City Council - Regular Meeting

Work session on Avenida Diaz Equitable Development Strategy. Thanks to all of you who are here in attendance and to the staff who's going to brief us. Welcome. And I'll turn it over to Robbie.

Thank you, Mayor Pace. Good evening, everyone. A few months, I guess a couple of months ago at this point, we had a work session on the kind of first half of this. And tonight we're excited to kind of share the outcome of the Equitable Development Strategy for Avenida Diaz. I want to thank Justin and Edmund for all of their work with our consultants and all the engagements that they've done. And so tonight, it's kind of a high-level summary of that report. If any council members have any kind of detailed questions, we'd be happy to kind of take those offline as well if you want to dig into anything specific throughout the report as well. And with that, I'll turn it over to Justin.

And actually, speaking of the questions, Justin, you wanted to hold questions till certain sections. Is that right?

Yes. So I think a couple of real logical breakpoints. We'll consider sort of the four main points. buckets within the equitable development strategy okay maybe pause there then do a little bit of a deeper dive for the police department block site okay pause after that one too i think that those will be a couple of the the probably the most logical places to take a little breather and then we can field questions and then of course at the end right and at the end and if there's any deep deep questions we can always email them as robbie said okay take it away all right Well, for the record, Dustin DeMello, Senior Project Manager for Economic and Community Development, and I'd like to introduce Edna as well.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Edna Castillo, and I'm a Project Manager in Economic and Community Development.

As Robbie said, it's hard to believe that already two months has passed since we were last here for the Avenida Diaz work session. It feels like it was just a couple of weeks ago, but we are back. This time, of course, we have the document that was shared with you all, I think, a week or two ago. And as Robbie mentioned in his introduction, we're more than happy to dive deeper and take any sort of in-depth questions or conversations that you may like to have or ask offline if we need to dig deeper. But, of course, tonight's a good forum for that as well. So we'll do still a relatively high overview discussion. This time, not of the entire Avenida Diaz program. That was the work session back in June where we talked a lot about some of the diverse goals of the program. We talked a little bit about the engagement that has taken place to date. Tonight, really the focus is much more focused on this document, the Equitable Development Strategy document itself. and the 20 actions that are contained, the proposed and recommended actions that are contained in the document with an eye toward adoption later this fall. So the document is still very much a draft. There are sections of it that, in my own opinion, still need a little bit of work. So don't hesitate in sharing, please, your feedback. We wanted to get a draft to you that was in an early enough state that you could really engaged early with the draft, but also which was developed enough that it was worth your time to review. So we've tried to hit that target, and I hope that we have.

So we'll do a quick slide here to the next one.

Yeah, so tonight the agenda really is to talk about the equitable development strategy itself, how the various strategies were developed, a little bit about the organization of the document, and then a quick overview of some of the strategies. We won't go deep. And then I hope to carve out a substantial amount of time at the end to talk a little bit more about the early planning. And I want to reiterate that early in the process, but yet planning for a future redevelopment of the city-owned property on the corner of 10th and Washington. That certainly is part of this document where we can go a little bit deeper. And then We'll conclude tonight with a brief overview again of the next steps, process and policy steps toward adoption of the strategy later this fall.

And Justin, would you mind pulling the mic closer to you? Not at all. Thank you. My apologies, Mayor.

I've been told every presentation I've ever given that I need to speak up. And so I continue to try to work on that. But in the meantime, I'll pull the mic closer as well. So thank you for that, Mayor. As usual, we'd like to ground the presentation in existing policy. I think this slide was seen from last time too, so I won't spend a lot of time on it. But reiterating the main point that especially as it relates to downtown, a lot of the policy goals upon which these specific actions are based have been part of our planning framework for many, many years, especially in the downtown framework plan and the downtown urban renewal area plan. and really the program purpose we covered in that presentation back in June, so I won't spend any further time on that either. I'll take our first break there in case anybody has questions on the outline of the agenda or anything else that you'd like to ask before we start diving in a little deeper. Any questions? All right, let's keep going. Let's keep rolling. For this slide, I'll kick it over to Edma to introduce.

Yeah, so you may have, you may recall this slide from our previous presentation. And before we jump into the different strategy categories, I wanted to talk a little bit about how these strategies were developed. So we started with our existing plans and policies. You know, these documents guide our work. They identify the things that the city understands is important to our community. And Justin and I went through all of our plans and our recommendations, our goals, and pulled out the ones that are pertinent to Avenida Vies. We then took those to our community, and we didn't just want to assume that those goals and action items are still what our community needs today. So we asked, are these hitting the mark? And what is missing? And then we took... what we heard from our community with the expertise from our consultants, architects, and even some of our city staff, and work together to create the strategies that Justin will review in just a moment.

Okay, so the document is organized into 5 main sections and for the sake of tonight, I think we'll try to get through 1 through 4 and 1 push and then take a break there for a little discussion and then dive in a little bit deeper for number 5, which is related to that specific site on 10th and Washington. So, as you can see those 4 1st, main areas of the document in terms of how the strategies are organized are 1 overarching development strategies. Two, housing. Three, commercial, especially with a focus on existing small businesses. Four, there's public realm with a focus on direct city investments, so capital improvement projects mostly related to public works and parks that are planned for the area. And then the fifth area, of course, being a site-specific redevelopment plan. So for each of the first four, as we go through, we'll pull up a slide that kind of shows what those actions are that are contained in that subcategory. And maybe I'll just do a quick highlight of one. And then we can dive in deeper. based on your comments either here or offline into any of these strategies to whatever level you would like to engage. So the first three really don't fall neatly into any other category, so they land in overarching. They influence housing, but they also influence the commercial sector. They're very general in their focus. One that I'd like to highlight is number 1.2, relating to the city's use of VHDZ. So without going too far back into history here, sidetracking us, I'd like to share a little bit of information with you about VHDZ.

That's the vertical housing development zone program. It's a tax abatement tool that incentivizes vertical development.

So it's an abatement that's provided projects based on really the structure type of the building.

It encourages and provides a tax abatement for buildings based on their actual verticality. It really is focused on incentivizing mixed use development. So development where you have the ground floor businesses and then the upper floors being housing. So the city has used VHDZ very effectively, but in an ad hoc way to incentivize development throughout the city and downtown. For example, it was a key part of getting Block 67 to where we are. We're hoping to break ground in October. VHDZ was a critical part of that. So when it comes to this strategy for Avenida Diaz, what the action is, is seeking to memorialize and enshrine how the city uses VHDZ, especially within Avenida Diaz. And it looks at opportunities to add certain criteria to development projects that may be seeking this tax benefit. When they do so, we have a unique opportunity to make specific requests in return. above and beyond what code would require for them to be eligible for this tax benefit. And so based on all the engagement that we've done with Avenue Diaz community, we'd like to recommend that certain requirements be attached to projects that would seek this type of tax abatement. And those requirements would be directly responsive to what the community instance can the developer include a few more higher bedroom count units for instance or can they do something related to anti-displacement to actively assist existing businesses in the new ground floor space, we can attach those requirements to projects that would like to take advantage of this program. And that's one of the recommendations of the strategy, specifically 1.2. So again, I don't want to dive too deep into it, because any one of these we could go and talk about in some detail. But I'm trying to just highlight one from each bucket to give you a sense of what the strategies include. Uh, within housing, uh, it's a very similar, uh, strategy that I would like to highlight. And that's, uh, uh, section two point four. Which is to consider ways to tailor mufti to community goals and avenue to yes. Muppet is another one of those lovely tax abatement acronyms. So whereas we had VHDZ.

We also have multi-unit property tax exemption.

So this is a tool that is part of the city's housing production strategy. We're planning to develop a program to implement next year to incentivize the development of multi-unit housing citywide. But as we've engaged with the Avenida Diaz community, we realized again that we had an opportunity here to incorporate some neighborhood-level requests into the program. So as we think about setting up a Mufti program citywide, this recommendation is that we apply a neighborhood-specific zone that would actually, very similar to the VHDZ recommendation, attach requirements to projects that would seek that exemption that are responsive to the community feedback? For instance, can a project include accessible units, a certain number? We don't want to change the entire development pro forma, but can we ask for a certain number more of accessible units than what code would require? Can we ask for a certain number of units that, again, have three bedrooms or more to be responsive to the community's desire for apartments that are suited to family life or multi-generational living?

One thing that we heard a lot about from the community is

that they don't feel safe or would like to feel safer. So again, we could incorporate as requirements for projects that would seek this tax abatement within Avenida Diaz to put more effort into public safety features of their development. Can they put a little additional thought into how their building is laid out? or even around lighting or sight lines that can enhance the sense of safety through design and make that an eligibility requirement for projects that would seek that sort of tax abatement. So those are the types of additional asks that we would recommend be attached to projects seeking that tax exemption within this neighborhood. For local businesses, the one that I chose to highlight is Action 3.2. We chose this one actually specifically in response to your feedback, Councillor Sinclair, from our work session around the feedback that you have heard and which we have heard as well about commercial tenants desiring improvements being made to their building, in some cases with landlords that have not been very forward about performing such improvements. But we're also very thoughtful about the risks associated with getting involved in that around sometimes the phenomenon, of course, when a property owner improves their building, They may seek new tenants or they may increase their rents. So we want the improvement, but we don't want the unintended consequences. So this action, Section 3.2, calls for an adjustment to our existing tenant and storefront improvement grant program. Again, specific to the Avenida Diaz community. This action calls for increasing the grant amount. businesses would be able to apply for but it also proposes attaching requirements for property owners to take advantage of this grant to improve their buildings to agree to certain tenant protections for instance a rental cap increase so that they cannot use the improvement that was city supported with the grant as an excuse to raise their rents on their tenants. So we're very proud of this one in particular. I think it's got a lot of potential to both help the property owners make those improvements and invest in their properties, but also to protect their tenants from rent increases. The next one that I'd like to point out is related to Section 4. And Section 4, I will admit, I think is the section that is the most draft. So as you look forward to seeing a final version in the coming months, you'll see quite a bit more detail specifically within Section 4. But the specific action that I wanted to highlight tonight as an example is Section 4.3, which is to implement recommendations from the Avenida Diaz Lighting Study. So as we engaged with the community, we heard a lot about, again, safety as being a major concern. So even as our engagement was progressing, we actively replaced 71 fixtures within the Avenida Diaz neighborhood to improve lighting levels. Additionally, We working with public works performed a neighborhood wide lighting study that identified from a technical perspective where lighting was substandard, but we also engaged with the community and got specific feedback from our community advisory committee on specific intersections and sections of streets where they felt additional lighting was needed, where they felt it was dark just from their observational experience. So within this action, the recommendation is We have identified where new lighting should go. and even have cost estimates associated with that as part of the report. And so the action really is to advocate for acting upon and funding the recommendations of that report. So that's indicative of the public realm improvements within Section 4. Most of them don't call for anything new. They're projects that you have already seen as part of the public works or parks and rec capital improvement plans. but this document talks about how they can be tailored to meet the specific community goals that we have heard or why they should be prioritized because of what we have heard from the community and again a huge part of this document as we talk about policy adoption toward the end is that it helps us to unlock ura as a possible funding source for some of these projects that otherwise would would not be eligible so i'll take a breather there i know that's quite a lot of information before we dive into the PD block there on Temple, Washington, in case you have any questions or feedback that you'd like to provide.

Thank you, Councilor Allcare.

Yeah, I have a question. Thanks for your report. I'm wondering if over the past five or six months, if the committee that you've been working with, if they're talking about safety, I know they had mentioned lightings. Have they mentioned anything about ice, fears about ice, and what sort of protections that they are requesting as part of this?

Not specifically what actions they are requesting. We certainly have heard about ice from the community advisory committee and from many of the community members that we engaged with along 10th Avenue. We've also heard, I mean, a few of the other major things that we heard about are related to homelessness and policing in general. And ICE, definitely, we have heard about. We tried to really frame it with our community advisory committee that What was the scope of our work was what was funded by the Metro grant that allowed us to move this project forward, which was a planning and development grant. So we really endeavored to set those as our wheels and try to keep that the scope of our project. So you won't see within this document recommendations related specifically to policing or city response to ICE. We've documented their feedback in the community engagement report. because we want to make sure that even though it wasn't within the scope of our actions that we were tackling, that we gave them that voice. That's what they have spoken to us, so we reported it. It is documented in the community engagement report, but there are no actions specifically related to that.

Yeah, I didn't think that there were, but I did think that they would come up in conversation. So do you recall recommendations that they had?

I don't. Don't I, I heard a lot of concern. I didn't hear specific recommendations in our conversations, but to be truthful. I mean, we, we often, you know, our conversations were not. Really heavily focused on that in terms of the topics that we were taking to them. So, you know, to be honest, I'm sure that's why we didn't hear. We weren't really soliciting that.

So you did that. It just wasn't one of the topics that you. presented. I think Robbie in the past that I asked if there could be information boards and we have some that are up around in that area. But I'm wondering, can we be further inclusive in telling people where they can go to find help and who they should call and that the police are not going to get involved? And can we do things like that? I think that, and this is just me saying this, but we have to have that in consideration if we're going to go further with this project. It would be irresponsible not to on their behalf.

Thank you, Counselor. And yes, the answer is yes, we can. And I would also add to what Justin is saying. Outside of this scope, there are a lot of other efforts along Avenue Diaz that we're continuing to work on. But for example, Chief Coleman's here, you know, we talked about our community engagement team within the police department and Many of those officers and staff are bilingual. And so we continue to try to use those avenues to try to hear and glean recommendations from them as well. So we'll continue to explore ways we can share with the community, especially along Avenue that he is in the surrounding area, ways that they can seek help.

We did have one. session with the community advisory committee that was policing focused and chief coleman came came down for that and it was it was a great conversation i mean is exactly what you just outlined in terms of talking about you know what hpd would and was not able to do as it related to engaging ice and it we talked about all of those things but it was relatively small i mean it was that event and it was that group that had a nice informative conversation with representatives from pd it did not lead into any actions you know as as you mentioned with within the eds itself yeah okay um so i have uh counselor sinclair but hold tight so we have counselor case and then counselor salgado and then counselor sinclair so counselor case

Hey, Justin and Edna, thank you guys so much for this so far. I had a chance last week to take a look at the report you sent, and I appreciate you sending over all that information. I'm glad you brought up the comments in 2.4 about the multi-unit developments. And I think something we heard a lot with Nueva Esperanza was having multi-family, larger families living together. And so kind of in looking at some of the examples that we're going to, I don't want to spoiler what we're about to see, but I think for me, something I will want to keep an eye on is more 3 and 4 bedroom apartment options. There were, there were a couple in some of them. And so just, you know, knowing that families want to need to be together and and not crammed in there. So I just wanted to say that and thanks for this. This is really helpful. I appreciate you guys.

Thank you counselor case counselor. So, and then counselor Sinclair.

Hey, good afternoon. I would just like to understand a little bit about the timeline on these sort of things. You know, the lighting and the safety concerns around that is something that I've heard about since I've moved here. And it's very visible when you drive through there, like during the fall or winter around 5 or 6 p.m. It's really dark and you have a lot of people walking around out there. Can you just help me understand what the timeline looks like on actually getting more lighting in the area and making it safer? I know that we're just talking about the plan, right? But as a city councilor, I'm trying to understand how do I make this a priority? Do I need to insert this in the last three minutes? Is it an email? Can you help us understand what that timeline looks like? And when can we can see some sort of improvement in that area?

Yes. In some cases, especially as it relates to Section 4, the public realm strategies, it really is a question of funding. So I think the time where the moment of opportunity would be in order to implement this recommendation, as we're talking about funding lighting improvements specifically, would be as part of our biannual budgeting process. And this one you would see come up through Public Works.

Okay, thank you. And Councillor Sinclair.

Thank you. Justin and Emma, thank you for this presentation. This is exciting because I see diverse and diverse actionable opportunities here for both our residents and our local businesses. That's very exciting to hear the reality of. having that mutual relationship between the property owner and the small business that invest in the storefront improvement programs is that that is problematic currently. So that, thank you for thinking outside the box and creating that mutual opportunity in the future. One thing I wanted to ask you about though, when you're talking about 3.2, excuse me, I'm sorry, Uh, 2.3, uh, the expand partnerships with, um, with home. The home initiative is that what it was. Yes, will there be opportunity for home ownership? Opportunity. In the downtown corridor with programs with initiatives such as that, because we're increasingly hearing whether it be socialized social housing or cooperative housing, different opportunities that people would love because of the accessibility to public transportation and surrounding businesses. Is that something that might be considered? And if so, can you share more about the types of partnerships you envision for that type of initiative?

I can speak a little bit, but not a lot. That's when I will probably need to come back because this document is so diverse. I don't want to get out over my skis on housing. I'd very much like to pull our affordable housing team to make sure that you've got the subject matter experts. But your point is exactly what that action is striving to get at, which is there are opportunities for us to strengthen our collaboration with organizations which are dedicated toward home ownership opportunities. I mean, it's a very tricky one to solve, right? I mean, the pathway to homeownership. And in our engagement with the CAC and others, again, just being very transparent, we heard more about the other end of the spectrum in terms of people just looking to stay housed, even in rental, where the homeownership had become so far out of reach for quite a few. But definitely, I think there are opportunities there for us to engage with the proud ground and the other organizations that have a specific focus on helping forge those pathways to homeownership because it's absolutely critical, for sure.

Yeah, I was just going to add as well that Along the Avenida Diaz area, you see a lot more higher density, which then becomes a bit tricky for homeownership models. But we have, just to mention Proud Ground, we have others that we've looked at. There are some within the general area that once you can expand out from Avenida Diaz, that becomes a little bit easier. But yeah, we can talk to our affordable housing team. And it's just typically with affordable housing also, you're going to see more apartment type complexes as opposed to single units.

Thank you.

you may ask one last question and one last question uh i'm interested to learn more what does it mean parking management plan even though you don't have that all identified but what is that envision currently i actually have quite a lot on this one which is what i look forward to getting a revised section four uh so we heard a lot about parking already being an issue specifically east of 10th avenue between 10th and 18th A lot of folks that live in apartments that they have multiple cars, maybe they get one parking space in their unit. And then they also commented that there's quite a few non-functioning cars that are on the street. And so as we talked about parking and especially even talked about further development even higher density development that would come to the area um you know there's a lot of concern that as those developments come in a are they going to build enough parking to not make my situation worse b what can the city do to help mitigate this already existing issue so we talked about the you know the various tools that the city can bring to help with with parking You know, with the CAC, we talked about structures and the high costs associated with that. And we talked about a lot of different things and where they really guided us, which was like, which was let's use the parking that we have more efficiently, both in terms of enforcement, but also education, just the city becoming more proactively involved in managing the on-street parking. So again, already proactively in response to that engagement, the city has already undertaken and is working toward having the first deliverable within a few weeks. from a parking consultant that has done data collection for the Avenida Diaz area to understand the existing situation today. Again, as a direct response to what we've heard from this engagement. We're going to need an additional step of consultant help to actualize that into, okay, here's what the data is, now what's the plan in terms of how Public Works can more actively manage through signing or whatever other tools that may be recommended. And then, of course, then we need to actually implement it too. It would be a stage three. So you'll see those more explicitly defined, explained, and those phases, the phase one, which is already complete, and the phase two and phase three, the development of the actual plan, phase two, and the implementation of the plan, phase three, you'll see that all spelled out in the finalized version that we're working upon right now. Yeah.

Okay. Councillor Harris and then Councillor Salgado. And then after that, I'd like to move on to the next section because we still have quite a bit to go. Go ahead.

Thanks. Thanks, Mr. DeMille and Ms. Castillo. I'm going to actually follow or tag along with Councillor Sinclair here because the same issue popped into my mind during your presentation, which was homeownership opportunity. Do you know what the current homeownership percentage is in this zone?

We have the number. I don't have it offhand, but it is actually...

in the- That's in the full report. Okay, because I think overall in Hillsborough, it's about 50% of the units are homeowner. I don't know what it is there, but some of these... It's great to increase density. It's great to increase rentals, but sometimes that comes at the expense of homeownership opportunities for entry level, particularly if you have a house that can be torn down and put a triplex on it. And whether we should be subsidizing that and take away the homeownership opportunity, I think there's probably a balance in the zone that we need to make sure that we have homeownership opportunities for people at entry levels and higher levels if appropriate and that we really keep in mind if we're really sort of really putting all our all our donuts into incentivizing vertical housing or uh you know four plexes things like that we could be losing so it could be you know obviously we'd be sacrificing density but there's probably a balance in there is all i'm saying And I want to make sure that for people who want to live in this area and become homeowners, that they still have an opportunity. Every time you increase density also increases prices. I just want to be aware of that and make sure that's on your, in the back of your mind as we're developing this program.

Thanks. It's an excellent point. And I'd refer you, Councilor, President Harris, to 2.2. Because that's one of the points that the Eco Northwest team made, actually that exact same point, that the stock of the single family homes, especially not immediately adjacent to 10th Avenue, but a little bit off 10th Avenue, are also uniquely valuable assets as being exactly those types of homeownership opportunities. And so as they talk about zoning in 2.2, there are some specific recommendations aimed at exactly that, not sacrificing those properties for the greater density, but really looking more at opportunities for mixed use to fully use our commercial zoning, which is right along 10th Avenue and TV Highway as being the primary opportunity for getting that verticality and that higher density so that we can preserve the existing neighborhoods of single-family housing and not sacrifice the one for the other. So it's definitely a major part of the thought process and an excellent, excellent point.

Okay. Councilor Segarra?

Oh yeah, another question. And so I guess preface this question by saying, I'm just trying to understand how this all works, right? Avenida Diaz is obviously very important for a lot of reasons, right? But it's traditionally underserved and underinvested, right? And that's not unique to Hillsborough. There's a lot of communities like this, heavily Latino immigrant that are underdeveloped and under-resourced. So I'm just trying to understand from the city of Hillsborough's perspective, how we got here so that I can, as a city councilor, be more effective in advocating for this community. So just help me understand the budgeting side of it, right? Because here's what I'm hearing. We have money to pay for a parking study, but we don't have money to pay for lighting in the area. Are those different funding sources? Like, how does that work? Just help me understand how we approach that.

Councilor Sergato, I'll take that one. So this goes back several years. I think Councilor Alker actually was on council originally when we started talking about not only Main Street, but actually extending the focus that used to be really on Main Street over to Avenida Diaz, right? And so at that point, we started identifying ways that we can start investing more, making it safer. That's when we started setting up these committees and the things that were identified, some of them we were able to do pretty quickly. I think Justin and Emma mentioned some of the lighting things we took care of very quickly within current budget parameters. But some of them are likely going to be very, very expensive. Like if you have an area that has no electricity going to it and everything, that's going to be hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. So those are the types of things that get folded into budget requests that you'll see during the next budget process is things coming out of these studies that have significant budget costs that we don't currently have the capacity for. The parking study, the lighting study, those are things that typically we can manage within the current budget. but the outcomes of those and the recommendations of those are typically going to be, like I said, even in the millions. And that's where we then need to come as staff and present to you all, here's the recommendations, here's what we're proposing to pay for those recommendations, but that needs to be done in the budgeting process.

So just to clarify, when we do get to that point during the budgeting process, it's just adding Money to this budget. It's not designating like a special project budget. It all goes into one bucket. And then the staff decide how much goes towards projects. That's, that's the nuance I'm trying to understand here.

yeah it's probably a little more complicated uh so there's a lot of different sources of the revenue that could pay for some of these things so sometimes it's uh our public works uh tough programs sometimes it's general fund that pays for them so what we do is we take the project and then we figure out what makes the most sense of how to pay for it and that's what we would then propose to the council in the budget processes how we propose to pay for it. And then if that budget is adopted, that's then a project that gets adopted that we then spend the next biennium working on and we have the budget allocated for it.

Okay, one more follow-up. Sorry, no more. So when we're talking about a lighting study, we're talking about like digging up sidewalks, implementing infrastructure, like brand new lighting. It's not just getting new lighting in areas that are really dark. It's completely changing the landscape of the lighting. Is that what I'm understanding from this 4.3?

Not exactly. So the first phase of it was just replacing luminaires. So that was the work that has already been done. The phase two is recommendation toward replacing actual fixtures, but not wholesale reconstruction of the streetscape. So that would just be upgrading more than just the bulb. The luminaire basically just is the bulb, for lack of a better term. So phase two would be more intensive than that. It would be adding some poles and upgrading others, but it wouldn't be a wholesale reconstruction of the streetscape.

Okay, I'm going to move us along into the last section. Is that right?

Yes, which is the police department block on 10th and Washington. And so going back to the scope of this work, this one was allowed for in the scope for us to dive a little bit deeper into this specific block because we recognize that this was a really unusual and unique opportunity to have a city-owned property right on 10th Avenue that we know in future years, not immediately, and City Manager Havin has reminded me to make sure that we're up front about that. As we talk about this block and the redevelopment of it, we're talking a pretty long horizon in terms of when this would come about. And yet the planning and design and permitting for such a project takes many, many years, as you know, so it really is the right time to be thinking about it And going back to the slide that Edma shared that was really the formula for how all of these strategies were developed, that really is the underlying thesis behind this slide is we started with this policy goals. So everything that you see on the left is what was already contained in the Downtown Urban Renewal Area Plan and the Downtown Framework Plan for what the city's goals for this block would be. so you know housing is a major priority mixed use as we talked about businesses on the ground floor housing above there was also a few really specific things for instance both plans called specifically for a special feature at the corner of 10th avenue in baseline as an example so these were all sort of the inputs that we took into our work that we knew that we needed to build upon But then we engaged with the community. And so we had a conversation with them where we said, these are our constraints here on the left. This is what we have to work with. But what do you think about that? What does that look like as we think about this specific site? And really the main themes that we heard from community members are what you see there on the right, which is make sure that whatever happens there has enough parking. We heard very specifically that the community was not comfortable with the max development scenario for this. They were a little overwhelmed by the scale of it. And so we heard some pretty consistent feedback that more of a medium density development felt to them better.

Justin, if you don't mind, max is in the maximum amount of development versus max the transportation. I just want to be clear.

I am so sorry for that. Yes, not max transit, maximum density for the block. That's what I figured.

I just want to make sure we're all on the same page.

Because when we get to a slide here, a slide or two. We showed massing diagrams to the community, and one of them was the whole block, four buildings at the full maximum building height. And the reaction from the community was that seemed a lot. So I wanted to share that feedback. That's what we heard. We heard quite a bit about the desire to keep a police presence there on the block. Very consistent feedback from the CAC and others that they liked having PD there. And then, as was mentioned many times, a lot of feedback regarding the family-oriented nature of the neighborhood, that they wanted to see the open space requirements of any development met with playgrounds or other amenities that would serve children and families, and they were interested in higher bedroom counts. So we took all of that, both the policy goals and the community feedback, and gave them to our consultant team of Sarah Architects and Eco Northwest. And we said, please take those as your inputs and put on your professional designers and architects. This is what you do for work. Please apply those to three different scenarios. One is the reuse of the existing building. One is a redevelopment of the city-owned property. And one would be the redevelopment of the entire, we'll call it the larger site, which would be aggregating with our neighbor to the east, which makes sense in a lot of ways because of the way the properties are integrated very, very closely in some of the shared easements even that they have. So we asked them to look at applying those inputs to all three of those scenarios and to give us some concepts. And that's what you'll find in the HPD feasibility memo that breaks down various concepts that they develop. We encouraged and identified 2B as the concept that seemed to be the most feasible. So that was the concept that we had the consultant team do a little bit of a deeper dive on. To get a little bit more insight into what that development might look like, especially related to the economics. Of that development, so all of that information you'll find in that memo, which will be an appendix to the main report.

What was the criteria for having concept to be. Being the most feasible.

It really was just staff decision as we looked at the amount of subsidy they would take to finance the full site redevelopment was so large. None of these pro formas penciled in terms of being a market feasible project without some government help, none of them. The concept three options perform much, much worse, you know, economically. So it hasn't been formally adopted. It's not as if, you know, as an organization, we have said this is our preferred concept in like a planning sense. But for the sake of our scope of work, we asked the Eco Northwest team to look more closely at 2B because that seemed to be the one that was closest to penciling. But all of those concepts are still very much on the table.

Yeah, if I could add to you, Justin, this is where the staff, we get a little nervous because this is several years out, right? And so many things will likely change between now and whenever whoever the council is that's working through these things. And so it's hard to, we're just trying to kind of get a sense of what it could look like at that time. And so having the feedback from the community is really helpful because as we start over the next several years, and once police is vacated that building, then we can start kind of figuring out what it could look like. So these are just very rough. This is how it could be, but there's a lot that would need to happen before any of this.

And to understand in general terms, very gross terms, what some of the costs associated with those different might be. So as we enter a negotiation over the coming years, we engage with council over the plan that it's grounded in data. So you have good information to look at various concepts and what they may cost.

Okay. We have two other questions, which makes me nervous because we're running on time, but just briefly. Keep that in mind as you're asking your questions. Councillor, President Harris, and then Councillor Salgado.

Thank you. First question, how many square feet is the currently city-owned property?

Yeah, I don't know offhand.

I don't know the exact number. Is it like more than an acre?

It's probably, I think it's more than an acre. It's a good size property.

Okay. Yeah. Secondly, as you go about looking at these concepts or opportunities or options for development of this, do you consult... the realtors, the commercial realtors who are out there saying, if this were for sale, we would want this use and activity on it. So in other words, what's the market highest and best use of this? I'm not saying we should do it. I'm saying that's information I think that could be valuable because they're going to look at filling it up, keeping it busy. I mean, they have ideas that may be different, but they may be informative. So do you ever consult market-based realtors as to what they think should go on and what they would put on here. Indeed.

Yes. And even a part of our formal scope with Eco Northwest was several interviews with developers. So it, you know, it, It gets complicated, probably a whole other work session complicated pretty quick. In terms of what the market wants to do, four-story wood frame is the most economically feasible, highest and best use. Developers would love to go max in terms of the density, again, not the transportation, but maximum density where you would be looking at like the five over two mixed use podium. But that becomes very difficult to make pencil, especially when you factor in parking. So that's what the market would tell us. And that's what the market has told us.

Councilor Soriano, and then we'll continue on.

Yeah, there's just a general question around big projects. So we have the TV Highway Safety Project also that's under discussion. And that looks like it'll intersect with this. Is that timeline at the same time? And what happens with big projects like that that could intersect? Like, is there some coordination, collaboration? Just help me understand if there's any opportunities there to look forward to.

Yes, definitely. We collaborate very closely with TriMet and Metro on the bus rapid transit project that they are advancing. That's one of the advantages going back to June's work session of that enhanced cooperation. We meet monthly now. share notes on everything related to this area so yes that collaboration is is definitely happening this particular site sits north of the the brt project so there's no direct um conflict with anything related to this site as it relates to the overall equitable development strategy uh we uh have even spoken to that a little bit in terms of the public realm improvements how as TriMet comes through with their project actually is a really golden opportunity for us to capture some of these other sort of opportunistic improvements around bike safety, for instance, or enhanced crossings of 10th Avenue.

So yeah, I was just making the assumption that a project of this size will have an impact on traffic and the roads and the sidewalks. And so that's what my question was like. There seems like there's some overlap there, right? Definitely. It's not just going to be to this little diagram we see. Definitely, yeah.

Okay, let's keep moving.

I'll just very briefly touch on the process ahead because we did in June. So this is, I think, everything is repeated from the June work session, but just to outline next steps. We have the draft, looking forward to your feedback. We'll be coming forward with a final version Within the next few months and we'll be seeking to adopt it in two ways. One would be adopting in its entirety by reference. Into the downtown framework plan, and that would be a minor amendment to the comp plan, the comprehensive plan. So we'll be coming back before you in that sense to have that approved. And to that end, we're already engaging with the Planning Commission. We had a work session with them last week, so that once we get to that adoption phase, we come in with a recommendation from Planning Commission to help move forward the minor comp plan amendment to adopt this in its entirety into the Downtown Framework Plan. In parallel, also last week, we met with the Downtown UAC, the Urban Renewal Advisory Committee, and also shared a very similar presentation with them, as well as the draft of this document So that in your role as the governing body of HEDC, we can also pursue an amendment to amend the downtown urban renewal area plan. that's key to be able to bring the URA dollars into support of these specific actions that are recommended in the EDS. So we will be back in the fall, but at that point, it won't be really seeking any further feedback. At that point, we'll be trying to get the document adopted. So if you do have feedback, this right now, tonight and in the weeks ahead is definitely the right window to share that feedback with us.

Councilor Ambry.

Thank you. Do we know how much funds we have in the URA, and how much have we been using, have used?

I don't have that information available, but I'm fairly confident that Dan Diaz could produce that for us, or Carla, who leads our downtime. Congrats.

yeah i don't have the exact number either it the the downtown yurak is much much smaller than the north hillsborough so but there are still um it's in the low millions so it's not insignificant there is money available to do a lot of these projects and so that's what we'll uh it'll be exciting to be able to tap into some of those funds have we been using Yes, we've used those funds a variety of ways over the years in some ways to, in fact, I think maybe even some of our storefront improvement grants and other ways. So we have already tapped into them in some ways, and a lot of these projects would also qualify for those funds.

Any other questions? Questions online? No? Okay. Justin, Edna, thank you so much for coming in tonight. And CJ, in the back, thank you for being here and answering our questions. And if we have any further questions, we'll be sure to email you. Thanks so much. Thank you. Welcome to the August 18th, 2026 City Council meeting. Thank you for joining us this evening. For translation services, please use the QR code on the poster on the left side of the room or on the front of the agenda.

This meeting is being recorded.

Great. We're good? Okay. So I'll say that again. Welcome to the August 18th, 2026 City Council meeting. There have been several disruptions during city council meetings lately and I just wanted to begin by setting the expectation for everyone. We won't tolerate disruptions that preclude the council or anyone else from being able to conduct its business and hear from the community. Those who cause disruptions will be asked to watch the meeting from the conference room across the hall or to leave the building. This is deemed as a first general warning for all attendees. Anyone who disrupts the meeting will be provided with one other individualized warning. Any further disruptions will result in that individual being asked to watch the meeting from the conference room or from home. To keep the space welcoming, inclusive, and accessible for everyone, and to avoid disruption, we ask that all comments be shared respectfully. And if you agree with somebody, that's great. You can snap or you can give a thumbs up. But if you disagree with somebody, just be quiet and let them have their time. Okay. To begin this meeting, I invite you to join me 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, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Amber, may I please have a roll call?

Yes, Mayor Pace. Here. Councillor Allcare. Here. Councillor Sinclair? Here. Councillor Case?

Here.

Councillor Harris?

Here.

Councillor Anvery? Here. Councillor Salgado?

Here.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. So we're going to jump right to public comment. Let me make sure of that. Yes, we have no presentation, so we're going to jump right to public comment. If you are here to provide testimony on the Sky Harbor hangars appeal, please fill out a blue card. WHEN WE CALL YOU UP FOR THAT, WE KNOW WHAT YOU'RE, WE KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO TALK ON. SO I'LL SAY THAT MORE CLEARLY. IF YOU JUST WANT TO TALK IN GENERAL ABOUT THINGS GOING ON IN HILLSBORO, PLEASE FILL OUT A YELLOW CARD, ALL RIGHT? AND IF YOU LOOK OVER THERE TO YOUR LEFT, YOU CAN SEE STAFF MEMBERS HOLDING UP A YELLOW CARD. IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON SKY HARBOR, THAT WILL BE, THAT TIME IS OFFERED AT A DIFFERENT TIME DURING THIS MEETING, AND YOU FILL OUT A BLUE CARD, OKAY? Awesome. So, if you're here to provide testimony on Sky Harbor Hanger's appeal, please fill out a blue card so we can call you up once the public hearing is opened and your comments can become a part of that record. Persons wishing to speak will be recognized at this time. If you are here in person and wish to speak, please fill out a yellow card and staff are collecting them and then the staff will bring them to the city recorder. Please don't bring your card directly to the city recorder. When you're called upon, please use the microphone at the public comment table, which is right in front of you there. The microphone is live when the green light is on. You will need to tap the purple button in the center of the console. in order to turn the microphone on. We have two people registered to speak virtually and the deadline to register has now passed to speak virtually. This is called public comment because it's time dedicated for you to inform the city council about your views. This is not a time for members of the public to address the audience or the general public. please direct all comments to council. Each person will have up to three minutes. If you exceed the three minutes, we'll just cut you off. We'll ask you to stop talking. And if you refuse to stop, that will be deemed a disruption of the meeting, and you may be asked to leave. If you feel you have to publicly express support for a comment or a viewpoint, we ask that you do so quietly in a non-disruptive method, such as snapping your fingers, thumbs up, or jazz hands. Clapping, calling out, or making any verbal outbursts not only interferes with people's ability to hear, the disruptions won't be tolerated. So please don't do that. Again, keep the space welcoming, inclusive, and accessible for everyone. and to avoid disruption. We ask that all comments be shared respectfully. Tonight, we're pleased to hear from you, and we'll begin by hearing from those who called in virtually. So the first person to comment virtually is Victoria Demchak. Victoria, are you there?

I do not see her yet, just one second.

No? All right, well, we'll go to the next person, which is Andres Perez-Lete. Andres, are you there?

see hello yes we can hear you now uh you have three minutes all right hello city council uh i joined call today to oppose the sky harbor hangar development my big question i feel like it's a very common question as of recent when it comes to this proposal is why you can't say it'll stimulate the local economy i doubt that people with private jets are the type to stroll on over to the local shops here in downtown or anywhere else in hillsborough Why not, instead of working on transportation for millionaires and billionaires, we work on transportation for your constituents? Why not, instead of helping the rich get richer off of the back of our planet and its people, we put that money towards local trails, parks, and monuments? Help us appreciate nature, not tear it down. If this hanger goes through, It won't be the end of it. This is the first step in a long and dangerous process of appeasement. It was designed to be that way. Building a hangar sends a message that we are willing to bend whatever knee we can in order to make rich people like us. It doesn't matter if the noise hurts people and animals or disturbs the learning of the library right across the street. It doesn't matter if the clean air that pioneers on the Oregon Trail died for. It's polluted beyond recognition, as long as the rich people are happy. If we reject it, we will show how strong our community is in the face of exploitation. Please say no to the Sky Harbor development and continue the rebuilding of trust between you and the city. Thank you.

Just as a reminder, if you would like to make general comments, that is the time, right now is the time to make those general comments. If you would like to comment on Sky Harbor, there will be a separate hearing tonight, and you can talk then. Victoria Demchak, is she online? No. No. All right, so we will move on to people who are here in person. The first person is Jenna. Jenna, you are- Up, there we go, Jana, come on up. And on deck is Tori Lewis. So Jana, come on up, take a seat, press the button. And can we make sure we have the clock ready? That's right, okay, great. Jana, welcome, you have three minutes.

I want to take a minute to talk about the Century Boulevard extension project that has already been begun as they tear down a lot more than the 47 trees that they initially had planned on. But looking at the plans, I have a few questions for city council. Looking at the plans for Century Boulevard, the plans violate the safe routes to school policy, which states that children should not cross any road more than two lanes. Century will be five lanes, where children will need to cross over five lane road to get to Imlay Elementary School. So we're talking kids 12 and under, and also to Century High School. How did that project design get approved by you guys? How did you let the county pass that? How did it get past ODOT? Did we not even think about the fact that there's three schools that are affected by this? How are these kids going to get to school? We're cutting our budget. The only way to get them there is by bus now. So who looked at this or why wasn't it looked at? My other concern is what action are you willing to do to put a hold on this to make sure that we do something for the safety of the pedestrians that need to use that road? five lanes with sidewalks. But at the speed that people are going to be trying to go through there, it's going to be just like Maine and the rest of century is now people are going too fast and it will then be an issue of safety for pedestrians and bikes, especially the kids. I would like to see that since you are responsible, the city of Hillsboro, for managing this road, that you would be holding the county responsible since they are the ones that are creating this road. The priority should be on the people versus the cars. So, something to think about. Thank you.

Next up is Tori Lewis, and on deck is Simone Sy.

Good evening, Council. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with all of you. I do pray for you all. I was praying for you just before this meeting and have a couple of friends with me today who are also praying for you. Just as a remembrance, 1 Timothy 2, verse 1 through 4 is what I quoted in my first time. It says, First of all, then, I urge supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people. for kings and all who are in high positions, such as yourself, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. That was mainly as context for why I pray for you and why I believe that all Christians should be praying for our public leaders. The other thing that I wanted to bring today was kind of an interesting factoid that I didn't know. But if you look at the book of Luke and the book of Acts, both in the New Testament, they comprise around a third of all of the words in the New Testament. And what I find interesting is the person to whom Luke, who wrote both Luke and Acts, who he wrote those letters to, In Acts 1, it says, it seemed good to me also, this is Luke writing to his audience, it seemed good to me also having followed all things closely for some time past to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things that you have been taught. Now, the interesting thing here is that it's written to most excellent Theophilus. And so that phrase is often used, and even later in the book of Acts, it's used when referencing government officials. In the book of Luke, which is kind of part two of the, excuse me, part one of Acts, which is part two, that is also written to Theophilus, most excellent Theophilus. So I find it very interesting and encouraging that God has determined to use a third of the words in the New Testament specifically for a single government official. And I think that that teaches us something today, how we should esteem you all and pray for you and also, you know, witness to you. So thank you very much.

Okay, next speaker is Simone C, and on deck is Teresa Tse. Simone, welcome. Press the button so your mic is on. And you have three minutes.

Thank you. Good evening. I came actually to talk about a few things, so bear with me. I came to talk about the jet base, kind of leaving you with a pattern. I know today a document was obtained that is Sky Harbor's KTX form, filed with the FAA, page A13. The question is, will the project result in an increase in aircraft operations, nighttime operations, or change in aircraft fleet mix? And they checked no. The written answer is the project would not increase aircraft operations, nighttime operations, or change the aircraft fleet mix at this airport. Now, a look at their own application, page 89, 60% of jets active at one time. Page 527, half the aircraft are expected to have a scheduled guest. That means the other half is empty. Those are positioning flights at night. That's an increase. That's a change. THESE STATEMENTS CANNOT BOTH BE TRUE. THIS APPEARS TO BE A FALSE STATEMENT SUBMITTED INTO THE FEDERAL AGENCY. THAT RAISES CONCERNS UNDER ARTICLE 18 UNDER U.S. CODE SECTION 1001, WHICH PROHIBITS FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. MASKING COUNSEL TO REFER THIS DISCREPANCY TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE FAA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND THE U.S. ATTORNEY FOR INVESTIGATION. YOU CANNOT APPROVE A PROJECT BUILT ON WHAT APPEARS TO BE FALSE INFORMATION TO THE FAA. As you can see, public trust is a serious issue. Two weeks ago, a disabled Latino constituent was arrested at a public event following an interaction with Senator Solomon. The senator states he took her glasses. Before charges were filed, before the video was reviewed, before due process, Mayor Pace, you and a majority of the council, posted denouncing political violence. The question is, why did city leadership declare guilt and shut down public input before facts were even in? That chills speech and damages the process regardless of what happened with the glasses. There's a pattern here, and that pattern is to control the narrative and hide the facts. So who really benefits? 24-7 jets, serves out-of-state billionaires, no property tax. Kind of sounds familiar. Benefiting probably all the data center people and, of course, those poor people by the Brookwood Library. And like data centers, use the same model, billions in tax breaks, massive water and power use, yada, yada, yada. So you're being asked to approve something where there are serious discrepancies. So please, while you can, table this process, refer to the FAA, do all the things you have to do, because right now it doesn't seem like this is benefiting us in any kind of way. Thank you again for your time.

Okay. Next up is Teresa, and on deck we have Daniela Gregorio. Teresa, welcome. You have three minutes. Oh, make sure your mic is on. There. There you go. Great.

You have three minutes. All right. Thank you. Oh, about 20 years ago, I came to one of these council meetings, and I had suggested a two-line water system, one for drinking water and one for gray line, because I knew back then that water would be very, very precious. So I hope that you would still consider that so that we don't run out of good drinking water. And second thing was about housing, that we need to build upward, not outward. Fire trucks can reach six to seven stories, so we should build upward and stop building on prime farmland. It's really stupid to be building on prime farmland. These houses, these townhouses, they look like chicken coop for humans. It's very silly. So let's get with it, let's stop expanding, go upward, let's keep the open spaces open. Thank you.

Next up is Daniela Gregorio, and on deck is Dale Feek. Welcome, Daniela. You have three minutes.

The Lorax. If you have seen it, you know where this will be heading. But for those like the mayor and city council members who I believe have not, let me explain. It starts off by showing us a world with beautiful trees, wild animals roaming free, and no air pollution. But a man with greed, just like each one of you, comes and starts chopping down the trees, using them, and not replanting them, making the animals flee. Now I say this with no ill intention, but you are no different than this man. You who only cares about the money and themselves. You who have the power to stop these data centers from getting built. On July 27th, you all approved a 120 day land moratorium on applications for new and expanded data centers as well as other things. Now you can expand that for an additional six months after the initial 120-day period or stand up to these greedy businessmen that keep buying our land. Just like the movie, our future generations are going to have to rely on artificial man-made air and drinkable water because we are using our planet's natural resources. We are planning these centers right on top of our wetlands, making animals flee, light pollution, and destroying our native oak canopies. That will not be replanted, by the way. With this 38 million sky harbor jet development, not only will the noise get worse, but the air quality will decline. They will also build next to our Brookwood Library. There are so many people against these things getting built, people who have had to hear it from someone else since you all members and mayor have lacked the need to let the community know. Mayor Pace, after the incident with ICE agents coming into our sanctuary city, I had believed you would do better, but I see now that you are in it just for your own benefit and not for us. You all sit there and smile and nod, but aren't listening to us. But we will make you listen because us as a community are stronger. The movie is just a warning, and just like the Lorax said, unless someone like you who cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. Thank you to my community.

Thank you. Next up is Dale Feek, and on deck is Denise Kerr. Welcome. You have three minutes. Your microphone is already on.

Thank you, Mayor Pace and Councillors. I'm Dale Feek, Chair of the Washington County Citizen Action Network. I've emailed you many times. I emailed you Fairly late this morning, I emailed you and Mayor Wenzel, the mayor of Forest Grove where I live, Lacey Beatty, Mayor Beaverton and councillors, and Jeffrey Dalen, mayor and councillors of Cornelius. And I've done that regularly. I hope you've read my emails and thought about the information that I have given you and taken action on them. disruption of committee of these meetings i'm glad i overheard cuz i was out hallway there about what you said at the beginning we need to have public civic orderly comments in meetings And if that takes what you said of removing people, I think that should occur. I know there's been conflict, and I know that Councillor Salgado is online because of some of that, and I'm glad that you're starting to take control of it so that it doesn't get out of hand and it becomes fair for everybody. I just wanted to say that first. I live in Forest Grove. I have a daughter, an 8-year-old, and 11-year-old granddaughters that live between the Hillsborough Airport and Intel Ronler Acres. Even though I live in Forest Grove, I'm much concerned about the government and the operation of it in Hillsborough. In particular, though, I'm interested in how effective the government is and how they respond to people in Washington County, because I'm kind of going to county, state, and regional issues. I have a minute and 12 seconds. uh... but i said to you today in which i made five-minute public comment of the county commissioners was is the email i received from jet senator jeff markley any and it was a follow-up to my previous email to you in the county commission's wildfire smoke actions help tips incur interview with me in the podcast twenty twenty eyes interviewed on a podcast asked people to watch that about climate Senator Merkley says, climate chaos is making our wildfire seasons longer, hotter, and smokier. And when that smoke blankets our towns, public emergency, please read what I sent to you. The bottom line is here, President Merkley introduced the Wildfire Smoke Emergency Declaration Act to change that. And so I'm asking you to look at what he said, support his bill. I made a donation of $100 for that campaign. I'm not asking you to donate. I'm just asking you to become informed and sign the letter in support of it. I do want to let you know I do oppose Sky Harbor. I just want to say that.

Okay, next up is Denise Kerr. And just so everybody knows, we had Victoria Demchak try to provide comments online. She is now online. I will call her at the end. So Victoria, just so you know, we know you're here. All right, Denise, welcome. Your microphone is on. On deck is Christian Robertson.

Good evening Mayor, Council President and Councillors. My name is Denise Kerr and I'm a 40 year Hillsboro resident. I have some general comments here. I noticed, I got a notice that said you are canvassing the public to ask them where data centers should be allowed. This strikes me as very strange. Considering that there are 20,000 Intel employees in Hillsboro, I would think that your responses would be extremely biased. You didn't ask us about South Hillsboro. You didn't ask us about the Hop Stadium estimate of 110,000, final cost of, pardon me, 110 million, final cost of 157 million. You didn't ask us about the $2 million Bridge of Land and Sky, a pedestrian installation that no one walks over unless they're suicidal. So why are you asking the public where you think data centers should be built? Where's the logic in that? So second point, I want you to repeal the no first reading requirement established on May 21st, 2025. It doesn't let certain budget processes proceed without a first reading in specific circumstances. I just don't trust you guys slipping by something without a first reading. I really don't, especially when it comes with financial stuff. I also would like to say something about the ethics. of the politicians and people running as candidates for office. It really puzzles me why I'm unable to find where people were born, what their socioeconomic class was when they grew up, lower class, upper class, middle class, privileged class. I can't find out what kind of religious teachings or learnings people had. And it's important to me. I don't want to have to look and look and look and look and find someone was born in New York, but they don't say what city. And then it says someone was graduated in New Jersey, but gives very, very little other than that. I feel like they're hiding things. This is true for Callaway, for Pace, for Diaz, for Hammond, for Case, for Avery. And you ought to be more honest because if we can't trust you that you're giving us good background information, How are we gonna trust you when you tell us anything if you're hiding that basic stuff? Thank you.

Okay, next up is Christian Robertson, and on deck is Joyce Hedis. Christian, just press the button there in the center. Great, you are live and you have three minutes, welcome.

Good evening, Councillors. I'm here tonight to speak on two issues that are close to my heart. The first is very simple, the Sky Harbor project at our airport. I don't need three minutes to convey that we should not be sacrificing our environment, our skies, and our peace so that billionaires have a place to park their private jets while tossing us their chump change. The case against Sky Harbor is financially, socially, and ecologically obvious. A few dozen permanent jobs and the tax funds off the development is not worth the pollution, the noise, or our dignity. Hillsboro is better than a billionaire parking lot. The second item concerns the CBEP, the road extension project now cutting through one of our city's best and most accessible green spaces, Noble Woods Park. There is very little I can say that hasn't already been said. It is going to do very little to alleviate the traffic flow based on the current utilization of the adjacent arterials. It's going to do further harm to a public green space already plagued by the road pollution of nearby Main Street. And it's going to deepen the distrust in this government intensified by the data centers and the Sky Harbor projects. All of you know this, you've seen the signs, and you've heard the testimony of your constituents. But it's been determined that those harms are worth the short-term gain of one more thoroughfare for Hillsborough. To that notion, I would ask all of you a question, but especially to Councillor Case, the chair of the Environmental Stewardship Committee. We have served together for many years on that committee, and I've admired your passion and promotion for environmentalism and sustainability in our city. During our last meeting, we went to the Jackson Bottom Wetlands Reserve and learned about its history, pollution, sewage, and development. uh... destroying a critical natural resource for short-term gain we learned of the destruction those choices rot and the effort that was required to fix those things and we all wonder to ourselves how could they have done this how could they have been so careless without realizing the ramifications of their actions they were not idiots they knew that wetlands are important but they calculated that their short-term gains were worth that damage and assumed that this one project this one area this one time would not have the long-term consequences that their kids would have to remedy, and they were wrong. And here we are, making the same mistakes, trading short-term convenience for long-term destruction, and handing that debt to our children. So my question to you, to all of you, is this. When my grandchildren look at the state of our city in 100 years, and the work they have to put in to undo the damage that we have wrought, how do you want to be remembered? The public officials who facilitated the destruction of our green spaces, our skies, and our water? Or do you want to be remembered as the champions who fought against impossible odds to protect our shared environment from those who would destroy it for short-term gain? Please fight to preserve our beautiful green spaces, our fresh air, and our clean water. Please stop the CBEP, and please reject the Sky Harbor Project. Thank you.

Next up is Paige. Paige, you didn't get an on deck, so for those of you worried about Joyce, Joyce said she didn't want to talk. So Paige is up next, and then, so sorry that was sprung on you, Paige. And then on deck is Reagan Workman.

uh... welcome and uh... is it light on yes okay great welcome you have three minutes okay thank you uh... i did not prepare remarks this evening so this is going to be a little off the cuff and we'll see how articulate i can be uh... i uh... so i i i love to see a full house tonight we have people here from all walks of life uh... uh... people from very different backgrounds and beliefs, and we hopefully, and I think, have one thing in common, which is that we really care about our city, which is great. Oh, and by the way, boo data center expansion and the airport stuff, but that's not what I'm here to talk about. What I am here to talk about is to comment on and make a request about some remarks that were given a few minutes ago in this public commentary. And those remarks had to do with what I would call religious proselytizing. Now, I am not a lawyer. I don't play one on TV. But a quick Google search tells me that according to US constitutional law, that's a boo-boo. So under US constitutional law, opening a city council meeting with a prayer or ceremonial invocation is generally legal and appropriate provided it follows specific guidelines set by the Supreme Court. However, using these remarks to force specific religious views during actual policy debate is not allowed. Now, I'm not here to condemn anyone's religious views at all. I understand that all of us, we are a beautiful tapestry, right? And we all come to this world with our own religious or faith-based views. However, when I come to a city council meeting, I do not expect to be confronted and subjected to remarks of that nature, particularly when I have to, when we all have to listen to the idea that those of you sitting up there are, and I am paraphrasing here, kings put in your position by God. I'm not going to debate the merits of that. I am going to remind all of you that you were not put in your position by God, but you were put into your position by the voters. I am very happy that you are here listening to the voters, and I would like to make a request that you as a council body consider adding to the very long list of guidelines for public behavior in these city council meetings the idea that perhaps we could leave religion at the door.

Thank you.

Next up is Regan Workman. And on deck is Victoria Demchak, who is online. Welcome, just press the center button there so your microphone is on. And you have three minutes.

Perfect, thank you. I CAME HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE OF SIDEWALKS ON GLENCOE ROAD. ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, I PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN NARROWLY MISSED AND HIT BY A CAR WHILE WALKING TO SCHOOL IN THE MORNINGS. Half of the sidewalk or half of the road does have a sidewalk, but the other half doesn't. It is very dangerous for the hundreds and hundreds of students that use it every day. And with the recent loss of Connor, you'd think that you would put some plans into place to make the school areas safer for the students that walk and bike every morning. While yes, the idiotic driving of others is not your fault, lowering the speed limits near school zones and adding more yield signals for the safety of the students and pedestrians is entirely your responsibility. All I ask of you today is to consider the safety of your constituents instead of where millionaires are going to park their planes. Thank you.

Okay, going back to online, Victoria Demchak. You bringing her in?

Hi there, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. Welcome, you have three minutes.

Fantastic, thank you so much for having me here tonight. So I think I want to reflect on what other folks have said tonight. I really appreciate the opportunity to be last tonight because so many of you have said what I feel, which is the overall question of who Hillsborough develops investments for. Is it for residents, for billionaires and mobile capital? Or for the money machines that drives those billionaires in their capital. So, 1st, I do want to speak in sky harbor to echo a previous speaker. Hillsboro is better than a parking lot for billionaires. This would have significant impacts on our environment on our. It would not create that many jobs and. It would make significant changes to our community without a larger conversation about the community. We want to become. My main comment, though, is on the planned infrastructure investments in North Hillsborough regarding item 5.1, the staff request for approval to purchase a PGE right of way to create a very short arterial. This plan was approved during the time the city of Callaway was mayor. Residents and other city council members may not be aware of the long term plan and vision of this.

This resolution would.

lay the groundwork for a five-lane arterial in North Hillsboro to support the industrial zone there and increase the connection to Jackson School Road. My primary concerns is that this would invest in infrastructure to support data centers and other low-employment facilities, such as distribution centers. It would allocate transportation funds to supporting business development rather than residents, which is an ongoing concern for all of us in transportation funds. And develop a new, short, wide road, seemingly designed for street racing, further decreasing our shared safety. Hillsborough states in his Transportation Safety Action Plan that it follows the safe system approach focused on safer people, safer vehicles, safer speeds, and safer roads with principles like safety is proactive and humans make mistakes. The role that Hillsborough and its Transportation Department then should play is to make it harder for humans to make mistakes and decrease the cost. This investment along with other choices, would continue to make Hillsborough less safe and come at a cost of other transportation investments that would better support residents. And just for some perspective, There are similar roads nearby that are smaller with much greater throughput. Jackson School is a main feeder for 26. It has two lanes. Highway 26 runs near and parallel. It has four lanes. And other heavily used east-west arterials, such as Cornell, Evergreen, and Main, are four to five lanes, including a turn lane. So here, I just want to wrap up by appreciating staff and previous leaders for setting a clear path for dense, well-supported industrial areas. But where does this leave the rest of us? Does this City Council still want to proceed on this set of investments after considering the other opportunity costs of this choice? Please take the time to refer this to the Transportation Committee and more deeply engage with the public. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Thanks to everyone who spoke tonight in public testimony. Now we'll move to the consent agenda. For those of you here for Sky Harbor, we're getting there. You haven't been missed, just so you know. All right, so moving on to the consent agenda, the items on the consent agenda are only considered in a single motion. Any item may be removed for separate consideration upon request by any member of council. Is there a request to move any items for separate consideration?

No?

All right. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Harris so moves. Thank you. Do I have a second?

Second, Ann Marie.

Is there any discussion? May I please have a roll call?

Councilors Alker? Aye. Case? Aye. Ann Marie? Aye. Sinclair? Aye. Harris? Aye. Salgado?

Thank you, the motion passes. And now we're moving on to item five, which is public hearings. For those of you who came to hear about item 5.1, there was a little bit of a discrepancy on the agenda. So item 5.1, which is the transportation's recommendation to adopt a resolution of necessity. to acquire property interest needed to complete the construction of Northwest Huffman Street. That's resolution number 2933. That will be considered as item 8.1. And then item 5.2. will be considered as 8.2. So the Sohi Central Risewell Homes, that will be considered as item 8.2. Which brings us to public hearings and 5.1, Appeal 001-26, Barnes et al., and Appeal 002-26, Richmond et al., of DR044-25, Sky Harbor Hangers. Consider the Planning Commission's approval of case file number DR045, DR004-25 Sky Harbor hangars and the appeals from the appellants requesting the decision to be overturned. Order number 36 is available. So, now we're going to move to the public hearing. If you're here in person and wish to receive a notice of decision, please provide your contact information on the sign in sheet at the back of the room. The sign in sheet is in the back of the room or on the side of the room? It's on the side. So if you have to leave early and you want the notice of decision, or you don't have to leave early and you want the official notice of decision, please sign up on the sign-up sheet to your left. If you're attending virtually and you wish to receive a notice of decision, please email your contact information requesting this to the following email. Council at hillsborough-oregon.gov. I'll say that again for those online. Council at hillsborough-oregon.gov. If you registered to speak virtually or if you filled out a blue card, we will use the information provided there to send you a notice of decision. If you're 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 staff on the left-hand side of the room, and the staff over there will give it to the city recorder. We will send you a notice of decision using the contact information provided on the blue card. Please mark on the card if you are speaking in favor or in opposition of the appeal. So, if you are speaking in favor of the appeal, that means you don't want the Sky Harbor hangers here. Just so everybody's clear. All right, so I will open the de novo public hearing regarding an appeal on item DR 044-25, Sky Harbor hangars. So we are considering two appeals with this public hearing. Appeal number one is appeal 001-26, Sky Harbor Barnes et al will be referred to as appeal A. So Mickey Barnes, you are appeal A. Where's Mickey? Okay, Mickey, so just so you know, you're Appeal A, all right? Appeal 002-26, Sky Harbor, Richmond, will be referred to as Appeal B. So Richmond, where you at? Great, so you're Appeal B, just so you're clear. All right. Mark, could you please show the ORS video now? And this is, just so you know, we're showing this video, it's a requirement, state law.

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 board of appeals based on that issue.

Failure by the applicant to raise an issue before the record closes prevents an action for damages in circuit court based on that issue.

All testimony and evidence that addresses the approval criteria will be responded to prior to the closing of the record.

Thank you, Mark. And now we'll hear from our city attorney, Ashley Dougal, who will now provide an overview of the order of events, explain the legal standards, and ask the council about conflicts, Ex parte contacts and bias. Ashley?

Thank you, Mayor. As the city council is sitting quasi-judicially, any testimony, argument, or evidence in the record before the council must be directed at these criteria or at some other criteria in the code or comprehensive plan. The applicable criteria are provided within the staff report. Only those who have appeared before the city council in a person or in writing will have standing to appeal this item to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Does any member of the council wish to declare a potential or actual conflict of interest or have questions about what a conflict of interest is?

Councillor Case?

I had emailed Ruth the other day. I do live in the flight path at the Hillsborough Airport, and so I think Ruth had suggested that I make sure and say that.

Great. Is that all right? Understood. So what I hear is you're still wanting to participate, so it sounds like you're declaring a potential conflict of interest.

That sounds great. I am declaring a potential conflict of interest.

Perfect. Thank you. Does any member of the council wish to declare the appearance of bias?

Hang on one second. We have Councillor Sogato who also wants to comment.

Oh, thank you. I appreciate that.

No problem. Yeah. Also, I didn't know that I was considered a conflict of interest, but I am in the blood council, so...

Great. Appreciate it.

Great. Councillor Sinclair.

I, too, am in the flight path and would like to declare to make yourself in the public aware. And I'm wondering if we can go over what the actual criteria is of what creates a bias. Sure.

Yes. We have one more person now here. Councillor Avery.

Flight path.

Yes. So to be clear, just for the record, you both are stating you are also in the flight path, which means you have potential conflicts of interest. Is that correct, Councillor Sinclair? That is correct. And Councillor Ambry?

That is correct, yes.

Okay, did you get what you needed, Ashley?

I did, and I'll just provide you with a little bit of a kind of background on what conflicts are, bias, and ex parte, just so that you can kind of understand the scope of each of those. So conflicts of interest, potential or actual, a potential exists where the decision could result in a financial benefit or detriment to you, a family member, or a member of your household, or a business with which you are associated. And an actual conflict of interest exists where it would result. So for potential conflicts, you have to just announce the potential conflict. For actual conflicts, you have to announce it and then recuse yourself. So that's that first standard. Bias is essentially where just from all the facts and circumstances of someone on the outside looking in at your decision-making process, it appears that you may have prejudged the application. And for bias, that's a personal determination, but we highly encourage you to recuse yourself if there is evidence of bias or perception of bias. And then finally, you have ex parte contacts, which is just communication about this application outside of this formal record process. And you can still participate. despite having ex parte contacts, you just have to disclose them here at the hearing, and you have to disclose the nature and substance of the ex parte contact. Is there any questions about any of those three?

Any questions? I have one.

Can you give a definition of bias? Yeah, so it's having prejudged the application, substantial evidence in the record that you have prejudged the application or that your decision making was the product of animus.

I'm sorry, can you repeat that again? Of what?

Animus, which is essentially ill intent, mal intent.

So basically, if you can't be a fair decision maker in this process because your feelings are so strong, then we advise you to recuse yourself. But if you feel that you can be a fair decision maker, take all the facts that are presented in the record and judge them fairly, then you wouldn't have a bias.

And it's about the perception of bias, right? So not necessarily if you feel that way, but if all the evidence in the record shows that someone from the outside looking in might have that interpretation.

Can I just ask? That seems subjective. Who stands where? Have you taken note of how many biases there are compared to none?

Just based on what we just answered? Not just based on what you just answered. That's really a self-assessment. It's just looking at the entire facts and circumstances of the record, right? You know, any particular statements you might have made in favor or against the application before it was actually heard. Maybe, you know, certain things you attended outside of this process, etc., right? It's your own judgment call to weigh based on your own EXPERIENCE.

WHAT ABOUT EMAILS OF PUBLIC COMMENT, PEOPLE OPPOSING?

YEAH, IF YOU'VE RECEIVED EMAILS OPPOSING THIS, THAT WOULD LIKELY BE AN EX PARTE CONTACT, SO THAT'S COMMUNICATION ABOUT THIS HEARING THAT HAS BEEN, YOU'VE BEEN PROVIDED OUTSIDE OF THE RECORD.

OKAY, SO THE WHOLE COUNCIL HAS BEEN RECEIVING THESE EMAILS, CORRECT, ROBBIE?

YEAH, SO THOSE ARE EX PARTE CONTACTS.

YEAH, SO WE CAN CLAIM THOSE WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT.

YES, YOU MUST DISCLOSE THOSE WHEN WE GET TO THAT PART.

But a lot of those were already in the record. If you look at the agenda packet, a lot of those emails staff put in the records. You wouldn't have to declare those as ex parte contacts.

Yeah, so anything that's already in the record is not outside the record. So that's already taken care of. But if you received any sort of communication outside of the record that's not there already, like, for example, talking to someone at a grocery store, receiving an unsolicited email personally sent to you about this application, et cetera, those are ex parte contacts.

Great.

Okay.

All right. Let's continue on. Thank you. All right. Oh, yes. Counselor.

So, for example, if somebody's out in a community conversation at a coffee conversation or at a presentation and they say, well, I don't support this. That would be considered bias, correct? So that would be the perception of bias. that you don't support this. But then now we're here, this is a good example of where you would have to disclose that.

So you're saying in this scenario, the counselor was at a community event and said that?

Yes.

Yes, that could be an example of a situation where you would be perceived to be biased because you would be giving an opinion on the application before and prejudging it before actually hearing the facts and reviewing the criteria.

Okay. Councillor Sinclair.

Yes, I hate to just keep driving this home with peppering you with questions, but it is highly probable I have made a comment about land, water, or air, and does that mean that I could be subjected to afterwards a bias unknowingly conveying a

It's impossible, I think, to be completely perfect, right? Completely objective. Another thing you can do is state that notwithstanding potential comments you've made, you believe that you are able to make a fair and impartial decision tonight. And if you can't think of anything in particular, it sounds like you're giving yourself an objective assessment and trying to move forward without any sort of bias.

Thank you so much. I believe I can do so. Thank you.

Okay, any other questions? All right, let's move on.

Yes, so going back to the script, does any individual council member wish to declare any perception of bias from what I just described?

Okay. Okay. KEEP ROLLING.

I KNOW. I'M WAITING. OKAY. AND THEN FINALLY, DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL WISH TO REPORT ANY SITE VISITS OR EX PER TE CONTACTS?

ANY EX PER TE?

AND AGAIN, EX PER TE IS ANY COMMUNICATION OUTSIDE OF THE RECORD ON THIS.

Okay, I have two neighbors come up to me to speak to me about the Sky Harbor decision. They shared their opinions, I listened to them, but I believe I am able to provide a fair and impartial decision this evening.

Wonderful, thank you, Mayor.

Mayor, you could just describe the nature of what they said to you to fully disclose the ex parte contact, so that way people can respond to whatever information you received.

Yes, one neighbor is a pilot and he was very supportive of the Sky Harbor action. He felt it could bring a lot of money to our city. And another neighbor stopped me while I was walking my dog and very vehemently that Sky Harbor should not be allowed to move forward. I didn't tell them either way. I just listened. I said, thank you for your comments and moved on. And my dog was also impartial.

Thank you, Mayor.

All right. All right. So we good, Ashley?

We are, if there's no other ex parte contacts. Yes, go ahead.

Councillor Sinclair. I have had a conversation with Mickey Barnes previously during the climate action plan when that was being considered. Her concern was lead emissions in the air and wanted me to be aware of that. I disclosed that. She gave testimony to council and I also disclosed that at the time. But I just am reaffirming that conversation.

And you feel that, nevertheless, you can be impartial in your decision-making? Yes.

Okay. Perfect.

Okay. Are we good now? Everybody online?

I have one more item. It's likely you have all driven by the site and know where it's at. So that does, the awareness of the site and its location does come through the site visit. Yes.

Well, I've driven by it, but, you know.

That's sufficient. Driven by it and looked at it and done more than a cursory glance.

When I drove by it, I held up my hand. No, I'm just kidding. Yeah. I have driven by it. Okay. Several times. Okay.

I think the record can reflect that likely it's within all of your commutes and you've likely driven by it, but not actually physically stopped and visited the site. And nevertheless, you all feel that you can proceed.

I feel that I can proceed impartially. Councillor Segato, then Councillor Case.

Okay. I do walk by it about four times a week, and sometimes I do stop and stare at the night canyons and then imagine that. But I feel like I can make a decision that's impartial and not based on excitement.

Thank you, Councillor Segato, Councillor Case.

yeah i also that i drive by it multiple times a week but back in 2020 before i was on council or 2019 i did take a tour of it with leadership hillsborough do we need to disclose that that i haven't been on the property before it doesn't hurt we're the nike hangar and it is awesome but sorry do i need to disclose it sounds like you've disclosed it so that's perfect just did

And you feel that, nevertheless, you can participate objectively? Yes. Okay. Objectively.

Absolutely.

Yes. Perfect.

Councillor Sinclair. In 2025, I took a tour with Leadership Hillsborough of the same tour that Councillor Case is referencing to toward the hangar, a couple hangars at the Port of Portland.

And you can... Perfect.

Wonderful. Can you say that into the mic? I feel that I can be unbiased. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Now I'd like to invite...

So I also have to disclose some things. I can't remember the year that I was in the leadership program, but I was there and had a tour with the city council at that time of the airport.

And do you feel you can still be impartial?

Yes.

Thank you. Councillor Embry.

Thank you. My tour was in 26. And yes, I think I can be unbiased, yes.

Thank you. All right. Anyone else? Okay. Ashley, you good?

All right, yes. All right. Hearing no additional disclosures. Does any member of the audience wish to challenge any of the conflicts, ex parte, or bias that you have heard or ask questions about the disclosures of any member of the council? And is there anyone online who is potentially raising their hand? Great. Okay. Does any member of the audience wish to challenge the jurisdiction of the council to hear this matter? And same question for you about online. All right. Mayor, that concludes the legal matters.

Thanks, Ashley. I'll now invite Ruth Klein, our senior planner with the planning division, to provide any updates and to present their presentation. Welcome, Ruth.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor and City Councillors. First, one small administrative matter that I think will help things go a little bit more quickly is any of the appellants or applicant who want to show items up on the screen up here, make sure you log into Zoom, and that is how you're going to be able to share your material. And with that, I am going to share my presentation as soon as I get promoted.

I also want to let people know that this is going to take a while as we're going through the briefings. We're going to hear from Appellant A, from Appellant B, etc. And during that time, some councillors may go to the restroom. If they go to the restroom behind the city council chambers, just so you know, there's a speaker in that room and so we can hear everything. So if you're wondering where are they going and what's happening and are they hearing everything, the answer is yes. Okay.

All right, so thank you again. My name is Ruth Klein. I'm a senior planner with the Planning Division. And we have, as mentioned before, two appeals before us, Appeal 1-26, Barnes et al. and Appeal 2-26, Richmond et al. These are appeals of an underlying case file called DR44-25. DR stands for Development Review. It's a type of site plan review process. So the City Council decided to fold both of these appeals into one de novo hearing. So both appeals are being heard concurrently on the same record, and that record is open to receive any and all testimony. The Council is not asked to affirm the Planning Commission's order. They have findings that are their own. So when we have this hearing, whether the application meets the approval criteria of the CDC section is what we're looking at. What it does not decide is whether private aircraft storage should be allowed at this airport. And that siting decision was done in the airport master plan that has the date of 2017 to 2020. So the port owns the land, the FAA, they own the sky, and the city has regulatory over the site and can review that. Here we're looking at a site plan that shows seven hangars. Hangers 3A and 3B, they share a building. And 2A and 2B share a building. Hangar 1 is the last hangar along that back wall closest to the airport runway. Hangers 4 and hangars 5 are the ones adjacent to Brooklyn. You can see just off over the corner over here, this is what the Nike hangar some folks were talking about. And this is how the aircraft maneuvers onto the site and then onto the runway. It's the same runway that the Nike hangar uses. It's zoned IP, which is an industrial park zone. And the tax lot is a much larger tax lot that's over 400 acres in size. And this is a leasehold on a small portion of that larger lot. So the application was approved by the Planning Commission in May. There was a vote of five approvals and one abstention. And that included conditions of approval, which means that the Planning Commission says, we approve this application if you do this list of things. We don't just straight out approve your application. We have a list of items that you need to complete. And also attached to that is findings on each of the development standards and how they felt that the applicant met those standards or would meet those standards based on the to-do list of items that was assigned to them. One of the last minute items that was added the night of the decision was a masonry wall rather than the originally proposed fence by the applicant. And that would be replacing the fence the applicant had proposed along this visible portion right here. I don't know if folks can see this, but there is a portion that is not blocked by the hangar buildings themselves and has more visibility. The commission voted this way because they felt that the negative impacts of the development had not been sufficiently minimized or mitigated. They were not looking at complete removal of the negative impacts. They were looking at the language that said they just need to be minimized or mitigated. And they reached that conclusion that a masonry wall is required to mitigate the noise on the site. The exhibit B, which is the findings attached to that decision, said that the site is surrounded by industrial aviation uses and that there's no impact to sensitive uses. And then they added this condition 45 and changed that finding to say there were some impacts enough to warrant the wall. So you can hear that there was some last minute changes right at that night of the planning commission hearing and that resulted in some errors in the record that the de novo process gives the staff a chance to correct so that the city council has the best available information. One of those was not clarifying that the ownership limitation on aviation uses. It has to be land that's owned by the airport in order to allow aircraft hangars. The Brookwood Library was not specifically called out in the findings themselves as a surrounding use. there was a discussion that the library was a conditional use. And that is a code requirement that is in effect now. But back in 2007, when the library went into that existing building, it was actually a permitted outright use. So a conditional use is a higher level of review. In 2007, you could move just straight into the building. The finding that the Commission voted to add the masonry wall had not been updated, and that's been updated now. And the condition has been revised to show that the waste and recycling enclosures have 12-foot gate openings and 3% slope access. Just a detail that you get into at the site planning level stage. So a denial must identify the approval criterion that is not met. And approval and denial, those both require findings. And the findings must be supported by evidence in the record. The volume of testimony is not the same as evidence going to a criterion. And the order the council adopts has to state the council's reason. And that order is then reviewed on appeal. So opposition on its own is not a criterion and cannot support denial or approval And then granting the appeal, just to clarify, there's been some question about that, denies this application. It does not cancel the lease that Sky Harbor has on the property. It doesn't change the regulations for the airport or close it. It doesn't stop Sky Harbor from submitting a new application or other development activity requests on the site. Staff recommends here that we deny both appeals and improve the case file as modified with the corrections in the staff report and the findings and adopt the order with findings at exhibit B and conditions at exhibit A. The last note I want to make is that sometimes land use decisions have a very, they always have a very tight timeline. And when you reach an appeal process, you can be up against a hard wall of having to make a decision by a certain date legally. We have some flexibility for this particular project. The decision deadline is September 13th. So you're not necessarily forced to make a decision tonight. You have some flexibility. SOME ROOM THERE. SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

THANK YOU, RUTH. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR RUTH?

Thank you. So if the Council makes a decision today, and can the party against whom the decision was made, can they appeal? Do they go to land use? Where do they go?

Yeah, so tonight, if you were to reach a final decision, that is the city's final decision. And so that could be appealed by any interested party, meaning someone that has participated at our local level, to the Land Use Board of Appeals within 21 days of the final decision. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? Councillor Salgado, and then Councillor Case.

Can you tell me her name, please?

Say that again?

Either way is fine.

Okay, go ahead. Councillor Case, go ahead.

Okay. So I think from, it seems like from what we've heard from all the public testimony, hundreds of emails, on signs we're seeing throughout town, residents don't want this private luxury hangar at Pilsner International. So if we approve the appeal, Which is not your record your recommendation is to deny the appeal. We approve the appeal. It seems like, what does that mean for the future of the hangar? It sounds like it closes the application and they would have to start all over again.

Apologies, I didn't mean to interrupt you. No, you're okay. So what that would mean essentially is first, the city council would need to make their decision based on the substantive evidence in the record and also the applicable approval criteria. So you would need to tie evidence in the record to the criteria that you see before you and to be able to justify the denial. And then second, the applicant would have the option to either abandon the project, appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals, or essentially start the project over with a different approach, potentially and most likely a type two process, which wouldn't come to city council.

Okay. Thank you. If the appeal is denied, then what's the timeline for the hangar to be in use? And how does that line up with the unleaded fuel requirements or...

I'm not sure exactly the timeline for in-use. The timeline for an appeal would be 21 days, and then the standard LUBA process could be anywhere between four and 10 months or more, depending on if it is further appealed. The process for starting over with an application would likely take... THREE TO SIX MONTHS, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, ADD ON TO THAT WHATEVER THE STANDARD PERMITTING, BUILDING PERMITS PROCESS, ET CETERA, WOULD BE BEFORE ACTUALLY HAVING SHOVELS IN THE DIRT. THANK YOU.

ARE YOU GOOD, COUNSELOR CASE? ALL RIGHT, COUNSELOR SERGADO.

Hi, I have a multi-faceted question, it might be more so, bear with me. So we did receive, like Counselor Keith said, a lot of late testimony today, a lot of really good testimony, and there was, and I think somebody mentioned it in the public comment today, there was a screenshot of an application submitted to the FFA. Can you just explain to us what that document is and what they're trying to communicate to us by sharing that?

Yeah, I also had the same question. It was regarding not changing the flight mix. And apparently it was on page A13 that they were saying the flight mix wouldn't be changed, but it sounds like it would. And the request was that, could we look into this, that it might be false information being provided to the FAA. Do you know anything about that?

So the simple answer to that is that it's under the jurisdiction of the FAA and the port and the applicant. We have no standing to interject ourselves into that process of whether that information was or was not accurate or deceptive.

Okay, a follow-up question. So, I mean, because what we're doing here at the City Council is making sure that all of this fits within our community development code, correct? And so does our community, our community development code require that exemption? Like, if that. Document didn't exist that that really doesn't have any bearing on our decision, whether it was there or not.

That's correct. It has no bearing on our decision making process.

Yeah. And then another piece of testimony that we received was. This image of a jet and the 6 foot wall, and then the flame going over the 6 foot wall. Are these the type of changes that we can ask for in this? Because that seems to me like a pretty easy recommendation to fix, right? Or is that a later process down the line in this meeting? That was the end of my question.

So there's a portion of that that I can answer as staff, and then a portion of it I think the applicant should answer. So from a staff perspective, we would take a look at that image and say, I'm going to use a very technical term, the rear end of the jet seems to be very close to the masonry wall, which is not realistic based on the site plan that was provided. But that issue of exhaust from a jet is a discussion, is a point of discussion that could be had. So that would be something to bring up with the applicant.

and i'll just add to that that there are approval criteria that do talk you know speak to sufficiently mitigating impacts of the development so if that was a genuine concern that you can point to real evidence in the code for um you know it would be valid to request that the applicant demonstrate how they've sufficiently mitigated that risk okay thank you okay any other questions

Okay. Thank you, Ruth. At this time, I'd like to call for Appellant A's presentation, so that's the Barnes Group. Will the Barnes Appellant Group please come forward, please state your name, and you have ten minutes for your presentation. After the Appellant A, we will hear from Appellant B, which is the Richmond Group. And we will be able to ask, council, you'll be able to ask questions of appellant A and appellant B, and then we'll hear from the applicant. So just so you all know what to expect. All right, welcome. Please state your name for the record.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Pace and City Council. My name is Carrie Richter. I'm an attorney at the law firm Bateman Seidel. My office address is 1000 Southwest Broadway, Suite 1950, Portland, Oregon 97205. I'm here today representing Mickey and

Barnes. Barnes. There you go. I got you.

You're on it. And I'm not. Okay, the task tonight is not to decide whether aircraft hangars are generally useful, important, or necessary. The question is far more narrow. It asks whether this applicant provided substantial evidence demonstrating that this particular proposal satisfies the applicable development review criteria. substantial evidence is a legal term it means quantitative and qualitative facts used to show that something is true that is what that a reasonable person would rely on to show that a criterion is satisfied In this case, the applicant has failed to produce substantial evidence to show that the criteria in CDC 1280-040-H7 are satisfied. The applicant has not shown that the transportation system can safely accommodate the development, has not meaningfully evaluated the design and operating characteristics of the hangar campus in relation to surrounding uses, and has not identified or supported mitigation sufficient to address negative impacts. The material in the record does not meet this substantial evidence threshold. For example, on page five, the applicant states, there are no major impacts on traffic, noise, glare, or air pollution to warrant any mitigation. That is a conclusion And the applicant bears the burden under CDC 12.70.160L to prove compliance with every applicable approval criterion. That requires evidence that is responsive and credible and reliable such that a reasonable person could rely on it. further subsection each seven standards are discretionary meaning that they aren't not check the box you may have heard the term clear and objective like we use with housing that's not what you have before you you have discretionary standards that require interpretation and policy judgment it is the city council and not staff and not the city attorney or the applicant that is charged with with interpreting the standards you adopted these standards you get to decide what they mean and what they require and the planning commission did not decide what they meant first before they weighed the evidence, and that is a problem and shortcoming with the Planning Commission's decision. The first failure is with respect to transportation safety. And the standard requires, quote, whether the transportation system can safely and adequately accommodate the proposed development. That is in 7A. The applicant's materials focus entirely on whether a full traffic impact analysis was required and whether intersection capacity would be retained. But capacity is not the same thing as safety. A safely functioning transportation system requires evidence about how people, vehicles, aircraft-related activity, and other modes will interact. That means more than saying that intersections operate acceptably. It means analyzing sight distance, stopping distance, crash history, potential conflicts, and the effectiveness of any traffic controls proposed as conditions of approval. The council cannot find that 7A is satisfied. The second and most important gap is with respect to compatibility, and this is 7D, and asks whether the design and operating characteristics of the proposed development are reasonably compatible with surrounding development and land use. This standard requires two things. First, identifying the operational characteristics of the proposal. and second identifying the surrounding uses affected by those operations. The applicant has tried to narrow the inquiry to the impact from the physical structures alone. But the code does not say the city may consider only the impact of walls, roofs, setbacks, and pavement. It says, quote, design and operating characteristics. Operating characteristics necessarily include how a site will function, how aircraft will be stored, prepared, fueled, maintained, moved and returned to service. Those operating characteristics have never been coherently defined. The record contains inconsistent assumptions about flight activity. from the applicant referred 57 to 80 flights per week for the planning commission, the traffic memorandum saying 47 flights per day, and then that many of the flights will be moved around and not new. The council cannot evaluate compatibility when the basic intensity of this operation is not known. The record is also incomplete on ground operations. No attempt was made to meaningfully address where maintenance, refueling, pre-flight checks, run-ups, and related activities will occur, what emissions, noise, vibration, and safety risks those activities may create, and how often they will occur. These are not abstract or irrelevant concerns. They are the very operating characteristics the code requires the city to evaluate. The fuel facility underscores the problem. The proposal includes two above ground tanks, each holding 20,000 gallons of fuel. The record includes a list of safety and containment measures, but it does not include the expert analysis needed to determine whether those measures are sufficient in this location. including the relation to nearby public uses such as the Brookwood Library that the Planning Commission never considered because the staff never suggested it was part of the surrounding area. The surrounding area has been defined too narrowly. The applicant effectively treats the term surrounding as if it means only those that are immediately adjacent, but the code uses broader language. The relevant compatibility area should be informed by the nature of the impacts. where impacts may include outdoor aircraft mu movement fueling emissions visual impacts vibrations non-aircraft noise the council needs an actual inventory of the affected uses and then when you know what the affected uses are you can decide how big the surrounding area is and then you can decide if it's compatible that's how these types of compatibility analyses work But there has been no effort on behalf of the applicant to make that showing in the first instance. This is not substantial evidence. The same problem carries into the mitigation criterion. 7E asks whether negative impacts have been sufficiently minimized or mitigated. Again, the first question is you have to decide what minimized or mitigated means. Mitigated has got to mean some meaningful response to impacts. the applicant doesn't identify for example for example the applicant's soil mitigation strategy is landscaping but the application does not identify the plantings demonstrate mature height or density or connect that landscape treatment to any particular impact like are we talking about light are we talking about vibration are we talking about noise what is this landscaping going to do and where's the acoustical engineer for the applicant that says trees work to mitigate jet fuel noise, right? Finally, I'd like to point out the Planning Commission imposed an additional condition requiring a six-foot masonry wall, but again, the record does not explain what impact the wall is intended to address or why a six-foot wall would be sufficient. If aircraft are visible above a seven-foot chain link fence, which is what the application shows, there's no evidence to suggest that a shorter masonry wall will meaningfully mitigate visual impacts. If the wall is intended to address noise, the record lacks acoustical evidence to show that it will do so. What is missing is not a minor insignificant detail. These are significant flaws in the evidentiary showing that the applicant has made in this case. And I would urge you to approve this appeal and deny this application for this reason. I have 19 seconds. Bring your questions.

No, we'll have time. Do you have anything else?

I don't. I mean, I do, but I...

You have so much more. Okay. All right. Thank you. Does Council have any questions?

Mayor, if I could just interrupt real quick before you get to questions. I just want to let you all know that Ms. Richter's testimony was also provided in written form, which is in the documents that was provided to you. And for Councilor's case in Salgado, those are being emailed to you as well. So you'll have those shortly before you.

Thanks for the reminder. So does Council have any questions for Ms. Richter? Looking online... Okay, Ms. Richter, thank you so much for your testimony. At this time, I'd like to call for Appellant B's presentation, the Richmond Appellant Group. Please come forward and state your name. And you will have an equal amount of time, which is 10 minutes.

Thank you. My name is Andrew Mulkey for the record. I'm attorney for Appellant Brett Hamilton, who is part of the Richmond group. My PO box is 66562 Portland, Oregon 97290. You also have my contact information in the record. I may ask to kind of split my time with Mr. Hamilton. In that case, I'll hop up and would just ask that he could come in. We can stop the time when you want to switch. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. So I know that many people have asked already for the city to deny the applications and grant the appeal. And I think just tagging on to what Ms. Richter already said, I want to explain WHY YOU CAN DENY THE SKY HARBOR APPLICATIONS AND HOW YOU CAN DO SO. SO AGAIN, I WANT TO REITERATE THAT BASED ON THE CRITERIA IN CDC 12.80.040, SUBSECTION H7, THIS CITY COUNCIL SITTING HERE TODAY HAS THE AUTHORITY AND THE DISCRETION to interpret and apply the development code. So you are the body that adopted the code, and you can apply it and determine what it means. And I just want to reiterate, for what it's worth, that it's not the applicant's counsel that gets to tell you how to interpret it. It's not even really staff. It's you all. And so, and again, I think we're probably gonna be a broken record here because the applicant has failed to provide the information required to really evaluate and understand the criteria in subsection H and seven. And so again, I want to touch on the important thing here is that the applicant needs to identify the negative impacts of the proposed development and how those could potentially be minimized or mitigated. And the applicant has simply failed to provide the information needed to really understand and evaluate those impacts and then evaluate whether or not they can or cannot be mitigated or minimized and how you would do so. And the same thing applies to the operating characteristics of the development. Again, the applicant has simply failed to meet its burden and provide the city with sufficient information to understand the operating characteristics of the development and how those characteristics and use might affect other offsite and surrounding uses. And so we have plenty of evidence in the record about what those impacts are. We know that there's going to be noise from jets using the hangars, taxiing out to the runways, that sort of thing, taking off. We know from jet engines, right? We know there's going to be jet blast. We know there's going to be fumes from the refueling operations. Anytime you... fill up a tank with gas, right? Air has to go, has to escape. So you have to vent that air somehow and that's going to cause fumes and potentially air pollution. And we have very little information about what types of pollution is going to be associated with those fumes and vapors as just fuel is simply being stored in the tanks or it's being put into the planes so that they can fly. So I guess the main thing here is that CDC 1280.040H requires the city to make these findings. And so that the criteria in H subsection seven are satisfied. And if you don't have the information to be able to make the findings, that's an instance in which the applicant has failed to meet its burden and you can simply deny it for not being able to meet the particular requirements and not having the information needed to be able to make those findings. So again, just to reiterate, 7E says that the city has to show that or make findings on the negative impacts of the development and show that they've been sufficiently minimized or mitigated. Again, I don't believe that we have the information from the applicant as Ms. Richter was explaining about the noise levels from these jets, about the height that it's coming off. Is a six-foot brick wall going to be able to stop that noise and prevent it from interfering with the Brookwood Library across the street? and other office uses. We just don't have that information. We also don't have the information about the fuel and vapors and how wide that vapor may expand and may affect nearby uses. I put into the record what I would believe is an analogous study or analogous conclusions from a study about gas stations showing that actually, you know, there's benzene in gas There's also some benzene in the jet fuel that's being used. And that this study was finding that the benzene was exceeding levels that they had applied far out, 300 feet and beyond from what they were expecting. So again, that's the type of thing that you would want to know if we know there's going to be fumes from these refueling processes and from these tanks. What is their impact? Again, we don't have that information in order to even begin to consider how you would mitigate or minimize that. So that's simply where the applicant has failed to meet its burden here. And again, the city has the, you'll probably hear a lot of public opinion and a lot of sentiment that this should be denied, the application should be denied, and the appeal should be granted for a lot of various reasons. I hope I've just laid out kind of the pathway that you can use to deny the applications and grant the appeals, along with what Ms. Richter already said. So I guess with those three minutes and 40 seconds, I will leave it for Mr. Hand.

All right. Are you going to have someone else come up? Yes. Okay. So please stop the time for a moment. Thank you, Mr. Wolke. All right. So you just have about two and a half minutes left. Please state your name for the record.

Good evening, Mayor Pace, Council President Harris. My name is Brett Hamilton. I'm one of the appellants in the Richmond case. So I want to talk tonight about fraud. There is a direct line between Sky Harbor's fraudulent FAA application and your approval criteria. And that is... that instead of doing their homework and providing the substantive evidence that all the attorneys are talking about, Sky Harbor decided to cheat, figured it would be easier just to check the wrong box and say there's no impacts. Because then, instead of providing substantive evidence, they provided this. It's one page of a 141-page document. It's the last page. They withheld the rest of the document, the one that contains all the fraud, and they just showed the outcome of their cheating, which is... No future NEPA review is required because they lied. So instead of substantive evidence, we have this get out of jail free, don't have to do anything. And so that's why we don't have the substantive evidence, because instead of taking the opportunity to provide it, they just said, nah, it's easier to lie. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE THE 140 PAGE DOCUMENT. YOU GUYS DO, BECAUSE MICKEY BARNES REQUESTED IT FROM THE PORT, PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST. THEY DIDN'T PROVIDE IT VOLUNTARILY. WE HAD TO DEMAND IT FROM THEM UNDER THE LAW OF, LIKE, YOU HAVE TO GIVE US THIS DOCUMENT. And instead of providing the document to the Planning Commission so they could use it for the decision, they waited until the day after they mailed the notice of decision, and then they release the document, which is consciousness of guilt. They are hiding their fraud by refusing to release the record. Your CDC, in addition to the approval criteria, your CDC also requires you, the applicant, to follow the law. And any reasonable person reading the fraud letter that we sent, it is plainly obvious that they did not follow the law. They committed a fraud. So you can deny the application on those grounds. You break the law, you don't get to use fraudulent results to get your thing passed. And speaking of the intensity of this airport, that is a huge thing. There's about 32 jets there now. Sky Harbor is proposing to add 30 more. So they are doubling the intensity of use of this airport. That is significant. And the other thing is the jets that are there now, some of them are owned by our local billionaires who fly them on their trips. I'm not passing judgment. Those people live here. They take the flight when they want to go somewhere. If you have an out-of-state client who needs their jet at 8 o'clock in the morning, and the jet is in Hillsboro, and the client is in Aspen, they're going to have to go pick up the jet at like 4 or 5 a.m. It's called a repositioning flight. They happen late at night, early in the morning, so Mr. Big gets his jet when he needs it. There's no limit on Sky Harbor's operating times. They can take the jets in and out whenever they want. Two o'clock in the morning, go for a ride, no problem. And there's no limit on the number of flights. So Sky Harbor will tell you about this multiplier, how they derived it. It's irrelevant. There's no multiplier in their... permit, they can fly every jet every day if they want to. It's totally up to them, and it totally depends on who their clients are. If their clients happen to release their jets out, they don't make money sitting in the hangar. They have to make money. So there's my comments. Thank you very much for hearing our appeal.

Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. So for Appellant B, we had Mr. Wolke, I believe, and Mr. Hamilton. Does council have any questions for those folks? Councillor Sinclair. Sinclair, excuse me. Sorry. I added a W in your name. Go ahead.

Yeah, I have one question. In your perspective, is there a good of community? Does this project provide good of community?

No, I don't think. I think, as Mr. Hamilton said, it's for the billionaires of the world. So some of them may live here, but I think for the vast majority of people living here, this is not their hangar.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you. COUNCILOR SERGADO.

YES. DO WE HAVE A LIST OR IS THERE A LIST OF THE TYPE OF STUDIES THAT ARE NEEDED TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THOSE NEGATIVE IMPACTS? LIKE CAN YOU JUST LIST OFF LIKE TWO OR THREE OF THOSE ADDITIONAL STUDIES THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THOSE NEGATIVE IMPACTS?

Well, I think first you're going to want to understand what the actual operating characteristics of the development are. So, and as Mr. Hamilton talked about, that's actually going to probably be very hard to understand because they can take off with these 30 additional planes whenever they want. But setting that aside, I think you're still going to want to know, we know that there's noise coming off these jet engines, so you would want the applicant to provide some sort of acoustical engineering study to show this is how far the noise goes. And if you have a proposed mitigation to actually show that that would mitigate the impact of that noise. And that's just simply not in the record here. And I don't think it's the type of thing that you can simply provide a condition of approval for at this stage. It's really something that the applicant needs to provide up front and that the public needs to be able to view and understand and comment on.

Any other questions? Councillor Allcare.

I have a comment, and then I'm going to have a question for you. I grew up in the San Francisco area in Daly City, and where I was was in the flight path, San Francisco International Airport. And growing up there, I had family come from out of town. I'm not accustomed to hearing the noise, and it was pretty significant. But what I can say is there were no houses in the direct vicinity of San Francisco International Airport. They didn't surround the airport. They were nowhere near any flight path other than flying in the sky and going off and doing their thing. So I want to ask you something. Why would having 30 more jets benefit the people of Hillsborough, and especially those who are living around that area? That's the part that I want to understand, because I can tell you growing up, I never saw anything like that. And when I moved here, I know we had a small airport. I never imagined that we would be sitting here tonight and talking about this. I was aware of Nike's plane and Intel and that other people use it. And it's a hobby. People enjoy flying aircraft. But would you want to live? Off of 25th and Cornell, maybe, or maybe just a block up, would you and your family, and you're a lawyer, and I'm assuming that you've got way more income than I do, would you want to relocate to there? Would you want to raise your kids and take them over to Brookwood Library with those 30 extra jets flying over? Thank you.

No, and I have been to the Brookwood Library before. It's a very nice library, you know, and I take my kids all the time to the libraries near me. And so those are, you know, I certainly wouldn't want to smell fuel fumes and have to think about what is potentially, what I'm potentially breathing just to go to the library. So, yeah.

It just makes me think that the people that want this aren't going to be at the library, aren't going to be hanging around here in this town, are going to use this like it's a shell gas station they can pull into to fuel up and go somewhere else. That's what it sounds like to me. Thanks.

Any other questions? Okay, and I would ask the audience, I know when you want to support somebody, that's great, but you were clapping over her comments. So please, if you could be respectful and not clap or boo, please, so we can all hear.

Thank you. And I know you heard me. Thanks.

Okay. Okay, so thank you, sir. Thank you. All right, so we'll now hear the applicant's response. And so it's obvious that this room is definitely in favor of the appellants, and that's fine, okay? You're allowed to do that. The applicants are also allowed to speak. Please be respectful while they're speaking and when they're done. I want everyone here to feel welcome, okay? So please be respectful. Thank you. All right, so please state your name and you have 20 minutes because you're responding to each appeal and there's two appeals. Okay?

Yes.

You're good?

Yes.

All right.

Thank you, Mayor. Please state your name and you have 20 minutes. Good evening, Mayor and Councillors. My name is Steve Holtberg. I am an attorney with Rattlewhite Parks in Alexander. My contact information is already in the record. I'm here tonight with our client, with Sarah Radelet, who is going to be presenting along with me shortly. I first wanted to thank Ms. Klein for the comprehensive staff report. We agree with the findings, the recommendations, and the conclusions of the staff report. We are here tonight to ask the council to deny both appeals and to approve the application before you. So in terms of our presentation this evening, Sarah will be up here first. She's going to give you an overview of the project. And then I will come in during the second half and respond to a number of the legal issues and policy issues that have been presented. At this point, I would, however, take any questions from the council. In particular, if there are issues that you are concerned about that you would like us to address, it is much better for us to have that opportunity at this point rather than during deliberations or discussion. So you're taking questions now, Mr. Holperton? I'm happy to take some questions and what I can't answer, I can have our client, David, come up or Sarah can come up. Before I do that, and I really hate to do this, but Councillor Allcare, is that how you pronounce your name?

Yes.

You said you weren't biased and prejudged. I just heard your comments and to me that sounds a lot like prejudgment that you have prejudged this application and I would ask you again for the record given those statements are you able to hear this application and that you haven't prejudged it?

Chad, if growing up in the San Francisco area and when I describe that airport and what my experience was, could that be considered PTSD? I feel I could make this judgment, but I'm just curious if that PTSD is a potential.

I'll let Chad comment on the PTSD, but I'll just say in particular, I think I would imagine that the attorney's comments are more directed to your comments about the application following your history rather than where you grew up.

Well, yes, I feel I can vote. and without bias. I have a lot of information in front of me. We've received a lot of public testimony by email about this. We have not heard from your side as much. So I'd be curious to see what you have to say. But yes, I feel I can vote on this.

Okay, thank you very much. At this point, I'm going to turn it over to Sarah.

Okay. Excuse me. I did have a question. Yeah. So we have a question. Councillor Sergato, do you have a question? No?

Yeah, is this the right time for the question or are we waiting for the other person?

Yeah, do you want questions now? I think there are questions.

Yeah, all right, so.

Yeah, I gotta turn the mic on. There you go.

If I can just request that we could stop the clock while we're asking questions.

Yeah, I agree. Yeah, I've stopped the clock, okay. All right, so we're gonna ask questions. You asked for this, all right. And it's Councillor Harris and then Councillor Salgado.

Thank you, Mr. Albert. So one of the questions I find of some interest here is under the development code subsection relevance, the relevant section subsection D, where it says the design and operating characteristics of the proposed development are reasonably compatible Development land uses this seems to be a big issue to me from what I'm hearing from the presentations and some of the materials I've read I know there's an issue like the FAA controls has jurisdiction over many of the things that happen at the airport What if what happens at the airport Comes off of the site itself and has adverse impacts on the surrounding uses Does the city have a right to seek mitigation? That's where I think probably that blast wall or whatever you want to call it was added. For instance, I don't know very much about jets, but if a jet backed up and the jet blast from the engines came off the site and knocked over a car that was driving along the road, that happened. The jet was on there. The FAA said the jet can be on there, but clearly it's incompatible with a roadway in that case. So I think what I'm hearing from the appellants is they're concerned about some of these operational byproducts on the site, which would be related to the design more than the land use itself, I guess, because maybe the Jets don't have to back up to the line or whatever. But I'm interested to see how that works together, how that is interpreted, who has jurisdiction over what to control what activities on the site when they come off the site.

Certainly. So my view of this, and I think you mentioned litigation, which I have very little experience with, so I don't want to get into who has rights to litigate. But our view is that the FAA- Time. Time.

The time was stopped. Thanks so much for everybody's participation, but the time was stopped to answer these questions. Thank you very much.

Our view of this is that the FAA's regulatory authority starts at the source of those activities, the plane, the engine, the EPA controls emissions. So our view of this is that the impacts related to an aircraft are not regulated by the city, but the important piece here is both the preemption portion that's in our written testimony, but it's also your code. Your code talks about not the use, it doesn't talk about planes, it talks about development. And your code also defines development as the physical alteration of the property. A jet blast is not the physical alteration of a property. So that's where we believe that the proper line is drawn.

Then what does the operating characteristics of the proposed development mean? What do those words mean to you?

Those words mean to me that you look at what the development is. You look at lighting. You can look at the fueling operation. You can look at access. You can look at fencing. You can look at landscaping. You can look at those features. You can look at security fencing. You can look at the fact that people will be coming and going at any hours because the FAA does allow that for flights to take off at any point. Those are operational characteristics. And one thing I would suggest, and I'm not trying to give up my time, but I was going to cover this, so if you want to start the time again, I'm fine with that. But one of the things that I think... you should look at is compare this to a parking garage. You have a parking garage adjacent to this, OK? And when that is approved, you are looking at the operational characteristics of a parking garage. It's the same type of review. You don't look at tailpipe emissions. You don't look and say, well, the Harley Davidson makes a hell of a lot of noise, but that Tesla doesn't make a lot of noise. Those kinds of activities are not the operational characteristics of a parking garage. You don't look at tailpipe emissions. You don't look, is that thing spitting smoke down Main Street? Those are completely outside of your review responsibilities under the code. And, you know, again, this is... a hangar at an airport. This use is an absolutely allowed use. And I will stress that your comprehensive plan calls for just this type of activity and just this type of development in this exact location. This isn't a one-off, this is what your foundational planning documents call for. And so to suggest that this is the wrong place and the wrong thing is just completely inconsistent.

Okay. Thank you. I have a question. Is Councillor Sogato first, and then Councillor Allcare, and Councillor Ambry, and then Councillor Sinclair. All right. Councillor Sogato.

Hi. Can you remind me of anyone?

Stephen Holperg.

Even Holberg, I really appreciate you trying to educate us on what our role is as a city council. I see it a little bit different than you. So as a city council, you know, we have a lot of training. We have a lot of kind of sit through, right? And both sides are making really good points. I mean, you just made a really good technical point around what the point of the code is, right? So the way that I look at the code is, It's up to the city council to interpret the code because it's left very late. We've seen these examples happen through other items that we've discussed here on the council. The code is high level, and then the council kind of interprets what that means. And the way that I'm looking at it is the same way that I'm looking at it as a data center and as a development. The economy has shifted. This is the new normal. I mean, whoever expected that we're going to have a billionaire jet parking lot discussion, right? This is the new economy that we're in. So we have to look at things differently and take a step back when we have these things in front of us. Because the way that I'm interpreting the code is not how you're interpreting it, right? You're interpreting, like, what's the actual construction and what are the negative impacts? Is there going to be dust in the air? Is there going to be noise from the construction? That's fine if you want to interpret it that way. The way that I'd interpret it is like, what's the negative impact of the actual structure and operation that is going in? And I think that's an opportunity for us to expand that definition to give more direction on each situation. I mean, for that reason, you know, because the way I look at the card is like, requires CDC 12.80.040.8.7.E requires findings that negative impacts of the development have been sufficiently minimized to mitigate. The way that I'm interpreting the code and seeing it, I don't even know what those negative impacts are, right? The toothpick study, all of the general concerns that we heard from the community. So we have to take the concerns from the community seriously about these environmental effects. And so that's why I'm interpreting the code in that way. So I appreciate what you're doing, but I think it's our role as the city council to say, hey, you know what? I see what it says here, but we need to take a step back and fill in the blanks that are always on the partition because we clearly see this code differently here. So thank you again.

OKAY. SO, THANK YOU, COUNCILOR SOGATO. QUESTIONS? THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR QUESTIONS, NOT STATEMENTS. SO, COUNCILOR ALLCARE.

YEAH, I...

So, Councillor Sagato, we're going to move on to Councillor Allcare. Councillor Sagato, we're going to move to Councillor Allcare, and if we could please stick to questions, that would be very helpful.

I'm fine if he wants to ask... Yeah, I'll come back to you, Councillor Sagato. I am fine if he wants to ask this question, and I can ask mine.

Great. Councillor Sagato, go ahead.

I would just like to point out, because you just let Councilor Hawker talk about her upbringing and all this, and you didn't mention one thing. I already know something. I forget to ask a question, and then you're pulling on my nose.

I'm just trying to keep us on track, Councilor Segato. Just trying to keep us on track. Could you please ask your question?

Yeah, have you done a music study, and are you able to share the operating characteristics? Is that information that you have available for us? That's the only question I have.

I do not have an acoustical engineer's study. I don't necessarily think one is necessary. We can discuss the operational characteristics if you would like. I strongly suspect that this record is going to be left open for a period of time. We will be asking for that. So we can provide that information for you to the extent that we can obtain it. That is exactly the type of question that I am personally looking for because I want to know what the counselor's concerns are so we can address them. Because there are many concerns that are listed in the testimony that simply aren't relevant. But if you think something is relevant, I want to know what...

Please, please be respectful. Thank you. I've asked and asked. Please be respectful.

Those are the types of things that we would like to understand what the council's concerns are. And so if there are specific concerns, and I heard yours about operational characteristics, we can address those, and we're happy to do so.

Okay, thank you. Councillor Allcar.

I considered leaded fuel part of operational. So what can you guarantee that there's not going to be continued reliance on leaded fuel with 30 more jets?

I will ask David to confirm this. My understanding is there is no lead in the fuel that will be used on this site. And with respect to fueling, Mr. Mulkey is completely wrong in how A jet plane is fueled. You don't go up there with a nozzle like you do at a gas station. That is simply apples and oranges to how this is done. And that is just irresponsible to say that that's how things are going and benzene's going to come through. Benzene's not even in there. It is fueled in a sealed manner, so fumes do not come out.

Can you provide an impact study that says that?

I certainly can.

Okay, I look forward to receiving that from you. And I would like to also have environmental impacts included with that.

Councillor Anne-Marie.

Thank you. Yes, I was going to ask about the sound. You did mention that the time BFA allows... the takeoff and landing at any time. That's not restricted. Would the Hillsborough noise ordinances apply to that?

It does not. The Supreme Court has ruled on this, as have most of the circuits, that cities cannot impose curfews and noise ordinances in the way that would prevent aircraft from taking off and landing.

Like all kinds of aircraft or just like military aircraft?

It is all planes that are regulated by the FAA.

All right. One more. And then in the site plan, there was some landscaping that was shown. Is that being done for noise or just for the look? Has that been done as a mitigation effort to some impact?

Ms. Radley, who will be coming up here, can address that question. My sense is that it is following the city's code and landscaping requirements.

Is that everything? I had one more. So there's been some questions. I know that there have been questions about the FAA application. I know the city does not have jurisdiction on that, but can you explain a little bit if what is being said is correct?

I will confirm with my client. My understanding is that was the port that submitted that. I will confirm that. And when we come back for either rebuttal or when I come back up here, I can address that.

Thank you, thanks all.

Okay, Councillor Sinclair. Most likely I'll get the same answer because it does pertain to environmental studies. The Federal Aviation Administration and the Port of Portland granted the project a categorical exclusion. This allowed the applicant to bypass a full environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. Because of this, no formal emissions, air quality, or noise analysis was ever calculated for this specific project. May I ask, why did you as an applicant receive categorical exclusion?

I cannot answer that question without speculating. I will find out the answer for you.

Thank you. All right, are we good?

One question? Yeah, go for it.

And the last question I have, what is the good of community for this project?

Councillor, I understand that question. I believe that you are listening to your constituents, and I appreciate that. I'm trying to keep focused on the applicable criteria here, right? You have an airport. that is part of your master plan. It is part of your comprehensive plan. Your comprehensive plan calls for additional hangar space. Your comprehensive plan calls for that additional hangar space to take care of new types of transportation, including jets. And your comprehensive plan is very clear about the location of where this should be. Your comprehensive plan supports all of the goals of the city, right? So you can't segregate out one set of hangars from the operation of the airport you have a regionally important airport in your community you rely on for a lot of things you rely on it for recreation you rely on it for firefighting you rely on it for business travel you rely on it for a lot of things that is economic development to your community and i will tell you after doing this for 30 years it is very rare that you get people who are in favor of the application to show up So there are people that are in favor of this. There are people in your community. You can read social media if you'd like to and find people who are in favor of it. But are they going to show up in front of a large crowd? Most likely not, because they don't want to be booed by people in the audience.

Sir, I hear what you're saying. That part is subjective because neither of us can possibly know the outcome of participation from the public who are in favor, who are not here. The question I have for you, a follow-up, and you say to the comprehensive plan for transportation, what is the intent of what are you transporting? with the intent of what follows our comprehensive plan that's good of community. What are you transporting?

I did not mention the transportation system plan. The transportation system plan is separate from the airport master plan. The airport master plan is a component of your comprehensive plan. It was adopted as part of your comprehensive plan. So it's not about what we're transporting. And transportation, and subject to the airport planning rule, it's goal 12, it is all forms of transportation. It doesn't need to be transporting goods or services. It's simply transportation.

And I ask that question because of economics, is why I ask. And maybe you bring up a good point, that maybe there does need to be amendments done to our comprehensive plan. And that's something, as a council, that we will have to further investigate and apply. But I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Holtberg, you said you wanted someone else to come up and testify. And when they come up, we will start the timer again. Fair enough. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks. Amber, you ready to start time again, please? Mark? Okay, thanks.

Can you invite me as a panelist again? I closed my computer and I got invited.

Welcome. Please state your name.

Thank you. Just one second.

You got it. Time has not started because she hasn't started speaking.

Good evening, council members. My name is Sarah Radley. I'm with Strata Land Use Planning. We're here today to talk about this project for new aircraft hangars at the Hillsborough Airport. Can I share my screen? Where's that going to be?

All right.

OK. Great. We will begin with the orientation to the site in the area context. The site is part of the Hillsborough Airport with the site making up 1.4% of the total Hillsborough Airport area. The site is located within the IP industrial park zone where hangers are in allowed use. There are no use limitations, special use standards, nor conditional use requirements as hangers are allowed in this zone. The site is included in the 2020 Hillsboro Airport Master Plan as a site for future corporate aviation facilities. The Hillsboro Comprehensive Plan adopted the IP zoning for this site as well as the Airport Master Plan, all done through extensive public processes. In addition, this project for new hangars is consistent with other existing hangars within this zone on airport property. As mentioned, the site is within the IP industrial zone that abuts other industrial zones. The IP zone includes a wide variety of uses, including industrial, manufacturing, warehouse, and aircraft aviation uses. The development scale and massing proposed is typical of surrounding development that includes existing private aircraft hangars to the south and northwest, The airfield is also located to the west and southwest of the site. In addition to the east, across Brookwood Parkway are industrial and business park developments that include the Brookwood Library, also located in the IP zone. The proposal is for seven aircraft hangars leased to private aircraft owners based at Hillsboro Airport. The development includes operational support facilities for the aircraft, 60 parking spaces, landscaping, and an FAA security fence. Vehicle access is proposed from Airport Road, with an existing mid-block access to be closed. Along Borkwood Parkway and the designated major trail, a public plaza is proposed as well as berms and landscaping. The development will be built in two phases. Although analysis of the operations is not related to the approval criteria, information is provided to understand the scale of the proposed hangars in relation to the existing airport activities. A maximum of 30 aircraft are proposed for the hangars with both phases fully built out, which could result in an increase of total Hillsboro Airport operations, which are takeoffs and landings, of 1.2 to 2%, a 1.2 to 2% increase in the total airport operations. This range depends on if any existing aircraft at the airport would relocate to these hangars versus entirely new tenants. This slide shows the elevations and renderings of hangars four and five facing Brookwood. These buildings are consistent with the massing and scale expected and allowed in the IP industrial zone. This development review application must be measured against the applicable approval criteria in the Hillsborough Development Code. These code regulations have been adopted over time by Hillsborough City Council and set the rules for development. We will now go through these approval criteria that apply to this project. Criteria 1 and 4 talk about the proposal complying with all of the development standards of the base zone and the development and design standards. The buildings are meeting all development standards, including maximum height, minimum setbacks, landscaping, et cetera, and all of the applicable standards are met. The permit review and detailed plan check will further verify that all standards have been met. Next, we will move on to overlay special use standards, plan district standards, conditions of approval, and special features regulated by the code. For this site, there are no overlay zones, no special use standards, no planned district regulations, nor prior conditions of approval. Furthermore, there are no map special features such as topography, vegetation, or significant natural or cultural resources that apply to this site. These criteria are all met. The approval criteria also require addressing the transportation system and must evaluate that A, the transportation system can safely and adequately accommodate the proposed development, and B, parking areas and entrance exit points are designed to facilitate on-site vehicular circulation and pedestrian safety and avoid congestion on public streets. The submitted trip generation memo shows that the number of vehicle trips, which is a max of 32 trips during peak hours, is below the threshold to require a traffic impact study per the Community Development Code. In addition, an engineering report confirms acceptable intersection operations through build-out, the routing of all-site traffic to an existing signalized intersection, which is at Airport Road, and the removal of unsignalized curb cut, which is here along the mid-block And conditions have been required for site distance certification and signal activation as directed by Washington County. In addition to all of these, conditions of approval are required that will require improving the sidewalk where needed along Brookwood for ADA compliance, provision of onsite pedestrian walkways, and preserving the potential for a future airport road connection. As part of the approval criteria, the development is evaluated. We look to the Hillsborough Development Code, which defines development as any human-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to construction or installation of buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, or storage of equipment or materials, as well as improvements for use as parking. A key part of this definition is that development is defined as a human-made change to real estate per the development code. Moving on to approval criteria H7D, the code requires that the design and operating characteristics of the proposed development are reasonably compatible with the surrounding development and land uses. The approval criteria require assessment of the design and operating characteristics of the proposed development. The development is defined in the code as human-made change to improved or unimproved real estate. In this case, the design of the development includes primarily the buildings, paving, driveways, and parking. As such, the design of the development, height, size, and massing all meet the development standards, will be reasonable compatible with the surrounding development that includes other industrial uses, aviation uses, and business park development, as well as the library. The operating characteristics of the development are typical of what would be expected for aircraft uses on airport property in an industrial IP zone, and include such elements as on-site vehicle circulation, waste handling, lighting, et cetera. The operating characteristics and design address the building development and how it will operate. The criteria does not extend to airport operations, including takeoffs and landings, nor does it extend to noise and emissions, all of which are under federal jurisdiction and regulated by the FAA and the EPA. The final criteria is E, negative impacts of the development have been sufficiently minimized or mitigated.

As discussed, the use, airport hangers, is allowed in the zone on the airport property.

Under this criteria, we're limited to addressing the development, which is the built structures and improvements on the site per the Hillsboro Code definition of development. Other potential impacts that have been identified, such as noise and emissions, are not development and are not subject to review under the Hillsboro Development Code. To enhance the streetscape along Northeast Brookwood Parkway, extensive landscaping and a four to five foot high berms along the parkway are proposed, as well as the public plaza located near the intersection with Airport Road. Intervening development between the aircraft ramp area and development across Brookwood Parkway include the proposed six-foot masonry wall, the vehicle access driveway, the 35-foot landscape setback, and the 105-foot wide Brookwood Parkway right-of-way that includes two rows of street trees, four lanes of traffic, the median and median trees. Other development requirements of the proposal will be enforced through conditions of approval, including such requirements as closing the existing mid-block vehicle access, modifications to the existing signalization at the intersection, and signage and lane markings at the intersection. In summary, the Hillsborough Airport Master Plan was adopted through an extensive public process from 2017 through 2020, which identified this site for corporate aircraft hangars. In other words, the Master Plan identified this site for exactly this type of use. The comprehensive plan adopted both the IP zoning and the airport master plan. Aircraft hangars are an allowed use in the IP zone at the Hillsborough Airport. The proposal meets all development standards, including setbacks, height, building size, and all the development review requirements are met with conditions of approval. That concludes my presentation. I'm here to answer questions, and then Steve is gonna return as well.

Okay, so is there any more presentation that you wanna do? No?

A little bit? Steve has a short.

Steve, can you come up and do that? And then we'll ask questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. Again, for the record, Steve Holberg. I don't know if now is the time or later is the time to talk about our request to keep the record open to respond to a lot of evidence that was submitted today and that we have not had an opportunity to either digest or even review.

I would say that now is an acceptable time, though I would just request to also get a copy of that request in writing at some point before the end of the hearing.

Great, thank you.

I just wanted to touch on- I apologize, but before we move on from that, could you say specifically what that request would extend the timeline to?

Yes, we are looking at doing a somewhat typical 777, which I think would bring us out to the 15th or possibly extending that to the 6th, but I think our desire is September 15th.

Thank you.

And with that, we, if the record is so extended, we would also extend the 120-day period for an equal amount of time. But I will get that to you in writing so you have that.

I bother everybody with annoying logistics.

Yeah, we have to.

Thank you. So if we extended the 777 out to the 15th, that is the date of the council, a standard city council meeting. It's the second, third Tuesday. And the seven-day period would end at 5 p.m., which would then mean that you would have no time to look at anything, and you'd be back in that same place of not having any time to review. So there's two options available, moving to a standard city council meeting on October 6th, which would be the first Tuesday, or setting up a meeting a special city council meeting on September 29th. It's a very long month. That's five Tuesdays.

I lean toward October 6th. That would give us extra time to review all the material. Any other thoughts?

I'm sorry, you said October 6th?

Yeah, October 6th. Or we have a special meeting sooner. But we're looking at the opportunity to have... time to review whatever they submit.

And just to be clear, each individual would still have, I mean, we would have an initial open record period that would be seven days, a subsequent seven-day response period where members of the public could respond to any new evidence and arguments, and then a final seven-day rebuttal period where only the applicant could submit additional evidence and arguments. That's what the standard 777 is that the applicant's attorney is referring to.

Thank you. So is this council good with moving into October 6th?

Well, ultimately it's the applicant's decision. I'll just say.

That's on the date or that they want to continue?

All of the above.

All of the above. Okay.

Sounds good. Would the sound study be submitted during that time?

I will reiterate that I don't believe that a sound study is necessary. I will...

Go ahead.

I will speak with my client about the best way to respond to it, because I know it's the counselor's concerns. I'm a careful lawyer. I try to put myself into a corner.

Okay, so I think maybe I should rephrase my question. So the items that we had requested, for example, the sound study, that you're going to get some response back, those are part of the first seven-day period?

Yeah, it's going to be tight because seven days is only seven days. But to the questions that I've heard from the council tonight and the issues that we've addressed, we have heard from... the appellants as well as some of the testimony, we understand what those issues and concerns are and we will do our best to address them. And I will say this, is that The appellants have taken, I think, some things not fully in context from the application and have ignored additional testimony that was provided throughout the extensive hearing process. It wasn't like noise was just ignored. Noise was discussed. Operational characteristics were discussed. So we will make it very clear to the council what these issues are, where that evidence can be found in the record, and a suggested finding for that. I'll make it as easy as we possibly can for you.

Thank you. Councillor Oker.

And I just want to be sure that you're going to provide the impact studies that I requested.

I will do what we can in the seven-day period.

This is gonna be really important for us to get. I think you should prioritize providing everything that we're asking for you in order for us to consider the application. So I think that you should prioritize providing as much information as we're requesting so that we can make a decision.

I understand your statement. And if I got the words wrong, please correct me. But I think you said an environmental impact statement. And that is something that is outside the context of this application and the council's review. And those are complicated, lengthy studies that take far more than seven days to prepare.

I don't consider them outside context.

I understand your position.

I consider them very important. And I know they take a long time. And I doubt you're going to be able to provide that. I really am. Because I think if you and your appellants have discussed this, you would have already been working on this and not waiting for us to ask you for this. So it shouldn't be such a big deal what we're asking for. And it's not irrelevant. It's not irrelevant to the people of Hillsboro. It's not irrelevant to me. You're bringing more pines. You're bringing more leaded fuel. You say... that you can guarantee that they're not going to use leaded fuel. We can't get Port of Portland to do that. So this is serious. It is part of the application process, and it is an important aspect of the life of the people that are going to live here with the hangers that you want to provide. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Sinclair. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Kohlberg, I am going to add on. It is the environmental impact that I'm genuinely concerned for, as are all the residents. You had conveyed earlier when I asked you about categorical exclusion and you couldn't give an answer as to why the environmental or the noise impact studies weren't required. How can you not provide that if you can't give an answer to why the categorical exclusion occurred?

Because, Counselor, I don't know who submitted the form. And when I find that out, I will provide that information to you. I know there's a lot of cackles in the audience, but I have not been a part of everything that started months and months and months and months ago. So I will do my absolute best to get that information for you.

Yeah, and Mr. Colbert, please understand, I know there's a lot of pressure right now, but our residents are scared. It will have true and known consequences, and the residents are scared. That's what those reactions are for. And they take this very seriously to have this topic before all of us today. We're all bringing our time here and attention to this. If it wasn't for the public, we wouldn't be able to have this opportunity to talk openly like this. about lead emissions in our community that brings in nearly 1,200 pounds of lead emissions annually into our air. So I thank you for your patience as we all work through this. I do have one question. Mayor, is this appropriate time to ask one additional question?

Okay, hang on one second. So you are offering to continue this hearing? Is that what I'm understanding?

We are requesting not to continue. I do not want to continue the hearing.

Okay.

I am requesting that the record be left open for a period of time to allow us to submit evidence and testimony responsive to evidence that was submitted today.

So close the hearing, but still respond. Okay, Ashley?

So just to clarify, the applicant's burden is to extend the 120-day period, which is the time we have to make the decision in. Council can decide to, within that 120-day period, make the decision in whatever method you think is appropriate, which can, in this case, include continuing the hearing, keeping the record open only for additional evidence and arguments through the 777, and then returning to deliberate only, you can discuss and kind of weigh the pros and cons of any of those options. But you would have the ability to do that if and when the applicant extends the 120-day period for the clock.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay. Any other? Oh, Councillor Sergato.

Yeah, I have a point of clarification on where we're at in the meeting, but first I just want to remind everyone that we're all here to work out. We're all professionals. We all had to state our biases at the beginning, and I just want to remind everybody of all the trainings that you have took related to bias, and just be considerate of how you're engaging with our guests, because some people can interpret the way that you're engaging with our guests as operating in bias. So I just want to invite you to explore that for yourselves. Number two, Where are we at in the process of the meeting? Because at the beginning, we had a slide that said, you know, who do the four options, who do the decisions in front of the council? It seems like our guest here is open to bringing up some studies and doing some things, but we haven't been very clear about what those actual studies are. Like, what does this process look like moving forward so that we can stop kind of repeating the same things over and over and just move forward?

Yeah, not a problem. So from here, we are going to be able to ask the applicant any questions because they're going to finish their testimony. And then we move on to hearing from the public, if I remember correctly. Yes, testimony in support of the appeal and testimony against the appeal. And then we can deliberate.

Well, and then I'll just note that the appellant will have time for final responses from the appellant and also the applicant. And then questions for staff and then time to deliberate.

Yeah, so we have quite a ways to go.

Okay?

All right.

Mayor, I have one last question pertaining to studies. Sure. Mr. Kohlberg, will there be a traffic study pertaining to, the reason I ask this is the trips generated during peak hours, there'll be up to 30 vehicles at one time. Would you consider that to be increased the overall number of flights? Would you consider that 32 vehicles during peak hours as an increase of flights due to this project?

As an increase, I'm not sure that I understand the question entirely.

My apologies. During peak hours, there could be up to 32 vehicles at one time in flight. Do you consider that to be an overall increase of number of flights due to this project?

So my understanding of the 32, it was based on... It wasn't done as part of a transportation study to show the impacts because we're at 38, I think, or maybe it's 36, which is below the city's threshold. And that does not translate to additional flights or operations at the airport. It is not as if there are going to be 30 planes taking off. based on that. Those were apples and oranges to sort of back into what the parking should look like on the site. So the vehicle, the transportation was about cars. The transportation information was about cars, not flights.

Because I misinterpreted that then because in the presentation it said during peak hours I understood the vehicles to be the jets.

No, the vehicles are the vehicles that get a person from point A to point B to the airport or from the airport.

Okay, thank you. Thank you for that correction.

And just by comparison, and I don't know how accurate this number is, but I believe it is relatively accurate because it comes from city reports. So we're talking 36 peak hour trips. That means like during the rush hour generally, right? That is a minuscule amount of trips. We will quantify it, and there is already evidence in the record that the appellants have not addressed. We will readdress it, but I can guarantee you that is a infinitesimally small amount of trips based on other uses. I mean, the library across the street has something like 1,300 visitors a day, right? That's a lot more trips. This is tiny, and it's the reason that your code doesn't require a transportation impact study, because this is tiny.

Yeah, Mr. Kobach, I misunderstood the vehicles to represent jets, not automobile vehicles. So that was on my part of misunderstanding. Okay, we good? All right, are you good?

I'm going to call it. We have the opportunity to rebut at the end, and I'll save any time for that portion. Thank you. Councillors, thank you for your time and your questions. They were very helpful. Thank you.

Okay, we've been going for about two hours and 40 minutes. We're going to take a 10-minute break, so we'll come back at 9.50. So we're adjourning and we'll come back. All right, let's get started, please, so we can continue.

I can clear the clock, right? Yeah.

Yeah, clear it. Clear it.

And are we going to use that with rebuttals?

Yeah, we'll probably need it again.

I'll let you know, yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Okay, welcome back. We're going to, if you could please keep it down. Thank you.

We're going to start hearing from the public testimony in support of appeal A or B. So those people who support the appeal and who do not want the Sky Harbor development to happen. But before we move to that public testimony, I'd like to recognize Council President Harris.

Thank you, Mayor. I wanted to add one issue I was interested in, and I'd been considering it after reviewing all the materials, and I wanted to alert the parties to my interest in this. If you choose not to address it, it's up to you. As a retired lawyer, I hate it when judges tried my case for me, so I always sort of let the lawyers do it themselves. But I am interested in this one issue. I just want to give you an idea. It's the question of whether or not a second meeting was required under the development code. I question why it wasn't. I read the code, looks to me like there were changes made to the things that the code listed. Building height, building location, I know the configuration may not have changed, but the location certainly changed, the size of the site changed, the parking was changed, there was a building added. Again, arguably it was a design issue. I acknowledge that most of those changes actually benefited the community and were things that would have been supported by many because you didn't have to ask for any adjustments in that case. That was great. But under the development code, it looked to me like the thing that there should have been a second neighborhood meeting after this. And so I just wanted to raise that issue if anyone wants to address it. Thank you.

Okay, but we can address it later after the public testimony, because I know that there are people eager to testify. So there are folks here, again, we're going to start with public testimony in support of appeal A or B, either one. And again, this is in support of the appeal continuing and Sky Harbor development not happening. So the first person I'll call on is Carl Calkins, and on deck we have Jim Lubasher.

Yes. Hi. I was waiting for the end of the appellant's presentation to ask my questions and make my comments. And so I would prefer to do those before the public comment begins. And I understand that we took a recess, and so now it's awkward.

Yeah, if you have those questions, go ahead and ask them, but then they can answer them in rebuttal. Does that work? Is that okay, Ashley? Or can they come up and answer them now?

Well, we haven't technically moved into the testimony yet, so I think that's your discretion, Mayor, which one you prefer.

All right, so go ahead, Councillor Case, ask your questions. Sorry I didn't see you online before.

Uh, okay, just making sure I'm sorry I was taking notes. So, um, I think in in the, the presentations and everything that we have heard so far. Um, it seems to me that the appellant. Followed the rules that we have in our community development code and in our comprehensive plan. Um, but I appreciated councilor comments about, um, kind of things are changing rapidly in Hillsborough right now with data centers and with the airport and that some of these rules may be. We haven't had a chance or an opportunity yet to update and so I am, you know. We can't change the code. While we're going on with this, I guess that's probably more of a city question, but. So, for me, I think it's more than I'm curious for noise, environmental impact studies, carbon emissions, all of those things. Um, and so whatever, I guess the question is more of what is available. Um, and then what would be. Something new that we would want to do or request and is that even a possibility? So those are probably actually more staff questions. or things that the appellant can share in rebuttal of what they have available. And it sounds like from other comments that they may need to still figure that out.

And to be clear, the appellant or the applicant?

Applicant.

Applicant. Okay. I just want to make sure. All right.

Thank you. No, I think we have too many things going on in my notes. Sorry.

Yeah. Okay. So the first question is to staff. Do you want to restate your question or staff? Can you answer?

So if I'm hearing correctly, the question is, can we change the rules midstream versus discuss an interpretation of the rules? It sounds like there's a nuance there that you're thinking through. Yeah. Yeah, and that's a very good way to look at it. When an applicant comes in, they are guaranteed review under the rules that are in place. The council absolutely has the discretion, any review authority does, to look at those rules and decide what is the appropriate way to, regulations, what is the appropriate way to implement them. But then we're also required to have consistency in that implementation as well. I also agree with your statement that from a long-term perspective, I'm hearing a lot of the testimony is broader in scope about the airport in general, not just the hangars in particular. And that's something where the council can revisit the policies and the regulations for this particular type of use.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

I'll just add to that that technically we can, the one situation where we can change the rules midstream would be where the applicant requests. So that is a new regulation now, but that would be unlikely to happen here. Mm-hmm.

Sorry, can you repeat that statement again?

With all the feedback we're getting, yeah, I think there's more information that would be helpful, and I recognize that.

And otherwise, yeah, and otherwise we must apply the standards and procedures that are in effect at the date that the application was deemed complete.

Yeah, okay. The other question I had was there was In some of the emails that came through about flight path modeling and if I wasn't admitted omitted, excuse me So that can come up in the follow-up Question as well. So and then I have some questions for the city staff later, I think There is time for final questions there will be Okay All right, you good

Okay, all right, so we're gonna move on to public testimony. As I said, the first people coming up are in support of appeal A or B. First person to come up is Carl Calkins. Carl, are you still here? Right, come on up, Carl. And on deck is Jim Lubasher. So you'll have three minutes to testify and share your thoughts with us. Good evening, sir. If you could take a seat and turn on the mic so we can all hear you, and even the folks at home, if they could hear you as well. Yeah, sir, if you could please push the button on the console. Yeah, thank you so much for helping him. One more time. Yeah, just hit it. There you go. Okay. Great. Mr. Calkins, we can hear you now. Yes. And you have three minutes to speak. Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Retired from Tektronix for 30 years. U.S. Navy. I worked for an emergency response team, hazardous material team. My whole life is, I'll be 93 coming up. Anyways, my whole life has been on protecting the environment and public safety. In 2006, this here is what hit my neighbor's house and took the... her house out and took everything she had. These are the pictures from the Hunter Hawker and the pilot. So my worry is about working at Tektronix in a tank farm. We had hydrogen. We had everything there. I think Intel probably has the same thing. Now, when this plane went off course, it went over Intel. If it would have hit that tank farm, it could have been disastrous for all the neighbors around. And where this plane hit, my neighbor A DEQ allowed me to go in with my metal detector after one year. It was so polluted, the jet fuel in the ground, you could still smell it. I don't know what else to say. I'm just thankful nobody else was killed. But if it would have hit Intel, at Tektronix we had a monstrous hydrogen tank too. And being on the emergency response team, I always ask them, if that went off, what would happen is who would take out a big chunk of intel in the area where it was? And being on the emergency response team for 20 years, I was called in many times after I worked days in the evening, sometimes two or three times, because the chemical area where they had all the chemicals, the tank farm, the firemen wouldn't even touch it. The firemen would come in and back us up and we would take care of all the hazardous material. I just want to say we need to think about what's going to happen when you get old. Are you going to, what you're, what you, have today and what you pass will affect your children. The noise level, the noise level of these little babies, they don't know. And you don't know what's going to happen when they get old. I'm just blessed that I'm almost 93 years old and I have perfect eye vision and hearing.

Thank you very much, sir.

Can I take pictures of these? Sure.

Because you showed them and they need to get into the record.

All right, Jim Lubasher is next. Jim, is that you? All right, just hang on one second. And then Yousef Alouzi is on deck.

Thank you for your service.

Jim and then on deck is Yousef. Welcome. Your microphone is already on and you have three minutes.

Thank you. Good evening. To approve this project, criteria 7E must be satisfied. Criteria 7E requires that negative impacts such as exhaust from the aircraft Negative impacts need to be sufficiently minimized or mitigated. Now, the Planning Commission did not correctly address criteria 7E, I felt. They stated that air quality is not regulated by the Community Development Code and is not within the scope of this developmental review. Aircraft emissions are regulated by federal law and are subject to FAA requirements. So they just don't really get into that. And so they did not address criteria 7E. They just ignored 7E, which again demands that negative impacts of the development be sufficiently minimized or mitigated. They assume that since the FAA controls jet engines and their emissions, that they did not need to address the negative impacts of this project. And so they ignored criteria 7e. One, again, indisputable negative impact is the toxic air pollution. Now the council is obligated by criteria 7e to sufficiently minimize and mitigate this negative impact of jet-caused toxic pollution. I submit that should Council approve this project, I suppose, but they do need to address 7 , and they could say that to address that issue that they would stipulate or could stipulate that I'm sorry. They could stipulate that no jet departures or landings be allowed when there is insufficient wind to rapidly disperse the emissions of these aircraft. What I'm trying to say is that there is a way to minimize or mitigate the negative impact, and that would be to control when the jet can depart or land based on the wind, if there's insufficient wind, then they should not be able to take off for land. And that would be one way of mitigating their emissions. So I hope that sort of makes sense. I don't, I mean, if they approve this, I think they should. Thank you, sir.

Your time is up.

Okay.

Next up is Yusef, and then on deck is Britt Holloway. Yusef, the microphone is already on, and it's welcome. And as soon as you start speaking, you have three minutes.

Thank you, Mayor and Council, for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Yusef Helozy, resident and candidate for Tigard City Council. Some of you may wonder what a Tigard resident is doing all the way out here in Hillsboro. And that's a good question, but the answer becomes clear if you follow the proposed flight path of private billionaire jets back to our front door. I like to be at many of Tigard's nearly 550 acres of parks, trails, and green spaces. I take my two nieces to those same parks regularly. We attend organized community events there. We watch movies there. We meet other people and build community there. We hold birthday parties and play basketball there. And it's not only me. I've had the opportunity to sit on the front porches and couches of my fellow community members as they've told me over and over again how important the parks and outdoor spaces are for our community. When it recently came to light that the indicated impacts of noise and pollution were not accurately reflected in Sky Harbor's proposal to build a new billionaire jet hangar in Hillsboro, the community was rightly alarmed. As I'm running to represent that same community, I came here today to ask the council to reject the new billionaire jet hangar development at the Hillsboro Airport. Aside from the local testimony heard and the many written comments submitted, the proposed flight path for the additional 40 private jets intersects with Bull Mountain and West Tigard. As the airport is approximately 16 miles from the proposed flight path, that puts descending or ascending private jets at around 4,500 to 5,000 feet above our community, a number in stark contrast to a plane's typical 30,000-foot cruising altitude. As neighbors and collaborators, I'm asking the Hillsborough Council to work with Tigard and other impacted communities to identify and properly report the increased air, noise, and any other unidentified environmental impacts that will disproportionately affect our communities. So that billionaires can land a little closer to regional big business. Does the ability of billionaires to have quicker access to Hillsboro really need to come at the direct cost of my community, my family, my eight and ten year old nieces? Is that really the trade-off you're comfortable asking our communities to make? Thank you for your time.

Next up is Britt Holloway, and then on deck is George Jimenez. Britt, welcome. I believe you have to turn on your mic, please. And as soon as you start speaking, you have three minutes.

Excellent. Thank you for your time. I have fundamental objections to the Sky Harbor project as a Hillsborough citizen, but I have genuine concerns as a licensed mechanical engineer in the state of Oregon regarding the applicant submittal. One point of clarification, the applicant's counsel is incorrect in their assessment that the comparison to the parking garage exhaust impacts. According to the International Mechanical Code, Section 404.1, a computational fluid dynamics evaluation would need to happen. We do this very commonly. It's called an air study. And we would determine whether or not ventilation is required. On to the fun stuff. First red flag. was raised at the Planning Commission on May 13th. I spoke there, and immediately we saw conflicting information from the applicant regarding usage. It's already been touched on, but it went from 8 to 10 flights to 57 to 80. That's already insane. Okay. The environmental analysis piece. Now, I understand that the categorical exception is not something that we can override here, but the environmental analysis aligns with the goal of environmental stewardship for this council. on that environmental analysis which Salgado I will be submitting what a traditional environmental analysis has it's got like 12 different subsections along with my email with this but the three I'd like to point attention to is air quality noise and hazardous materials and pollution prevention the applicant and report misrepresent the impacts of SAF which is sustainable and aviation fuel. You may have noticed that they said that there's no lead. Well, there is still ultra-fine particles that are produced by these jet engines above our heads. There was a 2020 study by the National Library of Medicine that up to 10 kilometers down the road of airports, preterm births increased by 14%, along with chronic lung conditions and cancer. Additionally, and it does reduce the emissions by about 30%, still a significant number of emissions, to the point that depending on if we use 8 to 10 or 57 to whatever number they made up, it could add between 1.5 tons and 14.68 tons of CO2 to our local environment. Seeing that that requires no environmental assessment is hogwash. We've covered sound levels. I would like to clarify Supreme Court Burbank versus Lockheed included planes in flight, not planes in taxi. So that was misrepresented. The applicant checked that there were neighborhood medians materials. I did notice that they did not upload and abide by CDC 12.70.100 in Attachment A on page 5 that was uploaded on the 29th of October. October 2025. They did not include materials including the list of parties notified and the materials provided at the meeting and the signature sheet of attendees. I am lacking confidence in the applicant's good faith.

Thank you. Next up is George Jimenez. And is George here? OK. Next up is Devon Pena. Devon Pena. OK. Next up is Pat O'Connor. And on deck is Roxanne Gase. Is Roxanne here? Okay, then on deck is Joe Grule. So, Pat, is that you?

That's me.

Welcome. As soon as you start speaking, you have three minutes.

Thank you. I'm Pat O'Connor, and I want to say good evening to you all, and thank you for the time and energy that you're putting in this hearing. I've been listening. I've been reading information that's been shared among neighbors, and I've been listening to what's been shared tonight. uh... mainly what I my impression is is that the applicant is acting as if they're building a storage shed and it has no impact on anything anywhere in addition they want to make a taxi stand for private jets to be deployed elsewhere on a continuous basis, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, with no positive impact on the local communities. They thought they could get a bunch of yokels in Hillsboro to approve a storage shed for their jets and not look at the implications on the basis of what it would impact on the community. I've heard some very thoughtful comments and questions that tell me otherwise. that tell me people are looking at the big picture here and looking at both the impact and the benefit to this project to our local community. We have to live with it forever. They just get to make the profit from it. So I think it's really worthwhile to focus in on your mitigation and remediation aspect of your criteria. That is the legal basis on which you get to decide whether this fits into the future of Hillsborough and Washington County. A few little Things that have not been focused on, for instance, is the Hillsborough Fire Department equipped and trained to deal with two tanks full of the most volatile fuel that we have in the world, jet fuel. That's a huge impact. The impact on the community has been mentioned, the larger Washington County community. I'm on the jet path. as so many others have indicated they are, and that the original purpose of the Hillsborough Municipal Airport was for recreation and for air use that was of benefit to the local community. Let's keep it at home, let them make their stable someplace else.

Next up is Roxanne Grace. Roxanne? Next up is Joe Gilly. I'm sorry, it's not. Joe G, anyone? Okay, Danielle Culp. Danielle? Okay. Welcome, Danielle. Is Sarah Richmond here? Okay, you're on deck.

Danielle?

Yes.

Hi, your mic is on, welcome. And as soon as you start talking, you have three minutes.

Okay, thank you. I have a lot of points, we'll see how quickly I can speak. The first, someone brought up financial positives for a few.

I just want to- Please move the microphone closer so we can hear you. Sorry. You can actually move the whole console.

Okay.

Look at that, there you go, great.

I want to bring up the very real negative impact that will happen for the thousands of homes in the flight path, because you have to disclose noise from airplanes. So this is probably millions and millions and millions of dollars that is going to hurt the community. Secondly, in February of 2026, if I'm not mistaken, Hillsborough passed their climate action plan. So I understand that land use is one set of criteria that you need to make this decision. But to think that's the only one must be false. So not only from the Hillsborough climate action plan that probably is being violated, there are possibly other types of things from Washington County and Oregon itself. Okay. People also are bringing up the evolution of this airport and my sincere request, having lived in the area for 17 years and seeing myself and being impacted every single day, even before I understood that this is going to happen, my quality of life was already being impacted by these very low lying, very loud planes. And my question is, since the increase in air traffic, I really noticed it personally since the pandemic in 2020, but have there been any assessments done for pollution, air pollution, and for noise in general in the area? Has it been seen, despite the new threat Has it happened at all right now as it's seen? Because maybe it already is past some threshold that is acceptable. Lastly, the other lawyer brought up the car parking lot. I just would like to point out that in a car parking lot, Cars are required to go through DEQ, so therefore pollution. They also, if you take off your muffler, you're going to get a police ticket because there are noise ordinances, and you are not allowed to wake people up at all hours of the night. Cars also use roads. These are airplanes. They can go anywhere. So that kind of comparison is absolutely insane. Thank you very much.

Our next up is Sarah Richmond, and on deck is Michael Fredericks. Sarah, welcome. The microphone is already on. And as soon as you start speaking, you have three minutes.

Okay, great. I'm Sarah Richmond. I'm the lead appellant for appeal B. Glad to be here. And thank you to all of you and your support. And special thanks to Ruth, who's been just fantastic through this whole effort. And it's Ruth and the Planning Commission that really opened my eyes. I think I'm becoming a land use attorney myself through this whole process. And basically, and we heard it from the Sky Harbor attorneys and speakers, that effectively, and we heard it from one of the council members here, that effectively we hang our hat... on CDC 1280-040-H. I don't have it memorized yet. You'd think I would have by now. That's 12 lines of code, and it's the Community Development Plan approval criteria for land use. And that's what everybody's focusing on, and that's why they listed it and kept repeating it over and over and over again, right? Okay, it's limiting. It's very limiting. And we just heard from the last speaker, well, it's got to be better than that. Happily it is. It's happily it is. You guys as a city council, let me read you another fun code. This is your get out of jail free card. So, where is it? CDC 12.01-130, consistency with plan and laws, which states, all use or development of land or structures within the city limits of Hillsboro shall, shall comply with the Hillsboro Comprehensive Plan, the Hillsboro Comprehensive Plan. There's you go, right? The Hillsborough Municipal Code and applicable regional, state, federal, and local laws. So the Hillsborough Comprehensive Plan. Gosh, there must be some good Jules wonderful stuff in there that we could possibly use to consider about for this applicant and what we're dealing with. Let me read you a few juicy ones, and maybe you'll find some others when you go through it, right? Because you shall comply with it. How about this one? Policy AQ1.1, air pollutants. Incorporate best practices for improving air quality and community health into city planning and investment decisions in order to continue to meet and, where feasible and practical, strive to exceed federal and state air quality standards for criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. And the next one I really liked, and the reason why I got into the appeal is because of my dear friend who's like a mom to me, 86 years old, and has heart failure and PTSD. This one's a doozy. Policy AQ3.6, sensitive populations. Mitigate the health risks of criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants, and odors to sensitive populations by considering potential impacts when citing sensitive populations or polluting emitting land uses. You have a few doozies in there. You can use that. You can modify the Hillsborough Comprehensive Pound. Thank you. There you go. Hope it's helpful.

All right. Michael Frederick? Michael? Okay. Tracy Schlanser? Tracy? Okay. On deck is Karna Sheeth. Is Karna here? Great. Okay, so Tracy, your microphone is on. Welcome. Okay. And you have three minutes.

Good evening, Mayor Pace and City Council. My name is Tracy. I've lived on Cooper Mountain for 13 years. The existing and proposed flight paths to the Hillsboro Airport are in direct line over my house at 1,500 feet. I am in favor for appeal for Sky Harbor land use because in the last five years there has already been a significant increase in the number of flights in the Hillsboro Airport and this has become increasingly problematic for my family due to the noise and air pollution. For example, just this past Thursday, I was sitting there and I decided to take a log of the number of flights that were going overhead in one hour period. I counted eight flights overhead between the hours of 1.39 p.m. and 2.39 p.m. from inside my home. Those times were 1.39, 2.08 p.m., 2.09 p.m., 2.12 p.m., 2.14 p.m., 2.18 p.m., 2.21 p.m., and 2.38 p.m. Let me remind you there is no six-foot masonry wall that mitigates the noise in my home. Let me say that again. There is no six-foot wall that prevents that noise within my home. And then this past Sunday morning, it was dark outside, and I woke up to the sound of planes overhead. It was still dark. And then there was preceded by two more planes. Then my husband took our dogs out at 6 a.m., one of my dogs out at 6 a.m., and there were two more planes that had just on his 10-minute walk. Sunday was a very busy day. They were out all day, multiple times in the day, at all hours, including the evening, even at 10.45 p.m. Now, due to the sheer volume of flights that already exist, it would be devastating to the communities to increase that traffic and noise air pollution. I have to deal with the aftermath in regard to a chronic illness that I have, and I have to detoxify those air pollutants. As seen in my medical exams, there's been an increase in the last five years in correlation with the airport traffic. could be related. Also, I have a dog that runs inside every time a flight goes overhead. These flights are 1,500 feet above my house. I cannot get my dog to go outside and go to the bathroom. She runs inside. I have to take her to another neighborhood because the flights are so invasive and problematic to our family. Thank you. This is not a way to live as it exists now.

Thank you.

Please appeal.

Next up is Karna Sheeth, and on deck is David Barnes. Is David Barnes still here? Yes, okay.

Thank you.

Karna, welcome.

Your microphone is on, and you have three minutes. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Mayor Pace. Thank you, Council President Harris, for allowing me the chance to testify. I wanted to address two areas of the CDC code. One is with respect to neighborhood meetings. There was only one neighborhood meeting held in October 2025, which had an original proposal. Since then, there were major revisions done until the May 2026. But there was no second neighborhood meeting, which according to the CDC 12.70.100.D requires a second neighborhood meeting if there were revised application is submitted. The second I want to talk about is on the environment and the greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Hillsboro Airport Master Plan, research has shown that there's a direct correlation between fuel combustion and greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, sources that require fuel or power at an airport are the primary sources that would generate greenhouse gases. The same master plan states that in the environmental review prior to initiating projects, a review of current climate impacts will examine the effects of any proposed development on greenhouse gas emissions. You can find that in the Appendix E of the Hillsboro Airport Master Plan. Unfortunately, an environmental review on Sky Harbor project never occurred despite a huge increase in greenhouse gases that will occur if this project moves forward. The same section states that in 2016, HIO emitted 4,000 tons of CO2 and estimated by 2036, these emission levels would increase to 5,700 tons. This figure does not begin to account for the additional 30 or more jets into the mix. As reported by the International Council on Clean Transportation, a typical private jet emits about 810 tons of CO2 in a typical year. Multiplying 810 tons by 30 gives you 24,000 tons of CO2, much, much higher than the 5,000 that the HIO master plan anticipated by 2036. Though the port claims that members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the Sky Harbor development six to eight years ago during the master planning process, there was no indication at that time of the substantial increase in CO2 produced by a project of this magnitude. Sky Harbor did not provide any mitigation strategies for CO2 emission, noise, criteria pollutants, or air toxins. As a result, it failed to meet the CDC 12.04 040.807E requirement demonstrating that negative impacts of the development have been sufficiently minimized or mitigated. Therefore, the Planning Commission's approval of this application should be overturned and our appeal should be upheld. Thank you very much.

Next up is David Barnes. On deck is Mickey Barnes. David, welcome. Your microphone is on. You have three minutes.

Thank you, Mayor Pace, Council President Harris, and Councillors. The Hillsboro Climate Action Plan has a community greenhouse gas inventory for the calendar year 2022. A study done by the Good Company, a division of Parametrics, and it found that transportation accounted for 29% of local greenhouse gas emissions that year, a total of 482 metric tons. 7% of those emissions were attributed to Hillsborough Airport fuel use. The city's greenhouse gas report findings are four times greater than the port's estimate for 2036. and five-and-a-half times greater than the 2016 levels reported in the HIO Master Plan. This is quite a discrepancy. To the City's credit, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan identified ways to reduce emissions by emissions released by passenger freight and commercial vehicles by investing in public transit options, bicycling, walking, EV, charging stations, and renewable diesel. You'll notice that aviation is not mentioned Private jet travel on a per capita basis is one of the most carbon intensive modes of transportation on the planet. The Sky Harbor Hangar proposal runs counter to the city's stated commitment of reducing greenhouse gases and in many ways obliterates the efforts of responsible residents who are proactively reducing their carbon footprint by driving less, transitioning to hybrid and electric vehicles, using public transit, walking and bicycling more. By contrast, studies reveal that each of the 256,000 people worldwide who own private jets produces nearly 500 times more carbon dioxide in a year than the average person. Since the applicant failed to provide any mitigation strategies to address their greenhouse gas emissions, as well as criteria pollutants and air toxins that will be released as a result of this development, it fails to meet CDC 1280-040-H7D and thus should be overturned. Thank you.

stuff is uh... mickey barnes and on deck is to reset say good evening uh... mayor pace chair harris members of uh... uh... council thank you for this opportunity to see uh... i i i do want to mention here and i don't have you know a lot to bring forward on it but in the clean air act It distinguishes between a stationary pollution site and a mobile site. And something's being lost here in just looking at hangars as though they're not housing mobile aircraft that could pollute the entire area. So I want to mention that according to the FAA airport and land use compatibility document, libraries located within above the 65 decibel range are not compatible with airports. Now, What happened here is we go back to the categorical exclusion. There was a question there that said, will this project include more than 700 jet operations per year? The answer the port submitted to the FAA was no. They said no. Now to put this in perspective, the applicant themselves estimated that 60% of the Sky Harbor jets would be active on any given day. Assuming one takeoff and one landing for 18 aircraft per day will add 13,140 takeoffs and landings per year. 19 times more than the 700 operational count that could have triggered a noise analysis. In addition, there are already far more than 90,000 annual propeller operations at HIO. Clearly, it is well beyond time for a comprehensive analysis of HIO noise impacts. I want to mention here that that airport has been, it was established in 1928. In that entire nearly a century that that airport has existed, there has never, never been an environmental impact statement done for that airport. Instead what the port does is these categorical exclusions or findings of no significant impact and they try to break it into a little parcel and say this is no big deal. It is a big deal and there are cumulative impacts and it's time for the port to be honest with this community about what is going on at the Hillsborough Airport. So I want to thank you again for your time and I urge you to deny this application. Thank you.

Next up is Teresa. On deck is Brett Hamilton. Because you've already spoken, Brett. All right. So hang on one second. Hang on one second, Teresa. Okay. Okay, so Gemma Fleener, you are on deck. Teresa, welcome back. Thank you. And your mic is on and you have three minutes.

Okay, fraud. Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, A, specifically an act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right. B, an act of deceiving or misrepresenting. This entire Sky Harbor hangar's proposal is full of fraud. First fraud, Sky Harbor lied on its application that there will be no environmental impact on our community. Private jets emit at least ten times more pollutants per passenger than commercial planes. Jet fuel runoff into Dawson Creek, where there are thousands of residential and migratory wildlife, including birds, ducks, geese, squirrels, etc. Water from Dawson Creek eventually drains into the Tualatin River watershed, which provides drinking water for over half a million people. Second fraud, Port of Portland submitted false information to the FAA specifically to avoid doing a mandatory environmental assessment. No noise analysis, no environmental review. Third fraud, behind closed doors without a single public meeting, the Port and FAA quietly rubber stamped a categorical exclusion. They declared by decree that pumping thousands of tons of toxic emissions into the air has no significant effect. Fourth fraud, Hillsborough Planning Commission greenlit this proposal after more than 100 concerned citizens documented safety and environmental concerns. That is not governance. This is a chain of deceit. This proposal installs 40,000 gallons of jet fuel sitting across from our public Brooklyn library, which sees half a million visitors a year, most of them children. And if the tank goes kaboom, we'll be world famous. Hillsborough Airport, home of crispy kids and roast duck. Bad joke aside, the citizens of Hillsboro, citizens of Washington County, are not surrendering our right to live in a quiet and clean community. So I urge you, Hillsboro Council City members and Mayor Pace, granting permission by deceiving the people who have to live with the consequences is fraud. The Sky Harbor Hangers proposal shall not pass. Thank you.

Next up is Gemma Fleener, and on deck is Cynthia Westby. Gemma, welcome. You have three minutes. Your microphone is on.

All righty. Good evening, Mayor, Councillors, friends. Thank you for hearing this appeal and for the opportunity to comment. For the record, my name is Gemma Fleener, and I proudly serve as the first vice chair of the Washington County Democrats. And I'm here tonight speaking on behalf of the party, and the Washington County Democrats are in the house. In June, our party's central committee passed a resolution with an overwhelming majority in support of the appeal and in opposition to the Sky Harbor project. Our resolution is in your packet, somewhere in that massive document. Sky Harbor's jet hub at the Hillsborough Airport represents everything that our party is against. environmental degradation, air pollution, noise pollution, water pollution, burning massive amounts of fossil fuels, climate change, harm to public health and watersheds and wildlife, income and wealth inequality, and the use of public land for private gain. This proposal represents a transfer of wealth from Oregon to Wall Street, from us, the working class, to the billionaire class. Private jets are 100% exempt from paying these property taxes, and we confirm this with the County Department of Assessment and Taxation. The county does not benefit from these jets being based here. Our communities get all the downsides, the pollution, getting woken up at night, while out-of-state jet owners get all the perks. Not to mention that half of the time these jets will fly empty. I was just at a party in Hidden Creek Park not even two weeks ago when a private jet flew overhead and left the entire park smelling of jet fuel exhaust. This left me wondering how much these jets are poisoning our air. The activities of this hangar would further impact our community's parks. This proposal does not align with the climate change goals of the city of Hillsboro. Thanks to you, leaded aviation fuel is on the way out. But this jet hub, if approved, will be here for generations. Is that the legacy you want to leave behind? This is not for the good of the community. I urge you to reject the Sky Harbor project. Hillsboro is better than a billionaire's parking lot. Thank you.

Next up is Cynthia Westby. And on deck is Leslie Logan. Cynthia, welcome. Your microphone is on. And when you start speaking, you have three minutes.

Thank you, Mayor Pace, council members. As Mayor Pace said, I'm Cynthia Westby. I'm a homeowner and I live in the Jones Farm neighborhood in Hillsborough. And I'm absolutely stunned that one company catering to 30 individuals who don't live in Hillsborough are considered more important and valuable to the Hillsborough Land Commission than the thousands of people whose neighborhoods are in close proximity. to the airport and who will be forced to suffer the noise of 30 private jets at any time of day or night and their deeply damaging pollution fallout. These planes will primarily fly in the early morning or late at night with no passengers 50% of the time, ruining our sleep for the benefit of out-of-state billionaires wanting a place to park. Why would we want to support this? These 30 jets would have the right to fly in and out with no limit on operating hours of flights per day while we citizens endure not only their deafening noise, the shocking amount of pollution during takeoff to our air quality, but also the noise and flights will impact the many thousands of birds we have carefully attracted and encouraged to see Hillsborough as a safe place to forage, hunt, and nest with our plentiful wetland areas set aside to support those birds who live in and migrate through this region and bring us such joy. Early morning is when the birds are most active, the time when these planes will most likely be taking off. These 30 jets' noise and pollution will reduce our property values. Who will want to buy our homes when we put them on the market knowing they will live under the barrage of deafening air traffic, preventing their sleep, and diminishing the peace and tranquility of our neighborhoods and homes? Meanwhile, we will have the stress of knowing our sleep will be constantly interrupted with the exceptionally loud passage of planes during these early morning and late evenings when we intend to sleep, rest, and rejuvenate. What possible benefit would there be for any citizen of Hillsborough? None. The only beneficiaries of this jet hub will be the owners of the jets in Sky Harbor who will receive the rent for the hangers for those jets. Yet we, the citizens, will endure the brunt of the noise, pollution, lost property values, and greatly diminished quality of life. The Sky Harbor facility is also in direct conflict with the Hillsborough environmental stewardship goals as outlined in the Hillsborough Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the goal is to encourage the reduction of fossil fuel use, improve air quality, and reduce carbon emissions. Private jets are the most carbon intensive mode of passenger transportation, burning 1,000 gallons of fuel in the first 30 minutes of flight. I strongly urge the City Council to overturn the Hillsborough Planning Commission's decision and deny the Sky Harbor Jet Hub development. Thank you.

Next up is Leslie Logan. Welcome, Leslie. And on deck is Anita Derry. Leslie, your microphone is on, and you have three minutes.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor and City Council members. Good evening. I was here for the public hearing on May 27th. I remember looking around the room, wondering why more people weren't here to speak against the Sky Harbor proposal. Then I remembered. People did not know about it. People had not been informed. It's not that people didn't care. It's that they didn't know. Here tonight, a lot of people have gotten tired, but they were here because they care. And we are here tonight because we care. And for those people whose names were called and wanted to comment, I wish they'd been here to comment. You know a lot of what we're saying tonight, and it's the same things that we're saying over and over. Thousands of citizens were not informed. Concerns about the flight path, not the airport, not the hangars, that seems to keep being a focus of Sky Harbor, and when I was here before, it's what a lot of the questions from the council were about. But really, what we're talking about is the impact on thousands of Oregonians in the flight pattern, noise pollution, air pollution, property values, carbon emissions, health impact. And another concern is it's been a seriously flawed process with missing and inaccurate information, for example, a missing environmental impact statement. I'm noticing that you're all doing a great job of staying with us, even though you're hearing the same things and it's late. But I also want to say that you're hearing those things over and over because they're valid, they have truth, and they're what we feel. We are not rote communicators. We are active, concerned citizens. So I ask you, oh, before I get to my last statement, I'd just like to say I really noticed that Sky Harbor's lawyer couldn't say how this would benefit the community. I think that's very telling. And also when the issue of noise was raised, the only comment was that it was disgust. That doesn't say much for considering the impact on all of us. So I ask you to consider who you're going to give your attention to. A small number of polluting wealthy few or to thousands of Oregonians standing for clean air, quality of life, and a voice in the process. I ask you to make a decision worthy of the people you represent and thousands of your own Oregonian other citizens. Thank you.

Okay, next up is Anita Derry, and on deck is Matthew Van Horn. Anita, welcome. Your microphone is on, and you have three minutes as soon as you start speaking.

Hello, Mayor and council members. Jane Goodall said, what you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make. I come before you today to oppose Sky Harbor with the request urging you to support the people in the city of Hillsboro, and especially those that live and work closest to the Hillsboro Airport, who will be the most directly impacted by the Sky Harbor group, seven hangars and two 20,000 gallon fuel tanks. The nearby local people who live and work and who will hear the noise and breathe and smell the fumes and have to cope along with their children and animals the environmental adverse impacts along with the rest of us who live under the fight path. I'm in Tigard. We're being impacted by carbon producing toxic fuels that are absolutely affecting our climate and the health and the well-being of multiple communities around the world. Sky Harbor CEO Tal Keenan is transparent about serving the ultra-wealthy private jet owners in establishing luxury, private, home-based jet hangars throughout the U.S. that will serve their jets and also personal needs for privacy, security, efficiency, and amenities. This is to address, he says, the infrastructure shortage crisis for these jets and their owners. The luxury hangar space will also be used for non-aviation uses, such as venture capitalists. Currently, Sky Harbor Group has 22 home-based operating in the US with over 4 million square feet. He stated, our publicly stated goal is 10 million square feet, although I frankly see no reason to stop there. They list Hillsboro as in development. He says, every time we open a hangar, that is $5 to $10 million step up in our revenues. You will see that revenue ratcheted up as we open new facilities. This was in a Fox News interview in August. Regarding AI customer related increases, his response, 37 new billionaires have been minted in the last 12 months in Silicon Valley. And now, as a result, we are comfortable with expanding in California due to this. With new billionaires, there is a progression from commercial airlines to charter, jet cards, fractional ownership, and they usually end up outright ownership. As for jet owners, the tax break, in 2017 made permanent in the big beautiful bill, 100% bonus depreciation of private jet purposes when used for business. Thank you, your time is up. Thank you for listening. I really hope you rule in favor of the bill.

Thank you. Matthew Van Horn, Matthew. Oh, there you are. Great. All right. And then on deck is Adam Bauer. Matthew, welcome. Your microphone is on. And as soon as you start speaking, you have three minutes.

Good evening, counsel. I wanted to take the time to speak about the Sky Harbor hangar development. I am in full opposition of the construction of a hangar for business jets in the Hillsborough Airport, meaning, in other words, I am in support of both appeals. That is really confusing, but you get what I'm saying. According to the Institutes for Policy Studies and the International Council on Clean Transportation, private jets produce at least 10 times more pollutants than commercial planes per passenger. They produce 810 tons of GHGs, which is the same as 177 passenger cars or nine class 8 heavy duty trucks. Really think about that comparison. Maybe, I don't know, maybe it's apples to oranges, but whatever. It's no surprise, then, that Instead of going through a standard environmental impact review and getting their project inevitably denied, they instead requested a categorical exclusion. They claimed that by some miracle, the additional capacity for 30 business jets won't affect the surrounding area's noise pollution. It takes barely any common sense to understand that this is blatantly untrue and misleading. Additionally, I've been told that the related fees for runways, taxiways, air traffic control towers and controllers, and other infrastructure is paid for by commercial airline passengers. I will repeat myself. Commercial airline passengers are expected to cover the costs of this project's runways, taxiways, air traffic control towers, and air traffic controllers. You would think, then, that this project would be to extreme benefit our community. I mean, we're paying for it. But this couldn't be further from the truth. Fitting only 30 private jets in one hangar means that at best this project is putting like, I don't know, 30, 40 billionaires in and out of our city per day. In summary, this project dodged an environmental examination because they knew they wouldn't pass and pushed most of the involved costs onto commercial flyers, all to benefit the richest few who will drain resources from our community until there is nothing left to drain. Sky Harbor would be yet another step towards a version of Hillsboro that only serves the richest few. Mayor and Council, all I ask is that you think ahead and consider your constituents. Thank you.

Next up is Adam Bauer, and on deck is Chris Perkham. Adam, are you here? Going once. Chris, are you here? Couldn't say Pinkham. Pinkham, yes, Chris Pinkham? Yeah, that's me. Okay, sorry. Welcome, Chris. Your microphone is on, and as soon as you start speaking, you have three minutes.

Understood. Well, it's not the first time I've been here from Cooper Mountain to complain about what you're doing here in Hillsboro. I heard 1,500 feet above our heads, planes flying. Sounds about right. I feel like if I were a little bit further back, I could look into the cockpit and see the pilot myself, tell him what's up. So here's the thing. I don't see, obviously, how it's a benefit. I look at the presentation from the appellate. No. No lawyers, right? I noticed that they claim that 1 to 1.2% is their projected increase in traffic. And I think as basically an asterisk, little addendum, one of them presented, well, that's assuming, of course, that all of the planes that are already there just go into the other hangar. And we don't get any new planes. That was kind of my interpretation of that whole thing. You know what you don't do? You don't build a new hangar and fill it with some planes from over here and say, oh, well, this one's vacant. We'll just leave it like that. That's good. That's good stuff. This whole thing is obviously not a benefit. And I think my parting remarks would be, I took a step out on Friday. And I enjoyed some nice, peaceful woodlands. And instead, I got this. And this is just, oh, it's really disappointing. I thought it was going to play. Anyway, it was a fucking plane, right? It was loud.

Please don't curse. Thank you.

I'm sorry. That must have been very disruptive. Thanks.

All right, next up is Suzanne Kay. Suzanne Kay. Okay, and on deck is Heather Long. Welcome, Suzanne. Your microphone is already on, and you have three minutes.

All right.

Okay.

Good evening. I ask that you stop the Sky Harbor project. This $38 million project will provide a flight base for out-of-state billionaires with no limits on operating hours or number of flights per day. This project only benefits the private jet owners. I don't see any benefits to our community. Keeping the community in the dark about controversial projects and rushing them through the approval processes seems to be the way this city operates. The same approach was used to approve over 35 data centers. This pattern of rushing through the approvals without taking the time to do any kind of research on the economic, environmental, and health impacts is reckless and irresponsible. According to the EPA, Hillsboro Airport is ranked eighth for having the most lead polluted airport in the country. In the country, an increase in the number of flights will only make our pollution problems worse. What will be the impact on our health when the toxins from the jet fuels reacts with the air pollution from the data centers? Those of us who live near both the airport and the data centers will be affected by twice the amount of toxins in the air that we breathe. I recently discovered that Sky Harbor's chairman and CEO, Tal Kanin, has connections to the top levels of the Israeli government and the mafia. Tal has worked with a guy who was an economic advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and he is on the board of a nonprofit policy think tank and lobby organization with ties to the Israeli government. Tal is the chairman of a nonprofit that, get this, provides credit to entrepreneurs who cannot qualify for traditional bank credit. Doesn't that sound shady? Tal is also on the board for the Steinhardt Foundation and works with a billionaire, Michael Steinhardt. Let me tell you about Michael. Michael's father bought and sold stolen jewelry for the most powerful crime family in New York and New Jersey. Michael's college education and his first hedge fund business in 1967 was funded by his dad's mafia associates. His business helped the mob launder their money into Wall Street. In 2019, Michael was accused of sexual assault by seven women. In 2021, Michael settled out of court for $700 million to avoid criminal prosecution for acquiring stolen ancient artifacts through a network of international traffickers. Will Mr. Steinhardt and his associates be coming to Hillsboro on their private jets? It seems that Hillsboro's city government must have been given an offer they couldn't refuse. Thank you.

Next up is Heather Long, and then on deck is Chris Armstrong.

Unprepared, but pissed. I've heard every single one of those jets that flew over Cooper Mountain over the weekend that had Tracy and her dogs in a fit. My autistic son hears those planes and has his own fits. I am a nurse. I spend my time caring for people. So I wanted to bring a nurse's perspective to this decibel question that nobody's brought up the decibels that we're talking about. So when jets take off, they take off with 130 to 150 decibels. of sound coming at your ears. And I want to kind of zoom in to that Brookwood Library where, as Sky Harbor has said themselves, 1,300 people a day visit this. People commute past this on bikes. People walk Chute Park. And people, like my own kids, spent hours practicing learning how to ride bikes around those little ponds that they have right next to the library. We have set that place up in such a beautiful way that there are benches for people to sit on and feed the ducks. And now we're exposing them. potentially with Sky Harbor, plus those 1,300 people visiting the library every day, to decibels of 130 to 150 decibels for each takeoff. And when the planes come in for a landing, for one nautical mile, it's over 100 decibels. So in perspective, what this does to your hearing. the pain threshold human pain threshold starts around a hundred and ten to a hundred and twenty decibels hearing damage so exposure to a hundred and forty decibels causes immediate trauma to the person hearing again not prepared 110 decibels is what you get at a rock concert, a loud concert, a sporting event. People wear ear protection at that, and they put ear protection on their children because it can cause damage in minutes. 120 decibels... like a gunshot or a siren, can cause instant damage or pain. And that's just the immediate consequences. We have long-term damage that can happen with those 100 decibels that you could be getting from these airplanes. Not just the ones over my head, but all those people going in and out of the library.

Next up is Chris Armstrong. On deck is Tracy Schultz, or Scholes. Chris, you have three minutes.