City Council - Special Meeting

I'll call the special meeting of the city council to order at 5:29. Claudia, 5:30. Okay, wait one minute. Sorry. 5:30. I'm calling the meeting to order at 5:30. Claudia. Councelor Tokolski. Councelor Chennowith here. Councelor Benner here. Councelor Giri. Good evening, councelor Cunningham here. Council President Peralta here. Mayor Morris here.

Councelor Takowski is just a couple minutes out so he'll be here. Tonight we have a public hearing and the public hearing is to consider ordinance number 5175 an ordinance memor memorializing the city council's decision for empower appeal of the planning commission's denial of sign exception SE1-25 planning docket AP2-26 the order of the procedure for tonight's hearing is set out in detail in our city code in brief we will start with the staff report next the applicant and appellant will be asked to provide testimony. Next, the public will be asked to provide testimony. Testimony will be first be taken from those testifying in support of the application, then from those testifying in opposition to the application. The applicant appellant will then be given time to respond to and or rebut any evidence presented. After the staff report and after testifying, the people testify, counselors may pose questions to the mayor to be addressed to the person who testified or to staff to clarify any information that was conveyed in the testimony. I will ask everyone who signed up in advance to testify first in the order in which they signed up. Then I will ask if anyone present at the civic hall would like to testify. And then I will ask anyone who is on Zoom who has not testified but would like to testify to do so. Once the city council has heard from everyone and the city council is satisfied it has all the information it needs to render a decision, the city council will close the hearing on deliberations and will occur during the agenda item 7A of the regular city council meeting consideration of number 5175. We wish to hear from everyone who wants to testify. However, we request that you refrain from repeating testimony already given by someone else.

If you agree with what someone before you has said, but you also want to ensure you have legal standing in the public record, please provide your testimony indicating you concur with what has previously been said. Public testimony will be limited to three minutes. We will time the testimony and provide you with visual warning when there is one minute remaining. Since this is a legal process for considering a land use decision, we need you to state your name and address for the public record so you can receive a written notice of the city council's final final decision. We ask that you keep your documents relevant to the discussion and concise. A staff report was published seven days before the hearing and it identifies all the applicable criteria. Testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed towards those criteria or other criteria in the plan or of plan use regulation which the person believes to apply to the decision. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the board based on that issue. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient spec spec specificity that is always a hard one for me to say to allow the local government or its designate to respond to the issue will preclude an action for damages in circuit court. This public hearing is a quasi judicial hearing to consider ordinance 5175. This ordinance memorial memorializing the city's council's decision for empower appeal of the planning commission's denial of sign exception SE1-25 planning document on the docket AP2-26. The property is located at 750 Southwest Booth Bin Road, tax slot R4429026.

The applicant is Shayla Wolf Howell of Empower. The public hearing is open. As a reminder, following the staff report, we will hear from the applicant, appellant, then public testimony will be limited to three minutes per person. Does anyone wish to object to the jurisdiction of the city council to hear this matter? Does any counselor wish to make any disclosure abstain from participating or voting on this application? I have one.

Councelor Takulski. Yeah, I just want to state for the record I've been in the facility both uh day and night and all throughout it. So, it's not going to affect it, but I just wanted people to know I've been there. Thanks. Any other counselor? I just want to state I've been to a power empower. I have talked to Shayla a year ago, I think May of 2025. Um and I was um made aware of a post I don't know if anybody else saw in regards to social media from our planning commission uh one of the members of our planning commission but none of those will affect my decision tonight. Anything else? Okay. Have any counselors visited the site?

Yeah. Thank you. Um, does any counselor wish to discuss their visit to the subject site? Okay. Does any counselor need to declare any contact prior to this hearing with the applicant or any other party involved in this hearing? I just did. Anybody else? Okay. Uh, will community development Oh, let's see. Will community development director Richards please give a presentation of the land use application? I need a break.

Thank you, mayor and counselor. So, before we begin, I just had a quick process question for Missy. Missy Ryan is online. She is our uh uh special legal uh land use attorney that uh helps us. Um the social media post that was just referenced, Missy, we have not entered that into the record. Should we be doing that?

Thank you, uh Heather. That's an experte contact, so it does not need to be entered into the record. But I do want to suggest that um if we could just go back 30 seconds and if the mayor could just ask anyone who's present either in the room or on Zoom if they would like to rebut or respond to the substance of that exparte disclosure and also the site visits that'll that'll complete the city's statutory obligation. Okay. Does anybody on the council or in the room want to dispute or rebut? I guess rebut respond to respond to

I just wanted to ask question respond to the social media post. Councelor Peralta. Thank you. Just to clarify, I didn't visit inside the facility. I've visited the exterior both sides. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Anybody else? Nope. Um, Sedona, we will need you to use a microphone.

Hi Oops. Sydney Winfield, 549 Northwest Birch Street. I was advised by council that I could participate after our planning commission meeting as a private citizen of McMinnville. I posted the social media post as my personal Okay. Um social media um I have no idea how much it was shared, but it went off as my personal individual um social media post and not as any any anything to do with the planning commission. Okay. And that was city council, our city councelor, council, and additional counsel. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other comments? Thank you. Okay.

Um, also I wanted to make sure to enter into the record that we have received four um pieces of public testimony in the last 24 hours that we have sent to US city council that were not in the staff report and will be posted tomorrow. Um, those letters of testimony was one from the McMinnville Area Chamber of Commerce, one from McMinnville Economic Development Partnership, one from Sidon Winfield, and one from David Bates that went to councelor Giri and was forwarded to the rest of the counselors. So, tonight you have a a public hearing to consider an appeal of a planning commission uh decision. It was a denial of a si of an application to have an exception to our sign standards uh relative to docket number SE1-25. I'm going to introduce the uh presentation and then tag team it with Matthew as we walk through the planning commission decision for you. So what's important for you to know is um you are look you are reviewing what's being appealed is the planning commission's decision and findings. So the findings document that you have that's an attachment to the ordinance and that's also in the um staff report and meeting materials are the findings of the planning commission that walk through every step of the criteria and why they found the way they do. Um and that's that's the uh document that's being appealed tonight. You can go to next. So, empower is appealing the decision of the planning commission relative to their application for this exception to the sign standards. They the exception they want is to allow a standalone 300 square foot electronic changeable copy sign. For an exception, empower must provide proof. So, the burden of proof is on them. must provide proof that they meet that they need the exception based on the standard and threshold of need defined in the criteria of the code for

exceptions. So we have we have tests in our code to demonstrate that we will allow an exception to our sign code based on different hardships that are being identified and then there needs to be proof that those hardships are being realized. So the planning commission decision their findings was that the sign proposed is actually a video sign and you have the definition of a video sign in your staff report. The vid the definition of the video sign comes from our code. It's considered electronic changeable copy sign. So it's a type of electronic cable changeable copy sign. This is going to be hard for me all night. ECC sign. Um and but it's not allowed in our code. It's a prohibited sign and the definition for is that it has the capacity to be a video sign and it has the capacity to have both horizontal and linear uh graphics. So despite the applicant's assurance that some of the mechanics would be turned off, that wasn't the the the planning commission found that that wasn't the that didn't meet the definition of a of making it not a video sign because it has the capacity to be a video sign. So it is still considered a standalone electronic changeable copy sign with both vertical and horizontal video capacity. That was the first finding of the planning commission. So, as a video sign being prohibited in our sign code, the test for it to be able to allow it to uh to allow someone to use a prohibited sign in our sign code is that they need to uh demonstrate loss of all economically viable use of the property and or substantially interfere that not having the sign substantially interferes with the owner's use of the property. So the planning comm commission found that empower did not provide adequate proof of that type of hardship warranting the need for a 300 square foot prohibited

sign. So they didn't provide the proof that there was loss of all economically viable use of the property or that it substantially interfered with the owner's use of the property. Now, the applicant argues that it's not a video sign because they even if it has the capacity and there is an argument for the definition of capacity both in the planning commission's findings as well as the appellants uh appeal, but that that it's not a video sign. Uh the sign proposed is not a video sign, but it's an electronic changeable copy sign. And that's the based on their assurance that some of the mechanics would be turned off. They wouldn't use it the way that it that it could be used. But even with that, the planning commission found that it is still a standalone electronic changeable copy sign that's not encapsulated with another sign, which is not allowed. So in the McMinnville Municipal Code, an electronic changeable copy sign is only allowed when it's part of another sign. So either a freestanding sign, so that be a sign on a pole, or a wall sign, so it's part of another sign and not a standalone sign. And so from that basis, the planning commission determined again that they did not meet the criteria of a prohibited sign for um getting an exception to our sign code. The planning commission also found that if the city decided that it was an electronic changeable copy sign. So we're saying that it doesn't actually need to be part of another sign as defined by the code and that it's just a request for a larger sign from 24 square feet to 300 square ft. that they still didn't meet the test of uh the the required test for the exception for what would be an allowed sign but having a a substantially different infrastructure allowance for it. So going from 24 ft to 300 square feet is something like 12 and a half times the size of the sign. So the planning commission determined they the test to for that determination is

that they need to show that there is an unnecessary hardship. So, not being able to have that they're not able to do what they want to do with the 24 square f foot allowance and that they need the 300 foot allowance as their minimum allowance to do what they need to do otherwise it's an unnecessary hardship on on the property. Um that also and these are all three together. So, all three need to be determinations that there is also no material damage or prejudice to other properties in the area and that the request will not be detrimental to community standards. So, the planning commission found that they did not demonstrate the unnecessary hardship requiring the uh large s of the electronic changeable copy sign. They determined that that the that it there wasn't an unnecessary hardship because the city actually has the ability to do wall signs that don't have any limitation in size on a business and there are many businesses in the community that advertise through that mechanism. Then they also determined that there that the um determination that there's no material damage or prejudice to other properties was not also proven because there's other properties along Booth Ben Road that are also industrial properties that have the um visibility from the highway which is the unnecessary hardship that the appellant is arguing that they aren't able to advertise to people going by on the highway. But there are other properties who also have that capacity to do that but are following the McMinnville sign code and did not put those up. And then thirdly, uh they determined that the request that will not be detrimental to community standards was not met because uh the city went through a 3 to fouryear process back in 2004 to 2008 to work on a sign code at um based on uh reaction to several large billboards that had gone up in town and we didn't have a signed code. And so, city council directed the planning commission and the planning department to put together a

project advisory committee comprised of business owners and residents to have a discussion about what type of signs we want to allow in our community, what type of signs we don't want to allow in our community. And they spent two years in that dialogue, developed a draft code, and then spent two years vetting that through a public hearing process. Part of that process included uh that any signs that were not conforming with the size standards that were in the new code would be considered non-conforming signs and would need to be removed by December 31, 2016. So I started at the city of McMivville August 1, 2016 and my first charge was to do the enforcement of these non-conforming larger signs in the community. At that time we had about 200 of them and we sent out a mailing and based on that mailing we got responses from several of the larger billboard companies saying that we couldn't make them take it down based on what was in the code at the time. So we had to actually rewrite the code for these non-conforming signs to be able to get them into conformance. And we spent another two years as a community between 2016 2018 discussing that. Uh since that time we have been enforcing the code and of those 200 signs that were out of conformance about 75% of them have now come into conformance. So business owners have been bringing their signs into conformance relative to size that's in the sign code. So that was all demonstration of the community standards in terms of not wanting large signs in our community for businesses and um and the city and the planning commission determined that their request was detrimental to community standards based on that history. So we're going to talk a little bit about the history of the sign code which I just described to you what the existing sign code is the applicant's request the planning commission decision. and we'll go over that in more detail and then the decision before you tonight.

So, as I said, we adopted the sign code. This is the first time the city's had a sign chapter in its zoning ordinance, which I find remarkable. If if you talk to any planner, we all hate working on sign codes because it's very emotional to anybody who has signs and it's a tough topic to discuss. Um, but to not have one as a city until 2009 is fairly remarkable. but it was adopted by ordinance 4900 November 5th, 2009. Uh, and it responded to that community outcry about the several large signs that had been recently installed. It was started in 2004 with city council direction to work on a sign code. It established that working group of residents and business owners that met for two years and then it had two years of public engagement and information sessions. Okay, we I just we can skip this one because I already told you about the 200 signs that were non-conforming and 75% have been brought into conformance. So, this is an example of that. This is actually recent in the last two three days. I think we've been working on this sign for since uh 2019, I believe, with this property owner. So, this is was one of our last largest non-conforming signs that we were working through uh that were on uh shared property with a shopping center. Reached out to the shopping center owner and said, "We have this as a community. We have this standard. We really want to work with you to reduce the sign that you have there." It was a new um owner of that shopping center. Uh and he's been working with us for the last several years to bring those signs into conformance. So, uh the sign you see on the left is one that people recognize for a long time here. It was also one of the ones that sort of pointed us in the direction we went as a community. And the sign you see on the right is the new sign. I will tell you this was a sixf figureure change for them to do. So it's not inexpensive for people to bring

their signs into conformance with the city, but he understood the values and the and the code that regulations that we had and the reason that we had them. So, the existing sign code um we have several chapters in our uh ordinance that talks about signs. The first chap that's relevant to your to what's going on tonight and is in the findings document. So, the first chapter is 17.06. That's where we have definitions and that's where you'll find the desk definition of electronic changeable copy sign and the definition of a video sign. Uh then we have our sign code itself which is chapter 17.59. And then we have specialty sign codes in our downtown design standards and our three-mile lane area. So both the downtown design standards and the three mile lane area take the existing sign code and actually um reduce the uh allowance for uh signs that are allowed in those areas. So we do have restrictions on wall signs for downtown in terms of size. And then for the three-mile lane area we have actually restrictions on size, location, and types of signs. And that was based on the again community standards. So community wanted the highway 18 to serve as a gateway to the community. Did not want the signage clutter. And so if you drive down three mile lane on Highway 18, you'll notice that it is devoid of a lot of signage clutter. But the businesses are all able to operate within um their uh vicinity with the signage that they have. How we review signs is we review them as an administrative review. So if you meet the code, it's fairly clear and objective. It tells us how big it can be. It tells us what type of sign it can be. And so when you come in and we just we look at the specifications and see if it meets the clear and objective standards. So it's a fairly easy review. It's a $150 application. Um and we usually can turn that around in two to

three weeks because because of how easy the review is. and we have about 30 to 40 applications per year uh that we look at for signs and we don't have an administrative variance for them. The variance is this sign exception standard that we're going into that we're talking about tonight. Uh some of the discussions have been about whether Empower has the opportunity to create visibility for their business on Highway 18. Um, and we wanted to share with you what is allowed in terms of the different tools in the toolbox for businesses here uh, for their signage program. So, as I said, in general, except for the downtown three-mile lane area and northeast gateway area, there is no limit to the size of wall-mounted s sign. So, you can put as big of a sign as you want on your elev on your facade. You can put it on four all four sides of your facade. We actually don't limit the size of it. We don't actually um we're ne content content neutral. So, as a city, you can't actually review what is on the sign in terms of the message or the or the graphics. Um and so, it's just size that we're regulating. There's no size regulation for wall-mounted signs. So, that's kind of a misconception in the community right now with this discussion that's been taking place with the empower sign request. I had a couple of uh businesses call me and say, "Are we no longer allowed to have larger wall-mounted signs?" That's the rumor that's running around in the community. And so, we had to assure them, "No, that those are still allowed. We're talking about a uh video sign instead of a wall-mounted sign." And so this is an example of one of our industrial businesses that's using that that size uh allowance for a wall mountain sign to um to to advertise their business and to get visibility uh in terms of organic valley on uh highway 99.

The electronic electronical electronic changeable copy sign that is allowed in our code is sort of that classic what we call reader board sign if you want to think of it that way. The 24 square feet that's allowed as part of another sign like a wall sign or these are all uh free mounted free pole signs. It's meant to be something that's a component of the larger sign but not the whole sign itself. And the fact that the video sign definition talks about both horizontal and uh linear capacity is in demonstrative of the fact that it that that type of sign is meant to be taller and bigger than this readerboard sign. So the readerboard sign is allowed as an electronic changeable copy sign. The bigger more depth sign, the video sign is not allowed. And these are some examples of how people have used them. So to advertise we're hiring to advertise you know we're open however the businesses are using that there's the ability to do that with a reader board sign in a uh electronic manner. Our prohibited signs. So we have a long list of prohibited signs and we provided that to you. But one is a video sign. And the definition of a video sign is an electronic changeable copy sign providing information in both a horizontal and vertical format as opposed to linear and having the capacity to create continuously changing sign copy in a wide spectrum of colors, shades, and light intensities. This definition was the crux of the planning commission discussion in that the sign proposed has both a horizontal and vertical format as opposed to linear and has the capacity to create continuously changing sign copy in a wide spectrum of color shades and light intensities.

That's and that was the planning commission's uh finding. So with the when looking at exceptions, the criteria we use in the code is 17.62.120. This is where we call the test. Here's the test you need to meet to get the exception and it talks us through it. Now B and C are the two tests and depending on whether it's a prohibited sign or it's an allowed sign, but you're asking for an exception to the size restrictions or something of that nature is what part of the test you you have which pathway you have to take. So if it's a prohibited sign, the test is part C. If it's an allowed sign, the test is part B. So we have to in part B the three-part test is the exception is necessary to prevent an so this is if we find that the sign is actually allowed sign um that an exception is necessary to prevent an unnecessary hardship due to factors such as topography location surrounding development lot shape or lot size. So, are there unique circumstances to that property that if you aren't allowed to have a sign of what you've requested that it creates an unnecessary hardship that the granting of the exception will not result in material damage or prejudice to other property in the vicinity and the request will not be detrimental to community standards and the appearance of the city. So all three of these need to be met to to find an approval of an exception to the sign standards for that pathway. For the part C, it's a two-part test. A much harder test though, and this is for prohibited signs. So it makes sense if the community said we don't want these types of signs in our community, then

it's a much harder test to be able to get the sign as part of your community. So the two-part test in its or so one of these applies that the not having the ability to have the sign denies the owner of all economically viable use of the property on which the sign is located or substantially interferes with the owner's use and enjoyment of the property on which the sign is located. So that's the economic hardship test. And with this I'm going to uh turn it over to Matthew. He's going to walk through what the actual application is. Thank you, Heather, Heather, mayor, city councilors, all this is in your packet. I'll just touch on some of the details in each of these. This is a stitching together of two different photos as it should be clear, but the application is for a 300 square f foot electronic changeable copy sign 30 foot by 10 foot. Uh the sign on the right there is existing the sort of blue dark EMPWR. The other is the copy electronic changeable copy sign. Couple details about the sign. This sign is capable of dimming. It incorporates multicolored LED lighting. The copy changes electronically. It is capable of providing information in both horizontal vertical formats 300 ft and it is a standalone electronic copy. The sign is proposed as a wall sign. As we already discussed, there is no limit in size generally to a wall sign. However, electronic changeable copy signs have a max size of 24 square ft. Correct. And part of a larger sign, greater sign. Couple notes about the planning commission decision. Planning commission first met on January 15th. The planning commission took public comment, closed the record. The applicant utilized an

additional 7-day period to submit their final argument. Planning commission met again on February 5th and denied the sign exception application unanimously. Part of the discussion was whether the video sign whether the sign was a video sign. Much of that conversation pivoted on that word capacity. The planning commission determined that uh capacity was meant in its plain, ordinary and common meaning. The ability to. So in this case, the ability, let's see, went an extra slide. Sorry about that. Uh the ability to create continuous changing sign copy. Um the applicant uh argued that they would limit that. However, the plain and simple meaning was what the planning commission decided. This was mentioned already, but one quick again sign code and state law around signage is content neutral. Uh tonight we are not reviewing it all the content of a sign short of explicit comment content. Planning commission criteria A determined that it was not satisfied. The applicant did point to visibility to freight carriers and employees traveling Highway 18. They found it to be critical. Uh they also argued that a 24 square ft sign would be elleible from Highway 18. However, uh the applicant is not limited to using an electronic copy sign. That is a decision that they made in this application. In addition, their distance from Highway 18 was also a decision. Uh the setback in this zone is 5 ft. The wall that they are proposing to install the sign on is about 160 ft from their property line.

The planning commission found that criteria B is not satisfied. Uh again they argued they could not convey their message legibly because of the distance from the highway and the size limitations. Uh the application, excuse me, the applicant did note that they were not applying for criteria C1. Um therefore, we're focuses just on C2. Again, C2, an exception may be granted if the property owner established that the strict enforcement of the ordinance will substantially interfere with the owner's use and enjoyment of the property on which the sign is located. The planning commission determined this standard was not met. The applicant failed to show their need could not be met with a sign that met the sign code. Here's the criteria here again already reviewed. So before you tonight is the question of uh do you agree with the planning commission's findings? So their first finding being that it's a video sign relative to capacity has the capacity to be a video sign and thus is prohibited per the definition of video signs. As a prohibited sign empower is not demonstrated that without the sign they have lost all economically viable use of the property or it substantially interferes with the property owner's use of the property. I was I thought I was running it and pushed the arrow button and he moved it just as I pushed it. So, I was like, "Oh, I can run it." Uh, sorry. Uh, the other question for you is, do you agree with the planning commission's findings that it is that what's being proposed is a standalone electronic changeable copy sign? So, if you determine it's not a video sign, the planning commission also determined it's still not prohibited because it's a standalone electronic cop changeable copy sign, which is not allowed. It

needs to be part of another sign, a freestanding sign or a wall sign. So therefore the the exception uh if you do decide uh that it's the exception would be for size and for the fact that it's a standalone electronic changeable copy sign that does not have the capacity for a video sign. If you decide that then it needs to meet the criteria for 17.62.120 62.120 with the special and unique property circumstances that create unnecessary hardships, does not create material damage to adjacent properties, and is not detrimental to community standards. So, all three of those apply and that there's an economic hardship. If you do not agree with the planning commission's findings, what is your finding and why? Uh, it must be relevant to the McMinnville Municipal Code. It needs to be relevant to the definitions of signs that are in the code and the review criteria for exceptions. Understanding that this finding can set a precedent for future exception applications. So for instance, if we find that uh businesses with frontage on a major highway need to have the uh the ability for an electronic changeable copy sign of a certain size for visibility for pass through traffic on the highway. that then sets the standard for other businesses to come in and ask for that same exception because we've already created that finding. Um, and then if you feel that the what the economic hardship standard is, so part of the criteria is it has to demonstrate economic hardship. So you're establishing as a finding what is economic hardship, what's the standard and has it been has do we have the burden of proof that that's been met. So, if the economic hardship is I um can't uh I can't get visibility to people passing through on the highway that's adjacent to my property, then that's the economic hardship standard

that can be used for other properties within McMinnville as well. So, before you ordinance number 5175 that has the decision document of the planning commissions and their findings. Um, as you move forward, if you uh you you have the opportunity to conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and affirm the planning commission decision by approving ordinance number 5175, adopting that decision document and findings of fact and conclusionary findings. You can conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and amend the planning commission decision by approving ordinance number 5175, but amend the findings within it. So you you you also are denying this the signed exception but you have different findings than what the planning commission had or you can conduct the public hearing deliberate and approve the appellants request by approving ordinance number 5175 and then provide findings for that approval. So why why you have the what are the findings for the approval relative to the criteria in the code. With that we're happy to answer any questions. We're going to start with councelor Peraltto that has a question.

Thank you. It wasn't a question, but can you go back to the um to the decision document from the planning commission, please just and put that on the screen. Oh, go one more that I didn't you kind of went through that really quickly and I didn't get a chance to see it. Nope. The next one the table. Yeah. Do you want Oh, sorry. It's so much slower on the screen. That's what I was looking for. Thank you. Any counselors have questions for staff at this time? Councelor Gary.

Uh, thank you. Can you just um make sure I understand some dates? So, I wanted to wonder if we could talk through the procedural findings section in the packet just to just to make sure I understood some of the uh the dates of when things were closed and opened and submitted and and how we are or aren't supposed to be looking at and responding and taking in information relative to to those allowable dates and allowable information.

You give us page numbers. uh the one I'm looking at uh PDF page 8 from the packet or uh 8 of 393 or page six it's known by many names this page uh and the heading is procedural findings and it talks about the record was closed on the 15th um and the applicant reserved a 7-day comment period but then email came in on the 22nd so I just want to check Did you want a full review of those notes or a specific one?

Um, yeah, the please just have that explained to me. I know I feel like I'm more familiar with instances where we get to the end and in the room the applicant says, "Ah, yeah, we're good with what happened here tonight. We'll wave it." So, I guess I just want to refresh her on, "No, we're going to keep this 7-day thing open." and and is that in the seventh day? Is that not in the seventh day? So,

great. That's a great question and thank you for that. So, when we uh when the planning commission at the first evidentiary hearing which occurs with the planning commission for your land use applications uh that go to the level of planning commission and city council. Um when the planning commission finishes taking public testimony, there is a decision then to make for the applicant and and the planning commission which is uh the planning commission can choose to close the public hearing alto together and then the applicant then has the opportunity to pro provide what I call closing argument. Right? So they have seven days to provide their closing argument. That means there's no new record being promoted. There's no new evidence being put into the record. It's just the closing argument for for the quasi judicial trial if you want to think of it that way. The other um opportunity pathway that's in front of planning commission and the applicant is to do what we call the 777 rule. And so the applicant then and the planning commission can have a discussion about uh closing closing the public testimony part of the public hearing. of the oral public testimony, but the applicant has the opportunity to uh seven days to provide new record if they want to provide new record for the planning commission to consider. Um and then the and the public. So it's the records kept open for seven days. Anybody can provide anything and then uh then the public has the opportunity to respond to whatever was provided in that first seven days in the second seven days. And then the applicant has the opportunity to provide closing argument on any new record that came in as well if that makes sense. So there's in this particular case uh what happened was the uh record was closed and the applicant chose to take the 7-day uh closing argument um path and so they had seven days to provide their

closing argument but because the record was closed they couldn't submit new materials. They did, as part of their closing argument, submit a new letter into their record and it was determined that that was not permissible and couldn't be part of the record for the planning commission's decision-making. So, they didn't actually even receive the letter, but they did make a decision. They we put it on the record at the planning commission, let them know we had received something uh but that it did not go to them because it wasn't part of the public record and um and they just voted on what they had. Is that was that your question? Yeah. So, in other words, everything that I see from the sign company uh isn't in the record and to be considered.

Well, you're in a denovo situation. So, a denovo situation means that the new new evidence can be submitted to you as the city council as part of this public hearing. Um, and so I do believe that that's been submitted to you by the applicant. Okay. For you to consider at this public hearing. I will say at the planning commission public hearing, the applicant did share what the capability of the sign was, the the equipment, the infrastructure um and that they would be not utilizing some elements of that. So the you know the letter that the sign manufacturer um provided reinforced that but but the planning commission had been aware of that.

Okay. So, it wasn't in their official documentation book that they considered and used to make their decision, but it's in the appeals process. It's joined our onboarding of information that we're going to here in a few minutes when we open this used to make a decision. If you look at the original application there there's specs for the sign in the original application and so that's what the planning commission saw and and it showed those those capabilities and those specs as well. Very good. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time from the council? Council Peralta.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, Matthew, you had made reference to the um the setback limits and you'd said something about a setback being limited to 5T and the distance in this case was 160 ft. And I didn't understand the context or or importance of that remark. Can you kind of elaborate on that please? Yes, of course. Thank you. Um, uh, at the crux of this is I think the two different uses of the word set back. So, uh, the applicant has a building that is set back from the property at60 or 170 ft. Forgive me for not knowing exact. Uh, but in concept of land use, that building can be all the way up to 5 ft from the property line. So it is not a limit of the property that the structure can't be that close to the property line. Um so it is not a sightsp specific as planning tends to use the term limitation. It is a decision by the applicant on where to place the building that is limiting their ability.

Thank you in their words. Councelor Chennowith. Thank you mayor. I don't really have a question. And I just would like to make a couple of clarifications. Can we can't hear you, Chris? Oh, fantastic. Too much tropical behind you. You're on, but um just volume. Can you hear me now? Yes.

Okay. Add it on the wrong microphone. Sorry. Um I just wanted to make a clarification. I uh had the distinct honor of being part of the citizen committee that was involved in drafting the sign ordinance. Um so um was my first parlay into uh civic engagement. Um and um my takeaway from that is not an necessary agreement with how it was described in the presentation so far. Um, and so I just wanted to clarify that that what occurred in my memory was that the um there was a desire to see certain types of signs um be removed from our community. Um and uh this was an attempt to frame an ordinance in order to capture those signs over some uh indeterminate period of time to remove them. Um it's interesting that in the process 200 signs were captured and none of the signs that we were told in those meetings were among the 200 signs that have been or among the 75% that have been fixed or brought into standard. All of the signs that I that we were told was the intended target still stand today. Um, so I I just want to clarify that for the record. I I I don't know that the intent of what was done is really being accomplished. Um, and that um um you know there's there's good in those sign in the sign ordinance. I don't want to I don't want to hammer it with a hammer, but this is, you know, when when Pine director made reference to the um

emotional side of signage, this is one of those hang nails underneath one of my fingernails that has always irritated me how this all played out. So, um just to correct that for the record, I don't think that was my sense was it didn't come from the community. It came from the planning director at the time. Um, and that the intent was specific to a specific set of signs we never got addressed. Um, further, I'd love to see at some point in time this ordinance be relooked at for clarity because a lot has changed in the signage world in the 20 plus years since this started. Um, so just to clarify the record on those points. Any other counselor have questions for staff right now? Nope. Okay. So, we're going to move on. Uh we'll now start to hear public testimony. Our role is to listen to the public testimony and ask clarifying questions when appropriate. Does the applicant wish to provide any testimony? coming up.

Please, when you're sit down, please state your name and address, please. Uh, if you can, sorry, there you go. I'm Shayla Wolfhal with Empower Nutrition. We're located at 750 Southeast Booth Bend Road here in McMinnville. I'm Matthew Juran. Address is 525 uh 3rd Street, Sweet 200 Lake Asiggo, 97034. And I am council for empower for this proceeding. Thank you. All right. Well, good evening and thank you, mayor, and council members.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but just for the record because I've been asked the question, I want to make sure Laura Lorac is also online and she's with the applicant as well. Thank you. Do Laura do you need to state your address? Okay. Hello everyone. Thanks for having us. My name is Laura Lorac. I am the land's consultant for this application. My address is included on the application.

Okay. Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak with you guys tonight. Um I'm here representing for Empower USA. Um, we're here to respectfully appeal the planning commission's denial of our signed exception request under docket SE1-25. At its core, this appeal is about ensuring that our proposal is evaluated based on what we are actually intending to do and not what a modern sign could hypothetically do. More important, it's about how we as a growing local employer and large-scale economic driver can better connect with its community and continue contributing to Mcmminville's future. Uh for those who may not be familiar with us at Empower, we're rapid we are a rapidly growing uh company in the global food and beverage sector, but more importantly, we are a local employer, a local investor, and an intention intentional long-term partner in this community. In just the past four years, Empower has invested nearly $150 million into our McMill operations. We've grown from 85 employees in 2022 to over 550 full-time employees today. We've contributed an estimated $40 million annually in wages to local households and in the surrounding region. And we've helped to increase national national and international visibility to McMillville. We feel we are a catalyst for the revitalized growth activity along the Highway 18 corridor and we're just getting started. Looking ahead at the next 12 to 18 months, we're planning an additional 90 to 100,000 square feet of expansion with a new warehouse on our recently acquired neighboring property that has never successfully developed, the creation of another additional 150 to 200 additional full-time jobs, and a continued

long-term investment right here in McMillo. This sign is not about advertising in the traditional sense. We do not have a product to sell other than empower as a manufacturer and our need for additional employees is a message that we are trying to communicate. It's about communication and connection with the community. One of our biggest challenges over the last four years has been simply letting people know that we're here and we're hiring. Every day, many residents commute to Portland, Salem, or the coast for work, often unaware that there's a great opportunity that exists right here. Our mission is to change that, and we want to bring these people home. This sign would allow us to communicate directly with local residents and those passing through on Highway 18 just to let them know that there are job opportunities. We want to position empower as the employer of choice within the region and help people bring help bring people back into the local workforce reducing long commutes. We want to continue to grow in a way that strengthens the local economy and community. So quite simply, we need the community to grow with us and this is one of the most effective ways to reach them. We're not here asking for an exception without accountability. We are here asking for reasonable collaborative path forward, one that works for both the city and empower. And that includes evaluating the sign base and its intended use, not the theoretical capabilities, applying clear and enforcable conditions that ensures it is operated responsibly and working together to find a solution that supports both community standards and economic growth. The de the denial was based on the conclusion that our sign qualifies as a

video sign because it has the capacity to display continuously changing content. But Empower has been consistent from the very beginning that we do not intend to display video and we have committed to static images only. We are willing to accept binding conditions to ensure that that remains the case and that this distinction is important. The current interpretation regulates based on what a sign could do and we are asking to be evaluated based on what the sign will do. If capacity alone defines a prohibited use, then nearly all modern electronic signs of which there are at least seven currently within the city limits that could fall into that category regardless of how they are actually used. that creates an unclear and difficult standard for any applicant to meet as modern technology has advanced beyond the current outdated ordinance enforcement. We just want to be very clear that we are willing to operate this sign in a way that respects the community. We are open to accepting written conditions such as static images with no animation, motion or video, minimum display times of 8 to 10 seconds per image if they were to change. automatic brightness controls with reduced levels at nighttime and directional calibration to minimize um light overspill. Additional measures such as nighttime dimming during migration periods for to address to address economic environmental concerns. Sorry. An adapted sign design being framed so it meets the requirement of being part of a permanent wall sign. We are not asking for unlimited flexibility. We're offering a controlled, responsible solution.

Our location presents unique challenges. We are in a general industrial zone, not the main retail business or pedestrian corridor. Our building is nearly 200,000 square ft and significantly set back from Highway 18. Traffic speeds are 55 to 60 60 mph where a 24 square f foot sign is functionally ineffective and more dangerous to vehicle traffic for people attempting to decipher its me message at that size. So strict application of the current size limit does not reflect the realities of this site or corridor. A larger sign is not about excess. It's about basic visibility, functionality, and scale in reference to our uni unique facility. Empower is proud to call McMill home as well as I am. We are investing here, hiring here, and building our future here. And we want to continue doing so in a partnership with the city and the community. So this request is about creating a practical way to communicate with local residents, support our workforce, and continue contributing to McMill's growth while still respecting community standards through reasonable conditions. So we respectfully ask the city council to reverse the denial and approve the sign exception with appropriate conditions. I thank you guys for your time, your consideration, and for your continued support of local businesses like Empower.

Thank you. Did you have anything that you would like to say? I do, Mayor, but I'm going to turn it over to Laura first. Okay.

Okay. Thank you, Sheila, and thank you, McMinnville City Council. Um so again, Laura the Rock and I just wanted to not repeat what's already in the application but just highlight um certain items. So I will share my screen now and you should be viewing here. Let me move this out of the way. So the image before you today is also uh included into the record later or earlier this afternoon. Um what this image depicts is how the proposed sign can be encapsulated or enclosed by a boundary of a wall sign so that it is actually a part of a wild wall sign. So to walk you through the image uh there is a solid blue border that surrounds the sign and the next image that's included in your packet would show you what that would look like um from the building standing within the property boundaries. Um, so this is considered option one for including or encapsulating the ECC sign into a wall sign or frame. Another option that could be considered um is taking the proposed sign and including it or attaching it to the existing empower lettering that's already existing on there. Um, so it does have the ability to have the proposed sign to be encapsulated or a part of the existing wall sign on the building. Uh, when reviewing the packet, I had noticed that there was um some materials that were missing and I just wanted to make sure that you had an opportunity to take a look at those tonight. Um, so on the screen before you today and I should pause. Is everyone able to see this? Fine?

Yes.

Okay, great. Um so this shows a building elevation. This is the south elevation of the building that faces the highway. Uh the top illustration shows um the visibility and how the scale of the proposed sign would be seen when you're sitting um on the highway frontage. Um the image below this shows what the permitted sign of 24 square ft and how um you wouldn't even be able to see the lettering on that sign if that was to be installed. Um so this illustration really shows that as the top one here uh the size is not out of character or scale of the building the elevation itself um and it is the size that allows um motorists and folks from that public rideway to be able to read the the text of that sign. um installing something on that lower image on that required the minimal size simply just wouldn't be able to be um readable from the highway. So the second document I wanted to just point out that's now been included into the record is um a an exhibit from sign dude which is the sign manufacturer and this talks about the capability and limitations that can be applied to the proposed sign. Um so the sign it can be programmed to be static images only. Um it can limit functions that it otherwise would be allowed to have such as scrolling or flashing. Um the time period between images can be programmed and restricted and um images can be static without any sort of animation that attends. So, next I wanted to kind of just walk through some approved signs that um were permitted in the city to give you some

context on the variations of what a permitted ECC sign looks like in the city. And I'll switch over to street view here. Um so the first sign, this was actually included in the staff report. Um, it talks a about a um business that's in town and it shows how a reader board can be affixed to the bottom of a sign. And I think a video is worth a thousand words. So, I'll just go ahead and show the capabilities of this sign. So, there's a time counter on the bottom of the screen. Just shows after about 5 seconds um the image that's on the screen fades, a new image comes in. And then after a few more seconds, uh there's a swipe um some and then an image that is pulled up on that screen. Second example um you can see here is from South Store in McBenville, a storage facility. This is a slightly larger kind of reader board that's encapsulated in a pole sign. And this one here, if you review a video, you'll see is somewhat similar to the last example. It has some scrolling images, some fading that comes up. The messaging changes over a period of just a few seconds. There is color that's deflicted on this. Um, and then within just a few seconds, those images change and switch. There's some continuous scrolling of lettering that occurs along that that sign as well. Another example, um, this one is permitted more recently. So, this one

was referenced as a Ford dealership in town. Uh, this is an ECC board that has been installed within a monument sign on the site. We have some video imaging of this sign as well. So this side is a little bit more dynamic. It has some words, some color. After about 9 seconds, it switches an image. It has some lightning bolts that continuously scroll across that screen. A lot of changing text, bright colors, um, and some functionality here. Um, and then the last one I wanted to show is a couple examples from Lindfield uh, College. These two boards that you're seeing on the screen here. One is this um, scoreboard. The other one is a reader board that's directly adjacent to that. And if you bear with me just a minute, I will scroll down to the street view and show you a more recent board that has been installed. And so this is visible from the street right away on actually both sides of the road frontage. And this one is described um in the press from the date when it was installed as one of the largest electronic displays in their division. It has the capability of video display. The size on this one is about 60 foot wide by 30 um feet in height. So um you know almost 1,800 square ft is the size of this sign. Uh and this was permitted in just recent years.

So, those are just a few examples included in your packet. It talks about the zones where these signs are located. Um, gives you some reference maps. You'll see that some are in a commercial zone. Some are in industrial zone. Lynfield College is actually located in a residential zone. Um, you can see it from two um highway or road frontages there and quite a bit larger than what's proposed. Um, so what city staff has approved is a wide range. I mean, they depict a reader board in their staff report, but you can see from these examples, um, some of the ECC signs that are being approved are quite a bit larger. Um, they're more of the primary sign, whether they're installed on full sign or on a monunit sign. And they have a wide array of a of ability to do multicolor, horizontal, vertical screening, continuous changing text um, in some of those items. And then the last thing I just wanted to highlight today is um the hardship and some of the items that were said by staff. Um so I think it's included in our application and and stated a number of times that you know the hardship is really the distance from the roadway. And we're not talking about just a standard frontage um that you see here. But there's actually on-ramps and off-ramps that not only increase the distance from the property line, but also just increase the distance from the lane of travel. So, when you're looking at other industrial um buildings or sites that are located along the same highway, they don't have the same constraint. You're not seeing on-ramps and off-ramps um that increase that distance from the property line to the main um travel corridors. Um and staff indicates that you know there's a the ability to put wall sign to no end no limits uh along the frontage of the building and also indicate that building placement um are things that are applicants choice. Um I'll talk about industrial building just

how you permit these. It's not uncommon for fire code to require fire vehicle access lanes to surround these buildings and that's exactly what happened in this site development. Uh the fire code required circulation to the site. The function of an industrial building requires semi trucks to drop off um receive um materials to these sites. Um so while building placement and setback could be closer, the building just simply wouldn't function without having a little bit more distance from that rear property line just to make sure that um trucks, fire, emergency access vehicles, garbage trucks, things of that nature can circulate around the site safely. Um which is not really an, you know, necessarily an applicant choice. It's just the function of how the buildings are designed and work on site. Um and then in terms of being able to do unlimited um wall signs on on there, you know, we really feel that this look is more streamlined, less cluttered, really meets the goals of what the city was explaining when they initially reviewed this sign code um back 17 years ago when it was created. Um and then the last thing I'll just point out is that that date. So this ordinance that we're talking about today was established in actually 2008 per the development code. So 17 years have gone by. If you can just picture in your in your mind about the advances in just cell phone technology, I mean it really puts it into perspective about just the advances in sign technology. So when this code was written, you know, some of these sign types didn't exist. um there's just a lot more uh ability and and items that just weren't even considered when the sign code was placed. So with that, I'll wrap up my portion of the of the applica or the presentation and hand it over to Matthew.

Thank you, Laura. Um before I get into the substance, I want to quick procedural matter. Uh two items were inadvertently left off our electronic submission. That was Shayla's opening statement and then our proposed use plan uh before the council. You do have the paper copies, but they weren't submitted electronically and so we can obviously get those to you as soon as possible, but I wanted to make it known to the council. Mayor Morris and members of the council, I appreciate the opportunity to be before you this evening. Tonight's decision comes down to two questions. First, is the proposed sign a video sign under the McMinnville Municipal Code? And if it is not, has Empower satisfied the criteria for an exception? Everything else, every determination you make tonight flows from question one. As staff uh pointed out, it depends on if it's an ECC sign or if it is in fact a video sign determines which path of the exceptions you choose. obviously is already discussed. If it is determined it was a video sign, it is a much more rigorous analysis. On the question of code interpretation, which is going to matter here, and I apologize in advance for a bit of an English lesson, Oregon courts have been clear that ordinances must be construed to give effect to every provision. A reading that renders an expressed provision meaningless is a reading that fails. The principle, that principle is the heart of this matter. The commission concluded that the sign is a video sign because its LED hardware has the theoretical capacity to display video content. Under that interpretation, capacity means the ability or power to do as explained. Regardless of how the sign is actually programmed, configured, or conditioned to operate, that interpretation has a fatal problem. That same municipal code that prohibits video signs expressly permits one ECC

changeable copy sign per site. Every modern LED electronical changeable copy sign, including the smallest 24 ft reader board the code allows runs on hardware that is theoretically capable of displaying video if programmed correctly. Ultimately, this comes down to a hardware and software distinction. Just because there is a light bulb inside of a sign does not necessarily mean that sign is capable of playing video under the code's definition if it is programmed the appropriate way if the software is appropriate. So if the theoretical hardware capability is the test, there is no such thing as a lawfully permitted ECC sign in McMminville. The commission's interpretation doesn't just prohibit empower sign. It wipes out the entire permitted ECC sign category as a whole and the code cannot mean to do that. The video sign prohibition and the permitted ECC sign category both must mean something. The only interpretation that gives effect to both is one that draws a line based on how the sign operates, not on what the circuit board could theoretically be made to do. The analogy that I came up with, and bear with me, is a car has an engine capable of going 100 mph. But that is not in violation per se of a 55 mph speed limit. Simply because the hardware can exceed it. What matters is how the vehicle is operated, not the theoretical capability of its engine and the guardrails and constraints that are placed on the operation of that vehicle visav limits. The same logic applies here. What matters is how the sign is configured and conditioned to operate, not what its LED components could theoretically do if someone program them. The video sign definition requires that a sign have, and I want to use the code's exact language here because like I said, the wording is really going to

matter here, the capacity to create continuously changing sign copy. The word create is the appropriate word here, not capacity. It describes what the sign does. It's the operational function, not what the underlying hardware could theoretically be made to do. The capacity, a sign that is programmed, configured, and legally conditioned to display only static images does not have the operational capacity to create a continuously changing sign copy. You've seen that in the submission from the sign dude who explained that this sign would be manufactured without that capability, meaning it would not contain that software. and empower is prepared to enter into a use agreement with the city confirming those exact constraints with you. The commission read the word capacity in isolation and defined it as the ability or power to do but that reading reading ignores the word that it modifies create. Create is the operative word and creating continuously changing sign copy is an oper active operational function not a latent software issue. Again, we have the direct expert confirmation that the company is going to manufacture this sign without those capabilities. So, it will not have the capacity to create this video copy that the council, excuse me, that the commission is concerned with. And again, this isn't coming from Empower's lawyer. This is coming from the person and the company who is going to be charged with manufacturing this sign. Now, I won't touch on the signs that are already in operation because I think Laura did a wonderful job of kind of demonstrating what's already in in approved land here. And so I'm going to move past that and go to should the council determine that the sign empower is looking to install is not a video sign which is in my opinion and

empower's opinion the correct determination that you determine that is simply an ECC sign then the exception analysis changes and the exception analysis that the council should consider this evening is whether or not there was a hardship and the code allows this exception to exist where and unnecessary hardship due to factors related to location, surrounding development, and lot size persist. This site con presents a combination of physical characteristics that make a 24 ft sign limit genuinely unworkable. As already presented to you, Empower's facility is approximately 200,000 square feet. It sits at a significant setback from Highway 18 for reasons given by Laura and traffic on the highway moves between 55 and 60 mph at regular. A 24 square ft sign roughly 5 ft by 6 ft is physically invisible at that distance and at that speed as you saw in the demonstration. That's not a preference for something larger. The sign this is that is a sign that right that exists on paper but can't function in practice. And I would note the opposition letter from Mr. Mark Davis submitted by the commission actually proves this point. Mr. Davis argues that drivers on the highway at 55 mph travel more than 80 ft per second cannot safely look away from the road long enough to read that sign. That's correct and Empower supports that. And if that is true, then a 24T sign at Empower setback is not just small, it's functionally illegible. Mr. Davis's own argument establishes the hardship we're describing. The McMinnville Economic Development Partnership submitted a letter in support also in the record confirming that a 24 foot sign is extremely disproportionate to the scale and size of the building at this site. The standard was not designed for a facility of this size or this setback. The second element of the exception that the com that the council needs to consider is whether or not there's prejudice to the neighboring properties.

The standard is met here. The south elevation of Empower's building faces Highway 18. There are no neighboring residential properties with the direct exposure to the signed face, and nothing in the record, not the staff report, not Mr. Davis's letter, nor any other submission, identifies a tangible harm to the specific neighboring properties. General opposition to an exception is not a finding of material prejudice under section 171, excuse me, 1762120. And finally, the exception must not be detrimental to community standards. There's two points on this that I'd like to raise. The exception process is part of the ordinance. An exception granted on proper findings is by definition consistent with the community standards. Because the community sign code, again, 17 plus years old, authorizes exceptions exactly on these grounds. Granting an exception is not working around the code. It's implying it. It's allowing the code to adapt to changing times, which I believe councelor Chennowith hit right on the head that it's it's potentially time to relook at the code because of the advances in the technology and because of the growth of McMinnville. McMinnville's own economic development organization as well, MEDP submitted a letter to this council that this sign as proposed supports the intent of the code rather than working against it. The voice of this organization whose purpose is to advance McMinnville's economic and community character is telling you that approval is consistent with that character. Empower is not asking for unlimited discretion as Shayla testified to previously. Empower is asking for a conditional approval with enforceable restrictions. Those restrictions are on record as our um use operations static images only. Minimum time of each image. So there is no video like images

created. Some sort of stat um um fade in or fade out. Instantaneous transmissions transitions with no animation. The picture will simply change. Automatic brightness controls to adapt to day and night light. installation as part of a permanent wall sign presentation. If the council finds that necessary, they are happy to provide the frame and a content management system configured and locked to static images only. These conditions make it legally and operationally possible for the sign impossible for the sign to function as a video sign. They give the city two independent layers of enforcement. The conditions of approval themselves and the technical configuration of the sign's own software. The city has full authority authority to force enforce both of those under title 17. To grant the appeal, the council needs to find that the proposed sign is properly classified as an ECC sign, not a video sign, and that the exception criterion are satisfied. The council may then approve ordinance 5175 with finding and conditions consistent with our proposed operating restrictions. We are asking the council this evening to adopt alternative three, approve the appeal. If the council is not fully persuaded on the classification question, we ask it a minimum a minimum for alternative to amend and approve with conditions rather than simply affirming the denial. The commission's interpretation of this code leaves no room for lawfully permitted electronic changeable copy sign to exist in this city. The manufacturer has told you the sign can operate as a static image display and will be manufactured as such. Empower has offered every enforcable condition the city could reasonably require and is willing to abide by those. The comparable signs in operating in McMinnville right now tell you that the city has always understood the code is the way empower is asking you to understand it tonight. We respectfully request the council reverse the planning cons commission's denial and approve the exception with

the conditions is proposed. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Any counselors have questions for the applicant? Councelor Peralta.

Thank you. Um, first of all, I want to say I really appreciate your company. I understand you're a co-acker, but I'm a reg regular purchaser of of your barbell products that you manufacture. You probably spend $500 a year on these things. I'm also a city counselor for the ward where you're now, I believe, the largest employer. I think you've eclipsed Lynfield as the largest employer in the ward. So, I want to also appreciate um what you've brought to our community in terms of jobs and and uh conditions. Um I just had one question about your testimony related to the sign and the imposition of harm. Um the city code allows for, as you pointed out, a uh two essentially a two foot by 12 foot sign that's lit in the way that's been described. And my understanding is that that would be fairly consistent with a visible sign from 150 to 200 feet if if you just had a two-ft tall 12t wide now hiring sign underneath Empower similar to what staff put in the report. Is there a reason why that's not an acceptable alternative for empower? I agree with you uh councelor Peralta that if you are standing and looking at a sign at that size at that distance you could probably read it but when you factor in going 50 plus miles an hour on a highway I think it changes the calculus a bit and so I think the size constraint specifically is difficult to contend with at the highway speeds with which observers of the sign encounter Um, can I follow up? Would would it surprise you um to hear that an industry

standard might say that a lit sign of that type would have about a 600 foot visibility? Would you agree or disagree with that? Having not seen the report or those findings, I don't know that I can go one way or the other. I'm not trying to not give you an answer, but under what conditions the signer observed, I think is extremely important in this. It's a vague question. I appreciate you entertaining it. That's all I have here. Thank you, Councelor Gary. Um, thank you. I have just two two questions of staff for followup for things I heard. Is this appropriate time or should I wait on those? Heather, give me

That's a good question for Missy. I think we have to wait. Thank you. Um, I uh councelor if if you could just ask your uh the questions of any any questions of the applicant at this time and then we can go back and ask our staff questions at the end of all of the testimony. Okay. I have no questions for the applicant. Thank you. Okay. Councelor Benner, you thank you and echo um Sal's comment. Grateful for your employment. You led your argument with how we interpret Oregon law. Could you go back to that and maybe run through that one more time?

Certainly. The gist of of that statement is that the law can't be applied in certain way on one piece of the code that would then give zero power or take the power or application away from another piece of the code. And so in context, what I meant in in prefacing with that is the commission's treatment of capacity is a global capability piece that essentially wipes out the ECC standalone board. So the these LED boards, for lack of a better term, all have the capability of being video boards. And so that was essentially the commission's treatment in the empower case is because this board has the capability of being a video board, it is then a video board. And if you apply that through the rest of the statute, it then essentially nullifies the existence of the ECC classification. So, is your interpretation of that meaning the ones that the other attorney showed us are ECC or are video?

Based on the fact that they're permitted, um, they are either ECC or video meeting those rigorous exceptions. And I haven't seen the permits, so I I can't answer that directly. Another question. So, you were talking about the hiring that councelor Peralta noted to you and you didn't you didn't say anything about the sign itself except for the size a sign like that in a larger size. Would that be something to consider? But now hiring just the one type of sign

like the empower sign that we already have up there in that same format just now hiring all the time that could go on or off. I I don't know that that would always fit the message. Okay.

I mean on all the other signs that you've seen I mean it changes the temperature, it changes the time. They're constantly changing their message. All of those signs are actually video signs and most of them are actually being used as video signs. We don't want to do that, but we do want to be able to change our message as it fits our business. What if we're we come to a point where we're not hiring or at least not at the pace that we're trying to get the message out there? And who knows what other content we would put up there, but it would be beneficial to empower, which would not be retail sales, but it might be a message to the community of something that empower is trying to do.

Okay. Just wanted to clarify because one of the main things was the hiring. So, I just wanted to clarify that piece. Thank you, Councelor Cunningham. Yeah. Um, I also took from U. Matthew's uh information about the setbacks that there's the possibility that a monument sign could be put into um a much closer reference to the the road where then a 24 square foot sign would be allowable. Um, is is there a reason why that hasn't been looked at as a a potential uh possibility?

The distance from a 5ft setback on our property still to the highway, a 24 ft sign still would not be readable, especially at that speed of travel. So that I but it's about half the distance. So we're still 80 ft and 85 ft from the uh highway. So 24 square feet is not much.

And if I may, I would just add that with the site development, there's other regulations that apply. There's a requirement for landscaping along the highwayage. Um landscaping minimums are met and there's roadway that can't be blocked and easements in that area as well. as well as the parking spaces that we had to meet and still make our property functional with fire lanes, trucking lanes that are near impossible to meet all of the restrictions. So landscape, which Laura also handled that for our initial planning, it was very difficult to hit the requirement that she needed to have all of that in as well as the parking spaces. Anybody else right now? Okay, I think that's all we have right now. Thank you. Thank you guys. Does any person in the audience wish to speak in support of the proposal?

Yes. Give me one second. Okay. Okay, our first person who has signed up in support is John Olsson. Welcome.

Good evening, mayor and counselors. I'm John Olsen, the president and CEO of the McMinnville Area Chamber of Commerce. I want to start by acknowledging the responsibility that you carry. These decisions are not easy because they're not just about code. They're about the future of our local economy. And that's why this matters so much. Over the past few months, we have seen meaningful shifts in McMindville's economic landscape. Oregon Mutual Insurance has reduced its workforce by more than 60 positions and significantly scaled back their downtown presence. Liippard, a trailer manufacturer with 25 employees, has exited McMminville entirely. The Springs Living is in the process of relocating their headquarters and 100 jobs out of McMinnville into Beaverton. Lynfield University is in the process of reducing faculty and staff. How many jobs is yet unknown. At the same time, employers like Cascade Steel and others are struggling to fill open positions, often recruiting from outside the area because of housing and workforce constraints. Why haven't we felt the economic impact of those changes yet? is because of in the middle of all this economic constriction we have in power. They have already stated their growth and their investment and tonight they're asking for the ability to effectively identify their facility along Highway 18. The current code limits them to 24 square feet electronic display. A sign that size on a large building set back 160 feet along a highway where traffic is moving 55 miles per hour is not functional. It does not serve their employees or vendors or visitors. And it does not reflect the scale of the facility. That is not a preference issue. That's a real world limitation. The planning commission determined that there is no hardship. But from a

business perspective, there is. When standards don't account for real conditions, they become barriers, not protections. And this is where the broader concern comes in. The business community is watching because this decision sends a message. Is McMimbo willing to adapt when a situation clearly does not fit the mold or will we apply a one-sizefits-all standard even when they don't work? The question is whether we can also demonstrate that McMinnville is a place that values and supports the businesses who choose to invest here. We have companies who want to do business in McMinnville, but only if we can keep them. I urge you tonight to find a path forward. Thank you.

Thank you. That's everyone that signed up. Was there anyone else that wanted to speak in support tonight? Does any counselor need to need anything clarified regarding the testimony of the speakers tonight? Just the speakers that were here. Does any person in the audience want to speak in opposition of the proposal?

Mayor, can you read the rest of just a minute, Mr. Davis? If so, please provide the comprehensive plan criterion or a McManville city code criterion that you feel that the project does not meet, why it does not meet that criteria, and why you feel that a condition of approval will not help it meet the criteria. If you have a proposed condition of approval to help the project meet the criteria, please provide that as well. Staff, please identify those who have signed up. And we have first we have Sedoni Winfield. I'll get back to you, Mark. Good evening, Sid. Hi, Sydney Winfield, 549 Northwest Birch Street. Thank you all for having us um and allowing me to speak. Um I sent you all a letter last night which um is far more of a summary of my arguments and my u my points. Um I do want to hit on a couple of things. Um uh I agree with Councelor Chennowith again. Um this the sign ordinance has um taken a while. I actually got on um not putting on my planning commission hat, keeping my citizen hat on. Um got on the planning commission specifically because of the billboard that came in back in 200 and I don't remember when it was. And at that time when I was applying, Mayor Gormley and council members laughed at me because they could not believe that we could get a city sign ordinance put in. We did. And yes, the sign ordinance has taken a while to um phase out the signs that are still around. So yes, councelor Chennowith, it has taken a while. Um the Safeway sign is the first one that has been phased out. I don't know how long it's going to

take for the billboard signs to come down, but eventually those signs will be phased out. Um and again, I don't know if that also pertains to the signs that um Miss How referred to as she was driving around. Um, additionally, um, part of the discussion when we were working on the sign ordinances was very much a concern for video signs, similar to the first sign that was in the Pacific Northwest as you head up to Tacoma. At that time, it raised a lot of concern because we were having billboards coming in and we did not at that time want to have a video sign that was flashing and a distraction for driving. And so that was certainly one of the things that we were concerned about at that time. Um, Mr. I think it's Mr. Dale, Council for Empower refers to capacity. Um, and the issue with that is that if a sign can be programmed, the capacity once it's manufactured, you can you can change the programming can change. Um, we heard the argument at the planning commission that they only wanted to have it for location and they only they didn't want to have it to to um to advertise the the argument that they just brought up to you was they had an image along with the sign with a QR code. Even at 30 300 square feet, a QR code is not going to be able to be found as you're driving past. Um, and we cannot regulate intent. That is what they're asking. They're asking us to regulate promise and intent. programming can change. Um they're asking it can be changed from a static image Miss Hal referred to every 8 to 10 minutes. I don't know what they're planning to do. Asking the city to regulate time uh asking the city to regulate image, movement, color, brightness is is untenable. It's an honorous burden on the staff. Um we don't have the budget to to go around and looking at making

sure that those signs meet our criteria. Thank you. Thank you. Did you have anyone else signed up? That's everyone who signed up. Mark Davis.

Can you check the microphone? Make sure. Is it green?

It's turned off. Okay. Mark Davis, 652 Southeast Washington Street, McBenville. Wasn't planning to speak, but since my testimony was mentioned by the applicant and and misrepresented in my opinion, I'd like to explain the point I was trying to make. Obviously, I didn't make it clear enough for them to understand. As uh the previous speaker um related, there was considerable controversy about these signs when we established the sign ordinance 15 years ago or whenever it was. Um, and clearly one of the reasons I objected to the signs that were were being discussed and considered was because they're distracting people from what they should be doing when they're on what I thought mostly we were talking about was city streets was driving. They should be paying attention to the people in front of them. People turning all those sorts of thing. They're driving a vehicle. That this this country, you know, more than 30,000 people a year are killed in motor vehicle accidents. I mean, it's to me it's a public safety issue. And the idea that we're now going to start allowing signs along Highway 18 with movable script, video signs, whatever you want to call them, trying to intentionally distract people's attention from what they're supposed to be doing, which is driving and paying attention to what other people are doing. There's a lot of people out there, they're looking at their phones and they're not watching what they're doing. I mean, people need to be paying attention. And I realize statistically it's unlikely to happen, but this council just spent a considerable amount of money to put up some barriers on Third Street for events on something that's statistically very unlikely to happen also. But the way you you stop statistically unlikely things from happening is enforcing the rules you have. And I think the the exception that we the the community standards that are built into the the sign code, one of those was we don't want to distract people when they're driving down the

road. Thank you. Thank you. Was there anyone else that wanted to speak in opposition?

Nope. Did any counselor have any questions for the last two speakers? Did you have a question for the last two speakers? Okay. Does the applicant wish to respond to any of the opposing testimony? Okay. a few of the comments uh Sidoni mentioned um that how she how she put it that um the programming can be changed but that's what the use plan is for that is what we want to agree to not expecting the city to police us we self-regulate we want to be good partners with the city we're not trying to do things intentionally against what we're giving our word that we would do just as we do with all other portions of our building and our um business that we are providing to the city and to our members of um McMinnville. Um Mr. Davis, he mentions having video. We have expressly said that we do not want video. We that's never been our intent. We don't want flashing. We also agree that that is not safe. It's also not a good look. We are trying not trying to be Las Vegas. I moved here from Las Vegas. I also don't want to bring that into McMillville. But we are in a unique situation. We need the visibility. We need people to know that we are hiring. We go to all community events. We try to volunteer. We try to get our name out there. We send out flyers, which we also don't like because we don't want to be sending useless mail out to people that just get thrown in the trash. The billboards that are up now we are also utilizing but

that has to those have to change frequently. It's a waste of resources, money and those standalone from buildings are also unsightly. We do understand that. That's why we're trying to incorporate it into our building design. So we're we're trying to take a thoughtful approach as well as being good for the environment. So I think what we're doing is is trying to work within the regulation that is outdated and trying to get it to change to understand that we need to move forward with growth and this is we understand it is change. Any counselor have any questions for Shayla?

Thank you. U Madame Mayor if I could just interject also. I believe that uh some of the counselors are going to have questions for staff and so I do recommend after staff answers those questions that the council provide the applicant with a second opportunity for a short rebuttal. Okay. If it if it would like to okay of the of the staff responses. Thank you. Okay. Now's time for questions from staff to staff. Anybody who had the question? Okay, we're going to go with councelor Gary first.

Um, I guess two part one of those parts has a couple parts. The Can you comment on the fire department and firetruck requirements? That wasn't terribly familiar with how that would apply to the rear of the building.

So, I'm not an expert in the fire code. Um, but my understanding is they need to be within 150 ft of their vehicle. And may maybe my city manager is a better expert on the fire code than I am, but um they do not need circulation all the way around the building to be able to suppress the fire. There are there are code requirements in terms of access to water and also how far they can the farthest reach of their hose from their fire engine in terms of where that gets established on site and that's 150 ft. City manager, anything to add? Okay. Um, so it's more about a reach from any frontage or one particular area. It's not a circumnavigable requirement.

Yes. Okay. Um, I guess the second would be in general the the applicant listed off some nonconforming signs or or signs that they find suspect and and should allow passage of this because those exist. Do do we do we have a little bit more of an analysis on those as far as their permitting history, their allow allowance, their timing? Uh, I'd be curious a little bit more information on those.

Yeah. So, you saw it in real time that I saw it in real time. So, I've been trying to look them up. Uh first I want to say the Lynfield sign is exempt. So per section 17.62.040T as in tiger um it states that signs located within a sports stadium or athletic field or outdoor assembly area which are intended and oriented for viewing by persons within the facility are exempt from our sign code. um if the intention is that it's meant to be seen from the public right away and um that wasn't represented to us, we can go into code enforcement on that if that's the case with that. The other signs uh that were displayed, I've been looking up the addresses and trying to find the sign permits for them. They are not in our electronic files, which state to me that they're either older permits or they were not permitted.

Okay. Thank you. That's all my question. Councelor Toolski. Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, Director Richards, maybe this is a question for you. Would allowing this exception uh set a precedence that the mega-iz billboards near Lewab and Wendy's could become uh electronic boards? That's a great question. And I actually might defer that to our uh legal council. And and billboards, the size of billboards for perspective are 300 to 500 square feet.

I guess regard regardless of the size would allow those to become electronic billboards. Uh so thank you, councelor. Uh the council's decisions that interpret code sections can be used by future applicants and it would put the council in a difficult position uh to vary uh on an applicant by applicant or ad hoc basis those interpretations and and it would essentially potentially open up the council to a claim of of acting in an ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar arbitrary and capricious manner. So that's a long way of saying probably.

Okay, thank you for that. And I have a few more questions if I may. So again, Miss Baitman, this question I believe is for you. Uh do you think that uh approval of this appeal would set a precedent that could be followed by others or would be followed by others? If they had the ability, it sounds like the answer to that was yes.

Yes. I I think that uh again it would be difficult um unless the council could sort of come up with codebased reasons for interpreting the code in this particular situation differently than it would interpret it in a a leash application six months from now. Um or I can't remember the other large sign that you mentioned. Um and then you know generally an applicant who is then denied in the future is going to come back and say you're changing your interpretation not based on the code but based on the identity of the applicant. So I do think it's important to be consistent in code interpretation.

May I have another question? Yes. Okay. I'm Maven I'm not sure where you're at uh in the world but are you familiar with McMendle at all?

Oh I am. Okay, so let's just use like Safeway or WCO as an example. They have a large frontage area and they have a front that could actually accommodate a sign that is approximately 12 and a half times the size that we allow today. And it could be a a I'll call it a a rolling JPEG display board. With that, if we allowed this exception, it seems reasonable that this would also allow exceptions into other areas be Albertson's, Winkco, Safeway. They could also put large boards on their facade. uh counselor, every application does have to stand on its own, but um because the code wouldn't be changing, they would have to apply for an exception, but they would be able to point to this particular decision if that's the way the council went uh to say this is how the council interpreted the code six months ago, and we think that that interpretation applies, you know, now all the time.

Thank you. So no further. Thank you, Miss B. Any other counselors have questions? Council Banner,

I guess for staff right now, if we said that we're this is not a video sign that it's an electronic sign, then the code would allow it if it's under 24 square feet.

Yes. And and just for the record, video signs are considered electronic. electronic ECC sign. So the definition of a video sign says it is an ECC sign but then it also has these other characteristics and the code doesn't allow us to uh let safety into the equation. Could we put a 24 square foot sign at a very busy intersection and and not allow it because we're worried about traffic accidents or is the code sort of immune to those concerns

there? So, um I'm trying to think of how to answer that. So the the assumption is that the city's already uh reviewed and evaluated safety when it developed its code in terms of what it's allowing and not allowing in the community of from the from the sa from the standard of safety and many other things. Right? So when we develop a code and put the regulations together, the assumption is it's vetted through that lens of safety as well. We wouldn't we wouldn't allow something in our code that would be considered unsafe for the public. Thank you. And

I just want to one of the things that um Shayla had mentioned is that it could have the capability but they wouldn't use it and they would have an agreement. just explain to me just for the record city's side to accepting or not accepting that

you often heard in the in the appellants's um testimony the ability to enforce that agreement. So enforcement is res is a staff resource. If you're asking me what my preference would be, I would prefer that we made a decision one way or the other and not a sort of decision that required management of enforcement that's specific to one property in the city of McMinnville. Because as if you think about it, I always think about what's the next generation, what am I leaving for the next generation of staff that's operating this program? And if we, you know, hypothetically create 10 or 12 special agreements with businesses around the community and 10 years from now somebody's complaining because that agreement is no longer being upheld. These there we have 8 to 10 second flashing whatever happening on the sign you need to go out and enforce that. We need to figure out is there an agreement? What does the agreement say? How do we go out and enforce it? It's just it's a it's a it's not as efficient, I guess I would say.

Thank you. Just a minute. Chris, councelor Gary, did you have something? Yeah, I have another unique question. Is that okay? Sure.

Okay. Thanks. Um in in when we look at planning planning and and code and even when there's allowable discretion in that decision-m process or someone comes in asking for an allowable uh thing to happen is it it's common seems common to me to explore all possible avenues and ramifications for that applicant b uh for what they're asking. So it's common to uh explore how burdensome that development could be if we allow this thing to happen. So um a a video sign that can do this should be looked at as a sign that will do that. Um similar to ways that if if a subdivision is coming in it or a property is changing from one use to another when it's changing that use we have to look at uh the code allows it to do this. Therefore, we have to assume it could do that and will do that at some point. And is that uh a commonly used methodology to be thinking about the zoning code?

Yeah. When when thinking about efficiencies of managing the regulations for the city, the the intention is you've created standards, minimum standards, and those are the baseline standards. And if you're migrating up and down below these standards independent to different uh individual projects, it makes it difficult for us to manage. Very good. Thank you,

Councelor Chennowith. Um so following up on a previous series of questions regarding precedent setting. Um one of the keys in precedent setting is it am I right in believing that one of the keys in precedent setting is that the language of the precedent applies to the future event whatever future event we're referring to. Um to to to draw a finer point on that um if the concern is opening up the doorway to billboards, a precedent that was set regarding um signage affixed to a building would not apply to a billboard. Is that an accurate assumption?

Do you want me to take this? Why don't I start Missy and then then you so I would say counselor it depends on your findings. So as ju just and that's how we started this. Um it it's always compelling to want to respond to a really great partner in your community who wants to do something uh that the regulations don't allow. Um but you want to be a good partner. You recognize they're a good partner. You want to support them. uh the in terms of you know walking through a regulatory decision it's really depends on your findings relative to the criteria that are in the code that are setting the precedents. So if you're finding is uh that the that the economic hardship that's being imparted on this particular project is that they have a really large elevation and a wall sign which they can make as big as they want to make um will not do the trick for what they want to do and what they want to do is X then we're going to allow Y to happen. Then future applicants can come in and say same condition I want to do X let me do Y. So it all it all depends on how you put your findings together to meet that criteria which is which is you know the precedence for the future. That's pretty much exactly what I was trying to drive at. Um and um you know motive of where I'm going. Uh notwithstanding um you know whether it be a compelling partner or not that is that that the reality is that that I think there is other reasons why I would have a difference of opinion about how this should play out. um that have nothing to do with the not that not that I don't consider empower to be a great partner to the community but have nothing to do with their that relationship.

Yeah. And I just want to make sure I leave room for legal counsel to actually respond to your question as well if I think to add that was I thought a good good summary of of the issue. I guess what I would say is um when the findings reflect fact specific reasons that are based on a particular application that isn't going to be as precedential as an interpretation of words in the code that apply to every application if I could summarize it that way.

Yeah. Thank you very much. I appreciate your answer. Councelor Peralta.

Thank you. Um I'm just trying to make sure I understand the um the nature of the legal arguments as they relate to the exceptions. So as I understand it, empower is essentially saying that this is an ECC sign, not a video sign. Therefore, it qualifies for the exception under B, even though it's got a a 300 square foot size that would exceed what we would allow for an ECC sign. And it's not subjected to uh exception A, which I assume they believe they would fail that exception more clearly than they do in the case of B. Is that basically inaccurate? I I don't want to speak for the applicant, but um I I believe what they're saying is that um the the argument is that all ECC signs are video signs. One, and then two, um that they're that they're saying they are willing to accept a condition of approval that redu that eliminates the video sign capacity that's defined in the in the code.

Um

well, let me continue. And then um what was new information tonight which I thought was also uh compelling is because there's a two-part test to what's an allowed ECC sign in the city of McMinnville. The first part is size 24 square feet. The second part is it's part of another sign. So it's a component of another sign. It's not a standalone sign by itself. So um tonight they introduced the concept of framing it as part of a wall sign. So now it's part So now it's an EC sign EC sign ECC sign that's part of another type of sign. So they're eliminating that test. And then the other question would be is it a video sign which is an EC sign um or is it uh which we prohibit? So that's the undue hardship piece of it. And I think they're arguing that's that's not applicable to them. Only B is applicable because it's not going to be a video sign and it's now going to be part of a wall sign. Yes.

And and the exception is size. Thank you. But but the question the really what the question I was trying to get at is whether it was an ECC sign or a video sign, the 300 square foot size is still outside of our code. Yeah. But that's the exception they're asking for under B. Yes. Right. Yep. Yeah. And and so Yeah. Thank you. Could you remind us where in the document they I know it's in here somewhere where you talk about the exceptions.

So I am actually looking at the municipal codes 17.7 17.62.120 which I just Googled because I wanted to make sure I was reading the um the actual exceptions in the in the statute. I wanted to make sure I understood those. So, Heather, did you just said that all EEC signs are video signs? No. No. How did you I said that's their argument. That's their argument, but not yours. Okay. I'm representing the planning commission's argument. I get that. I just want to make sure I understood what you said. Um, in Can I Madame Mayor, can I also just recommend that um

I'm I'm a little bit concerned that uh the council really wants to head into deliberations or at least discussion. And I and I do think we need to make sure that great uh the council gives the applicant a chance to uh have a short final rebuttal of what the staff has just presented. Yep. I do have two quick questions for staff. Okay, two questions and then we're going to go back to empower. Um, remind me, Heather. Um, there's this is regarding code. Um, and I don't have the code in front of me and I should have it memorized, but I don't. So, um, forgive me for that.

All 400 pages. What what is the enforcement uh uh uh process procedure for a um sign that is out of code?

Uh so if it was grandfa So there's two answers to that. If the if it was grandfathered in when we adopted the ordinance for the sign code, there is an enforcement process built into the code itself right now, which is um there's several different tests to it, but a change in use, a uh improvement on the property of a certain value, those types of things will trigger the need to come into conformity with the code for those grandfathered signs. If there's a sign that one didn't get permitted and it does not meet the code, we then go into code enforcement and the code enforcement is abatement. So abatement is you bring that sign into code, change it or you remove it.

And is there fines in the process? There can be fines if if they uh elect not to be voluntarily compliant. We do have the ability to do daily citations up to $2,000. So, so code enforcement would be tasked with if we had some sort of agreement that um they had to meet certain requirements and it didn't happen, code enforcement would be responsible for ensuring that it did or enforcement of it if it didn't. Correct.

Yes. And and we have that right now. So, there's several old embedded agreements in these hundreds of ordinances the city has passed over the years and we'll get someone in the community calling us about something and we'll have to go find that old ordinance, figure out what the agreement was and go into enforcement on it. Okay. And then the last question is remind me again if if I wanted to put up a big sign that I painted so it wasn't moving, it was always static. It was the same. and I painted and I wanted to put that sign on my wall. What's the sign limit for that sign? There is that's a wall sign. There is no size limit for that in in the industrial area downtown. There is a size size limit. Okay, perfect. Thank you.

And and I just want to let counselors know um especially new counselors like councelor Benner. So your decision document that you get will always have the review criteria in it. We have a section called review criteria. So page 50 of your packet has the exception code 7.62.120.

Okay. Um we're going to go back. Does empower have a response?

Okay. Councelor Tolski, I think you raised a good point about what I'm going to call a slippery slope argument. Is that a fair categorization of your if you allow this then you allow everything and then WCO could put a sign on their frontage so on and so forth. And so something that I'd like to draw your attention to is the exception exists and section A of section 120 I think is important here because it specifically calls out that empower needs to show that there are special and unusual circumstances related to a specific piece of property. And so while I recognize the concern that the council has with allowing this particular sign, each and every single sign seeking an exception of this kind must adhere to the requirements in the exceptions which are distinct and directly related to that specific property. So not every single property is the same, nor will they meet the same circumstances that would qualify for the exception. Um the other thing I want to make very briefly is the enforcement mechanism. It's already in place. It sounds as though um staff has has indicated that there is an enforcement mechanism and this use agreement that we envision at Empower and I don't know if we've made this clear enough or not, but we envision an actual executed document that would then sit in that file that could be referenced by the enforcement community or a recorded document on the property itself. But there are there are ways that we we're not going to hide behind any sort of statement or whatever. There would be an actual executed agreement or recorded document to make very clear what the understanding is and what the requirements of the council or the city are that empower must abide by. I'll leave it at that. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Council, can I ask the applicant a clarifying factual question that I think is going to be important? It's something that I think we heard for the first time tonight. I've heard tonight about a a static image that changes and I believe I heard every 8 to 10 seconds and I think the council could benefit from understanding uh what the intent is with the uh changing image single fixed image single fixed image but that changes every 8 to 10 seconds and would the use agreement embed a specific time for change the proposed use agreement and bad a specific uh time frame for how often an image would change.

Let me answer your first question. And the 8 to 10 second range was provided as an example to demonstrate to the council that this isn't going to be some flashing, blinking, changing all the time sort of sign, but rather demonstrated static images that will change at designated intervals. And let me ask Shayla for confirmation, but I don't see why Empower wouldn't allow an agreement that has specific intervals delineated in the agreement. Shayla, you can come back up. Do you want to come back up and state that

we would be okay with restrictions on whatever interval it is? We just want to be able to change the image which I believe at the planning commission meeting Sidoni had mentioned that we might change and you know every two seconds or every minute but we we wanted to give some kind of time frame which was um I believe it was referred by our sign manufacturer that 8 to 10 seconds was um a long enough time frame where people obviously driving by you're not going to notice that it changed and it's not going to be flashing. Um, it's nothing that's going to be drawing a lot of attention because it is changing right before your eyes constantly. Um, so eight to 10 seconds wasn't necessarily something that we picked. So it could be a suggestion of the the city council as a conditional approval. Um, so nothing specific from us.

Okay. Thank you. All right. So, I was going to go ahead and close the public hearing if there's no further questions. We're not deliberation, but questions. Okay, it's I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. We will come back and address it at 7A on your agenda. Okay, we're going to go into our Any council need a break? Okay, just a quick break real quick before we start our council meeting.

Recording stopped. They're cool. We'll

be here. That was pretty good. recording in progress.

Yeah. That was a long sense if he's got a back. Okay, we're going to go ahead and start the city council meeting. We're already 45 minutes behind. So, if I can get everyone's attention, please. I will now call the city council meeting to order at 7:43 and ask Claudia to do a roll call.

Councelor Tokulski. Tolski. Takski. That's me. I'm here. I can hear you. Chennowit. I I'm here. Councelor Benner here. Councelor Giri. Good evening. Councelor Cunningham here. Council President Peralta here. Mayor Morris

here. Before we do the pledge, we do have one change. Uh number three on the agenda. Um the introduction of police some sergeants from the police department. It will be taken off the agenda for tonight. Okay. If you can stand, please stand for the pledge. of the United States of America. Now it's time for public comment. Any interested audience members are invited to provide comments and any comment provided that requires some type of follow-up will be assigned to a staff member. Anyone may speak on any topic other than a matter in litigation, a land use decision that is or will be in front of the city council or a matter scheduled for public hearing at some future date. Comments will be limited to four minutes per person for a total of 32 minutes. If you are on Zoom and wish to speak, please use the raise your hand feature or chat feature and send a chat to the city recorder team. You will need to provide your contact information prior to being promoted to speak. And once your turn is up, you we will announce your name and number, excuse me, your name and unmute you. Um, please announce your name and city you live in. For the record, we will start with anybody that has signed up previously.

Yes, we'll start with Patrick Evans. Okay.

And we still need to have you at this time. Thank you. I appreciate that. Nope. You're good. But thank you for asking. Mayor, as a point of protocol, I just wanted to see if Missy could help us. Uh because you just described not taking citizen comments for anything that could be a future land use decision. And that is, I think, what some people are here for, but we wanted some clarity on what that meant. Thank you. So, this the script Missy says, I'll read it to you. Um because this is we were called about this and this came up specifically.

Okay. Um that's why I'm asking it. Uh that uh anyone may speak on any topic other than a matter in litigation, a land use decision that is or will be in front of the city council. That was my specific concern. Yeah. Okay. I appreciate that. Yes. Uh so uh this I believe relates to the topic on the agenda that is the resolution. Yes. The annexation. Annexation agreement. Correct.

Okay. So I guess um it's I'm going to say what I understand the current status is an application for annexation or development has not been filed yet. Is that correct? The application for annexation has been filed and the annexation agreement has been adopted and approved. The land use application has not been submitted to the city yet.

Okay. If the land use application has not been submitted, then I uh there the exparte rules don't aren't triggered yet. So to be safe, I would I would suggest that uh PE persons could use public comment time for this. I think if we can put a note in the file to make sure that if this land use decision on the application that is yet to be filed does come before the city council, we can go ahead and do an exparte disclosure refresher and refer back to these comments from tonight. Okay. Thank Thank you, mayor, for that. No worry. Thank you. I appreciate it. So, you're allowed to speak and we'll just put a note in the file.

Thank you. So, you have Before I start my time, I'd like to give this to Mr. This is arrows for distribution. The uh

will you make sure that the microphone color is green? Yes. And that it's close to you when you speak. It is. And if we could make sure that a copy of what he just distributed gets into the into my inbox or into a packet so I can see it as well.

Yes. My name is Patrick Evans. I live at 3587 Northeast Joel Street, McMinnville. Uh I'm here in the matter of resolution 202618. Uh the material that's being passed out. Uh I won't bore you with reading every line. I'm sure you're all literate enough to take a glance at that. But basically, there are a series of small points that I want to make regarding that resolution. Number one, it appe it appears to us uh in the Shagguin Grand View uh Grand Haven neighborhood that the cart is getting ahead of the horse that an annexation uh conditional annexation agreement has been entered into and now the city council is being asked uh to change uh the way the system development charges may be applied to this project which as you heard has not yet applied. applied uh to the planning commission uh has not yet been found to be in compliance with any of the standards and so it feels as though we're slightly out of sync here and I would like to make that clear to the city council. The context of the the request actually uh as I have on the first page stems from the fact that the land value is $1.3 million. And so that in my view as a professional developer with nearly 50 years of experience is what is triggering this. It is not the SDC charges itself, but they are impacted by the cost of the project as it moves forward. And the single biggest item so far is the cost of the land. In my professional opinion,

what we're being asked to do in McMinnville is essentially transfer either immediately over time or overtime $540,000 of potential revenue to another government agency who is selling the land. If you follow that argument because the land was valued by the soil and water conservation district, it is the activity that's causing everything else to move around. Uh and I won't dig into it much beyond that because you can read very clearly what I what I presented. Uh we are a little disappointed because we uh following the initial uh developer hearing in late November requested that we as a community uh be made aware of any and all applications that were coming on this project. We did not find out about this hearing tonight until it was in the news register. We received no correspondence, no phone calls, no emails, no nothing. and that uh is very upsetting to us. And finally, uh one of the documents that I passed out was a petition on behalf of the Sheguin and Grand View neighborhoods signed by over a hundred people opposing the project in its current form. We are not saying that we would not support development. I know it's a double negative. We will support development if it fits into the great neighborhood paradigm and is consistent with the rest of the neighborhood development. So that the only argument we're having right now is how big, how much, how close and the fact that we're being asked as citizens to pay for essentially a component ultimately of their

development costs. Thank you very much. Thank you. appreciate your time. Yeah, thank you so much. Next we have Ron Larson.

Good evening.

Do you want to turn on your mic in front of you? Thank you. Green button.

Yes, that's okay. Thank you, Madam U mayor and council. Um, I want to be brief about my thoughts on the SDC fees. And I'm going to start with a little bit of a background. The new parks SDC fees presentation given by the city engineer to the city council on February 10th, 2026 set forth specific and rational reasons for the city to implement the new parks SDC fees effective July 2026. And that's actually building permits submitted as of that date or not. The I congratulate the city engineer and his staff on the excellent analysis of the proposed new parks SDC. The city needs obviously the city needs these SDC's to maintain a vibrant and growing city and I applaud you for that. By the way, the parks SDC fee increases have been on the city council agenda since at least March of 2024. So, this should not have been a surprise to the developers. They didn't do their homework. However, for the city council to now consider backing off on the new parks SDC fees for this one development proposal, which is yet to be submitted to and approved by the city planning commission, is most certainly taking a step backwards. Who loses in this propos proposed regression of the parks SDC fees? The answer is we the taxpayers of the city of McMinnville. The shortfall of the parks SDC fees quite well may be made up by future additional taxes on taxpayers in the city. Who wins? The profit of the

developers. Finally, I find it flatout hypocritical for the developers of the Parkside apartments to take advantage of the adjoining public park, which will most likely increase the appeal and desiraability of those apartments. And then they request that they not pay for their designated share of park SDC's. Unfathomable. We the taxpayers end up with an overburdened public park that will not meet the needs of our neighborhood while the city has less FDC's to address the situation. I urge you to vote no on this situation. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll leave the green button on. Thank you.

Next we have Doug Rucks. Good evening, mayor and counselors. Doug Rucks with the Rucks Group LLC. I'm here representing MAC multi LLC. And so we are on the agenda for 6A about the park SDC, an amendment to the annexation agreement. So you have in your packet a very detailed letter explaining our rationale related to all of this. We did meet with city staff, with your public works director, and with your community development director. And we really did not know about this until after the February 10th work session that you had when I had a member of the community reach out to me and said, "Did you know that they're talking about the SDC's?" Well, as we put in our material that we provided to you, we modeled our proforma based upon the SDC's that were in place at the time. But when we started to see that there was a 200 to 300% increase in SDC's which is about a $540,000 increase to this project. Um all of a sudden the proforma will it even work? Uh that's a big hit. Um because you know all of a sudden the park SDC is about you know $750,000 rather than the what we originally modeled based upon what was online. uh on your website, we're paying about $235,000 in parks SDC's. Parks SDC's don't go to pay maintenance. They do park improvements. We were made aware at our pre-application meeting that you had your new parks plan um which was done in June of 2024. Um but that was also stated at that particular meeting that they had not done anything about uh amending or modifying the SDC's. So that's why We kind of got caught off guard when we when I got a message. It's

like no, the council's talking about this. And so, um, Mac Multi LLC, we had a lot of discussions. We've looked at it. We've gone back through our perform a couple of times to see if, you know, an increase like this would work or not. And it it's a high likelihood it does not. Um, I've made suggestions to staff. is like, well, maybe you need to look at your park SDC and your whole list of projects and maybe you can't fund everything. Um, SDC's for transportation, for sewer, water, storm, so forth. I know you have Mac water light and so they deal with part of this. Um, but I I spent 40 years working in the public. I was a community de development director. I was I was Heather in other communities. And we always get to these very difficult conversations about what projects actually in these master plans can actually get funded over a 20-year period of time which need to find other funding sources. And so I just think it's important to say you can't have everything. And so we're aware in our annexation agreement that we've already prepared and was adopted. It was signed by the city on November 24th. we finally got it and got it recorded and so forth is that we are already doing a lot of things that have been asked for dedications of rideway. We know we've got half street improvements. We're dedicating an easement to be able to get access to the park. We're going to build the path. We're addressing the issue about a fence that would separate the development from the uh Jaguum Park itself. And it is true we have not filed our zone change application yet. uh this particular issue caught us. Uh like I said, we've had conversations with staff. We are prepared. I've been sitting on an application that's ready to submit for a month and so we're asking and we support the

staff recommendation to adopt resolution 2026-9. Thank you. Thank you.

We have Ames Beerley. Good evening. Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Amos Beerley. I'm a resident of McMinnville. Earlier this week, the Trump administration proposed another law that would make it more difficult for transgender people to buy guns. Just another nail in the never-ending war against my people by an unhinged wannabe dictator. Here in McMinnville, countless people will defend the Second Amendment, but I'd be willing to bet they don't want transsexuals like me to own guns either. Trump is making trans people into a boogeyman. Oppress us enough and you're guaranteed safety. Don't fall for it. Today, there was a shooting at the skate park about four blocks from my children's school. A MC high student was shot and injured. Which is it? Do we want more guns for everyone except trans people? Or do we want to enact common sense gun laws that keep kids safe? Are we really okay with guns being so pervasive and available that kids are being shot in a park? Of course not. But what are you going to do about it? I don't care about what you can and can't do as a city government. You can and should publicly advocate for policies and positions at all levels that will make our city and our children safer. Set a good example for your constituents and stick your own neck out for our children. Thank you. Anyone

else? Next we have Jordan Christie.

Hi

council. I've been here in the city of Mcpinnville for since 1978. Worked in the community. uh worked at Ford dealership, took care of the city stuff, the police cars and stuff like that. I've retired now and built my forever home. And when I bought my piece of property over in Shaguen, I was told that there was never going to be anything built behind me. Now, 10 feet from my house and my fence is going to be a three-story apartment. So, whoever dreamed this up was definitely on the wrong side of the bed. And the builder over here is just blowing halt here. So, would you want this in your backyard? Cuz we don't. And there I've got over 150 signatures here in the Shaguin area that don't want it. I have beat the pavement to try to get this vetoed and put something else in there. The school has no parking. The roads are a mess there because of drop offs and pickup. People are scared their kids are going to get hit. Somebody's going to get killed out there. If that apartment comes in there, there's going to be 750 more cars traveling up and down that road every day. If there is a fire during that and a three-story apartment building there, how are they going to get a ladder truck in there to put that fire out or save some kids are up on that top floor because there's no room for parking there? They're going to have to put trash cans and stuff over there. So, how are they going to get it in and out of there? Nobody's thought this ahead. And then he's dreaming about, well, we can adjust this and that. We can only adjust so far. You cannot put a

gallon of milk in a quart bottle. So, somebody needs to think ahead and not in front. So, I beg you guys to not let this happen. Ask me and the community around here, what would work in that area? Can we put parking in there for the school? Can we extend the park? Can we do something that people would be happy with instead of people being completely um upset and thinking about what it's going to cause the problem of that in there and to put something like that right in front of a grade school? I mean, come on. Do you know what kind of people are going to be in a one-story or twotory, a threetory, single bedroomedroom, double bedroom, threebedroom? It's just not going to fit in that area. So again, I appreciate you listening to me, but I hope you think ahead about this. Thank you for your time.

That's everyone that signed up. Is there anyone else in the hall that wanted to speak? Okay, thank you everybody that spoke. All right, we're going to move on to our consent agenda. Give me just a minute to move my pages. Does any council request have anything any item removed from the consent agenda and heard at its own place on the agenda? I do. Wow. Councelor Tekkowski. Yeah. Could I ask letter uh 5B is removed from the consent agenda?

Okay. Anything else? Okay. So, do I have a motion to accept the consent agenda minus D B? That's B like B is a boy. My apologies. I thought you said D. Okay. So, so move for accepting the consent agenda except for B. Great. So, I have a motion from councelor Cunningham. Second. Second from councelor Gary. Any further discussion? Claudia. Councelor Tolski. Hi. Councelor Chennowith. I. Councelor Ben. Councelor Brener. Hi. Councelor Giri. Hi. Councelor Cunningham. Hi.

Council President Peralta. Yes. The consent agenda has passed unanimously as amended by a vote of my gosh. Six to zero. Thank you. Now, we're going to look at item B. Um, consider the request from Moonlight Candles and Gifts LLC doing business as Northwest Food and Gifts, Northwest Crew for full on premises commercial OLCC liquor license located at 445 Northeast 3rd Street and 325 Northeast Evan Street. And councelor Takulski, could you please start?

Yeah, I'm going to abstain. Okay. Any other comments? Yep. Do I have a motion? I'll move item B passage. So I have a motion from councelor Peralta to accept item B. Do I I'm going to do a second from councelor Giri. Any discussion at this point? Councelor T. Oh, sorry. That's right, Claudia. Answer Tolski. I I abstain. Yeah. Councelor Chennowith I. Councelor Bunner. I.

Councelor Giri. Hi. Councelor Cunningham. I. Council President Peralta. Yes. Uh agenda item 6 5B. It's passed unanimously by a vote of five to zero.

Thank you. Now, we're going to go to item six, which is a resolution and consider resolution number 2026-9, a resolution authorizing the city manager to sign an amendment number one to the annexation agreement with the Amhill Soil, Water, and Conservation District, who is the property owner, and Mac Multi LLC, who is the buyer, for the future annexation of tax lot 0. that was approved via resolution number 2025-51. And I'd like to call on community development director Heather Richards to present. Thank you, mayor and counselors. Uh before I just wanted to um apologize to Ron and Patrick. Um I'm sorry I I live in a very regulatory world, so I thought we were talking about land use applications and not an application for an annexation amendment. Ron very diligently emails me every couple of weeks asking me if something has come in yet. So we are in communication but um I thought it was for the land use applications which we haven't received. So anyways uh tonight in front of you is is an amendment to an annexation agreement. Our annexations are not land use um land use decisions. They are separate from that uh in terms of an action of city council. And one of our processes is the first process for annexation is to enter into an annexation agreement with the applicant and the property owner. Uh that spells out what the city expects for the annexation and what the developer can expect for the annexation as well. Um, as you just heard, we were approached by um the applicant and the property owner for the property owned by Yamh Hill Soil Water and Conservation District, which is tax lot R4409 CD0000100, um, about making an amendment to the annexation agreement relative to the

parks uh, system development charge discussions that are taking place at the city right now. So what the resolution in front of you does is it um amends that annexation agreement to uh lock in a parks SDC rate based on the current methodology for the planned project. So our current methodology is a SDC rate that is per dwelling unit, not a scaled methodology. Um and it escalates every year based on a uh index, an inflation index. So they would like it they they've approached the city about having that rate locked so that it applies to all building permits for the property submitted within the five years of the effective date of the agreement. So that's the signature on the agreement u which I think uh Doug just described as November and then subject to the annual indexed adjustment identified in the current methodology. So keep in mind we haven't adopted a new parks SDC methodology. We haven't we haven't adopted new parks SDC fees either, but as they're working through their project and getting financing for it and getting it ready to come in for development, um the change in SDC's would be significant to their project. when they met with the public works director and I about those changes uh they had indicated that they had done a lot of analysis about it and um I asked them if they could provide that so we could bring it to you as well to understand the impact of the SDC's to different developments in McMinnville as we walk through this discussion. So uh this is a property that is an island within the city uh right now that's uh a a county island within the city. We actually don't allow that per our codes and policies, but it exists. So getting it annexed into the city is a goal of the city itself. I'm surprised to hear someone thought that it wouldn't be developed when they bought property adjacent to it because it's it has been

identified for development for um from what I can tell long before 2003 when we started the UGB amendment process. Um there is a planned project on this development which is a multi- uh unit apartment complex that they would like to build here and that's the discussion tonight in terms of the SDC impact to that project. Um they submitted their annexation application on in February of 2025 and they worked through the process of the annexation agreement which was approved on October 14th 2025. Uh the project team saw the work session on February 10th, 2026. So shortly after the annexation agreement was approved about the new parks SDC methodology being considered by the city. Per their calculations for their 75 unit market rate apartment project. It would increase the parks SDC's from 200 and this is based on next year's SDC fee which actually goes down because the uh inflationary index went down. So this is the FY2627 SDC parks fee. Um that it would uh increase their uh apartment projects parks SDC's from $231,600 to $770,154. And that's an increase of a little over uh $500,000, a 232% increase for the project. Uh the project team then calculated uh what this cost would mean in terms of the enduser for the apartments uh in within their proforma and from that calculation which they provided in their memo to you it increases rents on their project from $43 to $62 per month per unit to capture back the that additional $500,000 in fees. So they provided an analysis which I've pro I have some snapshots of it

here in the staff in the presentation but it was also an attachment to your staff report that looked at the size of the proposed units. So onebedroom, two-bedroom and threebedroom and the new parks SDC methodology is a scaling rate based on size. Um and so many of their twobs are 950 square feet. the cuto off for the next sort of threshold of fee and our our existing proposed SDC methodology is 1,000 square feet. So they fall just underneath that. Um as uh Doug pointed out in his memo, many two-bedroom apartments are a thousand square feet. That's a a standard. And so he he was just demonstrating to the city that if if they were 1,000 square feet, they would have escalated into the next threshold. But for this project, they provide their numbers and how they came to the 538,000 impact. Um, and then they provide their numbers in terms of how that impacts the different types of apartment units in terms of the market rate. Um, and there already, and we hear this right now from uh many private developers, uh, even though it feels really expensive in McMinnville, the um, our apartment uh, market rates, it's actually doesn't pencil out very well in terms of financing and construction for people to build market rate apartments. There are a couple of developers who have done so successfully, but we've heard from many who have struggled with trying to get the financing for it because the rent market in McMinnville is not um is not uh paying off the performer for the development costs. Um so but they are they have been looking at that they already came in they already knew that they would their perform it that they would have to provide their apartments higher than the existing average market rate to be able to make their project work and they showed that in terms of uh the column that says proforma versus market current

SDC and then what the difference would be if they went uh after the SDC itself that includes the the existing above market rate. So the for instance the onebedroom would would have to hit the market $100 above the average rate today and then the um the rent after the SDC increase would be of $4253 more. So 142 in total and this describes that a little bit better. So, uh, one of the arguments is cost and in terms of the the fee and what it means to the enduser, uh, utilizing those apartments. But there are some other arguments as well. And these are the arguments that we looked at as staff. Um, one one being that there's a material change occurring after the annexation agreement was executed that wasn't disclosed at execution. So, we haven't adopted these parks SDC fees. They've been in discussion. and it wasn't something that we shared with the project at the time that this could be a potential coming down the road because we didn't know where we were at as a city with them. Um and so there's because of that they're saying that because it wasn't disclosed to them that um they feel that they should be able to lock in the rate that currently exists because they've built their whole project on that. Um they've also made uh during our annexation agreement negotiations. We sit with the developer and negotiate what we'd like to see them do. Um, and because it's not a land use decision, we're not caught in the proportionality um, discussion. So, we're really having discussion of what's best for the community and the project. Um, and they have agreed to substantial infrastructure um, improvements. And then uh DOG also argues that um with the SDC increase, it could have a um impact

on the ability for the city to attract more apartment projects um in a community that is severely rent burdened and apartments are a housing need that we need right now under our housing production strategy. So, the proposed language in front of you is adding a section to the annexation agreement as amendment number one for parks SDC rates uh that states notwithstanding any amendment to the city's park system development charge schedule adopted pursuant to or following the city council's February 10th, 2026 parks SDC methodology work session. So, the city moves forward with adopting this new parks SDC methodology some somewhere down the road. Um the park system development charge of applicable to all residential dwelling units constructed on the on the subject property described in exhibit one shall be calculated and assessed at the rate in effect immediately prior to the effective date of any such new methodology ordinance. So that means um that when they presented their amendment request they did it based on next year's SDC fee. But if they didn't come in with a project so we calculate SDC fees when we issue the building permit. So, if we didn't issue a building permit for some reason until fiscal year 2728, this would lock this would establish that as the rate with the index, the um inflationary index that's currently in our SDC methodology. So, we didn't want to lock it into next year's rate. We just wanted to lock it into what would be the normal rate uh based on the existing methodology as to when the building permit is issued. Um, this rate lock shall apply to all building permits for the property submitted within five years of the effective date of this agreement. And this agreement is the agreement, the original annexation agreement, not the amendment, subject to an annual adjustment per the January January engineering news record construction index for Seattle, Washington. That's how we do our SDC rates. Um, the provision shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the city

successors and assigns pursuant to section 10 of this agreement. So for that five-year period from October 2025. So with that, happy to answer any questions you have. The public works director and myself both review this and are submitting it to you. Thank you counselors. Councelor Tokowski. Yeah, thank you Director Richards. Uh the question I have is uh how many other applicants are hanging out there right now that could come and request the same thing if we uh set once again precedents that we're going to allow a uh a lock or an exception at this time.

Yeah. So in terms of annexation agreements that we have

realistically anything that's going to encounter an SDC that could ask for an exception. Well, so right now that the argument for this one is that we've already entered into a contractual arrangement for this project with the annexation agreement and that because of that that's why they're asking for the lock rate. Um and if you determine that's the reason why you're doing it, it would it would could impact other projects that are in an annexation process as well. So, um, to that question, you have, uh, actually a project that's going to annex into the city. Um, we're bringing it to you on May 12th that is a subdivision, and if they don't move forward with their development, um, prior to adopting a new parks SDC methodology, I suppose they could come in with the same request as well.

Yes. So, you you used a term in there. You said we're I think you said we're in contract. Tells me we're legally obligated somehow.

No, not for the SDC rate. So the and that's the that's the difference. So the an annexation agreement between the city and the project was based on what the concept proposal was for the pro for the property. So part of part of the annexation application is they have to give us a concept plan as to what they're going to develop. So they've already disclosed we want to annex in and we want to build this 75 unit project. Um and then we entered into this agreement which is a contract between the city and the project. What needs to happen for annexation to occur? Um we do not have in the agreement anything about the SDC's and the SDC rates. That's their request is to actually amend that agreement to put this in there but that doesn't exist right now.

Okay. So for liability purposes, there isn't liability. There is not. Well, I'm I'm not a lawyer and I don't want to play one. So I will defer that to either David or Melissa.

Liability with regard to what exactly? I don't know how far we've entered into an agreement with uh said individuals and I don't want to get into a position where we're opening the city up for liability that could be pursued at a later date and then also open that up to others to have an SDC lock that could do the same. It's a rather general question, but I'm just concerned. Missy is still here. If you'd prefer she answer it, too. Missy, are you comfortable answering that question?

I have not been really involved in this annexation as you can tell from my initial questions at the beginning. But um I don't think there's much liability. This is kind of an unusual situation because there is an a contractual annexation agreement already in place, which I think is what Heather was saying. That's a distinguishing factor here. Um, otherwise, uh, there's no, I guess, for lack of a better word, goalposting of SDC fees, um, without, uh, without cause, let's say. Thank you. David, did you have anything you wanted to add? I do not. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. Uh, one thing I just want to clear that it wasn't not knowing about the SDC changes. I don't think the staff knew that it was going to come. It was a goal from the council. So, the council came up with five goals um in the fall. I think it was October. Is that correct, city manager? August 28th.

August 28th. Okay. It was one of the goals that was put on to research um park SDC's, not to determine whether they were going to happen or not, but at least look at them. Um and it was the last one that we addressed. And so, I guess I would say put that on us, not the staff about not knowing. Um, and I do want to make it clear that we have not decided if there's going to be an increase in park SDC's um, nor what those will be, if they're going to be tiered, if there's going to be any, if there's only going to be some residential, if there's only going to be industrial. We have not come to that decision. So, I have a hard time waving them when we don't even know what they are going to be. And generally, when something goes into place, we do give a little bit of a cushion for those that have applied for something. Um, again, I don't want to guarantee that. That is just something that we've talked about in the past, but I have a hard time um really agreeing to a five-year agreement on SDC's.

Councelor Peralta. Okay. Uh, thank you, Mayor. I don't have a comment just yet, but I'll listen to the dialogue. Thank you, Councelor Chennowith.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, Whoa, I just disappeared. Um, there we go. Um, sorry enjoying this nice weather. Um, uh, first question I would I have is following along with, uh, councelor Takolski is, this wouldn't be setting us up for a taking situation where we've entered into a contract and then all of a sudden we're we're we're jacking the cost by $500,000. That's that's not setting us up for a takings issue, is it? I don't believe Missy, I'll I'll defer to you on that, but I don't think it is. No, no, it's not.

Okay. Um, and then I guess I just have I do have a couple of comments um in terms of the alarming numbers that I saw on that screen. Um we're a severely rent burdened community and seeing um that this project has the uh that this project this potential parks SDC has the potential of increasing rents um on a severely rent burden community um and seeing that it's a 23 increase or two what is it 200% increase I guess is how you would put that uh three times as much as what it currently is um I or two times as much as what it currently is. Am I doing that right? No, three times as much. Um that's just astounding to me. Um and it does it's going to have to bring us back to some questions about what we're really thinking about these parks SDCs. Um in in terms of on this one, I'm kind of with Mayor Morris and that it's hard for me to put anything in place when I don't even know where we're at um on the SDC's. It's kind of like hedging my bet without knowing what the bet is and I don't know that I feel good about doing that.

Councelor Cury. Um so questions for staff period. The the table uh that lists the unit type and talks about the um McManel average market rent and then the proformer rent and then in the red letters or the numbers the the delta which is directly citing a direct cost of uh tying it to the SDC's. Did the applicant in this or at any other time with something that wasn't shared with us uh site direct specific costs that was that were contributing to their proforma rent?

I think I understand your question. Has has the applicant shared with us their perform and what it would mean in terms of rents previous to this discussion? Was that your question?

Um no. They they're show they're citing the specific cost for the delta from their proformer rent to uh above market rate and uh or required rent after STC increase and then adding the the what it is above market rate plus the additional cost to show the park SDC means this delta over the rent our performer says that's the rational co direct cost that's going into we're going to pass this direct cost on to every single uh rent payer. in that did they define any of the costs direct costs that are going into the 15 the 1450 per month the 1750 per month and the 2,000 per month?

No. So we haven't seen any financials on this project outside of the memo that you have in your uh council packet. So the the park park view proformer rents are presumably based on what we know just based on market rate. here's what I'm I can charge and then the the the the delta that they're showing is based on our specific parks STC rates. I won't presume to answer that question because I don't know quite frankly. Very good. Thank you, Councelor Benner.

Just a procedural question. Tonight we're discussing SDC's. Will there be another opportunity to discuss what happens in the annexation or what's happening in the annexation as part of an agreement that has not come before the city council?

Uh tonight you're you're discussing their request for an amendment to the annexation agreement. The annexation agreement has been approved by city council previously. So unless we amend it again, um we wouldn't be discussing that. uh but the actual project itself. So they need to go through a land use process and this might be what you're asking. Um they need to go through a land use process which will involve a zone zone map amendment and that will come to you for a decision. So we've already approved the annexation.

No, you've approved an annexation agreement. It cannot annex. So what will happen is and you'll see this happen on May 12th. uh your next city council meeting. The annexation agreement states that they need to go through a land use process before annexing into the city because we want to make sure they're ready to develop when they annex into the city. And so on the typically on the same night that you're going through the land use decision-making process, you will also be annexing the property into the city. So the annexation agreement is just a precursor. There's been there's been no action to annex. Thank you. Anybody else down there?

Cunningham. Okay, go ahead. Councelor Peralta, you ready?

Thanks. Um, so I find myself uh in agreement with uh the mayor and councelor Chennowith. I I think we have not yet set new rates. Um, we haven't contemplated the method by which we'll implement new rates if we set them. And so I think it's premature to give an exemption to uh any group um before we've sort of decided what we're going to do going forward. So I I think from my perspective this is premature. Um I think that the applicant is acting out of uh limited information and I think it was right right for them to take the due diligence and come back and and ask us to review the agreement. Um, but I I would uh say that we we haven't yet decided what we're going to do. So, it it would be premature to make assumptions about what how the incoming rates will affect this project's proform.

Answer Gary. Uh yeah, I would just uh say I'm in alignment with with that and then only add that it's common and and even um we've had discussions around the potential upcoming parks STDC specifically about a phase in or a ramp in or a a period of time where they're lower or a period of time where they're not applicable at all to give fair notice to people that hey that we did approve this new schedule and here's the time for you to prepare, get in and move in um with your plans and then get yourself locked in via the actual plans getting turned in. uh at that time. And so I think we're still um even though we have no uh new SDC schedule approved, no timetable in concrete, we generally have a way that uh that we still uh slowly onboard people. So I think the tools are in place to to to be fair and provide that opportunity.

Any other discussion or do I have anybody want to make a motion? You can look at page Or do we do we just let it go if we choose? No, you actually can just not take it. Okay. Anybody want to do I have a call for the motion if there is one? If not, may I ask a question? Yes, you may. If we just let it ride and we choose to do nothing, does that just leave it open for future discussion or what's the procedure?

It would just be not passed. Um, it could be called forward parliamentarily in the future if that were the desire of council. That's generally true of other things as well. Um, you could also move it and vote it down if that were in your mind. As we talk about procedure, moving for something doesn't mean you are voting for it necessarily, though we tend to use it that way. Um, that would put you in a parliamentary process where it couldn't just be called up in the future, but would have to indicate some sort of change in circumstance or information. ask a followup. So would that be alternative three? Is that rejecting the attached resolution and do not lock in the existing or does that take action on that one?

Either of those are rejecting in my mind.

Do you have a proposal, Councor Tulski? Nope. Well, yeah, I have one more question. Is that okay? You have another question always. Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. So, if what would make this uh resolution easiest for the applicant to bring back at a future date without the city having to do continued leg work, which costs us time and money if they so chose to do so?

I don't easiest for the applicant would be to not raise it up at all at this time. Then that's my recommendation. Let it lie. Let it lie.

All right. All the We don't have to vote. So unless I hear differently, we're going to pass and let it lie. Okay. We're going to move on. We're going to move on to ordinances. Now we are at 7A. Consider the first reading with a possible second reading of ordinance 5175. Does any counselor need to declare an actual potential conflict of interest or recuse themselves regarding this ordinance? I think we already noted that previously just some contact being at um empower and then I had a conversation with Shayla over a year ago. Um but none of it will be a conflict for tonight. We will now consider the matter of ordinance number 5175. Does any counselor object to having the ordinance read by title only? Nope. All right. I'd like to call in city attorney David Lightenberg.

Thank you, Mayor. This is the first reading of ordinance number 5175, an ordinance memorializing the city council's decision for the empower appeal of the planning commission's denial of SE1-25. Thank you. And now I'd like to call on Heather Richards, community development director. Uh, I don't have anything further. Nothing further. Okay. Does any counselors have any additional questions for staff at this time? I I have a question. Yeah. Okay. Oh. Uh can I do that? It's it's what's on the record is closed, right? And so um this is

there won't be availability of qu questions for staff. This is a clarifying question about the uh I would say the ordinance itself sounds fine. Okay. I'm not looking for details. Okay, we're talking about 7A. It says, "Consider the first reading of this ordinance. Is a a nay in favor of the sign or against the sign?" I want to be very clear with our votes

or a yay in favor. So I would say it's similar to the um the discussion we had with the other appeal the MIP appeal where it's been brought to you a findings document that is the planning commission document. you can direct staff. You you can make a motion. Uh I got to make sure it's not in the ordinance language itself, but my understanding is you can make it you can make a motions for the ordinance to adopt the ordinance with a decision document that it that denies or approves uh with different findings and criteria if that's where you choose to go. You would just need to provide us what your findings and criteria are as part of that motion. Is that right, Missy? So, think of the ordinance as adopting whatever your decision is and then if your decision is different than what the attach exhibit A to the ordinance right now, you're amending that exhibit. So, you can do it a couple ways. You could make the decision and uh provide the findings and criteria tonight. you could direct staff like you did with the MIP appeal to uh come back with um amended well actually you didn't have an unanimous vote that evening but you could direct staff to come back with amended uh amended decision document as well based on your decision and findings and criteria

but I'm not sure that does that answer councelor Tulowski or did the right now the planning commission denied it Yes. So, you would be voting yes to to agree with them. Yes. Or no. That's not how I read this, but maybe I'm just reading it wrong. This talks about It says the ordinance memorializing the city council's decision for the empower appeal. So, to me, it sounds like a yes vote would allow the appeal of empower to be upheld. Or am I going I don't think that's the intention. The intention is the ordinance is memorializing whatever your decision is.

Would it be possible to get the page the in the packet of where the actual ordinance is?

You okay? We're going to bring up the PowerPoint's last slide that sort of said what the city council options are. Is that what you're asking for, Councelor Cunningham? Yes. Also, if we could have the page number, that would be helpful. Page 126 of your packet.

126. The the other thing in terms of process, councelor Chachchowski, you could probably just share what your thoughts are and what you want to do and maybe Missy can help you with what the motion should be to get there. Well, I mean, I just I want to get the terminology correct because this is important and I guess let me ask a very simple question. If you are in favor of the planning commission, are you voting yay or are you voting nay? because it's a challenge to tell with the terminology.

I think that depends on what the motion ends up being. So, yeah, I I guess what I would say is if if your question is you're voting to support the planning commission decision, then that is option that's the first option up there, which is you're approving ordinance number 51 uh whatever the ordinance number is 75. I'm already in the natural hazards in my head. 5175 and you're not amending the decision document. the exhibit. That's that's exactly the document that I was looking for. Thank you. So, before we have a motion, is there any other discussion up here for deliberation? Yes, I'd love to have some discussion.

Okay, Councelor Chennowith.

Um, so, uh, couple of things that that come out to me. I I I find the argument that trying to splice hairs between types of screens to be compelling. Um they all are capable from a technological standpoint of doing the same kinds of things pretty much these days. So having some sort of delineation between types of screens seems um um difficult for me at best to to uphold to as a as a technical person. I I don't I I I don't follow how we can be making that delineation. Um so there's that. Um, I I also struggle with the concept that we can have as large a sign as we want on the side of a building if it's painted. But if it's a fixed image done on a digital canvas, for lack of a better way to put it, we can't. That seems like an inconsistent policy to me. Um, and so I'm struggling in my mind, um, rationalizing how that makes any sort of sense in today's technological world. Um, I also agree that we don't want moving imagery um, to be distracting our drivers as was made by one of our as a comment was made by one of our um, uh, people in the audience. Um, and so I I I it strikes me that that we have code that perhaps needs to be interpreted differently to take into account the current technological circumstances that we find ourselves in. Um, because essentially what I hear the

applicant saying is we want the ability to not have to repaint our building every time we want to change the sign. or repaint the sign every time we want to change the sign. Um, and I think that is a a persuasive argument to me. Um, so having them come forward with the option of saying, okay, you set the fixed time by which that that image has to stay up there before it can switch out to a new image. seems like a reasonable solution to the problem, right? If even if that time is long, say a week, whatever that time frame is to eliminate this image catching attention as people driving by, but making acknowledgement that a fixed building sign shouldn't depend upon what that sign is made of, um, I think makes logical sense. That's my thoughts.

Councelor Peralta.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I appreciate those comments. Um, I guess my perspective is that I don't think it really matters whether it's a video sign or an ECC sign, meaning whether it changes out in eight seconds or two minutes or however long in terms of whether or not we should reject it because I don't think the sign meets the criteria in either case just given the size and the nature of the um of the scope of it. Um I appreciated the political comments of support um for the employer from the chamber of commerce but I and I agreed with all the salutary comments of the chamber director. Um but this is a quasi judicial matter. So from my perspective the political support really isn't relevant to the question at hand. Um, I do think and I agree with councelor Chennowith to some extent that I think the applicant has raised questions about uh that may justify a review of our city code as it applies to large buildings and large employers. Um, but we have the code that we have, not not some future um potential code. And I do think that the under underlying law was pretty clear in terms of trying to meet a community intent of not allowing large signs, whether it was electronic or otherwise. Um I I think that in from my perspective the goals of empower uh can be achieved while conforming to the ordinance which I think is is a reason to not allow an exemption. Um, if the I would agree that the version of the 24 square foot sign that they presented uh would be not sufficiently legible uh from 160 ft at a highway. But that same sign, the way that staff uh presented it with essentially a a ticker billboard

that could be, you know, 16 ft long, 18 in high, uh with uh with displays that can be changed out that would easily be seen from 160 ft or 600 ft, I think, is what the standard would be for that type of sign. So, I don't think that that creates a significant barrier. And I guess finally, I would say I'm less concerned about this particular applicant than about the precedent that it sets on that Highway 18 corridor. Right now, that's on the outskirts of our town, but that's not going to be the case forever. And so, my my concern is that we're uh contemplating sort of a one-off for this um admittedly excellent employer, important uh company for our community. Um, but I I just don't think it's fair to everybody else who uh wants a a a certain type of look and a a certain type of uh standard in the community. And I was I've been around long enough to remember both the 2008 and the 2016 sign conversations. And I do think that the community really did speak out very clearly against these really large signs, which was the intent of the ordinance and and that's captured. So, um, in general, I felt like the legal arguments that Empower made were, um, not persuasive. Um, I I thought that the that the technical argument u related to, you know, essentially trying to put it into one bucket versus the other that that didn't fail. But even if I accepted that tech technical argument, it still wouldn't justify um uh allowing the sign. And I again I do think that that a 16 foot long 18-inch high sign that you can change out whether it's now hiring or buy our bars

or whatever um might meet most of what the goals of of Empower are with this sign. So that's my perspective. Thank you. Thank you,

Councelor Cunningham. I um echo everything that uh my fellow counselors have talked about and and how uh we value these partnerships um with these businesses. Um my experience uh more almost at this point on the historic landmarks committee uh is finding how we get to yes. uh and how we get to yes has to work with the code that's already in existence. I think the last time we spoke about this here, we had to make sure that we weren't uh writing new code. And so I would agree with S that unless one of my fellow uh counselors has something in our code that that would point to allowing this, but I I would struggle to approve this myself as well.

Councelor Takolski.

Yeah. So um I guess I'll just try to close this out. I did want to recognize a planning commission. Um I was part of the planning commission for a couple years. They do great diligent work. It's always thorough and uh they make hard decisions with quas judicial things. So it's not always your opinion that you get to express. You don't like what you choose sometimes, but you apply the laws as they are the laws and all the ordinances as they need to be applied. Uh I also wanted to recognize empower. I mean you're a great employer here in town. Significant contribution. U you make great products as well. So, I just want to say thank you for your continued presence, investment, and the belief in the city. And also, um to me, this isn't just a simple uh exception. It sets precedence for the future of current science elsewhere within the city. And so, I would like to make a motion. I would like to um affirm the planning commission decision by approving ordinance number 5175, adopting the decision, findings of fact, and conclusionary findings. further decision document that's been provided.

I have a motion from councelor Takowski. Do I have a second? I'll second. Second from councelor Cunningham. Any further discussion? Councelor Tukulski. Hi. Councelor Chennowith. Nay. Councelor Benner. Hi. Councelor Giri. Hi. Councelor Cunningham. I. Council President Peralta. Yes.

Um motion passes with this ordinance number 5175 passed by a vote of 5 to1 on its first reading and will be brought back for a second reading on May 12th city council meeting. So, it'll be coming back on May 12th in front of the council again. Thank you for coming tonight. Yes. May 12th.

May 12th. Okay. Okay. All right. So, we're going to move on to ordinance number 5178. Consider the first reading with the possible second reading of ordinance number 5178, an ordinance adopting the natural hazards program. I'm sorry. I guess I should call on somebody. I would like to call on David Lightberg to have the first reading. Can we read it by title only? Everybody okay with that?

Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I was a little distracted. Just want to make sure. Did you request that people declare an actual or potential conflict? I did not. Anyone? Thank you. Thank you. Um, this is the first reading of ordinance number 5178, an ordinance adopting the natural hazards program.

Okay. So, I was over here trying to shorten the presentation. That's all right. You have a longer one that I provided to you last night. I was able to shorten it. Um, many of you have been through this with us a couple of times. I apologize. Councelor Benner, may I interrupt real quick? I'm sorry.

Um, I just want clarification on the potential conflict. Um h how does that work in a situation like this where you have lots of um tracks of land and housing that is uh potentially looking at increase in costs if any development is done on those properties going forward? Is it because it's broad-based across the entire city like a tax that we don't have to declare that or h how exactly does that work? I I think if I understand your question, councelor Chennowith is uh adopting this overlay zone may have financial impact on some properties. Um because of that, we have to by state law do what's called a measure 56 notice. So all impacted people, all impacted property owners within the overlay zone. So anytime you adopt as a city a zone that could have financial impact to a property owner, you have to do this measure 56 notice. The language in the measure 56 notice is very explicit. It says that the city is considering zone that could impact your property financially and then invites uh people to come to a public hearing or information session. So in this case, we actually did a measure 56 notice twice. uh we did it when we first started this project and we're getting it to some conclusion in 2023 to let people know and then they came into the public hearing process and we had a lot of discussion about their concerns relative to how the zone would impact their property. That's the whole purpose of of doing the measure 56 notice. Uh and then we went back and did a lot of amendments to the uh proposal. And then uh when we got direction from city council in January after the work session to move forward with this, we did another um notice to all impacted property owners to let them know we were bringing this back into the planning commission public hearing process uh with the changes proposed. And so they had the

opportunity to meet with staff or come into the public hearing and provide testimony as to um you know how they felt it may or may not impact their property. So it allowed the people who who could have impact from this policy decision to participate in the public process of influencing how this overall program is developed and adopted by the city. And in this case it did have a lot of influence. So no my question is more about our conflicts of interest as counselors. um ho how does that work when our our properties partic potentially are being impacted?

So co councelor China are are you saying that your property is going to be in a property you own is going to be included on in the natural hazards overlay? Correct. And does that mean that I would need to be yes

declaring a conflict of interest? So I would characterize that as a potential conflict of interest because it's something that could have a either detrimental or favorable I guess depending on how you look at it impact. And uh it um this evaluation is unfortunately for you to make whether it also rises to the level of an actual conflict of interest such that it will have a financial impact. If you believe it has an actual if you have an actual conflict of interest and it will have an actual financial impact on you then you should abstain.

Yeah. I don't think that but I would like to declare a potential conflict of interest that won't impact my decision. Okay. Thank you. Before you go on, I think we have a little bit more. Yeah. I also need to declare a potential conflict of interest that will not affect my decision. Okay. And I probably need to note that I did talk to David Kosh at the prior to the last meeting. So I did have that natural hazard conversation with him. Yeah. And this this is a legislative action. So, so the good news is uh that exparte rules don't apply but conflicts of interest rules which are ethics rules do apply. Yeah. Okay. So, I gave a long-winded answer to the wrong question.

Sorry, I also have to declare that I have a property in the natural hazards and I actually have a rental property as well in the natural hazards and therefore that is a potential conflict of interest.

Yep. Okay. And I was trying to make this shorter. U what I want to do since everyone in this room has seen this before except for councelor Benner I think um is really fly through a little bit of it and then get to what changed at the planning commission after your work session. That's my intention uh with this. So the first big change was we did hear at the planning commission some concerns about the fact that we were developing overlay zone that had the word hazard in it um which could you know implicate just flat clouds over you know property values and implications like that. So um one of the things that the planning commission did change is they changed the nomenclature. So now we're calling it instead of um the natural hazard overlay zone it's a managed development overlay zone. It has two subd districts, a managed development area and a limited development area. And your ordinance tonight does five things. It amends uh the comprehensive plan and every volume of the comprehensive plan. So we have one, two, and three, three volumes. So it amends the background elements by putting the data and inventory in there. So that's where we put all the research and due diligence information. It amends the uh volume two which is goals and policies by adding a new chapter entitled natural features. It amends the uh volume three which is our zoning ordinance by um amending the flood area zone and adding again a new chapter called the management development overlay zone in subd districts. It amends volume three the zone map by adding this management development overlay zone and these two subd districts and then it adopts the decision document and findings for docket G3-22. So we're doing this because it is an Oregon land use goal. It uh the Oregon land use goal number seven requires cities to conduct natural hazard

planning. The whole purpose behind this is to protect people and property from areas that may have that are prone to hazards. The goal walks us through how to do this work. It tells us to look at um we first of all we need to do it in terms of adopting comprehensive plans with an inventory policy and implementing measures. So I just told you what all those things are to reduce that risk and it tells us what type of hazards to look at. So the list is there and the ones the ones that pertain to McMinnville are floods, landslides, earthquakes and wildfire. It then tells us how to do the work. So you do the work by collecting the data, evaluating it, assessing the risk to people and property. And then you allow citizen review and comments. Uh and then you adopt your comprehensive plan policies. And it tells you to adopt plans and policies and implementing measures that do two things. Avoid development in hazard areas where the risk to people and property cannot be mitigated or prohibit and prohibit the sighting of essential facilities, major structures, hazardous facilities, etc. in in those areas um that are considered hazard areas. So the reason why there's a trigger and when when you have to do this work and it's when there's new data available or a significant event. Both things occurred for McMinnville. um new data was released by the state uh in 2019. Uh in 2018, Yamhill County updated their natural hazard mitigation plan which had a McMill element to it. And then right around the same time, we started working on the UGB remand um and uh and then amended the UGB in December of 2020. So that was the major event and the new data was from 2019. So that told us you need to do goal seven to work. What we

adopted as part of the Yam Hill County mitigation plan had policies in it. The policies talked about looking at doing a inventory of hazards in the area, develop and maintain a GIS mapped hazard area within the UGB and then establish a process to coordinate with state and federal agencies about data. We did all of that and then it said uh to then develop policies where you limit or prohibit development in high hazard areas and you encourage mitigation practices in developments at risk to natural hazards. So both of those things we did as well. So all five of these policies that we that was adopted aart as part of the Yam Hill County plan are the things we put together with this project. Um part of the inventory and data was these maps that sort of uh identified the different hazards. I wanted to keep this one in the presentation just to identify that up in the northwest area, the west hills is where you see a lot of overlapping hazards occurring uh in McMinnville. And this is the one that shows wild wildfire and landslide. And the this one showed landslide risk. So the emerging concerns for McMinnville with was landslides and earthquakes. Uh what we learned from the states McMinnville has a 45% chance of an earthquake in the next hundred years with an intensity of six or greater. Uh so that's something that we need to plan for and it's based on the fact that we have liquefaction soils throughout the whole city. So when an earthquake happens rather than things falling apart necessarily they're going to sink. So the resulting recommended program and plan was these two subd districts. So this overlay zone um with these two subd districts. So the managed development area subd district which used to be what we call the natural hazard mitigation district is where we're asking for more information to understand how development should occur. So it's not

limiting development. It's just saying we need more information to understand how it should occur. Um and it's consist and then development will be allowed consistent with those mitigation studies. So typically like in the west hills we know there's a landslide issue up there with the soils. So we get a a geo assessment done for each property built up there and they and the foundation for those homes need to be reflecting whatever that assessment says. That's underway today and it has been happening for the last seven or eight years. And then in the limited development area subd district, this is where we actually do limit development um because they are considered high cumulative hazards. So it's not just one hazard that's a high risk, it's many hazards at a high risk. And that's when we said really we shouldn't allow any sort of intense development to happen where there's an assembly of people. So multifamily is not allowed, schools aren't allowed, uh essential facilities aren't allowed, large commercial development is not allowed. Um in terms of impact to properties today, existing built environments considered conforming. So nobody will be non-conforming and then it also allow allows up additions up to 50% of the habitable floor area of the existing building. So you can you can expand your building by 50%. In terms of the floorprint and go up as high as you want. Um and the planning director will determine um the standards that we need for that submitt and information provided. We reached out to partners uh throughout this whole process. The DLCD was very involved with this, their natural hazards division, the regional representative, Doggami was involved at the department of geology and minerals. Um McMinnville public works was very involved. McMinnville water and light and McMinnville fire district were all involved. Terms of public outreach, I just described to you the measure 56 program we go through. Um we also set up a project website that has all the

information on it. We conducted public information sessions. We've met with um individual property owners one-on-one throughout this whole process. We started public hearings at the planning commission in 2023 and we've conducted, I think, six there. And then we sent out another 2,200 letters to impacted property owners here in January after your work session to let them know that we were uh starting the public hearings again. So, property owner comments we've heard throughout all of this is we've actually heard positive response. People were happy to see it happen. We have a few antidual stories of from people who said, "I wish this had happened earlier because I'm noticing issues on my property and my built environment." Um, we're hearing that from some people on the western side. Uh, we also heard concerns about the viability of the data in terms of um, uh, how um, exacting it is or is not. Uh, we heard concerns from property owners about the financial impact on them uh, relative to a couple things. So the cost of the study that's required in the mitigation area, the assessments that are required there, um the prop the perception of impact on property value, whether it's real or not, but there's still the perception and that's what led to the discussion of nomenclature and then insurance implications uh whether or not insurance uh will go up for those properties that are in hazard areas. What we've heard from insurance companies, it won't because insurance companies actually won't insure against hazards. Um and then property owners that are adjacent to potentially hazardous properties. This was this is what came up most recently um came forward and said your site assessment the studies that you're requiring they are just for that particular parcel where the development will occur but when a development occurs there in some hazard areas it could impact neighboring properties as well. So they had concerns about that and planning commission shifted and made some adjustments relative to those

concerns too. So, the planning commission shifts where they um they put together an appeals process um so that uh for people who are able to access more data uh can bring it to the city and say we think you're wrong. We don't think that the risk is the the data you have for risk is uh correct and this is our other information uh for you to consider um to remove. So for instance, we had one property that had a wildfire hazard on it adjacent to Michael Book because they had some large trees on their property. Uh Michael Book is considered uh that wildfire can come down through the country through the golf course because of how it's how it migrates up into the West Hills in terms of that fire. Um but anyways, they cut down those trees since we did the data analysis and so they came forward and said the trees don't exist anymore and so we removed them because the wildfire assessment went down. Um we did put a transfer of residential density rights together for the limited development area so that uh property owners wouldn't lose the um developable rights of the value of that for their property. Um we invited staff from Dami and DLC to some public hearings to talk about the veracity of the data. Um let's see we changed the names for the nomenclature. We added a 200 foot impact zone for consideration. So that's the discussion of what happens to the surrounding properties and then we changed the scoring methodology which um you gave direction for in your work session and so I just wanted to share with you what what the impact of that was. If you recall, we talked about the methodology and how things were scored and then what dropped them into the two subd districts and you gave us direction on uh how to do that, which was sort of a hybrid of the two scenarios we brought to you. And the premise behind this was we're not taking anything out of sort of this hazard um perspective, but we're we dropped more properties from that protection zone into the mitigation zone

because the mitigation zone is all about finding out more information. So you could find out some more information that doesn't that means the hazard's not as bad as it was. So that created a new overlay map and this shows the difference between the two. You'll see a lot of the um red that was in the west hills went down. Um and then you also see a lot more of of the red which is the protection zone overlapping the flood plane area. So in our flood plane zone we don't allow a development um and an impact to properties when we changed the scoring methodology essentially 400 properties um converted from the limited development area to the managed development area. So we shifted 400 properties and this shows what that shift looks like. So um this it this shows the managed development area is orange within the city limits and the red is the limited development area. This particular map shows how that limited development area overlaps with the flood plane. So you see it's only on the very edges of some pe some places in the community where it's outside the flood plane. Uh and what that means is the flood plane's not allowing a development to occur anyway. So that's kind of a neutral situation with the overlay zone. And then there are some properties that are a little bit impacted that are along the flood plane there. And this this shows the impact of that across the city. So that's the limited development area that will have development impact. Um the floodplane zone, it's important that's part of this as well. That's to get us compliant compliant with the FEMA and the Endangered Species Act suit. So, um, we've gone through that before, but essentially, um, if we're going to develop anything in the flood plane zones moving forward that has some sort of net effect, we need to do a habitat assessment. And so, we're adding that to our code uh to become compliant with

that. So the decision document and the findings I wanted to there's some new um uh there's new aspects to the findings document for this one to reflect on uh the discussion that occurred uh with this planning program. So there's a general conclusion section there's a lot of discussion about the veracity of data the legal standard associated with that those types of things. So we created findings rel that uh responded to that and this is an example of that. Um, one was the response to testimony regarding the accuracy and reliability hazard data. The applicable legal standard is we need to work from the best available information. Uh, the city's ob obligation under goal two and goal seven is to base its planning decisions on an adequate factual basis, not perfect or sight specific certainty. And then we walk through what the findings is for that. So that sort of talks about what the city's role is relative to the data piece. So in terms of your options available tonight, this is a recommendation from this from the planning commission. Uh you can adopt the ordinance affecting all the proposed changes uh as submitted by the planning commission. You can adopt the ordinance uh in an amended form. So you amend some of the exhibits there. You can refuse to adopt the amendment through a vote to deny or call for a public hearing uh to go through that process yourself. And I will say at the planning commission the second set of public hearings uh we didn't have as much public comment maybe half a dozen.

So with that happy to answer any questions. Any questions? Councelor Benner. I was able to look on the interactive map and I am now also recruited. in the managed development area. I'm going to assume just to clarify that was a declaration of a potential conflict of interest. Correct. Yes, sir. Thank you. There have not been any comments. Uh yeah, unless there's any comments, I'd like to move the uh recommendations as developed by the planning commission.

I have a question. Oh, there you are. Councelor Chennowith. Thank you. Um Heather, can you go through with me? You you hit the page really fast. Um the the the language about the EPA stuff. What's the rationale for adding that in our code? Uh the language about the FEMA ESA stuff, the flip lane piece, requiring the the the Yeah. Yeah.

So that the the story behind that is um the endangered uh species someone sued this the uh Oregon chapter of FEMA for not um protecting endangered species in floodplane zones uh utilizing the endangered species act. So after that lawsuit there was a mitigation remedy which they're still working through. But part of the mitigation remedy is that uh cities now need to um regulate development in flood plane zones that protect natural habitat. So for us to be compliant with that state standard, which is a federal ma mandate, we need to make an amendment to our code. We don't allow development to begin with really, so it's not that big of a change, but we do need to make an amendment to our code that says we will ask for a habitat assessment uh for the development that we do allow. And so that's what that change is for.

Thank you. I just was confused because I it was required anyways. So I didn't understand why we had to have it in our code. But thank you. I appreciate the explanation. Okay. So I have a motion um from councelor Peralta. A motion to accept the first reading of ordinance 5178 and possibly passed to a second reading. Do I have a second? Second. A second from councelor Gary. Any other questions? Claudia. Councelor Tukulski. Hi. Councelor Chennowith. Hi. Councelor Benner. Hi. Councelor Giri. Hi. Councelor Cunningham. I. Council President Peralta. Yes.

Uh motion. Ordinance number 5178 passes on its first reading unanimously. Okay. I will now ask the city attorney to read the ordinance again by title only. Thank you. to city recorder cisneros. This is the second reading of ordinance number 5178, an ordinance adopting the natural hazards program. Thank you. Do I have any discussion or do I have a motion? I have a motion. Okay. So, I have a motion again to accept the second reading of ordinance number 5178. Do I have a second? Second.

A second from councelor Cunningham. Any further discussion? Claudia. Councelor Takolski. Hi. Councelor Chennowith. Hi. Councelor Benner. Hi. Councelor Giri. Hi. Councelor Cunningham. I. And Council President Peralta. Yes. Ordinance number 5178 is adopted unanimously by a vote of six to zero.

Thank you. Okay. So, we're going to go ahead and move on to councelor and committee and board assignment reports since it's getting late. 918 might be early for us actually. So, I am nice snort. I'm gonna call on finance director Katie Henry. Giving you a hard time.

Thank you, Mayor. Quick update from finance. Um all things budget are coming to a head. Um you will all have your uh proposed budgets by Friday. Um so please be watching your emails. You will get specific instructions um on coming to pick them up. We do anticipate that the printer may be done early, so they may be ready on Thursday. Um but for sure we'll be ready on Friday. And so I will have specific instructions for you as to what to do and and times and things like that, but I'm waiting to send it out so I know exactly when when you can come and and when we'll be available. Um other than that, it's just business as usual.

Great, Chief Wood.

Good evening. Uh today we hired a new police officer. Uh his name is Lucian Levra. and Lucian, uh, if you're listening, I apologize if I mispronounced that. Uh, we will be bringing him on board, uh, and sending him to the police academy on the 25th of May. Uh, currently we still have two, uh, we have one lateral officer in our field training program, two officer candidates in background, and we have seven to eight folks scheduled for an assessment center and interviews on May 9th. Um the only additional thing to report on to council is I attended a YCOM executive board meeting uh primarily focused on an update of the 190 user membership agreement. Uh that work is ongoing with another upcoming meeting the first week of May.

Thank you. HR Director Vicky Hedges.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh I have been working with Police Chief Cordwood on some midter midterm bargaining with the MPA. uh regarding the schedule change. So, we are working through that. Uh a quick update on the parks and rec director recruitment. We had 86 applications for that uh recruitment, which is a great turnout. We had uh a hard time narrowing it down. We offered virtual interviews to 14 applicants, 12 scheduled, two of them withdrew. We conducted half of those virtual interviews today. We'll conduct the other half next week and then plan to select uh applicants to move forward to in-person interviews. Uh and then just an update on training. We have 56% complete training. Uh 18% are in progress and then 26% have not yet started. As a reminder, they have until June 30th to complete those trainings. And just a special call out to note that uh police chief Cordwood here has completed all of his training.

Good job. Matt Bernard's, are you filling in for Goff Hunseer? Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah.

Uh couple of updates. So, the I'm sure everyone's seen the ODOT curb ramp project is going through town. Uh we have city staff that is coordinating with ODOT's project managers and the contractors doing the work. Um, and we're really making sure they're keyed into some of our summer events that will be coming up here soon. So, making sure that they won't be interrupting any of that. Uh, we also have our wastewater rates and SDC's uh that the SDC portion is going to be coming forward uh to you in June, I believe, at a work session. Um but wanted to give you a heads up that in May the annual wastewater rate uh adjustment will be coming forward as well. Um and that rate adjustment is uh going to be increasing due to operational costs this year uh mainly with materials and um equipment costs. And then uh lastly the city engineer recruitment is going on right now. Uh we are working to schedule the first round of interviews for that. Um and it's a critical role for us in engineering to get someone back on board. So we're hoping to find someone and get that spot filled.

Great. They don't no 86. City reporter Claudia Cisneros. I have nothing for the council. Thank you. City councelor Cunningham. Yeah. Uh so historic landmarks committee had another quasi judicial uh meeting so I was not able to attend that uh and I have affordable housing tomorrow. Councelor Peralta.

Thank you mayor. Uh I just had some follow-up conversations um after the southwest area plan discussion we had related to land bing. I had a couple of conversations with property owners interested in donating land for park or natural use. I can check in with Heather later. And I'll be meeting with the Soil and Water Conservation District board chair to discuss the new Yamhill Conservation Land Trust Program later in the week. Um just wanted to also note that they're holding an open house for that program on May 6th um here in MAC. So folks may have an interest in that. Um I saw the mayor making a note so I'll give you the time. Thanks.

Okay. So, I'm I'm going to condense my list and just give you a few. So, I was able to visit the community wellness fair at the community center. Um picked up some great information and Noel posted that on our social media page. So, if you're interested, go take a look at that. It's also on my mayor page. Um I also last Tuesday was the first water and light commission meeting in the new swing space. So, the space is at the end of Third Street. used to be the Veterans Administration and the county offices were located there until recently. The water and light will be there for about 16 months. So, just keep that in mind. Um, last week the um city manager and myself attended the League of Oregon Cities convention or conference in Pendleton. I attended a mayor's workshop, city charter review workshop, AI and social media ideas, and also was able to go on a tour of Hermiston's enterprise zones where they have Amazon. They also have um Lamb West Lamb Weston who does potatoes over there. um uh enterprise zone helps offer tax breaks and regulatory exemptions for financial incentives to attract business to create jobs. It was a very interesting to um be able to go on that tour. And today um Lafayette Mayor Malcolmson and myself were able to present um the winner of the I if I were mayor contest at the middle school level. So, we were able to go to Patton and Jazelli Martins had the winning essay. She spoke about helping small businesses. She'd want to help homelessness and children with mental health issues. She received a GoPro camera from the city of McNell and her essay was entered into the Oregon Mayor's Association contest with a possible prize of $500. It was a pretty fun little field trip today. Um lastly this afternoon I met with the organizers of Impball Art

Festival and it was held it will be held on July 18th and 19th which is over Mac Fresco. They already have over 15 artists that are going to have booths. They're going to have demonstrations um live music kids zones. So mark your calendars. It sounds like a great event. And I'll save all the rest. You can come and I'll tell you everything else later. Councelor Gary.

Thank you. Um okay. So uh Murak uh had a quick meeting that the met to decide application for a facade improvement grant um which they awarded um for Filbert Scoop Shop to get a exterior paint job done. And then um we also said goodbye to current uh member Dave Rucklo. Uh he was a former MDA manager and had served and then um rejoined the group as a citizen of McMinnville. and uh we his voice will be sorely missed. Um visit McMminville uh have a handful of information here to give you. Um overall lodging trends um in March room night demand among McMinnville hotels rose 3.8% year-over-year and hotel uh supply remain unchanged which resulted in hotel occupancy increasing 3.8% compared to last March. Hotels averaged 59.8 occupancy for the month. Uh to note, average daily rate decline 9.1% compared to last March dropping $128. Um the interesting the consumer confidence index and the consumer sentiment index went in opposite directions uh in March. Both remain well below 24 month averages. So we're looking at forecasting on uh planning on travel. Um always uh interesting to monitor now is the US visits from Canada remain weak. To note uh which we receive a lot of Canadian visitors, Canadian travel uh to other world regions increased 9% last year but dropped 21% uh to the United States. So we're missing out on our Canadian friends. A the Oregon statewide travel Oregon monthly lodging um statistics Oregon statewide in March 2026 had a statewide

occupancy of 56.2% um with an ADR of $123. Specifically the Yamill Wamit Valley had 56.6% occupancy with an average daily rate of 120. So you know right hovering right there um near the state averages. There's a few other things. Um the we have journalists coming up coming for some events. The AAPI McMinnville event as well as the Indie Wine Mixer uh on socials for people who like that. Um our engagement on Facebook and Instant Graham is up 53.2% year to date and then we reviewed the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. In my Visit McMinnville reports, I always like to check the event web page and report out on an event. And um it pleases me to be able to tell you that the only event listed on Visit McMinnville is the 26th annual UFO Festival. Thursday through Saturday, May 14th through 16th. And this is my favorite part. The expert speakers this year, Jason Martell, Matthew Matthew something, Rebecca Charbano, Jeremy Corbal, George Knap, Kelly Chase, and a secret guest who's risking everything to disclose what he knows. So, make sure you attend the UFO Festival. Um the I also uh was able to participate uh thank you uh in the parks and rec director interviews and we'll look forward to continue and helping out there. And then um I attended the DO Hyram and I attended the Dio de los Ninños event at the at the library um on Saturday where we participated with many many others and uh enjoyed story times, games and other free activities. Um so it was a very lovely event. That's my report. Councelor Takowski,

the airport commission has not met. It meets on May 19th and that's it. Thanks. Councelor Benner, do you have anything you want to say? You don't have a committee yet. I'm I'm enjoying the new committee. I've got I had a session with Cotti for on boarding. I attended as a citizen the Mcmminville uh school district long range facility task force. um feel like there's some synergies there because they're going to be going out for a bond as well. Um and then the public meeting law. I know you guys all got to go through the same two and a half hours of hell, but that's it. It's lovely. Councelor Chennowith.

Yes. I don't have a lot to report to today. I think I may have already said this, but just in case I didn't, I did meet last month with um our superintendent of public education, went over enrollment numbers and projections of what that's looking like going forward. She show shared information on birth rates, which was a little bit startling for the state of Oregon. Um and you know, all in all, just got got to know our superintendent. Um I also had my second meeting with Himea. Um that was a wonderful meeting, one I thoroughly enjoyed and I'm looking forward to meeting number three. Um that should be happening in the next few weeks. And that's all I have. Thank you, city manager Adam Garvin.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll try and keep this brief. Uh communications report. So, a lot of planning around the McMinnville 150 slated for this summer. Uh the initial planning committee was city staff, visit Mcmminville, McMinnville Chamber, uh McMinnville Downtown Association and a representative from the Heritage Museum. We've met several several times over the past two months and established a framework and have begun coordinating responsibilities. Our next meeting is slated for next week. We also arrived on a finalized logo recently and I'll send that out to you guys in your uh email this evening. So, you'll have that uh and you'll start seeing that uh on some swag and and things like that around and on the website uh most likely in June. Um maybe towards the end of May. And then uh the plan is to have a community parade and a birthday celebration in Upper City Park on October 17th. Um, and then this will really kick off the summer with some summer fun programming as well as um leaning into some his uh historic preservation month work with Heather and her team. Um, and then on the the budget side of things, I wanted to thank Katie, Crystal, Chris, Scott, and Sean, uh, and Noel each for their dedication and the significant time and effort that it took to ensure the budget was completed accurately and on schedule with their timeline. So, uh, the full budget committee would have their hard copies two weekends before our first budget, uh, committee meeting, um, on the 12th. So, as Katie spoke, our target date is to get those to you by Friday. On that note, we'll also make the digital version live tomorrow, so you'll be able to access it online

before you get your hard copy. Um, and outside of the staff that was mentioned, it it was a a challenging year for us because we're still working through that budget software implementation. And so as we got closer to the deadline, there was a number of uh manual workarounds that needed to be done to make sure we got an accurate budget uh and still met timelines. And so there was additional workload for their respective teams because they had those manual pivots. And then also for the staff of the organization just navigating a new software I think is always challenging. Um and so still more learning to do but I look forward to a smoother software implementation next year. Um, local speaking engagements. I've spoken at noon Rotary and the McMinnville Lions Club this month and I'm slated to speak at corporate coffee next month or June at the latest. I attended the MS McMill School District long-range planning committee uh initial meeting and will attend the rest of those meetings. I believe it's a series of six or seven. Um, and that's targeting their November 26th ask to the voters, which will most likely be renewing their expiring bond at its current rate. uh from initial conversations attended the LOC conference with the mayor and uh with that attended the OC Oregon city manager association workshop which was very informative the charter review uh the making local government interesting that the assistant city manager of independence hosted with their director of communications uh if you haven't checked out their YouTube or their social media I would encourage you to do that and it's given us some fresh ideas on engaging our residents um with not having iHeart Max software in the upcoming proposed

budget. Um and then also attended the Herman Enterprise Zone tour uh opportunity zone 2.0 with the Yamh Hill County Economic Alliance. attended Leland's retirement last Thursday to send him off to Idaho and thank him for all that silent work that is isn't flashy, but he makes sure it uh smells good in the city, even if it doesn't smell good out there. um MDA board meeting, visit McMinnville board meeting, monthly stable table meeting, monthly MEDP leadership meeting, one-on-one with John Deetsz, one-on-one with Chief Godfrey, and Toured in Power. And that was all in the last two weeks. Thank you,

City Attorney David Lightberg. Nothing from the legal department tonight. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Heather. Do you have anything else you want to talk about tonight? I just wanted to share that um we do have a Murak vacancy with Dave uh retiring and moving to Idaho. Uh we will be advertising that here very soon. It's for a resident with a term expiring December 31, 2027. And I always like to share with people that Mirac's a very efficient committee that meets for an hour, gets things done and has money. So it's a great committee to work be. Um, and the other thing I wanted to share is uh the planning team worked really hard and successfully uh met their deadline to um send to the printer the the updated books for the stroll uh walking tour of downtown for the uncover McMinnville walking tour of the uh northern residential neighborhood of where the downtown merch merchants lived and the um how how to access resources for historic properties. Um, and we will be launching all of those uh in miday and providing them around town and they should have the new logo on them from what I understand. So,

great. Thank you. Okay, so we've had all the reports. Now, we're going to go back to our city manager, Adam Garvin, who's going to talk about um an appraisal and pool renovation. There you go.

Thank you. I'll go through a few different things this evening. Um, this is in response to what you guys asked for at your January uh work session that we had or I think it was a work session around CPR bond. And uh one of those directions was that you guys wanted to get some information around what it would cost to renovate the pool. So since March, I've worked with Pence Construction and Opsis Architecture on what it would look like to bring that current pool site up to modern standards through a renovation that could last another 30 to 50 years. um this what they have in there right now um doesn't include 32% soft costs. If you put the 32% soft cost into that, that total cost would elevate to about 43 million. U and that's just for the pool site. If you go through this um hence report that's was emailed out to you and will be in the amended packet. It cites what would be done. Essentially we need to replace all the infrastructure uh in the pool system that's from the 1950s where that that structure is more of the 86 time frame. Um, and so that's driving a lot of the cost. And the 25% contingency in there is higher than what would be in a new facility at at a standard 10%. And the reason for that is just the unknowns of going into building this old. The Woodburn site that you guys toured was a 1995 site. They've already spent 25% contingency. Uh, and they're only just getting into it. So, um, just wanted to call that out and that's that's why that number is where it is.

The addition and the parking is, you know, even if you brought that facility up to current standards, without any additions, you're not going to meet uh the needs of the community for the next, you know, 30 to 50 years. And so, that's where the and even the needs today. And then the parking, you know, currently there's 17 stalls over there. And so what what it would look like to to bring that up to uh having some ample parking. I I would still say we'd be short on parking for things that are hosted there, but um I'll get into that a little bit more. So this is a a real basic highle uh site plan. Um, you can see that if you put a 100 parking spots in in a single level lot, how much community space that eats up in the pool, uh, in the upper city park. And then that blue area is that new addition. Um, the east wall where you see the current gym and current mechanical in the Pence report, if you read through that, it'll call out that that'll all be demoed as well because we need to redo all that mechanical. Um, and so that east side will be rebuilt as well. So basically what you're saving is the natiatorum and the spectator seating currently. Um, and that's on this next page here where it calls out what the addition would look like. Um, so we'd get some universal changing rooms, which is a a high need in today's environment. Um, as well as you'd have new locker rooms, uh, a controlled single controlled access point, so you don't have to go through the locker rooms to get out to the pool deck. Uh, you see that on the right side next to the universal changing rooms. And then there would also be an elevator uh, on the south end next to the men's

locker rooms. Currently, that's configured in an initial concept that you'd have to enter the pool deck area to get to the elevator. Um, but I've also had conversations around extending that hallway out from the men and women's locker room area to be able to get to the elevator that way. So, you don't have to enter the pool deck to get to the elevator. Um, what this plan doesn't address is you still wouldn't have a zero depth entry into a wreck pool, which has been called out in some of your guys' tours, uh, as well as its best practices to today's pool design standards. you have minimal dry side amenities. So that that cross-pollination that you've seen at these combined facilities where the dry side programming really supports the wet side expense that we know is uh hard to even get to cost recovery level. You're lacking that. You don't have a child care space or child watch space. You don't have party rooms uh with views of the pool which are revenue generator because people like to rent those out. Um, and then obviously you have no gymnasium, gymn gymnastic space or um your cardio and weight room is is minimal compared to what a new wreck facility would would get you. Uh, what you do get is you get um new locker rooms, new admin space, you get to preserve that spectator seating that some uh community members have talked about. Um, we add an elevator into that for ADA. Um, and then we would revamp the full mechanical system of that to include HVAC. So, you'd have better environmental control. Um, as well as you could separate the the non pool area from from the uh pool area. So, climate control would be a lot better in locker rooms and in the aquatic staff space. you still would

have one universal environment between the two pools which still creates a challenge um because they're at different they're different temperatures of water but it's uh what you'd end up with and then this is what that second floor would look like. So we keep all the existing spectator seating. We expand the administration space a little bit um and then add that secondary stairwell and that elevator um appraisal report for Before I get to that I'll go to one other thing. So this is a very very initial site concept plan of what Miller Street property would look like. You'd have 200 parking stalls. You'd have ample overflow parking for large swim events. You'd have future programming space uh as our city expanded for additional sports activity. And then uh a new rec site would be overlaid in that uh northwest corner of that site. Um, we'll get into this plan more in depth at a June 23rd work session. Uh, so this is the other piece of what I've been working on since that January is running these in parallel because you guys want more information on the existing pool. But if we're going to hit a um November 26 bond effort, we also need to be working on what a new site would look like and to be answering some of those unknown questions that the community had as well as you guys had in that January work session. So, I just wanted to show this for um context as far as what a Miller Street site would look like

versus what renovating a current pool would would look like. Um, everything in that center is still up for debate, but taking into account what you guys have shared from your tours, what you've liked, not liked, what staff has said is needed is currently captured in that, but it's it gets refined every 7 to 10 days. So, don't want you to get too attached to it. It's not I just pulled that out of a a presentation. So, okay, that's number two. Um, appraisal report from community center. So only thing we've done with the community center is commission an appraisal where which came back at 5.7 uh is what they see the value is for highest and best use which uh the executive summary speaks to that as um medium density mixeduse commercial development um or an existing institutional or community occupancy or a conversion to a church school specific use. So, you guys wanted to know what that building was worth. Um, I didn't want to go down the path of expending additional money on what it would take to retrofit that community center. Uh, being the the pool discussion kind of dominated the January work session and I didn't feel it would be prudent to expend taxpayer money to look at both these facilities at the same time. If you got to the pool and said, "I good. That's too much money. We want to focus in on a new facility." If you like the pool retrofit idea, then I think that would be the conversation to have tonight is what you would like to know about retrofitting the community center as a community center. Um, but

tonight, what I'm looking for is direction on where you guys are at with retrofitting the pool. Is that something we still need to get you further information on and further refine uh at $43 million without even touching the community center and giving up most of your upper city park for a parking lot? Is that a a nonnegotiable for you? Do you guys want to pursue the Miller site? I just wanted to open up for questions and discussion. Councelor Tolowski,

I would ask that you don't uh pursue the uh renovation, you just go for the Miller property for the new new facility. I don't want to see a city park taken away and um I think your contingencies fund is even low at that rate. Yeah, my minute. Thank you. Any comment down there?

Sure. Um well, one, thank you very much for getting us that information. Um, you know, I think it is important for us to to look at it from every angle. Um, and um, yeah, with with it being 43 million plus um, and it doesn't I I I really heard from uh, at least the folks at Newberg that the dry side's super important. Um, and I don't see how that renovation really takes care of that dry side needed. So, councelor Peralta.

Yeah, I I agree with all the comments to this point. I also think the the size of the existing pool, the pool structure itself is too small. Councelor Gary. Yeah, thanks for providing this and doing the work on both fronts. I don't think um exploring the renovation of the existing aquatic center merits any more work or consideration. Councelor Benner, do you want to weigh in?

Concur with every all the other comm um commissioners, but if we don't uh re revitalize it, what happens with it? And is there a cost there? I mean, I know that wasn't your charge, but yeah, I've uh have some concept ideas that still would need to be flushed out, and obviously there's a cost to those, but at the root of all that, I would want to look towards what we would have as community partners, uh whether that's Lynfield or the tribe or um visit McMinnville or how we could repurpose that facility without just putting a wrecking ball through it.

Thank you. Adam, thank you for everything and thanks for the council to be willing to go through this. Um, is councelor Ch. Oh, don't worry. I still get there. Um, I agree that I think the cost of just renovating the pool and still not having some of the things that we'd like the bulkhead and the ability to block it off. So, I would go towards the new facility myself as well. Councelor Chennith.

Um, thank you. I appreciate giving an opportunity to say something. Thank you, Adam, for the work. I appreciate that. Um, uh, little disappointed we didn't get numbers on the community center because that would answer the dry side stuff, but I understand your your decision and why you made it. Um, so thank you. I appreciate it. Okay. Anything else? Ready to go home. 9:51 I adjourn the meeting. Thank you.