.

May I respond as well to the counselor's Is that all right? Yeah. Thank you. So, the standards in the code are also discretionary. So, they set examples of public benefits, but they also are ultimately up to the decision maker's authority to determine whether in the particular context on a case by case basis that makes sense. And oh,

go ahead.

No. Finish. Please.

Well, as I understand it, in this particular situation, I believe that the Planning Commission was most concerned with the ability to retain the architectural value and integrity of those those elements and ensure that they continue to remain a public benefit.

That actually would have been my follow-up question because if you look at twelve point five zero point nine two zero it does give examples of when they would be there and it says theaters but it includes places of assembly. This would be a place of assembly, wouldn't it?

Correct.

Right. So, and our we are are sitting as arbiters of the outcome. Do we interpret what that law means and do we determine what a public benefit would be based on our based on our code isn't that within our purview at this point?

Yes.

So what I would like to know is so I don't really care what the planning commission says then about that that would be my interpretation that I would apply to my decision making my question was about whether the city gave it any benefit and so does it not matter what they did in the past?

This hearing is de novo so it means that you' permitted to consider the prior deliberations, the entire prior record, but you are able to essentially consider it fresh.

Right. And, I'm trying to figure out what they considered. What they weighed is what I'm trying to ask. Does that make sense?

It does. So, I believe that they weighed the unique characteristics of this architecture against the ability of them to be able to retain these characteristics for the benefit of the public.

Right. And, my point is that the language in that code gives places of assemblies examples where it can be and theaters, by the way, too. Theaters can be changed. Churches can be changed. The fact that this might be privately owned and they may take down a copula or change a balcony should have no impact.

The the fact that it's changeable in the future, I guess you could consider it, but the fact of the matter is a theater is more likely to be changed than a church. So, the the the fact that it the code doesn't, by the way, say that. It doesn't say, but it might be changed, so don't consider it. It just says place of assembly. So I was just trying to figure out what how the Planning Commission interpreted that and what the city told them because I am reviewing the entire record and that was not explained in the record and what they are telling me in their report is contrary to what Mr. Houseley is telling me for instance. So I am trying to figure that out. Yes. So I guess I am done with this line of questioning but that was the reason why I was asking those questions.

Understood.

If I remember correctly, though, Ruth briefed us that one of the things that the Planning Commission considered was that it could be changed. Exactly. So, even though it might have the architecture now, the architecture could be changed.

So could a theater.

And it's listed.

I'm just saying that if I'm right correctly that was the issue that the planning commission had. That it may be a benefit now, but the fact that it's private means that they could change it, sell it, etcetera.

So there were a package of four major adjustments requested and a package of public benefits and one of those public benefits was the architecture the planning commission did definitely feel that the architecture was a public benefit, but not sufficient for the package of four major adjustments.

All right. Thanks.

All right. Are there any other questions for the staff? Okay. I do wanna do a check-in. So for those of you who don't know, we have we have an agreement on council that we check-in at 09:30 and ask if we wanna continue. Because we have been going this council have been going since 6PM this evening. And so we're we're going on four hours of city council work. And so I made a promise to them that I would check-in at 09:30, and we would ask if we wanted to continue. And I know this might be alarming to all of you who have been sitting here, but I'm just letting you know why we're doing this. Does the Council want to continue?

I'm suggesting a ten on this. 10:00 termination so the part from what I understand the parties have an understanding that we may be continuing this if that were to occur then I think having the parties figure out what would be an appropriate cutoff point around ten ish and then we would continue it if there is still an agreement to continue.

I' happy to check-in at ten at that point.

May I say something? Yes, We agreed that we would have fifteen minutes each. Yes. So, that would take us to beyond So, ten I don't think that would work. So, maybe we want to do a 10:30?

10:15? Sure. 10:15, split it. We'll check-in at 10:15 if we want to continue. Because at that point, we'll be going for four hours and fifteen minutes. And I know you all want a good decision coming out of this. So and that's usually done with people who are

So, mayor? Fresh.

Yes. Yeah.

Perhaps perhaps now would be a good time to discuss the the continue the potentiality of the continuation.

Let's do that.

Basically, we have not had a chance, staff has not had a chance to discuss this with the applicant, but our thought was essentially we received a packet from the applicant around this afternoon. It was about 53 pages of a legal argument supporting their appeal. And, so, we want to allow the public and the council and staff sufficient time to digest this new information. However, we are also up against that timeline that deadline that was outlined in the staff report. Therefore, our recommendation would be to conduct your entire hearing tonight and then at the end of the hearing essentially continue the record leave the record open for additional evidence and arguments basically members of the public who wish to review that packet and wish to respond to the applicants evidence and arguments could do so for a period of time.

And then, by law, we would leave the record open for an additional period of time for the applicant to respond. That's just a requirement. And then, finally, we could return and deliberate on the information that we have received but not continue this hearing not have public comments have staff report etcetera we would simply return all of counsel would deliberate and then you could reach a final decision And that would be the intent behind that would be to continue to meet that deadline if the applicant so approved that deadline and you know also allow members of the public time to review and respond to everything new that we've received today.

Thanks for sharing that, Ashley. I appreciate it. And I'm also considering, you know, the endurance of us as humans, Because we all most of us have jobs as well. So just want to consider that as well.

Can I come in?

Councilor Salgado.

Yeah. So I've I've actually I have all of the information that I need to make a decision. I came in ready to make a decision. But given that we do have a new packet of record, think it would be really responsible for those that especially if you haven't made a decision that we actually pause all deliberations because we could spend two or three hours discussing things

Yeah.

And that packet could really impact how we're analyzing that information, So that's what I would prefer even though I'm ready to make a decision tonight. I don't think that packet is gonna sway my decision personally, but it could sway others decision and I think that's the responsible thing to do here. Sorry for everybody that waited here, but I think we need to really take our time to make a decision here.

Any other comments? Okay. I was thinking we could hear the fifteen minutes for and against and pause there. And then we can make a decision to continue on.

This is counselor Alcare.

Go ahead, counselor.

I wanna give my opinion that we should finish the meeting. It's not a lot of people are here, have come here and wanna have conversation and for us to have an outcome. And if we're coming into this decision and we don't have, I would say that we receive information not timely for at least for me to be able to make a good decision tonight. So I just wanna mention that we've asked people to come. We're having this meeting.

We haven't gotten information in a timely manner. I don't feel it's good to vote on this tonight.

Yes. And, the recommendation is for us to keep the record open, and to to not make a decision tonight. So is that am I hearing that right, Ashley?

That's correct. Yeah.

Okay. So let's move forward. Could I ask With Could I ask one Oh, counselor Harris, go ahead.

I I just had one other question. If you could tell me this, would us would the the cemetery, which was originally near Walker Road, if I'm not mistaken, would that be counted as frontage if it were still there? Would that be counted as part of the 75%?

No, it would not. It's not a structure.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, we're going to move forward with the appellant's presentation, which will be fifteen minutes. So, I would like to call the appellant to come up. And please state your name. You were asked to fill out a blue card previously so there's no need to spell your name or provide your address. And you will have a total of fifteen minutes for your presentation. At the end of the presentation, the counsel can ask questions. And then from there, we will have another presentation. Mark, are we gonna get the time put

up? Yeah.

Yeah? So for the appellant, just so you know, your clock is over there on that wall. Do you see it? The fifteen minutes? So if you're wondering where you are in your time, you can just look over there or over there, and you know where you stand on time. Does that make sense?

Yes.

Okay. You may begin.

Father Matthew, before you begin, can I just confirm that you would like Todd, Tim, and Andrew also part of this presentation online?

It's Todd and Andrew. Todd and Tim, I believe, must be one of the public testimony. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So we'll start. Good evening, Mayor Pace and city councilors. I'm Father Matthew Suela. I am the priest of Saint John the Baptist Greek Orthodox Church, also a board member of Aiglia Sofia Academy, which is the school. I'd like to tell you about our plan.

Our church is to be built in a traditional Byzantine style, as you can see here, not as a mimic of a bygone era, but as the authentic expression of of a classical cathedral. It will stand for centuries. We made that clear at the last presentation. It's solid masonry. Everything about it will be here long after the building that we're in is here.

This will be a place of respite for all people like the cathedrals of Europe, open to all for a quiet moment of peace amidst the modern turmoil. This is not intended simply as a sectarian groups meeting place. This is an open cathedral as you can see by the design. We received our conditional use permit in December however, we are here today because the planning commission required condition 44, a public trail including including on neighboring property that we don't own. We don't see how a church and school being built on one side of the property requires a public trail on the other side.

The exceptional architecture specifically meets what the code defines as a public benefit and Andrew Gould will show exactly how these criteria have been met. Unfortunately, the planning commission did not factor this clearly defined public benefit into its decision and I want to be clear about that. It was not factored into their decision. They specifically rejected that. And and to be clear, the code defines this public benefit for private and public buildings it doesn't make any distinction.